EPA/600/R-07/133
November 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Julia M. Valigore
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
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 is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at an Arizona Water Company (AWC) facility in Sedona,
AZ, commonly referred to as Valley Vista. The objectives of the project were to evaluate 1) the
effectiveness of Kinetico's FA-236-AS treatment system in removing arsenic to meet the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |og/L, 2) the reliability of the treatment system for use at small water
facilities, 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and 4) the
capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system
and residuals generated by the treatment process. The types of data collected included system operation,
water quality, process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
After engineering plan review and approval by the state and county drinking water officials, the treatment
system was installed in May 2004 and became operational on June 24, 2004. The system consisted of
two 36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall fiberglass tanks in series (lead/lag), each containing 16.7 to 22 ft3 of
adsorptive media. The media types evaluated included AAFS50 (an iron-modified activated alumina
medium manufactured by Alcan) for Media Runs 1, 2, 2a, and 3 and ARM 200 (an iron oxide/hydroxide
medium manufactured by Engelhard/BASF) for Media Run 4. The system was designed to treat 37
gal/min (gpm) of flow using 22 ft3 of media per tank, which corresponded to an empty bed contact time
(EBCT) of 4.5 min/tank and 9.0 min for both tanks. Due, in part, to the use of an incorrect AAFS50
media density and, thus, shipment weight, 16.7 ft3 of AAFS50 media was inadvertently loaded into each
tank for Media Runs 1 and 2a, resulting in a shorter EBCT of 3.5 min/tank.
Source water contained 23.5 to 49.8 |o,g/L of total arsenic, with As(V) being the predominating species,
averaging 39.7 |og/L. Prechlorination, although not required for oxidation, was initiated one month after
system startup to inhibit biological growth in the adsorption tanks and to provide residual chlorine in the
distribution system. The treatment system operated for 24 hr/day during Media Runs 1, 2, 2a, and 4, and
16 hr/day during Media Run 3 with less than 1% downtime for repairs and media replacement.
Concentrations of iron, manganese, silica, orthophosphate, and other ions in source water did not appear
to impact arsenic removal by the media.
After treating 8,240 bed volumes (BV) of water during Media Run 1 based on 33.4 ft3 of media in the
lead and lag tanks, the system effluent exceeded the 10-|a,g/L arsenic MCL. Source water pH, with values
ranging from 7.5 to 8.4 and averaging 7.7, was then adjusted to approximately 6.9 using 37 to 50%
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) at the end of Media Run 1 and throughout Media Runs 2 and 2a. Lowering the pH
values, beginning on September 17, 2004, reduced the arsenic concentrations after both tanks, but not to
the desired level of 10 |o,g/L.
After media changeout of both tanks on October 25, 2004, Media Run 2 began with virgin AAFS50
media. pH adjustment increased the AAFS50 media run length to 23,030 BV at 10-|o,g/L arsenic
breakthrough in the system effluent based on 44 ft3 of media in the lead and lag tanks. Due to the
increased media capacity, it was economical to rebed only the lead tank at this time and continue utilizing
the remaining capacity of the lag tank after it was switched to the lead position. Thus, Media Run 2a
began on April 29, 2005. Operational problems associated with system programming resulted in the
tanks returning to their default positions following power outages. The system programming was later
corrected by the vendor to allow the tanks to remain in their current positions following any power
interruptions.
Media Run 3, which commenced on October 12, 2005, evaluated the use of AAFS50 media again under
the unaltered pH condition, but with an intermittent run time of 16 hr/day and longer EBCT than Media
IV
-------
Run 1 (i.e., 4.6 instead of 3.5 min/tank). Under these conditions, 10-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough in the
system effluent occurred at approximately 10,360 BV based on 44 ft3 of media in the lead and lag tanks.
Media Run 4 began on March 7, 2006, with ARM 200 media, unaltered pH, and 24 hr/day operation after
media changeout of both tanks. The system effluent reached 10 |o,g/L of arsenic at 25,720 BV based on
44 ft3 of media in the lead and lag tanks. The treatment system was shut down on September 18, 2006,
due to the conclusion of the demonstration study and well maintenance by AWC.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the commencement of system
operation showed a decrease in the average arsenic concentration at three locations (i.e., from 39.2 to 44.5
|o,g/L to 8.7 to 27.4 |og/L). Arsenic levels were reduced most prominently at the location closest to the
treatment system and that received water most representative of the system effluent. Arsenic
concentrations at the other two locations were much higher than those of the treatment effluent,
presumably due to blending with other untreated wells supplying the distribution system. Similarly,
alkalinity and pH values were reduced at the nearby location during pH adjustment, but they fluctuated
widely at the other two locations. The lead, copper, manganese, iron, and aluminum concentrations at the
three sampling locations did not appear to be significantly impacted by the arsenic treatment system.
Treatment system residuals included spent media and backwash water. All spent media including 9,100
Ib of AAFS50 media and 2,200 Ib of ARM 200 media passed EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) tests and could be disposed of as non-hazardous wastes at solid waste landfills.
Backwash of the filter media was manually initiated monthly using treated water for 20 min/tank at 27 to
36 gpm (or 4 to 5 gpm/ft2) for AAFS50 media and for 15 min/tank at 34 to 42 gpm (or 5 to 6 gpm/ft2) for
ARM 200 media. No significant pressure buildup was observed during the service runs. Backwash water
from the lead tank generally contained higher concentrations of all analytes than the lag tank most likely
because it removed the majority of the particulates from source water. A piping loop and a recycling tank
enabled the system to recycle nearly 100% of the wastewater produced during normal system operation at
a maximum flowrate of 3.6 gpm.
The capital investment cost of the system was $228,309 consisting of $122,544 for equipment, $50,659
for site engineering, and $55,106 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 37 gpm (or 53,280
gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $6,171/gpm (or $4.29/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $21,550/yr based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-yr return period. During the first year,
the system produced 18,750,000 gal of water, so the unit capital cost was $1.15/1,000 gal. The capital
cost does not include the cost of the enclosure to house the treatment system.
The O&M cost for the treatment system included cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supply, incremental electricity consumption, and labor. Representing the majority of the O&M cost, the
media replacement and disposal cost depended on the operating conditions affecting the media run length,
the number of tanks to be changed out when the system effluent reached 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, and labor and
material cost. Due to the short duration of using AAFS50 without pH adjustment, it might be more cost-
effective to replace the media in both lead and lag tanks when the system effluent reached 10 |o,g/L of
arsenic. System operations using AAFS50 with pH adjustment and ARM 200 without pH adjustment
were able to last about three times longer, so it was sensible to replace the media of only the lead tank
when the system effluent reached 10 |o,g/L of arsenic. The combined chemical supply, electricity, and
labor cost was $0.19/1,000 gal without pH adjustment and $0.91/1,000 gal with pH adjustment. The total
O&M cost for AAFS50 media without pH adjustment and rebedding both tanks at the same time was
$2.74/1,000 gal. The total O&M cost for rebedding one tank at atime was $1.49 or $1.79/1,000 gal using
AAFS50 with pH adjustment or ARM 200 without pH adjustment, respectively.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
Section 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 5
3.1 General Project Approach 5
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 7
3.3.3 Backwash Water 7
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.5 Residual Solids 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
Section 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 System Installation 19
4.3.1 Permitting 19
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 20
4.3.3 System Enclosure 20
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 21
4.4.2 pH Adjustment 23
4.4.3 Backwash 23
4.4.4 Tank Switching 24
4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal 26
4.4.5.1 Media Run 1 26
4.4.5.2 Media Runs 2 and 2a 26
4.4.5.3 Media Run 3 26
4.4.5.4 Media Run 4 27
VI
-------
4.4.6 Residual Management 28
4.4.7 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 28
4.4.7.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 28
4.4.7.2 System Automation 28
4.4.7.3 Operator Skill Requirements 29
4.4.7.4 Preventative Maintenance 29
4.4.7.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements 29
4.5 System Performance 29
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 29
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 30
4.5.1.2 Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum 35
4.5.1.3 Alkalinity, Sulfate, and pH 36
4.5.1.4 Silica 36
4.5.1.5 DO, ORP, and Chlorine 36
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters 36
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 36
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 40
4.5.4 Spent Media Sampling 40
4.5.4.1 TCLP 40
4.5.4.2 Arsenic 40
4.5.4.3 Other Metals 43
4.6 System Cost 44
4.6.1 Capital Cost 44
4.6.2 O&MCost 44
Section 5.0 REFERENCES 48
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 9
Figure 4-1. Predemonstration Site Conditions 12
Figure 4-2. Existing Chlorine Injection System 13
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System 17
Figure 4-4. Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System on Concrete Pad 17
Figure 4-5. Treatment Process Components 19
Figure 4-6. Backwash Process Components 20
Figure 4-7. Sun Shed (Top) and Completed Enclosure (Bottom) 21
Figure 4-8. Water Flow Paths and Sample Tap Locations with Tank A (Top) and Tank B
(Bottom) in the Lead Position 25
Figure 4-9. Media Run 4 Changeout Photographs 27
Figure 4-10a-d. Total Arsenic Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media
Runs Ito4 33
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Media Run Lengths 34
Figure 4-12. Relationship Between pH and Surface Charge of Media 35
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate, and pH Values During Media Runs 1 and 2 37
Figure 4-14. Silica Concentrations During Media Runs 1 and 2 38
Figure 4-15. Total O&M Cost Including Media Replacement 47
vn
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of the Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 5
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 6
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. POE Well No. 2 Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2. Distribution System Water Quality Data 15
Table 4-3. Properties of AAFS50 and ARM 200 Media 16
Table 4-4. Design Features for Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System 18
Table 4-5. Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System Operations 22
Table 4-6. Backwash Summary of Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System 24
Table 4-7. Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements 27
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Results for Media Runs 1,
2, 3, and 4 30
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results for Media Runs 1,2,3, and 4 31
Table 4-10. Actions Taken for pH Adjustment During Media Runs 1 and 2 34
Table 4-11. Theoretical Calculation of Acid Consumption for pH Adjustment 38
Table 4-12. Backwash Water Sampling Results 39
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results 41
Table 4-14. TCLP Results of Spent Media 42
Table 4-15. Metals' Analysis of Spent Media 42
Table 4-16. Media Run Conditions Affecting Arsenic Loading 43
Table 4-17. Summary of Arsenic Removal Capacity of Media 43
Table 4-18. Capital Investment for Kinetico's Treatment System 45
Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost 46
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AP differential pressure
AA activated alumina
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Ag silver
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
AOC Approval of Construction
As arsenic
ATC Approval to Construct
AWC Arizona Water Company
Ba barium
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
Cd cadmium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
Cr chromium
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
GFO granular ferric oxide
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
Hg mercury
Hp horsepower
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
kwh kilowatt-hour(s)
IX
-------
LCR
(EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
Mg magnesium
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
Mo molybdenum
mph miles per hour
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not applicable
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NS not sampled
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIP operator interface panel
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID process and instrumentation diagram
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 orthophosphate
POE point-of-entry
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small scale column test
Sb antimony
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
Se selenium
SiO2 silica
SM system modification
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
-------
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UPS uninterruptible power supply
V vanadium
WRWC White Rock Water Company
zpc zero point of charge
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Arizona Water Company (AWC) in Phoenix and
Sedona, Arizona. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without AWC's support and
dedication. The primary operator, Mr. Paul Blanchard, monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting
period.
xn
-------
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L
(EPA, 2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on
March 25, 2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule specified a
compliance deadline of January 23, 2006, for all community and non-transient, non-community water
supplies.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies. The
Arizona Water Company (AWC) water system in Sedona, AZ, commonly referred to as Valley Vista, was
selected as one of the 17 Round 1 host sites for the demonstration program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. Kinetico's adsorptive media process
was selected for the Valley Vista facility.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 EPA arsenic removal demonstration host sites included nine
adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key
source water quality parameters of the 12 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection
and system design (Wang et al., 2004) and the associated capital costs for each site (Chen et al., 2004) are
provided on the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html). As of
August 2007, all of the systems have been operational, and 10 performance evaluations have been
completed.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of the Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration Site
WRWC, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology (Media)
AM(G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
IX (A300E)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
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(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(Ug/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(c)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange;
SM = system modification
MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water Company
STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 12 full-scale arsenic treatment
technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific
objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator
skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the Kinetico system operated at Valley Vista, AZ, from
June 24, 2004, through September 18, 2006. The types of data collected included system operation, water
quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M
cost.
-------
Section 2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected from operation of Kinetico's FA-236-AS arsenic removal system at
Valley Vista, AZ, from June 24, 2004, to September 18, 2006, the following conclusions were made
relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Without pH adjustment, AAFS50 media had a relatively short run length, reaching 10-
|o,g/L of arsenic breakthrough in the system effluent after treating only 8,240 bed volumes
(BV), or 2,058,000 gal of water. pH adjustment from an average value of 7.7 to 6.9
significantly increased AAFSSO's adsorptive capacity, tripling the media run length from
8,240 to 23,030 BV.
• Effluent arsenic concentrations varied with influent pH values, rising or falling
correspondingly to any increase or decrease in pH.
• An intermittent system operation (with the system operating for 16 versus 24 hr/day)
appeared to have some positive impact on the media run length. The AAFS50 system
thus operated had an approximately 30% longer run length.
• Without pH adjustment, ARM 200 media reached 10-|a,g/L of arsenic breakthrough in the
system effluent at 25,720 BV (or 8,464,000 gal), which was comparable to that of the
AAFS50 media run with pH adjustment.
• Little or no chlorine was consumed by the AAFS50 media, but some consumption was
observed at the beginning of the ARM 200 media run up to 4,600 BV.
• Arsenic (and pH and alkalinity values during periods of acid addition) in the distribution
system decreased most prominently nearest to the treatment plant. More distant locations
contained higher arsenic than the treatment plant effluent, presumably due to blending
with other well water in the distribution system. Other parameters did not appear to be
significantly impacted.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• After media loading, it was essential to verify media volume via freeboard measurements
to ensure that the correct amount of media had been loaded into the adsorption tanks.
• Without pH adjustment, the demand on the operator was typically 5 to 10 min/day to
visually inspect the system and record operational parameters. Acid addition, however,
entailed significant complexities, troubleshooting, and safety precautions, thus increasing
the labor requirement to 20 to 30 min/day. Operational issues related to the pH
adjustment equipment persisted throughout its use.
• Semi-automatic controls for tank-position switching did not function properly at first due
to default setting issues. No further problems occurred after the vendor modified the
programming and installed an uninterruptible power supply (UPS).
-------
Characteristics of residuals produced by the technology:
• The FA-236-AS system was backwashed monthly, generating between 1,025 and 1,430
gal of water. Nearly 100% of the wastewater produced during normal operations was
reclaimed via a backwash recycling system.
• Spent AAFS50 and ARM 200 media passed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) tests and, therefore, could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill as non-hazardous
waste.
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The capital investment for the 37-gal/min (gpm) system was $228,309, including
$122,544 for equipment, $50,659 for site engineering, and $55,106 for installation. This
cost equated to $6,171/gpm (or $4.29/gal/day [gpd]), not including the cost for shed
construction.
• Based on total O&M cost of $1.49/1,000 gal, the most economical option evaluated was
AAFS50 media using pH adjustment and typical lead/lag operation (i.e., rebedding the
lead tank only when the lag tank reaches 10 |o,g/L of arsenic and switching tank
positions).
-------
Section 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 Kinetico treatment system began on June 24, 2004. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
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 preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace the media upon arsenic breakthrough.
Backwash water and spent media were sampled and analyzed for chemical characteristics.
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
Purchase Order Established
Letter Report Issued
Draft Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to ADEQ
Final Study Plan Issued
Approval to Construct Granted by ADEQ
Construction Permit Issued by County
FA-236-AS System Shipped
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Shed Construction Began
Shed Construction Completed
Approval of Construction Granted by ADEQ
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
July 3 1,2003
August 4, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 16, 2003
September 25, 2003
October 16, 2003
October 17, 2003
February 4. 2004
February 17, 2004
February 24, 2004
March 23, 2004
April 12, 2004
April 23, 2004
May 7, 2004
May 11,2004
May 24, 2004
May 28, 2004
June 15, 2004
June 24, 2004
ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media, chemical consumption, electricity usage, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
supply, electricity usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by Kinetico 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) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) drum levels;
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 on the Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet. Water quality parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and residual chlorine were measured and recorded on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality
Parameters Log Sheet. Monthly backwash data also were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and spent media disposal,
chemical and electricity usage, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl and H2SO4 was tracked on the Daily
System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity consumption was determined from a utility bill. Labor for
various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related
work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M included activities such
as completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering supplies, performing system
inspection, and others as recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related labor, 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 from the wellhead, treatment plant, and
distribution system. The sampling schedules and analytes for each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3.
In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and
schedules at each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample
volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003). The procedure for arsenic speciation is
described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, source water samples were 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 could cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Water samples were collected weekly across the treatment train at
the wellhead (IN), after Tank A (TA), and after Tank B (TB) for on- and off-site analyses shown in
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-3. On-site measurements also were made for samples collected after
prechlorination (AC) since the system was modified to inject chlorine before adsorption on July 27, 2004.
Over the course of the demonstration study, several changes were made to the sampling schedules as
listed below and in Table 3-3.
• Speciation sampling was reduced from monthly to bimonthly from October 20, 2004,
through June 8, 2005, and then discontinued after February 1, 2006, due to absence of
As(III) in source water.
• Orthophosphate analysis was replaced with total phosphorus analysis since November 2,
2005, due to lack of Orthophosphate in raw water and issues related to the short hold time
for Orthophosphate.
• Regular weekly sampling was reduced from three to two times per four week cycle
beginning on March 8, 2006.
• Total and soluble Al analyses were discontinued beginning on March 8, 2006, due to the
switch from AAFS50 to ARM 200 media.
• On-site measurements were reduced to monthly for pH, temperature, and chlorine only
beginning on May 17, 2006.
3.3.3 Backwash Water. Grab backwash wastewater samples were initially collected directly from
the sample tap on the backwash wastewater discharge line during the backwash of each tank and filtered
with 0.45-(im disc filters. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH and total dissolved solids (TDS), and
filtered samples were analyzed for soluble Al, As, Fe, and Mn. Beginning on November 14, 2005,
composite samples were collected following a modified procedure to allow for more representative
characterization of the wastewater. Tubing directed a portion of backwash water from the sample tap at
approximately 1 gpm into a clean plastic container of adequate volume over the duration of the backwash
for each tank. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected
and/or filtered on-site with 0.45-(im disc filters and analyzed for total and soluble Al, As, Fe, and Mn, pH,
TDS, total suspended solids (TSS), and turbidity. Beginning March 8, 2006, total and soluble Al analyses
were discontinued due to the switch from AAFS50 to ARM 200 media. Table 3-3 lists the schedule and
analytes for the backwash water samples.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sampling
Location(s)(a)
IN
IN, TA, and
TB
BW
DS (two non-
LCR residences
and one non-
residence)
Top, middle,
and bottom of
Tanks A and B
No. of
Samples
1
3
3
2
40)
3 per
tank
Frequency
Once (during
initial site
visit)
Weekly(c)
Monthly or
bimonthly®
Monthly(h)
Monthly(k)
Per media
changeout
(five times)
Analytes(b)
On-site: pH
Off-site: As(III), As(V), total
and soluble Al, As, Fe, Mn,
Mo, Sb, and V, Na, Ca, Mg,
Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site(d>e): pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free and
total)
Off-site: total Al, As, Fe, and
Mn, SiO2, PO4(f), turbidity,
and alkalinity
Same as above plus the
following off-site: As(III),
As(V), soluble Al, As, Fe,
and Mn, Ca, Mg, F, NO3, and
SO4
Off-site: total(l) and soluble
Al, As, Fe, and Mn, pH, TDS,
TSS(1), and turbidity(l)
Off-site: total Al, As, Fe, Mn,
Cu, and Pb, pH, and
alkalinity
Off-site: TCLP metals and
total Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu, Fe,
Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si, and Zn
Collection
Date(s)
07/31/03
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Table 4-12
See Table 4-13
10/25/04,
04/29/05
(Tank A only),
07/29/05,
02/28/06,
10/19/06
(a)
Corresponding to sample locations in Figure 3-1, i.e., IN = at wellhead; TA = after Tank A;
TB = after Tank B; BW = at backwash water discharge line from Tanks A and B
Al discontinued for all sample types since 03/08/06 due to switch from AAFS50 to ARM 200 media.
Three weekly sets taken per four-week cycle from 07/07/04 to 01/25/06; two sets per four-week cycle from
03/08/06 to 09/06/06.
On-site measurements performed for samples taken after prechlorination (AC) since 07/27/04. Chlorine
measurements not performed at IN.
pH, temperature, and C12 (free and total) measured monthly and DO and ORP discontinued since 05/17/06.
PO4 analysis replaced with total phosphorus analysis since 11/02/05.
Bimonthly from 10/20/04 to 06/08/05; otherwise monthly.
Monthly samples taken from 08/16/04 through 06/28/06.
Total As, Fe, Mn, and Al, and TSS analyses performed and turbidity discontinued since 11/14/05.
Three first draw and one flushed samples.
Four baseline sampling events performed before system startup during February and March 2004. Monthly
samples taken from 07/28/04 through 01/18/06.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
CD
(k)
-------
INFLUENT
(POE WELL No. 2)
Valley Vista, AZ
Kinetico Technology
Design Flow: 37 gpm
See Table 3-3
See Table 3-3
See Table 3-3
BAGFI
A
RECYCLI
A
BACKV
RECYCLI
(1,800 g
LTER
iPUMP
/ASH
.TANK
?al)
' j
-3 •*"- © y^ffi
See Table 3-3
See Table 3-3
s~*
-3 -<--(DS
^_^
* v^
/ME
:...../ TA
. S:
i
< H2S040"
< NaOCl'
C ) te.
DIA\
NK I
^
DIA\
!•*
P
r
STORAGE TANK
(400,000 gal)
\
r
\ DISTRIBUTION
/ SYSTEM
b)
pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a),
ORP(a), chlorine(a)
Footnotes
(a) On-site analysis
(b) Optional use
LEGEND
1 (IN) At Wellhead
o (ACJ After Prechlorination
§ ( TA J After Tank A
e. V^.x
S /^N
jg (TB) After Tank B
s- ( BW ) Backwash Sampling Location
f DS ) Distribution Water Sampling
>^X Locations
INFLUENT Unit Process
NaOCl Chlorine Disinfection
H2SO4 Acid Addition
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
-------
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, lead, and copper levels. From February to March 2004, four sets of baseline
distribution water samples were collected from three locations within the distribution system. Following
the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis until January 2006 at the
same three locations. Ideally, the sampling locations selected would have been the historical Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) locations served primarily by the source water well, Point-of-Entry (POE) Well
No. 2. However, because the distribution system was supplied by POE Well No. 2 and other wells, such
LCR locations did not exist (Section 4.1.2). As such, two residences and one non-residence not used for
the historical LCR sampling but supplied primarily by POE Well No. 2 were selected for the distribution
system sampling.
