EPA/600/R-10/164
December 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Nambe Pueblo, New Mexico
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Christopher T. Coonfare*
Abraham S.C. Chen§
Anbo Wang*
JBattelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
§ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and 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 envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing 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 this arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Nambe Pueblo, New Mexico. 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 |og/L. Additionally, this project
evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (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 residuals produced by the treatment process. The
types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the
distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
The treatment system consisted of two 48-in x 72-in FRP vessels in parallel configuration, each
containing 35.6 ft3 of AD-33 media. Delivered in granules, AD-33 media is an iron-based adsorptive
media developed by Bayer AG and marketed under the name of AD-33 by AdEdge. The treatment
system was designed for a peak flowrate of 160 gal/min (gpm) (80 gpm per vessel) and an empty bed
contact time (EBCT) of approximately 3.3 min. Over the performance evaluation period, the actual
average flowrate was at 114 gpm, corresponding to an EBCT of 4.7 min.
The treatment system began regular operation on May 15, 2007. From May 15, 2007, through the end of
the performance evaluation study on September 28, 2009, the treatment system operated for a total of
10,134 hr, treating approximately 64,580,000 gal (or 121,390 bed volumes [BV]) of water. The average
daily operation time was 12.3 hr/day and the average daily demand was 78,360 gal/day (gpd).
As part of the water treatment system, a pH adjustment/control system was used to adjust pH values of
source water from as high as 9.1 to a target value of 7.0. The pH adjustment system consisted of a carbon
dioxide (CO2) supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a CO2 membrane module (that injected
CO2 into a CO2 loop), and an in-line pH probe. During the performance evaluation study, the treatment
system experienced periodic losses of pH control due to lack of a constant CO2 supply. Real-time pH
values monitored/recorded after pH adjustments by an in-line pH meter/datalogger cycled between 7 and
8 and over 9.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 10.7 to 59.0 |o,g/L, and averaged 32.2 |o,g/L with
soluble As(V) as the predominating species, ranging from 34.2 to 36.5 |o,g/L based on the results of two
speciation sampling events. Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 19.9 to 55.8 |o,g/L,
and averaged 39.3 |o,g/L. Except for some occasions, total arsenic and uranium concentrations were
removed to below 3 and 20 |o,g/L, respectively, in system effluent throughout the 28-month study period.
Significantly elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations (often higher than the respective source water
concentrations) were measured during a number of sampling events, which coincided with the time
periods when the system was operating without pH control.
Periodic losses of pH control apparently had caused the media beds to operate under constant
adsorption/desorption cycles, with the captured arsenic and uranium intermittently "flushed" out of the
media beds. Therefore, the AD-33 media was not exhausted as expected even after treating 121,390 BV
of water (twice the projected working capacity estimated by the vendor). Analyses of media samples
collected at 78,200 BV revealed that the adsorptive media were loaded only minimally with arsenic and
uranium (i.e., 0.38% and 3.2% of the respective mass in 78,200 BV of source water), which supported the
speculation that adsorbed arsenic and uranium were intermittently "flushed" out of the media beds.
IV
-------
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 33.7 to <10 (ig/L), except for three
occasions when the treatment system had lost pH control. Uranium concentrations in distribution water
also were reduced to below its MCL of 30 (ig/L, except for four occasions. Lead and copper
concentrations did not appear to have been affected by the operation of the treatment system.
The capital investment cost of $143,113 included $116,645 for equipment, $11,638 for site engineering,
and $14,830 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 160 gpm (or 230,400 gpd), the capital
cost was $894/gpm (or $0.62/gpd) of design capacity. The unit capital cost would be $0.16/1,000 gal if
the 160 gpm system were operating around the clock. Based on the average daily operating times (12.3
hr/day) and average system flowrate (114 gpm), the unit capital cost increased to $0.44/1,000 gal at this
reduced rate of use.
The O&M cost included only the cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement
and disposal, CO2 and chlorine use, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media replacement did
not take place during the performance evaluation study, the media replacement cost would have
represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $29,532 to change out both vessels
(71.2 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 ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
3.1 General Project Approach 4
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 5
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 5
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 5
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 6
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples 7
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 7
3.4 Sampling Logistics 7
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 7
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 8
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 8
3.5 Analytical Procedures 8
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 10
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 10
4.1.2 Distribution System 12
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 System Installation 23
4.3.1 Permitting 24
4.3.2 Building Preparation 24
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 24
4.4 System Operation 27
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 27
4.4.2 pH Adjustments 29
4.4.3 Residual Management 34
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 34
4.5 System Performance 35
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling 42
4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling 43
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 43
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 46
4.6.1 Capital Cost 46
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 47
5.0 REFERENCES 49
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Nambe Pueblo Buffalo Range 10
Figure 4-2. Pump Head on Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM 11
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Pump House and Water Storage Tank 11
Figure 4-4. Chlorination Before Distribution at Nambe Pueblo, NM 12
Figure 4-5. Nambe Pueblo Water Distribution System Map 14
Figure 4-6. Schematic of AdEdge APU-160 Arsenic Removal System 17
Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 18
Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System 20
Figure 4-9. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID Control
Panel (bottom) 21
Figure 4-10. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment 22
Figure 4-11. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 23
Figure 4-12. Nambe Pueblo Treatment Plant Building 25
Figure 4-13. Operator Training at Nambe Pueblo 26
Figure 4-14. Treatment System Daily Operating Times 28
Figure 4-15. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates 29
Figure 4-16. Operational Pressure Readings 30
Figure 4-17a. In-line pH Data for Period from March 31 Through June 20, 2008 31
Figure 4-17b. In-line pH Data for Period from September 17, 1008 Through January 08, 2009 32
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 39
Figure 4-19. Real-time pH values at AP Location vs. Effluent As and U Concentrations 40
Figure 4-20. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curves 41
Figure 4-21. Total Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves 41
Figure 4-22. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water 45
Figure 4-23. Uranium Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water 45
Figure 4-24. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 48
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 2
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 4
Table 3 -2. Evaluation Obj ectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 4
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 6
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM 13
Table 4-2. Nambe Pueblo Lead and Copper Rule Sampling Results, October 2003 15
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media 16
vn
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-160 System 19
Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous Hollow Fiber Membrane 22
Table 4-6. Key Activities and Completion Dates in Building Preparation and System
Installation 26
Table 4-7. System Punch-List/Operational Issues 27
Table 4-8. Summary of AdEdge APU-160 System Operation 28
Table 4-9. Example pH Data from the In-line pH Probe 33
Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, 36
Table 4-11. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 37
Table 4-12. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis 42
Table 4-13. Spent Media Uranium 43
Table 4-14. Distribution System Sampling Results 44
Table 4-15. Capital Investment Cost for Nambe Pueblo Tribe System 46
Table 4-16. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Nambe Pueblo System 47
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATSI Applied Technology Systems, Inc.
AWC Arizona Water Company
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
CAD computer-aided design
C/F coagulation/filtration process
CISD Consolidated Independent School District
Cl chlorine
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
FRP fiber-reinforced plastic
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IHS Indian Health Services
ISFET Ion Sensitive Field Effect Transistor
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Comsumer's Association
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NMED New Mexico Environment Department
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PLC programmable logic controller
PO4 phosphate
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SM system modification
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TOC total organic carbon
U uranium
V vanadium
WRWC White Rock Water Company
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the Nambe Pueblo Tribe, Indian Health Services, and EPA Region 6 for
the design and construction of the new treatment building, coordination of various demonstration-related
issues, monitoring of the treatment system, and collection of samples from the treatment and distribution
systems throughout the performance evaluation study. This performance evaluation would not have been
possible without their efforts.
XI
-------
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 operator 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 out of 115 candidate sites to host the demonstration
studies. The facility at Nambe Pueblo in New Mexico was selected to participate in this demonstration
program.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective
arsenic-removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the
17 host sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical
panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it
determined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other
technical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration 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 (or Indian Health Services [IHS] and EPA Region 6 in the case of the
Nambe Pueblo site) selected one technical proposal for each site. An adsorptive media (AM) system
proposed by AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge) using the Bayoxide E33 (AD-33) media developed by
Bayer AG was selected for demonstration at the Nambe Pueblo site.
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 arsenic removal demonstration host sites included nine AM
systems, one coagulation/filtration (C/F) system, one ion exchange (IX) system, and one process
modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system
flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration
sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004),
which are posted on the EPA Arsenic Research Program Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Site
WRWC (Bow), NH
Rollinsford, NH
Queen Anne's County, MD
Brown City, MI
Climax, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM
AWC (Rimrock), AZ
AWC (Valley Vista), AZ
Fruitland, ID
STMGID, NV
Technology
(Media)
AM(G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX (A-300E)
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
STS
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
7000
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(HS/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127o»
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
pH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; SM = system modification
AWC = Arizona Water Company; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water
Company; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
As of December 7, 2010, the performance evaluation of all 12 systems has been completed, and the final
performance evaluation reports often demonstration sites have been completed and posted on the EPA
Arsenic Research Program Web site.
1.3
Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic removal 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 Nambe Pueblo in New Mexico,
from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009. The types of data collected included system operation,
water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization,
and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
AdEdge's APU-160 treatment system with AD-33 granular media was installed and has operated at the
Nambe Pueblo site in New Mexico since May 15, 2007. Based on the information collected during May
15, 2007, through September 28, 2009, the following summary and conclusion statements are provided:
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• AD-33 media effectively lowered arsenic and uranium concentrations to below 3 and 20
, respectively, in system effluent throughout the 28-month study period.
• Significantly elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations (often higher than the
corresponding source water concentrations) were measured in system effluent during a
number of sampling events, presumably due to loss of pH control during system operation.
• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic and uranium
concentrations to below 10 and 30 |o,g/L, respectively, in distribution system water. Elevated
arsenic and uranium concentrations were observed during a few sampling events presumably
caused by loss of pH control during system operation. The treatment system did not appear
to have impacted lead or copper concentrations in distribution system water.
Required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• The facility experienced difficulties in maintaining a constant carbon dioxide (CO2)
supply, caused by non-standard working hours of the operator, remote site location,
and/or delivery delays by the CO2 vendor. Interruption of CO2 supply caused
periodic losses of pH control during system operation.
• Operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• No backwash residuals were produced because of low pressure drop (i.e., 1.1 lb/in2 [psi])
across the media beds.
• The adsorptive media did not need to be replaced even though it had treated twice as much
water as projected by the vendor. Periodic losses of pH control might have caused arsenic
and uranium to be "flushed" from the adsorptive media beds, thus extending the media life.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
• Based on the system's rated capacity of 160 gal/min (gpm) (or 230,400 gal/day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $894/gpm (or $0.62/gpd) of design capacity.
• Media replacement and disposal did not occur during system performance
evaluation; however, the cost to change out both vessels (71.2 ft3 AD-33 media) was
estimated to be $29,532, which included the replacement media, spent media
disposal, shipping, labor, and travel.
-------
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 AM system began on May 15, 2007, and ended on September 28, 2009. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation study.
Overall performance of the system was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to
below the arsenic MCL of 10 (ig/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment plant, 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.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities
and Completion Dates
Activities'3'
Introductory Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
APU System Shipped
Final Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
08/19/03
09/03/03
09/10/03
08/22/03
09/09/03
10/06/03
05/04/05
06/01/05
05/15/07
05/15/07
05/15/07
(a) Additional activities related to treatment building
preparation and system installation, shakedown,
and startup presented in Table 4-6.
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ng/L of arsenic MCL 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 preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor
-------
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 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 requires tracking the capital cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Nambe Pueblo's O&M cost were limited to CO2
consumption, electricity usage, and labor because media replacement did not take place during the system
performance evaluation.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. The plant operator recorded system operational data
such as pressure, flowrate, system throughput, and hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log
Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and CO2 levels; and conducted visual inspections to ensure
normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead,
who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all
relevant information, including problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies
used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair and Maintenance 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 expenditure for chemical use, electricity
consumption, and labor. Liquid CO2 was delivered in 50-lb cylinders by Airgas West (Santa Fe, NM) on
an as-needed basis and its use was tracked by recording on the Daily System Operation Log Sheets
whenever CO2 cylinders were replaced. Electricity consumption was tracked through an onsite electric
meter. Labor hours for routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-
related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. Routine O&M included activities
such as completing field logs, replacing CO2 cylinders, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. Demonstration-related work, including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and vendor, was recorded but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured
during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes,
containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site on August 19, 2003,
one set of source water samples was collected from the Buffalo Well for detailed water quality analyses.
Source water also was speciated onsite using a speciation kit (see 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. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Sampling
Locations'3'
IN
IN, AP, TT
IN, AP, TA, TB
Three locations
supplied plant
water
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
4
3
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Once in
each 4-week
cycle(b)
(Speciation
Sampling)
Three times
in each 4-
week
cycle(d)
(Regular
Sampling)
Monthly(1)
Analytes
Onsite: pH
Offsite:
Al (total and soluble),
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Mo (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TOC,
alkalinity, and turbidity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (total
andfree)(c)
Offsite:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, TOC, alkalinity,
and turbidity
Onsite: pH(e),
temperature, DO, ORP,
and C12 (total and free)(c)
Offsite: As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total),
U (total), SiO2, P,
alkalinity, and turbidity
pH, alkalinity, and total
As, Fe, Mn, U, Pb, and
Cu
Sampling
Date
08/19/03
07/09/07
08/10/07
See Appendix B
Baseline sampling:
See Table 4-14
Monthly sampling:
See Table 4-14
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-7: IN = at wellhead; AP :
after pH adjustment; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; and TT = after effluent combined.
(b) Although scheduled monthly, speciation sampling performed only twice on July 9 and August 10, 2007.
(c) Total and free chlorine to be measured at AP and TT only but none was measured during actual sampling.
(d) Actual sampling frequency varied from 1 to 8 weeks.
(e) Onsite water quality parameters not measured during performance evaluation study; real-time pH readings
monitored with an in-line pH meter at AP location.
(f) Monthly sampling discontinued after September 10, 2008.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation study,
the plant operator collected water samples across the treatment train for onsite and offsite analyses. The
Battelle Study Plan called for weekly sampling: One week in each four-week cycle, treatment plant
-------
samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after pH adjustment but before the split to the two adsorption
vessels (AP), and after effluent from the two vessels combined (TT). These samples were speciated and
analyzed for the analytes listed under "Speciation Sampling" in Table 3-3. For the other three weeks in
each four-week cycle, treatment plant samples were collected at four locations, i.e., IN, AP, and after
Vessels A and B (TA and TB), and analyzed for the analytes listed under "Regular Sampling" in Table 3-
3.
Because only trace amounts of As(III) existed in source water, speciation was performed only twice (on
July 9 and August 10, 2007). Regular sampling was normally performed weekly between June 26, 2007,
when the performance evaluation study began and August 28, 2008. The sampling frequency was
extended to once every two weeks on seven occasions (on September 11, September 26, and November
26, 2007, and on March 4, April 8, May 6, and June 3, 2008), and to once every four weeks on one
occasion (on January 16, 2008). After August 28, 2008, the sampling frequncy occurred monthly on a
regular basis. Although called for in the Study Plan, the operator did not perform onsite water quality
analyses during all regular sampling events. The operator did, however, record pH values at the AP
location using an in-line pH meter.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. Because the system was not
backwashed during the entire study period, no backwash residuals were produced. Further, because
media replacement did not take place, there were no spent media. However, media samples were
collected during the performance evaluation study as described in Section 4.5.2.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the
distribution system, specifically arsenic, uranium, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from
December 2003 to March 2004, four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at
three locations within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution system water
sampling continued on a monthly basis through September 10, 2008.
The three locations selected for baseline sampling included one resident home, the Housing Department
Office, and the Senior Center, which were partially served by the Buffalo Well. After system startup,
sampling locations were moved to three residences that received only the treatment plant water. 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). First-draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr
to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Samplers recorded date and time of last water use before
sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculations of the stagnation time. The samples
were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not conducted on the
distribution system water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics, including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample coolers, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003).
-------
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, color-coded, and waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, blue, orange, yellow, and green were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AP, TA,
TB, and TT, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate zip-
lock 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, pre-paid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included in each
cooler. Except for the operator's signature, the chain-of-custody forms and airbills had already been
completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the facility
approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored and analyzed at Battelie's inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate
coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and
TCCI Laboratories in Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assuarnce/quality
control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP
(i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to!20%, and completeness of
80%). The quality assurance data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a
QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
were conducted only twice on July 9 and August 10, 2007 by the plant operator using a VWR Symphony
SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter. The meter was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a
stable value was obtained. pH values at the AP location (after pH adjustment) also were monitored by an
-------
in-line pH meter, which was connected to the system's programmable logic controller (PLC). Measured
pH values were recorded at 30-min intervals during system operation and saved at the PLC for later
download.
