EPA/600/R-09/067

August 2009

Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at 

Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Abraham S.C. Chen

Jody P. Lipps

Sarah McCall

Lili Wang

Battelle 

Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Contract No. 68-C-00-185

Task Order No. 0029 

 

for 

Thomas J. Sorg

Task Order Manager

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ii

DISCLAIMER

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

(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 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 ground water; 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 for the arsenic removal treatment 

technology demonstration project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA. The objectives of 

the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of an Aquatic Treatment Systems, Inc. (ATS) arsenic 

removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 

10 μg/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and maintenance 

(O&M) and operator skills, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also 

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

The ATS system consisted of three Well-X-TROL pressure tanks; one 25-μm sediment filter; two 10-in 

diameter, 54-in tall oxidation columns; three 10-in diameter, 54-in tall adsorption columns; and one 

pressure tank/booster pump assembly before entering the distribution system. Constructed of sealed 

polyglass, the columns were loaded with 1.5 ft3 each of either A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media

(consisting of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate) or A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media 

(consisting of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex) for series operations. Based on the 

design flowrate of 12 gal/min (gpm), the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each column was 0.9 min (or 

2.8 min for three adsorption columns in series) and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 22

gpm/ft2

. Because the actual flowrate through the system was slightly lower at 9.3 gpm (on average), the 

actual EBCT was slightly longer at 1.2 min and the actual hydraulic loading rate was slightly lower at 

17.2 gpm/ft2

. 

Between September 7, 2005, and June 13, 2007, the treatment system operated for an average of 1.1 

hr/day for a total of 442 hr, treating approximately 303,000 gal of water containing 25.1 to 35.4 μg/L of 

arsenic. Arsenic in raw water existed as both soluble As(V) and soluble As(III), with As(III) 

concentrations remaining below 47% of the soluble arsenic throughout most of the study period (except 

for the first two months). Oxidation of As(III) was achieved through reactions with sodium 

metaperiodate (IO4

-

) within the oxidation columns, producing As(V) and I- as end products. The 

oxidation columns remained effective for As(III) oxidation throughout the study period, reducing As(III) 

concentrations to less than 2.7, 1.2, and 1.0 μg/L following the first and second oxidation columns and the 

third adsorption column, respectively. As much as 264 μg/L of IO4

- (as I) had leached from the oxidation 

and adsorption columns, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend. 

The oxidizing media showed a significant adsorptive capacity for arsenic (i.e., 0.18 to 0.20 μg of As/mg 

of dry media), effectively reducing arsenic concentrations to <10 μg/L after processing 51,600 gal of 

water through the lead oxidation column (or 4,600 bed volumes [BV; 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal]). 

Complete arsenic breakthrough from the lead and lag oxidation columns occurred after processing 79,700 

and 193,000 gal of water, respectively, which correspond to 7,100 BV (1 BV = 11.22 gal) through the 

lead column and 8,600 BV (1 BV = 22.44 gal) through the lead and lag columns. 

Arsenic breakthrough of 10 μg/L following the lead and first lag adsorption columns occurred after 

processing approximately 184,000 and 221,000 gal of water. Complete arsenic breakthrough for the lead 

adsorption column took place after processing approximately 227,800 gal of water. The arsenic loading 

on the lead adsorption column was 0.23 μg of As/mg of dry media, which was very close to that on the 

oxidation columns as mentioned above. These adsorptive capacities were very close to those observed at

another EPA arsenic demonstration site in Wales, ME, where a similar ATS system was used for arsenic 

removal. 

The lead and the first lag adsorption columns with spent adsorptive media were replaced after 

approximately 18 months of operation. Before changeout, the total arsenic concentration in the system 
v

effluent was 8.4 μg/L, less than the 10 μg/L MCL. The spent media in both vessels passed the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test and could be disposed off at a sanitary landfill. However, 

the vendor recycled the spent media into another product, thus saving the disposal cost. 

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

significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the three sampling locations during the 12 monthly

sampling events. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from an average baseline level of 30.6 to 1.5 

μg/L, which, although low, were still higher than the concentrations (≤0.2 μg/L) measured at the 

distribution entry point. Therefore, some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have occurred 

in the distribution system. Lead and copper values also were low and did not appear to have been 

affected by the treatment system. 

The capital investment cost of $16,930 included $8,640 for equipment, $3,400 for site engineering, and 

$4,890 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gal per day [gpd]), the 

capital cost was $1,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd). The annualized capital cost was $1,598/yr based upon a 7% 

interest rate and a 20-year return. The unit capital cost was $0.25/1,000 gal assuming the system operated

continuously at 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at 12 gpm. At the current usage rate of 180,520 gal per year, the unit 

capital cost increased to $8.90/1,000 gal. 

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

replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. The incremental cost for electricity 

consumption was negligible. The cost to replace the lead and first lag adsorption columns was $2,310. 

Labor and travel would add approximately $1,660 to the total cost. This cost was used to estimate the 

O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the media run length to the 10-μg/L arsenic in 

the system effluent. 
vi

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal.............................................................................. 2

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

Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 5

Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS............................................................................................. 7

3.1 General Project Approach ................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection ........................................................................................ 8

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules............................................................................... 8

3.3.1 Source Water........................................................................................................................ 8

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water........................................................................................................ 8

3.3.3 Residual Solids..................................................................................................................11

3.3.4 Distribution System Water...............................................................................................11

3.4 Sampling Logistics..........................................................................................................................11

3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits..........................................................................11

3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers....................................................................................11

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling.......................................................................................12

3.5 Analytical Procedures.....................................................................................................................12

Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................ 13

4.1 Facility Description .........................................................................................................................13

4.1.1 Source Water Quality........................................................................................................13

4.1.2 Distribution System...........................................................................................................14

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

4.3 Permitting and System Installation ...............................................................................................19

4.4 System Operation.............................................................................................................................22

4.4.1 Operational Parameters.....................................................................................................22

4.4.2 Residual Management.......................................................................................................24

4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity...............................................................24

4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements........................................................24

4.4.3.2 System Controls...............................................................................................24

4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements..........................................................................25

4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities............................................................25

4.5 System Performance........................................................................................................................25

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling................................................................................................25

4.5.1.1 Arsenic and Iodine...........................................................................................25

4.5.1.2 Silica, Sulfate, Bicarbonate and Nitrate .......................................................33

4.5.1.3 Aluminum.........................................................................................................33

4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese ...................................................................................... 333
vii

4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters ...................................................................33

4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling......................................................................................................35

4.5.2.1 TCLP .................................................................................................................35

4.5.2.2 Metals................................................................................................................36

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling.............................................................................37

4.6 System Cost......................................................................................................................................37

4.6.1 Capital Cost........................................................................................................................37

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost....................................................................................39

Section 5.0: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES

APPENDIX C: ARSENIC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Sampling Frequency............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 2 Pump House at Richmond Elementary School............................... 13

Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks .................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System................................................................................ 18

Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations.................................................................. 20

Figure 4-5. Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown Against Wall and a Sediment Filter 

Attached to Wall .................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with Sample Taps and 

Labels................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4-7. Variation of Booster Pump/System Flowrates..................................................................... 23

Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Particulate Arsenic, Soluble As(III), and Soluble As(V) across 

Treatment System ................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based on 1.5 ft3

 of 

Media in Each Column) ....................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4-10. Arsenic Concentration across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3

of Media in Each Column)................................................................................................... 30

Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation and Adsorption Columns......................................... 31

Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3

of Media in Each Column)................................................................................................... 34

Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV 

Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column............................................... 344

Figure 4-14. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train (BV Calculations Based upon 

1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column) ........................................................................................ 35

Figure 4-15. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System ................................................... 41

TABLES 

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites.......................... 3

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates.................................................... 7

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities........................................ 7
viii

Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses............................................................................ 9

Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site .................................... 15

Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media........................ 16

Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media....................... 16

Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System.............................................................. 19

Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations....................................................................... 22

Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results ....................... 26

Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements......................................................... 27

Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed and Loadings on Media................................................................. 31

Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Length and Arsenic Loading at Three Arsenic 

Demonstration Sites Using ATS’ Media.............................................................................. 32

Table 4-9. TCLP Results of Spent Media from Columns A and B ....................................................... 35

Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results of Duplicate Samples ............................................................. 36

Table 4-11. Comparison of Media Capacity for Arsenic ........................................................................ 37

Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 38

Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost ................................................................................ 399

Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost....................................................................................................... 40
ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

∆p differential pressure

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

Al aluminum

AM adsorptive media

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems

AWWA American Water Works Association

bgs below ground surface

BV bed volume(s)

Ca calcium

CCR California Code of Regulations

C/F coagulation/filtration

Cl chlorine

Cu copper

DPH Department of Public Health

DO dissolved oxygen

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluoride

Fe iron 

GFH granular ferric hydroxide

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HIX hybrid ion exchanger

hp horsepower

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IX ion exchange

LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese

mV millivolts
x

N/A not analyzed

Na sodium

NA not applicable

ND not detected

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NSF NSF International

O&M operation and maintenance

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

Pb lead

PO4 orthophosphate

POU point-of-use

psi pounds per square inch

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

RO reverse osmosis

RPD relative percent difference

SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SO4 sulfate

STS Severn Trent Services

TCCI TCCI Laboratories

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TDS total dissolved solids

TO task order

TOC total organic carbon
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of the water treatment system at 

Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA. The operator of the school monitored the treatment 

system and collected samples from the treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule 

throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his

support and dedication.
1

Section 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 (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the 

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

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

2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25, 

2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 μg/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community 

and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006. 

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

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

and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. 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, on-site 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 sites to host the demonstration studies. 

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

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

sites, with each site receiving 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 project. Using the information 

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

the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. 

In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with 

Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration 

sites and the water system at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, California was one of those 

selected. 

In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic 

removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site 

receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to 

review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging 

from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the 

sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state

regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, 

reducing the number of sites to 28. Aquatic Treatment System, Inc. (ATS) As/1200CS arsenic treatment 

system was selected for demonstration at Richmond Elementary School site in October 2004. 

As of April 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 32 systems 

was completed.
2

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal

The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive 

media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 

coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units 

(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and 

eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, 

technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and 

pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 

Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 

2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA website at 

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

 

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic 

treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The 

specific objectives are to:

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

systems.

