EPA/600/R-09/145
December 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
T. Shane Williams
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Angela M. Paolucci
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public- and private-sector partners to foster technologies
that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project in the City of Wellman, TX. The main objective of the
project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' AD-33 media in removing arsenic to
meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. This project also evaluated (1) the
reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-100CS-S-2-AVH); (2) the required
system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills; and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the
technology. The project also characterized the water in the distribution system and any residuals
produced by the treatment process. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality
parameters (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), and capital and O&M cost.
The Wellman water system is supplied by five groundwater wells. Four are located in close proximity to
a 110,000-gal water tank and an underground well-manifold vault, and the fifth is located approximately
3 miles southwest. The combined flowrate from the first four wells is 50 gal/min (gpm), and the flowrate
from the fifth is 40 gpm. Therefore, the total flowrate is approximately 90 gpm. Operating
simultaneously 4 to 6 hr at a time, the wells are used to meet the average daily demand of approximately
26,000 gal in the winter and 50,000 gal in the summer.
The newly constructed treatment building is located adjacent to the water tank and underground vault.
The treatment system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall carbon steel vessels in parallel
configuration, each containing approximately 38 ft3 of E3 3 pelletized media - an iron-based adsorptive
media developed by Bayer AG and marketed by AdEdge Technologies under the name of AD-33. The
treatment system was designed for a maximum flowrate of 100 gpm and an empty bed contact time
(EBCT) of approximately 5.7 min.
Over the performance evaluation period, the average calculated flowrate was 118 gpm, based on readings
of two electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels and an hour meter
interconnected to the flow meters/totalizers. This average calculated flowrate (118 gpm) was
significantly greater than that of a master totalizer (91 gpm) installed at the common well manifold and
the design flowrate value of 100 gpm. Based on a one-day flowrate test using a portable ultrasonic flow
meter and statistical analysis, it was determined that the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers were the
least accurate of the available meters. Therefore, the master totalizer was used to track the amount of
water treated during the performance evaluation study.
The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on August 10, 2006. Between August 10, 2006,
and April 17, 2008, the system operated an average of 5.9 hr/day, treating approximately 14,744,962 gal
of water or 25,938 bed volumes (BV) based on the 76 ft3 of media in both adsorption vessels.
Total arsenic concentrations measured at the common well manifold (IN) varied significantly, ranging
from 6.0 to 50.6 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 6.1 to 43.8 |o,g/L;
soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from less than the method detection limit (MDL) to 6.0 |o,g/L. A
review of the significant variations measured in the IN samples indicated that system operations and
sampling techniques were likely contributing to the variations in concentration. In fact, the after
chlorination (AC) sample results provided concentrations in a more representative range of the true water
quality based on historical sampling events. The total arsenic concentrations in the AC samples ranged
from 37.5 to 50.0 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V) in the AC samples remained predominant, ranging from 35.2 to
42.9 |o,g/L; soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from less than the MDL to 11.4 |o,g/L. At the end of this
IV
-------
performance evaluation study on April 17, 2008, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water were 6.8
and 2.3 |o,g/L from Vessels A and B, respectively, - less than the target 10-(ig/L MCL.
Concentrations of vanadium, phosphate, and silica, which could adversely affect arsenic adsorption by
competing with arsenate for adsorption sites, averaged 136 |o,g/L, <10 |o,g/L (as P), and 46.2 mg/L (as
SiO2), respectively, in the AC samples. Vanadium existed entirely in the soluble form, some of which
was removed during the first 10,000 BV. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water
were not considered significant enough to impact arsenic removal by the adsorptive media.
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 38.9 (ig/L to an average of 3.2 (ig/L).
The arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Lead
and copper concentrations in the distribution system remained below their respective action levels of 15
and 1,300 |og/L. Overall, their concentrations were not adversely affected by system operation.
The capital investment cost of $149,221 included $103,897 for equipment, $25,310 for site engineering,
and $20,014 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (or 144,000 gal/day [gpd]),
the capital cost was $l,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $14,085/yr, using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system actually operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at an average
flowrate of approximately 91 gpm, the approximate annual water production was 11,758,000 gal, and the
actual unit capital cost was $1.20/1,000 gal of water.
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chlorine usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media
replacement did not occur during the evaluation period, the media replacement cost would represent the
majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $30,010 to change out both vessels (including 76 ft3
AD-33 media and associated labor for media changeout and disposal).
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 15
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 16
4.1.3 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 System Installation 21
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Preparation 22
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 Residual Management 26
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 26
4.5 System Performance 28
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 28
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 36
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 36
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 36
4.6.1 Capital Cost 38
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
5.0: REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Operational Data
APPENDIX B: Analytical Data
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Water Tank and Chlorination Shed 13
Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and Master Totalizer 14
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System 14
Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX 19
Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System and Chemical Injection Valves 21
Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 22
Figure 4-7. Calculated Flowrate Values from Electromagnetic Flow Meter/Totalizer and
Master Totalizer 25
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressure Readings 26
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Location 32
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 33
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic and Vanadium Concentrations at IN and AC Sampling Locations 34
Figure 4-12. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves 35
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 9
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX 15
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data 17
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media 18
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge Arsenic Removal System 20
Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action 23
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation 24
Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006 25
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium 29
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 30
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 37
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System 38
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU System 39
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment System
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HC1 hydrochloric acid
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchange
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LOU Letter of Understanding
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na
NA
NaOCl
ND
NRMRL
NTU
O&M
OIT
ORD
ORP
PLC
psi
PO4
POE
POU
PVC
QAPP
QA
QA/QC
RO
RPD
SDWA
SiO2
SMCL
SO42
STS
sodium
not analyzed
sodium hypochlorite
not detectable
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
operation and maintenance
Oregon Institute of Technology
Office of Research and Development
oxidation-reduction potential
programmable logic controller
pounds per square inch
orthophosphate
point of entry
point of use
polyvinyl chloride
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality assurance
quality assurance/quality control
reverse osmosis
relative percent difference
Safe Drinking Water Act
silica
secondary maximum contaminant level
sulfate
Severn Trent Services
TCEQ
TCLP
TDS
TOC
U
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
uranium
V
voc
WTW
vanadium
volatile organic compounds
Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstatten
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the City of Wellman and Mr. Marvin Crutcher,
who monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems
throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his
efforts.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate-drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). 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 required all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance cost. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite demonstrations of arsenic-removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 of the 115 candidate sites to host the demonstration
studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective
arsenic-removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the
17 host sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration program. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the City of Wellman, TX, was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic-
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving two to eight proposals. In April 2004, EPA convened another technical panel to review the
proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none (for
two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at least one
proposal was made through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since then, four
sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28. AdEdge
Technologies' (AdEdge) Bay oxide E33 granular media (developed by Bayer AG) was selected for
demonstration at the Wellman site.
As of December 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 34
systems was completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites included 25 adsorptive media
(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems); 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems; two ion exchange (IX) systems; 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site); and one process modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source-water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron,
and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the
12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang, et
al., 2004; Chen, et al, 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Rounds 1 and 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic
treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking-water supplies. The
specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic-removal technologies for use on small
systems
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the City of Wellman, TX, from August
10, 2006, through April 17, 2008. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality
(both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary
O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1 and 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(cl)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30(a)
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
1,387W
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770w
150
40
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Rounds 1 and 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU R0(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)®
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(c>
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HTX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis.
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services.
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE, site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH, from 150 to 250 gal/min (gpm); Sandusky, MI, from 210 to 340 gpm; and Amaudville, LA, from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
AdEdge's Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-100CS-S-2-AVH treatment system with AD-33 pelletized media
was installed and has operated in the City of Wellman, TX, since August 10, 2006. Based on the
information collected during the system evaluation period, the following summary and conclusion
statements are provided.
Performance of the arsenic-removal technology for use on small systems:
• The AD-33 media was effective at removing soluble As(V), the predominating arsenic
species in raw water. During the evaluation period from August 10, 2006, through April 17,
2008, it was estimated that the system treated 14,744,962 gal or 25,938 bed volumes (BV) of
water, leaving <3.3 (ig/L (on average) of total arsenic in the treated water.
• The arsenic treatment system significantly reduced arsenic concentrations (from 38.9 to
3.2 (ig/L, on average) in the distribution system. Impact of the treatment on lead and copper
concentrations, however, was less significant, with lead concentrations remaining relatively
unchanged from 0.2 to 0.4 |o,g/L (on average) and copper concentrations decreasing from 115
to 81.7 (ig/L (on average).
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• The system was easy to operate and maintain. The daily demand on the operator was 15 min
after system startup, but progressively decreased to only 3 min by the end of the evaluation
period.
• Operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the existing water supply equipment, with the exception of the pH adjustment system. The
pH adjustment system required additional operator training and safety awareness.
• The pre-existing master turbine flow meter/totalizer was used for flow measurements,
because the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer installed on the treatment system was
determined to be inaccurate due to out-of-spec piping configuration.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The treatment system did not require backwash (because differential pressure [Ap] measured
across the media vessels did not reach 10 pounds per square inch [psi], the Ap set point) and
therefore did not produce any backwash residuals. Also, the system did not require a media
changeout during the evaluation period because the effluent arsenic concentration did not
reach 10 |o,g/L.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• Based on the system's rated capacity of 100 gal/min (gpm) (or 144,000 gal/day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $l,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity. Assuming that the system
operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at its rated capacity, the unit capital cost would be
$0.27/1,000 gal. However, because the system actually operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at
an average flowrate of approximately 91 gpm, the actual unit capital cost was $1.20/1,000 gal
of water.
-------
• Media replacement and subsequent disposal did not occur during the system evaluation
period. The cost to change out two vessels (76 ft3 AD-33 media) was estimated to be
$30,010, which included the replacement media, spent media disposal, shipping, labor, and
travel.
• The O&M cost did not include chemical cost for pH adjustment because acid was not used
during the demonstration study.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the AdEdge treatment system began on August 10, 2006, and ended on April 17, 2008. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process.
The overall performance of the system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic
to below the arsenic MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train,
as described in a Performance Evaluation Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was
evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft LOU Issued
Final LOU Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Exception Request Submitted to TECQ
Engineering Plans Submitted to TCEQ
APU System Shipped and Arrived
Exception Request Granted by TCEQ
System Permit Issued by TCEQ
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
November 18, 2004
March 22, 2005
March 29, 2005
April 12, 2005
April 20, 2005
May 30, 2005
June 28, 2005
July 11,2005
August 25, 2005
October 14, 2005
October 3 1,2005
February 2, 2006
June 20, 2006
August 9, 2006
December 28, 2005
August 10, 2006
LOU = letter of understanding; TCEQ = Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated through quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation,
extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory,
and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices.
The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chlorine
consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Wellman O&M cost were limited to electricity
usage and labor because media replacement did not take place during the evaluation period and chlorine
injection was part of the pre-existing treatment process.
-------
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 u.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 automation for system operation and data collection
Staffing requirements, including number of operators and laborers
Task analysis of preventive 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 chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. 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) tank level; and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal
system operations. In the event of problems, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who
determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all
relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of action taken, materials and supplies
used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Every other
week, the plant operator measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a Bi-Weekly Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic-removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and spent-media disposal,
chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. The NaOCl consumption was tracked on the Daily
System Operation Log Sheet. Because the chemical addition system was pre-existing, chlorine
consumption was not counted toward the O&M cost. Electricity consumption was tracked through the
onsite electric meter. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and
repairs, 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 inspections, 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's performance, samples were collected from a common manifold containing raw
water from five wells, across the treatment train, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3'
Well 1 and IN(b)
IN, AC, TA,
andTB
IN, AC, and TT
Three
residences
(including two
Lead and
Copper Rule
[LCR]
residences)
No. of
Samples
2
4
3
3
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Regular
Sampling
Events:
Monthly
Speciation
Sampling
Events:
Monthly
Monthly
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite:
As (total and soluble),
As(III)&As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
Onsite(c): pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free and
total)
Offsite: total As, Fe, Mn, P,
and V, SiO2, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Same as above plus the
following:
Offsite: As(III) and As(V),
Fe (soluble), Mn (soluble),
V (soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, and TOC
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, V
(total and soluble) and Pb,
pH, and alkalinity
Collection Date(s)
11/18/04
08/30/06, 09/20/06,
10/19/06, 11/15/06,
01/03/07, 02/06/07,
03/01/07,03/28/07,
04/25/07, 05/24/07,
06/28/07, 07/23/07,
08/21/07, 09/27/07,
ll/08/07(d), 12/05/07,
01/13/08,02/20/08,
03/12/08, 04/17/08
08/10/06, 09/06/06,
10/02/06, 11/02/06,
11/28/06, 12/14/06,
01/18/07,02/13/07,
03/14/07, 04/18/07,
05/08/07, 06/14/07,
07/09/07, 08/14/07,
09/11/07,10/10/07
Baseline sampling(e):
06/22/05, 07/14/05,
08/18/05, 09/14/05
Monthly sampling:
09/06/06, 10/10/06,
11/15/06, 12/14/06,
01/18/07,02/21/07,
03/20/07, 04/18/07,
05/24/07, 06/14/07,
07/12/07, 08/22/07,
09/11/07
(a) Abbreviation (IN = at common well manifold; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after
Vessel B; TT = after Vessels A and B combined) corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1.
(b) Speciation not performed at IN.
(c) Onsite measurements of chlorine not collected at IN.
(d) Starting November 8, 2007, treatment plant samples were analyzed only for total phosphate, arsenic, iron,
manganese, and vanadium at locations IN, AC, TA, and TB.
(e) Sampling events performed before system startup.
-------
provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured during each sampling event. 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 an EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the
QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the site visit on November 18, 2004, source-water samples were
collected from Well 1 and a common well manifold (IN) containing water from all five wells and
analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Speciation was performed for Well 1 water using an arsenic
speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before
sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, treatment plant
water samples were collected every other week for the onsite and offsite analyses shown in Table 3-3.
For the speciation sampling events, samples were taken at IN, after chlorination (AC), and after Vessels A
and B combined (TT); speciation was performed onsite during these events. For the regular sampling
events, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A (TA), and after Vessel B (TB) without onsite
speciation. Starting from November 8, 2007, only regular sampling was performed and the samples
collected were analyzed only for total arsenic, iron, manganese, vanadium, and phosphorus.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. Because the system did not
require backwash during the evaluation period, no backwash residuals were produced. Furthermore, no
spent-media samples were collected, because media replacement was not necessary durng the
performance evaluation study.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. The plant operator collected samples 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 June to September 2005, prior to the
startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events were conducted at three
locations within the distribution system. Following startup of the arsenic adsorption system, monthly
distribution system sampling continued at the same three locations.
The three locations selected were sample taps within the City of Wellman. Two of the locations had been
included in the LCR sampling in the past. The baseline and monthly distribution system samples were
collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and
Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The homeowners recorded the dates and
times of last water usage before sampling and the dates and times of sample collection for calculation of
stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6
hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the baseline and monthly
sampling. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution system water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics are discussed below, including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample
coolers, as well as sample shipping and handling.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards, et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
10
-------
Monthly (Speciation Sampling)
INFLUENT
pH(a), temperature^), D
As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH(a), temperature^),
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH(a), temperature^,
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P (total), TOC,
turbidity, alkalinity
STORAGE TANK
(110,000 GAL)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Wellman, TX
AD-33® Technology
Design Flow: lOOgpm
Monthly (Regular Sampling)
pH
-------
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, and blue were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AC, TA, and
TB, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziploc® bags
and packed in the cooler. When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the distribution system
water sampling.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and FedEx air bills were completed except for the operator's
signature and the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample coolers were sent to the facility
via FedEx approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verfied that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. Battelle Study Lead address discrepancies noted by the sample
custodian with the plant operator. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were recorded on a
cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers at Battelle and
picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont
Laboratories in Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration
study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the
respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle's ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and Belmont Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP, i.e., relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%, percent recovery of 80% to 120%, and completeness
of 80%. The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a
QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
The plant operator conducted field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP using a
Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstatten (WTW) Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for
pH and DO prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was
checked for accuracy by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected
value. The plant operator collected a water sample in a clean 400-mL plastic beaker and placed the Multi
340i 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 procedures in the user's manual.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Supplied by five groundwater wells located along U.S. Highway 385, the community water system in the
City of Wellman distributes water to approximately 225 community members via 95 service connections.
Of the five supply wells, Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 are located in relatively close proximity to the 110,000-gal
water tank (Figure 4-1) and underground vault that houses the well manifold (Figure 4-2). Well 5 is
located approximately 3 miles southwest. The five supply wells range in size from 6 to 8 in, each
equipped with a submersible pump of 7 to 15 horsepower (hp). The combined flowrate from the first four
wells is estimated to be 40 gpm, and the flowrate from the fifth is 50 gpm. Therefore, the total flowrate is
approximately 90 gpm. Operating simultaneously 4 to 6 hr at a time, the well pumps are typically on
twice per day in the summer and once per day in the winter to meet the average daily demand of
approximately 50,000 and 26,000 gal, respectively. The on/off of the well pumps is controlled by
pressure switches located on the manifold piping at each wellhead, set at 40/54 psi. After chlorination
with a 12.5%NaOCl solution (injected at the Well 1 manifold as shown in Figure 4-3), water is sent to
the water tank for storage and distribution. The target free-chlorine residual level in the distribution
system is 1.0 mg/L (as C12).