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The Nambe Pueblo water system supplied drinking water to approximately 500 community members with
150 service connections. Located on a hilltop adjacent to a buffalo range (Figure 4-1), the pre-existing
system consisted of a 145-gpm well (Buffalo Well [Figure 4-2]), a pump house (located about 10 ft from
the well), and a 17-ft-diameter, 24-ft-tall water storage tank (Figure 4-3). Groundwater was pumped
intermittently from the well to the pump house where a totalizer was used to track the total volume of
feed water to the system. Liquid chlorine was added (Figure 4-4) using a peristaltic pump to maintain a
residual chlorine level of approximately 0.58 mg/L (as C12) in the 40,000-gal water storage tank and
distribution system. Water in the storage tank was gravity-fed through the distribution system to the
community. The system typically operated for 3 to 4 hr/day, with a daily demand of approximately
34,000 gpd.
Figure 4-1. Nambe Pueblo Buffalo Range
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Water samples from the Buffalo Well were collected and speciated
on August 19, 2003. The results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those taken by the facility
for the EPA demonstration site selection and independently collected and analyzed by EPA.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of the Buffalo Well water ranged from 29 to 33.2 (ig/L, which
existed primarily as soluble As(V) (94% based on the August 2003 Battelle sampling results). Trace
amounts of soluble As(III) and particulate arsenic also existed at 0.2 and 1.8 ug/L, respectively.
10
-------
Figure 4-2. Pump Head on Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM
Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Pump House and Water Storage Tank
11
-------
Figure 4-4. Chlorination Before Distribution at Nambe Pueblo, NM
Iron and Manganese. Iron and manganese concentrations in the Buffalo Well water were low, ranging
from <30 to 138 ug/L and from 1.3 to 22.9 (ig/L, respectively. In general, adsorptive media technologies
are best suited to sites with relatively low iron levels (e.g., less than 300 (ig/L, the secondary maximum
contaminant level [SMCL]). Iron concentrations greater than 300 ug/L can cause taste, odor, and color
problems and an increased potential for fouling of adsorption system components.
pH. pH values of source water ranged between 8.5 and 8.8. Arsenic adsorption by AD-33 media can be
performed at pH values ranging between 6.0 and 9.0, but is more effective when the pH is <8.0. Because
of the high pH, the vendor recommended pH adjustment of source water to approximately 7.0 using CO2.
Competing Anions. Arsenic adsorption can be influenced by competing anions such as silica,
phosphorus, and vanadium. Concentrations of these ions as presented in Table 4-ldo not appear to be
high enough to cause any adverse effect on arsenic adsorption.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Concentrations of other water quality parameters were low and do not
appear to have any impact on arsenic adsorption.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The Nambe Pueblo distribution system consists of a 10-mile long,
partially looped distribution line and two 88,000-gal storage tanks supplied by the Buffalo Well, Lower
Well, and Upper Well with a combined production capacity of approximately 285 gpm. The two storage
tanks are located approximately 1 mile apart and are connected to the distribution system with 6-in
poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The distribution system is constructed of 2- to 6-in PVC pipe.
12
-------
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
TOC
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Mo (total)
Mo (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
Utility
Data
-
8.8
204.0
199.0
NA
<10
NA
NA
<10
15.0*
O.065*
NA
32.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
NA
NA
<50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
73.0
4.0
EPA
Data
10/09/02
NA
163.2
NA
NA
5.6
0.9
9.4
28.2
15.1
O.005
NA
29.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
138.0
NA
<25
NA
22.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
88.6
2.1
0.04
Battelle
Data
08/19/03
8.5
168.0
5.4
NA
8.4
0.1
NA
28.0
14.1
<0.10
2.1
33.2
31.4
1.8
0.2
31.2
<30
<30
10.0
28.7
1.3
1.3
9.2
8.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
93.3
2.1
0.0
* = data provided by EPA; NA = not analyzed; TOC = total organic
carbon
The distribution system is subdivided into the lower and upper zones. The lower zone is supplied by all
three wells, whereas the upper zone is served primarily by the Buffalo Well. All three locations for
distribution system water sampling were located in the upper zone. Figure 4-5 presents an aerial
photograph map of the Nambe Pueblo distribution system.
The Nambe Pueblo Tribe collects water samples from the distribution system for several analytes. Three
samples are collected each month for bacteria analysis. The bacteriological sampling locations vary from
month to month. Under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) (EPA, 2002), water samples were collected
from customer taps at five locations. As an example, Table 4-2 presents the results of LCR samples
collected in October 2003.
13
-------
..»»•
Jjjg
NAMBr PUEBLD DEVELQPMEN' CORPORATION. <505) 455-0458
HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS Of THE SYSTEM ARE EXCLUSIVELY
SERVED BY THE BUFFALO WELL.
NAMBE PUEBLO -- CDMMUNITV WATER SYSTEM
SCALL r = 500-
Figure 4-5. Nambe Pueblo Water Distribution System Map
14
-------
Table 4-2. Nambe Pueblo Lead and Copper Rule
Sampling Results, October 2003
Location
LCR01
LCR08
LCR09
LCR38
LCR40
90th percentile(a)
Date
10/27/03
10/26/03
10/27/03
10/27/03
10/30/03
-
Unit
HB/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
Copper
51.5
12.7
129
269
72.4
199
Lead
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
Analysis performed by EPA Region 6 Laboratory.
(a) To determine 90* percentile concentration for five
samples, average highest and second-highest
concentrations.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The arsenic package unit (APU) marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption system used
for small water systems in the flow range of 5 to 300 gpm. It uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-
33 by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for arsenic removal from
drinking water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33 media
is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in
drinking water applications. The media exists in both granular and pelletized forms, which have similar
physical and chemical properties, except that pellets are denser than granules (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3). For
the Nambe Pueblo site, the granular media was selected for use.
The AdEdge arsenic treatment system consisted of two adsorption vessels (i.e., A and B) arranged in
parallel. The original proposal for this demonstration site specified an 150-gpm APU-150 system;
however, due to the experience gained at other demonstration sites, the vendor upgraded the system to
treat 160 gpm of water. Figure 4-6 is a schematic of the AdEdge APU-160 system.
The APU-160 system can be either manually or automatically backwashed on an as-needed basis, as
determined by the pressure loss across the adsorption vessels or time elapsed since the last backwash.
However, no backwash was conducted during the performance evaluation study due to minimal pressure
drop across the vessels. Figure 4-7 shows a process flow diagram with the sampling locations and
analytes. Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters. The system included CO2 addition to reduce
the pH to approximately 7. No post treatment was proposed.
Key process steps and major system components are discussed as follows:
• Intake. Source water was pumped from the Buffalo Well and chlorinated before being fed to
the treatment system.
• Prechlorination. Although prechlorination was not required (because arsenic existed
primarily as As[V]), the existing chlorination system was retained to provide disinfection to
the treatment system. In addition, a post-chlorination point was included to ensure that the
target chlorine residual level of 0.58 mg/L (as C12) was met before treated water entered the
distribution system. Figure 4-8 presents photographs of the chlorine metering pumps, the
chlorine storage drum, and the pre- and post-chlorination injection points.
15
-------
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (U.S. standard mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry granular media
Amber
28
142
0.3
<15 (by weight)
10 x35
70
a -FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A1203
P2O5
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.23
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
Source: Provided by AdEdge
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
The chlorine addition system consisted of a peristaltic pump, a chemical feed tank
(containing a 10% NaOCl solution), and a secondary containment. Chlorine addition was
synchronized with the well pump. Proper operation of the chlorine feed system was tracked
through tank level measurements.
pH adjustment. pH values of source water were lowered from 8.5 to 8.8 to atarget value of
7.0 using CO2. CO2 was selected for pH adjustments because (1) it is less corrosive than
mineral acids, such as H2SO4, and (2) when treated water is depressurized after exiting the
adsorption vessels, some CO2 may degas, thereby raising the pH of the treated water and
reducing its corrosivity to the distribution piping.
A carbon dioxide gas flow control system manufactured by Applied Technology Systems,
Inc. (ATSI) in Souderton, PA, was used for pH control. The pH control system consisted of a
liquid CO2 supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a CO2 membrane assembly, and
a pH probe located downstream of the membrane module.
Figure 4-9 presents a process flow diagram of the control system, which is designed to
introduce gaseous CO2 into the water in a side-stream configuration, or a CO2 loop. Figure 4-
10 provides a series of photographs showing various system components.
o Liquid CO2 in two 50-lb cylinders vaporizes into gaseous CO2 via a feed vaporizer prior
to entering a pH control panel.
16
-------
1
' t, '.
•f
©
1 t
i "ixrw.
* 5 r
f •}. i'ri
0 0
UN If f*T"S
Je
,-,.., a
:;--:-'•€:!
J '
-
-f-;!rF.>/'; —r-
Figure 4-6. Schematic of AdEdge APU-160 Arsenic Removal System
-------
INFLUENT
(BUFFALO WELL)
Twice
H(a', temperature^',
W, As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),^
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),
TOC, alkalinity, turbidity
pH ADJUSTMENT -
CO9 INJECTION
', temperature^',
O), As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),^
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
SiO2,F,NO3,SO4,P (total),
FOC, alkalinity, turbidity
pH(a\ temperature1^),
DO/ORPW, As speciation,
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg,
SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),
FOC, alkalinity, turbidity
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
1
r
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
AD-33™ Technology
Design Flow: 160 gpm
pH
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-160 System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Pre-treatment
Target pH Value after Adjustment (S.U.)
Target Chlorine Residual (mg/L [as C12])
7.0
0.58
Using CO2
Using NaCIO
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
Number of Vessels
Configuration
48 D x 72 H
12.6
2
Parallel
—
—
—
—
AD- 3 3 Adsorption Media
Media Bed Depth (in)
Media Quantity (Ib)
Media Volume (ft3)
Media Type
34
1,994
71.2
AD-33
997 Ib/vessel
35.6 ft3/vessel
Granular form
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (months)
160
6.3
3.3
61,296
32,609,500
45,000
24.2
80 gpm/vessel
—
Based on 160 gpm design flow
To 10 ug/L total arsenic breakthrough
1BV= 71.2 ft3 = 532 gal
Based on 6.25 hr/day operation at 120 gpm
Vendor estimated media life
Backwash
Pressure Differential Set Point (psi)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency (per month)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
10
113 to 125
9 to 10
1
17 to 19
1,920-2,380
—
—
—
—
—
-
o As the CO2 gas flowed to the pH control panel, the gas flowrate is automatically
controlled and adjusted by a JUMO pH/Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller
and an Alicat mass flowmeter (Figure 4-10) to reach a desired pH setpoint. As an
alternative, manual regulation of the gas flowrate also can be achieved via the use of a
three-way ball valve and a rotameter. Further, a solenoid valve interlocks with the well
pump, allowing gas to flow only when the well pump is turned on.
o After flowing out of the control panel, CO2 is injected into water through a Celgard®
microporous hollow fiber membrane module housed in a 1.5-in stainless steel sanitary
cross. Table 4-5 lists the properties and specifications of the hollow fiber membrane
module. The sanitary cross is located in a side stream from the main water line to allow
only a portion of water to flow through the membrane module to minimize the pressure
drop. The membrane introduced CO2 gas into the water at a near molecular level for
rapid mixing/reaction with water to achieve a quick pH response/change.
o Located downstream from the sanitary cross, a Sentron ion sensitive field effect transistor
(ISFET) type silicon chip sanitary pH probe with automatic temperature compensation
continuously monitors pH levels of treated water and sends signals back to the pFI/PID
controller for pH control. Data from the in-line pH meter are recorded and stored in a
datalogger.
19
-------
Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System
(Clockwise from top left: NaCIO storage tank and chlorine metering pumps;
Prechlorination injection point; and Post-chlorination injection point)
o Throughout the study, the CO2 pH control system supplied CO2 at approximately 16.2
ft3/hr, or 23.3 Ib/day (Section 4.4.2). The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders
provided CO2 for about 4.3 days before requiring change-out.
• Adsorption. The AdEdge APU-160 arsenic removal system consists of two 48-in x 72-in
vessels configured in parallel, each containing 35.6 ft3 of AD-33 media supported by a gravel
underbed. The vessels are fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) construction rated for 150 psi
working pressure. The FRP vessels are skid-mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a
polyurethane coated, welded frame. The empty bed contact time (EBCT) for the system is
3.3 min and the hydraulic loading to each vessel is 6.3 gpm/ft2, based on the design flowrate
of 160 gpm.
20
-------
ATSI CO, pH Control
Panel (ATSI)
9' Cable
Source: Applied Technology Systems, Inc. (ATSI)
20 Ib or SOIb
Cylinders for
Gas Supply
-1.5" Dia. PVC Housed
Membrane w^
1" MNPT Connection
on each end for water
0-100 psig
Pressure Gage
Water
Pump
/
Tit* Collector. 1
L-, , _TT_
1 —
X
ml
Sentran pH
Probe
]
,-,,,, . ,„, ^u_. Distance to pH probe
Flow Control Valve
(Distance 10')
Power in
Wellpump
Contacts
C02 Gas
Inlet
BV1
I Terminal Strip
©""
Power On/Off
b
Pump On
/ 4-20 mAmp
Signal to
Control
Module
(5)
Low Gas Pressure
BV2
RV1
j9larm
Acknowledge
/NV1
,TBV1
T
¥1 nt
*
A.
FM1
Horn
pH Cable
To pH Probe
(9' Cable)
C020as
Outlet
Figure 4-9. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID
Control Panel (bottom)
21
-------
Figure 4-10. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment
(Clockwise from top left: Liquid CO2 supply assembly; Automatic pH control Panel;
CO 2 Membrane Module; and Port for pH Probe)
Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous
Hollow Fiber Membrane
Parameter
Porosity (%)
Pore Dimensions (urn)
Effective Pore Size (urn)
Minimum Burst Strength (psi)
Tensile Break Strength (g/filament)
Average Resistance to Air Flow (Gurley sec)
Axial Direction Shrinkage (%)
Fiber Internal Diameter, nominal (urn)
Fiber Wall Thickness, nominal (um)
Fiber Outer Diameter, nominal (um)
Module Dimensions (in)
Value
40
0.04 xO.10
0.04
400
>300
50
<5
220
40
300
1.5 x3.0
Data Source: CelgarcT
22
-------
4.3
Each pressure vessel is interconnected with Schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which make up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-11. During
normal operation, the feed valves and effluent valves are opened and the other six valves are
closed to direct water downward through the two adsorptive vessels. During backwashing,
the feed and effluent valves are closed and the backwash feed valves and backwash effluent
valves are opened to divert water upward through the two adsorption vessels. The butterfly
valves are controlled by a Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch
interface screen.
• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the APU-160 system be backwashed
approximately once per month, either manually or automatically, to remove particulates and
media fines that accumulate in the media beds. Automatic backwash can be initiated by
either timer or differential pressure across the vessels (i.e., when Ap>10 psi). Backwash is to
be performed upflow at a flowrate of 113 to 125 gpm to achieve a hydraulic loading rate of
about 9 to 10 gpm/ft2. Each backwash cycle is set to last for about 17 to 19 min/vessel,
generating approximately 1,920 to 2,380 gal/vessel of wastewater. The backwash water is
discharged into a drainage pond adjacent to the treatment facility.
Figure 4-11. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by AdEdge and its subcontractor, Pumps and Services,
Inc., on May 15, 2007. The following briefly summarizes predemonstration activities, including
permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
23
-------
4.3.1 Permitting. The Nambe Pueblo community water system was not subject to State of New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED) drinking water permit requirements due to the sovereignty of
Nambe Pueblo as a tribal land; therefore, no engineering submittals or permit packages were prepared for
this demonstration.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The existing building (Figure 4-3) at the Buffalo Well was too small
to house the APU system, therefore, a new building (Figure 4-12) was constructed by the IHS to house
the treatment system. To facilitate the building design, conceptual system footprint and structural
requirements were provided by AdEdge to IHS on November 14, 2003, and computer-aided design
(CAD) drawings of the system were provided on November 28, 2003. IHS signed a contract with a
general contractor for construction of the building on October 5, 2004, and site work began on November
8, 2004. The concrete foundation was completed on December 2, 2004, and geotechnical samples were
collected to determine if the concrete would support the wet weight of the APU. The concrete was
approved in January 2005, and building construction was resumed.
