EPA/600/R-10/165
December 2010
Arsenic and Uranium Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Lili Wang*
Abraham S.C. Chen*
Gary M. Lewis8
งBattelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693
JALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to 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 during and the results obtained from the performance
evaluation of an arsenic (As) and uranium (U) removal technology demonstrated at Upper Bodfish in
Lake Isabella, CA. The objectives of the project are to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of a hybrid ion
exchange (HIX) technology in removing arsenic and uranium to meet the respective maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 and 30 (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required
system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of
the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution system and process residuals
produced by the treatment system.
The HIX system designed by VEETech for the Upper Bodfish site consisted of two trailer-mounted,
single-stage fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) vessels, each capable of treating up to 50 gal/min (gpm) of
flow. The vessels were 42-in in diameter and 60-in in height, each containing 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp, a hybrid
anion exchange resin impregnated with hydrous iron oxide nano-particles manufactured by Purolite.
During normal operation, one vessel was put into service while the other was on standby.
During the performance evaluation study from October 12, 2005, through March 23, 2007, the HIX
system operated for a total of 9,713 hr, treating approximately 13,561,950 gal of water from the Upper
Bodfish Well CH2-A. The average daily run time was 18.5 hr/day and the average daily production was
25,783 gal/day (gpd). System flowrates ranged from 20 to 30 gpm and averaged 23 gpm, which was 46%
of the system design flowrate of 50 gpm. The lower flowrates experienced resulted in longer empty bed
contact times (EBCT), i.e., 6.7 to 10.1 min, and lower hydraulic loading rates, i.e., 2.1 to 3.1 gpm/ft2.
Source water from Well CH2-A contained 34.3 to 50.0 (ig/L of total arsenic with As(V) being the
predominating species at an average concentration of 41.9 (ig/L. Source water also contained 26.6 to 38.9
(ig/L of total uranium with concentrations exceeding the 30-(ig/L MCL most of the time. In addition,
source water had near-neutral pH values of 6.7 to 7.2, 88 to 145 mg/L of alkalinity (as CaCO3), 36 to 51
mg/L of sulfate, and 39.5 to 47.5 mg/L of silica.
Total arsenic concentrations in treated water were reduced initially to <0.1 (ig/L and gradually increased
to just over 10 (ig/L after treating approximately 33,100 bed volumes (BV) of water through Vessel 1, and
31,700 BV through Vessel 2. These run lengths were 66% and 59% higher than the vendor-estimated run
length of 20,000 BV. Meanwhile, uranium was completely removed to below the method detection limit
(MDL) of 0.1 (ig/L throughout the entire study period. A laboratory rapid small-scale column test
(RSSCT) on the Upper Bodfish water using the ArsenXnp media achieved a similar run length of 28,000
BV for arsenic and over 50,000 BV for uranium. The HIX system did not require backwashing due to an
insignificant headless buildup across the adsorption vessel.
Comparison of the distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed
significant decreases in arsenic concentration at all three sampling locations, including one residence in
the historic Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network and two non-LCR residences. Arsenic
concentrations measured at the taps of these residences mirrored the breakthrough behavior of arsenic in
the plant effluent, but were, in general, higher than those of the plant effluent. Although uranium
concentrations in the distribution system were not measured both during the baseline sampling and after
system startup, its concentrations after system startup were expected to be low because uranium was
completely removed by the treatment system. The HIX system did not appear to have any effects on
other water quality parameters in the distribution system.
The only residual generated by the HIX system was 54 ft3 of spent media. Due to the presence of
uranium, the spent media was classified as a technologically-enhanced, naturally-occurring radioactive
IV
-------
material (TENORM). Because uranium is considered a "source material," the uranium-laden spent media
may be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) licensing requirements for storage,
transportation, and disposal (EPA, 2005).
The vendor originally proposed to regenerate the spent media at an offsite facility and then return the
regenerated media to the site for reuse. However, the offsite regeneration would be possible only if the
spent media residual stream contains less than 0.05% of uranium. Otherwise, the spent media would be
considered a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) or a non-exempt material, and may have to be partially
regenerated onsite (to lower the uranium content to less than 0.05%) before offsite regeneration. Another
approach would be to completely regenerate the spent media onsite to remove both uranium and arsenic.
Both regeneration approaches would produce uranium and arsenic-laden liquids that would have to be
hauled away due to lack of an onsite disposal method. These approaches would greatly increase
complexity and cost, thus rendering media regeneration an un-viable option.
As a mixed waste, the spent media was subject to waste profiling and radiological analysis. The spent
media passed the federal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the California Soluble
Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) tests, but failed the California Total Threshold Limit
Concentrations (TTLC) test for arsenic. As such, it was classified as a California hazardous waste
(although not a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] waste). Results of the radiological
analysis were compared against the federal requirements for an exempt source material based on the
concentration, radioactivity, and quantity of uranium:
The uranium concentration in the adsorption vessels was 0.032%, which was below the
0.05% (by weight) concentration limit
The radioactivity of the spent media was 206 pCi/g for U-238 and 10.6 pCi/g for U-235,
which were below the 335 pCi/g limit for an exempt material
The quantity of uranium in the spent media in both vessels was 1.66 Ib, which was below
the 15-lb limit for an exempt material.
Because the spent media met all three requirements, it was deemed an "unimportant quantity" and exempt
from applicable NRC regulations. Although the spent media, as an exempt material, might be disposed of
at a solids waste, hazardous waste, or LLRW landfill, or any landfill licensed by a state to accept
TENORM, it was difficult, if not impossible, to locate a solid waste landfill to accept the mixed waste
with a radioactivity over 200 pCi/L. After 13 months of efforts, different contractors were secured to
collect and analyze spent media samples and extract the spent media from the adsorption vessels. The
spent media was transported in 10 5 5-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drums to a facility in
Turlock, CA, for temporary storage and was disposed of five months later at a U.S. Ecology facility in
Grandview, ID, as an exempt, non-hazardous material.
Upon completion of the performance evaluation study, the host site, Cal Water, decided to close Well
CH2-A, drill two new wells, and install a new 150-gpm HIX system for arsenic treatment. Cal Water also
elected not to request transfer of the trailer-mounted system to the company. After removal of the spent
media from the adsorption vessels, the trailer-mounted system was hauled away from the site by a
subcontractor to Battelle.
The capital investment cost was $114,070, which included $82,470 for equipment, $12,800 for
engineering, and $18,800 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 50 gpm, the capital cost
was $2,281/gpm (or $1.58/gpd).
-------
The O&M cost for the HIX system would include media regeneration or replacement (including disposal)
and labor for routine system operation. Spent media regeneration was proposed but not performed; thus,
its cost could not be evaluated. The spent media was not replaced with virgin media due to removal of
the treatment system from the site. Nonetheless, the media replacement cost was estimated to be $38,271
based on the cost for virgin media and spent media disposal. By averaging the media replacement cost
over the useful life of the media (i.e., 13,089,671 gal), the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was
$2.92/1,000 gal. The HIX system did not require electricity to operate. Routine activities to operate and
maintain the system consumed only 50 min per week and the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal of
water treated.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES viii
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Technologies Selected for Demonstration 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Distribution System Water 10
3.3.4 Spent Media Sampling 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 16
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 System Installation 22
4.3.1 Permitting 22
4.3.2 Building Preparation 22
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 23
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 Residual Management 25
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 26
4.5 System Performance 28
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 28
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 39
4.6 Spent Media Characterization and Disposal 41
4.6.1 Spent Media Characterization 41
4.6.2 Spent Media Removal, Transportation, and Disposal 44
vn
-------
4.7 System Cost 45
4.7.1 Capital Cost 45
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 46
5.0: REFERENCES 48
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Upper Bodfish Site 9
Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site 11
Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA 13
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA 14
Figure 4-3. P&ID of HIX Treatment System 18
Figure 4-4. HIX System Layout on Trailer 19
Figure 4-5. Trailer-Mounted HIX System Under a Canopy 20
Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies 21
Figure 4-7. HIX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port and Media Sampling Ports 21
Figure 4-8. HIX System Daily Operating Time 24
Figure 4-9. HIX System Flowrates 25
Figure 4-10. Decision Tree for Spent Media Disposal 27
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations
During Adsorption Runs 1 and 2 31
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1 32
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 33
Figure 4-14. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1 33
Figure 4-15. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 34
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT 34
Figure 4-17. Uranium Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT 35
Figure 4-18. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH 37
Figure 4-19. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1 38
Figure 4-20. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 38
Figure 4-21. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish 41
Figure 4-22. Spent Media Removal from Vessels 44
Figure 4-23. Spent Media Replacement and Disposal and O&M Cost Curves 47
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. General Types of Data 7
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes 8
Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data 15
Vlll
-------
Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenXnp Media 17
Table 4-3. HIX Treatment System Specifications and Design Parameters 17
Table 4-4. Summary of HIX System Operation 23
Table 4-5. Requirements for Exempt Source Material 26
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese 28
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 29
Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Lengths Between Full-Scale System and Laboratory
RSSCT 35
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results 40
Table 4-10. Results of Spent Media Characterization 42
Table 4-11. Results of Radiological Analysis on Spent Media 43
Table 4-12. Uranium Concentration and Quantity Calculations 43
Table 4-13. Determination of Exempt Source Material 43
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for the HIX System 45
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HIX System 47
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL
AC
AEA
AM
As
ATS
BAT
bgs
BV
American Analytical Laboratories
asbestos cement
Atomic Energy Act
adsorptive media
arsenic
Aquatic Treatment Systems
best available technology
below ground surface
bed volume
Ca calcium
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
gpd gallons per day
gph gallons per hour
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchange(r)
hp horse-power
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LLRW low-level radioactive waste
MCL
MDL
MEI
maximum contaminant level
method detection limit
Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
MPT Mobile Processing Technology
Na sodium
NA not available
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detectable
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PO4 phosphate
POU point of use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small-scale column test
SBA strong-base anion
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO42" sulfate
STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TENORM technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials
TG&A Thomas Gray and Associates
TOC total organic carbon
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentrations
U
V
uranium
vanadium
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
WET Waste Extraction Test
xn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the California Water Service
Company (Cal Water) in Lake Isabella, California. The primary operator, Mr. Mike Adams, monitored
the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment plant and distribution system on a regular
schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible
without their support and dedication.
xni
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and 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 (As) 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 requires all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems for reducing 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 published in the Federal Register requested water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations to EPA on the technologies it determined
acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical reasons,
only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information provided by the
review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of the respective
states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
host sites. California Water Service Company (Cal Water)'s Upper Bodfish facility in Lake Isabella, CA,
was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, EPA convened another technical panel to review
the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none
(for two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at least
one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since
then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28. In
February 2005, VEETech's hybrid ion exchange (HIX) technology using ArsenXnp media was selected
for demonstration at the Upper Bodfish facility.
As of December 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of all 39
systems was completed.
-------
1.2 Technologies Selected for Demonstration
The technologies selected for the Rounds 1 and 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive media
(AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, iron
[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design
for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs are provided in two EPA reports
(Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic treatment technology
demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are
to:
Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the HIX system at the Upper Bodfish site in Lake Isabella,
CA, from October 12, 2005, through March 23, 2007. The types of data collected include system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
1,470W
3,078(c)
1,344W
l,325(c)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU R0(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)ฎ
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the HIX system operation, the following was summarized and
concluded relating to the overall objectives of the technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic and uranium removal technology for use on small systems:
ArsenXnp media is effective at removing arsenic and uranium to below their respective
MCLs. The treatment system achieved a run length of 33,100 and 31,700 bed volumes (BV)
at 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough, which is 65 and 59%, respectively, higher than the vendor's
projected value. Uranium was completely removed to below the detection limit of 0.1 (ig/L
throughout the entire study period.
The presence of silica at 43.4 mg/L (as SiO2) had little or no effect on ArsenXnp performance.
Silica removal was observed only during the initial 1,000 BV.
The use of ArsenXnp does not alter water quality parameters, such as pH, alkalinity, sulfate,
fluoride, nitrate, and hardness.
Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
The system requires little attention from the operator. The daily demand is only
10 min to visually inspect the system and record operational parameters.
System operation does not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the pre-existing water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State-certified
operator who possesses Level 2 certifications for both treatment and distribution
systems.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
Because backwash was not required, no backwash wastewater or solids were produced.
The spent media, containing arsenic and uranium, is a mixed waste, and requires waste
profiling and radiological analysis to determine the proper disposal methods. Results of
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC),
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and radiological analysis indicated that the spent
media be classified as a non-hazardous, exempt material. However, it is difficult to find a
solid waste landfill in California to accept the uranium-laden material even if it is exempt
material.
Cost of the Technology:
Based on the system's rated capacity of 50 gal/min (gpm), the capital cost is $2,281 per gpm
of the design capacity (or $1.58/gal/day [gpd]).
Cost of media replacement and disposal is the most significant add-on cost at $2.92/1,000 gal.
The labor cost for routine O&M activities was $0.13/1,000 gal.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Table 3-1 summarizes predemonstration activities and completion dates. The performance evaluation
study of the HIX treatment system began on October 12, 2005, and ended on March 23, 2007. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and uranium
to their respective MCLs of 10 and 30 (ig/L. This was monitored through the collection of water samples
across the treatment train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system
was evaluated by tracking unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and
replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft 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
Engineering Plans Submitted to CDPH
Final Study Plan Issued
System Permit Issued by CDPH
HIX System Shipped and Arrived
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
October 14, 2004
April 11, 2005
April 18, 2005
May 6, 2005
May 24, 2005
June 2, 2005
July 19, 2005
August 2, 2005
October 4, 2005
August 24, 2005
September 23, 2005
October 4, 2005
October 12, 2005
CDPH = California Department of Public Health
O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through a combination of quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including needs for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation,
extent of preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and
inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety
practices. The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log
Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media regeneration or replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
-------
Table 3-2. General Types of Data
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residuals Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ^ig/L of arsenic and 30 ug/L of uranium in
treated water
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed weekly and monthly system O&M and data collection following the
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (except for Saturdays and Sundays),
the plant operator recorded system operation data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter
readings on a Daily Field Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system
operations. In the event of problems, the operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who then
determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The operator recorded all relevant
information, including problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and
associated cost and labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant
operator measured field water quality parameters, including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite
Water Quality Parameter Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the HIX system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation. The O&M cost consisted primarily of the expenditure to regenerate or replace the spent
media and the labor to operate the system. No chemicals or electricity was required by the HIX system.
Labor for various activities such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-
related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included
activities, such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related activities, including performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, were recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the HIX system, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the
treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides sampling schedules and chemical
analytes measured during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment
system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Spent
Media
Sampling
Locations'50
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
before HIX
Vessel (BF), after
HIX Vessel (AF)
Three residences
including one
historic LCR
sampling location
Top, middle, and
bottom of each
HIX vessel
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
3
5(0)
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
One to four
times a
month
(Regular
Sampling)
Monthly
during first
adsorption
run; twice
during
second
adsorption
run
(Speciation
Sampling)
Monthly(b)
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V), Fe
(total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3,
NO2, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TDS, TOC, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Offsite: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), U (total),
Ca, Mg, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
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, turbidity, and alkalinity
Offsite: pH, alkalinity, As
(total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Pb (total), and Cu
(total)
Offsite: TTLC, STLC, and
TCLP metals, and gamma
spectroscopy (U-235/U-
238)
Sampling
Date
10/14/04
Appendix B
Appendix B
08/10/05 to
10/12/06
08/30/07
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from August to September 2005 before system became operational.
(c) One composite sample was submitted for laboratory analysis.
DO = dissolved oxygen; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; STLC = Soluble
Threshold Limit Concentration; TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; TDS = total dissolved solids;
TOC = total organic carbon; TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentration.
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, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
-------
Monthly
pH
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Two single-vessel adsorption runs were conducted during the
performance evaluation study. The original Study Plan called for collection of "speciation samples" at
the wellhead (IN), before the HIX vessel (BF), and after the HIX vessel (AF) during the first week of
each 4-week cycle and collection of "regular samples" from the same three locations during the remaining
weeks. However, this sampling schdule was followed only briefly during the initial six weeks of system
operation. Since then through the end of the first adsorption run, speciation samples were taken once a
month and regular samples were taken one to two times a month. The speciation and regular samples
taken were analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3, except for one occasion on July 26, 2006, when
the regular samples were measured only for total arsenic.
During the second adsorption run, "speciation samples" were taken only twice on August 23 and
September 27, 2006, and "regular samples" were taken once every one to four weeks. The speciation and
regular samples collected were analyzed for the analytes presented in Table 3-3. Beginning on October
26, 2006, through the end of the performance evalution study, regular samples were analyzed only for
total arsenic and uranium.
3.3.3 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine any impact of the HIX system on the water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically,
the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From August to September 2005, prior to startup of the HIX system,
four baseline sampling events were conducted at three locations in the distribution system. Following
startup of the HIX system through October 2006, monthly distribution system water samples were
collected at the same three locations.
Three residences were selected for distribution system water sampling: 179 Spring Court (designated as
DS1), 66 Spring Court (DS2), and 2216 Rembach Avenue (DS3). Only DS2 was part of the historic Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network serviced primarily by the source well. Figure 3-2 is a
distribution map showing the three sampling locations. The homeowners of the residences collected
samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and
Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last water usage
before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. All samples
were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant
water was sampled, with the exception of DS2 on March 22, 2006.
