EPA/600/R-10/164

December 2010

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at

Nambe Pueblo, New Mexico

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Christopher T. Coonfare‡

Abraham S.C. Chen§

Anbo Wang‡

‡

Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693

§

ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693

Contract No. 68-C-00-185

Task Order No. 0019

for 

Thomas J. Sorg

Task Order Manager

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268
ii

DISCLAIMER

The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) under Task Order 0019 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any 

opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official 

positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute 

recommendation for use by the EPA. 
iii

FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation’s 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to 

formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability 

of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is 

providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science 

knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect 

our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation 

of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that 

threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on 

methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, 

sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. 

NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the 

cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; 

advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations 

and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. 

It is published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user 

community and to link researchers with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv

ABSTRACT

This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained from this arsenic removal 

treatment technology demonstration project at the Nambe Pueblo, New Mexico. The main objective of 

the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies’ AD-33 media in removing arsenic 

to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L. Additionally, this project 

evaluated (1) the reliability of the treatment system, (2) the required system operation and maintenance 

(O&M) and operator skills, and (3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also 

characterized the water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process. The 

types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the 

distribution system), process residuals, and capital and O&M cost.

The treatment system consisted of two 48-in × 72-in FRP vessels in parallel configuration, each 

containing 35.6 ft3 of AD-33 media. Delivered in granules, AD-33 media is an iron-based adsorptive 

media developed by Bayer AG and marketed under the name of AD-33 by AdEdge. The treatment 

system was designed for a peak flowrate of 160 gal/min (gpm) (80 gpm per vessel) and an empty bed 

contact time (EBCT) of approximately 3.3 min. Over the performance evaluation period, the actual 

average flowrate was at 114 gpm, corresponding to an EBCT of 4.7 min. 

The treatment system began regular operation on May 15, 2007. From May 15, 2007, through the end of 

the performance evaluation study on September 28, 2009, the treatment system operated for a total of 

10,134 hr, treating approximately 64,580,000 gal (or 121,390 bed volumes [BV]) of water. The average 

daily operation time was 12.3 hr/day and the average daily demand was 78,360 gal/day (gpd).

As part of the water treatment system, a pH adjustment/control system was used to adjust pH values of 

source water from as high as 9.1 to a target value of 7.0. The pH adjustment system consisted of a carbon 

dioxide (CO2) supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a CO2 membrane module (that injected 

CO2 into a CO2 loop), and an in-line pH probe. During the performance evaluation study, the treatment 

system experienced periodic losses of pH control due to lack of a constant CO2 supply. Real-time pH 

values monitored/recorded after pH adjustments by an in-line pH meter/datalogger cycled between 7 and 

8 and over 9. 

Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 10.7 to 59.0 μg/L, and averaged 32.2 μg/L with

soluble As(V) as the predominating species, ranging from 34.2 to 36.5 μg/L based on the results of two 

speciation sampling events. Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 19.9 to 55.8 μg/L, 

and averaged 39.3 μg/L. Except for some occasions, total arsenic and uranium concentrations were 

removed to below 3 and 20 μg/L, respectively, in system effluent throughout the 28-month study period. 

Significantly elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations (often higher than the respective source water 

concentrations) were measured during a number of sampling events, which coincided with the time 

periods when the system was operating without pH control. 

Periodic losses of pH control apparently had caused the media beds to operate under constant 

adsorption/desorption cycles, with the captured arsenic and uranium intermittently “flushed” out of the 

media beds. Therefore, the AD-33 media was not exhausted as expected even after treating 121,390 BV 

of water (twice the projected working capacity estimated by the vendor). Analyses of media samples 

collected at 78,200 BV revealed that the adsorptive media were loaded only minimally with arsenic and 

uranium (i.e., 0.38% and 3.2% of the respective mass in 78,200 BV of source water), which supported the 

speculation that adsorbed arsenic and uranium were intermittently “flushed” out of the media beds.
v

Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after system startup showed a 

significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 33.7 to <10 μg/L), except for three 

occasions when the treatment system had lost pH control. Uranium concentrations in distribution water 

also were reduced to below its MCL of 30 μg/L, except for four occasions. Lead and copper 

concentrations did not appear to have been affected by the operation of the treatment system.

The capital investment cost of $143,113 included $116,645 for equipment, $11,638 for site engineering, 

and $14,830 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 160 gpm (or 230,400 gpd), the capital 

cost was $894/gpm (or $0.62/gpd) of design capacity. The unit capital cost would be $0.16/1,000 gal if 

the 160 gpm system were operating around the clock. Based on the average daily operating times (12.3

hr/day) and average system flowrate (114 gpm), the unit capital cost increased to $0.44/1,000 gal at this 

reduced rate of use. 

The O&M cost included only the cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement 

and disposal, CO2 and chlorine use, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media replacement did 

not take place during the performance evaluation study, the media replacement cost would have 

represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $29,532 to change out both vessels

(71.2 ft3 AD-33 media and associated labor for media changeout and disposal).
vi

CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER..............................................................................................................................................ii

FOREWORD...............................................................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. iv

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................vii

FIGURES....................................................................................................................................................vii

TABLES .....................................................................................................................................................vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal ............................................................................. 1

1.3 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 3

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................................... 4

3.1 General Project Approach............................................................................................................. 4

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection ....................................................................................... 5

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules .............................................................................. 5

3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection..................................................................................... 5

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. ..................................................................... 6

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. .............................................. 7

3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection................................................................ 7

3.4 Sampling Logistics........................................................................................................................ 7

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits............................................................................ 7

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers..................................................................................... 8

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. ...................................................................................... 8

3.5 Analytical Procedures................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure..................................... 10

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. ................................................................................................... 10

4.1.2 Distribution System. ...................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Treatment Process Description ................................................................................................... 15

4.3 System Installation...................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Permitting. ..................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.2 Building Preparation...................................................................................................... 24

4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup................................................................ 24

4.4 System Operation........................................................................................................................ 27

4.4.1 Operational Parameters.................................................................................................. 27

4.4.2 pH Adjustments. ............................................................................................................ 29

4.4.3 Residual Management. .................................................................................................. 34

4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. ............................................................... 34

4.5 System Performance ................................................................................................................... 35

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. ............................................................................................ 35

4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling................................................................................................... 42

4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling............................................................................................ 43

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. ........................................................................... 43
vii

4.6 System Cost ................................................................................................................................. 46

4.6.1 Capital Cost ................................................................................................................... 46

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost................................................................................... 47

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 49

APPENDICES

Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA

Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA

FIGURES

Figure 4-1. Nambe Pueblo Buffalo Range .......................................................................................... 10

Figure 4-2. Pump Head on Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM........................................................ 11

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Pump House and Water Storage Tank.......................................................... 11

Figure 4-4. Chlorination Before Distribution at Nambe Pueblo, NM ................................................. 12

Figure 4-5. Nambe Pueblo Water Distribution System Map............................................................... 14

Figure 4-6. Schematic of AdEdge APU-160 Arsenic Removal System.............................................. 17

Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations........................................ 18

Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System................................................................................................. 20

Figure 4-9. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID Control 

Panel (bottom)................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4-10. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment ....................................... 22

Figure 4-11. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration ............................................... 23

Figure 4-12. Nambe Pueblo Treatment Plant Building ......................................................................... 25

Figure 4-13. Operator Training at Nambe Pueblo................................................................................. 26

Figure 4-14. Treatment System Daily Operating Times ....................................................................... 28

Figure 4-15. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates.............................................................. 29

Figure 4-16. Operational Pressure Readings......................................................................................... 30

Figure 4-17a. In-line pH Data for Period from March 31 Through June 20, 2008 ................................. 31

Figure 4-17b. In-line pH Data for Period from September 17, 1008 Through January 08, 2009 ........... 32

Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves ................................................................................. 39

Figure 4-19. Real-time pH values at AP Location vs. Effluent As and U Concentrations.................... 40

Figure 4-20. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curves................................................................................ 41

Figure 4-21. Total Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves..................................................................... 41

Figure 4-22. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water .................................... 45

Figure 4-23. Uranium Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water................................... 45

Figure 4-24. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost.............................................. 48

TABLES

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites............................................... 2

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates.................................................... 4

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities........................................ 4

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes........................................................................................... 6

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM .................................... 13

Table 4-2. Nambe Pueblo Lead and Copper Rule Sampling Results, October 2003 ............................ 15

Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media ............................................................ 16
viii

Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-160 System.......................................................... 19

Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous Hollow Fiber Membrane ........................... 22

Table 4-6. Key Activities and Completion Dates in Building Preparation and System 

Installation............................................................................................................................ 26

Table 4-7. System Punch-List/Operational Issues................................................................................. 27

Table 4-8. Summary of AdEdge APU-160 System Operation.............................................................. 28

Table 4-9. Example pH Data from the In-line pH Probe....................................................................... 33

Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese,........................................... 36

Table 4-11. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results.................................................... 37

Table 4-12. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis....................................................................................... 42

Table 4-13. Spent Media Uranium .......................................................................................................... 43

Table 4-14. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 44

Table 4-15. Capital Investment Cost for Nambe Pueblo Tribe System................................................... 46

Table 4-16. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Nambe Pueblo System ........................................ 47
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Δp differential pressure

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

AM adsorptive media

APU arsenic package unit

As arsenic

ATSI Applied Technology Systems, Inc.

AWC Arizona Water Company

BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller 

BV bed volume

Ca calcium

CAD computer-aided design

C/F coagulation/filtration process

CISD Consolidated Independent School District

Cl chlorine

CO2 carbon dioxide

CRF capital recovery factor

Cu copper

DO dissolved oxygen

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluorine

Fe iron

FRP fiber-reinforced plastic

gpd gallons per day

gph gallons per hour

gpm gallons per minute

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IHS Indian Health Services

ISFET Ion Sensitive Field Effect Transistor

IX ion exchange

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Comsumer’s Association

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese
x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

mV millivolts

Na sodium

NA not analyzed

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NSF NSF International

O&M operation and maintenance

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

PID Proportional Integral Derivative

PLC programmable logic controller

PO4 phosphate

psi pounds per square inch

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RPD relative percent difference

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SM system modification

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level

SO4

2- sulfate

STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District

STS Severn Trent Services

TOC total organic carbon

U uranium

V vanadium

WRWC White Rock Water Company
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the Nambe Pueblo Tribe, Indian Health Services, and EPA Region 6 for 

the design and construction of the new treatment building, coordination of various demonstration-related 

issues, monitoring of the treatment system, and collection of samples from the treatment and distribution 

systems throughout the performance evaluation study. This performance evaluation would not have been 

possible without their efforts.
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that 

are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA 

established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the 

SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the 

arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 

2001). To clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 2003, to 

express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 μg/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community and nontransient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006. 

In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective 

technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard, 

and to provide technical assistance to operator of small systems in order to reduce compliance cost. As 

part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, onsite demonstrations of arsenic removal 

technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly 

thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in 

participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their 

water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 candidate sites to host the demonstration 

studies. The facility at Nambe Pueblo in New Mexico was selected to participate in this demonstration 

program.

In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective 

arsenic-removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 

17 host sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical 

panel reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it 

determined were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other 

technical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration program. Using the 

information provided by the review panel, EPA in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water 

programs of the respective states (or Indian Health Services [IHS] and EPA Region 6 in the case of the 

Nambe Pueblo site) selected one technical proposal for each site. An adsorptive media (AM) system 

proposed by AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge) using the Bayoxide E33 (AD-33) media developed by 

Bayer AG was selected for demonstration at the Nambe Pueblo site. 

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

The technologies selected for the 12 Round 1 arsenic removal demonstration host sites included nine AM 

systems, one coagulation/filtration (C/F) system, one ion exchange (IX) system, and one process 

modification with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system 

flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12 

demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 demonstration 

sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), 

which are posted on the EPA Arsenic Research Program Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
2

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites

Demonstration 

Site

Technology 

(Media) Vendor

Design

Flowrate

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L) pH

WRWC (Bow), NH AM (G2) ADI 70(a) 39 <25 7.7

Rollinsford, NH AM (E33) AdEdge 100 36(b) 46 8.2

Queen Anne’s County, MD AM (E33) STS 300 19(b) 270(c) 7.3

Brown City, MI AM (E33) STS 640 14(b) 127(c) 7.3

Climax, MN C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 140 39(b) 546(c) 7.4

Lidgerwood, ND SM Kinetico 250 146(b) 1,325(c) 7.2

Desert Sands MDWCA, NM AM (E33) STS 320 23(b) 39 7.7

Nambe Pueblo Tribe, NM AM (E33) AdEdge 145 33 <25 8.5

AWC (Rimrock), AZ AM (E33) AdEdge 90(a) 50 170 7.2

AWC (Valley Vista), AZ AM (AAFS50) Kinetico 37 41 <25 7.8

Fruitland, ID IX (A-300E) Kinetico 250 44 <25 7.4

STMGID, NV AM (GFH) Siemens 350 39 <25 7.4

AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; SM = system modification

AWC = Arizona Water Company; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer’s Association; 

STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water 

Company; STS = Severn Trent Services 

(a) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation. 

(b) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III). 

(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II). 

As of December 7, 2010, the performance evaluation of all 12 systems has been completed, and the final 

performance evaluation reports of ten demonstration sites have been completed and posted on the EPA 

Arsenic Research Program Web site.

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic removal technology 

demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The specific objectives are 

to:

• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems

• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies

• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.

This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Nambe Pueblo in New Mexico, 

from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009. The types of data collected included system operation, 

water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization, 

and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
3

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

AdEdge’s APU-160 treatment system with AD-33 granular media was installed and has operated at the 

Nambe Pueblo site in New Mexico since May 15, 2007. Based on the information collected during May 

15, 2007, through September 28, 2009, the following summary and conclusion statements are provided:

Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:

• AD-33 media effectively lowered arsenic and uranium concentrations to below 3 and 20 

μg/L, respectively, in system effluent throughout the 28-month study period.

• Significantly elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations (often higher than the 

corresponding source water concentrations) were measured in system effluent during a 

number of sampling events, presumably due to loss of pH control during system operation. 

• The operation of the treatment system significantly lowered arsenic and uranium 

concentrations to below 10 and 30 μg/L, respectively, in distribution system water. Elevated 

arsenic and uranium concentrations were observed during a few sampling events presumably 

caused by loss of pH control during system operation. The treatment system did not appear 

to have impacted lead or copper concentrations in distribution system water.

Required system O&M and operator skill levels:

• The facility experienced difficulties in maintaining a constant carbon dioxide (CO2)

supply, caused by non-standard working hours of the operator, remote site location, 

and/or delivery delays by the CO2 vendor. Interruption of CO2 supply caused 

periodic losses of pH control during system operation. 

• Operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those 

necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment. 

Process residuals produced by the technology: 

• No backwash residuals were produced because of low pressure drop (i.e., 1.1 lb/in2 [psi])

across the media beds.

• The adsorptive media did not need to be replaced even though it had treated twice as much 

water as projected by the vendor. Periodic losses of pH control might have caused arsenic 

and uranium to be “flushed” from the adsorptive media beds, thus extending the media life. 

Cost-effectiveness of the technology:

• Based on the system’s rated capacity of 160 gal/min (gpm) (or 230,400 gal/day [gpd]), the 

capital cost was $894/gpm (or $0.62/gpd) of design capacity. 

• Media replacement and disposal did not occur during system performance 

evaluation; however, the cost to change out both vessels (71.2 ft3 AD-33 media) was 

estimated to be $29,532, which included the replacement media, spent media 

disposal, shipping, labor, and travel.
4

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General Project Approach

Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study 

of the AdEdge AM system began on May 15, 2007, and ended on September 28, 2009. Table 3-2 

summarizes the types of data collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation study. 

Overall performance of the system was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to

below the arsenic MCL of 10 μg/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment plant, as 

described in a Performance Evaluation Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was 

evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and 

replacement. 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities 

and Completion Dates

Activities(a) Date

Introductory Meeting Held 08/19/03

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued 09/03/03

Final Letter of Understanding Issued 09/10/03

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor 08/22/03

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle 09/09/03

Purchase Order Completed and Signed 10/06/03

APU System Shipped 05/04/05

Final Study Plan Issued 06/01/05

System Installation Completed 05/15/07

System Shakedown Completed 05/15/07

Performance Evaluation Begun 05/15/07

(a) Additional activities related to treatment building 

preparation and system installation, shakedown, 

and startup presented in Table 4-6.

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection

Performance -Ability to consistently meet 10 μg/L of arsenic MCL in treated water

Reliability -Unscheduled system downtime 

-Frequency and extent of repairs, including a description of problems, 

materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost

System O&M and 

Operator Skill 

Requirements

-Pre- and post-treatment requirements

-Level of automation for system operation and data collection 

-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers

-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, 

and complexity of tasks

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and 

safety practices

Residual Management -Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by 

system process

System Cost -Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation

-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor
5

The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated through quantitative data and 

qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, 

extent of preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, 

and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. 

The staffing requirements for system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. 

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and 

the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This requires tracking the capital cost for equipment, site 

engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical 

consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Nambe Pueblo’s O&M cost were limited to CO2

consumption, electricity usage, and labor because media replacement did not take place during the system 

performance evaluation.

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection

The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to 

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. The plant operator recorded system operational data

such as pressure, flowrate, system throughput, and hour meter readings on a Daily System Operation Log 

Sheet; checked sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and CO2 levels; and conducted visual inspections to ensure 

normal system operations. If any problem occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, 

who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all 

relevant information, including problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies 

used, and associated cost and labor incurred, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. 

The capital cost for the arsenic-removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and 

system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the expenditure for chemical use, electricity 

consumption, and labor. Liquid CO2 was delivered in 50-lb cylinders by Airgas West (Santa Fe, NM) on 

an as-needed basis and its use was tracked by recording on the Daily System Operation Log Sheets 

whenever CO2 cylinders were replaced. Electricity consumption was tracked through an onsite electric 

meter. Labor hours for routine system O&M, system troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstrationrelated work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. Routine O&M included activities 

such as completing field logs, replacing CO2 cylinders, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, 

and others as recommended by the vendor. Demonstration-related work, including activities such as 

performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle 

Study Lead and vendor, was recorded but not used for the cost analysis.