Figure 4-1. Water Tank and Chlorination Shed (Small Grey
Structure Left of Truck)
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and
Master Totalizer
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Chlorine Addition System
14
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Two sets of source-water samples were collected on November 18,
2004, for on- and offsite analyses by Battelle. One set was collected from Well 1 and the other set from
the common manifold containing water from all five wells after chlorination. Well 1 water was speciated.
The results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those taken by the facility for the EPA
demonstration site selection.
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX
Parameter
Date
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as P)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III) (soluble)
As(V) (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HR/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HR/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Source
Water
Data(a)
NA
7.8
NA
NA
NA
246; 302*
406
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102; 131*
NA
217; 224*
19.5*
0.096*
39; 33*
NA
NA
NA
NA
24; 55*
NA
6; <0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107; 172*
64; 58*
60; 61*
Battelle Data
Welll
Source
Water
Five Wells
Combined,
Chlorinated
11/18/04
8.2
15.6
6.6
741
369
442
0.6
1,690
5.2
0.6
0.04
0.05
590
5.0
240
45.5
0.06
62.0
50.2
11.8
2.8
38.4
<25
<25
1.6
0.4
10.0
10.1
165
151
0.1
O.I
403
47.5
78.5
7.7
NA
NA
NA
250
446
0.9
806
3.4
5.4
0.01
0.05
75
5.3
240
45.9
0.06
45.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
2.0
NA
10.1
NA
145
NA
0.1
NA
112
50.6
77.6
TCEQ
Treated Water
Data
04/27/98-11/10/04
7.5
NA
NA
NA
246-248
686
NA
823
NA
5.3-5.6
NA
NA
103-108
0.6-6.1
241-256
NA
NA
16.5-39.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
140
73.7
122
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
NA = not analyzed; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; TCEQ = Texas Commission of
Environmental Quality; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon.
* EPA data.
15
-------
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 33 to 62 |og/L. Based on the
November 18, 2004, sampling results of Well 1, out of 62 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 50.2 |o,g/L existed as
soluble arsenic and 11.8 |o,g/L as particulate arsenic. Of the 50.2 |o,g/L of soluble arsenic, 38.4 |o,g/L
existed as As(V) and 2.8 |o,g/L as As(III). The existence of As(V) as the predominant species is consistent
with the relatively oxidizing condition at the wellhead as reflected by the high DO (i.e., 6.6 mg/L) and
ORP (i.e., 741 mV) levels measured during sampling.
Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations were generally low, ranging from its MDL of 25 |o,g/L to
55 |og/L. In general, AM technologies are best suited for sites with relatively low iron levels in source
water (i.e., less than 300 |o,g/L, the secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL] for iron). Above 300
Hg/L, taste, odor, and color problems can occur in treated water, along with an increased potential for
fouling of the adsorption system components with iron particulates. Manganese concentrations also were
low, ranging from <0.4 to 6 |o,g/L.
pH. The pH range of 7.7 to 8.2 was at the upper end of the target range of 6.0 to 8.5 for optimal arsenic
adsorption onto the AD-33 media. At pH values greater than 8.0 to 8.5, the vendor recommended that pH
adjustment be implemented to maintain the capacity of the adsorption media. Although pH adjustment
was not included in the original system design, a pH adjustment system was later required by TCEQ (see
Section 4.2). However, the facility chose not to use the system because of safety concerns. Disinfection
byproducts were not measured under the arsenic demonstration program.
Competing Anions. Silica, phosphate, and vanadium may compete with arsenic for available adsorptive
sites on the AD-33 media. The silica level in the source water sample collected by Battelle was
45.5 mg/L, and the orthophosphate level was below detection (<0.06 mg/L). High levels of silica could
adversely affect the adsorptive capacity of the AD-33 media. Vanadium concentrations were high,
ranging from 145 to 165 |o,g/L in the source water samples collected by Battelle.
Other Water-Quality Parameters. The majority of water-quality parameters analyzed in source water
were below their respective primary MCLs. Fluoride levels were measured as high as 5.3 mg/L,
exceeding the MCL of 4 mg/L. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride also were observed to exceed
their respective SMCLs of 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively, in at least one source-water sample.
Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations also were high, ranging from 3.4 to 5.2 mg/L.
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. In addition to the source water data, Table 4-1 also presents
historic treated-water quality data taken by the TCEQ from April 1998 through November 2004. The
treated-water quality data obtained from TCEQ were similar to the City of Wellman and Battelle test
results. Total arsenic concentrations of the treated water ranged from 16.5 to 39.3 |og/L. Although no
arsenic speciation data were available for the water following chlorination, it was assumed that arsenic
was present as As(V) because of the addition of chlorine. The average pH value of the treated water was
7.5, slightly lower than that of raw water. Additional analytes (including several metals and
radionuclides) were included in the historical data provided by TCEQ. These data are summarized in
Table 4-2.
4.1.3 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the mains for the
water distribution system in the City of Wellman are constructed of 6-in cast iron. Connections within
the distribution system include 3- to 6-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Piping within the homes is PVC and
copper; neither lead pipe nor lead solder are thought to be present.
The three locations selected for distribution-system water sampling before and after system startup were
representative of the distribution system overall. Two of the locations were also part of the city's historic
16
-------
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium 226/228
Unit
HB/L
VK/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
«?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TCEQ Treated Water Data
<20
<3
28.8
<1
<1
<10
6.6
<10
<1
<0.4
1.1
43.2
<10
<1
7.1
8.8
15.2
0.3/<1
sampling network for the LCR. The facility also samples water for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the TCEQ, typically once every 2 to 3 years.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The APU marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, downflow adsorptive media system used for small water
systems in the flow range of up to 100 gpm. The system uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-33 by
AdEdge) - an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Lanxess (formerly Bayer AG) for removing
arsenic from drinking-water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the AD-33
media. The media, available in both granular and pelletized forms, is delivered in a dry crystalline form
and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking-water applications. The
pelletized media, which is 25% denser than its granular counterpart (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3), was used for the
demonstration at Wellman.
As groundwater is pumped through the fixed-bed pressure vessels, dissolved arsenic is adsorbed onto the
media, thus reducing the dissolved arsenic concentration in the treated water. When the media reaches its
capacity (effluent water >10 ng/L total arsenic), the spent media is removed and disposed of as a non-
hazardous waste after passing the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The
media life depends on the arsenic concentration, empty bed contact time (EBCT), mode or variability of
operation (on-off), pH, and concentrations of competing ions in source water.
Both chlorination and pH adjustment equipment were included at the Wellman demonstration site.
Chlorination had already been used prior to the demonstration study. Because As(V) was the
predominant species and the As(III) concentration was low (i.e., 2.8 (ig/L based on November 18, 2004,
data), chlorination was used primarily to maintain a chlorine residual in the distribution system. As
described in Section 4.1, source water pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.2. A pH adjustment system required by
TCEQ was installed to lower source-water pH values to a target value of 7.2. Although installed, the pH
adjustment system was not used because of the operator's safety concerns.
17
-------
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide
E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3; g/cm3)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%, by wt.)
Particle Size Distribution (mm)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Values
Iron oxide composite
Dry pelletized media
Amber
35; 0.56
142
0.3
~5
1.0-1.4 (14x18 mesh)
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
SiO2
MgO
Na2O
SO3
A1203
MnO
TiO2
P2O5
Cl
Weight %
90.1
0.27
0.06
1.00
0.12
0.13
0.05
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.01
Data Source: Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller.
The arsenic treatment system (specifically referred to as the APU-100CS-S-2-AVH system) consisted of
two pressure vessels (Vessels A and B) operating in parallel. The system was in a newly constructed
treatment building located next to the pre-existing water tank and underground vault along U.S. Highway
385 (Figure 4-4). Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters.
The major process components of the arsenic treatment system are:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from the five supply wells and fed to the treatment system.
Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 were triggered to operate by a single pressure switch, and Well 5, which
provided nearly half the water supply, was triggered by a separate pressure switch. The two
pressure switches were configured to allow for simultaneous operation of all five wells. The
raw water from each of the supply wells was piped through a common PVC manifold that
combined raw water from all five wells just prior to entering the underground vault that
housed a master totalizer and raw water sample tap (IN).
• Prechlorination. The pre-existing chlorination system, shown in Figure 4-3, injected a
12.5% NaOCl solution directly into Well 1. During installation of the arsenic treatment
system, the prechlorination equipment was relocated inside the new treatment building, and a
new chlorination injection point was installed on the raw water influent line, downstream of
the common well manifold (IN) and prior to the AC sampling location.
18
-------
Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX
The chlorination system was used primarily to provide a target free-chlorine residual level of
1.0 mg/L (as C12) for disinfection purposes. The added benefit was to oxidize any As(III) to
As(V) prior to the adsorption vessels. Operation of the chlorine feed system was linked to the
well pumps such that chlorine was injected only when the wells were operating. The system
operator monitored chlorine consumption weekly by recording the chlorine levels in the
chlorine supply tank and by measuring the volume of chlorine added to the tank.
pH Adjustment. A pH adjustment system was installed (but not used) inside the new
treatment building, along with the arsenic treatment system. The pH adjustment system
consisted of a solenoid-driven diaphragm metering chemical feed pump (ProMinent®,
beta/4®), a 50-gal, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) chemical feed tank (to store a 31%
hydrochloric acid [HC1] solution), tubing to transfer the acid from the tank to injection valve,
an in-line mixer, and a pH probe and monitor (Figure 4-5). The acid injection point was just
after the chlorine injection point. Figure 4-5 identified the chemical injection points (chlorine
and acid), and Figure 4-6 identified the treatment train sample collection points, with the
exception of the IN sample location, which is in the vault outside the new treatment building.
Adsorption. The arsenic treatment system consisted of two 48-in x 72-in pressure vessels
configured in parallel, each containing 38 ft3 of pelletized AD-33 media. The skid-mounted
vessels were of carbon steel construction and rated for 100-psi working pressure (Figure 4-6).
At a design flowrate of 50 gpm for each vessel (or 100 gpm for the whole system), the EBCT
was 5.7 min. The hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was approximately 4.0 gpm/ft2.
Each pressure vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-6. In addition,
the system had two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line and two manual lug-style
butterfly valves to divert raw water flow into each vessel. Each valve operated
19
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
No. of Vessels
Configuration
48 D x 72 H
12.6
2
Parallel
—
—
—
—
AD- 3 3 Adsorptive Media
Media Type
Media Volume (ft3/vessel)
Media Bed Depth (in)
Media Weight (Ib/vessel)
AD-33 (pelletized)
38
36
1,330
—
—
—
2,660 Ib for both vessels
Pretreatment
Free Chlorine Residual (mg/L [as C12])
Target pH Value (S.U.)
1.0
7.2
Using 12.5% NaOCl
pH adjustment not implemented during
performance evaluation study
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm/vessel)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (day)
50
4.0
5.7
17,240
9,800,000
31,860
308 (10.1 months)
100 gpm for both vessels
—
—
Bed volumes to 10 |ag/L total As breakthrough
from each vessel based on vendor estimate
lBV=568gal
Based on 5.9 hr of daily operation at 90 gpm
Estimated frequency of media changeout
based on average throughput to system
Backwash
Pressure Differential Setpoint
Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency (per month)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (mm/vessel)
Fast Rinse Flowrate (gpm)
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
lOpsi
9
Once
113
20
113
Ito4
2,710
-
-
System not backwashed during performance
evaluation study
-
-
-
-
Assuming 4-min fast rinse
independently, and the butterfly valves were controlled by a Square D Telemechanique
programmable logic controller (PLC) with a Magelis XBT G2220 color touch-interface
screen.
• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the adsorption vessels be backwashed regularly to
remove particulates and media fines that accumulated in the media beds. The system can be
backwashed automatically based on Ap across the individual pressure vessels, time of
operation, or volume of water treated. The vendor recommended a backwash flowrate of 113
gpm to achieve a backwash hydraulic loading rate of approximately 9 gpm/ft2. Because the
incoming flowrate from the supply well is insufficient to provide the
20
-------
4.3
Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System and Chemical Injection Valves
necessary flow for backwash, supplemental water would be supplied from the treated-water
storage tank to the head of the system. Each backwash cycle is set to last about 21 to 24 min
per vessel (including rinse to waste for up to 4 min) and would generate a total of 5,420 gal
for the two vessels. The backwash wastewater produced would be pumped to a 5,000-gal
polyethylene storage tank located next to the treatment system. From the backwash storage
tank, the backwash wastewater would be either discharged to a local sewer or collected and
used for irrigation purposes. However, due to the minimal pressure drop across the vessels
throughout the performance evaluation study, system backwash was never performed.
• Media Replacement. Based on the final sampling event at Wellman, total arsenic
concentrations in the treated water were 6.8 and 2.3 |o,g/L from TA and TB, respectively. The
total arsenic concentration did not exceed the MCL of 10 |og/L; therefore, media replacement
did not occur during the study period. Based on the estimate provided by the vendor,
breakthrough of arsenic was expected after about 17,240 BV of water treated or about 12
months of system operation.
• Water Storage. Treated water from the APU system was sent to the 110,000-gal water tank
located at the site and used to supply treated water to the distribution system.
System Installation
The vendor and its subcontractor completed installation of the APU system on July 20, 2006. The
following sections summarize some of the pre-demonstration activities, including permitting, building
preparation, and system installation, shakedown, and startup.
21
-------
Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
4.3.1 Permitting. A pre-permit package submitted to TCEQ by the City of Wellman on July 11,
2005, requested an exception to use data from an alternative site in lieu of conducting an onsite pilot
study as required under 30 TAC §290.42(g). The exception request included a written description of the
treatment technology, along with a schematic of the system and relevant pilot- and full-scale data. On
August 25, 2005, a permit application package, including a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and equipment
layout, was submitted to TCEQ for permit approval. TCEQ granted the exception request on October 31,
2005, and granted a conditional approval for construction on February 2, 2006. The conditional approval
required that the loading rate, media depth, and pH adjustment comply with the requirements outlined in
the TCEQ exception request response letter dated October 31, 2005. A final response to the TCEQ
conditional approval was submitted by Oiler Engineering, Inc. (the engineer of record) on June 26, 2006,
ensuring that the system installation would be in accordance to the guidance provided by the TCEQ.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. Construction of a new building to house the planned arsenic
treatment system began on January 20, 2006, and was completed on February 6, 2006. The building is a
single-story metal structure with concrete flooring, as shown in Figure 4-4. Additional preparation
required reconfiguration of the chlorination system from the previous treatment facility to the new
building.
22
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived onsite on October 14,
2005. The electrical and plumbing hookups were completed by the vendor's subcontractor during the
week of March 6, 2006. During the week of August 9, 2006, the vendor completed the arsenic treatment
system installation and shakedown work, which included hydraulic testing, media loading, and media
backwash. Two Battelle staff members were onsite on August 9, 2006, to inspect the system and to train
the operator for sampling and data collection. The system officially went online and was put into regular
service on August 10, 2006. As a result of the system inspections, a punch-list of items was identified,
some of which were quickly resolved and did not affect system operations or data collection, although
problems related to the media vessel flow meters could not be resolved immediately and resurfaced
throughout the evaluation. The issues associated with the flow meters are further discussed in Section
4.4.3. Table 4-5 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken.
Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
No backwash flow for
Vessel A
Relocate acid and chlorine
injection points
Install inline mixer after acid
and chlorine injection points
Install second chlorine
injection point after
treatment
Install "IN" sampling point
on raw water line in vault
Calibrate and evaluate
pressure gauges on system
for accuracy
Replace backwash line
sampling port with larger
port
Confirm Vessels A and B
flow meters for proper
calibration and
measurements
Corrective Action(s) Taken
Malfunctioning actuator on valve B V-
014A replaced
Acid and chlorine injection points moved
to inside of treatment building prior to
treatment system
Vendor notified but no action taken to
date
Vendor supplied two additional 4-in PVC
saddles to site; no additional action taken
to date
Sample tap installed on combined well
manifold in vault
Gauges functioning properly after
malfunctioning actuator was replaced on
valve BV-014A
Larger sampling port provided to facility
Flow coefficients in software checked and
correct setting confirmed per factory
specifications; Battelle sent portable flow
meter to site to verify flow meter reading
Resolution
Date
8/11/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/15/2006
10/9/2006
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. System operational parameters recorded during the performance
evaluation study are tabulated and attached as Appendix A; key parameters are summarized in Table 4-6.
From August 10, 2006, through April 17, 2008, the system operated for 3,615 hr, equivalent to 5.9 hr/day
and a utilization rate of 24%. The operating hours were tracked by the hour meter interlocked with the
electromagnetic flow totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels.