3.3.4 Spent Media Sampling. Spent media samples were collected from each HIX vessel for
radiological analyses and waste characterization for the purpose of determining disposal options for the
media. Due to potential concerns with the radioactivity of the spent media, Thomas Gray and Associates
(TG&A) in Orange, CA, a licensed radioactive waste broker, was contracted to perform a dose rate
radiation survey and collect spent media samples. On August 30, 2007, a TG&A technician was onsite to
conduct a dose rate radiation survey over the exterior of both vessels prior to sample collection. The
technician used a Bicron MicroRem radiation monitor to take readings from the bottom, center, and top of
each vessel. A total of 12 readings were collected from each vessel, ranging from 10 to 15 (irem. These
low readings indicated that radiological exposure was not a problem.
After the system was pressurized, the technician collected one 1-L spent media sample from each of the
sampling ports located at various depths (6, 18, and 30 in below the top of the media bed) from each
vessel. A 1-L composite sample was constructed by mixing an equal amount of each sample in a 1-L
container. From this 1-L composite sample, two 8-oz and one 4-oz containers were filled and sent to
Teledyne Brown Engineering laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN, for TTLC, STLC, TCLP, and gamma
spectroscopy (U-235/U-238) analyses.
10
-------
V W*'/VW'
3.4
Provided by California Water Service Company
Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site
Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics, including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
11
-------
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 disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, pre-paid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were complete except for the operator's signature and the
sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. The Battelle Study Lead addressed discrepancies noted by the
sample custodian with the plant operator. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal analyses were stored and analyzed at Battelie's inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate
coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and
TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH, both of which were contracted by Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data
associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared
under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90MS handheld multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use
following the procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy
by measuring the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator
collected a water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable
value was obtained.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Cal Water's Kern River Valley District owns and operates three wells, i.e., CH-1, CH2-A, and CH-3,
which serve approximately 600 residences at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA. The population
increases in the summer months due to an influx of tourists. Prior to the performance evaluation study,
the average monthly demand was 1,000,000 gal (or 34,000 gpd) and the peak monthly demand was
1,900,000 gal (or 64,000 gpd). The water demand was met primarily by Well CH-1 (rated at 50 gpm) and
Well CH2-A (rated at 38 gpm), which jointly produce a maximum of 86,400 gpd. Well CH-3, located
adjacent to CH2-A, had been taken out of service for an extended period of time.
Well CH2-A was selected for this EPA demonstration study due to elevated arsenic and uranium levels in
the water. Drilled in 1980, Well CH2-A was 6-in in diameter and 348 ft deep with a static water level of
336 ft below ground surface (bgs). The well was equipped with a 3-horsepower (hp) pump that produced
38 gpm of flow (well pump curve was unavailable). Prior to installation of the HIX system, the well
operated only during the summer months and had an average monthly production rate of 190,000 gal and
a peak monthly production of 870,000 gal. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing Well CH2-A wellhead and
associated piping in a fenced area.
Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA
The pre-existing treatment for Well CH2-A consisted of aeration, chlorination, and phosphate addition.
Aeration was performed in a 7-ft diameter by 12 ft tall 3,500-gal steel tank (Figure 4-2) to remove radon.
Prior to entering the aerator, water was injected with chlorine for disinfection and a phosphate blend
solution for corrosion and scale control. The target chlorine residual level was 1.0 mg/L (as C12) and the
target phosphate level was 0.5 mg/L (as PO4). The treated water was then pumped to the distribution
system by a 10-hp booster pump.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA
Well CH-1, drilled in August 1986, was located approximately a quarter of a mile southeast of Well CH2-
A. Well CH-1 water does not contain elevated arsenic or uranium so the well was previously used as the
lead well. Existing treatment consisted of chlorination and phosphate addition at the wellhead.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Table 4-1 presents the analytical data of source water samples
collected at the wellhead of Well CH2-A on October 14, 2004. Table 4-1 also compares the October 14,
2004, data to those provided by Cal Water for the EPA demonstration site selection and those collected
historically by CDPH during September 18, 2002, through November 16, 2005. Source water quality
data collected during the 18-month long study period are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 35.4 to 41.3 |og/L. Based on the
October 14, 2004, speciation results, arsenic existed almost entirely as soluble As(V), which could be
removed directly by the HIX system without preoxidation.
Uranium. Total uranium concentrations in Well CH2-A water ranged from 27.0 to 35.0 |o,g/L, which
could exceed its MCL of 30 |o,g/L (see discussion in Section 4.5.1 regarding the conversion between the
Federal and California MCLs). Based on the October 14, 2004, speciation results, uranium existed
entirely in the soluble form.
Radon. Radon is a radioactive gas released by uranium-bearing rocks and soil. Total radon
concentrations in source water ranged from 22,294 to 40,000 pCi/L based on radioactivity analysis
conducted from March 9 to November 16, 2004. As noted above, there was a pre-existing aeration tank
to remove radon from water prior to distribution.
Iron and Manganese. According to the facility data, the total iron concentration of source water was 800
(ig/L. Iron concentrations reported by Battelle and CDPH were less than the respective reporting limits of
25 and 100 (ig/L. According to VEETech, iron could bind to the surface of the HIX media, thus
increasing the capacity and removal efficiency for arsenic. Manganese concentrations in source water
were as low as 1.1 (ig/L, which existed mainly in the soluble form.
14
-------
Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data(a)
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
Rn (total)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
S.U.
ฐc
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
pCi/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CDPH
Data
09/18/02-11/16/05
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
83
0.1
229
NA
1.0
O.04
NA
10.8
1.1
38.6
NA
NA
41.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
<20
NA
27-35
NA
22,294-40,000
NA
NA
27.6
35.2
1.7
Facility
Data(b)
2002
7
NA
NA
NA
85
86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
38
40
O.07
37
NA
NA
NA
NA
800
NA
20
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.0
34.0
2.0
Battelle
Data
10/14/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
85
91
0.4
234
<0.7
1.2
O.01
<0.05
11.0
1.1
36.0
44.7
O.06
35.4
35.8
0.1
0.8
35.0
<25
<25
1.1
0.8
31.5
31.7
NA
0.6
0.4
36.7
32.5
2.5
(a) All samples collected at wellhead before aeration tank.
(b) Provided by Cal Water to EPA for site selection.
DO = dissolved oxygen; NA = not available; NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit; ORP =
oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon
Competing Anions. Silica and phosphate were potential competing anions in source water.
Concentrations of silica in source water ranged from 40 to 44.7 mg/L (as SiO2), which, according to the
vendor, might accumulate on the HIX media to adversely affect the removal efficiency of arsenic and
uranium. Phosphate concentrations in source water were below the detection limits of 0.06 and 0.07
mg/L as reported by Battelle and the facility, respectively.
15
-------
Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water averaged 7.0, which is favorable for arsenic
adsorption onto the HIX media. Total alkalinity values averaged 85 mg/L (as CaCO3) and fluoride
averaged 1.1 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 36 to 38.6 mg/L; sodium from 27.6 to 36.7 mg/L;
calcium from 32.5 to 35.2 mg/L; magnesium from 1.7 to 2.5 mg/L; and chloride from 9 to 11.0 mg/L.
The presence of these ions in source water was not expected to significantly affect the arsenic removal by
the HIX media, however, sulfate and chloride could affect the uranium removal during the IX process.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system at the Upper Bodfish site consisted of
approximately 200 connections supplied by Wells CH-1 and CH2-A (CH-3 was inactive). The
distribution system piping materials included steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and asbestos cement (AC).
Service lines were typically composed of galvanized steel, copper, or PVC piping. Fire hydrant flushing
was not performed regularly due to a water shortage caused by recent drought conditions. A blended
poly- and ortho-phosphate solution was used for iron sequestration and corrosion control in the
distribution system. Because iron concentrations in source water were low, phosphate addition was
probably not needed for iron control; the addition was only for corrosion control. Due to exceedance over
the copper action level, the LCR sampling program was conducted annually at 10 selected residences with
the most recent sampling taking place in June 2003 and August 2004. In addition, samples were collected
monthly from the distribution system for bacterial analysis.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The HIX technology marketed by VEETech was a fixed-bed adsorption system utilizing a hybrid
polymeric-inorganic exchanger, known as ArsenXnp, for arsenic and uranium removal. Manufactured by
Purolite, ArsenXnp incorporated nanoparticle technology originally developed by Dr. Arup SenGupta of
Lehigh University, PA, and further refined by SolmeteX, Inc. of Northborough, MA. ArsenXnp was NAF
International (NSF) 61 certified for use in municipal water treatment systems. Table 4-2 presents
physical and chemical properties of the media. ArsenXnp consisted of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles
impregnated into a standard strong-base anion (SBA) exchange resin. The iron content was
approximately 25% (as Fe by dry weight). ArsenXnp media utilized iron chemistry to adsorb arsenic from
water and simultaneously removed uranium by its base material - anionic exchange resin. The SBA resin
was known for having a high selectivity and a high capacity for uranium removal (Clifford, 1999).
Previous EPA studies suggested that the resin technology would be a cost-effective method for removing
uranium from small community water supplies (Sorg, 1988). Ion exchange was listed as one of the Best
Available Technologies (BATs) for uranium treatment.
Table 4-3 presents relevant specifications and key design parameters. Figure 4-3 is a piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID). The system consisted of two single-stage, fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) vessels, each loaded with approximately 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp media. Each vessel was capable of
treating 50 gpm of flow. During normal operation, one vessel was placed in service while the other was
on standby. This configuration allowed continuous system operation should one vessel be shipped off
site for regeneration. As water passed downwardly through the media bed, arsenic and uranium were
removed via a combination of adsorption and IX processes. Mounted on a 16 ft long and 6 ft wide trailer
for easy transportation, the system was instrumented with ball valves, gauges for pressure, temperature,
and flow, and sample collection ports. Figure 4-4 presents the layout of the HIX system on the trailer.
Figure 4-5 is a photograph of the trailer-mounted HIX system.
The HIX treatment system included the following major process steps and system components:
Intake - Raw water from Well CH2-A was pumped to the system via a 3-hp pump, which
was interlocked with the high/low level sensors in the aerator. An hour meter was installed
on the well pump to record the operating time.
16
-------
Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenXnp Media
Parameter
Physical Form and Appearance
Polymer Structure
Matrix Structure
Bead Size (mm [mesh])
Bulk Density (lb/ft3 [g/L])
Moisture Content (%)
Arsenic Capacity (g As/L)
Contact Time (min)
Specific Service Flowrate (BV/h [gpm/ft3])
Max. Operating Temperature (ฐC [ฐF])
Operational pH (S.U.)
Value
Reddish-brown spherical beads
Polystyrene crosslinked with
divinyl benzene
Macro-porous matrix impregnated with
iron nanoparticles
0.3-1.2 [16 x 50]
49-52 [790-840]
55-60
0.5-1.0
(Depending on raw water composition and
operating conditions)
2.5 to 3.0
Typical 20-24 [2.5-3.0]
up to 43 [4.0]
80 [176]
4.5-8.5
Source: Purolite
Table 4-3. HIX System Specifications and Design Parameters
Design Parameter
No. of Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3)
Backwash
Pressure Drop (psi)
Area of Cross Section (ft2)
Media Bed Depth (ft)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Specific Service Flow Rate (gpm/ft3)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Throughput to 10-ug/L
As Breakthrough (gal)
Average Daily Demand (gal)
Estimated Media Life (month)
No. of Regenerations (time/year)
Value
2
42 OD x 60 H
ArsenXnp
27
None
3
9.6
2.8
50
5.2
1.9
4.0
15,000-20,000
3,000,000-4,000,000
22,800-34,200
4
3
Remark
One in operation, one in stand-by
-
Per vessel
-
1 psi/ft of media
-
-
-
Based on 50 gpm design flowrate
Based on 50 gpm design flowrate
Based on 50 gpm design flowrate
Based on 10-ug/L arsenic
breakthrough
1 BV = 202 gal
10-15 hr of operation
-
17
-------
) VB5
M
By-pass line (by Cal water)
2" Sch 80 PVC
Sample Tap
VB3
Well Pump
(existing)
Bodfish Well CH2-A
VB2
^ VB4
1 5(im Particulate/Sediment
I Prefilter
<5 1/4" Sample Tap (typical)
1
2" Sch 80 PVC
1 VB7
2^ VB8
COLUMN I
HIX
Sample port (typical)
COLUMN II
HIX
Legend:
VB: Ball Valve
VC: Check Valve
FI: Flow Indicator
PI: Pressure Indicator
TI: Temperature Indicator
FT: Flow Totalizer
Notes:
a. Each HIX column will be 3.5' Dia x 5' High
b. The HIX columns will be made out of FRP material
c. The HIX columns will contain Lifting Lugs for easy placement
and removal from the trailer
d. The interconnecting piping will use unions / quick connectors
for easy assembly and disassembly
Figure 1: Piping & Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID)
for a SOgpm system for Removal of Arsenic and
Uranium from drinking water using Hybrid Ion Exchanger
(HIX) at Upper Bodfish well CH2-A,CA
Client: Battelle/Caiifornia Water Service
Blind Flange (typical)z
VC2
VB10
2" Sch 80 PVC
Sample Tap
I N. I
PT
"rr
vet '
2 To the
Equalization
Tank
(Existing)
REV
DATE
04/25/2005
05/16/2005
COMMENTS
INITIAL SUBMISSION
INCORPORATED FINAL LOU C(
VEETech, P.C.
942 Mlllbrook Avenue, Suite 6
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Figure 4-3. P&ID of HIX Treatment System (Provided by VEETech)
-------
Y<
72,00
Z "R4.50
ip.cn
15,00
78,00
192,00
PLAN VIEW
X
MIX
Column II
_ 42,00 .
VIEW X-X
Figure No:
Drawn By:
RS
Checked By:
AKS
Date:
VIEW Y-Y
Note All Dimensions are in inches
Figure 2: System Layout on Trailer
Client: Battelle/California Water Service
07/18/2005
VEETech^P.C
942 Millbrook Avenue, Suite 6
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Figure 4-4. HIX System Layout on Trailer (Provided by VEETech)
-------
Figure 4-5. Trailer-Mounted HIX System Under a Canopy
Bag-Filter - Two l-(im bag-filter assemblies were installed before the HIX vessels to
remove sediment/particulate matter from the influent water. The bag-filter housing was 9-in
in diameter and 3 ft high and constructed of stainless steel (Figure 4-6). Water passed
through only one bag-filter assembly at any given time. Once the differential pressure
reached 5 lb/in2 (psi), flow was diverted to the second bag-filter assembly to allow the bag
filter in the first assembly to be replaced. Historical data for the site indicated the presence of
elevated silica concentrations. Insoluble silica might be removed along with sediment by the
bag filter, thus eliminating the need for HIX vessel backwash.
HIX Media Vessels - Each media vessel was 42-in in diameter by 60-in high and contained
approximately 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp media. Each vessel was equipped with lifting lugs to
facilitate removal and placement of the vessel from and to the trailer, one pressure release
port, and two sampling ports to draw samples of the media. Under the peak flow rate of 38
gpm, the hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was 4.0 gpm/ft2 and the empty bed contact time
(EBCT) was 5.3 min. Figure 4-7 shows one media vessel and the associated lifting lugs
(located at the bottom of the vessel), pressure release port (the left side arm extending from
the top of the vessel), and media sampling ports (the middle and right side arms extending
from the top of the vessel).
Media Vessel Regeneration and Rinsing - When effluent arsenic or uranium concentrations
exceeded the respective MCL, water flow was diverted to the standby vessel for continuous
system operation and the spent media vessel was taken offline for regeneration or
replacement. According to the vendor, the media could be regenerated and reused for up to
20 cycles based on the water chemistry of Well CH2-A. During the performance evaluation
study, bed breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L occurred at approximately 33,100 BV and flow
was diverted to the standby column for continuous system operation. Potential options for
media regeneration or replacement are further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
20
-------
Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies
Figure 4-7. HIX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port and
Media Sampling Ports
21
-------
Chlorine and Phosphate Addition - Prior to entering the aerator, chlorine was added for
disinfection and phosphate for corrosion and scale control. A sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
solution (prepared by adding 1 gal of a 12.5% solution into 15 gal of water) was stored in two
35-gal drums manifolded together and injected by a solenoid-driven metering pump with a
maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/hr (gph). The target free chlorine residual was 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L
(as C12). A blended phosphate solution, SeaQuest, was diluted by mixing 1 Ib of the solution
into 7.5 gal of water in a 35-gal drum. The SeaQuest solution consisted of 22.7% (minimum)
of polyphosphate and 7.6% (minimum) of orthophosphate, which provided sequestration for
iron, manganese and hardness in water and corrosion control by forming a protective film on
metal pipes in the distribution system. The diluted solution was injected by a similar
solenoid-driven metering pump at a target level of 0.35 to 0.5 mg/L (as PO4).
