EPA/600/R-07/081
August 2007
Arsenic and Antimony Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID), NV
Interim Evaluation Report
by
Lydia J. Gumming
Lili Wang
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 provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of Washoe County Department of Water
Resources (WCDWR) in Nevada. The WCDWR staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting
period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first 32 weeks of
operation of an arsenic and antimony removal technology currently being demonstrated at the South
Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID) in Washoe County, NV. The objectives of
the project are to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of a granular ferric hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media
system in removing arsenic and antimony to meet the respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of
10 and 6 (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The
project also characterizes the water in the distribution system and process residuals produced by the
treatment system.
The Siemens GFH system is a fixed-bed adsorption system that uses GFH, an iron-based media, to adsorb
dissolved arsenic and antimony in drinking water supplies. When the media reaches its adsorption
capacity, it will be removed from the vessels and replaced with new media. Spent media will be hauled
away to a landfill after passing the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. GFH is
produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive agreement. The
GFH system for the STMGID site was designed to treat up to 350 gal/min (gpm) of water and consisted
of three 66-in diameter, 72-in tall vertical carbon steel pressure tanks configured in parallel. Based on the
design flow rate of 350 gpm and total media volume of 240 ft3, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in
each tank (and the entire system) was 5.1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each tank was 4.9 gpm/ft2.
Between September 27, 2005 and May 3, 2006, the GFH system operated for a total of 943 hr. After it
began normal daily operation on November 18, 2005, the system operated an average of 3.8 hr/day. The
average flowrate during the 32-week study period was 275 gpm, which was 79% of the design flowrate.
As a result, a longer average EBCT of 6.5 min was experienced by the media. During the 32-week study
period, the volume of water processed was 15,567,000 gal or 8,677 bed volumes (BV) (one BV is equal
to 240 ft3 or 1,795 gal). There were no backwash events based on headless buildup during this study
period.
Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L from the GFH system occurred at approximately 7,200 BV.
Breakthrough of antimony at 6 (ig/L occurred at approximately 3,000 BV. The media run length for
arsenic was much shorter than the vendor-projected working capacity of 38,000 BV. The unexpectedly
short run length for arsenic was probably caused by the presence of competing anions, such as silica and
phosphorous, at high levels in raw water. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1
mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 72.6 mg/L (as SiO2). Total phosphorous concentration in raw water ranged
from 0.27 to 0.46 mg/L and averaged 0.35 mg/L (as PO4) with some phosphorous existing as
orthophosphate. Both silica and phosphorous were removed effectively by GFH, with silica reaching
complete breakthrough about halfway through the 32-week study period and phosphorous never reaching
complete breakthrough.
Treated water was blended with water from four other STMGID wells about one mile downstream of the
GFH system. Water samples were collected at three locations in the distribution system, including one
non-residential location prior to the blending point and two residences after the blending point, to evaluate
the impact of the GFH system on water chemistry in the distribution system. As a combined result of
treatment by the GFH system and blending with other source water, arsenic and antimony concentrations
in the distribution system were significantly reduced to below the respective MCLs (except for one
exceedance). There were no noticeable changes in lead or copper concentrations measured in the first
draw samples from two residences. The lead concentrations remained low (i.e., 1.5 (ig/L or less) in all
samples; copper concentrations fluctuated from <1 to 176 (ig/L, far below the action level of 1.3 mg/L.
-------
The capital investment cost of $232,147 included $157,647 for equipment, $16,000 for site engineering,
and $58,500 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd), the capital
cost was $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of design capacity. O&M cost evaluated in this report included only
the incremental costs associated with the GFH system, such as media replacement and disposal, electricity
consumption, and labor. The media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first 32 weeks
of operation; however, the cost to change out the media in all three adsorption tanks was estimated to be
$70,550 by the vendor. The unit media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was developed as
a function of the media run length to 10-(ig/L arsenic or 6-(ig/L antimony breakthrough in the combined
effluent.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND 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 6
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 6
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Residual Solids 6
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 6
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 14
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 22
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Construction 22
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 24
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 24
4.4.2 Backwash 25
4.4.3 Residuals Management 26
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 26
4.5 System Performance 27
4.5.1 Treatment Plant 27
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 34
4.6 System Cost 37
4.6.1 Capital Cost 37
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
vn
-------
5.0 REFERENCES 40
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 8
Figure 3-2. Distribution Sampling Map 9
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House 12
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System 13
Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media 17
Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System 19
Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station 19
Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge 20
Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller 21
Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components 21
Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House 22
Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel 23
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and After Tanks A, B, C and
Entire System (TT) 31
Figure 4-12. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from GFH System 32
Figure 4-13. Antimony Breakthrough Curves from GFH System 32
Figure 4-14. Silica Breakthrough Curves from GFH System 33
Figure 4-15. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves from GFH System 34
Figure 4-16. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System After System Startup 36
Figure 4-17. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System 39
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 4
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 5
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 7
Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH Adsorptive Media 16
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of GFH System 18
Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens GFH System Operations 25
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Three Competing
Anions 28
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements 29
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results 35
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System 38
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Cost 39
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C12 chlorine
C/F coagulation/filtration
CMU concrete masonry unit
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
hp horsepower
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
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
IX
-------
NA not available
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
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
PE professional engineer
PO4 orthophosphate
PLC programmable logic controller
PM process modification
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch (gauge)
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small-scale column test
Sb antimony
SCADA system control and data acquisition
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TOC total organic carbon
WCDWR Washoe County Department of Water Resources
WRWC White Rock Water Company
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic 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 facility at South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID)
in Washoe County, NV was selected to participate in this demonstration project.
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 demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. A granular ferric
hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media system proposed by Siemens (formerly known as USFilter) was
selected for demonstration at the STMGID site for the removal of arsenic and antimony from drinking
water supplies.
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 ion 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 of the 12 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection
and system design for the 12 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA
reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/. As of April 2007, 11 of the 12 systems have
been operational and the performance evaluations of eight systems have been completed.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration Site
WRWC (Bow), NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
PM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX (A-300E)
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(d)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/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
(S.U.)
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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange;
PM = process modification; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water Company;
STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 40 gpm.
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as soluble Fe(II).
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 30 gpm.
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic removal
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives of the demonstration study at STMGID are to:
Evaluate the performance of the GFH arsenic and antimony removal technology for
small systems such as STMGID.
Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
Characterize process residuals produced by the technology.
Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology.
This report summarizes the performance of Siemens's GFH system at STMGID in Washoe County, NV
during the first 32 weeks of operation from September 27, 2005, through May 3, 2006. The types of data
collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected from the first 32 weeks system operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenics and antimony removal technology for use on small systems:
GFH media can remove arsenic and antimony to below their respective MCLs. The media
run length for either contaminant is short, reaching only 7,200 bed volumes (BV) for arsenic
and 3,000 BV for antimony. The unexpectedly short media life may have been caused by the
presence of high concentrations of silica and phosphorous, which average 72.6 mg/L (as
SiO2) and 0.35 mg/L (as PO4), respectively, in raw water.
Results of a laboratory rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) confirm the performance of
the full-scale GFH system and difficulties of treating the STMGID water by adsorptive media.
Significant reductions in pH (i.e., from 7.1 to < 4.5), alkalinity (i.e., from 92 to < 1.0 mg/L
[as CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals (i.e., from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as C12]) were observed in the
system effluent during the first several days of system operation, indicating removal of
bicarbonate ions and consumption of chlorine by the GFH media.
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
Under normal operating conditions, the system requires little attention from the operator. The
daily demand on the operator is typically 30 min for routine activities including visual
inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters..
Operation of the GFH system does not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State of Nevada
certified Level 3 operator.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
Residuals produced by the GFH system comprise spent media only, which should pass the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test and can be disposed of at a landfill
for non-hazardous wastes.
Backwash is not required if the headless buildup across the media bed is minimal.
Cost of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd), the capital cost is $663/gpm
(or$0.46/gpd).
The cost of media replacement is the most significant add-on operational cost. The cost of
replacing 240 ft3 of GFH media in all three adsorption tanks is estimated to be $70,550,
equivalent to a unit cost of $5.46/1,000 gal or $13.10/1,000 gal if the changeout is governed
by the 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough or the 6-(ig/L antimony breakthrough, respectively.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the GFH system began on September 27, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and
considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was evaluated
based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and antimony (a co-contaminant) to below the
respective target MCLs of 10 and 6 |o,g/L through the collection of weekly and monthly water samples
across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system
downtime and frequency and extent of repairs and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair
information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to Washoe County
Health Department
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit Issued by Washoe County Health Department
Building Permit Issued
Building Construction Initiated
Building Construction Completed
Siemens Equipment Shipped to Demonstration Site
Plumbing of Siemens GFH System Completed
Hydraulic Test Suspended due to High Wellhead
Pressure that Exceeded Pressure Rating of
Adsorption Tanks
Well Pump Reconfiguration Completed
Hydraulic Test and Media Loading Completed
Performance Evaluation Commenced
Date
08/20/03
08/25/03
09/03/03
09/19/03
10/01/03
05/13/04
07/26/04
09/09/04
10/20/04
11/19/04
11/22/04
03/18/05
03/21/05
04/18/05
04/25/05
09/06/05
09/14/05
09/27/05
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of the preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking of the
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation
Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual
Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently remove arsenic and antimony to below 10 and 6
M-g/L, respectively, in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems
encountered, materials and supplies needed, and labor and cost incurred
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement
and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. The O&M cost was limited to
electricity and labor because media replacement did not take place during the first 32 weeks of operation.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
the instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly
basis, the plant operator measured several water quality parameters on-site, including pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data
on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for the media replacement and spent media
disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the
routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an
Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field
logs, replenishing the NaOCl solution, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and the vendor was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
-------
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected routinely by the opreator from the wellhead,
across the treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules
and analytes measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical
methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the
EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). The procedure for arsenic
speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on August 20, 2003, one set of source water
samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. The
sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation,
which might cause unwanted oxidation. Analyses for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, samples were
collected by the plant operator weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. For the first
week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN) and after Tanks A, B, and C combined
(TT) were speciated on-site and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for monthly treatment plant
water. For the next three weeks, samples were collected at four locations across the treatment train,
including IN and after each adsorption tank (i.e., TA, TB, and TC) and analyzed for the analytes listed in
Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant water. Note that orthophosphate was replaced with total P after
January 10, 2006, due to difficulties of meeting the 48-hr holding time requirement for orthophosphate
analysis. After four months, the sampling frequency for the monthly samples was reduced to a bimonthly
basis and the weekly samples reduced to a biweekly basis. On-site measurements for pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP were performed during each sampling event. Samples also were analyzed for free and total
chlorine at the after prechlorination (AC) and the TT locations on a weekly basis. Figure 3-1 presents a
flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Residual Solids. Because the system did not require backwash
during the first 32-week period, no backwash water and backwash solid samples were collected.
Additionally, because media replacement did not take place during this reporting period, there were no
spent media samples collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, antimony, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from June to
September 2004, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three locations
within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a
monthly basis at the same locations. The three sampling locations included two residences, which are
part of the current STMGID Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations, and one newly-installed
sampling station, which is located 4,700 ft downstream from Well No. 9 and 500 ft upstream from a
blending point where Well No. 9 water blends with water from other wells. The two LCR residences
selected are located after the blending point. Figure 3-2 shows a distribution system map and the three
distribution system sampling locations.
Home owners assisted by the Washoe County Department of Water Resources (WCDWR) staff collected
samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and
Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First-draw samples were collected from
cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The
sampler recorded the date and time of last water usage before sampling and the date and time of sample
collection for calculation of the stagnation time. Arsenic speciation was not performed on these samples.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample Locations'3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
after Vessel A (TA),
after Vessel B (TB),
after Vessel C (TC)
At Wellhead (IN),
after Vessels A, B,
and C Combined
(TT)
Three LCR
Locations
Backwash Discharge
Line
Spent Media
No. of
Samples
1
4
2
3
3
3 from
one vessel
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly(b)
Monthly(b)
Monthly
TBD
Once
Analytes
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TOC,
alkalinity, and pH
On-Site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and chlorine(c)
Off-Site: As (total), Sb
(total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), P (total), SiO2,
alkalinity, and turbidity
On-Site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and chlorine
Off-Site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4
PO4(e), P (total), SiO2,
alkalinity, and turbidity
Total As, Sb, Fe, Mn, Cu,
and Pb, pH, and alkalinity
As (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
TDS, TSS, and pH
TCLP metals
No. of Sampling
Events
1
18
6(d)
Baseline
samplingฎ:
4
Monthly sampling:
7
0
TBD
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1.