The system treated 14,744,962 gal (or 25,938 BV) of water based on true readings of the turbine master
totalizer from August 10, 2006, through November 30, 2007, and on estimated values from November 30,
2007, through the remainder of the performance evaluation study. Because the master totalizer began to
malfunction on November 30, 2007, amounts of water produced by the wells were estimated using
historically measured values. In comparison, the two electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed as
23
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Flow Meter/Totalizer
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV)(C)
Average (Range of) Calculated Flowrate (gpm)(d)
Average (Range of) EBCT for System (min)(c)
Average (Range of) Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across System (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel A (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel B (psi)
Value/Condition
08/10/06-04/17/08
3,615
5.9
Electromagnetic(a)
18,498,848(e)
32,541(e)
118(18-323)
4.8(1.8-31.1)
Turbine(b)
14,744,962
25,938
91 (21-372)
6.2 (1.5-27.4)
46.4 (36-54)
45.9 (33-54)
1.1 (0-4)
0.6 (0-2)
0.6 (0-13)
(a) Flow meter installed on each adsorption vessel.
(b) Master flow meter installed at combined manifold of five supply wells.
(c) Calculated based on 76 ft3 of media in both vessels.
(d) Rosner's outliers test used to determine flowrate average and range from data
collected between 08/10/06 and 11/30/07.
(e) Value based on true measurements from 08/10/06 through 11/30/07 and estimated
values, based on historical data from 11/30/07 through 04/17/08.
part of the treatment system on the two adsorption vessels reported 18,498,848 gal of water treated. Bed
volumes were calculated based on the 76 ft3 of media in both vessels.
System flowrates were tracked by instantaneous flowrate readings from the electromagnetic flow
meter/totalizer on each adsorption vessel, and on calculated flowrate values based on readings of the hour
meter and the same electromagnetic meters/totalizers. Over the system evaluation period, the calculated
system flowrates varied from 18 to 323 gpm and averaged 118 gpm (not including the data collected after
November 30, 2007, when the Well 5 pump was shut down due to pump- and piping-related issues). This
calculated average flowrate is significantly greater than that of the pre-existing turbine master totalizer
(i.e., 91 gpm) and the system design value of 100 gpm. Figure 4-7 compares calculated system flowrates
of the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer and the master totalizer throughout the performance evaluation
study.
To determine a more representative average and range of flowrate values, the Rosner's outlier test was
used for statistical analysis and elimination of erroneous values collected from both the electromagnetic
flow meter/totalizer and turbine master totalizer. Based on the test results, the average electromagnetic
totalizer flowrate through the adsorption vessels was consistently greater than the average master totalizer
flowrate by approximately 30%.
Because of this large discrepancy, a one-day flowrate test was performed on October 9, 2006, using a
portable ultrasonic flow meter to establish an alternate reference for evaluating the accuracy of the
electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers and turbine master totalizer. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of
the one-day flowrate test. In general, the one-day flowrate test results were more comparable with the
master totalizer; therefore, the master totalizer values (provided in Table 4-6) were used for the purposes
of this performance evaluation study and reported throughout this document. Section 4.4.3 further
examines inconsistent flowrates among the treatment system flow meters/totalizers, master totalizer, and
portable flow meter.
24
-------
350
300
=- 250
- Master Totalizer Average Flow/rate'
-APU Totalizer Average Flow/rate"
The pump for well 5,
which supplied about
50% of the flow shut
down in early
December.
08/11/06
11/19/06
04/02/08
Figure 4-7. Calculated Flowrate Values from Electromagnetic Flow
Meter/Totalizer and Master Totalizer
Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow
Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006
Flow Meter/Totalizer
Master Totalizer
Portable Flow Meter
APU System Totalizer
Type of Flow
Meter/Totalizer
Turbine
Ultrasonic
Electromagnetic
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
92
101
128
Difference
(%)
0
+10
+39
As noted in Table 4-6, a statistical analysis was used to eliminate erroneous flowrate values collected
from both the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer and the turbine master totalizer to determine a more
representative average and range of values. Specifically, Rosner's outlier test was employed because
there were more than 25 independent observations and because it was believed that there were multiple
outliers in both datasets (Rosner, 1975). Overall, there were two outliers from the turbine master totalizer
(on February 22 and July 12, 2007) and five outliers from the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer (on
October 2, 2006, and on July 12, August 30, September 4, and September 6, 2007). Following removal of
the outliers, based on Rosner's outlier test, the turbine master totalizer average flowrate was 91 gpm and
the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer average flowrate was 118 gpm, a 30% variance in flowrate
averages.
25
-------
It is also possible that there was serial correlation between the almost daily observations; therefore,
autocorrelation (i.e., correlation between consecutive observations) was calculated for both totalizers. It
was found that the master turbine totalizer values were not autocorrelated but that the electromagnetic
flow meter/totalizer values were autocorrelated. This observation was confirmed by performing a
Durbin-Watson test for autocorrelation (Durbin and Watson, 1950). Overall, the methods and results for
the master turbine totalizer are statistically acceptable, while the presence of autocorrelation affects the
results for the electromagnetic flow meter/totalizer.
The treatment system pressure readings were monitored at the system inlet and outlet and between both
Vessels A and B. Figure 4-8 is a histogram of inlet, outlet, and differential pressures for the system and
each vessel over the system evaluation period. The average Ap across the system, Vessel A, and Vessels
B was 1.1, 0.6, and 0.6 psi, respectively, and remained relatively low. As such, no significant pressure
increases were observed after 3,615 hr of system operation. Several pressure spikes were observed;
however, none of these spikes caused a significant increase across the system or adsorption vessels that
would have required backwashing of the media during the evaluation period.
-Vessel A Inlet Pressure
-Vessel B Inlet Pressure
System Inlet Pressure
-Vessel A Outlet Pressure
-Vessel B Outlet Pressure
System Outlet Pressure
-Vessel A Differential Pressure
-Vessel B Differential Pressure
System Differential Pressure
12/09/07
n,rv
03/18/08
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressure Readings
4.4.2 Residual Management. No residuals were produced, because neither backwash nor media
replacement was required during the evaluation period.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The only operational irregularity
experienced during the evaluation period was related to the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers on the
arsenic treatment system. Over the system evaluation period, the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers
26
-------
installed with the treatment system had been reporting flowrates significantly greater than the design
value and master totalizer values. Because of this, a one-day flowrate test was performed on October 9,
2006, using a portable ultrasonic flow meter to determine the accuracy of the electromagnetic flow
meters/totalizers and turbine master totalizer.
Each type of totalizer operates differently; hence, several different variables could influence the actual
flow measurement. The master totalizer is a turbine flow meter, which is most often used for water
distribution systems. Turbine meters are less accurate than positive displacement and jet meters, although
turbine meters allow for higher flow rates and less pressure loss than displacement-type meters. The
portable flow meter is ultrasonic, which requires known values to be preset prior to use. The portable
flow meter reports an accuracy of ±1% to 3% within a velocity range of ±0.1 m/sec under ideal flow
conditions in 4-in PVC piping. The treatment system flow meter/totalizer is an electromagnetic flow
meter, which requires a minimum of 10 straight pipe diameters upstream and a minimum of five straight
pipe diameters downstream of the flow meters/totalizers. At Wellman, neither upstream nor downstream
specifications were met. Upstream from the flow meters/totalizers there should have been a minimum of
30 in of straight pipe, and downstream there should have been a minimum of 15 in of straight pipe. For
both flow meters/totalizers installed, there were only 21 in upstream and 6 in downstream, a difference of
30% and 60%, respectively, and less than the minimum requirements.
Based on the one-day flow rate test, it was concluded that the APU system flow meters are the least
accurate of the meters due to the current piping configuration and that results from the master totalizer
and portable flow meter are within an acceptable margin of error (Battelle, 2008). As such, the master
turbine totalizer was used for demonstration purposes and the use of the electromagnetic flow
meters/totalizers was discontinued until the factory-set K-factors were adjusted to compensate for the
inaccuracy (i.e., piping configuration). Unfortunately, the vendor was unable to recalibrate the K-factor
during the evaluation period; therefore, the master turbine totalizer was used for the demonstration study
until it began to malfunction on November 30, 2007. Following the malfunction of the master totalizer on
November 30, 2007, flowrate values were estimated, based on historically measured values, through the
completion of the performance evaluation study on April 17, 2008.
Once the master totalizer readings were no longer reliable, subsequent flowrate values were calculated
using adjusted historical APU system flowrates (i.e., values from August 10, 2006 through November 27,
2007). These historical values were adjusted based on the percentage of water flowing through each
vessel and then the adjusted historical values were used to calculate subsequent flowrate values through
April 17, 2008 (see Appendix A).
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Two pretreatments were required at the Wellman site:
chlorination and pH adjustment. A chlorination step was required to provide a chlorine residual in the
distribution system and to oxidize As(III) to As(V). The existing chlorination system was relocated from
the pre-existing chlorination shed into the new treatment building and reconfigured to inject solution after
the combined raw-water sampling location (IN) (as opposed to directly into Well 1) but prior to the AC
sampling location. The chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-3, used a
12.5% NaOCl solution to reach a target free-residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as C12). The reconfigured
chlorination system did not require additional maintenance or skills, other than those required by the
previous system. The operator monitored chlorine solution consumption rates (gal/week) and residual
chlorine levels.
A pH adjustment system was installed to reduce the pH to 7.2 (TCEQ permit requirement); however, it
was never used because of the operator's safety concerns. Throughout the evaluation period, pH values
ranged from 7.6 to 8.0 for the IN samples (i.e., raw water); 7.4 to 7.8 for the AC samples; and 7.4 to 7.7
for the TT samples (i.e., treated water).
27
-------
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls for automatic backwash. Each
media vessel was equipped with five electrically actuated butterfly valves, which were controlled by a
Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch-interface screen. The automated
portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however, operator awareness and an ability to detect
unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation failures. The
equipment vendor provided the operator with hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual.
Operator Skill Requirements. The operation of the adsorption system demanded a higher level of
awareness and attention than the previous system. The system required increased monitoring of system
parameters. The operator's knowledge of the system limitations and typical operational parameters was
critical in achieving system performance objectives. The operator was onsite typically three times per
week and spent approximately 3 to 15 min each time performing visual inspections and recording the
system operating parameters on the daily log sheets. Operator training began with onsite training and a
thorough review of the system operations manual. However, over the system evaluation period, the
operator found that invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational
experience.
TCEQ requires that treatment-system operator hold at least a Class D TCEQ waterworks operator license.
The TCEQ public water system operator certifications are classified as A through D. Licensing eligibility
requirements are based on education, experience, and related training. The minimum requirements for a
Class D license are a high school diploma or GED, as well as 20 hr of related training. Licensing
requirements incrementally increase with each licensing level, with Class A being the highest and
requiring the most education, experience, and training.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The prechlorination tank and
supply lines also were checked for leaks and adequate pressure. Typically, the operator performed these
duties when onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for prechlorination. The
operator ordered chemicals as had been done prior to treatment-system's installation. HC1 was intended
to be used for pH adjustment, but it was not incorporated into the water treatment system and therefore
not handled by the operator.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the arsenic treatment system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples
collected from the treatment facility and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 41 occasions,
including five duplicate and 16 speciation sampling events. Appendix B provides a complete set of
tabulated results. Table 4-8 summarizes the results for arsenic, iron, manganese, and vanadium across the
treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. The results of the
water samples collected throughout the treatment train are discussed below.
Arsenic. As shown in Table 4-8, total arsenic concentrations at the combined manifold (IN) varied
considerably, ranging from 6.0 to 50.6 |o,g/L and averaging 36.0 |o,g/L. The predominant soluble species
was As(V), ranging from 6.1 to 43.8 |o,g/L and averaging 29.0 |og/L. Low levels of soluble As(III) and
particulate arsenic also were present, averaging 1.3 and 4.2 |o,g/L, respectively. A review of the
significant concentration variations at the IN sampling location identified that system operations and
sampling techniques most likely were contributing to these variations. In fact, samples collected after
28
-------
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC(b)
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
41
41
25
25
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
41
40
25
25
16
16
16
16
41
41
25
25
16
16
16
16
41
41
25
25
16
16
16
16
Concentration
Minimum
6.0
37.5
0.1
0.7
0.4
8.8
35.9
0.4
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
6.1
35.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.3
<0.
<0.
17.5
105
0.7
0.7
0.6
28.7
112
0.5
Maximum
50.6
50.0
7.5
7.6
7.9
44.2
48.6
7.8
18.5
9.2
0.6
6.0
11.4
8.7
43.8
42.9
5.5
131
51.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
2.2
2.0
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.3
0.9
0.5
167
174
133
136
132
156
169
139
Average
36.0
42.9
_(a)
_(a)
_(a)
30.3
41.3
.(a)
4.2
3.2
.(a)
1.3
1.8
.(a)
29.0
39.6
.(a)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
112
136
.(a)
.(a)
.(a)
100
143
.(a)
Standard
Deviation
11.4
3.4
.(a)
.(a)
.(a)
13.2
2.8
.(a)
4.9
2.6
.(a)
1.4
2.7
.(a)
13.8
2.0
.(a)
21.4
9.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
36.5
15.8
.(a)
.(a)
.(a)
46.9
15.2
.(a)
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
(a) Average and standard deviation calculations were not meaningful due to breakthrough of respective
contaminants from adsorption vessels; see breakthrough curves in Figure 4-10 for total arsenic;
Figure 4-9 for paniculate arsenic, As(III), and As(V); and Figure 4-12 for vanadium.
(b) Analytical results from April 17, 2008, were not used in statistical calculations due to abnormally
high results (1,516 ng/L) and were considered erroneous.
29
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water-Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride(a)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
Total Organic
Carbon
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free C12 (as C12)
Total C12 (as C12)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
TT
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
34
34
18
18
16
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
41
41
25
25
16
34
34
18
18
16
34
34
18
18
16
15
15
15
13
13
12
13
13
12
11
11
9
12
12
11
3
5
Concentration
Minimum
232
239
252
246
243
0.4
3.6
4.5
70.0
218
230
3.5
3.5
3.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
42.1
42.6
41.3
42.8
24.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
7.6
7.4
7.4
8.1
9.7
10.1
4.7
4.1
4.6
178
185
271
0.8
0.2
Maximum
301
273
275
276
272
7.6
6.8
7.8
318
470
380
7.2
7.2
7.3
33.6
34.9
17.4
25.4
27.7
62.1
60.8
61.5
64.2
50.6
2.6
2.4
2.7
3.4
0.8
1.9
1.7
1.6
8.0
7.8
7.7
22.3
23.8
23.8
7.1
7.0
6.3
612
676
726
1.4
2.2
Average
262
255
261
260
259
5.5
5.3
5.8
240
299
272
5.1
5.1
5.1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
46.8
46.2
47.3
47.9
45.2
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
7.8
7.6
7.5
15.9
16.3
16.4
5.7
5.5
5.5
477
503
557
1.0
0.9
Standard
Deviation
11.2
9.6
6.8
7.0
7.9
1.6
0.9
0.9
57.1
77.6
45.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
6.8
7.1
2.5
4.1
6.3
4.0
3.3
4.5
4.8
6.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.8
4.5
4.3
0.7
0.8
0.6
112
129
133
0.3
0.8
30
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water-Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
15
15
15
16
16
16
15
15
15
Concentration
Minimum
333
349
351
101
100
105
195
227
212
Maximum
604
668
557
187
187
182
474
507
401
Average
410
458
417
133
136
142
276
322
275
Standard
Deviation
78.3
99.7
59.6
21.1
20.3
20.7
71.4
91.6
50.6
One-half of detection limit used for
(a) Analytical results from June 14
calculations because they were
samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
, 2007 at IN and July 9, 2007 at AC and TT were not used in statistical
determined to be outliers.
chlorination (AC) provided concentrations in a more reasonable range and are believed to be more
representative of the true water quality. Total arsenic concentrations in the AC samples ranged from 37.5
to 50.0 |o,g/L and averaged 42.9 |o,g/L. In the AC samples, soluble As(V) remained predominant, ranging
from 35.2 to 42.9 |o,g/L and averaging 39.6 |o,g/L. Soluble As(III) concentrations averaged 1.8 |o,g/L, and
particulate arsenic concentrations averaged 3.2 |o,g/L.
The presence of As(V) as the predominant species in raw water was consistent with the high DO and ORP
levels/readings, which averaged 5.7 mg/L and 477 mV, respectively (Table 4-9). After prechlorination,
DO levels remained rather unchanged, averaging 5.5 mg/L at both AC and TT sampling locations.
However, ORP readings increased significantly to levels averaging 503 and 557 mV at the AC and TT
locations, respectively. The increase in ORP was caused by the presence of up to 1.0 mg/L (as C12) of
free-chlorine residuals in the chlorinated water.
Figure 4-9 presents the results of the 16 arsenic speciation events measured at the IN, AC, and TT
locations. Beginning March 14, 2007, As(V) concentrations from the combined effluent began to
increase gradually along with the volume of water treated, indicating that the media was becoming
exhausted (however, breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L was never reached during the evaluation period). As(III)
levels at the IN, AC, and TT locations were similar, averaging 1.3, 1.8, and 1.5 |o,g/L, respectively. The
measurements of As(III) at AC and TT are most likely due to the limitation of the speciation method,
since as much as 1.0 mg/L (as C12) of free-chlorine residuals were measured in the combined effluent.