Aerator - Effluent from the HIX system passed through the existing aerator to remove radon
prior to entering the distribution system. The aerator was 7-ft in diameter and 12 ft high with
a storage capacity of 3,500 gal. Treated water entered the aerator through a 2-in galvanized
steel pipe and a screened vent located at the top of the aerator to allow volatilized radon to
dissipate to the atmosphere.
Booster Pump - The treated water was pumped to the distribution system by a pre-existing
10-hp booster pump.
4.3 System Installation
This section discusses system installation activities including permitting, building construction, and
system shakedown.
4.3.1 Permitting. The permit application for the HIX system was simplified and expedited by
CDPH because (1) only a "temporary" permit was granted and valid for the duration of the EPA
demonstration study, and (2) waste disposal was not anticipated to be an issue considering that the HIX
system would not require backwashing and that any spent media would be shipped offsite for
regeneration as originally proposed by the vendor.
The submittal for the permit application included a site plan prepared by Cal Water and documents
prepared by VEETech, including HIX system diagrams, specifications, and an O&M manual. After the
vendor incorporated review comments from Cal Water and Battelle, the submittal package was sent to
CDPH for review on August 2, 2005. CDPH e-mailed its review comments to Cal Water on August 5,
2005, which were addressed in a revised O&M manual by VEETech on August 9, 2005. CDPH provided
Approval-to-Construct on August 24, 2005.
According to CDPH, upon completion of the EPA demonstration study, a permanent permit must be
secured by Cal Water if it plans on keeping the HIX system and continuing its operation. Cal Water also
must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements as part of the
permitting process. A regular water supply permit application takes 30 days for initial completeness
review by CDPH. Once the application has been determined to be complete, it normally takes 90 days to
issue a final permit document.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. Cal Water opted to install a canopy-type enclosure around the HIX
treatment system (Figure 4-5). Therefore, grading of the ground around the system was the only building
preparation required. Manufactured by Carport Cover, the canopy was 12 ft wide, 21 ft long, and 10 ft
high, with two extra panels. The cost of the canopy was approximately $1,860.
22
-------
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Following successful hydraulic testing of the
system at Mobile Processing Technology's (MPT's) Memphis, TN facility, the trailer-mounted HIX
system was hauled to the site by a pickup truck on September 20, 2005, and arrived at the site on
September 23, 2005. Cal Water plumbed the system between the well and distribution system using 2-in
diameter polyethylene piping and completed the system installation on September 29, 2005. VEETech
was onsite on October 3, 2005 to conduct the system shakedown and complete it the next day. The
bacteriological test was passed on October 5, 2005.
During the startup trip in October, the vendor conducted operator training for system O&M. Battelle staff
arrived at the site on October 12, 2005 to perform system inspections and conduct operator training for
sampling and data collection. The first set of samples for the performance evaluation study was collected
on October 12, 2005. No major mechanical or installation issues were identified at system startup.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the duration of the performance
evaluation study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in
Table 4-4. Two single-vessel adsorption runs were conducted during the performance evaluation study.
The first adsorption run using Vessel 1 began on October 12, 2005, and ended on August 15, 2006. The
second adsorption run using Vessel 2 began on August 16, 2006, and ended on March 23, 2007. Between
October 12, 2005, and August 15, 2006, approximately 7,095,070 gal of water was processed through
Vessel 1, whereupon arsenic concentrations in effluent exceeded 10 (ig/L and flow was switched to
Vessel 2. An additional 6,446,880 gal of water was then treated by Vessel 2 through March 23, 2007,
which marked the end of the study. With atotal of 13,561,950 gal of water treated, the average daily
demand was 25,783 gpd, equivalent to 36% of the design capacity. The amount of water treated was
based on readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed at the effluent side of the filtration vessels.
Table 4-4. Summary of HIX System Operation
Operational Parameter
Operating Vessel
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Total No. of Days System Operating (day)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Cumulative Throughput (gal)
Cumulative Throughput (BV)(a)
Average (Range) of Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) of EBCT (min)
Average (Range) of Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average of Ap across System (psi)
Adsorption Run 1
Vessel 1
10/12/05-08/15/06
4,920
307
16.0
7,095,070
35,124
24 (21-29)
8.5 (6.9-9.5)
8.1 (1-13)
7.1 (2-11)
1
Adsorption Run 2
Vessel 2
08/16/06-03/23/07
4,793
219
21.9
6,466,880
32,014
21 (20-30)
9.6(6.7-10.1)
6.5 (3-10)
8.6 (3-12)
1
Combined
10/12/05-03/23/07
9,713
526
18.5
13,561,950
23 (20-30)
8.8(6.7-10.1)
7.3 (1-13)
7.9 (2-12)
1
(a) Calculated based on 27 ft3 of media in operating vessel
Through the entire study period, the system operated for a total of 9,713 hr based on the wellhead hour
meter readings. Average daily operating time during the first adsorption run was 27% shorter than that
during the second adsorption run (i.e., 16.0 versus 21.9 hr/day); the differences observed do not appear to
have been caused by seasonal variations (see Figure 4-8). The system was operating for more than 20 hr
a day during 64% of the study period. Significantly shorter daily run times were experienced through
23
-------
30.0
25.0 -
ฃ 20.0
15.0 -
c
o
g. 10.0
O
5.0 -
Vessel 1
0.0
10/12/05
12/11/05 02/09/06 04/10/06 06/09/06 08/08/06
Date
Vessel 2
30.0
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0 -
o
g. 10.0
O
5.0 -
0.0
08/21/06 09/20/06 10/20/06 11/19/06 12/19/06 01/18/07 02/17/07 03/19/07
Date
Figure 4-8. HIX System Daily Operating Time
24
-------
most weekends during the first four months of system operation and through the periods from May to July
2006, November 2006, and March 2007. Review of the field logs did not reveal any particular reasons
for these shorter run times.
System flowrates were tracked by both instantaneous readings of a flow meter installed at the system inlet
and calculated values based on readings of the wellhead hour meter and a flow totalizer installed at the
system outlet. As shown in Figure 4-9, both instantaneous readings and calculated values fluctuated with
the calculated values being generally higher than the instantaneous readings throughout the entire study
period. Flowrates to the system ranged from 20 to 30 gpm and average 23 gpm, which was 39% lower
than the 38-gpm peak flowrate (Table 4-3) or 54% lower than the 50-gpm design flowrate. Based on the
flowrates to the system, the EBCT for the operating vessel varied from 6.7 to 10.1 min and averaged 8.8
min. As a result, the average EBCT was 66% and 120% higher than the peak and design EBCT of 5.3
and 4 min, respectively. Inlet and outlet pressure readings of the HIX system averaged 7.3 and 7.9 psi,
respectively, with a 1.0 psi of headless across the system. The pressure readings, however, were found to
be inaccurate due to the use of pressure gauges with a span of 0 to 100 psi for this low pressure system.
Prior to the installation of the HIX system, the wellhead pressure was approximately 10 psi, just enough
to deliver water to the aerator.
< D
07/01/06
Date
Figure 4-9. HIX System Flowrates
4.4.2 Residual Management. Backwashing of the HIX media bed was not required, thus, no
wastewater was generated. The only residual generated by the HIX system operation was 54 ft3 of spent
media. Depending on whether the spent media is regenerated or replaced, arsenic- and uranium-laden
liquid or solid residual streams may be produced. Due to the presence of uranium, these residual streams
are classified as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM).
Uranium concentrations in TENORM, types of residual produced (liquid or solid wastes), and applicable
federal and state regulations will affect disposal options (EPA, 2005).
25
-------
According to EPA's A Regulators' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking
Water Treatment Technologies (EPA, 2005), if a water system generates uranium-containing residuals,
this uranium is considered "source material" and may be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
(NRC's) licensing requirements under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). If the uranium makes up less than
0.05% (by weight) of the residuals, it is exempt from NRC regulations because it is considered an
"unimportant quantity" (10 CFR 40.13). Table 4-5 summarizes source material quantities that are exempt
from specific licensing requirements. If a residual contains uranium exceeding the listed requirements,
then it is classified as a non-exempt material and is subject to relevant regulations for storage,
transportation, and disposal. Possession of the source material in concentrations or quantities greater than
those shown requires compliance with 10 CFR 40.19, 20, and 21.
Table 4-5. Requirements for Exempt Source Material
Measurement
Concentration
Radioactivity
Quantity
Requirements
<0.05 % by weight of uranium
<335 pico-Curies per gram (pCi/g)
<15 Ib at any given time; <150 Ib over course of a year
Source: (EPA, 2005)
The HIX vendor originally proposed to regenerate the spent media upon exhaustion for arsenic at 15,000
to 20,000 BV of throughput. The spent media would be extracted from an adsorption vessel and shipped
to MPT in Memphis, TN, for regeneration. The regenerated media would then be returned to the site for
reuse. Because MPT is licensed to process only non-exempt material, uranium in the residual stream may
not exceed the 0.05% (by weight) "unimportant quantity." Otherwise, the spent media might need to be
partially regenerated onsite to below the 0.05% limit before taken to MPT for further regeneration.
Another approach would be to completely regenerate the media onsite to remove uranium and arsenic.
Both regeneration approaches would produce uranium- and arsenic-laden residuals, such as spent brine
and rinse water. Due to lack of an onsite disposal method, liquid streams would have to be hauled away
for offsite disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.
When seeking a viable option for the spent media, Cal Water drilled two new wells and installed a new
150-gpm HIX skid-mounted system similar to the demonstration unit. Meanwhile, Cal Water opted to
close Well CH2-A and return the trailer-mounted system to EPA. This left media disposal to be the only
option for handling the spent media. A decision tree for solid residual disposal (EPA, 2005) was used to
guide media characterization and disposal and the process adopted was highlighted as shown in Figure 4-
10. Spent media samples were collected and submitted to laboratories for waste characterization and
radiological analyses. Section 4.6 presents the results of spent media characterization and disposal.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There were no operational problems with the
HIX system during the performance evaluation study, resulting in no unscheduled downtime for the
system. The only problem arising during the study period was the inaccurate readings on the pressure
gauges so that the pressure drop across the HIX vessel could not be accurately determined. 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. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V). As such, a
preoxidation step was not required. The only pretreatment required was the use of a l-(im bag filter to
remove sediment/particulate matter from raw water. Post-treatments included aeration (for radon
26
-------
Identify the quality and
quantity of the residual
Is the waste a solid according
to the Paint Filter Liquids Test?
Yes
Sludge
Granular Media
Resin
AA Media
Spent Membranes
Is the waste hazardous?
Does the waste contain
radionuclides?
No
Does the waste contain non-
exempt quantities of uranium or
beta/photo emitters?
No
Dispose in a solid waste,
hazardous waste, or LLRW
landfill, or any landfill licensed
by the state to accept
TENORM waste
No
Dispose in a
sol id waste
landfill
Yes
M
ed I
Dispose in a LLRW landfill
permitted to accept hazardous
waste or a hazardous waste
landfill licensed to accept
TENORM waste
Figure 4-10. Decision Tree for Spent Media Disposal
(Modified after [EPA, 2005])
removal), post-chlorination, and zinc orthophosphate addition (for corrosion control), which had been
practiced previously at the site.
System Controls. The HIX system was a passive system, requiring only the operation of the supply well
pump to feed water through the vessels. The system did not contain any moving or rotating parts or
equipment and all valves were manually activated. The inline flowmeter was solar powered so that the
only electrical power required was that needed to run the supply well pump. The system operation was
controlled manually, but would shut off once the aeration tank was full.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was on site typically five times a week and spent approximately 10
min each day performing visual inspections and recording system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. The operator replaced the bag filter periodically. Normal operations of the system did not require
additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
The State of California requires that all individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a drinking
water treatment facility must possess a water treatment operator certificate and those who make decisions
on maintenance and operation of any portion of the distribution system must possess a distribution
operator certificate (CDPH, 2001). Operator certifications are granted by CDPH after minimum
requirements are met, which include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of
hours of specialized training. There are five grades of operators for both the water treatment (i.e., Tl to
T5) and distribution (i.e., Dl to D5), with T5 and D5 being the highest. The operator for the Upper
Bodfish water system possessed T2 and D2 certifications for treatment and distribution, respectively.
27
-------
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As recommended by the
vendor, bag filters should be replaced after the differential pressure across the filter had reached 5 psi.
However, the differential pressure across the filter had been showing negative values due to inaccurate
pressure readings. The operator used his own judgment to change out the filter periodically. Typically,
the operator performed these duties only when he was on site for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. After installation of the HIX system, chlorine
and phosphate addition continued at the Upper Bodfish site. Inventory requirements for these two
chemicals remained the same as before. The only inventory requirement associated with the HIX system
was to keep additional bag filters onsite to facilitate changeout when needed.
4.5
System Performance
The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
treatment plant and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected at IN, BF, and
AF sampling locations across the treatment train on 46 occasions, including four duplicates, with field
speciation performed in 13 of the 46 occasions. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic,
uranium, iron, and manganese; Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters.
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
U (total)
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
Unit
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Sample
Count
46
46
30
16
13
13
11
2
13
13
11
2
13
13
11
2
13
13
11
2
45
45
30
15
Concentration
Minimum
34.3
34.8
<0.1
<0.1
36.6
36.5
0.12
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.13
0.13
<0.1
0.11
36.3
36.2
<0.1
<0.1
26.6
26.6
<0.1
<0.1
Maximum
50.0
47.6
10.5
11.7
49.7
47.0
10.3
<0.1
2.1
1.5
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.4
49.2
46.7
10.1
<0.1
38.9
38.7
0.1
<0.1
Average
41.7
41.5
_(a)
_(a)
42.3
42.2
_(a)
_(a)
0.5
0.5
_(a)
_(a)
0.4
0.4
_(a)
_(a)
41.9
41.8
_(a)
_(a)
33.2
32.9
<0.1
<0.1
Standard
Deviation
3.0
3.0
_(a)
_(a)
3.6
3.2
_(a)
_(a)
0.7
0.6
_(a)
_(a)
0.3
0.2
_(a)
_(a)
3.6
o ^
3.2
_(a)
_(a)
2.7
2.5
0.0
0.0
28
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese (Continued)
Parameter
U (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
Unit
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
HB/L
ug/L
Sample
Count
13
13
11
2
35(b)
35(o)
29
7
13
13
11
2
36
36
29
7
13
13
11
2
Concentration
Minimum
30.7
30.5
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.1
0.2
0.4
Maximum
37.9
38.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.9
1.0
1.7
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.6
0.6
Average
33.8
33.6
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
Standard
Deviation
2.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not meaningful; see arsenic breakthrough curves at AF location in Figures 4-12 and 4-13.
(b) One outlier, 41.2 ug/L on 01/04/06, omitted.
(c) One outlier, 39.9 ug/L on 01/04/06, omitted.
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Sample
Count
35(a)
36
29
7
13
13
11
2
12(b)
13
11
2
13
13
11
2
35
35
28
7
Concentration
Minimum
88.0
92.0
88.0
103
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
36.0
35.0
35.0
42.0
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
Maximum
145
132
132
112
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
51.0
52.0
42.0
52.0
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.1
18.4
18.3
16.7
<10
Average
102
100
101
108
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
39.8
40.7
38.7
47.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
7.1
6.9
6.4
<10
Standard
Deviation
9.1
7.2
7.3
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
4.0
4.2
2.4
7.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
4.4
4.1
3.2
0.0
29
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
IN
BF
AF-V1
AF-V2
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
36
36
29
7
36
36
29
7
30
31
25
6
30
31
25
6
26
27
21
6
29
30
24
6
36
36
29
7
36
36
29
7
36
36
29
7
Concentration
Minimum
39.5
39.7
15.9
39.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
6.7
6.7
6.4
6.8
8.2
9.3
10.6
14.0
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.3
198
195
205
215
69.6
69.3
69.9
91.0
60.6
60.0
60.1
84.4
5.6
4.5
5.5
5.7
Maximum
47.5
48.2
46.7
44.1
1.8
1.7
1.6
0.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.1
27.0
26.2
25.0
26.2
4.3
3.7
3.8
2.2
479
493
495
484
126.8
123.1
98.9
123.5
120.6
116.9
92.3
117.3
10.4
10.6
10.3
6.7
Average
43.4
43.4
41.4
42.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
18.2
17.8
17.7
19.2
2.4
2.4
2.3
1.8
383
367
338
375
93.0
92.4
90.4
106.4
86.2
85.6
83.5
100.1
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.3
Standard
Deviation
1.5
1.4
6.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
4.8
4.4
4.2
4.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
74.1
92.1
95.9
100
10.4
9.0
5.9
11.4
10.7
9.4
6.4
11.4
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.3
(a) One outlier, 356 mg/L on 11/08/05, omitted.
(b) One outlier, <1.0 mg/L on 07/06/06, omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., <1.0 on 07/06/06) omitted.
One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the performance evaluation study. The
results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic Removal. Figure 4-11 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of various arsenic
species at IN, BF, and AF for each of the 11 and two speciation events performed during the first and
second adsorption runs, respectively. Total As concentrations in source water ranged from 34.3 to 50.0
Hg/L and averaged 41.7 |o,g/L. Of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species, ranging
from 36.3 to 49.2 (ig/L and averaging 41.9 |o,g/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low, ranging
30
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
DAs (particulate)
As (III)
DAs (V)
Arsenic Speciation Before Filtration (BF)
D As (particulate)
As (III)
DAs(V)
45
40
35
I
3: 30
Arsenic Speciation Before Filtration (BF)
DAs (particulate)
As (III)
DAs(V)
^
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations
During Adsorption Runs 1 and 2
31
-------
from <0.1 to 2.1 (ig/L and averaging 0.5 (ig/L. The arsenic concentrations were consistent with those
measured during source water sampling in October 2004 (Table 4-1).