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

levels.

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies. 

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

This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system at Richmond Elementary School in 

Susanville, CA from September 7, 2005, through June 13, 2007. The types of data collected included 

system operation, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), 

residuals, and capital and O&M cost. 
3

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

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm) 

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L) 

Fe

 (μg/L) 

pH

(S.U.)

Northeast/Ohio

Wales, ME Springbrook Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 14 38(a) <25 8.6

Bow, NH White Rock Water Company AM (G2) ADI 70(b) 39 <25 7.7

Goffstown, NH Orchard Highlands Subdivision AM (E33) AdEdge 10 33 <25 6.9 

Rollinsford, NH Rollinsford Water and Sewer District AM (E33) AdEdge 100 36(a) 46 8.2

Dummerston, VT Charette Mobile Home Park AM (A/I Complex) ATS 22 30 <25 7.9

Felton, DE Town of Felton C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 30(a) 48 8.2

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

Houghton, NY(d) Town of Caneadea C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 550 27(a) 1,806(c) 7.6

Newark, OH Buckeye Lake Head Start Building AM (ARM 200) Kinetico 10 15(a) 1,312(c) 7.6 

Springfield, OH Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park AM (E33) AdEdge 250(e) 25(a) 1,615(c) 7.3

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

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

Pentwater, MI Village of Pentwater C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 400 13(a) 466(c) 6.9

Sandusky, MI City of Sandusky C/F (Aeralater) Siemens 340(e) 16(a) 1,387(c) 6.9

Delavan, WI Vintage on the Ponds C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 40 20(a) 1,499(c) 7.5

Greenville, WI Town of Greenville C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 375 17 7827(c) 7.3 

Climax, MN City of Climax C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 140 39(a) 546(c) 7.4

Sabin, MN City of Sabin C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 34 1,470(c) 7.3

Sauk Centre, MN Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 20 25(a) 3,078(c) 7.1

Stewart, MN City of Stewart C/F&AM (E33) AdEdge 250 42(a) 1,344(c) 7.7

Lidgerwood, ND City of Lidgerwood Process Modification Kinetico 250 146(a) 1,325(c) 7.2

Midwest/Southwest

Arnaudville, LA United Water Systems C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 770(e) 35(a) 2,068(c) 7.0

Alvin, TX Oak Manor Municipal Utility District AM (E33) STS 150 19(a) 95 7.8

Bruni, TX

Webb Consolidated Independent School 

District AM (E33) AdEdge 40 56(a) <25 8.0 

Wellman, TX City of Wellman AM (E33) AdEdge 100 45 <25 7.7

Anthony, NM

Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water 

Consumers Association AM (E33) STS 320 23(a) 39 7.7 

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

Taos, NM Town of Taos AM (E33) STS 450 14 59 9.5

Rimrock, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (E33) AdEdge 90(b) 50 170 7.2

Tohono O'odham 

Nation, AZ Tohono O’odham Utility Authority AM (E33) AdEdge 50 32 <25 8.2 

Valley Vista, AZ Arizona Water Company AM (AAFS50/ARM 200) Kinetico 37 41 <25 7.8
4

Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Far West

Three Forks, MT City of Three Forks C/F (Macrolite) Kinetico 250 64 <25 7.5

Fruitland, ID City of Fruitland IX (A300E) Kinetico 250 44 <25 7.4

Homedale, ID Sunset Ranch Development POU RO(f) Kinetico 75 gpd 52 134 7.5

Okanogan, WA City of Okanogan C/F (Electromedia-I) Filtronics 750 18 69(c) 8.0

Klamath Falls, OR Oregon Institute of Technology

POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

and POU AM (ARM 200)(g) Kinetico 60/60/30 33 <25 7.9

Vale, OR City of Vale IX (Arsenex II) Kinetico 525 17 <25 7.5

Reno, NV

South Truckee Meadows General 

Improvement District AM (GFH/Kemiron) Siemens 350 39 <25 7.4

Susanville, CA Richmond School District AM (A/I Complex) ATS 12 37(a) 125 7.5

Lake Isabella, CA Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A AM (HIX) VEETech 50 35 125 7.5 

Tehachapi, CA Golden Hills Community Service District AM (Isolux) MEI 150 15 <25 6.9

AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis 

ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services

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

(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration. 

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

(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.

(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm.. 

(f) Including nine residential units.

(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
5

Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information collected during the 21 months of operation, the following conclusions were 

made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study. 

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

• The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media was effective at oxidizing As(III) to As(V), typically 

lowering As(III) concentrations from an average of 12.1 to <1.0 μg/L throughout the 21-

month study period. Oxidation was achieved via reactions with NaIO4. The oxidizing media

also showed significant adsorptive capacities for arsenic (i.e., 0.18 and 0.20 μg/mg of dry 

media) comparable to adsorptive media. As much as 264 μg/L of IO4

- leached from the 

oxidizing and adsorptive media, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend.

• The A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was effective at removing arsenic to below its 

MCL. The run length to breakthrough at 10 μg/L, however, was short, ranging from 4,930 to 

5,470 bed volumes (BV; note that BV was calculated by considering the respective 

adsorption column and all preceding columns as one large column). Complete breakthrough 

from the lead column occurred at approximately 6,670 BV, resulting in a loading of 0.23 μg

of As/mg of dry media.

• Aluminum was leached from the oxidation and adsorption columns, with concentrations 

(existing primarily in the soluble form) ranging from 13.9 to 40.9 μg/L. The concentrations 

detected were below its secondary drinking water standard. 

• Arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced from an average baseline 

level of 30.6 to 1.5 μg/L. Some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have 

occurred because the levels detected in the distribution were higher than the concentrations 

(≤0.2 μg/L) measured at the distribution entry point. 

Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels: 

• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The weekly demand on 

the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and record operational 

parameters. 

• Operation of the As/1200CS did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to 

operate the existing water supply equipment. 

Process residuals produced by the technology:

• The system did not require backwash to operate. As a result, no backwash residual was

produced. 

• The only residual produced by the treatment system was spent media. The lead and first lag 

adsorption columns with spent media were replaced after approximately 18 months of system 

operation. The spent media passed the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test 

and could be disposed of as a non-hazardous material; however, the vendor elected to recycle 

it into another product to save disposal cost.
6

Technology cost:

• Using the system’s rated capacity of 12 gal/min (gpm) (or 17,280 gal/day [gpd]), the capital 

cost was $1,410/gpm (or $0.98/gpd). 

• The cost to change out two adsorption columns (lead and first lag) at a time was $2,310 based 

on the invoice provided by the vendor. 
7

Section 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 ATS treatment system began on September 7, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected 

and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was 

evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the MCL of 10 μg/L through the 

collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by 

tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. Any

unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and 

Maintenance Log Sheet. 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates

Activity Date

Introductory Meeting Held October 26, 2004

Project Planning Meeting Held April 13, 2005

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued April 22, 2005

Final Letter of Understanding Issued May 13, 2005

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor May 25, 2005

Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle June 8, 2005

Purchase Order Completed and Signed July 5, 2005

Engineering Package Submitted to California DPH July 29, 2005

System Installation and Shakedown Completed August 16, 2005

Final Study Plan Issued August 17, 2005

Permit issued by California DPH August 24, 2005 

Performance Evaluation Began September 7, 2005

DPH = Department of Public Health

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

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection

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

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and safety 

practices

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

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

-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
8

The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative 

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

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

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

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

The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (or gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of 

design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital 

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

disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor. 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection

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

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system 

operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log 

Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, 

the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if ATS 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. On a biweekly basis, the plant operator measured several water quality 

parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential

(ORP), and recorded the data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. 

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

system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption, 

and labor. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and 

demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system 

O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, 

and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities 

such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the 

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

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

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

and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules 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, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in 

Appendix A of the QAPP. 

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to Richmond Elementary School, one set of source 

water samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic 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 sample are listed in Table 3-3.

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, treatment plant 

water samples were collected by the plant operator every other week at three to six locations across the 

treatment train at the wellhead (IN), after oxidation columns (OA and OB), and after adsorption columns 

(TA, TB, and TC). Sampling, in general, was alternating between events with and without speciation 
9

Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses

Sample 

Type

Sample 

Location(s)

(a)

No. of 

Samples

Sampling 

Frequency Analytes

Date(s) Samples 

Collected

Source Water At Wellhead 

(IN) 

1 Once (during 

initial site 

visit) 

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Off-site: As(III), As(V), 

As (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Al (total and soluble),

U (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble), 

Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3, 

NO3, NO2, SO4, SiO2, 

PO4, alkalinity, turbidity, 

TDS and TOC

10/26/04

Treatment 

Plant Water

At Wellhead 

(IN), 

After Oxidation 

Columns (OA 

and OB), 

After Adsorption 

Columns (TA, 

TB, and TC) 

3–6 Once every 

four weeks(b)

(With 

Speciation)

Onsite(c): pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Off-site: As(III), As(V),

As (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Al (total and soluble), and 

SiO2 

09/19/05, 11/02/05, 

11/29/05, 01/05/06, 

02/02/06, 03/02/06,

03/29/06, 04/27/06, 

06/01/06, 06/21/06, 

07/20/06, 08/29/06, 

09/13/06, 10/11/06, 

11/15/06, 01/10/07, 

01/31/07, 03/07/07, 

03/28/07, 04/19/07,

05/16/07, 06/13/07 

4–6 Once every 

four weeks(b)

(Without 

Speciation) 

Onsite(c): pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Off-site: As (total), 

Fe (total), Mn (total), 

Al (total), Ca, Mg, F, I, 

NO3, S2-, SO4, SiO2, P 

(total), alkalinity, and/or 

turbidity 

10/17/05, 11/21/05, 

12/14/05, 01/17/06, 

02/16/06, 03/15/06, 

04/11/06, 05/08/06, 

06/07/06, 07/06/06, 

08/01/06, 09/27/06, 

10/26/06, 11/29/06, 

12/13/06, 12/19/06, 

01/18/07, 02/15/07, 

03/15/07

Distribution 

Water

Three LCR 

Locations 

3 Monthly(d) Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, and 

Pb, alkalinity, and pH

Baseline sampling:

07/21/05, 08/04/05, 

08/24/05 

Monthly sampling:

10/17/05, 11/21/05, 

12/07/05, 01/19/06, 

02/16/06, 03/15/06, 

04/11/06, 05/10/06, 

06/07/06, 07/19/06, 

08/16/06, 09/12/06

Residual 

Solids 

Adsorption 

Columns 

6 Once (after 

media 

changeout)

TCLP metals, Al, As, Cd, 

Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, 

Ni, P, Si, and Zn.