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,

and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured 

during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, 

containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2003).

3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the site on August 19, 2003, 

one set of source water samples was collected from the Buffalo Well for detailed water quality analyses. 

Source water also was speciated onsite using a speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was 

flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause 

unwanted oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
6

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes

Sample 

Type

Sampling

Locations(a)

No. of 

Sampling

Locations Frequency Analytes

Sampling

Date

Source 

Water

IN 1 Once during 

initial site 

visit

Onsite: pH

Offsite: 

Al (total and soluble), 

As (total and soluble), 

As(III), As(V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

Mo (total and soluble),

Sb (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), 

Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4, TOC, 

alkalinity, and turbidity

08/19/03

Treatment 

Plant Water

IN, AP, TT 3 Once in 

each 4-week 

cycle(b)

(Speciation 

Sampling)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, ORP, and Cl2 (total 

and free)(c)

Offsite: 

As (total and soluble), 

As(III), As(V),

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble),

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, P, TOC, alkalinity, 

and turbidity

07/09/07

08/10/07

IN, AP, TA, TB 4 Three times 

in each 4-

week 

cycle(d)

(Regular 

Sampling)

Onsite: pH(e), 

temperature, DO, ORP, 

and Cl2 (total and free)(c)

Offsite: As (total), 

Fe (total), Mn (total), 

U (total), SiO2, P, 

alkalinity, and turbidity

See Appendix B

Distribution 

Water

Three locations 

supplied plant

water

3 Monthly(f) pH, alkalinity, and total 

As, Fe, Mn, U, Pb, and 

Cu

Baseline sampling:

See Table 4-14

Monthly sampling:

See Table 4-14

(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-7: IN = at wellhead; AP = 

after pH adjustment; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; and TT = after effluent combined.

(b) Although scheduled monthly, speciation sampling performed only twice on July 9 and August 10, 2007.

(c) Total and free chlorine to be measured at AP and TT only but none was measured during actual sampling.

(d) Actual sampling frequency varied from 1 to 8 weeks.

(e) Onsite water quality parameters not measured during performance evaluation study; real-time pH readings

monitored with an in-line pH meter at AP location.

(f) Monthly sampling discontinued after September 10, 2008.

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation study, 

the plant operator collected water samples across the treatment train for onsite and offsite analyses. The 

Battelle Study Plan called for weekly sampling: One week in each four-week cycle, treatment plant 
7

samples were collected at the wellhead (IN), after pH adjustment but before the split to the two adsorption 

vessels (AP), and after effluent from the two vessels combined (TT). These samples were speciated and 

analyzed for the analytes listed under “Speciation Sampling” in Table 3-3. For the other three weeks in 

each four-week cycle, treatment plant samples were collected at four locations, i.e., IN, AP, and after 

Vessels A and B (TA and TB), and analyzed for the analytes listed under “Regular Sampling” in Table 3-

3. 

Because only trace amounts of As(III) existed in source water, speciation was performed only twice (on 

July 9 and August 10, 2007). Regular sampling was normally performed weekly between June 26, 2007, 

when the performance evaluation study began and August 28, 2008. The sampling frequency was 

extended to once every two weeks on seven occasions (on September 11, September 26, and November 

26, 2007, and on March 4, April 8, May 6, and June 3, 2008), and to once every four weeks on one 

occasion (on January 16, 2008). After August 28, 2008, the sampling frequncy occurred monthly on a 

regular basis. Although called for in the Study Plan, the operator did not perform onsite water quality 

analyses during all regular sampling events. The operator did, however, record pH values at the AP 

location using an in-line pH meter. 

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater/Solids and Spent Media Samples. Because the system was not 

backwashed during the entire study period, no backwash residuals were produced. Further, because 

media replacement did not take place, there were no spent media. However, media samples were 

collected during the performance evaluation study as described in Section 4.5.2.

3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the 

distribution system to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the 

distribution system, specifically arsenic, uranium, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from 

December 2003 to March 2004, four sets of baseline distribution system water samples were collected at 

three locations within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution system water 

sampling continued on a monthly basis through September 10, 2008. 

The three locations selected for baseline sampling included one resident home, the Housing Department 

Office, and the Senior Center, which were partially served by the Buffalo Well. After system startup, 

sampling locations were moved to three residences that received only the treatment plant water. The 

baseline and monthly distribution system samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed 

according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 

2002). First-draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr 

to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Samplers recorded date and time of last water use before 

sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculations of the stagnation time. The samples 

were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not conducted on the 

distribution system water samples.

3.4 Sampling Logistics

All sampling logistics, including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample coolers, and sample 

shipping and handling are discussed as follows:

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion 

exchange resin column to separate soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998). 

Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories in accordance with the procedures 

detailed in Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003). 
8

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared 

with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample 

bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a preprinted, color-coded, and waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of 

sample collection, collector’s name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. 

The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter 

code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if 

necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For 

example, red, blue, orange, yellow, and green were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AP, TA, 

TB, and TT, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate ziplock bags and packed in the cooler. When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the 

distribution system water sampling.

 

In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions, 

chain-of-custody forms, pre-paid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included in each 

cooler. Except for the operator’s signature, the chain-of-custody forms and air bills had already been 

completed with the required information. The sample coolers were shipped via FedEx to the facility 

approximately 1 week prior to the scheduled sampling date. 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were 

packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample 

custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact. 

Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were logged into the 

laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant 

operator by the Battelle Study Lead. 

Samples for metal analyses were stored and analyzed at Battelle’s inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate 

coolers and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and 

TCCI Laboratories in Lexington, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this 

demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of 

preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate 

laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter. 

3.5 Analytical Procedures

The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2003)

were followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assuarnce/quality 

control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, 

accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP 

(i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to120%, and completeness of 

80%). The quality assurance data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a 

QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic 

Demonstration Project.

Field measurements of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)

were conducted only twice on July 9 and August 10, 2007 by the plant operator using a VWR Symphony 

SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter. The meter was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the 

procedures provided in the user’s manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring 

the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a 

water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Symphony SP90M5 probe in the beaker until a 

stable value was obtained. pH values at the AP location (after pH adjustment) also were monitored by an 
9

in-line pH meter, which was connected to the system’s programmable logic controller (PLC). Measured 

pH values were recorded at 30-min intervals during system operation and saved at the PLC for later 

download. 
10

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure

The Nambe Pueblo water system supplied drinking water to approximately 500 community members with 

150 service connections. Located on a hilltop adjacent to a buffalo range (Figure 4-1), the pre-existing 

system consisted of a 145-gpm well (Buffalo Well [Figure 4-2]), a pump house (located about 10 ft from 

the well), and a 17-ft-diameter, 24-ft-tall water storage tank (Figure 4-3). Groundwater was pumped 

intermittently from the well to the pump house where a totalizer was used to track the total volume of 

feed water to the system. Liquid chlorine was added (Figure 4-4) using a peristaltic pump to maintain a 

residual chlorine level of approximately 0.58 mg/L (as Cl2) in the 40,000-gal water storage tank and 

distribution system. Water in the storage tank was gravity-fed through the distribution system to the 

community. The system typically operated for 3 to 4 hr/day, with a daily demand of approximately

34,000 gpd. 

Figure 4-1. Nambe Pueblo Buffalo Range

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Water samples from the Buffalo Well were collected and speciated

on August 19, 2003. The results are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those taken by the facility 

for the EPA demonstration site selection and independently collected and analyzed by EPA.

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of the Buffalo Well water ranged from 29 to 33.2 μg/L, which 

existed primarily as soluble As(V) (94% based on the August 2003 Battelle sampling results). Trace 

amounts of soluble As(III) and particulate arsenic also existed at 0.2 and 1.8 μg/L, respectively.
11

Figure 4-2. Pump Head on Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM

Figure 4-3. Pre-existing Pump House and Water Storage Tank
12

Figure 4-4. Chlorination Before Distribution at Nambe Pueblo, NM

Iron and Manganese. Iron and manganese concentrations in the Buffalo Well water were low, ranging 

from <30 to 138 μg/L and from 1.3 to 22.9 μg/L, respectively. In general, adsorptive media technologies

are best suited to sites with relatively low iron levels (e.g., less than 300 μg/L, the secondary maximum 

contaminant level [SMCL]). Iron concentrations greater than 300 μg/L can cause taste, odor, and color 

problems and an increased potential for fouling of adsorption system components.

pH. pH values of source water ranged between 8.5 and 8.8. Arsenic adsorption by AD-33 media can be 

performed at pH values ranging between 6.0 and 9.0, but is more effective when the pH is <8.0. Because 

of the high pH, the vendor recommended pH adjustment of source water to approximately 7.0 using CO2.

Competing Anions. Arsenic adsorption can be influenced by competing anions such as silica, 

phosphorus, and vanadium. Concentrations of these ions as presented in Table 4-1do not appear to be 

high enough to cause any adverse effect on arsenic adsorption. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. Concentrations of other water quality parameters were low and do not 

appear to have any impact on arsenic adsorption.

4.1.2 Distribution System. The Nambe Pueblo distribution system consists of a 10-mile long, 

partially looped distribution line and two 88,000-gal storage tanks supplied by the Buffalo Well, Lower 

Well, and Upper Well with a combined production capacity of approximately 285 gpm. The two storage 

tanks are located approximately 1 mile apart and are connected to the distribution system with 6-in 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The distribution system is constructed of 2- to 6-in PVC pipe.
13

Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Buffalo Well at Nambe Pueblo, NM

Parameter Unit

Utility 

Data

EPA 

Data

Battelle 

Data

Sampling Date - 10/09/02 08/19/03

pH S.U. 8.8 NA 8.5

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 204.0 163.2 168.0

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 199.0 NA 5.4

Turbidity mg/L NA NA NA

Chloride mg/L <10 5.6 8.4

Fluoride mg/L NA 0.9 0.1

Sulfide mg/L NA 9.4 NA

Sulfate mg/L <10 28.2 28.0

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.0* 15.1 14.1

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L <0.065* <0.005 <0.10

TOC mg/L NA NA 2.1

As(total) μg/L 32.0 29.0 33.2

As (soluble) μg/L NA NA 31.4

As (particulate) μg/L NA NA 1.8

As(III) μg/L NA NA 0.2

As(V) μg/L NA NA 31.2

Fe (total) μg/L <100 138.0 <30

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA NA <30

Al (total) μg/L NA <25 10.0

Al (soluble) μg/L NA NA 28.7

Mn (total) μg/L <50 22.9 1.3

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA NA 1.3

V (total) μg/L NA NA 9.2

V (soluble) μg/L NA NA 8.6

Mo (total) μg/L NA NA <0.1

Mo (soluble) μg/L NA NA <0.1

Sb (total) μg/L NA <25 <0.1

Sb (soluble) μg/L NA NA <0.1

Na (total) μg/L 22.0 88.6 93.3

Ca (total) mg/L 73.0 2.1 2.1

Mg (total) mg/L 4.0 <0.04 0.0

* = data provided by EPA; NA = not analyzed; TOC = total organic 

carbon

The distribution system is subdivided into the lower and upper zones. The lower zone is supplied by all 

three wells, whereas the upper zone is served primarily by the Buffalo Well. All three locations for 

distribution system water sampling were located in the upper zone. Figure 4-5 presents an aerial

photograph map of the Nambe Pueblo distribution system.

The Nambe Pueblo Tribe collects water samples from the distribution system for several analytes. Three 

samples are collected each month for bacteria analysis. The bacteriological sampling locations vary from 

month to month. Under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) (EPA, 2002), water samples were collected 

from customer taps at five locations. As an example, Table 4-2 presents the results of LCR samples 

collected in October 2003.
14

Figure 4-5. Nambe Pueblo Water Distribution System Map
15

Table 4-2. Nambe Pueblo Lead and Copper Rule 

Sampling Results, October 2003

Location Date Unit Copper Lead

LCR 01 10/27/03 μg/L 51.5 <2.0

LCR 08 10/26/03 μg/L 12.7 <2.0

LCR 09 10/27/03 μg/L 129 <2.0

LCR38 10/27/03 μg/L 269 <2.0

LCR 40 10/30/03 μg/L 72.4 <2.0

90th percentile(a) - μg/L 199 <2.0

Analysis performed by EPA Region 6 Laboratory.

(a) To determine 90th percentile concentration for five 

samples, average highest and second-highest 

concentrations.

4.2 Treatment Process Description

The arsenic package unit (APU) marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorption system used

for small water systems in the flow range of 5 to 300 gpm. It uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD33 by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG, for arsenic removal from 

drinking water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the media. AD-33 media 

is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in 

drinking water applications. The media exists in both granular and pelletized forms, which have similar 

physical and chemical properties, except that pellets are denser than granules (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3

). For 

the Nambe Pueblo site, the granular media was selected for use.

The AdEdge arsenic treatment system consisted of two adsorption vessels (i.e., A and B) arranged in 

parallel. The original proposal for this demonstration site specified an 150-gpm APU-150 system; 

however, due to the experience gained at other demonstration sites, the vendor upgraded the system to 

treat 160 gpm of water. Figure 4-6 is a schematic of the AdEdge APU-160 system. 

The APU-160 system can be either manually or automatically backwashed on an as-needed basis, as 

determined by the pressure loss across the adsorption vessels or time elapsed since the last backwash. 

However, no backwash was conducted during the performance evaluation study due to minimal pressure 

drop across the vessels. Figure 4-7 shows a process flow diagram with the sampling locations and 

analytes. Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters. The system included CO2 addition to reduce 

the pH to approximately 7. No post treatment was proposed. 

Key process steps and major system components are discussed as follows:

• Intake. Source water was pumped from the Buffalo Well and chlorinated before being fed to 

the treatment system.

• Prechlorination. Although prechlorination was not required (because arsenic existed

primarily as As[V]), the existing chlorination system was retained to provide disinfection to

the treatment system. In addition, a post-chlorination point was included to ensure that the 

target chlorine residual level of 0.58 mg/L (as Cl2) was met before treated water entered the 

distribution system. Figure 4-8 presents photographs of the chlorine metering pumps, the 

chlorine storage drum, and the pre- and post-chlorination injection points.
16

Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media

Physical Properties

Parameter Value

Matrix Iron oxide composite

Physical Form Dry granular media

Color Amber

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 28

BET Area (m2/g) 142

Attrition (%) 0.3

Moisture Content (%) <15 (by weight)

Particle Size Distribution (U.S. standard mesh) 10 × 35 

Crystal Size (Å) 70

Crystal Phase α – FeOOH

Chemical Analysis

Constituents Weight (%)

FeOOH 90.1

CaO 0.27

MgO 1.00

MnO 0.23

SO3 0.13

Na2O 0.12

TiO2 0.11

SiO2 0.06

Al2O3 0.05

P2O5 0.02

Cl 0.01

Source: Provided by AdEdge

BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller

The chlorine addition system consisted of a peristaltic pump, a chemical feed tank 

(containing a 10% NaOCl solution), and a secondary containment. Chlorine addition was 

synchronized with the well pump. Proper operation of the chlorine feed system was tracked 

through tank level measurements. 

• pH adjustment. pH values of source water were lowered from 8.5 to 8.8 to a target value of 

7.0 using CO2. CO2 was selected for pH adjustments because (1) it is less corrosive than 

mineral acids, such as H2SO4, and (2) when treated water is depressurized after exiting the 

adsorption vessels, some CO2 may degas, thereby raising the pH of the treated water and 

reducing its corrosivity to the distribution piping. 

A carbon dioxide gas flow control system manufactured by Applied Technology Systems, 

Inc. (ATSI) in Souderton, PA, was used for pH control. The pH control system consisted of a 

liquid CO2 supply assembly, an automatic pH control panel, a CO2 membrane assembly, and 

a pH probe located downstream of the membrane module. 