The key parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the HIX system were arsenic and uranium
concentrations in treated water, which were plotted in Figures 4-12 through 4-15. During the first
adsorption run, arsenic concentrations following Vessel 1 gradually increased from <0.1 to 10.5 (ig/L
after treating approximately 6,693,700 gal (or 33,100 BV) of water. During the second adsorption run,
arsenic concentrations following Vessel 2 increased from <0.1 to 11.7 (ig/L after treating approximately
6,398,500 gal (or 31,700 BV) of water. Run lengths achieved during the adsorption runs were 65 and
58% higher than the vendor's estimated run length of 20,000 BV. The 66% to 120% longer EBCT as
discussed in Section 4.4.1 might have contributed, in part, to the better-than-expected media performance.
As part of another EPA study (Westerhoff et al., 2007), run lengths of five different adsorptive media,
including ArsenXnp, E33, GFH, MetsorbG, and Adsorbsia GTO (the last two are titania-based media), for
arsenic and uranium removal from Well CH2-A water were evaluated using a rapid small-scale column
test (RSSCT). Figures 4-16 and 4-17 present the arsenic and uranium breakthrough curves from the
RSSCT columns, respectively. Table 4-8 summarizes run length data measured during respective RSSCT
and full-scale system operations. All RSSCT columns were scaled to a 5.3 min full-scale EBCT except
for the two titania-based media, which were scaled to 2.5 min EBCT. As shown in Figure 4-16, the two
iron-based media, E33 and GFH, exhibited the best arsenic removal with respective run lengths
approaching 44,000 and 50,000 BV. ArsenXnp achieved a run length of approximately 28,000 BV,
similar to the 33,100 and 31,700 BV observed during the two adsorption runs. MetsorbG and Adsorbsia
GTO attained short run lengths of approximately 21,000 and 16,000 BV, respectively.
50
35 -
I30
c
o
ฃ 25 -
c
0)
o
c
o
w 2ฐ
15
10
5 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
-Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
10[jg/LMCL
20
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1
32
-------
50 -
40 -
20 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
-Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
15 20
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2
30-
20-
15-
5-
30 [jg/L MCI
-At Wellhead (IN)
-Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-14. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1
33
-------
40
35 -
30
/
30[jg/LMCL
-T25 -
520 -
,15 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
-BeforeFiltration(BF)
-AfterFiltration (AF)
15 20
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-15. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2
ou
nr
S 40
o
: Concentrat
J CO
3 O
Effluent Arsenic
-> N
DOC
a i i i i i i i i
AE33 D
DHIX
OGFH D .
X MetsorbG (ReSc=1 000**) ^
OGTO(ReSc=1000**) n A
Influent Cone = 41 |jg/L D O u u ฃ
0 A
0 A 0
ฐ ^0
ฐ*X - ซ*
o A ^
20,000 40,000 60,000
Bed Volumes Treated
80,000
(Source: Westerhoff et al., 2007)
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT
34
-------
c
o
o
c
o
O
LU
Influent Cone = 56 ug/L
A ^
O
0 ฐ
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20,000 40,000 60,000
Bed Volumes Treated
(Source: Westerhoff et al., 2007)
Figure 4-17. Uranium Breakthrough Curves - Laboratory RSSCT
AE33
DHIX
OGFH
XMetsorbG (ReSc=1000**)
T^&
am
80,000
Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Lengths Between
Full-Scale System and Laboratory RSSCT
Test
Full-Scale
RSSCT
Media
ArsenXnp
ArsenXnp
E33
GFH
MetsorbG
Adsorbsia GTO
Media Run Length (BV)
10-fig/L
Arsenic
33,100
28,000
44,000
50,000
21,000
16,000
30-jig/L
Uranium
> 33, 100
> 50,000
12,000
25,000
> 24,000(a)
26,000
(a) Column failed at about 24,000 BV due to pressure
buildup and bed compaction.
Based on the system throughput and arsenic concentrations before and after the treatment during the
performance evaluation study, the mass of arsenic removed by the media was estimated to be 1,961 g
with 989 g from Vessel 1 and 972 g from Vessel 2. The weight of 27 ft3 of media in each vessel was
35
-------
1,350 Ib (i.e., 614 kg) based on the bulk density of 50 lb/ft3. Therefore, the arsenic loading onto the
media was approximately 1,597 mg/kg of media or 0.16% (by wet weight).
Uranium Removal. 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 (ng/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 |o,g/L in 1991 (corresponding to
30 pCi/L based on a mass/activity ratio of 1.5 pCi/|o,g); the final rule was set at 30 |o,g/L in December 2000
after the conversion factor was revised to 1 pCi/|o,g (EPA, 2000b). California adopted revisions in the
radionuclide regulations in June 2006 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/Regulations/R-12-02/PDFs/R-
12-02-FINALRegText.pdf). The California current MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L, which is equivalent to
30 |o,g/L (same as the federal MCL) using a conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/|o,g (Note: in California, a
conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/|og is used to convert uranium from activity to mass). In this study, uranium
was analyzed by an ICP-MS method (EPA Method 200.8) with the results expressed in |og/L. Uranium
activity (pCi/L) was not reported herein to avoid potential confusion associated with the use of different
conversion factors.
Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 26.6 to 38.9 (ig/L and averaged 33.2 (ig/L,
which were consistent with the data collected during the initial site visit (Table 4-1). As shown in Figures
4-14 and 4-15, uranium was removed to below its MDL of 0.1 (ig/L throughout the performance
evaluation study. Based on the system throughput and average uranium concentrations before and after
the treatment system, the uranium mass removed by Vessels 1 and 2 was 892 and 813 g, respectively.
Therefore, the uranium loading on the HIX media was 1.3 mg/kg of media (or 0.13% [by wet weight]),
assuming 1,350 Ib (i.e., 614 kg) of media in each vessel. The RSSCT results indicated that ArsenXnp
removed uranium far better than the iron-based (E33 and GFH) and titanium-based (Metsorb G) media.
ArsenXnp continued to remove uranium to <1 (ig/L as sampling was discontinued at about 50,000 BV due
to complete arsenic breakthrough.
Uranium has four oxidation states: III, IV, V, and VI; only IV and VI oxidation states are stable. The
most stable state of uranium in aerated aqueous solution under acidic conditions (pH <5.0) is UO22+,
which forms soluble complexes with common anions in water, such as CO32", F", Cl", NO3", SO42", and
HPO42". Carbonate is the most important uranium ligand in natural water. Figure 4-18 presents the
distribution of uranium carbonate and hydroxide complexes as a function of pH in aerobic groundwater at
a CO2 partial pressure of 0.01 atmospheres (Langmuir, 1978). Under neutral and slightly alkaline
conditions, UO22+ combines with bicarbonate and carbonate anions to form uranyl carbonates,
UO2(CO3)22" and UO2(CO3)34", which have a strong affinity for IX resins.
In many bench, pilot, and full-scale uranium IX studies, SBA resins have demonstrated enormous
capacities for the uranyl carbonate complexes - UO2(CO3)22" and UO2(CO3)34". For example, in a pilot-
scale study conducted at Chimney Hill, Texas (Zhang and Clifford, 1994; Clifford and Zhang, 1995), an
SBA column was operated continuously for 478 days for a total throughput of 302,000 BV at pH 7.6 to
8.2. The feed water contained 120 (ig/L of uranium, 25 pCi/L of radium, 310 mg/L of TDS, 150 mg/L of
alkalinity, 47 mg/L of chloride, and <1 mg/L of sulfate (very low sulfate water). Despite the high
uranium capacity, IX systems generally are not operated to complete uranium breakthrough because of
problems with resin fouling and excessive pressure drop. Run lengths in the range of 30,000 to 50,000
BV would be more appropriate for uranium removal from drinking water (Clifford, 1999).
Effect ofpH and Silica. The effective ArsenXnp media life decreases significantly as both source water
pH and silica concentration increase. It is known that the capacity of iron-based media for arsenic
36
-------
M
JB
O
D.
CO
"O
0
"o
m
01
c
0
o
0
Q.
(Source: Langmuir, 1978)
Figure 4-18. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and
Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH
decreases as the pH increases. pH values of source water measured at the IN sampling location ranged
from 6.7 to 7.2 and averaged 6.9 (Table 4-7). These near-neutral pH values are desirable for metal-oxide
adsorptive media to remove arsenic.
Several batch and column studies found that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric
oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et al, 2000; Meng et al., 2002; Smith and Edwards,
2005). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and iron-arsenic-silica systems
included:
(1) Adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the iso-
electric point or pH^.
(2) Silica may compete with arsenic for available adsorptive sites.
(3) Polymerization of silica may accelerate silica sorption and lower available surface sites for
arsenic adsorption.
(4) Reaction of silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium and barium, may form
precipitates.
Laboratory data provided by Solmetex showed that the effect of silica was most noticeable at pH values 8
or above and that ArsenXnp could tolerate the presence of 30 mg/L silica at neutral pH. Silica
concentrations in CH2-A source water ranged from 39.5 to 47.5 mg/L and averaged 43.4 mg/L. As
shown in Figure 4-19 during the first adsorption run, silica concentrations were reduced by ArsenXnp
during the first few hundred BV of system operation and complete silica breakthrough occurred soon after
that. Figure 4-20 presents silica concentrations across the treatment train during the second adsorption
37
-------
50 -
25 -
20 -
-At Wellhead (IN)
-Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
10
15 20
Bed Volumes (103)
25
30
35
Figure 4-19. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1
50-
5 35-
30-
25-
- At Wellhead (IN)
-Before Filtration (BF)
-After Filtration (AF)
4567
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-20. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2
38
-------
run. Because no samples were collected immediately after switching from Vessel 1 and Vessel 2, silica
had already completely broken through Vessel 2 when treatment plant samples were taken at 1,100 BV of
throughput.
Effect of Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity ranged from 88 to 145 mg/L (as CaCO3) in source
water and remained unchanged after treatment. Sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate concentrations in source
water ranged from 36.0 to 51.0 mg/L, from 0.9 to 1.6 mg/L, and from 0.9 to 1.3 mg/L (as N),
respectively; their concentrations remained unchanged after treatment. Therefore, ArsenXnp did not seem
to alter the concentrations of these common anions in water. Although it is possible that some sulfate
might have been removed by the media's anionic resin substrate, the sulfate concentration in Vessel 1
effluent taken at 200 BV had already reached the source water level.
DO levels in source water ranged from 1.6 to 4.3 mg/L and averaged 2.4 mg/L; ORP readings of source
water ranged from 198 to 479 mV and averaged 383 mV. The results indicated that source water was
oxidizing, thus causing arsenic to exist primarily as As(V). Although the DO and ORP data showed some
variations throughout the performance evaluation study, the range and average of these measurements
were essentially unchanged across the treatment train.
Total iron concentrations were below the MDL of 25 (ig/L for all measurements, except for one at 41
(ig/L at IN and one at 40 (ig/L at BF on January 4, 2006 (Appendix B). Total manganese levels ranged
from <0.1 to 0.9 (ig/L for all measurements with no significant changes after treatment. Total hardness
ranged from 69.6 to 127 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained relatively constant across the treatment train.
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution water samples were collected at three
residences before and after system startup to determine whether the HIX system had any impacts on lead
and copper levels and water chemistry in the distribution system. Table 4-9 presents the analytical
results. Uranium was not monitored because of its absence in the plant effluent.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system after system startup was the reduction in arsenic
concentration at each sampling location as shown in Figure 4-21. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged
from 16.2 to 44.2 (ig/L and averaged 26.2 (ig/L at all three locations. These concentrations were lower
than those in Well CH2-A water, which ranged from 34.3 to 50.0 |o,g/L and averaged 41.7 |o,g/L measured
during the performance evaluation study (Section 4.5.1). As noted in Section 4.1, prior to system startup,
the distribution system was supplied by both Well CH-1, which did not contain elevated arsenic or
uranium, and Well CH2-A. Well CH-1 was used as a primary well and Well CH2-A as a backup well.
After system startup, arsenic concentrations at all three sampling locations essentially followed the
arsenic breakthrough behavior of the plant effluent, although only DS2 was served primarily by Well
CH2-A. Arsenic concentrations were noticeably higher than those in the plant effluent most of the time,
suggesting possible solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the
distribution system (Lytle, 2005).
Lead concentrations decreased from an average baseline level of 4.6 to 1.6 (ig/L after system startup.
One exceedance at 16.4 (ig/L occurred at DS3 on August 10, 2005, during baseline sampling. Copper
concentrations decreased from an average baseline level of 823 to 788 (ig/L at DS1, from 67.4 to 49.4
(ig/L at DS2, and from 71.0 to 50.7 (ig/L at DS3. However, three exceedances occurred at DS1 after
system startup (i.e., 1,304 (ig/L on October 26, 2005; 1,473 (ig/L on January 4, 2006, and 1,390 (ig/L on
March 22, 2006). Because a concentration of 1,213 (ig/L was measured at DS1 on September 28, 2005,
before system startup, the HIX system was unlikely to cause the elevated copper concentrations at DSL
39
-------
Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
08/10/05
-------
50.0
45.0
08/01/05 09/20/05 11/09/05 12/29/05 02/17/06 04/08/06 05/28/06 07/17/06 09/05/06 10/25/06
Sampling Date
Figure 4-21. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish
pH, alkalinity, and manganese remained relatively constant with baseline levels measured at 6.9, 107
mg/L (as CaCO3), and 0.9 (ig/L, respectively, and after-startup levels measured at 7.2, 103 mg/L (as
CaCO3), and 0.4 (ig/L, respectively. Iron was not detected for all baseline and after-startup samples
except for two measurements (630 and 35 (ig/L) before system startup and two measurements (34 and 58
(ig/L) after system startup.
4.6
Spent Media Characterization and Disposal
4.6.1 Spent Media Characterization. A composite spent media sample was analyzed to
determine if the spent media was a hazardous waste and if it contained a non-exempt quantity of uranium.
TCLP, TTLC, andSTLC Tests. TCLP, TTLC, and STLC tests were conducted to determine if the
spend media was a hazardous waste. Most arsenic demonstration sites using adsorptive media performed
only the TCLP test prior to media disposal per federal guidelines. TTLC and STLC tests also were
performed per California State regulations, as outlined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations,
to determine if the waste would be classified as California hazardous waste.
TCLP is one of four characteristics used to identify a hazardous waste; the other three are
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. TCLP uses acetic acid to simulate the climatic
leaching action expected to occur in landfills. The TCLP metal analysis identifies and
quantifies eight Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals with the potential
to leach into groundwater. If any substance in the waste extract equals or is greater than the
TCLP limit, the waste is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste.
41
-------
TTLC determines the total concentration of each target analyte in a waste stream. When any
target analyte exceeds the corresponding TTLC limit, the waste is classified as California
hazardous waste. The result of TTLC also is compared with 10 times the STLC value to
determine if Waste Extraction Test (WET) is necessary. If the TTLC result exceeds 10 times
the STLC value, WET is required. If below, the waste is classified as non-hazardous and no
further analysis is required.
STLC determines the amount of each analyte that is soluble in the WET leachate. The WET
procedure uses citric acid to mimic climatic conditions in a landfill overtime. If any analyte
in the WET extract is equal to or greater than the STLC limit, it is considered a California
hazardous waste.
Table 4-10 presents the results of TCLP, TTLC, and STLC analyses and the respective regulatory limits.
The spent media passed TCLP analysis with concentrations of all eight RCRA metals below the
respective quantifiable limits. TTLC results indicated that the total arsenic concentration of the spent
media was 2,960 mg/kg, which exceeded the TTLC limit of 500 mg/kg and 10 times the STLC limit for
arsenic (i.e., 50). Therefore, WET was required for arsenic; the STLC arsenic level was below the
quantifiable limit. In sum, the spent media passed the TCLP limit; therefore, it was classified as a non-
RCRA waste. However, since the total arsenic concentration exceeded the TTLC limit (even though it
passed STLC), the spent media was considered a California hazardous waste.
