EPA/600/R-10/045
May 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District at Alvin, TX
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Lili Wang§
Abraham S.C. Chen§
Anbo Wang*
^attelle, 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, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 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
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the EPA arsenic removal
technology demonstration project at the Oak Manor Municipal Utility District (MUD) facility in Alvin,
TX. The objectives of the project were to evaluate 1) the effectiveness of a Severn Trent Services (STS)
Adsorptive Media System - Arsenic Package Unit (APU)-30S - with the use of SORB 33™ media in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/L, 2) the
reliability of the treatment system, 3) the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance
(O&M) and operator skills, and 4) the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The project also
characterized water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment system.
The STS APU-30S system consisted of two 63-in x 86-in adsorption vessels configured in series with
53.6 ft3 of SORB 33™ media loaded in the lead vessel and 70.3 ft3 in the lag vessel. The SORB 33™
media is an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and packaged under the name SORB
33™ by STS. The system was designed for a flowrate of 150 gal/min (gpm), corresponding to a design
empty bed contact time (EBCT) of about 6.2 min (or 3.1 min/vessel) and a hydraulic loading rate of 6.9
gpm/ft2. Actual flowrate through the system averaged 129 gpm during the performance evaluation study,
yielding an EBCT of 7.2 min.
During the two-year performance evaluation study that began on April 25, 2006, and ended on April 8,
2008, the treatment system operated for a total of 4,628 hr (or 6.7 hr/day), treating approximately
35,358,250 gal or 38,140 bed volumes (BV) of water. (Bed volumes were calculated based on 124 ft3 of
media in both vessels.) The system continued to operate throughout the two-year study duration with
only a few minor repairs and adjustments. The flowrate, pressure data, and other operational parameters
were within the vendor specifications.
Source water from Wells 1 and 2 contained 40.2 |o,g/L (on average) of total arsenic, which existed
primarily as soluble As(III) (i.e., 31.5 (ig/L). Prechlorination was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V),
converting 98% of soluble arsenic to As(V). Arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L occurred after treating
9,527,220 gal (or 10,277 BV) of water following the lead vessel and 26,638,090 gal (or 28,736 BV)
following the lag vessel. At the conclusion of the performance evaluation study, the system treated
approximately 35,358,250 gal (or 38,140 BV) of water with 23.2 and 10.5 (ig/L of total arsenic present in
the effluent of the lead and lag vessels, respectively. Bed volumes were calculated based on 124 ft3 of
media in both lead and lag vessels.
Prechlorination also was effective in oxidizing soluble iron and manganese in source water, reducing their
concentrations to below the method detection limit (MDL) of 25 (ig/L for iron and 1.9 (ig/L for
manganese.
Backwash was manually initiated by the operator when differential pressure across the adsorption vessels
was approaching or exceeded 10 psi. During the first year of system operation, backwash was effective in
restoring differential pressure (Ap) across the lead vessel, reducing it from above 10 psi to the initial level
of <4.0 psi. Since then, backwash became less effective. Gradual accumulation of precipitated solids or
well sediments was thought to have contributed to the progressively less effective backwash observed.
Ap across the lag vessel remained low and constant around 3.1 psi throughout the performance evaluation
study, indicating that precipitated solids and well sediments were removed mostly by the lead vessel.
During each backwash event, approximately 7.2 kg of solids were discharged along with 10,800 gal of
backwash wastewater. The discharged solids comprised 2.8 g of arsenic, 804 g of iron, and 71.8 g of
manganese.
IV
-------
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed noticeable
decreases in arsenic (from 38.2 to 2.6 |o,g/L [on average]) and manganese concentrations (from 41.8 to 1.5
Hg/L [on average]) at all three distribution system sampling locations. Initially, arsenic concentrations in
the distribution system water were higher than those in the plant effluent, probably due to redissolution
and/or resuspension of arsenic previously accumulated in the distribution system. The concentrations
then decreased and essentially mirrored those in the plant effluent. Lead and copper concentrations did
not appear to have been affected by the operation of the treatment system.
The capital investment cost for the treatment system was $179,750, including $124,103 for equipment,
$14,000 for site engineering, and $41,647 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 150 gpm,
the capital cost was $l,198/gpm (or $0.83/gpd). This calculation did not include the cost for a building
addition to house the treatment system. The unit annualized capital cost was $0.22/1,000 gal, assuming
the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the system design flowrate of 150 gpm. The system
operated only 6.7 hr/day on average, producing 18,928,170 gal of water per year. At this reduced usage
rate, the unit annualized capital cost increased to $0.90/1,000 gal. O&M cost included only incremental
cost associated with media replacement and disposal, and labor. There was no incremental electricity or
chemical consumption cost. The unit O&M cost is presented in graphical form as a function of projected
media run length in this report.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project 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 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 8
3.3.3 BackwashWastewater 8
3.3.4 Residual Solids 10
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Site Description 14
4.1.1 Pre-existing System 14
4.1.2 Source Water Quality 16
4.1.3 Historic Distribution Water Quality 18
4.1.4 Distribution System and Regulatory Monitoring 18
4.2 Treatment Process Description 18
4.3 Treatment System Installation 26
4.3.1 System Permitting 26
4.3.2 Building Construction 26
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 27
4.3.4 Media Loading 29
4.3.5 Punch List Items 29
4.4 System Operation 29
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 29
4.4.2 Residual Management 35
4.4.3 Media Rebedding 35
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 35
VI
-------
4.5 System Performance 37
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 37
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 46
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling 47
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 48
4.6 System Cost 50
4.6.1 Capital Cost 50
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 51
5.0 REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Chlorine Addition Point and Wells 1 and 2 Blending Point 14
Figure 4-2. Pre-existing Storage Tank and Hydropneumatic Tank 15
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Polyphosphate Addition Point 15
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps and Entry Piping to Distribution System 16
Figure 4-5. APU-30S Arsenic Removal System 20
Figure 4-6a. Process Flow Diagram for APU-30S System with Vessel A in Lead Position 21
Figure 4-6b. Process Flow Diagram for APU-30S System with Vessel B in Lead Position 22
Figure 4-7. Gas Chlorination System 24
Figure 4-8. APU-30S System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 25
Figure 4-9. Valve MB-127 to Supply Additional Treated Water from Hydropneumatic Tank
During Backwash 25
Figure 4-10. Small Ditch for Backwash Wastewater 26
Figure 4-11. Construction of Concrete Pad with Storage Tank and Hydropneumatic Tank 27
Figure 4-12. Piping, Sample Taps, and Chlorine Inj ection Point Prior to Treatment System 31
Figure 4-13. Ap Across Treatment System, and Lead and Lag Vessels 33
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at Influent, After Chlorination, after Lead
Vessel, and after Lag Vessel 41
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 42
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes 44
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes 44
Figure 4-18. Comparsion of Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System Water and
Treatment System Effluent 50
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement and O&M Cost for APU-30S System 52
TABLES
Table 1 -1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
vn
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Oak Manor MUD 17
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 33™ Media 19
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-30S System 23
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes in Adsorption Vessels 29
Table 4-5. System Inspection Punch-List Items 30
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-30S System Operations 32
Table 4-7. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates 33
Table 4-8. Ap Across Vessels A and B Before and After a Backwash Event 34
Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 38
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Sampling Results 39
Table 4-11. Amount of Mn(II) Precipitated After Chlorination at 11 Arsenic Removal
Demonstration Sites 45
Table 4-12. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 46
Table 4-13. Backwash Solids Total Metal Results 47
Table 4-14. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis 48
Table 4-15. Distribution Water Sampling Results 49
Table 4-16. Capital Investment for Treatment System 51
Table 4-17. O&M Cost for APU-30S System 52
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume (s)
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FedEx Federal Express
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
MUD Municipal Utility District
IX
-------
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
psi pounds per square inch
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
POU point-of-use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RO reverse osmosis
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TCEQ Texas Commission of Environmental Quality
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the system operators, Mr. Jose Chavez and Keith
Swallers, of Oak Manor Municipal Utility District (MUD) in Alvin, TX. Mr. Chavez and Mr. Swallers
monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a
regular schedule throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without their support and dedication.
Ms. Tien Shiao, who is currently pursuing a Master's degree at Yale University, was the Battelle study
lead for this demonstration project.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the Oak Manor Municipal Utility District (MUD) Water System in Alvin, 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. Severn Trent Service's (STS) SORB 33™ Arsenic Removal
Technology was selected for demonstration at the Oak Manor MUD facility.
As of May 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, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and
pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12
Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs 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 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology
demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are
to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the STS's system at the Oak Manor MUD in Alvin, TX from
April 25, 2006 through April 8, 2008. The types of data collected included system operation, water
quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M
cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38(a)
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127w
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546(c)
1,470W
3,078(c)
1,344W
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
770w
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HDQ
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(c>
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media 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) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the two-year performance evaluation study (from April 25,
2006 to April 8, 2008), the following conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the
treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Prechlorination was effective in oxidizing As(III) to As(V), reducing As(III) concentrations
from 31.5 (ig/L (on average) in raw water to 0.7 (ig/L (on average) after chlorination.
• SORB 33™ media effectively removed arsenic in source water. Breakthrough at 10 (ig/L,
however, occurred relatively early, after treating only 10,277 BV of water following the lead
vessel and 28,736 BV following the lag vessel (bed volumes were calculated based on 124 ft3
of media in both vessels).
• During the first half of the performance evaluation study, backwash was effective in restoring
differential pressure (Ap) across the lead vessel, reducing it from above 10 psi to the initial
level of less than 4.0 psi. Afterwards, backwash became progressively less effective,
presumably caused by gradual accumulation of precipitated solids and well sediments.
• The treatment system significantly reduced arsenic concentrations in the distribution system
from a background level of 38.2 |o,g/L (on average) to 2.6 |o,g/L. Initially, arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were higher than those in the plant effluent,
presumably caused by redissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic previously accumulated in
the distribution system. The arsenic concentrations then decreased to mirror those of the
plant effluent. Lead and copper concentrations did not appear to have been affected by the
operation of the system.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the system were minimal,
with atypical daily demand on the operator of only 40 min. Normal operation of the system
did not appear to require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing
water supply equipment. A Class C state-certified operator was required for operation of the
Oak Manor MUD water treatment system.
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• Each backwash event produced approximately 10,800 gal of wastewater and 7.2 kg of solids
(including 6.3 kg from the lead vessel and 0.9 kg from the lag vessel). Arsenic constituted
only 0.04% by weight of the solids.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The unit annualized capital cost was $0.22/1,000 gal if the system operated at a 100%
utilization rate. The system's actual unit annualized capital cost was $0.90/1,000 gal, based
on 6.7 hr/day of system operation and 18,928,170 gal/year of water production.
• O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with media replacement and disposal,
and labor. There was no incremental electricity cost or chemical consumption cost.
-------
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 STS treatment system began on April 25, 2006, and ended on April 8, 2008. Table 3-2 summarizes
the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall
system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target
MCL of 10 ng/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in the
Study Plan (Battelle, 2006). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled
system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and
repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for any pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent
of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, and
general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic
breakthrough. Backwash wastewater and spent media were sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Established
Letter Report Issued
Exception Request Submitted to TCEQ
APU-30S System Shipped
Engineering Package Submitted to TCEQ
Building Construction Begun
Building Completed
Exception Request Granted by TCEQ
System Permit Granted by TCEQ
Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
November 2, 2004
January 2 1,2005
February 8, 2005
February 14, 2005
March 20, 2005
May 3, 2005
May 12, 2005
July 8, 2005
September 4, 2005
September 9, 2005
October 6, 2005
November 12, 2005
November 2 1,2005
December 16, 2005
January 13, 2006
March 9, 2006
March 10, 2006
April 25, 2006
TCEQ = Texas Commission of Environmental Quality
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems, materials
and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of 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 for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media, chemical consumption, electricity usage, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking of the
capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement
and disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (except for most Saturdays and
Sundays), the plant operator recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and
hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log Sheet; checked weight of chlorine gas cylinders for
chlorine consumption; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any
problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor
should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including
the problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a bi-weekly to monthly basis, the plant
operator measured temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and
residual chlorine, and recorded the data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly (or
as needed) backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and spent media disposal,
electricity, and labor. The gas chlorine consumption was tracked on the Daily System Operation Log
Sheet. Because the chemical addition system was pre-existing, chlorine consumption was not counted
towards the O&M cost. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for activities,
such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked
using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as
completing field logs, replacing chlorine gas cylinders, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead and across the treatment
plant, during adsorption vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the
planned sampling schedules and analytes measured during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a
flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. Source water samples were collected from Well 2 during the initial visit to
the site on November 2, 2004, and from Well 1 and Well 2 and after Wells 1 and 2 were combined on
February 16, 2005. Before sampling, the sample tap was flushed for several minutes; special care was
taken to avoid agitation, which could cause unwanted oxidation. The samples were analyzed for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3. Onsite speciation was performed for the sample collected on November 2,
2004, using an arsenic speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. No speciation was performed for the
samples collected on February 16, 2005.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Treatment plant water samples were collected by the plant
operator biweekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first week of each four-
week cycle, samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), after the lead adsorption
vessel (TA), and after the lag adsorption vessel (TB), and speciated and analyzed for the analytes listed
under speciation sampling in Table 3-3. During the third week of each four-week cycle, samples were
collected from the same four locations and analyzed for the analytes listed under non-speciation sampling
in Table 3-3.
Over the course of the demonstration study, several changes were made to the orginally planned sampling
schedule:
• During November 15, 2006, through August 22, 2007, the sampling frequency was reduced
from once every two weeks to once every four weeks, except for the May 30, 2007, event that
did not take place until two weeks later.
• Starting from September 12, 2007, the sampling frequency was increased again to once every
two to four weeks to better monitor the arsenic breakthrough (except for the January 2 and
March 13, 2008, events that took place five and six weeks, respectively, after the previous
sampling events.)
• Measurements for SiO2, turbidity, and alkalinity were discontinued from July 25, 2007.
Measurements for Ca, Mg, F, NO3, and SO4 were discontinued from August 22, 2007.
Measurements for P were discontinued on March 13, 2008.
• NH3 was analyzed at all four sampling locations during October 3, 2007, through April 8,
2008.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. Backwash wastewater samples were collected from both vessels by
the plant operator during backwash events. Tubing, connected to the tap on the discharge line of each
vessel, directed a portion of backwash wastewater at about 1 gpm into a clean, 32-gal container over the
entire backwash duration from each vessel. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed,
composite samples were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-(im disc filters. Analytes for the
backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Backwash
Solids
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3*
IN
IN, AC, TA,
TB
BW
BW
Three homes
(with only
one LCR
sampling
location)
No. of
Samples
1
4
2
1 per
vessel
o
J
Frequency
From Well 2
during initial
site visit on
11/02/04 and
from Well 1,
Well 2, and
after Wells 1
and 2
combined on
02/16/05
Speciation
Sampling:
Once every
four weeks
(from 04/25/06
to 10/11/06)
Once every six
to eight weeks
(from 11/1 5/06
to 10/03/07)
Non-speciation
sampling:
Once every
four weeks
(from 05/09/06
to 09/27/06)
Once every
two to ten
weeks (from
12/13/06 to
04/08/08)
Monthly or as
needed
Once
Monthly
(from 05/17/06
to 04/04/07)
Analytes
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, and/or
ORP
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, alkalinity,
TDS, and/or TOC
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
and/or C12 (free and
total)(b)
Off-site: As(III), As(V),
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, NH3,
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and/or alkalinity
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
and/or C12 (free and
total)(b)
Off-site: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
NH3, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and/or alkalinity
As(total and soluble),
Fe(total and soluble),
Mn(total and soluble),
pH, TDS, andTSS
Total Al, As, Ca, Cd,
Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P,
Pb, Si, and Zn
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu (total), Pb
(total), pH, and alkalinity
Collection
Date(s)
11/02/04 and
02/16/05
04/25/06, 05/23/06,
06/21/06,07/19/06,
08/16/06, 09/12/06,
10/11/06, 11/15/06,
01/10/07, 03/07/07,
05/02/07, 06/27/07,
08/22/07, 10/03/07
05/09/06, 06/06/06,
07/05/06, 08/01/06,
08/29/06, 09/27/06,
12/13/06, 02/06/07,
04/04/07, 06/12//07,
07/25/07, 09/12/07,
11/06/07, 11/27/07,
01/02/08, 01/29/08,
03/13/08, 03/25/08,
04/08/08
07/14/06, 08/09/06,
09/19/06, 10/31/06,
12/05/06,01/30/07,
03/13/07, 04/10/07,
05/09/07, 06/26/07,
08/29/07
11/01/06
Baseline sampling:
03/16/05, 04/20/05,
05/18/05, 06/14/05
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses (Continued)
Sample
Type
Spent Media
Sample
Locations*3'
From spent
media in
vessels
No. of
Samples
3
Frequency
Once
(after end of
study)
Analytes
TCLP and total As, Ba,
Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, P, and
Si
Collection
Date(s)
Monthly sampling:
05/17/06, 06/07/06,
07/19/06, 08/15/06,
09/13/06, 10/10/06,
11/21/06, 12/13/06,
01/10/07,02/07/07,
03/07/07, 04/04/07
10/14/08
(a)
Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations in Figure 3-1: IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination;
TA = after lead Vessel A; TB = after lag Vessel B; BW = at backwash wastewater discharge line
(b) Onsite chlorine measurements not performed at IN location.
NH3 measured from 09/12/07 through 04/08/08.
Measurements for alkalinity, SiO2, and turbidity discontinued on 07/25/07.
Measurement for P discontinued on 03/13/08.
(c)
(d)
(e)
3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids consisted of backwash solids and spent media samples.
Backwash solids/water mixtures were collected after solids settled in the 32-gal backwash containers and
the supernatant carefully decanted. The samples were air-dried, acid-digested, and analyzed for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Three spent media samples were collected from the top, middle, and bottom of the exhausted lead vessel
during the media changeout conducted on October 14, 2008, approximately 6 months after the end of the
performance evaluation study. Spent media were removed from the vessel using a vacuum truck.
Representative samples were collected at each level and stored in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle. One aliquot of each sample was air-dried and acid-digested for the
analytes listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically on the levels of arsenic, lead, and copper. Prior to system startup from March to June 2005,
four sets of monthly baseline water samples were collected from three residences, designated as DS1,
DS2, and DS3, within the distribution system. The DS1 residence located originally on 224 Oak Manor
Drive was sampled only twice on March 16 and April 20, 2005, before being changed to the final location
on 95 Oak Trail. The DS2 residence located orginally on 98 Shady Oak Drive was sampled only once on
March 16, 2005, before being changed to the final location of 61 Shady Oak Drive. The DS3 residence
located on 7 Kenny Court was used for all baseline sampling events. Following system startup,
distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis through April 2007, at the same three
locations as discussed. The distribution system sampling was discontinued after April 4, 2007.
The distribution system water samples were taken following an instruction sheet developed by Battelle
according to the Lead and Copper Rule Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First
draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least six hours to
ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water use before
sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time. The samples
were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the
distribution water samples.
10
-------
See Table 3-3 for sample (
schedule and analytes.
LEGEND
At Wellhead
After Chlorination
After Vessel A
After Vessel B
Backwash Sampling Location
C10 Chlorine Disinfection
INFLUENT | Unit Process
Process Flow
Backwash Flow
INFLUENT
Oak Manor MUD
Alvin, TX
SORB 33™ Technology
Design Flow: 150 gpm
See Table 3-3 for sample
J schedule and analytes.
See Table 3-3 for sample
schedule and analytes.
MEDIA
VESSEL
A
See Table 3-3 for sample
schedule and analytes.
MEDIA
VESSEL
B
See Table 3-3 for sample
schedule and analytes.
STORAGE TANK
(75,000 GAL)
TWO BOOSTER
PUMPS
HYDROPNEUMATIC
PRESSURE TANK (5,000 GAL)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
I
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations
11
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sampling 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, colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate ziplock bags and packed in the cooler.
When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the distribution system water sampling.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were completed except for the operator's signature and
the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample coolers were sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with
the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and picked up
by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont Labs in
Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and Belmont Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e.,
20% relative percent difference [RPD], 80 to 120% percent recovery, and 80% completeness). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project. Field
12
-------
measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a WTW
Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures
provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a
standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a water sample in
a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was obtained. The
plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits
following the user's manual.
13
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Site Description
Located at 603 Mohawk Drive, Alvin, Texas, Oak Manor MUD's water system supplies drinking water to
189 homes from two wells (i.e., Wells 1 and 2) with a combined flowrate of approximately 150 gpm.
Well 1, located one mile northeast of the treatment plant, has an average flowrate of 50 gpm. Well 2,
located onsite, has an average flowrate of 100 gpm. The average flowrates from both wells were
estimated from the facility's historical water usage data collected during July through December 2004.
4.1.1 Pre-existing System. Prior to the demonstration study, the water system operated for 8 to 9
hr/day with an average and peak daily demand of approximately 74,000 and 97,400 gpd, respectively.
The pre-existing treatment included gas chlorination to maintain a target total chlorine residual of 1.5 to
2.0 mg/L (as C12) and polyphosphate addition to reach a target dosage of 2.0 mg/L (as P). As shown in
Figure 4-1, chlorine was added after the Wells 1 and 2 water combined, but prior to a 75,000-gal storage
tank and a 5,000-gal hydropneumatic pressure tank (Figure 4-2). Polyphosphate was added to the Well 1
water just prior to the blending point (Figure 4-3). The well pumps were controlled automatically by a
high- and a low-level sensor in the storage tank. Two booster pumps located immediately after the
storage tank supplied water to the hydropneumatic tank and distribution system (Figure 4-4) based on a
set of low/high pressure settings established for the hydropneumatic tank.
Figure 4-1. Chlorine Addition Point and Wells 1 and 2 Blending Point
(Pre-existing)
14
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-existing Storage Tank (in Foreground) and
Hydropneumatic Tank (in Background)
fffwww?wf&&&3sfslas&
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Polyphosphate Addition Point
15
-------
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps and Entry Piping to Distribution System
4.1.2 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from Well 2 on November 2,
2004, and analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. Additional source water samples were collected
on February 16, 2005, from Well 1, Well 2, and after Wells 1 and 2 combined. The results of the source
water analyses, along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection, are
presented in Table 4-1.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water from Wells 1 and 2 ranged from 17.4 to 47.4 |o,g/L.
The results of February 16, 2005, sampling revealed that Well 1 water contained more total arsenic than
Well 2 water, with the concentration in Well 1 at 47.7 |o,g/L and in Well 2 at 17.4 |o,g/L. The sample
collected after the blending point had a combined concentration of 34.5 |og/L, which was consistent with
the average concentration of Wells 1 and 2 water before blending, but slightly higher than the 29 (ig/L
obtained by the facility (although not specified, it was assumed that this sample was taken after the
blending point). Based on the speciation results for the water sample collected on November 2, 2004,
essentially all of the total arsenic was in the soluble form. As(III) was the predominating species at
17.6 |og/L (or 94% of total arsenic), indicating the need for oxidation prior to adsorption. The presence of
As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO and ORP readings, which
were measured at 1.7 mg/L and 1 mV, respectively.
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentration was 95 |o,g/L in the sample collected on November 2,
2004 from Well 2. Total iron concentration in the samples collected from Well 1, Well 2, and Wells 1
and 2 combined on February 16, 2005 were 73, 687, and 317 (ig/L, respectively. Based on the November
2, 2004, speciation results, <40% of total iron existed in the soluble form. The presence of particulate
iron in source water was carefully monitored during the demonstration study to determine if the
measurement of particulate iron on November 2, 2004, was simply due to inadvertent aeration of the
sample during sampling.
16
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Oak Manor MUD
Parameter
Unit
Sampling 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 P)
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
Ca
Mg
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
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Raw Water
Utility
Data(a)
NA
7.8
NS
NS
NS
359
42
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
91
NS
2
NS
NS
29
NS
NS
NS
NS
62
NS
58
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
201
12
3
Battelle Data
Well 2
11/02/04
7.8
23.3
1.7
1
377
43
0.3
492
0.7
O.04
<0.04
0.2
68.0
0.8
<1.0
16.8
<0.06
18.8
19.0
<0.1
17.6
1.4
95
37
61.6
61.7
1.5
1.5
2.1
1.9
259
9.3
4.8
Welll
02/16/05
NS
NS
NS
NS
330
NS
0.3
526
NS
O.05
<0.05
NS
120.0
1.4
<1.0
15.8
<0.05
47.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
73
NS
48.0
NS
<0.1
NS
1.4
NS
194
10.6
2.9
Well 2
02/16/05
NS
NS
NS
NS
410
NS
8.7
670
NS
O.05
<0.05
NS
98.0
1.5
2.0
15.5
<0.05
17.4
NS
NS
NS
NS
687(d)
NS
65.2
NS
1.5
NS
1.2
NS
273
12.9
3.8
Wells 1 & 2
Combined'10
02/16/05
NS
NS
NS
NS
379
NS
2.0
540
NS
O.05
O.05
NS
110.0
1.4
1.0
16.7
O.05
34.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
317(d)
NS
55.4
NS
0.8
NS
1.3
NS
201
12.0
3.2
Historic
Utility
Distribution
Water Data(c)
1998-2003
7.7-8.0
NS
NS
NS
356-360
42.0^3.3
NS
526-546
NS
O.01
O.01
NS
89.0-93.0
1.5-1.6
2.0
NS
NS
28.2-30.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
55.0-77.0
NS
37.5-62.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
191-210
11.7-13.0
2.0-3.6
NS = not sampled
(a) Provided to EPA for demonstration site selection; well number(s) not specified.
(b) Samples collected before storage tank with no chlorine or polyphosphate addition.
(c) Samples collected at point of entry into distribution system.
(d) Samples reanalyzed with similar results.
In general, adsorptive media technologies are best suited for source waters with relatively low iron levels
(e.g., less than 300 |o,g/L of iron, which is the secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL] for iron).
Above 300 |o,g/L, taste, odor, and color problems can occur in treated water, along with an increased
potential for fouling of the adsorption system components with iron particulates.