03/14/07(e)

(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4. 

(b) See variations in Figure 3-1.

(c) Taken only at IN, OA, OB, and/or TC. 

(d) Three baseline sampling events performed before system became operational.

(e) Media changed out on 03/14/07; columns shipped to ATS for sample collection on 6/5/07.

TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon; 

LCR = lead and copper rule.
10

samples taken. To accommodate operator’s schedules, holidays, and changes of sampling strategy when 

approaching the end of the study, the frequency of speciation sampling varied from once every two weeks 

to once every eight weeks, and the frequency of regular sampling events (i.e., with no speciation samples 

taken) varied from once a week to once every eight weeks (Figure 3-1). 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

W/ Speciation W/O Speciation

Figure 3-1. Sampling Frequency 

No. of Events 

Frequency (week) 

Speciation samples were taken from IN, OA, OB, and TC during all speciation sampling events except for 

that taking place on September 19, 2005, with samples taken only from IN, OA, and TA; for that on 

November 29, 2005, with samples taken only from IN, OB, and TC; and for those on April 19, May 16, 

and June 13, 2007, with samples taken only from IN, OA, and OB. Samples taken during the speciation

sampling events were analyzed onsite for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP, and off-site for total and 

soluble arsenic, iron, manganese, and aluminum as well as silica (Table 3-3). A number of exceptions 

occurred during the speciation sampling events and are summarized as follows:

• Onsite measurements were performed in only 12 out of 22 speciation sampling events. 

• Total arsenic and silica were measured at all sampling locations for all speciation sampling 

events except for that on September 19, 2005, as noted above. 

• Total iron, manganese, and aluminum were analyzed at all sampling locations for nine 

speciation sampling events on November 2, 2005, January 5, 2006, March 2 and 29, 2006, 

June 1 and 21, 2006, August 29, 2006, October 11, 2006, and March 7, 2007.

• Only arsenic speciation was performed for the last three speciation sampling events on 

April 19, 2007, May 16, 2007, and June 13, 2007.

• The list of analytes that should have been performed for a regular sampling event was 

inadvertently applied to the speciation sampling events on September 19, 2005, and 

August 29, 2006.
11

Water samples were taken from IN, OB, and TC during all regular sampling events except for that on 

October 17, 2005, with samples taken from IN, OA, TA, and TC. Similar to speciation samples, samples 

taken during the regular sampling events were analyzed both onsite and offsite for the analytes listed in 

Table 3-3. Several exceptions occurred during the regular sampling events and are summarized below:

• Onsite measurements were performed in only five out of 19 regular sampling events. 

• Total arsenic and silica were measured at all sampling locations for all regular sampling 

events except for that on October 17, 2005, as noted above.

• Starting from October 26, 2006, the list of analytes was reduced to total arsenic, iron, 

manganese, and aluminum, silica, iodine, and alkalinity.

• Starting from January 18, 2007, the list of analytes was reduced to total arsenic, iron, 

manganese, and aluminum, and silica. 

• EPA Method 300.0 with ion chromatography was used to measure iodine only once on 

October 17, 2005. Since then, inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was 

used as the replacement method for iodine analyses. 

3.3.3 Residual Solids. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash residuals were 

produced during system operations. Spent media samples were collected from the first two adsorption 

columns replaced on March 14, 2007. ATS collected one gallon of sample from each column and 

shipped the samples to Battelle. Approximately 200 g of the spent media from each container were 

collected after being homogenized and placed in one container. One aliquot was tested for TCLP. 

Another aliquot (approximately 100 g) was air-dried, crushed (using a mortar and pestle), acid digested, 

and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. 

3.3.4 Distribution System Water. 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, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from July to August 2005, three

sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three locations within the distribution 

system that were part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). 

Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same 

locations for one year. 

Samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule 

Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last 

water usage before sampling and sample collection were recorded, when possible, for calculating the 

stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 

hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. 

3.4 Sampling Logistics

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

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

Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in 

Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004). 

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, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample 
12

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

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

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

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

labeled bottles for each sampling locations were placed in separate Ziploc® bags and packed in the cooler. 

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

chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-ofcustody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator’s signature and the sample dates and 

times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week’s 

sampling event. 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for 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 at Battelle’s ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water quality 

analyses by Battelle’s subcontract laboratories, including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in 

Columbus, Ohio, Belmont Labs in Englewood, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories (TCCI) in New Lexington, 

Ohio, were packed in separate coolers and picked up by a courier. Sulfide samples were packed in 

coolers and shipped via FedEx to DHL Laboratories in Round Rock, TX. The chain-of-custody forms 

remained with the samples from the time of preparation through collection, analysis, and final disposition. 

All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold 

time and disposed of properly thereafter. 

3.5 Analytical Procedures

The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were 

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont, TCCI, and DHL Laboratories. Laboratory quality 

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

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

QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 

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

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

Demonstration Project.

Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a 

VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use 

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

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

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

until a stable value was obtained. 
13

Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description

The Richmond Elementary School is located at 700-585 Richmond Road in Susanville, CA, 

approximately 85 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada on U.S. 395. Prior to and during the EPA arsenic 

removal technology evaluation study, the school had approximately 250 students and staff members 

during the academic year. The school building was served by a single well (Well No. 2) operating at an 

estimated flowrate of 12 gpm. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing Well No. 2 pump house located near the 

southwest corner of the school building. Well No. 2 was 8-in in diameter and 145-ft deep with a screened 

interval extending from 75 to 145 ft below ground surface (bgs). The static water level was at 

approximately 20 ft bgs. Well No. 2 was equipped with a 11⁄2 -horsepower Starite pump, operating for 

approximately 2.5 hr/day with an estimated maximum production rate of 2,000 gpd. 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 2 Pump House at 

Richmond Elementary School 

There was no pre-existing treatment at the facility. Groundwater from Well No. 2 was pumped directly to 

three hydropneumatic tanks located in the pump house prior to the distribution system. Figure 4-2 shows 

the three pre-existing pressure tanks and related system piping.

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on October 26, 2004, and 

subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses, 

along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained 

from EPA and the California Department of Public Health (DPH), are presented in Table 4-1. 

Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 24.0 to 36.7 μg/L. Based on the October 26, 

2004, sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in source water was 36.7 μg/L, of which 31.9 μg/L 

(or 87%) existed as soluble As(III) and 4.7 μg/L (or 13%) as soluble As(V). This speciation result was 
14

Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks 

consistent with the relatively low DO value of 1.0 mg/L measured during sampling. The ORP reading of 

180 mV, however, was not as low as expected. 

pH values of source water ranged between 7.0 and 8.5. The vendor indicated that the A/I Complex 2000 

media could effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values of source water were less than 9.0. As 

such, no pH adjustment was planned at this site. 

Concentrations of iron (47 to 125 μg/L) in raw water were sufficiently low so pretreatment prior to the 

adsorption process was not required. Concentrations of orthophosphate and fluoride also were low (i.e., 

<0.1 and <0.2 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore, not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I 

Complex 2000 media. Silica concentrations were between 13.6 and 14.5 mg/L, similar to the level 

measured in source water at the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP) site in Wales, Maine (Lipps 

et al., 2006). Because the A/I Complex 2000 media was shown to be especially selective for silica at the 

SBMHP site, the effect of silica on arsenic adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the study 

period.

Other water quality parameters as presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and, 

therefore, were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.

4.1.2 Distribution System. The original distribution system was installed in 1965 and was 

reported to consist of copper and galvanized iron piping. More recently, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping 

also was used. Compliance samples from the distribution system were collected every three years for 

metals and other analytes such as chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and nitrite. Under the EPA LCR, samples 

were collected from five taps within the school building every five years.
15

Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data for Richmond Elementary School Site

Parameter Unit

Facility 

Data

EPA

Data

Battelle 

Data

California DPH

Historic Data

Date 12/02/03 10/26/04 1994–2000

pH S.U. 7 N/A 7.5 7.0–8.5

Temperature °C N/A N/A 12.3 N/A

DO mg/L N/A N/A 1.0 N/A

ORP mV N/A N/A 180 N/A

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 80 84 82 N/A

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 48 44 40 N/A

Turbidity NTU N/A N/A 0.9 N/A

TDS mg/L N/A N/A 138 99–184

TOC mg/L N/A N/A 1.0 N/A

Nitrate (as N) mg/L N/A N/A 0.1 <2

Nitrite (as N) mg/L N/A N/A <0.01 <0.4

Ammonia (as N) mg/L N/A N/A <0.05 N/A

Chloride mg/L 6 <5 2.1 1.3–6.0

Fluoride mg/L N/A N/A <0.1 0.1–0.2

Sulfate mg/L 5 16.9 17.0 5.1–13.6

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L N/A 13.6 14.5 N/A

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L N/A 0.08 <0.06 N/A

As (total) μg/L 34 30 36.7 24–37

As (soluble) μg/L N/A N/A 36.6 N/A

As (particulate) μg/L N/A N/A 0.1 N/A

As (III) μg/L N/A N/A 31.9 N/A

As(V) μg/L N/A N/A 4.7 N/A

Fe (total) μg/L <100 47 125 <100

Fe (soluble) μg/L N/A NA <25 N/A

Mn (total) μg/L <20 5.5 5.6 <30

Mn (soluble) μg/L N/A N/A 5.5 N/A

U (total) μg/L N/A N/A 0.8 N/A

U (soluble) μg/L N/A N/A 0.8 N/A

V (total) μg/L N/A N/A 0.4 N/A

V (soluble) μg/L N/A N/A 0.2 N/A

Na (total) mg/L 66 27.2 35.0 N/A

Ca (total) mg/L 14 14.2 11.2 N/A

Mg (total) mg/L 4 2.1 2.9 N/A

N/A = not analyzed 

4.2 Treatment Process Description

The ATS As/1200CS adsorption system used A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media to oxidize As(III) to 

As(V) and then A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media to adsorb As(V). The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing 

media consisted of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate and the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive 

media consisted of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex. Tables 4-2a and 4-2b present 

physical and chemical properties of the oxidizing and adsorptive media, respectively, provided by ATS. 

