EPA/600/R-05/159
December 2005
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media
EPA Demonstration Project at Rimrock, AZ
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Lili Wang
Julia Valigore
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0019 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base 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
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the first six months of the
arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project in Rimrock, AZ. The objectives of the
project are to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of the AdEdge Arsenic Package Unit-100 (APU-100) AD-
33™ media system 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, (4) the
maintenance (O&M) and operator's skill levels, and (5) the cost-effectiveness of the technology. The
project also is characterizing water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the
treatment process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the
treatment train and in the distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M costs.
The APU-100 treatment system consisted of two 36-inch-diameter, 72-inch-tall fiberglass-reinforced-
plastic (FRP) vessels, each containing 22 ft3 of AD-33™ media. The media is Bayoxide E33 iron-based
adsorption media developed by Bayer AG and branded under the name of AD-33™ by AdEdge. The
system was originally designed to treat 90 gpm of water supplied by two production wells. Due to the
loss of one well, the treatment flowrate was reduced by more than half, which prompted a change in
system configuration from parallel to series (lead/lag). Following the conversion to series configuration
in the field, the APU-100 system with a design capacity of 45 gpm began regular operation on June 24,
2004. The average flowrate through each vessel was 31.5 gpm, corresponding to an average empty bed
contact time (EBCT) of 5.2 minutes per vessel and 10.4 minutes for both vessels.
Through the period June 24, 2004 through December 22, 2004, the APU-100 system operated for 12
hours a day on a timer for a total of 2,112 hours. The system treated approximately 4,109,000 gallons of
water, or 25,000 bed volumes (BV), which was approximately 38% of the vendor-estimated working
capacity for adsorptive media. Arsenic breakthrough from the lead and lag vessels was 3 |o,g/L and 1.3
Hg/L, respectively. Total arsenic concentration in raw water ranged from 48.3 to 81.4 |o,g/L with As(V)
being the predominating species, averaging 57.3 |o,g/L. Prechlorination, although not required for
oxidation, was performed for disinfection. The residual chlorine measured before and after the treatment
vessels was comparable, indicating little or no chlorine consumption by the AD-33™ media.
Concentrations of iron, manganese, silica, orthophosphate, and other ions in raw water were not high
enough to impact arsenic removal by the media.
Backwash was performed monthly since August 2004 with raw water at approximately 50 gpm, or 7
gpm/ft2. Each vessel was backwashed for 15 minutes, producing between 631 to 910 gallons of water.
Two sets of backwash water samples were collected during the first six months of system operation.
Arsenic concentrations in the backwash water from the lead and lag vessels were approximately 48.0
Hg/L and <3.0 |o,g/L, respectively, indicating that the lead vessel had less capacity to remove arsenic, and
that the lag vessel was still very effective at removing arsenic during backwash. A backwash recycle loop
enabled the system to reclaim nearly 100% of the wastewater produced by blending it with the chlorinated
water at a rate of 0.5 gpm.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the APU-100 system
began showed a decrease in the average arsenic concentration (from 44.6-55.2 |o,g/L to 18.8-21.8 |o,g/L) at
each of the three sampling locations. However, the concentrations measured after system operation began
were higher than those at the plant effluent. This was probably caused by the blending of treated water by
the APU-100 system with untreated water from other wells in the distribution system. Neither lead nor
copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
-------
The capital investment cost of $90,757 includes $66,235 for equipment, $11,372 for site engineering, and
$13,150 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 45 gpm (or 64,800 gpd), the capital cost
was $2,017/gpm (or $1.40/gpd) and the equipment-only cost was $l,472/gpm (or $1.02/gpd). These
calculations did not include the cost of the building construction.
O&M costs included only incremental costs associated with the APU-100 system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor. Although not incurred during the first
six months of operation, the media replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost, and
was estimated to be $9,940 per vessel. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per
1,000 gallons of water treated as a function of the projected media run length to the 10-|a,g/L arsenic
breakthrough. O&M costs will be refined once the actual throughput and cost at the time of the media
replacement become available.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iv
ABSTRACT v
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
3.1 General Project Approach 4
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 5
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 6
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 6
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 6
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection 6
3.3.4 Residual Solid Sample Collection 6
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 6
3.4 Sampling Logistics 8
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 8
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 8
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 8
3.5 Analytical Procedures 9
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 Facility Description 10
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 10
4.1.2 Distribution System 11
4.2 Treatment Process Description 12
4.3 System Installation 15
4.3.1 Permitting 15
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 15
4.3.3 Shed Construction 18
4.4 System Operation 18
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 18
4.4.2 Backwash 19
4.4.3 Residual Management 19
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 20
4.5 System Performance 21
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 21
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 22
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 26
4.6 System Costs 28
vn
-------
4.6.1 Capital Costs 28
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 29
5.0 REFERENCES 32
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Demonstration Site Conditions 10
Figure 4-2. Schematic of AdEdge APU-100 System with Series Operation 14
Figure 4-3. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 16
Figure 4-4. Photograph of the APU-100 System 17
Figure 4-5. Photograph of the Backwash Recycle System 17
Figure 4-6. Sun Shed Structure over the Treatment System 18
Figure 4-7. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the Inlet, after Vessel A, and after Vessel B 25
Figure 4-8. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve 26
Figure 4-9. Media Replacement and O&M Costs for the Rimrock Treatment System 31
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source Water Quality
Parameters 2
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 4
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 5
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 7
Table 4-1. Rimrock, AZ Source Water Quality Data 11
Table 4-2. Rimrock, AZ Distribution System Water Quality Data 12
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33™ Media 13
Table 4-4. Design Features of the APU-100 System 15
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-100 System Operations 19
Table 4-6. Backwash Event Summary 20
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 23
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 23
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results 26
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 27
Table 4-11. Summary of Capital Investment Costs 29
Table 4-12. Summary of O&M Costs 30
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Al aluminum
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
AWC Arizona Water Company
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass-reinforced-plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
GFO granular ferric oxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
kwh kilowatt-hour(s)
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
mg/L milligrams per liter
IX
-------
jam
Mn
mph
mV
micrograms per liter
micrometer
manganese
miles per hour
millivolts
Na sodium
NA not applicable
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&IDs piping and instrumentation diagrams
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP
TDS
TO
TOC
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total dissolved solids
Task Order
total organic carbon
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the Arizona Water Company (AWC)
in Phoenix and Sedona, Arizona. The AWC staff monitored the treatment system and collected samples
from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period.
This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their support and dedication.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies. The Arizona Water Company (AWC) water system in Rimrock, AZ was selected
as one of the 17 Round 1 host sites for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. AdEdge, using the Bayoxide E33
media developed by Bayer AG, was selected for Rimrock. AdEdge has given the E33 media the
designation "AD-33™."
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites include nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 demonstration sites. The
technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration sites have been summarized in an EPA
report (Wang et al., 2004) posted at the following EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/
arsenic/resource .htm.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Technologies and Source
Water Quality Parameters
Demonstration Site
Bow, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(HS/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
pH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration process; IX = ion exchange process;
SM = system modification; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; STS = Severn Trent Services.
(a) Due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation, the design flowrate is reduced by 50%.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the simplicity of required system operation and maintenance (O&M)
and operator's skill levels.
• Determine the cost-effectiveness of the technologies.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the results gathered during the first six months of the AdEdge system operation
from June 24 through December 24, 2004. The types of data collected included system operational data,
water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals
characterization data, and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
The AdEdge arsenic package unit (APU)-IOO was installed and operated at Rimrock, AZ since June 24,
2004. Based on the information collected during the first six months of operation, the following
preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems
• The APU-100 was effective at reducing As(V) in the raw water from 48.3-81.4 |o,g/L to less than
10 |o,g/L. After treating approximately 4.1 million gallons or 25,000 bed volumes of water, total
arsenic concentrations in the effluent from the lead and lag vessels were measured at 3 |o,g/L and
1.3 |o,g/L, respectively.
• The presence of low concentrations of iron, manganese, silica, orthophosphate, and other ions in
the water did not appear to impact arsenic removal by the AD-33™ media.
• Little or no chlorine was consumed by the AD-33™ media.
Simplicity of required system operation and maintenance and operator's skill levels
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 minutes to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters. The APU-100 was equipped with automated controls to initiate
backwash by timer and/or differential pressure.
• Operation of the APU-100 did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the
existing water supply equipment.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology
• The capital investment for the APU-100 was $90,757, including $66,235 for equipment, $11,372
for site engineering, and $13,150 for installation.
• Based on a design capacity of 45 gpm, the capital cost was $2,017/gpm (or $1.40/gpd) and the
equipment-only cost was $ 1,472/gpm (or $ 1.02/gpd), not including the cost for building
construction.
• Media replacement cost, although not incurred during the first six months, represents the majority
of the O&M cost. The media replacement for one vessel was estimated to be $9,940.
Characteristics of process residuals produced by the technology
• The APU-100 was backwashed monthly, generating between 1,500 and 1,700 gallons of water.
Nearly 100% of the wastewater was reclaimed via a backwash recycle system.
• Backwash effluent contained less arsenic than the backwash influent, indicating some arsenic
removal by the media during backwashing.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the AdEdge treatment system began on June 24, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of weekly/biweekly water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system
was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a
Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Simplicity of the system operation and the level of operator skill required were evaluated based on a
combination of quantitative data and qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-
treatment requirements, level of system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory
requirements, and general knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The
staffing requirements to maintain the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log
Sheet.
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the cost per 1,000 gallons ($/l,000 gallons)
of water treated. This task required the tracking of capital costs such as equipment, engineering, and
installation costs, as well as O&M costs for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electrical
power use, and labor hours. The capital costs have been detailed in an EPA report (Chen et al., 2004)
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Letter Report Issued
Draft Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to ADEQ
Final Study Plan Issued
Approval to Construct Granted by ADEQ
Construction Permit Issued by County
APU-100 Unit Shipped
Initial System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Initial Approval of Construction Granted by ADEQ
Shed Construction Completed
System Re-Configuration Completed
Revised Engineering Package Submitted to ADEQ
Final Approval of Construction Granted by ADEQ
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
July 3 1,2003
August 4, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 9, 2003
September 9, 2003
October 6, 2003
October 17, 2003
November 26, 2003
December 11, 2003
December 19, 2003
February 18, 2004
March 15, 2004
March 30, 2004
April 22, 2004
April 29, 2004
May 2 1,2004
May 27, 2004
June 1, 2004
June 15, 2004
June 24, 2004
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
Simplicity of Operation
and Operator Skill
Cost-Effectiveness
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include labor hours, problem description,
description of materials, and cost of materials
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and labor hours
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance to include labor hours per month and
number and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital costs including equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M costs including chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
that is posted at the following EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm.
Data on O&M costs were limited to chemicals, electricity, and labor hours because media replacement
did not take place during the six months of operation.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the amount of backwash
water produced during each backwash event and the need to replace the media upon arsenic breakthrough.
Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical constituents.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly (changed to biweekly since November 3, 2004), and monthly
system O&M and data collection following the instructions provided by Battelle. The plant operator
recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily
System Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite drum level; and conducted visual
inspections to ensure normal system operations on a regular basis. If any problems occurred, the plant
operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who then would determine if AdEdge should be
contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information on the Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet. Weekly or biweekly, the plant operator measured water quality parameters,
including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual
chlorine and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly
backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
Capital costs for the APU-100 consisted of costs for equipment, site engineering, and system installation.
The O&M costs consisted of costs for the media replacement and spent media disposal, chemical and
electricity consumption, and labor. The sodium hypochlorite consumption was tracked on the Daily
System Operation Log Sheet. Electrical consumption was estimated from an electric meter. Labor hours
for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M
included activities such as filling field logs, replenishing the sodium hypochlorite solution, ordering
supplies, performing system inspection, and others as recommended by AdEdge. The demonstration-
related work included activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples,
-------
and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and AdEdge. The demonstration-related activities were
recorded but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, treatment plant,
distribution system, and adsorptive vessel backwash. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and
analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for arsenic speciation,
analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-
1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. The plant operator collected one set of source water
samples from Montezuma Haven Well No. 2 for detailed water quality analyses (see Table 3-3) on
October 22, 2003. The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was
taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. An arsenic speciation kit and sample
bottles with appropriate preservatives were used for sample collection.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance study, the
plant operator collected water samples across the treatment train in 250-mL plastic bottles containing
nitric acid preservative for metal analyses and in additional plastic bottles containing appropriate
preservatives for other water quality analyses. The plant operator also performed on-site arsenic
speciation using arsenic speciation kits (see Section 3.4.1). For the first four months of the
demonstration, samples were collected weekly on a four-week cycle at three locations (i.e. the wellhead
[IN], after the lead vessel [TA], and after the lag vessel [TB]) for on- and off-site analyses. For the first
week of each four-week cycle, samples were collected, speciated, and analyzed for the analytes listed
under the monthly treatment plant analyte list (see Table 3-3). For the next three weeks, samples were
collected and analyzed for the analytes listed under the weekly treatment plant analyte list. Since
November 3, 2004, the weekly sampling frequency was reduced to biweekly and speciation sampling was
reduced to bimonthly due to slow arsenic breakthrough in the treated water. Thus, the four-week
sampling cycle became an eight-week cycle. On-site measurements also were taken after prechlorination
(AC), in addition to IN, TA, and TB.
3.3.3 Backwash Water Sample Collection. Backwash water samples were collected on October
20, 2004 and December 15, 2004 from the sample taps located at the backwash water effluent line from
each vessel. For each backwash sampling, an unfiltered sample from each vessel was collected in an
unpreserved 1-gallon wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HOPE) bottle for water quality analyses,
and a 60-mL sample filtered on-site with 0.45-(im filters was collected in a 125-mL HDPE bottle
preserved with nitric acid for metal analyses. Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Residual Solid Sample Collection. Residual solids including backwash sludge and spent
media samples were not collected during the initial six months of this demonstration.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From December 2003 to February
2004, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were
collected from three locations within the distribution system. Following the startup of the arsenic
adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same locations.
Ideally, the sampling locations selected would have been the historical Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
locations served primarily by Well No. 2. However, because the distribution system of Rimrock is
supplied by Well No. 2 and five other wells, such LCR locations do not exist (see Section 4.1.2).
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Solid
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3'
Wellhead (IN)
Wellhead (IN),
after the lead
vessel (TA),
and after the
lag vessel (TB)
Backwash
discharge line
from each
vessel
Spent media
from lead and
lag vessels and
backwash
sludge from
bag filter
Non-LCR
residences
served by Well
No. 2 and
other wells
No. of
Samples
1
3
2
2-3
3
Frequency
Once
Weekly (b)
Monthly
Monthly
Once
Monthly™
Analytes
As (total, soluble, and
paniculate), As(III),
As(V), Fe (total and
soluble), Mn (total and
soluble), Al (total and
soluble), Na, Ca, Mg, Cl,
F, SO4, SiO2, PO4, TOC,
turbidity, pH, and
alkalinity.
On-site(c): pH,
temperature, DO, ORP,
C12 (free and total).
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity.
Same as weekly sampling
(above) plus the following
off-site: As (soluble and
paniculate), As(III),
As(V), Fe (soluble), Mn
(soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, and SO4,.
pH, TDS, turbidity, As
(soluble), Fe (soluble),
and Mn (soluble).
TCLP metals
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe, Mn,
Cu, and Pb.
Date(s) Samples
Collected
10/22/03
07/07/04, 07/14/04,
07/21/04,08/04/04,
08/11/04,08/18/04,
09/01/04,09/08/04,
09/15/04, 09/29/04,
10/06/04, 10/13/04,
10/27/04, 11/03/04,
11/17/04, 12/01/04
06/30/04, 07/28/04,
08/25/04, 09/22/04,
10/20/04, 12/15/04
10/20/04, 12/15/04
To be determined
Baseline sampling:
12/17/03,01/06/04,
01/21/04,02/05/04,
Monthly sampling:
07/28/04, 08/26/04,
09/22/04, 10/20/04,
11/17/04, 12/15/04
(a) The abbreviations in parentheses correspond to the sample locations shown in Figure 4-3.
(b) Began biweekly sampling on November 3, 2004.
(c) On-site measurements were performed on samples taken after prechlorination (AC), in addition to IN, TA,
and TB. Chlorine measurements were not performed at IN.
(d) Four baseline sampling events were performed from December 2003 to Feburary 2004 before the system
became operational.
-------
As such, three non-LCR residences that are served by Well No. 2 and other wells were used for the
distribution system sampling.
For each location, samples were collected in one unpreserved 1-L HDPE wide-mouth bottle for metal
analyses (preserved with nitric acid in the lab), and one unpreserved 250-mL plastic bottle for water
quality analyses (see Table 3-3). The samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed
according to the Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems
(EPA, 2002). The homeowners recorded the date and time of last water use before sampling and the date
and time of sample collection to calculate the stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-
water faucet that had not been used for at least six hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sample shipping and handling is discussed as follows.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a cooler was prepared with an
appropriate number and type of sample bottles, filters, and/or speciation kits needed. All sample bottles
were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-printed,
colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, where to send the sample, analysis required, and preservative. The sample
ID consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code for a
specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary).
The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For example, red,
orange, and yellow were used to designate sampling locations for IN, TA, and TB, respectively. The
labeled bottles were then separated into ziplock bags by sampling locations and placed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid and addressed Federal Express air bills, and bubble wrap, were packed
into the coolers. Except for the operator's signature and the sample date and time, the chain-of-custody
forms and prepaid Federal Express air bills were completed with the required information. After prepara-
tion, sample coolers were sent to the site via Federal Express 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, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label identifications were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were
logged into the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodians were
addressed with the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS Laboratory. Samples for other water quality
analyses were packed in coolers at Battelle and picked up by a courier from Battelle's subcontract
laboratories, including AAL in Columbus, OH and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH. The
chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time, and disposed of properly thereafter.
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003) were
followed by the Battelle ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Field measurements of pH,
temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a WTW Multi 340i handheld
meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's
manual. The ORP probe also was checked by measuring the ORP of the 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 reached. The plant operator also performed free
and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2003). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and
completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%,
percent recovery of 80-120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality assurance (QA) data associated with
each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate
cover and to be shared with the other 11 demonstration sites included in this project.
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The Montezuma Haven Wells No. 1 and No. 2 in Rimrock, AZ with a combined capacity of 90 gpm were
selected for this demonstration study. These and five other wells serve a population of 2,556. From the
summer of 2003 to October 2003, Wells No. 1 and No. 2 were taken off-line for repairs and
redevelopment. Figure 4-1 shows the site condition in late July 2003. It was later discovered that Well
No. 1 had become dry and that Well No. 2 produced no more than 35 gpm of water. This reduced
flowrate prompted a change to the configuration of the adsorption vessels from parallel to series.
Well No. 2 is 6 inches in diameter and 165 ft deep with an open borehole extending from 80 to 165 ft
below ground surface (bgs). During the first six months of the study, Well No. 2 operated 12 hours per
day on a timer, i.e., from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm before November 22, 2004, and from 11:00 pm to 11:00 am
afterwards (the operating time was adjusted to prevent the system components from being damaged under
freezing conditions). The actual flowrate from Well No. 2 to the treatment system was approximately 31
gpm.
Well No. 3, a 1,000-ft-deep well located at the same site, was drilled in December 2002 and produced a
flow of 315 gpm. This well became a main supply well and was controlled by level sensors in storage
tanks. Before entering the distribution system, a 12% sodium hypochlorite solution was used to maintain
a chlorine residual of about 0.3 mg/L (as C12) in the distribution system.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected for analysis from Well No. 2
on October 22, 2003. The results of the source water analyses, along with those provided by the facility
to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those independently collected and analyzed by EPA, are
presented in Table 4-1.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Demonstration Site Conditions
10
-------
Table 4-1. Rimrock, AZ Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Sampling Date
Well ID
PH
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
TOC
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Al
Soluble Al
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Na
Total Ca
Total Mg
-
mg/L^
mg/L^
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data00
Not specified
Wells No. 1&2
7.2
334
300
25.0
NS
NS
13.0
27.8
<0.065(c)
NS
50.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
170(o)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
35.0
69.0
31.0
Facility
Data
12/30/2002
Well No. 3
7.6
444
NS
NS
0.2
0.1
12.2
NS
NS
NS
15.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
93
NS
NS
EPA
Data
10/03/2002
Wells No. 1&2
NS
374
330
30.8
NS
NS
11.6
26.3
0.065
NS
52.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
170
NS
<25
NS
0.4
NS
41.6
80.2
31.6
Battelle
Data
10/22/2003
Well No. 2
7.1
378
335
32.0
0.5
NS
9.5
24.8
0.10
3.4(d)
63.6
64.8
0.10
O.10
64.8
36
<25
13
<10
7.5
8.1
40.3
82.8
31.0
(a) Provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection.
(b) AsCaCO3.
(c) Provided by EPA.
(d) Datum is questionable.
TOC = total organic carbon; NS = not sampled.
Based on the October 22, 2003 sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in Well No. 2 was 63.6
(ig/L, with arsenic existing solely as As(V). Because the arsenic is As(V) and highly adsorbed with AD-
33™ media, prechlorination upstream of the treatment process was not required. The AD-33™ media
adsorbs arsenic more effectively at pH values ranging from 6.9 to 9.0, but less effectively at the upper end
of the range. The source water pH value was 7.1; therefore, pH adjustment was not recommended.