Figure 4-10 illustrates total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment train as a function of
throughput in bed volumes. The total arsenic breakthrough curves indicate that the AD-33 media
removed arsenic to levels well below the MCL of 10 |o,g/L. The final sampling event, April 17, 2008,
measured the total arsenic concentration at the TA and TB sampling locations at 6.8 and 2.3 |o,g/L,
respectively. Throughout the evaluation period, the system treated an estimated 25,938 BV (14,744,962
gal) of water with treated water containing <6.8 |og/L of arsenic. This volume of treated water surpassed
the vendor's estimate of 17,240 BV (9,800,000 gal) by 50%.
31
-------
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
50
40
30
20
10
0
DAs (participate)
• As(lll)
rjAs(V)
—
-I
""
E
:
:
-
—
-|
=
~
=
50
ncentration (fjg/L)
o o
3
< 20
10
-^ 0
DAs (participate)
• As(lll)
nAs(V)
=
-
=
=
z
~
=
|-|
-
I
—
OJ
to
D As (participate)
• As(lll)
DAs(V)
Arsenic Speciation after Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Locations
-------
At Wellhead (IN)
After Chlorlnatlon (AC)
After Vessel A (TA)
After Vessel B (TB)
-*- After Total Combined Effluent (TT)
Estimated Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
As indicated earlier, total arsenic concentrations (along with concentrations of various other analytical
parameters, including total vanadium) unexpectedly increased from the IN to the AC sampling location
on 12 occasions (see Figure 4-11). During these sampling events, the average total arsenic concentration
at the IN and AC sampling locations was 19.8 and 40.9 ng/L, respectively. Repeat analysis of these
samples and discussions with the operator did not reveal an explanation. One factor that was most likely
the cause of this inconsistency was the intermittent operation of the wells and the possibility of samples
being collected while the system was not operating. The system treats water based on demand, and the
water is supplied by five wells. Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 are operated by a single pressure switch and Well 5,
which produces nearly half the treated water, is operated by a separate pressure switch. This type of
pressure switch configuration might have allowed some wells to operate somewhat longer than others,
thereby producing inconsistencies in water quality and analytical results. In fact, in some cases, if one of
the pressure switches was delayed, pressure could build in the pipeline and prevent the delayed well pump
or pumps from being switched on.
In an effort to evaluate this possibility, the operator was instructed to collect samples only while the
system was operating and producing the average flow expected from all five supply wells. Since that
time, the average total arsenic concentrations at the IN and AC sampling locations were 42.3 and
43.5 ng/L, respectively. Overall, the analytical results indicate that once the operator began collecting
samples while the system was operating, the total arsenic concentrations (along with various other
analytical parameters) became more consistent between the IN and AC sampling locations.
33
-------
-Arsenic at the Wellhead
-Arsenic after Chlorlnatlon
• Vanadium at the Wellhead
•Vanadium after Chlorlnatlon
-r 200
160
15
Bed Volumes (103{
20
25
30
Figure 4-11. Total Arsenic and Vanadium Concentrations at IN and AC Sampling Locations
Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium. Total iron levels at the wellhead averaged below the MDL of 25 (ig/L
(Table 4-8). However, iron was detected during the first three sampling events, on July 23, 2007 and on
April 17, 2008. Total iron concentrations after chlorination were below the MDL, except on October 19,
2006, February 13, 2007, July 23, 2007, and April 17, 2008. Iron levels consistently remained below the
detection limit in the treatment system effluent.
Total manganese levels at the wellhead averaged 0.6 (ig/L (Table 4-8). Total manganese in the system
effluent decreased to levels below the detection limit of 0.1 |o,g/L at the TA and TB sampling locations
and averaged 0.1 |o,g/L from the total combined effluent (TT). Soluble manganese concentrations were
similar to total concentrations, averaging 0.7, 0.4, and 0.1 (ig/L at the IN, AC, and TT locations,
respectively.
Total vanadium levels varied significantly in the IN samples, ranging from 17.5 to 167 |o,g/L, with 89%
existing in the soluble form (Table 4-8). Figure 4-12 illustrates the vanadium breakthrough curves at
sampling locations across the treatment train. Over the evaluation period, total vanadium concentrations
were reduced to < 133 |o,g/L in the treatment system effluent.
As discussed previously, total vanadium concentrations unexpectedly increased from the wellhead to the
after-chlorination sampling location - similar to total arsenic levels - on 12 occasions. Figure 4-11
illustrates the similarities at the IN and AC sampling locations between total arsenic and total vanadium
concentrations. During these sampling events, the average total vanadium concentration at the IN and AC
sampling locations was 61.7 and 142 |o,g/L, respectively. As indicated previously, this variation was most
34
-------
200
160
120
-0-At Wellhead (IN)
-•-After Chlorination (AC)
-A-After Vessel A (TA)
-A- After Vessel B (TB)
-*-After Total Combined Effluent (TT)
o
o
Estimated Bed Volumes (10 )
Figure 4-12. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves
likely caused by inconsistent operations of pressure switches and well pumps used to supply water to the
treatment system. Once the operator began collecting samples while the treatment system was operating,
the analytical results were more consistent, as demonstrated by the average total vanadium concentrations
of 133 and 135 |o,g/L at the IN and AC sampling locations, repectively.
Total vanadium concentrations at the TB sampling location were consistently higher than those at the TA
sampling location, at corresponding sampling intervals. This noticeable trend also was present with total
arsenic concentrations at the TA and TB sampling locations. It is not clear what caused the differences
observed. Figures 4-10 and 4-12 illustrate these trends.
Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which can adversely affect arsenic adsorption onto the AD-33
media, were measured at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total phosphorous concentrations
remained low throughout the treatment train, averaging <10 ng/L (as P); therefore, it was not expected to
affect system performance. Silica concentrations remained relatively constant across the treatment train,
averaging from 45.2 mg/L at the TT location to 47.9 mg/L at the TB location (Table 4-9). Some silica
was removed during the first 2,000 BV; similar removal by AD-33 media was observed elsewhere during
the arsenic demonstration studies (McCall, et al, 2007; Williams, et al., 2007).
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, pH values of raw water ranged from 7.6 to 8.0
and averaged 7.8. After chlorination, pH values ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 and averaged 7.6. This pH range
of 7.4 to 7.8 after chlorination, but prior to the adsorption vessels, is lower than that for which pH
35
-------
adjustment should be implemented. As discussed previously, pH adjustment was required by TCEQ, but
was not implemented because of the operator's safety concerns.
Alkalinity levels averaged 262 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and 260 mg/L (as CaCO3) in system
effluent. Total hardness levels ranged from 333 to 604 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and from 351 to
557 mg/L (as CaCO3) in the treated water. Average fluoride results ranged from 5.3 to 5.8 mg/L at all
sampling locations. The fluoride levels were higher than the fluoride MCL of 4 mg/L. Average nitrate
concentrations were 5.1 mg/L at all sampling locations. Average sulfate concentrations ranged from 240
to 299 mg/L at all sampling locations. The results indicated that the AD-33 media did not affect the
amount of alkalinity, total hardness, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate in the treated water.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. The arsenic treatment system was not backwashed
during the evaluation period due to the minimal pressure drop across the vessels.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation and operation of the arsenic
treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected on June 22, July 14, August
18, and September 14, 2005, at three residences, including two that had been included for the city's LCR
sampling in the past. Following installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling
continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations, with samples collected on 13 occasions from
September 6, 2006, through September 11, 2007. Table 4-10 summarizes the results of the distribution
system sampling.
The most significant change in the distribution system water since the system began operation was a
decrease in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 33.2 to 44.7 (ig/L and
averaged 38.9 (ig/L for all three locations. After treatment began, arsenic concentrations decreased at all
three locations, averaging 3.2 (ig/L. Distribution system samples collected on September 6, 2006, and
February 21, 2007 contained relatively high arsenic concentrations ranging from 7.0 to 11.4 and 6.0 to
14.1 |o,g/L, respectively. The remaining samples contained lower arsenic concentrations ranging from
<0.1 to 3.9 |o,g/L and averaging 2.0 |og/L for all three locations.
After treatment began, average lead concentrations remained relatively constant, ranging from 0.3 to 0.4
(ig/L at the three locations, with no samples exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L. Average copper
concentrations varied significantly, ranging from 17.0 to 115 (ig/L at the three locations, with no samples
exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level. Overall, operation of the arsenic treatment system did not
adversely affect the lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system.
After treatment began, measured pH values averaged 7.7, which is consistent with the values measured
before the system became operational (pH was 7.6) and with the average values measured after the
adsorption vessels (pH was 7.5). Average alkalinity levels ranged from 261 to 271 mg/L (as CaCO3), iron
was not detected in any of the samples, and average manganese concentrations ranged from 0.3 to
0.4 (ig/L at all three locations. Overall, the arsenic treatment system did not appear to affect these water
quality parameters in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost is presented on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M
cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
installation; the O&M cost includes media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electrical power
use, and labor.
36
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results
Event No.
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Location
Sample
Type
Sampling Date
Date
06/22/05
07/14/05
08/18/05
09/14/05
09/06/06
10/10/06
11/15/06
12/14/06
01/18/07
02/21/07
03/20/07
04/18/07
05/24/07
06/14/07
07/12/07
08/22/07
09/11/07
DS1
LCR
Stagnation Time
hr
11.3
10.5
6.5
8.5
6.5
9.3
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.5
6.5
6.5
S3
s.u.
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.9
Alkalinity
mg/L
242
246
242
264
263
258
254
268
265
264
271
276
261
247
252
259
260
1/3
•<
Hg/L
40.6
39.4
38.3
33.2
7.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
2.1
6.0
0.9
0.4
1.2
2.0
3.5
2.9
3.2
QJ
•—
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
"g/L
0.3
0.9
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
j=
BL.
Hg/L
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.4
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.3
O
Hg/L
62.3
67.0
51.1
67.5
3.0
10.1
7.8
5.2
134
9.5
7.8
6.3
5.8
7.7
6.3
8.4
8.3
DS2
LCR
Stagnation Time
hr
8.8
6.4
8.4
7.8
7.5
6.5
8.5
11.0
7.8
9.0
7.5
8.0
7.0
8.8
8.8
7.5
8.3
S3
S.U.
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.8
Alkalinity
mg/L
242
251
246
264
367
260
258
262
272
267
273
260
257
262
256
265
264
1/3
<
"g/L
42.3
39.7
37.9
36.2
11.4
2.4
2.1
2.5
1.4
7.3
1.7
1.1
1.8
2.5
3.7
3.2
3.5
QJ
•—
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Hg/L
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
j=
BL.
"g/L
<0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.3
O
Hg/L
73.0
65.8
97.2
126
74.4
78.0
129
141
139
141
112
99.0
139
113
70.7
117
118
DS3
Residence
Stagnation Time
hr
6.5
7.1
8.3
7.4
7.9
7.5
7.3
8.1
8.2
6.6
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.6
6.8
7.0
7.0
S3
S.U.
8.2
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
242
251
NA(a)
264
272
271
258
266
272
269
276
264
257
274
249
263
262
1/3
<
Hg/L
40.5
38.5
44.7
35.1
11.4
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.1
14.1
<0.1
0.6
1.3
2.4
3.9
3.9
3.3
QJ
•—
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
|
Hg/L
0.5
0.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
1.7
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0.1
<0.1
j=
Cu
Hg/L
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.3
O
"g/L
275
139
197
153
72.9
190
182
94.8
13.4
120
196
111
28.7
124
167
157
37.9
(a) Insufficient sample for analysis due to loss during shipment.
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not analyzed; NS = not sampled.
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1,300 |
-------
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
arsenic treatment system was $149,221 (see Table 4-11). The equipment cost was $103,897 (or 70% of
the total capital investment), which included $76,254 for the skid-mounted APU-100CS-S-2-AVHunit,
$21,280 for the AD-33 media (i.e., $280/ft3 to fill two vessels with 76 ft3 of media), $2,851 forthe pH
adjustment system, and $3,512 for shipping.
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit)
AD-33 Media (ft3)
pH Adjustment System
Shipping
Equipment Total
1
76
-
-
-
$76,254
$21,280
$2,851
$3,512
$103,897
-
-
-
-
70%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Material/Labor/Travel
Subcontractor Labor/Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$11,660
$13,650
$25,310
-
-
17%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor/Travel
Subcontractor Labor/Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
$6,374
$13,640
$20,014
$149,221
-
-
13%
100%
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing one submittal package for the exception request and
permit application and for obtaining the required permit in addition to labor and travel (see Section 4.3.1).
The engineering cost was $25,310, or 17% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and
startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $20,014, or 13% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $149,221 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000
gpd), which resulted in $l,492/gpm ($1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted
to an annualized cost of $14,085/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7%
interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the
system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system only operated an average of 5.9 hr/day at 91 gpm (see
Table 4-6), producing approximately 11,758,000 gal of water over a 1 year period, the unit capital cost
increased to $1.20/1,000 gal of water at this reduced rate of use.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes the cost for items such as
media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media
replacement did not occur during the evaluation period, the media replacement cost would represent the
majority of the O&M cost and is estimated to be $30,010 to change out both vessels (Table 4-12). This
media changeout cost would include the cost for media, freight, labor, travel, spent-media analysis, and
media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water
38
-------
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
14,744,962
Assumptions
Through April 17, 2008
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media and Underbedding
Replacement
Shipping
Vendor Labor/Travel
Subcontractor Labor
Media Analysis and Disposal
Subtotal
Media Replacement and Disposal
($71,000 gal)
$22,420
$983
$3,717
$1,890
$1,000
$30,010
See Figure 4-13
Vendor quote; $295/ft3 for 76 ft3 (two media
vessel)
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote plus spent-media analysis
Based upon both vessels' media run length
at 10 |ag/L arsenic breakthrough
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (min)
Annual Labor Cost ($/yr(
Labor ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
45
$234
$0.02
See Figure 4-13
15 mm/day, 3 day/week
Labor rate = $6.00/hr; 52 week/yr
Annual system throughput = 1 1,758,000 gal
Based on both vessels' media run length at
10 |ag/L arsenic breakthrough
treated as a function of the projected media run length in bed volumes to 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough
(Figure 4-13).
The chemical cost associated with the treatment system's operation included the use of hydrochloric acid
for pH adjustment and sodium hypochlorite for chlorination. The pH adjustment system was not
operated; therefore, no cost accrued for acid consumption. Sodium hypochlorite was already being used
at the site prior to installation of the APU system for disinfection purposes. The operation of the APU
system did not affect the use of sodium hypochlorite; therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine
was negligible and not included in O&M costs.
Electrical bills prior to and after installation showed no indication of an increase in power consumption.
Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation of the system was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
up to 15 min/day, 3 day/week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Based on this time commitment, a labor rate of
$6.00/hr, and an annual system throughput of 11,758,000 gal, the estimated labor cost was
$0.02/1,000 gal of water treated.
39
-------
$10.00
$9.00
Media Replacement Cost
O&M Cost
$0.00
0 10 20
Note: One bed volume equals 568 gallons
30 40 50 60 70
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (*103)
90
100
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
40
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, Texas.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029 for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.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.
Durbin, J. and G.S. Watson. 1950. "Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression I,"
Biometrika 37: 409-428.
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): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring." Fed. Register, 66:14:6975, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and
142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. "Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic."
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH. Six-Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Rosner, B. 1975. "On the Detection of Many Outliers." Technometrics, 17: 221-227.
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.