Construction of the first phase of building, including the walls, roof, and doors, was completed in April
2005; however, the electrical and plumbing work was not complete, and the construction contract funding
was depleted. Construction of the building stopped in April 2005, pending the award of additional federal
funding to pay for the remaining construction effort. Additional funding was received by IHS on August
2, 2005, but the new construction contract was not issued until May 31, 2006. Construction activities
resumed on June 26, 2006, and the final electrical work was completed on August 29, 2006. A summary
of building preparation completion dates is included in Table 4-6.
4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system was delivered to the
new building on May 9, 2005. However, as noted in Section 4.3.2, the plumbing and electrical portions
of the building were not completed, and system installation could not be performed. The system was
secured in the unfinished building pending completion of the plumbing and electrical work required to
support installation of the system. After building construction was completed on August 29, 2006,
plumbing and electrical connections for the system (with the exception of CO2 gas line) were completed
on September 5, 2006. Due to various issues among the Nambe Pueblo Tribe, IHS, and EPA Region 6,
approval to finalize the installation of the system was not reached until February 2007.
On May 7, 2007, the vendor returned to the site to complete the plumbing, install the CO2 system, and
perform shakedown testing and operator training. Hydraulic testing of the system (prior to media
loading) was conducted on May 8, 2007. The flow and differential pressure measurements were
approved, and the underbedding gravels and adsorptive media were loaded into the vessels on May 8,
2007. Final installation activities, including initial backwash of the media, plumbing of sample ports, and
installation of the pH control system, was conducted from May 11 through 15, 2007, with personnel
present from AdEdge, IHS, EPA Region 6, and Nambe Pueblo Tribe (the operator and assistant operator).
The system officially went into service on May 15, 2007, and operator training was provided by AdEdge
on May 16, 2007. Battelle staff arrived at Nambe Pueblo on July 9, 2007, to inspect the system and
provide additional operator training (Figure 4-13). Training included calibration and use of the field
water quality meters, collection and recording of operational data, proper sample collection techniques,
arsenic speciation, and sample handling and shipping procedures. Table 4-6 summarizes key activities
and completed dates during system installation, shakedown, and startup.
24
-------
Figure 4-12. Nambe Pueblo Treatment Plant Building
(Top: Building under construction; Bottom: Completed building)
25
-------
Table 4-6. Key Milestones for Building Preparation and System Installation
Activity
Date
Building Preparation
Footprint and Structural Requirements from AdEdge to HIS
CAD Drawings provided by AdEdge to IHS
IHS Signed Contract with General Contractor
Site Work Began
Concrete Foundation Completed
Concrete Pour Approved
First Phase of Construction Completed; Funding Exhausted
Additional Federal Funds Received by HIS
New Construction Contract Issued
Construction Resumed
Final Electrical Work Completed
Installation, Shakedown, and Startu
APU Delivered to Nambe Building
Plumbing and Electrical Connections Completed
Approval to Finalize Installation Received
Hydraulic Testing Performed
Adsorptive Media Loaded
Final Installation and Startup
System Startup
Operator Training Performed by AdEdge
Operator Training Performed by Battelle
November 14, 2003
November 28, 2003
October 5, 2004
November 8, 2004
December 2, 2004
January 2005
April 2005
August 2, 2005
May 31, 2006
June 26, 2006
August 29, 2006
p
May 9, 2005
September 5, 2006
February 2007
May 8, 2007
May 8, 2007
May 11-15,2007
May 15, 2007
May 16, 2007
July 9, 2007
Figure 4-13. Operator Training at Nambe Pueblo
26
-------
Table 4-7 summarizes the punch-list items identified by Battelle during system shakedown and operator
training, and corrective actions taken by AdEdge. The first two items were addressed quickly. The
uneven flow through Vessels A and B did not cause a problem; the flow imbalance was not significant
during the demonstration study (i.e. 51.5% through Vessel A and 48.5% through Vessel B [Section
4.3.1]). Therefore, no action was taken on this item. Vendors were contacted to determine cost and
feasibility of installing a large CO2 tank, and it was determined that the most efficient approach would be
to have more CO2 cylinders on hand and provide better coordination for delivery.
Table 4-7. System Punch-List/Operational Issues
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
Rotameter for CO2 system too
small
pH control system appears to have
a high CO2 use rate
Water flow through Tank A higher
than Tank B
Operator prefers to have a large
CO2 storage tank with a fill
connection outside fenced area so
that CO2 vendor can replenish
supplies when operator is not
onsite
Corrective Action(s) Taken
• Ordered and install a larger rotameter
• Checked for leaks in system, but none
was found
• Observe to determine if uneven flow
becomes a problem
• Vendors contacted to determine cost
and feasibility of installing a large CO2
tank, and it was determined that most
efficient approach would be to have
more CO2 cylinders on hand and
provide better coordination for delivery
Resolution
Date
June 2007
June 2007
Not needed
Not needed
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Operational data were collected from July 9, 2007, through
September 28, 2009, and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-8 summarizes key parameters. According
to the well pump hour meter, the treatment system operated for a total of 9,445 hr. Daily operating times
fluctuated significantly from 2 to 24 hr and remained low at 2.1 hr/day (on average) from October 11
through December 3, 2007 (see Figure 4-14). This was due to testing of a rehabilitated well in the
distribution system, which reduced daily demand from the treatment plant. Excluding the period from
October 11 to December 3, 2007, the average daily operation time was 12.3 hr/day. Because no daily
operational data were collected from system startup on May 15, 2007 to July 9, 2007, operation hours
(689 hr) during this period were estimated by multiplying the average daily operation time (12.3 hr/day)
by the number of days (56 day). Total system operation time during the entire performance evaluation
study (i.e. from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009) was calculated to be 10,134 hr.
Total volume throughput during the performance evaluation study was 64,580,000 gal, or 121,390 bed
volumes (BV) (1 BV = 71.2 ft3 of media in both vessels), based on two totalizers installed at the inlet side
of the adsorption vessels. The average daily demand was 78,360 gpd, excluding the period from October
11 to December 3, 2007, when a rehabilitated well was tested in the distribution system.
System flowrates were tracked by electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed at the inlet side of the
vessels. Flowrates also were calculated based on flow totalizer and hour meter readings from the same
electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers. Instantaneous flowrate readings for Vessels A and B were 58.8
and 55.5 gpm (on average), respectively, which were 4% to 5% higher than the corresponding calculated
flowrates of 56.7 and 53.0 gpm (on average). As shown in Figure 4-15, there was slight flow imbalance
between Vessels A and B, i.e., 51.5 and 48.5%, respectively, based on instantaneous flowrate readings.
27
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of AdEdge APU-160 System Operation
Parameter
Study Duration
Estimated Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time(a) (hr)
Volume Throughput (gal)
System Throughput b) (BY)
System Average Daily Use(a) (gpd)
Average (Range) of Instantaneous
Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) of Hydraulic Loading
Rate (gpm/ft2)
Average (Range) of EBCT (min)
Average (Range) of Ap (psi)
Actual
05/15/07-09/28/09
10,134
12.3
Vessel A: 33,460,647
Vessel B: 31, 119,352
System: 64,580,000
121,390
78,360
Vessel A: 58.8 (49.7 to 72.2)
Vessel B: 55.5 (44.2 to 67.5)
System: 114 (97 to 140)
Vessel A: 4.7(3.9 to 5.7)
Vessel B: 4.4 (3. 5 to 5.4)
System: 4.5 (3.8 to 5.6)
Vessel A: 4.5 (3.7 to 5.4)
Vessel B: 4.8 (3.9 to 6.0)
System: 4.7 (3.8 to 5.5)
Vessel A: 1.1 (0.0 to 4.0)
Vessel B: 1.1 (0.0 to 5.0)
System: 1.1 (0.0 to 5.0)
(a) Not including period from 10/11/07 through 12/03/07.
(b) 1BV= 71.2 ft3 or 532 gal.
Low daily ope ration hours due tote stinga
rehabbed well in the distribution system, which
reduced daily demand from the treatment system
Figure 4-14. Treatment System Daily Operating Times
28
-------
100
Vessel A Instantaneous Flowrate
Vessel B Instantaneous Flowrate
Vessel A Calculated Flowrate
Vessel B Calculated Flowrate
Figure 4-15. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates
Instantaneous flowrates through the treatment system ranged from 97 to 140 gpm and averaged 114 gpm,
which was lower than the design flowrate of 160 gpm (Table 4-4). This average flowrate represented an
average hydraulic loading rate of 4.5 gpm/ft2 and an average EBCT of 4.7 min. The average hydraulic
loading rate was lower than the design value of 6.3 gpm/ft2, and the average EBCT was longer than the
design value of 3.3 min.
Differential pressure (Ap) readings across the system ranged from 0 to 5 psi and averaged 1.1 psi (Figure
4-16). Ap readings across Vessel A ranged from 0 to 4 psi and averaged 1.1 psi. Ap readings across
Vessel B ranged from 0 to 5 psi and averaged 1.1 psi. Due to the low Ap readings across the media
vessels, no backwash was conducted during the performance evaluation study.
4.4.2 pH Adjustments. pH adjustment was provided by a carbon dioxide gas flow control system
manufactured by ATSI (Section 4.2). Carbon dioxide gas was supplied to the system by a pair of 50-lb
cylinders connected in parallel. The water system operator monitored the CO2 cylinders and ordered and
received replacement cylinders when necessary. During the course of the performance evaluation study,
the operator reported difficulties in coordinating the delivery of replacement cylinders and maintaining a
constant CO2 supply to the pH control system. Factors for the difficulties might have included the non-
standard working hours of the operator, remote site location, and reported delivery delays by the CO2
vendor.
The lack of constant CO2 supply to the pH adjustment system resulted in periodic losses of pH control.
The pH values recorded by an in-line pH meter/logger at the AP location were downloaded for two time
periods from March 31 through June 20, 2008, and from September 17, 2008, through January 8, 2009,
and the data are plotted in Figures 4-17a and 17b, respectively. The datalogger recorded pH readings
29
-------
Figure 4-16. Operational Pressure Readings
from the in-line pH probe at 30-min intervals only when the well pump and APU system were operating.
An additional data point was recorded when the well pump shut off. Based on the operational data sheets
in Appendix A, the treatment system operated for 17.4 and 10.5 hr/day (on average) during the first and
second time periods, respectively. It can be seen easily on Figure 4-17b, during December 7, 2008,
through January 8, 2009, when the system was on or off. However, it is more difficult to differentiate the
system's on/off outside of this time period because of the large number of data points presented in the
figures.
Shaded areas shown in Figures 4-17a and 4-17b denote the durations when the treatment system operated
without pH control. Based on the datalogger, the system operated without pH control for 55.2% of the
time during the first period. pH control improved significantly in the second period with only 14.3% of
the time operating without pH control. The improvement was probably due to an improved coordination
of the plant operator to maintain a more constant CO2 supply, when analytical results started to indicate
that losing pH control might flush adsorbed arsenic and uranium out of the adsorptive media beds
(Section 4.5.1).
As also shown in Figures 4-17a and 4-17b, pH values measured by the in-line pH probe and recorded in
the datalogger during periods without pH control were higher than those of source water, i.e., 9.0 and 9.1,
as presented in Table 4-11. It is possible that the calibration of the in-line pH probe was off; however,
due to lack of pH readings from a handheld meter, there were no additional data that might be used to
compare the in-line pH probe readings. While the exact pH values might be incorrect due to lack of
calibration, it does appear that the probe was able to detect the relative changes in pH during system
operation.
30
-------
10
7 -
10
8 -
7 -
T*T
Ul
LJljU
Figure 4-17a. In-line pH Data for Period from March 31 Through June 20, 2008
-------
^ jf*
^" >S^- ~S^-
ll I ll
tLoaa—/ik
OJ
to
^^^^^^^^^
Figure 4-17b. In-line pH Data for Period from September 17, 2008, Through January 08, 2009
-------
Table 4-9. Example pH Data from In-line
pH Probe
Date and Time
April 10, 2008 11:00
April 10, 2008 11:28
April 10, 2008 17:00
April 10, 2008 17:30
April 10, 2008 18:00
April 10, 2008 18:30
April 10, 2008 19:00
April 10, 2008 19:30
April 10, 2008 20:00
April 10, 2008 20:30
April 10, 2008 21:00
April 10, 2008 21:30
April 10, 2008 22:00
April 10, 2008 22:30
April 10, 2008 23:00
April 10, 2008 23:30
April 11, 2008 00:00
April 11, 2008 00:30
April 11, 2008 01:00
April 11, 2008 01:04
April 11, 2008 06:30
April 11, 2008 07:00
April 11, 2008 07:30
pH (in-line probe)
7.28
7.35
8.01
8.06
7.91
7.47
7.47
7.31
7.26
7.16
7.18
7.12
7.16
7.16
7.13
7.16
7.16
7.09
7.09
7.07
8.32
7.82
7.44
Table 4-9 shows a subset of pH datalogger recordings for April 10 and 11, 2008, at periods during system
operation, shutdown, and startup. On April 10, the system was operating and recording data at 30-min
intervals, as noted for the 11:00 data point. The datalogger then recorded another point at 11:28 when the
well pump turned off. The next data point was recorded at 17:00 after the system had restarted. The
period of time between 11:28 and 17:00 represented system downtime. The exact restart time of the
system was unknown, but had to have occurred between 16:30 and 17:00. The pH data shown in Table 4-
9 suggested CO2 degassing during periods when the well pump (and consequently the pH control system
and datalogger) was not operating. During this time, pH values in the in-line probe cell began to drift
upwards, as shown by the pH readings increasing from 7.35, when the system shut down at 11:28, up to a
level presumably higher than the 8.01 value measured by the time of the first reading at 17:00, or between
0 and 29 min after system restart. A similar pattern was shown for April 11, 2008, where the system shut
off at 01:04 with a pH value of 7.07, and restarted between 06:00 and 06:30 with a pH value measured at
8.32 at 06:30. The data show that the pH continued to decrease with continued system operation. The
pattern shown for each of these days was repeated on other dates where the datalogger pH data exist.
Data collected during routine treatment plant sampling across the treatment train at TA, TB, and TT did
not include pH measurements; it was therefore unclear if CO2 degassing phenomenon also had occurred
within the adsorption vessels.
In order to address the difficulty with maintaining proper pH control, alternative CO2 storage and delivery
options were investigated. Quotes for the purchase and/or lease of a large CO2 storage tank were solicited
from local vendors, and the costs for tank purchase and installation were compared to the costs of 50-lb
cylinder rental. Analysis of the cost comparison indicated that the purchase and installation of a large
33
-------
CO2 storage tank, while potentially more convenient for the operator, was not economically feasible due
to the significant capital cost. Therefore, it was decided not to install a large CO2 storage tank at the site.
During the period from July 9, 2007 to May 22, 2008, the treatment system operated 318 days and
consumed a total of 148 50-lb CO2 cylinders. (Note that the consumption of CO2 cylinders was not
recorded before July 9, 2007 and after May 22, 2008). Therefore, the treatment system consumed an
average of 23.3 Ib/day of CO2, corresponding to 16.2 ft3/hr of CO2 based on a gas density of 0.117 lb/ft3
and an average system operating time of 12.3 hr/day. The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders
provided CO2 for about 4.3 days' operation before requiring replacement. Using a CO2 consumption
model, the vendor estimated the theoretical CO2 usage based on source water quality and system flowrate.
The theoretical usage was 15.8 ft3/hr (including 4 ft3/hr on the purge line), which was very close to the
actual average usage of 16.2 ft3/hr.
4.4.3 Residual Management. No residuals were produced because neither backwash nor media
replacement was required.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. In addition to the pH adjustment problem
discussed in Section 4.4.2, no major operational problems were encountered. The only O&M issues
encountered were a broken pre-chlorination injector and malfunctioning main solenoid valve in the CO2
gas system. Both issues were solved quickly and did not cause any system downtime. The system O&M
and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-treatment requirements,
levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency
of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre- and post-treatment consisted of pH adjustment,
prechlorination, and postchlorination. CO2 was used to lower pH values of source water to a target value
of 7.0 in order to increase the arsenic removal capacity of the adsorptive media. The CO2 injection point
and in-line pH probe used to monitor and control the adjusted pH levels were installed downstream of the
chlorine injection point. O&M of the pH adjustment system required routine system pressure checks and
regular changeout of CO2 supply bottles as pressure was depleted. The operator also recorded daily pH
readings from the in-line probe, as needed. The use of CO2 for pH adjustment also required safety
training for and awareness by the operator due to potential hazards.
