-------
'111. -== ••
1 I •:
Figure 4-9. AdEdge CO2 pH Adjustment System Control Panel
(d) Adsorption. The APU system consisted of two 36-in x 72-in composite vessels configured
in parallel, each containing 18.5 ft3 of pelletized E33 media supported by a gravel underbed.
The vessels had a 6-in flange opening on the top of the vessel for loading media and assessing
vessel contents. A 2-in Fleck control valve (Fleck Model 3150) was used on each vessel to
allow the vessel to operate independently. Each valve had a 3200NT timer for electronic
programming, which allowed for setting custom parameters such as backwashing frequency,
external notifications for alarm conditions, and accommodating other inputs and outputs.
Water entered the system through 2-in piping and flowed in parallel through the vessels.
Water in each vessel flowed from the upper distributor downward though the media where
treated water was collected at the bottom through a slotted hub and lateral assembly. The
treated water then traveled up through the riser piping in the vessel before it exited at the
outlet of the Fleck control valve.
All piping on the APU system was Schedule 80 PVC. The inlet line to each control valve
contained a diaphragm valve for isolation followed by a Y-strainer to prevent particulates
24
-------
from entering the controller. Ball valves were located on each outlet line from the controllers
also for isolation. Based on a design flowrate of 63 gpm, the EBCT for each vessel was 4.5
min and the hydraulic loading to each vessel was 4.4 gpm/ft2. Figure 4-10 shows the APU
system along with the booster station (left) and CO2 pH adjustment system (center
background).
Figure 4-10. AdEdge APU Arsenic Adsorption System
• Backwash. Backwashing was performed with raw water and initiated in one of three ways:
(1) automatically based on the number of days since the last backwash (once every 30 to 45
days as recommended by the vendor); (2) automatically based on reaching a high pressure
differential (typical setpoint of 10 to 15 psi); and (3) manually by depressing the backwashing
selector switch. The system was designed to backwash one vessel at a time while the second
vessel remained in service. During a backwash, each vessel underwent 15 min of an upflow
wash followed by 5 min of a downflow rapid rinse, both at a flowrate of 64 gpm. Each
backwash event (both vessels combined) would produce 2,560 gal of wastewater, which was
directed to a modified evaporation/transpiration bed consisting of four infiltration chambers
covered with gravel.
The differential pressure and timer triggers were disabled during the entire performance
evaluation period allowing backwash to only occur manually. Due to minimal pressure drop
across the vessels and low levels of arsenic in the treated effluent, routine system
backwashing was not performed. Pressure drop and arsenic concentrations across the vessels
were monitored regularly.
25
-------
On August 18, 2009, during sample collection by the operator, Vessel A went into backwash.
The operator noticed an unfamiliar value on the display screen of the control valve during the
backwash and made note of it. Battelle contacted the vendor the following day to determine
what triggered the vessel to automatically engage into a backwash. The vendor informed
Battelle that the value the operator recorded indicated the valve programming had been reset,
possibly by a power surge. The vendor walked the operator through the valve re-
programming steps on September 2, 2009, making certain to disable the timer and differential
pressure triggers for backwash. To engage a backwash, the operator would have to do it
manually by depressing the selector switch on the control valve.
• Media Replacement. Based on the analytical results from the final sampling event on March
16, 2010, total arsenic concentrations in the treated water were 0.6 and 0.4 (ig/L for Vessels
A and B, respectively. The total arsenic concentration in the combined effluent did not
exceed the MCL of 10 (ig/L; therefore, the media was not replaced during the study period.
Based on the estimate provided by the vendor, breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L was
expected to occur after treating approximately 14,484,000 gal (51,000 BV) or 21 months of
system operation assuming an estimated daily throughput of 22,500 gal.
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by AdEdge on January 7, 2008. The following briefly
summarizes some of the predemonstration activities, including permitting, building preparation, and,
installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. Because the Tohono O'odham Nation is governed by Tribal Sovereignty and
IHS performed the work related to site engineering and system/building tie-ins, the issuing of permits was
not required. Instead, the vendor provided IHS and TOUA with the system layout, footprint, and
electrical requirement for all system components to facilitate the facility's building design and
construction.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. A new structure was designed and funded by IHS and constructed by
TOUA to house the treatment system and other necessary components (i.e., pH adjustment system and
booster system). The new structure consisted ofalOftx 12ft concrete slab covered by a 20 ft * 20 ft
ramada shelter enclosed on the sides with corrugated metal panels. A fence was constructed around the
building and 5,000 gal storage tank for the booster system for additional security. Figure 4-11 shows the
new building and storage tank.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived onsite in March 2007,
but installation was delayed due to construction upgrades being made to the well site, which were not
completed until December 2007. The vendor was onsite for the system installation and shakedown during
the week of January 7, 2008. Onsite activities included hydraulic testing, media loading, freeboard
measurements, and media backwash along with the installation and shakedown of the CO2 pH adjustment
system. The vendor returned to the site the week of February 4, 2008 to train the operator and put the
system online. Battelle was onsite on March 31 and April 1, 2008, to inspect the system and provide
training to the operator for sampling and data collection. As a result of the system inspection, a punch-list
of items was identified. Table 4-4 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken. In
addition, these problems are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.3.
26
-------
Figure 4-11. New Treatment Building with 5,000 gal Storage Tank (left)
Table 4-4. System Punch-List/Operational Issues
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
Well pump hour meter not
provided for each well
CO2 regulators not functioning
properly
Sample tap not installed at
combined effluent location (TT)
pH controller display not
working
Pneumatic flow control valve
malfunctioning
CO2 manifold leaking
Corrective Action(s) Taken
Not in request for quotation (RFQ)
to vendor; two hours meters
purchased from AdEdge and
installed by TOUA
Two new CO2 regulators sent to site
by AdEdge
Sample tap supplied by AdEdge and
installed by TOUA
Destin North Bay CO2 pH
adjustment unit replaced with new
unit designed and installed by
AdEdge.
Resolution Date
07/07/08
05/15/08
06/08
07/10/08
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the system performance
evaluation were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-5.
From February 13, 2008, through March 19, 2010, the system operated for atotal of 3,353 hr. Due to a
27
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of APU System Operation
Operational Parameter
Performance Evaluation Study Duration
Number of Days System Operating (day)
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV)(a)
Average (Range) of Instantaneous Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range) of EBCT per Vessel (min)(d)
Average (Range) of System Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of System Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap Across System (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap Across Vessel A (psi)
Average (Range) of Ap Across Vessel B (psi)
Value
02/13/08 to 03/19/10
765
3,353
4.38
11,686,000
41,148
Vessel A
29.5 (9.4-52.8)(b'c)
Vessel B
30.6(20.1-54.2)
Vessel A
4.8 (2.7-15. l)(b'c)
Vessel B
4.7(2.6-7.1)
9.0 (5.0-18.0)
5.1 (2.0-10.0)
4.0 (0.0-14.0)
2.4 (0.0-10.0)
2.7 (0.0-9.0)
(a) Calculated based on 38 ft3 of media; 1 BV = 284 gal.
(b) Not including two outliers on November 23, 2009.
(c) Not including values from April 30 to May 20, 2009; flowmeter not functioning.
lack of hour meters on the well pumps since system startup until July 8, 2008, the system operating time
during this period was estimated based on the average daily operating time of 4.38 hr/day from July 8,
2008, through the end of the performance evaluation study.
Figure 4-12 compares calculated flowrates at each wellhead with instantaneous and calculated flowrates
through each vessel. Calculated flowrates were obtained by dividing incremental volumes recorded by a
totalizer by respective incremental operating times recorded from the well pump hour meter.
Instantaneous flowrates were recorded by the operator from a flow meter. Because the wellheads did not
have flowmeters, no instantaneous flowrates were recorded. Calculated flowrates for Wells No. 1 and
No. 2 averaged 59.9 and 60.3 gpm, respectively. The flowrate through each vessel was consistent at
approximately 30 gpm with slight fluctuations being observed periodically. The exceptions occurred
during the period when the vessel totalizers were not operating correctly, such as from April 30, 2009,
through May 20, 2009, for Vessel A. Excluding the data collected during this period and an outlier
recorded on November 23, 2009, also for Vessel A, an average instantaneous flowrate of 29.5 gpm was
calculated for Vessel A and 30.6 gpm for Vessel B. Since the vessels were configured in parallel, the
flow through each vessel should have been one-half (i.e., 30 gpm) of the total flow from the wellhead.
At the end of the study, the system had treated 11,686,000 gal of water based on the totalizers installed on
the vessels. This amount is comparable to the 11,627,700 gal recorded from the well head totalizers. The
amount of water treated was equivalent to 41,148 BV based on the 38 ft3 of media in both vessels (19 ft3
per vessel). Based on the instantaneous flowrates to the vessels, the average EBCT was 4.8 min for
Vessel A and 4.7 min for Vessel B, which were very close to the design value of 4.5 min as presented in
Table 4-3.
28
-------
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-Well No. 1 Calculated Flow/rate
-Well No. 2 Calculated Flow/rate
-Vessel A Instantaneous Flow/rate
Vessel A Calculated Flow/rate
Vessel B Instantaneous Flow/rate
-Vessel B Calculated Flow/rate
2/2/2008 4/22/2008 7/11/2008 9/29/2008 12/18/2008 3/8/2009 5/27/2009 8/15/2009 11/3/2009 1/22/2010 4/12/2010
Date
Figure 4-12. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates
Pressure readings of the APU system were monitored at the system inlet and outlet, while only
differential pressures (Ap) were monitored across the vessels. Throughout the duration of the
performance evaluation period, system inlet and outlet pressure readings averaged 9.0 and 5.1 psi,
respectively. The average Ap across the system was 4.0 psi. Ap readings ranged from 0 to 10 psi and
averaged 2.4 psi across Vessel A and from 0 to 9 psi and averaged 2.7 psi across Vessel B. Due to low
differential pressures across the system and vessels, no media backwash was performed during the
performance evaluation study. Figure 4-13 presents system pressure readings at the inlet and outlet along
with calculated differential pressures. Figure 4-14 presents differential pressures across Vessels A and B.
4.4.2 Residual Management. No residuals were produced because neither backwash nor media
replacement was required during the evaluation period.
4.4.3 CO2 pH Adjustment System. As described in Section 4.2, pH adjustment using a CO2 gas
flow control system was a process component. During system startup in early February 2008, problems
with regulators on the CO2 gas cylinders were observed. Leaks were detected in the SS hoses that
connected the regulators on the CO2 cylinders to the pH adjustment system. In addition, the low pressure
side (delivery pressure) of one of the regulators continually read 150 psi. The problems with the
regulators persisted until the vendor sent a new set of regulators to the site on May 15, 2008. Since then,
TOUA had to have one of the regulators rebuilt twice and the other once. Rebuilding the regulators has
kept them functioning properly throughout the evaluation period.