The adsorption capacity of AD-33™ media can be impacted by high levels of competing ions such as
silica, phosphate, and fluoride. Concentrations of these ions in the source water appeared to be low
enough not to affect the media's adsorption of arsenic. The iron concentration (36 (ig/L) in Well No. 2
water was sufficiently low that pretreatment for iron removal prior to adsorption was not required.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system is currently supplied by Montezuma Haven
Wells No. 2, No. 3, and four other production wells. Well No. 1 is no longer in service. Water from Well
No. 2 enters the distribution system via a 6-inch-diameter underground main. Chlorinated water from
11
-------
Well No. 3 enters the distribution system at the fence line of the treatment plant. Well water blends
within the distribution system and is stored in a 200,000-gallon tank. The distribution transmission main
is constructed of 6-inch-diameter asbestos cement pipes.
Water from the distribution system is sampled periodically for state and federal compliance with safe
drinking water standards. Every month, three samples are collected from the distribution system for
bacteria analysis. Under the LCR, samples have been collected from customer taps at 14 locations every
three years. The monitoring results for 2003 are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Rimrock, AZ Distribution System Water Quality Data1
(a)
Parameter
Alpha emitters
Arsenic (total)
Barium
Chromium
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Radium-226
Sodium
Uranium
Copper(b)
Radon(c)
Units
pCi/L
HB/L
mg/L
tig/L
mg/L
mg/L
tig/L
pCi/L
mg/L
tig/L
mg/L
pCi/L
Detected Range
NDto3.5
20 to 54
0.3 to 0.4
11 to 15
0.2 to 0.4
ND to 0.9
3. 2 to 4.2
ND to 0.2
38 to 45
1.3 to 4.5
0.43
60
4.2
(a) All other constituents analyzed for AWC's Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) were under the respective detection limits (AWC, 2004).
(b) Parameter was sampled in 2002.
(c) Parameter was sampled in 1999.
ND = not detected.
Treatment Process Description
The APU-100 system is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption system used for small water systems with
flows typically under 100 gpm. The treatment system uses Bayoxide® E33 granular ferric oxide (GFO)
adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG for the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. This
media is branded and referred to as AD-33™ by AdEdge. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical
properties of the media. AD-33™ is delivered in a dry crystalline form and has received NSF
International (NSF) approval for use in drinking water under NSF Standard 61.
The original design of the APU-100 system consisted of two pressure vessels operating in parallel to treat
an anticipated flowrate of 90 gpm. However, because Well No. 1 was no longer in service, the vessels
were reconfigured to operate in series to treat half of that flow (i.e., 45 gpm).
For series operation, when the media in the lead vessel completely exhausts its capacity and/or the
effluent from the lag vessel reaches 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, the spent media in the lead vessel is removed and
disposed of as non-hazardous waste after passing the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test. After new media is loaded into the "lead" vessel, it is switched to the lag position and the
"lag" vessel is switched to the lead position. The series operation can better utilize the media capacity
when compared to parallel operation.
12
-------
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical form
Color
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle size distribution
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry granular media
Amber
0.45
28.1
142
0.3
< 15% by weight
10 x 35 mesh
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
SO3
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A12O3
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
Source: Bayer AG.
The APU-100 system consists of a bag filter assembly, two pressure vessels arranged in series with hub
and lateral underdrains, a backwash recycle system, piping with an automated valve assembly, and
instrumentation and controls such as a flow meters and totalizers, pressure and differential pressure
gauges, and ball valve sample ports. Figure 4-2 is a simplified instrumentation diagram of the APU-100
system with series configuration. The design features of the APU-100 system are summarized in Table 4-
4, and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are presented in Figure 4-3. The major
components of the treatment process are discussed as follows.
• Intake. Raw water is pumped from Montezuma Haven Well No. 2 at a flowrate of
approximately 31 gpm.
• Prechlorination. Although prechlorination was not needed to oxidize the water, a sodium
hypochlorite feed port was installed on the inlet piping to the treatment system for disinfection.
A 12% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution is fed with a metering pump via polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) tubing. The target residual chlorine in the treated water is 0.3 mg/L (as C12). The meter-
ing pump is interlocked with the well pump so that both pumps can be on or off at the same time.
• Bag Filter Filtration. After prechlorination, a 25-jam bag filter with replaceable polypropylene
felt bags is used to remove any sediment from the intake to protect the treatment equipment.
• Adsorption. The APU-100 system consists of two 36-inch-diameter, 72-inch-tall pressure
vessels in series configuration, each containing 22 ft3 of AD-33™ media supported by a gravel
13
-------
underbed. Although originally proposed to contain 27 ft3 of media in each vessel, less media was
loaded to provide additional freeboard for backwash. The vessels are of fiberglass-reinforced-
plastic (FRP) construction, rated for 150 psi working pressure, skid mounted, and piped to a valve
rack mounted on a polyurethane coated, welded steel frame. Based on the actual flowrate of 31
gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) and hydraulic loading for each vessel are approximately
5.3 minutes and 4.4 gpm/ft2, respectively. Figure 4-4 is a photograph of the APU-100 system.
Backwash. Based upon a set time or a set pressure differential (Ap), the adsorption vessels are
taken offline for backwash one at a time using raw water from the well. The purpose of the
backwash is to remove particulates and/or media fines accumulating in the beds. Backwash may
be initiated either manually or automatically. Each backwash event produces 8 to 10 BV of
wastewater.
Backwash Water Recycling. Due to the lack of sewer or other wastewater discharge facilities
on site, a backwash recycle loop was added to the system to reclaim the wastewater. The recycle
system consists of a 25-|om bag filter, a 3,000-gallon polyethylene tank, and a reclaim pump.
Wastewater from the storage tank is metered into the system intake between the NaOCl injection
point and the bag filter at a rate of 0.5 gpm. Figure 4-5 is a photograph of the recycle system.
Process Flow Diagram
AdEdge Arsenic Reduction System
APU System
Rimrock - Arizona
Montezuma Haven Well
iH-v.ivd 5,'OJ - Series Operation
V*ss*l A • Lead v»ssH shown)
Figure 4-2. Schematic of AdEdge APU-100 System with Series Operation
14
-------
Table 4-4. Design Features of the APU-100 System
Parameter
Pretreatement
No. of adsorbers
Vessel size (inch)
Type of media
Quantity of media (ft3/vessel)
Backwash flowrate (gpm)
Backwashing hydraulic loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash frequency, per month
Total backwash duration (min)
Design flowrate (gpm)
Actual flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (mm/vessel)
Average use rate (gpd)
Hydraulic utilization (%)
Estimated working capacity (BV)
Bed volumes/day (BV/day)
Estimated gallons to breakthrough (gal)
Estimated media life (months)
Estimated media life (yrs)
Parallel Operation00
NaOCl
2
36 D x 72 H
AD-33™
27
56
8
1
50-75
90
-
4.5
50,000
38.6
66,000(c)
124 (per vessel)
26,700,000(c)
17.8
1.5
Series Operation*1"'
NaOCl
2
36 D x 72 H
AD-33™
22
50
7
1
30
45
31
5.3
22,320
50.0
66,000(d)
136 (per vessel)
10,900,000(d)
16.2
1.3
(a) Proposed by AdEdge.
(b) Values were modified due to the system reconfiguration.
(c) Based on 10-|ag/L arsenic breakthrough from both vessels.
(d) Based on 10-|ag/L arsenic breakthrough from lead vessel.
4.3 System Installation
Installation of the AdEdge APU-100 system was completed in mid-April 2004. The system was
reconfigured from parallel to series operation in mid-May. The system installation activities were carried
out by Fann Environmental (Prescott, AZ) as a subcontractor to AdEdge.
4.3.1 Permitting. Engineering plans for the system permit application were prepared by AdEdge and
its subcontractor and submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for approval
on December 11, 2003. The plans included piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and
specifications of the APU-100 system, control panel schematics, equipment cut sheets, and drawings of a
site plan, treatment plan, and piping plan. After the Approval to Construct was granted on February 18,
2004, a construction permit was applied for and approved by Yavapai County in mid-March 2004. Upon
completion of system installation, as-built drawings were submitted to ADEQ and Approval of
Construction was granted on April 29, 2004. Following the system reconfiguration, updated information
was submitted to ADEQ and a second approval was granted on June 15, 2004.
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The APU-100 system was delivered to the
site on March 30, 2004. AdEdge's subcontractor performed the off-loading and installation of the system,
including piping connections to the existing intake and distribution system. The mechanical installation,
hydraulic testing of the unit (with no media), and media loading were completed on April 20, 2004. Due
to the loss of Well No. 1, a water line from Well No. 3 was installed to allow additional flow for media
backwash. During startup, however, some lubricating oil (used to lubricate the pump shaft of Well No. 3)
15
-------
Monthly
INFLUENT
(MONTEZUMA HAVEN WELL #2)
pH<3), temperature1:3), DO/ORP1:3),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble)
Mn (total and soluble), \_ f TN
pH, TDS, turbidity,
As (soluble), Fe (soluble), -* ( BW
Mn (soluble)
pH(3), temperature1:3), DO/ORP(3),
chlorine1:3), As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),-
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH(3), temperature1:3), DO/ORP(3),
chlorine^3', As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),-
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
STORAGE TANK
(200,000 gal)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Rim rock, AZ
AD-33® Technology
Design Flow: 45 gpm
, JNU3, SU4, S1U2
turbidity, alk<
' ^U4' V_
ilinity ^-
RECYCLE PUMP
1
* DA: C12
r
'l BAG FILTER
iperature(3),DO/C
)RP(3),
chlorine1:3)
(ss\+-
T
TCLP
BACKWASH
RECYCLE TANK
(3,000 gal)
A
BAG FILTER
VA
Weekly
pH^, temperature^), DO/ORP(a),
-As, Fe, Mn, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
chlorine^'
pH
-------
Figure 4-4. Photograph of the APU-100 System
Figure 4-5. Photograph of the Backwash Recycle System
17
-------
was found in Well No. 3 water, and a decision was made not to use Well No. 3 water for media
backwash.
Because of the reduced flowrate (from 90 to 31 gpm), the corresponding EBCT across each vessel would
have been more than doubled (from 4.5 minutes to 10.6 minutes) if the system configuration remained in
parallel. To evaluate the system performance close to the originally designed EBCT and to fully utilize
the media capacity, the vessel configuration was changed to series. The required modifications were
made in mid-May 2004, and shakedown and startup completed in early June 2004. After the system was
sanitized and passed bacteria tests, the performance evaluation of the APU-100 system began on June 24,
2004.
4.3.3 Shed Construction. After the APU-100 system was installed, a sun shed structure was built
by AWC over the treatment system in mid-May (Figure 4-6). The dimensions of the shed structure,
manufactured by Versa-Tube, were 12 ft x 15 ft with a height of 9.5 ft. The shed was constructed with a
galvanized steel frame anchored to the concrete pad and sheeted with 29-gauge steel that had a specially
coated surface. The shed was pre-engineered with a 90-mph wind load and a 30-lb/ft2 snow loading
capacity. From late-November to mid-December 2004, the sides and ends of the shed structure were
enclosed with metal covering for the winter.