Table 4-10. Results of Spent Media Characterization
Test
TCLP
TTLC
STLC
Analytical Method
SW6010B
SW7471A
SW6010B
SW7471A
SW6010B
Analyte
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Mercury
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Mercury
Arsenic
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
Regulatory
Limit
5.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.2
500
10,000
100
2,500
1,000
100
500
20
5.0
Result
0.20
<1.0
O.06
O.05
<0.10
O.20
O.05
O.002
2,960
2.2
<13.8
4.4
4.5
<46.2
1.9
0.25
<2.0
Radiological Analysis. A gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed to determine if the spent media
was an exempt material or a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Table 4-11 presents the results and
compares them with the requirements for an exempt source material (as discussed in Section 4.4.2 and
Table 4-5). Table 4-12 presents the calculations of the uranium concentration and quantity based on
laboratory results, the quantity of the media, and the weights of water and media in each vessel. The
uranium concentration based on the total weights of water and media was approximately 0.03% and the
42
-------
quantity of uranium was approximately 0.83 Ib per vessel and 1.66 Ib for both vessels, which are below
the 0.05% concentration limit and 15 Ib quantity limit for an exempt material, respectively. Results of the
radiological analysis indicated that the radioactivity of the spent media was 206 pCi/g for U-238 and 10.6
pCi/g for U-235, which are below the 335 pCi/g limit for an exempt material. Therefore, all three
requirements for an exempt material were met based on the concentration, radioactivity, and quantity of
uranium (Table 4-13). The spent media in the vessels was of an "unimportant quantity" and was exempt
from NRC regulations. As an exempt material, the spent media could be disposed of in a solids waste,
hazardous waste, or LLRW landfill, or any landfill licensed by a state to accept TENORM waste.
Table 4-11. Results of Radiological Analysis on Spent Media
Analyte
U-238
U-235
tVz
4.47E09
7.04E08
Specific
Activity
(pCi/g)
3.37E05
2.16E06
Activity
(pCi/g)
206
10.6
Total
Concentration
(Hg/g)
611
4.87
616
Table 4-12. Uranium Concentration and Quantity Calculations
Parameter
Bulk Density of Media (lb/ft3)
Density of Water (lb/ft3)
Quantity of Media (ft3)
Vessel Size (in)
Parameter
Vessel Volume(a) (ft3)
Media Volume (ft3)
Volume of Water in One Vessel (ft3)
Weight of Water in One Vessel (Ib)
Weight of Media in One Vessel (Ib)
Total Weight of Water & Media (Ib)
U Concentration (ng/g)
Mass of U on Media (Ib)
%Uby Weight^
Value
50
62.4
27
42 OD x 60 H
Equation
7ir2h = 7i(1.75)2(5)
-
48.1-27
21.1x62.4
27 x50
1,317+1,350
Laboratory analytical result
(616x1,350)71,000,000
(0.83x100)72,667
Value
48.1
27
21.1
1,317
1,350
2,667
616
0.83 (one vessel)
1.66 (two vessels)
0.03
(a) Volume based on straight height of vessel, not including domes.
(b) Based on combined weight of water and media.
Table 4-13. Determination of Exempt Source Material
Measurement
Concentration
Radioactivity
Quantity
Requirements1^
<0.05 % by weight of uranium
<335 pCi/g
<15 Ib at any given time;
< 150 Ib over the course of a year
Result
0.03%byweight(b)
U-238: 206 pCi/g
U-235: 10.6pCi/g
1.66 lb(b)
Requirements Met?
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a) EPA, 2005.
(b) See calculations in Table 4-12.
43
-------
4.6.2 Spent Media Removal, Transportation, and Disposal. On April 24, 2008, technicians
from Samuel L. Serpa Environmental Consulting and Support were onsite to extract the spent media from
the trailer-mounted vessels using a 16-gal, 6-hp Rigid Model WD1665 wet/dry shop vacuum. A vacuum
hose connected to the wet/dry vacuum was lowered into the vessels to remove the media, which was
temporarily stored in the shop vacuum's 16-gal collection tank. Once the vacuum's collection tank was
full, the extracted media was transferred to a 5 5-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drum (provided
by TG&A) for transportation. This process was repeated until all of the spent media had been extracted
from the vessels. A total of 10, 55-gal HDPE drums were used to contain the 54 ft3 of spent media. A
TG&A technician loaded the drums on a flat-bed truck and transported them to its facility in Turlock, CA.
Figure 4-22 presents a photo of a technician removing the spent media from an adsorption vessel.
Throughout the media extraction, packaging, and loading process, representatives from Cal Water,
including a member from its Environmental Affairs Office, were present to provide oversight.
Figure 4-22. Spent Media Removal from Vessels
On April 29, 2008, the drums of spent media arrived at TG&A's facility in Turlock, CA, where a
radiation survey was conducted to determine if solidification of the spent media would be required prior
to transport to the disposal facility in Grandview, ID. The radiation survey results indicated that the spent
media emitted 10 (iRem, which was below the 40 (iRem limit. Thus, solidification of the spent media
was not necessary. In an effort to minimize transportation cost, the spent media was stored at TG&A's
facility in Turlock, CA, until TG&A had accumulated enough materials to schedule a shipment to the
disposal facility.
On September 30, 2008, the spent media was shipped to U.S. Ecology in Grandview, ID. Located 70
miles southeast of Boise, ID, U.S. Ecology is a permitted facility to treat and dispose of non-hazardous
industrial wastes, hazardous waste, and LLRW. On October 1, 2008, the spent media was disposed of at
the landfill as an exempt, non-hazardous material. Technically speaking, the spent media, as an exempt,
44
-------
non-hazardous material, can be disposed at a solid waste landfill. However, according to TG&A, in the
State of Idaho, a solid waste landfill would only accept waste with an activity less than 8 pCi/g, which is
considered a non-radiological waste. The spent media had an activity over 200 pCi/g. Although this
concentration is below the 335 pCi/g limit, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solid waste
landfill that is willing to accept it.
4.7
System Cost
The system cost was 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 included the cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation. The O&M cost included the estimated costs for three different options of
residual management (i.e., partial media regeneration, complete media regeneration, and media
replacement) and labor cost.
4.7.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
HIX system was $114,070 (see Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $82,470 (or 73% of the total capital
investment), which included $25,250 for the trailer-mounted HIX unit, $21,600 forthe ArsenXnp media
(54 ft3 of media to fill two vessels at $400/ft3), $2,500 for shipping, and $33,120 for labor. The labor cost
included $ 1,920 for procurement of the system, $ 19,200 for technical support and troubleshooting for the
duration of the study, $10,000 for initial system hookup on the trailer, and $2,000 for travel.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
equipment drawings, and a schematic of the equipment layout used as part of the permit application
submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $12,800, or 11% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost for providing equipment and labor to anchor the trailer-mounted
unit, to perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, to perform system shakedown and startup, and to
conduct operator training. The installation was performed jointly by VEETech and Cal Water. The
installation cost was $18,800, or 16% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for the HIX System
Description
Eqm
HIX Trailer-Mounted Unit
HIXMedia(ft3)
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
pment Cost
1
54
$25,250
$21,600
$2,500
$33,120
$82,470
73%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Engineering Total
$12,800
$12,800
11%
Installation Cost
Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
$1,500
$10,000
$500
$4,800
$2,000
$18,800
$114,070
16%
100%
45
-------
The total capital cost of $114,070 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 50 gpm (72,000 gpd),
which resulted in $2,281/gpm of design capacity (or $1.58/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $10,767/year by multiplying by 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 design flowrate of 50 gpm to produce 26,280,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.41/1,000 gal. The system operated 18.5 hr/day at 23 gpm (see Table 4-4). Based on this
reduced use rate, the system would produce only 9,318,450 gal of water in one year (assuming 365 days
per year) and the unit capital cost would increase to $1.16/1,000 gal.
4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the HIX system should include
media regeneration or replacement and labor for routine operation. Media regeneration was proposed, but
not performed. Thus, its cost could not be evaluated. Media replacement, although was not performed
due to returning of the system to EPA, could be estimated based on the cost for new media and spent
media disposal. The cost of 54 ft3 of media was $21,600 according to the vendor's cost breakdowns
(Table 4-14). The total cost for media disposal was $16,671, including $1,650 for sample collection,
$1,177 for laboratory analysis, $2,827 for media extraction, and $11,017 for pickup, transportation, and
disposal (Table 4-15). Therefore, the media replacement and disposal cost totaled $38,271 for both
vessels (or $19,136 per vessel). By dividing the media replacement and disposal cost by the useful life of
the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV
as shown in Figure 4-23. The media run length in BV was calculated by dividing the system throughput
in each vessel by the quantity of media in each vessel, i.e., 27 ft3. On average, each HIX vessel processed
approximately 32,400 BV (or 6,544,836 gal) prior to reaching the 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough; based on
this volume, the unit cost for spent media disposal was $2.92/1,000 gal.
The HIX treatment system did not contain any parts or equipment requiring electricity. Therefore, no
additional electrical cost was incurred by the HIX system operation.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
only 50 min per week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal
of water treated. The total O&M cost including media replacement and disposal and labor was
$3.05/1,000 gal (Figure 4-23).
46
-------
Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HIX System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
13,090
Assumptions
Through March 21, 2007
Media Replacement
54 ft3 of HIX Media
$21,600
See Table 4-12
Spent Media Sample Collection
Labor ($)
$1,650
-
Spent Media Characterization
Subtotal ($)
$1,177
-
Spent Media Removal
Labor ($)
Materials ($)
Travel ($)
Miscellaneous ($)
Subtotal ($)
$1,840
$632
$233
$122
$2,827
-
-
-
-
-
Pick-up, Transportation, and Disposal of Spent Media
Labor ($)
Transportation ($)
Disposal of Spent Media ($)
Materials and Tax ($)
Subtotal ($)
Total Media Disposal ($)
Total Media Replacement and Disposal ($)
$750
$3,500
$6,000
$767
$11,017
$16,671
$38,271
-
-
10, 55-gal drums
-
-
-
-
Labor for Routine O&M
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor ($71,000 gal)
0.83
$0.13
50 min/wk
Labor rate = $26/hr
10-ug/L As breakthrough
at 32,400 BV (average
20,000 30,000 40,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
Figure 4-23. Spent Media Replacement and Disposal and O&M Cost Curves
47
-------
5.0: REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Battelle. 2005. StudyPlanfor Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology at Lake Isabella, CA.
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.
CDPH. 2001. California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13. Operator
Certification Regulations. California Department of Public Health.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Clifford, D.A. 1999. "Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption." Chapter 9 in R. Letterman (ed.), Water
Quality and Treatment Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
Clifford, D.A., and Z. Zhang, 1995. 'Removing Uranium and Radium from Ground Water by Ion
Exchange Resins." In Ion Exchange Technology: Recent Advances in Pollution Control by A.K.
Sengupta, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing Company, 1-59.
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. 2005. A Regulators' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water
Treatment Technologies. EPA/816/R/05/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. "Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic."
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring." Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA, 2000a. Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability Technical Support Document. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2000b. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Final Rule." Federal
Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
Langmuir, D. 1978. "Uranium Solution -Mineral Equilibrium at Low Temperatures with Applications to
Sedimentary Ore Deposits." Geochimica et Cosmoshimica, 42: 547-569.
48
-------
Lytle, D.A. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA
Workshop on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH, August 16-18.
Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic
Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111.
Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic
Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261.
Narasimhan R., J. D. Lowry, J. Culley, and N. Young-Pong. 2005. Management of the Disposal of
Radioactive Residuals in Drinking Water Treatment. American Water Works Association
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to
Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-AQUA, 5 4 (4): 201-211.
Sorg, T.J. 1988. "Methods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water." J. AWWA, 80(7): 105.
L 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.
Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and K.A. Fields. 2000. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange
and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Westerhoff, .P.K., T.M. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and L.J. Gumming. 2007. Assessing Arsenic
Removal by Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Zhang, Z., and D.A. Clifford. 1994. "Exhaustion and Regeneration of Resins for Uranium Removal." J.
AWWA, 86(4): 228-241.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Day of
Week
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
F
T
W
R
W
R
F
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
F
T
R
F
Date
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
1 1/02/05
1 1/03/05
1 1/04/05
1 1/07/05
1 1/08/05
1 1/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/21/05
1 1/22/05
1 1/28/05
1 1/29/05
1 1/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/16/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/28/05
12/29/05
12/30/05
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/18/06
12/29/05
12/30/05
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
20.1
35.5
59.1
78.9
101.5
125.1
146.4
169.3
216
235.4
256.7
258.3
263.5
298.5
317.4
342.7
363.6
387.8
398.4
401.7
419.1
446.1
467.6
477.4
492
516.4
539.3
616.4
627.3
627.3
645
669.6
690.3
713.6
19:12
743.2
772.7
784.5
784.9
789.7
794.4
809.4
813.5
822.2
845.8
863.8
962.5
975.8
990.8
990.9
1001.2
1018.2
1036.3
1054.6
1136.7
1175.1
1193.4
Opt Hour
hr
NA
15.4
23.6
19.8
22.6