29
-------
-System Inlet Pressure
-System Outlet Pressure
System Differential Pressure
0
03/18/08 06/06/08 08/25/08 11/13/08 02/01/09 04/22/09 07/11/09 09/29/09 12/18/09 03/08/10
Figure 4-13. System Pressure Readings
Vessel A Differential Pressure D Vessel B Differential Pressure
01/13/08 04/02/08 06/21/08 09/09/08 11/28/08 02/16/09 05/07/09 07/26/09 10/14/09 01/02/10 03/23/10
Date
Figure 4-14. Differential Pressures Across Vessels A and B
30
-------
A number of operational issues arose during the use of the Destin North Bay CO2 pH adjustment/control
system. On May 2, 2008, the operator reported that the display on the Honeywell pH controller was no
longer working. After contacting the manufacturer, it was confirmed that there was a batch of pH
displays malfunctioning and that they would replace the display free of charge. Also on May 2, 2008, a
leak from the connection between the stainless steel piping and pneumatic flow control valve was
observed. On May 9, 2008, the CO2 manifold was found to not be functioning properly. Because of
concerns over the operational issues, the vendor proposed on May 30, 2008, to replace the Destin North
Bay system with a new CO2 pH adjustment system designed and assembled by AdEdge. The new system
was installed by the vendor on July 10, 2008.
On September 16, 2008, the operator noticed water in tubing in the system control panel, which,
according to the vendor, was caused by a malfunctioning check valve and a malfunctioning solenoid
valve on the outlet line to the injector. The operator reported again on October 28, 2008, the presence of
water in the same tubing and that the system was no longer able to adjust the pH to below 7.1 based on
the display on the pH control panel. After checking with the vendor for the status of replacement part
shipment, it confirmed that one three-way solenoid valve and two check valves had been shipped on
November 7, 2008. The replacement parts were apparently lost during shipping and had to be resent. On
December 10, 2008, the operator received one shipment with one three-way solenoid valve, but no check
valves. On December 11, 2008, the operator reported continuing presence of water in the tubing even
after the installation of the new three-way solenoid. By January 15, 2009, the rotameter on the system
control panel stopped working and water had leaked out of the tubing connections into the control panel.
In addition, the pH would not go below 7.6 based on the display on the pH control panel. It must be
noted, however, that pH measurements by a field pH meter during this period continued to show
acceptable pH values as presented in Appendix B (e.g., 7.2 and 7.0 following Vessels A and B,
respectively, on November 18, 2008, and 6.9 and 7.0 on December 16, 2008 [see Figure 4-17 in Section
4.5.1]). The differences observed between the field and inline pH measurements are further discussed in
Section 4.5.1.
On February 16, 2009, an engineer was dispatched by the vendor to the site to fix the pH adjustment
system. An additional solenoid valve was installed on the outlet line and the malfunctioning check valve
was replaced. Water was drained from the system control panel and the delivery pressure was increased
to approximately 80 psi. When the vendor left the site, the pH display was reading 7.0. No additional
issues with the pH adjustment unit were experienced after the onsite visit.
4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Operational irregularities experienced during
the demonstration study were almost entirely related to the pH adjustment system (as discussed in Section
4.4.3), vessel flow meters/totalizers, Y-strainers, and chlorination addition system.
On April 30, 2009, the paddlewheel in the Vessel A flowmeter/totalizer stopped rotating due to solids
buildup, which was cleaned off by the operator on May 27, 2009. Quarterly checking and cleaning of
paddlewheels were incorporated into the routine maintenance schedule. Problems also were experienced
with the Well No. 2 flowmeter, which stopped working on September 1, 2009. After troubleshooting and
cleaning by the Water Department, the meter was placed back into service approximately two weeks later.
Starting on September 30, 2009, higher-than-usual differential pressures (i.e., > 4 psi) were observed
across both vessels and had continued to increase to approximately 10 psi within three weeks. The cause
of the pressure increase was determined to be accumulation of sediment in the Y-strainers located on the
inlet lines to the valve controller on each vessel. Four new strainers were therefore purchased to allow the
operator to rotate the strainers on a quarterly basis. The dirty strainers were removed and cleaned for the
next changeout.
31
-------
On October 20, 2009, the operator noticed that chlorine residuals across the system were uncharacteristic-
ally low. Upon further inspection, the operator found that there was a hole in the line leading to the
injector. The line was repaired and the NaOCl solution was replenished. No further difficulties were
encountered with the chlorine addition systems during the study.
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. Two pre-treatment processes were required at the Covered
Wells site, i.e., pH adjustment and prechlorination. CO2 was used to lower pH values of raw water from
as high as 8.4 to a target value of 7.0 to maintain effective arsenic adsorption by AD-33 media. The CO2
injection point and inline pH probe used to monitor and control pH were installed downstream of the
chlorine injection point. O&M of the pH adjustment system required routine system pressure checks and
regular changeout of 50-lb CO2 cylinders. The operator also recorded daily pH readings from the inline
probe and CO2 gas flowrates from the rotameter on the control panel. The use of CO2 for pH adjustment
also required safety training for and awareness by the operator, due to potential hazards.
For prechlorination, the existing chlorination system at each well was utilized to maintain a target free
residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as C12) or less. Since the original chlorine system was used, no additional
maintenance or skills were required for its operation. The operator monitored chlorine tank levels and
measured residual chlorine levels at different locations across the treatment train.
System Automation. The system was fitted with a valve controller on each vessel, which was capable of
performing automatic backwash when triggered. All backwash triggers, however, were disabled to allow
for better management of backwash events. The system also was equipped with an automated CO2 gas
flow control system, which included a liquid CO2 supply assembly, a pH control panel with automatic
and manual models, a CO2 "Venturi style" injector, and an inline pH probe located downstream of the
injection point.
Operator Skill Requirements. The skill requirements to operate the system demanded a higher level of
awareness and attention than the previous system. The system offered increased operational flexibility,
which, in turn, required increased monitoring of system parameters. The operator's knowledge of the
system limitations and typical operational parameters were key to achieve system performance objectives.
The operator was onsite typically one to two days a week and spent approximately 1.5 hr/day to perform
visual inspections and record system operating parameters. The basis for the operator skills began with
onsite training and a thorough review of the system operations manual; however, increased knowledge
and system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational experience.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Checking the CO2 cylinders and
supply lines for leaks and adequate pressure also were performed. Typically, the operator performed
these duties while onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for prechlorination; the
operator ordered chemicals as done prior to the installation of the APU system. CO2 used for pH
adjustment was ordered on an as-needed basis. Typically, four 50-lb cylinders were used per month. The
CO2 cylinders were delivered to TOUA by the CO2 supplier and then transported to the site
approximately 20 miles by the operator. Empty cylinders were returned to the CO2 supplier for reuse.
32
-------
4.5
System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the treatment
plant, backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,
manganese, uranium, and vanadium concentrations measured at the five sampling locations across the
treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B
contains a complete set of analytical results through the performance evaluation study. Treatment plant
water samples were collected on 28 occasions (including one set of duplicate samples collected during
the November 18, 2008 sampling event), with field speciation performed during six of the 28 occasions at
IN, AP, TA,TB, and TT sampling locations. Sampling at the TT location occurred only four times due to
the absence of a TT tap until June 2008. The results of the water samples collected throughout the
treatment plant are discussed below.
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Uranium,
and Vanadium
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Sampling
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Sample
Count
28
28
27(a)
28
4
5(b)
6
6
6
4
5w
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
4
5(d)
6
6
6
4
24
24
24
24
4
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
29.0
26.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
33.7
34.2
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
33.3
34.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Maximum
38.6
39.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
36.8
36.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
2.0
2.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
.0
.1
.1
.0
.0
36.4
35.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
60
32
77
<25
<25
Average
34.9
34.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
35.0
35.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
34.5
35.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Standard
Deviation
2.2
2.9
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.8
-
-
-
12.5
6.3
13.8
-
-
33
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Uranium,
and Vanadium (Continued)
Parameter
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
Sampling
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Sample
Count
6
6
5(e)
6
4
24
24
24
24
4
6
6
6
6
4
7
7
7
7
0
20
20
19(f)
20
4
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.1
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
7.0
7.0
<0.1
<0.1
-
23.5
25.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
Maximum
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
2.8
3.0
2.1
1.3
<0.1
3.2
0.4
2.7
<0.1
0.1
8.3
8.4
<0.1
<0.1
-
38.1
39.7
6.2
3.7
3.7
Average
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.2
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
7.7
7.7
<0.1
<0.1
-
32.2
32.5
1.6
1.4
1.2
Standard
Deviation
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.2
-
1.2
0.1
1.1
-
0.0
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
3.4
3.6
2.0
1.5
1.4
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
(a) One outlier (i.e., 31.8 ug/L) from 08/18/09 omitted.
(b) One outlier (i.e., 22.0 ug/L) from 04/01/08 omitted.
(c) One outlier (i.e., 14.6 ug/L) from 04/01/08 omitted.
(d) One outlier (i.e., 21.9 ug/L) from 04/01/08 omitted.
(e) One outlier (i.e., 78 ug/L) from 05/28/08 omitted.
(f) One outlier (i.e., 31.8 ug/L) from 08/18/09 omitted.
Arsenic. Figure 4-15 contains three bar charts showing concentrations of participate arsenic, soluble
As(III), and soluble As(V) at the IN, AP, TA, and TB sampling locations. Speciation results at the TT
location were not presented in the figure because they were very similar to those at the TA and TB
locations. Speciation results at the IN location from the April 1, 2008 sampling event contained outliers
and were omitted from Figure 4-15.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 29.0 to 38.6 (ig/L and averaged 34.9 (ig/L. Soluble
As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 33.3 to 36.4 (ig/L and averaging 32.4 (ig/L. Soluble
As(III) also was present in source water, although very low, ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 (ig/L and averaging
0.5 (ig/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations also were low, ranging from 0.3 to 2.0 (ig/L and averaging 1.2
(ig/L. The arsenic concentrations measured were consistent with those collected previously during source
water sampling (Table 4-1).