Figure 4-6. Sun Shed Structure over the Treatment System
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of the system
operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-5. From
June 24 through December 22, 2004, the APU-100 system operated for 2,172 hours based on 12-hour
daily operation of Well No. 2. This value represents a utilization rate of 50% over the 27-week period.
An hour meter was installed on November 4, 2004 to accurately monitor any system downtime due to
repairs and maintenance.
18
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-100 System Operations
Operational Parameter
Period
Daily Operating Time (hr)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (kgal)
Bed Volumes (BV)(a)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Flowrate (gpm)
Average EBCT (min)^
Range of EBCT (min)(b)
Range of Ap (psi/vessel)
Value
06/24/04-12/22/04
12
2,172
4,109
25,000
31.5
26-34
10.4 (5.2 per vessel)
9.8-12.6 (4.9-6.3 per vessel)
3.5-6.5
(a) 1 BV = 22 ft3 = 165 gallons.
(b) Calculated based on 22 ft3 of media per vessel.
The average system throughput during this 27-week period was approximately 4,109,000 gallons (or
25,000 BV), which was 3.2% higher than that measured from the wellhead master totalizer (i.e.,
3,982,000 gallons). The flowrate readings ranged from 26 to 34 gpm and averaged 31.5 gpm. The
average EBCT was 5.2 minutes per vessel and 10.4 minutes for both vessels.
The Ap across each vessel ranged from 3.5 to 6.5 psi. During the startup, the hydraulic testing performed
with no media in the vessels measured a pressure loss of 4.3 psi across each vessel at a flowrate of 33
gpm. Therefore, the media did not cause significant pressure losses. Results of hydraulic testing
performed for another APU-100 system with similar design for the Rollinsford, NH host site indicated
that the controller valves were the source of elevated pressure losses (Oxenham et al., 2005). Further, the
pressure loss across each vessel between two consecutive backwash events did not increase significantly,
indicating that no or little particulates or media fines were accumulating in the media bed.
4.4.2 Backwash. The APU-100 system experienced unscheduled backwashes during the first
several months of operation when the system was set for automatic backwash at 15 psi of Ap or 27 or 28
days of system operation (Table 4-6). It was suspected that the operation of the nearby well, Well No. 3,
might have caused the system pressure to spike thereby initiating unscheduled backwashes. Because the
backwashes occurred when the operator was absent, relevant operational parameters were not recorded.
In order to monitor the backwash process and facilitate backwash water sampling, the Ap relays were
disengaged on August 12, 2004 so that the backwash would be controlled solely by a timer. The first set
of backwash samples was collected on October 20, 2004 when the vessels were manually backwashed.
After another backwash was missed on November 15, 2004, the timer setting was changed from 27 or 28
days to 30 days. The second set of backwash samples was collected on December 15, 2004. Backwash
was performed with raw water at 48-52 gpm, or approximately 7 gpm/ft2. Each vessel was backwashed
for 15 minutes, generating between 631 and 910 gallons of water per vessel.
4.4.3 Residual Management. The backwash recycle loop enabled the system to reclaim nearly
100% of the wastewater produced by blending it with the chlorinated water at a rate of 0.5 gpm before the
bag filter assembly. Thus, no liquid residual was generated by the APU-100. The solid residuals
produced included backwash solids and spent media. The backwash solids were filtered by bag filters,
which have been replaced and disposed of after each backwash event. The media was not exhausted
during the first six months of system operation.
19
-------
Table 4-6. Backwash Event Summary
Date
06/26/04
07/15/04
07/26/04
08/10/04
08/23/04
09/26/04
09/27/04(b)
10/20/0403'
10/20/0403'
11/15/04
11/16/04
12/15/04(b)
12/15/0403'
Vessel
A/B
Backwash
Flowrate
gpm
Backwash
Duration
min
Data not available due to
unscheduled backwashes.
B
A
B
48
49
49
15
15
15
Data not available due to
unscheduled backwashes.
A
B
52
52
15
15
Total
Wastewater
Generated'3'
gal
NA
800
869
631
700
800
709
700
800
764
786
800
910
9,269
Recycle
Volume'3'
gal
511
779
770
780
530
1,479
1,481
1,578
1,610
9,518
Estimated
Time between
Backwashes
days
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
23
26
27
30
29
(a) Based on respective flow meter/totalizer readings.
(b) Manual backwash.
NA = not available.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to backwash
were the primary source of concerns during system operations in this six-month reporting period.
Because the bag filter was installed upstream of the backwash recycle tank (see Figure 4-3), the filter had
to be replaced after each backwash event. Operations could be simplified if the bag filter was installed
downstream of the recycle tank, allowing solids to settle prior to the bag filter, and thereby reducing the
replacement frequency.
The O&M issues encountered were problems with the chlorine injector, backwash recycle pump, and
broken inlet and outlet pressure gauges, recycle meter, and backwash totalizer due to unusually cold
weather in late November. A minimal amount of unscheduled downtime was necessary to repair system
components. The actual downtime was not calculated due to the lack of an hour meter until November 4,
2004, but estimated to be no more than 1-2%.
The simplicity of system operation and operator skill requirements are discussed according to pre- and
post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Although not required for treatment, NaOCl was injected
upstream of the system for disinfection. The prechlorination system was used to provide chlorine
residuals in water through the adsorption vessels and the distribution system. As such, post-treatment was
not required at the site.
System Automation. The APU-100 system is equipped with an automatic backwash control to initiate
backwash automatically by timer and/or Ap. However, the system experienced several unscheduled
backwashes from June through September, 2004 as discussed above. Due to the needs for the study such
20
-------
as filling up logs and collecting backwash samples, the automated backwash control was disabled to allow
manual backwashes. The system also can recycle the backwash water automatically.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
APU-100 system were minimal. The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 minutes for visual
inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters on the log sheets. On days when the
system was backwashed, the operator typically spent approximately two hours on site to complete this
process. However, if the system was set on automatic backwash, it would not require the operator to be
present. The operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment. One operator had a Level 4 Distribution Grade and a
Level 4 Treatment Grade, and the other had a Level 4 Distribution Grade and a Level 3 Treatment Grade.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance tasks recommended by AdEdge included
daily system inspection and weekly monitoring of the pressure, Ap, and backwash recycle tank level (if
applicable). Also recommended were the checking of the flowrate, throughput, visual clarity of the
treated water, bag filters, and performance (i.e. via sample analysis) monthly and the Y-strainers (for
sediment capture) quarterly. The bag filter before the backwash recycle tank needed replacement after
every backwash event. All system components were maintained according to the O&M Manual.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. Chemical use was not required beyond the
chlorination system for disinfection. NaOCl consumption varied, but was typically dosed to achieve a
chlorine residual of 0.3-0.4 mg/L. The chlorine tank was refilled on an as-needed basis.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-100 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, media backwashing, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Water samples were collected at three locations throughout the
treatment train: the inlet (IN), the effluent of the lead vessel (TA), and the effluent of the lag vessel (TB).
The treatment plant water was sampled on 22 occasions (including two events with duplicate samples
taken) during the first six months of system operation, with field speciation performed on six of the 22
occasions. Table 4-7 summarizes the analytical results of critical constituents including arsenic, iron, and
manganese. On-site water quality measurements including pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were per-
formed at IN, after prechlorination (AC), TA, and TB locations. Chlorine residuals also were measured at
AC, TA, and TB locations. Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the first six months of system operation.
The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Total As concentrations in the raw water ranged from 48.3 to 81.4 |o,g/L and averaged 61.0 |o,g/L
(Table 4-7). As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 48.0 to 63.2 |o,g/L and averaging 57.3
Hg/L. Only trace amounts of particulate As and As(III) existed, with average concentrations of 0.9 and
1.5 |og/L, respectively. Figure 4-7 contains bar charts presenting the concentrations of total As,
particulate As, As(III), and As(V) at the IN, TA, and TB locations for each speciation sampling event.
The arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month period were consistent with those in the raw
water sample collected on October 22, 2003 (Table 4-1).
The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the APU-100 system was the arsenic concentration
in the treated water. The arsenic breakthrough curve in Figure 4-8 indicates that the lead vessel (TA)
removed the majority of arsenic (existing predominantly as As[V]) in the influent water, leaving only 0.7
21
-------
to 3.0 |o,g/L to be further polished by the lag vessel. The treated water from the lag vessel contained only
0.2 to 1.3 |o,g/L of total arsenic. By the end of the first six months of system operation, the APU-100
system treated approximately 25,000 BV of water (equivalent to 4,109,000 gallons of water), which was
about 38% of the vendor-estimated working capacity (66,000 BV as shown in Table 4-4). It must be
noted, however, that the treatment system was operating with a reduced flowrate and a longer EBCT than
was originally designed, which might increase the removal capacity of the media.
As shown in Figure 4-7 and Table 4-7, the particulate As concentrations at the TA and TB locations were
less than 0.3 |o,g/L. The average As(III) concentrations were 1.5, 1.4, and 0.7 |o,g/L at IN, TA, and TB,
respectively, indicating little or no As(III) removal by the AD-33™ media. It is not clear why up to 2.7
and 1.3 |o,g/L of As(III) were measured at TA and TB even in the presence of at least 0.2 mg/L (as C12) of
free chlorine.
Iron and Manganese. Average concentrations of Fe and Mn were near and/or below the respective
detection limits throughout the treatment system. Total Fe concentrations were <25 |o,g/L for all samples
(Table 4-7) except for five exceedances, including one on July 21 (i.e., 47.3 |o,g/L in TB), three on
September 22 (i.e., 127, 27, and 56 |o,g/L in IN, TA, and TB, respectively), and one on October 27 (27
Hg/L in TA). Dissolved Fe concentrations were <25 |o,g/L for all samples. Total Mn levels ranged from
<0.1 to 1.6 |og/L (Table 4-7), with the majority being dissolved Mn. The average total Mn concentrations
were 0.5, 0.2, and 0.2 |o,g/L at IN, TA, and TB, respectively. The reduction of total Mn between IN and
TA and TB indicates some removal of Mn within the adsorption vessels.
Other Water Quality Parameters. In addition As, Fe, and Mn, other water quality parameters were
analyzed to provide insight into the chemical processes occurring within the treatment system. The inlet
pH values ranged from 6.9 to 7.1, which were the lowest among the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites
(Table 1-1). This near neutral pH condition is desirable for adsorptive media which, in general, have a
greater arsenic removal capacity when treating lower-pH water.
The residual chlorine levels measured at the TA and TB locations were comparable to those measured at
the AC location, indicating little or no chlorine consumption through the AD-33™ vessels. ORP readings
at the IN location ranged from 148 to 510 mV. Due to the presence of residual chlorine at the AC, TA,
and TB locations, the respective ORP readings increased to the range of 491 to 710 mV. With DO
concentrations ranging from 3.3 to 4.7 mg/L, the inlet water was oxidizing, thus explaining why little or
no As(III) was present in the raw water.