The samples at the two non-LCR residences were taken following an instruction sheet developed
according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA,
2002). The homeowners recorded the dates and times of last water usage before sampling and of sample
collection for calculation of the stagnation time. Sampling at the non-residence was performed by the
plant operator with the first sample taken at the first draw and the second sample taken after the sample
tap was flushed for several minutes. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not
been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.3.5 Residual Solids. Insufficient backwash solids were present for sampling, therefore, only
spent media were collected for residual solids analyses. Three AAFS50 spent media samples were
collected from each tank during four media changeouts on October 25, 2004, April 29, 2005 (Tank A
only), July 29, 2005, and February 28, 2006. Spent media were sampled from the top, middle, and
bottom layers of each media bed using a 5-gal wet/dry shop vacuum that had been thoroughly cleaned and
disinfected before sampling. The media collected from each target layer were transferred from the shop
vacuum to a clean 5-gal bucket and mixed carefully with a small garden spade. A composite sample from
each layer was collected into a wide-mouth, 2-gal plastic container and sent to Battelle for analysis. Spent
media also were collected after an ARM 200 media run on October 19, 2006, although no changeout was
performed at this time due to completion of the demonstration study. Due to a power outage, ARM 200
samples were collected manually from the top of the media beds and then at the middle and bottom of
each tank through the 4-in upper and lower side flanges by removing each respective viewglass (Figure 4-
5). Metal analyses were conducted on air dried and acid digested samples (see analytes in Table 3-3), and
TCLP tests were conducted on unprocessed samples following the protocol described in the QAPP
(Battelle, 2003).
3.4 Sampling Logistics
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 QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a cooler was prepared with the
appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits needed. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification (e.g.,
10
-------
orange designated TA). The labeled bottles for each sampling location were bagged separately and
packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid and addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The
chain-of-custody forms and FedEx air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the
sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with
the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-
MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in coolers at Battelle and picked
up by couriers by Battelle's subcontract laboratories, including AAL in Columbus, OH and TCCI
Laboratories in New Lexington, OH The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the
time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the QAPP (Battelle, 2003) were followed by
Battelle ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., 20% relative
percent difference [RPD], 80 to 120% recovery, and 80% completeness). The quality assurance (QA) data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field 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 the standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the 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
-------
Section 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
Four wells owned by AWC supplied water to a population of 1,520 in Sedona, AZ. POE Well No. 2,
located at 315 Deer Pass Drive, with a capacity of 37 gpm, was selected forthis demonstration study.
Figure 4-1 shows the predemonstration site conditions in late July 2003.
POE Well No. 2, drilled in January 1974, is 6-in diameter and 585-ft deep with a 565 ft-long slotted
screen extending from 20 to 585 ft below ground surface (bgs). Prior to installation of the arsenic
removal system, treatment consisted of only a chlorine injection system (Figure 4-2) using 4% NaOCl at a
feed rate of 0.6 gpd to reach a target chlorine residual of 0.6 mg/L (as C12). The chlorinated water then
entered the distribution system and two gravity-fed storage tanks with a total capacity of 400,000 gal.
POE Well No. 2 was controlled by level sensors in the storage tanks and operated for approximately
8 hr/day. For the purpose of this demonstration study, the well was operated 24 hr/day for most of the
study.
Figure 4-1. Predemonstration Site Conditions
(Right to Left: Wellhead, Piping, Hydropneumatic Tank,
Electrical Panel, and Chlorine Shed)
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on July 31, 2003, from POE
Well No. 2 for analysis. The results of the source water analyses, along with those provided by the
facility to EPA and those independently collected and analyzed by EPA and Kinetico, are presented in
Table 4-1.
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Existing Chlorine Injection System
Based on the July 31, 2003, sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in POE Well No. 2 was
41.0 |og/L, with arsenic existing primarily as As(V) (i.e., 93% at 37.8 (ig/L). A small amount of arsenic
also was present as particulate arsenic (i.e., 2.8 |o,g/L) and As(III) (i.e., 0.3 |o,g/L). Because arsenic already
existed as As(V), which adsorbs better onto the AAFS50 and ARM 200 media, prechlorination upstream
of the treatment process was not required.
Source water pH values ranged from 7.6 to 7.9. Kinetico proposed to adjust the source water pH to 7.2 to
improve the AAFSSO's arsenic adsorptive capacity. Therefore, pH adjustment equipment was installed at
the site, but was not used initially in order to evaluate the capacity of the media under the unaltered pH
condition.
The capacity of adsorptive media can be impacted by high levels of competing ions such as silica,
phosphate, and fluoride. The concentrations of these ions appeared to be low enough as not to affect the
media's adsorption of arsenic. Source water iron, manganese, and aluminum concentrations were below
their respective method reporting limits. These values were comparable to the levels reported by all other
parties. Vanadium was measured at 16.2 (ig/L.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system was supplied by POE Well No. 2 and three
other production wells, i.e., Gulf Well, Rancho Rojo Well, and Wild Horse Mesa Well with capacities of
262, 118, and 23 gpm, respectively, located within a one-mile radius. After chlorination, water from
these wells blended within the distribution system and flowed into two gravity-fed storage tanks (totaling
400,000 gal), located about a half mile downstream of POE Well No. 2. There was a small area of homes
served predominantly by water produced by POE Well No. 2. Efforts were made to select sampling
locations in this area of the distribution system (Section 3.3.4).
13
-------
Table 4-1. POE Well No. 2 Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
PH
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
TOC
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
-
mg/L
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
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data(a)
Not specified
7.6
162
149
11.0
NS
NS
8.7
20.8
<0.065(b)
0.5
40.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
<10
NS
NS
NS
<50
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11.0
35.0
15.0
EPA
Data
10/03/02
NS
154
NS
9.7
NS
2.8
8.4
19.3
NS
NS
39.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.0
NS
<25
NS
0.4
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<25
NS
9.9
34.5
16.2
Kinetico
Data
12/02
7.9
160
160
19.8
0.1
NS
9.0
21.4
0.1
NS
40.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
<30
NS
NS
NS
NS
<10
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
10.0
35.5
17.5
Battelle
Data
07/31/03
7.7
154
172
11.0
0.2
NS
8.7
18.5
0.1
NA
41.0
38.1
2.8
0.3
37.8
<30
<30
<10
<10
0.1
O.I
16.2
15.7
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
11.1
39.3
18.0
AWC
Data(c)
01/94-03/02
7.6
160
149
11.3
0.1-0.2
NS
9.8
NS
NS
NS
34^7
NS
NS
NS
NS
<10
NS
NS
NS
<50
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<5
NS
NS
34.6
15.2
(a) Provided by AWC to EPA for demonstration site selection.
(b) Provided by EPA.
(c) Samples collected after chlorination.
NS = not sampled; TOC = total organic carbon
The distribution piping consisted of 6-in-diameter ductile iron and asbestos cement pipe. Service lines to
individual homes were primarily copper and polyethylene pipe with a few homes, including possibly the
DS1 distribution sampling location, having lead joints. Water from the distribution system has been
sampled periodically by AWC for state and federal compliance with the SDWA. Every month, three
samples are collected for bacteria analysis. Under the LCR, samples have been collected from customer
taps at 14 locations every three years. The monitoring results from AWC's Consumer Confidence
Reports (CCRs) for 2003 to 2005 are summarized in Table 4-2.
14
-------
Table 4-2. Distribution System Water Quality Data(a)
Parameter
Alpha Emitters
Arsenic
Barium
Chlorine
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Sodium
Sulfate
Total Trihalomethanes
Uranium
Copper
Radon
Unit
pCi/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
pCi/L
2003
0.3-6.4
33-37
120-140
-
0.12-0.13
0.2-0.7
7.4-10
5.3(b)
—
ND-1.8
0.16(c)
170-190(b)
2004
-
ND-34
-
-
-
0.2-0.9
-
-
ND^t.9
-
-
-
2005
-
ND-39
-
0.3-0.4
-
ND^.66
-
-
-
-
0.25
-
4.2
Source: AWC, 2004; 2005; 2006.
(a) All other constituents not detected.
(b) Sampled in 1999.
(c) Sampled in 2002.
ND = not detected
Treatment Process Description
Kinetico's FA-236-AS Adsorptive Arsenic Removal System used standard downflow filtration through
two pressure tanks arranged in series. Each tank initially contained a fixed bed of Alcan's ActiGuard
AAFS50 media, an iron-modified activated alumina (AA) media engineered with a proprietary additive to
enhance its arsenic adsorptive capabilities. After three AAFS50 media runs, the pressure tanks were
rebedded with Engelhard/BASF's ARM 200 media, an iron oxide/hydroxide media. Both media have
NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water, and can adsorb As(III) and
As(V) at pH values of 5 to 9. However, the best media performance is achieved with As(V) at the lower
end of this pH range. Table 4-3 presents key physical and chemical properties of the media as provided
by the vendors.
For series operation, the media in the lead tank is generally replaced when it completely exhausts its
capacity or when the effluent from the lag tank reaches 10 (ig/L of arsenic. After rebedding the lead tank
with new media, it is switched to the lag position, and the lag tank is switched to the lead position. The
series operation better utilizes the arsenic removal capacity of the media when compared to parallel
system design and operation.
The FA-236-AS system included a chemical feed system for pH adjustment, two pressure tanks arranged
in series, a backwash recycle system, and associated instrumentation to monitor pressure, pH, throughput,
and flowrate. The system also was equipped with a NEMA control panel that housed a touch screen
operator interface panel (OIP), a programmable logic controller (PLC), and a modem. The Allen Bradley
PLC actuated George Fischer polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pneumatic valves, as necessary, with a 2-
horsepower (hp) compressor (Speedaire model 4B234B) for service and backwash operations. The
system also featured schedule 80 PVC solvent bonded plumbing and all the necessary isolation and check
valves, Y-strainers, and sampling ports. Figure 4-3 is a simplified piping and instrumentation diagram
(P&ID) of the treatment system, and Figure 4-4 is a photograph of the system. The system's design
features are summarized in Table 4-4. The major processes included:
15
-------
Table 4-3. Properties of AAFS50 and ARM 200 Media
Parameter
Alcan's
ActiGuard AAFS50
Engelhard/BASF's
ARM 200
Physical Properties
Physical form
Dry granular media
Dry granular media
Matrix
Iron-modified AA
Iron oxide/hydroxide
Color
(Light) Brown
(Dark) Brown
Bulk density (g/cm3) [lb/ft3]
1.06^ [66
0.80W [50
BET area (m /g)
220
225
Sieve size (U.S. Standard)
28 x 48 mesh
12 x 40 mesh
Moisture content (%
17.41
(B)
Attrition (%)
0.3
<1
Chemical Composition
A12O3 + additive (%
83
NA
Silicon (as SiO2) (%
0.020
NA
Titanium (as TiO2) (%)
0.002
NA
Loss on ignition (%)
17
NA
(a) Reported as 0.91 g/cm3 (56.8 lb/ft3) on Alcan's Product Data Sheet.
(b) As measured by Battelle.
NA = data not available
• Intake. Source water was supplied from POE Well No. 2 at 36 gpm. A flow-limiting device
prevented excessive hydraulic loading to the system, and ancillary piping enabled the
treatment system to be bypassed when necessary (Figure 4-5).
• pH Adjustment. The pH control system consisted of a solenoid-driven 4.4-L/hr, flow-paced
chemical metering pump, a 2-in in-line static mixer, an acid draw assembly with a low-level
float, an in-line pH transmitter (Burkert model 8205), and a 55-gal drum containing 37 to
50% H2SO4 to adjust the feed water pH to a desired setpoint (Figure 4-5). The pH of the feed
water was adjusted at the end of AAFS50 Media Run 1 and throughout AAFS50 Media Runs
2 and 2a.
• Chlorination. Because As(V) was the predominating species in source water, oxidation of
the water was not necessary. Therefore, NaOCl was initially applied after the adsorption
tanks via the facility's existing chlorine feed system for disinfection purposes (Figure 4-2).
After approximately one month of system operation, algae growth was observed on the
viewglass of the lead tank (Figure 4-5). As a result, the chlorine injection point was relocated
upstream of the adsorption tanks to prevent biological growth. The NaOCl feed system
consisted of a 1.5-gal/hr (gph) chemical feed pump and a 35-gal day tank containing 4%
NaOCl. Average chlorine residuals were maintained at 0.4 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) throughout
the treatment train prior to entering the distribution system.
16
-------
Static MixerL
Kinetico FA-236-AS Adsorpti ve Arsenic Removal System
Raw Water from
Well at 50-100 psi
Chemical
Metering
Pumps
Ipplional;' Existing
Backwash.
Water Inlet"
\
#1
36" x 72'
-J-
r!
?-l
Filler
#2
Filtered Water
"" to Storage /
Distribution by
Others
Backwash
Recycle
Tank
1.800 gal
Recycle _ ;..
Pump Ba9Flller
- To Adsorptive
Filter Inlet
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System
Figure 4-4. Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System on Concrete Pad
17
-------
Table 4-4. Design Features for Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System
Parameter
Design Values
for AAFS50
Media Runs
1, 2, 2a, and 3
Design Values
for ARM 200
Media Run 4
Remarks
Pretreatment
37%H2S04(gpd)
4%NaOCl(mg/L)
5.5
0
Not required
pH setpoint at 7.2
Added for disinfection
Filtration
No. of Tanks
Tank Size (in)
Media Volume (ft3/tank)
Media Bed Depth (in)
Peak Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (min/tank)
Hydraulic Utilization (%)
Production (gpd)
Media Run Length to 10-|ag/L
As Breakthrough (BV)
Media Life (day)
2
36 D x 72 H
22
37
37
4.5
100
53,280
18,680
56
100
53,280
26,000
83
Series configuration
7.1 ft2 cross-section
-
-
-
-
24 hr/day operation
-
Breakthrough from lag
tank; 1 BV = 44 ft3
Based on media
capacity and utilization
Backwash
Frequency (week)
Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Duration (min/tank)
Wastewater Production (gal)
Recycle Flowate (gpm)
2-3
55-60
8
10-12
1,100-1,440
3.7
4
42
6
15
1,260
3.7
-
-
-
-
-
10% of system flow
D = diameter; H = height
• Adsorption. The system included two 36-in-diameter, 72-in-tall pressure tanks (Structural
model 31712) in series configuration, each containing, as per original design, 22 ft3 of
AAFS50 or ARM 200 media (see Section 4.4.4 for specific media volumes for each media
run). Each tank had 6-in top and bottom flanges, a diffuser-style upper distributor, a hub and
lateral-style lower distributor, and two 4-in side flanges with viewglasses to allow for media
observation. The adsorption tanks were constructed of composite fiberglass and rated for a
working pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (psi). The tanks were skid mounted and
piped to a valve rack mounted on a polyurethane coated, welded steel frame. The system also
was equipped with the necessary valves and secondary piping to allow the tank positions to
be switched from lead to lag and vice versa.
• Backwash. Backwash was recommended by the vendor to remove particulates and/or media
fines accumulating in the beds and prevent channeling. Backwash was semi-automatic and
initiated manually by the operator when a light on the control panel indicated that a set
throughput had been reached. After the system was taken offline, upflow backwash using
treated water was performed on Tank A followed by Tank B (regardless of lead/lag position)
at an adjustable flowrate controlled by a George Fischer diaphragm valve.
18
-------
4.3
Figure 4-5. Treatment Process Components
(Clockwise from Top: POE Well No. 2 and Bypass Piping; Acid Addition Setup;
In-Line pH Transmitter; Adsorption Tanks and Lower Distributor; and Main Control Panel)
• Backwash Water Recycling. The backwash water was stored in a 1,800 gal, polyethylene,
conical-bottom holding tank (Figure 4-6) equipped with high/low level sensors. Recycling
capabilities enabled this water to be reclaimed. After solids settled in the storage tank for a
preset/adjustable time period, a 1-hp vertical pump (G&L Pumps model SSV) pumped the
backwash water through a 25-jam bag filter to remove any remaining suspended solids
(Figure 4-6). A piping loop then reclaimed the filtered wastewater by blending it with source
water at a maximum rate of 10% of the system flowrate.
System Installation
The system engineering, installation, shakedown, and startup activities were carried out by Kinetico and
its local subcontractor, Fann Environmental in Prescott, AZ.
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering submittal package included general arrangement drawings, a
P&ID of the FA-236-AS system, and site, treatment system, and piping plans. The engineering drawings
were certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Arizona and submitted to ADEQ for
review and approval in mid-February 2004. The Certificate of Approval to Construct (ATC) was
received on March 23, 2004, and a construction permit was subsequently applied for and approved by
Yavapai County in mid-April 2004. After system installation was completed, as-built drawings were
submitted to ADEQ, and Approval of Construction (AOC) was subsequently issued on June 15, 2004.
19
-------
Figure 4-6. Backwash Recycling Process Components
(Clockwise from Left: 1,800-gal Holding Tank; Recycle Pump and Bag Filter;
and Backwash Flow rate Indicator and Pump Box)
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The FA-236-AS treatment system was
delivered to the site on April 23, 2004, after a 12 ft x 25 ft concrete pad was poured. The off-loading and
installation of the system were performed, including piping connections to the inlet and distribution
system. The mechanical installation, hydraulic testing of the unit (without media), and media loading
were completed on May 11, 2004. Battelle provided operator training on data and sample collection from
May 6 to 7, 2004.
4.3.3 System Enclosure. A 12 ft x 25 ft x 11.5 ft sun shed (Figure 4-7) was installed by
AWC in late-May 2004 to protect the system from being exposed to extreme ambient conditions in
the summer and winter since the system temperature was specified to range from 50 to 120 °F.
Manufactured by Versa-Tube, the sun shed was constructed with a galvanized steel frame anchored
to the concrete pad, and sheeted with 29-gauge steel with a specially coated surface. The shed was
pre-engineered with loading capacities of 90 mph for wind and 30 lb/ft2 for snow. From late-
November to mid-December 2004, the sides and ends of the sun shed were enclosed with metal
covering, exposed piping was insulated, and heat lamps were installed within the building for added
protection from below-freezing temperatures.
20
-------
4.4
Figure 4-7. Sun Shed (Top) and Completed Enclosure (Bottom)
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. System operational data are tabulated and attached in Appendix
A. Key parameters of each media run are summarized in Table 4-5. Media Run 1 began on June 24,
2004, and ended on August 4, 2004, when the arsenic concentration in the effluent of the lag tank
exceeded 10 |o,g/L. Arrangements were then made to lower source water pH values to try to extend the
AAFS50 media life (Section 4.4.2). Lowering pH values from September 17 to October 24, 2004, caused
the effluent arsenic concentrations to decrease, but not to levels below 10 |o,g/L.
The spent AAFS50 media was subsequently replaced (Section 4.4.5.1), and Media Run 2 began on
October 25, 2004 with pH adjustment. The treatment system produced water below the arsenic MCL
until March 23, 2005, whereupon arrangements were made to replace the AAFS50 media in the lead tank
and switch the tank positions. Thus, Media Run 2a began on April 29, 2005, and continued through July
21
-------
Table 4-5. Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System Operations
Parameter
Media Evaluation Period"'
Media Run 1
06/24/04-08/04/04
Media Run 2(b)
10/25/04-03/23/05
Media Run 3
10/12/05-01/25/06
Media Run 4
03/07/06-08/23/06
Specifications
Media Type
Media Volume (ft3/tank)
Media Weight (Ib/tank)
Media Bed Depth (in)
AAFS50
16.7
1,100
28
AAFS50
22
1,450
37
AAFS50
22
1,450
37
ARM 200
22
2,200
37
Treatment Operations
Operating Time (hr/day)
Total Operating Time (hr)
Acid Addition (gpd)
Average Flowrate [Range]
(gpm)
Average EBCT [Range]
(mm/tank)
Average Hydraulic
Loading Rate [Range]
(gpm/ft2)
Average Ap [Range] (psi)
Throughput (gal)
Media Run Length (BV)(c)
Media Life (day)
24
977
0
36 [35-39]
3.5 [3.2-3.6]
5.1 [4.9-5.5]
5.4 [4.0-6.0]
2,058,000
8,240
41
24
3,562
2.8
36 [36-38]
4.6 [4.3^.6]
5.1 [5.1-5.4]
5.5 [4.0-7.0]
7,580,000
23,030
149
16
1,653
0
36 [36-39]
4.6 [4.3^.6]
5.1 [5.1-5.5]
6.2 [5.0-8.0]
3,411,000
10,360
105
24
4,065
0
37 [37-39]
4.4 [4.2-4.4]
5.2 [5.2-5.5]
4.4 [4.0-6.0]
8,464,000
25,720
169
(a) Completed when lag tank effluent reached 10 |ag/L of arsenic.
(b) Media Run 2a inconclusive due to operational issues (Section 4.4.4).
(c) Media run length in BV calculated based on volume of media in both tanks.
29, 2005 when the AAFS50 media was removed (Section 4.4.5.2). Operational problems associated with
tank switching for Media Run 2a (Section 4.4.4) prevented thorough resolution of the data gathered
during that period.
After AWC's peak water usage season had ended, Media Run 3 began on October 12, 2005, with 16-
hr/day operation and unaltered raw water pH values. The intermittent system operation was
accomplished via a timer that was installed and programmed to enable the well to operate automatically
from 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on a daily basis. The purpose of this media run was to determine how
reduced run time and a somewhat longer empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 4.6 mm/tank might affect the
AAFS50 media's capacity in comparison to Media Run 1, which employed 24 hr/day run time and 3.5
mm/tank of EBCT. On January 25, 2006, the treatment system effluent exceeded 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, and
the AAFS50 media was subsequently removed (Section 4.4.5.3).
Media Run 4 began on March 7, 2006, to evaluate the use of ARM 200 media without pH adjustment.
The treatment system effluent exceeded 10 |o,g/L of arsenic on August 23, 2006, but the system continued
to operate until September 18, 2006, when the demonstration study was completed.
The system operated for 977, 3,562, 1,653, and 4,065 hr until 10-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag
tank during Media Runs 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Operating time was based on full-time operation of
POE Well No. 2 until November 4, 2004, when an hour meter was installed to determine system
downtime due to repairs and maintenance. The system utilization rate was nearly 100% for Media Runs
1, 2, and 4, and about 67% for Media Run 3.
22
-------
The average flowrates through the system during all test runs were 36 to 37 gpm (or 5.1 to 5.2 gpm/ft2),
consistent with the design flowrate. Because less media were loaded during the system startup (16.7
instead of 22 flrVtank) due to the use of an incorrect bulk density value to calculate the required media
shipping weight, the average EBCT during Media Run 1 was reduced from the design value of 4.5
min/tank (Table 4-4) to 3.5 min/tank (or from 9.0 to 6.9 min for both tanks). The average EBCTs for
subsequent media runs were 4.4 to 4.6 min/tank (or 8.9 to 9.1 min for both tanks), which were close to the
design value.
The pressure differential (AP) readings across each tank ranged from 4 to 8 psi, which were 2 to 5 psi
higher than the baseline AP readings measured during the system startup when hydraulic testing was
performed on the empty tanks. This extra pressure loss, caused by the media, equates to 0.9 to 1.7 psi/ft
of media. Further, the AP readings across each tank between two consecutive backwash events did not
increase significantly, indicating minimal accumulation of particulates and/or media fines.
For AAFS50 media, the system throughput at 10-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough in the effluent of the lag tank
was 2,058,000 gal (or 8,240 BV based on the total volume of media in both tanks) without pH adjustment
and reduced EBCT. With pH adjustment, the system treated 7,580,000 gal (or 23,030 BV) when reaching
10 (ig/L from the lag tank. Without pH adjustment and with intermittent run time, the throughput was
3,411,000 gal (or 10,360 BV). Media Run 4, using ARM 200 media, treated 8,464,000 gal (or 25,720
BV) without pH adjustment.