34
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
P
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Sampling
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
°c
Sample
Count
24
24
24
24
4
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
4
24
24
24
24
4
23
23
23
23
4
24
24
24
24
4
20
20
20
20
3
llw
llw
n(b>
n(b>
2(c)
Concentration
Minimum
144
140
134
139
146
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
22.2
21.6
21.4
20.5
21.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
24.4
24.5
18.7
20.7
26.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
7.8
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.6
26.2
27.4
26.8
27.2
30.6
Maximum
156
156
201
196
192
.2
.4
.2
.2
.1
24.8
24.6
27.1
28.1
23.8
.3
.8
.2
.2
.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
27.8
27.5
32.6
33.8
34.7
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.0
0.3
8.4
7.9
7.5
7.6
7.1
34.1
33.7
34.0
34.4
34.7
Average
150
148
155
159
174
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
23.8
23.6
23.7
24.0
22.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
26.2
26.2
26.9
27.3
31.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.1
8.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
30.6
31.8
31.9
32.3
32.7
Standard
Deviation
4.1
3.9
15.1
15.9
21.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.1
2.2
2.9
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.9
3.0
2.9
3.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
3.0
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.9
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Oxidation-
Reduction
Potential
(ORP)
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
IN
AP
TA
TB
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
0
9
15
15
15
3
9
16
15
15
3
7
7
7
7
4
7
7
7
7
4
7
7
7
7
4
Concentration
Minimum
3.7
3.1
3.0
3.4
-
225
287
289
320
-
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
29.7
32.9
33.4
30.9
37.5
21.3
23.5
23.2
21.2
27.2
8.4
9.4
9.2
9.5
10.3
Maximum
3.7
3.1
3.0
3.4
-
243
303
321
351
-
0.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
0.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.9
47.3
48.8
94.5
93.0
86.7
36.2
37.3
67.8
66.1
60.0
11.1
11.4
27.4
26.8
26.7
Average
-
-
-
-
-
234
295
305
336
-
0.0
.5
.5
.4
.7
0.0
.4
.5
.4
.6
37.5
38.7
52.2
50.5
61.0
27.4
28.3
37.3
35.6
42.5
10.1
10.4
14.8
14.9
18.5
Standard
Deviation
-
-
-
-
-
12.3
11.5
23.1
21.5
-
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
5.7
5.2
28.6
27.2
25.8
4.9
4.6
20.6
19.4
17.5
1.0
0.7
8.1
7.9
8.4
i less than detection
11/18/08, 12/16/08,
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations
(a) Nine outliers all at 25.0°C on 05/28/08, 07/08/08, 10/07/08,
04/15/09, 09/15/09, 01/19/10 omitted.
(b) Eight outliers all at 25.0°C on 07/08/08, 10/07/08, 11/18/08, 12/16/08,02/17/09,04/15/09,
09/15/09, 01/19/10 omitted.
(c) One outlier at 25.0°C on 10/07/08 omitted.
limit for calculations.
02/17/09,
Because most arsenic was present as soluble As(V), oxidation with chlorine was not required. After
chlorination, As(III) concentrations exhibited little change. Free and total chlorine residuals were
monitored at the IN, AP, TA, TB, and TT locations to ensure that the target chlorine residual level was
properly maintained for disinfection purposes. Measurements at the IN location were discontinued after
the September 15, 2009 sampling event. Total chlorine levels at the AP location ranged from 0.0 to
2.1 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.4 mg/L (as C12); free chlorine levels ranged from 0.1 to 2.2 mg/L (as
C12) and averaged 1.5 mg/L (as C12) (Table 4-7). The total and free chlorine measurements from
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
• As(Particulate) •As(lll) DAs(V) |
Arsenic Species after Chlorination and pH Adjustment (AP)
I
I
£ 20
1
5
15
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AP, TA, and TB Sampling Locations
37
-------
Arsenic Species after Tank A (TA)
i
i
• As(Particulate) DAs(lll) DAs(V)
Arsenic Species after Tank B (TB)
• As(Particulate) •As(lll) DAs(V)^
Figure 4-15. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AP, TA, and TB
Sampling Locations (Continued)
38
-------
July 30, 2008, were omitted from all sampling locations due to the uncharacteristically high levels
measured. The total and free residual chlorine levels measured at the TA,TB, and TT locations were very
similar to those at the AP location, indicating little or no chlorine demand through the AD-33 vessels.
As shown by the samples taken during the last sampling event on March 16, 2010, after treating
approximately 41,000 BV of water, total arsenic concentrations following Vessels A and B were still as
low as 0.6 and 0.4 (ig/L, respectively. Based on the vendor's estimate, total arsenic breakthrough at
10 (ig/L would occur at 51,000 BV (or 14,484,000 gal). Figure 4-16 presents total arsenic concentrations
at the IN, AP, TA, and TB locations plotted against bed volumes.
Total As vs. Bed Volume
-AtWellheadflN) Afterchorination & pH Adjustment {AP) —*— After Tank A {TA) —•—AfterTank B{TB)
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves (1BV = 284 gal)
Iron and Manganese. Iron and manganese were analyzed through November 17, 2009. The average
total iron concentration in raw water was less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Average total iron
concentrations across the treatment train also were below the MDL. Total manganese levels in raw water
were low, ranging from 0.1 to 2.8 (ig/L and averaging 0.7 (ig/L. Manganese existed primarily in the
soluble form prior to chlorination, after which manganese existed mostly as particulate. Total manganese
levels were reduced to an average of 0.3 and 0.1 (ig/L following Vessels A and B, respectively.
Uranium and Vanadium. Uranium was detected in the initial source water samples collected by Battelle
on December 7, 2004 (Table 4-1) and its levels were monitored through September 2, 2008. Total
uranium concentrations in the raw water ranged from 7.0 to 8.3 (ig/L and averaged 7.7 (ig/L. Total
uranium levels were reduced to below the MDL of 0.1 (ig/L following each adsorption vessel. Since
uranium levels in the raw water were always below their MCL of 30 (ig/L and levels in the treated water
39
-------
were continually below the MDL, uranium analysis was discontinued in favor of vanadium analysis.
Total vanadium levels in raw ranged from 23.5 to 38.1 (ig/L and averaged 32.2 (ig/L. Total vanadium
concentrations averaged 1.6 and 1.4 (ig/L after Vessels A and B, respectively. Currently, there is no
MCL for vanadium.
Competing Anions. Phosphorus and silica, which might influence arsenic adsorption, were measured at
the five sampling locations across the treatment train through November 17, 2009, when the list of
analytes was reduced to only include arsenic and vanadium. Phosphorus was below its MDL of 10 (ig/L
for all sampling events during the evaluation period. Silica concentrations in the raw water ranged from
24.4 to 27.8 mg/L and averaged 26.2 mg/L. Little silica removal by the adsorption vessels was observed
during the study.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-7, pH values of the raw water varied from 7.8 to
8.4 and averaged 8.0. pH values following CO2 injection for pH adjustment at the AP location varied
from 6.5 to 7.9 and averaged 6.9, which is just below the target value of 7.0. Figure 4-17 shows the pH
of the well water before and after pH adjustment by CO2 as measured by the operator with a field pH
probe during sampling events. For comparison, pH readings recorded from the inline pH probe, which
was connected to the pH controller on the control panel, were plotted alongside the measurements made
by the operator. pH values of the adjusted water, as measured by the inline probe, ranged from 5.5 to 8.5
S.U. and averaged 7.1 S.U., which is somewhat higher than that measured with a field pH probe. The
discrepancies observed might have been caused by instrumentation errors, being that the field pH probe
used by the operator was calibrated before each use and that the inline pH probe connected to the pH
controller was calibrated twice during the entire study period. Nonetheless, the higher pH values
measured with the field pH probe were to the contrary of those observed at two other arsenic
demonstration sites where CO2 also was used for pH adjustments (Cumming et al., 2009; Williams et al.,
2010). Lower pH values measured at these sites were thought to be caused by CO2 degassing during
sample collection and analysis.
Alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 144 to 156 mg/L and averaged 150 mg/L in raw water. As
expected, alkalinity after pH adjustment and adsorption remained relatively unchanged at 148 to 159
mg/L (on average), since CO2, instead of mineral acids, was used for pH adjustment.
Hardness. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for hardness only on speciation events.
Total hardness, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 29.7 to 47.3 mg/L and averaged 37.5 mg/L in raw water.
Total hardness existed primarily as calcium hardness. Total hardness levels remained relatively
unchanged from IN to the AP sampling location. On March 17, 2009 and July 14, 2009, significantly
elevated total hardness levels (approximately 2-3 times the average concentration at IN and AP) were
observed at TA, TB, and TT for unknown reasons. Slightly elevated total hardness levels at TA, TB, and
TT also were also seen on November 17, 2009. Due to the elevated levels on the aforementioned
sampling dates, the average total hardness increased to 52.2, 50.5, and 61.0 mg/L following Tank A,
Tank B, and TT, respectively. The hardness levels at TA, TB, and TT from the remaining four sampling
events were somewhat lower or similar to the concentrations at IN and AP.
Sulfate concentrations in raw water ranged from 22.2 to 24.8 mg/L and averaged 23.8 mg/L. After pH
adjustment and adsorption, sulfate levels remained unchanged at 23.6 to 24.0 mg/L (on average).
Fluoride results ranged from 1.0 to 1.2 mg/L and averaged 1.1 mg/L following both treatment vessels.
The results indicated that the adsorptive media did not affect the amount of fluoride in water after
treatment.
40
-------
-Raw Water —•—pH Adjusted Water - By Field pH Probe —*—pH Adjusted Water - By Inline pH Probe
in 7.0 -
01/28/08 04/17/08 07/06/08 09/24/08 12/13/08 03/03/09 05/22/09 08/10/09 10/29/09 01/17/10 04/07/10
Date
Figure 4-17. pH Values Before and After Adjustment
Due to difficulties experienced by the operator with the equipment, DO was measured only once while
ORP was measured twice. On May 28, 2008, both measurements were discontinued. DO levels ranged
from 3.0 to 3.7 mg/L throughout the treatment train. ORP readings averaged 234 mV in raw water, but
increased to an average of 295 mV after chlorination.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash was not performed during the performance
evaluation study.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, four baseline distribution system water samples were collected from three residences, previously
used for LCR sampling, on October 19, 2005, November 22, 2005, December 14, 2005, and January 24,
2006. Following startup of the treatment system, distribution system water sampling continued on a
quarterly basis at the same three locations, with samples collected from July 2008 through October 2009.
Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the distribution system sampling.
The most noticeable change in the distribution system samples since the system began operation was a
decrease in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations averaged 35.6, 37.3, and 36.6 (ig/L for
the first draw samples at the DS1, DS2, and DS3 sampling locations, respectively. After the performance
evaluation study began, arsenic concentrations at DS1, DS2, and DS3 averaged 0.5, 1.5, and 0.7 (ig/L,
respectively. Although arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were low, there were three
sampling events (i.e., July 8, 2008, April 15, 2009, and October 20, 2009) when the arsenic levels in the
distribution water were higher than those in the system effluent. It is surmised that some redissolution
41
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
10/19/05
11/22/05(a)
12/14/05
01/24/06
07/08/08
10/16/08(b)
01/20/09
04/15/09(c)
07/14/09(d)
10/20/09(e)
DS1
Tautolo #0020-409-52600
LCR
1st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
7.0
13.3
NA
10.3
7.2
NA
9.0
9.5
7.3
NA
Q.
s.u.
8.1
8.0
8.3
8.2
7.0
NA
8.2
7.0
6.8
NA
Alkalinity
mg/L
158
154
154
154
163
NA
142
152
158
NA
3.
M9/L
30.6
36.5
34.2
41.0
1.2
NA
0.3
0.3
0.2
NA
o
1L.
M9/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NA
<25
<25
<25
NA
c
S
M9/L
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.1
NA
<0.1
0.2
0.1
NA
.a
a.