The results for alkalinity, fluoride, sulfate, silica, and nitrate remained fairly constant throughout the
treatment train. Orthophosphate (as PO4) was always below the detection limit for all samples. The total
hardness results ranged from 287 to 397 mg/L as CaCO3, consisting approximately 60% of calcium
hardness and 40% of magnesium hardness. Hardness did not appear to be affected by the treatment
process.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. The analytical results of the two backwash water sampling
events are summarized in Table 4-9. Both sampling events showed similar results for soluble As, Fe, and
Mn. The arsenic concentrations in the backwash water from both vessels were lower than those in the
raw water used for backwash, indicating some arsenic removal by the media during backwash. The
backwash water from Vessel A contained much higher arsenic levels (e.g., 48 |o,g/L) than those from
Vessel B (e.g., <3 |o,g/L) most likely due to the fact that the media in Vessel A had a more reduced
adsorptive capacity than Vessel B. The pH of the backwash water was similar to that of the raw water.
Turbidity readings from Vessel A were higher than those from Vessel B, most likely because the lead
tank had removed the majority of particulates from the raw water.
22
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
HS/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Ug/L
Count
24
24
24
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
24
24
24
6
6
6
24
24
24
6
6
6
Minimum
48.3
0.7
0.2
50.2
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
48.0
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
Maximum
81.4
3.0
1.3
65.0
3.0
1.2
3.5
0.3
0.3
2.2
2.7
1.3
63.2
1.7
0.5
127
31.1
56.0
<25
<25
<25
1.6
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
Average
61.0
1.4
0.5
58.8
1.9
0.6
0.9
0.1
0.2
1.5
1.4
0.7
57.3
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
Standard
Deviation
10.2
0.6
0.3
4.9
1.0
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.8
0.4
5.0
0.6
0.2
23.4
4.7
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
One-half of the detection limit was used for nondetect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Count
24
24
24
6
6
6
6
6
6
Minimum
330
345
351
0.3
0.3
0.3
8.9
8.8
8.7
Maximum
390
386
395
0.4
0.5
0.4
10
10
10
Average
370
372
373
0.35
0.35
0.32
9.6
9.4
9.4
Standard
Deviation
12.8
8.3
10.6
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.4
0.4
0.6
23
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Count
24
24
24
24
24
24
6
6
6
24
24
24
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Minimum
0.06
<0.06
<0.06
24.0
24.3
23.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
O.I
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
19.5
19.8
19.7
19.7
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.4
148
491
565
590
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
287
298
299
171
175
174
116
123
124
Maximum
0.05
0.05
0.05
26.7
27.2
26.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.9
7.1
7.6
7.1
7.1
26.1
24.5
26.7
24.0
4.7
6.8
6.6
6.9
510
642
681
710
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
384
397
377
241
236
235
152
161
149
Average
0.04
0.04
0.04
25.5
25.4
25.2
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.2
0.2
0.3
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
21.6
21.4
21.5
21.5
4.0
4.8
4.1
4.1
304
594
623
637
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
337
349
341
201
206
202
136
142
139
Standard
Deviation
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.2
0.3
1.1
0.8
0.8
132
36
30
31
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
37
37
28
25
26
22
14
13
10
One-half of the detection limit was used for nondetect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
24
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
r=l
6/30/2004 7/28/2004 8/25/2004 9/22/2004 10/20/2004 12/15/2004
Date
Arsenic Species after Vessel A (TA)
60 -
50 -
I
1
I 30-
20 -
10 -
n -
__ , , | 1 |— | , , ^q
DAs (particulate)
• As(V)
D As (III)
7/28/2004 8/25/2004 9/22/2004
Date
10/20/2004 12/15/2004
1
I 3°
Arsenic Species after Vessel B (TB)
Figure 4-7. Concentration of Arsenic Species at the Inlet, after
Vessel A, and after Vessel B
25
-------
90
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
o
o
30 -
20 -
10 -
10 15
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (*103)
20
25
Figure 4-8. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve
Table 4-9. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
Date
10/20/2004
12/15/2004
Vessel A
W
s.u.
7.3
7.1
^
•o
A
NTU
22
45
C/5
Q
H
mg/L
486
358
-
™*
_3
"3
C£
Hg/L
48.2
48.0
0)
™*
_3
"3
Hg/L
<25
<25
1
™*
_3
"3
Hg/L
0.1
0.4
Vessel B
W
s.
S.U.
7.3
7.1
^
•a
A
NTU
6.5
25
C/5
Q
H
mg/L
442
306
-
™*
_3
"3
C£
Hg/L
2.7
1.6
0)
™*
_3
"3
in
Hg/L
<25
<25
1
™*
_3
"3
Hg/L
0.1
<0.1
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of the distribution system sampling are
summarized in Table 4-10. The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since the system
began opeartion was a decrease in arsenic concentrations, with an exception for the August 26, 2004 DS3
sample. Average baseline arsenic concentrations were 55.2, 44.6, and 46.6 |og/L at DS1, DS2, and DS3,
respectively, and ranged from 20.8 to 80.1 |o,g/L. After the performance evaluation began, average
concentrations at DS1, DS2, and DS3 were 18.8, 20.1, and 21.8 |o,g/L, respectively, and ranged from 9.3
to 28.5 |o,g/L (with an exception for the August 26, 2004 DS3 sample). The arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system were higher than those in the system effluent, presumably due to the blending of the
26
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
12/17/03
01/06/04
01/21/04
02/05/04
07/28/04(b)
08/26/04(b)
09/22/04(c)
10/20/04
11/17/04
12/15/04(b)
DS1
4125 E. Shade Road
Non-LCR
1st Draw
0)
H
0
1
1
-*^
in
hrs
12.0
14.0
34.0
23.0
11.0
20.5
12.0
19.0
7.5
9.0
M
S.U.
7.1
8.9
7.2
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.2
6.7
7.0
7.1
Alkalinity
mg/L
387
411
367
394
373
379
402
406
418
370
t«
<
ug/L
38.5
49.3
80.1
52.8
11.7
15.4
18.0
22.9
21.2
15.0
0)
u.
ug/L
<25
<25
<25
46.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
S
ug/L
1.2
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
.a
a.
ug/L
2.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
4.4
4.8
4.4
2.9
1.4
4.1
U
ug/L
119
24.2
24.0
31.3
147
112
194
99.6
79.5
52.5
DS2
4095 E. Goldmine00
Non-LCR
1st Draw
1>
H
0
1
1
-*^
in
hrs
7.0
11.3
11.0
9.8
M
S.U.
7.2
8.5
7.2
7.1
Alkalinity
mg/L
405
407
371
406
t«
<
ug/L
20.8
48.4
57.0
52.2
1>
u.
ug/L
182
<25
<25
40.2
S
ug/L
68.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
.a
a.
ug/L
1.6
2.4
3.8
0.8
U
ug/L
106
64.0
128
34.4
Homeowner was unavailable
10.0
10.5
9.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
395
373
410
28.5
9.3
19.8
<25
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
3.0
4.3
2.9
7.0
66.7
33.8
129
Homeowner was unavailable
9.0
7.2
403
21.8
<25
1.1
6.6
139
DS3
4075 Goldmine
Non-LCR
1st Draw
1>
H
0
1
1
-*^
in
hrs
8.5
6.0
7.8
7.0
5.3
7.5
7.3
6.5
6.3
9.0
M
S.U.
7.2
8.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
Alkalinity
mg/L
407
419
336
406
413
395
381
394
418
394
t«
<
ug/L
37.1
49.5
47.0
52.7
22.7
45.6
23.3
21.3
15.6
14.4
1>
u.
ug/L
<25
<25
<25
47.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
S
ug/L
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.8
A
a.
ug/L
1.3
1.0
2.1
1.1
2.1
1.4
2.4
1.3
1.8
2.7
U
ug/L
89.7
64.2
142
121
107
46.7
116
43.3
68.2
124
to
(a) Sample DS2 was taken from 4055 E. Goldmine Rd on December 17, 2003.
(b) Sample DS1 was collected on the previous day.
(c) Sample DS1 was taken on September 30, 2004 when homeowner returned from vacation; pH was analyzed out of hold time.
Lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L.
BL = Baseline Sampling.
-------
treated water (supplied by Well No. 2) with untreated water from Well No. 3 and other wells, which also
contained arsenic (Table 4-1).
Lead concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 7.0 |o,g/L, with none of the samples exceeding the action level of
15 |o,g/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 24.0 to 194 |o,g/L, with no samples exceeding the 1,300
|o,g/L action level. Due to the blending of water from untreated wells, it was inconclusive whether the Pb
or Cu concentrations in the distribution system had been affected by the arsenic treatment system.
Measured pH values ranged from 6.7 to 7.2, except for the baseline pH analyses performed on January 6,
2004. Alkalinity levels ranged from 336 to 419 mg/L (as CaCO3). Iron concentrations ranged from <25
to 182 |o,g/L, with concentrations in the majority of the samples at <25 |o,g/L. Since the system became
operational, iron concentrations in the distribution system samples were consistently below the detection
limit. The concentrations of Mn in the distribution system samples were < 3.0 |o,g/L, except for the first
baseline sample at DS2. Mn levels do not appear to have been affected since the system began to operate.
4.6 System Costs
The cost-effectiveness of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated. Capital costs included equipment,
engineering, and installation, and O&M costs included media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electrical power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Costs. The capital investment costs for equipment, site engineering, and installation
were $90,757 (see Table 4-11) as provided by the AdEdge in a cost proposal to Battelle dated September
9, 2003. The equipment costs were $66,235 (or 73% of the total capital investment), which included
costs for two FRP treatment vessels, 54 ft3 of AD-33™ media ($245/ft3 or $8.73/lb), piping and valves,
instrumentation and controls, field services (including operator training, technical support, and system
shakedown), miscellaneous materials and supplies, and a change order for system reconfiguration from
parallel to series operation.
The engineering costs included the costs for preparation of the engineering plans, system layout and
footprint, drawings of site and piping plans, and equipment cut sheets for the permit application submittal
(Section 4.3.1). The costs also included resubmission of the redesigned system layout and piping plans to
ADEQ for approval. The engineering costs were $11,372, which was 13% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs included the costs for the equipment and labor to unload and install the APU-100
system, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, and reconfigure the
system (Section 4.3.2). The installation was performed by AdEdge and its subcontractor, Fann
Environmental. The installation costs were $13,150, or 14% of the total capital investment.
The costs associated with the backwash recycle system were not reflected in the capital investment shown
in Table 4-11. AWC contracted AdEdge to design and install the backwash recycle system for handling
the backwash water. The total cost for the backwash recycle system was $11,546, including material,
engineering, and installation costs.
AWC installed a sun shed structure with a galvanized steel frame over the APU-100 system (Section
4.3.3). The 12 ft x 15 ft structure has a height of 9.5 ft and is mounted on a 12 ft x 15 ft concrete pad.
The structure was pre-engineered to sustain a 90-mph wind load and a 30-lb/ft2 snow load. The total cost
for the building was $13,677 which included $3,500 for materials and labor to assemble the structure.