23.6
21.3
22.9
46.7
19.4
21.3
1.6
5.2
35.0
18.9
25.3
20.9
24.2
10.6
3.3
17.4
27.0
21.5
9.8
14.6
24.4
22.9
77.1
10.9
0.0
17.7
24.6
20.7
23.3
9.2
20.4
29.5
11.8
0.4
4.8
4.7
15.0
4.1
8.7
23.6
18.0
98.7
13.3
15.0
0.1
10.3
17.0
18.1
18.3
82.1
38.4
18.3
Working
Column
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Working
Bag Filter
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
7.5
7.5
7
7
9
6
7
7.5
6
6
7
8
3
6
7
6.5
8
8
9
8
7.5
7
8
8
7.5
8
8
7
0
0
9
9
10
7
7
7
7
7
2
0
7.5
7
0
8
7
8
8
9
9
0
8
8.5
7.5
8
8
7.5
8
Post Bag
Filter
psig
8
10
8
10
10
8
8
8
7
8
8
9
5
8
9
8
8
9
10
9
9
8
8.5
9
9
9
9
9
4
0
8
8
9
9
10
9
9
9
4
0
10
10
4
9
10
9
9
10
10
0
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
10
10
Effluent
psig
8.5
9.5
9
8
10
7
8
8.5
7
7
8
8
6
6
8
7.5
8.5
9
10
8
8
8
8.5
8
8
9
8.5
7
6
3
8
8
9
10
10
11
9.5
10
8
2
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
11
11
4
10
10.5
10.5
11
11
11
11.5
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
25.3
26.6
24.0
25.3
28.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
24.0
25.3
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
28.0
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
NM
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
25.3
22.6
22.6
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
25.1
0.0
24.0
24.0
22.4
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
Influent
Totalizer
gal
21,460
44,158
78,353
106,979
139,895
174,136
204,479
236,966
303,691
331,448
361,589
392,204
414,099
421,861
448,938
484,773
514,319
548,447
563,456
568,738
594,270
632,950
663,107
NM
698,570
733,267
765,793
873,942
889,186
889,269
915,013
950,174
979,185
1,012,129
1,025,500
1,057,988
1,096,712
1,114,464
1,114,479
1,114,524
NA
1,144,320
1,150,323
1,163,522
1,198,051
1,223,845
1,364,839
1,384,236
1,406,828
1,406,860
1,422,957
1,448,132
1,474,734
1,501,617
1,621,670
1,678,129
1,704,885
Volume In
gal
NA
22,698
34,195
28,626
32,916
34,241
30,343
32,487
66,725
27,757
30,141
30,615
21,895
7,762
27,077
35,835
29,546
34,128
15,009
5,282
25,532
38,680
30,157
NA
35,463
34,697
32,526
108,149
15,244
83
25,744
35,161
29,011
32,944
13,371
32,488
38,724
17,752
15
45
NA
NA
6,003
13,199
34,529
25,794
140,994
19,397
22,592
32
16,097
25,175
26,602
26,883
120,053
56,459
26,756
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
21,365
44,475
79,280
108,370
141,820
176,600
207,420
240,410
308,195
336,237
366,785
397,835
420,000
427,870
455,330
491,670
521,635
556,260
571,585
576,840
602,720
641,975
672,570
687,270
708,520
743,715
776,720
886,510
901,977
902,059
928,200
963,900
993,344
1,026,800
1,040,370
1,070,330
1,112,680
1,130,985
1,130,995
1,131,038
1,138,400
1,161,030
1,167,180
1,180,500
1,215,603
1,241,759
1,384,980
1,404,678
1,427,620
1,427,634
1,444,000
1,469,550
1,496,575
1,523,985
1,645,860
1,703,275
1,730,405
Volume
Out
gal
NA
23,110
34,805
29,090
33,450
34,780
30,820
32,990
67,785
28,042
30,548
31,050
22,165
7,870
27,460
36,340
29,965
34,625
15,325
5,255
25,880
39,255
30,595
14,700
21,250
35,195
33,005
109,790
15,467
82
26,141
35,700
29,444
33,456
13,570
29,960
42,350
18,305
10
43
7,362
22,630
6,150
13,320
35,103
26,156
143,221
19,698
22 942
14
16,366
25,550
27,025
27,410
121,875
57,415
27,130
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
0
114
287
431
596
768
921
1,084
1,420
1,559
1,710
1,864
1,973
2,012
2,148
2,328
2,477
2,648
2,724
2,750
2,878
3,072
3,224
3,297
3,402
3,576
3,739
4,283
4,359
4,360
4,489
4,666
4,812
4,977
5,045
5,193
5,403
5,493
5,493
5,493
5,530
5,642
5,672
5,738
5,912
6,042
6,751
6,848
6,962
6,962
7,043
7,169
7,303
7,439
8,042
8,326
8,461
Average
Flowrate
gpm
NA
25.01
24.58
24.49
24.67
24.56
24.12
24.01
24.19
24.09
23.90
NA
NA
24.36
24.22
23.94
23.90
23.85
24.10
26.54
24.79
24.23
23.72
25.00
24.26
24.04
24.02
23.73
23.65
NA
24.61
24.19
23.71
23.93
24.58
24.48
23.93
25.85
0.42
0.15
26.11
25.14
25.00
25.52
24.79
24.22
24.18
24.68
25.49
NA
26.48
25.05
24.88
24.96
24.74
24.92
24.71
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/27/06
03/28/06
03/29/06
03/30/06
03/31/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/10/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
1265.4
1278.4
1299.3
1321
1342.3
1414
1434.2
1452.3
1472
1493.8
1561.9
1583.2
1604.2
1625
1647.8
1722.5
1742.8
1758.6
1781.3
1802.3
1899.3
1922.3
1950.1
1967.7
2033.4
2063.6
2077
2097.5
2118.5
2191.6
2217.4
2233.3
2262.9
2284.5
2350.7
2375.9
2396.5
2420.9
2450.3
2516.6
2541.6
2564.1
2590.7
2612.8
2690.1
2708.0
2729.1
2755.7
2776.9
2854.1
2873.0
2892.4
2914.9
2937.7
3016.8
3017.9
3037.4
3065.4
3085.1
Opt Hour
hr
72.0
13.0
20.9
21.7
21.3
71.7
20.2
18.1
19.7
21.8
68.1
21.3
21.0
20.8
22.8
74.7
20.3
15.8
22.7
21.0
97.0
23.0
27.8
17.6
65.7
30.2
13.4
20.5
21.0
73.1
25.8
15.9
29.6
21.6
66.2
25.2
20.6
24.4
29.4
66.3
25.0
22.5
26.6
22.1
77.3
17.9
21.1
26.6
21.2
77.2
18.9
19.4
22.5
22.8
79.1
1.1
19.5
28.0
19.7
Working
Column
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Working
Bag Filter
F-
2
2
2
2
2
2
F-2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
6
8.5
7.5
7.5
8
7
8
8
7
6
7
7.5
8
8
8
6
7.5
9
10
9
8
8.5
7
7.5
8
9
9
12
10
10
10
11
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7.5
8.5
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
9
9
0
11
8
8.5
8
Post Bag
Filter
psig
9
12
9
9.5
10
9
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9
9.5
10
9
9
9
10
10
11
10
9.5
10
9.5
9.5
9
10
10
12
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
10
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
4
13
10
10
10
Effluent
psig
9
11
10
10.5
10
10
10.5
10.5
10
9.5
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
11.5
11
10.5
10
9
9.5
9
10
10
7.5
6
7
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
5
5
5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
5.5
6
6
6
0
5
6
4
5
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
22.6
29.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
25.3
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
29.3
22.6
22.6
23.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.7
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
24.0
22.6
0.0
29.3
22.6
24.0
22.6
Influent
Totalizer
gal
1,808,419
1,827,416
1,857,715
1,889,065
1,919,352
2,021,455
2,050,323
2,076,107
2,105,097
2,136,616
2,232,824
2,263,455
2,293,349
2,323,370
2,355,451
2,460,961
2 499 993
2,512,792
2,545,191
2,575,305
2,712,176
2,744,409
2,783,841
2,808,971
2,907,667
2,943,459
2 962 922
2,992,447
3,022,606
3,125,905
3,162,045
3,184,636
3,226,762
3,257,453
3,350,650
3,386,100
3,415,704
3,449,970
3,491,260
3,584,167
3,619,446
3,650,763
3,687,990
3,718,953
3,827,078
3,851,985
3,882,525
3,920,498
3,950,515
4,059,818
4,086,615
4,114,886
4,147,332
4,180,043
4,283,049
4,283,460
4,313,826
4,354,105
4,382,345
Volume In
gal
306,802
18,997
30,299
31,350
30,287
102,103
28,868
25,784
28,990
31,519
96,208
30,631
29,894
30,021
32,081
105,510
39,032
12,799
32,399
30,114
136,871
32,233
39,432
25,130
98,696
35,792
19,463
29,525
30,159
103,299
36,140
22,591
42,126
30,691
93,197
35,450
29,604
34,266
41,290
92,907
35,279
31,317
37,227
30,963
108,125
24,907
30,540
37,973
30,017
109,303
26,797
28,271
32,446
32,711
103,006
411
30,366
40,279
28,240
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
1,835,600
1,854,915
1,885,705
1,917,570
1,948,350
2,052,160
2,081,510
2,107,724
2,137,290
2,169,200
2,266,950
2,298,070
2,328,465
2,358,060
2,391,558
2,498,700
2,528,180
2,551,325
2,584,212
2,614,750
2,753,570
2,786,260
2,826,250
2,851,700
2,951,775
2,988,045
3,007,765
3,037,675
3,068,283
3,172,900
3,219,480
3,232,360
3,274,705
3,306,085
3,400,410
3,436,390
3,466,250
3,500,940
3,542,700
3,636,767
3,672,420
3,704,155
3,741,835
3,773,173
3,882,500
3,907,746
3,938,655
3,977,063
4,007,411
4,118,000
4,145,070
4,173,670
4,206,475
4,239,500
4,343,718
4,344,120
4,374,850
4,415,565
4,444,120
Volume
Out
gal
311,615
19,315
30,790
31,865
30,780
103,810
29,350
26,214
29,566
31,910
97,750
31,120
30,395
29,595
33,498
107,142
29,480
23,145
32,887
30,538
138,820
32,690
39,990
25,450
100,075
36,270
19,720
29,910
30,608
104,617
46,580
12,880
42,345
31,380
94,325
35,980
29,860
34,690
41,760
94,067
35,653
31,735
37,680
31,338
109,327
25,246
30,909
38,408
30,348
110,589
27,070
28,600
32,805
33,025
104,218
402
30,730
40,715
28,555
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
10,003
10,099
10,251
10,409
10,561
11,075
11,221
11,350
11,497
11,655
12,139
12,293
12,443
12,590
12,756
13,286
13,432
13,546
13,709
13,860
14,548
14,709
14,907
15,033
15,529
15,708
15,806
15,954
16,106
16,624
16,854
16,918
17,128
17,283
17,750
17,928
18,076
18,248
18,454
18,920
19,096
19,254
19,440
19,595
20,136
20,261
20,414
20,605
20,755
21,302
21,436
21,578
21,740
21,904
22,420
22,422
22,574
22,775
22,917
Average
Flowrate
gpm
72.13
24.76
24.55
24.47
24.08
24.13
24.22
24.14
25.01
24.40
23.92
24.35
24.12
23.71
24.49
23.90
24.20
24.41
24.15
24.24
23.85
23.69
23.97
24.10
25.39
20.02
24.53
24.32
24.29
23.85
30.09
13.50
23.84
24.21
23.75
23.80
24.16
23.70
23.67
23.65
23.77
23.51
23.61
23.63
23.57
23.51
24.41
24.07
23.86
23.88
23.87
24.57
24.30
24.14
21.96
6.09
26.26
24.24
24.16
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Day of
Week
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
M
T
W
R
M
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
W
R
F
Date
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/08/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/1 1/06
05/12/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
05/26/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
06/21/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
06/26/06
06/27/06
06/28/06
06/29/06
07/03/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
07/07/06
07/10/06
07/12/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
07/19/06
07/20/06
07/21/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
07/26/06
07/27/06
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
3181.5
3204.8
3231.5
3252.1
3304.2
3319.2
3339.3
3389.5
3401.9
3411.6
3416.7
3436.7
3466.7
3486.4
3500.3
3519.9
3535.9
3566.5
3572.3
3577.9
3591.5
3594.8
3659.0
3665.1
3670.6
3686.8
3752.3
3770.8
3790.6
3813.8
3847.9
3854.4
3858.9
3877.7
3885.4
3922.3
3942.7
3955.7
3962.3
3974
4045.4
4060.7
4073.6
4096.9
4183.5
4228.3
4249.8
4270.0
4330.4
4331.9
4361.3
4378.1
4457.1
4481.4
4482.0
4484.7
4486.3
4488
4490.3
4511.4
4536.5
Opt Hour
hr
96.4
23.3
26.7
20.6
52.1
15.0
20.1
50.2
12.4
9 7
5.1
20.0
30.0
19.7
13.9
19.6
16.0
30.6
5.8
5.6
13.6
3.3
64.2
6.1
5.5
16.2
65.5
18.5
19.8
23.2
34.1
6.5
4.5
18.8
7 7
36.9
20.4
13.0
6.6
11.7
71.4
15.3
12.9
23.3
86.6
44.8
21.5
20.2
60.4
1.5
29.4
16.8
79.0
24.3
0.6
2.7
1.6
1.7
2.3
21.1
25.1
Working
Column
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Working
Bag Filter
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
8
8
8
8.5
11
8
8.5
11
10
0
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
1
9
10.5
0
9.5
2
2
11
11
12
12
12.5
13
0
7.5
8
7
8.5
8
7.5
8
8.5
9
8.5
0
8
8
8
8
9
9.5
8
9
7
7.5
7
7
9
9
8
10
9
8
8
Post Bag
Filter
psig
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
12
11
4
11
10
11
10
11
10
9
4
9
10
4
9
4
4
10
8.5
9
9
9
9
5
9
9
9
10
9
9
9.5
9.5
10
9
4
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
9
9
9
9
11
11
9
11
10
9
9
Effluent
psig
5
5
5
5
5.5
4
5
4
4
0
4
3
4
2
4
3
2.5
1
3
3
0
3
0
0
2
3
2
1
7
7
0
3
6
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
4
6
5.5
6
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
5.5
6
6
5.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
22.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
28.0
22.6
22.6
26.6
25.3
0.0
25.3
22.6
25.3
22.6
24.0
24.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
28.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
26.6
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
0.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.3
26.6
22.6
0.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
23.3
29.3
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
28.0
26.6
24.0
29.3
26.6
22.6
22.6
Influent
Totalizer
gal
4,519,479
4,553,055
4,590,982
4,620,088
4,693,732
4,716,205
4,745,085
4,818,258
4,837,679
4,851,814
4,868,128
4,889,616
4,935,042
4,963,852
4,984,070
5,012,372
5,035,475
5,079,362
5,088,729
5,097,146
5,117,726
5,123,001
5,216,890
5,226,600
5,235,326
5,259,562
5,354,161
5,380,687
5,408,836
5,441,054
5,490,471
5,500,323
5,507,199
5,534,851
5,546,040
5,601,725
5,632,062
5,651,758
5,661,336
5,678,719
5,780,398
5,802,229
5,824,807
5,855,403
5,976,964
6,040,185
6,070,087
6,099,002
6,183,043
6,184,304
6,226,584
6,250,016
6,359,387
6,393,072
6,394,208
6,398,487
6,401,006
6,403,868
6,407,735
6,438,010
6,473,107
Volume In
gal
137,134
33,576
37,927
29,106
73,644
22,473
28,880
73,173
19,421
14,135
16,314
21,488
45,426
28,810
20,218
28,302
23,103
43,887
9,367
8,417
20,580
5,275
93,889
9,710
8,726
24,236
94,599
26,526
28,149
32,218
49,417
9,852
6,876
27,652
11,189
55,685
30,337
19,696
9,578
17,383
101,679
21,831
22,578
30,596
121,561
63,221
29,902
28,915
84,041
1,261
42,280
23,432
109,371
33,685
1,136
4,279
2,519
2,862
3,867
30,275
35,097
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
4,582,755
4,616,705
4,655,060
4,684,480
4,758,970
4,781,661
4,810,880
4,884,850
4,907,455
4,918,723
4,927,133
4,956,925
5,002,840
5,031,944
5,052,380
5,080,975
5,104,330
5,148,661
5,158,145
5,166,700
5,187,439
5,192,880
5,287,675
5,297,587
5,306,320
5,330,825
5,426,400
5,453,200
5,481,700
5,514,200
5,564,209
5,574,295
5,581,237
5,609,180
5,620,494
5,676,600
5,707,322
5,726,827
5,736,960
5,754,480
5,857,250
5,879,398
5,899,185
5,933,050
6,055,400
6,119,835
6,150,035
6,179,270
6,264,222
6,265,595
6,308,250
6,331,925
6,442,530
6,476,693
6,477,760
6,482,000
6,484,600
6,487,590
6,491,490
6,521,973
6,557,420
Volume
Out
gal
138,635
33,950
38,355
29,420
74,490
22,691
29,219
73,970
22,605
11,268
8,410
29 792
45,915
29,104
20,436
28,595
23,355
44,331
9,484
8,555
20,739
5,441
94,795
9,912
8,733
24,505
95,575
26,800
28,500
32,500
50,009
10,086
6,942
27,943
11,314
56,106
30,722
19,505
10,133
17,520
102,770
22,148
19,787
33,865
122,350
64,435
30,200
29,235
84,952
1,373
42,655
23,675
110,605
34,163
1,067
4,240
2,600
2,990
3,900
30,483
35,447
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
23,603
23,771
23,961
24,107
24,475
24,588
24,732
25,099
25,210
25,266
25,308
25,455
25,683
25,827
25,928
26,069
26,185
26,405
26,451
26,494
26,597
26,623
27,093
27,142
27,185
27,306
27,779
27,912
28,053
28,214
28,462
28,512
28,546
28,684
28,740
29,018
29,170
29,267
29,317
29,404
29,912
30,022
30,120
30,288
30,893
31,212
31,362
31,507
31,927
31,934
32,145
32,262
32,810
32,979
32,984
33,005
33,018
33,033
33,052
33,203
33,379
Average
Flowrate
gpm
23.97
24.28
23.94
23.80
23.83
25.21
24.23
24.56
30.38
19.36
27.48
24.83
25.51
24.62
24.50
24.32
24.33
24.15
27.25
25.46
25.42
27.48
24.61
27.08
26.46
25.21
24.32
24.14
23.99
23.35
24.44
25.86
25.71
24.77
24.49
25.34
25.10
25.01
25.59
24.96
23.99
24.13
25.56
24.22
23.55
23.97
23.41
24.12
23.44
15.26
24.18
23.49
23.33
23.43
29.64
26.17
27.08
29.31
28.26
24.08
23.54
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date
07/31/06
08/01/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08/04/06
08/07/06
08/08/06
08/09/06
08/10/06
08/1 1/06
08/15/06
08/16/06*'
08/18/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/1 1/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
10/02/06
10/03/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
4584.3
4586.5
4607.3
4631.8
4654.9
4733.6
4759.4
4780.1
4799.2
4822.8
4920.2
4927.2
4970
5068.4
5090.2
5117.7
5138.8
5212.4
5239.3
5259.6
5285.6
5306.8
5408.0
5428.5
5449.9
5476.2
5552.2
5571.3
5601.5
5623
5642
5714.9
5744.8
5764.2
5787.7
5813.4
5888.2
5910.7
5929.6
5950.3
5972
6051.4
6076.1
6092.7
6122.6
6139.6
6242.4
6262
6285.1
6308.1
6386.4
6406.3
6430.6
6453.6
6481.4
6549.1
6575.5
6598.4
6619.4
6640.9
Opt Hour
hr
47.8
2.2
20.8
24.5
23.1