For pre- and post-chlorination, the existing chlorination system was upgraded and installed inside the
treatment building. The upgraded chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown on Figure
4-8, utilized a 10% NaOCl solution to reach a target residual level of 0.58 mg/L (as C12) at the entry point.
The upgraded chlorination system did not require maintenance or skills other than those required by the
previous system. The operator monitored chlorine tank levels (to estimate consumption rates) and
residual chlorine levels (using a Hach meter).
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic backwash.
The system also was equipped with an automated carbon dioxide gas flow control system for pH
control/adjustment. 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 hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual to the
operator.
34
-------
Operator Skill Requirements. Skill requirements to operate the system demanded a higher level of
awareness and attention than the previous system. The system offered increased operational flexibility,
which, in turn, required increased monitoring of system parameters. The operator's knowledge of system
limitations and typical operational parameters were key to achieve system performance objectives. The
two operators were onsite typically five times a week and spent a total of approximately 6.5 hr each time,
as claimed by the operators, to perform visual inspections and record relevant system operating
parameters on the Daily System Operation Log Sheets. The basis for the operator skills began with onsite
training and a thorough review of the system operations manual; however, increased knowledge and
invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational experience.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Checking the CO2 cylinders and
supply lines for leaks and adequate pressure and calibrating the in-line pH probe also were performed.
Typically, the operator performed these duties while onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for pre- and post-chlori-
nation. The operator ordered the chemical as done prior to installation of the APU-160 system. CO2used
for pH adjustment was ordered on an as-needed basis. Typically, 15 50-lb cylinders were used per month.
As CO2 cylinders were delivered to the site by Airgas, empty cylinders were returned for reuse.
4.5 System Performance
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 63 occasions
(including four duplicate samples collected during four regular sampling events) with field speciation
performed during two of the 63 occasions at IN, AP, and TT sampling locations. Table 4-10 summarizes
the analytical results of arsenic, iron, manganese, and uranium measured at the five sampling locations
across the treatment train. Table 4-11 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results throughout the performance evaluation study.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 10.7 to 59.0 |o,g/L and averaged 32.2
Hg/L. Based on the two speciation sampling events taking place on July 9 and August 10, 2007, soluble
As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 34.2 to 36.5 (ig/L and averaging 35.4 |o,g/L. Trace
levels of soluble As(III) also existed, with concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 |o,g/L and averaging 0.7
Hg/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low as well, ranging from <0.1 to 2.9 |og/L and averaging
1.5 (ig/L. Arsenic concentrations measured during the performance evaluation study were consistent with
those collected previously during source water sampling (Table 4-1).
As expected, arsenic concentrations and speciation remained essentially unchanged after pH adjustments,
with As(V) existing as the predominating species at 31.0 (ig/L (on average).
Figure 4-18 presents total arsenic breakthrough curves. Throughout the performance evaluation study
(i.e., from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009, treating approximately 64,580,000 gal [or 121,390
BV) of water), total arsenic concentrations were reduced to below 3 (ig/L in system effluent (at TA, TB,
and/or TT) during most sampling events. Exceptionally high total arsenic concentrations (i.e., from 14.7
to 46.9 (ig/L) were measured on six occasions (August 15, 2007, September 26, 2007, February 13, 2008,
April 22, 2008, May 13, 2008, and August 27, 2009, at 17,240, 27,730, 40,830, 51,320, 55,500, and
120,242 BV, respectively). After each spike, arsenic concentrations returned to the respective pre-spike
levels, suggesting that the concentration spikes observed were not due to normal arsenic breakthrough.
35
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Uranium
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
Sampling
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
Sample
Count
63
63
61
61
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
63
63
61
61
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
63
63
61
61
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
63
63
61
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
10.7
10.6
0.1
<0.1
1.3
34.5
30.9
NM
NM
1.4
0.1
0.8
NM
NM
0.1
0.3
0.3
NM
NM
0.3
34.2
29.7
NM
NM
0.4
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NM
NM
<25
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
NM
NM
0.1
19.9
26.6
1.3
Maximum
59.0
44.9
46.9
44.7
2.5
37.7
32.5
NM
NM
2.3
2.9
4.4
NM
NM
0.1
1.2
1.1
NM
NM
1.0
36.5
32.2
NM
NM
2.0
154
28.4
44.5
56.7
<25
<25
<25
NM
NM
<25
10.8
63.8
0.3
0.3
0.1
1
0.2
NM
NM
0.3
55.8
48.9
135
Average
32.2
31.6
_(a)
(a)
.(a)
36.1
31.7
NM
NM
(a)
1.5
2.6
NM
NM
_(a)
0.7
0.7
NM
NM
_(a)
35.4
31.0
NM
NM
_(a)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NM
NM
<25
0.8
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
NM
NM
0.2
39.3
39.3
_(a)
Standard
Deviation
7.1
7.6
.(a)
.(a)
.(a)
2.2
1.2
NM
NM
.(a)
2.0
2.6
NM
NM
.(a)
0.6
0.6
NM
NM
_(a)
1.6
1.8
NM
NM
.(a)
22.8
2.0
5.5
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
NM
NM
0.0
1.7
8.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
NM
NM
0.2
4.8
3.7
_(a)
36
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and
Uranium (Continued)
Parameter
U (total)
(Continued)
U (soluble)
Sampling
Location
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Sample
Count
61
2
2
2
NM
NM
2
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
1.4
2.8
<0.1
24.8
NM
NM
<0.1
Maximum
90.9
71.6
41
41.0
NM
NM
72.0
Average
_(a)
(a)
20.3
32.9
NM
NM
.(a)
Standard
Deviation
_(a)
.(a)
28.7
11.4
NM
NM
.(a)
(a) Statistics not provided; see Figures 4-14 and 4-16 for breakthrough curves.
NM = not measured.
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations
-------
Table 4-11. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Turbidity
(Continued)
TOC
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Unit
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
61
2
2
2
NA
NA
2
2
56
1
1
2
2
2
NA
NA
2
2
2
NA
NA
2
2
2
NA
NA
2
o
J
o
J
1
1
2
o
J
o
J
1
1
2
o
J
o
J
1
1
2
Concentration
Minimum
<0.1
0.3
<1.0
<1.0
NA
NA
<1.0
9.0
6.9
8.0
8.1
8.3
20.4
20.4
NA
NA
20.2
6.8
3.4
NA
NA
4.2
391.3
409
NA
NA
424
6
6
8
8
7
6
6
8
8
7
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.1
Maximum
2.6
0.4
<1.0
<1.0
NA
NA
<1.0
9.1
8.1
8.0
8.1
8.6
22.3
21.8
NA
NA
22.6
6.9
3.8
NA
NA
4.7
396
442
NA
NA
467
7
7
8
8
41
7
7
8
8
40
0
0
1
1
1
Average
0.6
0.4
<1.0
<1.0
NA
NA
<1.0
9.0
7.3
8.0
8.1
8.5
21.4
21.1
NA
NA
21.4
6.9
3.6
NA
NA
4.5
394
426
NA
NA
446
7
7
8
8
24
7
6
8
8
23
0.1
0.1
1
1
0
Standard
Deviation
0.5
0.1
0
0
NA
NA
0
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
0.2
1.3
1.0
NA
NA
1.7
0.1
0.3
NA
NA
0.3
3.3
23.1
NA
NA
30.2
0.6
0.8
NA
NA
23.8
0.6
0.8
NA
NA
23.5
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
0.3
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations
-------
60
50 - —
40 -•
-At Wellhead (IN)
-AfterpH Adjustment(AP)
After Vessel A (TA)
AfterVessel B (TB)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
Bed Volume
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
Figure 4-19 superimposes effluent arsenic and uranium concentrations with the downloaded in-line pH
data during March 31 through June 20, 2008, as plotted in Figure 4-17a. The four concentration spikes
observed during this period, i.e., 46.9 and 44.7 ug/L on April 22, 2008, and 43.5 and 41.5 ug/L on May
13, 2008, occurred when the system was operating without pH control. The fact that the concentration
spikes had concentrations even higher than those in the system influent (i.e., 31.5 and 40.5 ug/L on April
22 and May 13, 2008, respectively) indicate probable arsenic desorption without pH control.
Since the treatment system lost pH control periodically, the adsorptive media beds apparently operated at
repeated adsorption and desorption cycles, with captured arsenic being intermittently "flushed" from the
media beds. The loss of pH control is likely the reason for the adsorption vessels not exhausting as
expected, even after treating 121,390 BV of water (or twice the working capacity [61,300 BV] projected
by the vendor) by the end of the performance evaluation study.
Uranium. Originating from rocks and mineral deposits, uranium found in most drinking water sources is
naturally occurring and contains three isotopes: U-238 (over 99% by weight), U-235, and U-234. Due to
varying amounts of each isotope in the water, the ratio of uranium concentration (ug/L) to activity (pCi/L)
varies with drinking water sources from region to region. Based on considerations of kidney toxicity and
carcinogenicity, EPA proposed a uranium MCL of 20 ug/L in 1991 (corresponding to 30 pCi/L based on
a mass/activity ratio of 1.5 pCi/ug of uranium). The final rule was set at 30 ug/L in December 2000 after
the conversion factor was revised to 1 pCi/ug (EPA, 2000). In this study, uranium was analyzed by an
ICP-MS method (EPA Method 200.8) with the results expressed in ug/L. Uranium activity (pCi/L) was
not reported to avoid potential confusion associated with the use of different conversion factors.
39
-------
120
100 -•
80 -•
,i 60
40 -•
20 -•
Uranium Vessel A A Uranium Vessel B Arsenic Vessel A C- Arsenic Vessel B
12
-• 10
A
05/13/08
A
-• 4
Figure 4-19. Real-time pH values at AP Location vs. Effluent As and U Concentrations
Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 19.9 to 55.8 ug/L and averaged 39.3 ug/L.
Figure 4-20 shows that uranium was removed to <20 ug/L during the entire study period, except for eight
occasions, indicating that AD-33 media was capable of removing uranium. The eight occasions with
elevated uranium included the six when arsenic concentrations also were elevated (Figure 4-18).
Similar to arsenic, the uranium concentration spikes observed in the system effluent were likely caused by
loss of pH control. As shown in Figure 4-19, the four uranium spikes (i.e., 105 and 90.9 ug/L on April
22, 2008, and 62.4 and 50.6 ug/L on May 13, 2008) occurred when pH values at AP were above 9. These
concentrations were higher than the corresponding influent concentrations of 41.5 and 37.4 ug/L on April
22 and May 13, 2008, respectively, indicating desorption from the media beds. Similar to arsenic,
uranium breakthrough at MCL did not occur during the performance evaluation study.
Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which might influence arsenic adsorption, were measured at
the five sampling locations across the treatment train. Phosphate concentrations in source water were
low, i.e., less than 26 ug/L (as PO4). Silica concentrations in source water ranged from 11.1 to 15.7 mg/L
and averaged 14.1 mg/L. Figure 4-21 presents the silica concentration curves across the treatment train.
No silica concentration reduction was observed. Instead, silica concentrations in system effluent were
frequently higher than measured in source water, as shown in Figure 4-21. The reason for higher silica
concentrations in effluent is unknown.
40
-------
AtWellhead (IN)
After pH Adjustment (AP)
After Vessel A (TA)
After Vessel B (TB)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
Bed Volume
Figure 4-20. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curves
o
5i
s
a is
I
I
5i
-AtWellhead (IN)
-After pH Adjustment (AP)
AfterVessel A (TA)
AfterVessel B (TB)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
Bed Volume
Figure 4-21. Total Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves
41
-------
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water and following the adsorption vessels
were mostly below the MDL of 25 (ig/L (Table 4-10). Total manganese levels in source water also were
low, ranging from <0.1 to 10.8 (ig/L and averaging 0.8 (ig/L. Total manganese levels were reduced to
mostly below the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L in system effluent.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-11, alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from
155 to 190 mg/L and averaged 169 mg/L in source water. As expected, alkalinity after pH adjustment
and adsorption remained essentially unchanged at 169 mg/L (on average) at AP and 172 mg/L (on
average) at TA and TB, since CO2, instead of mineral acids, was used for pH adjustment.
The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for hardness only during three sampling events. Total
hardness concentrations, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 6 to 7 mg/L and averaged 7 mg/L in source
water. Total hardness existed primarily as calcium hardness. Total hardness remained unchanged at 7 to
8 mg/L, on average, following pH adjustment (at AP) and adsorption (at TA and TB).
Sulfate and fluoride concentrations were measured only during three sampling events. Sulfate
concentrations in source water ranged from 26.1 to 29.0 mg/L and averaged 27.4 mg/L. After pH
adjustment and adsorption, sulfate levels remained unchanged at 26.2 to 31.2mg/L (on average). Fluoride
concentrations in source water ranged from 0.9 to 1.1 mg/L and averaged 1.0 mg/L. Fluoride
concentrations following the treatment vessels reduced slightly to 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L.
Average DO levels ranged from 3.6 to 6.9 mg/L throughout the treatment train. ORP readings averaged
394 mV in source water and increased to an average of 426 mV at AP and an average of 446 in system
effluent. High DO levels and ORP readings suggest that the source water was oxidizing.
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. On August 20, 2008, after treating approximately 41,600,000 gal
(or 78,200 BV) of water, the operator collected a media sample approximately 6 in below the surface of
the media beds from both vessels. Each sample was split, with a portion of each sent to Battelle and
Teledyne Brown Laboratories (a subcontractor to AdEdge) for ICP/MS and uranium activity analysis,
respectively. Table 4-12 presents the ICP/MS results.
Table 4-12. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis
Analytes
Vessel A
Vessel B
Concentrations (jig/g)
Mg
575
575
Al
1,607
2,310
Si
1,548
2,361
P
84.0
89.8
Ca
1,708
1,509
V
490
441
Fe
232,724
197,188
Mn
408
413
Ni
91.9
69.0
Cu
23.2
42.9
Zn
301
381
As
21.5
28.8
Cd
0.1
0.0
Ba
135
89.2
Pb
1.7
3.9
U
300
213
As shown in the table, arsenic and uranium concentrations in the spent media were low, ranging from
21.5 to 28.8 (ig/g (or 0.002 to 0.003%) and from 213 to 300 (ig/g (or 0.02 to 0.03%), respectively. The
ICP/MS results indicated that the media were only minimally loaded with arsenic and uranium even after
treating 41,600,000 gal of water.
These arsenic and uranium loadings were compared to the 6,593- and 8,049-(ig/g loadings assuming
100% arsenic and uranium removal from source water (this was close to the actual percentage removal
based on the breakthrough curves). The media analytical data indicate that only 0.38% and 3.2% of
influent arsenic and uranium mass were retained on the media, which would be possible only if captured
arsenic and uranium had been intermittently "flushed" out of the media beds due presumably to losses of
pH control as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
42
-------
Table 4-13 presents the results of uranium activity analysis conducted by Teledyne Brown Laboratories.
An average uranium activity of 120 pCi/g (dry wt) was measured for the spent media.
Table 4-13. Spent Media Uranium
Activity Analysis
Analyte
Vessel A
Vessel B
Average
U-233/234
(pCi/g)
78.5
55.4
67.0
U-235
(PCi/g)
2.75
1.45
2.1
U-238
(PCi/g)
60.1
41.3
50.7
U
(PCi/g)
141
98.2
120
4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was not performed during the performance
evaluation study.
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-14 summarizes the results of the
distribution system sampling. The stagnation times for the first draw samples ranged from 5.0 to 23.8 hr,
which met the requirements of the EPA LCR sampling protocol (EPA, 2002).
Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples
were collected from three sampling locations served by three production wells including the Buffalo
Well. After system startup, the sampling locations were moved to three new locations served only by the
treated water supplied by the Buffalo Well. Comparison of water quality between the Buffalo Well (IN
location in Tables 4-10 and 4-11) and the three wells combined (baseline in Table 4-14) revealed that
while pH of the Buffalo Well water was slightly higher than the three wells combined (i.e., 9.0 vs. 8.7 on
average), concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese and alkalinity were rather comparable.
Figure 4-22 plots arsenic concentrations of distribution system water. Average arsenic concentrations in
distribution water were reduced from an average of 33.7 (ig/L in baseline samples to below MCL during
most sampling events, with exceptions on August 15, 2007, February 27, 2008, and May 29, 2008. Loss
of pH control most likely was the reason for the elevated concentrations observed. This was confirmed
by the August 15, 2007, system effluent data that included elevated arsenic concentrations at 19.1 and
19.5 ng/L (Figure 4-18). Available in-line pH data indicated a source-water level pH value on May 29,
2008. In-line pH data were not available for August 15, 2007 and February 27, 2008.
Figure 4-23 plots uranium concentrations measured in distribution system water. Similar to arsenic,
uranium concentrations in distribution water were reduced to below MCL (i.e., 30 (ig/L) during most
sampling events. The exceptions were on July 10, 2007, August 15, 2007, February 27, 2008, and April
2, 2008, when higher than MCL concentrations were measured. On August 15, 2007, elevated uranium
concentrations at 68.9 and 66.9 (ig/L also were measured in system effluent (Figure 4-20). In-line pH
data indicated elevated pH values on April 2, 2008. In-line pH data for the other three sampling events
were not available.