(b) Sampling frequency reduced to a biweekly /bimonthly basis since 0 1/3 1/06.
(c) Weekly at AC and TT only.
(d) Samples also collected at TA, TB, and TC locations.
(e) PO4 replaced with P (total) analysis beginning January 10, 2006.
(f) Four baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.
TBD = to be determined
-------
INFLUENT
(STMGID WELL #9)
Monthly
pH(3), temperature^3), DO<3),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO/C), turbidity, alkalinity
pH, IDS,
turbidity,
As (soluble),
Fe (soluble),
Mn (soluble)
Sb (soluble)
South Truckee Meadows
General Improvement District
Reno, NV
GFH Technology
Design Flow: 350 gpm
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Weekly
, temperature^), DO^, ORP(3),
^As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
"Sb (total), SiO2, PO4(C), turbidity,
alkalinity
chlorine
, temperature^3), DO^, ORP(a),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
"Sb (total), SiO2, PO4(C), turbidity,
FC j--^- alkalinity
chlorine
pH(3), temperature^), DO<3), ORP<3),
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO/ฐ), turbidity, alkalinity
Footnotes
(a) On-site analyses
(b) Blending with other source water
(c) PO4 was replaced with P (total)
beginning 1/10/06
1
3
$
I
1
LEGEND
f IN J Influent
( AC ) After Chlorination
( TA J After Tank (A, B, C)
0 After Tanks A, B, and C
Combined
f BW ) Backwash Sampling Location
[ SS J Sludge Sampling Location
DA: C12 Chlorination
^
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
-------
STIV1GID STMGID
WELL #11 WELL#1
Washoe County Well
-ป- Sampling Location
' Washoe County Main
Notes:
DS1: Before Blending Point
DS2: 15215 Bailey Canyon Court
DS3: 14600 Rim Rock
Reno Distribution System
Sampling Locations
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
1 Miles
Source: Modified from Washoe County Department of Water Resources, 08/2004
Figure 3-2. Distribution Sampling Map (Source: WCDWR)
-------
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed below.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, green, and blue were used for IN, TA, TB, TC, and TT sampling locations.
The labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each corresponding to a
specific sample location) in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample cooler also included bottles for the
distribution system sampling.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were completed except for the operator's signature and
the sample date and time. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
(ICP-MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and
picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and TCCI
Laboratories in New Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
10
-------
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine
test kits following the user's manual.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
STMGID was established in 1981 for the purpose of furnishing water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage
facilities for a portion of the South Truckee Meadows, which is located in southern Washoe County, NV.
Currently, STMGID provides water to approximately 8,300 customers (see map of service area in Figure
3-2) via five wells that are operated by WCDWR. The Siemens GFH system is supplied by a 350-gpm
well (i.e., Well No. 9) located on South Virginia Street and Damonte Parkway. Drilled in October 1994,
Well No. 9 is constructed of 12-in-diameter casing with a 50-ft slotted screen to a total depth of 130 ft.
The well pump is a Hays Model 400T-6GP 10-stage submersible pump with a 50-horsepower (hp) three-
phase motor set at an approximate depth of 60 ft. Figure 4-1 shows Well No. 9 wellhead and pump
house.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House
Figure 4-2 shows the preexisting system housed within the pump house. Water treatment consisted of
only chlorination using a gas feed system to reach a target free chlorine residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as
C12). Chlorine gas cylinders were kept in a room partitioned from the rest of the pump house for safety
and connected to the system piping via underground conduit. The chlorine gas feed rate was regulated at
3.5 Ib/day with a panel-mounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to
monitor the chlorine gas consumption. The chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where a Baldor 1%-
in centrifugal pump with a 2 hp motor was used to create a venturi effect to mix chlorine gas with carrier
water. The chlorinated water then was blended with source water prior to entering a one-mile-long
transmission main. After reaching the blending station, the treated water was blended with water from
four other wells, i.e., Wells No. 11, 1, 2, and 3, before entering the distribution system.
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected at the wellhead of Well No. 9
on August 20, 2003, and analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The analytical results, along with
those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection, obtained by EPA on October 3,
2002, and by the technology vendor in August 2003 in response to EPA's technology solicitation, are
presented in Table 4-1. Additional historic source water quality data, including historical high and low
results, for the parameters monitored by the facility between 1992 and 2003, are presented in Table 4-2.
Total arsenic and antimony concentrations of the samples obtained by Battelle on August 20, 2003 were
87.9 and 15.8 |o,g/L, respectively, which were close to the historic high concentrations of 93 and 18 |o,g/L
for these elements. Based on the speciation results, arsenic existed almost entirely as As(V), with only a
trace amount, i.e., 0.3 |o,g/L, existing as As(III). Antimony existed entirely in the soluble form. The data
obtained/provided by the facility, EPA, and/or the vendor showed somewhat lower arsenic (ranging from
45 to 79 |og/L). The facility arsenic speciation data were in agreement with Battelle's data, with As (V)
being the only species detected. Therefore, the purpose of prechlorination was only to provide chlorine
residuals through the treatment train (to prevent biological growth) and to the distribution system.
pH values of source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.5 based on the samples provided/collected by the facility,
EPA, the vendor, and Battelle for this demonstration study. The values fell within the range of the
historic high and low values, i.e., 7.9 and 6.9, respectively. The GFH adsorptive media selected for this
study adsorbs arsenic and, perhaps, antimony more effectively at the lower end of a pH range extending
from 5.5 to 8.5. With source water pH values ranging from 6.9 to 7.9 historically and 7.4 to 7.5 within
the last several years, no pH adjustment was used at this site.
Competing ions such as silica and phosphate in source water can be adsorbed onto the GFH media, thus
reducing its arsenic and antimony removal capacities. Data obtained by Battelle showed 68.6 mg/L of
silica (as SiO2) and <0.1 mg/L of orthophosphate, comparable to the levels reported by all other parties.
Silica concentrations were high and most likely would impact the arsenic and antimony adsorption.
Published data have shown that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric oxides/hydroxides and
13
-------
Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
TOC
As (total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
-
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
STMGID 70
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
6
NS
NS
NS
3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
113
16
4
Battelle
08/20/03
7.4
100.0
17.1
10.0
0.1
8.0
68.6
0.10
<1.0
87.9
89.4
0.1
0.3
89.1
15.8
15.8
<30
<30
<10
<10
0.1
<.l
3.0
3.0
<.l
<.l
36.4
5.1
1.7
(a) Data to EPA for demonstration site selection.
(b) Data provided by EPA.
NS = not sampled.
activated alumina (Smith et al., 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002); the effect of silica was most
noticeable at pH 8 or above. As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during this study.
Source water from Well No. 9 had low or less than detectable concentrations of iron, manganese,
aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, sodium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and total
organic carbon (TOC).
4.1.2 Distribution System. As shown on the distribution map in Figure 3-2, the distribution
system at the eastern half of the STMGID site is supplied by five wells, including Wells No. 1, 2, 3, 9,
and 11. (Note that there are five other independently-operated wells, i.e., Well No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, in the
western half of STMGID) Water feeding the GFH system was supplied by Well No. 9 only. Water from
Well No. 9 is transported through a 6-in diameter, 5,000-ft long polyvinyl chloride (PVC) transmission
line to a blending point where it is blended with water from the other four
14
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data
Constitute
Unit
Year 2003
Historic High
(1992-2003)
Historic Low
(1992-2003)
Primary Standards
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Fluoride
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Selenium
Thallium
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
^g/L
17
80
0.05
<1
<1
1
<5
0.04
<0.5
<1
0.9
<0.01
<1
0.5
18
93
0.06
<1
<1
2
<5
0.17
<0.5
<1
2.3
<0.01
<1
<0.5
6
18
0.01
<1
<1
<1
<5
0.02
<0.5
<1
0.6
O.01
<1
<0.5
Secondary Standards
Chloride
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
pH
Sulfate
Zinc
TDS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
8
3
0
0.04
0.02
2
<0.01
7.2
8
0.01
177
9
5
0.04
0.17
0.07
3
O.01
7.9
9
0.03
195
o
J
o
J
<0.01
0.02
O.01
0
<0.01
6.9
6
O.01
160
Additional Constituents
Lead
Hardness
Calcium
Potassium
Sodium
Silica
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<5
37
10
5
27
70
<5
37
10
6
45
81
<5
21
5
2
26
65
Data Source: Washoe County Department of Water Resources
wells (i.e., Wells No. 11, 1, 2, and 3) at a combined flowrate of approximately 1,400 to 1,500 gpm. Due
to elevated arsenic and antimony concentrations, Well No. 9 was operated under a bilateral compliance
agreement with local regulators. According to the agreement, WCDWR must collect water quality
samples from the wellhead for arsenic and antimony analyses weekly when the well is in operation. Prior
to the demonstration study, to save analytical and data reporting costs, the well was not operated during
periods of low demand, which normally extended from the beginning of November through the end of
February the following year.
After the blending point, water flows through a 16-in ductile iron transmission main to connect to the
distribution system and then to one 500,000- and one 750,000-gal storage tank. The distribution system
consists of 8- to 12-in ductile iron, PVC, and asbestos cement pipe. The residential service lines are
15
-------
constructed of %-in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) with some commercial and irrigation service lines
using 1- to 2-in copper pipe.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The Siemens adsorption system uses GFH, a granular ferric hydroxide media, for arsenic and antimony
removal from drinking water supplies. Produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh, the media is imported
from Germany and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive marketing agreement. It can remove both
As(V) and As(III), but the capacity for As(III) is much less than that for As(V). It also can remove other
oxyanions, such as antimony, chromium, phosphate, selenium, and vanadium. The media life for arsenic
and antimony removal relies on factors, such arsenic and antimony concentrations, raw water pH value,
and the presence of other competing anions. GFH has a pH operating range of 5.5 to 8.5 with the removal
capacity increasing with decreasing pH. Competing ions such as silica and phosphate are known to
adsorb onto the GFH media and reduce the arsenic removal capacity of the media (Meng et al., 2000;
Meng et al., 2002). Once exhausted, the media is removed from the vessel and replaced with new media.
The spend media can be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste after passing the TCLP test. This single
use media approach eliminates the needs for on-site storage of regeneration chemicals and any issues
related to the handling, storage, and disposal of concentrated regeneration wastes. The GFH media has
received NSF International Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water applications. The physical and
chemical properties of the media are presented in Table 4-3. Figure 4-3 is a photograph of the media.
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH Adsorptive Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (kg/L)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Moisture Content (%)
Grain Size (mm)
Adsorption Density (g/kg)
Value
p-ferric oxyhydroxide and ferric hydroxide
Granular
Dark-brown to black
1.15
71.8
47
0.3-2.0
>8 based on wet weight
Chemical Properties
Constituent
Fe (%)
As (mg/kg)
Cd (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/kg)
Cr (mg/kg)
Ni (mg/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
Mn (mg/kg)
Typical Value
61
<10
<5
<10
30
100
100
100
1,500
Source: Siemens
A standard GFH system consists of two or more vertical pressure vessels with factory installed internals
for distribution and collection of effluent and backwash flows. The media vessels can be placed in either
parallel or series configuration. According to the vendor, if a consistent 90% reduction is needed across
the system, the series design is used. The parallel design is typically used if the percent reduction needed
16
-------
Source: Siemens
Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media
is less than 90%. The treatment system at the STMGID site consists of three vertical pressure vessels
configured in parallel with each vessel treating approximately one-third of the incoming flow.
The site-specific design features of the GFH arsenic removal system are summarized in Table 4-4. A
generalized flow chart for the treatment process and sampling locations is shown in Figure 3-1. Key
process steps and major system components are discussed as follows:
Intake. Raw water pumped from Well No. 9 was prechlorinated before being fed into the
GFH arsenic removal system. The peak flow rate was estimated to be 350 gpm. The existing
wellhead pressure was approximately 180 pounds per square inch (psi), which was higher
than the 100-psi pressure rating of the adsorption tanks. Therefore, the well pump had to be
reconfigured to produce a pressure of less than 100 psi at the filter inlet. The well pump
reconfiguration is further discussed in Section 4.3.3.