Williams. S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in
Bruni, TX. Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/049. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
41
-------
Williams. S., A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and A. Paolucci. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX. Six-Month Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-08/080. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
Ho.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Day of
Week
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
08/1 0/06
08/1 1 1QS
OBn 2/06
08/13/06
08/1 4/06
08/15/06
08/1 6.106
08/17/06
08/1 8/06
08/1 9JD6
08/20JD6
08/21 /06""
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
0800/06
08/31 J06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/1 0/06
09/11/06
09/1 2/06
09/13/06
09/1 4/06
09/1 5/06
09/16/06
09/1 7/06
09/1 3/06
09/1 9/06
0900/06
09/21 /D6
09/22JD6
09/23/06
09/24/06
Operational
Hours
hi
0.0
14.9
3.3
4.6
5.6
8.7
4.6
3.3
2.4
6.3
3.0
3.4
6.9
7.7
9.4
9.7
7.9
1.5
12.3
5.0
5.9
6.3
3.3
5.5
4.6
3.8
3.6
4.8
4.6
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.9
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.7
3.8
4.4
3.6
4.8
4.9
13.5
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
gal
33,039,400
33,115,400
33,136,000
33,160,600
33,187,200
33,214,400
33,233,700
33,256,600
33,270,000
33,301 ,000
33,325,900
33,347,400
33,368,900
33,392,500
33,417,900
33,441 ,400
33,462,000
33,466,100
33,501 ,300
33,522,200
33,551,100
33,578,700
33,595,600
33,622,000
33,643,400
33,664,800
33,686,200
33,711,400
33,735,500
33,756,000
33,777,400
33,797,000
33,823,700
33,850,300
33,873,800
33,896,100
33,917,900
33,942,300
33,964,700
33,991 ,600
34,011,900
34,035,700
34,054,400
34,080,700
34,107,400
34,146,300
Volume
Produced
Dairy
gal
0
76,000
20,600
24,600
26,600
27,200
19,300
22,900
13,400
31 ,000
24,900
21 ,500
21 ,500
23,600
25,400
23,500
20,600
4,100
35,200
20,900
28,900
27,600
16,900
26,400
21 ,400
21 ,400
21 ,400
25,200
24,100
20,500
21 ,400
19,600
26,700
26,600
23,500
22,300
21 ,800
24,400
22,400
26,900
20,300
23,800
18,700
26,300
26,700
38,900
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
gal
0
76,000
96,600
121,200
147,800
175,000
194,300
217,200
230,600
261 ,600
286,500
308,000
329,500
353,100
378,500
402,000
422,600
426,700
461 ,900
482,800
511,700
539,300
556,200
582,600
604,000
625,400
646,800
672,000
696,100
716,600
738,000
757,600
784,300
810,900
834,400
856,700
878,500
902,900
925,300
952,200
972,500
996,300
1,015,000
1 ,041 ,300
1,068,000
1,106,900
Calculated
Floiarrate
gpm
NA
85
104
89
79
52
70
116
93
82
138
105
52
51
45
40
43
46
48
70
82
73
85
80
78
94
99
87
87
90
91
86
91
89
89
88
89
90
89
95
89
90
87
91
91
48
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Meter
gal
23,951
133,239
157,120
191,863
229,992
264,499
293,575
327,434
344,691
392,696
431 ,068
466,586
502,488
539,51 1
577,067
61 1 ,907
641,610
647,446
689,782
719,819
760,881
801 ,1 70
825,870
863,921
898,784
927,588
955,246
991 ,279
1 ,025,595
1 ,054,775
1,085,135
1,113,081
1,150,871
1,190,365
1 ,223,797
1 ,255,406
1 ,286,453
1,321,101
1 ,352,826
1,390,716
1,419,142
1,452,145
1 ,478,474
1,515,255
1,552,716
1,612,618
Dairy
Treated
Volume
gal
0
109,288
23,881
34,743
38,129
34,507
29,076
33,859
17,257
48,005
38,372
35,518
35,902
37,023
37,556
34,840
29,703
5,836
42,336
30,037
41 ,062
40,289
24,700
38,051
34,863
28,804
27,658
36,033
34,316
29,180
30,360
27,946
37,790
39,494
33,432
31 ,609
31 ,047
34,648
31 ,725
37,890
28,426
33,003
26,329
36,781
37,461
59,902
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
0
109,288
133,169
167,912
206,041
240,548
269,624
303,483
320,740
368,745
407,117
442,635
478,537
515,560
553,116
587,956
617,659
623,495
665,831
695,868
736,930
777,219
801,919
839,970
874,833
903,637
931 ,295
967,328
1 ,001 ,644
1,030,824
1 ,061 ,1 84
1,089,130
1,126,920
1,166,414
1,199,846
1 ,231 ,455
1,262,502
1,297,150
1,328,875
1,366,765
1,395,191
1,428,194
1,454,523
1 ,491 ,304
1,528,765
1,588,667
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
0
192
234
295
362
423
474
534
564
649
716
779
842
907
973
1,034
1,087
1,097
1,171
1,224
1,296
1,367
1,411
1,478
1,539
1,590
1,638
1,702
1,762
1,813
1,867
1,916
1,982
2,052
2,111
2,166
2,221
2,282
2,338
2,404
2,454
2,512
2,559
2,623
2,689
2,795
Calculated
System
FloiOTate
opm
NA
122
121
126
113
66
105
171
120
127
213
174
87
80
67
60
63
65
57
100
116
107
125
115
126
126
128
125
124
128
130
123
129
132
127
125
126
128
126
134
125
125
122
128
127
74
Calculated
Vessel A
Flowrate
gpm
NA
65.4
60.5
67.6
48.2
25.0
53.4
90.5
59.1
67.6
119.9
105.0
51.8
47.3
33.4
30.2
31.6
32.3
29.3
49.8
59.7
55.7
61.7
59.7
64.0
64.1
65.4
64.0
63.4
65.4
65.9
62.3
65.1
70.1
64.7
63.9
64.6
65.5
64.5
69.1
64.0
63.3
62.4
65.2
65.4
42.7
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
gpm
NA
59.0
60.1
59.4
64.4
41.1
51.9
80.5
59.1
60.8
90.7
70.4
34.7
33.0
33.1
29.7
31.1
32.5
28.0
33.6
69.8
78.2
10.7
56.4
62.3
62.2
62.6
61.1
61.0
62.6
63.8
60.3
63.4
61.5
62.0
61.5
61.6
62.8
61.4
65.3
60.7
61.7
59.4
62.5
62.0
31.2
Inlet
Pressure
psi
36
NA
NA
46
44
47
NA
NA
44
43
49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40
44
43
46
48
45
42
44
48
44
48
47
46
48
48
46
44
42
44
42
44
44
46
46
44
40
40
40
48
Outlet
Pressure
|)SI
33
NA
NA
45
44
48
NA
NA
44
44
51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41
44
44
46
47
44
44
46
48
45
48
49
48
49
49
47
46
44
44
44
46
45
48
48
45
42
42
42
49
Pressure
Differential
|»SI
3
NA
NA
1
0
1
NA
NA
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
09/25/06
09/26JD6
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
0900/06
10,'Q1.'06
1 0/02/06
1 0/03JD6
1 0/04/06
1 0/05/06
1 0/06/06
1 0,'D7J06
1 0/08/06
1 0/09/06
10/10/06
1 0/1 1 JOB
10/12/06
10/13/06
1 0/1 4/06
10/15JD6
1 0/1 6/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
1 0/1 9/06
1 0/20JD6
10/21/06
1 0/23/06
1 0/24/06
1 0/25JD6
1 0/26J06
1 0/27/06
1 0/28JD6
1 0J29JD6
1 0J30/06
10/31/06
1 1 /01 JD6
1 1 /02JD6
1 1 /03JD6
1 1 /04JD6
1 1 /06J06
1 1 /07JD6
1 1 JD8J06
1 1 /09/D6
11/1 OJD6
11/11/06
11/12/06
Operational
Houi s
hi
5.3
4.2
2.3
4.9
4.7
5.6
5.6
2.4
5.3
10.9
8.2
3.8
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.1
2.1
4.4
5.3
4.8
4.4
4.2
7.1
3.9
3.2
11.5
1.6
5.8
6.3
8.0
1.4
3.9
5.1
5.7
1.9
5.0
3.1
6.0
4.7
5.2
5.2
3.0
4.4
5.5
4.8
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
gal
34,174,900
34,197,400
34,209,700
34,236,200
34,264,500
34,294,000
34,325,300
34,348,500
34,376,500
34,422,000
34,467,200
34,487,500
34,514,200
34,539,200
34,565,800
34,591,700
34,617,000
34,639,800
34,647,300
34,670,600
34,708,800
34,726,400
34,751 ,600
34,776,400
34,799,500
34,808,400
34,831 ,700
34,888,800
34,890,800
34,920,800
34,956,200
34,987,600
35,012,800
35,038,800
35,063,100
35,038,400
35,098,700
35,125,800
35,144,600
35,175,900
35,205,600
35,235,300
35,266,100
35,284,400
35,311,900
35,339,800
35,368,600
Volume
Produced
Daily
gal
28,600
22,500
12,300
26,500
28,300
29,500
31 ,300
23,200
28,000
45,500
45,200
20,300
26,700
25,000
26,600
25,900
25,300
22,800
7,500
23,300
38,200
17,600
25,200
24,800
23,100
8,900
23,300
57,100
2,000
30,000
35,400
31 ,400
25,200
26,000
24,300
25,300
10,300
27,100
18,800
31 ,300
29,700
29,700
30,800
18,300
27,500
27,900
28,800
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
gal
1,135,500
1,153,000
1,170,300
1,196,800
1,225,100
1,254,600
1,285,900
1,309,100
1,337,100
1,382,600
1 ,427,800
1,448,100
1,474,800
1,499,800
1 ,526,400
1,552,300
1 ,577,600
1,600,400
1,607,900
1 ,631 ,200
1,669,400
1,687,000
1,712,200
1,737,000
1,760,100
1 ,769,000
1,792,300
1,849,400
1 ,851 ,400
1 ,881 ,400
1,916,800
1,948,200
1 ,973,400
1,999,400
2,023,700
2,049,000
2,059,300
2,086,400
2,105,200
2,136,500
2,166,200
2,195,900
2,226,700
2,245,000
2,272,500
2,300,400
2,329,200
Calculated
Flowrate
gi>m
90
89
89
90
100
88
93
161
88
70
92
89
99
91
92
92
92
93
60
88
120
61
95
98
54
38
121
83
21
86
94
65
300
111
79
74
90
90
101
87
105
95
99
102
104
85
100
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Meter
gal
1,653,161
1 ,684,529
1 ,701 ,942
1 ,738,868
1 ,777,720
1,819,883
1 ,863,726
1 ,892,368
1 ,937,203
2,002,215
2,065,789
2,094,019
2,131,415
2,165,969
2,202,812
2,238,965
2,274,199
2,305,780
2,315,671
2,349,386
2,391,138
2,427,468
2,462,190
2,497,148
2,542,188
2,571 ,835
2,575,347
2,656,647
2,664,075
2,712,601
2,757,324
2,818,802
2,829,299
2,864,949
2,899,391
2,941 ,041
2,948,962
2,987,116
3,012,449
3,056,088
3,095,999
3,142,454
3,181,806
3,210,514
3,246,301
3,287,855
3,326,104
Daily
Treated
Volume
gal
40,543
31 ,368
17,413
36,926
38,852
42,163
43,843
28,642
44,835
65,012
63,574
28,230
37,396
34,554
36,843
36,153
35,234
31 ,581
9,891
33,715
41 ,752
36,330
34,722
34,358
45,040
29,647
3,512
81 ,300
7,428
48,526
45,223
60,978
10,497
35,650
34,442
41 ,650
7,921
38,154
25,333
43,639
39,911
46,455
39,352
28,708
35,787
41 ,554
38,249
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
1,629,210
1 ,660,578
1 ,677,991
1,714,917
1 ,753,769
1 ,795,932
1 ,839,775
1,868,417
1,913,252
1 ,978,264
2,041 ,838
2,070,068
2,107,464
2,142,018
2,178,861
2,215,014
2,250,248
2,281 ,829
2,291 ,720
2,325,435
2,367,187
2,403,517
2,438,239
2,473,197
2,518,237
2,547,884
2,551 ,396
2,632,696
2,640,124
2,688,650
2,733,873
2,794,851
2,805,348
2,840,998
2,875,440
2,917,090
2,925,011
2,963,165
2,988,498
3,032,137
3,072,048
3,118,503
3,157,855
3,186,563
3,222,350
3,263,904
3,302,153
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
2,866
2,921
2,952
3,017
3,085
3,159
3,236
3,287
3,366
3,480
3,592
3,641
3,707
3,768
3,833
3,896
3,958
4,014
4,031
4,091
4,164
4,228
4,289
4,351
4,430
4,482
4,488
4,631
4,644
4,730
4,809
4,916
4,935
4,998
5,058
5,131
5,145
5,212
5,257
5,334
5,404
5,486
5,555
5,605
5,668
5,741
5,809
Calculated
System
Flowrate
gpm
127
124
126
126
138
125
130
199
141
99
129
124
139
125
128
128
128
128
79
128
131
126
132
139
106
127
18
118
77
139
120
127
125
152
113
122
69
127
136
121
142
149
126
159
136
126
133
Calculated
Vessel A
Flowrate
gpm
65.4
63.1
64.9
63.3
69.5
63.5
66.2
111.2
72.5
52.7
66.0
63.0
71.1
63.6
65.0
64.9
64.7
65.1
44.2
64.9
67.0
63.8
67.7
72.2
54.9
65.1
10.1
64.8
44.7
72.9
61.2
63.9
64.2
77.6
58.6
61.6
41.3
65.4
69.6
62.0
73.0
78.7
65.4
86.7
70.8
66.1
68.9
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
gpm
62.1
61.3
61.3
62.3
67.5
62.6
64.3
37.7
68.5
46.4
63.6
60.8
67.4
61.6
62.9
63.3
62.9
63.2
35.3
62.4
64.3
61.4
64.6
67.6
33.3
92.1
8.0
53.0
32.3
66.5
58.5
63.1
60.6
76.3
54.8
58.8
28.2
63.2
64.4
59.0
68.2
70.3
61 .1
72.6
64.1
60.3
63.6
Inlet
Pressure
|>si
46
46
40
40
44
43
44
40
40
48
48
42
44
46
46
48
48
48
48
42
46
44
44
44
46
53
42
52
44
44
44
51
44
44
44
51
44
48
44
44
44
44
47
44
45
44
44
Oirtlet
Pressure
|)SI
43
48
42
42
43
44
46
42
42
47
50
44
46
48
48
50
50
50
44
44
48
44
43
43
45
52
42
52
43
43
43
SO
42
43
44
52
43
47
42
42
42
42
46
43
44
43
42
Pressure
Differential
|)SI
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
Mo.