M9/L
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
NA
0.7
2.4
2.0
NA
5
M9/L
36.6
22.2
9.0
8.2
260
NA
34
99.6
74.8
NA
DS2
Saraficio #0020-409-51 200
LCR
1 st draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
8.9
12.5
NA
8.0
9.0
8.3
7.5
7.8
NA
7.3
Q.
S.U.
7.9
8.1
8.2
8.1
7.0
7.3
7.5
7.1
NA
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
158
145
150
154
160
157
158
161
NA
148
3.
M9/L
31.7
39.5
36.3
41.6
1.4
0.5
0.4
4.0
NA
1.3
o
1L.
M9/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NA
<25
c
S
M9/L
2.3
1.1
2.0
0.3
0.7
0.2
<0.1
0.2
NA
0.7
.a
a.
M9/L
<0.1
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4
NA
0.5
5
M9/L
4.3
12.8
4.0
9.1
220
166
156
145
NA
169
DS3
Johnson #0020-409-50200
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation Time
hrs
8.2
8.0
NA
7.0
9.5
7.0
7.0
NA
7.0
7.0
Q.
S.U.
7.9
8.1
8.2
8.3
6.8
7.2
8.0
NA
6.8
7.3
Alkalinity
mg/L
158
150
145
154
147
155
158
NA
162
154
3
M9/L
30.4
40.3
34.2
41.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
NA
0.5
1.3
o
1L.
M9/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
NA
<25
<25
c
S
M9/L
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
NA
<0.1
0.5
.a
a.
M9/L
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
2.9
1.8
0.5
NA
1.8
1.1
5
M9/L
81.8
1.6
10.6
1.2
283
39.5
138
NA
124
78.2
(a) DS2 sampled on 021/21/05.
(b) DS1 not available for sampling on 10/16/08.
(c) DS3 not available for sampling on 04/15/09.
(d) DS2 not available for sampling on 07/14/09.
(e) DS 1 not available for sampling on 10/20/09.
BL = baseline sampling; NA = not available.
Lead action level =15 ug/L; Copper action level = 1,300 ug/L
Alkalinity measured in mg/L as CaCO3.
-------
—*—AfterVessel A (TA)
~4" AfterVessel B (TB)
«• DS1
D DS2
O DS3
20,000 25,000
Bed Volume (BV)
Figure 4-18. Comparison of Arsenic Concentrations in System Effluent and Distribution System
and/or resuspension of arsenic particles might have occurred in the distribution system. Figure 4-18
shows arsenic levels in the system effluent and distribution system plotted against BV.
Lead concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.1 to 2.9 (ig/L, with none of the samples
exceeding the action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 34.1 to 283 (ig/L, with no
samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level. Measured pH values ranged from 6.8 to 8.2 and averaged
7.2, which were 0.3 units higher than the average pH value immediately after the adsorption vessels.
Higher pH values in the distribution system might be due to CO2 degassing. Compared to an average
value of 8.1 before the treatment sytem became operational, the lowered pH values appeared to have
some effects on the lead and copper concentrations in the distribution system. Lead and copper
concentrations were observed to increase slightly after the system was put into service. Before the system
was put into service, lead levels averaged <0.1, 0.1, and 0.1 (ig/L at DS1, DS2, and DS3, respectively,
while copper levels averaged 19.0, 7.6, and 23.8 (ig/L, respectively. After the system was put into
service, lead levels averaged 1.4, 0.5, and 1.6 (ig/L, respectively, and copper levels averaged 117, 171,
and 133 (ig/L, respectively.
Alkalinity levels exhibited no change, with concentrations ranging from 142 to 163 mg/L (as CaCO3).
Total iron concentrations were always less than the MDL of 25 (ig/L for all distribution sampling events,
including baseline sampling. Total Mn concentrations in the distribution system samples were typically
low, ranging from <0.1 to 1.1 (ig/L.
43
-------
4.6
System Cost
System cost is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M
cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical power use,
and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
treatment system was $115,306 (see Table 4-9). The equipment cost was $86,018 (or 75% of the total
capital investment), which included $48,715 for the skid-mounted unit, $18,402 for the CO2 pH control
system, $13,861 for the AD-33 media ($365/ft3 or $10.42/lb to fill two vessels), $992 for the gravel
underbedding, $1,339 for additional sample taps and totalizer/meters, and $2,709 for shipping.
The site engineering cost was $12,897, or 11% of the total capital investment. Because an engineering
plan or a permit submittal package was not required for the Covered Wells site, the engineering cost
represents a small fraction of total capital cost.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, and perform system shakedown
and startup. The installation cost was $16,391, or 14% of the total capital investment.
Table 4-9. Capital Investment Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System
Description
Quantity
Cost
%of
Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
APU Skid-Mounted System
CO2 pH Control System
AD-33 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Sample Taps & Totalizer/Meters(a)
Shipping
Equipment Total
1
1
38 ft3
-
-
-
-
$48,715
$18,402
$13,861
$992
$1,339
$2,709
86,018
-
-
-
-
-
-
75
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Engineering Total
73 hr
2 day
-
-
-
$6,967
$1,008
$4,594
$329
$12,897
-
-
-
-
11
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor
Subcontractor Labor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
60 hr
-
-
-
$7,256
$9,135
$16,391
$115,306
-
-
14
100
(a) Additional taps and totalizer/meters for study purposes.
The total capital cost of $115,306 was normalized to the system's design capacity of 63 gpm (90,720
gpd), which resulted in $l,830/gpm of design capacity ($1.27/gpd). The capital cost also was converted
to an annualized cost of $10,884/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7%
interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a
44
-------
week at the system design flowrate of 63 gpm to produce 33,112,800 gal of water per year, the unit
capital cost would be $0.33/1,000 gal. Because the system operated only 4.38 hr/day at approximately 60
gpm on average (see Table 4-5), producing an estimated 5,755,320 gal of water annually, the unit capital
cost increased to $1.89/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for items such as
media replacement and disposal, CO2 usage, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-10). Although
media replacement did not occur during the performance evaluation study, the media replacement cost
would have represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $18,405 to change out the
media in both vessels. This media changeout cost would include the cost for media, the gravel
underbedding, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, and media disposal fee. This cost was used to
estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media
run length to the 10 |o,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-19).
The chemical cost associated with system operation included the cost for NaOCl for prechlorination and
CO2 gas for pH adjustment. NaOCl had already been used at the site prior to the installation of the APU
unit for disinfection purposes. The presence of the APU system did not affect the use rate of the NaOCl
solution. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was negligible. During the performance
evaluation period the 50-lb CO2 cylinders were replaced a total of 91 times, or once every eight days.
Each changeout cost $38.74, which included the replacement and delivery charges. The CO2 cost for the
study period was $3,525 or $0.30/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-10. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU Arsenic Adsorption System
Cost Category Value Assumptions
Estimated Volume Processed (gal)
11,686,000
During 765-day study period; equivalent to
5,576,000 gal annually
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media Replacement ($)
Labor, Travel, Freight, & Disposal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal
($/l,000 gal)
$13,861
$4,544
See Figure 4-19
$365/ftJfor38ftj
Based upon media run length at 10-|j,g/L
arsenic breakthrough
CO 2 Cost
CO2 Cost ($)
Unit CO2 Cost ($/l,000 gal)
$3,525
$0.30
Based on cost of CO2 cylinders (50-lb) for pH
adjustment
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($/l,000 gal)
$0.05
Includes power used by the booster pumps
Labor Cost
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor through Study (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Unit Labor Cost ($/l,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.3
251
$5,522
$0.47
See Figure 4-19
1.5 hr/visit, 1.5 visit/week (on average)
109 week through study
Labor rate = $22.00/hr
Media replacement cost (based upon media
run length at 10-|ag/L arsenic breakthrough) +
$0.30 (CO2 cost) + $0.05 (electrical cost)+
$0.47 (labor cost)
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by TOUA prior to system installation and since startup indicated
an additional 3,304 kWh per year was required to run the system. The cost of the additional electricity
45
-------
was $299.75, which included the power necessary to run the three booster pumps. The electrical cost
associated with the operation of the system was calculated to be $0.05/1,000 gal of water treated.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
1.5 hr/day, 1 to 2 days per week, or 2.3 hr/week (on average). The labor cost incurred during the
performance evaluation study was $5,522 or $0.47/1,000 gal of water treated. This estimation assumed
that maintenance and operational procedures were consistently performed through the completion of the
performance evaluation study.
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50 -
$2.00 -
$1.50 -
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
90
100
Note: One bed volume equals 38 ft3 (284 gal)
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement and Other Operation and Maintenance Cost
46
-------
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. 2006. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Covered Wells, Tohono O 'odham Nation, Arizona. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Farley, D. 2004. Preliminary Arsenic Feasibility Study: A Study to Evaluate and Recommend Options
for Reducing Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water on the Tohono O 'odham Nation, Indian Health
Services, Sells, AZ.
Cumming, L.J., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Rollinsford, NH, Final Performance Evaluation
Report. EPA/600/R-09/017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Williams, S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in
Bruni, TX, Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-10/040. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
47
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date
02/13/08
02/20/08
02/21/08
02/22/08
02/25/08
02/27/08
02/28/08
03/03/08
03/07/08
03/10/08
03/12/08
03/13/08
03/14/08
03/17/08
03/18/08
03/19/08
03/20/08
03/24/08
03/27/08
03/31/08
04/01/08
04/04/08
04/07/08
04/11/08
04/15/08
04/17/08
04/21/08
04/23/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/02/08
05/05/08
05/06/08
05/08/08
05/12/08
05/16/08
05/19/08
05/22/08
05/27/08
05/28/08
06/02/08
06/04/08
06/09/08
06/13/08
06/16/08
06/20/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/01/08
07/07/08
07/08/08
07/14/08
07/16/08
07/18/08
07/25/08
07/28/08
07/30/08
08/06/08
08/11/08
08/13/08
08/15/08
08/18/08
08/22/08
Time
NA
13:31
11:18
12:47
15:00
10:00
13:00
15:35
14:32
13:53
14:20
10:31
11:02
9:45
10:22
9:42
14:38
10:15
13:05
9:26
10:25
10:25
9:03
11:36
10:35
15:27
10:58
11:44
15:15
10:15
12:16
9:45
15:02
10:50
12:40
14:20
14:36
10:30
11:00
13:05
9:04
10:50
15:30
11:52
14:00
15:03
15:00
12:20
13:53
12:20
12:08
14:47
16:00
11:45
11:50
11:10
NA
9:42
14:35
16:00
9:05
13:15
15:00
Well
Running
Well#1
or 2
NA
NR
2
NR
2
NR
2
2
2
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
1
NR
2
NR
NR
NR
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
Well No. 1
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
9.8
10.9
17.5
20.0
24.9
32.3
36.2
38.5
40.8
55.0
63.5
Cum.