78.7
25.8
20.7
19.1
23.6
97.4
7.0
42.8
98.4
21.8
27.5
21.1
73.6
26.9
20.3
26.0
21.2
101.2
20.5
21.4
26.3
76.0
19.1
30.2
21.5
19.0
72.9
29 9
19.4
23.5
25.7
74.8
22.5
18.9
20.7
21.7
79.4
24.7
16.6
29.9
17.0
102.8
19.6
23.1
23.0
78.3
19.9
24.3
23.0
27.8
67.7
26.4
22.9
21.0
21.5
Working
Column
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Working
Bag Filter
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
0
8.5
8
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
9
9
7
6.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6.5
6.5
7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.5
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
7
6.5
6
6.5
Post Bag
Filter
psig
3
9.5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8.5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8.5
8
8
8
Effluent
psig
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
6
6
5.5
5.5
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
0.0
24.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
21.3
21.3
22.8
22.6
21.3
22.6
21.3
21.3
22.6
21.3
22.6
21.3
22.6
21.3
21.3
22.6
21.3
28.0
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
24.0
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
22.6
21.3
22.6
22.6
21.3
22.6
21.3
22.6
24.0
Influent
Totalizer
gal
6,540,923
6,544,602
6,576,818
6,608,077
6,640,134
6,748,808
6,789,355
6,812,858
6,839,085
6,871,485
7,005,409
7,010,088
7,069,564
7,205,235
7,235,058
7,272,806
7,301,676
7,402,316
7,439,042
7,466,761
7,502,291
7,531,162
7,668,884
7,696,849
7,725,928
7,761,121
7,864,923
7,890,953
7,931,933
7,961,119
7,986,929
8,085,628
8,126,196
8,152,416
8,184,242
8,219,078
8,320,200
8,350,536
8,376,375
8,405,039
8,434,260
8,541,196
8,574,278
8,596,645
8,637,014
8,660,046
8,798,565
8,824,943
8,856,023
8,886,976
8,992,689
9,019,593
9,052,342
9,083,293
9,120,673
9,211,471
9,247,342
9,278,384
9,306,543
9,334,493
Volume In
gal
67,816
3,679
32,216
31,259
32,057
108,674
40,547
23,503
26,227
32,400
133,924
4,679
59,476
135,671
29,823
37,748
28,870
100,640
36,726
27,719
35,530
28,871
137,722
27,965
29,079
35,193
103,802
26,030
40,980
29,186
25,810
98,699
40,568
26,220
31,826
34,836
101,122
30,336
25,839
28,664
29,221
106,936
33,082
22,367
40,369
23,032
138,519
26,378
31,080
30,953
105,713
26,904
32,749
30,951
37,380
90,798
35,871
31,042
28,159
27,950
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
6,625,993
6,629,620
6,662,150
6,693,716
6,726,185
6,835,850
6,871,730
6,900,545
6,927,045
6,959,773
7,095,070
7,099,822
7,159,850
7,296,865
7,327,093
7,365,130
7,394,390
7,495,900
7,533,100
7,561,100
7,597,000
7,626,180
7,765,340
7,793,600
7,823,090
7,859,000
7,963,500
7,989,750
8,031,150
8,060,625
8,086,705
8,186,440
8,227,411
8,253,905
8,286,070
8,321,260
8,423,470
8,454,075
8,480,265
8,509,180
8,538,700
8,646,730
8,680,170
8,702,760
8,743,565
8,766,845
8,906,840
8,933,500
8,964,910
8,996,205
9,103,050
9,130,212
9,163,320
9,194,690
9,232,360
9,324,110
9,360,355
9,391,715
9,420,160
9,449,490
Volume
Out
gal
68,573
3,627
32,530
31,566
32,469
109,665
35,880
28,815
26,500
32,728
135,297
4,752
60,028
137,015
30,228
38,037
29,260
101,510
37,200
28,000
35,900
29,180
139,160
28,260
29,490
35,910
104,500
26,250
41,400
29,475
26,080
99,735
40,971
26,494
32,165
35,190
102,210
30,605
26,190
28,915
29,520
108,030
33,440
22,590
40,805
23,280
139,995
26,660
31,410
31,295
106,845
27,162
33,108
31,370
37,670
91,750
36,245
31,360
28,445
29,330
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
33,718
33,736
33,897
34,053
34,214
34,757
34,935
35,077
35,208
35,370
36,040
36,064
297
975
1,125
1,313
1,458
1,961
2,145
2,284
2,461
2,606
3,295
3,435
3,581
3,758
4,276
4,406
4,611
4,756
4,886
5,379
5,582
5,713
5,873
6,047
6,553
6,704
6,834
6,977
7,123
7,658
7,824
7,935
8,137
8,253
8,946
9,078
9,233
9,388
9,917
10,051
10,215
10,371
10,557
11,011
11,191
11,346
11,487
11,632
Average
Flowrate
gpm
23.91
27.48
26.07
21.47
23.43
23.22
23.18
23.20
23.12
23.11
23.15
11.31
23.38
23.21
23.11
23.05
23.11
22.99
23.05
22.99
23.01
22.94
22.92
22.98
22.97
22.76
22.92
22.91
22.85
22.85
22.88
22.80
22.84
22.76
22.81
22.82
22.77
22.67
23.10
23.28
22.67
22.68
22.56
22.68
22.75
22.82
22.70
22.67
22.66
22.68
22.74
22.75
22.71
22.73
22.58
22.59
22.88
22.82
22.58
22.74
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
F
M
T
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date
10/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
1 1/02/06
1 1/03/06
1 1/06/06
1 1/07/06
1 1/08/06
1 1/09/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/17/06
1 1/20/06
11/21/06
1 1/22/06
1 1/27/06
1 1/28/06
1 1/29/06
1 1/30/06
12/01/06
12/04/06
12/05/06
12/07/06
12/08/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
12/14/06
12/15/06
12/18/06
12/19/06
12/20/06
12/21/06
12/22/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
12/28/06
12/29/06
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/04/07
01/05/07
01/08/07
01/09/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/12/07
01/16/07
01/17/07
01/19/07
01/22/07
01/23/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
6719.3
6738.4
6762.6
6785.6
6808.2
6870.1
6870.9
6872.7
6897.6
7016.2
7040.5
7062.9
7087.5
7156.7
7156.7
7156.7
7160.2
7168.0
7186.4
7211.8
7233.6
7250.8
7269.0
7317
7340.5
7410.7
7434.3
7459.7
7487.1
7506.1
7577.7
7608.2
7630.6
7657.7
7672.8
7772.0
7795.6
7818.8
7843.3
7937.6
7966.7
7984.6
8012.4
8082.8
8106.7
8133.4
8154.6
8178.5
8277.2
8296.3
8345.6
8418.9
8436.9
8489
8515.1
8584.7
8610.5
8628.7
8653
8679.4
Opt Hour
hr
78.4
19.1
24.2
23.0
22.6
61.9
0.8
1.8
24.9
118.6
24.3
22.4
24.6
69.2
0.0
0.0
3.5
7.8
18.4
25.4
21.8
17.2
18.2
48.0
23.5
70.2
23.6
25.4
27.4
19.0
71.6
30.5
22.4
27.1
15.1
99.2
23.6
23.2
24.5
94.3
29.1
17.9
27.8
70.4
23.9
26.7
21.2
23.9
98.7
19.1
49.3
73.3
18.0
52.1
26.1
69.6
25.8
18.2
24.3
26.4
Working
Column
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Working
Bag Filter
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
6
6
6
6
6
0
8
7
6.5
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
9
7
7.5
7
8
10
9
9
8.5
9
9
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
6
6
8
6.5
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
6
6.5
6
6
6.5
6
6
6
6
6
Post Bag
Filter
psig
8
8
8
8
8
4
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
11
10
9.5
9
9
11
9
9
10
10
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
10
10
9.5
9
9
9
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
11
9.5
9
9
10
9
9.5
10
10
9
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9
9.5
9.5
Effluent
psig
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
2
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
2
2
2
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
5.5
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
22.6
21.3
22.6
21.3
21.3
0.0
28.0
24.0
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
22.6
21.3
21.3
21.3
28.0
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
22.6
22.6
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
NA
NA
20.0
21.
21.
22.
21.
21.
29.
NA
22.6
21.3
NA
21.3
21.3
NA
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
Influent
Totalizer
gal
9,440,817
9,466,725
9,499,249
9,530,275
9,560,728
9,644,147
9,645,562
9,648,339
9,682,419
9,840,915
9,872,919
9,902,945
9,935,474
10,026,811
10,026,811
10,026,811
10,032,586
10,039,435
10,064,699
10,099,125
10,128,384
10,151,620
10,176,917
10,248,550
10,279,420
10,366,310
10,397,622
10,431,372
10,468,030
10,493,461
10,589,154
10,628,856
10,659,719
NA
NA
10,847,807
10,879,018
10,910,008
10,942,613
11,106,782
11,106,896
11,130,874
11,165,589
11,261,248
11,292,678
NA
11,356,288
11,387,806
NA
11,543,875
11,689,632
11,705,753
11,729,338
11,797,974
11,832,391
11,923,819
11,957,758
11,981,559
12,013,527
12,048,124
Volume In
gal
106,324
25,908
32,524
31,026
30,453
83,419
1,415
2,777
34,080
158,496
32,004
30,026
32,529
91,337
0
0
5,775
6,849
25,264
34,426
29,259
23,236
25,297
71,633
30,870
86,890
31,312
33,750
36,658
25,431
95,693
39,702
30,863
NA
NA
188,088
31,211
30,990
32,605
164,169
114
23,978
34,715
95,659
31,430
NA
63,610
31,518
NA
156,069
145,757
16,121
23,585
68,636
34,417
91,428
33,939
23,801
31,968
34,597
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
9,555,830
9,582,008
9,614,875
9,646,210
9,676,970
9,761,232
9,762,675
9,765,502
9,799,990
9,959,945
9 992 265
10,022,680
10,055,450
10,147,790
10,147,790
10,147,790
10,153,520
10,160,450
10,185,980
10,220,770
10,250,365
10,273,808
10,299,455
10,364,855
10,396,440
10,490,810
10,522,445
10,566,560
10,593,610
10,619,320
10,716,035
10,757,175
10,787,370
10,823,760
10,844,135
10,977,850
11,008,000
11,040,322
11,073,270
11,199,810
11,219,310
11,267,585
11,298,605
11,395,270
11,427,030
11,462,720
11,491,310
11,523,170
11,653,450
11,690,120
11,744,975
11,842,705
11,860,550
11,935,920
11,970,790
12,063,190
12,097,375
12,121,430
12,153,735
12,188,700
Volume
Out
gal
106,340
26,178
32,867
31,335
30,760
84,262
1,443
2,827
34,488
159,955
32,320
30,415
32,770
92,340
0
0
5,730
6,930
25,530
34,790
29,595
23,443
25,647
65,400
31,585
94,370
31,635
44,115
27,050
25,710
96,715
41,140
30,195
36,390
20,375
133,715
30,150
32,322
32,948
126,540
19,500
48,275
31,020
96,665
31,760
35,690
28,590
31,860
130,280
36,670
54,855
97,730
17,845
75,370
34,870
92,400
34,185
24,055
32,305
34,965
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
12,158
12,288
12,451
12,606
12,758
13,175
13,182
13,196
13,367
14,159
14,319
14,470
14,632
15,089
15,089
15,089
15,117
15,152
15,278
15,450
15,597
15,713
15,840
16,164
16,320
16,787
16,944
17,162
17,296
17,423
17,902
18,106
18,255
18,435
18,536
19,198
19,347
19,507
19,671
20,297
20,394
20,632
20,786
21,265
21,422
21,599
21,740
21,898
22,543
22,724
22,996
23,480
23,568
23,941
24,114
24,571
24,740
24,859
25,019
25,192
Average
Flowrate
gpm
22.61
22.84
22.64
22.71
22.68
22.69
30.06
26.18
23.08
22.48
22.17
22.63
22.20
22.24
NA
NA
27.29
14.81
23.13
22.83
22.63
22.72
23.49
22.71
22.40
22.41
22.34
28.95
16.45
22.55
22.51
22.48
22.47
22.38
22.49
22.47
21.29
23.22
22.41
22.36
11.17
44.95
18.60
22.88
22.15
22.28
22.48
22.22
22.00
32.00
18.54
22.22
16.52
24.11
22.27
22.13
22.08
22.03
22.16
22.07
>
-------
Table A-l. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Day of
Week
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
M
T
W
R
F
Date
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
02/12/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
02/20/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
02/23/07
02/26/07
02/27/07
02/28/07
03/02/07
03/05/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
03/08/07
03/09/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
03/15/07
03/16/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
03/21/07
03/22/07
03/23/07
Well CH2-A
Hour Meter
hr
8754.9
8774.5
8798.8
8825.8
8845.6
8917.6
8940.2
8962.2
8986.4
9011.3
9107.1
9125
9150.6
9179.2
9249.6
9268.8
9291.1
9331.2
9403.4
9428.6
9430
9430
9463.1
9501.1
9526.3
9549.6
9573.2
9578.3
9631.5
9643.7
9661.6
9687.4
9713.4
Opt Hour
hr
75.5
19.6
24.3
27.0
19.8
72.0
22.6
22.0
24.2
24.9
95.8
17.9
25.6
28.6
70.4
19.2
22.3
40.1
72.2
25.2
1.4
0.0
33.1
38.0
25.2
23.3
23.6
5.1
53.2
12.2
17.9
25.8
26.0
Working
Column
Working
Bag Filter
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Treatment System
Pressure
Influent
psig
6
6
6.5
6
6.5
6.5
9
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
0
0
0
6.5
6
6
6
6
3
3
6
6
6
6
Post Bag
Filter
psig
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
12
9
9
9.5
9.5
9
9.5
9
9.5
9
9
9
9
5.5
5
5
11
9
9
9.5
9
6
6
9
9
9
9
Effluent
psig
5.5
5.5
5.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
6
5.5
6
6
6
6
4
0
0
6
6
6
6
6
4
0
6
6
6
6
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
29.7
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
20.0
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
0.0
0.0
6.0
26.6
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
0.0
0.0
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
Influent
Totalizer
gal
,147,126
,172,778
,204,521
,239,969
,265,903
,360,043
,389,559
,419,313
,451,008
2,483,874
2,609,172
2,632,594
2,666,019
2,703,262
2,795,020
2,828,097
2,849,845
2,903,158
2 997 399
3,030,177
13,030,395
13,030,395
13,032,083
13,126,007
13,159,298
13,189,791
13,221,171
13,227,853
13,299,249
13,316,197
13,339,786
13,369,523
13,407,425
Volume In
gal
99,002
25,652
31,743
35,448
25,934
94,140
29,516
29,754
31,695
32,866
125,298
23,422
33,425
37,243
91,758
33,077
21,748
53,313
94,241
32,778
218
0
1,688
93,924
33,291
30,493
31,380
6,682
71,396
16,948
23,589
29,737
37,902
Effluent
Totalizer
gal
2,288,730
2,314,650
2,346,720
2,382,540
2,408,740
2,503,865
2,533,778
2,563,740
2,595,875
2,628,915
2,755,530
2,779,290
2,812,960
2,850,680
2 943 390
2,968,625
2,998,670
3,052,525
3,147,735
3,180,840
13,181,065
13,181,065
13,182,780
13,277,640
13,311,270
13,342,075
13,373,800
13,380,525
13,452,660
13,469,890
13,493,615
13,523,660
13,561,950
Volume
Out
gal
100,030
25,920
32,070
35,820
26,200
95,125
29,913
29,962
32,135
33,040
126,615
23,760
33,670
37,720
92,710
25,235
30,045
53,855
95,210
33,105
225
0
1,715
94,860
33,630
30,805
31,725
6,725
72,135
17,230
23,725
30,045
38,290
Cum Bed
Volumes'3'
BV
25,688
25,816
25,975
26,152
26,282
26,753
26,901
27,049
27,208
27,372
27,999
28,116
28,283
28,470
28,929
29,053
29,202
29,469
29,940
30,104
30,105
30,105
30,114
30,583
30,750
30,902
31,059
31,093
31,450
31,535
31,652
31,801
31,991
Average
Flowrate
gpm
22.08
22.04
22.00
22.11
22.05
22.02
22.06
22.70
22.13
22.12
22.03
22.12
21.92
21.98
21.95
21.91
22.46
22.38
21.98
21.89
2.68
0.00
0.86
41.61
22.24
22.04
22.40
21.98
22.60
23.54
22.09
19.41
24.54
>
(a) Bed volume = 27 ft3 or 202 gallons
(b) Flow was switched to Vessel 2
NA = not available
NM = not measured
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (105)
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO 3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO 3)
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)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
ra'L
ra'L
re'L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/13/05
IN
106
1.2
38
1.1
<10
43.5
0.3
6.8
18.2
2.0
198
83.6
77.0
6.6
39.6
38.8
0.8
0.9
37.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
35.3
35.6
BF
101
1.2
42
1.1
<10
43.6
0.3
6.9
17.8
1.9
213
85.0
78.4
6.6
41.1
39.6
1.5
0.7
38.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
34.4
34.3
AF
0.2
101
1.2
40
0.1
<10
23.2
0.2
6.8
18.0
1.9
230
88.3
81.1
7.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.7
<0.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
10/19/05
IN
145
<10
41.5
0.7
7.0
20.2
2.1
258
89.3
83.0
6.3
41.9
<25
<0.1
33.8
BF
132
<10
41.5
0.4
7.0
19.7
1.9
195
90.0
83.7
6.3
42.1
<25
<0.1
33.6
AF
0.9
132
<10
39.9
0.4
7.0
19.5
2.2
205
88.4
82.3
6.2
0.4
<25
0.4
<0.1
10/26/05
IN
92
<10
44.0
0.1
7.0
16.6
2.0
370
91.8
85.6
6.2
43.1
<25
0.1
33.3
BF
97
<10
43.3
<0.1
7.0
16.4
2.1
298
93.8
87.5
6.3
43.8
<25
0.1
34.0
AF
1.8
101
<10
41.1
<0.1
6.9
16.4
2.0
268
93.9
87.7
6.2
0.2
<25
0.5
<0.1
11/02/05
IN
92
30
43.9
0.1
6.9
21.1
2.3
NAW
93.3
87.1
6.2
41.8
<25
<0.1
35.2
BF
92
30
43.3
0.3
7.0
19.9
2.5
NAW
94.4
88.0
6.4
41.5
<25
<0.1
34.0
AF
2.4
88
<10
43.3
<0.1
6.9
19.7
2.2
NAIa)
98.9
92.3
6.6
0.1
<25
0.5
11/08/05
IN
356
1.1
37
1.1
18
43.0
0.4
7.0
16.4
2.5
303
93.5
86.7
6.8
36.5
36.6
<0.1
0.3
36.3
<25
<25
0.9
0.7
35.9
35.7
BF
92
1.1
38
1.1
18
43.1
0.4
7.0
16.4
2.1
336
93.8
86.8
7.0
36.2
36.5
<0.1
0.3
36.2
<25
<25
1.0
0.7
36.2
35.9
AF
3.0
101
1.2
37
1.0
<10
41.6
0.1
6.9
16.4
2.0
321
95.2
88.3
6.9
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.1
11/16/05
IN
101
<10
41.5
<0.1
7.0
17.6
NA(b>
293
92.9
87.2
5.7
39.5
<25
0.4
34.9
BF
97
<10
42.1
<0.1
7.0
17.1
NA(b)
291
91.0
86.5
4.5
40.2
<25
0.7
33.3
AF
3.5
97
<10
41.1
<0.1
7.0
17.1
NA(b)
294
97.3
91.4
5.9
<0.1
<25
0.7
<0.1
(a) ORP probe not operationa . (b) DO probe was not operat onal.