Prechlorination. Prechlorination with chlorine gas was used to provide chlorine residuals
through the treatment train (to prevent biological growth) and in the distribution system.
Figure 4-2 presents photographs of the pre-chlorination system, which was located in the
preexisting pump house. The chlorine gas feed rate was 3.5 Ib/day and controlled by a panel-
mounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to monitor the
chlorine gas consumption. The chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where it was mixed
with carrier water prior to being drawn into the main line. The chlorinated water was then
flown to the adsorption vessels in a nearby building constructed to house the treatment
system. A sample tap was installed ("AC") on a common feed line to the adsorption tanks to
collect chlorinated water prior to treatment by the GFH system.
Adsorption System. The GFH system was a fixed bed down-flow adsorption system
consisting of three 66-in-diameter by 72-in straight-side-height vertical pressure vessels
fabricated of carbon steel (Figure 4-4). Each vessel contained 80 ft3 of GFH media supported
by a 2 to 3 mm (with a 1.6 uniformity coefficient) underbedding gravel. The skid-mounted
filter vessels were operated in parallel and rated for 100 psi of working pressure. A 20-hp
booster pump was installed to boost the effluent pressure back to the preexisting levels of
approximately 180 psi (Figure 4-5). The system includes a header lateral underdrain with
media retaining strainers, front piping, fittings, valves, and meters.
17
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of GFH System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pretreatment
Chlorine Dosage (Ib/day as C12)
3.5
Prechlorination with chlorine gas
for target free chlorine residual of
1.0 mg/L(asCl2)
Adsorbers
Number of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ftVvessel)
Media Depth (in)
3
Parallel
66 D x 72 H
GFH
80
40
Vessel height at straight side shell
240 ft3 total
Backwash
Backwash Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min)
Backwash Frequency (times/month)
285
12
15-20
1-2
Adsorption System
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
EBCT (min/vessel)
Average Use Rate (gpd)
Daily Throughput (BV/day)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal x 106)
Estimated Media Life (day)
350
117
5.1
336,000
187
38,000
68.2
203
Based on peak flow
Based on 16 hr of daily operation at
350 gpm
1BV = 240 ft3 =1,795 gal
Based on 10-ug/L As breakthrough
Estimated frequency of changeout
at 75% utilization
Backwash. The adsorption vessels are taken offline one at a time for upflow backwash
using treated water to remove particulates and media fines and prevent media compaction.
Backwashing can be initiated manually, semi-automatically, and automatically. The system
at the STMGID, NV site is operated in the semi-automatic mode: the PLC sounds an alarm
when it receives a high differential pressure signal across the adsorption tanks or a time
elapsed signal from the adjustable clock and the operator acknowledges the alarm and
initiates the backwash cycle. During a backwash event, the effluent from the two vessels in
the service mode is used to backwash the third. All vessels are backwashed sequentially
using treated water from the storage tank. The backwash water produced is discharged to the
sanitary sewer (Figure 4-6). A backwash flowrate and a loss of head gauges are installed in
the front piping. The backwash flowrate gauge is provided with a 6 in diameter standard
weight pipe flange and installed to the end of the GFH system backwash waste header piping
with standard flange gasket and mounting bolts.
18
-------
Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System
Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station
19
-------
Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge
Programmable Logic Controller. A control panel was provided for automated system
control (Figure 4-7). This panel was interfaced with the local system control and data
acquisition (SCADA) enclosure as a means for remote communication. The filter system can
be operated locally from the operator interface terminal. Each adsorption vessel has two
electronically actuated butterfly valves and one manual butterfly valve with handwheel
actuator for the process flow control. The electronically actuated valves are the influent valve
and the backwash waste valve. The manual valve is the effluent valve, which remains open.
Pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across each
vessel and the treatment train. In addition, a flowmeter/totalizer was installed in the effluent
line of each adsorption vessel to monitor the flowrate and track the volume throughput
through each vessel (Figure 4-8).
Media Replacement. When the adsorptive capacity of the GFH media is exhausted, the
spent media will be taken out of the vessels for disposal and replaced with virgin media.
According to Siemens, the media changeout was estimated to take place once every 203 days
based on the water analysis and a 75% water usage rate. The actual run length of the media
was determined based on the results of the performance evaluation study as discussed in
Section 4.5.
20
-------
Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller
Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components
21
-------
4.3
Permitting and System Installation
The following summarizes permitting, building construction, and system installation, shakedown, and
startup activities.
4.3.1 Permitting. WCDWR prepared engineering plans and permit submittals for the project using
input from Siemens, such as system specifications and process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs).
The plans included site engineering drawings, equipment tie-ins, and site plans. The submittals were
certified by a State of Nevada-registered professional engineer (PE) and sent to the Washoe County
Department of Health for review and approval. The approval was submitted on July 26, 2004, and
granted by Washoe County Department of Health on October 20, 2004.
4.3.2 Building Construction. A building was constructed by STMGID to house the GFH system.
A photograph of the treatment building and pump house is shown in Figure 4-9. The construction bid for
the building was awarded on September 28, 2004. Construction of the building was delayed because the
building contractor did not submit the adequate bonding paperwork for building permit application.
Siemens stored the equipment at its Ames, IA facility until the construction was completed and delivery
of the equipment could be scheduled. Upon payment of building permit fees on October 25, 2004, the
building permit was granted. Building construction began on November 22, 2004, and was completed the
week of March 14, 2005. The free-standing building constructed of concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks
measured 32 ft x 18 ft, with an interior wall height of 14 ft and a 3 tab asphalt shingle roof. Due to the
close proximity to a commercial shopping center, the pump house and treatment building had
stone/stucco exterior and/or a stone water table to match the architecture style of the neighborhood. The
building had one walk-through door and an 8-ft x 12-ft rollup door.
Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House
22
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The equipment for the GFH system arrived at the
site on March 21, 2005, and installation began immediately after the system off-loading (Figure 4-10).
The well riser pipe and the system inlet piping did not match; therefore, a custom piece had to be
constructed to connect the system and the well. Plumbing of the GFH system was completed on April 18,
2005, by Siemens's subcontractor, Christman Construction. The system was originally scheduled for
hydraulic testing before the media loading; however, the hydraulic testing and media loading had to be
put off because it was discovered that the wellhead pressure exceeded the 100-psi pressure rating of the
adsorption vessels. As a result, the wellhead pressure had to be reduced before the adsorption vessels
could be hydraulically tested and subsequently operated. Meanwhile, Siemens collected one gal of the
media that had been stored at the site since October 2004 for precautionary testing and determined that
the moisture content of the media was not impacted due to the long term storage.
Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel
Reduction of wellhead pressure was achieved by well pump reconfiguration, which was undertaken by
WCDWR with partial funding provided by EPA. From April to July 2005, WCDWR pursued required
funding and contractors to perform the well pump modification. The well pump reconfiguration work
extended from August 29, 2005, through September 6, 2005. The work included removing the existing
submersible well pump and motor and associated piping and electrical wiring from the well casing,
removing four stages from the pump, trimming one or more impellers to achieve a new pump design
operating point of 285 ft total dynamic head at 305 gpm, and reinstalling the pump and appurtenances into
the well. The reconfigured well pump produced a maximum pressure of 100 psig. A Goulds 4-in booster
pump with a Baldor 20-hp motor and a check valve was installed on the filter discharge piping to boost
the pressure back to 180 psi. The booster pump and associated electrical work was completed by
September 6, 2005. The existing SCADA system was modified to control the well and booster pump. In
addition to the initial engineering design, WCDWR also performed final construction inspections.
23
-------
Following the modification, Siemens's subcontractor returned to the site on September 12, 2005, to
perform hydraulic testing and media loading. The hydraulic testing was conducted by initiating the flow
through each vessel, partially closing the discharge valve, adjusting the flow to approximately 100 gpm,
and measuring the inlet, outlet, and differential pressure across each vessel and the system. The results of
the hydraulic testing on the empty vessels indicated minimal pressure drop across each vessel and the
system at a combined flowrate of 300 gpm, and an evenly balanced flow across each of the three vessels.
The media was loaded following the hydraulic testing. The support media was first installed to a depth of
12 in. Water was added to the vessel to a depth of approximately 3 ft above the top of the support media
and the GFH media was then loaded to a depth of about 40 in. Due to lack of a roof hatch, the media
loading was conducted manually and took three days to complete. The media loading was followed by
initial backwash that was performed at half of the normal backwash flowrate for 30 to 45 min. The
loading of gravel and GFH media was completed on September 14, 2005. The system was subsequently
disinfected with a 5.25%NaOCl solution on September 15, 2005, and bacterial samples were collected on
September 16, 2005. The bacterial results passed; however, the PLC did not function properly so the
system could not be put into service. The Siemens technician returned to the site on September 19, 2005,
to complete the startup and perform O&M training. The technician reprogrammed the PLC to interface
with the SCADA system so that the well pump, treatment system, and booster pump might work together
in the service mode.
Battelle made a site visit on September 23, 2005, to conduct system inspections and operator training for
sampling and data collection. Further, upon careful inspections of the system, a punch list was developed
and summarized as follows:
Revise PLC program to enable automatic backwash.
Replace six 0-100 psig pressure gauges with 0-150 psig gauges to enable measurements
of the system pressure, which was slightly above 100 psig.
Adjust the PLC totalizer screen to display throughput readings properly.
Increase the pressure set point for automatic backwash from 3 psi to 7 psi.
The Siemens technician returned to the site the week of September 26, 2005. The first set of water
samples was collected on September 27, 2005, indicating the commencement of the performance
evaluation study at the STMGID site. The items on the punch list were addressed during a site visit by
the Siemens technician on October 11 to 12, 2005. One exception was that the backwash totalizer did not
display properly on the PLC screen. The backwash totalizers were connected to the PLC by the Siemens
technician during a later site visit, which took place on December 22, 2005.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The system operational parameters are tabulated and attached as
Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-5. From September 27, 2005, through May 3,
2006, the treatment system operated for approximately 943 hr based on hour meter readings of the well
pump. The system operating schedule varied during this 32-week study period. In the first three weeks,
the system ran for 18 days, with daily operating hours ranging from 4.0 to 22.1 hr/day and averaging 13.8
hr/day. The system was operated for longer periods of time during startup, but the daily operating time
was decreased following a decrease in water demand. During the following four and a half weeks, the
system ran for 16 days, with daily operating hours ranging from 1.2 to 6.8 hr/day and averaging 3.6
hr/day. Starting from November 18, 2005 (except for the three-week duration from December 17, 2005,
through January 6, 2006, when the system was shut down to make repairs as described in Section 4.4.4),
24
-------
the system began operating daily (including weekends), with daily operating hours ranging from 1.7 to
9.7 hr/day and averaging 3.8 hr/day.
The total system throughput during this 32-week period was 15,567,000 gal, equivalent to 8,677 BV of
water processed through the entire system. Note that BV for the system was calculated based on a total of
240 ft3 (or 1,795 gal) of media in the three adsorption vessels. The total flow processed through the
system was based on the sum of the throughputs through each of the three vessels measured with
individual totalizers. Individually, the number of BV processed through each vessel was slightly different
(i.e., 9,033, 8,390, and 8,609 BV for Vessels A, B, and C, respectively) due to uneven flow distributed
through each vessel. The total system throughput thus obtained was only 1.2% lower than that from the
master totalizer at the wellhead.
The average flowrates measured by individual flowmeters installed on Vessels A, B, and C were 95, 89,
and 91 gpm, respectively. These values were comparable to calculated average flowrates (i.e., 96, 88, and
90 gpm) from readings generated by the individual totalizers and well-pump hour meter. Thus, the
flowmeters/totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels appeared to be calibrated accurately. The range
of flowrates through the entire system was 205 to 333 gpm, with an average of 275 gpm (compared to the
design flowrate of 350 gpm). This resulted in an EBCT range between 5.4 to 8.7 min with an average of
6.5 min (compared to the design EBCT of 5.1 min). Based on the average flowrate and average daily
operating time, the average volume of water treated each day under normal system operations was
62,700 gpd (Table 4-5).
Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens GFH System Operations
Operational Parameter
Total Operating Time (hr) - from 09/27/05 to 05/03/06
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day )(a)
Throughput Based on Master Flow Totalizer (gal)
Throughput Based on Individual Totalizers (gal)
Throughput (BV)(b)
Range of Flowrate (gpm)
Average Flowrate (gpm)
Range of Daily Use Rate (gpd)(a)
Average Daily Use Rate (gpd)(a)
Range of EBCT (mm)(b)
Average EBCT (min)(b)
Value
943
3.8
15,753,000
15,567,000
8,677
205-333
275
46,740-75,924
62,700
5.4-8.7
6.5
(a) Calculated based on operational data collected during normal system
operations starting from November 18, 2005 (except for a three-week
duration when system was shut down for repairs).
(b) Calculated based on combined throughput from individual totalizers and
240 ft3 (or 1,795 gal) of media in three vessels.
The pressure loss across each tank ranged from 0 to 1.9 psi. The average influent pressure reading at the
head of the system was 102.8 psi, and the average pressure reading at the combined effluent was 100.8
psi. Thus, the total pressure loss across the system averaged 2.0 psi.
4.4.2 Backwash. Siemens recommended that the GFH arsenic treatment system be backwashed,
either manually or automatically, approximately once every 2 to 6 weeks. Automatic backwash could be
25
-------
initiated either by timer or by differential pressure across the vessels. The timer set point was set at the
maximum time allowable, which was 630 hr. Due to the steady pressure in the vessels, the system was
backwashed only once to test the automatic backwash system about one month after the system startup
with only 219 hr of operating time.
4.4.3 Residuals Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the GFH
treatment system would be backwash wastewater and spent media. The backwash wastewater is
discharged to the sewer directly. The media was not replaced during the first 32 weeks of operation.
4.4.4 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. In general, operation of the GFH system did
not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water system. However,
several problems related to the PLC and system components arose during this 32-week study period.
Additional discussions regarding system operation and operator skill requirement follow:
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V), therefore,
a preoxidation step was not required. However, prechlorination was provided to prevent biological
growth in the treatment system and maintain chlorine residuals in the disinfection system.
System Controls. The Siemens GFH system is fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic
backwash. During system startup, the system was tested but failed to perform automatic backwash
because the PLC did not interface with the SCADA system properly. When the system initiated a
backwash cycle, the backwash valves would completely close for 5 to 10 sec as the system attempted to
backwash the next vessel in line. The closed valves caused the system pressure to spike, which, in turn,
caused the well pump to shut off, resulting in an aborted backwash. The SCADA design included a high
pressure well shutoff when a pressure of 125 psi is maintained for more than 5 sec. The PLC program
was revised to eliminate the time delay between valves closing and opening in order to prevent the spike
in the system pressure. The vendor instructed the facility operator to exercise the valves on a routine
basis to prevent sticking. A subsequent site visit also was required to ensure the backwash totalizer
reading would be displayed on the PLC screen during backwash.
Another problem encountered was that the pneumatic butterfly valves associated with the backwash
discharge line were not resting properly, causing the vessels to bleed off pressure as they sat idle. The
existing chlorine gas system has a check valve that is held closed by the pressure in the inlet piping to the
vessels. When the pressure was lost, the check valve opened, allowing water to enter the chlorine gas
lines. The system was turned off for three weeks during December 17, 2005, through January 6, 2006,
while Siemens serviced the butterfly valves and replaced the chlorine gas lines.
Operator Skill Requirements. The State of Nevada has an operator certification program that applies to
all persons who operate community or non-transient, non-community public water systems and to persons
who operate transient non-community systems that utilize surface water as a source. Grade levels of
operator certification start at a minimum grade of 1 and progress to grade 4. The grade level required is
determined by the complexity of the system, such as the population served, type of source water,
disinfection method, treatment for contaminants, and other factors.
Prior to the treatment system being installed, the preexisting plant required a Grade 2 distribution system
operator (i.e., D-2). The Siemens GFH system was operated by a Grade 3 operator in both treatment and
distribution systems (i.e., D-3 and T-3). A Grade 3 operator requires several postsecondary courses of
instruction, such as successful completion of 36 hr college level courses related to drinking water. Under
normal operating conditions, no additional skills were required beyond those necessary to operate the
existing water supply equipment. However, as described above, some initial adjustments to the PLC
26
-------
made by the Siemens technician were required to achieve the desired interface with the SCADA and
correct readings on the display screen.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by the vendor was to exercise the backwash valves occasionally so that they might function
properly in case backwash was needed. The treatment system operator visited the site about five times
per week and stayed for about 30 min each time to check the system for leaks, and record flow, volume,
and pressure readings.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the treatment and
distribution systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the results of arsenic, antimony, and three
competing anions for samples collected across the treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of
other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the 32-
week operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed as follows.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the GFH adsorption system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 25 occasions
during the first 32 weeks of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with
field speciation performed on six occasions.
As shown on Table 4-6, total As concentrations in raw water ranged from 35.0 to 88.0 (ig/L and averaged
67.2 (ig/L. Arsenic existed primarily as As(V), with trace amounts, i.e., 0.3 and 1.2 (ig/L, present as
As(III) and particulate, respectively (see Figure 4-11 for detailed arsenic speciation results). Figure 4-12
shows the influent (IN) total arsenic concentrations plotted against the number of bed volumes of water
processed through each vessel and the entire system at the time of sampling. (Note that one BV equals to
the combined volume of three parallel adsorptive media beds at 240 ft3 or 1,795 gal.) The influent arsenic
concentrations measured during this period showed a steadily increasing trend, rising from 35.0 (ig/L at
the system startup to 88.0 (ig/L by the end of this study period. The highest arsenic concentration
observed was close to the historic high concentration of 93 (ig/L. It is not clear why the arsenic
concentrations continued to rise as observed.
Figure 4-12 also plots the total arsenic concentration measured after each vessel at TA, TB, and TC and
after the entire system at TT. WCDWR took TT samples for arsenic analysis by Sierra Environmental
Monitoring Laboratory (Reno, NV) and the results also are presented in the graph. In general,
WCDWR's data matched closely with Battelle's data, except for two high data points observed just
before and after the 2,000-BV mark. As shown in the figure, all three adsorption vessels initially
removed arsenic to <0.5 (ig/L and the effluent from the individual vessels and entire system remained less
than 10 (ig/L until the system had processed approximately 7,200 BV of water, which was significantly
less than the estimated capacity of 38,000 BV. The short run length observed was believed to be the
result of competitive adsorption by competing anions, such as silica and phosphorous. The effects of
these anions are further discussed in the following sections.
Arsenic speciation results for samples taken on three occasions at TA, TB, and TC and six occasions at
TT are presented in four bar charts shown in Figure 4-11. Except for a few cases, As(V) was the
predominating species in the treated water. As(III) in raw water remained essentially untreated, with
0.3 (ig/L (on average) entering the system and 0.2 to 0.3 (ig/L coming out of the system.
27
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Three Competing Anions
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Silica (as SiO2)
Total P (as PO4)
Orthophosphate
(asP04)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
25
25
25
25
10
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
25
23
23
23
10
5
3
3
3
6
25
23
23
23
6
23
21
21
21
7
7
7
7
7
4
Concentration
Minimum
35.0
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.2
29.5
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
29.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
11.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
51.5
5.0
4.9
4.4
9.1
0.27
0.03
O.03
<0.03
<0.03
O.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
0.05
Maximum
88.0
25.1
20.0
19.8
21.6
79.7
1.4
0.7
0.8
8.4
5.5
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
79.4
1.1
0.5
0.6
8.3
21.0
14.5
14.6
14.5
14.0
15.4
9.9
9.4
9.3
13.9
95.1
75.2
76.0
75.6
72.4
0.46
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.62
0.13
0.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
Average'3'
67.2
-
-
-
-
60.0
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
59.7
-
-
-
-
14.6
-
-
-
-
13.6
-
-
-
-
72.6
-
-
-
-
0.35
-
-
-
-
0.08
-
-
-
-
Standard
Deviation'3'
13.0
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
17.4
-
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
-
-
-
0.03
-
-
-
-
(a) Average and standard deviation only provided for inlet samples; not meaningful for effluent data with breakthrough
curves. One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples included in calculations.
28
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Fluoride
Nitrate
(asN)
Sulfate
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
HR/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
Number of
Samples
24
22
22
22
9
5
2
2
2
5
24
22
22
22
9
5
2
2
2
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
24
22
22
22
5
24
22
22
22
5
Concentration
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
6.7
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
88.0
83.0
79.0
80.0
83.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Maximum
<25
<25
<25
<25
873
<25
<25
<25
<25
72.4
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.7
40.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
7.4
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
101
101
101
97.0
185
2.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
9.5
Average
<25
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
93.4
92.2
92.3
92.1
108
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.2
Standard
Deviation
0
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.05
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
3.9
3.7
4.8
3.9
43.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
4.1
29
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)
Parameter
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
IN
TA
TB
TC
TT
Unit
S.U.
s.u.
S.U.
s.u.
s.u.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
Number of
Samples
26
26
26
26
24
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
25
Concentration
Minimum
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
14.6
14.6
14.6
10.6
14.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
115
215
236
242
264
Maximum
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.6
17.0
6.2
4.7
4.6
4.6
6.0
381
739
744
753
754
Average
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
16.5
16.4
16.2
15.9
16.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
255
657
672
682
699
Standard
Deviation
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
52.8
129
129
130
97.8
Notes: Samples collected on first day of operation, i.e., September 27,2006, not included because they were
not representative of normal operation. See Appendix B for September 27, 2006 results. One-half of
detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Because of the unexpectedly short run length experienced by the GFH media, the removal capacities of
four adsorptive media, i.e., GFH, ARM 200 (an iron-based media by BASF), ArsenXnp (a hybrid ion
exchange resin-based media manufactured by Purolite), and Adsorbsia GTO (a titania-based media by
Dow Chemical), were later evaluated using a rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) in the laboratory
under a separate task order (Westerhoff et al., 2007). The results of the study indicated that all four media
tested had a rather short run length for arsenic. The longest run length was achieved by GFH at
approximately 11,000 BV, which was about 50% longer than that observed from the full-scale GFH
system. The difference in run length was probably caused by the varying influent water quality between
the laboratory RSSCT and full-scale system. The run lengths achieved by the other three media were
progressively shorter, decreasing from approximately 9,000 BV for ArsenXnp, to 8,000 BV for ARM 200,
and to 4,000 BV for Adsorbsia GTO. Therefore, the RSSCT results confirmed the full-scale data and that
the Well No. 9 water at STMGID was difficult to treat.
Another round of RSSCT tests were conducted in the field to further evaluate the capacities of several
more adsorptive media in order to determine the media to be used for rebedding at the site. The results of
these RSSCT tests and the subsequent full-scale study will be reported in the Final Performance
Evaluation Report at the conclusion of this study.
Antimony. Total antimony concentrations in raw water ranged from 10.2 to 21.0 |o,g/L and averaged 14.6
Hg/L (Table 4-6), existing almost entirely in the soluble form. Figure 4-13 shows antimony breakthrough
curves from Vessels A, B, and C and the entire system. The test results obtained by WCDWR on treated
water samples also are included in the graph. Breakthrough above 6 |o,g/L occurred at approximately
3,000 BV, showing that the GFH media had a limited adsorptive capacity for antimony. However, one
30
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Inlet (IN)
i nn n
90 0 -
80 0 -
J> 60.0 -
^ 50.0 -
3 40.0 -
H 30.0 -
20.0 -
10.0 -
D As (participate)
As(V)
DAs(ni)
n
09/27/05 11/03/05
-
12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06
Date
4.0 -
5? 3.0 -
Arsenic Specialtion after Tank A (TA)
a
09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 Not Sampled
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Tank B (TB)
4.0 -
J?
3> 3 o -
-3- '
3 2.0 H
o
H
1.0 -
D As (p articulate)
As(V)
As (IE)
Not Sampled
Arsenic Speciation after Tank C (TC)
DAs (particulate)
As(V)
As (IE)
Not Sampled
Arsenic Speciation after All Tanks (TT)
09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06
Date
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and after
Tanks A, B, C and Entire System (TT)
31
-------
100
2.0
4.0 6.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
8.0
10.0
Figure 4-12. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves from GFH System
2.0
4.0 6.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
8.0
10.0
Figure 4-13. Antimony Breakthrough Curves from GFH System
32
-------
pilot study conducted in Salt Lake County Service Area #3, Utah showed that GFH could remove
antimony up to 50,000 BV (http: //www .canyonwater. com/antimony .htm). More information on this pilot
study is being obtained and will be included in the Final Performance Evaluation Report.