Volume
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,320
25,070
42,240
95,770
98,990
116,110
134,390
134,520
152,960
174,770
196,040
227,840
249,540
272,060
277,550
325,240
340,740
371,280
402,610
421,540
445,450
477,400
480,920
510,040
556,950
556,990
583,750
594,780
598,910
624,380
633,730
653,050
681,710
696,520
704,490
717,100
769,630
798,360
Average
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
63.7
65.7
62.6
64.3
62.3
65.7
64.5
63.3
57.8
91.4
61.7
56.3
Well No. 2
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
22.3
25.2
44.5
52.7
59.9
83.0
98.9
104.2
107.1
107.1
116.0
Cum.
Volume
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
53,210
79,450
91,490
115,180
116,390
140,540
157,300
171,620
180,000
219,380
232,150
271,210
282,290
315,300
337,140
356,230
375,030
427,630
457,990
492,170
535,650
593,160
595,940
665,130
711,700
729,330
791,340
810,290
820,990
891,650
921,860
947,730
1,032,480
1,090,530
1,109,990
1,120,540
1,120,540
1,153,310
Average
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
60.8
59.6
61.5
61.0
61.4
59.9
61.1
60.8
61.2
60.6
0.0
61.4
Instrument Panel
Vessel A
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
30.3
NA
30.0
NA
29.3
27.2
29.3
NA
30.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.4
NA
NA
NA
29.3
NA
NA
NA
35.5
32.3
30.2
30.9
32.2
31.6
32.2
30.6
31.2
35.7
33.3
31.4
31.9
36.0
31.0
33.9
33.1
29.0
33.0
27.3
30.0
29.9
35.0
31.0
30.7
28.1
30.7
31.1
52.8
30.1
31.4
27.7
29.0
34.7
28.4
27.8
28.1
33.2
28.5
Incremental
Volume
gal
0
35,920
6,848
7,046
13,444
11,926
9,798
24,162
31,496
20,122
21,931
1,577
6,453
20,274
6,978
2,354
8,636
26,196
20,815
26,914
7,248
19,874
17,185
26,330
14,924
27,467
25,444
14,987
40,104
2,090
21,686
18,374
8,137
14,532
30,676
17,365
35,648
17,736
28,592
14,025
34,344
18,521
45,040
28,971
27,549
34,938
47,183
2,081
49,946
48,692
9,602
44,530
16,296
7,221
49,507
19,887
22,701
57,903
36,954
14,360
11,175
26,895
31,779
Bed
Volume
no.
0
253
301
351
445
529
598
769
990
,132
,287
,298
,343
,486
,535
,552
,612
,797
,943
2,133
2,184
2,324
2,445
2,630
2,736
2,929
3,108
3,214
3,496
3,511
3,664
3,793
3,850
3,953
,169
,291
,542
,667
,868
,967
5,209
5,339
5,656
5,860
6,055
6,301
6,633
6,647
6,999
7,342
7,410
7,723
7,838
7,889
8,238
8,378
8,537
8,945
9,205
9,307
9,385
9,575
9,799
Average
Flowrate
gpm
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.9
33.5
30.1
31.9
31.0
31.3
31.6
31.1
31.5
35.8
31.6
30.4
VesselB
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
28.4
NA
31.2
NA
31.0
31.2
31.2
NA
31.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.7
NA
NA
NA
31.4
NA
NA
NA
31.6
34.1
32.1
32.9
32.7
27.0
34.4
30.5
30.5
34.7
31.5
30.2
29.0
31.0
30.8
30.2
33.8
30.4
31.0
30.3
29.5
28.4
31.0
29.0
27.5
31.1
29.9
31.5
54.2
31.3
30.9
29.5
28.2
33.6
27.6
29.8
29.8
30.8
30.6
Incremental
Volume
gal
0
35,098
6,837
6,991
13,103
1 1 ,542
9,584
23,474
30,514
19,721
21,707
1,532
6,389
19,947
6,937
3,296
8,542
26,082
20,035
25,972
7,447
21,480
13,841
26,146
14,579
26,725
24,891
14,352
40,351
1,969
20,637
17,761
7,675
14,117
29,496
16,733
34,219
17,177
27,256
13,502
32,940
17,689
43,622
27,974
26,482
33,558
45,585
1,981
47,898
46,734
9,275
42,747
15,634
6,933
47,550
19,090
21,743
55,557
35,317
13,718
10,669
25,746
30,539
Bed
Volume
no.
0
247
295
345
437
518
586
751
966
1,105
1,258
1,268
1,313
1,454
1,503
1,526
1,586
1,770
1,911
2,094
2,146
2,297
2,395
2,579
2,682
2,870
3,045
3,146
3,430
3,444
3,590
3,715
3,769
3,868
4,076
4,194
4,435
4,556
4,748
4,843
5,075
5,199
5,506
5,703
5,890
6,126
6,447
6,461
6,798
7,128
7,193
7,494
7,604
7,653
7,988
8,122
8,275
8,667
8,915
9,012
9,087
9,268
9,483
Average
Flowrate
gpm
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.7
32.2
28.9
30.6
29.7
29.9
30.4
29.7
30.1
34.2
30.2
29.3
System Pressure
(psi)
Inlet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
13
12
12
12
9
12
12
12
12
10
9
8
14
10
11
12
11
10
10
15
8
8
9
9
5
10
10
NA
9
10
10
9
12
9
10
9
10
9
Outlet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
9
8
8
7
9
8
8
8
8
5
4
4
10
6
7
8
7
5
5
5
5
4
6
6
3
6
5
NA
5
8
8
5
8
5
4
5
5
5
Pressure
Differential for
Vessel (psi)
A
NA
NA
1.3
NA
0.0
NA
0.0
NA
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0
NA
NA
NA
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
6.0
7.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
9.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
9.0
9.0
2.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
B
NA
NA
2.0
NA
1.5
NA
0.0
NA
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
2.5
4.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
0.0
2.0
2.5
7.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.5
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
49
50
51
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Date
08/26/08
08/29/08
09/02/08
09/04/08
09/10/08
09/15/08
09/22/08
09/25/08
10/01/08
10/06/08
10/07/08
10/15/08
10/22/08
10/24/08
10/28/08
11/05/08
11/14/08
11/18/08
12/02/08
12/10/08
12/16/08
12/26/08
12/31/08
01/07/09
01/13/09
01/16/09
01/20/09
01/26/09
01/30/09
02/04/09
02/17/09
03/03/09
03/06/09
03/10/09
03/17/09
03/25/09
03/27/09
03/31/09
04/03/09
04/08/09
04/15/09
04/17/09
04/27/09
04/30/09
05/06/09
05/08/09
05/15/09
05/20/09
05/29/09
06/01/09
06/05/09
06/10/09
06/16/09
06/24/09
06/26/09
07/01/09
07/10/09
07/14/09
07/20/09
07/24/09
07/29/09
08/07/09
Time
14:25
12:15
10:32
14:50
15:15
12:30
10:00
10:15
12:40
10:47
11:00
14:37
9:21
15:00
13:49
15:24
9:27
9:46
14:31
13:53
9:33
14:50
9:15
14:05
11:35
13:05
8:54
15:25
16:00
12:15
8:48
11:05
13:22
11:12
9:35
15:30
14:40
11:50
12:40
9:44
12:10
14:50
15:45
14:21
14:45
14:42
14:00
11:42
12:20
14:04
15:40
15:30
10:03
10:10
15:15
15:10
10:30
9:33
12:00
15:00
10:45
14:45
Well
Running
Well#1
or 2
1
NA
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
NA
1
2
1
2
2
1
NA
1
2
1
1
2
2
1 8, 2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
Well No. 1
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
70.4
NA
85.2
89.1
98.7
107.9
115.2
119.5
137.7
144.5
145.3
156.5
167.7
171.6
179.6
193.3
210.1
215.6
235.8
247.3
256.6
274.4
286.6
295.1
304.0
314.1
320.1
330.7
335.8
344.7
361.6
382.0
NA
389.3
399.5
409.5
413.0
419.5
424.5
431.6
442.3
446.3
465.6
475.0
488.4
496.3
510.6
522.1
538.7
545.4
552.1
560.1
570.3
593.5
599.3
612.1
644.1
662.1
NA
686.1
696.1
722.1
Cum.
Volume
gal
823,450
NA
877,370
891,860
926,760
960,140
986,300
1,001,820
1,068,040
1,092,500
1,095,140
1,135,090
1,174,710
1,188,610
1,216,850
1,265,620
1,326,340
1,345,370
1,417,120
1,458,240
1,490,860
1,555,830
1,593,650
1,631,470
1,661,860
1,697,880
1,722,340
1,758,240
1,776,480
1,809,160
1,868,860
1,945,620
NA
1,959,750
1,992,250
2,025,260
2,037,470
2,060,490
2,076,940
2,103,650
2,141,950
2,155,780
2,223,690
2,258,180
2,304,510
2,319,690
2,386,040
2,429,060
2,485,080
2,507,590
2,531,040
2,560,140
2,596,230
2,681,800
2,700,630
2,745,910
2,861,840
2,923,750
2,987,720
3,014,270
3,048,460
3,141,180
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
60.6
NA
60.7
61.9
60.6
60.5
59.7
60.2
60.6
60.0
55.0
59.4
59.0
59.4
58.8
59.3
60.2
57.7
59.2
59.6
58.5
60.8
51.7
74.2
56.9
59.4
67.9
56.4
59.6
61.2
58.9
62.7
NA
32.3
53.1
55.0
58.1
59.0
54.8
62.7
59.7
57.6
58.6
61.2
57.6
32.0
77.3
62.3
56.2
56.0
58.3
60.6
59.0
61.5
54.1
59.0
60.4
57.3
NA
18.4
57.0
59.4
Well No. 2
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
122.2
NA
135.7
138.2
145.9
154.6
169.5
176.3
183.7
191.8
199.3
218.4
232.5
236.9
241.5
257.4
268.5
278.0
307.5
320.1
327.0
339.2
347.2
358.0
371.9
372.9
377.9
384.9
390.9
397.9
416.9
436.9
NA
446.9
NA
472.9
476.9
480.9
484.9
490.9
502.9
505.9
518.9
522.9
533.9
538.9
548.9
554.9
569.9
577.9
581.9
591.9
600.9
611.9
619.9
633.9
660.9
672.9
NA
713.9
733.9
774.9
Cum.