4.4.2 pH Adjustment. Upon 10-|o,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag tank on August 4, 2004,
during Media Run 1, source water pH was lowered to determine its effect on the arsenic levels in the
treated water and media life. A 55-gal drum of 37% H2SO4 and a chemical transfer pump were delivered
to the site during the weeks of August 16 and 23, 2004, respectively. However, the commencement of
acid addition was postponed due, in part, to problems related to a faulty in-line pH electrode, an incorrect
output signal from the pH transmitter, and/or an inoperable acid addition pump. After the vendor
replaced the in-line pH transmitter and the acid addition pump and corrected the output setting for the pH
transmitter, pH adjustment began on September 17, 2004. During October 13 through 18, 2004, pH
adjustment was temporarily interrupted and then resumed on October 19, 2004, to continue through
Media Run 2 until July 14, 2005. Media Runs 3 and 4 did not employ pH adjustment, except for the brief
period from February 2 through 17, 2006, at the end of Media Run 3 in order to consume approximately
23 gal of acid remaining at the site from the previous application.
Acid addition entailed significant complexities. Although the in-line pH transmitter indicated that source
water was adjusted to a setpoint of 7.2, readings from the WTW Multi 340i handheld meter indicated pH
values ranging from 6.7 to 6.9. After the in-line pH electrode was recalibrated and then replaced, the in-
line transmitter still indicated a pH value of 7.2 while the field meter indicated values as high as 7.6.
Unable to resolve the discrepancy, the in-line pH transmitter setpoint was reduced to 6.8 and then 6.6 in
an attempt to compensate for the difference and maintain a consistent treatment pH value. Throughout
Media Run 2, poor correlation existed between the field meter and in-line pH transmitter readings with
differences up to 0.5 pH units observed. Problems with pH adjustment also were encountered at several
other arsenic demonstration sites using both mineral acid and CO2 (Valigore et al., 2006).
On average, the system consumed 3.4 gpd of 37% H2SO4 until October 1, 2004, and then 2.8 gpd of 50%
H2SO4 afterwards. The actual average consumption of 50% H2SO4 equated to 0.05 gal/1,000 gal of water
treated, which was comparable to the theoretical calculations discussed in Section 4.5.1.3.
4.4.3 Backwash. The backwash data for each media run are summarized in Table 4-6. As
designed, a set throughput was used to alert the operator to manually initiate system backwash. The
throughput value was initially set at 340,000 gal, but incrementally increased to 740,000 and 1,400,000
23
-------
gal due to little or no pressure loss across the adsorption tanks. Since the last change on the throughput
setpoint, backwash was performed monthly except when required to adjust the operation of the recycle
pump on September 18, 2004 and for media changeouts. In January 2005, the backwash recycle pump
required additional repairs due to damage incurred from uncharacteristically cold weather.
During system startup, the backwash duration was increased from 10-12 to 20 min/tank as a way to
compensate for the relatively low backwash flowrate attainable by the system (i.e., 36 gpm [or 5 gpm/ft2]
versus the design value of 55 to 60 gpm [or 8 gpm/ft2]) for the AAFS50 media. For Media Run 4 using
ARM 200, the vendor recommended increasing the backwash flowrate to 42 gpm (or 6 gpm/ft2) and
decreasing the backwash duration to 15 min/tank. This backwash flowrate was initially achieved but
could not be sustained (which fluctuated from 34 to 42 gpm). The volumes of wastewater generated
during the backwash events ranged from 1,060 to 1,430 gal for the three AAFS50 media runs and from
1,025 to 1,260 gal for the ARM 200 media run. The volumes generated were consistent with the target
values of 1,100 to 1,440 and 1,260 gal, respectively, as shown in Table 4-4. Backwash water handling is
discussed in Section 4.4.6. Low AP readings across the adsorption tanks indicated that the lower-than-
design-value hydraulic loading rates were adequate to fully backwash the media (Section 4.4.1).
Table 4-6. Backwash Summary of Kinetico's FA-236-AS Treatment System
Media
Run
1
2
2a
o
J
4
No. of
Backwash
Events
6
7
3
4
8
Backwash
Flowrate
(gpm)
27-35
33-36
34
34
30^2
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(gpm/ft2)
4-5
5
5
5
4-6
Backwash
Duration'3'
(min/event)
40
40
40
40
30-40
Wastewater
Generated
(gal/event)
1,060-1,400
1,200-1,360
1,355-1,370
1,360-1,430
1,025-1,260
Total
Wastewater
Generated
(gal)
7,640
9,160
4,090
5,580
8,075
Recycle
Flowrate
(gpm)
2-3
2
2
2
2-3
(a) For both tanks.
4.4.4 Tank Switching. Upon 10 (ig/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag tank (Tank B) during
Media Run 2, arrangements were made to replace the spent AAFS50 media in the lead tank (Tank A) and
switch the tank positions on April 29, 2005. Thus, Media Run 2a had Tank B in the lead position (having
already treated 9,577,000 gal [or 29,100 BV] of water [based on the total volume of media in both tanks])
and Tank A in the lag position with virgin AAFS50 media. After the first sampling event for Media Run
2a on May 4, 2005, a pneumatic valve upstream of Tank B was found to have been inadvertently opened,
causing a portion of the flow to enter Tank A prior to Tank B. After the valve was closed, the system
appeared to have operated as designed until mid-May 2005 when a power outage caused the tanks to
return to the default setting with Tank A in the lead and Tank B in the lag positions. This tank switching
was not realized until approximately one month later on June 10, 2005, when efforts were made to
reconcile four sets of "suspicious" treatment plant data that showed essentially untreated water following
the lead tank (i.e., Tank B). Careful review of the P&ID revealed that default switching of the tanks had
inadvertently resulted in water samples after prechlorination being collected at the TB sampling location
and samples after Tank B being collected at the TA sampling location. Figure 4-8 shows the changes in
24
-------
Kinetico® FA-236-AS
Adsorptive Arsenic Removal System
Raw Water from
Well at 50-100 psi
Explanation
Valve Configuration
and Water Flow for
TA Lead and TB Lag
To Adsorptwe
Filter Inlet
Bag Filter
KWETICO FA2S6-AS SYSTEM COR
Static Mixer
Raw vifeter from
Well at 50-100 psi
Kinetico® FA-236-AS
Adsorptive Arsenic Removal System
Backwash
Flow) Filtered WBter
to Storage/
Distribution
by Others
Explanation
Valve Configuration
and \Nater Flow for
TB Lead and TA Lag
To Adsorptive
Filter Inlet
KINETICO F*-2»»S SYSTEM COR
Recycle
Pump
Bag Filter
Figure 4-8. Water Flow Paths and Sample Tap Locations with Tank A (Top)
and Tank B (Bottom) in the Lead Position
25
-------
water flow dependent on whether Tank A or B is in the lead position and the different sampling locations
which led to difficulties in evaluating the data.
After being informed of the problem, the vendor installed a UPS and revised the PLC to return the tanks
to their prior positions rather than their default positions should power interruption recur. Thus, after
media replacement, Media Run 3 began on October 12, 2005, with these safeguards in place and Tank B
in the lead position. No further problems were experienced with unexpected tank switching through the
duration of the study.
4.4.5 Media Loading and Removal. Media changeouts were performed by Fann Environmental,
Kinetico's subcontractor, on October 25, 2004, April 29, 2005, July 29, 2005, and February 28, 2006.
Before the removal of spent media, the heights of the freeboard, as measured from the flange at the top of
the tanks to the top of the media beds, were recorded and summarized in Table 4-7. The spent media were
sampled and removed from each tank as described in Section 3.3.5 after the tanks had been drained and
pumps and isolation valves had been turned off. The tanks were rinsed and any remaining media
removed from the bottom. Each tank was then half filled with chlorinated water before virgin media were
poured through a large funnel from the top of the tank. The tank was then completely filled with water,
and the media were allowed to soak for at least 1 hr. After the media were properly backwashed and
freeboard measurements obtained, the system was returned to service. Spent ARM 200 media samples
also were collected at the end of Media Run 4. The media were not replaced at this time due to the
completion of the demonstration study.
4.4.5.1 Media Run 1. Although 22 ft3 of AAFS50 media was planned for each tank, only 16.7 ft3
was loaded for Media Run 1 on May 11, 2004 due, in part, to the use of an incorrect bulk density value,
and, thus, the media shipping weight, when ordering the media by the vendor (Table 4-3). The freeboard
measurements for Media Run 1 agreed with this reduced bed volume. Media Run 1 began on June 24,
2004, and the spent media was replaced on October 25, 2004.
4.4.5.2 Media Runs 2 and 2a. Media Run 2 began on October 25, 2004, with 22 ft3 of AAFS50
media in each tank and with pH adjustment. Because the media capacity and run length were significantly
increased with pH adjustment, as the system effluent approached 10 |o,g/L of arsenic, arrangements were
made to replace the media in the lead tank (Tank A) as discussed in Section 4.2. Thus, Media Run 2a
began on April 29, 2005, with Tank B containing partially spent media in the lead position and Tank A
containing virgin media in the lag position. The media installer reported filling Tank A to the previous
freeboard level, presumably 27 in with 22 ft3 of media, which corresponded well to that of the previous
media loading on October 25, 2004. However, a larger-than-expected freeboard level of 38.5 in was
measured for Tank A at the time of media removal on July 29, 2005. After checking with the vendor, a
logistical error was recognized, in which half of the media originally shipped for Media Run 1 (i.e., 16.7
ft3) was ordered for Media Run 2a. Therefore, Media Run 2a operated with 22 ft3 of media in Tank B and
16.7 ft3 of media in Tank A. The media of both tanks were removed on July 29, 2005.
4.4.5.3 Media Run 3. Tank A was loaded with AAFS50 media on July 29, 2005. Before Tank B was
about to be loaded, AWC decided to continue operating POE Well No. 2 full-time during the summer
months. Because Media Run 3 was scheduled to operate the system intermittently for 16 hr and then rest
for 8 hr on a daily basis, decisions were made to delay the media loading of Tank B and to bypass the
treatment system until after the peak season had passed. In the meantime, several operational issues as
discussed in Section 4.4.4 were investigated, and a UPS and a timer to allow for 16 hr/day system
operation were installed. After Tank B media loading on September 19, 2005, it was discovered that
insufficient media again was loaded into the tanks (i.e., 16.7 instead of 22 ftVtank) because of the same
logistical error made during Tank A rebedding for Media Run 2a. The balance of media volume (i.e., 5.3
ft3/tank) was shipped to the site and installed on September 22, 2005.
26
-------
Table 4-7. Media Loading, Removal, and Freeboard Measurements
Media
Run
No.
1
2
2a
3
4
Media
Loading
Date
05/11/04
05/11/04
10/25/04
10/25/04
04/29/05
07/29/05(a)
09/19/05(a)
02/28/06(b)
02/28/06(b)
Media
Volume
(ft3)
16.7
16.7
22
22
16.7
(16.7) 22
(16.7) 22
(25) 22
(25) 22
Media
Type
AAFS50
AAFS50
AAFS50
AAFS50
AAFS50
AAFS50
AAFS50
ARM 200
ARM 200
Tank
(A/B)
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
Freeboard
at Fill
(in)
39.3
39.3
27.3
27.3
NA
(38.5) 28.5
(38.0)28.5
(21.5)27.0
(21.5)27.0
Media
Removal
Date
10/25/04
10/25/04
04/29/05
07/29/05
07/29/05
02/28/06
02/28/06
NA(C)
NA(C)
Freeboard
at Removal
(in)
39.5
40.5
32.0
30.0
38.5
29.0
29.0
26.8(c)
26.3(c)
Freeboard
Difference
(in)
0.2
1.2
4.7
2.7
NA
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.7
(a) Tanks initially loaded with 16.7 ft3 of media. Additional media loaded on 09/22/05.
(b) Tanks initially loaded with 25 ft3 of media. Excess media removed on 03/07/06.
(c) Freeboard measurements collected on 10/19/06 during spent media sampling. Media removal to be
performed at AWC's discretion.
The intermittent media run began on October 12, 2005, with Tank B in the lead position. No pH
adjustment was performed for this run. The spent media was removed on February 28, 2006.
4.4.5.4 Media Run 4. Both tanks were loaded with ARM 200 media on February 28, 2006.
Freeboard levels of 21.5 in were measured for both tanks, indicating overloading of approximately 3
firVtank. In order to maintain a consistent operating scenario, the excess was removed from the top of each
tank on March 7, 2006. The removed media contained a significant amount of media fines, which might
not have been thoroughly backwashed due to the relatively low backwash flowrate used. Media Run 4 was
conducted with 22 ft3 of ARM 200 media in each tank, 24 hr/day operation, and unaltered pH. Figure 4-9
shows the initial and final media levels as seen through the top viewglass, as well as clarity of water
produced during a backwash prior to system restarting. The ARM 200 media required more thorough
backwashing than the AAFS50 media. Approximately 6 BV (plus an additional 2.5 BV after the bed depth
was corrected) were required to prepare the ARM 200 media for service compared to 4 to 5 BV for the
AAFS50 media. In addition, iron and turbidity levels of 319 |o,g/L and 23 nephlemetric turbidity units
(NTU), respectively, in Tank A effluent on March 8, 2006, suggested that media fines, as observed above,
might not have been adequately flushed from the tank during the initial backwashing of the ARM 200
media. The system was turned off on September 18, 2006, and the media changeout will be performed at
AWC's discretion.
Figure 4-9. Media Run 4 Changeout Photographs
(Left to Right: Initial ARM 200 Media Level through Viewglass, Backwash Water Clarity,
and Media Level after Excess Media Removal)
27
-------
4.4.6 Residual Management. The system's backwash water recycling capabilities (Section 4.2)
enabled reclaim of nearly 100% of the wastewater generated. Recycling was accomplished by blending
the wastewater with source water at 2 to 3 gpm. Although lower than the design value of 3.7 gpm (i.e.,
10% of the influent flowrate), no effort was made to increase the recycle flowrate as it was not critical to
system performance. Due to the limited capacity of the recycle tank, wastewater was discharged to a
ditch when multiple backwash cycles were required during media changeouts. The amount of wastewater
discharged totaled 3,000 to 5,000 gal (or 8 to 14% of the total wastewater volume). Although a larger
recycle tank could have reduced or eliminated wastewater discharge to the ditch, the tank provided was
adequate for routine backwash cyles. Only a minimal amount of solids settled out in the recycle tank;
therefore, removal and disposal of these solids were not necessary during the study.
The quantifiable residuals produced by operation of the treatment system were 2,200, 4,000, and 2,900 Ib
of spent AAFS50 media during Media Runs 1, 2 and 2a, and 3. Approximately 2,200 Ib of spent ARM
200 media were produced from Media Run 4; removal of the spent media was at AWC's discretion. Both
media types passed TCLP tests (Section 4.5.4), and the AAFS50 media was disposed of at a sanitary
landfill.
4.4.7 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. Relatively rapid arsenic breakthrough during
Media Runs 1 and 3 (Section 4.5.1.1), pH adjustment (Section 4.4.2), and tank switching during Media
Run 2a (Section 4.4.4) were the primary sources of concern during this performance evaluation study.
Other O&M issues encountered were problems with the chlorine injector, the backwash recycle pump,
and a broken inlet bag filter pressure gauge due to unusually cold weather in late November 2005. A
minimal amount of unscheduled downtime was necessary to repair system components as discussed
above. Scheduled downtime for each media changeout was approximately 12 hr. The total amount of
unscheduled and scheduled downtime due to repairs and/or maintenance was no more than 1% of the total
system runtime.
4.4.7.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. For disinfection purposes, NaOCl was initially
injected downstream of the system to provide a target chlorine residual of 0.4 to 0.5 mg/L (as C12) at the
entry point to the distribution system. On July 27, 2004, after algae growth was observed on a viewglass
of the lead tank, the NaOCl injection point was relocated upstream of the system to prevent biological
growth and provide disinfection throughout the treatment system. In addition to tracking the depth of the
NaOCl solution in the chemical day tank daily, the operator verified adequate chlorine residuals weekly.
Acid addition using a 37 to 40% H2SO4 solution was employed at the end of Media Run 1 and throughout
Media Runs 2 and 2a, but not during Media Runs 3 and 4. The purpose of the acid addition was to lower
source water pH to a target value of 7.2 in order to improve the adsorptive capacity of the AAFS50
media. During periods of acid addition, the operator tracked the depth of acid in the day tank and verified
the in-line pH transmitter setting daily. Weekly pH measurements using a field meter also were collected
for comparison to in-line pH transmitter readings.
4.4.7.2 System Automation. The FA-236-AS was send-automatically controlled by the PLC in the
central control panel. The panel contained a touch screen OIP that monitored system parameters,
established system setpoints, checked alarm status, and switched tank positions (i.e., from lead to lag and
vice versa). The control panel provided a signal when backwash and media changeout were due based
upon the respective throughput setpoints. The media changeout setpoint was not utilized because
changeout was performed based on arsenic breakthrough. However, the adjustable media changeout
setpoint could be a valuable tool to facilities that have already estimated an arsenic breakthrough
throughput after operating their systems under consistent scenarios for several media runs. The OIP
enabled the operator to initiate the automatic backwash sequence and switch tank positions with a push-
button. Additional automated features included pH adjustment and backwash water recycling. The acid
28
-------
addition pump was a flow-paced pump, which was controlled by the pH transmitter based on the pH value
and flowrate of the water entering the adsorption tanks. The backwash recycle pump was controlled by
level sensors within the 1,800-gal reclaim tank.
4.4.7.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the daily demand on the
operator was typically 5 to 10 min for visual inspection of the system and recording of operational
parameters on the log sheets. Acid addition increased the daily demand to 20 to 30 min for associated
O&M requirements, such as chemical supply coordination, pH probe calibration and maintenance, feed
pump repair and maintenance, drum neutralization and disposal, safety precautions, and troubleshooting.
In Arizona, operator certifications are classified by grade on a scale of 1 (least complex) to 4 (most
complex) according to facility type, size, complexity, and population served (ADEQ, 2005). Minimum
grades of 3 for treatment and 2 for distribution were required. AWC's primary operator for this system
was certified for Water Distribution Grade 4 and Water Treatment Grade 4. After receiving proper
training by the vendor during the system startup, the operator understood the PLC, knew how to use the
OIP, and was able to work with the vendor to troubleshoot and perform minor on-site repairs.
4.4.7.4 Preventative Maintenance. Preventative maintenance tasks recommended by the vendor
included daily recording of pressures, flows, and chemical drum levels and visual checks for leaks,
overheating components, and manual valves' positions. The vendor also recommended weekly checks
for trends in the recorded data that might indicate a decline in system performance, as well as monthly in-
line pH probe cleaning and calibration, bag filter replacement, and pumps lubricant level monitoring.
4.4.7.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. AWC coordinated the NaOCl
supply and refilled the drum on an as-needed basis. H2SO4 was supplied in 55-gal drums by Univar's
Phoenix, AZ facility. Generally, two drums were shipped at a time and replacement drums were ordered
once the second drum was opened; each drum typically lasted for 2 to 3 weeks. Univar did not offer
refundable drum deposits for 50% H2SO4, so Farm Environmental was hired to neutralize and dispose of
empty drums. Although the chemical handling requirement was increased, the arsenic removal capacity
of the AAFS50 media was greatly extended from 41 days during Media Run 1 to 149 days during Media
Run 2 with full-time system operation. The extended media run length significantly reduced the media
handling needs. Chemical and media handling requirements were further reduced via the use of ARM
200 media, which demonstrated a media life of 169 days of full-time operation without pH adjustment.
4.5 System Performance
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 81 occasions
(including five duplicate events), with field speciation performed 13 times. Results of samples collected
from the AC, TA, and TB sampling locations during Media Run 2a are not included in this discussion due
to unintentional tank switching caused by a power outage and a resulting tank position switch (Section
4.4.4). Table 4-8 summarizes the results of As, Fe, Mn, and Al at the IN, TA, and TB sampling locations.
Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the other water quality parameters including those measured on-site
at the IN, AC, TA, and TB sampling locations, with alkalinity, pH, and sulfate presented both without and
with acid addition. Except for these analytes, the data showed little variation throughout the
demonstration study (whether using AAFS50 with or without pH adjustment or ARM 200), as evident by
the small standard deviations observed. Appendix B contains a complete set of the analytical results
including those collected during Media Run 2a.
29
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Results for
Media Runs 1, 2, 3, and 4(a)
Parameter
(Figure, if any)
As (total)
(Figure 4-10)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)(c)
Al (soluble)(c)
Sampling
Location
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Sample
Count
81
13
13
13
13
81
70(b)
71
13
12
12
81
71
71
13
12
12
64
54
54
11
10
10
Concentration (ng/L)
Minimum
23.5
35.5
<0.1
<0.1
35.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Maximum
49.8
47.4
0.8
1.7
46.7
144
55.1
52.7
<25
25.0
<25
60.2
4.0
19.2
0.3
2.4
2.8
22.0
41.9
23.7
<10
14.2
13.0
Average
39.4
40.3
0.3
0.6
39.7
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Standard
Deviation
4.3
4.0
0.3
0.4
3.8
15.1
6.9
6.8
0.0
3.6
0.0
6.7
0.6
2.7
0.1
0.7
0.8
2.2
6.5
3.9
0.0
2.9
2.5
(a) Data from Media Run 2a collected from 05/04/05 through 07/06/06 omitted due to issues
associated with tank switching (Section 4.4.4). Statistics of data related to breakthrough
curves (i.e., arsenic for TA and TB) not meaningful and, therefore, not presented.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 319 |ag/L on 03/08/06) omitted (Section 4.4.5.4).
(c) Measured during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3 only due to use of AAFS50 media.
See Appendix B for complete analytical results.
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 23.5 to 49.8 |o,g/L and
averaged 39.4 |o,g/L, with As(V) as the predominant species (Table 4-8). Only trace amounts of
particulate As and As(III) existed. The arsenic concentrations measured during this demonstration study
were consistent with those of the source water sample collected on July 31, 2003 (Table 4-1).