Both media have NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
16

Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media

Parameter Value

Physical Properties

Matrix Activated alumina/metaperiodate complex

Physical form Granular solid

Color White granules

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 51

Specific Gravity (dry) 1.5

Hardness (lb/in2) 14–16 

Effective Size (mm) 0.42

Bulk Relative Density (g/cm3) 0.90

BET surface area (m2/g) 320

Attrition (%) < 0.1

Moisture Content (%) < 5

Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh) 28×48 (less than 2% fines)

Chemical Analysis

Constituents Weight (%)

Al2O3 96.59 (dry)

NaIO4 3.41 (dry)

Source: ATS

Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media

Parameter Value

Physical Properties

Matrix Activated alumina/iron complex

Physical form Granular solid

Color Light brown/orange granules

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 51

Specific Gravity (dry) 1.5

Hardness (lb/in2) 14–16

Effective Size (mm) 0.42

BET surface area (m2/g) 320

Attrition (%) < 0.1

Moisture Content (%) < 5

Particle Size Distribution (Tyler mesh) 28×48 (<2% fines)

Chemical Analysis

Constituents Weight (%)

Al2O3 90.89 (dry)

NaIO4 3.21 (dry)

Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 • 6H2O 5.90 (dry)

Source: ATS

The ATS As/1200CS system was a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small 

water systems with flowrates of around 12 gpm. When a column reaches capacity, the column with spent 

media is removed, dewatered, and shipped to ATS’ shop in Massachusetts. After being subjected to the 

EPA TCLP test, the spent media was either disposed of or recycled for beneficiary use.

The system at the Richmond Elementary School was configured in series. The system was designed to 

allow the lead column to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the two lag columns to be moved 

forward one position (i.e., the first lag column became the lead column, and the second lag column 
17

became the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media was then placed at the end of the 

treatment train. Figure 4-3 shows a schematic diagram of the system. 

The major system components are described as follows: 

• Pressure Tanks. Two pre-existing Model WX-252 and one pre-existing Model WX-302 

Well-X-TROL tanks by AMTROL with a total storage capacity of approximately 250 gal 

were located at the system inlet. These pressure tanks served as a temporary storage for well 

water. The well pump was turned on when the pressure in the tanks had dropped to below 40 

pounds per square inch (psi) and the well pump was turned off after the tanks had been 

refilled and the pressure in the tanks had reached 62 psi. 

• Sediment Filter. One 25-μm sediment filter was installed at the head of the treatment train. 

The 6-in × 20-in filter was used to remove sediment and avoid introducing large particles 

directly into the oxidation and adsorption columns.

• Oxidation Columns. Following the sediment filter were two 10-in × 54-in sealed polyglass 

columns (by Park International) each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing 

media. Each oxidation column had a riser tube and a valved head assembly to control inflow, 

outflow, and by-pass. 

• Adsorption Columns. Following the two oxidation columns were three 10-in × 54-in sealed 

polyglass columns (by Park International) each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex 2000 

adsorptive media. Similar to the oxidation columns, each adsorption column had a riser tube 

and a valved head assembly to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass. 

• Totalizer/Flow Meter. One Model F-1000 paddlewheel totalizer/flow meter (by Blue-White 

Industries) was installed on the downstream end of the treatment train to record the flowrate 

and volume of water treated through the treatment train. 

• Booster Pump and Pressure Tank. One 180-gal Well-Rite pressure tank (by Flexcon 

Industries in Randolph, Maine) fitted with a 3⁄4-hp Goulds booster pump (Model No. 

C48A94A06) was installed at the system outlet. The booster pump/pressure tank was used to 

“pull” water from the three pressure tanks at the system inlet through the two oxidation and 

three adsorption columns; provide temporary storage of the treated water; and supply the 

treated water with the needed pressure to the distribution system. The on/off of the booster 

pump was controlled by the low/high pressure switch set at 45/65 psi on the pressure tank. 

• Pressure Gauges. One each BII (0-100 psi) pressure gauge was installed at the system inlet 

just prior to the sediment filter, at the head of each column, and at the system outlet. The 

pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the 

treatment train. 

• Sampling Taps. Sampling taps made of PVC (by US Plastics) were located prior to the 

system and following each oxidation and adsorption vessel for water sampling. 
18

Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/1200CS System

Chlorination taps installed but not in use
19

The system was constructed using 1-in copper piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment 

system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are 

presented in Figure 4-4. A photograph of the system installed is shown in Figure 4-5 and a close-up view 

of the oxidation and adsorptive media columns is shown in Figure 4-6.

Table 4-3. Design Specifications of ATS As/1200CS System

Parameter Value Remarks

Oxidation Columns

Column Size (in) 10 D × 54 H -

Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column) 0.54 -

Number of Columns 2 -

Configuration Series -

Media Type A/P Complex 2002 See Table 4-2a

Media Quantity (lbs/column) 76.5

Media Volume (ft3/column) 1.5

Adsorption Columns

Column Size (in) 10 D × 54 H -

Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column) 0.54 -

Number of Columns 3 -

Configuration Series -

Media Type A/I Complex 2000 See Table 4-2b

Media Quantity (lbs/column) 76.5

Media Volume (ft3/column) 1.5

Service

System Flowrate (gpm) 12 -

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 22 -

EBCT (min/column) 0.9 2.7 min for 3 adsorption columns

Maximum Use Rate (gpd) 2,000 Estimate provided by school

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 42,720 To breakthrough at capacity from lead column

Throughput to Breakthrough (gal) 479,000 Based on 1.5 ft3 of media in lead column

Estimated Media Life (months) 8 Based on maximum use rate of 2,000 gpd

Backwash - No system backwash required

4.3 Permitting and System Installation

Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and reviewed by NST Engineering, Inc. The 

plans consisting of a schematic and a written description of the As/1200CS system were submitted to 

California DPH for approval on July 29, 2005. The approval was granted by the California DPH on 

August 24, 2005.

The system was placed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or 

modifications. The As/1200CS system, consisting of factory-packed oxidation and adsorption columns 

and pre-assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was shipped by ATS and delivered to the site 

on August 15, 2005. The system installation began that same day, including some re-work of the existing 

system piping. The sediment filter was attached to the wall at the head of the treatment train (Figure 4-5). 

The media columns were then set into place and plumbed together using copper piping and connections. 

The mechanical installation was complete on August 16, 2005. Before the system was put online, the 

system piping was flushed and the columns were filled one at a time to check for leaks. Once all columns 

were filled, the system was operated for a short period with the treated water discharged to the sewer. 
20

INFLUENT Unit Process

After Oxidation Column

(OA–OB) OA

Process Flow

After Adsorption Column

(TA–TC) TA

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

INFLUENT (WELL 2)

SEDIMENT FILTER

Biweekly

Richmond Elementary School

at Susanville, CA

As/1200CS Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 12 gpm

Footnotes

a) On-site analyses

b) IN location only

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a)

, ORP(a),

As (total and/or soluble), As(III), As(V),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble),

Al (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2-(b), 

SO4, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and/or alkalinity

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

OA

OXIDATION

COLUMN

A

OXIDATION

COLUMN

B

OB

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

A

TA

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

B

TB

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

C

IN

PRESSURE TANKS

BOOSTER TANK/PRESSURE TANK

TC

INFLUENT Unit Process

After Oxidation Column

(OA–OB) OA

Process Flow

After Adsorption Column

(TA–TC) TA

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

INFLUENT Unit Process

After Oxidation Column

(OA–OB) OA

Process Flow

After Adsorption Column

(TA–TC) TA

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

INFLUENT (WELL 2)

SEDIMENT FILTER

Biweekly

Richmond Elementary School

at Susanville, CA

As/1200CS Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 12 gpm

Footnotes

a) On-site analyses

b) IN location only

pH(a), temperature(a), DO(a)

, ORP(a),

As (total and/or soluble), As(III), As(V),

Fe (total and/or soluble), Mn (total and/or soluble),

Al (total and/or soluble), Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2-(b), 

SO4, SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and/or alkalinity

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

OA

OXIDATION

COLUMN

A

OXIDATION

COLUMN

B

OB

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

A

TA

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

B

TB

MEDIA 

COLUMN 

C

IN

PRESSURE TANKS

BOOSTER TANK/PRESSURE TANK

TC

Note: Analyses reduced after approximately one year of sampling

Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
21

Figure 4-5. Oxidation and Adsorption Columns Shown Against Wall 

and a Sediment Filter Attached to Wall

Figure 4-6. Close-up View of Oxidation and Adsorption Columns with 

Sample Taps and Labels

After it was determined that the system had been operating properly, the system and new pipe were 

disinfected according to American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C651-99 and a sample 

was collected for the total coliform test. The system was bypassed until August 30, 2005, when the 

satisfactory total coliform sample results were obtained. The first set of samples was collected on 

September 19, 2005, after the system was put online.

Several punch-list items were identified by Battelle during a site visit on September 19, 2005, when the

system was inspected and operator training conducted. The punch-list items consisted of the following:
22

• A totalizer/flowmeter was installed after the booster pump/pressure tank following the 

As/1200CS system and measured only the flowrates from the pressure tank to the 

distribution. A second totalizer/flowmeter placed just prior to the booster pump/pressure tank

was required to measure the flowrates and volume of water treated by the system. The 

totalizer/flowmeter was installed on December 4, 2005. 

• An hour meter was installed on the well pump rather than the booster pump. The wellhead 

hour meter tracked the amount of time that the well pump operated rather than the system. A

second hour meter on the booster pump was therefore required to determine the amount of 

time that the system operated. The hour meter was installed on December 9, 2005.

• A check valve was installed on a line that bypassed the booster pump/pressure tank assembly 

from the adsorption columns to the distribution system. The check valve must be replaced 

with a ball valve to ensure proper system operations. 

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and 

attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From September 7, 2005, 

through June 13, 2007, Well No. 2 operated for a total of only 238 hr, or 0.1 to 2.1 hr/day, based on hour 

meter readings on the well pump. The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 

2.5% (on average) over the 21-month evaluation period with the well pump operating for an average of 

0.6 hr/day. A total of 415 days when the school was in session and when maintenance occurred in the 

summer of 2006 was used for calculations. The 415 school days do not include weekends, holidays, 

spring breaks, and Christmas break.