28
-------
Table 4-11. Summary of Capital Investment Costs
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Adsorptive Media Vessels
AD-33™ Media
Piping and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
O&M Manual, Operator Training, Technical Support
Procurement, Assembly, Labor, Shakedown
Freight Costs
Change Order for System Reconfiguration
Equipment Total
2
54ft3
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
$21,800
$13,230
$7,520
$4,575
$3,800
$12,575
$1,855
$880
$66,235
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73%
Engineering Costs
Materials, Submittals, FedEx, Postage, Supplies
AdEdge PM Oversight, Specification Preparation
Design, Drawings, Coordination
Review Meeting, Airfare, Lodging and Meals
Change Order for System Reconfiguration
Engineering Total
1
1
1
1
-
-
$75
$3,420
$4,970
$1,017
$1,890
$11,372
-
-
-
-
-
13%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Change order for System Reconfiguration
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment'3'
1
4 days
4 days
-
-
-
$6,750
$3,040
$1,290
$2,070
$13,150
$90,757
-
-
-
-
14%
100%
(a) Estimated costs of $ 11,546 for a backwash recycle system not included.
The total capital cost of $90,757 and equipment cost of $66,235 were converted to a unit cost of
$0.13/1,000 gallon and $0.09/1,000 gallon, respectively, using a capital recovery factor of 0.06722 based
on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period (Chen et al., 2004). These calculations assumed that the
system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the system design flowrate of 90 gpm. The system
operated only 12 hours a day at approximately 31.5 gpm (see Table 4-5), producing 4,109,000 gallons of
water during the six-month period, so the total unit cost and equipment-only unit cost were increased to
$0.74/1,000 gallon and $0.54/1,000 gallon, respectively, at this reduced usage rate. Using the system's
rated capacity of 45 gpm (or 64,800 gpd), the capital cost was $2,017/gpm (or $1.40/gpd) and the
equipment-only cost was $l,472/gpm (or $1.02/gpd). These calculations did not include the cost of the
building construction.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs. O&M costs included only incremental costs associated
with the APU-100 system, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and
labor (Table 4-12). Because media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first six
months of operation, its cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated was calculated as a function of the
projected media run length using the vendor-estimated $9,940 for one vessel's media changeout. The
cost included new media for one vessel, freight, labor, travel expenses, and spent media testing and
disposal. At the vendor estimated media capacity of 66,000 BV (see Table 4-4) or a throughput of 10,861
kgal, the unit O&M cost is projected to be $1.27/1,000 gallons of water treated including the estimated
29
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of O&M Costs
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
4,109
Assumptions
From 06/24/04 to 12/22/04
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media cost ($/ft3)
Total media volume (ft3)
Media replacement cost ($)
Freight ($)
Labor cost ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal cost
($71,000 gal)
$245
22
$5,390
$465
$3,840
$245
$9,940
See Figure 4-9
Vendor quote
One vessel
Vendor quote
Vendor quote for delivery
Vendor quote includes disposal
Vendor quote for one TCLP test
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-|j,g/L
arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical cost ($)
$0.000
No additional chemicals required
Electricity
Electric utility charge ($/kWh)
Usage (kWh)
Total electricity cost ($)
Electricity cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.089
377
$33.52
$0.008
Rate provided by AWC
-
-
-
Labor
Average weekly labor (hrs)
Labor cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost ($71,000 gal)
2.6
$0.35
See Figure 4-9
20-30 minutes/day
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Based upon media run length at 10-|j,g/L
arsenic breakthrough
media replacement and disposal cost ($0.92/1,000 gallons) and chemical supply, electricity, and labor
costs ($0.36/1,000 gallons) (Figure 4-9). The projected media replacement and disposal cost will be
refined once the actual throughput and cost at the time of the media replacement become available.
The only chemical cost was the use of NaOCl for disinfection. Because the APU-100 system did not
appear to consume any chlorine, the incremental chemical cost was negligible.
Incremental electrical power consumption was calculated based on the electric meter readings for one day
(12 hours) of system operation. This usage rate was approximately 2.07 kWh per day and included
electrical consumption by the recycle pump. Therefore, the electricity cost was $0.008/1,000 gallons of
water treated.
The routine, non-demonstration related labor activities (Section 4.4.4) in addition to preventative
maintenance activities and repairs consumed 20-30 minutes per day. Based on this time commitment and
a labor rate of $21/hr, the labor cost was $0.35/1,000 gallons of water treated.
30
-------
O&M cost
Media replacement cost
Vendor-estimated
media capacity of
L 66,000 BV
20
30
40
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
120 130 140 150
Figure 4-9. Media Replacement and O&M Costs for the Rimrock Treatment System
31
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AdEdge. 2004. Operation and Maintenance Manual, APU Adsorption Package Units for Arsenic and
Heavy Metals Removal, Rimrock,Arizona (Montezuma Haven Wells). April.
Arizona Water Company (AWC). 2004. AWC Consumer Confidence (Water Quality) Reports: "2003
Annual Water Quality Report for Rimrock, Arizona PWSID# 13-046." Available at:
http://www.azwater.com/ccr-rr04.pdf
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
November 17.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Rimrock, Arizona. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task
Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. February 12.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. Prepared for U.S. EPA NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, RC. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA (March): 103-113.
Oxenham, J., Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang. 2005. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, USEPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH, Six-Month Evaluation Report.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019 for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed.
Register, 66:14:6975. January 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting
Guidance for Public Water Systems. Prepared by U.S. EPA's Office of Water. EPA/816/R-
02/009. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round I. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
32
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rimrock, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date & Time
6/24/0412:32
6/25/04 1 1 :30
6/28/049:17
6/29/049:19
6/30/0416:01
7/1/0413:59
7/2/0414:56
7/6/0413:30
7/7/04 9:00
7/8/0416:32
7/9/0413:35
7/12/0413:30
7/13/0410:00
7/14/049:30
7/15/0413:30
7/16/0414:25
7/19/049:30
7/20/04 8:57
7/21/0414:02
7/22/0416:12
7/23/0414:48
7/26/049:16
7/27/0414:12
7/28/04 9:46
7/29/04 9:01
7/30/0416:18
8/2/0410:29
8/3/04 9:27
8/4/04 9:47
8/5/04 8:58
8/6/0414:25
8/9/04 9:45
8/10/0416:09
8/11/0411:09
8/12/049:19
8/13/0417:18
8/16/049:00
8/17/0412:00
8/18/049:00
8/19/0411:30
8/20/0415:34
8/23/0410:18
8/24/0412:31
8/25/049:12
8/26/0413:54
8/27/0415:31
8/30/0416:13
8/31/0411:17
9/1/0411:00
9/2/0413:54
9/3/0412:42
Run
Time
hr
NA
11.0
33.8
12.0
18.7
10.0
12.9
46.6
7.5
19.5
9.0
35.9
8.5
11.5
16.0
12.9
31.1
11.4
17.1
14.2
10.6
30.5
16.9
7.6
11.3
19.3
30.2
11.0
12.3
11.2
17.4
31.3
18.4
7.0
10.2
20.0
27.7
15.0
9.0
14.5
16.1
30.7
14.2
8.7
16.7
13.6
36.7
7.1
11.7
14.9
10.8
Tank Position
Lead
A/B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
A/B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flow
rate
gpm
28
33
32
29
30
31
32
29
32
32
31
32
32
32
30
27
32
28
31
32
32
28
32
33
30
31
32
32
27
32
30
26
31
32
32
30
28
31
28
29
30
32
31
31
31
31
27
31
32
32
30
Totalizer
gal
23971
44991
108441
131386
166117
185223
209871
297899
312011
348968
365938
433271
449425
470700
500630
525019
584077
605379
637557
664233
683833
740859
772923
787316
808295
844137
899068
919909
943057
963804
996229
1055151
1 089574
1102913
1122569
1160528
1214460
1 240824
1259075
1 284888
1315490
1375391
1401393
1418118
1 449870
1 475337
1544210
1 557388
1 578093
1 605790
1625872
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
31.9
31.3
31.8
31.0
31.9
31.7
31.5
31.4
31.5
31.3
31.2
31.7
30.8
31.2
31.5
31.7
31.0
31.4
31.4
30.8
31.2
31.6
31.7
31.1
31.0
30.3
31.7
31.3
30.9
31.0
31.3
31.2
31.8
32.2
31.7
32.5
29.3
33.8
29.7
31.7
32.5
30.5
32.1
31.7
31.2
31.3
31.1
29.5
31.0
31.0
Bed
Volume
NA
128
513
653
864
980
1130
1665
1750
1975
2078
2487
2585
2715
2897
3045
3404
3533
3729
3891
4010
4356
4551
4639
4766
4984
5318
5444
5585
5711
5908
6266
6475
6557
6676
6907
7234
7395
7505
7662
7848
8212
8370
8472
8665
8820
9238
9318
9444
9612
9734
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowr
ate
gpm
27
31
32
28
30
30
31
28
33
32
31
31
32
32
31
27
33
27
30
32
31
28
32
32
30
31
31
31
26
30
30
26
30
31
31
30
26
30
26
29
31
31
30
30
30
31
27
30
31
32
30
Totalizer
gal
23294
44375
108075
130974
165692
184858
209636
297866
311809
349009
366086
433584
449865
471247
500527
524715
583614
604867
6371 1 1
663800
683350
740026
772091
786508
807403
843320
898410
919248
942185
962970
995478
1 054232
1 087899
1100798
1120172
1157685
1210860
1 236957
1255175
1280719
1310625
1369612
1395087
1411570
1442950
1 468239
1 536384
1 549642
1570127
1597517
1617330
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
32.0
31.4
31.7
30.9
32.1
31.9
31.6
31.0
31.7
31.4
31.3
31.9
31.0
30.5
31.2
31.6
30.9
31.5
31.4
30.7
31.0
31.6
31.8
31.0
31.0
30.4
31.7
31.0
31.0
31.0
31.3
30.5
30.7
31.8
31.3
32.0
29.0
33.7
29.4
31.0
32.0
29.9
31.6
31.3
31.0
30.9
31.3
29.1
30.6
30.6
Bed
Volume
NA
128
515
654
865
982
1132
1669
1753
1979
2083
2493
2592
2722
2900
3047
3405
3534
3730
3892
4011
4355
4550
4638
4765
4983
5318
5445
5584
5710
5908
6265
6469
6548
6666
6893
7217
7375
7486
7641
7823
8181
8336
8436
8627
8781
9195
9275
9400
9566
9687
AP
Vessel A
psi
4
5.5
5.5
4.5
5
5.5
5.5
4
5.5
5
5
5
5
5.5
4.5
3.5
5.5
4
5
5
5
4
5.9
5.5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
3.6
5
5
5
5
3.8
5
3.9
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5.5
5
5
Vessel B
psi
3.5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
4.5
3.5
5
3.5
4.9
5
4.5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4.5
3.6
5
5
3.6
5