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1CP)
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/01/05
IN
88
-
<10
45.2
0.1
7.1
19.1
3.9
415
88.6
81.5
7.0
39.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
26.6
BF
92
-
<10
44.5
0.1
7.0
18.2
3.0
453
87.9
81.0
7.0
39.5
-
-
<25
<0.1
26.6
AF
4.9
88
<10
44.7
<0.1
7.0
17.4
3.0
453
91.5
84.4
7.1
<0.1
-
-
<25
0.1
<0.1
12/08/05
IN
97
-
<10
44.0
0.3
7.0
12.9
NA(a)
332
92.2
85.8
6.4
42.1
<25
-
<0.1
29.2
BF
97
<10
42.8
0.2
7.0
14.1
NA(a)
411
89.9
83.6
6.3
40.5
-
-
<25
<0.1
29.1
AF
5.6
106
-
<10
44.1
0.1
7.0
14.4
NA(a)
426
89.5
83.3
6.2
<0.1
<25
<0.1
<0.1
1 2/28/05
IN
97
1.1
36
1.0
<10
44.2
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.6
87.3
6.3
39.4
40.0
<0.1
0.4
39.6
<25
<25
0.6
0.8
33.6
33.6
BF
101
1.1
36
1.0
<10
45.6
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.7
87.3
6.5
38.9
39.4
<0.1
0.4
39.0
<25
<25
0.7
1.1
33.8
33.6
AF
5.8
97
1.1
36
1.0
<10
44.8
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
92.6
86.2
6.5
0.3
0.7
<0.1
0.4
0.4
<25
<25
1.3
1.6
<0.1
<0.1
01/04/06
IN
97
-
<10
43.1
1.8
7.0
17.0
NA(a)
478
89.5
82.2
7.3
39.4
41.2
0.5
32.7
BF
97
<10
42.2
1.7
7.0
16.6
NA(a)
489
90.7
83.2
7.4
39.2
-
39.9
-
0.5
32.5
-
AF
7.0
97
<10
42.9
1.6
7.0
13.7
NA(a)
490
90.9
83.3
7.6
0.6
-
-
<25
0.4
<0.1
01/11/06
IN
101
1.1
37
1.3
14
43.9
0.4
6.8
11.9
3.1
378
79.9
72.7
7.2
43.0
43.2
<0.1
0.8
42.5
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
30.9
32.6
BF
97
1.1
38
1.3
13
44.6
0.4
6.9
12.1
3.5
265
82.4
75.2
7.2
43.5
45.2
<0.1
0.8
44.4
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
32.0
32.8
AF
7.3
101
1.1
36
1.7
<10
44.9
0.4
6.9
12.4
2.7
245
80.3
73.1
7.2
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
01/25/06
IN
101
101
<10
<10
43.4
43.7
0.5
0.2
6.8
12.2
2.1
432
94.9
95.4
88.5
89.0
6.5
6.5
38.4
37.4
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
30.3
29.8
BF
101
101
-
<10
<10
43.7
42.9
0.2
0.2
6.9
12.4
2.0
471
94.9
94.3
88.5
88.1
6.4
6.3
38.6
37.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
29.6
29.5
-
AF
9.3
101
101
<10
<10
42.9
43.8
0.3
0.2
7.0
12.5
2.4
445
94.3
95.7
88.1
89.1
6.2
6.5
0.2
0.2
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.4
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
-
(a) DO probe was not operational.
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1CP)
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Vln (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
02/08/06
IN
96
1.0
36
1.1
<10
42.6
0.8
7.0
14.7
4.3
436
69.6
60.6
9.0
42.5
42.7
<0.1
0.7
42.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
30.6
32.7
BF
100
1.0
35
1.1
<10
43.8
0.6
6.9
14.6
3.7
338
69.3
60.0
9.3
42.4
42.8
<0.1
0.8
41.9
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
30.2
30.7
AF
11.5
100
1.0
35
1.0
<10
43.3
0.5
7.0
14.8
2.9
315
69.9
60.1
9.8
0.4
0.4
<0.1
1.0
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
02/22/06
IN
100
-
<10
44.9
0.6
7.2
12.1
3.4
416
88.9
82.3
6.6
41.9
<25
<0.1
34.6
BF
104
<10
44.3
0.6
7.0
12.1
3.2
411
91.5
84.8
6.7
41.8
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
35.1
AF
13.8
100
-
<10
45.0
0.3
7.1
12.0
3.4
390
88.8
82.2
6.6
0.2
<25
0.3
<0.1
03/08/06
IN
100
1.1
41
1.1
<10
42.0
1.0
7.0
11.2
2.9
300
94.8
87.5
7.3
40.3
39.5
0.8
0.4
39.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
32.1
32.1
BF
100
1.1
40
1.1
<10
41.6
0.8
7.0
11.2
3.4
305
95.8
88.5
7.3
41.4
40.0
1.4
0.4
39.5
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
31.9
31.9
AF
16.0
100
1.1
39
1.0
<10
42.1
0.6
7.1
11.6
3.8
325
96.9
89.4
7.6
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
0.5
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
03/22/06
IN
103
103
-
<10
<10
42.3
43.1
0.3
0.3
7.2
25.0
NA"ป
443
95.7
92.3
90.0
86.7
5.7
5.6
43.1
41.5
-
-
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
30.3
28.4
-
BF
99
99
-
<10
<10
42.8
43.1
0.4
0.3
7.1
25.0
NA"ป
486
93.6
93.0
88.1
87.3
5.6
5.6
42.8
41.6
-
-
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
29.5
27.8
-
AF
18.3
99
99
-
<10
<10
42.7
42.6
0.3
0.5
7.3
25.0
NA"ป
495
93.8
93.2
88.3
87.6
5.5
5.6
0.3
0.3
-
-
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
-
04/04/06(a)
IN
95
1.2
40
1.3
42.9
1.0
6.9
8.2
266
285
84.4
77.9
6.5
42.3
43.6
<0.1
0.8
42.8
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
36.7
35.6
BF
95
1.2
40
1.2
-
42.2
0.6
6.9
9.3
1.8
264
85.4
78.7
6.7
41.6
42.7
<0.1
0.5
42.2
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
34.6
36.4
AF
20.5
99
1.2
40
1.2
42.4
0.8
6.4
10.6
1.6
232
86.5
79.8
6.7
1.2
1.5
<0.1
0.5
1.0
<25
<25
0.4
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
04/19/06
IN
106
18
42.1
0.3
6.8
17.7
1.6
384
94.7
84.2
10.4
38.9
-
-
<25
-
0.2
27.8
BF
106
-
17
42.3
0.4
6.8
12.7
2.1
345
95.4
84.8
10.6
38.6
<25
0.2
28.3
-
AF
21.7
106
<10
41.2
0.2
6.8
17.9
1.5
254
93.2
82.8
10.3
0.6
-
-
<25
-
1.7
<0.1
(a) Water quality measurements taken on 04/05/06.
(b) Measurements not taken
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1C?)
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
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)
Vln (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
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
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
05/03/06
IN
105
1.0
40
0.9
<10
45.6
0.2
7.0
19.9
2.7
408
90.8
83.8
7.0
44.7
44.5
0.2
0.2
44.4
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
35.2
35.3
BF
97
1.0
40
1.0
<10
43.9
0.4
6.9
19.5
2.1
407
88.0
81.1
6.8
43.6
44.0
<0.1
0.2
43.8
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
34.8
35.6
AF
23.8
105
1.0
40
1.0
<10
44.4
0.4
6.9
19.9
1.9
386
86.6
79.7
6.9
2.2
2.2
<0.1
0.1
2.0
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
05/17/06
IN
97
<10
45.2
0.6
7.0
23.6
2.7
471
80.9
73.7
7.2
41.3
<25
0.3
37.4
BF
97
-
-
<10
45.2
0.7
6.9
23.2
2.9
474
85.1
77.8
7.3
42.4
-
<25
0.3
35.5
-
AF
25.0
97
<10
45.6
0.4
7.1
23.4
2.3
494
82.8
75.5
7.3
2.7
<25
0.4
<0.1
06/01/06
IN
96
-
-
15
39.5
0.5
6.8
20.3
1.9
305
90.2
80.7
9.5
38.8
-
<25
<0.1
36.6
-
BF
96
-
14
41.0
0.2
6.8
20.0
2.2
276
86.1
76.6
9.6
35.8
<25
<0.1
34.9
AF
26.3
100
-
10.0
39.1
0.9
6.9
19.7
2.0
278
91.1
82.0
9.2
3.1
-
<25
<0.1
<0.1
-
06/1 4/06
IN
106
0.9
41
1.0
17
47.5
0.7
6.9
18.6
3.0
401
90.7
83.5
7.2
40.1
38.5
1.6
0.1
38.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
38.9
37.9
BF
102
1.0
42
1.0
17
48.2
0.5
6.9
18.1
2.8
386
89.5
82.5
7.0
40.4
39.7
0.7
0.2
39.5
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
38.7
38.1
AF
27.6
106
1.0
42
0.9
17
46.7
0.5
7.0
18.3
2.6
277
90.0
83.2
6.8
4.4
4.4
<0.1
0.1
4.3
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
06/22/06
IN
100
<10
43.8
0.8
6.9
23.3
1.8
415
95.4
87.8
7.5
41.3
-
<25
0.6
37.0
-
BF
100
-
-
<10
44.3
0.6
6.9
23.1
2.1
345
90.4
82.8
7.5
38.1
<25
0.5
35.7
AF
28.4
100
<10
15.9
0.4
6.9
2.3
2.0
310
94.3
87.5
6.8
4.9
-
<25
0.2
<0.1
-
07/06/06
IN
100
1.1
<1
0.9
<10
43.3
0.7
7.0
24.3
2.1
453
86.3
80.5
5.8
41.9
42.2
<0.1
0.1
42.1
<25
<25
0.6
<0.1
31.3
31.2
BF
100
1.6
43
1.0
<10
44.0
0.4
7.0
23.5
2.1
470
85.2
79.5
5.7
40.7
40.6
0.1
0.1
40.5
<25
<25
0.5
<0.1
31.0
30.5
AF
30.4
100
1.4
41
1.0
<10
42.8
0.4
7.0
22.8
2.0
470
88.9
82.8
6.1
8.1
7.8
0.3
<0.1
7.7
<25
<25
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
CO
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1C?)
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
ifln (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
07/19/06
IN
97
97
-
<10
<10
44.2
43.0
0.4
0.3
6.9
24.2
2.0
479
86.4
86.7
79.6
79.9
6.8
6.8
38.2
37.5
<25
<25
-
0.5
0.5
32.8
32.1
-
BF
101
92
<10
<10
42.6
43.8
0.3
0.3
6.9
23.1
2.1
317
85.1
86.1
78.3
79.2
6.8
6.8
37.5
37.0
-
-
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
32.9
31.9
AF
32.0
97
101
-
<10
12.7
43.3
43.6
0.5
0.3
6.9
22.3
2.0
251
84.3
91.5
77.8
84.6
6.5
6.9
9.4
9.3
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
-
7/26/2006(a)
IN
-
-
-
-
46.0
-
-
-
-
BF
-
-
-
46.0
-
-
AF
32.3
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
08/03/06
IN
101
1.3
40
0.9
15
42.6
0.1
6.9
23.4
1.8
372
93.3
86.7
6.6
47.3
45.2
2.1
0.2
44.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
34.1
34.3
BF
101
1.4
40
0.9
13
42.4
0.1
6.8
22.7
1.5
277
95.3
89.3
6.0
45.8
44.8
1.0
0.2
44.5
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
34.2
33.4
AF
33.1
101
1.4
41
0.9
13
41.8
0.1
6.8
22.3
1.5
269
93.6
87.6
5.9
10.5
10.3
0.2
0.2
10.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
0.1
<0.1
8/23/06(b)
IN
105
1.6
51
1.1
<10
42.7
0.2
6.9
27.0
1.9
463
102
96.0
5.9
50.0
49.7
0.4
0.4
49.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
32.5
30.7
BF
105
1.6
52
1.1
<10
42.8
0.1
6.9
26.2
2.0
468
99.9
94.2
5.7
47.6
46.9
0.7
0.4
46.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
31.7
30.9
AF
1.1
103
1.6
52
1.1
<10
42.2
<0.1
6.9
26.2
2.2
437
101
94.8
5.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.6
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
08/30/06
IN
107
11.5
40.5
0.3
-
-
109
102
6.4
44.8
-
-
<25
0.1
32.4
-
BF
110
-
10.9
39.7
0.4
106
100
6.2
43.8
<25
-
<0.1
32.8
AF
2.3
112
-
<10
39.8
0.2
-
-
110
104
6.3
0.2
-
-
<25
-
0.5
<0.1
-
09/07/06
IN
111
<10
39.6
<0.1
102
95.5
6.5
42.1
-
<25
<0.1
32.1
BF
109
-
<10
40.4
0.2
-
-
102
95.3
6.4
40.6
-
<25
-
<0.1
31.5
-
AF
3.6
109
<10
40.8
<0.1
-
103
97.0
6.4
0.2
-
-
<25
0.4
<0.1
(a) Sampling conducted for Total As only between bi-weekly sampling event due to As levels approaching 1 0 ug/L.
(b) Flow switched to Vessel 2 on August 1 6, 2006.
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1C?)
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/14/06
IN
105
-
<10
41.7
0.9
-
89.7
83.3
6.4
41.7
<25
-
<0.1
32.4
-
BF
105
<10
43.1
0.2
-
90.6
84.1
6.5
42.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
32.1
AF
4.8
105
-
<10
42.6
0.1
91.0
84.4
6.5
<0.1
<25
-
0.3
<0.1
09/27/06
IN
106
1.1
41
0.9
<10
42.0
0.3
6.9
22.4
1.6
344
94.2
87.7
6.5
45.5
45.8
<0.1
0.3
45.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
32.3
31.8
BF
104
1.2
43
0.9
<10
42.6
0.2
7.0
22.3
1.7
463
95.2
88.5
6.6
45.7
47.0
<0.1
0.3
46.7
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
32.0
32.2
AF
6.8
109
1.2
42
0.9
<10
42.5
0.3
7.1
22.9
2.2
445
98.9
92.2
6.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
1 0/1 2/06
IN
108
110
<10
<10
44.4
44.4
0.6
0.1
6.7
18.1
1.6
465
124
127
117
121
6.1
6.2
42.0
42.2
-
-
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
34.5
34.9
BF
105
108
-
<10
<10
43.7
44.0
0.3
0.2
6.7
18.1
1.7
395
123
113
117
107
6.2
6.1
42.4
42.0
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
34.9
34.3
-
AF
9.3
108
108
<10
<10
44.1
42.6
0.2
0.2
6.7
19.1
1.8
320
124
118
117
112
6.2
6.3
0.7
0.8
-
-
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
10/26/065"
IN
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.2
-
-
32.6
-
BF
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.1
-
-
-
32.9
AF
11.5
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
-
<0.1
11/08/06
IN
-
-
-
6.8
17.9
1.7
400
34.3
-
-
-
34.4
-
BF
-
-
-
6.8
17.8
2.7
493
34.8
34.1
AF
13.2
-
-
6.8
18.1
1.9
484
0.3
-
-
-
<0.1
-
11/30/06
IN
-
-
6.8
12.5
2.6
287
40.0
-
35.3
BF
-
-
6.8
13.8
1.2
231
40.8
-
-
35.5
-
AF
15.5
-
-
-
6.9
14.0
1.5
215
0.3
-
-
<0.1
(a) Water samples only analyzed for total arsenic and uranium.
Cd
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (1C?)
Alkalinity (as CaCOs)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
*yin (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
H9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
12/13/06
IN
-
-
6.8
14.2
2.8
434
45.0
-
-
-
31.1
-
BF
-
-
-
6.8
1.5
1.8
442
46.2
-
30.7
AF
17.2
-
-
6.8
14.9
1.3
346
0.8
-
-
-
<0.1
-
01/04/07
IN
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
44.7
-
-
35.7
-
BF
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
45.9
-
-
36.5
AF
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
-
-
<0.1
-
01/31/07
IN
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.1
-
-
33.5
BF
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.1
-
-
-
33.2
-
AF
24.9
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.1
-
0.1
02/22/07
IN
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.7
-
-
-
32.2
-
BF
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.2
-
-
32.9
AF
28.3
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.7
-
-
-
<0.1
-
03/1 2/07
IN
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.2
-
-
36.7
-
BF
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.8
-
-
36.4
AF
30.6
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
-
-
<0.1
-
03/21/07
IN
-
-
-
7.0
13.3
2.8
464
45.6
-
-
35.0
BF
-
-
-
6.9
13.2
2.4
466
46.6
-
-
-
34.9
-
AF
31.7
-
-
7.1
13.7
4.3
446
11.7
-
<0.1
NA= not available
Cd
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter.
NA = not available.
------- |