17
-------
Manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 48.0 to 65.2 (ig/L. Well 2 water appeared to
contain more manganese, with concentrations ranging from 61.6 to 65.2 (ig/L, compared to that of Well 1
water at 48.0 (ig/L. The average concentration of water from Wells 1 and 2 sampled on February 16,
2005, was consistent with that of the combined well water (i.e., 56.6 versus 55.4 (ig/L) and close to the
58.0 (ig/L concentration provided by the facility. Based on the speciation result on November 2, 2004,
manganese existed entirely in the soluble form.
Silica, Sulfate, and Orthophosphate. As shown in Table 4-1, silica levels ranged from 15.5 to
16.8 mg/L (as SiO2); sulfate levels ranged from less than the method reporting limit of 1.0 mg/L to
2 mg/L; and Orthophosphate levels were less than the method reporting limit of 0.05 mg/L (as P).
Usually, arsenic adsorption can be influenced by the presence of competing anions such as silica and
phosphate, but due to the low levels of these constituents, they were not expected to affect arsenic
adsorption onto the SORB 33™media.
Other Water Quality Parameters. A pH of 7.8 was measured for Well 2 water, which was within the
STS target range of 6.0 to 8.0 for arsenic removal via adsorption. Therefore, pH adjustment was not
recommended prior to arsenic adsorption. Nitrate and nitrite were not detected in either well. Ammonia
at 0.2 mg/L (as N) was measured in Well 2 water. Chloride and fluoride were below their respective
SMCLs. Alkalinity ranged from 330 to 410 mg/L (as CaCO3). The only total organic carbon (TOC)
sample was collected from Well 2 on November 2, 2004, which was measured at 0.7 mg/L. Uranium
concentrations ranged from less than the method reporting limit of 0.1 |o,g/L to 1.5 |o,g/L, well below its
MCL of 30 |o,g/L. Vanadium concentrations ranged from 1.2 to 2.1 |o,g/L. Sodium concentrations ranged
from 194 to 273 mg/L for both wells. Calcium, magnesium, and hardness were low, ranging from 9.3 to
12.9 mg/L, 2.9 to 4.8 mg/L, and 42 to 43 mg/L (as CaCO3), respectively. Total dissolved solids (TDS)
ranged from 492 to 670 mg/L.
4.1.3 Historic Distribution Water Quality. Historic distribution water quality data collected by
TCEQ from 1998 to 2003 also are presented in Table 4-1. The distribution water samples were collected
at the entry point prior to entering into the distribution system and after polyphosphate and chlorine
addition. As expected, the distribution water quality data were similar to the source water quality data
obtained by Battelle and the facility. Total arsenic concentrations ranged from 28.2 to 30.7 |o,g/L. Total
iron was the only constituent that had slightly lower distribution water quality results as compared to the
source water quality results.
4.1.4 Distribution System and Regulatory Monitoring. Of the three residences selected for
distribution system water sampling, only DS3 was part of the Oak Manor MUD's historic sampling
network for Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and monthly bacteriological sampling. Under the LCR,
samples were collected from designated taps at 10 residences every three years. Additional regulatory
monitoring directed by TCEQ included monthly sampling for coliform and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and biyearly/quarterly for inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides.
Based on the information provided by the facility, the distribution system was constructed primarily of 6-
in cast-iron pipe. Piping within individual service hookups consisted primarily of %- to 1-in polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) and %- to 1-in galvanized iron. The distribution system was supplied directly by the
75,000-gal storage tank.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
STS' Arsenic Package Unit (APU)-30S is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption system designed for arsenic
removal for small systems with flowrates ranging from 5 to!50 gpm. The unit uses Bayoxide® E33
(branded as SORB 33™ by STS), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for arsenic
18
-------
removal from drinking water supplies. Table 4-2 presents vendor-provided physical and chemical
properties of the media. The SORB 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 are provided in
both granular and pelletized forms, which have similar physical and chemical properties, except that
pellets are 25% denser than granules (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3). The pellet form of the media was used for the
Oak Manor MUD facility.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of SORB 3311V1 Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution
(U.S. Standard Mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Values
Iron oxide composite
Dry pellets
Amber
35
142
0.3
<15 % (by wt.)
10 x35
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na20
Ti02
Si02
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
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller Method
Source: STS
The APU-30S treatment system consists of two adsorption vessels, Vessels A and B, arranged in series
(Figure 4-5). When the arsenic concentration in the effluent from the lag vessel approaches 10 (ig/L, the
spent media in the lead vessel is removed and disposed of. After rebedding, this vessel is switched to the
lag position. In general, the series operation better utilizes the media capacity when compared to the
parallel operation because the lead vessel may be allowed to exhaust completely prior to changeout.
The piping and valve configuration of the APU-30S system consists of electrically actuated butterfly
valves to divert raw water flow into either Vessels A or B depending on which is operating in the lead
position. The piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) presented in Figures 4-6a and 6b use bolded
lines to indicate the process flow for series configuration with Vessels A or B, respectively, in the lead
position. Table 4-3 presents key system design parameters.
19
-------
Figure 4-5. APU-30S Arsenic Removal System
The major process components/steps of the APU-30S system are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Raw water pumped from the two supply wells (No. 1 and 2) was chlorinated and fed
to the treatment system via 3-in steel pipe (Figure 4-1). The well pumps were interlocked
with the high and low level sensors in the storage tank (Figure 4-2).
• Chlorination. The existing gas chlorination system manufactured by Ecometrics in
Silverdale, PA, was used to oxidize As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) prior to the adsorption vessels
and provide a target total chlorine residual level from 1.5 to 2.0 mg/L (as C12) for disinfection
purposes. The chemical feed system consisting of one 150-lb cylinder, a chlorinator unit
(sitting on top of the chlorine gas cylinder), and an ejector was located in a secured shed in
the close proximity of the treatment system in the fenced area. Figure 4-7 presents composite
of pictures of the gas chlorination system. The current chlorine injection point (not pictured)
was relocated after the Wells 1 and 2 blending point to >10 ft downstream of the raw water
sample tap, after system startup on April 25, 2006 (see Table 4-5). Operation of the chlorine
feed system was linked to the well pumps so that gas chlorine was injected only when the
wells were on. Chlorine consumption was tracked daily by recording the weight of the
chlorine gas cylinder.
• Adsorption. The APU-30S system consisted of two 63-in x 86-in adsorption vessels
configured in series. The vessels were made of fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), rated for
100-psi working pressure, and skid mounted for ease of shipment and installation. According
to the original system design, each vessel was to contain 62 ft3 of media, yielding an empty
bed contact time (EBCT) of 3.1 min/vessel at a flowrate of 150 gpm. However, based on
STS's onsite measurements on May 17, 2006, Vessels A and B were inadvertently loaded
with an uneven amount of media (i.e., 53.6 and 70.3 ft3 for Vessels A and B, respectively).
As such, Vessel A had a slightly shorter EBCT than Vessel B (i.e., 2.7 vs. 3.5 min).
20
-------
in »••••!• rir
Valve Configurator) and Water
Flow far TA Lead and TB Lag
RELEASED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
FILTRATION PRWHJCTS
uw.n
SORB iB WiSEKIC PACKiWE UNIT
F4IDIAGIUM
*PL:-3SS .'5TJU1D JU 0* FI Sf RFS F1CW
Figure 4-6a. Process Flow Diagram for APU-30S System with Vessel A in Lead Position
-------
Valve Configuration and Water
Flow for TB Lead and TA Lag
W705D1002 MODEL (1) CDR
H/18/M xiw mwnno
RELEASED FOR
ARSENIC REMOVAL SYSTEM
ALVIN.TX
SORB 33® ARSENIC PACKAGE UNIT
P SI DIAGRAM
APU-30S (STAND ALONE) SERIES FLOW
Figure 4-6b. Process Flow Diagram for APU-30S System with Vessel B in Lead Position
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of APU-30S System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Target Total Chlorine Residual
(mg/L [as C121)
1.5 to 2.0
Gas chlorine used
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
63 D x 86 H
21.6
2
Series
—
—
—
—
Adsorptive Media Bed
Type of Media
Media Quantity (Ib)
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Media Bed Depth (in/vessel)
SORB 33™
4,340
62
34
In pelletized form
124 ft3 total
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Estimated Throughput to Lead
Vessel Changeout (gal)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (months)
150
6.9
3.1
47,500,000
51,240
74,000
21
—
Based on design flow rate and vessel cross-
sectional area of 2 1 .6 ft2
6.2 min for both lead and lag vessels
Based on an influent arsenic concentration of
29 |J.g/L, a system media volume of 124 ft3, and
an arsenic changeout concentration of 16 (o,g/L
following lead vessel
Based on total media volume of 124 ft3
Provided by facility
Based on average use rate
Backwash
Ap Setpoint (psi)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency
(month/backwash)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Downflow rinse Flowrate
Downflow rinse Duration
(min/vessel)
10
210
9.7
1
20
210
10
—
Based on backwash design flow rate and vessel
cross-sectional area of 21.6 ft2
Nonetheless, the design EBCT across the system remained unchanged at 6.2 min. The
hydraulic loading rate to each adsorption vessel was 6.9 gpm/ft2.
Each adsorption vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-8. In addition to
the 10 butterfly valves, the system had two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line,
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.
23
-------
Figure 4-7. Gas Chlorination System
(Clockwise from the Top: Shed Housing Gas Chlorination System, Gas Cylinder,
Chlorine Ejector, and Chlorinator Unit)
• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the APU-30S system be backwashed on a regular
basis to remove particulates and media fines that accumulated in the media beds. Automatic
backwash could be initiated by either a time or a Ap setpoint across each vessel. During a
backwash cycle, each vessel was backwashed individually, while the second vessel remained
off-line. The vendor recommended backwash flowrate, hydraulic loading, and duration, were
210 gpm, 9.7 gpm/ft2, and 30 min (including 10 min for downflow rinse), respectively.
The backwash/downflow rinse flowrates and the amount of wastewater generated were
determined by the flowrate and totalizer readings shown on the PLC. The backwash and
downflow rinse duration was timed and confirmed by the operator. Backwash and downflow
rinse water was mostly supplied by the two supply wells; however, due to their maximum
flowrate of 150 gpm, supplemental water had to be drawn from the hydropneumatic pressure
tank (Figure 4-9) located just downstream from the adsorption vessels. Backwash and
downflow rinse wastewater was sent to a small ditch (Figure 4-10) adjacent to the treatment
system and subsequently drained into a roadside ditch.
• Media Replacement. Replacement of the media in the lead vessel was scheduled once the
arsenic concentration following the lag vessel exceeding 10 (ig/L. Once the media in the lead
vessel was replaced, flow through the vessels was switched such that the lag vessel was
placed into the lead position and the former lead vessel loaded with virgin media was placed
in the lag position. A Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test was conducted
on the spent media before disposal to determine whether the media could be considered non-
hazardous.
24
-------
Figure 4-8. APU-30S System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
Figure 4-9. Valve MB-127 to Supply Additional Treated Water from
Hydropneumatic Tank During Backwash
25
-------
4.3
Figure 4-10. Small Ditch for Backwash Wastewater
• Storage and Distribution. The treated water was stored in a 24-ft tall, 75,000-gal storage
tank located immediately downstream of the APU-30S treatment system. A low-/high-level
sensor pair at 13/19.5 ft controlled the on/off of the well pumps. The booster pumps
subsequently pressured and temporarily stored water in a 5,000-gal hydropneumatic tank
before water entered the distribution system. The booster pumps switched on and off based
on the high and low pressure settings at 40 and 60 psi, respectively. The distribution system
was constructed primarily of 6-in cast-iron pipe. Piping within individual service hookups
consisted primarily of %- 1-in PVC and %- 1-in galvanized iron.
Treatment System Installation
4.3.1 System Permitting. A submittal package was sent by Oak Manor MUD to TCEQ on July 8,
2005, requesting an exception from conducting an onsite pilot study as required under Title 30 Texas
Administrative Code (30TAC) 290.42(g). The exception request was required by TCEQ prior to the
submission of engineering plans for the installation of the arsenic treatment system. The exception
submittal included a written description of treatment technology along with a schematic of the system and
relevant pilot- and full-scale data. Subsequently, a permit application package including a process flow
diagram of the treatment system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, a schematic of the
building footprint and equipment layout, was submitted to TCEQ on September 9, 2005. TCEQ granted
its approval for the exception request and system permit application on November 21 and December 16,
2005, respectively. A permit was not required to discharge backwash wastewater to a roadside ditch.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A canopy (Figure 4-5) was built to shield the treatment system from
direct sunlight exposure. Construction of the concrete pad (Figure 4-11) began on October 6, 2005, and
the canopy was completed on November 12, 2005.
26
-------
Figure 4-11. Construction of Concrete Pad with Storage Tank and
Hydropneumatic Tank (in Background)
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The shipment of the APU-30S system
arrived at the Oak Manor MUD on September 4, 2005. Upon arrival, STS's subcontractor, Abundant
Engineering, off-loaded the system components to a temporary staging area adjacent to the existing
treatment facility while the MUD awaited the completion of the concrete pad and issuance of the permit
approval. The pelletized media arrived in three super sacks on October 7, 2005. Although each super
sack usually has 38 ft3 of media bringing the total media volume to 114 ft3, the actual volume of media
shipped to the site was 124 ft3 based on freeboard measurements of the vessels (Section 4.3.4).
27
-------
Upon receipt of the permit approval on December 16, 2005, Abundant Engineering performed most of the
installation work, including connecting the system to the existing inlet and distribution piping. A field
engineer from the STS Houston office made three separate trips to the site from January 17 to 19, from
March 9 to 10, and on April 5, 2006, to complete system installation and perform system shakedown and
startup. System installation, shakedown, and startup were completed on March 9, March 10, and April
25, 2006, respectively.
During the first trip from January 17 to 19, 2006, STS wired the PLC, conducted hydraulic testing on the
empty vessels, tested pressure gauges and flowmeters, loaded underbedding gravel and media, measured
freeboard heights after backwash, and disinfected the media and the system components with bleach. The
hydraulic test was performed at 88 gpm, lower than the design flowrate of 150 gpm. At this flowrate, the
inlet and outlet pressure for the treatment system were 14.0 and 6.0 psi, respectively, and the Ap readings
across Vessels A and B were 1.2 and 2.0 psi, respectively.
STS recommended a minimum backwash flowrate of 210 gpm (or 9.7 gpm/ft2), which exceeded the
maximum well capacity of 150 gpm. The remedy was to modify the pre-existing plumbing, including the
installation of an automatic valve (MB-127), to deliver the treated water from the hydropneumatic tank to
supplement the backwash flow. Also, in order to prevent polyphosphate from entering the adsorption
vessels to cause adverse effects on arsenic adsorption, the pre-existing polyphosphate addition was
relocated downstream of the APU-30S system and, later as discussed below, discontinued due to concerns
that polyphosphate in treated water might come in contact with the media during backwash.
STS's field engineer returned to the site from March 9 to 10, 2006, to perform a thorough media
backwash with supplemental flow. The backwash flowrates were verified to range from 250 to 270 gpm.
Although the polyphosphate addition point had been relocated downstream of the treatment system,
concern existed that polyphosphate still could come in contact with the media during backwash. After
shutting off polyphosphate addition, backwash and downflow rinse were performed and system
shakedown was completed on March 10, 2006. After chlorinating both vessels, the facility took samples
for bacteriological testing. Verbal approval to discharge the treated water into the distribution system was
granted by TCEQ on March 14, 2006.
Thereafter, the facility attempted to place the system online, but could not due to the production of
red/cloudy treated water. After 80,000 to 100,000 gal of water was used for backwash and downflow
rinse through both vessels, the facility contacted STS for a return visit.
The STS field engineer returned to the site for the third time on April 5, 2006, to troubleshoot the APU-
30S system. Vessels A and B were backwashed at 150 gpm for 30 and 40 min, respectively, followed by
20 min of downflow rinse. Vessel A backwash water cleared after 5 min, and Vessel B soon after.
Downflow rinse for Vessels A and B both cleared after 3 min. Only raw water was used during
backwash, although polyphosphate addition was discontinued for over a week prior to STS's return visit.
After backwash, both adsorption vessels were opened for freeboard measurements and media
observations. The results of the measurements and observations are discussed in Section 4.3.4. The
vessels were then resealed and the fast rinse through both vessels resumed for about one hour before
discharge was directed to the storage tank for distribution. The exact reason as to why the facility was
unable to achieve clear water was never determined.
Once all of the activities were completed, polyphosphate addition was restarted downstream of the APU-
30S due to complaints of iron in the treated water. On April 17, 2006, the facility shut off the
polyphosphate addition again on a permanent basis. The average iron concentration in the treated water
remained below the detection limit of 25 (ig/L as discussed in Section 4.5.1.
28
-------
4.3.4 Media Loading. Media loading was performed by STS on January 19, 2006. The super
sacks of media were hoisted to the top of the canopy using a boom truck and loaded through a 12-in x 4-
in rigid funnel and a roof hatch into the adsorption vessels partially filled with water. A garden hose was
used to completely submerge the media, which was allowed to soak for about 4 hr. After the top hat
distributor was reinstalled and top piping reconnected, each vessel was backwashed at 150 gpm for
approximately 30 min to remove fines. The freeboard over the top of each media bed was then measured
three times and the average of each vessel along with the calculated media volume are summarized in
Table 4-4.
The freeboard measurements taken from the top of the underbedding gravel to the top of the flange
openings before media loading were 65.3 and 66.5 in for Vessels A and B, respectively. The freeboard
measurements taken from the top of media beds to the top of the flange openings were 36.5 and 37.5 in
for Vessels A and B, respectively. As such, 51.8 and 52.3 ft3 of media should have been loaded into the
vessels. However, the freeboard measurements taken on April 5, 2006 (when STS returned to the site to
troubleshoot a facility's complaint concerning red/cloudy water from the adsorption vessels), and on May
17, 2006 (when STS returned to the site to complete the punch-list items identified by Battelle during its
system inspections [see Section 4.3.5]), indicated 52.7 to 53.6 ft3 of media in Vessel A and 69.4 to 70.3 ft3
in Vessel B. The discrepancy in media volume noted in Vessel B was attributed by the vendor to an
uneven distribution of three super sack contents to Vessels A and B and an incorrect freeboard
measurement of Vessel B after initial media loading on January 19, 2006. To avoid any confusion, it was
decided that the media volumes determined on May 17, 2006 (i.e., 43 and 57% in Vessels A and B) were
to be used for all bed volume calculations.
Table 4-4. Freeboard Measurements and Media Volumes
in Adsorption Vessels
Date
01/19/06
04/05/06
05/17/06
Vessel A
Depth
(in)
36.5
36.0
35.5
Volume
(ft3)
51.8
52.7
53.6
Vessel B
Depth
(in)
37.5
28.0
27.5
Volume
(ft3)
52.3
69.4
70.3
Total
Volume
(ft3)
104
122
124
4.3.5 Punch List Items. Battelle performed system inspection and operator training for sample
and data collection on April 24 to 25, 2006. The performance evaluation study officially started on April
25, 2006. Table 4-5 summarizes the punch-list items and corrective actions taken from May 22, 2006, to
September 21, 2006. All punch-list items were addressed by STS and/or the facility by September 21,
2006.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters recorded during the performance
evaluation study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in
Table 4-6. From April 25, 2006, through April 8, 2008, the system operated daily except for two time
periods, i.e., from November 30 through December 16, 2007, and from March 1 to 9, 2008, when the
system was shut down for storage tank maintenance and valve repair, respectively. The system operated
for a total of 4,628 hr, or an average of 6.7 hr/day (as compared to 8 to 9 hr/day prior to installation of the
arsenic treatment system). The 6.7 hr/day operating time represents a daily use rate of about 28%.
29
-------
Table 4-5. System Inspection Punch-List Items
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Punch-List Item
Broken Well 2 totalizer
Raw water sample tap incorrectly
located (so that only Well 2 water might
be sampled [Figure 4-12])
Broken Vessel A flow meter
Inconsistent Vessel B freeboard
measurements taken on 01/19/06 and
04/05/06 by vendor (Section 4.3.4)
Vessels A and B sample taps (i.e., TA
and TB) incorrectly located (so that
same water was sampled by both taps).
Broken actuator valve 125b (not open
for automatic backwash)
Broken actuator valve 123 A (not open
for automatic backwash)
Missing backwash flow meter/totalizer
Broken totalizer on treated water line to
storage tank
Parallel vs. series default settings on
PLC
Block vs. unblock mode
Missing as-built drawings for APU-30S
system
Missing as-built site piping and
electrical drawings
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Replaced Well 2 totalizer
• Used existing chlorine injection point (Figure 4-
12) for raw water sampling(a) during first three
sampling events on 04/25/06, 05/09/06, and
05/23/06
• Relocated raw water sample tap about 0.5 ft
after blending point of Wells 1 and 2 (Figure 4-
12) and relocated chlorine injection point about
10 ft downstream of the new raw water sample
tap for chlorine injection
• Relocated raw water sample tap to existing
chlorine injection point and continued using
relocated chlorine injection point
• Fixed Vessel A flow meter by removing
particles jammed in paddle wheel
• Retook freeboard measurements for both
Vessels A and B
• Relocated Vessels A and B sample taps (but
still at incorrect locations)
• Corrected sample tap locations
• Replaced actuator valve 125b
• Replaced actuator valve 123 A
• Installed a backwash flow meter/totalizer
• Replaced totalizer on treated water line
• Investigated PLC default settings, which might
not be changed from parallel to series. Power
outage will revert system to default setting
when left in manual mode [Section 4.3])
• Held a teleconference with facility
representatives, who expressed preference to
maintain PLC in unblock mode (i.e., system
valves remained open at all times)
• Provided as-built drawings for APU-30S system
• Provided as-built site engineering drawings
Resolution
Date
05/22/06
05/24/06
05/02/07
05/17/06
05/17/06
05/17/06
08/09/06
05/17/06
08/09/06
05/17/06
07/10/06
05/17/06
05/19/06
09/21/06
09/21/06
(a) Raw water samples collected after other treatment plant samples at AC, TA, and TB locations had been taken,
chlorine injection had been temporarily discontinued, and chlorine injection point had been thoroughly flushed.
30
-------
Figure 4-12. Piping, Sample Taps, and Chlorine Injection Point Prior to Treatment System
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-30S System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Value/Condition
04/25/06-04/08/08
4,628
6.7
System Operation -Adsorption
Total Throughput (gal)(a)
Bed Volumes (BV)(b)
Average Daily Demand (gpd)(c)
Average (Range of) Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)(d)
Average (Range of) Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Average (Range of) System EBCT (min)(c)
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)
35,358,250
38,140
51,393
129 (84-151)
6.0 (3.9-7.0)
7.2(6.1-11.0)
27.9 (18.0-63.0)
7.4 (3.0-27.0)
20.8 (12.0-55.0)
7.9(1.3-15.0)
3.1 (1.0-4.0)
System Operation - Backwash
Average (Range of) Backwash Flowrate (gpm)(e)
Average (Range of) Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Average (Range of) Backwash Duration (min)
Average (Range of) Wastewater Generated
(gal/vessel)
207 (173-275)
9.6 (8.0-12.7)
26.0 (20.0-30.0)
5,400 (4,000-6,800)
(a) Based on Vessel A totalizer.
(b) Based on 124 ft3 of media in both Vessels A and B.
(c) Calculated by dividing total throughput by number of system operating days.
(d) Based on instantaneous readings of Vessel A flow meter/totalizer.
(e) Based on readings of Vessel A totalizer and respective operating time (see
Section 4.4.4).
(f) Based on ten backwash events conducted from 07/14/06 to 08/29/07.
During the entire period of the performance evaluation study, the system treated approximately
35,358,250 gal of water, including the 1,223,042 gal already registered by the Vessel A totalizer during
system startup. The amount of water treated was equivalent to 38,140 BV, based on 124 ft3 of media in
both vessels. The average daily demand was 51,393 gal, versus 74,000 gal provided by the facility prior
to the demonstration study.
The total throughput and flowrates presented in Table 4-6 are based on the electromagnetic flow
meter/totalizer installed at the inlet to Vessel A (i.e., lead vessel). Instantaneous flowrate readings from
this flow meter ranged from 84 to 151 gpm and averaged 129 gpm, which was 14% lower than the 150
gpm design value. Based on these flowrates, hydraulic loading rates to the adsorption vessels ranged
from 3.9 to 7.0 gpm/ft2 and system EBCTs ranged from 6.1 to 11.0 min. As a result, the average system
EBCT was 16 % higher than the design value of 6.2 min.
Flowrates through the treatment system also were tracked by a pre-existing positive displacement totalizer
installed on the treated water line, and two pre-existing positive displacement totalizers installed at Wells
1 and 2. Average flowrates were calculated based on readings of the well hour meter and the one
electromagnetic and three positive displacement totalizers. As compared in Table 4-7, all calculated
average flowrates were consistent with the instantaneous readings of the Vessel A flow meter with a
relative difference within 5.4%.
32
-------
The system throughputs in this report are based on the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer installed at
the inlet to the Vessel A. This flow meter/totalizer was out of order on several occasions and had to be
repaired as discussed in Section 4.4.4. Before the flow meter/totalizer was fixed, the system throughput
was estimated based on the readings of the two positive displacement totalizers installed at the wellheads.
There were two occasions (from April 25 to May 21, 2006, and from November 6 to 18, 2007) when both
Vessel A and Well 2 totalizers were not functioning; the system throughput values were estimated for the
former occasion based on the average flowrate during the first six months of system operation (i.e., 125
gpm) and respective system operating time, and for the latter occasion based on readings of the effluent
totalizer.
Table 4-7. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates
Flowmeter/Totalizer
Type and Location
Electromagnetic Flowmeter, Vessel A Inlet
Electromagnetic Totalizer, Vessel A Inlet
Positive Displacement Totalizers, at Wellheads(a)
Positive Displacement Totalizer, on Treated Water Line
Instantaneous/
Calculated
Instantaneous
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Flowrate (gpm)
Range
84-151
66-177
67-172
101-172
Average
129
122
128
131
% Diff
-
-5.4 %
-0.8 %
+1.6%
(a) Sum of Wells 1 and 2 readings.
The treatment system pressures were monitored at the system inlet and outlet and across the adsorption
vessels. Differential pressure (Ap) readings across the system and Vessels A and B are presented in
Figure 4-13. Table 4-8 summarizes Ap across Vessels A and B immediately before and after a backwash.