Silica. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaging 72.6
mg/L (as SiO2) (Table 4-6). Silica was removed until reaching complete breakthrough about halfway
through the 32-week study period (Figure 4-14). Silica adsorption on porous metal-oxide
adsorptive media can be a major factor that impacts arsenic and, perhaps, antimony, removal by these
media (Smith et al., 2005). Several batch and column studies document that silica reduces arsenic
adsorptive capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et al., 2002; Meng et al.,
2000). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and iron-arsenic-silica systems
include: (1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the iso-
electric point (or pH^), (2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites, (3) polymerization of silica
may accelerate silica sorption but lower the available surface sites for arsenic adsorption, and 4) chemical
reactions of silica with divalent cations such as calcium, magnesium, and barium may form precipitates.
Therefore, the high level of silica in Well No. 9 might have reduced GFH's arsenic and antimony removal
capacities.
100
90
80
70 -
re
S 50
u
o 40 H
re
I 30
20 -
10
0
0.0
-*-IN
--TA
TB
-K-TC
2.0
4.0 6.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
8.0
10.0
Figure 4-14. Silica Breakthrough Curves from GFH System
Phosphorous. Total phosphorous concentrations in raw water ranged from 0.27 to 0.46 mg/L (as PO4)
and averaged 0.35 mg/L (as PO4). Orthophosphate was measured on seven occasions during the first
three months of system operation, with concentrations peaked at 0.13 mg/L (as PO4) and averaged 0.08
mg/L (as PO4). Phosphorous was removed to below 0.03 mg/L (as PO4) until about 3,500 BV and then
gradually broke through from the adsorption vessels (see breakthrough curves in Figure 4-15).
Phosphorous did not reach 100% breakthrough by the end of the 32-week study period. Phosphorous
removal by iron-based adsorptive media has been observed at several EPA arsenic removal demonstration
33
-------
-IN
-TA
-TB
-TC
-TT
2.0
4.0 6.0
Bed Volumes (X 1000)
8.0
10.0
Figure 4-15. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves from GFH System
sites and will be discussed in the Final Performance Evaluation Report as more data become available.
Similar to silica, phosphorous apparently competed with arsenic and, perhaps, antimony for available
adsorption sites, thus significantly reducing the useful media life for arsenic and antimony.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Table 4-7 provides a summary for the water quality parameters
observed during normal system operation. During the first day of operation, the water quality measured
was not typical of those measured thereafter. For example, an elevated iron concentration (i.e., 232 (ig/L)
was measured in the influent during startup on September 27, 2005, compared to <25 (ig/L for all samples
collected thereafter. Also, significant decreases in pH (from 7.1 to <4.5), alkalinity (from 92 to <1.0
mg/L [as CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals (from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as C12]) were observed in the effluent of
adsorption vessels shortly after the system was placed online, indicating removal of bicarbonate ions and
consumption of chlorine by the GFH media. Within a week, the pH, alkalinity, and chlorine residual
levels after the adsorption vessels returned to normal. Further, elevated total and dissolved manganese
concentrations were measured in the effluent of the adsorption vessels on September 27, 2005, i.e.,
ranging from 12.4 to 16.8 (ig/L as compared to an average of 0.1 mg/L for all samples collected
thereafter), indicating leaching of some manganese from the GFH media during the initial operation.
As shown in Table 4-7, pH values of raw water varied from 6.5 to 7.9, with an average of 7.1, which fell
within the desirable pH range for adsorptive media without any pH adjustment. The pH values of treated
water ranged from 6.5 to 7.6. Therefore, the water pH did not change significantly after the treatment,
except for shortly after the system was placed online. All other constituents in raw water did not appear
to be altered by the GFH system.
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the operation of the GFH system, baseline
distribution water samples were collected from three locations for four consecutive months in 2004.
Following system startup in September 2005, distribution sampling continued on a monthly basis at the
same three locations. The sampling results are presented in Table 4-8. Figure 4-16 plots the total arsenic
and antimony concentrations measured in the distribution system after system startup.
34
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
06/09/04
07/08/04
08/11/04
09/08/04
10/25/05
11/30/05
12/14/05
01/18/06
02/15/06
03/15/06
04/12/06
DS1
Non-Residence
1st Draw
"2"
.c
O>
C
O
ea
c
O5
CQ
1/5
164
740
211
672
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.
6.8
6.9
7.4
7.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
~
15
<^
116
93
94
97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C/l
65.3
87.9
93.5
108
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O>
LJ_
<25
212
<25
555
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
c
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.a
a_
8.9
32.6
3.4
46.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
13.1
7.6
8.2
13.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.a
1/5
15.4
15.6
15.3
21.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flushed'3'
a.
6.8
6.9
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.5
7.6
~
15
<^
91
93
94
93
97
88
101
92
104
100
106
C/l
63.2
81.4
93.4
111
3.1
4.1
4.0
1.2
4.3
4.1
7.2
a>
LJ_
<25
<25
<25
<25
106
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
1.5
2.3
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.1
.a
a_
1.4
2.0
0.6
0.7
4.5
2.7
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.2
O
5.2
5.4
7.0
7.6
51.2
4.7
0.9
10.4
6.5
100
2.1
.a
1/5
15.5
15.7
15.2
20.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
10.5
2.2
2.0
3.2
DS2
LCR
1st Draw
"2"
.c
O>
C
O
ea
c
O5
fa
1/5
8.8
NA
10.8
7.0
NA
8.0
13.0
8.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
O.
7.1
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
~
15
<^
104
97
102
105
106
97
106
101
104
100
106
C/l
13.1
20.4
15.9
17.6
4.7
5.5
4.2
3.9
4.4
4.0
7.2
O>
LJ_
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
.a
a_
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
110
43.9
17.1
74.4
11.8
20.9
0.6
172
86.2
176
121
.a
1/5
2.4
2.9
2.2
2.9
0.5
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
3.3
DS3
LCR
1st Draw
"2"
.c
O>
C
O
ea
c
O5
fa
1/5
9.5
NA
8
8.3M
NA
7.5
8.5
NA
7.5
7.7
8.0
O.
6.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
~
15
<^
104
97
102
109
106
88
101
101
104
100
106
C/l
12.8
19.9
18.1
18.7
4.4
5.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.2
6.4
CD
LJ_
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
57.8
<25
<25
c
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
-------
20
15 -
5 10 --
g
o
O
5
-- Plant Effluent As
n DS1 As
x DS2As
DSSAs
10-ug/LAsMCL
10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06
Sampling Date
20
15 -
c
o
o
SI
1
5
Plant Effluent Sb
A DS1 Sb
X DS2Sb
DSSSb
10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06
Sampling Date
Figure 4-16. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System After System Startup
Prior to the installation of the GFH system, total arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution
system upstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS1) averaged 87.2 and 16.8 (ig/L, respectively,
representing the high concentrations in Well No. 9 water. Downstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS2
and DS3), total arsenic concentrations averaged 16.7 (ig/L at DS2 and 17.4 (ig/L at DS3, whereas total
36
-------
antimony concentrations averaged 2.6 (ig/L at DS2 and 2.8 (ig/L at DS3. These values were significantly
lower than those in Well No. 9 water due to blending with low-arsenic and low-antimony water from
other wells supplying the distribution system. After the GFH system was put into service, both arsenic
and antimony concentrations at all three locations were significantly reduced to below the respective
MCLs (except for one exceedance), as shown in Figure 4-16. These concentration reductions were
resulted primarily from treatment by GFH system and blending with other source waters. Due to lack of
records of actual blending ratios and water quality of other source wells, the exact cause of the reductions
observed may not be identified.
Lead levels in the first draw samples from two residences (DS2 and DS3) were low (< 0.1 to 1.5 (ig/L)
and did not appear to be affected by the treatment system. Copper levels fluctuated from time to time,
ranging from 17.1 to 148 (ig/L before the treatment system was installed and from 0.6 to 176 (ig/L
afterwards, which were well below the copper action level of 1,300 (ig/L. Iron and manganese
concentrations in the distribution system were below the respective detection limits most of the time. The
pH and alkalinity values remained fairly constant in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for the media replacement and disposal,
electricity consumption, and labor. The cost incurred for treatment building construction ($186,000
funded by STMGID) and well reconfiguration (provided by EPA with partial funding of $34,840) were
not included in this cost evaluation.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
232,147 (see Table 4-9) as provided by Siemens in a cost proposal to Battelle dated October 1, 2003. The
equipment cost was $157,647 (or 68% of the total capital investment), which included the cost for three
skid-mounted carbon steel pressure vessels ($45,500), 240 ft3 of GFH media ($238/ft3 or $3.03/lb for a
total cost of $57,000), process piping and valving ($11,000), instrumentation and controls ($9,500), and
field services, labor, and travel ($27,000). The equipment cost also included a change order of $7,647 for
adding three flow meters and three differential pressure gauge assemblies. The items on the change order
were not standard items and added for monitoring purposes.
WCDWR prepared, at its own cost, the required engineering plans and permit submittals, which included
the system layout and footprint, piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and system
specifications and P&IDs provided by Siemens. The engineering cost charged by Siemens was $16,000,
about 7% of the total capital investment. The engineering work performed by Siemens was limited to its
system design information and PE-stamped P&IDs. The cost incurred by WCDWR for the plans
preparation and submittals are not included in Table 4-9.
The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system;
complete the piping installation and tie-ins; and perform the system start-up and shakedown (Section
4.3.3). The installation cost was $58,500, or 25% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $232,147 was normalized to $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of the design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $21,912 by applying a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate
and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate of
350 gpm to produce 183,960,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.12/1,000 gal.
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
GFH Media (ft3)
Vessels
Process Piping and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
Field Services and Miscellaneous Items
Labor
Travel
Change Order for Adding Three Flow
Three Flow Meters and Three
Differential Pressure Gauge Assembles
Equipment Total
240
3
-
$57,000
$45,500
$11,000
$9,500
$12,000
$10,000
$5,000
$7,647
$157,647
68%
Engineering Costs
Labor
Engineering Total
-
-
$16,000
$16,000
-
7%
Installation Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$13,500
$30,000
$10,000
$5,000
$58,500
$232,147
-
-
-
-
25%
100%
using the 3.8 hr/day of average daily system run time and 275 gpm of average system flowrate, the system
would produce only 22,885,500 gal of water per year. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit capital
cost increased to $0.96/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the Siemens GFH system included
only the incremental cost associated with the system, such as media replacement and disposal, electricity
consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-10. Additional electricity use associated with the air
compressor and PLC was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed
about 30 min/day, 5 day/wk as noted in Section 4.4.4. Therefore, the labor cost was calculated to be
$0.18/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-10).
The unit O&M cost is driven primarily by the cost to replace the spent media and is a function of the
media run length. The media run length is measured by the number of bed volumes treated by the system
until reaching 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough or 6-^.g/L antimony breakthrough in the combined effluent,
whichever occurs first. The pending media replacement cost is estimated to be $70,550, including 240 ft3
of virgin GFH media ($57,600) and labor and spent media disposal ($12,950). By averaging the media
replacement cost over the media life, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of
the media run length in BV or the system throughput in gal (see Figure 4-17). The media run length in
BV was calculated by dividing the total system throughput by the total quantity of media, i.e., 240 ft3. As
shown in this figure, the unit media replacement cost would be $5.46/1,000 gal for a media run length of
7,200 BV (or 12,925,000 gal) - if the system operation was governed by arsenic. If the system operation
was governed by antimony, the media would have been replaced around 3,000 BV (or 5,386,000 gal) and
the unit replacement cost would be higher at $13.10/1,000 gal.