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
1 1 11 3/06
1 1 n 4/06
1 1 n 5/06
11/16/06
1 1 ft 8)06
1 1 £20/06
1 1 /21 .'06
1 1 /22/Q6
11/24/06
1 1 127/06
11/28/06
1 1 .'30)06
1 2)01 ,'06
1 2/04/06
1 2105106
12/06/06
1 2)08)06
1 2/1 1 (06
12/12/06
1 2f\ 3/06
12/14/06
1 2/1 6(06
1 2/1 9)06
1 2/21 )06
1 2/23/06
1 2/26/06
12/27/06
1 2/29/06
1 2/30/06
01 .'01 .'07
01 ,(02/07
01/04/07
01 /OS/07
01 asm
01 ,'1 Offl7
01 ,'1 1 (07
01 /1 3/07
01 ,1 6/07
01 » 7/07
01 /1 9/07
01 ,00/07
01)22/07
01/23/07
01/24/07
01 .'25/07
01 /26/07
Operational
Hours
In
4.6
4.4
8.5
7.1
1.4
9.5
7.2
4.2
7.7
13.3
3.6
3.5
7.4
5.4
4.9
4.5
6.7
13.5
3.3
4.3
3.8
3.9
10.0
5.4
5.1
11.0
5.3
8.4
9.8
3.7
7.3
3.8
5.1
8.7
4.9
5.3
6.3
15.2
8.6
6.2
5.0
11.4
6.3
4.5
3.7
3.9
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizei
Meter
y.il
35,396.400
35,421 ,200
35,452.800
35,483,300
35,511.900
35,573.000
35103,200
35,634,600
35,671 ,800
35,750.600
35,770,800
35,304,200
35,818,900
35,870,800
35,900,400
35,925,900
35,963,100
36,025,800
36,045,800
36,074,600
36,098,000
36,123,100
36,187,400
36,213,600
36,244,800
36,323,700
36,331 ,500
36,374,000
36,389,100
36,423,700
36,447,800
36,482,100
36,50-1,100
36,564,300
36,591,900
36,620,200
36,655,000
36,727,700
36,738,400
36,772,800
36,803,000
36,873,400
36,907,300
36,937,200
36,953,900
36,978,500
Volume
Produced
Daily
gal
27,800
24,800
31 ,600
30,500
28,600
61 ,1 00
30,200
31 ,400
37,200
78,800
20,200
33.400
14,700
51 ,900
29,600
25,500
37,200
62,700
20,000
28,800
23,400
25,100
64,300
26,200
31 ,200
78,900
7,800
42,500
15,100
34,600
24,100
34,300
22,000
60,200
27,600
28,300
34,800
72,700
10,700
34,400
30,200
70,400
33,900
29,900
16,700
24,600
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
Sial
2,357,000
2,331 ,300
2,413,400
2,443,900
2,472,500
2,533,600
2,563,800
2,595,200
2,632,400
2,711,200
2,731 ,400
2,764,800
2,779,500
2,831 ,400
2,861 ,000
2,886,500
2,923,700
2,986,400
3,006,400
3,035,200
3,058,600
3,083,700
3,148,000
3,174,200
3,205,400
3,284,300
3,292,100
3,334,600
3,349,700
3,384,300
3,408,400
3,442,700
3, -161 ,700
3,524,900
3,552,500
3,530,300
3,615,600
3,688,300
3,699,000
3,733,400
3,763,600
3,834,000
3,867,900
3,897,800
3,914,500
3,939,100
Calculated
Flo wi ate
gpm
101
94
62
72
340
107
70
125
81
99
94
159
33
160
101
94
93
77
101
100
103
107
107
81
102
120
25
84
26
156
55
150
72
115
94
89
92
80
21
92
101
103
90
111
75
105
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Meter
gal
3,363,546
3,399,411
3,456,845
3,511,902
3,522,844
3,61-1,399
3,664,271
3,697,728
3,748,951
3,859,197
3,887,493
3,915,038
3,976,151
4,025,129
4,066,994
4,105,140
4,154,331
4,244,457
4,274,353
4,314,337
4,346,846
4,379,073
4,470,042
4,507,251
4,547,606
4,631 ,629
4,671 ,645
4,730,331
4,778,028
4,800,221
4,846,560
4,873,274
1,913,339
4,993,595
5,030,477
5,071,184
5,116,058
5,197,238
5,242,721
5,286,751
5,328,881
5,425,537
5,481 ,966
5,515,194
5,543,756
5,577,869
Daily
Treated
Volume
gal
37,442
35,865
57,434
55,057
1 0,942
91 ,555
49,872
33,457
51 ,223
110,246
28,296
27,545
61 ,1 1 3
48,978
41 ,865
38,146
49,191
90,126
29,896
39,984
32,509
32,227
90,969
37,209
40,355
84,023
40,016
58,686
47,697
22,193
46,339
26,714
•10,065
80,256
36,882
40,707
44,874
81 ,1 80
45,483
44,030
42,130
96,656
56,429
33,228
28,562
34,113
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
3,339,595
3,375,460
3,432,894
3,487,951
3,498,893
3, 590, A A 8
3,640,320
3,673,777
3,725,000
3,835,246
3,863,542
3,891 ,087
3,952,200
4,001,178
4,043,043
4,081,189
4,130,380
4,220,506
4,250,402
4,290,386
4,322,895
4,355,122
4,446,091
4,483,300
4,523,655
4,607,678
4,647,694
4,706,380
4,754,077
4,776,270
4,822,609
4,849,323
-1,339,388
4,969,644
5,006,526
5,047,233
5,092,107
5,173,287
5,218,770
5,262,800
5,304,930
5,401 ,586
5,458,015
5,491 ,243
5,519,805
5,553,918
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
5,875
5,933
6,039
6,136
6,155
6,316
6,404
6,462
6,553
6,746
6,796
6,845
6,952
7,038
7,112
7,179
7,266
7,424
7,477
7,547
7,604
7,661
7,821
7,886
7,957
8,105
8,176
8,279
8,363
8,402
8,483
8,530
8,601
8,742
8,807
8,373
8,957
9,100
9,180
9,258
9,332
9,502
9,601
9,660
9,710
9,770
Calculated
System
Flowrate
gpm
136
136
113
129
130
161
115
133
111
138
131
131
138
151
142
141
122
111
151
139
143
138
152
115
132
127
126
116
81
100
106
117
131
154
125
128
119
89
88
118
140
141
149
123
129
146
Calculated
Vessel A
Flowrate
gpm
70.6
70.9
59.9
65.4
69.5
86.8
60.4
68.8
59.0
72.2
68.6
69.9
44.4
118.2
76.0
75.4
65.5
61.4
33.3
74.1
74.5
71.9
83.6
61.9
70.4
67.3
65.8
61.7
44.4
53.3
55.6
59.7
67.9
83.1
64.8
65.3
61.2
49.4
49.4
61.2
75.1
75.6
81.4
63.2
72.7
79.2
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
gpm
64.9
64.6
53.2
62.9
64.0
73.9
54.6
64.7
51.7
66.0
62.8
63.6
40.2
104.2
67.7
64.3
56.9
49.8
69.0
63.6
68.0
65.6
68.1
53.0
61.1
60.2
60.0
54.5
37.0
46.6
50.3
56.3
63.7
70.6
61 .3
62.2
57.0
39.8
38.6
56.9
65.8
65.6
69.0
58.2
56.1
66.3
Inlet
Pressure
psi
44
45
46
51
44
11
44
44
47
46
46
46
40
45
45
44
46
48
44
45
45
45
46
45
44
45
44
50
51
48
48
46
11
46
45
46
46
43
46
46
48
46
46
50
48
48
Oirtlet
Pressure
psi
44
42
45
50
43
13
44
42
46
44
45
44
42
43
44
42
45
46
42
44
44
43
44
43
42
44
42
48
50
46
46
44
12
44
44
44
44
43
44
44
46
44
44
48
46
46
Pressure
Differential
psi
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
1
7
£
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
Mo.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
01 /29I07
01 ,'30/07
01)31/07
02/01 1Q7
02/02107
02/05/07
02/06107
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/12/07
02fl3/07
02/1 4JD7
02/1 5/07
02/16/07
02/1 9/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02)26.107
02/27/07
02Q8/07
03/01/07
03/02/07
03)05/07
03/06/07
03/07.107
03/08/07
03/09JD7
03/1 3/07
03/14/07
03/1 5.107
03/16/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/22/07
03/23/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
Opei ational
Hours
hi
6.3
2.0
1.6
3.4
5.2
16.7
3.0
2.5
3.4
3.6
15.9
3.1
2.4
4.2
3.5
11.7
3.5
7.5
0.8
4.8
11.7
7.4
3.3
3.1
5.7
13.0
5.7
3.0
4.6
8.6
16.9
3.0
4.1
3.4
8.9
4.5
5.6
3.4
7.4
11.8
3.7
3.6
8.0
2.1
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Metei
gal
37,049,000
37,071 ,500
37,077,100
37,096,800
37,117,900
37,182,300
37.200,500
37,220,400
37,237,300
37,257,600
37,322,600
37,340,300
37,355,400
37,376,100
37,395,800
37,467,000
37,489,600
37,508,800
37,529,100
37,548,200
37,617,800
37,659,100
37,676,200
37,694,300
37,717,700
37,790,600
37,814,900
37,842,400
37,874,100
37,917,700
38,025,500
38,033,400
38,049,800
38,081,100
38,146,200
38,170,200
38,198,700
38,217,700
38,249,300
38,314,800
38,333,100
38,354,000
38,385,600
38,402,800
Volume
Produced
Dairy
gal
70,500
22,500
5,600
19,700
21 ,1 00
64,400
18,200
19,900
16,900
20,300
65,000
17,700
15,100
20,700
19,700
71 ,200
22,600
19,200
20,300
19,100
69,600
41 ,300
17,100
18,100
23,400
72,900
24,300
27,500
31 ,700
43,600
107,800
7,900
16,400
31 ,300
65,100
24,000
28,500
19,000
31 ,600
65,500
18,300
20,900
31 ,600
17,200
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
B*l
4,009,600
4,032,100
4,037,700
4,057,400
4,078,500
4,142,900
4,161,100
4,181,000
4,197,900
4,218,200
4,283,200
4,300,900
4,316,000
4,336,700
4,356,400
4,427,600
4,450,200
4,469,400
4,489,700
4,508,800
4,578,400
4,619,700
4,636,800
4,654,900
4,678,300
4,751 ,200
4,775,500
4,803,000
4,834,700
4,878,300
4,986,100
4,994,000
5,010,400
5,041 ,700
5,106,800
5,130,800
5,159,300
5,178,300
5,209,900
5,275,400
5,293,700
5,314,600
5,346,200
5,363,400
Calculated
Flo AT ate
apm
187
188
58
97
68
64
101
133
83
94
68
95
105
82
94
101
108
43
423
66
99
93
86
97
68
93
71
153
115
84
106
44
67
153
122
89
85
93
71
93
82
97
66
137
Al'lj Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Metei
gal
5,670,301
5,703,399
5,712,463
5,738,921
5,779,209
5,862,438
5,890,537
5,908,806
5,933,510
5,960,370
6,054,614
6,077,131
6,095,165
6,125,292
6,162,913
6,253,448
6,279,052
6,329,432
6,332,975
6,365,959
6,453,664
6,510,736
6,534,480
6,556,748
6,594,552
6,696,478
6,734,674
6,757,321
6,799,645
6,860,708
6,982,330
7,007,674
7,037,865
7,075,164
7,174,690
7,204,586
7,245,866
7,271 ,300
7,317,652
7,403,921
7,430,352
7,455,993
7,506,768
7,521 ,643
Daily
Treated
Volume
gal
92,432
33,098
9,064
26,458
40,288
83,229
28,099
18,269
24,704
26,860
94,244
22,517
18,034
30,127
37,621
90,535
25,604
50,380
3,543
32,984
87,705
57,072
23,744
22,268
37,804
1 01 ,926
38,196
22,647
42,324
61 ,063
1 21 ,622
25,344
30,191
37,299
99,526
29,896
41 ,280
25,434
46,352
86,269
26,431
25,641
50,775
14,875
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
5,646,350
5,679,448
5,688,512
5,714,970
5,755,258
5,838,487
5,866,586
5,884,855
5,909,559
5,936,419
6,030,663
6,053,180
6,071,214
6,101,341
6,138,962
6,229,497
6,255,101
6,305,481
6,309,024
6,342,008
6,429,713
6,486,785
6,510,529
6,532,797
6,570,601
6,672,527
6,710,723
6,733,370
6,775,694
6,836,757
6,958,379
6,983,723
7,013,914
7,051,213
7,150,739
7,180,635
7,221,915
7,247,349
7,293,701
7,379,970
7,406,401
7,432,042
7,482,817
7,497,692
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
9,932
9,991
10,007
10,053
10,124
10,270
10,320
10,352
10,395
10,443
10,608
10,648
10,680
10,733
10,799
10,958
11,003
11,092
11,093
11,156
11,310
11,411
1 1 ,453
11,492
11,558
1 1 ,737
11,805
11,845
11,919
12,026
12,240
12,285
12,338
12,404
12,579
12,631
12,704
12,749
12,830
12,982
13,028
13,074
13,163
13,189
Calculated
System
FloArate
*ll>m
245
276
94
130
129
83
156
122
121
124
99
121
125
120
179
129
122
112
74
115
125
129
120
120
111
131
112
126
153
118
120
141
123
183
186
111
123
125
104
122
119
119
106
118
Calculated
Vessel A
Flo AT ate
gpm
134.3
183.5
66.5
61.6
72.8
41.7
78.5
62.7
62.0
63.8
53.3
61.5
63.5
60.1
100.0
66.7
62.2
58.7
42.5
58.5
78.0
44.0
61.8
61.4
57.3
67.8
57.8
64.1
81.8
60.2
61.3
74.1
62.3
77.7
114.3
57.5
62.7
63.6
54.8
61.8
60.4
60.6
55.0
60.0
Calculated
Vessel B
Flo rt i ate
gpm
110.8
89.4
37.0
63.7
57.0
41.3
77.6
66.3
54.0
60.6
45.5
59.4
61.6
59.6
84.3
60.6
60.2
53.3
29.3
56.2
61.2
62.0
58.3
58.1
35.8
70.4
54.3
61.2
71.6
58.1
58.6
67.2
60.1
80.6
81.5
53.0
60.3
60.8
49.7
60.0
58.8
58.0
50.5
56.7
Inlet
Pressure
l>si
41
52
48
44
49
48
49
49
48
48
48
51
48
49
49
48
48
51
44
48
47
48
48
47
48
48
49
48
48
47
48
48
48
50
49
52
48
49
49
48
48
48
50
48
Oirtlet
Pressure
|>SI
43
52
46
45
48
47
48
48
46
46
46
49
46
48
48
46
46
51
44
46
46
46
46
46
46
48
48
46
46
45
48
46
47
48
48
50
46
48
48
46
46
46
49
46
Pressure
Differential
psi
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
1
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thy
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Thu
Fri
Diite
0402/07''"
04/03JD7
04/04/07
04/05/07
04/06/07
04/09/07
04/1 0107
04/11/07
04/1 2JD7
04/1 3JD7
04/1 6J07
04/1 7JD7
04/1 8JD7
04/1 9JD7
04/20107
04/23/07
04Q4/07
04/25/07
04/26/07
04/27/07
04/30JD7
05/02/07
05/04/07
05/07/07
05/OSJD7
05/09/07
05/11/07
05/1 5/07
05/16/07
05/17/07
05/18/07
05C1 107
05/22/07
05/23/07
05C4JD7
05/25/07
05/28.107
05/30/07
05/31/07
0601 107
06/04/07
06/06/07
06/Q7J07
06,'08J07
Operational
Hours
hi
15.2
7.8
3.1
9.8
2.8
13.0
5.4
3.6
4.0
4.6
16.0
2.4
6.5
6.5
7.9
17.6
4.6
4.7
3.8
7.1
14.7
18.3
7.6
30.2
5.2
5.9
8.9
24.9
8.9
3.8
2.7
8.1
2.6
8.2
5.4
4.4
8.8
7.3
6.3
5.0
3.0
1 1 .1
6.4
15.7
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
"i
81
79
91
63
72
87
71
93
99
86
78
126
67
69
88
70
89
90
92
64
130
39
60
49
54
59
66
69
58
60
97
150
108
71
71
73
134
100
90
82
335
58
70
34
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Meter
gal
4,031,120
4,080,951
4,103,668
4,156,665
4,178,824
4,266,121
4,298,233
4,325,160
4,357,225
4,388,850
4,497,635
4,515,502
4,552,062
4,589,559
4,644,287
4,749,592
4,782,828
4,817,612
4,845,817
4,898,579
5,038,468
5,107,936
5,148,686
5,287,649
5,307,747
5,337,630
5,390,625
5,533,329
5,578,267
5,602,522
5,621 ,739
5,725,319
5,746,512
5,797,053
5,831 ,388
5,857,569
5,957,190
6,020,735
6,101,927
6,138,614
6,196,656
6,251 ,586
6,289,666
6,362,863
Daily
Treated
Volume
gal
NA
49,831
22,717
52,997
22,159
87,297
32,112
26,927
32,065
31 ,625
108,785
17,867
36,560
37,497
54,728
105,305
33,236
34,784
28,205
52,762
139,889
69,468
40,750
138,963
20,098
29,883
52,995
142,704
44,938
24,255
19,217
103,580
21,193
50,541
34,335
26,181
99,621
63,545
81,192
36,687
58,042
54,930
38,080
73,197
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
NA
7,547,523
7,570,240
7,623,237
7,645,396
7,732,693
7,764,805
7,791,732
7,823,797
7,855,422
7,964,207
7,982,074
8,018,634
8,056,131
8,110,859
8,216,164
8,249,400
8,284,184
8,312,389
8,365,151
8,505,040
8,574,508
8,615,258
8,754,221
8,774,319
8,804,202
8,357,197
8,999,901
9,044,839
9,069,094
9,088,311
9,191,891
9,213,084
9,263,625
9,297,960
9,324,141
9,423,762
9,487,307
9,568,499
9,605,186
9,663,228
9,718,158
9,756,238
9,829,435
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
NA
13,277
13,317
13,410
13,449
13,602
13,659
13,706
13,763
13,818
14,010
14,041
14,105
14,171
14,268
14,453
14,511
14,573
14,622
14,715
14,961
15,083
15,155
15,399
15,435
15,487
15,580
15,832
15,911
15,953
15,987
16,169
16,207
16,295
16,356
16,402
16,577
16,689
16,832
16,896
16,998
17,095
17,162
17,291
Calculated
System
Flo wi ate
gpm
106
122
90
132
112
99
125
134
115
113
124
94
96
115
100
120
123
124
124
159
62
89
77
64
84
99
96
84
106
119
213
136
103
106
99
189
145
215
122
322
82
99
78
Calculated
Vessel A
Flomate
flpni
59.2
55.8
62.7
49.1
69.1
56.6
52.7
61.8
68.6
57.9
57.8
62.1
49.5
50.8
58.4
52.2
60.6
63.4
63.1
64.1
80.2
35.2
49.5
44.3
37.6
46.7
54.1
51.1
47.0
56.3
61.4
120.7
70.1
54.6
56.8
53.0
107.0
82.9
119.7
58.8
207.2
45.8
52.7
44.0
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
(J|>lll
NA
NA
NA
39.1
62.5
55.3
46.4
61 .3
66.5
57.0
55.5
61.8
44.1
45.6
56.9
47.5
60.2
59.7
60.8
60.8
77.8
26.3
40.0
32.4
20.4
43.0
45.0
44.4
37.2
49.8
57.5
92.5
66.0
48.1
49.1
46.1
82.2
61.6
95.1
36.5
160.4
36.7
46.3
33.7
Inlet
Pressure
|)SI
48
48
48
50
49
48
47
46
46
46
49
48
50
48
52
46
46
47
46
50
48
48
46
50
48
49
47
49
49
50
48
49
46
50
50
47
50
48
52
50
50
48
SO
50
Outlet
Pressure
|>SI
46
46
47
48
48
44
46
44
44
44
48
47
49
48
51
44
44
46
44
48
47
47
46
51
48
48
46
48
48
48
46
48
44
49
50
46
49
46
52
49
49
48
48
49
Pressure
Differential
|>SI
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
Mo.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Day of
Week
Tue
Wed
Thu
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Fri
Mon
Tue
Thu
Fri
Tue
Thu
Diite