04/25/06 06/25/06 08/25/06 10/25/06 12/25/06 02/25/07 04/25/07 06/25/07 08/25/07 10/25/07 12/25/07 02/25/08
Figure 4-13. Ap Across Treatment System, and Lead and Lag Vessels
33
-------
As shown in Figure 4-13, Ap readings across the lead vessel (Vessel A) increased steadily after
backwashing, indicating accumulation of iron particles and/or media fines. Another backwash was
performed when the Ap across Vessel A approached or exceeded 10 psi. During the first year of system
operation from April 25, 2006, to April 10, 2007, backwashing was effective in reducing the Ap across
the lead vessel to less than 4 psi (Table 4-8). Starting from May 9, 2007, at a throughput around 21,727
BV, backwashing became less and less effective in reducing the Ap. Since then, Vessel A Ap readings
after a backwash increased from 6.8 to 15.0 psi.
Table 4-8. Ap Across Vessels A and B Before and After a Backwash Event
No.
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Backwash
Date
05/16/06
07/14/06
08/09/06
09/19/06
10/31/06
12/05/06
01/30/07
03/13/07
04/10/07
05/09/07
06/26/07
07/31/07
08/20/07
08/28/07
09/20/07
10/02/07
10/12/07
11/09/07
12/31/07
02/07/08
03/21/08
Duration Since
Last Backwash
(week)
NA
8
4
6
6
5
8
6
4
4
7
5
o
J
1
o
J
2
1
4
7
5
6
Amount of
Water
Treated
Since Last
Backwash
(BV)
NA
4,070
1,400
2,253
1,813
1,441
2,551
2,242
1,537
1,538
2,987
1,618
1,253
437
1,117
636
519
1,415
1,820
1,834
1,770
AP across
Vessel A
before/after
Backwash
(psi)
8.5/3.5
9.0/3.3
8.8/3.8
10.0/3.3
11.0/3.8
11.0/4.0
13.0/4.3
15.0/4.0
11.0/3.8
10.0/6.8
NA/NA
NA/NA
NA/NA
12.0/1.3
15.0/15.0
15.0/10.0
7.0/NA
15.0/9.0
14.0/7.5
15.0/7.0
15.0/11.0
AP across
Vessel B
before/after
Backwash
(psi)
3.0/2.5
3.0/2.8
3.8/3.0
3.8/3.3
3.0/3.0
3.5/3.5
4.0/3.0
3.0/3.3
3.3/3.0
3.3/3.3
2.8/3.8
2.0/3.3
1.0/3.3
2.8/3.3
3.3/2.8
3.0/3.5
3.5/NA
2.0/4.0
2.5/2.0
3.5/3.8
3.5/3.0
NA = not available
Gradual accumulation of iron and manganese solids formed after prechlorination and, possibly, media
fines were attributed to the less effective backwashing observed during the second year of system
operation. In addition, based on trip reports provided by STS, sediments produced from the wells also
might have contributed to the observed Ap rise. As shown in Figure 4-13, Ap readings across Vessel B
remained low (averaging 3.1 psi) and constant throughout the two-year study period, indicating little or
no accumulation of precipitated iron solids or media fines. The data seem to suggest that media fines may
not have been the primary contributing factor to less effective backwashing, since both vessels were
backwashed when the Ap across the lead vessel approached or exceeded 10 psi.
During the two-year performance evaluation study, 21 backwashes were performed on both vessels,
averaging one backwash every five weeks. Both vessels were backwashed even although the Ap across
Vessel B remained low. Based on the backwash logs, backwash flowrates ranged from 175 to 275 gpm
34
-------
and averaged 207 gpm, which was very close to the design value of 210 gpm. Each backwash event
lasted for approximately 26 min, including backwash and downflow rinse, thereby producing
approximately 5,400 gal of wastewater per vessel. Based on the backwash logs, the amount of backwash
water produced ranged from 4,000 to 6,800 gal/vessel.
4.4.2 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the APU-30S system
included backwash wastewater and spent media. Backwash wastewater was sent to a small ditch (Figure
4-10) adjacent to the treatment system and subsequently drained into a roadside ditch.
4.4.3 Media Rebedding. As described in Section 4.5.1, arsenic concentrations following the lag
vessel first exceeded the MCL on September 12, 2007, after treated approximately 28,700 BV of water
(based on 124 ft3 of media). Since then through the end of the performance study on April 8, 2008,
arsenic concentrations measured after the lag vessel fluctuated around 10.0 (ig/L, indicating the need for
rebedding of the lead vessel.
In April 2008, Battelle contacted STS for media rebedding. An STS technician went to the site to
perform media changeout on May 6, 2008, but had to abort the mission due to lack of proper vacuuming
equipment to remove the spent media from the lead vessel. During the trip, the STS technician measured
the Vessel A freeboard height (i.e., from the flange at the top of the vessel to the media surface) at 49 in,
which was 13.5 in more than that measured on May 17, 2006 (Table 4-4), indicating significant media
loss over the two year system operation. A spent media sample was collected from the lead vessel and
submitted for TCLP analysis.
In July 2008, instead of making a return trip to the site as planned, STS decided not to rebed Vessel A
citing the small size of the job. Soon afterwards, Battelle contacted SouthWest Water Company (SWC,
Oak Manor MUD's contractor for operating the water utility) to conduct the changeout. A quote for the
changeout was received from SWC on July 23, 2008, and the paperwork needed to establish a purchase
order for the rebedding service was received from SWC on October 3, 2008.
The media rebedding of Vessel A was conducted by SWC on October 14, 2008, after the system treated
approximately 52,400 BV of water (based on 124 ft3 of media). A vacuum truck was used to remove the
spent media and the top portion of the gravel underbedding. Spent media samples were collected at the
top (0 to 5 in from the top of the media bed), middle (11 to 15 in from the top of the media bed), and
bottom (23 to 27 from the top of the media bed) of the media bed. Vacuum removal of the media was
paused at each level to allow for the collection of spent media samples. After the spent media was
completely removed, the top 6 in of the gravel underbedding also was removed. Subsequently, 6 in of
fresh gravel was loaded on top of the remaining gravel underbedding, followed by virgin media. The
freeboard height measured after the media changeout was at the target value of 39 in, based on the design
bed volume. Following media changeout, the vessels were switched such that the lag vessel was placed
into the lead position and the former lead vessel with the new media was placed in the lag position.
Water samples were collected across the treatment system before and after the media changeout and the
results are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. There was no downtime for the treatment system
during the performance study. However, there were operational irregularities related to the system's
Vessel A flowmeter/totalizer, automatic valve 123A, and system default settings.
The Vessel A flowmeter/totalizer stopped functioning on seven separate occasions from April 26 to May
26, 2006; on June 6, 2006; from September 6 to October 3, 2006; from January 15 to March 21, 2007; on
April 2 and September 20, 2007, and from October 31 to April 8, 2008; due to wear by either precipitated
35
-------
solids or natural sediments from the wells. The automatic valve 123A failed to open during automatic
backwash on July 14, 2006, due to water and humidity accumulating in the valve.
The treatment system was discovered to be in parallel mode instead of series mode during the vendor's
visit from May 16 to 17, 2006. The vendor determined that the system was left in manual mode for
backwash, which reverted back to its default parallel mode after a power outage. This occurred three
times on June 19, September 5, and September 24, 2006, with the lag vessel treating a total of about 20
BV of raw water from the three events. Therefore, leaving the system in manual mode put the system at
risk of returning back to its default parallel mode after a power outage. This, in conjunction with the need
to accommodate the operator's request for his physical presence during backwash, prompted the vendor
to extend the automatic backwash timer setting from 30 to 120 days in the PLC on August 9, 2006. In
doing so, the operator could initiate a backwash, as Ap readings were approaching 10 psi, by pushing the
manual backwash button on the PLC screen. To alleviate the concerns mentioned above, the following
actions were taken: (1) set backwash duration for 20 min and downflow rinse for 10 min, (2) made onsite
observations to ensure correct valve positions, and (3) left the manual isolation valve open at all times and
allowed the electrically actuated valve, MB-127, to control the supplemental flowrate. Upon completion
of the backwash, the operator reset the system back to the automatic mode.
Operational irregularities also were experienced with the master totalizers on Well 2 and the treated water
line. The totalizer on Well 2 was broken from April 25 to May 21, 2006, and from November 6 to 18,
2007; while the totalizer on the treated water line was broken from April 25 to July 10, 2006; from
August 21 to September 17, 2006; and from February 19 to March 7, 2008.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pretreatment
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. Chlorination with the pre-existing gas chlorination system
(discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-7) was the only pre-treatment required. The operator
monitored the weight of the chlorine gas cylinder and target residual levels the same way as prior to the
arsenic demonstration study.
System Automation. For automatic system operation, the treatment system was installed with electronic
flow sensors, flow controllers/valves, pressure transmitters/controllers, and a Square D Telemechanique
PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch interface screen. For example, each adsorption vessel was
equipped with a flow sensor and totalizer (i.e., electromagnetic flowmeter), five electrically actuated
butterfly valves, and a pressure transmitter, all of which were capable of transmitting and receiving
electronic signals to and from the PLC. Although the PLC was capable of being interlocked with the well
pumps, hydropneumatic pressure tank, and/or the storage tank, the Oak Manor MUD elected not to pursue
this option due to additional electrical work required for interlocking.
The treatment system was capable of automatic backwash triggered by either a timer or a Ap setting. It
also allowed the operator to override the automatic setpoint by pushing the manual backwash button on
the PLC screen. As described earlier, to ensure a proper backwash, the operator initially conducted
backwash manually by physically opening/closing the valves. This practice was replaced with "semi-
automatic" backwash via the PLC after August 9, 2006.
The system also had six isolation ball valves to reverse the vessel positions from lead to lag and vice
versa after each media replacement. Because media replacement occurred rather infrequently, the vessel
switching operation was not automated.
36
-------
In addition to regular O&M, operator's awareness and abilities to detect unusual system performance
were necessary when troubleshooting system automation failures. The equipment vendor provided
hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual to help increase operator's awareness and
abilities to detect and cope with any performance irregularities.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was on-site typically five times a week and spent about 40 min each
day to perform visual inspections and record the system operating parameters on the daily log sheets.
Normal operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the
existing water supply equipment.
The State of Texas requires that an operator for water treatment systems hold at least a TCEQ waterworks
operator license. There are four water operator certificate levels, i.e., A, B, C, and D, with Class A being
the highest. The certificate levels are based on education, experience, and related training. The operator
for the Oak Manor MUD system has a Class C certificate, which requires a high school diploma or
equivalent, two years of work experience, and 60 hr of related training (TCEQ, 2007).
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of
flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Typically, the operator
performed these duties when he was on-site for routine activities.
Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Gas chlorine cylinders were used for
prechlorination. The operator ordered chemicals as had been done prior to the installation of the APU-
30S system. Typically, four 150-pound cylinders were used per month and the gas chlorine supplier, DXI
Industries, refilled the chlorine cylinder onsite.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-30S system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, system backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at four locations through the
treatment process: including IN, AC, TA, and TB (Table 3-3). The treatment plant water was sampled on
36 occasions (including the three duplicate sampling events on August 1, 2006; April 4, 2007; and March
13, 2008), with field speciation performed during 14 of the 36 occasions. Field-speciation samples were
collected monthly from system startup to October 11, 2006; and switched to bimonthly from November
15, 2006 to October 3, 2007. Field-speciation was discontinued after October 3, 2007.
Table 4-9 provides a summary of analytical results for arsenic, iron, and manganese during the
performance evaluation study from May 25, 2006, through April 8, 2008. Table 4-10 summarizes the
results of the other water quality parameters. Because the sample tap for the system influent water was
installed incorrectly before May 24, 2006 (see Item No. 2 in Table 4-5), the results of the first three sets
of "IN" samples were not included in Tables 4-9 and 4-10. In addition, because the "TA" and "TB"
samples on May 23, 2006, were collected from wrong sample taps, those results were not included in
Tables 4-9 and 4-10, either. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results. The results of the
water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Figure 4-14 contains four bar charts showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, and
soluble As(III) and As(V) at the IN, AC, TA, and TB sampling locations for each speciation sampling
event. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 27.5 to 52.5 (ig/L and averaged 40.2 (ig/L,
with over 94% existing as soluble arsenic. Of the soluble arsenic, As(III) was the predominating species
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As
(total)
As
(soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe
(total)
Fe
(soluble)
Mn
(total)
Mn
(soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
Unit
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
33(a)
36
35(b)
35(b)
12(a)
14
13(b)
13(b)
12(a)
14
13(b)
13(b)
12(a)
14
13(b)
130)
12(a)
14
13(b)
130)
33(a)
36
35(b)
35(b)
12(a)
14
130)
13(b)
33(a)
36
35(b)
35(b)
12(a)
14
130)
130)
Concentration
Minimum
27.5
22.5
0.2
<0.1
25.3
19.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
2.7
<0.1
<0.1
17.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
18.2
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
12.5
<25
<25
<25
<25
47.3
42.6
0.1
<0.1
48.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Maximum
52.5
41.2
28.5
10.6
45.1
30.5
22.1
10.8
6.9
11.6
4.8
0.6
44.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
21.5
30.0
21.3
10.3
145
169
29
31
44
<25
<25
<25
66.6
57.1
9.6
0.9
63.4
14.5
1.2
0.6
Average
40.2
31.6
_(c)
_(c)
37.9
25.7
>)
>)
4.1
5.6
_(c)
>)
31.5
0.7
_(c)
>)
6.4
25.1
.(<=)
_(c)
62.7
42.8
<25
13.0
19.0
<25
<25
<25
55.1
50.6
2.2
0.3
54.1
1.9
0.3
0.2
Standard
Deviation
7.2
4.7
_(<0
_(<0
6.9
3.5
.(<=)
_(c)
2.1
2.4
_(c)
.W
8.5
0.4
_(<0
.(<=)
6.6
3.6
.(<=)
_(c)
36.8
33.1
2.8
3.1
11.9
NA
NA
NA
4.6
3.8
2.0
0.2
4.5
3.7
0.4
0.2
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
NA = not applicable
(a) Results of "IN" samples collected before May 24, 2006, not included because of use of
incorrectly installed sample tap.
(b) Results of "TA" and "TB" samples collected on May 23, 2006, not included because of use of
wrong sample taps.
(c) Not meaningful for data related to breakthrough curves; see Figure 4-15.
38
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Ammonia
(asN)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
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
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
Sample
Count
21oo
24
23(b)
23(b)
10
10
9
9
10oo
12
ll(b)
U(b)
10(a)
12
ll(b)
U(b)
10(a)
12
U(b)
U(b)
29(a)
32
31(b)
31(b)
21(a)
24
23(b)
23(b)
21(a)
24
23(b)
23(b)
22(a)
25
24(b)
24(b)
22(a)
25
24(b)
24(b)
19(a)
22
21(b)
21(b)
25(a)
28
27(b)
27(b)
Concentration
Minimum
318
342
331
331
0.1
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
O.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
25.2
20.4
5.0
5.0
14.4
14.8
15.2
12.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.6
21.5
21.4
21.3
21.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
189
189
190
190
Maximum
696
390
404
398
0.2
0.20
0.10
0.10
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
86.7
95.0
76.3
58.7
16.8
16.7
17.0
16.8
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.8
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.9
27.6
33.8
32.1
30.7
2.9
2.9
4.9
4.3
448
687
708
687
Average
375
366
370
366
0.2
0.07
0.03
0.03
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.9
1.9
1.8
1.5
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
O.05
40.7
42.2
29.1
17.6
15.3
15.7
15.8
15.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
23.9
24.3
24.2
24.1
2.0
1.8
2.9
2.6
337
592
576
577
Standard
Deviation
76.0
15.2
16.2
15.3
0.1
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.2
11.9
16.2
17.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.8
76.7
123
134
137
39
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Other Water Quality Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
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
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
27
26(b)
26(b)
27
26(b)
26(b)
10(a)
12
U(b)
ll(b)
10(a)
12
U(b)
ll(b)
10(a)
12
n(b)
n(b)
Concentration
Minimum
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
31.0
30.0
31.5
32.7
19.1
18.0
19.0
19.8
10.4
11.9
11.7
11.8
Maximum
3.3
3.2
2.7
3.3
3.4
2.8
45.8
50.3
48.7
47.7
33.0
35.3
34.2
33.4
14.5
15.6
15.6
16.2
Average
2.1
1.4
1.3
2.2
1.4
1.4
39.9
42.3
41.9
42.9
27.2
28.5
28.5
29.1
12.7
13.8
13.4
13.8
Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
4.7
6.1
4.4
4.0
4.0
5.3
3.9
3.6
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
NA = not applicable
(a) Results of "IN" samples collected before May 24, 2006, not included because of use of incorrectly
installed sample tap.
(b) Results of "TA" and "TB" samples collected on May 23, 2006, not included because of use of wrong
sample taps.
with its concentrations ranging from 17.7 to 44.1 (ig/L and averaging 31.5 (ig/L. The remainder of
soluble arsenic was As(V) with its concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 21.5 (ig/L and averaging 6.4 (ig/L.
Some particulate arsenic also existed, with its concentrations ranging from <0.1 to 6.9 (ig/L and averaging
4.1 (ig/L. The average total arsenic concentration (i.e. 40.2 (ig/L) measured during the two-year
performance evaluation study was approximately 16.5% higher than that measured during the initial site
visit on February 16, 2005 (i.e., 34.5 (ig/L, Table 4-1).
The presence of As(III) as the predominating soluble arsenic species in raw water is consistent with the
low DO levels (i.e., 1.2 to 2.9 mg/L Table 4-10) measured during the performance evaluation study and
that (i.e., 1.7 mg/L) measured during the November 2, 2004 site visit. ORP readings measured during the
performance evaluation study, however, were much higher (i.e., from 189 to 448 mV and averaging 337
mV) than that (i.e., 1 mV) measured during the November 2, 2004 site visit. These high ORP readings
were attributed primarily to the use of the handheld meter, which often gave erratic and drifting results at
the arsenic removal technology demonstration sites. After prechlorination and adsorption, DO levels
remained rather unchanged, averaging 1.8 to 2.9 mg/L. ORP readings increased significantly, as
expected, to an average of 576 to 592 mV, due to the presence of chlorine residuals as discussed below.
Prechlorination effectively oxidized As(III) to As(V) and provided required chlorine residuals to the
distribution system. As shown in Figure 4-14, all samples collected at the AC location contained mostly
As(V) and particulate arsenic. The average As(III) and As(V) concentrations of the AC samples were 0.7
and 25.1 |o,g/L, respectively (Table 4-9). After chlorination, 98% of the soluble arsenic was present as
As(V), compared to only 17% in raw water. The trace levels of As(III) measured were believed to have
been caused primarily by the speciation method.
40
-------
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)
g 20
O
«
< 10 -
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
DAs (V)
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
DAs (particulate)
B) 50 1 BAsflll)
_ 4QJ DAs(V)
O
I30
«j n
jj10-
o I I I i I I i I I i I I i I I i I I i I I i I
Arsenic Speciation after Lead Vessel A (TA)
60 -i—
DAs (particulate)
=! 50 H
- lAs
40 -I DAs (V)
o
?
£ 30-
c
0)
5 As MCL = 10 [jg/L
w 10 '^i •== mgr i=r
j , ,n,n n.n.n.TT
Arsenic Speciation after Lag Vessel B (TB)
60
DAs (particulate)
50 "I lAs(lll)
40 -I OAs(V)
£ 30 -
20 -
O AsMCL = 10ug/L
« 10
0
Figure 4-14. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at Influent, After Chlorination,
after Lead Vessel, and after Lag Vessel
41
-------
Free chlorine residuals measured at the AC location ranged from 0.3 to 3.3 mg/L (as C12) and averaged
2.1 mg/L (as C12), which were similar to total chlorine residuals measured in the same samples (Table 4-
10). The total chlorine residual levels measured were very close to the target levels of 1.5 to 2.0 mg/L (as
C12) set by the facility. The similar levels of total and free chlorine residuals measured suggest the
absence of ammonia in raw water, which was confirmed by the low level of ammonia (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2
mg/L [as N]) measured during the later part of the performance evaluation study. Total and free chlorine
residuals measured after the lead and lag vessels averaged 1.3 to 1.4 mg/L (as C12), which were lower
than those measured at the AC location (i.e., 2.1 mg/L [as C12]). Lower levels of total and free chlorine
residuals suggest some chorine demand (i.e., 0.7 mg/L [as C12]) across the lead vessel.
Figure 4-15 presents total arsenic breakthrough curves from the lead and lag vessels, along with total
arsenic concentrations in raw water and after prechlorination. The lead vessel removed the majority of
arsenic, existing predominately as As(V) because of prechlorination. On September 12, 2006, after
treating 9,527,220 gal, or 10,277 BV, of water, arsenic concentrations reached 10.0 (ig/L following the
lead vessel and 0.8 (ig/L following the lag vessel. Arsenic concentrations after the adsorption vessels
continued to increase afterwards and reached 10.0 (ig/L following the lag vessel the first time on
September 12, 2007 after treating 28,736 BV (or 26,638,090 gal) of water. Since then through the end of
the performance evaluation study on April 8, 2008, arsenic concentrations measured after the lag vessel
fluctuated around 10.0 (ig/L, indicating arsenic breakthrough at 10.0 (ig/L occurred at the lag vessel after
treating approximately 28,700 BV of water. Calculations of bed volumes were based on 124 ft3 of media
in both vessels.
As Breakthrough at
the Lag Vessel
09/12/07
As Breakthrough at
the Lead Vessel
09/12/06
15 20 25
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (xlOOO)
Figure 4-15. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
(BV calculated based on 124 ft3 of media)
42
-------
At the end of performance evaluation study after treating approximately 38,140 BV (35,358,250 gal) of
water, total arsenic concentrations were 23.2 and 10.5 (ig/L after the lead and lag vessels, respectively.
The concentration after the lead vessel was close to that in the system influent (i.e., 28 (ig/L after
chlorination), indicating the lead vessel was approaching exhaustion.
The vendor-estimated working capacity for the treatment system was 51,240 BV (Table 4-3), which was
based on 29 (ig/L of arsenic in the system influent, 124 ft3 of media in both the lead and lag vessels, and
16 (ig/L of arsenic following the lead vessel. As shown in Figure 4-15, the 16- (ig/L throughput
following the lead vessel occurred at 16,900 BV, which is only one third of the value estimated by the
vendor. The lower amount of media in the lead vessel (i.e. 53 ft3 vs. 62 ft3) and the higher arsenic
concentration in raw water (i.e., 40.3 vs. 29 (ig/L) might have contributed, in part, to the lower-than-
expected run length observed.
As described in Section 4.4.3, approximately six months after the end of the performance evaluation
study, the lead vessel was rebeddede on October 14, 2008. Before the media changeout, water samples
were collected across the treatment train. Arsenic concentrations at the system inlet and after the lead and
lag vessels were 26.8, 33.4, and 17.5 (ig/L, respectively. One week after the media changeout on October
21, 2008, water samples were collected again across the treatment train, with arsenic concentrations
measured at 26.2, 15.2, and 2.6 (ig/L at the three respective locations. The arsenic concentration in
system effluent was reduced significantly from 17.5 to 2.6 (ig/L, indicating that media changeout was
conducted properly.
Iron. Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from <25 to 145 |o,g/L and averaged 62.7 |o,g/L
(Table 4-9). Over 70% of iron in source water existed as particulate iron. The source water sample taken
during the November 2, 2004, site visit also contained a similar amount of total iron (i.e., 95 |o,g/L) with
over 60% existing as particulate iron. Particulate iron might exist in source water as part of natural
sediment or as precipitates caused by inadvertent aeration during sampling. The amounts of DO
measured in source water, however, were low, ranging from 1.2 to 2.9 mg/L and averaging 2.0 mg/L as
discussed above.
Total iron concentrations following prechlorination were slightly less than those at the IN sampling
location, ranging from <25 (ig/L to 169 |o,g/L and averaging 42.8 |o,g/L. Soluble iron levels at the AC
location (based upon the use of 0.45-(im disc filters) were reduced significantly to below the method
detection limit of 25 |o,g/L for all samples, indicating effective oxidation of soluble iron by chlorine. As
shown in Figure 4-16, except for one sampling event on January 29, 2008, total iron was removed to
below the method detection limit of 25 |o,g/L by the lead vessel throughout the performance evaluation
study. Figure 4-16 shows total iron concentrations versus the amount of water treated across the
treatment train.
Manganese. Figure 4-17 shows total manganese concentrations versus the amount of water treated across
the treatment train. Total manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 47.3 to 66.6 |o,g/L and
averaged 55.1 |o,g/L. Manganese existed almost entirely in the soluble form, which was consistent with
that found in the source water sample collected during the initial site visit on November 2, 2004 (Table 4-
1). After prechlorination, an average of 96.4% of soluble manganese precipitated and formed, presumably,
MnO2 solids. The MnO2 solids along with unoxidized Mn(II) were removed by the media, causing total
manganese concentrations to decrease to 2.2 and 0.3 (ig/L following the lead and lag vessels, respectively.
43
-------
180
160
140
-IN
-AC
-TA
-TB
O) 120
100
o 80
60
40
20
TO
i / \
n n an on
BaB a B
la a a
V
m
70
10 15 20 25
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (xlOOO)
30
35
40
Figure 4-16. Total Iron Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes
(BV calculated based on 124 ft3 of media)
60
ra 40
HI
u
8 304
20
10
/V
» / a
-IN
-AC
-TA
-TB
10 15 20 25 30
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (1x1000)
35
40
Figure 4-17. Total Manganese Concentrations Versus Bed Volumes
(BV calculated based on 124 ft3 of media)
44
-------
The high Mn(II) precipitation rate after chlorination at the Oak Manor MUD reflected rapid oxidation
kinetics by chlorine, which was contrary to the findings by most researchers who investigated the
oxidation of Mn(II) even with some lengths of contact time (Knocke et al, 1987 and 1990; Condit and
Chen, 2006). Varying Mn(II) precipitation rates were observed at 11 EPA arsenic removal demonstration
sites (Table 4-11), with two sites averaging less than 10% (i.e., Delavan, WI and Bruni, TX), seven sites
averaging from 14.6 to 55.0%, and two sites averaging 70 and 93.5% (i.e., Alvin, TX and Springfield,
OH). It is not clear why some source waters had slower oxidation kinetics than others. Based on existing
literature for Mn(II) oxidation with chlorine, the variables affecting Mn(II) oxidization kinetics might
include pH, temperature, and contact time. Mn(II) oxidation rates increased at high pH (i.e., 8.0) and high
temperature (Knocke et al., 1987). Table 4-11 did not show clear correlation between pH, temperature,
and contact time with precipitation rates (McCall et al., 2007). Out of the 13 sites investigated, the Oak
Manor MUD had the highest precipitation rates.