Lead concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 12.8 (ig/L, with no sample exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L.
Copper concentrations ranged from 4.8 to 385 (ig/L, with no sample exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action
level. Measured pH values ranged from 7.0 to 8.9 and averaged 7.5, which were 0.5 to 1.0 units lower
than the avearge pH value immediately after the adsorption vessels (i.e. at TA, TB, and TT). Compared
to an average value of 8.7 before the treatment system became operational, the significantly lowered pH
values did not appear to have affected the lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system.
43
-------
Table 4-14. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1W
BL2»
BL3W
BL4W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
12/23/03
01/21/04
02/19/04
03/31/04
07/10/07
08/15/07
09/13/07
10/25/07
1 1/20/07
01/17/08
01/31/08
02/27/08
04/02/08
05/29/08
07/24/08
09/10/08
DS1
Serafm Vigil
Stagnation Time
to
7.0
11.8
8.0
10.5
8.5
9.3
8.4
NS
23.8
7.8
5.3
8.5
8.0
9.0
8.0
7.5
=
S.U
8.9
9.0
8.7
6.9
8.1
8.5
7.7
NS
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.6
Alkalinity
niR/L
170
165
176
214
176
165
181
NS
192
163
178
172
171
177
169
NA
<
IJR/L
28.7
39.7
42.3
2.6
4.3
16.6
6.6
NS
1.9
6.1
5.7
15.0
8.4
16.6
6.3
10.2
&
IJR/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NS
<25
<25
26
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
a
S
IJR/L
1.5
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NS
5.7
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
u
UR/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
27.8
73.7
19.5
NS
7.5
19.6
24.7
35.6
30.3
25.2
12.2
20.3
.a
0.
UR/L
<0.1
0.9
3.3
1.0
3.1
1.5
1.1
NS
12.8
3.4
0.9
0.5
0.8
3.5
1.2
0.8
3
U
UR/L
50.8
51.0
57.7
236
125
42.4
70.7
NS
13.2
385
42.6
56.4
51.7
283
146
327
DS2
Balerie Vigil
Stagnation Time
hr
NA
15.5
14.8
15.8
7.0
7.8
6.0
9.8
5.5
8.0
7.0
19.3
6.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
S
S.U.
8.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.3
8.7
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.2
Alkalinity
mg/L
175
173
182
167
185
162
173
165
167
174
174
168
169
177
167
NA
<
UR/L
29.6
38.5
44.2
32.7
8.8
18.9
5.4
5.1
2.0
5.8
5.3
10.3
9.0
16.6
2.5
4.4
&
UR/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
34
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
a
S
UR/L
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
U
UR/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
38.3
63.2
15.6
10.4
5.6
15.7
24.2
32.0
27.2
25.9
6.1
7.4
.a
0.
UR/L
2.3
2.0
1.9
2.3
<0.1
0.2
1.2
1.8
1.6
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
<0.1
s
u
UR/L
8.8
2.7
7.0
11.2
37.4
11.4
134
125
284
31.0
129
152
99.3
28.1
37.3
168
DS3
Frank Romero
Stagnation Time
to
NA
15.8
15.8
17.0
8.5
6.5
6.5
8.0
6.8
8.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
5.5
6.5
6.5
S
S.U.
9.0
9.1
8.8
8.7
8.2
8.9
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.1
Alkalinity
mg/L
175
173
168
163
183
165
171
168
171
176
170
170
173
175
167
NA
<
UR/L
30.5
40.4
43.8
32.0
8.3
21.2
4.6
5.4
2.1
6.5
4.7
10.8
11.2
12.8
4.3
3.8
&
UR/L
41
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
56
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
a
S
UR/L
1.3
0.3
1.2
0.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
U
UR/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
40.8
61.8
15.5
11.2
6.5
23.1
18.6
27.8
37.7
25.6
10.3
8.2
.a
0.
UR/L
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
<0.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.3
<0.1
s
u
UR/L
63.2
60.4
70.8
60.7
28.3
4.8
198
162
228
260
136
199
127
158
182
184
Lead action level = 15 ug/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Available; NS = Not Sampled.
(a) Baseline sampling locations moved to locations served by only Buffalo Well after system startup.
-------
06/17/07 08/06/07 09/25/07 11/14/07 01/03/08 02/22/08 04/12/08 06/01/08 07/21/08 09/09/08 10/29/08
Figure 4-22. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water
06/17/07 08/06/07 09/25/07 11/14/07 01/03/08 02/22/08 04/12/08 06/01/08 07/21/08 09/09/08 10/29/08
Figure 4-23. Uranium Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water
45
-------
Alkalinity levels ranged from 162 to 192 mg/L (as CaCO3). Iron was detected in one of the sampling
events; manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 5.7 (ig/L. The arsenic treatment system did not
seem to affect these water quality parameters in the distribution system.
4.6
System Cost
System cost is evaluated based 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 the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical use, and
labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
treatment system was $143,113 (see Table 4-15). The equipment cost was $116,645 (or 82% of the total
capital investment), which included the cost for two APU-160 vessels, 71.2 ft3 of AD-33 media, pH
adjustment module, instrumentation and controls, miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and
shipping.
The site engineering cost was $11,638, or 8% of the total capital investment. Because an engineering
plan or a permit submittal package was not required for the Nambe Pueblo site, the site engineering cost
represents a small fraction of total capital cost.
Table 4-15. Capital Investment Cost for Nambe Pueblo System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU-160 Tanks
AD-33 Media
Piping and Valves
Instrument and Controls
pH Adjustment Module
O&M Manual and Training
Vendor Labor
Shipping CO2 System
Shipping APU System and Media
Equipment Total
2
71.2ft3
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
-
$33,697
$18,620
$11,656
$7,735
$17,100
$4,535
$20,377
$350
$2,575
$116,645
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
82
Engineering Costs
Materials
Vendor Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
-
$75
$3,420
$7,150
$993
$11,638
-
-
-
-
8
Installation Costs
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
$400
$10,100
$3,040
$1,290
$14,830
$143,113
-
-
-
-
10
100
46
-------
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 $14,830, or 10% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $143,113 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 160 gpm (230,400
gpd), which resulted in $894/gpm of design capacity ($0.62/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $13,508/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 hours a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 160 gpm to produce 84,096,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.16/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 12.3 hr/day at approximately 114
gpm (see Table 4-8), producing 30,708,180 gal of water annually, the unit capital cost increased to
$0.44/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for media replacement
and disposal, CO2 use, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-16). Although media replacement did
not occur during the system performance evaluation, the media replacement cost for both vessels would
have represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $29,532. This media change-out
cost would include the cost for media, underbedding gravels, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis,
and media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water
treated as a function of the projected media run length at the 10 ug/L arsenic breakthrough from the
adsorption vessels (Figure 4-24).
Table 4-16. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Nambe Pueblo System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (kgal)
Value
11,500
Assumptions
05/15/07-09/28/09
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media Cost ($/ft3)
Total Media Volume (ft3)
Media Replacement Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Labor Cost ($)
Disposal of Spent Media ($)
Subtotal
Media Replacement and Disposal
Cost ($/l,000 gal)
274
71.2
19,525
707
4,200
5,100
29,532
See Figure 4-24
Vendor quote
Both vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-ug/L
arsenic breakthrough
Chemical Usage
CO2 Gas ($/l,000 gal)
$0.20
Based on the cost of CO2 cylinders for
pH adjustment
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($/l,000 gal)
0.00
Electrical cost assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hrs)
Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
32.5
$1.16
See Figure 4-24
6.5 hr/day (5 days/week)
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Based upon media run length at 10-ug/L
arsenic breakthrough
47
-------
The chemical cost included the cost for NaCIO for pre- and post-chlorination and CO2 gas for pH
adjustment. NaCIO was already used at the site prior to the installation of the APU unit for disinfection
purposes prior to distribution. The presence of the APU system did not affect the use rate of the NaCIO
solution. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was negligible. The CO2 cost for pH
adjustment was recorded to be $6,260 per year or $0.20/1,000 gal of water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation
of the system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities
to operate and maintain the system consumed 6.5 hr per day, 5 days per week, as noted in Section 4.4.4.
Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $1.16/1,000 gal of water treated. This estimation assumes that
maintenance and operational procedures were consistently performed through the completion of the
system performance evaluation.
$0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
Note: One bed volume equals 71.2 ft3 (532 gal)
Figure 4-24. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
48
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 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.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2000. National primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Final Rule. Fed. Register, 40
CFRParts9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
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.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
05/15/07
07/09/07
07/16/07
07 717 Y07
07/18/07
07/20/07
07/23/07
07/24/07
07/25/07
07/26/07
07/27/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/01/07
08/02/07
08/03/07
08/06/07
08/07/07
08/09/07
08/10/07
08/1 1/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
08/15/07
08/16/07
08/20/07
08/21/07
08/22/07
08/23/07
08/24/07
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
NA
2,345.6
2,428.2
2,443.2
2,453.0
2,479.1
2,512.2
2,521.6
2,540.4
2,548.6
2,550.6
2,592.7
2,605.6
2,616.5
2,627.5
2,635.7
2,679.3
2,714.3
2,739.1
2,763.6
2,775.0
2,829.1
2,852.8
2,864.1
2,877.0
2,949.0
2,974.1
2,997.2
3,022.7
3,024.8
Incr.
Hours
hr
NA
NA
82.6
15.0
9.8
26.1
33.1
9.4
18.8
8.2
2.0
42.1
12.9
10.9
11.0
8.2
43.6
35.0
24.8
24.5
11.4
54.1
23.7
11.3
12.9
72.0
25.1
23.1
25.5
2.1
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
NA
63.4
64.5
61.8
66.6
67.8
64.1
68.4
66.6
61.2
62.1
65.0
64.0
64.0
65.0
63.4
61.1
60.8
60.8
60.6
59.2
60.1
60.3
66.4
60.3
61.6
60.7
60.3
60.6
60.1
Totalizer
gal
NA
2,807,920
3,124,554
3,182,383
3,222,963
3,321,797
3,446,277
3,482,810
3,555,184
3,586,675
NA
3,758,554
3,808,614
3,850,739
3,892,596
3,924,622
4,088,525
4,215,243
4,303,663
4,390,682
4,431,111
4,634,775
4,713,195
4,756,069
4,757,001
5,051,630
5,158,025
5,238,846
5,328,955
5,388,102
Incr. Flow
gal
NA
NA
316,634
57,829
40,580
98,834
124,480
36,533
72,374
31,491
NA
171,879
50,060
42,125
41,857
32,026
163,903
126,718
88,420
87,019
40,429
203,664
78,420
42,874
932
294,629
106,395
80,821
90,109
59,147
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
63.9
64.3
69.0
63.1
62.7
64.8
64.2
64.0
NA
65.0
286.7
64.4
63.4
65.1
62.7
60.3
59.4
59.2
59.1
62.7
55.1
63.2
1.2
68.2
70.6
58.3
58.9
469.4
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
NA
60.7
63.0
61.1
64.1
62.4
61.0
61.2
60.8
56.4
59.1
60.0
58.0
62.1
57.0
58.1
57.3
57.1
56.7
56.1
53.9
58.6
61.3
61.7
59.1
59.5
56.2
59.8
56.1
59.1
Totaliz er
gal
NA
2,610,655
2,909,728
2964292
3,002,523
3,095,457
3,212,544
3,245,392
3,311,010
3,339,705
NA
3,497,128
3,543,142
3,581,913
3,620,474
3,649,995
3,801,246
3,918,186
3,999,709
4,079,920
4,117,167
4,295,982
4,377,465
4,417,138
4,418,240
4,693,468
4,793,149
4,868,906
4,953,405
4,953,512
Incr. Flow
gal
NA
NA
299,073
54,564
38,231
92,934
117,087
32,848
65,618
28,695
NA
157,423
46,014
38,771
38,561
29,521
151,251
116,940
81,523
80,211
37,247
178,815
81,483
39,673
1,102
275,228
99,681
75,757
84,499
107
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
60.3
60.6
65.0
59.3
59.0
58.2
58.2
58.3
NA
59.5
59.4
59.3
58.4
60.0
57.8
55.7
54.8
54.6
54.5
55.1
57.3
58.5
1.4
63.7
66.2
54.7
55.2
0.8
System Throughput
gal
NA
5,418,575
6,034,282
6,146,675
6,225,486
6,417,254
6,658,821
6,728,202
6,866,194
6,926,380
NA
7,255,682
7,351,756
7,432,652
7,513,070
7,574,617
7,889,771
8,133,429
8,303,372
8,470,602
8,548,278
8,930,757
9,090,660
9,173,207
9,175,241
9,745,098
9,951,174
10,107,752
10,282,360
10,341,614
BV
NA
10,185
11,343
11,554
11,702
12,063
12,517
12,647
12,906
13,020
NA
13,639
13,819
13,971
14,122
14,238
14,830
15,288
15,608
15,922
16,068
16,787
17,088
17,243
17,247
18,318
18,705
19,000
19,328
19,439
AP
Vessel A
psig
NA
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
NA
1.2
4.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
NA
5
0
3
4
NA
0
4
1
NA
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71 .2 cu.ft (532 gal) total for two vessels.
NA = NotAvailble.
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
08/27/07
08/28/07
08/29/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/10/07
09/11/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
09/14/07
09/17/07
09/18/07
09/19/07
09/20/07
09/21/07
09/24/07
09/25/07
09/26/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/01/07
10/02/07
10/04/07
10/08/07
10/09/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
10/15/07
10/16/07
10/17/07
10/18/07
10/19/07
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
3,115.2
3,141.9
3,163.4
3,191.1
3,203.2
3,453.1
3,478.5
3,494.4
3,509.7
3,524.1
3,576.9
3,603.6
3,610.7
3,622.4
3,629.6
3,668.2
3,680.8
3,690.2
3,707.0
3,715.6
3,747.4
3,766.1
3,785.1
3,830.1
3,846.3
3,851.1
3,852.6
3,854.4
3,864.0
3,867.2
3,870.6
3,874.9
3,877.5
Incr.