Figure 4-9 presents a process flow diagram of the control system, which is designed to 

introduce gaseous CO2 into the water in a side-stream configuration, or a CO2 loop. Figure 4-

10 provides a series of photographs showing various system components.

o Liquid CO2 in two 50-lb cylinders vaporizes into gaseous CO2 via a feed vaporizer prior 

to entering a pH control panel. 
17

Figure 4-6. Schematic of AdEdge APU-160 Arsenic Removal System
18

LEGEND

LEGEND

Unit Process

IN Influent

Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

TT Total Combined Effluent

TB Vessel B Effluent

TA Vessel A Effluent

Water Sampling Locations

BW

INFLUENT

AP After pH Adjustment

DA: Cl Chlorine Disinfection 2

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

INFLUENT

(BUFFALO WELL) Nambe Pueblo, NM

AD-33TM Technology

Design Flow: 160 gpm

TCLP

POND

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly

Twice

SS

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

TA

IN

AP

pH ADJUSTMENT –

CO2 INJECTION

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

TT

TB

pH(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

DA: Cl2

pH(a), As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

LEGEND

LEGEND

Unit Process

IN Influent

Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

TT Total Combined Effluent

TB Vessel B Effluent

TA Vessel A Effluent

Water Sampling Locations

BW

INFLUENT

AP After pH Adjustment

DA: Cl Chlorine Disinfection 2

LEGEND

LEGEND

Unit Process

IN Influent

Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

TT Total Combined Effluent

TB Vessel B Effluent

TA Vessel A Effluent

Water Sampling Locations

BW

INFLUENT

AP After pH Adjustment

DA: Cl Chlorine Disinfection 2

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

A

INFLUENT

(BUFFALO WELL) Nambe Pueblo, NM

AD-33TM Technology

Design Flow: 160 gpm

TCLP

POND

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly

Twice

SS

Footnote

(a) On-site analyses

TA

IN

AP

pH ADJUSTMENT –

CO2 INJECTION

MEDIA 

VESSEL 

B

TT

TB

pH(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

DA: Cl2

pH(a), As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), SiO2,

P (total), alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

pH(a)

, temperature(a),

DO/ORP(a)

, As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, F, NO3, SO4, P (total),

TOC, alkalinity, turbidity

Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations
19

Table 4-4. Design Specifications for AdEdge APU-160 System

Parameter Value Remarks

Pre-treatment

Target pH Value after Adjustment (S.U.) 7.0 Using CO2

Target Chlorine Residual (mg/L [as Cl2]) 0.58 Using NaClO

Adsorption Vessels

Vessel Size (in) 48 D × 72 H –

Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel) 12.6 –

Number of Vessels 2 –

Configuration Parallel –

AD-33 Adsorption Media

Media Bed Depth (in) 34

Media Quantity (lb) 1,994 997 lb/vessel

Media Volume (ft3) 71.2 35.6 ft3/vessel

Media Type AD-33 Granular form 

Service

Design Flowrate (gpm) 160 80 gpm/vessel

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 6.3 –

EBCT (min) 3.3 Based on 160 gpm design flow

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 61,296 To 10 μg/L total arsenic breakthrough 

Throughput to Breakthrough (gal) 32,609,500 1 BV = 71.2 ft3 = 532 gal

Average Use Rate (gal/day) 45,000 Based on 6.25 hr/day operation at 120 gpm

Estimated Media Life (months) 24.2 Vendor estimated media life

Backwash

Pressure Differential Set Point (psi) 10 –

Backwash Flowrate (gpm) 113 to125 –

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 9 to 10 –

Backwash Frequency (per month) 1 –

Backwash Duration (min/vessel) 17 to 19 –

Wastewater Production (gal/vessel) 1,920–2,380 –

o As the CO2 gas flowed to the pH control panel, the gas flowrate is automatically 

controlled and adjusted by a JUMO pH/Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller 

and an Alicat mass flowmeter (Figure 4-10) to reach a desired pH setpoint. As an 

alternative, manual regulation of the gas flowrate also can be achieved via the use of a 

three-way ball valve and a rotameter. Further, a solenoid valve interlocks with the well 

pump, allowing gas to flow only when the well pump is turned on.

o After flowing out of the control panel, CO2 is injected into water through a Celgard®

microporous hollow fiber membrane module housed in a 1.5-in stainless steel sanitary 

cross. Table 4-5 lists the properties and specifications of the hollow fiber membrane 

module. The sanitary cross is located in a side stream from the main water line to allow 

only a portion of water to flow through the membrane module to minimize the pressure 

drop. The membrane introduced CO2 gas into the water at a near molecular level for 

rapid mixing/reaction with water to achieve a quick pH response/change.

o Located downstream from the sanitary cross, a Sentron ion sensitive field effect transistor 

(ISFET) type silicon chip sanitary pH probe with automatic temperature compensation 

continuously monitors pH levels of treated water and sends signals back to the pH/PID 

controller for pH control. Data from the in-line pH meter are recorded and stored in a 

datalogger. 
20

Figure 4-8. Chlorination Feed System

(Clockwise from top left: NaClO storage tank and chlorine metering pumps;

Prechlorination injection point; and Post-chlorination injection point)

o Throughout the study, the CO2 pH control system supplied CO2 at approximately 16.2

ft3

/hr, or 23.3 lb/day (Section 4.4.2). The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders 

provided CO2 for about 4.3 days before requiring change-out.

• Adsorption. The AdEdge APU-160 arsenic removal system consists of two 48-in × 72-in 

vessels configured in parallel, each containing 35.6 ft3 of AD-33 media supported by a gravel 

underbed. The vessels are fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) construction rated for 150 psi 

working pressure. The FRP vessels are skid-mounted and piped to a valve rack mounted on a 

polyurethane coated, welded frame. The empty bed contact time (EBCT) for the system is 

3.3 min and the hydraulic loading to each vessel is 6.3 gpm/ft2

, based on the design flowrate 

of 160 gpm. 
21

Figure 4-9. Process Diagram of CO2 pH Adjustment System (top) and pH/PID 

Control Panel (bottom)

Source: Applied Technology Systems, Inc. (ATSI)
22

Figure 4-10. Carbon Dioxide Gas Flow Control System for pH Adjustment

(Clockwise from top left: Liquid CO2 supply assembly; Automatic pH control Panel; 

CO2 Membrane Module; and Port for pH Probe) 

Table 4-5. Properties of Celgard®, X50-215 Microporous 

Hollow Fiber Membrane

Parameter Value

Porosity (%) 40

Pore Dimensions (μm) 0.04 × 0.10 

Effective Pore Size (μm) 0.04 

Minimum Burst Strength (psi) 400

Tensile Break Strength (g/filament) ≥300

Average Resistance to Air Flow (Gurley sec) 50 

Axial Direction Shrinkage (%) ≤5

Fiber Internal Diameter, nominal (μm) 220

Fiber Wall Thickness, nominal (μm) 40

Fiber Outer Diameter, nominal (μm) 300

Module Dimensions (in) 1.5 × 3.0 

Data Source: Celgard®
23

Each pressure vessel is interconnected with Schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically 

actuated butterfly valves, which make up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-11. During 

normal operation, the feed valves and effluent valves are opened and the other six valves are 

closed to direct water downward through the two adsorptive vessels. During backwashing, 

the feed and effluent valves are closed and the backwash feed valves and backwash effluent 

valves are opened to divert water upward through the two adsorption vessels. The butterfly 

valves are controlled by a Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch 

interface screen.

• Backwash. The vendor recommended that the APU-160 system be backwashed 

approximately once per month, either manually or automatically, to remove particulates and 

media fines that accumulate in the media beds. Automatic backwash can be initiated by 

either timer or differential pressure across the vessels (i.e., when Δp>10 psi). Backwash is to 

be performed upflow at a flowrate of 113 to 125 gpm to achieve a hydraulic loading rate of 

about 9 to 10 gpm/ft2

. Each backwash cycle is set to last for about 17 to 19 min/vessel,

generating approximately 1,920 to 2,380 gal/vessel of wastewater. The backwash water is 

discharged into a drainage pond adjacent to the treatment facility.

Figure 4-11. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration

4.3 System Installation

The installation of the APU system was completed by AdEdge and its subcontractor, Pumps and Services, 

Inc., on May 15, 2007. The following briefly summarizes predemonstration activities, including 

permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
24

4.3.1 Permitting. The Nambe Pueblo community water system was not subject to State of New 

Mexico Environment Department (NMED) drinking water permit requirements due to the sovereignty of 

Nambe Pueblo as a tribal land; therefore, no engineering submittals or permit packages were prepared for 

this demonstration. 

4.3.2 Building Preparation. The existing building (Figure 4-3) at the Buffalo Well was too small

to house the APU system, therefore, a new building (Figure 4-12) was constructed by the IHS to house 

the treatment system. To facilitate the building design, conceptual system footprint and structural 

requirements were provided by AdEdge to IHS on November 14, 2003, and computer-aided design 

(CAD) drawings of the system were provided on November 28, 2003. IHS signed a contract with a 

general contractor for construction of the building on October 5, 2004, and site work began on November 

8, 2004. The concrete foundation was completed on December 2, 2004, and geotechnical samples were 

collected to determine if the concrete would support the wet weight of the APU. The concrete was 

approved in January 2005, and building construction was resumed. 

Construction of the first phase of building, including the walls, roof, and doors, was completed in April 

2005; however, the electrical and plumbing work was not complete, and the construction contract funding 

was depleted. Construction of the building stopped in April 2005, pending the award of additional federal 

funding to pay for the remaining construction effort. Additional funding was received by IHS on August 

2, 2005, but the new construction contract was not issued until May 31, 2006. Construction activities 

resumed on June 26, 2006, and the final electrical work was completed on August 29, 2006. A summary 

of building preparation completion dates is included in Table 4-6.

4.3.3 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system was delivered to the 

new building on May 9, 2005. However, as noted in Section 4.3.2, the plumbing and electrical portions 

of the building were not completed, and system installation could not be performed. The system was 

secured in the unfinished building pending completion of the plumbing and electrical work required to 

support installation of the system. After building construction was completed on August 29, 2006, 

plumbing and electrical connections for the system (with the exception of CO2 gas line) were completed 

on September 5, 2006. Due to various issues among the Nambe Pueblo Tribe, IHS, and EPA Region 6, 

approval to finalize the installation of the system was not reached until February 2007.

On May 7, 2007, the vendor returned to the site to complete the plumbing, install the CO2 system, and 

perform shakedown testing and operator training. Hydraulic testing of the system (prior to media 

loading) was conducted on May 8, 2007. The flow and differential pressure measurements were 

approved, and the underbedding gravels and adsorptive media were loaded into the vessels on May 8, 

2007. Final installation activities, including initial backwash of the media, plumbing of sample ports, and 

installation of the pH control system, was conducted from May 11 through 15, 2007, with personnel 

present from AdEdge, IHS, EPA Region 6, and Nambe Pueblo Tribe (the operator and assistant operator). 

The system officially went into service on May 15, 2007, and operator training was provided by AdEdge 

on May 16, 2007. Battelle staff arrived at Nambe Pueblo on July 9, 2007, to inspect the system and 

provide additional operator training (Figure 4-13). Training included calibration and use of the field 

water quality meters, collection and recording of operational data, proper sample collection techniques, 

arsenic speciation, and sample handling and shipping procedures. Table 4-6 summarizes key activities 

and completed dates during system installation, shakedown, and startup. 
25

Figure 4-12. Nambe Pueblo Treatment Plant Building

(Top: Building under construction; Bottom: Completed building)
26

Table 4-6. Key Milestones for Building Preparation and System Installation

Activity Date

Building Preparation

Footprint and Structural Requirements from AdEdge to HIS November 14, 2003

CAD Drawings provided by AdEdge to IHS November 28, 2003

IHS Signed Contract with General Contractor October 5, 2004

Site Work Began November 8, 2004

Concrete Foundation Completed December 2, 2004

Concrete Pour Approved January 2005

First Phase of Construction Completed; Funding Exhausted April 2005

Additional Federal Funds Received by HIS August 2, 2005

New Construction Contract Issued May 31, 2006

Construction Resumed June 26, 2006

Final Electrical Work Completed August 29, 2006

Installation, Shakedown, and Startup

APU Delivered to Nambe Building May 9, 2005

Plumbing and Electrical Connections Completed September 5, 2006

Approval to Finalize Installation Received February 2007

Hydraulic Testing Performed May 8, 2007

Adsorptive Media Loaded May 8, 2007

Final Installation and Startup May 11–15, 2007

System Startup May 15, 2007

Operator Training Performed by AdEdge May 16, 2007

Operator Training Performed by Battelle July 9, 2007

Figure 4-13. Operator Training at Nambe Pueblo
27

Table 4-7 summarizes the punch-list items identified by Battelle during system shakedown and operator 

training, and corrective actions taken by AdEdge. The first two items were addressed quickly. The 

uneven flow through Vessels A and B did not cause a problem; the flow imbalance was not significant 

during the demonstration study (i.e. 51.5% through Vessel A and 48.5% through Vessel B [Section 

4.3.1]). Therefore, no action was taken on this item. Vendors were contacted to determine cost and 

feasibility of installing a large CO2 tank, and it was determined that the most efficient approach would be 

to have more CO2 cylinders on hand and provide better coordination for delivery.

Table 4-7. System Punch-List/Operational Issues

Item 

No.

Punch-List/

Operational Issues Corrective Action(s) Taken

Resolution 

Date

1 Rotameter for CO2 system too 

small

• Ordered and install a larger rotameter June 2007

2 pH control system appears to have 

a high CO2 use rate

• Checked for leaks in system, but none 

was found

June 2007

3 Water flow through Tank A higher 

than Tank B

• Observe to determine if uneven flow 

becomes a problem

Not needed

4 Operator prefers to have a large 

CO2 storage tank with a fill 

connection outside fenced area so 

that CO2 vendor can replenish 

supplies when operator is not 

onsite

• Vendors contacted to determine cost 

and feasibility of installing a large CO2

tank, and it was determined that most 

efficient approach would be to have 

more CO2 cylinders on hand and 

provide better coordination for delivery

Not needed

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Operational data were collected from July 9, 2007, through 

September 28, 2009, and are attached as Appendix A. Table 4-8 summarizes key parameters. According 

to the well pump hour meter, the treatment system operated for a total of 9,445 hr. Daily operating times 

fluctuated significantly from 2 to 24 hr and remained low at 2.1 hr/day (on average) from October 11 

through December 3, 2007 (see Figure 4-14). This was due to testing of a rehabilitated well in the 

distribution system, which reduced daily demand from the treatment plant. Excluding the period from 

October 11 to December 3, 2007, the average daily operation time was 12.3 hr/day. Because no daily 

operational data were collected from system startup on May 15, 2007 to July 9, 2007, operation hours 

(689 hr) during this period were estimated by multiplying the average daily operation time (12.3 hr/day) 

by the number of days (56 day). Total system operation time during the entire performance evaluation

study (i.e. from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009) was calculated to be 10,134 hr. 

Total volume throughput during the performance evaluation study was 64,580,000 gal, or 121,390 bed 

volumes (BV) (1 BV = 71.2 ft3 of media in both vessels), based on two totalizers installed at the inlet side 

of the adsorption vessels. The average daily demand was 78,360 gpd, excluding the period from October 

11 to December 3, 2007, when a rehabilitated well was tested in the distribution system. 

System flowrates were tracked by electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed at the inlet side of the 

vessels. Flowrates also were calculated based on flow totalizer and hour meter readings from the same

electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers. Instantaneous flowrate readings for Vessels A and B were 58.8 

and 55.5 gpm (on average), respectively, which were 4% to 5% higher than the corresponding calculated 

flowrates of 56.7 and 53.0 gpm (on average). As shown in Figure 4-15, there was slight flow imbalance 

between Vessels A and B, i.e., 51.5 and 48.5%, respectively, based on instantaneous flowrate readings. 
28

Table 4-8. Summary of AdEdge APU-160 System Operation

Parameter Actual

Study Duration 05/15/07–09/28/09

Estimated Total Operating Time (hr) 10,134

Average Daily Operating Time(a) (hr) 12.3

Volume Throughput (gal) Vessel A: 33,460,647

Vessel B: 31,119,352

System: 64,580,000

System Throughput( b) (BV) 121,390

System Average Daily Use(a) (gpd) 78,360

Average (Range) of Instantaneous 

Flowrate (gpm)

Vessel A: 58.8 (49.7 to 72.2)

Vessel B: 55.5 (44.2 to 67.5)

System: 114 (97 to 140)

Average (Range) of Hydraulic Loading 

Rate (gpm/ft2)

Vessel A: 4.7(3.9 to 5.7)

Vessel B: 4.4 (3.5 to 5.4)

System: 4.5 (3.8 to 5.6)

Average (Range) of EBCT (min) Vessel A: 4.5 (3.7 to 5.4)

Vessel B: 4.8 (3.9 to 6.0)

System: 4.7 (3.8 to 5.5)

Average (Range) of Δp (psi) Vessel A: 1.1 (0.0 to 4.0)

Vessel B: 1.1 (0.0 to 5.0)

System: 1.1 (0.0 to 5.0)

(a) Not including period from 10/11/07 through 12/03/07.

(b) 1 BV = 71.2 ft3 or 532 gal.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Daily Operation Time (hrs)

Low daily operation hours due to testing a 

rehabbed well in the distribution system, which

reduced daily demand from the treatment system

Figure 4-14. Treatment System Daily Operating Times
29

0

20

40

60

80

100

Flowrate (gpm)

Vessel A Instantaneous Flowrate

Vessel B Instantaneous Flowrate

Vessel A Calculated Flowrate

Vessel B Calculated Flowrate

Figure 4-15. System Instantaneous and Calculated Flowrates

Instantaneous flowrates through the treatment system ranged from 97 to 140 gpm and averaged 114 gpm, 

which was lower than the design flowrate of 160 gpm (Table 4-4). This average flowrate represented an 

average hydraulic loading rate of 4.5 gpm/ft2 and an average EBCT of 4.7 min. The average hydraulic 

loading rate was lower than the design value of 6.3 gpm/ft2

, and the average EBCT was longer than the 

design value of 3.3 min.

Differential pressure (Δp) readings across the system ranged from 0 to 5 psi and averaged 1.1 psi (Figure 

4-16). Δp readings across Vessel A ranged from 0 to 4 psi and averaged 1.1 psi. Δp readings across 

Vessel B ranged from 0 to 5 psi and averaged 1.1 psi. Due to the low Δp readings across the media 

vessels, no backwash was conducted during the performance evaluation study.

4.4.2 pH Adjustments. pH adjustment was provided by a carbon dioxide gas flow control system 

manufactured by ATSI (Section 4.2). Carbon dioxide gas was supplied to the system by a pair of 50-lb 

cylinders connected in parallel. The water system operator monitored the CO2 cylinders and ordered and 

received replacement cylinders when necessary. During the course of the performance evaluation study, 

the operator reported difficulties in coordinating the delivery of replacement cylinders and maintaining a 

constant CO2 supply to the pH control system. Factors for the difficulties might have included the nonstandard working hours of the operator, remote site location, and reported delivery delays by the CO2

vendor. 

The lack of constant CO2 supply to the pH adjustment system resulted in periodic losses of pH control. 

The pH values recorded by an in-line pH meter/logger at the AP location were downloaded for two time 

periods from March 31 through June 20, 2008, and from September 17, 2008, through January 8, 2009, 

and the data are plotted in Figures 4-17a and 17b, respectively. The datalogger recorded pH readings 
30

0

1

2

3

4

5

∆p (psi)

Vessel A

Vessel B

System

Figure 4-16. Operational Pressure Readings

from the in-line pH probe at 30-min intervals only when the well pump and APU system were operating. 

An additional data point was recorded when the well pump shut off. Based on the operational data sheets 

in Appendix A, the treatment system operated for 17.4 and 10.5 hr/day (on average) during the first and 

second time periods, respectively. It can be seen easily on Figure 4-17b, during December 7, 2008, 

through January 8, 2009, when the system was on or off. However, it is more difficult to differentiate the 

system’s on/off outside of this time period because of the large number of data points presented in the 

figures. 

Shaded areas shown in Figures 4-17a and 4-17b denote the durations when the treatment system operated 

without pH control. Based on the datalogger, the system operated without pH control for 55.2% of the 

time during the first period. pH control improved significantly in the second period with only 14.3% of 

the time operating without pH control. The improvement was probably due to an improved coordination 

of the plant operator to maintain a more constant CO2 supply, when analytical results started to indicate 

that losing pH control might flush adsorbed arsenic and uranium out of the adsorptive media beds 

(Section 4.5.1).