Table 4-4. Summary of As/1200CS System Operations

Operational Parameter Value

Operation Duration 09/07/05–06/13/07

Total Well Operating Time (hr) 238

Total Booster Pump/Treatment System Operating Time (hr) 442

Total Number of School Days (day)(a) 415

Well No. 2 Operating Time (hr/day) 0.1–2.1 (0.6)

Booster Pump/Treatment System Operating Time (hr/day) 0.1–4.6 (1.1)

Volume Throughput (gal) 302,960

Well No. 2 Flowrate (gpm)(b) 4.2–48.6 (21.6)

Booster Pump/Treatment System Flowrate (gpm)(c) 4.6–32.0

Daily Use Rate (gpd) 39–2,613 (730)

EBCT (min/column) 0.7–1.6 (1.2)

Range of Influent Pressure (psi) 31–64 (48)

Average Pressure in Each Column (psi)(d) 48, 45, 39, 32, 23, 18

Average Pressure Loss across Each Column (psi) 6.1

(a) Less weekends, holidays, spring breaks, and Christmas break plus days when 

maintenance occurred in summer.

(b) Calculated based on totalizer and well pump hour meter readings.

(c) Calculated based on totalizer and booster pump hour meter readings; see Figure 

4-7 for unexpected flowrate increase. 

(d) Pressure readings at IN, OA, OB, TA, TB, and TC, respectively.

Numeric figures in parentheses denote average. 
23

Based on totalizer and well pump hour meter readings, calculated Well No. 2 flowrates ranged from 4.2 to 

48.6 gpm and averaged 21.6 gpm (excluding three outliers – 61.5, 134.9, and 1.6 gpm observed on 

February 9, 2006; May 3, 2006; and March 8, 2007, respectively). As denoted by “♦” in Figure 4-7, the 

well pump flowrates fluctuated around the average value throughout the course of the evaluation and did 

not appear to be affected by the relocation of a 75-gal pressure tank from before to after the treatment 

system approximately 12.5 months into system operations. (Note that the relocation decreased the storage 

capacity of raw water before treatment and increased correspondingly the storage capacity of treated 

water after treatment.) The average well pump flowrate was almost two times the flowrate provided by 

the school during the introductory meeting in October 2004. No pump curve was available prior to the 

system installation.

Well Pump and Booster Pump/System Flowrates 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8/31/2005 12/9/2005 3/19/2006 6/27/2006 10/5/2006 1/13/2007 4/23/2007

Date

Flowrate (gpm)

Calculated Well Pump Flowrate

Calculated Booster Pump/System Flowrate

System Instantaneous Flowrate

75-gal storage tank moved from

 before to after treatment system;

on/off switch for inlet pressure tanks 

changed from 40/62 psi to 60/75 psi

Figure 4-7. Variation of Booster Pump/System Flowrates

The booster pump and the treatment system operated for 442 hr based on hour meter readings of the 

booster pump. Note that before the hour meter was installed on the booster pump on December 9, 2005, 

the booster pump run times were estimated by multiplying respective well pump run times by a factor of 

2.77, which is the ratio of the total booster pump run time to total well pump run time during the sixmonth period following the installation of the hour meter. The daily operational time of the booster pump 

and the system ranged from 0.1 to 4.6 hr/day, averaged 1.1 hr/day. The operational time represented a 

utilization rate of approximately 4.6%. Again, a total of 415 school days was used for calculations.

Calculated booster pump/treatment system flowrates, denoted by “■,” ranged from 4.6 to 12.4 gpm 

(except for one outlier at 17.6 gpm) and averaged 8.8 gpm during the first 12.5 months of system 

operations, but rose unexpectedly to levels ranging from 12.6 to 32.0 gpm (excluding one outlier 1.9 gpm

observed on March 7, 2007) and averaging 22.3 gpm through the remainder of the evaluation. The 
24

sudden increase in flowrate from 8.8 to 22.3 gpm (on average) coincided with the above-mentioned 

relocation of a 75-gal pressure tank in September 2006, although no plausible explanation might link the

event to the observed increase. Because a 12-gpm flow restrictor had been installed on the treatment 

system since system startup, flowrates above 12 gpm were suspect. This conclusion was further 

supported by the relatively constant instantaneous flowrate readings, denoted by “▲,” taken from the 

flow meter/totalizer installed on the treatment system, which ranged from 7.1 to 15.5 gpm (except for one 

outlier at 1.6 gpm) and averaged 9.3 gpm throughout the study period. Because these values were very 

close to the calculated flowrates before pressure tank relocation, instantaneous flowrate readings were 

used to represent system flowrates. 

The empty bed contact time (EBCT) for each column ranged from 0.7 and 1.6 min and averaged 1.2 min 

(or 3.6 min [on average] if considering the three adsorption columns as one large column). These values 

are 33% higher than the design value of 0.9 min per column or 2.7 min for three columns. Based on the 

average flowrate and average daily operating time, the average daily use rate was about 730 gpd 

(assuming 415 school days), which was about 37% of the estimate provided by the school.

The total system throughput during this 21 month period was approximately 302,960 gal. This 

corresponds to 27,000 BV of water processed through a column containing 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media. 

For the three columns in series with 4.5 ft3 of media, the system treated approximated 9,000 BV of water.

The pressure loss across each column ranged from 0 to 17 psi and averaged 6.1 psi. The total pressure 

loss across the treatment train (five columns in series) averaged 30 psi. The average influent pressure at 

the head of the system from the wells was 47.6 psi, and the average pressure following the last column in 

each treatment train was 17.5 psi. The booster pump and pressure tank installed after the system provided

52.4 psi of pressure to the distribution system.

4.4.2 Residual Management. The only residual produced by the operation of the As/1200CS 

treatment system was spent media. The first two adsorption columns were replaced on March 14, 2007, 

after approximately 18 months of system operations. Because the oxidation columns were effectively 

reducing As(III) to As(V) throughout the evaluation period, they were not replaced. The system did not 

require backwashing to operate and therefore no backwash residual was produced.

4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. The system encountered some operational 

difficulties soon after it began operation. On several occasions, the 180-gal pressure tank located at the 

system outlet did not provide sufficient water to meet the peak demand of the school. On September 25, 

2006, the system operator moved one of the three 75-gal pressure tanks located at the system inlet to after 

the treatment system to provide extra treated water storage.

4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment step was the oxidation of 

As(III) to As(V) via the oxidizing media installed in the first two columns of the treatment train. No 

additional chemical addition or other pre- or post-treatment steps were used at the site.

4.4.3.2 System Controls. The As/1200CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only 

the operation of the supply well pump and booster pump to send water to the two pressure tanks at the 

system inlet and through the oxidation and adsorption columns to the two pressure tanks at the system 

outlet (this was changed from three pressure tanks at the system inlet and one pressure tank at the system 

outlet as discussed above). The media columns themselves did not have automated parts and all valves 

were manually activated. The inline flowmeter was battery powered so that the only electrical power 

required was that needed to run the supply well pump and booster pump. The supply well pump was in 

place prior to the installation of the ATS treatment system. The system operation was controlled by the 

pressure switches in the pressure tank at the system outlet. 
25

4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to 

operate the As/1200CS system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require 

additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.

The treatment facility was considered by the California DPH as a non-transient, non-community water 

system. Because it served more than 25 of the same people for more than 60 days a year, it was 

considered a public water system. All individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a public 

water system in the state of California must possess a water treatment operator certificate. An individual 

who makes decisions addressing the operational activities must possess a distribution operator certificate. 

The operational activities are described in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13, Subsection 63770(b) of the

California Code of Regulations (CCR, 2001).

Operator certifications are granted by the State of California after meeting minimum requirements, which 

include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of hours of specialized training. 

There are five grades of operators for both water treatment (T1-T5) and distribution (D1-D5). Because 

the Richmond Elementary School has a simple water system and serves a population of less than 1,000, it 

qualifies as a Grade 1 (the lowest) for both treatment and distribution. The school operator possesses a 

T1 and D1 certification. 

4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative 

maintenance activity recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as

necessary. The treatment system operator visited the site about three times per week (approximately 20 

min) to check the system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.

4.5 System Performance

The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the raw and treated 

water from the treatment and distribution systems. The system ran from September 7, 2005, through

June 13, 2007. On March 14, 2007, the first two adsorption columns were removed; the third adsorption 

column was moved to the lead position; and two new adsorption columns were placed at the end of the 

treatment train. Evaluation of the treatment system was based on the original oxidation and adsorption 

columns installed.

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and 

aluminum results from samples collected throughout the treatment plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the 

results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results 

through the 21 months of system operations. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed 

below.

4.5.1.1 Arsenic and Iodine. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment

system was the concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 

44 occasions during the evaluation period (with duplicates taken on three and speciation performed on 22 

of the 44 occasions).

Figure 4-8 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate As, 

soluble As(III), and soluble As(V) at the wellhead, after the first and second oxidation columns and after 

the entire system. Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 25.1 to 35.4 μg/L and averaged 

31.7 μg/L (Table 4-5). For the first two months of the performance evaluation study, soluble As(III) was 

the predominating species in raw water with concentrations averaging 28.4 μg/L. Soluble As(III) 

concentrations decreased after the third month of operation for unknown reasons and remained below 

47% of the soluble arsenic throughout the remainder of the evaluation period (Figure 4-8) with 
26

Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location

Number 

of 

Samples

Concentration (μg/L)

Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

IN 44(a,c) 25.1 35.4 31.7 2.1 

OA–OB 42–44(a,d)

(b)

TA–TC 37–43(a,d)

As (particulate)

IN 21(c) <0.1 8.3 0.8 1.8

OA–OB 21 (b)

TA–TC 0–17(d)

As (III)

IN 21(c) 6.2 28.5 12.1 6.0

OA–OB 21 (b)

TA–TC 0–17(d)

As (V)

IN 21(c) 3.4 27.8 19.8 6.2

OA–OB 21 (b)

TA–TC 0–17(d)

Fe (total)

IN 41(a) <25 136 36.7 25.9

OA–OB 21–39(a,d) <25 <25 <25 0.0

TA–TC 11–38(a,d) <25 <25 <25 0.0

Fe (soluble)

IN 19 <25 41.1 <25 9.5

OA–OB 18 <25 <25 <25 0.0

TA–TC 0–17(d) <25 <25 <25 0.0

Mn (total)

IN 41(a) 3.5 7.7 5.4 0.9

OA–OB 21–39(a.d) <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.1

TA–TC 11–38(a,d) <0.1 0.8 <0.1 0.1

Mn (soluble)

IN 19 3.5 7.5 5.2 1.0

OA–OB 18 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1

TA–TC 0–18(d) <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1

Total Al

IN 41(a) <10 <10 <10 0.0

OA–OB 20–39(a,d) 13.9 36.2 23.5 4.9

TA–TC 9–38(a,d) 17.5 40.9 26.6 5.7

Soluble Al

IN 19 <10 <10 <10 0.0

OA–OB 18 14.2 35.4 23.3 5.4

TA–TC 0–16(d) 13.9 38.6 26.5 6.8

One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples. 