Table 4-11. Amount of Mn(II) Precipitated after Chlorination at 11
Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Bruni, TX
Anthony, NM
Brown City, MI
Delavan, WI
Sandusky, MI
Pentwater, MI
Springfield, OH
Alvin, TX
Rollinsford, NH
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Contact
Time
(min)
None
None
None
2
41
6
None
None
None
5
7
Raw Water
pH
(S.U.)
8.2
7.7
8
7.5
7.2
8
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.6
7.3
Tempera-
ture
(°C)
25.6
30.0
11.6
13.9
12.1
12.6
16.2
25.6
14.2
9.1
13.0
NH3
(mg/L)
-------
Fluoride levels ranged from 1.1 to 1.9 mg/L in all samples and did not appear to have been affected by the
SORB 33™ media. Total hardness, existing 68% as calcium hardness and 32% as magnesium hardness,
ranged from 31.0 to 45.8 mg/L (as CaCO3), and also remained unchanged throughout the treatment train.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash was performed one vessel at a time using a
mix of raw water (non-chlorinated) and treated water. Backwash wastewater was sampled 11 times from
the sample ports located in the backwash effluent discharge lines from each vessel. The unfiltered
samples were analyzed for pH, TDS, TSS, and total arsenic, iron, and manganese. Filtered samples using
0.45-(im disc filters were analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. The analytical results are
summarized in Table 4-12. pH values ranged from 7.5 to 8.0, similar to those of source and treated water.
TDS levels ranged from 482 to 532 mg/L and averaged 513 mg/L. TSS levels ranged from 80 to 500
mg/L and averaged 307 mg/L for Vessel A, not including an outlier on June 26, 2007. As expected, TSS
values were lower for Vessel B, ranging from 5.0 to 150 mg/L and averaging 44 mg/L.
Concentrations of total arsenic in backwash wastewater varied widely from 10.1 to 888 |o,g/L and
averaged 144 |o,g/L for the lead vessel and from 3.2 to 120 |o,g/L and averaged 23.7 |o,g/L for the lag vessel.
Concentrations of soluble arsenic were lower, ranging from 13.9 to 37.0 |o,g/L and averaging 20.3 |o,g/L
for the lead vessel and from 1.5 to 29.1 |o,g/L and averaging 9.0 |o,g/L for the lag vessel. Particulate
arsenic averaging at 69.6 |o,g/L might be associated with either iron particles filtered out by the media
beds during the service cycles or media fines. As expected, total arsenic concentration was higher
(approximately 6 times) in the backwash wastewater from the lead vessel than that from the lag vessel.
Concentrations of total iron and manganese ranged from 0.7 to 161.3 mg/L (averaged 19.7 mg/L), and
from 0.08 to 15.2 mg/L (averaged 1.8 mg/L), respectively, with over 99.8% existed as particulates.
Table 4-12. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
07/14/06
08/09/06
09/19/06
10/31/06
12/05/06
01/30/07
03/13/07
04/10/07
05/09/07
06/26/07
08/29/07
BW1
Vessel A
a.
S.U.
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.8
8.0
CO
a
mg/L
508
526
482
498
524
488
522
524
532
518
514
CO
CO
mg/L
366
116
400
225
80
370
490
265
260
1,130
500
I
3
Hfl'L
17.0
16.1
10.1
15.3
20.3
341
23.6
22.4
25.8
205
888
"5T
_a
3
o
-52-
3
Hfl'L
15.9
14.7
13.9
15.2
16.7
37.0
21.5
23.0
19.2
20.2
26.0
As (particulate)
Hfl'L
1.1
1.4
<0.1
0.1
3.6
304
2.1
<0.1
6.5
185
862
1
-------
data in Table 4-12, approximately 2.8 g of arsenic (i.e. 0.04% by weight), 804 g of iron (i.e. 11.2 % by
weight), and 71.8 g of manganese (i.e. 1.0 % by weight) were generated from both the lead and lag
vessels during each backwash event.
Backwash solid samples were collected on November 1, 2006, from Vessels A and B and analyzed for
total metals; the results are presented in Table 4-13. Arsenic, iron, and manganese levels in the solids
were averaged 2.0 mg/g (or 0.2% by weight), 291 mg/g (or 29% by weight), and 80.2 mg/g (or 8 % by
weight), respectively. These amounts were significantly higher than those based on backwash wastewater
metal analysis (i.e. 0.04%, 11.2%, and 1.0%, respectively). Challenges associated with sampling and
sample digestion were believed to have contributed to the discrepancies observed. As expected,
backwash solids from the lead vessel contained significantly higher percentages of metals, including As,
Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn, indicating removal of metal particulates by the lead vessel.
The particulate iron present in the backwash wastewater might have come from at least two separate
sources, i.e., the iron from raw water or media fines. The amount of iron attributable to both sources was
estimated using the data of the eleven backwash sampling events conducted from July 14, 2006, to
August 29, 2007 (Table 4-12). The amount of iron attributable to the iron removed from raw water was
estimated based on the average throughput between backwash events (i.e., 1,588,424 gal based on the
throughput data in Table 4-8) and the average total iron concentration (i.e., 62.7 (ig/L) in source water
during the same period. Assuming complete removal of iron solids by the media beds and complete
discharge of iron solids during the backwash events, there would have been 377 g of iron solids, as part of
TSS discharged per backwash event, originating from the iron in source water. As discussed above,
based on the average TSS measured in backwash wastewater, approximately 7,200 g of solids would be
discharged from both Vessels A and B during each backwash event. Therefore, the natural iron level in
backwash solids should be approximately 5.2%, which is 17.9% of that calculated based on backwash
solids metal analysis (i.e., 29%), indicating that the backwash solids contained a significant amount of
media fines.
Table 4-13. Backwash Solids Total Metal Results (jig/g)
Analyte
Vessel A
Vessel B
Mg
2,563
6,219
Al
1,422
1,551
Si
295
728
P
5,746
1,964
Ca
22,747
31,798
Fe
437,784
144,335
Mn
108,632
51,676
Ni
99
53
Cu
331
197
Zn
5,275
1,095
As
3,266
825
Cd
<0.1
1
Pb
46
50
Note: Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. Spent media samples were collected from the lead vessel on May 6,
2008, for TCLP analysis and on October 14, 2008, for metals analysis (Section 3.3.4). The results from
TCLP analysis indicated that the media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of at a sanitary landfill.
The ICP-MS results of the spent media samples are presented in Table 4-14. The average arsenic loading
on the spent media was 3.5 mg/g of dry media. The adsorptive capacity also was calculated by dividing
the arsenic mass represented by the area between the influent (IN) and the lead vessel effluent (TA)
curves, as shown in Figure 4-15 by the amount of dry media in each vessel. Assuming no media loss, the
dry weight of the media, i.e., 1,595 Ib/vessel, was calculated based on a wet weight of 1,876 Ib (i.e., 53,6
ft3 of media at 35 lb/ft3) and a maximum moisture content of 15% (Table 4-2). Using this approach, the
arsenic loading on the media would be 4.7 mg/g of dry media. Assuming that arsenic loading measured at
the top of the media bed was representative of the media throughout the bed (because the lead vessel was
approaching saturation as shown in Figure 4-15), ICP-MS analysis would have recovered approximately
74.5% of the arsenic removed during the adsorption run.
47
-------
Table 4-14. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis
Analyte (u.g/g)
Vessel
A (Top)
Runl
Run 2
Ave.
Mg
1,920
1,992
1,956
Si
6,907
6,845
6,875
P
2,143
2,215
2,179
Ca
5,418
5,557
5,487
Fe
526,004
548,413
537,208
Mn
11,047
11,073
11,059
As
3,451
3,478
3,464
Ba
783
782
783
As shown in Table 4-14, the spent media contained mostly iron at 537 mg/g (as Fe) or 854 mg/g (as
FeOOH) on the media, which is close to the 90.1% (by weight) value specified by the STS for the virgin
media (Table 4-3).
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to
determine if water treated by the arsenic removal system would impact the lead, copper, and arsenic
levels and other water chemistry in the distribution system. Prior to system startup, baseline distribution
system water samples were collected on March 16, April 20, May 18, and June 14, 2005. Since system
startup, distribution system water sampling continued monthly at the same three locations until April 4,
2007. The results are presented in Table 4-15.
The main differences observed between the baseline samples and samples collected after system startup
were decreases in arsenic and manganese concentrations at each of the three sampling locations. Arsenic
concentrations were reduced from a pre-startup level of 38.2 |o,g/L (on average) to 2.6 |o,g/L after startup.
Manganese concentrations were reduced from a pre-startup level of 41.8 |o,g/L (on average) to 1.5
Hg/L after startup. Iron concentrations measured in the distribution system were low both before and after
system startup (except for two outliers at DS1 and DS3 on May 18, 2005 during the baseline sampling),
with the majority of the samples being <25 |o,g/L. In general, the iron levels measured in the distribution
system water mirrored those in the system effluent. Manganese levels measured in the distribution
system water were slightly higher than those in the system effluent results (i.e., 1.5 vs. 0.3 |o,g/L [on
average]).
Arsenic concentrations measured in the distribution system water were compared to those measured in the
plant effluent. As shown in Figure 4-18, prior to reaching 10,000 BV of throughput, arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system water were higher than those in the plant effluent. Afterwards,
arsenic concentrations were at levels similar to those of the plant effluent. These results suggest initial
redissolution and/or resuspendsion of arsenic previously accumulated in the distribution system. After
that, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water essentially mirrored those of the plant
effluent.
Measured pH values ranged from 7.6 to 8.2, and alkalinity levels ranged from 347 to 410 mg/L (as
CaCO3); no discernable trends were observed after system startup. Lead levels ranged from <0.1 to 2
Hg/L (exclusing one data point at 7.9 |o,g/L for DS1 on May 17, 2006), which were less than the action
level of 15 |o,g/L. The average lead level was 0.6 |o,g/L both in the baseline samples and the samples taken
after system startup. Copper concentrations ranged from 14.9 to 862 |o,g/L, with no samples exceeding the
1,300 |og/L action level. The average copper level was 153 |o,g/L in the baseline samples and 157 |o,g/L in
the samples taken after system startup. Copper concentrations at DS1 were much higher than those at
DS2 and DS3 (i.e., 400 |^g/L, on average, at DS1 compared to 29.5 |^g/L at DS2 and 42.4 |^g/L at DS3).
The operator reported that DS1 had older distribution piping. Both lead and copper concentrations in the
distribution system appeared to have not been affected by the operation of the arsenic treatment system.
48
-------
Table 4-15. Distribution Water Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Address
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
Date
03/16/05(a)
04/20/05(a)
05/18/05
06/14/05(b)
05/17/06(c)
06/07/06
07/19/06(d)
08/15/06
09/13/06
10/10/06
11/21/06
12/13/06
01/10/07
02/07/07(e)
03/07/07
04/04/07
Average
DS1
95 Oak Trail
Non-LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hr
10.0
12.0
8.6
11.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
10.3
9.8
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
NA
9.6
m
Q.
s.u.
8.2
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.9
Alkalinity
mg/L
379
369
379
361
363
363
353
358
379
385
387
368
402
376
378
366
373
3
ra/L
27.8
32.4
92.8
32.4
16.5
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
2.4
3.0
3.6
3.2
£
ra/L
<25
<25
815
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
C
^
ra/L
40.6
32.7
60.5
36.9
17.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.7
<0.1
0.6
2.0
_Q
Q.
ra/L
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
7.9
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
<0.1
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.1
0
ra/L
32.2
18.4
435
862
187
624
465
496
383
520
500
369
280
366
292
320
400
DS2
61 Shady Oak Drive
Non-LCR
1st Draw
0)
E
i—
0
'1
TO
&
hr
6.4
m
Q.
S.U.
8.1
Alkalinity
mg/L
366
3
ra/L
29.6
£
ra/L
49
C
^
M9/L
68.3
_Q
Q.
ra/L
0.6
3
O
ra/L
20.1
Homeowner Not Available
8.6
7.0
NA
6.9
8.0
6.0
7.0
8.2
5.5
8.0
6.3
6.5
7.3
NA
7.0
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.9
379
365
363
355
361
350
388
387
391
368
396
386
373
368
374
33.0
29.6
3.0
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.3
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.4
2.3
2.5
3.6
2.1
26
25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
38.3
50.9
1.1
1.3
2.5
1.2
3.0
1.7
1.2
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.3
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.6
1.7
2.0
0.1
0.8
0.6
1.3
0.7
59.1
28.6
29.4
36.8
27.3
51.3
18.5
14.9
24.3
23.0
16.0
49.8
39.7
23.1
29.5
DS3
7 Kenny Court
LCR
1st Draw
0)
E
i—
0
'1
TO
&
hr
12.0
11.8
8.0
12.0
NA
8.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
7.8
>6.0
11.0
7.8
7.8
NA
8.5
m
Q.
S.U.
7.9
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
&
c
1
<
mg/L
379
368
357
356
347
359
357
358
398
382
396
368
410
386
373
371
375
3
ra/L
29.8
30.9
50.3
31.2
3.9
2.8
2.1
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.3
1.8
1.5
2.7
2.6
3.3
2.4
£
ra/L
<25
<25
268
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
C
^
m/L
34.9
19.7
34.7
42.2
1.4
3.8
1.5
1.7
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.1
0.5
1.2
0.1
0.5
1.1
_Q
Q.
ra/L
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8
<0.1
1.0
0.3
0.9
1.4
0.6
0
ra/L
32.6
81.7
36.5
74.0
25.9
23.3
32.4
41.3
18.7
44.6
104
61.2
37.5
28.3
47.0
44.1
42.4
NS = not sampled; NA = not analyzed; BL = Baseline Sampling
(a) DS1 and DS2 sampled at different locations as discussed in Section 3.3.5.
(b) DS1 sampled on 06/13/05.
(c) DS3 sampled on 05/18/06.
(d) DS2 sampled on 07/25/06.
(e) DS2 Sampled on 02/08/07.
-------
18
16
14
12 •]
5 10 •
01
o
o
o
/\s Breakthrough at
the Lag Vessel
09/12/07
-e-TB
n DS1
A DS2
o DS3
10
15 20 25
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (xlOOO)
30
35
40
4.6
Figure 4-18. Comparsion of Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System
Water and Treatment System Effluent
(BV based on 124 ft3 of media)
System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking capital cost for the equipment,
site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, replacement
parts, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
treatment system was $179,750 (see Table 4-16). The equipment cost was $124,103 (or 69% of the total
capital investment), which included $86,642 forthe skid-mounted APU-30S unit, $18,858 for the SORB
33™ media ($152/ft3 or $4.35/lb to fill two vessels), $8,393 for shipping, and $10,211 for labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing a submittal package for the exception request to
system piloting and a follow-up permit application to TCEQ by Oak Manor MUD. The permit submittal
package was prepared by SCL Engineering, the District's Engineer (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering
cost was $14,000, or 8% 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
startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $41,647, or 23% of the total capital
investment.
50
-------
The total capital cost of $179,750 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 150 gpm
(216,000 gpd), which resulted in $l,198/gpm (or $0.83/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was
converted to an annualized cost of $16,967/yr using acapital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a
7% interest rate and a 20-year return period (Chen et al, 2004). Assuming that the system operated 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, at the system design flowrate of 150 gpm to produce 78,624,000 gal of water
per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.22/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 6.7
hr/day at 129 gpm (see Table 4-6), producing 18,928,170 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
increased to $0.90/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.
Table 4-16. Capital Investment for Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
APU-30S Skid Mounted System
SORB 33™ Media
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
1
124 ft3
-
-
-
$86,642
$18,858
$8,393
$10,211
$124,103
-
-
-
-
69%
Engineering
Subcontractor Labor/Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
$14,000
$14,000
-
8%
Installation
Subcontractor Labor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$28,750
$4,913
$7,984
$41,647
$179,750
-
-
-
23%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for such items as
media replacement and disposal, electricity, chemical, and labor (Table 4-17). The media replacement
and disposal cost was $12,680, including cost for the replacement media for the lead vessel, freight, labor,
equipment, and media disposal. This cost was used to calculate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal
of water treated as a function of total throughput at!0-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag vessel.
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.
The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included chlorine addition prior
to the adsorption vessels. This treatment step was in use at the site prior to installation of the treatment
system. The treatment system did not have a significant effect on the chlorine gas usage based on the data
collected during the performance evaluation study. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for the
treatment system was negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
an average of 40.0 min/day. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.25/1,000 gal of water treated
based on this time commitment and a labor rate of $19.50/hr.
51
-------
Table 4-17. O&M Cost for APU-30S System
Cost Category
Value
Remarks
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media Replacement ($)
Shipping ($)
Subcontractor Labor ($)
Media Disposal ($)
Equipment
Subtotal
Media Replacement
and Disposal ($71,000 gal)
$7,940
$240
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$12,680
See Figure
4-19
48 ft3 (in lead vessel)
-
-
-
-
-
Based upon media run length at 10 ug/L
arsenic breakthrough at lag vessel
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($)
$0.00
No additional chemicals required
Electricity
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.00
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr/year)
Labor ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
243
$0.25
See Figure
4-19
40 mm/day
- Labor rate of $19.50/hr
-Annual throughput of 18,928,170 gal
—
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00 -
g) $8.00
o
8
5
« $6.00
$4.00 -
$2.00 -
$0.00
^—Total O&M cost
• Media replacement cost
12
16
36
40
20 24 28 32
Media Working Capacity (x1000 BV)
Note: One bed volume equals to 124 ft3 (or 927 gal) for both Vessels A and B
44
52
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement and O&M Cost for APU-30S System
52
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. 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. 2006. System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology Round 2 at Alvin, TX. 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.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75-79.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990. "Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron andMn.'" AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsbaugh. 1992. "Kinetic Modeling of Manganese(II) Oxidation
by Chlorine Dioxide and Potassium Permanganate." Environmental Science and Technology,
26(7): 1327-1333.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield,
OH, Final Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sorg, T.J. 2002. "Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected." Opflow, 28(11): 15.
53
-------
Severn Trent Services. 2006. SORB 33™As Removal Systems with Bayoxide® E33 Media Operation and
Maintenance Manual APU-30S - City ofAlvin, Texas.
Severn Trent Services. 2006. SORB 33™As Removal Systems with Bayoxide® E33 Media Vendor
Proposal for the APU-30S in Alvin, Texas.
TCEQ. 2007. Operator Training and Certification, http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
54
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
04/25/06'"'
04/26/06'"
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/1 0/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/1 4/06
05/1 5/06
05/1 6/06
05/1 7/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06'"
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/1 0/06
06/11/06
06/12/06'°'
06/13/06
06/1 4/06
06/1 5/06
06/1 6/06
06/1 7/06
06/1 8/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/24/06
06/25/06
Op
Time
hr
NA
8.5
6.5
8.4
NA
NA
21.7
4.5
8.6
7.4
11.2
5.9
6.9
9.8
7.7
7.5
10.0
9.3
8.4
10.8
28.4
14.8
9.2
10.0
7.0
NA
NA
31.1
10.6
8.2
12.6
7.7
NA
NA
34.2
10.7
6.8
5.1
7.5
6.1
NA
13.8
8.5
8.9
9.7
7.0
9.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
85.3
6.8
5.9
7.2
5.4
NA
Well!
Totalizer
kgal
1,244
1,268
1,283
1,309
NM
NM
1,369
1,381
1,405
1,425
1,455
1,469
1,491
1,518
1,539
1,559
1,587
1,612
1,639
1,678
1,740
1,779
1,803
1,830
1,850
NM
NM
1,935
1,964
1,986
2,022
2,042
NM
NM
2,137
2,165
2,182
2,198
2,218
2,233
NM
2,273
2,297
2,322
2,348
2,367
2,390
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2,626
2,646
2,659
2,681
2,696
NM
Well!