Hours
hr
90.4
26.7
21.5
27.7
12.1
249.9
25.4
15.9
15.3
14.4
52.8
26.7
7.1
11.7
7.2
38.6
12.6
9.4
16.8
8.6
31.8
18.7
19.0
45.0
16.2
4.8
1.5
1.8
9.6
3.2
3.4
4.3
2.6
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
59.1
60.6
60.5
51.9
62.9
58.9
53.1
61.0
61.2
58.2
59.7
59.9
55.4
70.4
59.4
66.1
57.4
62.4
57.9
60.0
54.1
58.7
56.8
62.1
58.1
64.3
61.3
67.0
67.8
66.8
63.4
64.4
67.8
Totalizer
gal
5,658,901
5,752,359
5,828,198
5,925,460
5,967,883
6,836,737
6,922,456
6,978,299
7,033,757
7,086,492
7,262,245
7,354,100
7,376,413
7,416,870
7,477,069
7,569,652
7,616,949
7,652,262
7,709,793
7,735,632
7,837,308
7,901,529
7,967,646
8,163,893
8,178,980
8,194,555
8,200,169
8,206,406
8,240,515
8,252,243
8,264,334
8,276,334
8,288,132
Incr. Flow
gal
270,799
93,458
75,839
173,101
42,423
868,854
85,719
55,843
55,458
108,193
175,753
91,855
114,168
40,457
60,199
152,782
47,297
35,313
57,531
25,839
101,676
64,221
130,338
196,247
15,087
15,575
5,614
6,237
34,109
11,728
12,091
12,000
11,798
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
49 9
58.3
58.8
58.6
58.4
57.9
56.2
58.5
60.4
60.7
55.5
57.3
56.3
57.6
139.3
40
62.6
62.6
57.1
50.1
53.3
57.2
57.6
72.7
15.5
54.1
62.4
57.7
59.2
61.1
59.3
46.5
75.6
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
56.4
54.7
53.4
55.8
54.4
54.4
52 2
57.4
56.4
54.1
53.9
54.6
51.2
63.0
57.9
63.8
57.0
59.1
56.0
54.9
51.6
57.2
53.2
54.1
53.4
62.1
63.4
64.4
60.2
63.3
61.9
60.9
61.8
Totaliz er
gal
5,254,908
5,341,489
5,411,096
5,500,466
5,539,485
6,342,914
6,422,449
6,474,329
6,525,692
6,574,841
6,738,734
6,822,670
6,843,950
6,881,640
6,891,028
7,021,813
7,066,357
7,099,503
7,153,809
7,179,650
7,275,279
7,335,541
7,397,668
7,582,755
7,595,875
7,610,517
7,615,760
7,621,592
7,653,931
7,664,397
7,675,719
7,685,795
7,697,509
Incr. Flow
gal
301,396
86,581
69,607
89,370
39,019
803,429
79,535
51,880
51,363
49,149
163,893
83,936
21,280
37,690
9,388
130,785
44,544
33,146
54,306
25,841
95,629
60,262
62,127
185,087
13,120
14,642
5,243
5,832
32,339
10,466
11,322
10,076
11,714
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
55.6
54.0
54.0
53.8
53.7
53.6
52.2
54.4
56.0
56.9
51.7
52.4
50.0
53.7
21.7
56.5
58.9
58.8
53.9
50.1
50.1
53.7
54.5
68.6
13.5
50.8
58.3
54.0
56.1
54.5
55.5
39.1
75.1
System Throughput
gal
10,913,809
11,093,848
11,239,294
11,425,926
11,507,368
13,179,651
13,344,905
13,452,628
13,559,449
13,661,333
14,000,979
14,176,770
14,220,363
14,298,510
14,368,097
14,591,465
14,683,306
14,751,765
14,863,602
14,915,282
15,112,587
15,237,070
15,365,314
15,746,648
15,774,855
15,805,072
15,815,929
15,827,998
15,894,446
15,916,640
15,940,053
15,962,129
15,985,641
BV
20,515
20,853
21,126
21,477
21,630
24,774
25,084
25,287
25,488
25,679
26,318
26,648
26,730
26,877
27,008
27,428
27,600
27,729
27,939
28,036
28,407
28,641
28,882
29,599
29,652
29,709
29,729
29,752
29,877
29,918
29,963
30,004
30,048
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
Vessels
psig
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
3
NA
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71 .2 cu.ft (532 gal) total for two vessels.
NA = NotAvailble.
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Date
10/22/07
10/23/07
1 0/24/07
10/25/07
10/29/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/01/07
1 1/02/07
1 1/05/07
11/06/07
11/07/07
11/08/07
11/09/07
11/12/07
11/13/07
11/14/07
11/15/07
11/19/07
11/20/07
11/21/07
11/22/07
11/23/07
11/26/07
11/27/07
12/03/07
1 2/04/07
12/05/07
12/06/07
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
3,873.7
3,883.8
3,887.1
3,888.1
3,901.1
3,903.1
3,906.8
3,907.4
3,910.1
3,917.1
3,920.0
3,920.3
3,923.4
3,927.4
3,928.7
3,929.0
3,929.4
3,934.0
3,936.0
3,940.0
3,943.0
3,944.2
3,946.7
3,949.8
3,952.8
3,963.2
3,971.5
3,976.2
3,984.7
Incr.
Hours
hr
NA
6.3
3.3
1.0
13.0
2.0
3.7
0.6
2.7
7.0
2.9
0.3
3.1
4.0
1.3
0.3
0.4
4.6
2.0
4.0
3.0
1.2
2.5
3.1
3.0
10.4
8.3
4.7
8.5
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
65.4
64.3
67.4
63.7
61.2
54.3
65.1
64.4
62.5
64.3
64.5
61.4
64.9
65.7
59.1
64.1
67.6
67.2
66.7
67.9
68.4
66.2
63.6
65.5
69.6
62.3
64.1
61.9
61.8
Totalizer
gal
8,275,698
8,311,026
8,322,944
8,326,509
8,369,032
8,376,856
8,389,901
8,390,411
8,401,810
8,424,774
8,434,984
8,435,255
8,447,201
8,460,101
8,466,041
8,467,132
8,468,411
8,485,553
8,500,184
8,510,643
8,522,182
8,530,012
8,534,739
8,547,323
8,558,197
8,597,981
8,627,214
8,643,492
8,673,104
Incr. Flow
gal
-12,434
35,328
11,918
3,565
42,523
7,824
13,045
510
11,399
22,964
10,210
271
11,946
12,900
5,940
1,091
1,279
17,142
14,631
10,459
11,539
7,830
4,727
12,584
10,874
39,784
29,233
16,278
29,612
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
93.5
60.2
59.4
54.5
65.2
58.8
14.2
70.4
54.7
58.7
15.1
64.2
53.8
76.2
60.6
53.3
62.1
121.9
43.6
64.1
108.8
31.5
67.7
60.4
63.8
58.7
57.7
58.1
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
61.4
54.1
58.6
53.1
61.9
59.1
61.1
61.4
59.3
61.7
64.7
61.4
62.2
61.1
57.4
62.1
64.2
65.8
64.3
61.5
62.5
61.2
62.1
62.0
64.4
58.7
60.8
59.7
57.4
Totalizer
gal
7,686,334
7,719,620
7,730,445
7,733,538
7,780,785
7,789,222
7,803,044
7,803,429
7,814,455
7,836,564
7,846,320
7,846,570
7,858,027
7,868,041
7,876,010
7,877,104
7,878,261
7,894,614
7,901,354
7,918,155
7,928,954
7,939,691
7,940,709
7,952,572
7,962,837
8,003,550
8,027,979
8,043,375
8,071,317
Incr. Flow
gal
NA
33,286
10,825
3,093
47,247
8,437
13,822
385
11,026
22,109
9,756
250
11,457
10,014
7,969
1,094
1,157
16,353
6,740
16,801
10,799
10,737
1,018
11,863
10,265
40,713
24,429
15,396
27,942
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 ga^ total for two vessels.
NA = NotAvailble.
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
88.1
54.7
51.6
60.6
70.3
62.3
10.7
68.1
52.6
56.1
13.9
61.6
41.7
102.2
60.8
48.2
59.3
56.2
70.0
60.0
149.1
6.8
63.8
57.0
65.2
49.1
54.6
54.8
System Throughput
gal
15,962,032
16,030,646
16,053,389
16,060,047
16,149,817
16,166,078
16,192,945
16,193,840
16,216,265
16,261,338
16,281,304
16,281,825
16,305,228
16,328,142
16,342,051
16,344,236
16,346,672
16,380,167
16,401,538
16,428,798
16,451,136
16,469,703
16,475,448
16,499,895
16,521,034
16,601,531
16,655,193
16,686,867
16,744,421
BV
30,004
30,133
30,176
30,188
30,357
30,387
30,438
30,440
30,482
30,566
30,604
30,605
30,649
30,692
30,718
30,722
30,727
30,790
30,830
30,881
30,923
30,958
30,969
31,015
31,055
31,206
31,307
31,366
31,474
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
System
psi
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NA
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
NA
0
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
12/10/07
12/11/07
12/12/07
12/13/07
12/14/07
12/20/07
12/21/07
12/26/07
12/27/07
12/28/07
01/02/08
01/03/08
01/04/08
01/07/08
01/08/08
01/09/08
01/10/08
01/11/08
01/14/08
01/15/08
01/16/08
01/17/08
01/18/08
01/21/08
01/22/08
01/23/08
01/24/08
01/25/08
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
4,017.4
4,035.0
4,036.0
4,045.3
4,056.1
4,114.2
4,132.4
4,178.9
4,186.1
4,197.3
4,250.6
4,261.8
4,279.5
4,302.8
4,315.2
4,322.7
4,345.4
4,350.0
4,392.5
4,407.1
4,421.0
4,437.2
4,446.2
4,484.7
4,495.2
4,505.6
4,516.8
4,527.7
Incr.
Hours
hr
32.7
17.6
1.0
9.3
10.8
58.1
18.2
46.5
7.2
11.2
53.3
11.2
17.7
23.3
12.4
7.5
22.7
4.6
42.5
14.6
13.9
16.2
9.0
38.5
10.5
10.4
11.2
10.9
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
58.4
59.6
58.9
59.4
61.4
59.0
55.7
51.2
56.4
57.9
51.9
51.9
54.3
72.2
58.3
57.3
62.1
57.6
54.3
55.3
56.6
55.8
53.0
60.9
54.1
61.3
51.0
56.2
Totalizer
gal
8,797,024
8,846,154
8,863,309
8,894,410
8,930,021
9,127,694
9,188,263
9,348,594
9,398,410
9,431,614
9,578,566
9,618,311
9,645,043
9,758,579
9,804,465
9,829,182
9,906,807
9,924,879
10,065,231
10,062,491
10,156,567
10,199,825
10,209,213
10,395,213
10,406,631
10,441,031
10,478,275
10,514,264
Incr. Flow
gal
123,920
49,130
17,155
31,101
35,611
197,673
60,569
160,331
49,816
33,204
146,952
39,745
26,732
113,536
45,886
24,717
77,625
18,072
140,352
NA
91,336
43,258
9,388
186,000
11,418
34,400
37,244
35,989
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
63.2
46.5
285.9
55.7
55.0
56.7
55.5
57.5
115.3
49.4
46.0
59.1
25.2
81.2
61.7
54.9
57.0
65.5
55.0
NA
112.8
44.5
17.4
80.5
18.1
55.1
55.4
55.0
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
53.1
55.8
56.0
56.9
56.5
54.7
52.6
54.1
53.2
54.1
51.9
51.9
54.3
67.5
53.1
52.7
60.1
52.6
51.4
53.1
53.7
53.6
49.9
55.7
53.5
60.1
52.3
50.8
Totalizer
gal
8,088,164
8,234,547
8,250,648
8,287,513
8,314,002
8,499,449
8,556,362
8,706,924
8,751,831
8,794,317
8,923,809
8,956,486
8,986,416
9,093,256
9,013,730
9,160,331
9,173,342
9,250,514
9,382,356
NA
9,468,325
NA
9,546,100
9,689,821
9,703,448
9,735,182
9,770,736
9,804,581
Incr. Flow
gal
16,847
146,383
16,101
36,865
26,489
185,447
56,913
150,562
44,907
42,486
129,492
32,677
29,930
106,840
-79,526
67,075
13,011
77,172
131,842
NA
85,969
NA
77,775
143,721
13,627
31,734
35,554
33,845
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
8.6
138.6
268.4
66.1
40.9
53.2
52.1
54.0
104
63.2
40.5
48.6
28.2
76.4
NA
56.2
9.6
279.6
51.7
NA
50.3
NA
51.4
62.2
21.6
50.9
52.9
51.8
System Throughput
gal
16,885,188
17,080,701
17,113,957
17,181,923
17,244,023
17,627,143
17,744,625
18,055,518
18,150,241
18,225,931
18,502,375
18,574,797
18,631,459
18,851,835
18,818,195
18,989,513
19,080,149
19,175,393
19,447,587
NA
19,624,892
NA
19,755,313
20,085,034
20,110,079
20,176,213
20,249,011
20,318,845
BV
31,739
32,107
32,169
32,297
32,414
33,134
33,355
33,939
34,117
34,259
34,779
34,915
35,022
35,436
35,373
35,695
35,865
36,044
36,556
NA
36,889
NA
37,134
37,754
37,801
37,925
38,062
38,193
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu. ft. (266 ga( in each vessel or 71.2 cu. ft. (532 ga( total for two vessels.
NA = Not Availble. |
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
29
30
31
32
33
34
Date
01/28/08
01/29/08
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/01/08
02/04/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
02/07/08
02/08/08
02/11/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
02/14/08
02/15/08
02/19/08
02/20/08
02/21/08
02/22/08
02/25/08
02/26/08
02/27/08
02/28/08
02/29/08
03/03/08
03/04/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
03/07/08
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
4,567.2
4,572.2
4,581.1
4,598.0
4,607.2
4,642.2
4,654.8
4,660.8
4,678.1
4,694.8
4,714.5
4,725.3
4,736.4
4,752.5
4,764.9
4,807.2
4,817.7
4,823.7
4,842.7
4,869.1
4,880.2
4,899.3
4,909.2
4,920.7
4,952.2
4,964.3
4,982.3
4,995.0
5,014.2
Incr.
Hours
hr
39.5
5.0
8.9
16.9
9.2
35.0
12.6
6.0
17.3
16.7
19.7
10.8
11.1
16.1
12.4
42.3
10.5
6.0
19.0
26.4
11.1
19.1
9.9
11.5
31.5
12.1
18.0
12.7
19.2
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
53.4
55.0
51.1
54.0
54.1
53.6
52.6
55.4
54.9
53.9
54.2
55.3
56.2
53.3
56.0
59.1
56.4
55.3
54.2
56.9
55.4
53.4
56.3
55.1
52.4
58.6
52.4
55.0
56.8
Totalizer
gal
10,645,076
10,660,984
10,699,940
10,744,790
10,791,510
10,891,540
10,933,316
10,952,911
11,010,332
11,094,210
11,137,523
11,173,139
11,209,816
11,262,804
11,303,488
11,450,791
11,487,622
11,506,882
11,569,408
11,655,000
11,691,646
11,756,464
11,788,754
11,831,551
11,925,248
11,965,565
12,024,989
12,063,879
12,328,105
Incr. Flow
gal
130,812
15,908
38,956
44,850
46,720
100,030
41,776
19,595
57,421
83,878
43,313
35,616
36,677
52,988
40,684
147,303
36,831
19,260
62,526
85,592
36,646
64,818
32,290
42,797
93,697
40,317
59,424
38,890
264,226
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
55.2
53.0
73.0
44.2
84.6
47.6
55.3
54.4
55.3
83.7
36.6
55.0
55.1
54.9
54.7
58.0
58.5
53.5
54.8
54.0
55.0
56.6
54.4
62.0
49.6
55.5
55.0
51.0
229.4
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
51.2
53.1
52.4
55.5
53.1
49.1
51.8
52.6
52.1
58.8
53.3
53.9
50.9
52.1
51.5
55.6
54.2
54.2
52.1
53.5
51.3
52.4
51.9
52.0
51.4
52.2
48.8
50.3
54.6
(a) Bed volurre = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71 .2 cu.ft. (532 ga? total for two vessels.
NA = NotAvailble.
Totalizer
gal
9,927,900
9,942,911
9,984,121
10,022,060
10,244,130
10,160,099
10,199,438
10,217,890
10,279,190
10,346,421
10,391,483
10,424,972
10,459,415
10,509,144
10,547,330
10,686,097
10,720,812
10,758,974
10,748,053
10,878,461
10,913,227
10,974,454
11,005,101
11,043,388
11,134,203
11,172,225
11,228,181
11,264,778
11,373,315
Incr. Flow
gal
123,319
15,011
41,210
37,939
222,070
-84,031
39,339
18,452
61,300
67,231
45,062
33,489
34,443
49,729
38,186
138,767
34,715
38,162
-10,921
130,408
34,766
61,227
30,647
38,287
90,815
38,022
55,956
36,597
108,537
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
52.0
50.0
77.2
37.4
402.3
NA
NA
NA
59.1
67.1
38.1
51.7
51.7
51.5
51.3
54.7
55.1
106
NA
82.3
52.2
53.4
51.6
55.5
48.1
52.4
51.8
48.0
94.2
System Throughput
gal
20,572,976
20,603,895
20,684,061
20,766,850
21,035,640
21,051,639
21,132,754
21,170,801
21,289,522
21,440,631
21,529,006
21,598,111
21,669,231
21,771,948
21,850,818
22,136,888
22,208,434
22,265,856
22,317,461
22,533,461
22,604,873
22,730,918
22,793,855
22,874,939
23,059,451
23,137,790
23,253,170
23,328,657
23,701,420
BV
38,671
38,729
38,880
39,035
39,541
39,571
39,723
39,795
40,018
40,302
40,468
40,598
40,732
40,925
41,073
41,611
41,745
41,853
41,950
42,356
42,490
42,727
42,846
42,998
43,345
43,492
43,709
43,851
44,552
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
03/10/08
03/11/08
03/12/08
03/13/08
03/14/08
03/17/08
03/18/08
03/19/08
03/20/08
03/21/08
03/24/08
03/25/08
03/26/08
03/27/08
03/29/08
03/31/08
04/01/08
04/02/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
04/07/08
04/08/08
04/09/08
04/10/08
04/12/08
04/14/08
04/15/08
04/16/08
04/17/08
04/18/08
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
5,032.5
5,048.5
5,067.7
5,074.2
5,083.6
5,121.5
5,126.4
5,137.8
5,157.4
5,149.1
5,213.7
5,227.4
5,235.1
5,248.6
5,283.7
5,305.2
5,324.1
5,336.8
5,351.7
5,391.4
5,400.1
5,413.3
5,434.0
5,446.8
5,474.1
5,494.2
5,508.2
5,522.5
5,542.2
5,570.1
Incr.