06/12/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
06/1 6/07
06/1 8/07
06/19/07
06/20/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
06/25/07
06/26/07
06/27/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/04/07
07/05/07
07/06/07
07/09)07
07/10/07
07/11/07
07/12/07
07/1 3/07
07/16/07
07/17/07
07/18/07
07/19/07
07/20/07
07/23/07
07/25/07
07/26/07
07C7/07
07^0/07
07/31/07
08/01/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
08/06/07
08/07A37
08/10/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
08/16/07
08/17/07
08/21 /07
08/23)07
Operational
Hours
hr
12.0
7.2
3.1
17.9
7.6
2.4
6.3
2.5
4.2
30.4
7.6
8.0
0.9
6.4
31.9
9.4
1.9
13.4
3.5
6.4
0.3
3.6
28.6
12.6
5.9
5.3
5.1
18.6
6.7
2.9
6.3
17.4
4.3
5.1
3.8
5.8
7.0
5.7
23.8
17.5
10.9
14.3
7.7
25.7
12.4
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizei
Metei
«jal
40,194,000
40,211,200
40,245,600
40,283,300
40,326,000
40,355,300
40,375,100
40,399,000
40,432,100
40,523,400
40,547,300
40,564,900
40,585,000
40,606,300
40,714,300
40,745,200
40,769,300
40,848,500
40,870,600
40,890,200
40,907,800
40,927,800
41,016,500
41 ,049,400
41 ,079,000
41,110,600
41,149,400
41 ,239,200
41 ,295,200
41,312,300
41,339,100
41 ,432,600
41 ,457,900
41 ,478,700
41 ,520,900
41,570,100
41 ,582,900
41 ,607,200
41 ,679,400
41 ,756,600
41 ,789,500
41 ,843,400
41 ,880,200
41 ,970,800
42,017,300
Volume
Produced
Dairy
gal
84,500
17,200
34,400
37700
42,700
29,300
19,800
23,900
33,100
91 ,300
23,900
17,600
20,100
21 ,300
108,000
30,900
24,100
79,200
22,100
19,600
17,600
20,000
88,700
32,900
29,600
31 ,600
38,800
89,800
56,000
17,100
26,800
93,500
25,300
20,800
42,200
49,200
12,800
24,300
72,200
77,200
32,900
53,900
36,800
90,600
46,500
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
jjil
7,154,600
7,171,800
7,206,200
7,243,900
7,286,600
7,315,900
7,335,700
7,359,600
7,392,700
7,484,000
7,507,900
7,525,500
7,545,600
7,566,900
7,674,900
7,705,800
7,729,900
7,809,100
7,831 ,200
7,850,800
7,868,400
7,838,400
7,977,100
8,010,000
8,039,600
8,071 ,200
8,110,000
8,199,800
8,255,800
8,272,900
8,299,700
8,393,200
8,418,500
8,439,300
8,481,500
8,530,700
8,543,500
8,567,800
8,640,000
8,717,200
8,750,100
8,804,000
8,840,800
8,931 ,400
8,977,900
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
117
40
185
35
94
203
52
159
131
50
52
37
372
55
56
55
211
99
105
51
978
93
52
44
84
99
127
80
139
98
71
90
98
68
185
141
30
71
51
74
50
63
80
59
62
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizei
Meter
gal
6,472,617
6,517,444
6,534,939
6,626,969
6,682,072
6,699,946
6,748,092
6,767,686
6,800,362
6,955,058
7,000,056
7,040,980
7,045,255
7,084,477
7,270,545
7,336,900
7,351,950
7,477,586
7,505,307
7,551 ,977
7,563,843
7,592,841
7,730,965
7,928,743
7,959,422
8,023,433
8,085,332
8,257,360
8,354,307
8,384,030
8,434,567
8,610,066
8,653,865
8,693,951
8,732,725
8,827,734
8,891 ,822
3,937,554
9,075,760
9,219,905
9,300,323
9,392,032
9,443,305
5,831,516
5,877,045
Dairy
Ti eated
Volume
gal
109,754
44,827
17,495
92,030
55,103
1 7,874
48,146
19,594
32,676
154,696
44,998
40,924
4,275
39,222
186,068
66,355
15,050
125,636
27,721
46,670
1 1 ,866
28,998
138,124
197,778
30,679
64,011
61 ,899
172,028
96,947
29,723
50,537
175,499
43,799
40,086
38,774
95,009
64,088
45,732
138,206
144,145
80,418
91 ,709
51 ,273
NA
45,529
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
9,939,189
9,984,016
10,001,511
10,093,541
10,148,644
10,166,518
10,214,664
10,234,258
10,266,934
10,421,630
10,466,628
10,507,552
10,511,827
10,551,049
10,737,117
10,803,472
10,818,522
10,944,158
10,971,879
11,018,549
11,030,415
11,059,413
11,197,537
11,395,315
11,425,994
11,490,005
1 1 ,551 ,904
11,723,932
11,820,879
11,850,602
11,901,139
12,076,638
12,120,437
12,160,523
12,199,297
12,294,306
12,358,394
12,404,126
12,542,332
12,686,477
12,766,895
12,858,604
12,909,877
NA
12,955,406
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
17,484
17,563
17,593
17,755
17,852
17,884
17,968
18,003
18,060
18,332
18,412
18,484
18,491
18,560
18,887
19,004
19,031
19,252
19,300
19,382
19,403
19,454
19,697
20,045
20,099
20,212
20,321
20,623
20,794
20,846
20,935
21 ,244
21 ,321
21 ,391
21 ,460
21 ,627
21 ,739
21 ,820
22,063
22,316
22,458
22,619
22,709
NA
22,790
Calculated
System
Flowrate
gpm
152
104
94
86
121
124
127
131
130
85
99
85
79
102
97
118
132
156
132
122
659
134
80
262
87
201
202
154
241
171
134
168
170
131
170
273
153
134
97
137
123
107
111
61
Calculated
Vessel A
Flowrate
gpm
88.8
50.2
61.3
46.9
63.5
64.0
66.3
66.5
68.4
46.6
51.8
45.9
42.1
53.0
51.1
58.8
65.8
82.9
64.3
63.0
369.7
67.8
44.3
44.8
66.2
148.8
145.2
113.2
182.1
124.6
99.8
125.2
125.7
97.2
125.0
206.3
115.5
100.6
74.9
103.4
92.3
81.9
84.2
NA
36.8
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
gpm
63.7
42.0
59.7
38.8
57.3
60.6
60.8
63.6
63.9
37.9
46.9
37.9
48.5
49.0
46.0
59.1
66.7
73.3
62.6
61.8
290.5
65.7
37.5
213.9
20.0
53.9
54.4
41.2
58.7
58.1
28.9
42.9
45.7
33.1
45.2
64.5
38.5
33.3
21.9
33.8
30.6
25.1
26.7
210.7
24.5
Inlet
Piessuie
psi
48
48
49
51
48
46
49
47
46
48
50
51
48
50
44
50
46
46
46
50
46
47
50
46
40
40
42
46
45
42
42
43
42
42
40
48
50
48
46
46
46
48
47
46
46
Oirtlet
Pressure
psi
46
46
48
50
48
44
49
45
44
46
48
51
48
48
46
50
44
45
44
50
45
45
50
46
40
40
42
46
46
42
42
43
42
42
40
50
50
48
46
46
46
48
47
46
46
Pressure
Differential
psi
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Tue
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Diite
OB/27107
08/28JD7
08/29JD7
08/30107
08/31 JD7
03/04107
09/Q6JD7
03/07107
09/1 0107
09/1 1JD7
09/1 2JD7
09/1 3JD7
09/1 4JD7
09/1 7JD7
09/1 8JD7
09/1 9JD7
09/21 107
09/24107
03/25107
09/26/07
09/27107
Q3/2S1Q7
10/01JD7
1 0/02107
1 0/03107
1 0/04107
1 0/05107
1 0/08J07
1 QIQ91Q7
10/1Q.'D7
1 0/1 1 107
1 0/1 2JD7
10/15JD7
10/16JD7
10/17JD7
10/18JD7
1 0H 9107
1 0/22/07
1 0/23107
1 0.'24.si
48
47
48
48
48
50
43
42
42
49
40
48
46
46
50
47
49
48
46
46
44
46
46
44
48
46
46
44
46
44
42
44
42
54
45
45
43
46
47
46
46
52
47
46
46
46
44
Outlet
Pleasure
|)SI
48
47
48
48
48
50
43
42
42
50
41
49
47
46
50
48
50
48
46
46
44
46
46
45
48
46
46
44
46
44
43
44
42
54
46
46
43
46
48
46
46
52
48
46
46
47
44
Pressure
Diffei ential
|>SI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
Mo.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Day of
Week
Tue
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
11/06/07
1 1 108/07
1 1 n 6/07
11/19)07
11/20/07
1 1 J21 107
11/22/07
1 1 123107
11/26/07
11/27)07
11/28/07
11/29/07
1 1 /30)07
1 2/03/07
12/04/07
1 2/05/07
12/06/07
12/07/07
12/10/07
12/11/07
1 2/1 2/07
1 2/1 3/07
12/14/07
12/17/07
12/18.107
12/19/07
1 2120/07
1 2/21 /07
1 2/24/07
12/25/07
12/26/07
12/27/07
12/28/07
12/31/07
01 JD1 /08
01/02)08
01/03/08
01/04/08
01/07/08
01 J08/08
01 109/08
01 /1 0.08
01 /1 1 .€8
Operational
Hours
fir
18.6
14.8
76.2
20.3
2.3
6.1
4.2
6.7
14.6
4.7
4.5
9.2
11.0
21.9
8.7
2.1
17.1
8.5
17.3
4.5
7.2
8.1
8.4
26.2
8.4
11.1
8.6
9.5
22.6
6.3
6.1
6.1
6.1
23.4
7.2
10.0
8.7
9.1
27.1
9.5
7.8
6.5
4.4
Master Totalizer Measurements
Mastei
Totalizei
Metei
gal
44,265,600
44,335,300
44,451 ,700
44,521 ,700
44,547,400
44,574,100
44,598,100
44,620,600
44,682,100
44,703,200
44,725,300
44,748,200
44,775,900
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volume
Pi oduced
Daily
gal
97,800
69,700
116,400
70,000
25,700
26,700
24,000
22,500
61 ,500
21 ,1 00
22,100
22,900
27,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
gal
11,226,200
11,295,900
11,412,300
11,482,300
11,508,000
11,534,700
11,558,700
11,581,200
11,642,700
11,663,800
11,685,900
11,708,800
11,736,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
88
78
25
57
186
73
95
56
70
75
82
41
42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizei
Metej
gal
1,287,053
1 ,338,409
1 ,531 ,972
1 ,591 ,390
1,603,691
1,628,959
1,649,534
1,672,945
1,737,932
1,760,058
1,781,196
1,804,104
,831 ,855
,886,130
,908,290
,928,318
,961 ,079
1,982,991
2,025,224
2,044,007
2,061 ,378
2,081 ,01 0
2,1 01 ,524
2,164,438
2,184,396
2,210,724
2,231,130
2,253,165
2,304,675
2,320,041
2,332,684
2,346,562
2,360,192
2,413,573
2,430,415
2,452,760
2,472,346
2,493,040
2,555,078
2,576,676
2,594,411
2,610,441
2,620,828
Daily
Ti eated
Volume
gsil
88,866
51 ,356
193,563
59,418
12,301
25,268
20,575
23,411
64,987
22,126
21,138
22,908
27,751
54,275
22,160
20,028
32,761
21,912
42,233
18,783
17,371
19,632
20,514
62,914
19,958
26,328
20,406
22,035
51 ,51 0
15,366
12,643
13,878
13,630
53,381
16,842
22,345
19,586
20,694
62,038
21 ,598
17,735
16,030
10,387
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
15,294,298
15,345,654
15,539,217
15,598,635
15,610,936
15,636,204
15,656,779
15,680,190
15,745,177
15,767,303
15,788,441
15,811,349
15,839,100
15,893,375
15,915,535
15,935,563
15,968,324
15,990,236
16,032,469
16,051,252
16,068,623
16,088,255
16,108,769
16,171,683
16,191,641
16,217,969
16,238,375
16,260,410
16,311,920
16,327,286
16,339,929
16,353,807
16,367,437
16,420,818
16,437,660
16,460,005
16,479,591
16,500,285
16,562,323
16,583,921
16,601,656
16,617,686
16,628,073
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
26,904
26,994
27,335
27,439
27,461
27,505
27,541
27,583
27,697
27,736
27,773
27,813
27,862
27,958
27,997
28,032
28,090
28,128
28,202
28,235
28,266
28,300
28,337
28,447
28,482
28,529
28,565
28,603
28,694
28,721
28,743
28,768
28,792
28,885
28,915
28,954
28,989
29,025
29,134
29,172
29,204
29,232
29,250
Calculated
System
Flowi ate
gpm
80
58
42
49
89
69
82
58
74
78
78
41
42
41
42
159
32
43
41
70
40
40
41
40
40
40
40
39
38
41
35
38
37
38
39
37
38
38
38
38
38
41
39
Calculated
Vessel A
Flo wi ,ite
gpm
43.1
32.2
25.1
28.1
47.7
37.8
43.9
32.9
40.4
42.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Vessel B
Flo wi ate
gpm
36.5
25.7
17.3
20.7
41.2
31.2
37.8
25.4
33.8
36.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet
Piessuie
psi
46
48
48
48
44
46
44
46
44
44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outlet
Pressure
psi
46
48
48
48
44
46
44
46
44
44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pressure
Differential
psi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
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
>
oo
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
Mo.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Day of
Week
Mori
Tue
Wed
Thy
Fri
Mori
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
01/14/08
01 /1 5/08
01/16/08
01 .1 7/08
01 /I 8108
01 01 ,108
01/22/08
01 /23/08
01 /24/08
01 /25/Q8
01/28/08
01/29/08
01/30/08
01 /31 .€8
02/01 /D8
02)04)08
02/05/08
02/06/08
02)07*18
02)08/08
02/1 1 /08
02)12,108
02/1 3/08
02/14/08
02/1 5/08
02/1 8/08
02/19/08
02/20/08
02/21/08
02O2.ID8
02/25/03
02/26/08
02/27/08
02/28/08
02)29)08
03I03KI8
03.04/08
03/05/08
03)06/08
03)07/08
03/1 0/08
03/11/08
03/1 2)08
03/1 3/08
03/14/08
Operational
Hours
hi
18.4
6.3
6.8
5.8
7.3
18.0
3.6
5.4
10.8
7.4
NA
28.9
NA
6.1
4.8
20.8
7.5
8.8
8.3
9.0
36.8
8.5
8.7
3.6
6.4
24.9
7.6
4.2
5.0
5.8
20.8
3.9
8.6
10.9
9.8
31.0
7.7
8.1
7.7
7.2
26.5
11.3
8.2
5.2
9.9
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Metei
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
Volume
Produced
Dairy
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
Cumulative
Volume
Produced
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
Calculated
Flowrate
gi»m
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU
Totalizer
Meter
gal
2,675,289
2,690,810
2,707,272
2,721 ,504
2,739,384
2,793,315
2,808,029
2,825,824
2,847,083
2,864,695
NA
2,936,866
2,954,467
2,969,613
2,990,986
3,032,424
3,050,640
3,070,877
3,089,540
3,110,038
3,194,542
3,213,684
3.233,566
3,254,327
3,268,936
3,335,826
3,343,513
3,354,246
3,372,912
3,395,943
3,448,877
3,462,146
3,482,090
3,508,018
3,530,657
3,606,782
3,624,381
3,642,778
3,660,633
3,677,657
3,741,712
3,769,237
3,788,403
3,806,635
3,830,441
Daily
Treated
Volume
gal
54,461
15,521
1 6,462
14,232
17,880
53,931
14,714
17,795
21 ,259
17,612
NA
NA
17,599
15,146
21 ,373
41 ,438
18,216
20,237
1 8,663
20,498
84,504
19,142
19,882
20,761
14,609
66,890
7,687
1 0,733
18,666
23,031
52,934
1 3,269
19,944
25,928
22,639
76,125
1 7,599
1 8,397
17,855
17,024
64,055
27,525
19,166
1 8,232
23,806
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
16,682,534
16,698,055
16,714,517
16,728,749
16,746,629
16,300,560
16,815,274
16,833,069
16,854,323
16,871,940
NA
NA
16,889,539
16,904,685
16,926,058
16,967,496
16,985,712
17,005,949
17,024,612
17,045,110
17,129,614
17,148,756
17,168,638
17,189,399
17,204,008
17,270,898
17,278,585
17,289,313
17,307,984
17,331,015
17,383,949
17,397,218
17,417,162
17,443,090
17,465,729
17,541,854
17,559,453
17,577,850
17,595,705
17,612,729
17,676,784
17,704,309
17,723,475
17,741,707
17,765,513
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
29,346
29,373
29,402
29,427
29,459
29,553
29,579
29,611
29,648
29,679
NA
NA
29,710
29,737
29,774
29,847
29,879
29,915
29,948
29,984
30,132
30,166
30,201
30,237
30,263
30,331
30,394
30,413
30,446
30,487
30,580
30,603
30,638
30,684
30,724
30,857
30,888
30,921
30,952
30,982
31 ,095
31,143
31,177
31 ,209
31 ,251
Calculated
System
Flowrate
gpm
49
41
40
41
41
50
68
55
33
40
41
74
33
40
38
37
38
38
38
38
40
38
45
17
43
62
66
42
57
39
40
39
41
38
38
39
39
40
41
39
58
40
Calculated
Vessel A
Flowrate
(j|>m
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.2
39.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Vessel B
Flowrate
m
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.9
27.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inlet
Pressure
PSI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
44
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
Outlet
Pressure
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
44
48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
Pressure
Differ eirtial
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
85
86
87
88
89
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
03/1 7/08
03/1 8/08
03/1 9/08
03/20/08
03/21 /OS
03/24/08
03/25/08
03/26/08
03/27/08
03/28/08
03/31 /OS
04/01 /OS
04/02/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
04/07/08
04/D8/08
04/09.TO
04/1 0/08
04/1 1 /OS
04/1 4/08
04/1 5/08
04/1 6/08
04/1 7/08
04/1 8/08
Opei.itiou.il
Hours
hi
25.5
9.3
7.7
7.9
8.1
28.3
8.8
10.5
11.8
14.6
34.4
11.3
7.9
9.3
12.6
33.0
11.4
10.0
3.9
7.3
27.2
5.5
9.3
10.2
8.5
Master Totalizer Measur emeiits
Master
Totalizer
Meter
o
NA = not available (in most cases, system not in operation when operator was on-ite; therefore, data not available).