Average
Flow
gpm
47
47
38
52
NA
NA
46
44
47
45
45
NA
NA
46
45
44
47
45
NA
NA
36
44
43
45
48
NA
NA
46
46
45
48
43
NA
NA
46
44
42
52
44
41
NA
48
47
47
45
45
40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
46
49
37
51
46
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
858
911
951
1,014
1,052
NM
NM
1,222
1,274
1,292
1,318
1,358
1,389
NM
1,461
1,505
1,550
1,599
1,637
1,684
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2,081
2,121
2,148
2,188
2,214
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
83
81
83
82
NA
NA
83
81
44
85
89
85
NA
87
86
84
84
90
81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
98
76
93
80
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
138
139
147
NM
139
141
NM
NM
NM
141
off
147
141
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
147
139
141
off
137
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
1,223,042
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1,931,776
2,015,209
2,063,789
2,107,017
2,150,150
2,200,785
NM
2,310,687
NM
2,386,445
2,464,677
2,523,294
2,603,680
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3,304,162
3,368,383
3,411,585
3,472,230
3,517,645
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
129
130
119
141
96
138
NA
133
133
131
134
140
138
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
137
157
122
140
140
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
1,199,097
1,262,847
1,311,597
1,374,597
NA
NA
1,537,346
1,571,096
1,635,596
1,691,096
1,775,097
1,819,347
1,871,097
1,944,597
2,002,347
2,058,597
2,133,597
2,203,347
2,266,347
2,347,347
2,560,347
2,671,347
2,734,847
2,809,847
2,862,347
NA
NA
3,095,597
3,177,597
3,239,597
3,338,597
3,396,597
NA
NA
3,661,597
3,745,030
3,793,610
3,836,838
3,879,971
3,930,606
NA
4,040,508
4,108,508
4,178,508
4,256,740
4,315,357
4,395,743
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,096,225
5,160,446
5,203,648
5,264,293
5,309,708
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
1,294
1,362
1,415
1,483
NA
NA
1,658
1,695
1,764
1,824
1,915
1,963
2,018
2,098
2,160
2,221
2,302
2,377
2,445
2,532
2,762
2,882
2,950
3,031
3,088
NA
NA
3,339
3,428
3,495
3,602
3,664
NA
NA
3,950
4,040
4,092
4,139
4,186
4,240
NA
4,359
4,432
4,508
4,592
4,655
4,742
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,498
5,567
5,613
5,679
5,728
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
2.50
3.50
3.00
off
NM
NM
3.50
3.50
3.50
off
3.75
3.75
4.00
4.25
off
4.50
4.25
5.00
off
6.00
8.50
8.50
3.50
3.75
3.75
NM
NM
off
4.00
4.00
off
4.00
NM
NM
4.75
5.00
3.75
4.00
3.50
3.75
NM
4.00
4.25
4.50
off
4.50
5.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.25
4.25
4.50
off
4.25
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
2.50
3.50
3.00
off
NM
NM
3.25
3.00
3.00
off
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
off
3.00
2.75
2.75
off
2.25
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
NM
NM
off
2.75
3.00
off
3.00
NM
NM
3.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
NM
3.25
3.50
3.00
off
3.25
3.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.50
3.25
3.25
off
3.25
NM
System
AP
psig
13.0
14.0
14.0
NA
NA
NA
13.0
14.0
13.0
NA
15.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
NA
13.0
13.0
15.0
NA
17.0
16.0
18.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
NA
NA
NA
14.0
15.0
NA
14.0
NA
NA
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
14.0
NA
16.0
16.0
16.0
NA
16.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
15.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/01/06
07/02/06
07/03/06
07/04/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/08/06
07/09/06
07/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/1 6/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
07/30/06
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/05/06
08/06/06
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/1 3/06
08/14/06
08/15/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/061"
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
Op
Time
hr
15.0
8.6
10.3
7.9
8.9
NA
NA
NA
26.1
8.7
6.6
5.6
7.5
NA
14.4
4.4
7.3
8.2
7.1
6.9
NA
16.7
8.7
6.0
6.2
4.0
NA
13.5
5.7
6.2
5.7
4.2
6.5
5.6
NA
14.3
8.3
6.7
6.1
8.2
3.4
NA
14.6
6.1
5.7
10.0
5.3
5.4
NA
17.8
7.4
7.3
6.9
10.1
6.3
NA
15.3
6.1
7.9
4.7
6.5
5.8
NA
Well 1
Totalizer
kgal
2,737
2,761
2,789
2,810
2,834
NM
NM
NM
2,900
2,923
2,942
2,957
2,975
NM
3,016
3,028
3,046
3,069
3,088
3,107
NM
3,153
3,177
3,191
3,209
3,221
NM
3,258
3,273
3,290
3,305
3,316
3,335
3,349
NM
3,387
3,410
3,428
3,444
3,467
3,476
NM
3,515
3,531
3,546
3,574
3,588
3,602
NM
3,652
3,672
3,690
3,710
3,738
3,756
NM
3,795
3,812
3,834
3,846
3,864
3,879
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
46
47
45
44
45
NA
NA
NA
42
44
48
45
40
NA
47
45
41
47
45
46
NA
46
46
39
48
50
NA
46
44
46
44
44
49
42
NA
44
46
45
44
47
44
NA
45
44
44
47
44
43
NA
47
45
41
48
46
48
NA
42
46
46
43
46
43
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
2,291
2,335
2,387
2,427
2,471
NM
NM
NM
2,598
2,643
2,676
2,705
2,741
NM
2,817
2,839
2,876
2,918
2,956
2,989
NM
3,075
3,122
3,154
3,183
3,207
NM
3,277
3,306
3,339
3,368
3,390
3,425
3,456
NM
3,525
3,568
3,603
3,635
3,677
3,694
NM
3,770
3,801
3,831
3,883
3,912
3,941
NM
,034
,073
,109
,147
,199
,236
NM
,312
,344
,385
,410
,444
,475
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
86
85
84
84
82
NA
NA
NA
81
86
83
86
80
NA
88
83
84
85
89
80
NA
86
90
89
78
100
NA
86
85
89
85
87
90
92
NA
80
86
87
87
85
83
NA
87
85
88
87
91
90
NA
87
88
82
92
86
98
NA
83
87
86
89
87
89
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
144
off
140
137
off
NM
NM
NM
134
136
140
139
139
NM
133
144
137
138
131
138
NM
138
off
141
off
134
NM
off
135
off
137
136
127
132
NM
130
132
off
141
off
122
NM
off
131
133
off
129
126
NM
126
off
125
129
off
130
NM
off
126
off
128
122
126
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
3,644,307
3,713,347
3,798,059
3,861,720
3,932,777
NM
NM
NM
4,112,690
4,184,622
4,238,853
4,284,523
4,341,954
NM
4,463,729
4,498,496
4,532,646
4,599,386
4,652,797
4,708,628
NM
4,842,012
4,913,506
4,961,891
5,007,671
5,044,209
NM
5,152,592
5,197,865
5,247,778
5,293,620
5,326,234
5,379,462
5,423,999
NM
5,527,735
5,587,260
5,635,693
5,679,966
5,739,258
5,763,379
NM
5,869,392
5,913,936
5,955,885
6,028,701
6,068,951
6,109,366
NM
6,241,936
6,297,782
6,350,079
6,404,035
6,479,813
6,531,033
NM
6,640,748
6,686,472
6,743,842
6,778,677
6,826,067
6,868,299
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
141
134
137
134
133
NA
NA
NA
115
138
137
136
128
NA
141
132
78
136
125
122
NA
133
137
134
123
152
NA
134
132
134
134
129
136
133
NA
121
120
120
121
121
118
NA
121
122
123
103
127
125
NA
124
126
119
130
125
121
NA
120
125
121
124
122
106
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
5,436,370
5,505,410
5,590,122
5,653,783
5,724,840
NA
NA
NA
5,904,753
5,976,685
6,030,916
6,076,586
6,134,017
NA
6,255,792
6,290,559
6,324,709
6,391,449
6,444,860
6,495,191
NA
6,628,575
6,700,069
6,748,454
6,794,234
6,830,772
NA
6,939,155
6,984,428
7,034,341
7,080,183
7,112,797
7,166,025
7,210,562
NA
7,314,298
7,373,823
7,422,256
7,466,529
7,525,821
7,549,942
NA
7,655,955
7,700,499
7,742,448
7,804,454
7,844,704
7,885,119
NA
8,017,689
8,073,535
8,125,832
8,179,788
8,255,566
8,301,286
NA
8,411,001
8,456,725
8,514,095
8,548,930
8,596,320
8,633,052
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
5,864
5,939
6,030
6,099
6,176
NA
NA
NA
6,370
6,447
6,506
6,555
6,617
NA
6,748
6,786
6,823
6,895
6,952
7,007
NA
7,151
7,228
7,280
7,329
7,369
NA
7,486
7,534
7,588
7,638
7,673
7,730
7,778
NA
7,890
7,955
8,007
8,055
8,118
8,144
NA
8,259
8,307
8,352
8,419
8,462
8,506
NA
8,649
8,709
8,766
8,824
8,906
8,955
NA
9,073
9,123
9,185
9,222
9,273
9,313
NA
Vessel A
ip
psi
5.50
off
5.75
7.00
off
NM
NM
NM
5.50
5.75
6.50
6.50
7.50
NM
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
9.00
3.25
NM
4.00
off
4.50
off
5.50
NM
off
7.50
off
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.50
NM
8.00
8.50
off
8.50
off
8.00
NM
off
8.75
8.75
off
3.75
4.00
NM
5.00
off
5.50
5.75
off
5.75
NM
off
6.00
off
6.25
6.50
6.25
NM
Vessel B
ip
psi
3.00
off
3.25
3.00
off
NM
NM
NM
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.50
3.00
NM
3.75
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
NM
3.00
off
3.00
off
3.50
NM
off
3.50
off
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NM
3.00
3.25
off
3.50
off
3.50
NM
off
3.75
3.75
off
3.00
3.00
NM
3.25
off
3.00
3.25
off
3.24
NM
off
3.00
off
3.00
3.00
3.00
NM
System
ip
psig
15.0
NA
17.0
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.0
18.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
NA
17.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
18.0
16.0
NA
16.0
NA
18.0
NA
18.0
NA
NA
16.0
NA
19.0
20.0
18.0
18.0
NA
17.0
19.0
NA
20.0
NA
18.0
NA
NA
17.0
18.0
NA
15.0
16.0
NA
15.0
NA
16.0
17.0
NA
16.0
NA
NA
17.0
NA
17.0
16.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
429,000
489,000
557,000
617,000
663,000
NM
811,000
878,000
929,000
977,000
1,016,000
NM
1,129,000
1,177,000
1,229,000
1,277,000
1,312,000
1,369,000
1,419,000
NM
1,530,000
1,599,000
1,656,000
1,707,000
1,776,000
1,804,000
NM
1,926,000
1,977,000
2,025,000
2,100,000
2,146,000
2,192,000
NM
2,343,000
2,406,000
2,464,000
2,522,000
2,610,000
2,672,000
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
137
138
141
111
NA
148
128
142
129
163
NA
140
140
140
140
139
146
149
NA
129
139
142
139
140
137
NA
139
139
140
125
145
142
NA
141
142
132
140
145
164
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Date
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06™
09/05/06
09/06/06™
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/1 0/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/1 7/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
1 0/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/14/06
1 0/1 5/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/21/06
1 0/22/06
10/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
10/28/06
1 0/29/06
Op
Time
hr
9.5
4.9
7.9
5.3
6.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.1
11.1
7.6
NA
NA
19.2
4.5
5.0
7.4
4.0
7.1
NA
10.6
4.7
7.3
4.5
5.7
7.0
NA
12.3
4.0
3.7
6.7
2.7
NA
NA
18.0
5.2
3.0
5.2
6.1
NA
NA
20.6
4.8
4.4
5.7
3.1
NA
NA
17.0
3.1
4.6
4.6
4.5
NA
NA
14.9
4.8
4.6
4.5
4.9
NA
NA
Well 1
Totalizer
kgal
3,905
3,918
3,940
3,954
3,972
NM
NM
NM
NM
4,080
4,109
4,129
NM
NM
4,180
4,192
4,206
4,225
4,236
4,253
NM
4,282
4,295
4,315
4,328
4,343
4,362
NM
4,398
4,408
4,419
4,437
4,444
NM
NM
4,497
4,511
4,520
4,534
4,550
NM
NM
4,606
4,619
4,631
4,646
4,655
NM
NM
4,700
4,708
4,721
4,733
4,745
NM
NM
4,784
4,797
4,809
4,821
4,834
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
46
44
46
44
43
NA
NA
NA
NA
45
44
44
NA
NA
44
44
47
43
46
40
NA
46
46
46
48
44
45
NA
49
42
50
45
43
NA
NA
49
45
50
45
44
NA
NA
45
45
45
44
48
NA
NA
44
43
47
43
44
NA
NA
44
45
43
44
44
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
4,525
4,551
4,593
4,620
4,657
NM
NM
NM
NM
4,863
4,919
4,957
NM
NM
5,057
5,080
5,106
5,145
5,167
5,202
NM
5,256
5,281
5,321
5,345
5,376
5,415
NM
5,480
5,503
5,522
5,559
5,573
NM
NM
5,678
5,708
5,725
5,753
5,785
NM
NM
5,895
5,922
5,946
5,976
5,993
NM
NM
6,084
6,101
6,126
6,151
6,176
NM
NM
6,255
6,281
6,305
6,330
6,355
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
88
88
89
85
89
NA
NA
NA
NA
86
84
83
NA
NA
87
85
87
88
92
82
NA
85
89
91
89
91
93
NA
88
96
86
92
86
NA
NA
97
96
94
90
87
NA
NA
89
94
91
88
91
NA
NA
89
91
91
91
93
NA
NA
88
90
87
93
85
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
124
133
off
117
128
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
off
off
NM
off
NM
off
142
138
NM
NM
off
133
131
133
off
NM
NM
121
off
128
off
133
NM
NM
123
off
126
off
118
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
6,938,879
6,972,660
7,030,197
7,068,971
7,119,467
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
7,793,016
7,834,501
7,880,991
NM
NM
8,039,652
8,077,869
8,113,039
8,156,598
8,180,153
NM
NM
8,309,040
8,332,174
8,366,560
8,400,428
8,433,876
NM
NM
8,540,793
8,572,904
8,605,761
8,636,099
8,669,044
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
124
115
121
122
122
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
133
127
NA
NA
128
133
133
127
127
NA
NA
126
124
125
123
124
NA
NA
120
111
119
112
112
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
8,703,632
8,737,413
8,794,950
8,833,724
8,884,220
NA
NA
NA
NA
9,198,220
9,283,220
9,341,220
NA
NA
9,492,220
9,527,220
9,567,220
9,625,220
9,658,220
9,710,220
NA
9,793,220
9,831,220
9,891,220
9,928,220
9,974,220
10,032,220
NA
10,133,220
10,166,220
10,196,220
10,251,220
10,272,220
NA
NA
10,430,220
10,474,220
10,500,220
10,541,705
10,588,195
NA
NA
10,746,856
10,785,073
10,820,243
10,863,802
10,887,357
NA
NA
11,016,244
11,039,378
11,073,764
11,107,632
11,141,080
NA
NA
11,247,997
11,280,108
11,312,965
11,343,303
11,376,248
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
9,389
9,425
9,488
9,529
9,584
NA
NA
NA
NA
9,923
10,014
10,077
NA
NA
10,240
10,277
10,321
10,383
10,419
10,475
NA
10,564
10,605
10,670
10,710
10,760
10,822
NA
10,931
10,967
10,999
1 1 ,058
11,081
NA
NA
1 1 ,252
1 1 ,299
1 1 ,327
1 1 ,372
1 1 ,422
NA
NA
1 1 ,593
1 1 ,634
1 1 ,672
11,719
1 1 ,745
NA
NA
1 1 ,884
1 1 ,909
1 1 ,946
1 1 ,982
12,018
NA
NA
12,134
12,168
12,204
12,237
12,272
NA
NA
Vessel A
ip
psi
6.50
6.75
off
7.00
7.25
NM
NM
NM
NM
7.75
off
8.00
NM
NM
off
9.50
9.50
off
9.75
9.75
NM
9.75
10.00
3.25
4.00
4.00
4.25
NM
off
4.50
5.00
5.00
off
off
NM
off
4.75
off
5.00
5.50
NM
NM
off
6.25
6.25
7.00
off
NM
NM
6.25
off
6.75
off
7.50
NM
NM
9.00
off
9.00
off
9.25
NM
NM
Vessel B
ip
psi
3.25
3.25
off
3.00
3.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.00
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
3.00
3.25
off
3.00
3.00
NM
3.00
3.75
3.25
3.50
3.25
3.00
NM
off
3.00
3.50
4.00
off
off
NM
off
3.25
off
3.50
3.50
NM
NM
off
3.75
3.00
3.00
off
NM
NM
2.75
off
3.00
off
3.25
NM
NM
3.75
off
3.50
off
3.50
NM
NM
System
ip
psig
16.0
16.0
NA
17.0
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
20.0
21.0
NA
20.0
21.0
NA
21.0
21.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
NA
NA
16.0
18.0
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
NA
16.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
16.0
16.0
15.0
NA
NA
NA
17.0
NA
17.0
NA
16.0
NA
NA
19.0
NA
20.0
NA
20.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3,074,000
3,109,000
3,166,000
3,205,000
3,252,000
3,308,000
NM
3,418,000
3,454,000
3,483,000
3,539,000
3,562,000
NM
NM
3,724,000
3,770,000
3,796,000
3,840,000
3,891,000
NM
NM
4,064,000
4,105,000
4,142,000
4,189,000
4,215,000
NM
NM
4,362,000
4,377,000
4,395,000
4,428,000
4,460,000
NM
NM
4,573,000
4,611,000
4,650,000
4,688,000
4,728,000
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
124
130
144
137
133
NA
149
150
131
139
142
NA
NA
150
147
144
141
139
NA
NA
140
142
140
137
140
NA
NA
144
NA
NA
120
119
NA
NA
126
132
141
141
136
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Date
10/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
11/04/06
11/05/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/11/06
11/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
11/18/06
11/19/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/23/06
11/24/06
11/25/06
11/26/06
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/29/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
12/02/06
12/03/06
12/04/06
12/05/06
12/06/06
12/07/06
12/08/06
12/09/06
1 2/1 0/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
12/14/06
12/15/06
12/16/06
1 2/1 7/06
12/18/06™
12/19/06
12/20/06
12/21/06
12/22/06
12/23/06
12/24/06
12/25/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
12/28/06
12/29/06
12/30/06
12/31/06
Op
Time
hr
16.5
6.0
5.5
2.8
5.9
NA
NA
13.8
5.0
4.7
4.5
5.4
NA
NA
14.9
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.5
NA
NA
16.8
5.1
5.4
8.8
10.0
NA
NA
17.5
3.3
4.5
4.9
8.4
NA
NA
NA
19.6
8.0
2.6
4.8
NA
NA
15.6
5.6
6.9
2.5
5.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.9
3.7
7.9
3.0
5.1
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
4,877
4,893
4,908
4,916
4,932
NM
NM
4,969
4,983
4,996
5,008
5,022
NM
NM
5,062
5,075
5,087
5,099
5,113
NM
NM
5,157
5,171
5,185
5,208
5,236
NM
NM
5,282
5,290
5,302
5,315
5,336
NM
NM
NM
5,388
5,410
5,417
5,430
NM
NM
5,473
5,487
5,506
5,512
5,528
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5,677
5,687
5,708
5,716
5,730
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
43
44
45
48
45
NA
NA
45
47
46
44
43
NA
NA
45
48
42
41
52
NA
NA
44
46
43
44
47
NA
NA
44
40
44
44
42
NA
NA
NA
44
46
45
45
NA
NA
46
42
46
40
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44
45
44
44
46
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
6,443
6,474
6,505
6,521
6,554
NM
NM
6,629
6,656
6,682
6,707
6,745
NM
NM
6,818
6,842
6,868
6,892
6,919
NM
NM
7,010
7,037
7,065
7,112
7,164
NM
NM
7,257
7,276
7,298
7,324
7,368
NM
NM
NM
7,471
7,516
7,530
7,556
NM
NM
7,642
7,673
7,710
7,724
7,755
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
8,027
8,047
8,089
8,105
8,132
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
89
86
94
95
93
NA
NA
91
90
92
93
117
NA
NA
82
89
90
82
100
NA
NA
90
88
86
89
87
NA
NA
89
96
81
88
87
NA
NA
NA
88
94
90
90
NA
NA
92
92
89
93
92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81
90
89
89
88
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
113
off
123
off
131
NM
NM
127
off
off
130
123
NM
NM
130
129
131
off
off
NM
NM
129
132
134
off
off
NM
NM
off
128
off
127
121
NM
NM
NM
139
off
129
135
NM
NM
off
129
133
off
125
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
118
126
113
123
off
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
8,777,005
8,804,665
8,831,308
8,861,118
8,906,557
NM
NM
9,011,500
9,048,578
9,084,251
9,126,133
9,160,760
NM
NM
9,274,788
9,307,581
9,344,528
9,377,930
9,414,780
NM
NM
9,541,056
9,579,089
9,617,440
9,683,133
9,755,880
NM
NM
9,879,410
9,909,334
9,940,895
9,980,119
10,037,765
NM
NM
NM
10,143,913
10,202,219
10,221,707
10,240,607
NM
NM
10,356,802
10,399,393
10,450,383
10,469,096
10,512,331
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
10,905,508
10,931,651
10,988,360
11,009,551
11,045,572
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
109
77
68
177
128
NA
NA
127
124
126
155
107
NA
NA
128
121
128
114
136
NA
NA
125
124
118
124
121
NA
NA
118
151
117
133
114
NA
NA
NA
90
111
125
66
NA
NA
124
127
123
125
129
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
117
118
120
118
118
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
11,484,209
11,511,869
11,534,293
11,564,103
11,609,542
NA
NA
11,714,485
11,751,563
11,787,236
11,829,118
11,863,745
NA
NA
11,977,773
12,010,566
12,047,513
12,080,915
12,117,765
NA
NA
12,244,041
12,282,074
12,320,425
12,386,118
12,458,865
NA
NA
12,582,395
12,612,319
12,643,880
12,683,104
12,740,750
NA
NA
NA
12,846,898
12,900,304
12,919,792
12,938,692
NA
NA
13,054,887
13,097,478
13,148,468
13,167,181
13,210,416
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13,603,593
13,629,736
13,686,445
13,707,636
13,743,657
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
12,389
12,418
12,443
12,475
12,524
NA
NA
12,637
12,677
12,715
12,761
12,798
NA
NA
12,921
12,956
12,996
13,032
13,072
NA
NA
13,208
13,249
13,291
13,362
13,440
NA
NA
13,573
13,606
13,640
13,682
13,744
NA
NA
NA
13,859
13,916
13,937
13,958
NA
NA
14,083
14,129
14,184
14,204
14,251
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14,675
14,703
14,764
14,787
14,826
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
10.25
10.50
3.75
off
4.25
NM
NM
5.50
off
off
5.50
5.50
NM
NM
6.00
6.00
6.50
off
off
NM
NM
7.25
7.25
7.50
off
off
NM
NM
off
9.75
off
10.00
10.00
NM
NM
NM
11.00
off
4.00
4.50
NM
NM
off
5.50
5.50
off
6.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
8.00
8.25
8.00
8.00
off
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.25
3.00
3.00
off
3.25
NM
NM
3.75
off
off
3.25
3.25
NM
NM
3.50
3.50
3.50
off
off
NM
NM
3.75
3.50
3.50
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.50
off
3.50
3.00
NM
NM
NM
3.50
off
3.50
4.00
NM
NM
off
3.50
3.25
off
3.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.00
3.50
3.00
3.00
off
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
NM
off
NM
off
NM
NA
NA
15.0
NA
NA
15.0
14.0
NA
NA
16.0
15.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
18.0
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.0
NA
19.0
18.0
NA
NA
NA
19.0
NA
14.0
15.0
NA
NA
NA
15.0
15.0
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
4,867,000
4,915,000
4,955,000
4,978,000
5,028,000
NM
NM
5,146,000
5,189,000
5,229,000
5,269,000
5,315,000
NM
NM
5,445,000
5,481,000
5,522,000
5,567,000
5,602,000
NM
NM
5,747,000
5,788,000
5,831,000
5,907,000
5,990,000
NM
NM
6,137,000
6,169,000
6,202,000
6,243,000
6,313,000
NM
NM
NM
6,475,000
6,537,000
6,560,000
6,601,000
NM
NM
6,736,000
6,785,000
6,844,000
6,865,000
6,914,000
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
7,386,000
7,421,000
7,487,000
7,512,000
7,555,000
NM
NM
Ettluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
140
133
121
137
141
NA
NA
143
143
142
148
142
NA
NA
145
133
142
153
130
NA
NA
144
134
133
144
138
NA
NA
140
162
122
139
139
NA
NA
NA
138
129
147
142
NA
NA
144
146
143
140
146
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
141
158
139
139
141
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date
01/01/07
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/04/07
01/05/07
01/06/07
01/07/07
01/08/07
01/09/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12/07
01/13/07
01/14/07
01/15/07'"
01/16/07
01/17/07
01/18/07
01/19/07
01/20/07
01/21/07
01/22/07
01/23/07
01/24/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/27/07
01/28/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
02/04/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
02/1 1/07
02/12/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
02/17/07
02/1 8/07
02/19/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02/24/07
02/25/07
02/26/07
02/27/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/02/07
03/03/07
03/04/07
Op
Time
hr
17.5
4.7
4.5
5.3
5.1
NA
NA
17.8
5.9
6.6
2.6
8.2
NA
NA
18.5
8.1
6.5
6.5
7.4
NA
NA
22.1
6.5
6.0
7.4
6.9
NA
NA
23.3
7.6
7.6
3.0
9.8
NA
NA
17.9
6.2
5.9
5.4
7.1
NA
NA
18.8
5.7
5.6
5.4
6.1
NA
NA
17.9
5.0
4.6
7.5
3.7
NA
NA
20.4
6.0
6.1
5.3
9.0
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
5,775
5,787
5,799
5,813
5,827
NM
NM
5,873
5,888
5,905
5,912
5,933
NM
NM
5,982
6,003
6,020
6,037
6,055
NM
NM
6,111
6,127
6,142
6,161
6,178
NM
NM
6,234
6,252
6,271
6,280
6,307
NM
NM
6,354
6,371
6,385
6,400
6,419
NM
NM
6,468
6,483
6,497
6,512
6,528
NM
NM
6,575
6,588
6,599
6,619
6,629
NM
NM
6,681
6,697
6,713
6,726
6,749
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
43
43
44
44
46
NA
NA
43
42
43
45
43
NA
NA
44
43
44
44
41
NA
NA
42
41
42
43
41
NA
NA
40
39
42
50
46
NA
NA
44
46
40
46
45
NA
NA
43
44
42
46
44
NA
NA
44
43
40
44
45
NA
NA
42
44
44
41
43
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
8,226
8,250
8,274
8,301
8,329
NM
NM
8,423
8,454
8,487
8,502
8,546
NM
NM
8,614
8,656
8,689
8,723
8,761
NM
NM
8,871
8,904
8,934
8,970
9,003
NM
NM
9,113
9,149
9,185
9,200
9,255
NM
NM
9,350
9,383
9,414
9,443
9,481
NM
NM
9,580
9,611
9,640
9,669
9,703
NM
NM
9,797
9,823
9,842
9,872
9,891
NM
NM
9,997
10,028
10,060
10,087
10,132
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
90
85
89
85
92
NA
NA
88
88
83
96
89
NA
NA
61
86
85
87
86
NA
NA
83
85
83
81
80
NA
NA
79
79
79
83
94
NA
NA
88
89
88
90
89
NA
NA
88
91
86
90
93
NA
NA
88
87
69
67
86
NA
NA
87
86
87
85
83
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
115
116
off
off
off
NM
NM
122
114
off
117
off
NM
NM
NM
off
off
off
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
off
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
off
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
11,171,274
11,203,438
11,216,062
11,252,654
11,288,819
NM
NM
11,412,750
11,452,700
11,495,550
11,513,999
11,568,711
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
120
114
NA
115
118
NA
NA
116
113
108
118
111
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
13,869,359
13,901,523
13,937,523
13,974,115
14,010,280
NA
NA
14,134,211
14,174,161
14,217,011
14,235,460
14,290,172
NA
NA
14,407,172
14,470,172
14,520,172
14,571,172
14,627,172
NA
NA
14,793,172
14,842,172
14,887,172
14,942,172
14,992,172
NA
NA
15,158,172
15,212,172
15,261,345
15,285,345
15,367,345
NA
NA
15,509,345
15,559,345
15,604,345
15,648,345
15,705,345
NA
NA
15,853,345
15,899,345
15,942,345
15,986,345
16,036,345
NA
NA
16,177,345
16,216,345
16,246,345
16,296,345
16,325,345
NA
NA
16,483,345
16,530,345
16,578,345
16,618,345
16,686,345
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
14,962
14,996
15,035
15,075
15,114
NA
NA
15,247
15,290
15,337
15,356
15,416
NA
NA
15,542
15,610
15,664
15,719
15,779
NA
NA
15,958
16,011
16,060
16,119
16,173
NA
NA
16,352
16,410
16,463
16,489
16,578
NA
NA
16,731
16,785
16,833
16,881
16,942
NA
NA
17,102
17,151
17,198
17,245
17,299
NA
NA
17,451
17,493
17,526
17,580
17,611
NA
NA
17,781
17,832
17,884
17,927
18,000
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
10.00
10.00
off
off
off
NM
NM
11.00
11.00
off
7.00
off
NM
NM
9.00
off
off
off
12.00
NM
NM
off
13.00
13.00
off
13.25
NM
NM
off
off
4.25
4.50
off
NM
NM
off
7.25
8.00
8.25
off
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
7.00
NM
NM
8.50
9.00
9.25
9.75
10.00
NM
NM
off
off
off
11.25
11.30
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.00
3.00
off
off
off
NM
NM
3.00
3.00
off
3.75
off
NM
NM
3.00
off
off
off
3.00
NM
NM
off
4.00
3.75
off
4.00
NM
NM
off
off
3.00
3.25
off
NM
NM
off
3.25
3.00
3.60
off
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
3.00
NM
NM
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.25
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
3.00
3.00
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
20.0
20.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.0
19.0
NA
17.0
NA
NA
NA
16.0
NA
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
17.0
20.0
NA
21.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.0
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.0
18.0
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.0
NA
NA
18.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
21.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
7,703,000
7,741,000
7,779,000
7,822,000
7,865,000
NM
NM
8,014,000
8,061,000
8,114,000
8,137,000
8,205,000
NM
NM
8,361,000
8,426,000
8,479,000
8,531,000
8,590,000
NM
NM
8,764,000
8,811,000
8,862,000
8,919,000
8,972,000
NM
NM
9,147,000
9,204,000
9,260,000
9,283,000
9,368,000
NM
NM
9,517,000
9,568,000
9,618,000
9,662,000
9,722,000
NM
NM
9,878,000
9,926,000
9,972,000
10,017,000
10,066,000
NM
NM
10,217,000
10,258,000
10,295,000
10,358,000
10,388,000
NM
NM
10,554,000
10,602,000
10,652,000
10,697,000
10,767,000
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
141
135
141
135
141
NA
NA
140
133
134
147
138
NA
NA
141
134
136
133
133
NA
NA
131
121
142
128
128
NA
NA
125
125
123
128
145
NA
NA
139
137
141
136
141
NA
NA
138
140
137
139
134
NA
NA
141
137
134
140
135
NA
NA
136
133
137
142
130
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Date
03/05/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
03/08/07
03/09/07
03/10/07
03/1 1/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/16/07
03/17/07