As also shown in Figures 4-17a and 4-17b, pH values measured by the in-line pH probe and recorded in 

the datalogger during periods without pH control were higher than those of source water, i.e., 9.0 and 9.1, 

as presented in Table 4-11. It is possible that the calibration of the in-line pH probe was off; however, 

due to lack of pH readings from a handheld meter, there were no additional data that might be used to 

compare the in-line pH probe readings. While the exact pH values might be incorrect due to lack of 

calibration, it does appear that the probe was able to detect the relative changes in pH during system 

operation.
31

6

7

8

9

10

pH

6

7

8

9

10

pH

Figure 4-17a. In-line pH Data for Period from March 31 Through June 20, 2008
32

6

7

8

9

10

pH

6

7

8

9

10

pH

6

7

8

9

10

pH

Figure 4-17b. In-line pH Data for Period from September 17, 2008, Through January 08, 2009
33

Table 4-9. Example pH Data from In-line 

pH Probe

Date and Time pH (in-line probe)

April 10, 2008 11:00 7.28

April 10, 2008 11:28 7.35

April 10, 2008 17:00 8.01

April 10, 2008 17:30 8.06

April 10, 2008 18:00 7.91

April 10, 2008 18:30 7.47

April 10, 2008 19:00 7.47

April 10, 2008 19:30 7.31

April 10, 2008 20:00 7.26

April 10, 2008 20:30 7.16

April 10, 2008 21:00 7.18

April 10, 2008 21:30 7.12

April 10, 2008 22:00 7.16

April 10, 2008 22:30 7.16

April 10, 2008 23:00 7.13

April 10, 2008 23:30 7.16

April 11, 2008 00:00 7.16

April 11, 2008 00:30 7.09

April 11, 2008 01:00 7.09

April 11, 2008 01:04 7.07

April 11, 2008 06:30 8.32

April 11, 2008 07:00 7.82

April 11, 2008 07:30 7.44

Table 4-9 shows a subset of pH datalogger recordings for April 10 and 11, 2008, at periods during system 

operation, shutdown, and startup. On April 10, the system was operating and recording data at 30-min 

intervals, as noted for the 11:00 data point. The datalogger then recorded another point at 11:28 when the 

well pump turned off. The next data point was recorded at 17:00 after the system had restarted. The 

period of time between 11:28 and 17:00 represented system downtime. The exact restart time of the 

system was unknown, but had to have occurred between 16:30 and 17:00. The pH data shown in Table 4-

9 suggested CO2 degassing during periods when the well pump (and consequently the pH control system 

and datalogger) was not operating. During this time, pH values in the in-line probe cell began to drift 

upwards, as shown by the pH readings increasing from 7.35, when the system shut down at 11:28, up to a 

level presumably higher than the 8.01 value measured by the time of the first reading at 17:00, or between 

0 and 29 min after system restart. A similar pattern was shown for April 11, 2008, where the system shut 

off at 01:04 with a pH value of 7.07, and restarted between 06:00 and 06:30 with a pH value measured at 

8.32 at 06:30. The data show that the pH continued to decrease with continued system operation. The 

pattern shown for each of these days was repeated on other dates where the datalogger pH data exist. 

Data collected during routine treatment plant sampling across the treatment train at TA, TB, and TT did 

not include pH measurements; it was therefore unclear if CO2 degassing phenomenon also had occurred

within the adsorption vessels.

In order to address the difficulty with maintaining proper pH control, alternative CO2 storage and delivery 

options were investigated. Quotes for the purchase and/or lease of a large CO2 storage tank were solicited 

from local vendors, and the costs for tank purchase and installation were compared to the costs of 50-lb 

cylinder rental. Analysis of the cost comparison indicated that the purchase and installation of a large 
34

CO2 storage tank, while potentially more convenient for the operator, was not economically feasible due 

to the significant capital cost. Therefore, it was decided not to install a large CO2 storage tank at the site.

During the period from July 9, 2007 to May 22, 2008, the treatment system operated 318 days and 

consumed a total of 148 50-lb CO2 cylinders. (Note that the consumption of CO2 cylinders was not 

recorded before July 9, 2007 and after May 22, 2008). Therefore, the treatment system consumed an 

average of 23.3 lb/day of CO2, corresponding to 16.2 ft3

/hr of CO2 based on a gas density of 0.117 lb/ft3

and an average system operating time of 12.3 hr/day. The CO2 gas supplied from two 50-lb cylinders 

provided CO2 for about 4.3 days’ operation before requiring replacement. Using a CO2 consumption 

model, the vendor estimated the theoretical CO2 usage based on source water quality and system flowrate. 

The theoretical usage was 15.8 ft3

/hr (including 4 ft3/hr on the purge line), which was very close to the 

actual average usage of 16.2 ft3

/hr.

4.4.3 Residual Management. No residuals were produced because neither backwash nor media 

replacement was required.

4.4.4 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. In addition to the pH adjustment problem 

discussed in Section 4.4.2, no major operational problems were encountered. The only O&M issues 

encountered were a broken pre-chlorination injector and malfunctioning main solenoid valve in the CO2

gas system. Both issues were solved quickly and did not cause any system downtime. The system O&M 

and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-treatment requirements, 

levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance activities, and frequency 

of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Pre- and post-treatment consisted of pH adjustment,

prechlorination, and postchlorination. CO2 was used to lower pH values of source water to a target value 

of 7.0 in order to increase the arsenic removal capacity of the adsorptive media. The CO2 injection point 

and in-line pH probe used to monitor and control the adjusted pH levels were installed downstream of the 

chlorine injection point. O&M of the pH adjustment system required routine system pressure checks and 

regular changeout of CO2 supply bottles as pressure was depleted. The operator also recorded daily pH 

readings from the in-line probe, as needed. The use of CO2 for pH adjustment also required safety 

training for and awareness by the operator due to potential hazards. 

For pre- and post-chlorination, the existing chlorination system was upgraded and installed inside the 

treatment building. The upgraded chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown on Figure 

4-8, utilized a 10% NaOCl solution to reach a target residual level of 0.58 mg/L (as Cl2) at the entry point. 

The upgraded chlorination system did not require maintenance or skills other than those required by the 

previous system. The operator monitored chlorine tank levels (to estimate consumption rates) and 

residual chlorine levels (using a Hach meter). 

System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic backwash. 

The system also was equipped with an automated carbon dioxide gas flow control system for pH 

control/adjustment. Each media vessel was equipped with five electrically actuated butterfly valves, 

which were controlled by a Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch interface 

screen. 

The automated portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however, operator awareness and an 

ability to detect unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation 

failures. The equipment vendor provided hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual to the 

operator.
35

Operator Skill Requirements. Skill requirements to operate the system demanded a higher level of 

awareness and attention than the previous system. The system offered increased operational flexibility, 

which, in turn, required increased monitoring of system parameters. The operator’s knowledge of system 

limitations and typical operational parameters were key to achieve system performance objectives. The 

two operators were onsite typically five times a week and spent a total of approximately 6.5 hr each time, 

as claimed by the operators, to perform visual inspections and record relevant system operating 

parameters on the Daily System Operation Log Sheets. The basis for the operator skills began with onsite 

training and a thorough review of the system operations manual; however, increased knowledge and 

invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands-on operational experience. 

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow 

meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Checking the CO2 cylinders and 

supply lines for leaks and adequate pressure and calibrating the in-line pH probe also were performed. 

Typically, the operator performed these duties while onsite for routine activities. 

Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for pre- and post-chlorination. The operator ordered the chemical as done prior to installation of the APU-160 system. CO2 used 

for pH adjustment was ordered on an as-needed basis. Typically, 15 50-lb cylinders were used per month. 

As CO2 cylinders were delivered to the site by Airgas, empty cylinders were returned for reuse. 

4.5 System Performance

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected on 63 occasions

(including four duplicate samples collected during four regular sampling events) with field speciation 

performed during two of the 63 occasions at IN, AP, and TT sampling locations. Table 4-10 summarizes 

the analytical results of arsenic, iron, manganese, and uranium measured at the five sampling locations 

across the treatment train. Table 4-11 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. 

Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results throughout the performance evaluation study.

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 10.7 to 59.0 μg/L and averaged 32.2

μg/L. Based on the two speciation sampling events taking place on July 9 and August 10, 2007, soluble 

As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 34.2 to 36.5 μg/L and averaging 35.4 μg/L. Trace 

levels of soluble As(III) also existed, with concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 μg/L and averaging 0.7 

μg/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low as well, ranging from <0.1 to 2.9 μg/L and averaging 

1.5 μg/L. Arsenic concentrations measured during the performance evaluation study were consistent with 

those collected previously during source water sampling (Table 4-1). 

As expected, arsenic concentrations and speciation remained essentially unchanged after pH adjustments, 

with As(V) existing as the predominating species at 31.0 μg/L (on average). 

Figure 4-18 presents total arsenic breakthrough curves. Throughout the performance evaluation study 

(i.e., from May 15, 2007, through September 28, 2009, treating approximately 64,580,000 gal [or 121,390 

BV) of water), total arsenic concentrations were reduced to below 3 μg/L in system effluent (at TA, TB, 

and/or TT) during most sampling events. Exceptionally high total arsenic concentrations (i.e., from 14.7 

to 46.9 μg/L) were measured on six occasions (August 15, 2007, September 26, 2007, February 13, 2008, 

April 22, 2008, May 13, 2008, and August 27, 2009, at 17,240, 27,730, 40,830, 51,320, 55,500, and 

120,242 BV, respectively). After each spike, arsenic concentrations returned to the respective pre-spike 

levels, suggesting that the concentration spikes observed were not due to normal arsenic breakthrough.
36

Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Uranium

Parameter

Sampling 

Location

Sample 

Count

Concentration (μg/L) Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

IN 63 10.7 59.0 32.2 7.1

AP 63 10.6 44.9 31.6 7.6

TA 61 <0.1 46.9 -

(a) -(a)

TB 61 <0.1 44.7 -

(a) -(a)

TT 2 1.3 2.5 -

(a) -(a)

As (soluble)

IN 2 34.5 37.7 36.1 2.2

AP 2 30.9 32.5 31.7 1.2

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 1.4 2.3 -

(a) -(a)

As 

(particulate)

IN 2 <0.1 2.9 1.5 2.0

AP 2 0.8 4.4 2.6 2.6

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 <0.1 0.1 -

(a) -(a)

As (III)

IN 2 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6

AP 2 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.6

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 0.3 1.0 -

(a) -(a)

As (V)

IN 2 34.2 36.5 35.4 1.6

AP 2 29.7 32.2 31.0 1.8

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 0.4 2.0 -

(a) -(a)

Fe (total)

IN 63 <25 154 <25 22.8

AP 63 <25 28.4 <25 2.0

TA 61 <25 44.5 <25 5.5

TB 61 <25 56.7 <25 6.3

TT 2 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Fe (soluble)

IN 2 <25 <25 <25 0.0

AP 2 <25 <25 <25 0.0

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Mn (total)

IN 63 <0.1 10.8 0.8 1.7

AP 63 <0.1 63.8 1.3 8.0

TA 61 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1

TB 61 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.0

TT 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0

Mn (soluble)

IN 2 <0.1 1 0.4 0.4

AP 2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2

U (total)

IN 63 19.9 55.8 39.3 4.8

AP 63 26.6 48.9 39.3 3.7

TA 61 1.3 135 -

(a) -(a)
Table 4-10. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and 

Uranium (Continued)

37

Parameter

Sampling 

Location

Sample 

Count

Concentration (μg/L) Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

U (total)

(Continued)

TB 61 1.4 90.9 -

(a) -(a)

TT 2 2.8 71.6 -

(a) -(a)

U (soluble)

IN 2 <0.1 41 20.3 28.7

AP 2 24.8 41.0 32.9 11.4

TA NM NM NM NM NM

TB NM NM NM NM NM

TT 2 <0.1 72.0 -

(a) -(a)

(a) Statistics not provided; see Figures 4-14 and 4-16 for breakthrough curves.

NM = not measured.

One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations <MDL for calculations. 

Table 4-11. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 63 155 190 169 7.2

AP mg/L 63 158 196 169 7.0

TA mg/L 61 156 209 172 13.0

TB mg/L 61 156 219 172 12.3

TT mg/L 2 186 211 199 17.7

Fluoride

IN mg/L 3 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.1

AP mg/L 3 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.2

TA mg/L 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 NA

TB mg/L 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 NA

TT mg/L 2 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.1

Sulfate

IN mg/L 3 26.1 29.0 27.4 1.5

AP mg/L 3 25.0 37.0 29.7 6.4

TA mg/L 1 26.2 26.2 26.2 NA

TB mg/L 1 31.2 31.2 31.2 NA

TT mg/L 2 27.0 32.0 29.5 3.5

Nitrate (as N)

IN mg/L 3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.1

AP mg/L 3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.1

TA mg/L 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 NA

TB mg/L 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 NA

TT mg/L 2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.0

Total P (as PO4)

IN μg/L 63 <10 26.1 <10 2.9

AP μg/L 63 <10 23.4 <10 3.0

TA μg/L 61 <10 13.0 <10 1.6

TB μg/L 61 <10 15.3 <10 1.9

TT μg/L 2 <10 <10 <10 0.0

Silica (as SiO2)

IN mg/L 63 11.1 15.7 14.1 0.9

AP mg/L 63 11.1 16.3 14.0 1.0

TA mg/L 61 9.3 30.4 15.8 3.5

TB mg/L 61 10.2 25.9 15.3 2.7

TT mg/L 2 15.7 21.7 18.7 4.2

Turbidity

IN NTU 63 <1.0 3.1 <1.0 0.6

AP NTU 63 <0.1 6.2 0.6 0.9

TA NTU 61 <0.1 3.9 0.6 0.7
Table 4-11. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)

38

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Turbidity

(Continued)

TB NTU 61 <0.1 2.6 0.6 0.5

TT NTU 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1

TOC

IN mg/L 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0

AP mg/L 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0

TA mg/L NA NA NA NA NA

TB mg/L NA NA NA NA NA

TT mg/L 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0

pH

IN S.U. 2 9.0 9.1 9.0 0.1

AP S.U. 56 6.9 8.1 7.3 0.2

TA S.U. 1 8.0 8.0 8.0 NA

TB S.U. 1 8.1 8.1 8.1 NA

TT S.U. 2 8.3 8.6 8.5 0.2

Temperature

IN °C 2 20.4 22.3 21.4 1.3

AP °C 2 20.4 21.8 21.1 1.0

TA °C NA NA NA NA NA

TB °C NA NA NA NA NA

TT °C 2 20.2 22.6 21.4 1.7

Dissolved 

Oxygen

IN mg/L 2 6.8 6.9 6.9 0.1

AP mg/L 2 3.4 3.8 3.6 0.3

TA mg/L NA NA NA NA NA

TB mg/L NA NA NA NA NA

TT mg/L 2 4.2 4.7 4.5 0.3

ORP

IN mV 2 391.3 396 394 3.3

AP mV 2 409 442 426 23.1

TA mV NA NA NA NA NA

TB mV NA NA NA NA NA

TT mV 2 424 467 446 30.2

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 3 6 7 7 0.6

AP mg/L 3 6 7 7 0.8

TA mg/L 1 8 8 8 NA

TB mg/L 1 8 8 8 NA

TT mg/L 2 7 41 24 23.8

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 3 6 7 7 0.6

AP mg/L 3 6 7 6 0.8

TA mg/L 1 8 8 8 NA

TB mg/L 1 8 8 8 NA

TT mg/L 2 7 40 23 23.5

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3)

IN mg/L 3 0.1 0 0.1 0.0

AP mg/L 3 0.1 0 0.1 0.0

TA mg/L 1 0.6 1 1 NA

TB mg/L 1 0.5 1 1 NA

TT mg/L 2 0.1 1 0 0.3

One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations <MDL for calculations. 

It is well established that arsenic adsorption on iron-based media performs the best between pH 6.0 to 8.0. 

As pH increases and approaches the point of zero charge, the availability of adsorption sites on the media 

surface diminishes. As such, arsenic not only will no longer be adsorbed onto the media but also will 

begin to desorb. During the performance evaluation study, there were difficulties maintaining a constant 

CO2 supply at the site (Section 4.4.2), thus causing repeated losses of pH control prior to adsorption. 
39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000

As Concentration (μg/L)

Bed Volume

At Wellhead (IN)

After pH Adjustment (AP)

After Vessel A (TA)

After Vessel B (TB)

08/15/07

08/27/09

05/13/08

04/22/08

02/13/08

09/26/07

Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves

Figure 4-19 superimposes effluent arsenic and uranium concentrations with the downloaded in-line pH 

data during March 31 through June 20, 2008, as plotted in Figure 4-17a. The four concentration spikes 

observed during this period, i.e., 46.9 and 44.7 μg/L on April 22, 2008, and 43.5 and 41.5 μg/L on May 

13, 2008, occurred when the system was operating without pH control. The fact that the concentration 

spikes had concentrations even higher than those in the system influent (i.e., 31.5 and 40.5 μg/L on April 

22 and May 13, 2008, respectively) indicate probable arsenic desorption without pH control.

Since the treatment system lost pH control periodically, the adsorptive media beds apparently operated at 

repeated adsorption and desorption cycles, with captured arsenic being intermittently “flushed” from the 

media beds. The loss of pH control is likely the reason for the adsorption vessels not exhausting as 

expected, even after treating 121,390 BV of water (or twice the working capacity [61,300 BV] projected 

by the vendor) by the end of the performance evaluation study. 

Uranium. Originating from rocks and mineral deposits, uranium found in most drinking water sources is 

naturally occurring and contains three isotopes: U-238 (over 99% by weight), U-235, and U-234. Due to 

varying amounts of each isotope in the water, the ratio of uranium concentration (μg/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 μg/L in 1991 (corresponding to 30 pCi/L based on

a mass/activity ratio of 1.5 pCi/μg of uranium). The final rule was set at 30 μg/L in December 2000 after 

the conversion factor was revised to 1 pCi/μg (EPA, 2000). In this study, uranium was analyzed by an 

ICP-MS method (EPA Method 200.8) with the results expressed in μg/L. Uranium activity (pCi/L) was 

not reported to avoid potential confusion associated with the use of different conversion factors.
40

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

pH

Concentration (μg/L)

Uranium Vessel A Uranium Vessel B Arsenic Vessel A Arsenic Vessel B pH

04/22/08

05/13/08

Figure 4-19. Real-time pH values at AP Location vs. Effluent As and U Concentrations

Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 19.9 to 55.8 μg/L and averaged 39.3 μg/L. 