Volume
gal
1,175,720
NA
,224,150
,234,170
,270,070
,294,270
' ,348,560
,373,380
,400,240
' ,429,890
,457,100
,526,840
' ,578,470
,594,630
,611,410
,671,140
,710,270
,744,730
,852,180
,898,280
,923,440
,966,920
2,001,500
2,036,100
2,087,330
2,093,600
2,110,150
2,136,140
2,159,670
2,182,040
2,251,340
2,324,110
NA
2,364,550
2,401,840
2,456,970
2,468,790
2,485,070
NA
2,523,020
2,565,390
2,576,260
2,622,890
2,639,250
2,677,790
2,682,570
2,732,020
2,753,120
2,809,130
2,837,600
2,851,990
2,888,560
2,922,230
2,961,950
2,993,310
3,041,900
3,142,420
3,185,300
3,276,230
3,337,620
3,409,340
3,561,350
Average
Flowrate
gpm
60.2
NA
59.8
66.8
77.7
46.4
60.7
60.8
60.5
61.0
60.5
60.9
61.0
61.2
60.8
62.6
58.8
60.5
60.7
61.0
60.8
59.4
72.0
53.4
61.4
104.5
55.2
61.9
65.4
53.3
60.8
60.6
NA
67.4
NA
35.3
49.3
67.8
NA
63.3
58.8
60.4
59.8
68.2
58.4
15.9
82.4
58.6
62.2
59.3
60.0
61.0
62.4
60.2
65.3
57.8
62.0
59.6
NA
25.0
59.8
61.8
Instrument Panel
Vessel A
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
32.5
30.8
27.9
30.0
29.7
30.9
30.3
31.2
30.6
31.2
31.1
30.8
28.7
31.3
29.7
31.2
29.9
29.5
30.6
30.1
31.9
30.7
31.7
32.1
30.6
30.0
29.9
32.1
27.5
31.0
29.1
29.7
30.7
29.8
30.7
31.0
29.9
28.9
31.6
29.0
31.0
31.0
29.4
0.0
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
26.1
28.7
30.5
30.5
29.0
31.2
29.8
28.9
29.0
26.3
29.8
31.4
31.8
30.0
Incremental
Volume
gal
24,423
16,509
35,387
12,140
33,866
32,223
40,837
19,800
48,473
27,743
15,610
55,395
47,133
15,048
23,294
55,911
50,220
28,308
91,524
43,984
30,197
55,153
36,984
37,088
41,441
21,762
20,775
31,504
21,074
27,922
65,833
71,654
12,635
20,407
36,613
44,624
12,765
20,021
16,516
25,372
42,696
10,886
59,584
20,426
0
NA
0
0
17,238
26,566
18,776
31,768
33,955
60,908
24,162
46,497
108,190
51,610
79,227
44,503
56,252
126,416
Bed
Volume
no.
9,971
10,087
10,336
10,421
10,660
10,887
1M74
1 ,314
1 ,655
1-.851
1 ,961
12,351
12,683
12,789
12,953
13,346
13,700
13,899
14,544
14,854
15,066
15,455
15,715
15,976
16,268
16,421
16,568
16,790
16,938
17,135
17,598
18,103
18,192
18,336
18,593
18,908
18,998
19,139
19,255
19,434
19,734
19,811
20,230
20,374
20,374
NA
20,374
20,374
20,496
20,683
20,815
21,039
21,278
21,707
21,877
22,204
22,966
23,330
23,888
24,201
24,597
25,487
Average
Flowrate
gpm
31.1
NA
20.8
31.6
32.6
30.0
30.7
29.7
31.6
31.0
31.3
30.5
31.0
30.2
30.8
31.5
30.0
31.5
30.7
30.4
31.1
30.6
30.5
32.0
30.3
32.7
31.5
29.8
31.6
29.3
30.6
29.6
NA
19.7
NA
20.7
28.4
31.8
30.6
32.3
31.3
25.9
30.7
25.4
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
9.1
30.1
29.2
29.4
29.5
29.7
29.2
28.9
30.6
28.7
NA
11.4
31.3
31.4
Vessel B
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
30.8
33.3
29.7
31.1
30.4
29.0
29.8
29.4
27.1
31.8
25.9
31.1
29.5
29.3
29.8
31.4
26.6
28.7
29.2
29.3
29.8
28.6
30.1
31.7
31.8
29.0
28.9
30.0
33.6
30.1
27.1
28.6
28.7
26.7
27.2
32.0
30.0
29.5
29.0
26.8
30.9
29.6
29.0
30.2
30.6
NA
29.8
31.9
28.2
30.5
29.7
27.2
31.6
30.0
30.9
29.3
28.9
30.1
30.2
28.1
29.2
30.4
Incremental
Volume
gal
23,374
15,784
33,755
1,599
42,316
30,730
39,165
19,053
46,620
26,853
15,113
53,108
45,211
14,406
22,420
53,758
48,191
27,190
88,256
42,417
29,858
52,687
35,870
35,667
39,888
20,884
19,966
30,204
20,152
27,729
63,277
69,244
12,193
19,594
35,269
43,068
12,338
19,323
16,048
24,603
41,131
10,561
57,560
24,883
42,268
NA
66,530
29,776
58,098
34,644
12,023
32,738
35,193
62,901
24,876
47,904
107,545
50,326
74,964
42,381
53,501
120,484
Bed
Volume
no.
9,648
9,759
9,997
10,008
10,306
10,523
10,798
10,932
11,261
11,450
11,556
11,930
12,249
12,350
12,508
12,887
13,226
13,417
14,039
14,338
14,548
14,919
15,172
15,423
15,704
15,851
15,991
16,204
16,346
16,541
16,987
17,475
17,560
17,698
17,947
18,250
18,337
18,473
18,586
18,759
19,049
19,123
19,529
19,704
20,002
NA
20,470
20,680
21,089
21,333
21,418
21,648
21,896
22,339
22,514
22,851
23,609
23,963
24,491
24,790
25,166
26,015
Average
Flowrate
gpm
29.7
NA
19.9
4.2
40.8
28.6
29.4
28.6
30.4
30.0
30.3
29.2
29.8
28.9
29.7
30.3
28.8
30.2
29.6
29.3
30.7
29.3
29.6
30.8
29.2
31.4
30.3
28.6
30.3
29.1
29.4
28.6
NA
18.9
NA
19.9
27.4
30.7
29.7
31.3
30.2
25.1
29.7
30.9
28.9
NA
45.6
28.4
30.6
39.3
18.7
30.3
30.5
30.7
30.0
29.8
30.4
28.0
NA
10.9
29.7
30.0
System Pressure
(PSi)
Inlet
11
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
10
12
9
10
9
9
8
18
8
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
14
10
10
12
8
10
13
8
8
11
11
10
10
8
8
10
12
8
10
8
8
NA
8
10
8
7
8
9
8
9
8
8
8
11
6
6
7
7
Outlet
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
8
5
7
5
4
4
5
4
7
5
5
5
5
5
6
10
6
8
8
4
6
10
4
5
8
7
4
5
4
5
6
9
4
6
4
2
NA
4
6
4
4
6
5
4
5
4
4
5
8
4
4
4
4
Pressure
Differential for
Vessel (psi)
A
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
NA
2.5
5.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
B
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
0.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
NA
2.5
5.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week No.
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Date
08/13/09
08/17/09
08/18/09
08/21/09
08/26/09
09/01/09
09/08/09
09/10/09
09/15/09
09/18/09
09/21/09
09/24/09
09/30/09
10/05/09
10/07/09
10/14/09
10/16/09
10/19/09
10/20/09
10/26/09
11/04/09
11/09/09
11/12/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/19/09
11/23/09
11/25/09
11/30/09
12/04/09
12/08/09
12/11/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/21/09
12/24/09
12/28/09
12/31/09
01/06/10
01/08/10
01/11/10
01/15/10
01/18/10
01/19/10
01/22/10
01/25/10
01/29/10
02/01/10
02/03/10
02/05/10
02/09/10
02/16/10
02/19/10
02/23/10
03/02/10
03/05/10
03/08/10
03/12/10
03/19/10
Time
14:45
14:50
10:25
10:02
9:45
15:13
11:45
10:39
9:30
9:55
9:52
13:10
10:00
15:00
11:00
11:00
11:10
9:30
10:32
13:48
9:45
10:35
15:28
10:30
9:12
15:05
13:15
12:20
9:50
11:25
9:26
10:10
14:15
8:52
10:45
12:00
10:00
12:04
12:01
9:05
11:10
15:10
11:10
9:10
11:00
10:30
13:30
14:00
10:30
12:40
14:30
9:45
9:45
14:20
10:25
11:00
13:00
10:00
15:20
Well
Running
Well#1
or 2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
NA
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Well No. 1
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
739.
749.
750.
758.
770.
790.
808.
814.
829.1
836.1
845.1
NA
875.1
891.1
898.1
917.1
921.1
931.1
936.1
950.1
974.1
985.1
995.1
1005.1
1007.1
1014.1
1018.1
1021.1
1035.1
1044.1
1055.1
1064.1
1077.1
1080.1
1099.1
1109.1
1126.1
1135.1
1159.1
1162.1
1172.1
1185.1
1192.'
1193.'
1200.
1206.
1213.
1223.
1227.
1232.
1246.
1261.
1267.
1275.
1290.
1290.
1300.
1306.1
1330.1
Cum.
Volume
gal
3,201,820
3,237,550
3,241,750
3,271,410
3,315,340
3,384,910
3,450,680
3,472,230
3,524,770
3,549,980
3,583,380
NA
3,694,100
3,749,490
3,775,150
3,843,400
3,856,490
3,892,180
3,908,360
3,961,280
4,048,590
4,087,620
,123,480
,162,690
',166,950
,173,210
' ,208,650
,226,370
' ,267,520
,302,160
,341,080
,374,550
,420,850
,432,280
,501,290
,540,340
,603,770
,639,310
,722,520
,734,300
' ,769,500
,817,990
' ,843,800
' ,845,400
,873,380
,893,040
,918,680
,957,880
,969,930
,988,450
5,039,940
5,095,530
5,118,600
5,144,480
5,198,800
5,199,160
5,231,970
5,255,270
5,340,610
Average
Flowrate
gpm
59.5
59.6
70.0
61.8
61.0
58.0
60.9
59.9
58.4
60.0
61.9
NA
61.5
57.7
61.1
59.9
54.5
59.5
53.9
63.0
60.6
59.1
59.8
65.4
35.5
14.9
147.7
98.4
49.0
64.1
59.0
62.0
59.4
63.5
60.5
65.1
62.2
65.8
57.8
65.4
58.7
62.2
61.5
26.7
66.6
54.6
61.0
65.3
50.2
61.7
61.3
61.8
64.1
53.9
60.4
NA
54.7
64.7
59.3
Well No. 2
Cum.
Hours
Well
hr
798.9
819.9
822.9
834.9
853.9
874.9
902.9
909.9
923.9
931.9
942.9
NA
968.9
985.9
994.9
1015.9
1023.9
1032.9
1036.9
1058.9
1086.9
1105.9
1114.9
1127.9
NA
1135.9
1150.9
1158.9
1167.9
1179.9
1187.9
1193.9
1196.9
1197.9
1208.9
1213.9
1217.9
1223.9
1231.9
1237.9
1242.9
1248.9
1252.9
1256.9
1263.9
1270.9
1279.9
1280.9
1286.9
1291.9
1294.9
1308.9
1315.9
1325.9
1342.9
1356.9
1361.9
1370.9
1382.9
Cum.