Figure 4-10 shows the arsenic breakthrough curves for each media run, presented according to volume
throughput with the number of bed volumes noted for arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L, based on linear
extrapolation, following the lead and lag tanks. Bed volumes following the lead tank were calculated
based on the amount of media in the lead tank only; however, bed volumes following the lag tank were
calculated based on the combined media volume of both tanks since water exiting the lag tank had been
treated by this entire system. pH values of water prior to entering the adsorption tanks also are shown in
30
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results for
Media Runs 1, 2, 3, and 4(a)
Parameter
(Figure, if any)
Alkalinity(b)
(as CaCO3)
(Figure 4-13)
Fluoride
Sulfate(b)
(Figure 4-13)
Orthophosphate
(asP)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
(Figure 4-14)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH(b)
(Figure 4-13)
Temperature
DO
ORp(d)
Free Chlorine(d)
(as C12)
Total Chlorine(d)
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
IN
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
AC
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
80
41/29
41/29
13
12
12
13
7/5
7/5
27
27
27
27
27
27
81
13
12
12
80
70«0
71
71
30/27
34/27
34/27
71
58
62
62
67
54
58
58
63
54
54
54
58
58
58
58
57
58
13
12
12
13
Minimum
138
156/112
151/112
0.1
0.1
0.1
6.8
8.1/31
8.1/31
0.05
0.05
0.05
<10
<10
<10
15.7
0.8
0.7
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.1
7.5
7.6/6.6
7.4/6.7
7.3/6.7
18.1
18.9
18.3
18.8
5.1
4.7
4.8
4.5
151
560
538
555
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
131
133
136
66.2
Maximum
195
185/163
185/174
0.1
0.1
0.1
11
14/60
12/60
0.10
0.10
0.10
45.2
23.6
30.4
21.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.7
8.4
7.9/7.6
7.9/7.5
7.8/7.5
25.0
21.1
22.4
23.3
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.4
313
754
776
781
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
193
197
200
112
Average
168
169/136
169/134
0.1
0.1
0.1
9.2
10/46
10/44
0.05
0.05
0.05
10.9
<10
<10
19.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
7.7
7.7/6.9
7.6/6.9
7.6/6.9
19.9
19.8
19.9
19.9
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.5
231
644
676
691
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
168
165
166
92.4
Standard
Deviation
11
8/15
9/16
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.2/12
1.7/11
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
5.0
5.5
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1/0.2
0.1/0.2
0.1/0.2
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
36
52
52
52
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
19
18
17
13
31
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
for Media Runs 1, 2, 3, and 4(a) (Continued)
Parameter
(Figure, if any)
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
12
12
13
12
12
Minimum
69.6
68.3
59.8
54.4
55.5
Maximum
106
104
100
105
107
Average
90.6
91.4
75.2
74.6
75.0
Standard
Deviation
10
10
10
12
12
(a)
Data from Media Run 2a (05/04/05-07/06/06) not included for AC, TA, or TB due to issues associated
with tank switching (Section 4.4.4). Statistics of data related to breakthrough curves (i.e., silica for TA
and TB) not meaningful and, therefore, not presented.
Values without (06/24/04-09/16/04; 10/19/05-09/06/06)/with (09/17/04-04/27/05) pH adjustment.
Data from 10/13/04 omitted as pH adjustment was temporarily interrupted.
One outlier (i.e., 23 NTU on 03/08/06) omitted (Section 4.4.5.4).
Measurements since prechlorination began on 07/27/04. Leaks in injection system occasionally caused
0 mg/L chlorine residuals.
See Appendix B for complete analytical results.
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect results and duplicate samples included for calculations.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figures 4-10a and 4-10b for Media Runs 1 and 2, respectively, which employed pH adjustment to
improve the media's performance. The recurring difficulties experienced during acid addition are
denoted by "A" and tracked numerically from 1 to 10 along the pH curves. The actions taken during
these annotations are summarized in Table 4-10. Figure 4-11 presents the run lengths of the lead and lag
tanks for the four media runs (based on linear extrapolation) and some of the conditions affecting them.
During Media Run 1, arsenic concentrations at TA reached 10 (ig/L at about 6,870 BV, less than three
weeks after system startup. After another three weeks, arsenic concentrations at TB also reached 10 (ig/L
at about 8,240 BV. Slightly longer media run lengths were observed during Media Run 3, which also
used AAFS50 media without pH adjustment. Because intraparticle mass transport is believed to be a rate-
limiting step (Badruzzaman et al., 2004; Lin and Wu, 2001), the intermittent system operation (i.e., 16
versus 24 hr/day) and slightly longer EBCT (i.e., 4.6 versus 3.5 min/tank) might have facilitated and
improved pore diffusion by allowing additional time for arsenic on the media surface to move into the
pores and provide more easily accessible sites for adsorption, thus extending the run lengths to 7,380 and
10,360 BV at TB and TA, respectively. (Note that Tank B was the lead tank during Media Run 3.)
Relatively high pH values of source water (ranging from 7.7 to 7.9 [Table 4-9]) presumably led to the
early arsenic breakthrough during both runs.
After Media Run 1, pH adjustment of source water began on September 17, 2004 (denoted as A1 in
Figure 4-10a) so that the effect of lowering pH from about 7.8 to 6.8 might be examined. Acid addition
progressively reduced arsenic concentrations at TA from 33.5 (ig/L (two days before acid addition began)
to as low as 20.2 (ig/L (12 days after acid addition began), and similarly at TB, from 26.0 to 12.3 (ig/L.
As shown in Figure 4-12, the reduced pH of the media surface exposed more positively charged sites for
arsenic adsorption. The acid addition, however, was not able to bring the system effluent to below 10
(ig/L. During October 13 through 18, 2004, the pH adjustment was temporarily interrupted (denoted as
A2 in Figure 4-10a), whereupon the arsenic concentration at TA returned immediately to that of source
water. As the pH of the media surface moves back towards the zero point of charge (zpc), electrostatic
attraction between the media and anionic As(V) species greatly diminishes, which significantly reduces
32
-------
Figure 4-10a. AAFS50 Media Run 1 (06/24/04 to 10/25/04)
Figure 4-10b. AAFS50 Media Run 2 (10/25/04 to 04/29/05)
OJ
OJ
40 -
j'
I
.1 30
I
.1 30
8,240 BV
8.0
- 7.8
- 7.6
- 7.4
- 7.2
d
- 7.0 «
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
Figure 4-10c. AAFS50 Media Run 3 (10/12/05 to 02/28/06)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
1,000 2,000 3,000
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
6.0
9,000 10,000
Figure 4-10d. ARM 200 Media Run 4 (03/07/06 to 09/18/06)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Water Treated (1,000 gal)
-At Wellhead —"—After Tank A —A—After Tank B -*- Field Meter pH
Figure 4-10a-d. Total Arsenic Concentrations Through Treatment System During Media Runs 1 to 4
-------
Table 4-10. Actions Taken for pH Adjustment During Media Runs 1 and 2
Item
1
2
o
6
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
09/17/04
10/13/04
10/19/04
01/18/05
02/01/05
02/07/05
02/18/05
03/02/05
03/17/05
03/24/05
Action
pH adjustment initiated at in-line pH transmitter setpoint of 7.2 after
in-line pH transmitter and acid pump replaced and output setting for
pH transmitter corrected
pH adjustment temporarily turned off
pH adjustment resumed
In-line pH probe calibrated
In-line pH electrode replaced
In-line pH transmitter setpoint changed to 6.8 to agree with previous
field meter pH
In-line pH transmitter setpoint changed to 6.9 to conserve acid
during pump leak
In-line pH transmitter setpoint reduced to 6.8 after pump leak fixed
pH electrode calibrated
In-line pH transmitter setpoint changed to 6.6 to compensate for
high field meter pH
Note: Item number corresponds to callout in Figures 4-10a, 4-10b, and 4-14.
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Media Run Lengths
the media's capacity (Aragon et al, 2002; Chwirka et al, 2000; Clifford, 1999). The arsenic
concentration at TB also increased, but not as dramatically as that of TA. This difference was likely
attributable to the degree of arsenic loading on the media in each tank in combination with the different
pH values measured during sampling - the pH value at TA was only 0.1 unit lower whereas the pH at TB
was 0.3 units lower than the source water (Appendix B). Because sampling and on-site pH measurements
34
-------
no
o
as
zpc
Figure 4-12. Relationship Between pH and Surface Charge of Media
(Modified from Stumm and Morgan, 1981)
at TA and TB were performed shortly after acid addition had been suspended, it was likely that the media
pores and surface remained more acidic than source water as the higher pH flow passed through the
adsorption tanks. After acid addition resumed on October 19, 2004 (denoted as A3), the arsenic
concentration at TA again decreased as the media surface became increasingly positive.
Media Run 2 with pH adjustment began on October 25, 2004. The AAFS50 media, with influent pH
values reduced to an average value of 6.9, treated approximately 24,890 and 23,030 BV of water at TA
and TB, respectively, until reaching 10 (ig/L of arsenic breakthrough. In doing so, the media
outperformed the vendor-estimated working capacity of 18,680 BV (Table 4-4). If consistent operating
conditions had been applied throughout the run, the run length of the system as a whole (i.e., 23,030 BV)
should have been greater than that of the lead tank (i.e., 24,890 BV) (Figure 4-11) due to more complete
utilization of the media in the lead tank and longer EBCT. Nonetheless, pH adjustment of source water
was more beneficial to the AAFS50 media run length than were longer EBCT and/or intermittent system
operation. Throughout the media run, pH again played a dominant role on the media performance.
Figure 4-10b demonstrates the effect of pH on the treated water arsenic concentrations with increases in
pH corresponding to increases in arsenic concentration. Section 4.4.2 and Table 4-10b also provide more
details on the pH fluctuations and inherent O&M difficulties, as denoted by A4 to A10. These pH issues
during the second half of Media Run 2 most certainly resulted in reduced capacity of the media from 10-
|o,g/L breakthrough from the lead tank to 10-|a,g/L breakthrough from the lag tank.
Media Run 4, evaluating ARM 200 media, began on March 7, 2006. Arsenic breakthrough occurred at
20,190 and 25,720 BV at TA and TB, respectively. This media run demonstrated the most gradual trend
of arsenic breakthrough of the four media runs and was just shy of the vendor prediction of 26,000 BV
shown in Table 4-4. ARM 200 media outperformed AAFS50 media (even with pH adjustment), but also
was more costly per unit of water treated (Section 4.6.2).
4.5.1.2 Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum. Low concentrations of total and soluble iron and
manganese existed in source water and throughout the treatment train. One of several exceptions
occurred on March 8, 2006 (i.e., 319 |o,g/L Fe at TA), immediately after Media Run 4 commenced
(Section 4.4.5.4). Total aluminum concentrations were mostly <10 ng/L, but were observed at
concentrations up to 41.9 and 23.7 |o,g/L at TA and TB, respectively. Although the presence of aluminum
might indicate some leaching from the AAFS50 media, all concentrations were below the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L.
35
-------
4.5.1.3 Alkalinity, Sulfate, andpH. Average source water alkalinity, sulfate, and pH values were
168 mg/L (as CaCO3), 9.2 mg/L, and 7.7, respectively (Table 4-9). These values were consistent
throughout the treatment train except for samples collected from September 17, 2004, through July 13,
2005. During this period of pH adjustment, acid addition reduced pH values to an average of 6.9,
decreased alkalinity values to an average of 136 mg/L (as CaCO3), and increased sulfate levels to an
average of 46 mg/L at TA (Table 4-9 and Figure 4-13). Concentrations at TA were similar to those
measured at TB, indicating that AAFS50 media had little or no effect on these analytes. It was clear that
pH was the single most influential factor affecting the arsenic adsorptive capacity of AAFS50 media, as
evident by the arsenic breakthrough curves with and without pH adjustment (Figures 4-10a-c). pH
adjustment was not employed while evaluating the performance of ARM 200 media.
The actual consumption of 50% H2SO4 was 0.05 gal/1,000 gal, which was similar to that derived from a
theoretical calculation (Rubel, 2003) (Table 4-11). The actual alkalinity reduction (i.e., 32 mg/L [as
CaCO3]) and sulfate increase (i.e., 37 mg/L) also were similar to the theoretical values of 29 mg/L (i.e.,
free CO2 increase) and 31 mg/L, respectively, as shown in Table 4-11.
4.5.1.4 Silica. Silica removal was observed immediately after the start of Media Runs 1 and 2
(Figure 4-14). Within a couple of months, silica levels in the effluent of the adsorption tanks approached
influent concentrations. Similar observations also were made for Media Run 3 (using AAFS50) and
Media Run 4 (using ARM 200). After pH adjustment began on September 17, 2004, silica levels in the
treatment tanks' effluent exceeded influent concentrations, presumably due to desorption of silica from
AAFS50 media at lower pH values. The effect of pH on silica removal was observed again in October
2004 when acid addition was temporarily interrupted and from January through March 2005 due to
ongoing problems with the pH adjustment equipment (Section 4.4.2). Actions affecting the pH values
and thereby affecting the silica concentration as denoted by A1 to A 10 in Figure 4-14 are presented in
Table 4-10.
4.5.1.5 DO, ORP, and Chlorine. Source water from POE Well No. 2 was rather aerated as indicated
by the relatively high DO concentrations (ranging from 5.1 to 6.5 mg/L) and ORP readings (ranging from
151 to 313 millivolts [mV]). These measurements may explain why little or no As(III) was present in
source water. As a result of prechlorination, the ORP readings at AC, TA, and TB increased significantly
to the range of 538 to 781 mV.
The chlorine residuals measured at TA and TB were slightly lower than those measured at AC. Little or
no chlorine was consumed by AAFS50 media, but some consumption was observed at the beginning of
Media Run 4 using ARM 200 media. Initially, no residual was detected after the adsorption tanks, so the
operator increased the chlorine dosage from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L until chlorine breakthrough occurred after
approximately 1,000 BV at TA. The chlorine dosage was reduced to 0.5 mg/L after approximately 4,600
BV when residuals at TA and TB reached those of AC.
4.5.1.6 Other Water Quality Parameters. Fluoride, orthophosphate, nitrate, turbidity, temperature,
and hardness concentrations remained consistent across the treatment train and did not appear to be
affected by the prechlorination, acid addition, or media. Fluoride and orthophosphate concentrations were
near and/or below the detection limit for all samples. Turbidity levels were generally low across the
treatment train (i.e., 0.2 NTU on average) except on March 8, 2006 (i.e., 23 NTU at TA), immediately
after Media Run 4 commenced (Section 4.4.5.4). Total hardness ranged from 131 to 200 mg/L (as
CaCO3) (Table 4-9), consisting of approximately 54% Ca hardness and 46% Mg hardness.
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. The analytical results of the backwash water samples are
presented in Table 4-12. (Note that Sampling Events 10 through 14 followed a modified sampling
procedure as described in Section 3.3.3.) Because treated water was used for backwash, pH values of the
36
-------
Alkalinity Values throughout the Treatment System during Media Runs 1 and 2
O)
E
S 140-
1 13°-
'E
I 120 -
<
110 -
-10/25/04:
Media
changeout
06/24/04 07/24/04 08/23/04 09/22/04 10/22/04 11/21/04 12/21/04 01/20/05 02/19/05 03/21/05 04/20/05
Sulfate Values throughout the Treatment System during Media Runs 1 and 2
06/24/04 07/24/04 08/23/04 09/22/04 10/22/04 11/21/04 12/21/04 01/20/05 02/19/05 03/21/05 04/20/05
pH Values throughout the Treatment System during Media Runs 1 and 2
8.5
8.3 -
8.1 -
7.9 -
-10/25/04:
Me!
chan
06/24/04 07/24/04 08/23/04 09/22/04 10/22/04 11/21/04 12/21/04 01/20/05 02/19/05 03/21/05 04/20/05
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate, and pH Values During Media Runs 1 and 2
37
-------
Table 4-11. Theoretical Calculation of Acid Consumption for pH Adjustment
Parameter
PH
Alkalinity
Free CO2
Alkalinity Reduction
Acid Required
H2SO4 Required
50% H2SO4 Required
50% H2SO4 Required
Unit
S.U.
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L(a)
meq/L
mg/L
lb/1,000 gal
gal/1,000 gal
Source Water
Value
7.7
168
6
pH Adjusted
Value
6.9
136
35
32
0.64
31
0.52
0.04
(a) AsCaCO3
06/24/04 07/24/04 08/23/04 09/22/04 10/22/04 11/21/04 12/21/04 01/20/05 02/19/05 03/21/05 04/20/05
Figure 4-14. Silica Concentrations During Media Runs 1 and 2
backwash wastewater were similar to those of the treated water. The pH values of the backwash
wastewater sampled for Events 3 through 9 (except Event 6) were lower due to pH adjustment of raw
water beginning on September 17, 2004. During Event 6, H2SO4 was not dosed properly due to the
ongoing pH adjustment issues, resulting in the elevated pH condition as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
Backwash wastewater from Tank A generally contained higher concentrations of analytes analyzed than
from Tank B since it was in the lead position, except for Events 10 and 11 when the tanks were switched.
Turbidity, TSS, and total metal concentrations of the lead tank were higher than those of the lag tank,
most likely because the lead tank removed the majority of the particulates from raw water. After media
changeouts (i.e., Events 4, 10, and 12), arsenic concentrations in the backwash wastewater were notably
less than the previous results, presumably due to the improved quality of the treated water. The arsenic
concentrations of the backwash wastewater from the lead tank were sometimes higher than those in the
treated water used for backwash, possibly due to desorption of arsenic from the media or blending of the
treated water in the distribution system with other untreated sources prior to backwash. The sampling
events did not show significant differences for pH or TDS between the two tanks.
38
-------
Table 4-12. Backwash Water Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/16/04
09/13/04
10/12/04(a)
1 l/22/04(b)
12/20/04
01/31/05
03/01/05
03/28/05
04/25/05
ll/14/05(c)
01/04/06
04/05/06(e)
05/03/06
06/28/06
Lead Tank
A/B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
Tank A
B.
S.U.
7.6
7.7
7.0
7.2
6.9
7.7
7.2
6.9
6.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
Turbidity
NTU
22
30
230
79
38
41
56
65
290
13
NS
NS
NS
NS
VI
Q
mg/L
464
206
224
252
292
256
292
318
262
278
210
208
200
200
VI
VI
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
20
2
<1
30
17
X
<
"3
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.5
15.9
36.2
68.8
53.7
uble As
£
Hg/L
36.5
36.5
34.5
27.0
25.0
37.0
36.3
33.4
40.5
1.0
15.4
34.5
37.3
35.3
•ticulate As
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.5
0.5
1.8
31.5
18.4
£
"«
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
270
191
569
4,356
2,996
£
O
3
£
Mg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
"3
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
6.8
2.0
8.6
78.2
69.0
1
O
3
£
Hg/L
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
«!
"3
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1,328
1,018
NS
NS
NS
ubleAl
£
Hg/L
13.2
<10
<10
<10
14.2
<10
<10
11.1
15.8
<10
11.7
NS
NS
NS
TankB
a
S.U.
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.1
6.8
7.7
7.2
7.2
6.9
NA(dJ
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
Turbidity
NTU
4.2
2.6
5.2
18
6.6
4.5
4.9
7.6
13
NA(d)
NS
NS
NS
NS
VI
Q
mg/L
822
248
216
210
664
352
300
240
244
NA(dJ
194
198
204
204
VI
VI
mg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA(d)
18
2
3
3
X
<
"3
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
46.5
115
1.3
6.9
16.4
uble As
£
Hg/L
24.5
30.9
19.0
0.3
1.5
17.1
16.2
21.1
26.3
19.1
31.7
2.0
7.8
15.6
•ticulate As
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
27.4
83.4
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
£
"«
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2,540
9,490
839
252
164
£
4>
3
£
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
5
S
"3
£
Hg/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
37.6
78.4
3.1
1.2
1.8
&
3
£
Hg/L
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. The results of the 21 distribution system sampling
events (including four baseline events) are summarized in Table 4-13. The most noticeable change in the
distribution water quality since the system began operation was the decrease in arsenic concentrations.
Baseline arsenic concentrations averaged 41.9, 39.2, and 44.5 jog/L for the first draw samples at the DS1,
DS2, and DS3 sampling locations, respectively, and 43.0 |o,g/L for flushed samples at the DS3 sampling
location. Arsenic concentrations of the samples collected during the demonstration study averaged 27.3,
27.4, and 8.7 |o,g/L for first draw samples at DS1, DS2, and DS3, respectively, and 9.2 |o,g/L for flushed
samples at DS3. Arsenic levels were reduced most prominently at DS3, where water quality was more
representative of that at the entry point to the distribution system (i.e., treatment system effleunt) due to
the location's close proximity to the treatment system. At DS1 and DS2, arsenic concentrations were
higher than those in the system effluent, presumably due to the blending of the treated water (supplied by
POE Well No. 2) with untreated water from other wells which also contained arsenic.
Lead and copper concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 5.2 |o,g/L and <0.1 to 435 |o,g/L, respectively. No
samples exceeded the 15-|o,g/L Pb or l,300-|o,g/L Cu action levels. Due to the blending of water from
untreated wells at locations DS1 and DS2, it was inconclusive whether these distribution system
concentrations had been affected by the arsenic treatment system. However, lead or copper
concentrations at DS3 did not appear to be significantly impacted, presumably indicating minimal impacts
throughout the distribution system. The DS1 location, which may have had lead joints in the service line,
also did not appear to have significant shifts in the lead concentrations.
Similarly, alkalinity and pH values were reduced at DS3 during pH adjustment, but they fluctuated widely
at DS1 and DS2. Iron concentrations ranged from <25 to 71 |og/L, except for the first baseline sample at
DS3, with concentrations in the majority of the samples at <25 |og/L. The concentrations of manganese in
the distribution samples were <7.0 |o,g/L except for two exceedances at DS1. Aluminum concentrations
were <10 ng/L except for four exceedances slightly over 10 |o,g/L.
4.5.4 Spent Media Sampling. Spent AAFS50 and ARM 200 media samples were collected
according to Section 3.3.5 for TCLP and total metals analysis as presented in Tables 4-14 and 4-15,
respectively. A complete set of the spent media data including the analytical results of 13 metals is
included in Appendix C. Conditions affecting each media run are summarized in Table 4-16.
4.5.4.1 TCLP. The TCLP results indicated that both media types were non-hazardous and could be
disposed of in a standard solid waste landfill. Only barium was detected at 1.43 to 1.63 mg/L for
AAFS50 and at 7.4 to 7.6 mg/L for ARM 200 (Table 4-14).
4.5.4.2 Arsenic. The spent media results indicated that the media removed arsenic as water passed
through the lead and then lag tanks (i.e., from Tank A to Tank B during Media Runs 1, 2, and 4 and from
Tank B to Tank A during Media Run 3), as evident by the decreasing arsenic concentrations shown in
Table 4-15. The average actual arsenic loadings on the spent media (Table 4-15) as well as theoretical
values based on the arsenic breakthrough curves (Figures 4-10a-d) are presented in Table 4-17. The
theoretical adsorptive capacities were calculated in terms of mg As/g dry of media by dividing the arsenic
mass represented by the area between the influent and lead curves and lead and lag curves by the amount
of dry media in each tank. AAFS50 and ARM 200 dry media masses were calculated based on moisture
contents of 17.4 and 8% (Table 4-3), respectively, to be analogous with the spent media results.
The theoretical and actual arsenic loading on the media coincided with the media run lengths. Since
Media Run 1 operated well beyond 10-|a,g/L arsenic breakthrough from the lag tank, employed
inconsistent operating scenarios (e.g., pH adjustment), and achieved poor recoveries of 61 and 57% when
40
-------
Table 4-13. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Date
02/10/04
02/24/04
03/16/04
03/30/04
07/28/04
08/25/04
09/22/04^
'2
1
<
mg/L
153
160
158
155
151
160
126
123
131
110
108
143
143
134
147
132
132
180
176
176
176
<
Hg/L
46.9
51.8
44.4
34.9
5.5
23.9
13.7
19.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
5.0
7.7
12.0
26.6
11.9
9.3
0.6
<0.1
1.6
9.6
£
Hg/L
845
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
40.6
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
G
s
Hg/L
6.6
1.8
1.4
1.2
<0.1
0.1
1.0
0.3
1.9
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3
Hg/L
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
10.2
14.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
£
Hg/L
5.2
0.5
2.1
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.5
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
O
Hg/L
26.9
3.5
23.0
3.0
8.6
17.4
4.5
24.6
11.3
10.5
4.1
7.0
3.9
7.3
5.9
14.5
4.5
0.9
0.5
1.1
3.5
Flushed"3
&
S.U.