1 BV = 38 ft /vessel = 284 gal/vessel (or 568 gal for whole system)
System is in parallel configuration.
Master totalizer down on 11/30/07; cumulative volume treated during remainder of performance evaluation estimated from historical data on 12/05/07, 01/14/08,
02/20/08, 02/12/08, and 04/17/08.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOG
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
Vln (soluble)
V (total)
/ (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/10/06
IN
232
5.0W
245
5.2
25.4
43.5
1.1
-
7.7
22.3
5.4
178
604
130
474
45.9
42.0
3.9
0.8
41.2
131
<25
1.8
0.8
157
154
AC
248
6.8
305
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
)H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
1 0/1 9/06
IN
256
258
-
-
<10
<10
46.3
46.7
0.4
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
29.5
29.2
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.7
0.6
92.1
90.0
-
AC
240
244
-
-
<10
<10
45.8
46.7
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
37.5
38.3
-
-
-
52
46
-
0.2
0.2
135
143
-
TA
3.2
260
260
-
-
<10
<10
47.1
47.2
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
0.9
1.0
-
TB
3.0
260
258
-
-
<10
<10
47.6
48.1
0.2
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
0.8
0.8
-
11/02/06
IN
267
4.6
221
4.2
<10
45.7
0.8
1.1
7.9
13.1
5.7
477
350
155
195
22.7
24.9
<0.1
0.4
24.5
<25
<25
0.6
0.5
71.8
82.1
AC
246
3.6
427
5.3
<10
43.0
0.2
1.5
7.7
11.5
6.0
522
NA
NA
668
161
507
39.2
39.2
<0.1
0.7
38.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
156
161
TT
3.7
261
4.6
272
4.6
<10
44.4
0.3
1.2
7.7
11.2
6.3
603
0.4
NA
395
159
236
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.4
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
11/15/06
IN
258
-
-
<10
44.7
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
22.6
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
77.7
-
AC
246
-
-
<10
42.7
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
38.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
168
-
TA
4.4
254
-
-
<10
44.2
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
1.0
-
TB
4.1
246
-
-
<10
46.6
3.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
<25
-
O.1
1.1
-
11/28/06
IN
259
7.6
308
5.6
<10
45.5
0.9
1.1
7.8
15.2
6.5
479
423
147
276
19.7
12.6
7.2
1.4
11.2
<25
<25
0.8
1.2
56.7
41.7
AC
245
4.4
470
6.1
<10
43.3
0.9
1.5
7.7
15.6
5.8
481
NA
NA
608
148
460
47.2
43.1
4.1
1.4
41.6
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
161
160
TT
4.8
259
6.2
379
6.1
<10
45.4
0.2
1.4
7.6
15.9
5.9
492
0.2
NA
527
164
364
1.4
1.4
<0.1
1.6
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
3.2
3.7
1 2/1 4/06
IN
258
5.1
318
4.8
<10
43.3
0.5
1.3
7.9
12.4
5.7
529
489
136
353
10.7
12.6
O.1
0.7
11.9
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
41.2
47.7
AC
243
3.8
400
5.2
<10
42.8
1.6
1.5
7.8
13.1
5.6
514
NA
NA
593
143
450
38.9
38.1
0.8
0.8
37.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
159
160
TT
5.4
252
4.8
380
4.4
<10
43.3
0.4
1.4
7.6
13.4
5.2
529
1.4
NA
557
155
401
1.1
1.0
<0.1
0.7
0.3
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
2.0
1.9
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
VI n (soluble)
V (total)
/ (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/03/07
IN
268
268
-
-
<10
<10
45.6
44.8
0.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
45.4
45.1
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.2
142
143
AC
272
270
-
-
<10
<10
45.1
45.7
2.3
2.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
44.6
46.6
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
139
141
TA
NA(a)
270
258
-
-
<10
<10
45.2
44.7
1.1
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
0.9
TB
NA(a)
262
276
-
-
<10
<10
45.4
45.5
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
3.1
3.2
01/18/07
IN
263
5.7
272
4.8
<10
45.4
0.4
1.2
8.0
8.1
NA(b)
535
372
113
259
21.2
19.2
2.1
1.6
17.6
<25
<25
0.4
0.6
64.3
62.2
AC
248
4.7
381
5.5
<10
45.3
0.6
1.5
7.8
9.8
NA(b)
512
NA
1.0
503
118
385
44.0
41.4
2.6
2.0
39.4
<25
<25
0.5
0.7
145
142
TT
NA(a)
263
5.5
273
4.9
<10
47.6
0.6
1.2
7.7
10.1
NA(b)
659
NA
NA
371
114
257
1.4
1.4
<0.1
1.8
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
3.1
3.8
02/06/07
IN
281
-
-
<10
42.5
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
<25
-
0.3
111
AC
256
-
-
<10
42.7
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
41.6
-
-
<25
-
0.3
112
TA
7.7
263
-
-
<10
44.6
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
<25
-
O.1
1.5
TB
6.9
268
-
-
<10
43.8
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
<25
-
O.1
10.8
02/13/07
IN
263
6.3
223
4.4
29.0
49.7
0.4
1.0
7.9
8.6
NA(b)
468
406
162
244
24.3
22.4
1.9
6.0
16.4
<25
<25
0.9
1.0
50.7
42.7
AC
256
5.8
305
4.7
33.2
50.0
1.0
1.3
7.6
9.7
NA(b)
502
NA
NA
422
153
270
43.8
48.6
O.1
11.4
37.2
35
<25
2.0
0.7
105
121
TT
7.6
265
7.8
257
4.6
27.7
50.6
0.6
1.2
7.6
12.5
NA(b)
726
NA
2.2
435
162
273
7.9
7.8
0.2
8.7
0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
11.0
10.3
03/01/07
IN
262
-
-
<10
46.8
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.2
-
-
<25
-
0.2
109
AC
262
-
-
10.0
47.8
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
41.7
-
-
<25
-
0.1
110
TA
8.6
267
-
-
<10
47.6
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
<25
-
O.1
0.7
TB
7.8
262
-
-
<10
46.7
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
<25
-
O.1
15.3
(a) Operational data not taken, (b) DO probe not operational.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
03/1 4/07
IN
-
273
5.2
251
4.0
16.0
46.2
1.3
1.9
7.9
12.9
7.1
413
547
187
361
27.3
8.8
18.5
2.7
6.1
<25
<25
0.3
0.5
79.9
28.7
AC
-
273
5.2
245
3.7
24.8
45.6
0.7
1.7
7.6
14.7
7.0
504
NA
NA
474
187
287
45.6
43.3
2.3
3.1
40.2
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
111
112
TT
8.8
268
5.8
252
4.3
16.8
46.9
0.7
1.6
7.6
15.4
6.2
563
NA
1.1
471
182
289
3.9
3.8
0.2
2.9
0.9
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
22.8
23.1
03/28/07
IN
-
266
-
-
-
33.6
44.5
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
46.5
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
108
-
AC
-
261
-
-
-
34.9
45.6
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
48.3
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
107
-
TA
9.8
268
-
-
-
17.4
45.4
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
1.3
-
TB
8.9
259
-
-
-
25.4
46.1
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
30.7
-
04/1 8/07
IN
-
260
5.4
251
5.0
17.8
48.5
0.8
1.3<"
8.0
14.4
5.9
443
386
101
285
45.3
39.2
6.2
<0.1
39.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.8
167
156
AC
-
260
5.5
258
4.9
16.1
47.3
0.5
1.3<"
7.7
15.5
5.8
185
NA
NA
399
99.5
300
43.2
40.8
2.4
<0.1
40.7
<25
<25
0.3
0.4
174
169
TT
10.2
262
5.5
261
5.0
11.5
49.1
0.7
13(a)
7.6
16.1
5.6
404
0.8
NA
385
105
281
1.2
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
44.2
44.0
04/25/07
IN
-
270
270
-
-
-
<10
<10
47.0
46.9
0.4
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
39.4
38.0
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.4
138
133
-
AC
-
268
268
-
-
-
<10
<10
46.9
47.1
0.3
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
38.9
38.2
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.4
136
137
-
TA
10.9
275
268
-
-
-
<10
<10
46.8
47.0
0.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.0
1.7
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
1.1
1.0
-
TB
9.9
262
265
-
-
-
<10
<10
47.7
47.3
0.4
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
3.1
2.7
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
55.7
55.5
-
05/08/07
IN
-
270
5.3
165
4.4
<10
48.2
0.3
1.5
7.8
17.5
5.0
NA(b)
333
124
209
44.1
44.2
<0.1
0.5
43.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
131
120
AC
-
258
5.4
239
4.5
<10
46.4
0.4
1.2
7.5
17.8
4.6
NA(b)
NA
NA
359
126
233
42.4
35.9
6.5
0.7
35.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
137
135
TT
11.2
265
4.5
241
4.6
<10
49.3
0.2
1.3
7.5
18.2
4.6
NA(b)
NA
NA
351
139
212
2.9
2.5
0.5
1.1
1.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
70.8
69.3
(a) TOG samples were analyzed outside of hold time, (b) ORP probe not operational.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
rluoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
3H
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
-e (soluble)
Mn (total)
\/ln (soluble)
V (total)
/ (soluble)
10"3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
05/24/07
IN
252
<10
45.9
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
145
AC
254
<10
46.4
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
41.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
143
TA
12.1
259
<10
47.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.8
TB
11.0
254
<10
47.6
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
86.4
06/14/07
IN
257
29.2
268
4.9
<10
47.3
0.5
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
337
116
222
45.3
40.7
4.6
0.7
40.0
<25
<25
0.3
0.5
144
138
AC
259
6.0
287
4.2
<10
47.0
0.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
349
122
227
47.4
42.6
4.7
0.7
41.9
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
143
144
TT
12.7
259
6.5
250
4.4
<10
48.1
0.3
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
362
132
230
2.5
2.4
0.2
0.6
1.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
98.3
101
06/28/07
IN
264
<10
62.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
39.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.2
-
136
AC
264
<10
60.8
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.8
-
134
TA
13.8
267
<10
61.5
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.1
TB
12.3
262
<10
64.2
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
116
07/09/07
IN
256
6.5
261
6.4
<10
47.1
0.5
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
360
126
234
50.6
40.1
10.5
1.1
38.9
<25
<25
1.1
1.3
140
137
AC
249
30.5
254
6.0
<10
47.1
1.0
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
369
126
244
50.0
40.8
9.2
1.3
39.5
<25
<25
1.0
0.9
138
138
TT
13.7
252
14.2
259
5.5
<10
46.2
0.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
385
119
266
3.7
3.2
0.5
1.3
1.9
<25
<25
0.1
0.4
114
112
07/23/07
IN
260
255
<10
<10
45.8
46.4
1.5
2.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
42.3
43.3
-
-
-
-
28
25
-
1.1
1.0
-
122
125
AC
260
252
<10
<10
45.6
45.5
1.5
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
42.9
43.1
-
-
-
-
29
29
-
0.9
0.9
-
124
126
TA
15.1
255
252
<10
<10
47.3
46.7
2.7
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
15.1
15.0
TB
13.3
255
252
<10
<10
46.4
46.3
0.8
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
4.3
4.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
110
110
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
=luoride
Sulfate
Mitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
)H
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine (as CIJ
Total Chlorine (as CIJ
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
vlg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
re (soluble)
Win (total)
Win (soluble)
tf (total)
/ (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/14/07
IN
-
267
5.2
240
6.0
<10
45.4
1.0
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
365
117
248
39.0
41.2
<0.1
1.5
39.8
<25
<25
0.6
0.9
127
132
AC
-
272
5.3
230
5.9
<10
45.2
0.7
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
380
118
261
43.9
42.0
1.9
1.8
40.2
<25
<25
0.5
0.4
134
133
TT
15.4
272
5.4
230
6.0
<10
48.4
0.6
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
375
148
227
5.1
4.9
0.3
1.8
3.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
128
126
08/21/07
IN
-
250
-
-
-
<10
52.5
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
45.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.9
-
127
-
AC
-
248
-
-
-
<10
52.4
0.8
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
45.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
126
-
TA
NA(a)
252
-
-
-
<10
55.3
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
30.8
-
TB
13.9
250
-
-
-
<10
55.2
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
30.3
-
09/11/07
IN
-
255
6.1
250
7.2
<10
44.7
1.4
1.1
7.8
21.6
6.1
612
-
-
377
131
246
43.1
39.6
3.5
0.7
38.9
<25
<25
0.8
0.9
139
140
AC
-
251
6.1
250
7.2
<10
45.0
1.0
1.1
7.6
21.5
5.1
645
NA
NA
390
144
246
44.6
40.8
3.7
0.7
40.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.6
141
142
TT
NA(a)
251
6.2
240
7.3
<10
45.9
0.8
1.1
7.4
21.8
5.4
584
NA
NA
402
161
241
5.9
5.7
0.2
0.6
5.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
132
139
09/27/07
IN
-
262
-
-
-
<10
47.6
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
39.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
136
-
AC
-
258
-
-
-
<10
47.7
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
134
-
TA
18.9
260
-
-
-
<10
47.1
0.7
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
31.9
-
TB
15.0
258
-
-
-
<10
47.1
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
130
-
10/10/07
IN
-
245
7.4
258
6.6
<10
45.3
0.4
1.1
7.6
21.1
4.8
610
-
-
NA
122
NA
47.8
42.1
5.7
0.8
41.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.9
134
134
AC
-
245
6.3
253
7.0
<10
45.4
0.2
1.1
7.4
21.3
4.1
676
NA
NA
NA
130
NA
48.6
41.5
7.1
0.8
40.7
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
138
136
TT
18.4
243
6.0
245
6.9
<10
46.3
0.3
1.1
7.4
21.4
4.6
714
0.9
0.7
NA
138
NA
7.1
6.5
0.6
0.9
5.5
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
132
135
(a) Bed volume calculations not accurate due to malfunctioning totalizer.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
=luoride
Sulfate
\litrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
)H
Temperature
DO
ORP
=ree Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Vlg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
=e (total)
re (soluble)
Vln (total)
\/ln (soluble)
V (total)
/ (soluble)
10»3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
11/08/07
IN
-
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
44.3
-
<25
0.4
143
AC
-
<10
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
44.4
-
-
<25
-
0.3
142
TA
21.8
-
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
<25
-
<0.1
37.7
TB
17.2
-
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.4
-
-
<25
<0.1
136
12/05/07
IN
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
44.8
-
<25
-
0.2
131
AC
-
-
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.9
<25
0.2
127
TA
22.40
-
<10
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
2.0
-
-
<25
<0.1
39.3
TB
17.91"
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
6.8
<25
-
<0.1
119
01/13/08
IN
-
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.7
-
<25
0.3
124
AC
-
<10
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
43.1
-
-
<25
-
0.3
127
TA
238(a)
-
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
<25
-
<0.1
53.2
TB
191(a)
-
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
120
02/20/08
IN
-
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
42.5
-
<25
-
0.2
125
AC
-
-
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.8
<25
-
0.2
122
TA
25.41"
-
-
<10
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
7.5
-
-
<25
<0.1
127
TB
20.5|a|
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
3.0
<25
-
<0.1
70.6
03/12/08
IN
-
-
<10
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.7
33.9
-
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
123
121
AC
-
<10
<10
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
39.3
38.9
-
-
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
125
125
TA
26.4|a|
<10
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.1
2.1
<25
<25
-
0.1
0.1
87.0
87.4
TB
21.4|a|
-
-
<10
<10
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
6.7
-
-
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
127
128
(a) Bed volumes estimated by taking bed volumes calculated from the Master Totalizer readings from the previous year and adding onto the last available data (11/27/08).
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
3ed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO,|
Turbidity
roc
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Chlorine (as Cl,|
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
VI n (total)
Vln (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Mg/L
04/17/08
IN
-
;
-
-
-
<10
-
;
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
39.7
-
-
-
-
69
-
0.2
-
140
-
AC
-
;
-
-
-
<10
-
;
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
49.0
-
-
-
-
1,516
-
0.9
-
163
-
TA
27.6'"
;
-
-
-
<10
-
;
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
133
-
TB
22.5'"
;
-
-
-
<10
-
;
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
107
-
(a) Bed volumes estimated by taking bed volumes calculated from the Master Totalizer readings from the previous year and adding onto the last available
data (11/27/08).
------- |