Volume
gal
3,647,560
3,726,500
3,738,650
3,780,990
3,833,140
3,833,180
3,833,640
3,833,140
3,833,140
3,833,640
3,833,680
NA
3,841,740
3,904,700
3,938,680
4,016,050
4,045,750
4,074,470
4,089,010
4,172,410
4,274,680
4,345,590
4,377,360
4,426,370
NA
4,499,880
4,508,610
4,513,070
4,570,030
4,616,770
4,644,540
4,667,040
4,677,880
4,679,790
4,720,090
4,740,310
4,754,820
4,776,990
4,804,120
4,826,900
4,845,970
4,866,570
4,883,160
4,897,180
4,921,620
4,950,360
4,981,220
4,985,110
5,006,090
5,026,220
5,038,010
5,090,230
5,114,590
5,152,680
5,213,340
5,265,170
5,284,870
5,316,910
5,361,790
Average
Flowrate
gpm
59.9
62.7
67.5
58.8
45.7
0.0
0.3
-1.2
0.0
1.0
0.1
NA
5.2
61.7
62.9
61.4
61.9
53.2
60.6
63.2
60.9
62.2
58.8
62.8
NA
153.1
9.7
9.3
105.5
64.9
57.9
62.5
60.2
31.8
61.1
67.4
60.5
61.6
56.5
63.3
63.6
57.2
69.1
58.4
58.2
68.4
57.1
64.8
58.3
67.1
65.5
62.2
58.0
63.5
59.5
61.7
65.7
59.3
62.3
Instrument Panel
Vessel A
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
32.5
29.5
29.2
31.7
30.4
30.9
30.8
31.1
31.5
30.3
31.3
32.9
26.9
28.4
24.2
18.1
9.5
9.4
11.0
33.8
34.3
29.0
32.2
31.2
31.5
32.2
0.0
31.2
30.4
31.4
31.2
30.9
28.9
27.5
31.7
29.6
32.1
31.4
33.2
31.9
33.1
31.3
29.8
33.0
32.0
29.4
31.5
31.8
31.1
32.1
30.1
33.0
30.3
32.0
31.0
31.2
30.6
31.4
30.9
Incremental
Volume
gal
74,813
57,378
8,593
36,538
58,651
74,656
84,960
24,093
55,099
28,097
37,616
40,279
63,970
49,339
23,728
47,058
8,889
10,229
32,599
67,234
97,271
55,672
34,733
43,532
8,366
24,206
3,579
8,335
43,514
39,267
32,116
27,558
26,544
7,077
52,494
28,265
36,399
28,507
55,173
17,194
27,727
34,442
20,730
7,820
24,765
23,236
27,781
21,967
16,937
19,658
32,676
52,832
23,680
32,476
56,710
25,184
26,336
27,970
65,246
Bed
Volume
no.
26,014
26,418
26,479
26,736
27,149
27,675
28,273
28,443
28,831
29,029
29,294
29,577
30,028
30,375
30,542
30,874
30,936
31,008
31,238
31,712
32,397
32,789
33,033
33,340
33,399
33,569
33,594
33,653
33,959
34,236
34,462
34,656
34,843
34,893
35,263
35,462
35,718
35,919
36,307
36,428
36,624
36,866
37,012
37,067
37,242
37,405
37,601
37,756
37,875
38,013
38,244
38,616
38,782
39,011
39,410
39,588
39,773
39,970
40,430
Average
Flowrate
gpm
30.4
30.8
35.8
30.4
31.5
30.3
30.8
30.9
31.7
31.2
31.3
NA
19.0
24.9
24.7
19.6
12.3
9.0
60.4
31.1
31.2
30.9
30.5
31.5
NA
26.9
3.1
12.6
31.5
31.2
28.2
30.6
27.7
29.5
29.2
31.4
28.9
31.7
28.7
31.8
30.8
30.2
31.4
26.1
29.5
29.8
28.9
33.3
28.2
32.8
32.0
30.4
30.4
30.1
29.5
30.0
29.3
31.1
30.2
Vessel B
Inst.
Flowrate
gpm
30.0
31.1
30.8
32.2
29.8
31.9
27.4
30.0
29.6
29.3
31.4
29.8
32.3
34.8
34.1
44.1
44.9
46.9
40.2
32.9
29.5
28.5
30.8
31.0
32.7
28.9
30.9
28.5
29.1
29.3
29.7
29.9
20.1
31.5
30.4
29.1
29.4
29.7
30.8
29.2
30.0
28.9
28.9
28.5
29.5
32.6
30.3
28.9
31.0
29.9
31.2
29.0
31.1
30.6
27.0
30.5
31.7
31.3
30.3
Incremental
Volume
gal
71,185
55,823
8,286
17,450
74,761
71,975
81,126
23,134
52,164
26,550
35,529
37,702
62,619
69,111
36,343
97,247
33,031
51,011
29,982
65,845
92,446
51,829
33,328
41,625
8,014
22,960
33,078
15,214
43,016
39,064
32,214
27,925
26,918
7,188
52,596
28,361
36,531
28,821
54,735
16,825
27,067
33,692
20,695
9,794
22,608
22,835
27,143
21,736
15,993
18,758
31,445
52,108
23,165
32,378
55,504
24,977
26,121
27,444
63,903
Bed
Volume
no.
26,516
26,909
26,968
27,090
27,617
28,124
28,695
28,858
29,225
29,412
29,663
29,928
30,369
30,856
31,112
31,797
32,029
32,388
32,600
33,063
33,714
34,079
34,314
34,607
34,664
34,825
35,058
35,165
35,468
35,743
35,970
36,167
36,356
36,407
36,777
36,977
37,234
37,437
37,823
37,941
38,132
38,369
38,515
38,584
38,743
38,904
39,095
39,248
39,361
39,493
39,714
40,081
40,244
40,472
40,863
41,039
41,223
41,416
41,866
Average
Flowrate
gpm
28.9
30.0
34.5
14.5
40.2
29.3
29.4
29.7
30.0
29.5
29.6
NA
18.6
34.9
37.9
40.5
45.9
44.7
55.5
30.5
29.6
28.8
29.2
30.2
NA
25.5
29.0
23.1
31.2
31.0
28.3
31.0
28.0
30.0
29.2
31.5
29.0
32.0
28.5
31.2
30.1
29.6
31.4
32.6
26.9
29.3
28.3
32.9
26.7
31.3
30.8
29.9
29.7
30.0
28.9
29.7
29.0
30.5
29.6
System Pressure
(pa)
Inlet
8
6
5
8
7
8
7
10
9
9
8
10
8
8
8
10
12
18
17
7
6
7
8
8
10
8
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
10
9
6
7
7
8
10
8
9
6
6
6
7
6
6
8
6
9
6
7
7
6
6
7
7
6
Outlet
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
2
3
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
Pressure
Differential for
Vessel (psi|
A
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
9.0
9.0
8.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
B
2.5
2.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
NOTE:
(a) Bed volume = 19 cu.ft. (142 gal) for Vessel A, 19 cu.ft. (142 gal) for Vessel B, or 38 cu.ft. (284 gal) tola for two vessels.
NR = Not Running; NA = Not Availble.
Flowrate readings on each vessel are instantaneous.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
itf
mg/L|s|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a|
mg/L1"
mg/L1"
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
02/13/08
IN
145
-
-
<10
NA|b)
1.4
8.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
35.6
-
-
49
1.3
-
7.0
_
AP
146
-
-
<10
NA|b)
1.9
6.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
35.1
-
-
<25
0.7
-
7.0
_
TA
0.0
158
-
-
<10
NA'b>
1.9
6.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
0.5
-
<0.1
_
TB
0.0
172
-
-
<10
NA'b>
2.0
6.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.9
-
-
<25
0.3
-
<0.1
_
04/01/08
IN
149
1.2
23.3
1.3
<10
27.7
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39.0
28.0
11.1
36.6
22.0
14.6
0.1
21.9
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
7.9
_
AP
147
1.0
24.0
1.2
<10
27.5
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.3
27.3
10.9
35.3
34.2
1.1
0.1
34.0
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
7.7
_
TA
2.2
143
1.2
27.1
1.2
<10
25.0
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.2
25.2
10.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
_
TB
2.1
139
1.2
26.8
1.2
<10
20.7
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.8
23.9
9.8
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
_
04/15/08
IN
155
-
-
<10
24.7
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
33.4
-
-
60
2.8
-
8.3
_
AP
151
-
-
<10
25.1
0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
34.8
-
-
<25
0.3
-
8.4
_
TA
2.7
151
-
-
<10
25.0
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
_
TB
2.7
153
-
-
<10
24.6
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
_
04/29/08
IN
145
-
-
<10
24.7
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
36.4
-
-
<25
0.5
-
7.9
_
AP
147
-
-
<10
24.7
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
36.7
-
-
32
1.2
-
7.9
_
TA
3.5
165
-
-
<10
26.9
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.2
-
-
37
0.7
-
<0.1
_
TB
3.4
165
-
-
<10
26.7
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
0.2
-
-
<25
0.2
-
<0.1
_
05/12/08
IN
151
-
-
<10
26.6
0.5
8.1
31.1
3.7
243
NA
NA
-
-
37.3
-
-
<25
0.2
-
7.8
_
AP
151
-
-
<10
26.0
0.6
7.2
32.6
3.1
287
NA
NA
-
-
36.0
-
-
<25
1.1
-
7.5
_
TA
4.2
147
-
-
<10
26.2
0.9
7.1
32.9
3.0
321
NA
NA
-
-
1.0
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
_
TB
4.1
147
-
-
<10
26.1
0.8
7.0
33.0
3.4
351
NA
NA
-
-
0.8
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
_
(a) As CaCO 3
(b) Silica not measured on 02/13/08.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
1
6.7'c'
36.0
-
-
<25
0.4
NA
-
TA
8.5
149
-
27.1
0.1
7.1
32.9
NA
NA
7.6 (c|
6.7 (c)
1.1
<25
0.1
NA
TB
8.3
151
27.2
0.1
7.1
33.1
NA
NA
7.8 |c)
7.2 (c)
-
-
0.7
<25
0.1
NA
09/02/08
IN
148
-
26.7
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
35.0
-
-
<25
0.2
7.5
30.2
AP
146
-
-
26.7
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.8
-
-
-
<25
0.2
7.5
30.2
TA
10.3
151
-
-
-
27.0
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
-
-
<25
0.1
0.1
0.1
TB
10.0
146
-
26.9
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
<25
0.1
0.1
0.1
10/07/08
IN
146
1.1
23.7
1.2
27.0
0.2
8.2
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
34.6
25.1
9.5
35.7
33.7
2.0
0.4
33.3
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
-
29.4
AP
144
1.1
24.3
1.2
26.8
0.3
7.1
25.0
NA
NA
1.8
1.7
37.3
27.1
10.2
36.5
34.5
2.1
0.4
34.0
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
-
30.4
TA
12.0
144
1.0
24.2
1.2
-
26.8
0.1
7.1
25.0
NA
NA
2.0
1.9
36.9
26.9
10.0
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
0.7
TB
11.6
146
1.1
23.1
1.2
-
26.5
0.1
7.1
25.0
NA
NA
2.1
2.0
36.4
26.4
10.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
0.4
TT
11.8
146
1.1
23.8
1.2
-
26.6
0.3
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
2.1
1.8
37.5
27.2
10.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
0.4
(a) As CaCO 3
(b) All metals re-analyzed on 08/28/08 from TB
(c) Uncharacteristically high levels
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
10*
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
'C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a|
mg/L1"
mg/L|a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
11/18/08
IN
-
145
145
-
<10
<10
25.1
25.6
0.1
0.1
8.0
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
37.9
38.6
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.3
35.5
34.2
AP
-
145
148
-
<10
<10
25.7
25.9
0.2
0.1
6.9
25.0
NA
NA
2.2
2.1
-
38.2
37.6
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.2
36.6
36.6
TA
13.9