NS
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.0
7.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Alkalinity™
mg/L
NS
152
158
157
159
148
126
131
127
110
112
134
143
138
142
132
132
180
176
176
180
<
Hg/L
NS
50.6
43.8
34.6
5.4
24.0
16.2
18.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
5.0
7.8
12.2
26.9
17.8
9.8
0.5
<0.1
1.6
9.5
&
Hg/L
NS
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
65.3
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
Hg/L
NS
1.6
1.2
1.2
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.3
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
3
Hg/L
NS
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
£
Hg/L
NS
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
3.2
0.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
O
Hg/L
NS
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.5
4.3
2.2
2.5
2.9
4.6
3.1
0.9
5.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
1.7
(a) Samples collected from a neighboring home on 02/10/04. (b) Location closest to treatment system with minimal effects from other wells.
flushed location. (d)asCaCO3. (e)pH adjustment began on 09/17/04. (f)AAFS50 media of both tanks replaced on 10/25/04. (g)AAFS50
04/29/05. (h) AAFS50 media of both tanks replaced prior to system startup on 10/12/05; pH adjustment discontinued.
Lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level = 1,300 |ig/L
BL = baseline sampling; NA = data not available
(c) Stagnation times not available for
media of Tank A replaced on
-------
Table 4-14. TCLP Results of Spent Media
Parameter
As (mg/L)
Ba (mg/L)
Cd (mg/L)
Cr(mg/L)
Pb (mg/L)
Hg (mg/L)
Se (mg/L)
Ag (mg/L)
AAFS50
Tank A
<0.05
1.43-1.52
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
TankB
O.05
1.63
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.05
ARM 200
Tank A
O.10
7.6
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TankB
O.10
7.4
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
Table 4-15. Metals' Analysis of Spent Media
Sample
Description
Analyte Concentration (mg/g)
Al
Fe
Mn | As
AAFS50 Media Run 1
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
111
86.4
101
90.5
110
124
16.0
14.9
15.1
14.3
15.4
17.5
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.64
0.53
0.53
0.41
0.40
0.35
AAFS50 Media Run 2
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
441
447
442
17.8
17.1
16.4
0.16
0.15
0.12
1.62
1.58
1.27
AAFS50 Media Run 3
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
323
314
345
323
323
340
15.5
15.3
16.4
15.6
14.1
15.6
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.57
0.46
0.26
0.90
0.83
0.62
ARM 200 Media Run 4
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
0.52
0.45
0.43
0.35
0.35
0.30
611
588
594
594
592
596
2.18
2.26
2.35
2.50
2.68
2.64
2.18
2.27
1.82
1.67
1.44
0.79
Note: Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.
comparing the actual and theoretical arsenic loading, those results are not as meaningful to this
discussion. The theoretical adsorptive capacity of the lead tank to 10-ug/L arsenic breakthrough was 0.3
mg/g during Media Run 3, which matched that obtained from an RSSCT conducted on-site (Westerhoff et
al., 2006). The arsenic capacity of the AAFS50 media increased almost two-fold using acid addition from
42
-------
0.78 to 1.49 mg/g in the lead tank, respectively (Table 4-17). These values corresponded to theoretical
values of 0.69 and 1.40 mg/g with recoveries of 113 and 106%, respectively (Table 4-17). The ARM 200
media had a larger arsenic adsorptive capacity of 2.09 and 1.30 mg/g for the lead and lag tanks compared
the AAFS50 media run capacities (Table 4-17). Favorable recoveries of 102 and 118% also were seen for
these data with theoretical values of 2.04 and 1.10 mg/g, respectively (Table 4-17).
Table 4-16. Media Run Conditions Affecting Arsenic Loading
Media
Run
1
2
3
4
Position
Lead
Tank
A
A/
A/
A/
Lead
Tank
B
A/
Media Type
AAFS50
A/
A/
A/
ARM
200
A/
pHAd
During
Media
Evaluation
A/
ustment
After
Media
Evaluation
A/
A/
A/
Chlorination
Before
System
A/
A/
A/
A/
After
System
A/
Run Time
24
hr/day
A/
A/
A/
16
hr/day
A/
Table 4-17. Summary of Arsenic Removal Capacity of Media
Media
Run(a)
1
2
o
5
4
Tank
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Analytical Source
Breakthrough
Curves(b)
(Figures 4-10a-d)
Spent Media(c)
(Table 4-15)
mg As/g dry media
0.93
0.69
1.40
0.83
0.45
0.69
2.04
1.10
0.57
0.39
1.49
NA
0.43
0.78
2.09
1.30
Recovery
%
61
57
106
NA
96
113
102
118
(a) See Table 4-16 for summary of media run conditions affecting performance.
(b) Calculations account for 17.4 and 8% moisture content of AAFS50 and ARM
200, respectively.
(c) Average of top, middle, and bottom data in each tank.
4.5.4.3 Other Metals. The AAFS50 media also adsorbed Mg, P, and Zn as water passed through the
tanks (Appendix C). Consistent AAFS50 iron concentrations in Table 4-15 indicated that the coating of
the media was minimal at 1.4 to 1.8% since source water contained non-detect iron levels (Section
4.5.1.2). For unknown reasons, possibly incomplete sample digestion using nitric acid (F£NO3) prior to
ICP-MS analysis, Al, Ca, Mg, P, and Si concentrations varied significantly across the three media runs
while Cd, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations were steadier (Appendix C). Investigation into the
purity of the NaOCl and H2SO4 confirmed that both solutions were certified against traceable standards.
According to the media specifications, AAFS50 media is 83% A12O3 (including additive) (Table 4-3).
Based on this composition, the results from Media Run 2 indicating 41 to 47% Al (or 83 to 84% A12O3)
may be most representative. According to the spent media results, acid addition did not appear to have a
clear pattern of impact on the adsorption or desorption of the various analytes other than arsenic.
43
-------
The ARM 200 media also adsorbed Al, Ca, Mg, P, and Zn and desorbed Mn and Ni as water passed
through the tanks (Appendix C). Concentrations of Al and Fe were expectedly lower and higher than
those of the AAFS50 media, respectively, due to the media type. Although chemical composition
specifications of the ARM 200 media were not available, the ICP-MS analyst confirmed that the spent
media samples were nearly completely digested using F£NO3 prior to analysis. This observation supports
the representativeness of the results and confirms that the media was 59 to 61% Fe and also contained
significantly more Ca, Cu, Mn, Ni, and Zn compared to the AAFS50 media. Concentrations of Mg, Pb,
and Si were comparable to those of the AAFS50 media.
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 gal of water treated. This task required tracking capital cost for the equipment,
site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. The shed construction cost was not included in the capital cost
because it was outside of the scope of this demonstration project and was funded separately by AWC.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for the equipment, site engineering, and installation
was $228,309 (Table 4-18). The equipment cost was $122,544 (or 54% of the total capital investment),
which included the cost for two skid-mounted pressure tanks, 44 ft3 (33.4 ft3 actually delivered [Section
4.2]) of AAFS50 media, instrumentation and controls, a backwash recycle system, a chemical injection
system, labor (for operator training, technical support, and system shakedown), warranty, and
miscellaneous materials and supplies. The AAFS50 media price was quoted at $85.50/ft3 (or $1.30/lb) at
the beginning of the study, but increased to $98.86/ft3 (or $1.50/lb) for subsequent changeouts.
The engineering cost included preparation of the system layout and footprint, site drawings and piping
plans, and equipment cut sheets for the permit application (Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was
$50,659, which was 22% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system, perform the
piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media (Section 4.3.2). The installation was
performed by Kinetico and its subcontractor, Fann Environmental. The installation cost was $55,106, or
24% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $228,309 was normalized to $6,171/gpm ($4.29/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 37 gpm (or 53,280 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized
cost of $21,551/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-
yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate of 37 gpm
to produce 19,450,000 gal/yr, the unit capital cost would be $1.11/1,000 gal. During the first year, the
system produced 18,750,000 gal of water, so the unit capital cost increased slightly to $1.15/1,000 gal.
AWC installed a sun shed with a galvanized steel frame, which was later enhanced to completely enclose
the treatment system (Section 4.3.3). The 12 ft x 25 ft structure had a height of 11.5 ft and was mounted
on a 12 ft x 25 ft concrete pad. The structure was pre-engineered to sustain a 90-mph wind load and a 30-
lb/ft2 snow load. The total cost for the structure was $22,078 which included $4,500 for materials and
labor for assembly.
4.6.2 O&M Cost. The O&M cost included media replacement and disposal, chemical supply,
electricity consumption, and labor. Because the system was under warranty, no additional cost was
incurred for repairs. The O&M cost is summarized in Table 4-19. Due to the short durations of Media
Runs 1 and 3 using AAFS50 without pH adjustment, it would be most cost-effective to replace the media
44
-------
Table 4-18. Capital Investment for Kinetico's Treatment System
Description
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment
Media Skid and Tanks
Air Compressor
Instrumentation and Controls
Backwash Recycle System
Media Eductor Kit
Chemical Injection
Labor
Warranty
Change Order for Flow Totalizer
Equipment Total
$30,134
$2,602
$13,211
$13,486
$943
$11,197
$39,736
$10,610
$625
$122,544
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
54%
Engineering
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
$40,021
$10,638
$50,659
-
-
22%
Installation
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
$15,213
$10,319
$29,574
$55,106
$228,309
—
—
—
24%
100%
in both tanks when the lag tank effluent reaches 10 ug/L of arsenic. This scenario, also known as batch
mode, could save labor, travel, and administrative cost, which would most likely not be offset by any
increased media capacity. Because Media Run 2 using AAFS50 with pH adjustment and Media Run 4
using ARM 200 without pH adjustment were able to last significantly longer, it would be sensible to
replace the media of only the lead tank when the lag effluent reaches 10 ug/L of arsenic. This scenario,
also known as lead/lag mode (Section 4.2), is the optimal operating scenario for systems with tanks in
series by facilitating better use of the media capacity.
The media replacement cost of both tanks for Media Runs 1 and 3 was based on a vendor quote of $8,725,
which included $4,350 for 44 ft3 of AAFS50 media (or $98.86/ft3) and $4,375 for labor, travel, and spent
media sampling, testing, and disposal. Using this quote and assuming that the cost for labor, travel, and
spent media disposal was proportional to the media quantity, the AAFS50 media replacement cost for one
tank was estimated to be $4,363. Based on the actual startup cost of $27,220 for Media Run 4, the media
replacement cost of one tank was estimated to be $13,610, including $11,000 for 22 ft3 of ARM 200
media (or $500/ft3), and $2,610 for labor, travel, and spent media sampling, testing, and disposal.
By averaging each media replacement cost over the life of the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water
treated was calculated as presented in Table 4-19. For lead/lag mode, note that after the partially
exhausted lag tank is switched to the lead position with the newly rebedded tank in the lag position, the
run length for the subsequent run will be shorter than the initial run, thus resulting in an increased
replacement frequency and cost than shown in Table 4-19.
Chemical cost was incurred for H2SO4 only, since the FA-236-AS system did not change the dosage of
the NaOCl used for disinfection, compared to prior operation without arsenic removal treatment. The
45
-------
Table 4-19. Summary of O&M Cost
Category
Water treated (1,000 gal)
AAFS50
without pH
Adjustment
(Batch
Replacement)
3,411
AAFS50
with pH
Adjustment
(Lead/Lag
Replacement)
7,580
ARM 200
without pH
Adjustment
(Lead/Lag
Replacement)
8,464
Remarks
To 10-|ag/L As
breakthrough from lag
tank
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media volume (ft3)
Media cost ($)
Labor cost ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media replacement cost
($71,000 gal)
44
$4,350
$4,375
$8,725
$2.56
22
$2,175
$2,188
$4,363
$0.58
22
$11,000
$2,610
$13,610
$1.61
Vendor quote
Includes travel,
sampling, and
disposal
Chemical Usage
Acid cost ($/gal)
Acid dosage (gal/1,000 gal)
Drum disposal ($)
Chemical cost ($71,000 gal)
-
-
-
$10.16
0.05
$480
$0.61
-
-
-
50% H2SO4 including
shipping
50%H2SO4
Quote of $60/drum
Electricity
Electric utility charge ($/kWh)
Electricity cost ($/month)
Electricity cost ($71,000 gal)
$0.12
$244
$0.16
Rate provided by
AWC
Labor
Labor (hr/week)
Labor cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost
($/l,000 gal)
0.4
$0.03
$2.74
2.4
$0.14
$1.49
0.4
$0.03
$1.79
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
To 10-|ag/L As
breakthrough from lag
tank
system consumed approximately 3.4 gpd of 37% H2SO4from September 17 to October 1, 2004, and then
approximately 2.8 gpd (or 0.05 gal/1,000 gal) of 50% H2SO4 afterwards. The pH adjustment cost was
$0.61/1,000 gal of water treated, which was significantly higher than the vendor-estimated $0.10/1,000
gal of water treated due to a higher unit price of the acid and the additional cost incurred for drum
neutralization and disposal. Acid addition increased the media run length of AAFS50 to 10-ug/L arsenic
breakthrough by over twice as much compared to the unaltered pH condition.
Electricity consumption was calculated based on the difference between the average monthly cost from
electric bills before and after the system startup. The difference in cost was approximately $244/month or
$0.16/1,000 gal of water treated.
Initially, the routine, non-demonstration related labor activities consumed 20 to 30 min/day (Section
4.4.7.3) as the operator was becoming familiar with the treatment system and during periods of acid
addition due to added O&M issues and complexities (Section 4.4.2). Afterwards, the labor decreased to
about 5 to 10 min/day during Media Runs 3 and 4. Based on these time commitments and a labor rate of
46
-------
$21/hr, the labor costs were approximately $0.14/1,000 gal of water treated with acid addition and
$0.03/1,000 gal of water treated without acid addition.
By averaging the total O&M cost over the life of the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was
plotted as a function of the media run length as shown in Figure 4-15. Note that the bed volumes were
calculated based on the quantity of media in both tanks (i.e., 44 ft3 or 330 gal).
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
- - - AAFSSOw/o pH Adjustment (Batch)
AAFS50 w/ pH Adjustment (Lead/Lag)
ARM 200 w/o pH Adjustment (Lead/Lag)
\ -. \
\ \
\ \
s
X
10
50
20 30 40
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV)
Note: 1 BV = 44ft3= 330 gal
Figure 4-15. Total O&M Cost Including Media Replacement
60
47
-------
Section 5.0 REFERENCES
ADEQ. 2005. Safe Drinking Water: Operator Certification. Website:
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/dw/opcert.html.
AWC. 2004. 2003 Annual Water Quality Report for Valley Vista, Arizona PWSID# 13-114.
AWC. 2005. 2004 Annual Water Quality Report for Valley Vista, Arizona PWSID# 13-114.
AWC. 2006. 2005 Annual Water Quality Report for Valley Vista, Arizona PWSID# 13-114.
Aragon, A., B. Thomson, and J. Chwirka. 2002. Rapid Small Scale Column Testing for Arsenic
Adsorption Media. 9th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference,
Albuquerque, NM.
Badruzzaman, M., P. Westerhoff, and D.R.U. Knappe. 2004. "Intraparticle Diffusion and Adsorption of
Arsenate onto Granular Ferric Hydroxide (GFH)." Water Research, 38(18), 4002-4012.
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2004. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Valley Vista, Arizona. 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.
Clifford, D. 1999. "Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption." In: F. Pontius, ed., Water Quality and
Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies. American Water Works Association.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, RC. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-11.
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.
48
-------
Kinetico. 2004. The City of Valley Vista, AZ: Installation Manual; Suppliers Literature; and Operation
and Maintenance Manual, FA-236-AS Adsorptive Arsenic Removal System. Newbury, OH.
Lin, T.F. and J.K. Wu. 2001. "Adsorption of arsenite and arsenate within activated alumina grains:
Equilibrium and kinetics." Water Research, 35(8), 2049-2057.
Rubel, Jr., F. 2003. Design Manual: Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media.
EPA/600/R-03/019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Valigore, J.M., A.S.C. Chen, W.E. Condit, L. Cumming, G.M. Lewis, J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, H.T.
Shiao, N. Tong, L. Wang, and S. Williams. 2006. "Results and Lessons Learned for Adsorptive
Media Systems." Presented at Arsenic Removal Demonstration Program Workshop. August 23,
2006, Cincinnati, OH.
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, and L. Cumming. 2006. Assessing Arsenic Removal by
Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorbents Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. Draft Report Prepared
under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order 0025 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date & Time
06/24/04 15:05
06/25/0412:00
06/28/0410:30
06/29/0412:05
06/30/0413:05
07/01/0412:20
07/02/0413:55
07/06/0414:30
07/07/0412:55
07/08/0413:40
07/09/0412:00
07/12/0410:15
07/13/0411:35
07/14/04 10:40
07/15/0413:40
07/16/0411:40
07/19/0411:15
07/20/0412:55
07/21/0409:45
07/22/0414:20
07/23/0414:00
07/26/04 1 1 :30
07/27/04 1 1 :00
07/28/04 09:30
07/29/0413:30
07/30/0412:30
08/02/04 1 1 :00
08/03/0410:40
08/04/04 09:20
08/05/0413:30
08/06/0415:05
08/09/0413:25
08/10/0416:55
08/11/0411:32
08/12/0413:40
08/13/0413:50
08/16/0412:15
08/17/0414:07
08/18/0409:45
08/19/0411:40
08/20/0412:00
08/23/04 1 1 :38
08/24/04 1 1 :55
08/25/04 09:30
08/26/04 1 1 :40
08/27/0414:10
08/30/04 14:15
08/31/0410:15
09/01/0410:07
09/02/04 1 1 :30
09/03/04 1 1 :30
Run
Time
hr
NA
16.0
50.3
17.1
16.2
15.8
18.4
65.7
14.7
15.8
13.9
45.6
16.3
14.9
17.2
14.0
44.8
16.0
13.1
18.2
14.9
43.7
14.8
14.3
17.7
14.6
44.2
14.9
14.1
17.6
16.0
44.6
17.7
11.8
16.9
15.4
44.6
17.4
12.8
16.8
16.1
47.4
15.6
13.7
16.6
17.3
47.6
13.3
15.4
17.2
16.4
Tank Position
Lead
A/B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
^
A/B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
35
36
36
36
35
36
36
39
35
36
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
38
36
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
36
Totalizer
gal
24472
69934
221594
276814
330598
380830
436016
644385
689640
742924
791020
942199
996735
46440
1 04290
151771
306110
360500
405873
467800
518736
669000
719830
768642
828940
878699
30800
81830
1 30350
191400
246755
398500
457690
497895
554220
606420
756500
812550
855100
911150
964100
119280
171800
218540
275060
332625
488060
531285
581385
635700
687530
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
NA
45462
197122
252342
306126
356358
411544
619913
665168
718452
766548
917727
972263
1021968
1079818
1127299
1281638
1336028
1381401
1443328
1494264
1644528
1695358
1744170
1804468
1854227
2006328
2057358
2105878
2166928
2222283
2374028
2433218
2473423
2529748
2581948
2732028
2788078
2830628
2886678
2939628
3094808
3147328
3194068
3250588
3308153
3463588
3506813
3556913
3611228
3663058
Bed
Volume
TA
NA
364
1578
2020
2451
2853
3295
4963
5325
5751
6137
7347
7783
8181
8644
9024
10260
10695
11059
11554
11962
13165
13572
13963
14445
14844
16061
16470
16858
17347
17790
19005
19479
19801
20252
20669
21871
22320
22660
23109
23533
24775
25196
25570
26022
26483
27727
28073
28474
28909
29324
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
NA
45462
197122
252342
306126
356358
411544
619913
665168
718452
766548
917727
972263
1021968
1079818
1127299
1281638
1 336028
1381401
1 443328
1 494264
1 644528
1 695358
1744170
1 804468
1 854227
2006328
2057358
2105878
2166928
2222283
2374028
2433218
2473423
2529748
2581948
2732028
2788078
2830628
2886678
2939628
3094808
3147328
3194068
3250588
3308153
3463588
3506813
3556913
3611228
3663058
Bed
Volume
TB
NA
182
789
1010
1225
1426
1647
2481
2662
2876
3068
3673
3892
4091
4322
4512
5130
5348
5529
5777
5981
6583
6786
6981
7223
7422
8031
8235
8429
8674
8895
9502
9739
9900
10126
10335
10935
11160
11330
11554
11766
12388
12598
12785
13011
13242
13864
14037
14237
14455
14662
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NA
36.2
35.9
36.0
35.9
36.0
36.0
36.5
33.6
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.9
35.7
36.0
35.9
35.3
36.3
36.1
35.9
36.0
36.0
36.2
35.9
36.1
36.0
35.9
35.7
36.1
36.1
36.0
35.9
36.0
35.9
36.0
35.5
36.1
36.1
36.0
36.3
36.1
36.0
36.1
36.0
36.2
35.9
36.0
35.0
35.7
36.0
Pressure
Inlet
psig
74
74
74
74
74
74
76
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
76
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
76
75
75
75
75
75
74
76
74
76
74
74
75
74
74
75
75
75
74
74
74
Between
Tanks
psig
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
72
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
72
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
71
71
71
72
72
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
71
72
71
71
72
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
Outlet
psig
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
70
68
68
68
68
68
69
69
69
69
71
69
69
69
69
69
70
69
69
69
69
69
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
71
70
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Between -
Outlet
psi
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In-line
pH
S.U.