03/18/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/22/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
03/25/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
03/31/07
04/01/07
04/02/07'"
04/03/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
04/06/07
04/07/07
04/08/07
04/09/07
04/10/07
04/1 1/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
04/14/07
04/15/07
04/16/07
04/17/07
04/18/07
04/19/07
04/20/07
04/21/07
04/22/07
04/23/07
04/24/07
04/25/07
04/26/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
04/29/07
04/30/07
05/01/07
05/02/07
05/03/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
05/06/07
Op
Time
hr
24.3
8.7
6.2
6.5
5.1
NA
NA
23.2
6.3
5.0
6.2
5.3
NA
NA
20.6
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.5
NA
NA
21.0
6.4
6.6
6.2
5.5
NA
NA
20.1
6.0
7.1
6.4
6.1
NA
NA
22.3
6.4
8.1
7.2
6.5
NA
NA
18.6
5.7
6.1
5.5
6.1
NA
NA
18.7
5.5
6.2
5.2
6.9
NA
NA
18.5
5.9
6.1
6.6
5.7
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
6,811
6,832
6,855
6,864
6,878
NM
NM
6,939
6,954
6,964
6,980
6,994
NM
NM
7,049
7,070
7,081
7,096
7,114
NM
NM
7,169
7,186
7,202
7,219
7,233
NM
NM
7,285
7,301
7,318
7,336
7,351
NM
NM
7,409
7,425
7,446
7,465
7,482
NM
NM
7,530
7,545
7,561
7,576
7,592
NM
NM
7,640
7,654
7,670
7,685
7,702
NM
NM
7,749
7,765
7,780
7,799
7,813
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
43
40
62
23
46
NA
NA
44
40
33
43
44
NA
NA
44
56
31
42
46
NA
NA
44
44
40
46
42
NA
NA
43
44
40
47
41
NA
NA
43
42
43
44
44
NA
NA
43
44
44
45
44
NA
NA
43
42
43
48
41
NA
NA
42
45
41
48
41
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
10,255
10,297
10,319
10,361
10,387
NM
NM
10,500
10,531
10,559
10,593
10,622
NM
NM
10,731
10,765
10,796
10,829
10,864
NM
NM
10,976
11,010
11,044
11,077
11,108
NM
NM
11,213
11,244
11,281
11,315
11,346
NM
NM
11,463
11,494
11,539
11,578
11,612
NM
NM
11,711
11,741
11,774
11,804
1 1 ,836
NM
NM
11,935
11,965
11,997
12,025
12,062
NM
NM
12,159
12,191
12,222
12,257
12,288
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
84
80
59
108
85
NA
NA
81
82
93
91
91
NA
NA
88
90
86
92
90
NA
NA
89
89
86
89
94
NA
NA
87
86
87
89
85
NA
NA
87
81
93
90
87
NA
NA
89
88
90
91
87
NA
NA
88
91
86
90
89
NA
NA
87
90
85
88
91
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
off
NM
151
133
NM
NM
136
off
off
off
147
NM
NM
off
off
127
off
133
NM
NM
off
138
136
133
off
NM
NM
off
NM
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
141
141
142
off
NM
NM
off
off
134
127
off
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
12,208,714
12,261,234
NM
NM
12,431,523
12,482,936
12,535,977
12,573,640
12,607,263
NM
NM
NM
12,607,264
12,665,447
12,717,676
12,766,714
NM
NM
12,945,850
12,995,265
13,057,666
13,115,840
13,167,287
NM
NM
13,316,668
13,363,396
13,412,627
13,457,323
13,507,175
NM
NM
13,659,664
13,705,116
13,756,759
13,799,149
13,854,073
NM
NM
13,997,104
14,045,011
14,093,324
14,146,364
14,189,364
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
135
NA
NA
135
134
134
101
102
NA
NA
NA
NA
137
136
134
NA
NA
134
129
117
135
132
NA
NA
134
137
135
135
136
NA
NA
136
138
139
136
133
NA
NA
129
135
132
134
126
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
16,871,345
16,934,345
16,979,345
17,030,345
17,070,345
NA
NA
17,244,345
17,290,345
17,322,545
17,372,545
17,415,545
NA
NA
17,579,545
17,634,545
17,676,545
17,724,545
17,777,065
NA
NA
17,947,354
17,998,767
18,051,808
18,089,471
18,123,094
NA
NA
18,280,094
18,327,094
18,385,277
18,437,506
18,486,544
NA
NA
18,665,680
18,715,095
18,771,996
18,830,170
18,881,617
NA
NA
19,030,998
19,077,726
19,126,957
19,171,653
19,221,505
NA
NA
19,373,994
19,419,446
19,471,089
19,513,479
19,568,403
NA
NA
19,711,434
19,759,341
19,807,654
19,860,694
19,903,694
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
18,200
18,268
18,316
18,371
18,415
NA
NA
18,602
18,652
18,687
18,741
18,787
NA
NA
18,964
19,023
19,069
19,120
19,177
NA
NA
19,361
19,416
19,473
19,514
19,550
NA
NA
19,720
19,770
19,833
19,889
19,942
NA
NA
20,136
20,189
20,250
20,313
20,369
NA
NA
20,530
20,580
20,633
20,681
20,735
NA
NA
20,900
20,949
21,004
21,050
21,109
NA
NA
21,264
21,315
21,367
21,425
21,471
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
12.25
12.50
13.00
off
14.50
NM
NM
off
off
4.00
5.00
5.50
NM
NM
off
off
6.75
7.00
6.50
NM
NM
8.00
off
off
off
9.25
NM
NM
off
off
10.00
off
10.50
NM
NM
off
11.00
3.75
4.75
off
NM
NM
off
8.50
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
8.00
8.00
8.00
off
NM
NM
off
off
8.50
9.00
off
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.00
3.00
3.00
off
3.00
NM
NM
off
off
3.25
3.25
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
3.25
3.00
3.00
NM
NM
3.00
off
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
3.25
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
3.25
3.00
3.00
off
NM
NM
off
3.50
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.00
4.00
4.00
off
NM
NM
off
off
3.25
3.25
off
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
23.0
23.0
22.0
NA
24.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.0
14.0
14.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
17.0
18.0
NA
NA
17.0
NA
NA
NA
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.0
NA
20.0
NA
NA
NA
21.0
14.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.0
23.0
22.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
22.0
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
10,960,000
11,028,000
11,077,000
11,128,000
11,168,000
NM
NM
11,347,000
11,395,000
11,432,000
11,479,000
11,523,000
NM
NM
11,690,000
11,742,000
11,790,000
11,839,000
11,894,000
NM
NM
12,067,000
12,119,000
12,172,000
12,222,000
12,266,000
NM
NM
12,427,000
12,473,000
12,530,000
12,580,000
12,627,000
NM
NM
12,797,000
12,844,000
12,903,000
12,957,000
13,008,000
NM
NM
13,153,000
13,197,000
13,245,000
13,288,000
13,336,000
NM
NM
13,480,000
13,523,000
13,571,000
13,611,000
13,662,000
NM
NM
13,804,000
13,851,000
13,897,000
13,949,000
13,993,000
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
132
130
132
131
131
NA
NA
129
127
123
126
138
NA
NA
135
138
133
136
141
NA
NA
137
135
134
134
133
NA
NA
133
128
134
130
128
NA
NA
127
122
121
125
131
NA
NA
130
129
131
130
131
NA
NA
128
130
129
128
123
NA
NA
128
133
126
131
129
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System O
Week
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Date
05/07/07
05/08/07
05/09/07
05/10/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
05/13/07
05/14/07
05/15/07
05/16/07
05/17/07
05/18/07
05/19/07
05/20/07
05/21/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
05/24/07
05/25/07
05/26/07
05/27/07
05/28/07
05/29/07(e)
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/01/07
06/02/07
06/03/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
06/06/07
06/07/07
06/08/07
06/09/07
06/10/07
06/11/07
06/12/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
06/15/07
06/16/07
06/17/07
06/18/07"'
06/19/07
06/20/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
06/23/07
06/24/07
06/25/07
06/26/07'"
06/27/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
06/30/07
07/01/07
07/02/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
07/05/07
07/06/07
07/07/07
07/08/07
Op
Time
hr
19.2
6.7
4.2
9.6
6.1
NA
NA
21.0
6.1
7.3
9.1
7.0
NA
NA
29.3
9.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
NA
NA
19.9
11.1
7.7
11.1
4.7
NA
NA
23.0
7.4
17.4
8.5
8.9
NA
NA
21.8
10.1
5.8
9.7
11.9
NA
NA
18.1
4.0
9.3
8.6
6.5
NA
NA
21.3
4.6
6.3
8.8
6.5
NA
NA
21.0
7.0
3.5
7.9
4.0
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
7,862
7,879
7,889
7,916
7,932
NM
NM
7,987
8,003
8,023
8,046
8,065
NM
NM
8,140
8,165
8,182
8,198
8,215
NM
NM
8,265
NM
NM
NM
8,265
NM
NM
8,315
8,334
8,376
8,400
8,418
NM
NM
8,482
8,512
8,528
8,553
8,582
NM
NM
8,628
8,637
8,660
8,682
8,700
NM
NM
8,758
8,769
8,784
8,806
8,822
NM
NM
8,874
8,890
8,900
8,920
8,930
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
43
42
40
47
44
NA
NA
44
44
46
42
45
NA
NA
43
43
43
41
43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
43
40
47
34
NA
NA
49
50
46
43
41
NA
NA
42
38
41
43
46
NA
NA
45
40
39
42
41
NA
NA
41
38
48
42
42
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
12,370
12,405
12,426
12,480
12,513
NM
NM
12,626
12,658
12,697
12,745
12,782
NM
NM
12,917
12,967
13,001
13,034
13,069
NM
NM
13,172
13,231
13,271
13,330
13,355
NM
NM
13,472
13,510
13,587
13,636
13,689
NM
NM
13,818
13,876
13,909
13,948
14,003
NM
NM
14,095
14,113
14,159
14,202
14,234
NM
NM
14,315
14,336
14,369
14,413
14,447
NM
NM
14,553
14,586
14,607
14,648
14,670
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
71
87
83
94
90
NA
NA
90
87
89
88
88
NA
NA
77
85
86
85
88
NA
NA
86
89
87
89
89
NA
NA
85
86
74
96
99
NA
NA
99
96
95
67
77
NA
NA
85
75
82
83
82
NA
NA
64
77
87
83
87
NA
NA
84
79
101
86
92
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
off
139
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
133
off
off
137
NM
NM
off
off
off
137
129
NM
NM
off
off
97
89
94
NM
NM
138
off
133
NM
off
NM
NM
off
136
134
127
off
NM
NM
127
off
123
off
off
NM
NM
109
117
126
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
150
off
134
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
14,340,963
14,393,684
14,427,039
14,502,307
14,551,446
NM
NM
14,720,824
14,770,196
14,828,617
14,900,999
14,956,630
NM
NM
15,185,220
15,262,796
15,314,845
15,366,779
15,419,480
NM
NM
15,574,914
15,634,344
15,675,075
15,735,097
15,760,259
NM
NM
15,916,287
15,966,792
16,071,075
16,133,400
16,203,380
NM
NM
16,384,253
16,476,644
16,525,897
16,599,937
16,688,715
NM
NM
16,807,883
16,835,554
16,906,650
16,972,763
17,023,646
NM
NM
17,153,970
17,189,009
17,193,979
17,195,169
17,245,048
NM
NM
17,397,355
17,446,997
17,479,613
17,540,551
17,572,300
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
132
131
132
142
134
NA
NA
134
135
133
133
132
NA
NA
130
132
131
133
133
NA
NA
130
89
88
90
89
NA
NA
113
114
100
122
131
NA
NA
138
152
142
127
124
NA
NA
110
115
127
128
130
NA
NA
102
128
NA
NA
128
NA
NA
121
118
158
129
133
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
20,055,293
20,108,014
20,141,369
20,223,435
20,272,574
NA
NA
20,441,952
20,491,324
20,549,745
20,622,127
20,677,758
NA
NA
20,906,348
20,983,924
21,035,973
21,087,907
21,140,608
NA
NA
21,296,042
21,355,472
21,396,203
21,456,225
21,481,387
NA
NA
21,637,415
21,687,920
21,792,203
21,854,528
21,924,508
NA
NA
22,105,381
22,197,772
22,247,025
22,321,065
22,409,843
NA
NA
22,529,011
22,556,682
22,627,778
22,693,891
22,744,774
NA
NA
22,875,098
22,910,137
22,958,137
23,024,137
23,074,016
NA
NA
23,226,323
23,275,965
23,308,581
23,369,519
23,401,268
NA
NA
peration Log Sheet
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
21,635
21,691
21,727
21,816
21,869
NA
NA
22,052
22,105
22,168
22,246
22,306
NA
NA
22,553
22,636
22,693
22,749
22,805
NA
NA
22,973
23,037
23,081
23,146
23,173
NA
NA
23,341
23,396
23,508
23,576
23,651
NA
NA
23,846
23,946
23,999
24,079
24,175
NA
NA
24,303
24,333
24,410
24,481
24,536
NA
NA
24,676
24,714
24,766
24,837
24,891
NA
NA
25,055
25,109
25,144
25,210
25,244
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
off
10.00
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
6.75
off
off
8.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
5.00
4.75
NM
NM
off
off
5.50
4.75
4.75
NM
NM
9.00
off
4.00
4.00
off
NM
NM
off
5.00
4.75
9.00
off
NM
NM
3.00
off
7.00
off
off
NM
NM
2.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
off
3.25
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.25
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
3.50
3.00
NM
NM
off
off
1.25
1.00
1.50
NM
NM
3.25
off
2.50
2.00
off
NM
NM
off
2.75
2.75
3.00
off
NM
NM
2.75
off
2.75
off
off
NM
NM
2.00
2.75
3.75
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
3.00
off
3.00
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
NA
21.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.5
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.0
20.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
17.0
17.0
NA
NA
20.0
NA
21.0
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
23.0
23.0
NA
NA
NA
31.0
NA
32.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.0
37.0
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.0
NA
20.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
14,140,000
14,191,000
14,222,000
14,293,000
14,341,000
NM
NM
14,504,000
14,550,000
14,606,000
14,675,000
14,727,000
NM
NM
14,943,000
15,015,000
15,064,000
15,112,000
15,162,000
NM
NM
15,310,000
15,369,000
15,410,000
15,469,000
15,494,000
NM
NM
15,655,000
15,711,000
15,827,000
15,884,000
15,951,000
NM
NM
16,114,000
16,200,000
16,248,000
16,321,000
16,408,000
NM
NM
16,545,000
16,573,000
16,646,000
16,715,000
16,767,000
NM
NM
16,939,000
16,976,000
17,017,000
17,084,000
17,140,000
NM
NM
17,295,000
17,357,000
17,378,000
17,441,000
17,474,000
NM
NM
Ettluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
128
127
123
123
131
NA
NA
129
126
128
126
124
NA
NA
123
122
124
123
126
NA
NA
124
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
117
126
111
112
125
NA
NA
125
142
138
125
122
NA
NA
126
117
130
134
133
NA
NA
135
135
108
127
144
NA
NA
123
148
101
133
138
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
oo
Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System O
Week
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Date
05/07/07
05/08/07
05/09/07
05/10/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
05/13/07
05/14/07
05/15/07
05/16/07
05/17/07
05/18/07
05/19/07
05/20/07
05/21/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
05/24/07
05/25/07
05/26/07
05/27/07
05/28/07
05/29/07(e)
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/01/07
06/02/07
06/03/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
06/06/07
06/07/07
06/08/07
06/09/07
06/10/07
06/11/07
06/12/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
06/15/07
06/16/07
06/17/07
06/18/07"'
06/19/07
06/20/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
06/23/07
06/24/07
06/25/07
06/26/07'"
06/27/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
06/30/07
07/01/07
07/02/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
07/05/07
07/06/07
07/07/07
07/08/07
Op
Time
hr
19.2
6.7
4.2
9.6
6.1
NA
NA
21.0
6.1
7.3
9.1
7.0
NA
NA
29.3
9.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
NA
NA
19.9
11.1
7.7
11.1
4.7
NA
NA
23.0
7.4
17.4
8.5
8.9
NA
NA
21.8
10.1
5.8
9.7
11.9
NA
NA
18.1
4.0
9.3
8.6
6.5
NA
NA
21.3
4.6
6.3
8.8
6.5
NA
NA
21.0
7.0
3.5
7.9
4.0
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
7,862
7,879
7,889
7,916
7,932
NM
NM
7,987
8,003
8,023
8,046
8,065
NM
NM
8,140
8,165
8,182
8,198
8,215
NM
NM
8,265
NM
NM
NM
8,265
NM
NM
8,315
8,334
8,376
8,400
8,418
NM
NM
8,482
8,512
8,528
8,553
8,582
NM
NM
8,628
8,637
8,660
8,682
8,700
NM
NM
8,758
8,769
8,784
8,806
8,822
NM
NM
8,874
8,890
8,900
8,920
8,930
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
43
42
40
47
44
NA
NA
44
44
46
42
45
NA
NA
43
43
43
41
43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
43
40
47
34
NA
NA
49
50
46
43
41
NA
NA
42
38
41
43
46
NA
NA
45
40
39
42
41
NA
NA
41
38
48
42
42
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
12,370
12,405
12,426
12,480
12,513
NM
NM
12,626
12,658
12,697
12,745
12,782
NM
NM
12,917
12,967
13,001
13,034
13,069
NM
NM
13,172
13,231
13,271
13,330
13,355
NM
NM
13,472
13,510
13,587
13,636
13,689
NM
NM
13,818
13,876
13,909
13,948
14,003
NM
NM
14,095
14,113
14,159
14,202
14,234
NM
NM
14,315
14,336
14,369
14,413
14,447
NM
NM
14,553
14,586
14,607
14,648
14,670
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
71
87
83
94
90
NA
NA
90
87
89
88
88
NA
NA
77
85
86
85
88
NA
NA
86
89
87
89
89
NA
NA
85
86
74
96
99
NA
NA
99
96
95
67
77
NA
NA
85
75
82
83
82
NA
NA
64
77
87
83
87
NA
NA
84
79
101
86
92
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
off
139
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
133
off
off
137
NM
NM
off
off
off
137
129
NM
NM
off
off
97
89
94
NM
NM
138
off
133
NM
off
NM
NM
off
136
134
127
off
NM
NM
127
off
123
off
off
NM
NM
109
117
126
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
150
off
134
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
14,340,963
14,393,684
14,427,039
14,502,307
14,551,446
NM
NM
14,720,824
14,770,196
14,828,617
14,900,999
14,956,630
NM
NM
15,185,220
15,262,796
15,314,845
15,366,779
15,419,480
NM
NM
15,574,914
15,634,344
15,675,075
15,735,097
15,760,259
NM
NM
15,916,287
15,966,792
16,071,075
16,133,400
16,203,380
NM
NM
16,384,253
16,476,644
16,525,897
16,599,937
16,688,715
NM
NM
16,807,883
16,835,554
16,906,650
16,972,763
17,023,646
NM
NM
17,153,970
17,189,009
17,193,979
17,195,169
17,245,048
NM
NM
17,397,355
17,446,997
17,479,613
17,540,551
17,572,300
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
132
131
132
142
134
NA
NA
134
135
133
133
132
NA
NA
130
132
131
133
133
NA
NA
130
89
88
90
89
NA
NA
113
114
100
122
131
NA
NA
138
152
142
127
124
NA
NA
110
115
127
128
130
NA
NA
102
128
NA
NA
128
NA
NA
121
118
158
129
133
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
20,055,293
20,108,014
20,141,369
20,223,435
20,272,574
NA
NA
20,441,952
20,491,324
20,549,745
20,622,127
20,677,758
NA
NA
20,906,348
20,983,924
21,035,973
21,087,907
21,140,608
NA
NA
21,296,042
21,355,472
21,396,203
21,456,225
21,481,387
NA
NA
21,637,415
21,687,920
21,792,203
21,854,528
21,924,508
NA
NA
22,105,381
22,197,772
22,247,025
22,321,065
22,409,843
NA
NA
22,529,011
22,556,682
22,627,778
22,693,891
22,744,774
NA
NA
22,875,098
22,910,137
22,958,137
23,024,137
23,074,016
NA
NA
23,226,323
23,275,965
23,308,581
23,369,519
23,401,268
NA
NA
peration Log Sheet
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
21,635
21,691
21,727
21,816
21,869
NA
NA
22,052
22,105
22,168
22,246
22,306
NA
NA
22,553
22,636
22,693
22,749
22,805
NA
NA
22,973
23,037
23,081
23,146
23,173
NA
NA
23,341
23,396
23,508
23,576
23,651
NA
NA
23,846
23,946
23,999
24,079
24,175
NA
NA
24,303
24,333
24,410
24,481
24,536
NA
NA
24,676
24,714
24,766
24,837
24,891
NA
NA
25,055
25,109
25,144
25,210
25,244
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
off
10.00
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
6.75
off
off
8.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
5.00
4.75
NM
NM
off
off
5.50
4.75
4.75
NM
NM
9.00
off
4.00
4.00
off
NM
NM
off
5.00
4.75
9.00
off
NM
NM
3.00
off
7.00
off
off
NM
NM
2.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
off
3.25
off
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.25
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
3.50
3.00
NM
NM
off
off
1.25
1.00
1.50
NM
NM
3.25
off
2.50
2.00
off
NM
NM
off
2.75
2.75
3.00
off
NM
NM
2.75
off
2.75
off
off
NM
NM
2.00
2.75
3.75
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
3.00
off
3.00
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
NA
21.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.5
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.0
20.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0
17.0
17.0
NA
NA
20.0
NA
21.0
13.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
23.0
23.0
NA
NA
NA
31.0
NA
32.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.0
37.0
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.0
NA
20.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
14,140,000
14,191,000
14,222,000
14,293,000
14,341,000
NM
NM
14,504,000
14,550,000
14,606,000
14,675,000
14,727,000
NM
NM
14,943,000
15,015,000
15,064,000
15,112,000
15,162,000
NM
NM
15,310,000
15,369,000
15,410,000
15,469,000
15,494,000
NM
NM
15,655,000
15,711,000
15,827,000
15,884,000
15,951,000
NM
NM
16,114,000
16,200,000
16,248,000
16,321,000
16,408,000
NM
NM
16,545,000
16,573,000
16,646,000
16,715,000
16,767,000
NM
NM
16,939,000
16,976,000
17,017,000
17,084,000
17,140,000
NM
NM
17,295,000
17,357,000
17,378,000
17,441,000
17,474,000
NM
NM
Ettluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
128
127
123
123
131
NA
NA
129
126
128
126
124
NA
NA
123
122
124
123
126
NA
NA
124
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
117
126
111
112
125
NA
NA
125
142
138
125
122
NA
NA
126
117
130
134
133
NA
NA
135
135
108
127
144
NA
NA
123
148
101
133
138
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Date
07/09/07
07/10/07
07/1 1/07
07/12/07
07/13/07
07/14/07
07/1 5/07
07/16/07
07/17/07
07/18/07
07/19/07
07/20/07
07/21/07
07/22/07
07/23/07
07/24/07
07/25/07
07/26/07
07/27/07
07/28/07
07/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/01/07
08/02/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
08/06/07
08/07/07
08/08/07
08/09/07
08/10/07
08/1 1/07
08/1 2/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
08/15/07
08/16/07
08/17/07|B)
08/18/07
08/19/07
08/20/07
08/21/07
08/22/07
08/23/07
08/24/07
08/25/07
08/26/07
08/27/07
08/28/07
08/29/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/01/07
09/02/07
09/03/07
09/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
09/07/07
09/08/07
09/09/07
Op
Time
hr
16.5
3.4
6.2
3.6
8.8
NA
NA
20.6
6.0
5.8
8.0
7.0
NA
NA
21.3
6.2
6.8
4.4
5.6
NA
NA
26.3
5.2
8.0
9.4
7.2
NA
NA
26.3
NA
10.8
9.4
7.2
NA
NA
25.7
9.1
11.2
7.6
8.0
NA
NA
40.9
10.3
8.1
7.1
6.9
NA
NA
22.9
7.0
5.7
6.0
7.4
NA
NA
19.0
5.9
5.6
5.5
5.6
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
8,984
8,996
9,013
9,025
9,047
NM
NM
9,096
9,110
9,125
9,145
9,161
NM
NM
9,209
9,220
9,240
9,251
9,264
NM
NM
9,320
9,331
9,351
9,372
9,387
NM
NM
9,440
9,453
9,480
9,505
9,523
NM
NM
9,587
9,610
9,638
9,653
NM
NM
NM
9,653
9,675
9,695
9,713
9,730
NM
NM
9,798
9,807
9,821
9,838
9,858
NM
NM
9,909
9,926
9,941
9,956
9,971
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
54
59
46
56
42
NA
NA
40
39
43
42
38
NA
NA
38
30
49
42
39
NA
NA
36
35
42
37
35
NA
NA
34
42
42
44
42
NA
NA
42
42
42
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
41
42
41
NA
NA
49
21
41
47
45
NA
NA
45
48
45
45
45
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
14,746
14,754
14,784
14,799
14,844
NM
NM
14,944
14,973
15,002
15,041
15,073
NM
NM
15,169
15,200
15,230
15,253
15,280
NM
NM
15,388
15,407
15,449
15,490
15,522
NM
NM
15,629
15,656
15,711
15,760
15,796
NM
NM
15,866
15,880
15,935
15,973
16,014
NM
NM
16,212
16,259
16,299
16,333
16,369
NM
NM
16,488
16,525
16,554
16,587
16,628
NM
NM
16,735
16,768
16,799
16,830
16,862
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
77
39
81
69
85
NA
NA
81
80
83
81
76
NA
NA
75
83
73
87
80
NA
NA
68
61
87
73
74
NA
NA
68
87
85
87
83
NA
NA
45
26
82
83
85
NA
NA
81
76
82
80
87
NA
NA
87
88
85
92
92
NA
NA
94
93
92
94
95
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
131
off
127
off
off
NM
NM
121
119
126
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
122
129
119
NM
NM
104
96
129
off
off
NM
NM
off
128
off
off
NM
NM
NM
117
off
114
off
89
NM
NM
84
off
off
off
130
NM
NM
119
124
119
128
off
NM
NM
125
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
17,712,225
17,746,641
17,792,127
17,814,176
17,868,274
NM
NM
17,988,299
18,030,076
18,071,817
18,105,859
18,151,511
NM
NM
18,288,678
18,333,928
18,378,456
18,408,857
18,446,970
NM
NM
18,552,090
18,581,014
18,638,733
18,695,213
18,739,904
NM
NM
18,889,796
18,928,797
19,009,365
19,077,285
19,130,022
NM
NM
19,315,766
19,378,550
19,458,124
19,507,750
19,547,970
NM
NM
19,742,141
19,806,769
19,863,941
19,892,841
19,941,561
NM
NM
20,099,035
20,147,646
20,187,584
20,228,747
20,282,897
NM
NM
20,405,246
20,447,587
20,488,515
20,529,216
20,571,012
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
141
169
123
102
102
NA
NA
97
NA
119
71
109
NA
NA
107
122
109
115
113
NA
NA
67
93
120
100
103
NA
NA
95
125
124
120
122
NA
NA
120
115
118
109
84
NA
NA
79
105
118
68
118
NA
NA
115
116
117
114
122
NA
NA
107
120
122
123
124
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
23,541,193
23,575,609
23,621,095
23,643,144
23,697,242
NA
NA
23,817,267
23,859,044
23,900,785
23,934,827
23,980,479
NA
NA
24,117,646
24,162,896
24,207,424
24,237,825
24,275,938
NA
NA
24,381,058
24,409,982
24,467,701
24,524,181
24,568,872
NA
NA
24,718,764
24,757,765
24,838,333
24,906,253
24,958,990
NA
NA
25,144,734
25,207,518
25,287,092
25,336,718
25,376,938
NA
NA
25,571,109
25,635,737
25,692,909
25,721,809
25,770,529
NA
NA
25,928,003
25,976,614
26,016,552
26,057,715
26,111,865
NA
NA
26,234,214
26,276,555
26,317,483
26,358,184
26,399,980
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
25,395
25,432
25,481
25,505
25,563
NA
NA
25,693
25,738
25,783
25,820
25,869
NA
NA
26,017
26,066
26,114
26,147
26,188
NA
NA
26,301
26,332
26,394
26,455
26,504
NA
NA
26,665
26,707
26,794
26,868
26,924
NA
NA
27,125
27,193
27,278
27,332
27,375
NA
NA
27,585
27,655
27,716
27,747
27,800
NA
NA
27,970
28,022
28,065
28,110
28,168
NA
NA
28,300
28,346
28,390
28,434
28,479
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
12.00
NM
NM
12.00
11.50
1.25
4.75
off
NM
NM
4.00
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.25
off
3.25
off
off
NM
NM
3.00
3.00
3.00
off
off
NM
NM
off
off
2.75
2.75
2.75
NM
NM
2.00
2.00
3.25
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.50
off
off
3.50
NM
NM
3.00
off
off
off
1.00
NM
NM
1.00
off
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
3.00
2.75
3.25
3.00
off
NM
NM
3.00
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
20.0
NA
22.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.0
27.0
28.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.0
48.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
NA
NA
22.0
NA
NA
27.0
NA
NA
NA
18.5
NA
NA
22.0
NA
NA
NA
24.0
NA
NA
24.0
22.0
23.0
15.0
NA
NA
NA
17.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
17,639,000
17,674,000
17,728,000
17,763,000
17,832,000
NM
NM
17,981,000
18,025,000
18,068,000
18,128,000
18,177,000
NM
NM
18,323,000
18,371,000
18,417,000
18,451,000
18,492,000
NM
NM
18,656,000
18,688,000
18,746,000
18,807,000
18,854,000
NM
NM
19,013,000
19,054,000
19,136,000
19,209,000
19,263,000
NM
NM
19,456,000
19,523,000
19,608,000
19,661,000
19,704,000
NM
NM
19,911,000
19,980,000
20,041,000
20,094,000
20,146,000
NM
NM
20,310,000
20,363,000
20,404,000
20,444,000
20,503,000
NM
NM
20,647,000
20,692,000
20,735,000
20,779,000
20,827,000
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
166
172
146
162
131
NA
NA
121
122
123
125
117
NA
NA
114
129
112
129
122
NA
NA
104
102
121
108
109
NA
NA
101
NA
127
129
125
NA
NA
125
123
126
116
NA
NA
NA
NA
112
126
124
126
NA
NA
119
126
120
111
133
NA
NA
126
127
128
133
143
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Date
09/10/07
09/11/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
09/14/07
09/15/07
09/1 6/07
09/17/07
09/18/07
09/19/07
09/20/07™
09/21/07
09/22/07
09/23/07
09/24/07
09/25/07
09/26/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
09/29/07
09/30/07
10/01/07
10/02/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
10/05/07
10/06/07
10/07/07
10/08/07
10/09/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
10/13/07
1 0/1 4/07
10/15/07
10/16/07
10/17/07
10/18/07
10/19/07
10/20/07
10/21/07
10/22/07
10/23/07
10/24/07
10/25/07le)
10/26/07
10/27/07
1 0/28/07
10/29/07
10/30/07
10/31/07™
11/01/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
11/04/07
11/05/07
11/06/07™
11/07/07
11/08/07
11/09/07
11/10/07
11/11/07
Op
Time
hr
20.1
6.6
5.8
6.4
5.7
NA
NA
22.7
6.0
4.1
8.3
7.1
NA
NA
27.7
5.5
4.0
8.4
4.7
NA
NA
19.0
8.6
4.3
7.7
6.0
NA
NA
20.2
5.7
4.8
6.0
8.8
NA
NA
20.6
5.7
7.1
5.8
6.3
NA
NA
19.5
9.0
3.9
5.5
10.5
NA
NA
25.8
5.0
9.1
4.5
6.2
NA
NA
27.0
7.2
5.5
5.3
7.4
NA
NA
Well!