Figure 4-20 shows that uranium was removed to <20 μg/L during the entire study period, except for eight 

occasions, indicating that AD-33 media was capable of removing uranium. The eight occasions with 

elevated uranium included the six when arsenic concentrations also were elevated (Figure 4-18). 

Similar to arsenic, the uranium concentration spikes observed in the system effluent were likely caused by 

loss of pH control. As shown in Figure 4-19, the four uranium spikes (i.e., 105 and 90.9 μg/L on April 

22, 2008, and 62.4 and 50.6 μg/L on May 13, 2008) occurred when pH values at AP were above 9. These 

concentrations were higher than the corresponding influent concentrations of 41.5 and 37.4 μg/L on April 

22 and May 13, 2008, respectively, indicating desorption from the media beds. Similar to arsenic, 

uranium breakthrough at MCL did not occur during the performance evaluation study.

Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which might influence arsenic adsorption, were measured at 

the five sampling locations across the treatment train. Phosphate concentrations in source water were 

low, i.e., less than 26 μg/L (as PO4). Silica concentrations in source water ranged from 11.1 to 15.7 mg/L 

and averaged 14.1 mg/L. Figure 4-21 presents the silica concentration curves across the treatment train. 

No silica concentration reduction was observed. Instead, silica concentrations in system effluent were 

frequently higher than measured in source water, as shown in Figure 4-21. The reason for higher silica 

concentrations in effluent is unknown.
41

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000

U Concentration (mg/L)

Bed Volume

At Wellhead (IN)

After pH Adjustment (AP)

After Vessel A (TA)

After Vessel B (TB)

02/13/08

08/15/07

09/26/07

04/22/08

05/13/08

08/27/09

06/26/07

07/03/07

Figure 4-20. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curves

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000

Silica Concentration (mg/L as SiO2)

Bed Volume

At Wellhead (IN)

After pH Adjustment (AP)

After Vessel A (TA)

After Vessel B (TB)

Figure 4-21. Total Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves
42

Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in source water and following the adsorption vessels 

were mostly below the MDL of 25 μg/L (Table 4-10). Total manganese levels in source water also were 

low, ranging from <0.1 to 10.8 μg/L and averaging 0.8 μg/L. Total manganese levels were reduced to 

mostly below the MDL of 0.1 μg/L in system effluent. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-11, alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 

155 to 190 mg/L and averaged 169 mg/L in source water. As expected, alkalinity after pH adjustment 

and adsorption remained essentially unchanged at 169 mg/L (on average) at AP and 172 mg/L (on 

average) at TA and TB, since CO2, instead of mineral acids, was used for pH adjustment. 

The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for hardness only during three sampling events. Total 

hardness concentrations, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 6 to 7 mg/L and averaged 7 mg/L in source 

water. Total hardness existed primarily as calcium hardness. Total hardness remained unchanged at 7 to 

8 mg/L, on average, following pH adjustment (at AP) and adsorption (at TA and TB).

Sulfate and fluoride concentrations were measured only during three sampling events. Sulfate 

concentrations in source water ranged from 26.1 to 29.0 mg/L and averaged 27.4 mg/L. After pH

adjustment and adsorption, sulfate levels remained unchanged at 26.2 to 31.2mg/L (on average). Fluoride 

concentrations in source water ranged from 0.9 to 1.1 mg/L and averaged 1.0 mg/L. Fluoride 

concentrations following the treatment vessels reduced slightly to 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L.

Average DO levels ranged from 3.6 to 6.9 mg/L throughout the treatment train. ORP readings averaged 

394 mV in source water and increased to an average of 426 mV at AP and an average of 446 in system 

effluent. High DO levels and ORP readings suggest that the source water was oxidizing. 

4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. On August 20, 2008, after treating approximately 41,600,000 gal 

(or 78,200 BV) of water, the operator collected a media sample approximately 6 in below the surface of 

the media beds from both vessels. Each sample was split, with a portion of each sent to Battelle and 

Teledyne Brown Laboratories (a subcontractor to AdEdge) for ICP/MS and uranium activity analysis, 

respectively. Table 4-12 presents the ICP/MS results. 

Table 4-12. Spent Media Total Metal Analysis

Analytes

Concentrations (μg/g)

Mg Al Si P Ca V Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd Ba Pb U

Vessel A 575 1,607 1,548 84.0 1,708 490 232,724 408 91.9 23.2 301 21.5 0.1 135 1.7 300

Vessel B 575 2,310 2,361 89.8 1,509 441 197,188 413 69.0 42.9 381 28.8 0.0 89.2 3.9 213

As shown in the table, arsenic and uranium concentrations in the spent media were low, ranging from 

21.5 to 28.8 μg/g (or 0.002 to 0.003%) and from 213 to 300 μg/g (or 0.02 to 0.03%), respectively. The 

ICP/MS results indicated that the media were only minimally loaded with arsenic and uranium even after 

treating 41,600,000 gal of water.

These arsenic and uranium loadings were compared to the 6,593- and 8,049-μg/g loadings assuming 

100% arsenic and uranium removal from source water (this was close to the actual percentage removal 

based on the breakthrough curves). The media analytical data indicate that only 0.38% and 3.2% of 

influent arsenic and uranium mass were retained on the media, which would be possible only if captured 

arsenic and uranium had been intermittently “flushed” out of the media beds due presumably to losses of 

pH control as discussed in Section 4.4.2. 
43

Table 4-13 presents the results of uranium activity analysis conducted by Teledyne Brown Laboratories. 

An average uranium activity of 120 pCi/g (dry wt) was measured for the spent media. 

Table 4-13. Spent Media Uranium 

Activity Analysis

Analyte

U-233/234

(pCi/g)

U-235

(pCi/g)

U-238

(pCi/g)

U

(pCi/g)

Vessel A 78.5 2.75 60.1 141

Vessel B 55.4 1.45 41.3 98.2

Average 67.0 2.1 50.7 120

4.5.3 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was not performed during the performance 

evaluation study.

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Table 4-14 summarizes the results of the 

distribution system sampling. The stagnation times for the first draw samples ranged from 5.0 to 23.8 hr, 

which met the requirements of the EPA LCR sampling protocol (EPA, 2002). 

Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples 

were collected from three sampling locations served by three production wells including the Buffalo 

Well. After system startup, the sampling locations were moved to three new locations served only by the 

treated water supplied by the Buffalo Well. Comparison of water quality between the Buffalo Well (IN 

location in Tables 4-10 and 4-11) and the three wells combined (baseline in Table 4-14) revealed that 

while pH of the Buffalo Well water was slightly higher than the three wells combined (i.e., 9.0 vs. 8.7 on 

average), concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese and alkalinity were rather comparable. 

Figure 4-22 plots arsenic concentrations of distribution system water. Average arsenic concentrations in 

distribution water were reduced from an average of 33.7 μg/L in baseline samples to below MCL during 

most sampling events, with exceptions on August 15, 2007, February 27, 2008, and May 29, 2008. Loss 

of pH control most likely was the reason for the elevated concentrations observed. This was confirmed 

by the August 15, 2007, system effluent data that included elevated arsenic concentrations at 19.1 and 

19.5 μg/L (Figure 4-18). Available in-line pH data indicated a source-water level pH value on May 29, 

2008. In-line pH data were not available for August 15, 2007 and February 27, 2008. 

Figure 4-23 plots uranium concentrations measured in distribution system water. Similar to arsenic, 

uranium concentrations in distribution water were reduced to below MCL (i.e., 30 μg/L) during most 

sampling events. The exceptions were on July 10, 2007, August 15, 2007, February 27, 2008, and April 

2, 2008, when higher than MCL concentrations were measured. On August 15, 2007, elevated uranium 

concentrations at 68.9 and 66.9 μg/L also were measured in system effluent (Figure 4-20). In-line pH 

data indicated elevated pH values on April 2, 2008. In-line pH data for the other three sampling events 

were not available.

Lead concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 12.8 μg/L, with no sample exceeding the action level of 15 μg/L. 

Copper concentrations ranged from 4.8 to 385 μg/L, with no sample exceeding the 1,300 μg/L action 

level. Measured pH values ranged from 7.0 to 8.9 and averaged 7.5, which were 0.5 to 1.0 units lower 

than the avearge pH value immediately after the adsorption vessels (i.e. at TA, TB, and TT). Compared 

to an average value of 8.7 before the treatment system became operational, the significantly lowered pH 

values did not appear to have affected the lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system. 
44

Table 4-14. Distribution System Sampling Results

Sampling Event

DS1 DS2 DS3

Serafin Vigil Balerie Vigil Frank Romero

Stagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnUPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnUPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnUPbCu

No. Date hr S.U mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1(a) 12/23/03 7.0 8.9 170 28.7 <25 1.5 NS <0.1 50.8 NA 8.9 175 29.6 <25 0.5 NS 2.3 8.8 NA 9.0 175 30.5 41 1.3 NS 0.2 63.2

BL2(a) 01/21/04 11.8 9.0 165 39.7 <25 0.3 NS 0.9 51.0 15.5 8.9 173 38.5 <25 0.4 NS 2.0 2.7 15.8 9.1 173 40.4 <25 0.3 NS 0.5 60.4

BL3(a) 02/19/04 8.0 8.7 176 42.3 <25 0.6 NS 3.3 57.7 14.8 8.7 182 44.2 <25 0.7 NS 1.9 7.0 15.8 8.8 168 43.8 <25 1.2 NS 0.4 70.8

BL4(a) 03/31/04 10.5 6.9 214 2.6 <25 0.1 NS 1.0 236 15.8 8.7 167 32.7 <25 0.9 NS 2.3 11.2 17.0 8.7 163 32.0 <25 0.9 NS 0.2 60.7

1 07/10/07 8.5 8.1 176 4.3 <25 0.1 27.8 3.1 125 7.0 8.3 185 8.8 <25 <0.1 38.3 <0.1 37.4 8.5 8.2 183 8.3 <25 0.1 40.8 <0.1 28.3

2 08/15/07 9.3 8.5 165 16.6 <25 <0.1 73.7 1.5 42.4 7.8 8.7 162 18.9 <25 <0.1 63.2 0.2 11.4 6.5 8.9 165 21.2 <25 <0.1 61.8 0.2 4.8

3 09/13/07 8.4 7.7 181 6.6 <25 <0.1 19.5 1.1 70.7 6.0 7.4 173 5.4 <25 <0.1 15.6 1.2 134 6.5 7.2 171 4.6 <25 <0.1 15.5 0.7 198

4 10/25/07 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 9.8 7.3 165 5.1 <25 0.1 10.4 1.8 125 8.0 7.2 168 5.4 <25 0.1 11.2 0.4 162

5 11/20/07 23.8 7.3 192 1.9 <25 5.7 7.5 12.8 13.2 5.5 7.3 167 2.0 <25 0.1 5.6 1.6 284 6.8 7.3 171 2.1 <25 0.2 6.5 1.0 228

6 01/17/08 7.8 7.3 163 6.1 <25 <0.1 19.6 3.4 385 8.0 7.6 174 5.8 <25 0.7 15.7 <0.1 31.0 8.0 7.3 176 6.5 <25 0.2 23.1 1.0 260

7 01/31/08 5.3 7.3 178 5.7 26 0.1 24.7 0.9 42.6 7.0 7.3 174 5.3 34 0.1 24.2 0.8 129 7.0 7.1 170 4.7 56 0.9 18.6 0.5 136

8 02/27/08 8.5 7.5 172 15.0 <25 <0.1 35.6 0.5 56.4 19.3 7.1 168 10.3 <25 0.6 32.0 <0.1 152 7.0 7.2 170 10.8 <25 <0.1 27.8 0.2 199

9 04/02/08 8.0 7.2 171 8.4 <25 <0.1 30.3 0.8 51.7 6.0 7.0 169 9.0 <25 <0.1 27.2 0.3 99.3 6.0 7.1 173 11.2 <25 <0.1 37.7 0.3 127

10 05/29/08 9.0 7.3 177 16.6 <25 <0.1 25.2 3.5 283 5.0 7.2 177 16.6 <25 <0.1 25.9 0.1 28.1 5.5 7.3 175 12.8 <25 0.2 25.6 0.3 158

11 07/24/08 8.0 7.1 169 6.3 <25 <0.1 12.2 1.2 146 7.0 7.1 167 2.5 <25 <0.1 6.1 0.3 37.3 6.5 7.2 167 4.3 <25 0.2 10.3 1.3 182

12 09/10/08 7.5 7.6 NA 10.2 <25 <0.1 20.3 0.8 327 9.0 7.2 NA 4.4 <25 <0.1 7.4 <0.1 168 6.5 7.1 NA 3.8 <25 <0.1 8.2 <0.1 184

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L

 BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Available; NS = Not Sampled. 

(a) Baseline sampling locations moved to locations served by only Buffalo Well after system startup.
45

0

5

10

15

20

25

06/17/07 08/06/07 09/25/07 11/14/07 01/03/08 02/22/08 04/12/08 06/01/08 07/21/08 09/09/08 10/29/08

Arsenic Concentration (μg/L)

Arsenic DS1

Arsenic DS2

Arsenic DS3

08/15/07

05/29/08

02/27/08

MCL= 10 μg/L

Figure 4-22. Arsenic Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

06/17/07 08/06/07 09/25/07 11/14/07 01/03/08 02/22/08 04/12/08 06/01/08 07/21/08 09/09/08 10/29/08

Uranium Concentration (μg/L)

Uranium DS1

Uranium DS2

Uranium DS3

08/15/07

04/02/08 02/27/08

07/10/07

MCL= 30μg/L

Figure 4-23. Uranium Concentrations Measured in Distribution System Water
46

Alkalinity levels ranged from 162 to 192 mg/L (as CaCO3). Iron was detected in one of the sampling 

events; manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 5.7 μg/L. The arsenic treatment system did not 

seem to affect these water quality parameters in the distribution system.

4.6 System Cost

System cost is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the O&M 

cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site engineering, and 

installation. The O&M cost includes the cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical use, and 

labor.

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the 

treatment system was $143,113 (see Table 4-15). The equipment cost was $116,645 (or 82% of the total 

capital investment), which included the cost for two APU-160 vessels, 71.2 ft3 of AD-33 media, pH 

adjustment module, instrumentation and controls, miscellaneous materials and supplies, labor, and 

shipping.

The site engineering cost was $11,638, or 8% of the total capital investment. Because an engineering 

plan or a permit submittal package was not required for the Nambe Pueblo site, the site engineering cost 

represents a small fraction of total capital cost.

Table 4-15. Capital Investment Cost for Nambe Pueblo System

Description Quantity Cost

% of Capital 

Investment Cost

Equipment Costs

APU-160 Tanks 2 $33,697 –

AD-33 Media 71.2 ft3 $18,620 –

Piping and Valves – $11,656 –

Instrument and Controls – $7,735 –

pH Adjustment Module – $17,100 –

O&M Manual and Training – $4,535 –

Vendor Labor – $20,377 –

Shipping CO2 System – $350 –

Shipping APU System and Media – $2,575 –

Equipment Total – $116,645 82

Engineering Costs

Materials – $75 –

Vendor Labor – $3,420 –

Subcontractor Labor – $7,150 –

Vendor Travel – $993 –

Engineering Total – $11,638 8

Installation Costs

Material – $400 –

Subcontractor – $10,100 –

Vendor Labor – $3,040 –

Vendor Travel – $1,290 –

Installation Total – $14,830 10

Total Capital Investment – $143,113 100
47

The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit, 

perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and 

startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $14,830, or 10% of the total capital 

investment.

The total capital cost of $143,113 was normalized to the system’s rated capacity of 160 gpm (230,400 

gpd), which resulted in $894/gpm of design capacity ($0.62/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to 

an annualized cost of $13,508/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest 

rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the 

system design flowrate of 160 gpm to produce 84,096,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost 

would be $0.16/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 12.3 hr/day at approximately 114 

gpm (see Table 4-8), producing 30,708,180 gal of water annually, the unit capital cost increased to 

$0.44/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for media replacement 

and disposal, CO2 use, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-16). Although media replacement did 

not occur during the system performance evaluation, the media replacement cost for both vessels would 

have represented the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $29,532. This media change-out 

cost would include the cost for media, underbedding gravels, freight, labor, travel, spent media analysis, 

and media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water 

treated as a function of the projected media run length at the 10 μg/L arsenic breakthrough from the 

adsorption vessels (Figure 4-24).

 

Table 4-16. Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Nambe Pueblo System

Cost Category Value Assumptions

Volume Processed (kgal) 11,500 05/15/07–09/28/09

Media Replacement and Disposal

Media Cost ($/ft3) 274 Vendor quote

Total Media Volume (ft3) 71.2 Both vessels

Media Replacement Cost ($) 19,525 Vendor quote 

Freight ($) 707 Vendor quote

Labor Cost ($) 4,200 Vendor quote

Disposal of Spent Media ($) 5,100 Vendor quote 

Subtotal 29,532 Vendor quote

Media Replacement and Disposal 

Cost ($/1,000 gal) See Figure 4-24

Based upon media run length at 10-μg/L 

arsenic breakthrough

Chemical Usage

CO2 Gas ($/1,000 gal) $0.20 Based on the cost of CO2 cylinders for 

pH adjustment

Electricity

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) 0.00 Electrical cost assumed negligible

Labor

Average Weekly Labor (hrs) 32.5 6.5 hr/day (5 days/week)

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) $1.16 Labor rate = $21/hr

Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal See Figure 4-24 Based upon media run length at 10-μg/L 

arsenic breakthrough
48

The chemical cost included the cost for NaClO for pre- and post-chlorination and CO2 gas for pH 

adjustment. NaClO was already used at the site prior to the installation of the APU unit for disinfection 

purposes prior to distribution. The presence of the APU system did not affect the use rate of the NaClO 

solution. Therefore, the incremental chemical cost for chlorine was negligible. The CO2 cost for pH 

adjustment was recorded to be $6,260 per year or $0.20/1,000 gal of water treated.

Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not 

indicate a noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation 

of the system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities 

to operate and maintain the system consumed 6.5 hr per day, 5 days per week, as noted in Section 4.4.4. 

Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $1.16/1,000 gal of water treated. This estimation assumes that 

maintenance and operational procedures were consistently performed through the completion of the 

system performance evaluation.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

$6.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (x1000)

O&M cost

Media replacement cost

Note: One bed volume equals 71.2 ft3 (532 gal) 

Figure 4-24. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
49

5.0 REFERENCES

Battelle. 2003. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, Texas. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029 for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 

1998. “Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3):103-113.

EPA. 2000. National primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Final Rule. Fed. Register, 40 

CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.

Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH.
APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL DATA
A-1

Table A-1 EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

05/15/07 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

07/09/07 2,345.6 NA 63.4 2,807,920 NA NA 60.7 2,610,655 NA NA 5,418,575 10,185 0.5 1.2 5

07/16/07 2,428.2 82.6 64.5 3,124,554 316,634 63.9 63.0 2,909,728 299,073 60.3 6,034,282 11,343 1.5 4.0 0

07/17/07 2,443.2 15.0 61.8 3,182,383 57,829 64.3 61.1 2964292 54,564 60.6 6,146,675 11,554 1.0 1.0 3

07/18/07 2,453.0 9.8 66.6 3,222,963 40,580 69.0 64.1 3,002,523 38,231 65.0 6,225,486 11,702 1.5 1.5 4

07/20/07 2,479.1 26.1 67.8 3,321,797 98,834 63.1 62.4 3,095,457 92,934 59.3 6,417,254 12,063 1.0 1.0 NA

07/23/07 2,512.2 33.1 64.1 3,446,277 124,480 62.7 61.0 3,212,544 117,087 59.0 6,658,821 12,517 1.5 1.0 0

07/24/07 2,521.6 9.4 68.4 3,482,810 36,533 64.8 61.2 3,245,392 32,848 58.2 6,728,202 12,647 1.0 1.5 4

07/25/07 2,540.4 18.8 66.6 3,555,184 72,374 64.2 60.8 3,311,010 65,618 58.2 6,866,194 12,906 1.0 1.5 1

07/26/07 2,548.6 8.2 61.2 3,586,675 31,491 64.0 56.4 3,339,705 28,695 58.3 6,926,380 13,020 1.5 1.5 NA

07/27/07 2,550.6 2.0 62.1 NA NA NA 59.1 NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 0

07/30/07 2,592.7 42.1 65.0 3,758,554 171,879 65.0 60.0 3,497,128 157,423 59.5 7,255,682 13,639 2.0 1.0 0

07/31/07 2,605.6 12.9 64.0 3,808,614 50,060 286.7 58.0 3,543,142 46,014 59.4 7,351,756 13,819 1.0 1.0 2

08/01/07 2,616.5 10.9 64.0 3,850,739 42,125 64.4 62.1 3,581,913 38,771 59.3 7,432,652 13,971 2.0 1.0 0

08/02/07 2,627.5 11.0 65.0 3,892,596 41,857 63.4 57.0 3,620,474 38,561 58.4 7,513,070 14,122 2.0 1.0 0

08/03/07 2,635.7 8.2 63.4 3,924,622 32,026 65.1 58.1 3,649,995 29,521 60.0 7,574,617 14,238 4.0 1.0 0

08/06/07 2,679.3 43.6 61.1 4,088,525 163,903 62.7 57.3 3,801,246 151,251 57.8 7,889,771 14,830 1.0 1.0 4

08/07/07 2,714.3 35.0 60.8 4,215,243 126,718 60.3 57.1 3,918,186 116,940 55.7 8,133,429 15,288 1.0 1.0 4

08/09/07 2,739.1 24.8 60.8 4,303,663 88,420 59.4 56.7 3,999,709 81,523 54.8 8,303,372 15,608 1.0 1.0 4

08/10/07 2,763.6 24.5 60.6 4,390,682 87,019 59.2 56.1 4,079,920 80,211 54.6 8,470,602 15,922 1.0 1.0 4

08/11/07 2,775.0 11.4 59.2 4,431,111 40,429 59.1 53.9 4,117,167 37,247 54.5 8,548,278 16,068 1.0 1.0 3

08/13/07 2,829.1 54.1 60.1 4,634,775 203,664 62.7 58.6 4,295,982 178,815 55.1 8,930,757 16,787 1.0 1.0 4

08/14/07 2,852.8 23.7 60.3 4,713,195 78,420 55.1 61.3 4,377,465 81,483 57.3 9,090,660 17,088 1.0 1.0 4

08/15/07 2,864.1 11.3 66.4 4,756,069 42,874 63.2 61.7 4,417,138 39,673 58.5 9,173,207 17,243 1.0 1.0 4

08/16/07 2,877.0 12.9 60.3 4,757,001 932 1.2 59.1 4,418,240 1,102 1.4 9,175,241 17,247 1.0 1.0 4

08/20/07 2,949.0 72.0 61.6 5,051,630 294,629 68.2 59.5 4,693,468 275,228 63.7 9,745,098 18,318 1.0 1.0 3

08/21/07 2,974.1 25.1 60.7 5,158,025 106,395 70.6 56.2 4,793,149 99,681 66.2 9,951,174 18,705 1.0 1.0 3

08/22/07 2,997.2 23.1 60.3 5,238,846 80,821 58.3 59.8 4,868,906 75,757 54.7 10,107,752 19,000 1.0 1.0 3

08/23/07 3,022.7 25.5 60.6 5,328,955 90,109 58.9 56.1 4,953,405 84,499 55.2 10,282,360 19,328 1.0 1.0 3

08/24/07 3,024.8 2.1 60.1 5,388,102 59,147 469.4 59.1 4,953,512 107 0.8 10,341,614 19,439 1.0 1.0 2

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 
A-2

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

08/27/07 3,115.2 90.4 59.1 5,658,901 270,799 49.9 56.4 5,254,908 301,396 55.6 10,913,809 20,515 1.0 1.0 3

08/28/07 3,141.9 26.7 60.6 5,752,359 93,458 58.3 54.7 5,341,489 86,581 54.0 11,093,848 20,853 1.0 1.0 NA

08/29/07 3,163.4 21.5 60.5 5,828,198 75,839 58.8 53.4 5,411,096 69,607 54.0 11,239,294 21,126 1.0 2.0 4

08/30/07 3,191.1 27.7 51.9 5,925,460 173,101 58.6 55.8 5,500,466 89,370 53.8 11,425,926 21,477 1.0 2.0 3

08/31/07 3,203.2 12.1 62.9 5,967,883 42,423 58.4 54.4 5,539,485 39,019 53.7 11,507,368 21,630 1.0 1.0 3

09/10/07 3,453.1 249.9 58.9 6,836,737 868,854 57.9 54.4 6,342,914 803,429 53.6 13,179,651 24,774 1.0 1.0 4

09/11/07 3,478.5 25.4 53.1 6,922,456 85,719 56.2 52.2 6,422,449 79,535 52.2 13,344,905 25,084 1.0 1.0 4

09/12/07 3,494.4 15.9 61.0 6,978,299 55,843 58.5 57.4 6,474,329 51,880 54.4 13,452,628 25,287 1.0 1.0 4

09/13/07 3,509.7 15.3 61.2 7,033,757 55,458 60.4 56.4 6,525,692 51,363 56.0 13,559,449 25,488 1.0 1.0 4

09/14/07 3,524.1 14.4 58.2 7,086,492 108,193 60.7 54.1 6,574,841 49,149 56.9 13,661,333 25,679 1.0 1.0 4

09/17/07 3,576.9 52.8 59.7 7,262,245 175,753 55.5 53.9 6,738,734 163,893 51.7 14,000,979 26,318 1.0 1.0 3

09/18/07 3,603.6 26.7 59.9 7,354,100 91,855 57.3 54.6 6,822,670 83,936 52.4 14,176,770 26,648 1.0 1.0 4

09/19/07 3,610.7 7.1 55.4 7,376,413 114,168 56.3 51.2 6,843,950 21,280 50.0 14,220,363 26,730 1.0 1.0 3

09/20/07 3,622.4 11.7 70.4 7,416,870 40,457 57.6 63.0 6,881,640 37,690 53.7 14,298,510 26,877 1.0 1.0 4

09/21/07 3,629.6 7.2 59.4 7,477,069 60,199 139.3 57.9 6,891,028 9,388 21.7 14,368,097 27,008 1.0 1.0 4

09/24/07 3,668.2 38.6 66.1 7,569,652 152,782 40 63.8 7,021,813 130,785 56.5 14,591,465 27,428 1.0 2.0 2

09/25/07 3,680.8 12.6 57.4 7,616,949 47,297 62.6 57.0 7,066,357 44,544 58.9 14,683,306 27,600 1.0 2.0 2

09/26/07 3,690.2 9.4 62.4 7,652,262 35,313 62.6 59.1 7,099,503 33,146 58.8 14,751,765 27,729 1.0 2.0 2

09/27/07 3,707.0 16.8 57.9 7,709,793 57,531 57.1 56.0 7,153,809 54,306 53.9 14,863,602 27,939 1.0 1.0 1

09/28/07 3,715.6 8.6 60.0 7,735,632 25,839 50.1 54.9 7,179,650 25,841 50.1 14,915,282 28,036 1.0 1.0 1

10/01/07 3,747.4 31.8 54.1 7,837,308 101,676 53.3 51.6 7,275,279 95,629 50.1 15,112,587 28,407 1.0 1.0 1

10/02/07 3,766.1 18.7 58.7 7,901,529 64,221 57.2 57.2 7,335,541 60,262 53.7 15,237,070 28,641 1.0 1.0 1

10/04/07 3,785.1 19.0 56.8 7,967,646 130,338 57.6 53.2 7,397,668 62,127 54.5 15,365,314 28,882 1.0 1.0 1

10/08/07 3,830.1 45.0 62.1 8,163,893 196,247 72.7 54.1 7,582,755 185,087 68.6 15,746,648 29,599 1.0 1.0 1

10/09/07 3,846.3 16.2 58.1 8,178,980 15,087 15.5 53.4 7,595,875 13,120 13.5 15,774,855 29,652 1.0 1.0 1

10/10/07 3,851.1 4.8 64.3 8,194,555 15,575 54.1 62.1 7,610,517 14,642 50.8 15,805,072 29,709 1.0 1.0 1

10/11/07 3,852.6 1.5 61.3 8,200,169 5,614 62.4 63.4 7,615,760 5,243 58.3 15,815,929 29,729 1.0 1.0 0

10/12/07 3,854.4 1.8 67.0 8,206,406 6,237 57.7 64.4 7,621,592 5,832 54.0 15,827,998 29,752 1.0 1.0 3

10/15/07 3,864.0 9.6 67.8 8,240,515 34,109 59.2 60.2 7,653,931 32,339 56.1 15,894,446 29,877 2.0 1.0 0

10/16/07 3,867.2 3.2 66.8 8,252,243 11,728 61.1 63.3 7,664,397 10,466 54.5 15,916,640 29,918 1.0 1.0 0

10/17/07 3,870.6 3.4 63.4 8,264,334 12,091 59.3 61.9 7,675,719 11,322 55.5 15,940,053 29,963 1.0 1.0 0

10/18/07 3,874.9 4.3 64.4 8,276,334 12,000 46.5 60.9 7,685,795 10,076 39.1 15,962,129 30,004 2.0 1.0 0

10/19/07 3,877.5 2.6 67.8 8,288,132 11,798 75.6 61.8 7,697,509 11,714 75.1 15,985,641 30,048 1.0 1.0 0

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

14

7

9

10

11

12

13
A-3

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

10/22/07 3,873.7 NA 65.4 8,275,698 -12,434 NA 61.4 7,686,334 NA NA 15,962,032 30,004 1.0 1.0 1

10/23/07 3,883.8 6.3 64.3 8,311,026 35,328 93.5 54.1 7,719,620 33,286 88.1 16,030,646 30,133 1.0 1.0 0

10/24/07 3,887.1 3.3 67.4 8,322,944 11,918 60.2 58.6 7,730,445 10,825 54.7 16,053,389 30,176 3.0 1.0 0

10/25/07 3,888.1 1.0 63.7 8,326,509 3,565 59.4 53.1 7,733,538 3,093 51.6 16,060,047 30,188 2.0 2.0 1

10/29/07 3,901.1 13.0 61.2 8,369,032 42,523 54.5 61.9 7,780,785 47,247 60.6 16,149,817 30,357 1.0 1.0 2

10/30/07 3,903.1 2.0 54.3 8,376,856 7,824 65.2 59.1 7,789,222 8,437 70.3 16,166,078 30,387 1.0 1.0 1

10/31/07 3,906.8 3.7 65.1 8,389,901 13,045 58.8 61.1 7,803,044 13,822 62.3 16,192,945 30,438 1.0 1.0 1

11/01/07 3,907.4 0.6 64.4 8,390,411 510 14.2 61.4 7,803,429 385 10.7 16,193,840 30,440 1.0 1.0 1

11/02/07 3,910.1 2.7 62.5 8,401,810 11,399 70.4 59.3 7,814,455 11,026 68.1 16,216,265 30,482 1.0 1.0 2

11/05/07 3,917.1 7.0 64.3 8,424,774 22,964 54.7 61.7 7,836,564 22,109 52.6 16,261,338 30,566 1.0 1.0 1

11/06/07 3,920.0 2.9 64.5 8,434,984 10,210 58.7 64.7 7,846,320 9,756 56.1 16,281,304 30,604 1.0 1.0 2

11/07/07 3,920.3 0.3 61.4 8,435,255 271 15.1 61.4 7,846,570 250 13.9 16,281,825 30,605 1.0 1.0 NA

11/08/07 3,923.4 3.1 64.9 8,447,201 11,946 64.2 62.2 7,858,027 11,457 61.6 16,305,228 30,649 1.0 1.0 1

11/09/07 3,927.4 4.0 65.7 8,460,101 12,900 53.8 61.1 7,868,041 10,014 41.7 16,328,142 30,692 1.0 2.0 1

11/12/07 3,928.7 1.3 59.1 8,466,041 5,940 76.2 57.4 7,876,010 7,969 102.2 16,342,051 30,718 1.0 1.0 1

11/13/07 3,929.0 0.3 64.1 8,467,132 1,091 60.6 62.1 7,877,104 1,094 60.8 16,344,236 30,722 1.0 1.0 0

11/14/07 3,929.4 0.4 67.6 8,468,411 1,279 53.3 64.2 7,878,261 1,157 48.2 16,346,672 30,727 1.0 2.0 1

11/15/07 3,934.0 4.6 67.2 8,485,553 17,142 62.1 65.8 7,894,614 16,353 59.3 16,380,167 30,790 1.0 2.0 1

11/19/07 3,936.0 2.0 66.7 8,500,184 14,631 121.9 64.3 7,901,354 6,740 56.2 16,401,538 30,830 1.0 2.0 1

11/20/07 3,940.0 4.0 67.9 8,510,643 10,459 43.6 61.5 7,918,155 16,801 70.0 16,428,798 30,881 1.0 2.0 1

11/21/07 3,943.0 3.0 68.4 8,522,182 11,539 64.1 62.5 7,928,954 10,799 60.0 16,451,136 30,923 1.0 1.0 2

11/22/07 3,944.2 1.2 66.2 8,530,012 7,830 108.8 61.2 7,939,691 10,737 149.1 16,469,703 30,958 1.0 1.0 1

11/23/07 3,946.7 2.5 63.6 8,534,739 4,727 31.5 62.1 7,940,709 1,018 6.8 16,475,448 30,969 1.0 2.0 1

11/26/07 3,949.8 3.1 65.5 8,547,323 12,584 67.7 62.0 7,952,572 11,863 63.8 16,499,895 31,015 1.0 2.0 2

11/27/07 3,952.8 3.0 69.6 8,558,197 10,874 60.4 64.4 7,962,837 10,265 57.0 16,521,034 31,055 1.0 2.0 1

12/03/07 3,963.2 10.4 62.3 8,597,981 39,784 63.8 58.7 8,003,550 40,713 65.2 16,601,531 31,206 1.0 2.0 0

12/04/07 3,971.5 8.3 64.1 8,627,214 29,233 58.7 60.8 8,027,979 24,429 49.1 16,655,193 31,307 1.0 1.0 NA

12/05/07 3,976.2 4.7 61.9 8,643,492 16,278 57.7 59.7 8,043,375 15,396 54.6 16,686,867 31,366 1.0 2.0 0

12/06/07 3,984.7 8.5 61.8 8,673,104 29,612 58.1 57.4 8,071,317 27,942 54.8 16,744,421 31,474 1.0 1.0 1

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

20

21

15

16

17

18

19
A-4

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

12/10/07 4,017.4 32.7 58.4 8,797,024 123,920 63.2 53.1 8,088,164 16,847 8.6 16,885,188 31,739 1.0 1.0 0

12/11/07 4,035.0 17.6 59.6 8,846,154 49,130 46.5 55.8 8,234,547 146,383 138.6 17,080,701 32,107 1.0 2.0 1

12/12/07 4,036.0 1.0 58.9 8,863,309 17,155 285.9 56.0 8,250,648 16,101 268.4 17,113,957 32,169 1.0 1.0 1

12/13/07 4,045.3 9.3 59.4 8,894,410 31,101 55.7 56.9 8,287,513 36,865 66.1 17,181,923 32,297 1.0 2.0 0

12/14/07 4,056.1 10.8 61.4 8,930,021 35,611 55.0 56.5 8,314,002 26,489 40.9 17,244,023 32,414 1.0 1.0 1

12/20/07 4,114.2 58.1 59.0 9,127,694 197,673 56.7 54.7 8,499,449 185,447 53.2 17,627,143 33,134 1.0 1.0 1

12/21/07 4,132.4 18.2 55.7 9,188,263 60,569 55.5 52.6 8,556,362 56,913 52.1 17,744,625 33,355 1.0 1.0 1

12/26/07 4,178.9 46.5 51.2 9,348,594 160,331 57.5 54.1 8,706,924 150,562 54.0 18,055,518 33,939 1.0 1.0 1

12/27/07 4,186.1 7.2 56.4 9,398,410 49,816 115.3 53.2 8,751,831 44,907 104 18,150,241 34,117 1.0 1.0 1

12/28/07 4,197.3 11.2 57.9 9,431,614 33,204 49.4 54.1 8,794,317 42,486 63.2 18,225,931 34,259 1.0 1.0 0