5
5
5
3.8
4.8
3.5
3.9
5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4
4.7
4.8
5
5
Pressure
Inlet
psig
105
98
100
105
101
100
100
105
100
100
100
100
100
100
101
110
99
102
100
99
100
102
100
100
100
100
100
100
105
100
100
103
100
100
100
100
105
100
105
101
100
100
100
100
100
100
104
100
100
100
100
Between
Tanks
psig
104
95
96
103
100
96
96
109
95
97
97
96
95
93
100
110
95
104
97
95
96
102
95
95
96
96
96
96
103
96
98
104
98
97
97
97
103
98
103
101
98
96
96
97
97
97
101
97
97
96
97
Outlet
psig
100+
92
93
100+
90
93
94
100+
94
93
94
92
93
92
87
100+
92
104
94
93
94
101
93
92
94
94
90
90
96
90
90
99
90
90
90
90
98
90
97
96
90
90
90
90
89
90
106
90
90
89
90
Master
Totalizer
gal
7866300
7886600
7947740
7969880
8003315
8021980
8045860
8131200
8144500
8180600
8197165
8262820
8278285
8298930
8327300
8350800
8407800
8428555
8459790
8485780
NR
8558975
8590090
8603940
8624215
8659035
8712530
8732720
8755000
8775200
8806800
8863945
8897000
8909815
8928325
8964840
9016630
9042150
9059840
9084760
9113900
9170640
9195500
9211500
9242000
9266635
9333305
9345950
9365910
9392690
9412000
Backwash Water Recycle
Flow
rate
gpm
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
Totalizer
gal
0
0
0
287
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
510.7
850.8
1220
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1420
1910
2060
2060
2060
2060
2060
2060
2060
2060
2060
2130
2330
2630
2840
2840
2840
2840
2840
2840
NA
2840
2840
2840
2840
2840
2840
3100
3370
3370
Recycle
Volume
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
511
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
779
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
770
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
780
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
530
NA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rimrock, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date & Time
9/6/04 0:00
9/7/0416:52
9/8/0410:57
9/9/0417:29
9/10/0416:45
9/13/049:43
9/14/049:30
9/15/049:30
9/16/048:22
9/17/0413:30
9/20/04 13:00
9/21/0410:00
9/22/0410:00
9/23/04 9:00
9/24/04 1 1 :30
9/27/04 10:00
9/28/04 1 1 :34
9/29/0415:10
9/30/0411:16
10/1/0413:43
10/4/040:00
10/5/0410:42
10/6/0417:31
10/7/0410:54
10/8/0411:38
10/11/040:00
10/12/0417:29
10/13/0417:41
10/14/0418:20
10/15/040:00
10/18/0414:49
10/19/0415:01
10/20/0410:35
10/21/040:00
10/22/0412:02
10/25/0410:46
10/26/0415:02
10/27/0410:00
10/28/0410:32
10/29/0414:18
11/1/0415:10
11/2/0411:50
11/3/049:45
11/4/04 14:56
11/5/0412:36
11/8/0411:09
11/9/0411:19
11/10/0416:57
11/11/040:00
11/12/0417:15
Run
Time
hr
Tank Position
Lead
STB
^
STB
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flow
rate
gpm
Totalizer
gal
Flow
rate
gpm
Bed
Volume
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowr
ate
gpm
Totalizer
gal
Flow
rate
gpm
Bed
Volume
AP
Vessel A
psi
Vessel B
psi
Pressure
Inlet
psig
Between
Tanks
psig
Outlet
psig
Master
Totalizer
gal
Backwash Water Recycle
Flow
rate
gpm
Totalizer
gal
Recycle
Volume
gal
Holiday
52.2
6.1
18.5
11.3
29.0
11.8
12.0
10.9
17.1
35.5
9.0
12.0
11.0
14.5
34.5
13.6
15.6
8.1
14.4
NA
45.0
18.8
5.4
12.7
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
B
30
31
31
31
27
32
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
31
31
31
31
NA
32
29
32
31
1 723558
1 734996
1769316
1790558
1 844869
1867121
1 889587
1911446
1 944096
2011723
2029216
2050996
2074455
2101154
2167484
2192360
2221335
2236812
2264087
NA
2348918
2383918
2394302
2417168
31.2
31.3
30.9
31.4
31.2
31.5
31.2
33.5
31.8
31.7
32.4
30.3
35.5
30.7
32.0
30.6
31.0
31.8
31.5
NA
31.4
31.0
32.1
29.9
10328
10398
10606
10735
11065
11200
11337
11470
11668
12079
12185
12318
12460
12623
13026
13177
13353
13447
13613
NA
14128
14341
14404
14543
29
31
31
31
27
31
33
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
32
31
31
32
30
NA
31
30
31
29
1714199
1 725572
1 759727
1780911
1 835049
1 857243
1 879663
1901462
1 933954
2001410
2018904
2040690
2064162
2090817
2156478
2181238
2210018
2225389
2252590
NA
2337120
2372015
2382373
2405125
30.9
31.2
30.7
31.3
31.1
31.4
31.1
33.4
31.6
31.7
32.4
30.3
35.6
30.6
31.7
30.4
30.7
31.6
31.4
NA
31.3
30.9
32.1
29.8
10275
10344
10552
10681
11010
11145
11281
11413
11611
12021
12127
12259
12402
12564
12963
13113
13288
13382
13547
NA
14061
14273
14336
14474
5
5
5
5
3.9
5.1
5.1
5.5
5.1
5
5
5
5
4.9
5
5
5
5
5
NA
5
4.9
5.2
5.5
5
5
5
5
3.5
5
5
5
5
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
5
5
5
5
NA
5
4.9
5
5
100
100
100
100
102
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NA
100
102
100
100
97
97
97
96
103
95
95
96
95
96
96
96
96
97
96
97
96
97
97
NA
96
100
96
96
90
90
90
90
99
89
90
90
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
91
90
NA
90
95
89
89
9506600
9517505
9550740
9571480
9624100
9645700
9667400
9688690
9720200
9785900
9802900
9824100
9847000
9872900
9936800
9960535
9988395
10003410
1 0029855
NA
10112415
10146450
1015600
10178750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0
NA
0
0
0
0
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3370
3630
4010.4
4452
4689.9
4849.1
NA
4849
4849
4849
4849
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1479
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Holiday
53.9
12.2
12.7
NA
44.5
12.2
7.6
NA
25.5
34.7
16.3
7.0
12.5
15.8
36.9
8.7
9.9
17.2
9.7
34.5
12.2
17.6
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
27
26
26
NA
31
31
31
NA
32
31
31
31
27
32
31
29
31
32
32
33
32
32
2515357
2538203
2561400
NA
2644969
2667528
2682128
NA
2730730
2796639
2827402
2840201
2864858
2895024
2966104
2982700
3002182
3033540
3052755
3120094
3143725
3177995
30.4
31.2
30.6
NA
31.3
30.8
32.2
NA
31.8
31.6
31.5
30.6
32.8
31.9
32.1
31.9
32.7
30.4
33.4
32.7
30.8
32.1
15140
15279
15419
NA
15927
16064
16153
NA
16448
16849
17036
17114
17264
17447
17879
17980
18098
18289
18405
18815
18958
19166
27
26
27
NA
31
32
31
NA
28
31
32
30
29
31
32
29
32
32
30
31
31
32
2502458
2525203
2548271
NA
2631513
2654020
2667888
NA
2716319
2781672
2811839
2824366
2848575
2878185
2948057
2964350
2983630
3014434
3033038
3099099
3122431
3156140
30.1
31.1
30.4
NA
31.2
30.7
30.5
NA
31.7
31.4
30.9
30.0
32.2
31.3
31.6
31.3
32.4
29.9
32.3
32.1
30.4
31.6
15065
15204
15344
NA
15850
15986
16071
NA
16365
16762
16945
17022
17169
17349
17773
17872
17989
18177
18290
18691
18833
19038
4
3.5
4
NA
5
5.1
5.1
NA
5
5
5.4
5
4
4.6
5.5
4
5.1
5
5.1
5.5
5.5
5.5
3.5
3.5
4
NA
4.6
5
4.9
NA
5
5
5
5
3.6
4.6
5.1
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
102
104
103
NA
100
100
100
NA
100
100
100
100
109
100
100
105
100
100
100
100
100
101
104
107
105
NA
98
97
97
NA
97
96
97
96
105
98
96
101
98
98
97
98
97
96
99
104
100
NA
92
91
91
NA
91
100
90
90
100
93
90
96
98
99
98
99
98
98
1 0273865
1 0296045
10318570
NA
1 0399920
10421882
1 0434705
NA
10482210
10546260
10575830
10588190
10611848
10640900
1 0709470
10725505
10744310
10774405
10792570
10856945
10879670
10912555
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0.5
NA
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4849
4849
4849
NA
4849
4849
4870
NA
5621
6323
6323
6323
6323
6323
6327
6327
6327
6327
6327
6330
6330
6330
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1474
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
Holiday
24.3
A
B
31 1 3225113| 32.3| 19453| 33 1 3202655| 31. 9| 19320| 5.5| 5| 100| 96
97 | 10957931| 0
6330
NA
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Rimrock, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Date & Time
11/15/04 18:03
11/16/04 10:12
11/17/049:46
11/18/0414:49
11/19/04 15:40
11/22/049:38
11/23/0410:00
11/24/0414:11
11/25/040:00
11/26/040:00
11/29/0410:14
11/30/0410:47
12/1/0410:58
12/2/040:00
12/3/040:00
12/6/049:35
12/7/049:15
12/8/0410:04
12/9/049:32
12/10/0414:00
12/13/048:15
12/14/04 14:00
12/15/0417:00
12/16/0415:13
12/17/0416:39
12/20/0417:14
12/21/049:24
12/22/0415:02
12/23/040:00
12/24/040:00
Run
Time
hr
37.1
4.5
11.0
17.4
12.7
30.5
12.5
13.0
Tank Position
Lead
A/B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
A/B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flow
rate
gpm
30
32
32
32
31
32
33
31
Totalizer
gal
3296170
3304356
3326877
3359732
3384711
3443037
3466574
3492632
Flow
rate
gpm
31.9
30.3
34.1
31.5
32.8
31.9
31.4
33.4
Bed
Volume
19885
19934
20071
20271
20423
20777
20920
21078
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowr
ate
gpm
33
31
28
33
32
30
33
31
Totalizer
gal
3272583
3280723
3303126
3335681
3360410
3418182
3441496
3467298
Flow
rate
gpm
31.4
30.1
33.9
31.2
32.5
31.6
31.1
33.1
Bed
Volume
19745
19795
19931
20129
20279
20630
20772
20929
AP
Vessel A
psi
5
5.9
5.5
5.9
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.5
Vessel B
psi
5
5.1
5
5
5
5.1
5
5
Pressure
Inlet
psig
101
100
101
101
101
100
101
101
Between
Tanks
psig
99
97
98
97
99
97
98
97
Outlet
psig
100
97
99
97
99
99
98
98
Master
Totalizer
gal
11026175
11034090
11055250
11087000
11111180
11167700
1 1 1 90480
11215740
Backwash Water Recycle
Flow
rate
gpm
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
Totalizer
gal
6451
6565
6913
7406
7784
7905
7905
7905
Recycle
Volume
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1575
NA
NA
Holiday
58.4
11.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.9
12.3
11.6
13.8
NA
NA
NA
13.0
11.9
35.7
NA
NA
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
NA
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
30
31
32
NA
NA
33
33
31
33
33
33
33
NA
33
NA
NA
32
NA
3605433
3629181
3652572
NA
NA
3766441
3788938
3813731
3835866
3863117
3927415
3957724
3982673
4008571
4032260
4103115
4122253
4149825
32.2
36.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.5
33.6
31.8
32.9
NA
NA
NA
33.2
33.2
33.1
NA
NA
21764
21908
22050
NA
NA
22742
22879
23030
23164
23330
23720
23905
24056
24214
24358
24788
24904
25072
30
32
33
NA
NA
33
31
32
33
31
34
33
NA
31
NA
NA
33
NA
3579122
3602681
3625889
NA
NA
3738862
3761091
3785617
3807480
3834341
3897613
3927319
3950999
3976384
3999641
4068989
4087888
4114985
31.9
35.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.1
33.2
31.4
32.4
NA
NA
NA
32.5
32.6
32.4
NA
NA
21608
21751
21892
NA
NA
22579
22714
22863
22996
23159
23544
23724
23868
24022
24164
24585
24700
24864
6
5.5
5.4
NA
NA
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
5.5
5.5
NA
6
NA
NA
5.5
NA
5
5
5
NA
NA
5.5
5
5
5.3
5.5
5
5.1
NA
5.5
NA
NA
5
NA
122*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
97
98
97
NA
NA
96
97
97
97
97
98
98
85
97
NA
NA
97
NA
115
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11325230
11348235
11370865
NA
NA
11481663
11503262
11527300
11548800
1 1 575040
11636970
11666085
11688387
11713150
11735780
11803505
11822050
11848442
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
NA
0
0
0
7908
7908
7908
NA
NA
7908
7908
7908
7908
7908
7908
7908
23
403
751
1610
1610
1610
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1610
NA
NA
Holiday
>
Highlighted rows indicate vessel backwash.