38
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (1,000 gal)
Value
15,567
Assumptions
Actual volume treated for 32-week period
Media Replacement and Disposal
Volume of Media Replaced (ft3)
Replacement Media ($)
Labor and Disposal($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal
Cost ($71,000 gal)
240
$57,600
$12,950
$70,550
See Figure 4-17
$240/ft3 of media, includes shipping
Estimated cost
As a function of media run length to 10-
|ag/L As or 6-|ag/L Sb breakthrough
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($)
$0.00
No additional chemicals required
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Incremental electrical cost negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
2.5
2,800
0.18
See Figure 4-17
30 mm/day, 5 day/wk
80 hr x $35/hr for 32-wk period
Based on 15,567,000 gal of water treated
$10.00
$0.00
20,000
SystemThroughput (X 1000 gal)
40,000 60,000 80,000
100,000
Total O&M cost
Media replacement cost
10 20 30 40 50
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
60
Figure 4-17. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System
39
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. 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. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWW, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal
Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Westerhoff, .P., T. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, L.J. Cumming. 2007. Assessing Arsenic Removal by
Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
40
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV- Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/1/05
12/2/05
Pump House
Hour
Meter
Mr
6564.9
6583.8
6587.7
6606.4
6653.3
6666.5
6688.6
6702.2
6716.9
6765.0
6779.8
6788.0
6800.0
6810.4
6810.4
6810.5
6816.2
6816.2
6822.3
6822.4
6829.2
6832.8
6832.8
6837.9
6839.3
6841.9
6846.1
6852.7
6853.9
6859.4
6860.9
6862.9
6864.9
6866.4
6868.0
6871.4
6890.1
6893.4
6898.9
6919.3
6922.9
6924.6
6928.1
6932.5
Avg. Op
Hours
Mr
18.9
11.4
13.8
14.7
14.5
15.5
15.3
15.2
15.4
15.4
14.9
14.7
12.3
11.7
11.2
10.9
10.5
9.5
9.2
9.1
8.9
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
Total
Hours
Mr
4
23
27
45
92
105
128
141
156
204
219
227
239
249
249
249
255
255
261
261
268
272
272
277
278
281
285
292
293
298
300
302
304
305
307
310
329
332
338
358
362
364
367
371
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
270
288
278
287
286
287
287
287
286
287
331
205
285
282
0
333
287
0
279
166
284
292
0
288
262
282
282
288
278
288
278
275
275
311
271
284
283
278
288
283
278
294
276
284
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
116,028,000
116,355,000
116,420,000
116,742,000
117,548,000
117,775,000
118,156,000
118,390,000
118,642,000
119,469,000
119,763,000
119,864,000
120,069,000
120,245,000
120,245,000
120,247,000
120,345,000
120,345,000
120,447,005
120,448,000
120,564,000
120,627,000
120,627,000
120,715,000
120,737,000
120,781,000
120,852,000
120,966,000
120,986,000
121,081,000
121,106,000
121,139,000
121,172,000
121,200,000
121,226,000
121,284,000
121,602,000
121,657,000
121,752,000
122,099,000
122,159,000
122,189,000
122,247,000
122,322,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
62
327
65
322
806
227
381
234
252
827
294
101
205
176
0
2
98
0
102
1
116
63
0
88
22
44
71
114
20
95
25
33
33
28
26
58
318
55
95
347
60
30
58
75
Total
Treated
Volume
Kgal
62
389
454
776
1,582
1,809
2,190
2,424
2,676
3,503
3,797
3,898
4,103
4,279
4,279
4,281
4,379
4,379
4,481
4,482
4,598
4,661
4,661
4,749
4,771
4,815
4,886
5,000
5,020
5,115
5,140
5,173
5,206
5,234
5,260
5,318
5,636
5,691
5,786
6,133
6,193
6,223
6,281
6,356
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
21,142
129,929
151,832
258,020
524,876
599,420
725,650
801,333
884,862
1,157,292
1,240,530
1,287,858
1,357,570
1,417,138
1,417,138
1,417,700
1,449,942
1,450,500
1,485,546
1,486,127
1,527,269
1,549,712
1,549,712
1,580,898
1,588,801
1,604,500
1,629,640
1,669,050
1,676,500
1,708,705
1,717,600
1,728,625
1,741,600
1,749,080
1,758,400
1,778,300
1,885,360
1,904,560
1,938,100
2,056,000
2,075,850
2,086,230
2,105,990
2,131,260
Flow
Totalizer
Tank B
gal
20,218
124,431
145,433
248,072
507,150
599,420
725,650
801,333
884,862
1,121,250
1,202,300
1,246,258
1,310,324
1,365,029
1,365,029
1,365,600
1,395,794
1,395,700
1,427,875
1,428,431
1,463,755
1,483,007
1,483,007
1,509,900
1,516,666
1,530,200
1,552,000
1,586,400
1,593,100
1,622,368
1,630,500
1,640,491
1,652,400
1,659,240
1,667,800
1,686,200
1,784,250
1,801,850
1,832,417
1,937,850
1,956,010
1,965,500
1,983,600
2,006,720
Flow
Totalizer
Tank C
gal
20,218
124,431
145,433
248,072
508,370
581,426
705,298
779,650
861,230
1,128,411
1,210,200
1,255,442
1,321,711
1,378,363
1,378,363
1,378,990
1,409,061
1,409,600
1,442,384
1,442,971
1,478,871
1,498,466
1,498,466
1,525,900
1,532,747
1,546,600
1,568,800
1,603,830
1,610,700
1,640,596
1,648,800
1,659,012
1,671,100
1,678,070
1,686,600
1,705,100
1,804,250
1,821,980
1,855,248
1,960,250
1,978,700
1,988,460
2,006,840
2,030,410
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
62
379
443
754
1,540
1,780
2,157
2,382
2,631
3,407
3,653
3,790
3,990
4,161
4,161
4,162
4,255
4,256
4,356
4,358
4,470
4,531
4,531
4,617
4,638
4,681
4,750
4,859
4,880
4,972
4,997
5,028
5,065
NA
5,113
5,170
5,474
5,528
5,626
5,954
6,011
6,040
6,096
6,168
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
34.0
211.1
246.8
420.4
858.6
992.3
1202.1
1327.9
1466.5
1899.1
2036.2
2112.4
2223.9
2319.1
2319.1
2320.1
2371.7
2372.2
2428.0
2428.9
2491.6
2525.7
2525.7
2573.4
2585.4
2609.4
2648.0
2708.6
2720.3
2771.3
2785.3
2802.7
2823.4
NA
2849.9
2881.6
3051.2
3081.6
3135.9
3318.9
3350.4
3366.9
3398.2
3438.3
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
TF"
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Inlet
101.0
103.0
105.0
103.0
104.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
0.0
104.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
8.0
106.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
106.0
Outlet
100.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
2.0
2.0
103.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
8.0
105.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
Tank B
OP
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Inlet
99.0
103.0
106.0
104.0
106.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
3.0
3.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
105.0
Outlet
100.0
102.0
106.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
103.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
100.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
101.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
Tank C
OP
0.5
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.00
1.10
0.00
1.20
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
Inlet
100.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
Outlet
100.0
101.0
102.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
101.0
2.0
2.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
101.0
0.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
7.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
Total System
Pressure Data
7>TT
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
Inlet
99.0
104.0
105.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
0.0
0.0
104.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
101.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
101
101
101.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
Outlet
99.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
100.0
100.0
102.0
101.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
103.0
0.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
0.0
99.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
100
100
100
100
0
100
0
100
99
101
100
0
98
0.0
0
101.0
101.0
100.0
103.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
11
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date
12/5/05
12/6/05
12/7/05
12/8/05
12/9/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
Pump House
Hour
Meter
hr
6945.9
6951.0
6954.4
6958.7
6961.5
6974.9
6979.3
6982.5
6986.6
6991.4
7006.8
7010.5
7014.3
7018.1
7022.4
7035.0
7042.4
7047.2
7050.6
7064.6
7067.8
7074.1
7076.4
7079.7
7091.7
7095.5
7100.1
7105.5
7108.9
7120.7
7124.3
7127.9
7131.0
7135.0
7147.1
7152.1
7155.6
7159.1
7164.1
7180.9
7184.3
7187.3
7205.7
7208.6
7212.1
7215.7
7221.1
Avg.
Op
Hours
hr
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
Total
Hours
hr
385
390
393
398
400
414
418
421
426
430
446
449
453
457
461
474
481
486
490
504
507
513
515
519
531
534
539
544
548
560
563
567
570
574
586
591
595
598
603
620
623
626
645
648
651
655
660
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
282
353
181
279
280
284
288
281
285
295
NA
288
285
276
275
340
164
271
279
275
276
270
275
273
275
276
275
272
275
274
278
269
274
275
274
270
276
271
277
273
275
267
274
282
271
273
275
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
122,549,000
122,657,000
122,694,000
122,766,000
122,813,000
123,041,000
123,117,000
123,171,000
123,241,000
123,326,000
123,537,000
123,601,000
123,666,000
123,729,000
123,800,000
124,057,000
124,130,000
124,208,000
124,265,000
124,496,000
124,549,000
124,651,000
124,689,000
124,743,000
124,941,000
125,004,000
125,080,000
125,168,000
125,224,000
125,418,000
125,478,000
125,536,000
125,587,000
125,653,000
125,852,000
125,933,000
125,991,000
126,048,000
126,131,000
126,406,000
126,462,000
126,510,000
126,812,000
126,861,000
126,918,000
126,977,000
127,066,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
227
108
37
72
47
228
76
54
70
85
211
64
65
63
71
257
73
78
57
231
53
102
38
54
198
63
76
88
56
194
60
58
51
66
199
81
58
57
83
275
56
48
302
49
57
59
89
Total Treated
Volume
Kgal
6,583
6,691
6,728
6,800
6,847
7,075
7,151
7,205
7,275
7,360
7,571
7,635
7,700
7,763
7,834
8,091
8,164
8,242
8,299
8,530
8,583
8,685
8,723
8,777
8,975
9,038
9,114
9,202
9,258
9,452
9,512
9,570
9,621
9,687
9,886
9,967
10,025
10,082
10,165
10,440
10,496
10,544
10,846
10,895
10,952
11,011
11,100
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
2,207,880
2,237,370
2,259,500
2,283,850
2,300,000
2,377,000
2,403,000
2,422,000
2,445,000
2,473,000
2,547,000
2,568,000
2,590,000
2,613,000
2,637,000
2,728,000
2,755,000
2,781,000
2,801,000
2,883,000
2,910,000
2,936,000
2,950,000
2,969,000
3,039,000
3,061,000
3,087,000
3,118,000
3,137,000
3,206,000
3,227,000
3,247,000
3,265,000
3,287,000
3,358,000
3,386,000
3,406,000
3,426,000
3,455,000
3,553,000
3,571,000
3,588,000
3,694,000
3,711,000
3,731,000
3,753,000
3,783,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankB
gal
2,076,960
2,103,970
2,127,100
2,149,441
2,164,000
2,235,000
2,258,000
2,275,000
2,297,000
2,322,000
2,389,000
2,408,000
2,428,000
2,449,000
2,471,000
2,554,000
2,579,000
2,603,000
2,621,000
2,696,000
2,712,000
2,745,000
2,758,000
2,775,000
2,839,000
2,859,000
2,884,000
2,912,000
2,930,000
2,993,000
3,012,000
3,030,000
3,047,000
3,068,000
3,133,000
3,159,000
3,177,000
3,195,000
3,222,000
3,312,000
3,329,000
3,345,000
3,442,000
3,458,000
3,476,000
3,496,000
3,523,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankC
gal
2,101,980
2,129,550
2,153,400
2,176,221
2,191,000
2,263,000
2,288,000
2,305,000
2,327,000
2,353,000
2,422,000
2,441,000
2,462,000
2,483,000
2,506,000
2,591,000
2,616,000
2,641,000
2,659,000
2,736,000
2,753,000
2,787,000
2,800,000
2,818,000
2,883,000
2,904,000
2,929,000
2,958,000
2,977,000
3,041,000
3,061,000
3,080,000
3,097,000
3,118,000
3,185,000
3,212,000
3,231,000
3,249,000
3,276,000
3,369,000
3,387,000
3,403,000
3,504,000
3,520,000
3,539,000
3,559,000
3,587,000
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
6,387
6,471
6,540
6,610
6,655
6,875
6,949
7,002
7,069
7,148
5,005
7,417
7,480
7,545
7,614
7,873
7,950
8,025
8,081
8,315
8,375
8,468
8,508
8,562
8,761
8,824
8,900
8,988
9,044
9,240
9,300
9,357
9,409
9,473
9,676
9,757
9,814
9,870
9,953
10,234
10,287
10,336
10,640
10,689
10,746
10,808
10,893
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
3560.1
3607.0
3645.5
3684.2
3709.6
3832.2
3873.5
3903.0
3940.4
3984.4
2789.9
4134.3
4169.5
4205.7
4244.1
4388.5
4431.4
4473.2
4504.5
4634.9
4668.3
4720.2
4742.5
4772.6
4883.5
4918.6
4961.0
5010.0
5041.2
5150.5
5183.9
5215.7
5244.7
5280.4
5393.5
5438.7
5470.5
5501.7
5547.9
5704.6
5734.1
5761.4
5930.9
5958.2
5990.0
6024.5
6071.9
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
OP
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inlet
32.0
8.0
103.0
0.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104
104
104
104
103
103
104
103
103
100
104
104
104
103
103
104
104
104
104
104
106
104
104
104
103
104
104
104
104
107
105
105
104
104
104
104
104
Outlet
32.00
8.00
102.0
0.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
98.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
TankB
OP
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
Inlet
32.0
8.0
103.0
0.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
106.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
Outlet
32.0
8.0
102.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
101.0
102.0
TankC
OP
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
Inlet
31.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
101.0
100.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
106.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
Outlet
31.0
7.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
101.0
100.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
Total System
Pressure Data
OP
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.7
1.4
Inlet
31.0
6.0
103.0
0.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
Outlet
32.0
7.0
101.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
102
100.0
101.0
101.0
100
101.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
103.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
101
101
100
101
101
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
24
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
Date
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
04/12/06
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
Pump House
Hour
Meter
hr
7232.4
7236.1
7239.9
7244.1
7248.5
7258.7
7263.0
7267.5
7271.6
7276.5
7288.8
7291.3
7295.1
7299.3
7302.7
7315.7
7319.1
7323.3
7327.9
7332.4
7344.3
7347.9
7353.2
7355.2
7361.8
7344.3
7347.9
7353.2
7355.2
7361.8
7381.2
7383.9
7388.2
7392.7
7406.8
7407.0
7410.4
7414.6
7419.6
7427.7
7448.2
7453.6
7460.2
7465.3
7470.4
7492.8
7502.5
7504.3
Avg. Op
Hours
hr
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
Total
Hours
hr
671
675
679
683
687
698
702
706
711
715
728
730
734
738
742
755
758
762
767
771
783
787
792
794
801
783
787
792
794
801
820
823
827
832
846
846
849
854
859
867
887
893
899
904
909
932
941
943
Avg.