156
156
-
<10
<10
26.9
25.9
<0.1
<0.1
7.2
25.0
NA
NA
2.1
2.0
-
0.5
0.5
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.5
TB
13.4
156
159
-
<10
<10
27.3
27.7
0.2
<0.1
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
1.9
1.8
-
0.5
0.4
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.5
12/16/08
IN
-
147
-
<10
25.0
0.2
7.9
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
36.3
-
-
30
-
2.6
33.2
AP
-
147
-
<10
25.2
0.2
6.9
25.0
NA
NA
1.7
1.6
-
35.1
-
-
28
-
1.3
32.5
TA
15.1
145
-
<10
25.1
0.1
6.9
25.0
NA
NA
1.8
1.7
-
0.7
-
-
77
-
2.1
0.7
TB
14.5
145
-
<10
25.4
0.1
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
1.9
1.8
-
0.5
-
-
<25
-
0.2
0.5
01/20/09
IN
-
144
-
<10
24.4
0.2
NA|d|
NA|d|
NA
NA
NA|d|
NA|d|
-
37.7
-
-
<25
-
1.0
31.9
AP
-
140
-
<10
25.5
0.3
NA|dl
NA|d)
NA
NA
NA|dl
NA|d)
-
35.6
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
30.5
TA
16.6
140
-
<10
23.0
<0.1
NA|dl
NA(d|
NA
NA
NA|dl
NA(d|
-
0.4
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
0.5
TB
16.0
142
-
<10
23.3
0.1
NA|d|
NA|d|
NA
NA
NA|dl
NA|d|
-
0.4
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
0.5
02/17/09
IN
-
149
-
<10
26.0
0.2
8.1
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
32.3
-
-
<25
-
0.2
27.5
AP
-
147
-
<10
25.9
0.2
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
2.1
2.1
-
33.0
-
-
<25
-
0.5
28.6
TA
17.6
151
-
<10
28.6
0.2
7.1
25.0
NA
NA
2.0
2.1
-
0.7
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
0.8
TB
17.0
158
-
<10
27.1
0.2
7.1
25.0
NA
NA
2.2
2.2
-
0.9
-
-
<25
-
0.1
0.9
03/17/09
IN
-
148
1.2
23.7
1.3
<10
25.2
0.2
8.4
26.6
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
47.3
36.2
11.1
37.1
36.8
0.3
0.4
36.4
31
<25
1.8
3.2
33.2
AP
-
146
1.1
23.5
1.1
<10
25.2
0.1
6.9
28.9
NA
NA
1.6
1.6
48.8
37.3
11.4
39.1
36.2
2.9
0.3
35.9
<25
<25
0.8
0.4
31.8
TA
18.6
195
1.0
21.4
1.2
<10
31.4
<0.1
7.5
30.3
NA
NA
1.6
1.6
93.6
67.8
25.8
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
TB
17.9
193
1.0
20.5
1.2
<10
32.0
<0.1
7.4
31.4
NA
NA
1.5
1.3
93.0
66.1
26.8
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
TT
18.3
189
1.0
21.3
1.2
<10
34.7
<0.1
NM
NM
NA
NA
NM
NM
86.7
60.0
26.7
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
(a) As CaCO 3
(d) pH, temperature, free chlorine & total chlorine not measured
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
itf
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
•c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a|
mg/L1"
mg/L1"
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
04/15/09
IN
148
-
-
<10
27.4
0.5
8.3
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
31.4
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
27.9
AP
150
-
-
<10
27.0
0.3
6.9
25.0
NA
NA
2.1
2.1
-
31.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
27.6
TA
19.7
161
-
-
<10
32.6
0.3
7.2
25.0
NA
NA
2.0
2.1
-
0.6
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
TB
19.0
161
-
-
<10
31.7
0.6
7.2
25.0
NA
NA
2.2
2.2
-
0.4
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
05/20/09
IN
155
-
-
<10
27.3
0.3
8.2
31.4
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
35.6
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
33.6
AP
150
-
-
<10
26.7
1.4
6.9
33.3
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
-
39.4
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
34.8
TA
20.4
155
-
-
<10
28.9
0.1
6.8
33.5
NA
NA
1.6
1.6
-
0.5
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
0.5
TB
20.7
155
-
-
<10
28.8
0.2
6.8
33.8
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
-
0.5
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
0.5
06/16/09
IN
154
-
-
<10
26.5
0.7
7.8
32.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
33.8
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
35.1
AP
156
-
-
<10
27.1
2.2
6.8
32.1
NA
NA
0.8
1.0
-
26.6
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
35.2
TA
21.3
156
-
-
<10
26.1
2.3
6.8
33.3
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
-
<0.1
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
0.6
TB
21.9
158
-
-
<10
25.8
0.8
6.8
33.2
NA
NA
0.8
1.0
-
<0.1
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
<0.1
07/14/09
IN
151
1.2
24.8
1.2
<10
26.7
0.2
7.9
33.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
39.1
29.3
9.8
35.7
34.0
1.8
0.4
33.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
34.4
AP
151
1.2
24.6
1.2
<10
27.2
0.1
7.9
33.7
NA
NA
1.7
1.8
40.4
30.2
10.2
37.2
35.7
1.5
0.4
35.3
28
<25
3.0
0.2
35.2
TA
23.3
201
1.0
22.3
1.2
<10
32.1
0.1
7.1
34.0
NA
NA
1.7
1.8
94.5
67.1
27.4
0.6
0.5
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
TB
24.0
196
1.1
23.5
1.2
<10
33.8
0.4
7.1
34.4
NA
NA
1.8
1.9
87.0
61.1
25.8
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
TT
23.6
192
1.0
22.7
1.2
<10
34.3
<0.1
7.1
34.7
NA
NA
1.9
1.9
79.8
55.1
24.6
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
08/1 8/09
IN
154
-
-
<10
26.3
0.7
8.1
34.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
32.2
-
-
-
<25
-
2.6
33.3
AP
154
-
-
<10
25.9
0.2
6.9
32.4
NA
NA
NA|e|
NA|e|
-
32.6
-
-
-
<25
-
1.9
32.9
TA
26.5
152
-
-
<10
25.9
0.4
6.9
30.9
NA
NA
NA|8>
NA|8>
-
31.8
-
-
-
<25
-
1.7
31.8
TB
27.0
154
-
-
<10
25.8
0.4
7.0
32.1
NA
NA
NA|e|
NA|e|
-
1.3
-
-
-
<25
-
1.3
0.2
(a) As CaCO 3
(e) Operator did not have chlorine kit at time of sampling
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
10*
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
'C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a|
mg/L1"
mg/L|a)
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
09/15/09
IN
-
156
-
-
<10
26.1
0.6
7.9
25.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
33.1
23.3
9.8
29.0
-
<25
-
0.1
-
23.5
AP
-
156
-
-
<10
26.2
2.1
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.1
34.0
24.1
9.9
31.0
-
<25
-
0.4
-
25.2
TA
28.8
154
-
-
<10
26.2
2.1
7.0
25.0
NA
NA
0.9
1.0
33.4
23.2
10.2
0.1
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
TB
29.2
152
-
-
<10
26.2
1.1
6.9
25.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
30.9
21.2
9.7
0.2
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<0.1
1 0/20/09
IN
-
148
-
-
<10
24.6
1.3
8.0
32.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
34.2
-
<25
-
0.3
-
28.5
AP
-
142
-
-
<10
24.5
0.8
6.6
32.5
NA
NA
0.1
0.0
-
-
35.2
-
27
-
2.0
-
28.8
TA
31.2
134
-
-
<10
18.7
0.7
7.2
34.0
NA
NA
0.0
NA
-
-
0.1
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.3
TB
32.6
190
-
-
<10
29.3
0.2
7.6
34.4
NA
NA
0.0
NA
-
-
0.8
-
<25
-
0.1
-
3.6
11/17/09
IN
-
156
1.1
22.2
1.2
<10
27.7
0.1
7.9
26.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.7
21.3
8.4
35.8
35.4
0.4
1.0
34.4
<25
<25
0.3
<0.1
38.1
AP
-
147
1.1
21.6
1.2
<10
27.1
0.5
6.6
30.5
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
32.9
23.5
9.4
35.5
36.0
<0.1
1.1
34.9
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
39.7
TA
33.4
159
1.1
21.9
1.2
<10
29.5
0.3
6.8
29.0
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
36.9
25.9
11.0
1.2
1.1
0.1
1.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
4.2
TB
34.7
174
1.0
21.7
1.2
<10
30.9
0.2
6.8
30.7
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
41.5
28.8
12.7
1.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
3.0
TT
34.0
168
1.1
21.9
1.2
<10
30.3
<0.1
6.6
30.6
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
40.2
27.8
12.4
1.1
1.1
<0.1
1.0
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
3.7
12/15/09
IN
-
-
-
8.0
29.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
33.2
-
-
-
34.6
AP
-
-
-
6.6
27.4
NA
NA
1.7
1.6
-
-
33.9
-
-
-
34.6
TA
34.9
-
-
6.6
26.8
NA
NA
1.4
1.3
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
3.1
TB
36.4
-
-
6.6
27.2
NA
NA
1.4
1.4
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
2.0
01/19/10
IN
-
-
-
8.0
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
33.8
-
-
-
35.0
AP
-
-
-
6.5
25.0
NA
NA
1.8
1.8
-
-
31.7
-
-
-
35.6
TA
37.1
-
-
6.5
25.0
NA
NA
1.8
1.8
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
4.7
TB
38.5
-
-
6.5
25.0
NA
NA
1.7
1.8
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
3.0
(a) As Ca CO 3
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Covered Wells in Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P )
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
101
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|a)
mg/L|a|
mg/L(a|
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
02/16/10
IN
-
-
-
7.9
26.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
33.1
-
-
-
32.0
AP
-
-
-
6.6
33.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.5
-
-
29.7
-
-
-
31.2
TA
39.0
-
-
6.9
32.9
NA
NA
1.5
1.6
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
6.2
TB
40.5
-
-
6.9
32.5
NA
NA
1.5
1.6
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
3.7
03/1 6/1 df'
IN
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
34.4
-
-
-
33.4
AP
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
1.3
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
32.6
TA
40.0
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.7
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
5.2
TB
41.4
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
1.3
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
3.3
(a)AsCaCO3
(f) bed volume from 03/12/10
-------