Duplicate samples included in calculations.

(a) Including three duplicate samples

(b) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-10 for As breakthrough curves.

(c) Outlier removed from statistical analysis

(d) Figures shown reflect range of sampling occasions taking place at specified sampling locations.

concentrations ranging between 6.2 and 15.0 μg/L (excluding one outlier on April 27, 2006) and 

averaging 10.4 μg/L. Soluble As(V) concentrations ranged from 3.4 to 27.8 μg/L and averaged

19.8 μg/L. Particulate arsenic was low with concentrations typically less than 1 μg/L. The influent 

arsenic concentrations measured during this 21-month period were consistent with those in the raw water 

sample collected on October 26, 2004 (Table 4-1), except for the lower levels of As(III) measured during 

the majority of the evaluation period from November 2005 through June 2007.

Oxidation of As(III) to As(V) within the oxidation columns was achieved via reactions with sodium 

metaperiodate, a key ingredient loaded on the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media for As(III) oxidation 

(Table 4-2a). At a pH value between 8.0 to 8.8 (as measured for raw water in Table 4-6), metaperiodate 

presumably reacted with H3AsO3 following Equation 1:

IO4

- + 4H3AsO3 → I- + 4HAsO42- + 8H+ (1) 
27

Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Number of 

Samples

Concentration/Standard Unit Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 24(a) 83 121 91.0 7.3

OA–OB mg/L 2–22(a,d) 79 118 91.2 8.1 

TA–TC mg/L 0–22(a,d) 79 101 88.8 4.9

Fluoride 

IN mg/L 16(a) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.05

OA–OB mg/L 2–15(a,d) 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.06

TA–TC mg/L 0–16(a,d) <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.10

Sulfate 

IN mg/L 16(a) 15 23 17.5 2.1

OA–OB mg/L 2–15(a,d) 16 22 18.1 1.6

TA–TC mg/L 0–16(a,d) 16 23 18.7 1.9

Iodine 

(as I)

IN mg/L 17(b) 0.5 24.5 6.4 6.7

OA–OB mg/L 1–16(b,d) 16.2 256 95.7 88

TA–TC mg/L 1–17(b,d) 26.1 707 159 211

Phosphorus 

(as P) 

IN mg/L 18(a) <10 32.4 <10 7.6

OA–OB mg/L 4–18(a,d) <10 29.8 <10 7.3

TA–TC mg/L 2–18(a,d) <10 15.5 <10 3.4 

Silica

(as SiO2) 

IN mg/L 41(a) 12.8 15.7 14.1 0.6

OA–OB mg/L 40–42(a,d) 5.6 15.7 11.3 1.8

TA–TC mg/L 38–41(a,d) 2.2 15.1 7.8 2.7

Nitrate (as N)

IN mg/L 16(a) <0.05 0.40 0.07 0.11

OA–OB mg/L 2–15(a,d) <0.05 0.20 <0.05 0.05

TA–TC mg/L 0–16(a,d) <0.05 0.10 <0.05 0.03

Turbidity 

IN NTU 17(a) 0.2 1.9 0.9 0.5 

OA–OB NTU 2–15(a,d) <0.1 2.3 0.8 0.6

TA–TC NTU 0–15(a,d) 0.2 2.7 0.9 0.8

pH 

IN S.U. 17 8.0 8.8 8.4 0.2

OA–OB S.U. 13–17(d) 7.7 8.4 8.1 0.2

TA–TC S.U. 0–15(d) 7.4 8.2 7.7 0.2

Temperature

IN °C 17 11.4 17.6 14.7 1.6

OA–OB °C 13–17(d) 11.6 17.9 15.0 1.6

TA–TC °C 0–15(d) 12.5 18.3 14.8 1.6

DO

IN mg/L 12(c) 0.3 3.0 1.4 0.8

OA–OB mg/L 8–12(c,d) 0.4 2.6 1.2 0.7

TA–TC mg/L 0–10(c,d) 0.3 2.8 1.3 0.9

ORP

AC mg/L 16 134 348 246 57

OA–OB mg/L 12–16(d) 141 323 248 45 

TA–TC mg/L 0–14(d) 135 609 251 100

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 16(a) 33.2 50.8 43.0 4.9

OA–OB mg/L 3–14(a,d) 31.3 50.7 42.7 5.8

TA–TC mg/L 0–15(a,d) 31.1 58.7 43.4 8.0

Ca Hardness (as 

CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 16(a) 25.1 42.3 33.9 4.6

OA–OB mg/L 3–14(a,d) 23.5 40.2 33.6 5.3

TA–TC mg/L 0–15(a,d) 23.4 48.0 35.0 7.4 

Mg Hardness (as 

CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 16(a) 7.7 11.3 9.1 1.0

OA–OB mg/L 3–14(a,d) 7.7 10.5 8.8 0.9

TA–TC mg/L 0–15(a,d) 7.7 11.7 8.9 1.1

One-half of detection limit used for calculations involving non-detect samples.

Duplicate samples included in calculations.

Figures shown under “Number of Samples” reflect range of samples taken at specified sampling locations.

(a) Including three duplicate samples.

(b) Including two duplicate samples.

(c) Outliers removed from statistical analysis. 

(d) Figures shown reflect range of sampling occasions taking place at specified sampling locations.
28

Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9/19/0511/2/05

11/29/05

1/5/06

2/2/06

3/2/06

3/29/06

4/27/06

6/1/06

6/21/067/20/06

8/29/06

9/13/06

10/11/0611/15/06

1/10/07

1/31/07

3/7/07

3/28/07

4/19/07

5/16/07

6/13/07

Date

As concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(V)

As (III)

*

*outlier data for 4/27/06 not included.

Arsenic Species After 1st Oxidation Tank (OA)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9/19/0511/2/05

11/29/05

1/5/062/2/063/2/06

3/29/064/27/06

6/1/06

6/21/06

7/20/068/29/06

9/13/06

10/11/0611/15/06

1/10/071/31/07

3/7/07

3/28/07

4/19/075/16/07

6/13/07

Date

As concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(V)

As (III)

V

*

*Speciation not performed at this location on 11/29/05.

Arsenic Species After 2nd Oxidation Tank (OB)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9/19/0511/2/05

11/29/05

1/5/062/2/063/2/06

3/29/064/27/06

6/1/06

6/21/067/20/068/29/069/13/06

10/11/0611/15/06

1/10/071/31/07

3/7/07

3/28/074/19/075/16/076/13/07

Date

As concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(V)

As (III)

*Speciation not performed at this location on 9/19/05.

*

Arsenic Species After Entire System (TC)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9/19/0511/2/05

11/29/05

1/5/062/2/063/2/06

3/29/064/27/06

6/1/06

6/21/067/20/068/29/069/13/06

10/11/0611/15/06

1/10/071/31/07

3/7/07

3/28/074/19/075/16/076/13/07

Date

As concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As(V)

As(III)

*Speciation not performed at this location on 9/19/05, 4/19/07, 5/16/07, and 6/13/07. Outlier data for 10/11/06 not included.

* * * * *

Media Changeout 

(03/14/07)

Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Particulate Arsenic, Soluble As(III), and Soluble As(V) across Treatment System
29

Meanwhile, metaperiodate would react with any soluble iron, existing as Fe(II), and with soluble 

manganese, existing as Mn(II), in raw water following Equations 2 and 3:

 IO4

- + 8Fe2+ + 8H+ → I- + 8Fe3+ + 4H2O (2) 

 IO4

- + 4Mn2+ + 4H2O → I

- + 4MnO2 + 8H+ (3) 

To oxidize the As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) in raw water, only 9.6 μg/L of I- would have been produced 

stoichiometrically and leached into the column effluent. This amount is lower than the analytical 

reporting limit of 200 μg/L for I- by EPA Method 300.0 by ion chromotagraphy. This observation is 

consistent with the analytical results (<200 μg/L of I-

) reported for the samples collected at the wellhead, 

after the oxidation columns, and after the adsorption columns on October 17, 2005. 

Total iodine also was analyzed using ICP-MS on 17 occasions (including two duplicates) during the 

evaluation period. Iodine concentrations following the oxidation and adsorption columns averaged 95.7 

and 159 μg/L [as I], respectively, which were significantly higher than those measured in raw water 

(averaging 6.4 μg/L [as I]). Because only 9.6 μg/L of total iodine would have existed as I-

, the iodine 

present in the column effluent most likely was IO4

- or other reaction intermediates. It was possible that 

some IO4

- leached from the oxidizing media, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend as 

shown in Figure 4-9. Iodine concentrations in the treated water were gradually reduced from as high as 

264 to <45 μg/L [as I] about four months before rebedding. 

Iodine

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

Bed Volumes (x103)

Iodine concentration (μg/L)

IN

OB

TC

Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations across Treatment Train

(BV Calculations Based on 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)

Two outliers with 256 and 707 μg/L of iodine 

at OB and TC, respectively, not shown 
30

As(III) was effectively oxidized in the oxidation columns throughout the entire study period. Its 

concentrations were reduced to less than 2.7, 1.2, and 1.0 μg/L following the first and second oxidation 

and the third adsorption columns, respectively. It appeared that some additional oxidation took place in 

the three adsorption columns, which also contained NaIO4 as the active oxidizing ingredient (Table 4-2b). 