Flowrate
gpm
274
275
272
274
277
271
275
278
272
276
275
273
268
278
275
273
275
274
272
274
272
273
274
275
275
272
273
274
275
275
274
272
271
274
279
167
275
270
280
272
275
275
275
275
275
272
273
269
Total System Operation Data
Master Flow
Meter
gal
127,252,000
127,313,000
127,375,000
127,444,000
127,517,000
127,683,000
127,754,000
127,829,000
127,896,000
127,977,000
128,180,000
128,221,000
128,282,000
128,352,000
128,408,000
128,621,000
128,677,000
128,746,000
128,821,000
128,895,000
129,089,000
129,148,000
129,235,000
129,268,000
129,377,000
129,089,000
129,148,000
129,235,000
129,268,000
129,377,000
129,696,000
129,740,000
129,810,000
129,884,000
130,120,000
130,122,000
130,178,000
130,246,000
130,330,000
130,462,000
130,800,000
130,889,000
130,998,000
131,082,000
131,166,000
131,531,000
131,690,000
131,719,000
Treated
Volume
Kgal
186
61
62
69
73
166
71
75
67
81
203
41
61
70
56
213
56
69
75
74
194
59
87
33
109
194
59
87
33
109
319
44
70
74
236
2
56
68
84
132
338
89
109
84
84
365
159
29
Total
Treated
Volume
Kgal
11,286
11,347
11,409
11,478
11,551
11,717
11,788
11,863
11,930
12,011
12,214
12,255
12,316
12,386
12,442
12,655
12,711
12,780
12,855
12,929
13,123
13,182
13,269
13,302
13,411
13,123
13,182
13,269
13,302
13,411
13,730
13,774
13,844
13,918
14,154
14,156
14,212
14,280
14,364
14,496
14,834
14,923
15,032
15,116
15,200
15,565
15,724
15,753
Flow
Totalizer
Tank A
gal
3,848,000
3,869,000
3,891,000
3,915,000
3,940,000
3,999,000
4,023,000
4,050,000
4,073,000
4,102,000
4,173,000
4,187,000
4,208,000
4,233,000
4,252,000
4,327,000
4,346,000
4,370,000
4,396,000
4,422,000
4,490,000
4,510,000
4,540,000
4,553,000
4,590,000
4,490,000
4,510,000
4,540,000
4,553,000
4,590,000
4,700,000
4,713,000
4,739,000
4,764,000
4,845,000
4,846,000
4,865,000
4,888,000
4,917,000
4,962,000
5,080,000
5,111,000
5,149,000
5,179,000
5,208,000
5,336,000
5,392,000
5,402,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankB
gal
3,584,000
3,603,000
3,623,000
3,643,000
3,668,000
3,723,000
3,745,000
3,769,000
3,791,000
3,817,000
3,882,000
3,895,000
3,915,000
3,938,000
3,956,000
4,024,000
4,042,000
4,065,000
4,088,000
4,112,000
4,175,000
4,194,000
4,222,000
4,234,000
4,268,000
4,175,000
4,194,000
4,222,000
4,234,000
4,268,000
4,370,000
4,383,000
4,407,000
4,431,000
4,506,000
4,507,000
4,525,000
4,546,000
4,573,000
4,615,000
4,723,000
4,752,000
4,787,000
4,814,000
4,840,000
4,958,000
5,008,000
5,017,000
Flow
Totalizer
TankC
gal
3,650,000
3,669,000
3,690,000
3,713,000
3,737,000
3,793,000
3,816,000
3,841,000
3,863,000
3,890,000
3,958,000
3,971,000
3,992,000
4,015,000
4,034,000
4,105,000
4,124,000
4,147,000
4,171,000
4,196,000
4,262,000
4,281,000
4,312,000
4,323,000
4,359,000
4,262,000
4,281,000
4,312,000
4,323,000
4,359,000
4,467,000
4,480,000
4,505,000
4,513,000
4,611,000
4,612,000
4,631,000
4,654,000
4,683,000
4,729,000
4,842,000
4,872,000
4,908,000
4,936,000
4,964,000
5,086,000
5,139,000
5,148,000
Cumulative
Flow
Kgal
11,082
11,141
11,204
11,271
11,345
11,515
11,584
11,660
11,727
11,809
12,013
12,053
12,115
12,186
12,242
12,456
12,512
12,582
12,655
12,730
12,927
12,985
13,074
13,110
13,217
12,927
12,985
13,074
13,110
13,217
13,537
13,576
13,651
13,708
13,962
13,965
14,021
14,088
14,173
14,306
14,645
14,735
14,844
14,929
15,012
15,380
15,539
15,567
Cumulative
Bed Volume
#of BV
6177.3
6210.1
6245.3
6282.6
6323.9
6418.6
6457.1
6499.4
6536.8
6582.5
6696.2
6718.5
6753.1
6792.6
6823.9
6943.1
6974.4
7013.4
7054.1
7095.9
7205.7
7238.0
7287.6
7307.7
7367.3
7205.7
7238.0
7287.6
7307.7
7367.3
7545.7
7567.4
7609.3
7641.0
7782.6
7784.3
7815.5
7852.8
7900.2
7974.4
8163.3
8213.5
8274.2
8321.6
8367.9
8573.0
8661.6
8677.3
Tank Pressure Operation Data
Tank A
zP
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
NA
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
0.9
NA
Inlet
104
103
104
103
104
106
104
103
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
105
104
103
104
104
104
104
104
104
102
104
104
104
104
102
105
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
103
103
NA
Outlet
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
100.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
100.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
NA
TankB
ZP
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
NA
Inlet
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
NA
Outlet
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
NA
TankC
ZP
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
NA
Inlet
104.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
105.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
NA
Outlet
103.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
104.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
102.0
102.0
101.0
102.0
102.0
NA
Total System
Pressure Data
ZP
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
NA
Inlet
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
102.0
104.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
NA
Outlet
101
101
101
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
102
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
NA
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L<"
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L0"
mg/L"'
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"
mg/L<"
mg/L<"
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
09/27/05
IN
92
<0.1
6.1
0.9
<0.05
-
95.1
0.3
7.1
16.2
4.4
269
-
-
29.3
20.2
9.1
35.0
29.5
5 5
0.4
29.1
232
<25
0.9
1.0
10.2
11.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.05
-
6.3
0.1
4.3
16.3
4.3
280
-
-
24.8
14.9
9.9
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
<25
<25
15.1
15.3
0.2
0.1
TB
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.05
-
4.9
0.1
4.5
16.6
4.8
392
-
-
27.4
16.6
10.8
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
35.9
<25
14.8
15.4
0.1
0.1
TC
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
-
4.4
0.2
4.2
16.6
4.7
280
-
-
31.8
20.7
11.1
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.6
<25
<25
16.0
16.8
0.1
0.1
TT
0.0
<1
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
.
9.1
0.1
4.2
16.6
4.6
269
0.2
-
29.2
18.5
10.7
1.3
1.2
<0.1
0.2
1.1
34.1
<25
12.4
13.3
0.5
0.4
10/04/05
IN
88
-
0.1
-
51.5
0.3
7.0
14.6
5.2
237
-
-
-
53.7
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.7
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
1.0
92
-
<0.05
-
52.7
0.2
6.9
14.6
4.1
626
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
3.7
-
TB
1.0
92
-
<0.05
-
51.2
<0.1
6.9
14.6
4.3
648
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
4.2
-
TC
1.0
92
-
<0.05
-
48.8
<0.1
7.0
14.7
4.5
650
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
3.5
-
10/12/05
IN
97
-
0.4
69.9
0.5
7.4
15.7
4.7
242
-
-
-
66.5
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
16.2
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7 7
92
-
<0.03
61.7
<0.1
7.3
15.5
4.2
598
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
8.4
-
TB
2.1
97
-
<0.03
60.8
0.2
7.3
15.5
4.1
603
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7.8
-
TC
2.1
88
-
<0.03
60.1
0.1
7.3
15.4
4.2
592
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7.4
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) AsPO4.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L1"'
rng/L
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L"ป
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*"'
mg/L1"'
mg/L<"
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
10/25/05
IN
92
-
-
0.1
0.4
68.5
0.2
7.1
17.0
6.2
307
-
-
-
50.1
-
-
<25
-
0.2
13.8
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.5
88
-
-
<0.05
<0.03
5.0
0.2
7.1
17.0
4.7
603
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
-
0.1
3.2
-
TB
2.4
88
-
-
<0.05
<0.03
48.8
0.5
7.2
16.9
4.6
619
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
<25
-
0.3
2.8
-
TC
2.4
88
-
-
<0.05
<0.03
47.0
<0.1
7.1
16.9
4.6
629
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
-
0.2
3.1
-
ll/OS/OS'1*
IN
88
0.1
7
0.9
0.1
0.4
69.7
0.3
6.7
15.6
1.0
252
-
-
17.3
9.5
7.8
60.0
60.1
<0.1
0.4
59.7
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
15.3
14.4
TA
2.7
83
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
56.7
0.1
6.6
15.4
1.3
699
-
-
18.0
9.9
8.1
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.3
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
4.7
4.6
TB
2.6
79
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
56.1
0.1
6.5
15.3
1.3
723
-
-
17.4
9.4
7.9
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
4.0
3.8
TC
2.6
80
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
55.5
<0.1
7.0
15.4
1.2
733
-
-
17.5
9.4
8.1
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.7
0.2
3.8
3.7
TT
2.6
83
<0.1
8
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
54.6
9.5
6.7
15.4
1.7
732
0.8
0.8
17.9
9.4
8.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
<0.1
42.4
72.4
0.8
1.9
4.5
4.7
11/08/05<(1)
IN
97
-
-
0.4
7.1
16.5
1.1
245
-
-
-
53.4
-
-
<25
-
0.2
12.3
-
TA
2.8
101
-
-
<0.03
6.9
16.7
1.3
688
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
-
0.1
3.5
-
TB
2.7
88
-
-
<0.03
6.9
16.6
1.2
714
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
<25
-
0.1
3.0
-
TC
2.7
92
-
-
<0.03
6.9
16.6
1.5
721
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
<25
-
0.1
2.7
-
TT
2.7
-
-
-
6.9
16.6
1.1
724
0.6
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) AsPO4.
(c) Water quality parameters measured on 11/04/05.