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.3*
7.8
7.9
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
77
78
78
78
78
78
77
99
78
78
78
77
78
79
78
78
79
106
79
79
78
78
78
79
78
79
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
109
79
79
79
79
80
79
79
79
79
79
78
79
79
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
77
78
78
78
78
77
77
100
78
78
78
77
78
79
78
78
79
106
79
79
78
78
78
79
78
79
78
78
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
109
78
79
78
78
79
78
78
79
79
79
77
78
78
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Date & Time
09/07/04 1 1 :00
09/08/0410:17
09/09/0413:50
09/10/0414:05
09/13/0409:40
09/14/0414:05
09/15/0410:00
09/16/0417:40
09/17/0412:20
09/20/04 13:35
09/21/0411:55
09/22/04 09:05
09/23/0413:26
09/24/0413:20
09/27/0413:45
09/28/0413:20
09/29/04 09:50
09/30/0414:15
10/01/0413:50
10/04/0414:00
10/05/0410:45
10/06/0409:45
10/07/0413:30
10/08/0417:45
10/12/0413:00
10/13/0409:45
10/14/0414:15
10/15/0414:30
10/18/0410:50
10/19/04 10:00
10/20/0411:50
10/21/0412:25
10/22/0414:55
10/25/0415:00
10/26/0413:30
10/27/0411:40
10/28/0410:50
10/29/0412:40
11/01/04 10:00
11/02/0409:45
11/03/0409:50
11/04/04 14:40
11/05/0413:50
11/08/0413:00
11/09/0409:30
11/10/0409:15
11/12/0411:40
11/15/0410:50
11/16/0411:25
11/17/0411:00
11/18/0413:45
11/19/04 11:00
Run
Time
hr
64.3
15.5
18.5
15.6
45.1
18.2
12.8
20.8
12.0
47.0
14.6
14.0
18.8
16.0
46.0
14.4
12.5
17.3
14.4
46.4
13.1
14.7
17.5
18.3
58.3
13.1
18.5
15.4
43.5
14.9
16.6
15.7
16.5
41.2
11.1
14.4
14.6
16.3
42.5
15.0
15.0
NA
22.9
71.3
20.5
23.8
50.5
71.2
24.5
23.5
26.9
21.2
Tank Position
Lead
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
STB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Treatment S\
Flow
rate
gpm
36
35
35
36
36
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
37
36
36
NA
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Totalizer
gal
893650
943885
3356
55564
200890
260530
303780
372350
412570
569930
618230
663870
724980
776630
933095
983890
28230
89593
1 40530
296207
341307
391229
451156
512237
707526
751266
813345
866000
14290
65148
121356
1 74490
232293
374531
411103
448897
508900
565237
713453
766478
818612
880599
930338
83922
1 28264
1 79798
289145
443389
496782
547738
606003
652019
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
3869178
3919413
3978884
4031092
4176418
4236058
4279308
4347878
4388098
4545458
4593758
4639398
4700508
4752158
4908623
4959418
5003758
5065121
5116058
5271735
5316835
5366757
5426684
5487765
5683054
5726794
5788873
5841528
5989818
6040676
6096884
6150018
6207821
0
36572
74366
134369
190706
338922
391947
444081
506068
555807
709391
753733
805267
914614
1068858
1122251
1173207
1231472
1277488
Bed
Volume
TA
30974
31376
31852
32270
33434
33911
34257
34806
35128
36388
36775
37140
37629
38043
39295
39702
40057
40548
40956
42202
42563
42963
43443
43932
45495
45845
46342
46764
47951
48358
48808
49233
49696
0
222
452
817
1159
2060
2382
2699
3075
3378
4311
4580
4893
5558
6495
6820
7129
7483
7763
stem
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
3869178
3919413
3978884
4031092
4176418
4236058
4279308
4347878
4388098
4545458
4593758
4639398
4700508
4752158
4908623
4959418
5003758
5065121
5116058
5271735
5316835
5366757
5426684
5487765
5683054
5726794
5788873
5841528
5989818
6040676
6096884
6150018
6207821
0
36572
74366
134369
190706
338922
391947
444081
506068
555807
709391
753733
805267
914614
1 068858
1122251
1173207
1231472
1 277488
Bed
Volume
TB
15487
15688
15926
16135
16717
16956
17129
17403
17564
18194
18387
18570
18815
19021
19648
19851
20028
20274
20478
21101
21282
21481
21721
21966
22748
22923
23171
23382
23975
24179
24404
24617
24848
0
111
226
408
579
1030
1191
1349
1538
1689
2155
2290
2447
2779
3248
3410
3565
3742
3882
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.0
36.0
36.0
35.9
35.8
35.0
36.2
36.1
35.9
35.8
36.0
35.9
35.9
36.0
36.0
35.9
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.2
36.2
36.0
36.0
35.7
35.1
36.3
36.2
36.2
36.6
36.3
36.0
36.4
NA
27.1
28.4
43.2
36.3
35.6
37.2
36.1
35.8
36.2
35.9
36.1
36.1
36.1
36.1
36.3
36.1
36.1
36.2
Pressure
Inlet
psig
74
74
74
75
75
75
74
74
74
76
76
75
75
75
75
75
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
76
75
76
NA
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
Between
Tanks
psig
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
71
72
71
72
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
73
NA
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
72
73
Outlet
psig
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
71
71
70
71
70
70
70
71
71
71
71
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
71
72
NA
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
71
72
72
72
71
71
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
Between -
Outlet
psi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
In-line
pH
S.U.
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
79
79
79
79
79
110
78
78
79
81
80
80
80
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
109
80
80
NA
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
78
78
78
78
78
110
78
78
78
80
79
78
79
79
79
79
78
79
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
108
79
79
NA
80
80
80
79
81
79
79
79
79
80
80
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
55
NA
NA
NA
34
NA
22
NA
NA
NA
8
54
52
50
NA
NA
32
32
NA
NA
NA
30
28
26
22
NA
10
63
61
58
51
48
45
41
39
30
27
24
19
10
63
60
NA
53
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Date & Time
11/22/0411:25
11/23/0411:00
11/24/04 11:15
11/29/0412:45
11/30/04 12:00
12/01/0410:15
12/02/0411:00
12/03/0411:30
12/06/0410:00
12/07/0413:40
12/08/0410:00
12/09/0414:00
12/10/04 13:00
12/13/0409:50
12/14/0411:25
12/15/0413:18
12/16/0411:40
12/17/0415:45
12/20/0412:10
12/21/0412:25
12/22/0413:50
12/27/0414:30
12/28/0414:00
12/29/0411:30
12/30/0414:30
01/03/0513:10
01/04/0513:30
01/05/0509:50
01/06/0511:05
01/07/0512:15
01/10/05 11:45
01/11/0509:20
01/12/0508:30
01/13/0511:10
01/14/0511:35
01/17/0514:45
01/18/0511:30
01/19/0509:40
01/20/0511:50
01/21/0511:38
01/24/0511:00
01/25/0511:15
01/26/0510:10
01/27/0514:35
01/28/0514:55
01/31/0511:15
02/01/0511:10
02/02/05 09:50
02/03/0513:30
02/04/0516:10
Run
Time
hr
70.9
23.4
23.5
121.5
23.3
22.2
24.8
24.6
70.2
27.8
20.3
28.3
22.8
68.8
25.5
26.0
22.3
28.2
68.3
23.3
25.4
120.6
23.7
21.4
26.9
94.9
24.2
20.4
25.3
25.1
71.5
21.6
23.2
26.6
24.5
75.1
20.2
21.4
26.2
23.7
71.4
24.2
22.6
28.4
24.3
68.4
22.3
22.7
27.6
26.7
Tank Position
Lead
A/B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
A/B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
36
36
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
38
38
36
36
36
36
36
Totalizer
gal
805679
856977
907501
1 72782
223259
271789
325565
379341
531705
592582
636518
698174
748362
NA
953024
9579
58162
119385
268249
319082
374418
637460
689222
735780
794642
1610
54790
98910
1 54035
208925
364780
412030
462625
520840
574080
737945
782060
828760
886000
937920
94090
1 47060
1 96360
258780
312450
462290
511320
561550
622220
680585
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
1431148
1482446
1532970
1798251
1848728
1897258
1951034
2004810
2157174
2218051
2261987
2323643
2373831
NA
2578493
2635048
2683631
2744854
2893718
2944551
2999887
3262929
3314691
3361249
3420111
3627079
3680259
3724379
3779504
3834394
3990249
4037499
4088094
4146309
4199549
4363414
4407529
4454229
4511469
4563389
4719559
4772529
4821829
4884249
4937919
5087759
5136789
5187019
5247689
5306054
Bed
Volume
TA
8697
9009
9316
10928
11234
11529
11856
12183
13109
13479
13746
14120
14425
NA
15669
16013
16308
16680
17585
17893
18230
19828
20143
20426
20783
22041
22364
22632
22967
23301
24248
24535
24843
25196
25520
26516
26784
27068
27415
27731
28680
29002
29301
29681
30007
30917
31215
31521
31889
32244
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
1431148
1 482446
1 532970
1798251
1 848728
1 897258
1951034
2004810
2157174
2218051
2261987
2323643
2373831
NA
2578493
2635048
2683631
2744854
2893718
2944551
2999887
3262929
3314691
3361249
3420111
3627079
3680259
3724379
3779504
3834394
3990249
4037499
4088094
4146309
4199549
4363414
4407529
4454229
4511469
4563389
4719559
4772529
4821829
4884249
4937919
5087759
5136789
5187019
5247689
5306054
Bed
Volume
TB
4348
4504
4658
5464
5617
5765
5928
6091
6554
6739
6873
7060
7213
NA
7835
8006
8154
8340
8792
8947
9115
9914
10071
10213
10392
11021
11182
11316
11484
11650
12124
12268
12421
12598
12760
13258
13392
13534
13708
13865
14340
14501
14651
14840
15003
15459
15608
15760
15945
16122
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.1
36.5
35.8
36.4
36.1
36.4
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.5
36.1
36.3
36.7
NA
NA
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.3
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.4
36.3
36.5
36.3
36.6
36.0
36.3
36.4
36.3
36.5
36.3
36.5
36.2
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.5
36.5
36.5
36.4
36.6
36.8
36.5
36.6
36.9
36.6
36.4
Pressure
Inlet
psig
76
76
77
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
78
78
77
76
76
76
76
Between
Tanks
psig
72
72
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
72
72
72
72
Outlet
psig
71
71
72
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
70
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
71
71
70
70
70
70
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
Between -
Outlet
psi
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
In-line
pH
S.U.
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
80
81
83
101
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78
80
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
111
110
83
81
82
82
82
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
79
79
80
79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
79
79
80
80
80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
108
80
79
79
79
79
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
42
40
38
25
22
19.5
18
14
59
55
52
48
44
32.5
28.5
24.25
20.25
16
4
56
52
31
27
24
20
3
53
50
46
42
29.5
26
22
18
14
58
57
56
55.5
55
55
55
54
53.5
53
52
51.5
51
50.5
50
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Date & Time
02/07/0512:15
02/08/0514:30
02/09/0510:30
02/10/0513:30
02/11/0513:45
02/14/0510:35
02/15/0511:55
02/16/0510:40
02/17/0511:45
02/18/0510:55
02/22/05 13:35
02/23/0510:30
02/24/0514:10
02/25/0515:10
02/28/0513:30
03/01/0511:40
03/02/05 1 1 :35
03/03/0513:55
03/04/05 08:05
03/07/05 1 1 :00
03/08/0514:20
03/09/05 1 1 :45
03/10/0513:15
03/11/0514:10
03/14/0514:20
03/15/0513:40
03/16/0511:45
03/17/0513:50
03/18/0512:00
03/21/0514:25
03/22/0513:20
03/23/05 09:20
03/24/0513:40
03/25/0514:35
03/28/05 10:35
03/29/0513:10
03/30/05 09:30
03/31/0508:00
04/01/0511:40
04/04/05 1 1 :55
04/05/0515:25
04/06/0510:45
04/07/0516:45
04/08/0513:55
04/11/0514:40
04/12/0511:55
04/13/0510:10
04/14/0513:20
04/15/0515:25
Run
Time
hr
68.1
26.3
19.9
27.0
24.3
68.8
25.3
22.7
25.1
23.2
98.7
20.9
27.7
25.0
70.3
22.1
23.2
26.3
18.2
74.9
27.3
21.5
26.0
24.4
72.1
23.4
22.0
25.3
22.2
74.4
23.0
20.0
28.3
24.9
68.0
25.8
20.3
22.5
13.9
72.3
27.4
19.3
23.8
21.2
72.7
21.3
22.3
27.1
26.1
Tank Position
Lead
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
STB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
38
36
36
36
36
36
37
36
36
37
36
37
37
36
37
36
37
37
37
38
36
36
36
37
36
37
36
36
37
36
36
36
36
Totalizer
gal
829900
887600
931250
990400
43640
1 94370
249860
299590
354520
405430
621700
667600
728350
783180
937530
985980
36850
95420
1 35570
300330
360540
407670
463780
518600
677360
728730
777200
832800
881650
45380
95900
1 40039
202250
257075
406700
463750
508700
558950
589560
748300
808590
851050
903350
949750
1 09550
1 56500
205330
265040
322370
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
5455369
5513069
5556719
5615869
5669109
5819839
5875329
5925059
5979989
6030899
6247169
6293069
6353819
6408649
6562999
6611449
6662319
6720889
6761039
6925799
6986009
7033139
7089249
7144069
7302829
7354199
7402669
7458269
7507119
7670849
7721369
7765508
7827719
7882544
8032169
8089219
8134169
8184419
8215029
8373769
8434059
8476519
8528819
8575219
8735019
8781969
8830799
8890509
8947839
Bed
Volume
TA
33151
33502
33767
34127
34450
35366
35703
36005
36339
36649
37963
38242
38611
38944
39882
40177
40486
40842
41086
42087
42453
42739
43080
43413
44378
44690
44985
45322
45619
46614
46921
47190
47568
47901
48810
49157
49430
49735
49921
50886
51252
51510
51828
52110
53081
53366
53663
54026
54374
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
5455369
5513069
5556719
5615869
5669109
5819839
5875329
5925059
5979989
6030899
6247169
6293069
6353819
6408649
6562999
6611449
6662319
6720889
6761039
6925799
6986009
7033139
7089249
7144069
7302829
7354199
7402669
7458269
7507119
7670849
7721369
7765508
7827719
7882544
8032169
8089219
8134169
8184419
8215029
8373769
8434059
8476519
8528819
8575219
8735019
8781969
8830799
8890509
8947839
Bed
Volume
TB
16576
16751
16884
17063
17225
17683
17852
18003
18170
18324
18981
19121
19305
19472
19941
20088
20243
20421
20543
21043
21226
21370
21540
21707
22189
22345
22492
22661
22810
23307
23461
23595
23784
23950
24405
24578
24715
24868
24961
25443
25626
25755
25914
26055
26541
26683
26832
27013
27187
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.5
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
36.5
36.6
36.5
36.5
36.6
36.5
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
37.1
36.8
36.7
36.8
36.5
36.0
37.4
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.7
36.6
36.8
36.6
36.7
36.7
36.9
36.9
37.2
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.7
36.6
36.5
36.6
36.7
36.5
36.7
36.6
Pressure
Inlet
psig
77
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
76
77
77
77
77
76
76
76
77
76
76
77
77
76
76
76
77
76
76
76
77
76
77
76
77
77
76
78
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
76
76
77
77
78
Between
Tanks
psig
73
72
72
72
73
73
73
72
72
73
73
73
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
73
73
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
Outlet
psig
71
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
70
71
70
70
70
71
71
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
Between -
Outlet
psi
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
In-line
pH
S.U.
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
83
82
82
82
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
84
83
83
83
83
112
83
83
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
82
83
83
83
83
84
83
83
112
83
83
83
83
83
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
86
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
80
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
80
80
110
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
79
80
80
80
80
81
80
80
108
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
83
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
48
44
41.5
39
35.5
24
20.5
17
12.5
9
53
51
48.5
46
39.5
38
36
32.5
30
22
19.5
17.5
14
10
58
56
53
50
48.5
44
42
41
39.5
37.5
29
26
22
19
17.5
10
61.5
59
56
53
45
42
39
36
32
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Date & Time
04/18/0510:10
04/19/0513:45
04/20/0510:45
04/21/0513:55
04/22/05 1 1 :45
04/25/0511:10
04/26/05 1 1 :50
04/27/0510:05
04/28/0513:25
04/29/0512:40
05/02/05 1 1 :40
05/03/0512:20
05/04/0511:10
05/05/05 08:40
05/06/0514:50
05/09/05 1 1 :45
05/10/0510:45
05/11/0509:50
05/12/0511:55
05/13/0512:20
05/16/0511:00
05/17/0510:50
05/18/0510:55
05/19/0511:00
05/20/0512:25
05/23/05 09:00
05/24/0513:50
05/25/05 09:55
05/26/0513:20
05/27/0513:35
05/31/0511:20
06/01/0509:10
06/02/0513:45
06/03/0512:00
06/06/05 1 1 :50
06/07/0514:00
06/08/05 1 1 :05
06/09/0514:00
06/10/0513:30
06/13/0513:45
06/14/0512:00
06/15/0510:35
06/16/0510:30
06/17/0512:20
06/20/0513:50
06/21/0513:55
06/22/0510:55
06/23/0513:45
06/24/0515:55
Run
Time
hr
66.7
27.7
20.6
27.2
21.8
71.4
2.0
22.3
27.3
18.3
71.1
24.6
22.9
21.4
30.3
68.9
23.0
23.1
26.0
23.9
70.7
23.6
24.0
24.2
25.4
68.6
28.8
20.0
27.5
24.3
93.7
21.1
28.5
22.3
71.3
26.6
21.2
26.8
23.2
72.3
22.2
22.6
23.9
25.9
73.4
24.1
21.0
26.9
26.1
Tank Position
Lead
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A/B
B
B
Lag
A/B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B/A
A
A
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
37
36
37
37
36
37
38
37
36
38
38
37
37
36
36
36
37
36
36
36
37
36
37
37
36
37
37
37
36
36
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
37
36
36
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Totalizer
gal
468770
529500
575080
635075
683230
840830
845400
895000
955740
996300
1 57780
214880
266850
314500
381350
533240
584044
635000
692700
745150
901300
953370
6535
59880
115980
267990
331860
376220
436700
490204
696620
743150
806150
856500
14900
72600
119200
178401
229598
388650
437400
487100
539580
596503
757650
810680
856900
915300
972500
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
9094239
9154969
9200549
9260544
9308699
9466299
9470869
9520469
9581209
0
161480
218580
270550
318200
385050
536940
587744
638700
696400
748850
905000
957070
1010235
1063580
1119680
1271690
1335560
1379920
1440400
1493904
1700320
1746850
1809850
1860200
2018600
2076300
2122900
2182101
2233298
2392350
2441100
2490800
2543280
2600203
2761350
2814380
2860600
2919000
2976200
Bed
Volume
TA
55264
55633
55910
56275
56567
57525
57553
57854
58223
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
9094239
9154969
9200549
9260544
9308699
9466299
9470869
9520469
9581209
9621769
9783249
9840349
9892319
9939969
10006819
10158709
10209513
10260469
10318169
10370619
10526769
10578839
10632004
10685349
10741449
10893459
10957329
11001689
11062169
11115673
1 1 322089
11368619
11431619
11481969
1 1 640369
1 1 698069
1 1 744669
1 1 803870
1 1 855067
12014119
12062869
12112569
12165049
12221972
12383119
12436149
12482369
12540769
12597969
Bed
Volume
TB
27632
27817
27955
28137
28284
28762
28776
28927
29112
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.6
36.5
36.9
36.8
36.8
36.8
38.1
37.1
37.1
36.9
37.9
38.7
37.8
37.1
36.8
36.7
36.8
36.8
37.0
36.6
36.8
36.8
36.9
36.7
36.8
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.8
36.8
37.6
37.0
36.2
36.6
36.8
36.8
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.7
36.7
36.2
36.5
Pressure
Inlet
psig
77
78
76
77
76
77
77
76
78
71
69
69
74
74
76
76
76
76
76
76
74
76
75
74
76
74
76
75
76
76
76
76
77
76
76
75
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
Between
Tanks
psig
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
74
70
69
70
70
70
72
72
72
72
72
72
70
72
71
70
71
70
72
71
72
72
72
72
73
72
72
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
Outlet
psig
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
72
71
70
70
69
68
70
70
70
70
70
70
69
70
70
68
69
67
70
69
70
69
70
70
70
70
70
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
5
6
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
1
0
-1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
Between -
Outlet
psi
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-1
-1
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
In-line
pH
S.U.
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
84
85
84
84
84
84
110
83
85
76
77
77
82
82
83
84
83
83
84
83
83
83
83
82
84
83
85
83
85
85
85
83
113
83
83
83
83
76
78
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
86
86
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
80
81
80
81
81
81
107
80
82
72
72
73
78
78
79
80
79
79
80
79
79
79
79
78
87
84
87
86
88
87
87
85
116
86
86
85
86
85
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
88
88
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
23
20.5
19
16
13
7
62
60
58
56
48
44
41
39
34
27.5
24
21.5
19
17
9
6
59
57
54
48
46
43
40
38
28
25
22
19.5
10
62
59
52
51
42
40.5
39
37
35
28
25
22
20
18
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
54
55
56
57
58
69
70
71
72
73
74
Date & Time
06/27/05 1 1 :00
06/28/0514:50
06/29/05 08:55
06/30/0514:00
07/01/0514:00
07/05/0513:35
07/06/0510:45
07/07/05 09:40
07/08/05 1 1 :00
07/11/0514:10
07/12/0513:55
07/13/0508:40
07/14/0511:50
07/15/0514:00
07/18/0513:15
07/19/0511:30
07/20/0514:50
07/21/0513:20
07/22/0513:15
07/26/05 09:35
07/27/05 1 1 :25
07/28/05 1 1 :45
07/29/0514:00
10/12/0500:00
10/13/0508:55
10/14/0514:05
10/17/05 16:45
10/18/0511:00
10/19/0508:40
10/20/0515:05
10/21/0508:30
10/24/0508:15
10/25/0510:30
10/26/0508:25
10/27/0516:05
10/28/0516:45
10/31/0512:05
11/01/0515:25
11/02/0509:15
11/03/0510:45
11/04/0508:30
11/07/0513:15
11/08/0509:55
11/09/0510:55
11/10/0508:30
11/14/0509:25
11/15/0511:40
11/16/0508:45
11/17/0509:55
11/18/0516:45
Run
Time
hr
67.6
26.6
18.1
29.1
23.8
95.1
21.1
22.9
25.2
75.0
23.0
18.7
27.1
2.8
71.4
22.1
27.3
22.6
23.9
92.3
25.8
24.3
19.8
NA
NA
21.1
49.1
11.4
13.7
22.4
9.2
47.6
18.1
13.8
23.0
15.9
44.3
19.3
9.7
17.4
13.7
52.5
12.5
16.9
13.5
63.8
18.1
13.1
17.0
21.3
Tank Position
Lead
STB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lag
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
36
38
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
0
NA
36
36
NA
36
36
36
36
37
38
39
NA
NA
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
38
36
37
NA
Totalizer
gal
119300
1 78600
219200
282800
334900
542400
588600
638600
693331
856500
906300
946950
5782
11680
1 66700
214500
273628
276048
374596
574997
630900
683700
726557
NA
740859
786860
893548
918500
948357
997140
17456
1 22300
161950
1 92270
242458
277350
374500
416600
437850
475900
505750
620670
648200
685150
714750
854500
894500
923400
961200
8269
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
3123000
3182300
3222900
3286500
3338600
3546100
3592300
3642300
3697031
3860200
3910000
3950650
3009482
3015380
3170400
3218200
3277328
3279748
3378296
3578697
3634600
3687400
3730257
NA
0
46001
152689
177641
207498
256281
276597
381441
421091
451411
501599
536491
633641
675741
696991
735041
764891
879811
907341
944291
973891
1113641
1153641
1182541
1220341
1267410
Bed
Volume
TA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
140
464
540
630
779
840
1159
1279
1372
1524
1630
1925
2053
2118
2233
2324
2673
2757
2869
2959
3384
3505
3593
3708
3851
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
12744769
12804069
12844669
12908269
12960369
13167869
13214069
13264069
13318800
13481969
13531769
13572419
13631251
13637149
13792169
13839969
13899097
13901517
14000065
14200466
14256369
14309169
14352026
NA
0
46001
152689
177641
207498
256281
276597
381441
421091
451411
501599
536491
633641
675741
696991
735041
764891
879811
907341
944291
973891
1113641
1153641
1182541
1220341
1267410
Bed
Volume
TB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
280
928
1079
1261
1557
1681
2318
2559
2743
3048
3260
3851
4106
4235
4467
4648
5346
5514
5738
5918
6767
7010
7186
7416
7702
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.2
37.2
37.4
36.4
36.5
36.4
36.5
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.2
36.2
35.1
36.2
36.0
36.1
NA
NA
36.2
36.1
36.2
36.1
NA
NA
36.3
36.2
36.5
36.3
36.3
36.8
36.7
36.5
36.6
36.4
36.6
36.6
36.4
36.5
36.4
36.3
36.5
36.7
36.4
36.5
36.5
36.8
36.8
37.1
36.8
Pressure
Inlet
psig
76
77
76
75
76
76
75
76
75
76
75
76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
74
NA
75
76
75
76
76
76
76
NA
NA
76
75
75
76
75
74
75
75
75
75
76
75
75
NA
Between
Tanks
psig
72
73
72
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70
69
NA
70
70
70
71
70
71
70
NA
NA
70
70
71
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
NA
Outlet
psig
70
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
68
67
NA
68
68
68
69
69
69
69
NA
NA
69
68
69
69
68
68
69
69
69
69
70
69
69
NA
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
NA
NA
6
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NA
Between -
Outlet
psi
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
NA
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
NA
NA
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
In-line
pH
S.U.