The test results for arsenic removal by the ATS system are shown in Figure 4-10 with total arsenic 

concentrations plotted against the bed volumes of water treated (BV was calculated based on 1.5 ft3

 or 

11.2 gal of media in a column). The results showed that the oxidizing media was effective at not only

converting As(III) to As(V), but also removing arsenic. For the first sampling event that occurred 12 days 

after system startup, the total arsenic concentration in the effluent of the lead oxidation column (i.e., OA)

was 2.1 μg/L. Arsenic concentrations slowly increased thereafter to 10 μg/L at about 4,600 BV, and then 

completely broken through the lead oxidation column at about 7,100 BV. 

Arsenic concentrations in the effluent of the lag oxidation column (i.e., OB) remained below 10 μg/L 

until approximately 8,900 BV (or 4,450 BV if considering the two oxidations columns as one large 

column) and below influent concentrations until approximately 17,200 BV (or 8,600 BV if considering 

the two oxidations columns as one large column). There was a concentration drop following both the lead 

and lag oxidation columns between 10,000 and 15,000 BV. It was not clear what contributed to this 

concentration drop. 

Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-10, arsenic loadings on the oxidation media were

between 0.18 and 0.20 μg of As/mg of dry media. Table 4-7 summarizes the arsenic mass removed by 

each oxidation and adsorption columns; detailed calculations of arsenic mass removed are provided in

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bed Volumes (x103)

As Concentration (μg/L)

IN TB

OA TB (Run 2)

OB TC

TA TC (Run 2)

TA (Run 2) MCL=10 μg/L

4,600 BV

 8,900 BV

(4,450 BV) 16,400 BV

(5,470 BV)

19,700 BV

(4,930 BV)

Media 

Changeout*

*Media changeout of the lead and first lag arsenic (TA and TB) adsorption tank occurred on March 14, 2007. The second lag tank (TC) was moved to the lead 

Figure 4-10. Arsenic Concentration across Treatment Train

(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
31

Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed and Loading on Media (a)

Column

Arsenic Mass Removed 

(μg)

Capacity(b)

(μg of As/mg of dry media)

OA 6,740,472 0.20

OB 5,958,431 0.18

TA 7,522,304 0.23

TB 5,462,514 0.17

TC 4,395,407 0.13(c)

(a) More detailed calculations provided in Appendix C.

(b) Based on a bulk density of 51 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 5%.

(c) Loading before column shifted to lead position after changeout.

Appendix C. (Note: arsenic loading was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented by the 

shaded area in Figure 4-11 by the dry weight of the media in one column). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bed Volumes (x103

)

As Concentration (μg/L)

IN TA

OA TB

OB TC

Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation and Adsorption Columns

Arsenic concentrations after the lead adsorption column (i.e., TA) reached 10 μg/L at approximately 

16,400 BV (or 5,470 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and one adsorption column as one 

large column). Arsenic approached complete breakthrough after the lead column at approximately 20,300 

BV (or 6,770 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and one adsorption column as one large 

column). Arsenic breakthrough from the lead adsorption column occurred much sooner than projected by 

the vendor (i.e., 42,000 BV). Although within the vendor-provided effective limit of <9.0, the relatively 

high pH values of source water (averaging 8.4; see Table 4-6) might have contributed, in part, to the early 

(see Appendix C for mass removal 

and loading calculations) 
32

arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption column. Based on the breakthrough curve shown in 

Figure 4-10, the arsenic loading on the adsorptive media in the lead column was 0.23 μg of As/mg of dry 

media, which was very close to that on the oxidizing media. The arsenic mass removed by the lead 

adsorption column was estimated to be 7.5 g.

Breakthrough curves for the first and second lag columns (i.e., TB and TC) also are presented in Figure 4-

10. Arsenic concentrations from the first lag column (i.e., TB) reached 10 μg/L at approximately 19,700 

BV (or 4,930 BV if considering the two oxidation columns and two adsorption columns as one large 

column). Arsenic concentrations from the second lag column (i.e., TC) reached only 8.9 μg/L at the time 

of media changeout. Because arsenic had not completely broken through the first and second lag 

columns, the arsenic mass removed by these columns was significantly lower than that by the lead 

adsorption column. 

The 0.23 μg of As/mg of dry media adsorptive capacity observed at Susanville, CA is comparable to that

of the same media (i.e., 0.18 to 0.29 μg of As/mg of dry media [Table 4-8]) evaluated at another arsenic 

removal technology demonstration site at Wales, ME (Lipps et al., 2006, 2009a). The Wales system has 

two identical treatment trains, each consisting of one oxidation column and three adsorption columns 

configured for series operations similar to the Susanville system. At Susanville, CA, arsenic broke 

Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Length and Arsenic Loading at 

Three Arsenic Demonstration Sites Using ATS’ Media 

Column

Run Length 

to 10 μg/L 

(BV)

Run Length 

to Capacity 

(BV)

Arsenic 

Loading on 

Media at 

Capacity

(μg/mg)

Average 

Treatment

Train 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Average 

Influent 

Total Arsenic 

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Average 

Influent 

pH

(S.U.)

Average 

Influent 

Silica 

Concentration 

(mg/L)

Susanville

OA 4,600 7,100 0.20

9.3 31.7 8.4 14.1

OB 4,450 8,600 0.18

TA 5,470 6,670 0.23

TB 4,930 NA NA

TC NA NA NA

Dummerston(a)

TA 5,700 12,000 0.50

<3.6 

(Train A); 

<4.0 

(Train B)

42.2 7.7 12.6

TB 5,400 12,000 0.46

TC 6,500 NA NA

TD 6,250 NA NA

TE NA NA NA

TF NA NA NA

Wales(b)

OA 2,400/2,700 4,600/4,700 0.14/0.16

4.7

(Train A); 

4.9 

(Train B)

39.1 8.5 10.5

OB 1,200/2,800 5,100/5,100 0.10/0.18

TA 3,550/3,350 4,900/4,800 0.23/0.19

TB 2,950/3,750 4,450/6,100 0.19/0.27

TC 3,575/3,775 4,100/4,750 0.18/0.26

TD 3,500/3,800 4,325/4,825 0.28/0.21

TE 3,825/3,800 4,750/NA 0.26/0.22(c)

TF 3,775/3,950 4,625/NA 0.28/0.22(c)

(a) Lipps et al., 2006 and 2009. 

(b) Lipps et al., 2006 and 2009. 

(c) Column had not reached capacity.
33

through at 10 μg/L from each adsorption column after treating 4,930 to 5,470 BV of water, which were 

somewhat higher than those observed for the Wales system (i.e., from 2,950 to 3,975 BV), even though 

the Wales system had a much lower flowrate (i.e., 5.1 to 5.2 gpm vs. 9.3 gpm per treatment train). At 

Susanville, CA, complete breakthrough occurred at 6,670 BV, which also was somewhat higher than that

(i.e., from 4,150 to 6,100 BV) observed at Wales, ME. The Wales source water had a pH value 

comparable to that of Susanville (i.e., 8.5 vs. 8.4), but it had higher arsenic and lower silica 

concentrations. 

A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media had an adsorptive capacity comparable to that of A/I Complex 2000 

adsorptive media (i.e., 0.18 to 0.20 vs. 0.23 μg of As/mg of dry media), although this adsorptive capacity 

was somewhat higher than those (i.e., 0.1 to 0.19 μg of As/mg of dry media) observed at Wales, ME.

The adsorptive capacities of A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media observed at Susanville, CA and Wales, 

ME were about half of those (i.e., 0.46 to 0.50 μg of As/mg of dry media [Table 4-8]) observed for the 

third ATS system at Dummerston, VT. The Dummerston system consists of only three adsorption 

columns due to the presence of only soluble As(V) in that source water (Lipps et al., 2007, 2009b). As 

expected, arsenic breakthrough at 10 μg/L and at capacity from the Dummerston system occurred after 

treating more water at 5,400–6,500 BV and 12,000 BV, respectively. The higher adsorptive capacity and 

longer media run length observed at Dummerston were believed to have been caused by the lower pH 

value of the source water, which averaged at 7.7 (compared to 8.4 and 8.5 at Susanville and Wales, 

respectively). The Dummerston system also had the lowest flowrate at <4.0 gpm per treatment train.

Relatively short run length seemed to be the common result observed for all three ATS systems using A/I 

Complex 2000 adsorptive media. The longest was 6,500 BV and the shortest was 2,950 BV. Among 

others, pH of source water appeared to be the main factor affecting the media run length.

4.5.1.2 Silica, Sulfate, Bicarbonate and Nitrate. Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate, 

alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3

- at pH values between 7.4 and 8.8), and nitrate were present in 

significant concentrations in raw water (Table 4-6) and some potentially could compete with arsenic for 

adsorptive sites. As shown in Figure 4-12, silica was consistently removed by, and did not reach 

complete breakthrough from either the adsorption or the oxidation columns. However, HCO3

-

, SO4

2-, and 

NO3

- showed little to no adsorptive capacity on the media (Figure 4-13). 

4.5.1.3 Aluminum. As shown in Table 4-5, total aluminum concentrations in source water were 

below detection. Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in soluble form) in the treated water 

following the oxidation and adsorption columns were about 14 to 40 μg/L, which were higher than those 

in raw water, indicating leaching of aluminum from the oxidizing and adsorptive media. With the 

increase in aluminum concentrations following the treatment system, the concentrations, however, were 

below the EPA secondary drinking water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 μg/L and the California 

primary MCL of 1 mg/L. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period (Figure 4-14).

4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were <25 to 136 μg/L in 

source water and below the method reporting limit across the treatment train (Table 4-5). Manganese 

concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 3.5 to 7.7 μg/L and averaging 5.4 μg/L. 

Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns were typically below the

method reporting limit of 1 μg/L, indicating complete removal of manganese by the oxidizing and 

adsorptive media. 

4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters. Fluoride, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, and hardness 

concentrations remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
34

Alkalinity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bed Volumes (x103)

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

IN

OA

OB

TA

TC

Sulfate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Bed Volumes (x103

)

Sulfate soncentration (mg/L)

IN

OA

OB

TA

TC

Nitrate

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Bed Volumes (x103)

Nitrate concentration (mg/L)

IN

OA

OB

TA

TC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bed Volumes (x103)

SiO2 Concentration (mg/L)

IN TA

OA TB

OB TC

Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations across Treatment Train

(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column) 

Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations across Treatment Train

(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column)
35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bed Volumes (x103

)

Al Concentration (μg/L)

IN TA

OA TB

OB TC

Figure 4-14. Aluminum Concentrations across Treatment Train

(BV Calculations Based upon 1.5 ft3 of Media in Each Column) 

4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. Spent media samples were collected from Adsorption Columns A 

and B after media changeout on March 14, 2007. The oxidation columns continued to be effective in 

oxidizing As(III) to As(V) and, therefore, were not replaced and no spent oxidizing media samples were 

collected. The samples were collected according to Section 3.3.3 for TCLP and total metals analysis and 

the analytical results are presented in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively. 