(d) Chlorine residual not measured at AC.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L("
mg/L
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L1"1
mg/L("
mg/Lw
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
11/15/05
IN
94
-
0.3
69.7
<0.1
6.8
16.7
1.1
245
-
-
-
59.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.0
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.9
91
-
<0.03
59.1
0.1
6.9
17.0
1.7
739
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
7.2
-
TB
2.8
91
-
<0.03
56.7
<0.1
6.9
16.7
1.7
742
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
6.0
-
TC
2.8
91
-
<0.03
56.9
<0.1
6.5
10.7
1.7
753
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
3.0
-
TT
2.8
-
-
-
-
6.8
16.7
1.7
739
1.1
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/29/05
IN
88
-
0.4
75.4
2.0
7.0
17.1
0.8
260
-
-
-
71.7
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
15.8
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.5
88
-
<0.03
66.8
0.1
6.8
16.9
1.0
675
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
7.4
-
TB
3.3
92
-
<0.03
65.7
0.1
6.9
16.7
0.9
712
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
7.0
-
TC
3.3
92
-
<0.03
66.8
0.2
6.9
16.6
1.0
721
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
6.7
-
TT
3.4
-
-
-
-
6.9
14.9
0.9
730
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12/07/05
IN
88
0.1
7.1
0.9
0.1
0.4
71.4
0.2
7.2
15.9
1.1
381
-
-
20.1
12.0
8.1
69.3
70.1
<0.1
0.3
69.7
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
15.9
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.8
88
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
0.04
67.2
<0.1
7.1
15.2
1.3
735
-
-
20.9
12.0
8.9
1.4
1.4
<0.1
0.2
1.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
10.0
9.9
TB
3.6
90
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
65.8
0.2
7.1
15.3
1.3
742
-
-
20.9
11.9
8.9
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
9.6
9.4
TC
3.6
90
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
65.7
0.1
7.1
15.1
1.3
741
-
-
21.0
12.0
9.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
9.3
9.3
TT
3.6
91
<0.1
7.4
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
66.9
0.2
7.1
15.8
4.3
741
1.0
1.0
17.5
10.9
6.6
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
9.2
9.2
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As PO4
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L("
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L"'
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L("
mg/L("
mg/L("
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
12/13/05
IN
-
88
-
-
0.5
75.5
0.1
7.1
16.8
1.4
202
-
-
-
55.6
-
-
<25
0.3
11.7
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.0
92
-
-
0.1
69.5
0.1
6.9
16.1
1.5
682
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
<25
0.2
7.8
TB
3.8
88
-
-
0.1
68.5
0.3
6.9
16.1
1.4
693
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
0.2
7.1
TC
3.8
92
-
-
0.1
67.5
0.1
6.9
15.7
1.5
711
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
0.2
6.9
TT
3.9
-
-
-
6.9
16.1
1.5
703
0.6
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/10/06
IN
-
92
<0.1
6.7
0.9
0.1
0.3
73.6
0.4
7.4
15.8
1.5
260
-
20.6
13.3
7.3
54.0
53.4
0.5
0.3
53.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.2
13.0
12.6
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.3
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
66.2
0.4
7.3
15.1
1.3
264
-
22.7
14.5
8.2
1.3
-
-
<25
0.3
7.8
TB
4.0
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
67.5
0.4
7.2
15.0
1.2
273
-
22.3
14.3
8.0
0.3
-
-
<25
0.1
7.0
TC
4.1
92
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
66.1
0.3
7.2
15.1
1.3
273
-
22.0
14.3
7.6
0.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
6.9
TT
4.1
185
<0.1
7
0.9
<0.05
<0.03
66.7
0.5
7.2
15.9
1.2
264
0.0
0.0
21.9
14.1
7.8
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
25.0
0.9
1.0
7.4
0.4
01/18/06
IN
-
97
-
-
0.3
73.9
0.4
7.3
16.6
1.4
279
-
-
-
61.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
13.7
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.6
92
-
-
0.1
70.8
0.2
7.3
16.6
1.3
719
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.6
TB
4.3
92
-
-
<0.03
70.1
0.2
7.2
16.4
1.3
732
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.4
TC
4.4
92
-
-
<0.03
68.9
0.2
7.2
16.2
1.3
740
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.1
TT
4.4
-
-
-
7.3
15.4
1.4
740
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As PO4
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L1"'
rng/L
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L"ป
mg/L*'
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L<"
mg/L(1)
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
01/24/06
IN
-
97
-
-
-
0.3
74.7
0.3
7.4
16.2
1.4
278
-
-
-
75.6
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.9
92
-
-
-
0.1
71.2
0.4
7.2
14.9
1.3
729
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9.5
-
TB
4.5
97
-
-
-
0.1
70.9
0.2
7.1
14.8
1.4
736
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
8.7
-
TC
4.6
97
-
-
-
0.05
70.6
0.4
7.1
15.8
1.3
744
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9.0
-
TT
4.7
-
-
-
-
7.1
16.0
1.1
749
0.9
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/31/06
IN
-
93
0.1
7.0
0.9
-
0.3
72.1
0.3
7.8
16.5
1.3
256
-
21.8
15.0
6.8
68.2
67.2
1.0
0.3
66.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
16.2
15.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.1
-
-
-
-
7.5
17.0
1.3
691
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
4.8
-
-
-
-
7.4
17.0
1.2
709
-
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
4.9
-
-
-
-
7.4
17.0
1.3
713
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
4.9
93
<0.1
7.1
0.9
-
0.04
72.4
0.6
7.4
16.7
1.1
725
0.7
0.7
22.1
15.2
6.8
1.7
1.7
<0.1
0.3
1.4
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
10.1
10.3
02/07/06
IN
-
92
-
-
-
0.3
72.6
0.3
7.9
16.8
1.4
380
-
-
-
54.2
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
12.0
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.4
92
-
-
-
0.1
69
0.7
7.6
16.9
1.3
713
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9.3
-
TB
5.1
90
-
-
-
0.1
69.6
0.5
7.6
16.9
1.3
725
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9.2
-
TC
5.2
91
-
-
-
0.1
70.3
0.3
7.5
16.8
1.3
733
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
9.5
-
TT
5.2
-
-
-
-
7.5
17.0
1.2
730
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) AsPO4
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L<'>
rng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L*'
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<"
mg/L("
mg/L<"
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
02/22/06
IN
96
96
0.3
0.4
77.1
76.0
0.5
0.4
7.4
16.8
1.5
263
-
-
71.1
75.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
15.1
14.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.6
-
-
TA
6.0
96
91
0.2
0.2
73.7
73.8
0.8
0.7
7.3
16.3
1.3
696
-
-
6.2
6.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
11.7
11.3
TB
5.6
91
96
0.1
0.1
73.4
72.4
0.5
0.4
7.2
14.8
1.3
723
-
-
3.5
3.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10.5
10.7
TC
5.7
96
91
0.1
0.1
71.9
75.1
0.5
0.5
7.2
14.6
1.3
731
-
-
3.1
3.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10.6
10.3
TT
5.7
-
-
-
7.2
15.2
1.1
707
0.6
0.6
-
-
03/07/06(c)
IN
95
0.3
70.9
0.4
7.1
17.2
1.2
115
-
-
77.7
<25
<0.1
14.2
AC
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.7
-
-
TA
6.5
95
0.1
68.4
0.3
7.0
16.9
1.9
676
-
-
7.9
<25
<0.1
10.5
TB
6.0
95
0.1
70.3
0.7
6.9
16.8
1.6
695
-
-
4.6
<25
<0.1
10.1
TC
6.1
91
0.1
67.9
1.2
6.9
16.7
1.7
706
-
-
3.8
<25
<0.1
10.6
TT
6.2
-
-
-
6.9
16.5
1.7
710
0.7
0.7
-
-
03/21/06
IN
91
0.3
73
0.3
7.1
16.5
1.7
219
-
-
10.2
78.7
<25
<0.1
15.7
AC
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
TA
7.0
91
0.2
69.7
0.3
7.1
16.2
2.1
699
-
-
10.6
14.7
<25
<0.1
12.9
TB
6.5
91
0.1
71.2
0.4
7.0
16.1
7 9
710
-
-
10.7
6.2
<25
<0.1
12.2
TC
6.6
91
0.1
70.3
0.3
7.0
1.7
2.4
716
-
-
11.0
5.7
<25
<0.1
12.1
TT
6.7
-
-
-
7.0
15.4
3.3
722
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As PO4.
(c) Water quality measurements taken on 03/02/t
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L"1
mg/Lw
mg/L<"
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
03/28/06
IN
-
91
-
-
0.4
72
0.4
6.9
17.1
1.9
220
-
22.8
16.7
6.1
80.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.1
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.4
91
-
-
0.2
73.7
0.6
6.9
17.0
2.1
713
-
24.2
17.6
6.6
11.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.1
TB
6.9
91
-
-
0.2
70.7
0.4
6.9
17.0
2.3
719
-
24.4
17.7
6.6
6.9
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.8
TC
7.0
95
-
-
0.2
72.4
0.5
6.9
16.5
2.5
723
-
24.4
17.7
6.7
6.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.7
TT
7.1
-
-
-
6.9
16.4
7 9
728
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
04/04/06
IN
-
95
0.2
7.4
1.0
-
0.4
71.8
0.3
7.2
16.5
1.1
218
-
25.1
18.4
6.7
78.6
79.7
<0.1
0.2
79.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
14.7
14.4
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.5
-
-
-
7.0
16.6
1.3
706
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
TB
7.0
-
-
-
7.0
16.4
1.4
720
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
TC
7.2
-
-
-
7.0
15.3
1.5
728
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
TT
7.2
87
0.2
7.4
2.0
-
0.2
70
0.3
16.4
1.5
731
0.7
0.7
26.9
19.5
7.4
8.9
8.4
0.5
0.1
8.3
<25
<25
0.7
1.2
13.7
13.9
04/11/06
IN
-
101
-
-
0.3
70
0.7
7.1
17.0
0.8
273
-
-
-
83.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
17.6
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.9
97
-
-
0.2
70.1
0.7
7.0
16.9
0.9
730
-
-
-
15.4
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.5
TB
7.3
101
-
-
0.2
68.4
0.8
7.0
16.6
1.0
744
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.6
TC
7.5
97
-
-
0.2
69.4
1.2
7.0
16.5
0.9
751
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.5
TT
7.6
-
-
0.2
-
7.0
16.4
0.8
754
0.8
0.8
-
-
11.9
-
-
<25
0.5
14.0
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) AsPO4.
-------
Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
10A3
mg/L1"'
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L"1
mg/Lw
mg/L<"
Hg/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/18/06
IN
-
101
-
-
0.4
71.3
0.6
7.1
15.9
1.1
263
-
-
75.7
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.2
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.1
96
-
-
0.3
69.7
0.3
7.0
16.3
1.1
721
-
-
13.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.2
TB
7.6
101
-
-
0.2
69.4
0.1
7.0
16.2
1.2
733
-
-
9.3
-
-
<25
<0.1
11.1
TC
7.7
97
-
-
0.2
69.7
0.2
7.0
15.8
1.3
743
-
-
8.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
10.9
TT
7.8
-
-
-
7.0
15.6
1.3
748
0.8
0.9
-
-
11.0
-
-
<25
0.4
11.5
04/25/06
IN
-
92
-
-
0.4
72.9
0.2
7.1
17.1
1.6
241
-
-
81.5
-
-
<25
<0.1
15.0
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.5
92
-
-
0.3
71.2
0.3
6.9
16.7
2.0
739
-
-
17.9
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.6
TB
7.9
92
-
-
0.3
73
0.3
6.9
16.7
2.0
739
-
-
13.3
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.4
TC
8.1
96
-
-
0.3
72.1
0.2
6.9
16.6
203.0
749
-
-
12.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.2
TT
8.2
-
-
0.6
-
7.1
16.6
2.3
746
0.9
1.0
-
-
18.9
-
-
873
40.4
9.1
05/02/06
IN
-
92
-
-
0.3
75.5
0.1
6.9
17.7
1.6
230
-
-
88.0
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.9
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.0
96
-
-
0.3
75.2
0.5
6.9
17.7
2.0
215
-
-
25.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.6
TB
8.4
96
-
-
0.3
76.0
0.1
6.9
17.7
1.9
236
-
-
20.0
-
-
<25
<0.1
12.5
TC
8.6
96
-
-
0.3
75.6
0.2
6.9
17.6
1.9
242
-
-
19.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
13.1
TT
8.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
21.6
-
-
-
-
110
-
2.2
-
12.6
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) AsPO4.
------- |