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
NA
7.6
7.6
NA
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
85
113
85
86
90
89
90
90
89
88
91
92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
92
91
NA
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
NA
NA
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
92
123
92
93
NA
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
86
116
85
86
88
88
87
87
87
87
89
87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
86
86
NA
85
86
87
87
86
87
86
NA
NA
87
87
87
87
86
87
87
87
87
86
118
85
86
NA
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
10
63
61
59
57
41
39
37
34
29.5
28
27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Date & Time
11/21/0517:00
11/22/0515:35
11/23/0514:55
11/28/0509:35
11/29/0510:40
11/30/0508:25
12/01/0513:25
12/05/0511:35
12/06/0511:55
12/07/0508:55
12/08/0516:00
12/09/0513:40
12/13/0513:35
12/14/0510:40
12/15/0510:40
12/16/0508:20
12/21/0511:40
12/22/0513:25
12/27/0514:30
12/28/0509:00
12/29/0514:45
12/30/0515:15
01/03/0614:05
01/04/0609:50
01/05/0611:40
01/06/0614:50
01/09/0616:45
01/10/0611:20
01/11/0608:55
01/12/0611:55
01/13/0608:30
01/16/0610:25
01/17/0615:35
01/18/0610:25
01/19/0610:25
01/23/06 11:35
01/24/0614:15
01/25/0609:00
01/26/0615:55
01/27/0615:50
01/30/0613:10
01/31/0614:30
02/01/0615:45
02/02/0613:25
02/03/0615:20
02/06/06 1 1 :50
02/07/0615:25
02/08/06 1 1 :55
02/09/0616:30
02/10/0614:20
Run
Time
hr
47.7
15.9
15.6
74.3
16.9
13.7
20.9
61.8
16.2
13.0
22.2
14.3
63.6
13.0
15.9
13.6
82.8
17.7
80.7
10.2
21.8
16.4
62.5
11.6
17.0
19.0
49.0
11.2
13.5
18.9
12.5
49.6
21.1
10.7
17.0
63.7
18.6
10.6
22.9
15.8
45.0
17.3
17.1
13.6
17.8
44.3
19.4
12.4
20.1
14.2
Tank Position
Lead
STB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lag
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
NA
NA
37
36
37
36
36
36
36
36
NA
36
36
36
37
36
36
36
37
36
36
36
37
36
38
36
NA
36
36
37
36
37
37
36
37
36
37
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
37
36
36
36
NA
36
Totalizer
gal
113078
1 48035
1 82365
345350
382500
412500
458500
593950
629500
657800
706500
737900
877000
905400
940300
970100
151700
1 90400
367433
389900
437600
473500
610700
636100
673700
715990
823600
848400
878300
920400
947900
57100
1 03500
1 27300
1 64700
305000
346000
369300
419700
454600
553900
591900
629600
659600
698800
796100
839000
866200
910200
941400
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
1372219
1407176
1441506
1604491
1641641
1671641
1717641
1853091
1888641
1916941
1965641
1997041
2136141
2164541
2199441
2229241
2410841
2449541
2626574
2649041
2696741
2732641
2869841
2895241
2932841
2975131
3082741
3107541
3137441
3179541
3207041
3316241
3362641
3386441
3423841
3564141
3605141
3628441
3678841
3713741
3813041
3851041
3888741
3918741
3957941
4055241
4098141
4125341
4169341
4200541
Bed
Volume
TA
4169
4276
4380
4875
4988
5079
5219
5630
5738
5824
5972
6068
6490
6577
6683
6773
7325
7443
7981
8049
8194
8303
8720
8797
8911
9040
9367
9442
9533
9661
9744
10076
10217
10289
10403
10829
10954
11025
11178
11284
11586
11701
11816
11907
12026
12321
12452
12534
12668
12763
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
1372219
1407176
1441506
1604491
1641641
1671641
1717641
1853091
1888641
1916941
1965641
1997041
2136141
2164541
2199441
2229241
2410841
2449541
2626574
2649041
2696741
2732641
2869841
2895241
2932841
2975131
3082741
3107541
3137441
3179541
3207041
3316241
3362641
3386441
3423841
3564141
3605141
3628441
3678841
3713741
3813041
3851041
3888741
3918741
3957941
4055241
4098141
4125341
4169341
4200541
Bed
Volume
TB
8339
8551
8760
9750
9976
10158
10438
11261
11477
11649
11945
12136
12981
13154
13366
13547
14650
14885
15961
16098
16388
16606
17439
17594
17822
18079
18733
18884
19066
19321
19489
20152
20434
20579
20806
21659
21908
22049
22356
22568
23171
23402
23631
23813
24052
24643
24904
25069
25336
25526
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.6
36.6
36.7
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.7
36.5
36.6
36.3
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.4
36.6
36.5
36.6
36.4
36.6
36.7
36.5
36.5
36.6
36.5
36.9
37.1
36.6
36.9
36.9
37.1
36.7
36.7
36.7
37.1
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.8
36.8
36.6
36.7
36.8
36.7
36.6
36.9
36.6
36.5
36.6
Pressure
Inlet
psig
NA
NA
74
76
75
75
74
76
75
75
NA
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
74
NA
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
NA
74
Between
Tanks
psig
NA
NA
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
NA
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
NA
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
NA
70
Outlet
psig
NA
NA
68
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
NA
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
68
69
69
68
NA
69
69
68
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
NA
68
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
NA
NA
4
6
5
5
4
6
5
5
NA
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
NA
4
4
4
4
NA
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
NA
4
Between -
Outlet
psi
NA
NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
NA
1
1
2
1
NA
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NA
2
In-line
PH
S.U.
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
NA
7.0
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
NA
NA
91
93
92
92
92
93
92
92
NA
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
123
91
NA
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
NA
92
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
NA
NA
86
86
86
86
87
87
87
86
NA
87
87
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
119
87
NA
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
86
87
87
87
NA
87
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.0
21.5
19.0
17.0
15.0
13.0
11.0
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Date & Time
02/13/0611:55
02/14/0611:10
02/15/0609:00
02/16/0610:55
02/17/0616:00
02/28/06 08:30
03/01/0617:00
03/02/0614:40
03/03/0616:00
03/06/0610:10
03/07/06 00:00
03/08/06 09:40
03/09/0613:15
03/10/0614:40
03/13/0614:30
03/14/0613:05
03/15/0609:05
03/16/0610:15
03/17/0615:50
03/20/06 15:35
03/21/0611:15
03/22/0614:05
03/23/0614:05
03/24/0610:00
03/27/0616:00
03/28/06 08:50
03/29/0610:35
03/30/0611:15
03/31/0611:40
04/03/0610:25
04/04/0612:00
04/05/0609:15
04/06/06 1 1 :45
04/07/0615:30
04/10/06 14:45
04/11/06 10:10
04/12/0608:55
04/13/0615:30
04/14/0614:45
04/17/0611:55
04/18/0611:35
04/19/0608:15
04/20/0613:45
04/21/0611:15
04/24/06 1 1 :40
04/25/0610:05
04/26/06 09:05
04/27/06 1 1 :25
04/28/0613:35
Run
Time
hr
45.3
15.2
13.7
17.8
21.0
165.5
4.5
0.5
0.0
0.3
NA
40.1
27.6
25.3
71.8
22.6
20.0
25.2
29.5
71.9
19.6
26.8
24.1
19.9
77.8
17.0
25.7
24.7
24.0
71.4
25.4
21.2
25.9
27.8
71.2
19.4
22.8
25.1
23.3
69.1
23.7
20.7
29.5
21.4
72.5
22.4
23.0
26.4
28.1
Tank Position
Lead
STB
B
B
B
B
B
NA
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lag
STB
A
A
A
A
A
NA
B
B
B
B
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
37
36
36
36
36
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
NA
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
39
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
Totalizer
gal
41000
74400
1 04600
1 43800
1 89800
553594
563938
565178
565178
565700
NA
656000
718400
775000
935882
986250
31100
87493
1 53700
314500
358692
418616
472587
517020
691172
729481
786818
842035
896944
55670
112862
1 59842
217900
280640
440000
483600
534500
590800
642900
798100
851200
897700
963986
11866
1 74300
224500
275900
335000
398000
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
4300141
4333541
4363741
4402941
4448941
4812735
10344
11584
11584
12106
NA
102406
164806
221406
382288
432656
477506
533899
600106
760906
805098
865022
918993
963426
1137578
1175887
1233224
1288441
1343350
1502076
1559268
1606248
1664306
1727046
1886406
1930006
1980906
2037206
2089306
2244506
2297606
2344106
2410392
2458272
2620706
2670906
2722306
2781406
2844406
Bed
Volume
TA
13066
13167
13259
13378
13518
14623
63
70
70
74
NA
622
1001
1345
2323
2629
2902
3244
3647
4624
4892
5257
5585
5855
6913
7146
7494
7830
8163
9128
9475
9761
10114
10495
11463
11728
12038
12380
12696
13639
13962
14245
14647
14938
15926
16231
16543
16902
17285
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
4300141
4333541
4363741
4402941
4448941
4812735
10344
11584
11584
12106
NA
102406
164806
221406
382288
432656
477506
533899
600106
760906
805098
865022
918993
963426
1137578
1175887
1 233224
1288441
1 343350
1 502076
1 559268
1 606248
1 664306
1 727046
1 886406
1 930006
1 980906
2037206
2089306
2244506
2297606
2344106
2410392
2458272
2620706
2670906
2722306
2781406
2844406
Bed
Volume
TB
26131
26334
26518
26756
27035
29246
63
70
70
74
NA
311
501
673
1162
1315
1451
1622
1823
2312
2446
2628
2792
2927
3456
3573
3747
3915
4082
4564
4738
4880
5057
5247
5732
5864
6019
6190
6348
6820
6981
7122
7324
7469
7963
8115
8271
8451
8642
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
36.6
36.6
36.7
36.7
36.5
36.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.5
37.7
37.3
37.3
37.1
37.4
37.3
37.4
37.3
37.6
37.3
37.3
37.2
37.3
37.6
37.2
37.3
38.1
37.1
37.5
36.9
37.4
37.6
37.3
37.5
37.2
37.4
37.3
37.4
37.3
37.4
37.4
37.3
37.3
37.4
37.2
37.3
37.4
Pressure
Inlet
psig
74
74
74
74
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
NA
73
72
73
73
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
72
73
73
72
72
72
72
70
74
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
Between
Tanks
psig
70
70
70
70
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
70
NA
70
69
70
70
69
69
69
69
70
70
70
69
68
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
68
69
69
68
66
70
68
69
69
68
68
69
69
69
69
69
Outlet
psig
68
68
68
68
68
NA
NA
NA
NA
69
NA
69
68
69
69
68
68
68
68
69
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
67
68
68
67
65
69
67
68
68
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
4
4
4
4
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
Between -
Outlet
psi
2
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In-line
pH
S.U.
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.7
NA
NA
7.7
NA
7.8
NA
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
92
92
92
92
92
NA
NA
NA
NA
123
NA
90
90
89
90
90
89
89
89
90
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
89
88
89
88
89
122
89
89
90
89
87
90
89
90
90
89
89
90
89
90
89
89
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
87
87
87
86
86
NA
NA
NA
NA
119
NA
83
84
83
84
84
83
83
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
118
84
84
85
84
83
85
84
85
84
84
84
85
84
85
84
84
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
8.0
6.5
5.0
3.0
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Valley Vista, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Date & Time
05/01/0609:35
05/02/0615:45
05/03/06 09:05
05/04/0611:10
05/05/06 1 1 :55
05/08/06 1 1 :00
05/10/0610:10
05/11/0615:30
05/12/0615:25
05/15/0608:30
05/17/0608:30
05/22/0613:30
05/24/0610:45
05/31/0609:40
06/05/0612:00
06/07/06 09:30
06/09/0611:15
06/12/0615:50
06/14/0609:05
06/19/06 11:55
06/21/0614:15
06/26/0613:25
06/28/06 08:30
07/03/06 1 1 :35
07/05/0610:20
07/10/0611:00
07/12/0609:00
07/17/0609:55
07/19/0609:25
07/24/06 1 1 :45
07/26/06 08:30
07/31/06 11:45
08/02/06 1 1 :05
08/07/0613:45
08/09/06 1 1 :40
08/14/0613:25
08/16/0611:20
08/21/0611:50
08/23/0611:10
08/28/06 1 1 :40
08/30/0614:00
09/06/06 1 1 :20
09/11/0611:05
09/13/0610:50
09/18/06 10:00
09/19/0600:00
Run
Time
hr
66.0
30.1
17.4
25.4
24.8
71.0
47.2
29.4
23.9
65.1
48.9
124.1
45.1
166.9
122.3
45.5
49.7
76.7
41.3
122.8
50.3
119.2
43.0
122.5
46.8
120.4
46.0
120.9
47.5
122.3
44.8
122.6
47.4
122.7
44.8
122.7
46.0
120.5
47.3
119.2
50.3
164.6
285.2
47.7
119.0
NA
Tank Position
Lead
STB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
Lag
STB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
NA
Treatment System
Flow
rate
gpm
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
NA
Totalizer
gal
545900
613300
652200
709100
765200
924200
29600
95200
1 48600
294000
403400
680400
781500
1 55800
429300
530800
642956
813200
905400
1 79400
291700
557500
653700
927700
32800
302300
404900
674000
779400
51423
1 50800
424100
530200
803500
903300
1 77300
280100
549100
654500
921400
33600
402709
670600
777400
43765
NA
Cum
Throughput
TA
gal
2992306
3059706
3098606
3155506
3211606
3370606
3476006
3541606
3595006
3740406
3849806
4126806
4227906
4602206
4875706
4977206
5089362
5259606
5351806
5625806
5738106
6003906
6100106
6374106
6479206
6748706
6851306
7120406
7225806
7497829
7597206
7870506
7976606
8249906
8349706
8623706
8726506
8995506
9100906
9367806
9480006
9849115
10117006
1 0223806
10490171
NA
Bed
Volume
TA
18184
18593
18830
19175
19516
20483
21123
21522
21846
22730
23395
25078
25692
27967
29629
30246
30927
31962
32522
34187
34869
36485
37069
38734
39373
41011
41634
43269
43910
45563
46167
47828
48472
50133
50740
52405
53029
54664
55304
56926
57608
59851
61479
62128
63747
NA
Cum
Throughput
TB
gal
2992306
3059706
3098606
3155506
3211606
3370606
3476006
3541606
3595006
3740406
3849806
4126806
4227906
4602206
4875706
4977206
5089362
5259606
5351806
5625806
5738106
6003906
6100106
6374106
6479206
6748706
6851306
7120406
7225806
7497829
7597206
7870506
7976606
8249906
8349706
8623706
8726506
8995506
9100906
9367806
9480006
9849115
10117006
10223806
10490171
NA
Bed
Volume
TB
9092
9297
9415
9588
9758
10241
10562
10761
10923
11365
11697
12539
12846
13983
14814
15123
15464
15981
16261
17093
17435
18242
18535
19367
19686
20505
20817
21635
21955
22781
23083
23914
24236
25067
25370
26202
26515
27332
27652
28463
28804
29926
30740
31064
31873
NA
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
37.3
37.3
37.3
37.3
37.7
37.3
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.3
37.2
37.4
37.4
37.3
37.2
37.6
37.0
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.3
37.3
37.4
37.3
37.2
37.1
37.0
37.1
37.0
37.2
37.3
37.1
37.1
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.1
37.3
37.2
37.4
37.2
37.3
37.3
NA
Pressure
Inlet
psig
72
72
72
73
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
70
71
72
72
71
71
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
70
70
71
73
72
71
71
70
70
70
70
70
71
69
70
70
70
NA
Between
Tanks
psig
69
69
69
70
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
69
68
67
67
68
67
68
68
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
67
67
68
70
70
68
68
66
67
67
66
67
68
66
67
67
67
NA
Outlet
psig
68
68
68
69
68
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
67
66
66
67
66
67
67
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
67
66
66
67
69
68
67
67
65
66
66
65
66
67
65
66
66
66
NA
AP
Inlet -
Between
psi
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
Between -
Outlet
psi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
In-line
PH
S.U.
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
NA
Backwash Water Recycle
Bag Filter
Inlet
Pressure
psig
89
89
89
122
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
88
88
87
89
88
88
88
86
87
87
87
87
87
88
88
88
87
87
88
122
88
88
88
87
88
86
87
87
88
NA
87
87
88
NA
Bag Filter
Outlet
Pressure
psig
84
84
84
118
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
83
82
82
83
83
83
82
82
82
82
82
82
81
82
82
82
81
81
82
117
83
83
83
82
82
81
82
81
82
NA
82
82
81
NA
Recycle
Flow
gpm
NA
NA
NA
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acid
Tank
Level
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>
Note: BV calculation for Media Run 1 (06/24/04-10/25/04) based on 16.7 ft3 of media for lead tank and 33.4 ft3 of media for lag tank.
Note: BV calculation for Media Run 2 (10/25/04-04/29/05) based on 22 ft3 of media for lead tank and 44 ft3 of media for lag tank.
Note: Media Run 2a (04/29/05-07/29/05) contained 22 ft3 of media in Tank B and 16.7 ft3 of media in Tank A. BV calculation not available due to tank switching.
Note: BV calculation after 10/13/05 (Media Runs 3 and 4) based on 22 ft3 of media for lead tank and 44 ft3 of media for lag tank.
Highlighted rows indicate backwash; highlighted columns indicate calculated values; NA = data not available
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY RESULTS
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
06/30/04(c)
IN
-
153
<0.1
8.4
1.0
<0.1
19.4
0.5
7.8
21.2
5.7
370
-
-
152.3
81.9
70.4
40.9
40.2
0.7
0.4
39.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
<10
<10
TA
2.5
169
<0.1
8.4
1.0
<0.1
15.7
<0.1
7.7
21.4
5.8
430
-
-
151.8
81.0
70.8
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
25.0
2.4
2.4
11.7
<10
TB
1.2
153
<0.1
9.4
0.9
<0.1
11.3
<0.1
7.6
21.1
6.0
407
-
-
153.8
82.4
71.4
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
39.3
<25
2.8
2.8
18.1
13.0
APC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
22.5
5.4
513
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/07/04
IN
-
153
-
-
-
<0.1
19.1
0.2
7.7
25.0
5.5
189
-
-
-
-
-
47.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
TA
5.3
161
-
-
-
<0.1
17.0
0.1
7.7
22.4
5.7
197
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
<10
-
TB
2.7
157
-
-
-
<0.1
14.9
0.2
7.6
23.3
5.4
206
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.5
-
<10
-
APC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
24.5
5.8
226
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/14/04
IN
-
156
-
-
-
<0.1
18.4
0.6
7.6
22.6
5.7
183
-
-
-
-
-
45.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<10
-
TA
8.2
160
-
-
-
<0.1
16.8
0.5
7.7
21.5
5.1
429
-
-
-
-
-
13.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
TB
4.1
156
-
-
-
<0.1
15.8
0.4
7.6
21.9
5.8
381
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
<10
-
APC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
21.7
5.8
536
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/21/04
IN
-
164
-
-
-
<0.1
19.4
0.4
7.9
20.4
5.8
182
-
-
-
-
-
39.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
<10
-
TA
11.1
160
-
-
-
<0.1
18.3
0.2
7.7
20.3
5.9
186
-
-
-
-
-
18.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
<10
-
TB
5.5
156
-
-
-
<0.1
17.1
0.2
7.7
20.5
6.0
202
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
<10
-
APC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
21.0
6.2
540
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Bed volume based on 16.7 ft3 of media for TA (lead tank) and 33.4 ft3 of media for TB (lag tank). Temperature, DO, and ORP taken on 07/01/04.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; APC = after post-chlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lw
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
Hfi/L
Mfi/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/28/04
IN
-
167
0.1
8.1
0.8
<0.1
18.2
0.2
7.8
20.8
6.5
196
-
-
178
98.1
79.5
39.0
39.8
<0.1
0.5
39.3
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
<10
<10
AC(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.6
6.5
571
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
14.0
167
0.1
8.1
0.8
<0.1
17.4
0.2
7.7
20.3
6.0
612
0.6
0.7
178
101
77.6
24.2
24.4
<0.1
0.4
24.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
7.0
167
0.1
8.1
0.8
<0.1
17.1
0.3
7.7
20.3
5.8
621
0.6
0.7
180
101
78.4
5.4
5.7
<0.1
0.4
5.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
08/04/04
IN
-
168
-
-
-
<0.1
19.0
0.2
7.6
20.8
6.0
186
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
-
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.9
21.1
6.5
560
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
16.9
164
-
-
-
<0.1
18.4
0.3
7.7
20.5
6.0
608
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
-
-
TB
8.4
160
-
-
-
<0.1
17.9
0.2
7.7
20.6
6.4
633
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
-
-
08/11/04
IN
-
160
-
-
-
<0.1
18.7
0.3
8.3
21.0
6.1
196
-
-
-
-
-
37.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.9
20.8
5.8
570
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
19.8
156
-
-
-
<0.1
18.2
0.2
7.9
20.5
5.7
605
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
27.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
9.9
151
-
-
-
<0.1
17.8
0.1
7.8
20.6
6.1
606
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
12.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
08/18/04
IN
-
152
-
-
-
<0.1
19.3
0.3
7.7
20.5
6.0
179
-
-
-
-
-
34.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.2
5.9
586
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
22.7
156
-
-
-
<0.1
18.9
0.2
7.7
20.4
5.3
622
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
29.4
-
-
-
-
28.3
-
0.4
-
29.1
-
TB
11.3
156
-
-
-
<0.1
18.8
0.4
7.7
20.3
6.0
635
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
15.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
11.1
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Switched from post
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B;
chlorination to prechlorination on 07/27/04.
AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Ra/4 \^1lima
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N1
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
cH
Temcerature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As ("soluble"!
As Cnarticulatel
AS run
Asm
Fe (total)
Fe ("soluble")
Mn (total)
Mn ("soluble")
Al (total)
Al ("soluble"!
103
mg/L(a)
me/T,
me/T,
me/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
me/L(a)
me/L(a)
me/T,(a)
jjg/L
IIP/T.
IIP/I.