NA = data not available.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
6/30/04
IN
-
355
0.3
9.4
0.3
<0.1
26.0
0.5
7.0
21.5
3.8
475
-
-
287.0
171.3
115.7
59.2
59.1
0.1
0.8
58.3
<25
<25
1.0
1.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.4
21.2
4.9
637
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
0.9
367
0.3
9.4
0.3
<0.1
25.4
0.3
7.0
22.9
3.6
637
0.4
0.6
297.7
174.8
122.9
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.7
TB
0.9
351
0.3
9.4
0.3
<0.1
23.9
0.4
7.0
23.7
3.8
649
0.4
0.6
298.5
174.3
124.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.6
7/07/04
IN
-
330
-
-
-
<0.1
25.7
0.3
7.0
24.1
4.1
476
-
-
-
-
-
78.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
22.3
5.0
596
0.4
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
1.8
382
-
-
-
<0.1
24.4
0.2
7.0
21.9
4.1
596
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
1.8
365
-
-
-
<0.1
24.1
0.6
7.0
22.1
3.7
611
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7/14/04
IN
-
383
-
-
-
<0.1
24.0
<0.1
7.0
22.4
3.5
488
-
-
-
-
-
79.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
22.4
4.7
607
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.7
371
-
-
-
<0.1
24.3
0.2
7.1
22.7
3.7
619
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
2.7
367
-
-
-
<0.1
23.9
0.9
7.1
23.1
3.6
628
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7/21/04
IN
-
379
-
-
-
<0.1
26.1
0.3
6.9
24.1
4.7
510
-
-
-
-
-
58.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.6
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
23.5
6.8
608
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.7
375
-
-
-
<0.1
25.9
0.3
7.0
23.1
6.6
621
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TB
3.7
383
-
-
-
<0.1
25.1
0.4
7.0
23.2
6.9
624
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
47.3
-
0.4
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As PO4.
IN = inlet; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only); TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
7/28/04
IN
-
369
0.3
10.0
0.2
<0.1
24.6
0.2
7.0
26.1
4.4
484
-
-
351.3
208.0
143.3
56.0
57.6
<0.1
1.0
56.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
24.5
5.5
590
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.6
381
0.3
10.0
0.2
<0.1
24.5
0.3
7.1
26.7
4.2
599
0.5
0.6
397.2
236.1
161.1
1.0
1.0
<0.1
0.8
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
4.6
377
0.3
10.0
0.2
<0.1
24.3
0.2
7.1
24.0
4.1
613
0.4
0.5
351.7
207.0
144.7
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
8/04/04
IN
-
379
-
-
-
<0.1
25.3
0.3
7.0
22.0
4.2
203
-
-
-
-
-
81.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
21.7
4.1
609
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.6
367
-
-
-
<0.1
25.6
0.3
7.0
21.0
4.0
634
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
5.6
395
-
-
-
<0.1
25.0
0.5
7.0
21.1
3.8
647
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
8/11/04
IN
-
376
-
-
-
<0.1
25.3
0.1
7.0
21.9
4.2
247
-
-
-
-
-
57.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
21.0
5.8
587
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
6.6
376
-
-
-
<0.1
25.2
0.2
7.1
21.2
4.1
627
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
6.5
381
-
-
-
<0.1
25.0
0.1
7.0
21.1
4.1
641
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
8/18/04
IN
-
363
-
-
-
<0.1
25.6
0.3
7.0
22.0
4.1
239
-
-
-
-
-
48.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.4
21.7
4.5
552
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.5
375
-
-
-
<0.1
25.6
0.4
7.1
21.3
3.9
614
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
7.5
367
-
-
-
<0.1
25.3
0.7
7.0
22.2
5.1
622
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As PO4.
IN = inlet; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only);
TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
re/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
|xg/L
re/L
Hg/L
8/25/04
IN
-
359
0.3
10.0
0.2
<0.1
26.7
0.1
7.0
21.9
3.3
210
-
-
304.8
183.0
121.8
64.6
61.1
3.5
2.1
59.0
<25
<25
1.4
0.5
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
21.2
4.7
610
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.5
363
0.3
9.8
0.2
<0.1
27.2
0.1
7.0
21.2
3.6
649
0.3
0.4
319.3
182.3
137.0
2.7
2.8
<0.1
2.7
0.1
<25
<25
1.2
0.3
TB
8.4
367
0.3
10.0
0.2
<0.1
26.9
<0.1
6.9
21.4
3.4
658
0.3
0.4
327.6
182.3
145.3
1.0
1.2
<0.1
1.1
0.1
<25
<25
0.9
0.1
9/01/04
IN
-
371
-
-
-
<0.1
25.3
0.1
7.1
21.2
4.6
213
-
-
-
-
-
77.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
21.6
4.5
608
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.4
375
-
-
-
<0.1
25.2
0.3
7.1
21.2
4.4
637
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
9.4
371
-
-
-
<0.1
25.1
0.2
7.1
21.2
4.6
637
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9/08/04
IN
-
383
-
-
-
<0.1
25.6
0.1
6.9
22.6
3.5
431
-
-
-
-
-
78.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.1
22.3
3.4
642
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
10.4
375
-
-
-
<0.1
25.2
0.1
6.9
21.5
3.6
668
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
10.3
375
-
-
-
<0.1
25.6
0.2
6.9
22.0
3.5
685
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
9/15/04
IN
-
372
376
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.9
25.6
0.6
0.5
7.1
21.5
3.8
226
-
-
-
-
-
55.3
60.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.3
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.4
21.9
6.1
578
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.3
376
372
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.6
25.0
0.5
0.5
7.1
21.2
4.9
619
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
TB
11.3
372
384
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.9
25.5
0.6
0.5
7.1
21.3
4.7
633
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.5
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
<0.1
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As PO4.
IN = inlet; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only); TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B.
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
NO3-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L»
mg/L(a)
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
9/22/04
IN
-
369
0.4
8.9
0.2
<0.06
25.9
0.1
7.0
20.1
4.1
214
-
-
331.8
190.8
141.0
65.5
65.0
0.5
1.8
63.2
127
<25
0.8
0.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.4
20.0
6.4
584
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
12.3
373
0.5
8.8
0.2
<0.06
25.7
<0.1
7.0
20.2
5.7
605
0.4
0.4
339.7
196.4
143.3
2.6
2.4
0.2
1.8
0.6
27
<25
0.3
0.1
TB
12.3
373
0.3
8.7
0.2
<0.06
25.6
0.1
7.0
20.3
4.2
622
0.4
0.4
331.8
200.7
131.1
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.5
56
<25
0.5
0.1
9/29/04
IN
-
369
-
-
-
<0.06
25.6
<0.1
7.0
20.9
4.1
224
-
-
-
-
-
53.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
21.0
5.2
568
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
13.4
369
-
-
-
<0.06
25.8
<0.1
7.0
21.0
4.4
605
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TB
13.3
369
-
-
-
<0.06
25.8
0.1
7.1
21.0
4.2
617
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
10/06/04
IN
-
370
-
-
-
<0.06
25.7
0.3
7.0
20.8
3.9
148
-
-
-
-
-
54.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
20.6
6.3
552
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
14.3
370
-
-
-
<0.06
25.6
0.5
7.0
20.7
3.5
590
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
14.3
370
-
-
-
<0.06
25.0
0.2
7.0
20.6
4.0
593
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10/13/04
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*1"
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
10/20/04
IN
-
377
0.4
9.8
0.2
<0.06
24.9
0.1
7.0
20.1
4.0
190
-
-
365.9
214.4
151.5
50.8
50.2
0.6
2.2
48.0
<25
<25
0.6
1.0
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
20.1
4.5
637
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
16.2
377
0.3
9.4
0.2
<0.06
25.0
0.1
7.0
20.3
4.1
681
0.2
0.2
364.5
214.3
150.2
1.3
1.1
0.3
1.3W
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TB
16.1
373
0.4
9.6
0.2
<0.06
24.6
0.2
7.0
20.3
4.1
710
0.2
0.2
361.1
212.1
149.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
1.3
-------
Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Rimrock, AZ
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
N03-N
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Total Mn
Dissolved Mn
103
mg/L»
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
rng/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
mg/Lw
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
12/01/04
IN
-
365
365
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.5
25.3
0.1
0.1
7.0
20.1
4.3
267
-
-
-
-
-
51.4
52.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
21.2
3.4
626
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
22.1
365
365
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.2
25.4
0.1
0.2
6.9
20.6
3.9
646
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
1.7
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.4
-
TB
21.9
365
370
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
25.3
25.3
0.1
0.3
6.9
21.1
3.5
673
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
12/15/04
-------
------- |