01/02/08 4,250.6 53.3 51.9 9,578,566 146,952 46.0 51.9 8,923,809 129,492 40.5 18,502,375 34,779 1.0 5.0 1

01/03/08 4,261.8 11.2 51.9 9,618,311 39,745 59.1 51.9 8,956,486 32,677 48.6 18,574,797 34,915 1.0 1.0 1

01/04/08 4,279.5 17.7 54.3 9,645,043 26,732 25.2 54.3 8,986,416 29,930 28.2 18,631,459 35,022 1.0 2.0 1

01/07/08 4,302.8 23.3 72.2 9,758,579 113,536 81.2 67.5 9,093,256 106,840 76.4 18,851,835 35,436 1.0 1.0 2

01/08/08 4,315.2 12.4 58.3 9,804,465 45,886 61.7 53.1 9,013,730 -79,526 NA 18,818,195 35,373 1.0 2.0 1

01/09/08 4,322.7 7.5 57.3 9,829,182 24,717 54.9 52.7 9,160,331 67,075 56.2 18,989,513 35,695 1.0 1.0 1

01/10/08 4,345.4 22.7 62.1 9,906,807 77,625 57.0 60.1 9,173,342 13,011 9.6 19,080,149 35,865 1.0 1.0 1

01/11/08 4,350.0 4.6 57.6 9,924,879 18,072 65.5 52.6 9,250,514 77,172 279.6 19,175,393 36,044 1.0 1.0 1

01/14/08 4,392.5 42.5 54.3 10,065,231 140,352 55.0 51.4 9,382,356 131,842 51.7 19,447,587 36,556 1.0 1.0 1

01/15/08 4,407.1 14.6 55.3 10,062,491 NA NA 53.1 NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1

01/16/08 4,421.0 13.9 56.6 10,156,567 91,336 112.8 53.7 9,468,325 85,969 50.3 19,624,892 36,889 1.0 1.0 0

01/17/08 4,437.2 16.2 55.8 10,199,825 43,258 44.5 53.6 NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1

01/18/08 4,446.2 9.0 53.0 10,209,213 9,388 17.4 49.9 9,546,100 77,775 51.4 19,755,313 37,134 1.0 1.0 1

01/21/08 4,484.7 38.5 60.9 10,395,213 186,000 80.5 55.7 9,689,821 143,721 62.2 20,085,034 37,754 1.0 1.0 0

01/22/08 4,495.2 10.5 54.1 10,406,631 11,418 18.1 53.5 9,703,448 13,627 21.6 20,110,079 37,801 1.0 1.0 1

01/23/08 4,505.6 10.4 61.3 10,441,031 34,400 55.1 60.1 9,735,182 31,734 50.9 20,176,213 37,925 1.0 1.0 1

01/24/08 4,516.8 11.2 51.0 10,478,275 37,244 55.4 52.3 9,770,736 35,554 52.9 20,249,011 38,062 1.0 1.0 1

01/25/08 4,527.7 10.9 56.2 10,514,264 35,989 55.0 50.8 9,804,581 33,845 51.8 20,318,845 38,193 1.0 1.0 1

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

26

27

28

22

23

24

25
A-5

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

01/28/08 4,567.2 39.5 53.4 10,645,076 130,812 55.2 51.2 9,927,900 123,319 52.0 20,572,976 38,671 1.0 1.0 1

01/29/08 4,572.2 5.0 55.0 10,660,984 15,908 53.0 53.1 9,942,911 15,011 50.0 20,603,895 38,729 1.0 1.0 1

01/30/08 4,581.1 8.9 51.1 10,699,940 38,956 73.0 52.4 9,984,121 41,210 77.2 20,684,061 38,880 1.0 1.0 1

01/31/08 4,598.0 16.9 54.0 10,744,790 44,850 44.2 55.5 10,022,060 37,939 37.4 20,766,850 39,035 1.0 1.0 0

02/01/08 4,607.2 9.2 54.1 10,791,510 46,720 84.6 53.1 10,244,130 222,070 402.3 21,035,640 39,541 1.0 1.0 1

02/04/08 4,642.2 35.0 53.6 10,891,540 100,030 47.6 49.1 10,160,099 -84,031 NA 21,051,639 39,571 1.0 1.0 1

02/05/08 4,654.8 12.6 52.6 10,933,316 41,776 55.3 51.8 10,199,438 39,339 NA 21,132,754 39,723 1.0 1.0 1

02/06/08 4,660.8 6.0 55.4 10,952,911 19,595 54.4 52.6 10,217,890 18,452 NA 21,170,801 39,795 1.0 1.0 1

02/07/08 4,678.1 17.3 54.9 11,010,332 57,421 55.3 52.1 10,279,190 61,300 59.1 21,289,522 40,018 1.0 1.0 1

02/08/08 4,694.8 16.7 53.9 11,094,210 83,878 83.7 58.8 10,346,421 67,231 67.1 21,440,631 40,302 1.0 1.0 1

02/11/08 4,714.5 19.7 54.2 11,137,523 43,313 36.6 53.3 10,391,483 45,062 38.1 21,529,006 40,468 1.0 1.0 1

02/12/08 4,725.3 10.8 55.3 11,173,139 35,616 55.0 53.9 10,424,972 33,489 51.7 21,598,111 40,598 1.0 2.0 1

02/13/08 4,736.4 11.1 56.2 11,209,816 36,677 55.1 50.9 10,459,415 34,443 51.7 21,669,231 40,732 1.0 1.0 1

02/14/08 4,752.5 16.1 53.3 11,262,804 52,988 54.9 52.1 10,509,144 49,729 51.5 21,771,948 40,925 1.0 1.0 1

02/15/08 4,764.9 12.4 56.0 11,303,488 40,684 54.7 51.5 10,547,330 38,186 51.3 21,850,818 41,073 1.0 1.0 1

02/19/08 4,807.2 42.3 59.1 11,450,791 147,303 58.0 55.6 10,686,097 138,767 54.7 22,136,888 41,611 1.0 1.0 0

02/20/08 4,817.7 10.5 56.4 11,487,622 36,831 58.5 54.2 10,720,812 34,715 55.1 22,208,434 41,745 1.0 1.0 0

02/21/08 4,823.7 6.0 55.3 11,506,882 19,260 53.5 54.2 10,758,974 38,162 106 22,265,856 41,853 1.0 1.0 0

02/22/08 4,842.7 19.0 54.2 11,569,408 62,526 54.8 52.1 10,748,053 -10,921 NA 22,317,461 41,950 1.0 1.0 0

02/25/08 4,869.1 26.4 56.9 11,655,000 85,592 54.0 53.5 10,878,461 130,408 82.3 22,533,461 42,356 1.0 1.0 1

02/26/08 4,880.2 11.1 55.4 11,691,646 36,646 55.0 51.3 10,913,227 34,766 52.2 22,604,873 42,490 1.0 1.0 1

02/27/08 4,899.3 19.1 53.4 11,756,464 64,818 56.6 52.4 10,974,454 61,227 53.4 22,730,918 42,727 1.0 1.0 0

02/28/08 4,909.2 9.9 56.3 11,788,754 32,290 54.4 51.9 11,005,101 30,647 51.6 22,793,855 42,846 1.0 1.0 1

02/29/08 4,920.7 11.5 55.1 11,831,551 42,797 62.0 52.0 11,043,388 38,287 55.5 22,874,939 42,998 1.0 1.0 1

03/03/08 4,952.2 31.5 52.4 11,925,248 93,697 49.6 51.4 11,134,203 90,815 48.1 23,059,451 43,345 1.0 1.0 1

03/04/08 4,964.3 12.1 58.6 11,965,565 40,317 55.5 52.2 11,172,225 38,022 52.4 23,137,790 43,492 1.0 1.0 1

03/05/08 4,982.3 18.0 52.4 12,024,989 59,424 55.0 48.8 11,228,181 55,956 51.8 23,253,170 43,709 1.0 1.0 1

03/06/08 4,995.0 12.7 55.0 12,063,879 38,890 51.0 50.3 11,264,778 36,597 48.0 23,328,657 43,851 1.0 1.0 1

03/07/08 5,014.2 19.2 56.8 12,328,105 264,226 229.4 54.6 11,373,315 108,537 94.2 23,701,420 44,552 1.0 1.0 1

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

32

33

34

29

30

31
A-6

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

03/10/08 5,032.5 18.3 0 12,190,789 126,910 NA 0 11,384,145 10,830 9.9 23,574,934 44,314 1.0 1.0 0

03/11/08 5,048.5 16.0 51.2 12,243,822 53,033 55.2 50.0 11,434,061 49,916 52.0 23,677,883 44,507 1.0 1.0 1

03/12/08 5,067.7 19.2 53.4 12,290,147 46,325 40.2 50.4 11,477,654 43,593 37.8 23,767,801 44,676 1.0 1.0 0

03/13/08 5,074.2 6.5 56.8 12,328,105 37,958 97.3 54.6 11,513,015 35,361 90.7 23,841,120 44,814 1.0 1.0 1

03/14/08 5,083.6 9.4 0 12,358,817 30,712 54.5 0 11,542,162 29,147 51.7 23,900,979 44,927 1.0 1.0 0

03/17/08 5,121.5 37.9 57.3 12,482,568 123,751 54.4 50.7 11,658,495 116,333 51.2 24,141,063 45,378 1.0 1.0 0

03/18/08 5,126.4 4.9 0 12,497,898 15,330 52.1 0 11,672,980 14,485 49.3 24,170,878 45,434 1.0 1.0 0

03/19/08 5,137.8 11.4 61.2 12,536,640 38,742 56.6 59.6 11,709,362 36,382 53.2 24,246,002 45,575 1.0 1.0 1

03/20/08 5,157.4 19.6 53.4 12,601,109 64,469 54.8 49.9 11,770,081 60,719 51.6 24,371,190 45,811 1.0 1.0 0

03/21/08 5,149.1 NA 54.1 12,682,090 80,981 NA 51.1 11,811,120 41,039 NA 24,493,210 46,040 1.0 1.0 0

03/24/08 5,213.7 64.6 52.4 12,791,884 190,775 49.2 54.5 11,949,211 138,091 35.6 24,741,095 46,506 1.0 1.0 1

03/25/08 5,227.4 13.7 55.5 12,836,029 44,145 53.7 53.4 11,990,941 41,730 50.8 24,826,970 46,667 1.0 1.0 0

03/26/08 5,235.1 7.7 60.2 12,860,627 24,598 53.2 54.6 12,014,216 23,275 50.4 24,874,843 46,757 1.0 1.0 1

03/27/08 5,248.6 13.5 54.2 12,906,019 45,392 56.0 54.0 12,056,815 42,599 52.6 24,962,834 46,923 1.0 1.0 1

03/29/08 5,283.7 35.1 54.4 13,021,358 115,339 54.8 51.4 12,168,680 111,865 53.1 25,190,038 47,350 1.0 1.0 1

03/31/08 5,305.2 21.5 55.3 13,089,520 68,162 52.8 55.0 12,230,152 61,472 47.7 25,319,672 47,593 1.0 1.0 1

04/01/08 5,324.1 18.9 60.6 13,151,374 61,854 54.5 52.8 12,288,839 58,687 51.8 25,440,213 47,820 1.0 1.0 1

04/02/08 5,336.8 12.7 0 13,192,882 41,508 54.5 0 12,328,945 40,106 52.6 25,521,827 47,973 NA

04/03/08 5,351.7 14.9 56.5 13,244,271 51,389 57.5 54.8 12,377,264 48,319 54.0 25,621,535 48,161 1.0 1.0 1

04/04/08 5,391.4 39.7 54.2 13,377,678 133,407 56.0 52.9 12,503,437 126,173 53.0 25,881,115 48,649 1.0 1.0 1

04/07/08 5,400.1 8.7 60.5 13,406,024 161,753 55.7 54.4 12,530,430 26,993 51.7 25,936,454 48,753 1.0 1.0 1

04/08/08 5,413.3 13.2 62.8 13,499,228 93,204 177.7 58.8 12,571,340 40,910 51.7 26,070,568 49,005 1.0 1.0 1

04/09/08 5,434.0 20.7 58.4 13,517,864 18,636 15 54.2 12,613,183 41,843 33.7 26,131,047 49,119 1.0 1.0 1

04/10/08 5,446.8 12.8 57.4 13,558,576 40,712 53.0 54.1 12,676,414 63,231 82.3 26,234,990 49,314 1.0 1.0 1

04/12/08 5,474.1 27.3 54.8 13,651,282 92,706 56.6 53.2 12,764,047 87,633 53.5 26,415,329 49,653 1.0 1.0 1

04/14/08 5,494.2 20.1 62.7 13,716,992 65,710 54.5 57.5 12,826,014 61,967 51.4 26,543,006 49,893 1.0 1.0 1

04/15/08 5,508.2 14.0 61.3 13,763,265 46,273 55.1 58.7 12,864,795 38,781 46.2 26,628,060 50,053 1.0 1.0 1

04/16/08 5,522.5 14.3 54.7 13,808,840 45,575 53.1 54.5 12,912,929 48,134 56.1 26,721,769 50,229 1.0 1.0 1

04/17/08 5,542.2 19.7 60.2 13,819,777 10,937 9.3 57.1 12,978,759 65,830 55.7 26,798,536 50,373 1.0 1.0 1

04/18/08 5,570.1 27.9 60.3 13,900,019 80,242 47.9 56.8 13,010,674 31,915 19.1 26,910,693 50,584 1.0 1.0 1

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

38 Off

39

40

35

36

37
A-7

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

04/21/08 5,595.2 25.1 57.6 14,054,100 154,081 102.3 53.4 13,100,249 89,575 59.5 27,154,349 51,042 1.0 1.0 0

04/22/08 5,613.9 18.7 50.9 14,107,195 53,095 47.3 50.0 13,194,149 93,900 83.7 27,301,344 51,318 1.0 1.0 1

04/23/08 5,634.9 21.0 57.9 14,176,189 68,994 54.8 53.4 13,259,170 65,021 51.6 27,435,359 51,570 1.0 1.0 1

04/24/08 5,654.0 19.1 56.4 14,237,241 61,052 53.3 49.2 13,317,163 57,993 50.6 27,554,404 51,794 1.0 1.0 0

04/25/08 5,670.9 16.9 57.1 14,278,421 41,180 40.6 52.1 13,391,121 73,958 72.9 27,669,542 52,010 1.0 1.0 0

04/28/08 5,717.4 46.5 52.8 14,442,242 163,821 58.7 50.9 13,509,719 118,598 42.5 27,951,961 52,541 1.0 1.0 0

04/29/08 5,739.4 22.0 54.4 14,512,272 70,030 53.1 49.9 13,572,600 62,881 47.6 28,084,872 52,791 1.0 1.0 NA

04/30/08 5,745.2 5.8 53.1 14,530,374 18,102 52.0 51.1 13,588,994 16,394 47.1 28,119,368 52,856 1.0 1.0 NA

05/01/08 5,773.8 28.6 54.5 14,623,601 93,227 54.3 47.4 13,673,915 84,921 49.5 28,297,516 53,191 1.0 1.0 0

05/02/08 5,791.1 17.3 53.7 14,699,810 76,209 73.4 49.1 13,710,010 36,095 34.8 28,409,820 53,402 1.0 1.0 0

05/05/08 5,834.3 43.2 50.7 14,840,708 140,898 54.4 47.6 13,872,532 162,522 62.7 28,713,240 53,972 1.0 1.0 1

05/06/08 5,847.1 12.8 58.4 14,864,610 23,902 31.1 53.7 13,894,972 22,440 29.2 28,759,582 54,059 1.0 1.0 0

05/07/08 5,875.7 28.6 56.9 14,957,913 93,303 54.4 49.2 13,980,806 85,834 50.0 28,938,719 54,396 1.0 1.0 1

05/08/08 5,885.7 10.0 57.0 15,033,981 76,068 126.8 44.2 14,050,768 69,962 116.6 29,084,749 54,671 1.0 1.0 1

05/09/08 5,900.1 14.4 58.3 15,033,494 -487 NA 49.9 14,101,021 50,253 58.2 29,134,515 54,764 1.0 1.0 1

05/12/08 5,953.3 53.2 54.6 15,205,944 171,963 42.4 52.4 14,209,062 108,041 33.8 29,415,006 55,291 2.0 2.0 NA

05/13/08 5,971.8 18.5 53.8 15,263,842 57,898 52.2 49.8 14,262,403 53,341 48.1 29,526,245 55,500 1.0 1.0 0

05/14/08 5,988.0 16.2 57.0 15,317,823 53,981 55.5 53.7 14,312,201 49,798 51.2 29,630,024 55,696 1.0 1.0 0

05/15/08 6,112.6 124.6 0 15,395,218 77,395 10.4 0 14,383,656 71,455 9.6 29,778,874 55,975 0.0 0.0 0

05/16/08 6,120.9 8.3 56.9 15,425,018 29,800 59.8 53.1 14,400,101 16,445 33.0 29,825,119 56,062 1.0 1.0 1

05/19/08 6,077.1 NA 53.5 15,603,788 178,770 NA 51.1 14,582,169 182,068 NA 30,185,957 56,741 1.0 1.0 0

05/20/08 6,084.0 96.0 61.1 15,630,183 26,395 NA 53.6 14,602,232 20,063 3.5 30,232,415 56,828 1.0 1.0 0

05/21/08 6,103.6 19.6 57.6 15,690,424 60,241 51.2 50.4 14,660,970 58,738 49.9 30,351,394 57,051 1.0 1.0 0

05/22/08 6,132.2 28.6 55.4 15,752,112 61,688 35.9 49.8 14,770,120 109,150 63.6 30,522,232 57,373 1.0 1.0 NA

05/23/08 6,151.0 18.8 53.2 15,847,626 95,514 84.7 49.2 14,806,644 36,524 32.4 30,654,270 57,621 1.0 1.0 0

47 06/03/08 NA NA 52.8 16,535,004 687,378 NA 46.0 15,457,241 650,597 NA 31,992,245 60,136 1.0 1.0 0

48 06/11/08 6,554.3 403.3 51.4 17,105,814 570,810 23.6 48.3 15,993,699 536,458 22.2 33,099,513 62,217 1.0 1.0 0

49 06/19/08 6,693.9 139.6 51.1 17,531,117 425,303 50.8 50.3 16,394,910 401,211 47.9 33,926,027 63,771 1.0 1.0 0