IIP/T.
jjg/L
jjg/L
re/L
re/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
08/25/04
IN
_
160
0.1
8.3
0.8
<0.1
19.5
0.1
7.7
20.7
6.4
187
-
-
136
66.2
69.6
47.6
47.3
0.3
0.6
46.7
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
-
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.3
5.8
572
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
25.6
156
0.1
8.3
0.8
<0.1
19.0
<0.1
7.7
20.3
6.1
603
0.4
0.5
140
69.6
70.4
35.3
34.9
0.4
1.0
33.9
<25
<25
0.7
0.3
-
-
TB
12.8
156
0.1
8.3
0.8
<0.1
18.9
<0.1
7.7
20.3
5.9
604
0.4
0.5
136
68.3
67.7
25.4
24.7
0.7
1.3
23.4
<25
<25
1.0
0.6
-
-
09/01/04
IN
_
157
-
-
-
<0.1
18.9
0.2
7.8
20.6
6.2
194
-
-
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
20.3
5.5
594
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
28.5
161
-
-
-
<0.1
18.5
0.4
7.7
20.3
6.1
609
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
37.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
14.2
157
-
-
-
<0.1
18.4
0.4
7.7
20.2
5.8
618
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
26.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
09/08/04
IN
_
153
-
-
-
<0.1
18.7
0.3
7.7
20.7
6.2
207
-
-
-
-
-
46.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.3
5.9
572
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
31.4
157
-
-
-
<0.1
18.4
0.4
7.7
20.2
5.5
605
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
40.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
15.7
161
-
-
-
<0.1
18.5
0.2
7.8
20.3
5.8
604
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
28.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
09/15/04
IN
_
158
162
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
19.0
18.9
0.4
0.2
7.7
20.4
6.0
201
-
-
-
-
-
36.6
37.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.4
-
<10
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.3
5.9
585
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
34.3
162
162
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
18.5
18.8
0.5
0.5
7.7
20.3
5.8
605
0.4
-
-
-
-
33.5
34.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.5
-
<10
<10
-
TB
17.1
162
162
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
18.5
18.6
0.7
0.7
7.7
20.3
6.0
612
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
26.0
25.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.1
-
10.7
10.2
-
(a) As CaCO3.
IN = inlet; TA
(b) As P.
= after tank A; TB = after tank B;
AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
09/22/04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
10/27/04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Ra/4 \^1lima
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N1
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
cH
Temcerature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As ("soluble"!
As Cnarticulatel
AS run
Asm
Fe (total)
Fe ("soluble")
Mn (total)
Mn ("soluble")
Al (total)
Al ("soluble"!
103
mg/L(a)
me/T,
me/T,
me/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
me/L(a)
me/L(a)
me/T,(a)
jjg/L
IIP/T.
IIP/I.
IIP/T.
jjg/L
jjg/L
re/L
re/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
12/01/04
IN
_
160
156
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
18.4
18.7
0.2
0.1
8.4
18.5
5.7
227
-
-
-
-
-
36.5
36.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
<10
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
19.1
5.1
746
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.5
120
128
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
18.0
18.0
0.2
0.2
6.9
18.5
5.6
691
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
3.1
3.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
<10
<10
-
TB
5.8
124
124
-
-
-
<0.06
<0.06
17.2
17.0
0.1
0.2
6.9
18.8
5.2
712
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
0.3
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
-
<10
<10
-
12/08/04
IN
_
154
-
-
-
<0.06
19.0
0.2
7.7
18.1
5.5
248
-
-
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
19.0
6.0
710
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
13.7
122
-
-
-
<0.06
18.7
0.4
6.7
19.0
5.6
727
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
4.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
6.9
122
-
-
-
<0.06
18.6
0.3
6.7
19.0
5.5
744
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
12/15/04
IN
_
155
<0.1
8.1
0.8
<0.06
19.5
0.1
7.8
19.6
5.3
235
-
-
181
105
76.5
39.2
40.4
<0.1
0.4
40.0
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
<10
<10
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
20.4
5.9
754
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
16.0
114
<0.1
50
0.7
<0.06
18.3
0.2
6.7
20.4
5.5
727
0.4
0.4
167
95.9
71.3
4.3
4.3
<0.1
0.4
3.9
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
8.0
114
<0.1
45
<0.04
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
01/12/05
IN
-
172
-
-
-
-
19.0
0.2
7.9
19.7
5.3
225
-
-
-
-
-
37.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
19.8
5.1
680
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
24.8
120
-
-
-
-
18.5
<0.1
6.7
19.7
5.3
719
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
TB
12.4
120
-
-
-
-
18.5
<0.1
6.7
19.6
5.4
740
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
16.0
-
01/19/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Rori \r^i,,mo
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N")
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
cH
Tenroerature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As ("soluble")
As ("narticulate")
AS run
Asm
Fe (total)
Fe ("soluble")
Mn (total)
Mn ("soluble")
Al (total)
Al ("soluble")
103
mg/Lw
me/T,
me/T,
me/L
rng/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
me/L(a)
me/L(a)
me/T.W
|jg/L
IIIT/T.
nan.
nan.
|Xg/L
|Jg/L
Hg/L
,og/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
02/09/05(c)
IN
_
174
-
-
-
-
19.0
<0.1
7.7
19.4
5.2
252
-
-
-
-
-
39.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.6
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
19.7
5.5
708
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
33.8
143
-
-
-
-
20.0
<0.1
6.9
19.8
5.2
747
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
22.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
16.9
129
-
-
-
-
21.0
<0.1
6.9
19.7
4.9
758
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
<10
-
02/16/05
IN
_
171
0.1
9
1.0
-
20.8
<0.1
7.7
19.7
5.1
249
-
-
131
71.2
59.8
35.6
35.6
<0.1
0.3
35.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
20.0
5.3
751
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
36.0
135
<0.1
60
1.0
-
21.0
<0.1
6.7
20.0
5.2
776
0.7
0.7
133
78.4
54.4
15.6
15.3
0.3
0.4
14.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
18.0
126
<0.1
60
1.0
-
21.2
<0.1
6.7
19.9
4.9
781
0.7
0.7
139
83.4
55.5
3.6
3.4
0.2
0.3
3.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
02/23/05(<1)
IN
_
171
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
7.7
18.9
5.4
252
-
-
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
19.5
4.9
655
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
38.2
140
-
-
-
-
19.1
<0.1
7.0
19.6
5.1
723
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
19.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
19.1
153
-
-
-
-
19.1
<0.1
6.9
19.5
4.9
744
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
03/02/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
03/09/05
IN
-
178
-
-
-
-
20.7
0.4
7.7
20.2
5.7
225
-
-
-
-
-
44.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
20.2
5.7
656
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
42.7
143
-
-
-
-
20.1
<0.1
7.0
20.2
5.4
707
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
29.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
21.4
143
-
-
-
-
20.1
<0.1
6.9
20.1
5.6
727
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
03/16/05
IN
-
156
-
-
-
-
19.6
<0.1
7.8
19.6
5.3
222
-
-
-
-
-
35.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
19.8
5.0
703
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
45.0
143
-
-
-
-
19.3
<0.1
6.9
19.8
5.2
751
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
25.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
22.5
143
-
-
-
-
19.2
<0.1
6.9
19.6
4.5
746
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
03/23/05(c)
IN
-
168
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
7.9
19.2
5.2
228
-
-
-
-
-
44.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
19.7
5.1
670
1.0
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
47.2
155
-
-
-
-
19.0
<0.1
7.1
19.7
4.9
722
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
30.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<10
-
TB
23.6
155
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
7.1
19.6
4.9
743
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.6
-
<10
-
03/30/05
IN
-
176
-
-
-
-
19.2
<0.1
7.7
19.5
5.4
237
-
-
-
-
-
36.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
19.7
5.1
719
0.7
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
49.4
132
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
6.8
19.7
5.4
762
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
26.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
24.7
132
-
-
-
-
19.7
<0.1
6.8
19.7
5.2
775
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
11.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) In-line pH transmitter setpoint changed from 6.8 to 6.6 on 03/24/05 to compensate for dosage problems since calibration on 03/17/05.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; AC = after prechlorination and pH adjustment (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
04/06/05
IN
-
169
-
-
-
-
19.2
0.1
7.8
20.1
5.6
260
-
-
-
-
-
41.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
20.1
5.4
684
0.7
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
51.5
143
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
6.9
20.1
5.8
745
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
31.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
25.8
143
-
-
-
-
19.4
<0.1
6.9
20.1
5.4
758
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
13.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
04/13/05
IN
-
178
<0.1
8.0
0.8
-
20.4
0.2
7.6
20.3
5.7
247
-
-
168
94.4
73.2
35.7
35.5
0.2
0.4
35.1
41.0
<25
0.5
0.1
10.7
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
20.1
5.2
738
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
53.7
156
<0.1
50
0.7
-
20.6
0.2
6.8
20.1
4.9
760
0.7
0.7
161
90.9
70.0
26.8
26.9
<0.1
0.4
26.5
42.5
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
26.8
143
<0.1
50
0.8
-
20.8
0.1
6.7
20.1
5.4
768
0.6
0.6
162
92.1
70.1
11.8
12.0
<0.1
0.4
11.6
37.7
<25
0.2
<0.1
<10
<10
04/20/05
IN
-
178
-
-
-
-
19.6
0.1
7.7
19.9
5.4
228
-
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
19.9
5.2
680
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
55.9
155
-
-
-
-
19.3
0.1
6.9
19.9
5.3
731
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
30.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
TB
28.0
147
-
-
-
-
19.3
<0.1
6.9
19.9
5.1
741
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
15.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
<10
-
04/27/05
IN
-
176
-
-
-
-
19.9
<0.1
7.6
20.0
5.4
231
-
-
-
-
-
39.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
20.1
5.3
66
0.4
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
57.9
154
-
-
-
-
19.8
<0.1
7.0
20.0
5.7
711
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
34.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
41.9
-
TB
28.9
154
-
-
-
-
19.7
<0.1
7.0
19.9
5.3
728
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
17.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
(a) As CaCO3.
IN = inlet; TA
(b) As P.
= after tank A; TB = after tank B;
AC = after prechlorination and pH adjustment (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Ro/4 V^lllmo
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
cH
Temcerature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As ("soluble"!
As Cnarticulatel
AS run
Asm
Fe (total)
Fe ("soluble")
Mn (total)
Mn ("soluble")
Al (total)
Al ("soluble"!
103
mg/L(a)
me/T,
me/T,
me/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
me/L(a)
me/L(a)
me/T,
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
re/L
re/L
re/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
Hg/L
|xg/L
06/01/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Phosphorus
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L*>
HS/L*'
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
re/L
re/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
jjg/L
re/L
07/06/05
IN
-
154
-
-
-
-
-
19.6
0.1
7.6
20.8
5.9
183
-
-
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.0
20.5
6.0
680
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
NA
132
-
-
-
-
-
19.0
0.2
6.8
20.5
5.4
717
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
NA
132
-
-
-
-
-
19.2
<0.1
6.9
20.4
5.5
733
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
15.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
10/19/05
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB^
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
11/09/05
IN
-
176
-
-
-
<10
19.0
<0.1
7.7
20.0
6.1
228
-
-
-
-
-
40.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.1
6.1
657
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
2.9
180
-
-
-
<10
15.0
<0.1
7.6
20.3
6.3
675
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
5.7
176
-
-
-
<10
17.7
<0.1
7.6
20.1
6.2
712
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
11/16/05
IN
-
176
<0.1
11
1.2
<10
18.2
<0.1
7.6
19.7
5.4
271
-
-
172
104
68.3
37.6
37.0
0.6
<0.1
36.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.8
5.4
659
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.6
176
<0.1
12
1.2
<10
15.4
<0.1
7.6
19.8
5.1
670
0.5
0.5
174
106
68.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
7.2
176
<0.1
12
1.2
<10
17.0
<0.1
7.6
19.8
4.7
694
0.5
0.5
174
104
70.4
9.7
9.6
<0.1
0.1
9.5
<25
<25
0.3
0.5
<10
<10
11/30/05
IN
-
154
-
-
-
14.2
19.6
<0.1
7.7
18.8
5.1
283
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.4
5.1
599
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.1
176
-
-
-
<10
17.7
<0.1
7.6
19.4
5.2
634
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
10.2
176
-
-
-
<10
18.8
<0.1
7.6
19.3
4.9
661
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
14.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
12/07/05
IN
-
176
-
-
-
<10
19.4
<0.1
7.8
18.8
5.7
282
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
18.9
5.0
595
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.8
180
-
-
-
<10
18.0
<0.1
7.8
19.2
5.1
637
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
TB
11.6
176
-
-
-
<10
17.7
<0.1
7.8
19.2
5.2
699
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
18.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
<10
-
(a) As CaCO3.
IN = inlet; TA
(b) As P.
= after tank A; TB = after tank B;
AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB^
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
12/14/05
IN
-
180
<0.1
11
1.2
45.2
20.0
0.3
7.8
19.3
5.4
306
-
-
192
91.4
100
44.9
44.5
0.4
1.7
42.8
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
19.5
4.7
591
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
6.6
176
<0.1
11
1.2
19.5
19.1
0.3
7.6
19.5
5.4
647
0.3
0.3
197
92.5
105
2.2
2.9
<0.1
1.5
1.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
<10
14.2
TB
13.2
176
<0.1
11
1.2
30.4
19.8
0.1
7.6
19.5
5.0
661
0.3
0.3
200
92.9
107
23.4
23.7
<0.1
1.6
22.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
<10
<10
01/04/06
IN
-
180
-
-
-
10.3
18.5
<0.1
7.6
19.6
5.2
294
-
-
-
-
-
36.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.8
5.4
624
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.8
168(c)
-
-
-
<10
17.5
0.3
7.7
19.7
4.8
669
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
17.6
180
-
-
-
<10
18.2
0.1
7.6
19.7
5.8
690
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
24.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
01/11/06
IN
-
176
-
-
-
<10
18.6
0.2
7.6
18.7
5.3
309
-
-
-
-
-
36.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
18.9
5.4
615
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.5
176
-
-
-
<10
18.5
0.1
7.7
18.3
5.6
684
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
55.1
-
4.0
-
<10
-
TB
19.1
176
-
-
-
<10
19.5
0.3
7.7
19.2
5.4
705
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
25.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
15.7
-
01/18/06
IN
-
176
-
-
-
<10
18.1
0.1
7.7
18.8
5.4
305
-
-
-
-
-
36.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.3
5.3
575
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
10.3
176
-
-
-
<10
17.5
0.1
7.6
19.4
5.2
624
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
<10
-
TB
20.6
180
-
-
-
<10
17.7
0.3
7.6
19.6
5.0
659
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
26.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Reanalyzed outside of hold time.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Ra/4 \^1lima
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N1
Phosphorus
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
cH
Temcerature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As ("soluble"!
As Cnarticulatel
AS run
Asm
Fe (total)
Fe ("soluble")
Mn (total)
Mn ("soluble")
Al ("total"!
Al (soluble1!
103
mg/L(a)
me/T,
me/T,
me/L
Hg/Lw
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
me/L(a)
me/L(a)
me/T,(a)
jjg/L
IIP/T.
IIP/I.
IIP/T.
jjg/L
jjg/L
re/L
re/L
jjg/L
re/L
re/L
01/25/06
IN
_
180
-
-
-
<10
18.6
0.1
7.7
18.7
5.1
305
-
-
-
-
-
47.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.2
5.1
595
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.0
180
-
-
-
<10
18.0
0.1
7.6
19.3
5.3
640
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
14.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TB
22.0
180
-
-
-
<10
18.6
0.6
7.6
18.9
5.0
678
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
36.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
02/01/06
IN
_
172
<0.1
11
1.2
<10
19.6
0.1
7.6
20.1
5.8
285
-
-
166
97.0
68.8
40.0
40.8
<0.1
0.5
40.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
20.1
5.4
620
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.8
172
<0.1
11
1.1
<10
19.2
0.2
7.6
20.1
5.4
641
0.4
0.4
168
97.8
70.4
14.3
14.1
0.2
0.5
13.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
23.6
172
<0.1
11
1.1
<10
19.1
0.2
7.6
20.1
5.5
665
0.4
0.4
172
98.4
73.1
31.0
30.4
0.6
<0.1
30.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
03/08/06(c)
IN
_
174
-
-
-
<10
17.6
0.3
7.6
18.8
5.3
230
-
-
-
-
-
38.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
-
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
19.2
5.3
644
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
0.6
170
-
-
-
<10
8.4
23
7.5
19.2
4.9
652
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
319
-
1.3
-
-
-
TB
0.3
170
-
-
-
<10
1.4
0.2
7.3
19.3
5.1
555
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
-
-
03/21/06
IN
_
170
166
-
-
-
<10
<10
18.2
18.8
0.2
0.2
7.7
19.2
5.3
212
-
-
-
-
-
37.4
36.5
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
19.6
4.9
614
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.9
170
166
-
-
-
<10
<10
17.6
17.3
0.5
0.5
7.6
19.4
5.1
644
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
TB
2.4
170
174
-
-
-
<10
<10
15.4
15.8
0.3
0.4
7.6
19.5
5.2
662
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) Vessels A and B rebed with ARM 200 media on 02/28/06. System operation resumed without pH adjustment and 24 hr/day run time on 03/07/06. Bed volume based on 22
ft3 of media for TA (lead tank) and 44 ft3 of media for TB (lag tank).
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
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)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L®
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
04/05/06
IN
-
170
-
-
-
<10
19.0
0.4
7.7
18.9
5.7
211
-
-
-
-
-
40.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
19.3
5.1
593
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.8
165
-
-
-
<10
18.0
0.3
7.7
19.1
5.0
636
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
4.9
170
-
-
-
<10
18.0
0.3
7.7
19.1
5.1
654
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
04/19/06
IN
-
176
-
-
-
18.5
18.5
0.2
7.7
19.5
5.2
202
-
-
-
-
-
39.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
19.8
5.5
648
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
14.2
185
-
-
-
<10
18.1
0.4
7.7
19.9
5.4
681
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TB
7.1
181
-
-
-
<10
18.3
0.1
7.7
19.8
5.7
693
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
05/03/06
IN
-
172
-
-
-
<10
19.2
0.2
7.6
20.0
5.9
151
-
-
-
-
-
38.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
20.1
5.7
569
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
18.8
168
-
-
-
<10
19.0
0.3
7.6
20.1
5.5
623
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
9.4
168
-
-
-
<10
19.4
0.2
7.6
20.2
5.6
636
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/17/06
IN
-
167
-
-
-
<10
19.9
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
38.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
23.4
163
-
-
-
<10
19.6
0.3
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
12.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
11.7
167
-
-
-
<10
19.0
0.4
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
Cd
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality parameter not measured due to reduced regime.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
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)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB^
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
05/31/06
IN
-
167
-
-
-
30.6
18.1
0.3
7.7
20.6
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
33.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.3
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
28.0
167
-
-
-
23.6
17.6
0.2
7.7
20.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
13.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
14.0
171
-
-
-
19.3
18.5
0.2
7.7
20.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
06/14/06
IN
-
167
-
-
-
<10
20.9
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
49.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
32.5
167
-
-
-
<10
19.7
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
22.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
16.3
167
-
-
-
<10
20.5
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
06/28/06
IN
-
172
-
-
-
19.1
21.2
0.3
7.7
20.6
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
36.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.4
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
37.1
168
-
-
-
<10
21.2
0.2
7.6
20.4
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
19.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TB
18.5
172
-
-
-
<10
20.3
0.1
7.7
20.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
07/12/06
IN
-
168
-
-
-
20.4
18.5
0.4
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
36.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
41.6
168
-
-
-
17.5
17.6
0.4
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
22.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TB
20.8
168
-
-
-
<10
18.3
0.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
Cd
^^
oo
(a) As CaCO3. (b) As P. (c) On-site water quality parameter not measured due to reduced regime.
IN = inlet; TA = after tank A; TB = after tank B; AC = after prechlorination (field parameters only).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Valley Vista, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
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)
103
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB^
mg/L
NTU
-
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(!l)
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
07/26/06
IN
-
167
-
-
-
<10
18.8
0.3
7.7
20.9
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
47.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
46.2
167
-
-
-
<10
18.3
0.1
7.6
20.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
29.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
23.1
167
-
-
-
<10
18.3
0.2
7.6
20.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
8.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
08/09/06
IN
-
168
-
-
-
<10
18.2
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
43.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
50.7
164
-
-
-
<10
18.1
0.3
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
28.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
25.4
168
-
-
-
<10
18.4
0.2
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
08/23/06
IN
-
184
-
-
-
<10
18.9
<0.1
7.7
22.0
NA(C)
NA(C)
-
-
-
-
-
46.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
20.7
NA(C)
NA(C)
<0.02W
<0.1<[1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
55.3
178
-
-
-
<10
18.8
<0.1
7.7
20.5
NA(C)
NA(C)
<0.02(tl)
<0.1<[1)
-
-
-
32.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
27.7
176
-
-
-
<10
18.9
0.1
7.6
20.3
NA(C)
NA(C)
<0.02(tl)
<0.1
-------
APPENDIX C
SPENT MEDIA RESULTS
-------
Analyte
Unit
Mg
M«/g
Al
M«/g
Si
M«/g
P
M«/g
Ca
M«/g
Fe
M«/g
Mn
M«/g
Ni
M«/g
Cu
MS/g
Zn
M«/g
As
M«/g
Cd
M«/g
Pb
MS/g
10/25/04 Spent AAFS50 Media Results
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
340
276
265
251
266
261
111,074
86,416
100,671
90,489
109,959
123,758
36.4
40.7
32.3
29.9
35.9
32.5
563
498
411
283
249
175
1,670
1,631
1,618
1,591
1,615
1,672
16,045
14,901
15,079
14,301
15,423
17,477
95.8
86.2
77.0
120
116
124
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
4.2
4.1
3.2
1.7
1.5
1.1
143
146
121
81.9
67.2
52.1
638
531
528
410
396
349
<0.25
<0.25
0.25
0.25
O.25
O.25
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
04/29/05 Spent AAFS50 Media Results
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
297
281
290
441,258
447,149
441,798
248
313
222
1,010
967
675
1,907
1,913
1,912
17,826
17,087
16,447
160
146
118
1.3
1.2
1.4
7.0
5.7
4.1
159
151
117
1,619
1,576
1,270
0.5
0.5
O.5
1.2
1.0
1.2
02/28/06 Spent AAFS50 Media Results
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
895
850
799
926
914
911
323,163
313,892
345,100
322,771
323,123
339,546
580
169
323
403
374
453
<50
<50
<50
67.7
60.6
<50
3,381
3,288
3,166
3,559
3,466
3,472
15,534
15,327
16,431
15,584
14,078
15,613
171
170
144
188
174
160
2.5
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.4
0.9
9.4
6.4
2.8
<50
<50
<50
154
102
<50
566
458
264
896
829
625
0.5
0.5
0.5
O.5
O.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
O.5
0.5
10/19/06 Spent ARM 200 Media Results
Tank A-Top
Tank A-Middle
Tank A-Bottom
Tank B-Top
Tank B-Middle
Tank B-Bottom
1,127
1,140
1,099
1,053
1,007
899
517
450
431
346
352
297
252
385
443
514
403
394
1,037
1,024
874
872
805
609
8,523
8,307
7,659
7,159
6,777
6,071
611,212
587,715
594,408
594,040
591,848
595,998
2,177
2,258
2,353
2,504
2,684
2,638
85.3
96.8
96.3
133
141
139
85.7
68.6
46.7
79.1
78.4
74.8
536
406
121
208
217
203
2,180
2,268
1,823
1,672
1,439
788
1.1
0.6
O.I
0.1
0.1
O.I
5.6
4.6
3.9
6.8
7.0
7.2
Note: Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses with one-half of detection limit used for nondetect results.
------- |