Hours
hr
18.3
16.0
19.2
6.5
9.4
37.9
4.9
11.4
19.6
NA
64.6
13.7
7.7
13.5
35.1
21.5
18.9
12.7
14.9
39.7
8.7
13.2
20.7
12.8
27.3
20.1
14.0
14.3
19.7
27.9
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
0
51.2
53.4
56.8
0
57.3
0
61.2
53.4
54.1
52.4
55.5
60.2
54.2
54.4
55.3
60.6
0
56.5
54.2
60.5
62.8
58.4
57.4
54.8
62.7
61.3
54.7
60.2
60.3
Totalizer
gal
12,190,789
12,243,822
12,290,147
12,328,105
12,358,817
12,482,568
12,497,898
12,536,640
12,601,109
12,682,090
12,791,884
12,836,029
12,860,627
12,906,019
13,021,358
13,089,520
13,151,374
13,192,882
13,244,271
13,377,678
13,406,024
13,499,228
13,517,864
13,558,576
13,651,282
13,716,992
13,763,265
13,808,840
13,819,777
13,900,019
Incr. Flow
gal
126,910
53,033
46,325
37,958
30,712
123,751
15,330
38,742
64,469
80,981
190,775
44,145
24,598
45,392
115,339
68,162
61,854
41,508
51,389
133,407
161,753
93,204
18,636
40,712
92,706
65,710
46,273
45,575
10,937
80,242
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
NA
55.2
40.2
97.3
54.5
54.4
52.1
56.6
54.8
NA
49.2
53.7
53.2
56.0
54.8
52.8
54.5
54.5
57.5
56.0
55.7
177.7
15
53.0
56.6
54.5
55.1
53.1
9.3
47.9
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
0
50.0
50.4
54.6
0
50.7
0
59.6
49 9
51.1
54.5
53.4
54.6
54.0
51.4
55.0
52.8
0
54.8
52.9
54.4
58.8
54.2
54.1
53.2
57.5
58.7
54.5
57.1
56.8
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gat) in each vessel or 71.2 cu. ft. (532 gal) total for two vessels.
NA = NotAvailble.
Totalizer
gal
11,384,145
11,434,061
11,477,654
11,513,015
11,542,162
11,658,495
11,672,980
11,709,362
11,770,081
11,811,120
11,949,211
11,990,941
12,014,216
12,056,815
12,168,680
12,230,152
12,288,839
12,328,945
12,377,264
12,503,437
12,530,430
12,571,340
12,613,183
12,676,414
12,764,047
12,826,014
12,864,795
12,912,929
12,978,759
13,010,674
Incr. Flow
gal
10,830
49,916
43,593
35,361
29,147
116,333
14,485
36,382
60,719
41,039
138,091
41,730
23,275
42,599
111,865
61,472
58,687
40,106
48,319
126,173
26,993
40,910
41,843
63,231
87,633
61,967
38,781
48,134
65,830
31,915
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
9.9
52.0
37.8
90.7
51.7
51.2
49.3
53.2
51.6
NA
35.6
50.8
50.4
52.6
53.1
47.7
51.8
52.6
54.0
53.0
51.7
51.7
33.7
82.3
53.5
51.4
46.2
56.1
55.7
19.1
System Throughput
gal
23,574,934
23,677,883
23,767,801
23,841,120
23,900,979
24,141,063
24,170,878
24,246,002
24,371,190
24,493,210
24,741,095
24,826,970
24,874,843
24,962,834
25,190,038
25,319,672
25,440,213
25,521,827
25,621,535
25,881,115
25,936,454
26,070,568
26,131,047
26,234,990
26,415,329
26,543,006
26,628,060
26,721,769
26,798,536
26,910,693
BV
44,314
44,507
44,676
44,814
44,927
45,378
45,434
45,575
45,811
46,040
46,506
46,667
46,757
46,923
47,350
47,593
47,820
47,973
48,161
48,649
48,753
49,005
49,119
49,314
49,653
49,893
50,053
50,229
50,373
50,584
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Off
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
58
Date
04/21/08
04/22/08
04/23/08
04/24/08
04/25/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
04/30/08
05/01/08
05/02/08
05/05/08
05/06/08
05/07/08
05/08/08
05/09/08
05/12/08
05/13/08
05/14/08
05/15/08
05/16/08
05/19/08
05/20/08
05/21/08
05/22/08
05/23/08
06/03/08
06/11/08
06/19/08
06/24/08
07/02/08
08/28/08
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
5,595.2
5,613.9
5,634.9
5,654.0
5,670.9
5,717.4
5,739.4
5,745.2
5,773.8
5,791.1
5,834.3
5,847.1
5,875.7
5,885.7
5,900.1
5,953.3
5,971.8
5,988.0
6,112.6
6,120.9
6,077.1
6,084.0
6,103.6
6,132.2
6,151.0
NA
6,554.3
6,693.9
6,852.9
7,024.9
8,129.7
Incr.
Hours
hr
25.1
18.7
21.0
19.1
16.9
46.5
22.0
5.8
28.6
17.3
43.2
12.8
28.6
10.0
14.4
53.2
18.5
16.2
124.6
8.3
NA
96.0
19.6
28.6
18.8
NA
403.3
139.6
159.0
172.0
1104.8
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
57.6
50.9
57.9
56.4
57.1
52.8
54.4
53.1
54.5
53.7
50.7
58.4
56.9
57.0
58.3
54.6
53.8
57.0
0
56.9
53.5
61.1
57.6
55.4
53.2
52.8
51.4
51.1
49.7
57.0
54.7
Totalizer
gal
14,054,100
14,107,195
14,176,189
14,237,241
14,278,421
14,442,242
14,512,272
14,530,374
14,623,601
14,699,810
14,840,708
14,864,610
14,957,913
15,033,981
15,033,494
15,205,944
15,263,842
15,317,823
15,395,218
15,425,018
15,603,788
15,630,183
15,690,424
15,752,112
15,847,626
16,535,004
17,105,814
17,531,117
18,000,351
18,532,902
21,954,007
Incr. Flow
gal
154,081
53,095
68,994
61,052
41,180
163,821
70,030
18,102
93,227
76,209
140,898
23,902
93,303
76,068
-487
171,963
57,898
53,981
77,395
29,800
178,770
26,395
60,241
61,688
95,514
687,378
570,810
425,303
469,234
532,551
3,421,105
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
102.3
47.3
54.8
53.3
40.6
58.7
53.1
52.0
54.3
73.4
54.4
31.1
54.4
126.8
NA
42.4
52.2
55.5
10.4
59.8
NA
NA
51.2
35.9
84.7
NA
23.6
50.8
49.2
51.6
51.6
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
53.4
50.0
53.4
49.2
52.1
50.9
49.9
51.1
47.4
49.1
47.6
53.7
49.2
44.2
49.9
52.4
49.8
53.7
0
53.1
51.1
53.6
50.4
49.8
49.2
46.0
48.3
50.3
47.3
52.1
50.2
Totalizer
gal
13,100,249
13,194,149
13,259,170
13,317,163
13,391,121
13,509,719
13,572,600
13,588,994
13,673,915
13,710,010
13,872,532
13,894,972
13,980,806
14,050,768
14,101,021
14,209,062
14,262,403
14,312,201
14,383,656
14,400,101
14,582,169
14,602,232
14,660,970
14,770,120
14,806,644
15,457,241
15,993,699
16,394,910
16,840,407
17,337,632
20,530,591
Incr. Flow
gal
89,575
93,900
65,021
57,993
73,958
118,598
62,881
16,394
84,921
36,095
162,522
22,440
85,834
69,962
50,253
108,041
53,341
49,798
71,455
16,445
182,068
20,063
58,738
109,150
36,524
650,597
536,458
401,211
445,497
497,225
3,192,959
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
59.5
83.7
51.6
50.6
72.9
42.5
47.6
47.1
49.5
34.8
62.7
29.2
50.0
116.6
58.2
33.8
48.1
51.2
9.6
33.0
NA
3.5
49 9
63.6
32.4
NA
22.2
47.9
46.7
48.2
48.2
System Throughput
gal
27,154,349
27,301,344
27,435,359
27,554,404
27,669,542
27,951,961
28,084,872
28,119,368
28,297,516
28,409,820
28,713,240
28,759,582
28,938,719
29,084,749
29,134,515
29,415,006
29,526,245
29,630,024
29,778,874
29,825,119
30,185,957
30,232,415
30,351,394
30,522,232
30,654,270
31,992,245
33,099,513
33,926,027
34,840,758
35,870,534
42,484,598
BV
51,042
51,318
51,570
51,794
52,010
52,541
52,791
52,856
53,191
53,402
53,972
54,059
54,396
54,671
54,764
55,291
55,500
55,696
55,975
56,062
56,741
56,828
57,051
57,373
57,621
60,136
62,217
63,771
65,490
67,426
79,858
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
0
1
1
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
NA
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 ga( in each vessel or 71 .2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for two vessels.
NA = Not Availble. |
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
>
oo
Week
No.
62
67
71
75
80
84
88
97
101
107
111
1 15
116
Date
09/24/08
10/27/08
1 1/24/08
12/24/08
01/28/09
02/25/09
03/26/09
05/20/09
06/17/09
07/28/09
08/27/09
09/21/09
09/28/09
Buffalo Well
Pump
Hour
Meter
hr
8,625.0
9,189.3
9,586.1
9,804.1
9,942.5
10,108.0
10,430.1
11,137.4
11,251.8
11,576.4
11,693.2
11,780.1
11,790.4
Incr.
Hours
hr
495.3
564.3
396.8
218.0
138.4
165.5
322.1
707.3
114.4
324.6
116.8
86.9
10.3
Instrument Panel
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
55.9
53.9
53.1
59.9
60.6
58.7
57.7
53.0
60.1
59.1
60.0
56.9
56.9
Totalizer
gal
23,481,108
25,203,427
26,439,978
27,130,764
27,578,121
28,115,307
29,152,606
31,358,125
31,729,595
32,766,407
33,145,283
33,426,403
33,460,647
Incr. Flow
gal
1,527,101
1,722,319
1,236,551
690,786
447,357
537,186
1,037,299
2,205,519
371,470
1,036,812
378,876
281,120
34,244
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
51.4
50.9
51.9
52.8
53.9
54.1
53.7
52.0
54.1
53.2
54.1
53.9
55.4
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
53.5
48.2
52.7
55.3
58.9
55.3
54.9
51.8
54.6
57.2
54.6
55.6
53.4
Totalizer
gal
21,964,421
3,592,913
4,644,715
5,294,639
5,729,321
6,251,886
7,238,667
9,296,854
9,648,739
30,617,917
205,432
469,393
501,435
(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu. ft. (532 gal) total for two vessels.
NA = Not Availble.
Incr. Flow
gal
1,433,830
1,628,492
1,051,802
649,924
434,682
522,565
986,781
2,058,187
351,885
969,178
205,432
263,961
32,042
Calculated
Flowrate
gpm
48.2
48.1
44.2
49.7
52.3
52.6
51.1
48.5
51.3
49.8
NA
50.6
51.8
System Throughput
gal
45,445,529
48,796,340
51,084,693
52,425,403
53,307,442
54,367,193
56,391,273
60,654,979
61,378,334
63,384,324
63,968,632
64,513,713
64,579,999
BV
85,424
91,722
96,024
98,544
100,202
102,194
105,999
114,013
115,373
119,143
NA
121,266
121,391
AP
Vessel A
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vessel B
psig
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
System
psi
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X105
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
=C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
06/26/07(a)
IN
173
<10
15.2
0.3
29.3
<25
-
0.2
42.6
'(42.6)
AP
-
173
<10
14.8
0.2
-
-
-
-
29.8
-
<25
-
0.2
43.5
r(42.4)
-
TA
-
209
<10
19.2
0.4
-
-
-
-
2.4
-
-
<25
<0.1
88.2
r(88.2)
-
TB
211
<10
19.5
0.5
-
-
2.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
81.8
r(79.8)
-
07/03/07
IN
171
<10
14.9
0.9
26.4
-
<25
-
0.5
43.0
AP
175
<10
15.0
0.2
25.8
<25
-
1.2
40.4
TA
-
207
<10
25.4
0.7
-
-
1.5
<25
-
<0.1
43.9
TB
197
<10
25.9
0.4
2.7
<25
-
<0.1
24.7
07/09/07
IN
-
168
1.1
29
0.8
<10
15.5
0.4
<1.0
9.1
20.4
6.8
396
7.2
7.0
0.1
37.4
34.5
2.9
0.3
34.2
<25
<25
0.2
0.7
41.8
40.6
AP
168
0.8
37
0.8
<10
15.7
0.6
<1.0
7.1
20.4
3.4
442
7.1
7.0
0.1
36.9
32.5
4.4
0.3
32.2
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
43.2
41.0
TT
10.2
211
0.6
32
0.8
<10
21.7
0.4
<1.0
8.6
20.2
4.7
467
40.7
40.1
0.6
2.5
2.3
0.1
0.3
2.0
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
71.6
72.0
07/18/07
IN
-
173
<10
14.7
0.5
-
-
30.1
<25
-
0.2
41.1
AP
-
171
<10
14.9
0.7
7.7«=>
-
-
-
31.4
-
-
<25
0.2
40.1
-
TA
12.1
171
<10
17.5
0.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
<25
0.3
1.5
-
TB
11.3
168
<10
16.7
0.7
0.4
-
<25
0.1
1.5
07/26/07
IN
170
<10
14.4
0.7
28.9
<25
-
0.1
40.7
AP
-
165
<10
14.3
2.1
7.t>
30.0
<25
-
0.1
41.1
TA
13.4
165
<10
16.4
1.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
<25
<0.1
2.4
-
TB
12.4
168
<10
15.7
0.9
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
<25
<0.1
2.5
-
(a) Results in parathensis are reruns, (b) Operator training completed, (c) pH reading taken from inline probe.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X105
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
=C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
H9/L
H9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/02/07
IN
189
-
<10
14.5
0.5
30.7
-
-
-
-
<25
0.2
43.1
-
AP
196
<10
14.8
0.7
7.4(0)
29.9
<25
<0.1
42.5
TA
14.6
179
-
<10
15.9
0.8
0.4
-
<25
<0.1
2.4
TB
13.6
189
-
<10
16.3
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
2.5
-
08/10/07
IN
184
0.9
27
0.8
<10
15.2
0.3
<1
9.0
22.3
6.9
391
6.9
6.9
0.1
31.7
37.7
<0.1
1.2
36.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
40.9
<0.1
AP
189
0.8
27
0.7
<10
14.8
0.2
<1
7.1
21.8
3.8
409
6.9
6.8
0.1
31.7
30.9
0.8
1.1
29.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
40.4
24.8
TT
15.4
186
0.8
27
0.7
<10
15.7
0.3
<1
8.3
22.6
4.2
424
7.0
6.9
0.1
1.3
1.4
<0.1
1.0
0.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
2.8
<0.1
08/1 5/07
IN
165
<10
14.8
0.3
29.9
-
-
<25
0.4
42.4
-
AP
165
<10
14.6
0.3
7.7«=>
28.5
<25
0.4
39.9
TA
17.9
179
-
<10
14.7
0.2
19.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
68.9
-
TB
16.6
179
<10
14.8
0.2
19.5
-
-
<25
<0.1
66.9
-
08/22/07
IN
168
<10
13.6
0.9
30.7
<25
<0.1
41.2
AP
168
-
<10
13.1
0.4
7.3®
32.3
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
40.4
TA
19.7
170
<10
13.3
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
2.2
-
TB
18.3
168
<10
13.0
0.5
0.6
<25
<0.1
2.5
08/28/07
IN
-
170
170
-
<10
<10
15.7
15.0
1.7
3.1
28.6
29.1
-
-
-
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
41.5
42.6
AP
-
170
168
<10
<10
15.1
14.9
1.2
1.0
7.2«=>
29.6
29.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
42.2
42.6
-
TA
21.6
170
170
<10
<10
15.9
16.1
2.7
1.8
0.6
0.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.4
1.4
TB
20.1
168
170
-
<10
<10
15.5
15.7
1.3
2.1
0.5
0.5
-
-
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1.5
1.5
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
09/11/07
IN
171