Totalizer
kgal
10,025
10,043
10,058
10,076
10,076
NM
NM
10,124
10,139
10,150
10,170
10,187
NM
NM
10,255
10,269
10,280
10,300
10,312
NM
NM
10,359
10,380
10,391
10,411
10,426
NM
NM
10,477
10,490
10,503
10,518
10,540
NM
NM
10,592
10,605
10,626
10,636
10,653
NM
NM
10,698
10,715
10,723
10,726
10,726
NM
NM
10,777
10,789
10,809
10,819
10,833
NM
NM
10,896
10,910
10,922
10,933
10,949
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
qpm
45
45
43
47
NA
NA
NA
35
42
45
40
40
NA
NA
41
42
46
40
43
NA
NA
41
41
43
43
42
NA
NA
42
38
45
42
42
NA
NA
42
38
49
29
45
NA
NA
38
31
34
9
NA
NA
NA
33
40
37
37
38
NA
NA
39
32
36
35
36
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
16,974
17,011
17,044
17,079
17,112
NM
NM
17,233
17,265
17,286
17,328
17,361
NM
NM
17,494
17,521
17,541
17,555
17,578
NM
NM
17,673
17,715
17,738
17,778
17,810
NM
NM
17,912
17,937
17,965
17,995
18,038
NM
NM
18,142
18,171
18,205
18,235
18,266
NM
NM
18,361
18,404
18,422
18,460
18,505
NM
NM
18,624
18,647
18,687
18,708
18,735
NM
NM
18,850
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
93
93
95
91
96
NA
NA
89
89
85
84
77
NA
NA
80
82
83
28
82
NA
NA
83
81
89
87
89
NA
NA
84
73
97
83
81
NA
NA
84
85
80
86
82
NA
NA
81
80
77
115
71
NA
NA
77
77
73
78
73
NA
NA
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
133
off
129
off
off
NM
NM
off
135
134
off
129
NM
NM
124
127
off
off
122
NM
NM
off
off
137
off
130
NM
NM
133
131
135
129
133
NM
NM
off
126
off
off
129
NM
NM
off
off
97
off
94
NM
NM
off
128
off
124
123
NM
NM
off
115
109
off
107
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
20,718,270
20,766,487
20,809,124
20,857,474
20,907,902
NM
NM
21,046,413
21,090,970
21,120,539
NM
21,137,614
NM
NM
21,329,721
21,369,613
21,398,946
21,460,204
21,496,344
NM
NM
21,627,930
21,677,835
21,712,004
21,770,053
21,816,109
NM
NM
21,967,949
22,007,388
22,046,595
22,090,796
22,159,015
NM
NM
22,313,599
22,355,656
22,407,506
22,451,268
22,497,196
NM
NM
22,619,311
22,677,133
22,697,575
22,738,447
22,783,100
NM
NM
22,950,872
22,985,353
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
122
122
123
126
147
NA
NA
102
124
120
NA
NA
NA
NA
116
121
122
122
128
NA
NA
115
97
132
126
128
NA
NA
125
115
136
123
129
NA
NA
125
123
122
126
122
NA
NA
104
107
87
124
71
NA
NA
108
115
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
26,547,238
26,595,455
26,638,092
26,686,442
26,736,870
NA
NA
26,875,381
26,919,938
26,949,507
27,011,507
27,061,507
NA
NA
27,253,614
27,293,506
27,322,839
27,384,097
27,420,237
NA
NA
27,551,823
27,601,728
27,635,897
27,693,946
27,740,002
NA
NA
27,891,842
27,931,281
27,970,488
28,014,689
28,082,908
NA
NA
28,237,492
28,279,549
28,331,399
28,375,161
28,421,089
NA
NA
28,543,204
28,601,026
28,621,468
28,662,340
28,706,993
NA
NA
28,874,765
28,909,246
28,969,246
29,000,246
29,041,246
NA
NA
29,219,246
29,267,246
29,305,246
29,342,246
29,394,246
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
28,638
28,690
28,736
28,788
28,842
NA
NA
28,992
29,040
29,072
29,139
29,193
NA
NA
29,400
29,443
29,474
29,541
29,580
NA
NA
29,721
29,775
29,812
29,875
29,924
NA
NA
30,088
30,131
30,173
30,221
30,294
NA
NA
30,461
30,507
30,562
30,610
30,659
NA
NA
30,791
30,853
30,875
30,919
30,968
NA
NA
31,149
31,186
31,251
31,284
31,328
NA
NA
31,520
31,572
31,613
31,653
31,709
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
5.00
off
4.75
off
off
NM
NM
off
12.00
13.00
off
15.00
NM
NM
15.00
15.00
off
off
15.00
NM
NM
off
off
10.00
off
12.50
NM
NM
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
7.50
NM
NM
off
15.00
off
off
15.00
NM
NM
off
off
14.50
off
14.00
NM
NM
off
15.00
off
15.00
15.00
NM
NM
off
15.00
15.00
off
15.00
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.50
off
3.00
off
off
NM
NM
off
3.50
3.25
off
2.75
NM
NM
3.00
3.00
off
off
3.00
NM
NM
off
off
3.50
off
3.00
NM
NM
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.50
NM
NM
off
3.00
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
1.75
off
1.75
NM
NM
off
2.75
off
2.50
2.75
NM
NM
off
2.75
2.75
off
2.00
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
15.0
NA
14.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.0
25.0
NA
32.0
NA
NA
25.0
27.0
NA
NA
26.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.0
NA
23.0
NA
NA
27.0
28.0
27.0
29.0
19.0
NA
NA
NA
31.0
NA
NA
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.0
NA
20.0
NA
NA
NA
35.0
NA
36.0
37.0
NA
NA
NA
36.0
35.0
NA
39.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
20,979,000
21,030,000
21,075,000
21,127,000
21,160,000
NM
NM
21,329,000
21,374,000
21,406,000
21,468,000
21,518,000
NM
NM
21,712,000
21,752,000
21,787,000
21,843,000
21,878,000
NM
NM
22,017,000
22,079,000
22,110,000
22,168,000
22,214,000
NM
NM
22,365,000
22,405,000
22,443,000
22,486,000
22,550,000
NM
NM
22,702,000
22,742,000
22,793,000
22,835,000
22,882,000
NM
NM
23,023,000
23,079,000
23,105,000
23,146,000
23,191,000
NM
NM
23,360,000
23,395,000
23,460,000
23,493,000
23,537,000
NM
NM
23,722,000
23,770,000
23,808,000
23,845,000
23,897,000
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
126
129
129
135
NA
NA
NA
124
125
130
124
117
NA
NA
117
121
146
111
124
NA
NA
122
120
120
126
128
NA
NA
125
117
132
119
121
NA
NA
123
117
120
121
124
NA
NA
121
104
NA
124
NA
NA
NA
109
117
119
122
118
NA
NA
114
111
115
116
117
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Date
11/12/07
11/13/07
11/14/07
11/15/07
11/16/07
11/17/07
11/18/07
11/19/07
11/20/07
11/21/07
11/22/07
11/23/07
11/24/07
11/25/07
11/26/07
11/27/07
11/28/07
11/29/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/02/07
12/03/07
12/04/07
12/05/07
12/06/07
12/07/07
12/08/07
1 2/09/07
12/10/07
12/11/07
12/12/07
12/13/07
12/14/07
12/15/07
12/16/07
12/17/07
12/18/07
12/19/07
12/20/07
12/21/07
12/22/07
12/23/07
12/24/07
12/25/07
12/26/07
12/27/07
12/28/07
12/29/07
1 2/30/07
12/31/07
01/01/08
01/02/08
01/03/08
01/04/08
01/05/08
01/06/08
01/07/08
01/08/08
01/09/08
01/10/08
01/11/08
01/12/08
01/13/08
Op
Time
hr
22.1
8.6
5.5
5.8
6.5
NA
NA
18.5
5.8
3.9
10.0
6.7
NA
NA
18.8
8.2
6.4
5.0
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
11,009
11,031
11,046
11,061
11,076
NM
NM
11,123
11,138
11,148
11,172
11,188
NM
NM
11,232
11,252
11,267
11,279
Well 1
Average
Flow
qpm
45
43
45
43
38
NA
NA
42
43
43
40
40
NA
NA
39
41
39
40
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
19,183
19,214
19,234
19,283
19,316
NM
NM
19,407
19,447
19,477
19,503
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
89
85
82
82
NA
NA
81
81
78
87
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
off
119
off
off
121
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
NM
129
off
off
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
29,574,246
29,647,246
29,695,246
29,744,246
29,814,246
NA
NA
29,967,246
30,013,246
30,043,246
30,116,246
30,165,246
NA
NA
30,300,246
30,360,246
30,405,246
30,443,246
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
31,903
31,982
32,034
32,087
32,162
NA
NA
32,327
32,377
32,409
32,488
32,541
NA
NA
32,686
32,751
32,800
32,841
Vessel A
AP
psi
off
9.00
off
off
10.00
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
10.00
10.00
off
off
Vessel B
AP
psi
off
4.00
off
off
3.25
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
off
NM
NM
3.00
3.25
off
off
System
AP
psig
NA
21.0
NA
NA
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.0
31.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
24,077,000
24,150,000
24,198,000
24,247,000
24,302,000
NM
NM
24,455,000
24,503,000
24,535,000
24,613,000
24,665,000
NM
NM
24,808,000
24,872,000
24,920,000
24,960,000
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
136
141
145
141
141
NA
NA
138
138
137
130
129
NA
NA
127
130
125
133
System out of service and being bypassed because storage tank is being maintained
0.0
4.4
9.9
7.1
5.6
NA
NA
18.1
10.4
4.4
6.6
4.7
NA
NA
21.8
NA
15.9
5.7
7.5
NA
NA
27.3
7.6
6.8
7.6
6.7
NA
NA
11,558
11,568
11,591
11,607
11,617
NM
NM
11,661
11,680
11,696
11,712
11,726
NM
NM
11,771
NM
11,809
11,823
11,834
NM
NM
11,892
11,907
11,922
11,937
11,953
NM
NM
35
38
39
38
30
NA
NA
41
30
61
40
50
NA
NA
34
NA
40
41
24
NA
NA
35
33
37
33
40
NA
NA
20,065
20,089
20,130
20,161
20,182
NM
NM
20,271
20,321
20,343
20,375
20,402
NM
NM
20,490
NM
20,568
20,596
20,626
NM
NM
20,719
20,750
20,777
20,810
20,839
NM
NM
70
91
69
73
63
NA
NA
82
80
83
81
96
NA
NA
67
NA
82
82
67
NA
NA
57
68
66
72
72
NA
NA
off
off
off
off
103
NM
NM
119
off
122
118
off
NM
NM
118
NM
off
off
116
NM
NM
115
111
off
113
109
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30,443,246
30,477,246
30,541,246
30,588,246
30,619,246
NA
NA
30,752,246
30,821,246
30,859,246
30,907,246
30,948,246
NA
NA
31,081,246
NA
31,197,246
31,239,246
31,280,246
NA
NA
31,431,246
31,477,246
31,519,246
31,567,246
31,612,246
NA
NA
32,841
32,877
32,946
32,997
33,030
NA
NA
33,174
33,248
33,289
33,341
33,385
NA
NA
33,529
NA
33,654
33,699
33,744
NA
NA
33,906
33,956
34,001
34,053
34,102
NA
NA
off
off
off
off
2.00
NM
NM
9.50
off
9.00
9.50
off
NM
NM
14.00
NM
off
off
7.50
NM
NM
5.00
5.25
off
4.75
4.00
NM
NM
off
off
off
off
2.00
NM
NM
3.00
off
3.00
2.75
off
NM
NM
2.50
NM
off
off
2.00
NM
NM
2.00
2.00
off
2.00
2.00
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.0
NA
NA
32.0
NA
31.0
33.0
NA
NA
NA
54.0
NA
NA
NA
55.0
NA
NA
53.0
51.0
NA
47.0
43.0
NA
NA
25,065,000
25,065,000
25,136,000
25,186,000
25,224,000
NM
NM
25,346,000
25,419,000
25,449,000
25,493,000
25,530,000
NM
NM
25,663,000
NM
25,781,000
25,822,000
25,868,000
NM
NM
26,015,000
26,057,000
26,096,000
26,141,000
26,182,000
NM
NM
NA
NA
120
117
113
NA
NA
112
117
114
111
131
NA
NA
102
NA
124
120
102
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Date
01/14/08
01/15/08
01/16/08
01/17/08
01/18/08
01/19/08
01/20/08
01/21/08
01/22/08
01/23/08
01/24/08
01/25/08
01/26/08
01/27/08
01/28/08
01/29/08
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/01/08
02/02/08
02/03/08
02/04/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
02/07/08
02/08/08
02/09/08
02/1 0/08
02/1 1/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
02/14/08
02/15/08
02/16/08
02/1 7/08
02/18/08
02/19/08(c)
02/20/08
02/21/08
02/22/08
02/23/08
02/24/08
02/25/08
02/26/08
02/27/08
02/28/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/02/08
03/03/08
03/04/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
03/07/08
03/08/08
03/09/08
03/10/08
03/1 1/08
03/12/08
03/13/08
03/14/08
03/15/08
03/16/08
Op
Time
hr
21.5
6.2
6.4
6.4
8.9
NA
NA
17.0
3.4
6.6
2.6
5.0
NA
NA
16.5
5.4
2.4
6.2
5.7
NA
NA
16.6
5.0
5.4
3.9
7.1
NA
NA
18.5
5.3
8.3
5.7
5.3
NA
NA
16.6
5.7
5.3
5.6
5.3
NA
NA
19.5
6.4
3.3
21.4
10.4
NA
NA
WelM
Totalizer
kgal
12,001
12,015
12,030
12,042
12,063
NM
NM
12,109
12,118
12,136
12,143
12,158
NM
NM
12,203
12,215
12,222
12,234
12,254
NM
NM
12,297
12,309
12,321
12,332
12,346
NM
NM
12,398
12,411
12,432
12,446
12,460
NM
NM
12,504
12,519
12,532
12,547
12,560
NM
NM
12,610
12,627
12,636
12,696
12,726
NM
NM
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
37
38
39
31
39
NA
NA
45
44
45
45
50
NA
NA
45
37
49
32
58
NA
NA
43
40
37
47
33
NA
NA
47
41
42
41
44
NA
NA
44
44
41
45
41
NA
NA
43
44
45
47
48
NA
NA
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
20,932
20,960
20,988
21,018
21,053
NM
NM
21,152
21,173
21,211
21,226
21,256
NM
NM
21,355
21,382
21,397
21,433
21,464
NM
NM
21,555
21,582
21,609
21,629
21,665
NM
NM
21,767
21,795
21,838
21,866
21,897
NM
NM
21,990
22,021
22,049
22,079
22,107
NM
NM
22,211
22,240
22,265
22,391
22,440
NM
NM
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
72
75
73
78
66
NA
NA
97
103
96
96
100
NA
NA
100
83
104
97
91
NA
NA
91
90
83
85
85
NA
NA
92
88
86
82
97
NA
NA
93
91
88
89
88
NA
NA
89
76
126
98
79
NA
NA
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
109
off
off
off
NM
NM
NM
off
137
off
134
135
NM
NM
144
off
off
138
off
NM
NM
off
130
132
128
136
NM
NM
off
134
off
119
142
NM
NM
off
off
140
off
off
NM
NM
129
off
144
127
131
NM
NM
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
31,753,246
31,795,246
31,838,246
31,880,246
31,936,246
NA
NA
32,081,246
32,111,246
32,167,246
32,189,246
32,234,246
NA
NA
32,378,246
32,417,246
32,439,246
32,487,246
32,538,246
NA
NA
32,672,246
32,711,246
32,750,246
32,781,246
32,831,246
NA
NA
32,985,246
33,026,246
33,090,246
33,132,246
33,177,246
NA
NA
33,314,246
33,360,246
33,401,246
33,446,246
33,487,246
NA
NA
33,641,246
33,687,246
33,721,246
33,907,246
33,986,246
NA
NA
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
34,254
34,299
34,345
34,391
34,451
NA
NA
34,608
34,640
34,700
34,724
34,773
NA
NA
34,928
34,970
34,994
35,046
35,101
NA
NA
35,245
35,287
35,329
35,363
35,417
NA
NA
35,583
35,627
35,696
35,741
35,790
NA
NA
35,938
35,987
36,032
36,080
36,124
NA
NA
36,290
36,340
36,377
36,577
36,663
NA
NA
Vessel A
AP
psi
4.00
off
off
off
2.50
NM
NM
off
NM
off
NM
NM
NM
NM
6.00
off
off
9.00
off
NM
NM
off
15.00
15.00
15.00
7.00
NM
NM
off
12.50
off
15.00
6.00
NM
NM
off
off
10.50
off
off
NM
NM
11.00
off
11.75
7.50
11.50
NM
NM
Vessel B
AP
psi
2.50
off
off
off
2.00
NM
NM
off
NM
off
3.75
4.00
NM
NM
4.00
off
off
3.50
off
NM
NM
off
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.75
NM
NM
off
3.50
off
3.00
3.50
NM
NM
off
off
4.00
off
off
NM
NM
3.00
off
3.75
2.50
3.50
NM
NM
System
AP
psig
41.0
NA
NA
NA
44.0
NA
NA
NA
17.0
NA
17.0
17.0
NA
NA
16.0
NA
NA
18.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.0
30.0
32.0
22.0
NA
NA
NA
26.0
NA
35.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.0
NA
24.0
18.0
23.0
NA
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
26,310,000
26,349,000
26,389,000
26,432,000
26,468,000
NM
NM
26,563,000
26,588,000
26,636,000
26,656,000
26,691,000
NM
NM
26,808,000
26,848,000
26,864,000
26,915,000
26,945,000
NM
NM
27,074,000
27,117,000
27,153,000
27,158,000
27,184,000
NM
NM
27,226,000
27,259,000
27,287,000
27,320,000
27,340,000
NM
NM
27,412,000
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
105
104
112
NA
NA
NA
NA
123
121
128
117
NA
NA
118
123
111
137
NA
NA
NA
130
143
111
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
104
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System was shutdown week of 03/03/08 due to valve issues
NA
NA
0.0
3.1
4.6
6.9
4.9
NA
NA
NM
NM
12,881
12,889
12,902
12,920
12,933
NM
NM
NA
NA
46
43
47
43
44
NA
NA
NM
NM
22,757
22,776
22,789
22,829
22,856
NM
NM
NA
NA
94
102
47
97
92
NA
NA
NM
NM
off
148
off
off
139
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33,986,246
34,013,246
34,039,246
34,097,246
34,137,246
NA
NA
NA
NA
36,663
36,692
36,720
36,782
36,826
NA
NA
NM
NM
off
9.00
off
off
10.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
off
3.75
off
off
3.50
NM
NM
NA
NA
NA
22.0
NA
NA
20.0
NA
NA
NM
NM
535,000
565,000
604,000
665,000
708,000
NM
NM
NA
NA
161
141
147
146
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Alvin, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
100
101
102
103
Date
03/17/08
03/18/08
03/19/08
03/20/08
03/21/08
03/22/08
03/23/08
03/24/08
03/25/08
03/26/08
03/27/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
03/30/08
03/31/08
04/01/08
04/02/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
04/05/08
04/06/08
04/07/08
04/08/08
Op
Time
hr
14.9
5.4
6.9
5.8
3.7
NA
NA
20.9
5.0
5.6
7.0
3.2
NA
NA
20.9
5.8
5.7
6.4
6.4
NA
NA
21.1
7.0
Well!
Totalizer
kgal
12,976
12,986
13,004
13,018
13,018
NM
NM
13,083
13,096
13,111
13,129
13,137
NM
NM
13,191
13,209
13,220
13,236
13,252
NM
NM
13,308
13,326
Well 1
Average
Flow
gpm
48
31
43
40
0
NA
NA
52
43
45
43
42
NA
NA
43
52
32
42
42
NA
NA
44
43
Well 2
Totalizer
kgal
22,938
22,967
23,005
23,036
23,056
NM
NM
23,173
23,201
23,232
23,269
23,287
NM
NM
23,399
23,430
23,460
23,494
23,527
NM
NM
23,646
23,684
Well 2
Average
Flow
gpm
92
90
92
89
90
NA
NA
93
93
92
88
94
NA
NA
89
89
88
89
86
NA
NA
94
90
Vessel A
Instant
Flowrate
gpm
141
off
139
NM
off
NM
NM
off
143
142
off
145
NM
NM
off
off
139
off
off
NM
NM
140
off
Vessel A
Totalizer
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Vessel A
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum total
Throughput
gal
34,262,246
34,301,246
34,357,246
34,402,246
34,422,246
NA
NA
34,604,246
34,645,246
34,691,246
34,746,246
34,772,246
NA
NA
34,938,246
34,987,246
35,028,246
35,078,246
35,127,246
NA
NA
35,302,246
35,358,246
Cum total
Bed Volume
BV
36,960
37,002
37,063
37,111
37,133
NA
NA
37,329
37,374
37,423
37,482
37,511
NA
NA
37,690
37,742
37,787
37,841
37,893
NA
NA
38,082
38,143
Vessel A
AP
psi
12.50
off
13.75
15.00
off
NM
NM
off
11.00
11.00
off
12.00
NM
NM
off
off
15.00
off
off
NM
NM
10.50
off
Vessel B
AP
psi
3.50
off
3.00
3.50
off
NM
NM
off
3.00
3.00
off
3.00
NM
NM
off
off
3.75
off
off
NM
NM
3.50
off
System
AP
psig
25.0
NA
26.0
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
22.0
NA
21.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
NA
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
835,000
879,000
937,000
985,000
1,015,000
NM
NM
1,192,000
1,235,000
1,283,000
1 ,341 ,000
1 ,368,000
NM
NM
1,542,000
1 ,590,000
1 ,638,000
1 ,690,000
1,739,000
NM
NM
1,920,000
1,979,000
Effluent
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
142
136
140
138
135
NA
NA
141
143
143
138
141
NA
NA
139
138
140
135
128
NA
NA
143
140
(a) Well 2 totalizer broken from 04/25/06 to 05/21/06. Throughput and B V estimated based on average flowrate of 125 gpm and respective operating time.