50 06/24/08 6,852.9 159.0 49.7 18,000,351 469,234 49.2 47.3 16,840,407 445,497 46.7 34,840,758 65,490 1.0 1.0 0

51 07/02/08 7,024.9 172.0 57.0 18,532,902 532,551 51.6 52.1 17,337,632 497,225 48.2 35,870,534 67,426 1.0 1.0 1

58 08/28/08 8,129.7 1104.8 54.7 21,954,007 3,421,105 51.6 50.2 20,530,591 3,192,959 48.2 42,484,598 79,858 1.0 1.0 0

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 

43

44

45

41

42
A-8

Table A-1. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Nambe Pueblo, NM - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow

Calculated 

Flowrate Flowrate Totalizer Incr. Flow 

Calculated 

Flowrate Vessel A Vessel B System

hr hr gpm gal gal gpm gpm gal gal gpm gal BV psig psig psi

62 09/24/08 8,625.0 495.3 55.9 23,481,108 1,527,101 51.4 53.5 21,964,421 1,433,830 48.2 45,445,529 85,424 1.0 1.0 0

67 10/27/08 9,189.3 564.3 53.9 25,203,427 1,722,319 50.9 48.2 23,592,913 1,628,492 48.1 48,796,340 91,722 1.0 1.0 1

71 11/24/08 9,586.1 396.8 53.1 26,439,978 1,236,551 51.9 52.7 24,644,715 1,051,802 44.2 51,084,693 96,024 1.0 1.0 1

75 12/24/08 9,804.1 218.0 59.9 27,130,764 690,786 52.8 55.3 25,294,639 649,924 49.7 52,425,403 98,544 1.0 1.0 0

80 01/28/09 9,942.5 138.4 60.6 27,578,121 447,357 53.9 58.9 25,729,321 434,682 52.3 53,307,442 100,202 1.0 1.0 0

84 02/25/09 10,108.0 165.5 58.7 28,115,307 537,186 54.1 55.3 26,251,886 522,565 52.6 54,367,193 102,194 1.0 1.0 0

88 03/26/09 10,430.1 322.1 57.7 29,152,606 1,037,299 53.7 54.9 27,238,667 986,781 51.1 56,391,273 105,999 1.0 1.0 1

97 05/20/09 11,137.4 707.3 53.0 31,358,125 2,205,519 52.0 51.8 29,296,854 2,058,187 48.5 60,654,979 114,013 1.0 1.0 0

101 06/17/09 11,251.8 114.4 60.1 31,729,595 371,470 54.1 54.6 29,648,739 351,885 51.3 61,378,334 115,373 1.0 1.0 0

107 07/28/09 11,576.4 324.6 59.1 32,766,407 1,036,812 53.2 57.2 30,617,917 969,178 49.8 63,384,324 119,143 1.0 1.0 1

111 08/27/09 11,693.2 116.8 60.0 33,145,283 378,876 54.1 54.6 205,432 205,432 NA 63,968,632 NA 1.0 1.0 1

115 09/21/09 11,780.1 86.9 56.9 33,426,403 281,120 53.9 55.6 469,393 263,961 50.6 64,513,713 121,266 1.0 1.0 0

116 09/28/09 11,790.4 10.3 56.9 33,460,647 34,244 55.4 53.4 501,435 32,042 51.8 64,579,999 121,391 1.0 1.0 0

(a) Bed volume = 35.6 cu.ft. (266 gal) in each vessel or 71.2 cu.ft. (532 gal) total for tw o vessels.

NA = Not Availble.

Week 

No. Date

Buffalo Well Instrument Panel

Pump 

Hour 

Meter 

Incr. 

Hours

Vessel A Flow Meter Vessel B Flow Meter

System Throughput

∆P 
APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL DATA
B-1

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - - - - - - - - - 10.2 - - 12.1 11.3 - - 13.4 12.4

173 173 209 211 171 175 207 197 168 168 211 173 171 171 168 170 165 165 168

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - 1.1 0.8 0.6 - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - 29 37 32 - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.2 14.8 19.2 19.5 14.9 15.0 25.4 25.9 15.5 15.7 21.7 14.7 14.9 17.5 16.7 14.4 14.3 16.4 15.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 2.1 1.5 0.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - - - - - - - - 9.1 7.1 8.6 - 7.7(c) - - - 7.1(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - 20.4 20.4 20.2 - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - 6.8 3.4 4.7 - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - 396 442 467 - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 7.2 7.1 40.7 - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 7.0 7.0 40.1 - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.6 - - - - - - - -

29.3 29.8 2.4 2.1 26.4 25.8 1.5 2.7 37.4 36.9 2.5 30.1 31.4 0.4 0.4 28.9 30.0 0.3 0.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 34.5 32.5 2.3 - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - 2.9 4.4 0.1 - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - 34.2 32.2 2.0 - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - -

0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.2 0.3 - - - - - - - -

42.6 43.5 88.2 81.8 43.0 40.4 43.9 24.7 41.8 43.2 71.6 41.1 40.1 1.5 1.5 40.7 41.1 2.4 2.5

(42.6) (42.4) (88.2) (79.8) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - 40.6 41.0 72.0 - - - - - - - -

(a) Results in parathensis are reruns. (b) Operator training completed. (c) pH reading taken from inline probe. 

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

AP TA TB IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location IN AP TA TB IN

Sampling Date 06/26/07(a) 07/03/07 07/09/07 07/18/07 07/26/07
B-2

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 14.6 13.6 - - 15.4 - - 17.9 16.6 - - 19.7 18.3 - - 21.6 20.1

189 196 179 189 184 189 186 165 165 179 179 168 168 170 168 170 170 170 168

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 170 168 170 170

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 0.9 0.8 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 27 27 27 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 0.8 0.7 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10

14.5 14.8 15.9 16.3 15.2 14.8 15.7 14.8 14.6 14.7 14.8 13.6 13.1 13.3 13.0 15.7 15.1 15.9 15.5

- - - - - - - 15.0 14.9 16.1 15.7

0.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.2 2.7 1.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.1 1.0 1.8 2.1

TOC mg/L - - - - <1 <1 <1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.4(c) - - 9.0 7.1 8.3 - 7.7(c) - - - 7.3(c) - - - 7.2(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - 22.3 21.8 22.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - 6.9 3.8 4.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - 391 409 424 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 6.9 6.9 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 6.9 6.8 6.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

30.7 29.9 0.4 0.3 31.7 31.7 1.3 29.9 28.5 19.1 19.5 30.7 32.3 0.7 0.6 28.6 29.6 0.6 0.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.1 29.8 0.5 0.5

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - 37.7 30.9 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - <0.1 0.8 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - 1.2 1.1 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - 36.5 29.8 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.1 42.5 2.4 2.5 40.9 40.4 2.8 42.4 39.9 68.9 66.9 41.2 40.4 2.2 2.5 41.5 42.2 1.4 1.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42.6 42.6 1.4 1.5

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - <0.1 24.8 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TT IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 08/02/07 08/10/07 08/15/07 08/22/07 08/28/07
B-3

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 26.0 24.1 - - 28.8 26.7 - - 30.0 27.8 - - 30.8 28.6 - - 31.0 28.8

171 177 179 177 190 175 209 177 170 170 164 168 176 164 168 168 179 169 163 165

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 11.1 17.8 <10 11.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.2 14.5 20.0 19.5 15.7 16.3 16.4 15.2 14.9 15.5 12.6 12.4 14.6 15.2 19.9 19.5 13.9 15.6 17.8 17.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.3(c) - - - 8.1(c) - - - 7.2(c) - - - 7.0(c) - - - 7.5(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30.7 31.7 1.1 1.0 27.6 27.4 19.8 31.5 30.9 32.0 0.7 0.8 31.5 32.2 0.8 0.7 16.3 20.8 0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 1.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.9 41.2 4.9 4.0 44.2 42.9 135.4 66.9 37.1 35.4 1.3 1.4 40.3 40.1 2.4 2.3 39.3 40.4 2.0 2.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 09/11/07 09/26/07 10/04/07 10/11/07 10/16/07
B-4

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 31.3 29.1 - - 31.6 29.4 - - 31.7 29.5 - - 31.8 29.6 - - 32.1 30.0

163 163 196 200 168 174 174 174 178 174 170 174 171 188 167 165 169 169 169 171

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15.1 15.0 12.4 13.5 14.9 14.8 15.5 15.0 13.3 13.4 15.2 14.6 14.4 12.7 14.4 14.0 13.6 13.0 30.4 14.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3.0 6.2 3.9 2.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.0(c) - - - 7.1(c) - - - 7.0(c) - - - 7.3(c) - - - 7.1(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.6 42.3 4.6 3.7 34.2 36.1 0.6 0.5 10.7 14.3 0.7 0.7 30.9 10.6 0.8 0.7 30.5 17.2 1.0 1.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 56 <25 42 34 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.4 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 1.1 <0.1 0.1 3.6 2.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.1 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29.0 28.9 13.9 19.4 38.9 38.3 1.9 2.0 35.7 36.1 1.8 1.9 41.5 42.3 2.0 2.0 40.7 38.7 2.5 3.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(a) Alkalinity, silica, and turbidity results collected on 10/23/07.

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

10/25/07 11/07/07 11/14/07 11/26/07 (a) Sampling Date 11/02/07
B-5

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 32.5 30.2 - - 33.3 31.0 - - 34.3 32.0 - - 38.2 35.6 - - 39.3 36.6

167 168 172 170 163 163 161 161 158 164 171 175 161 159 161 159 162 166 172 168

165 170 168 167 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.3 14.1 13.7 14.1 14.9 14.7 15.3 15.1 13.8 14.0 22.7 21.2 15.4 15.2 17.5 17.3 13.4 13.1 13.7 13.2

14.5 13.7 13.5 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.0(c) - - - 7.1(c) - - - 7.2(c) - - - 7.0(c) - - - 7.0(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

37.0 37.3 1.0 0.9 41.7 44.9 4.4 <0.1 41.4 41.5 1.5 1.3 34.7 36.8 2.1 1.4 41.5 39.3 2.3 2.2

36.6 36.5 1.0 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

<25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 2.9 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1

0.8 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

41.3 42.5 2.3 2.6 39.4 38.7 5.0 2.3 36.8 37.8 4.3 3.2 38.8 39.8 3.1 2.9 34.6 36.6 2.6 2.6

42.5 42.7 2.4 2.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 12/05/07 12/12/07 12/20/07 01/16/08 01/23/08
B-6

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 40.0 37.4 - - 41.2 38.4 - - 42.1 39.3 - - 43.5 40.4 - - 45.0 42.0

168 168 170 166 160 166 160 164 162 164 192 188 167 163 167 167 167 169 165 167

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.4 14.3 19.2 18.3 14.0 13.8 14.6 14.6 13.8 13.8 10.0 10.6 15.7 15.3 21.3 20.2 15.5 15.2 17.0 16.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.8 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.2(c) - - - 7.1(c) - - - 7.0(c) - - - 7.3(c) - - - 7.1(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.4 32.5 1.4 1.3 36.9 37.8 1.5 1.4 36.0 38.0 20.4 26.2 39.7 41.3 2.1 2.0 38.0 38.5 0.8 0.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 28 <25 <25 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.3 0.2 0.1 <0.1 1.9 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

37.2 35.3 4.2 3.7 35.5 35.1 3.0 2.8 35.7 35.2 33.3 46.5 37.7 38.1 2.8 2.5 40.5 39.5 2.8 2.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 01/29/08 02/06/08 02/13/08 02/21/08 03/04/08
B-7

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 46.0 43.0 - - 47.1 44.0 - - 48.3 45.2 - - 50.7 47.3 - - 51.7 48.4

169 169 174 171 172 168 166 164 168 168 164 166 167 169 171 167 171 169 173 169

171 169 171 174 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13.2 13.3 14.0 13.9 14.9 14.9 16.0 16.0 13.2 13.6 14.8 14.5 13.8 14.1 15.3 15.1 14.8 14.7 20.3 18.9

13.1 13.3 13.9 13.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.9

0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 6.9(c) - - - 7.2(c) - - - 7.3(c) - - - 7.2(c) - - - 7.2(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31.5 34.9 1.1 1.2 29.6 29.9 1.8 1.8 28.9 28.9 1.3 1.2 28.1 30.1 1.0 0.9 28.7 29.8 1.3 1.3

32.8 33.2 0.7 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

<25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 63.8 0.2 <0.1 0.3 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.5 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.8 42.5 4.0 4.0 38.6 41.4 5.3 5.2 39.7 41.9 3.7 3.4 43.5 42.4 4.1 3.7 42.9 42.2 3.9 3.6

42.5 42.1 4.1 4.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(c) pH reading taken from inline probe.

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 03/11/08 03/19/08 03/26/08 04/08/08 04/15/08
B-8

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 53.0 49.6 - - 55.9 52.2 - - 57.4 53.6 - - 59.0 55.1 - - 62.2 58.1

166 164 204 202 157 161 165 163 162 162 182 178 170 168 166 170 177 170 173 173

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - 26.1 25.0 26.2 31.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 13.0 12.6 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 12.1 10.7 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.5 14.5 15.0 15.0 14.2 13.9 17.9 16.8 13.8 14.1 13.3 13.4 13.7 13.9 20.0 19.0 13.6 13.5 14.3 13.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - 7.2(c) - - - 7.6(c) - - - 7.6(c) - - - 7.2(c) - - - 7.1(c) - -

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 6.1 5.7 8.2 8.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 5.9 5.6 7.5 7.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -

31.5 32.7 46.9 44.7 43.5 44.7 1.2 1.2 40.5 41.0 43.5 41.5 33.6 32.0 2.5 2.3 30.4 32.3 1.1 1.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

41.5 40.7 105.0 90.9 36.7 35.2 2.1 2.0 37.4 38.2 62.4 50.6 36.7 35.0 2.2 2.0 36.5 35.6 2.0 2.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 04/22/08 05/06/08 05/13/08 05/21/08 06/03/08
B-9

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 64.3 60.1 - - 65.9 61.6 - - 67.6 63.3 - - 69.6 65.1 - - 82.5 77.2

179 173 168 166 173 168 171 171 173 175 173 171 159 161 156 159 168 162 166 173

- - - - - - - - - - - - 159 159 156 159 - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10 - - - -

13.6 13.7 16.1 15.4 13.7 13.6 14.3 13.9 13.4 13.3 14.0 14.0 15.3 14.5 19.1 18.4 13.5 13.2 13.8 13.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - 15.0 14.7 19.1 18.4 - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.1(c) NA NA NA 7.2(c) NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.7 32.5 1.3 1.3 27.2 27.2 0.9 0.9 28.3 28.5 1.7 1.9 38.4 37.5 1.3 1.3 31.2 32.6 1.6 1.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.1 44.1 1.5 1.5 41.5 42.2 1.4 1.4 41.6 42.4 2.9 3.0 37.2 38.1 2.9 2.6 35.6 35.4 5.9 5.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 06/11/08 06/19/08 06/24/08 07/02/08 08/28/08
B-10

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 88.3 82.6 - - 94.8 88.7 - - 99.4 96.0 - - 102 95.1 - - 104 96.7

166 168 166 161 155 159 164 164 158 158 156 156 184 182 157 168 168 175 164 166

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14.0 13.9 13.1 13.3 13.6 13.2 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.1 12.9 13.3 11.1 11.1 13.0 13.0 12.1 11.6 12.6 12.8

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA 7.5(c) NA NA NA 7.3(c) NA NA NA 7.4(c) NA NA NA 7.4(c) NA NA NA 7.4(c) NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

28.4 28.3 1.6 1.8 32.4 32.6 2.0 2.0 40.8 40.7 1.9 2.0 11.0 10.6 1.9 2.2 22.0 12.2 2.6 2.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 120 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.8 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.8 43.8 9.8 11.8 19.9 38.4 4.8 4.7 34.1 34.0 7.1 7.4 36.1 35.5 8.2 9.1 26.0 26.6 7.5 8.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 09/24/08 10/27/08 11/24/08 12/22/08 01/28/09
B-11

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 106 98.7 - - 110 102 - - NA NA - - 118 110 - - 119 111

167 171 169 163 169 173 167 165 166 166 168 171 177 174 172 177 175 175 175 173

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10.4 10.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 26.1 23.4 12.7 11.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13.4 12.8 15.8 15.3 12.6 12.4 12.1 12.3 14.3 14.3 14.6 14.7 13.0 13.9 13.8 13.5 13.1 13.0 14.5 14.3

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.6

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA 7.7(c) NA NA NA 7.5(c) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.6(c) NA NA NA 7.5(c) NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29.5 26.5 2.2 2.6 31.3 32.0 1.7 1.8 59.0 42.2 3.6 3.0 35.1 35.7 1.9 1.8 30.8 30.8 2.2 2.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

154 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 2.4 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.7 39.2 7.2 6.0 45.0 45.3 7.2 6.4 55.8 48.9 7.4 6.1 36.3 37.3 3.7 3.3 39.5 39.4 6.0 6.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB Sampling Location

Sampling Date 02/25/09 03/26/09 04/24/09 05/20/09 06/17/09
B-12

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Nambe Pueblo, NM (Continued)

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume ×103 - - 123 115 - - 125 NA - - 126 116 - - 126 117

165 170 156 159 175 177 208 219 168 167 159 159 174 172 169 167

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10.9 11.4 15.3 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13.9 13.6 13.6 13.4 12.6 12.4 9.3 10.2 15.0 15.2 14.7 15.0 13.4 12.4 12.3 12.6

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.2 0.2 0.9 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOC mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.2(c) NA NA NA 7.6(c) NA NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ca Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness (as CaCO 3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29.2 29.6 <0.1 <0.1 26.5 19.3 14.7 19.0 30.5 31.7 0.7 0.1 32.4 29.1 2.4 1.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29 <25 <25 <25 28 <25 45 57 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.9 1.0 0.2 <0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 0.8 0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

36.6 36.5 6.1 3.3 37.4 37.0 27.2 33.8 38.1 38.6 4.3 3.9 39.1 39.1 7.2 4.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (total) μg/L

U (total) μg/L

Turbidity NTU

As (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

TB

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA TB IN AP TA

07/28/09 08/27/09 09/21/09 09/28/09

Sampling Location

Sampling Date