<10
14.2
0.2
30.7
<25
<0.1
43.9
AP
177
<10
14.5
0.6
7.3(c>
31.7
<25
<0.1
41.2
TA
26.0
179
<10
20.0
0.7
1.1
<25
<0.1
4.9
TB
24.1
177
<10
19.5
0.7
1.0
<25
<0.1
4.0
09/26/07
IN
190
<10
15.7
1.2
27.6
<25
<0.1
44.2
AP
175
<10
16.3
0.6
B.V
27.4
<25
<0.1
42.9
TA
28.8
209
<10
16.4
0.8
19.8
<25
<0.1
135.4
TB
26.7
177
<10
15.2
1.2
31.5
<25
<0.1
66.9
10/04/07
IN
170
<10
14.9
1.7
30.9
<25
<0.1
37.1
AP
170
<10
15.5
0.9
7.2(c>
32.0
<25
<0.1
35.4
TA
30.0
164
<10
12.6
1.7
0.7
<25
<0.1
1.3
TB
27.8
168
<10
12.4
1.4
0.8
<25
<0.1
1.4
10/11/07
IN
176
<10
14.6
0.3
31.5
<25
0.3
40.3
AP
164
<10
15.2
0.4
7.0
32.2
<25
0.3
40.1
TA
30.8
168
<10
19.9
0.3
0.8
<25
<0.1
2.4
TB
28.6
168
<10
19.5
0.6
0.7
<25
<0.1
2.3
10/16/07
IN
179
11.1
13.9
0.6
16.3
<25
0.6
39.3
AP
169
17.8
15.6
1.1
7.5(c>
20.8
<25
1.1
40.4
TA
31.0
163
<10
17.8
1.2
0.1
<25
<0.1
2.0
TB
28.8
165
11.0
17.2
1.8
<0.1
<25
<0.1
2.0
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
ug/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
10/2 5/0 71"1
IN
163
<10
15.1
3.0
40.6
<25
0.4
29.0
AP
163
<10
15.0
6.2
7.0
42.3
<25
0.4
28.9
TA
31.3
196
<10
12.4
3.9
4.6
<25
0.1
13.9
TB
29.1
200
<10
13.5
2.6
3.7
<25
<0.1
19.4
11/02/07
IN
168
<10
14.9
0.5
34.2
<25
0.2
38.9
AP
174
<10
14.8
0.6
7.-fc>
36.1
<25
0.2
38.3
TA
31.6
174
<10
15.5
0.3
0.6
<25
<0.1
1.9
TB
29.4
174
<10
15.0
0.5
0.5
<25
<0.1
2.0
11/07/07
IN
178
<10
13.3
0.5
10.7
<25
0.5
35.7
AP
174
<10
13.4
0.5
7.0"'
14.3
<25
1.1
36.1
TA
31.7
170
<10
15.2
0.8
0.7
<25
<0.1
1.8
TB
29.5
174
<10
14.6
0.5
0.7
<25
0.1
1.9
11/14/07
IN
171
<10
14.4
0.5
30.9
56
3.6
41.5
AP
188
<10
12.7
0.5
7.3(c>
10.6
<25
2.3
42.3
TA
31.8
167
<10
14.4
0.4
0.8
42
0.3
2.0
TB
29.6
165
<10
14.0
0.4
0.7
34
0.3
2.0
11/26/07
IN
169
<10
13.6
0.5
30.5
<25
1.8
40.7
AP
169
<10
13.0
1.5
7.t>
17.2
<25
1.0
38.7
TA
32.1
169
<10
30.4
0.6
1.0
<25
0.1
2.5
TB
30.0
171
<10
14.2
0.4
1.1
<25
0.2
3.1
(a) Alkalinity, silica, and turbidity results collected on 10/23/07.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
12/05/07
IN
167
165
<10
<10
14.3
14.5
0.3
0.4
37.0
36.6
<25
<25
1.0
0.8
41.3
42.5
AP
168
170
<10
<10
14.1
13.7
0.3
0.4
7.0
37.3
36.5
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
42.5
42.7
TA
32.5
172
168
<10
<10
13.7
13.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
2.3
2.4
TB
30.2
170
167
<10
<10
14.1
14.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
2.6
2.7
1 2/1 2/07
IN
163
<10
14.9
0.5
41.7
<25
2.9
39.4
AP
163
<10
14.7
0.3
7.-fc>
44.9
<25
0.3
38.7
TA
33.3
161
<10
15.3
0.3
4.4
<25
0.1
5.0
TB
31.0
161
<10
15.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<0.1
2.3
12/20/07
IN
158
<10
13.8
0.4
41.4
<25
0.3
36.8
AP
164
<10
14.0
0.2
7.2(c>
41.5
<25
0.3
37.8
TA
34.3
171
<10
22.7
0.9
1.5
<25
<0.1
4.3
TB
32.0
175
<10
21.2
0.3
1.3
<25
<0.1
3.2
01/16/08
IN
161
<10
15.4
1.0
34.7
<25
0.2
38.8
AP
159
<10
15.2
0.3
7.0
36.8
<25
0.2
39.8
TA
38.2
161
<10
17.5
0.7
2.1
<25
<0.1
3.1
TB
35.6
159
<10
17.3
0.6
1.4
<25
<0.1
2.9
01/23/08
IN
162
<10
13.4
0.8
41.5
<25
0.3
34.6
AP
166
<10
13.1
0.5
7.0
39.3
<25
0.3
36.6
TA
39.3
172
<10
13.7
0.6
2.3
<25
<0.1
2.6
TB
36.6
168
<10
13.2
0.5
2.2
<25
<0.1
2.6
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
JH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
01/29/08
IN
168
<10
14.4
0.4
32.4
<25
0.3
37.2
AP
168
<10
14.3
0.7
7.2(c>
32.5
28
0.2
35.3
TA
40.0
170
<10
19.2
0.3
1.4
<25
0.1
4.2
TB
37.4
166
<10
18.3
0.2
1.3
<25
<0.1
3.7
02/06/08
IN
160
<10
14.0
0.8
36.9
25
1.9
35.5
AP
166
<10
13.8
1.6
7.-fc>
37.8
<25
0.2
35.1
TA
41.2
160
<10
14.6
0.9
1.5
<25
<0.1
3.0
TB
38.4
164
<10
14.6
1.3
1.4
<25
<0.1
2.8
02/1 3/08
IN
162
<10
13.8
0.2
36.0
<25
0.2
35.7
AP
164
<10
13.8
0.2
7.0"'
38.0
<25
0.2
35.2
TA
42.1
192
<10
10.0
0.4
20.4
<25
<0.1
33.3
TB
39.3
188
<10
10.6
0.4
26.2
<25
<0.1
46.5
02/21/08
IN
167
<10
15.7
0.6
39.7
<25
<0.1
37.7
AP
163
<10
15.3
0.9
7.3(c>
41.3
<25
<0.1
38.1
TA
43.5
167
<10
21.3
0.6
2.1
<25
<0.1
2.8
TB
40.4
167
<10
20.2
0.3
2.0
<25
<0.1
2.5
03/04/08
IN
167
<10
15.5
0.7
38.0
<25
1.4
40.5
AP
169
<10
15.2
0.5
7.t>
38.5
<25
<0.1
39.5
TA
45.0
165
<10
17.0
0.5
0.8
<25
<0.1
2.8
TB
42.0
167
<10
16.7
0.4
0.8
<25
<0.1
2.6
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
ug/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
03/11/08
IN
169
171
<10
<10
13.2
13.1
0.3
0.4
31.5
32.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
40.8
42.5
AP
169
169
<10
<10
13.3
13.3
0.3
0.1
6.9fc)
34.9
33.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
42.5
42.1
TA
46.0
174
171
<10
<10
14.0
13.9
0.2
0.3
1.1
0.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
4.0
4.1
TB
43.0
171
174
<10
<10
13.9
13.7
0.4
0.2
1.2
1.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
4.0
4.2
03/19/08
IN
172
<10
14.9
0.6
29.6
<25
0.3
38.6
AP
168
<10
14.9
0.8
7.2(c>
29.9
<25
0.5
41.4
TA
47.1
166
<10
16.0
0.4
1.8
<25
<0.1
5.3
TB
44.0
164
<10
16.0
1.2
1.8
<25
<0.1
5.2
03/26/08
IN
168
<10
13.2
0.5
28.9
<25
0.2
39.7
AP
168
<10
13.6
0.3
7.3(c>
28.9
<25
63.8
41.9
TA
48.3
164
<10
14.8
0.3
1.3
<25
0.2
3.7
TB
45.2
166
<10
14.5
0.6
1.2
<25
<0.1
3.4
04/08/08
IN
167
<10
13.8
1.0
28.1
<25
0.3
43.5
AP
169
<10
14.1
0.3
7.2(c>
30.1
<25
0.6
42.4
TA
50.7
171
<10
15.3
1.0
1.0
<25
<0.1
4.1
TB
47.3
167
<10
15.1
0.7
0.9
<25
<0.1
3.7
04/1 5/08
IN
171
<10
14.8
0.7
28.7
<25
0.4
42.9
AP
169
<10
14.7
0.5
7.2(c>
29.8
<25
0.5
42.2
TA
51.7
173
<10
20.3
0.7
1.3
<25
<0.1
3.9
TB
48.4
169
<10
18.9
0.9
1.3
<25
<0.1
3.6
(c) pH reading taken from inline probe.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
04/22/08
IN
166
<10
14.5
0.6
31.5
<25
<0.1
41.5
AP
164
<10
14.5
0.6
7.2(c>
32.7
<25
<0.1
40.7
TA
53.0
204
13.0
15.0
0.6
46.9
<25
<0.1
105.0
TB
49.6
202
12.6
15.0
0.6
44.7
<25
<0.1
90.9
05/06/08
IN
157
1.0
26.1
0.7
<10
14.2
0.5
6.1
5.9
0.2
43.5
<25
0.2
36.7
AP
161
1.1
25.0
0.7
<10
13.9
0.5
7.6(c>
5.7
5.6
0.2
44.7
<25
0.2
35.2
TA
55.9
165
0.5
26.2
0.4
<10
17.9
0.6
8.2
7.5
0.6
1.2
<25
<0.1
2.1
TB
52.2
163
0.8
31.2
0.6
<10
16.8
0.7
8.1
7.5
0.5
1.2
<25
<0.1
2.0
05/1 3/08
IN
162
<10
13.8
0.7
40.5
<25
0.2
37.4
AP
162
<10
14.1
0.4
7.6(c>
41.0
<25
0.1
38.2
TA
57.4
182
<10
13.3
0.8
43.5
<25
<0.1
62.4
TB
53.6
178
<10
13.4
0.9
41.5
<25
<0.1
50.6
05/21/08
IN
170
12.1
13.7
0.3
33.6
<25
1.3
36.7
AP
168
10.7
13.9
1.0
7.2(c>
32.0
<25
0.4
35.0
TA
59.0
166
<10
20.0
1.4
2.5
<25
<0.1
2.2
TB
55.1
170
<10
19.0
0.6
2.3
<25
<0.1
2.0
06/03/08
IN
177
<10
13.6
0.1
30.4
<25
0.1
36.5
AP
170
<10
13.5
<0.1
7.t>
32.3
<25
<0.1
35.6
TA
62.2
173
<10
14.3
<0.1
1.1
<25
<0.1
2.0
TB
58.1
173
<10
13.8
0.1
1.1
<25
<0.1
2.0
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
06/11/08
IN
179
<10
13.6
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
32.7
<25
<0.1
46.1
AP
173
<10
13.7
<0.1
7.2(c>
NA
NA
NA
32.5
<25
<0.1
44.1
TA
64.3
168
<10
16.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
<25
<0.1
1.5
TB
60.1
166
<10
15.4
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
<25
<0.1
1.5
06/19/08
IN
173
<10
13.7
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.2
<25
<0.1
41.5
AP
168
<10
13.6
0.7
7.2(c>
NA
NA
NA
27.2
<25
<0.1
42.2
TA
65.9
171
<10
14.3
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
<25
<0.1
1.4
TB
61.6
171
<10
13.9
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
<25
<0.1
1.4
06/24/08
IN
173
<10
13.4
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.3
<25
<0.1
41.6
AP
175
<10
13.3
0.1
7.2(c>
NA
NA
NA
28.5
<25
<0.1
42.4
TA
67.6
173
<10
14.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
<25
<0.1
2.9
TB
63.3
171
<10
14.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
<25
<0.1
3.0
07/02/08
IN
159
159
<10
<10
15.3
15.0
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.4
<25
0.1
37.2
AP
161
159
<10
<10
14.5
14.7
<0.1
<0.1
7.-P"
NA
NA
NA
37.5
<25
0.1
38.1
TA
69.6
156
156
<10
<10
19.1
19.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
<25
<0.1
2.9
TB
65.1
159
159
<10
<10
18.4
18.4
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
<25
<0.1
2.6
08/28/08
IN
168
<10
13.5
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.2
<25
0.1
35.6
AP
162
<10
13.2
<0.1
7.2(c>
NA
NA
NA
32.6
<25
0.1
35.4
TA
82.5
166
<10
13.8
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
<25
<0.1
5.9
TB
77.2
173
<10
13.3
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
<25
<0.1
5.6
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
09/24/08
IN
166
<10
14.0
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.4
<25
0.4
44.8
AP
168
<10
13.9
<0.1
7.5(c>
NA
NA
NA
28.3
<25
0.3
43.8
TA
88.3
166
<10
13.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
<25
<0.1
9.8
TB
82.6
161
<10
13.3
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
<25
<0.1
11.8
10/27/08
IN
155
<10
13.6
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
32.4
<25
0.7
19.9
AP
159
<10
13.2
0.1
7.3(c>
NA
NA
NA
32.6
<25
0.2
38.4
TA
94.8
164
<10
13.6
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
<25
<0.1
4.8
TB
88.7
164
<10
13.6
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
<25
<0.1
4.7
11/24/08
IN
158
<10
13.6
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.8
<25
<0.1
34.1
AP
158
<10
13.1
<0.1
74(0
NA
NA
NA
40.7
<25
<0.1
34.0
TA
99.4
156
<10
12.9
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
<25
<0.1
7.1
TB
96.0
156
<10
13.3
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
<25
<0.1
7.4
12/22/08
IN
184
<10
11.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.0
120
6.8
36.1
AP
182
<10
11.1
<0.1
74<0
NA
NA
NA
10.6
<25
0.7
35.5
TA
102
157
<10
13.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
<25
<0.1
8.2
TB
95.1
168
<10
13.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2
<25
<0.1
9.1
01/28/09
IN
168
<10
12.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
<25
1.1
26.0
AP
175
<10
11.6
0.2
74<0
NA
NA
NA
12.2
<25
0.4
26.6
TA
104
164
<10
12.6
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6
<25
<0.1
7.5
TB
96.7
166
<10
12.8
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
<25
<0.1
8.7
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
roc
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
re (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X103
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
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
|jg/L
pg/L
ug/L
M9/L
pg/L
02/25/09
IN
167
10.4
13.4
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.5
154
10.8
40.7
AP
171
10.5
12.8
<0.1
7.7(c>
NA
NA
NA
26.5
<25
0.5
39.2
TA
106
169
<10
15.8
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2
<25
<0.1
7.2
TB
98.7
163
<10
15.3
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6
<25
<0.1
6.0
03/26/09
IN
169
<10
12.6
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.3
<25
2.4
45.0
AP
173
<10
12.4
0.3
7.5(c>
NA
NA
NA
32.0
<25
0.5
45.3
TA
110
167
<10
12.1
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
<25
<0.1
7.2
TB
102
165
<10
12.3
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
<25
<0.1
6.4
04/24/09
IN
166
26.1
14.3
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
59.0
<25
0.3
55.8
AP
166
23.4
14.3
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.2
<25
0.2
48.9
TA
NA
168
12.7
14.6
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.6
<25
<0.1
7.4
TB
NA
171
11.4
14.7
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
<25
<0.1
6.1
05/20/09
IN
177
<10
13.0
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.1
<25
0.2
36.3
AP
174
<10
13.9
0.1
7.6(c>
NA
NA
NA
35.7
<25
0.1
37.3
TA
118
172
<10
13.8
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
<25
<0.1
3.7
TB
110
177
<10
13.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8
<25
<0.1
3.3
06/1 7/09
IN
175
<10
13.1
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.8
<25
0.8
39.5
AP
175
<10
13.0
0.9
7.5(c>
NA
NA
NA
30.8
<25
0.5
39.4
TA
119
175
<10
14.5
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2
<25
0.3
6.0
TB
111
173
<10
14.3
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3
<25
<0.1
6.7
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness (as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
X105
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ra/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ra/L
|jg'L
h'g/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
ra/L
07/28/09
IN
165
<10
13.9
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.2
29
1.9
36.6
AP
170
<10
13.6
0.2
7.2
------- |