(b) Vessel A flowmeter and totalizer broken from 04/26/06 to 05/26/06, on 06/06/06, from 09/06/06 to 10/03/06, from 01/15/07 to 03/21/07,on 04/02/07, on
09/20/07, and from 10/31/07 to 04/08/08. Throughput and BV estimated based on Wells 1 and 2 totalizers.
(c) Totalizer on treated water line broken from 04/25/06 to 07/10/06, from 08/21/06 to 09/17/06, and from 02/19/08 to 03/07/08.
(d) No operational data taken from 06/12/06 to 06/19/06, from 09/04/06 to 09/05/06, and from 12/18/06 to 12/22/06.
(e) Well 1 totalizer broken from 05/29/07 to 05/31/07, on 08/17/07, and from 10/25/07 to 10/26/07.
(f) Hour meter broken from 06/18/07 to 08/06/07; operational hours estimated by dividing total volume from Wells 1 and 2 by flowrate readings from Vessel A
flowmeter/totalizer.
(g) Tank A pressure readings questionable from 06/26/07 to 08/23/07.
(h) Well 2 totalizer broken from 04/25/06 to 05/21/06. Throughput and B V estimated based on readings of effluent totalizer.
NA = not available.
NM = not measured.
off = well pumps not running when operator was onsite taking operational data.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
-luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
)H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
:e (soluble)
Mn (total)
i/ln (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
04/25/06(a'b|
IN
361
-
1.2
1
<0.05
48.5
15.2
0.6
7.9
27.7
3.0
217
<0.02
<0.1
44.9
32.7
12.3
30.2
27.4
2.9
21.9
5.5
72
43
61.3
61.0
AC
366
1.4
2
<0.05
42.6
15.7
0.3
7.6
28.1
1.9
605
1.8
1.8
44.4
32.2
12.2
32.1
26.2
5.9
<0.1
26.1
34
<25
57.1
14.5
TA
TB
1.3
370
-
1.3
2
<0.05
<10
15.4
0.5
7.7
28.3
2.8
619
1.5
1.5
43.8
32.0
11.8
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
2.5
1.2
370
1.3
2
<0.05
<10
15.3
0.4
7.6
27.9
2.0
628
1.5
1.6
44.1
32.3
11.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.3
<0.1
05/09/06(a'b|
IN
347
-
-
48.2
17.0
0.3
7.9
32.8
2.8
254
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
66
59.2
AC
372
46.0
14.8
0.4
7.7
33.8
1.8
548
0.3
0.3
34.0
42
53.8
TA
TB
2.2
363
-
-
10.0
16.4
0.2
8.0
32.1
3.5
292
0.5
0.7
-
2.4
-
-
-
<25
1.3
355
<10
12.6
0.2
7.9
30.7
2.8
464
0.2
0.5
0.8
<25
0.4
05/23/06'°' d|
IN
355
-
1.3
2
<0.05
34.4
15.6
0.8
8.0
25.0
1.5
321
-
31.0
18.8
12.3
34.7
32.6
2.1
29.5
3.1
60
<25
52.3
51.8
AC
347
1.3
2
<0.05
34.3
16.6
0.3
7.5
25.0
1.7
407
0.7
0.7
30.0
18.0
12.0
38.1
30.5
7.6
0.5
30.0
<25
<25
45.8
1.4
TA
TB
3.4
351
-
1.3
1
<0.05
46.6
16.0
0.2
7.7
25.0
1.7
360
0.8
0.8
28.4
17.0
11.3
29.6
28.5
1.1
26.2
2.3
46
<25
50.9
51.3
355
1.4
2
<0.05
48.0
16.1
0.2
7.8
25.0
1.2
377
0.9
1.0
25.9
15.7
10.2
27.7
29.7
<0.1
0.6
29.1
<25
<25
44.8
1.9
06/06/06™
IN
346
-
-
51.5
15.4
0.3
7.8
27.6
1.6
365
-
-
47.9
-
-
87
56.1
AC
342
43.4
16.2
0.5
7.3
27.2
1.2
556
0.5
0.6
26.9
-
-
69
45.4
TA
TB
4.4
367
-
-
18.9
16.4
1.2
7.7
27.0
4.2
510
0.1
0.2
-
3.8
-
<25
2.9
363
<10
16.5
0.5
7.6
27.2
3.5
397
0.4
0.5
0.6
-
-
<25
0.9
(a) Due to lack of combined IN sample tap, IN sample taken at CI2 injection point after CI2 injection turned off and thus no residual CI2 detected.
(b) Due to incorrect location of TA sample tap, effluent TA and TB samples taken from tank's 1-inch drain line.
(c) TA and TB sample taps relocated on 05/17/06
(d) IN sample tap relocated on 05/24/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Cd
to
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Mn (total)
* (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/21 /06|a'b|
IN
338
1.2
<1
O.05
44.5
14.4
0.6
7.6
25.8
2.1
302
42.5
28.7
13.8
48.1
44.2
4.0
43.9
0.2
66
<25
53.6
52.2
AC
359
1.2
2
O.05
45.9
14.8
0.6
7.6
25.6
2.0
622
3.0
2.9
45.9
30.8
15.1
32.4
27.3
5.0
0.5
26.9
44
<25
50.4
1.1
TA
TB
5.6
371
1.3
2
O.05
13.6
15.3
0.5
7.7
24.6
3.9
568
1.1
1.3
44.1
29.6
14.5
4.8
4.6
0.2
0.4
4.2
<25
<25
2.0
0.9
359
1.4
1
O.05
<10
15.2
0.5
7.8
24.5
3.2
477
1.1
1.2
44.5
29.9
14.6
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
7/5/2006
IN
339
37.8
15.4
0.5
7.5
24.5
1.8
430
44.4
-
-
86
-
52.7
-
AC
352
40.2
16.3
0.5
7.4
24.5
1.7
667
3.2
2.5
30.5
-
-
95
-
53.5
-
TA
TB
6.4
352
12.4
16.0
0.2
7.8
24.3
3.3
461
1.8
1.7
6.2
-
-
<25
-
4.0
-
356
-
<10
15.8
0.1
7.7
24.4
3.1
621
1.8
1.7
0.7
-
-
<25
-
0.7
7/19/2006
IN
340
1.4
<1
<0.05
25.2
15.1
0.1
7.6
24.7
1.7
437
-
31.1
19.1
12.1
46.3
40.7
5.5
26.5
14.2
100
<25
50.0
49.5
AC
353
1.4
1
O.05
20.4
15.2
0.5
7.6
23.9
2.3
459
1.9
2.2
32.0
19.3
12.7
27.6
24.3
3.4
1.0
23.3
60
<25
46.0
0.1
TA
TB
7.3
349
1.7
1
O.05
<10
15.8
0.2
7.9
23.4
4.9
596
1.5
1.6
31.5
19.0
12.5
6.1
6.1
O.1
0.6
5.5
<25
<25
2.0
0.3
353
1.9
1
O.05
<10
15.6
0.1
7.7
23.8
4.0
631
1.8
1.9
32.7
19.8
13.0
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.1
08/01/06™
IN
344
341
-
-
35.5
31.9
15.5
15.9
0.2
0.2
7.8
26.0
1.4
345
-
-
50.4
52.5
-
-
40
40
56.2
53.5
AC
349
350
-
-
28.9
33.0
16.4
16.3
0.3
0.3
7.6
24.7
1.7
655
2.3
2.4
-
34.9
33.6
-
-
<25
<25
50.9
53.2
TA
TB
8.0
357
354
-
-
<10
<10
17.0
16.1
0.3
0.2
7.9
25.1
3.7
644
1.4
1.4
-
8.3
7.9
-
<25
<25
2.5
1.7
362
350
-
-
<10
<10
16.5
16.8
0.2
0.2
7.8
24.8
2.9
652
0.9
1.0
-
1.0
1.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.2
(a) TA and TB taken at each vessel's 1-inch drain line.
(b) Additional samples for TA and TB taken at sample taps located at panel.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Cd
OJ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
=luoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
* (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
08/1 6/061"
IN
318
1.4
<1
O.05
36.2
15.4
0.2
7.8
24.3
1.2
369
37.4
25.1
12.3
51.0
45.1
5.9
44.1
1.0
52
38
52.3
54.9
AC
343
1.4
1
O.05
39.2
15.7
0.3
7.6
23.9
1.5
655
2.5
2.6
42.5
29.0
13.5
35.9
30.5
5.4
0.7
29.8
37
<25
52.7
0.8
TA
TB
8.8
331
1.5
2
O.05
15.9
15.6
0.2
7.6
24.1
1.8
651
1.8
1.9
40.5
27.8
12.7
8.8
8.6
0.1
0.7
8.0
<25
<25
1.5
0.2
331
1.4
1
0.2
<10
16.0
0.1
7.7
24.1
1.5
668
1.8
2.0
42.9
29.4
13.5
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.6
0.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
08/29/06
IN
696™
50.2
14.7
0.2
7.6
25.6
1.4
423
40.1
-
-
34
-
52.0
-
AC
384
53.9
15.2
0.3
7.5
25.2
1.7
660
2.2
2.1
23.5
-
-
42
-
50.5
-
TA
TB
9.4
381
33.0
15.6
0.1
7.6
25.0
2.2
655
1.7
1.5
7.6
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
366
-
<10
15.2
0.3
7.7
24.8
2.9
655
1.5
1.6
0.6
-
-
<25
-
0.1
09/12/06
IN
352
1.4
<1
<0.05
38.7
15.3
0.2
7.7
23.4
1.5
303
-
37.8
25.2
12.7
49.8
44.7
5.1
39.4
5.3
45
<25
53.2
52.8
AC
362
1.4
2
O.05
42.8
15.3
0.3
7.5
23.1
2.0
655
2.6
2.9
40.7
26.9
13.7
34.9
28.6
6.3
0.4
28.1
<25
<25
50.0
0.7
TA
TB
10.3
362
1.4
2
O.05
24.6
15.7
0.1
7.6
23.1
1.7
639
1.7
1.7
41.2
27.2
14.0
10.0
9.1
0.9
0.4
8.7
<25
<25
1.3
0.1
362
1.4
2
O.05
<10
15.8
0.2
7.6
23.1
1.5
646
1.6
1.8
41.5
27.4
14.1
0.8
0.8
O.1
0.4
0.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
09/27/06|b|
IN
354
-
-
86.7
14.8
0.3
7.7
22.8
NA
390
-
-
39.8
-
-
58
56.6
AC
382
-
-
95.0
15.7
0.2
7.5
22.3
NA
660
2.9
3.1
-
26.7
-
-
43
54.2
TA
TB
11.0
388
-
-
76.3
16.1
0.2
7.6
22.1
NA
659
1.7
2.0
-
10.9
-
<25
2.0
382
-
-
58.7
15.5
0.1
7.7
21.7
NA
658
1.2
1.4
-
4.3
<25
0.6
(a) TA and TB sample taps relocated on 08/09/06. Samples no longer taken after each tank's 1-in drainline.
(b) DO readings not taken due to error messages from field meter.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
-ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
\/ln (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
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
10/11/06(a)
IN
-
371
-
1.3
<1
<0.05
28.1
15.9
0.8(h)
7.7
23.1
NA
317
39.6
26.3
13.4
44.0
44.7
<0.1
40.7
4.1
39
<25
52.9
55.6
AC
-
390
-
1.4
2
<0.05
39.3
16.0
0.8|h|
7.5
22.8
NA
675
3.3
3.1
45.6
30.0
15.6
30.2
26.6
3.5
0.9
25.7
<25
<25
52.6
0.9
TA
TB
11.7
399
-
1.4
2
<0.05
19.9
15.3
0.4
7.6
22.8
NA
665
1.8
1.9
45.4
29.8
15.6
10.2
9.8
0.4
1.1
8.7
<25
<25
1.0
0.2
392
-
1.5
2
<0.05
<10
16.5
0.4
7.6
22.5
NA
672
1.7
2.0
46.6
30.4
16.2
1.4
1.5
<0.1
0.8
0.8
<25|bl
<25
0.5
0.2
11/15/06
IN
-
368
-
1.5
1
<0.05
28.0
15.9
0.3
7.7
21.9
NA
448
35.8
25.4
10.4
37.0
34.7
2.3
27.3
7.4
56
33
55.8
54.4
AC
-
381
-
1.6
2
<0.05
32.7
15.7
0.4
7.5
22.0
NA
641
2.0
2.2
39.9
28.1
11.9
22.5
19.6
3.0
1.3
18.2
34
<25
53.9
1.4
TA
TB
13.0
404
-
1.6
2
O.05
18.2
15.8
0.3
7.5
22.4
NA
628
1.1
1.1
39.8
28.1
11.7
9.9
9.3
0.5
1.6
7.7
<25
<25
1.4
0.6
398
-
1.5(cl
2
O.05
<10
15.1
0.2
7.6
22.4
NA
643
1.4
1.5
40.3
28.2
12.1
2.0
1.7
0.3
1.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
12/13/06
IN
-
350
-
-
26.9
14.7
0.4
7.4
22.3
NA
189
-
-
46.7
-
-
36
-
50.4
AC
-
360
-
-
34.8
15.2
0.6
7.4
22.6
NA
189
2.8
3.2
-
-
33.1
-
-
<25
-
50.1
TA
TB
14.2
372
-
-
31.3
15.3
0.8|dl
7.5
22.5
NA
190
1.6
1.7
-
-
14.8
-
-
<25
-
1.7
364
-
-
<10
15.4
0.8|dl
7.6
22.2
NA
190
1.6
1.8
-
-
2.1
-
-
<25
-
0.4
01/10/07
IN
-
382
-
1.5
<1
<0.05
43.6
15.5
0.6
7.8
21.7
NA
339
39.6
26.4
13.2
41.3
40.9
0.4
27.6
13.2
133
44
48.9
48.9
AC
-
380
-
1.6
2
<0.05
42.5
15.5
0.9
7.6
21.7
NA
679
3.2
3.3
41.7
27.3
14.4
30.7
28.0
2.7
1.2
26.8
95
<25
46.2
1.7
TA
TB
15.3
384
-
1.6
1
<0.05
27.7
15.7
0.6
7.6
22.0
NA
684
2.8
2.9
40.2
26.1
14.1
14.1
12.9
1.2
0.9
12.1
<25
<25
5.7
0.2
392
-
1.5
1
<0.05
<10
15.7
0.3
7.6
22.2
NA
642
2.7
2.8
42.6
27.9
14.6
1.5
1.6
<0.1
0.7
0.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.5
(a) Sampling reduced to bimonthly.
(b) Reanalyzed by the laboratory, orgininally 63.5 ug/L.
(c) Reanalyzed by laboratory out of hold time, originally 2.6 mg/L.
(d) Elevated levels remained the same after it was checked by the laboratory.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/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
02/06/07
IN
-
372
-
-
-
-
36.5
15.0
0.8
8.0
21.5
2.4
328
-
-
-
48.4
80
-
47.3
-
AC
-
383
-
-
-
-
43.2
15.9
0.6
7.7
21.4
2.0
655
2.1
2.2
-
-
28.4
36
-
49.1
-
TA
TB
16.8
374
-
-
-
-
33.3
15.3
0.4
7.7
21.3
3.2
673
1.6
1.7
-
-
16.9
<25
-
1.4
-
383
-
-
-
-
<10
15.5
0.6
7.7
21.1
2.7
675
1.5
1.6
-
-
2.0
<25
-
0.2
-
03/07/07
IN
-
366
-
1.5
1
<0.05
40.6
14.7
0.8
7.8
25.2
1.7
210
-
45.3
33.0
12.3
44.8
39.2
5.6
17.71"
21. 51"1
41
<25
52.2
50.9
AC
-
383
-
1.5
2
<0.05
44.8
15.6
1.1
7.5
25.8
1.7
681
2.9
3.0
50.3
35.3
15.0
30.2
21.9
8.2
1.0
20.9
27
<25
50.5
1.3
TA
TB
18.3
378
-
1.5
2
<0.05
33.2
15.9
1.3
7.7
25.5
2.6
670
1.2
1.3
48.7
34.2
14.6
14.8
13.3
1.5
1.1
12.2
<25
<25
7.6
<0.1
371
-
1.5
2
<0.05
<10
15.2
0.7
7.6
23.7
3.3
679
1.3
1.5
47.7
33.4
14.4
2.4
2.3
<0.1
1.1
1.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
04/04/07|b|
IN
-
364
371
-
-
-
-
43.7
41.6
15.3
15.5
0.4
0.5
NA
NA
1.3
254
-
-
-
39.0
39.4
<25
<25
-
50.0
49.9
-
AC
-
364
354
-
-
-
-
41.1
39.5
14.9
15.4
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
1.7
687
2.7
2.7
-
-
36.1
35.6
<25
<25
-
43.5
43.7
-
TA
TB
19.8
364
366
-
-
-
-
40.5
39.9
15.2
15.2
0.7
0.4
NA
NA
1.6
670
1.2
1.3
-
-
20.1
19.9
<25
<25
-
0.5
0.4
-
359
366
-
-
-
-
16.6
16.6
15.3
15.2
0.4
0.1
NA
NA
1.5
674
1.2
1.3
-
-
4.4
4.4
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
05/02/07|c|
IN
-
389
[378]
-
1.1
[1.21
2
[1]
<0.05
[<0.05|
34.6
[43.5]
15.5
[16.5]
1.2
[0.9]
NA
NA
1.7
251
-
43.2
[44.4]
31.1
[30.9]
12.1
[13.5]
38.6
[36.9]
34.0
[30.5]
4.6
[6.4]
30.5
[24.1]
3.5
[6.4]
48
[197]
25.3
[<25]
55.9
[58.1]
49.3
[55.6]
AC
-
388
-
1.5
3
<0.05
44.3
16.7
0.7
NA
NA
1.6
673
1.6
1.6
48.0
32.8
15.2
25.5
21.3
4.3
0.4
20.8
37
<25
52.7
0.7
TA
TB
21.4
381
-
1.6
2
<0.05
34.5
16.9
0.9
NA
NA
2.9
637
0.8
0.9
40.9
28.2
12.7
15.1
15.4
<0.1
0.5
15.0
<25
<25
2.3
<0.1
374
-
1.4
1
<0.05
14.9
16.4
0.6
NA
NA
2.7
663
1.0
1.1
44.0
30.7
13.3
2.9
2.7
0.2
0.4
2.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
(a) Samples were rerun but showed similar results.
(b) Starting 04/04/07, IN sample taken at original chlorine injection point further downstream of the Well 1 and 2 blending point.
(c) Samples taken at orginal sample point on 05/09/07. [Sample taken at relocated sample tap on 05/02/07].
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
titrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
-ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
06/12/07
IN
387
-
36.5
16.8
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
36.5
-
-
27
60.6
-
AC
363
-
35.1
16.2
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
34.2
-
-
<25
52.0
-
TA
TB
23.9
366
-
37.6
15.9
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
19.8
-
-
<25
0.8
-
356
-
26.2
16.1
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
4.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
06/27/07
IN
377
1.5
2
O.05
37.3
16.1
0.5
8.1
22.7
NA
265
45.8
31.3
14.5
29.8
25.3
4.5
24.6
0.7
37
<25
57.2
60.0
AC
370
1.7
2
<0.05
35.6
15.9
0.3
7.9
22.7
NA
546
1.4
1.6
47.1
32.8
14.3
26.6
22.2
4.4
<0.1
22.1
30
<25
53.0
1.9
TA
TB
24.8
377
1.6
2
O.05
27.0
16.1
0.4
7.9
22.9
NA
531
0.7
0.8
44.6
31.1
13.6
19.0
16.5
2.5
<0.1
16.4
<25
<25
2.1
0.2
365
1.6
2
<0.05
17.6
15.7
0.3
7.9
23.0
NA
567
0.9
1.0
44.7
31.0
13.7
4.2
3.6
0.6
<0.1
3.5
<25
<25
0.3
0.1
07/25/07|a)
IN
-
-
-
41.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
32.1
-
-
26
53.3
-
AC
-
-
-
38.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
36.6
-
-
52
42.6
-
TA
TB
26.1
-
-
36.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
22.6
-
-
<25
3.1
-
-
-
25.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
6.0
-
-
<25
0.1
-
08/22/07
IN
-
-
41.7
-
8.1
25.4
2.2
239
-
-
41.4
34.4
6.9
31.0
3.4
117
<25
55.9
56.9
AC
-
-
45.6
-
7.8
25.3
1.7
538
2.2
2.2
-
-
40.2
28.6
11.6
0.8
27.8
88
<25
49.1
0.4
TA
TB
27.7
-
-
42.1
-
7.9
25.2
3.0
549
0.8
0.8
-
-
26.0
22.1
3.9
0.8
21.3
<25
<25
2.2
<0.1
-
-
32.6
-
7.9
25.1
2.0
367
0.6
0.6
-
-
7.9
7.3
0.6
0.7
6.7
<25
<25
<0.1
0.6
(a) Starting July 2007, analytes reduced to As, Fe, Mn, and P. Speciation samples are conducted every other month.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
DH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Vln (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/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
09/12/07|a'b|
IN
-
0.2
-
-
-
46.5
-
8.0
23.9
2.5
394
-
-
-
40.9
32
-
57.8
-
AC
-
0.2
-
-
-
47.3
-
7.9
23.8
1.2
272
NA
NA
-
-
40.7
<25
-
53.3
-
TA
TB
28.7
-
-
-
-
52.9
-
7.9
23.8
1.3
265
NA
NA
-
-
27.7
<25
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
52.6
-
7.9
23.7
1.4
257
NA
NA
-
-
10.4
<25
-
<0.1
-
10/03/07
IN
-
0.2
-
-
-
30.5
-
8.0
22.1
2.7
245
-
-
-
31.6
26.9
4.7
24.7
2.2
31
<25
60.7
63.4
AC
-
<0.05
-
-
-
32.5
-
7.7
22.1
1.6
652
2.2
2.2
-
-
31.2
24.6
6.5
0.4
24.3
<25
<25
52.6
<0.1
TA
TB
29.8
<0.05
-
-
-
32.6
-
7.7
22.4
2.7
641
1.2
1.3
-
-
24.9
20.1
4.8
0.4
19.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
-
-
-
29.7
-
7.7
22.3
3.1
656
1.4
1.3
-
-
8.1
10.8
<0.1
0.5
10.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1 1/06/07|c|
IN
-
0.2
-
-
-
44.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
44.1
137
-
61.0
-
AC
-
<0.05
-
-
-
47.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
41.2
169
-
55.0
-
TA
TB
31.6
<0.05
-
-
-
44.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
28.5
<25
-
9.6
-
<0.05
-
-
-
43.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
10.6
<25
-
<0.1
-
11/27/07
IN
-
0.2
-
-
-
42.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
35.6
145
-
53.5
-
AC
-
0.1
-
-
-
50.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
24.1
47
-
48.5
-
TA
TB
32.8
<0.05
-
-
-
43.9
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
21.3
<25
-
2.9
-
<0.05
-
-
-
38.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
8.5
<25
-
0.3
-
(a) One time sampling event for ammonia at IN and AC.
(b) Chlorine addition was switched to post-chlorination (instead of pre-chlorination) two weeks prior, by mistake.
(c) Starting Nov 2007, sampling frequency increased to biweekly due to lag vessel total As > 10 ug/L in Sept. Analytes are total As, Fe, Mn, total P, and NH3.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Alvin, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
)H
Temperature
DO
ORP
-ree Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (parti culate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
=e (soluble)
Mn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/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
01/02/08
IN
-
0.2
-
40.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
34.4
-
-
-
-
42
-
62.0
-
AC
-
<0.05
-
39.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
32.2
-
-
-
-
32
-
50.3
-
TA
TB
33.7
<0.05
-
36.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
22.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.0
-
<0.05
-
39.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
01/29/08
IN
-
0.2
-
48.9
-
8.0
23.8
2.5
416
-
-
-
31.6
-
-
-
-
66
-
50.4
-
AC
-
0.1
-
51.8
-
7.8
23.8
2.4
642
2.2
2.3
-
-
27.6
-
-
-
-
67
-
44.0
-
TA
TB
35.0
0.1
-
43.9
-
7.9
23.6
2.5
483
0.7
0.7
-
-
16.7
-
-
-
-
29
-
0.7
-
0.1
-
48.8
-
7.9
27.6
2.2
454
0.4
0.4
-
-
7.3
-
-
-
-
31
-
0.2
-
03/13/08
IN
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
NA
NA
2.9
366
-
-
-
27.5
27.5
-
-
-
-
121
86
-
66.6
64.9
-
AC
-
<0.05
0.1
-
-
NA
NA
2.9
593
0.8
1.0
-
-
31.1
31.4
-
-
-
-
91
51
-
54.6
55.4
-
TA
TB
36.8
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
NA
NA
4.1
605
0.7
0.7
-
-
26.6
25.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
1.2
1.1
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
NA
NA
4.3
603
0.8
0.8
-
-
10.4
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.6
0.6
-
03/25/08
IN
-
0.1
-
-
8.0
21.5
2.7
395
-
-
-
31.3
-
-
-
-
46
-
57.8
-
AC
-
<0.05
-
-
7.8
21.4
2.2
657
1.5
1.6
-
-
30.5
-
-
-
-
34
-
50.7
-
TA
TB
37.4
<0.05
-
-
7.8
21.4
2.8
660
1.0
1.2
-
-
23.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
<0.05
-
-
7.8
21.3
2.0
653
0.9
1.1
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
04/08/08
IN
-
0.1
-
-
7.9
25.0
2.8
414
-
-
-
33.6
-
-
-
-
93
-
56.7
-
AC
-
<0.05
-
-
7.7
25.0
2.0
660
1.9
1.9
-
-
28.0
-
-
-
-
48
-
53.8
-
TA
TB
38.1
<0.05
-
-
7.7
25.0
2.2
708
3.2
3.4
-
-
23.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.5
-
<0.05
-
-
7.7
25.0
1.9
687
2.5
2.6
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
Cd
oo
------- |