Table 4-9. TCLP Results of Spent Media from Columns A and B

Analyte

Concentration

(mg/L) 

Arsenic <0.10

Barium 0.5

Cadmium <0.010

Chromium <0.010

Lead <0.050

Mercury <0.0020

Selenium <0.10

Silver <0.010

4.5.2.1 TCLP. The TCLP results indicated that the spent media was non-hazardous and could be 

disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Barium was the only metal detected by the TCLP test at a concentration 

of 0.5 mg/L, which is well below its limit of 100 mg/L.
36

Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results of Duplicate Samples

Sampling Date 03/14/07

Sampling Location TA TB Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV^3 22.9 22.9

Aluminum μg/g 375,672 373,585

384,433 378,184

Arsenic μg/g 215 226

220 230

Cadmium μg/g <0.53 <0.53

<0.53 <0.53

Calcium μg/g 7,717 7,568

7,709 6,797

Copper μg/g 2.02 1.63

1.91 2.15

Iodine μg/g 185 -

157 -

Iron μg/g 9,949 10,739

10,593 10,295

Lead μg/g <0.53 <0.53

<0.53 <0.53

Magnesium μg/g 938 862

975 872

Manganese μg/g 54.4 55.6

55.1 52.7

Nickel μg/g 1.00 0.88

1.07 0.95

Phosphorus μg/g 164 164

179 120

Silica μg/g <267 467

303 <269

Zinc μg/g <53.4 <53.7

<53.1 <53.8

4.5.2.2 Metals. The ICP-MS results indicated that both the lead and the first lag columns (TA and 

TB) had reached their capacities for arsenic, as evident by the nearly identical loadings, i.e., 0.22 and 0.23 

μg/mg of dry media on both columns. These values also were very close to that estimated via the arsenic 

breakthrough curve for Column A, as shown in Table 4-11. For Column B, the breakthrough curve result 

was 26% lower. The A/I Complex 2000 dry media mass was calculated based on a moisture content of 

8%, as measured in the laboratory, for the ICP-MS results and 5%, based on vendor’s literature for the 

“as-is” media, for the results from the breakthrough curves. 

Except for aluminum, iron, and calcium, all metals analyzed on the spent media were at trace levels. The 

average aluminum composition was 38%, equivalent to 72% of Al2O3, which was significantly lower than 

the 91% specified by ATS (Table 4-2b). The average iron composition was 1%, equivalent to 7% of 

Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2·6H2O, which was very close to the specified value of 5.9%. Calcium measured was 

0.72%. Iodine composition was 0.02%, equivalent to 0.03% NaIO4, which was significantly lower than 

the 3.21% specified by ATS (Table 4-2b). A small amount of NaIO4 might have been consumed to 

oxidize any reducing species remaining in the oxidation column effluent; some also was leached into the 

treated water as shown in Figure 4-9. 
37

Table 4-11. Comparison of Media Capacity for Arsenic

Column

Estimated via

Breakthrough Curves(a)

(Figure 4-11)

Estimated via 

Spent Media 

ICP-MS Results(b)

(Table 4-10)

(μg of As/mg of dry media)

TA 0.23 0.22

TB 0.17 0.23

(a) Calculations account for 5% moisture content of A/I 

Complex 2000 media.

(b) Averages of duplicate analyses. 

4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment 

system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected from three LCR taps on July 21, 2005, 

August 4, 2005, and August 24, 2005. Following treatment startup, distribution water sampling continued 

on a monthly basis at the same three locations for one year. The results of the distribution system 

sampling are summarized in Table 4-12. As expected, prior to the installation of the arsenic adsorption 

system, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those measured in raw water, 

ranging from 11.6 to 43.3 μg/L, averaging 30.6 μg/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations in the 

distribution system were significantly reduced to less than 4.9 μg/L (or 1.5 μg/L on average), which, 

although low, were still higher than the concentrations (≤0.2 μg/L) measured at the distribution entry 

point. Therefore, some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might have occurred in the distribution 

system. Arsenic concentrations remained below 5 μg/L at all three sampling locations throughout the 

one-year monitoring of the distribution system water quality. 

Similar to those in raw water, iron and manganese concentrations were low in the distribution system. 

Lead and copper values also were low and did not appear to have been affected by the treatment system. 

The pH and alkalinity values remained fairly constant throughout the distribution system.

4.6 System Cost

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 included the tracking of the capital cost for the 

treatment system such as equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for electrical 

power usage and labor. No cost was incurred for building and discharge-related infrastructure 

improvements. If required, this cost would have been funded by the demonstration site and, therefore, not 

included in the following cost analyses.

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was 

$16,930 (see Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $8,640 (or 51% of the total capital investment), which 

included $2,170 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $960 for 3 ft3 of the A/P Complex 2002 

oxidizing media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $1,440 for 9 ft3 of the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media 

(i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $1,950 for the pressure tank and booster pump, and $2,120 for vendor’s labor 

and freight.

The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the 

piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and assembling and submission of the

engineering plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $3,400, or 20% of 

the total capital investment.
38

Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results

Stagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCuStagnation TimepHAlkalinityAsFeMnPbCu

No. Date hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hrs S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 07/21/05 >12(a) 8.0 88 31.2 <25 4.3 4.6 13.6 17.8 8.0 88 27.5 <25 4.8 1.0 4.5 17.8 8.0 88 35.1 32.4 5.0 10.4 7.0

BL2 08/04/05 >12(a) 8.0 87 36.6 <25 5.4 1.8 8.7 >12(a) 8.1 86 23.5 <25 4.4 0.8 2.9 >12(a) 8.1 77 31.2 <25 5.5 2.4 5.9

BL3 08/24/05 >12(a) 8.0 88 35.4 <25 4.9 3.8 27.2 >12(a) 8.1 88 43.3 <25 4.7 3.2 69.4 >12(a) 7.3 88 11.6 45.1 25.1 6.6 83.9

1 10/17/05 >12(a) 7.0 88 1.2 <25 1.6 1.9 4.5 >12(a) 7.1 88 1.1 <25 1.7 0.5 1.5 >12(a) 7.3 88 1.1 <25 6.1 1.5 27.3

2 11/21/05 >12(a) 7.5 88 1.4 <25 1.4 0.4 12.9 >12(a) 7.7 83 1.1 <25 0.8 0.9 6.8 >12(a) 7.9 83 1.4 <25 3.9 3.6 14.6

3 12/07/05 >12(a) 7.7 83 0.8 <25 0.6 0.3 1.8 >12(a) 7.7 83 0.9 <25 2.2 0.3 1.9 >12(a) 7.7 81 1.3 <25 3.1 5.4 17.5

4 01/19/06 >12(a) 7.6 85 1.0 <25 0.7 1.9 9.1 >12(a) 7.6 86 0.8 <25 1.6 0.6 2.9 >12(a) 7.6 86 1.4 32.8 2.7 5.9 31.5

5 02/16/06 >12(a) 7.8 87 0.8 <25 0.6 0.3 1.6 >12(a) 7.8 83 0.7 <25 0.3 <0.1 1.5 >12(a) 7.8 83 1.1 <25 0.6 0.7 6.4

6 03/15/06 10.0 7.6 83 0.3 <25 0.1 0.6 8.7 9.9 7.8 83 0.3 <25 1.7 0.7 2.5 9.9 7.7 83 0.8 <25 0.4 1.9 38.7

7 04/11/06 19.0 7.8 88 1.6 36.5 0.6 0.7 9.9 7.5 7.8 88 1.8 <25 2.6 0.8 7.1 15.3 7.8 88 2.4 67.8 1.1 3.5 21.9

8 05/10/06 11.2 8.0 88 1.3 <25 0.4 <0.1 1.5 12.0 8.0 85 1.4 <25 0.6 <0.1 3.1 11.1 8.0 192 3.2 27.1 1.1 5.1 11.0

9 06/07/06 13.9 7.9 89 1.2 <25 0.2 0.1 2.6 10.8 7.9 86 1.1 <25 1.1 0.2 5.7 10.8 7.8 88 2.8 <25 0.8 4.5 10.8

10 07/19/06 10.0 7.8 92 1.2 <25 0.6 3.6 16.9 10.4 7.8 92 1.3 <25 1.6 1.9 12.2 11.0 7.9 97 4.6 211 3.0 10.6 24.2

11 08/16/06 >12(a) 7.8 86 1.3 <25 0.5 1.1 15.1 >12(a) 7.8 87 1.2 <25 0.4 0.6 9.3 >12(a) 7.7 90 4.9 39.6 2.0 3.4 29.1

12 09/12/06 >12(a) 7.7 88 0.5 <25 <0.1 2.0 15.5 13.3 7.6 88 2.9 28 1.4 6.8 14.8 13.3 7.7 86 0.7 <25 1.2 0.5 8.4

 

 

 

 

LCR

 1st draw

LCR

1st Draw

DS1 DS2 DS3

Sampling Event

Hall Sink Kitchen Sink Office Room Sink

LCR

 1st draw

BL = Baseline sampling; NS = not sampled; NA = data not available.

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L.

(a) Exact stagnation time unknown
39

Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost

Description Quantity Cost

% of Capital 

Investment Cost

Equipment Cost

Oxidation Columns (Without Media) 2 $240 –

A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media (ft3) 3 $960 –

Adsorption Columns (Without Media) 3 $360 –

A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3) 4.5 $1,440 –

25-μm Sediment Filter 1 $350 –

Piping and Valves 1 $510 –

Flow Totalizer/Meter 1 $560 –

Hour Meter 1 $150

Pressure Tank/Booster Pump 1 $1,950

Procurement, Assembly, Labor 1 $1,000 –

Freight 1 $1,120 –

Equipment Total – $8,640 51%

Engineering Cost

Design/Scope of System (hr) 10 $1,500 –

Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses 1 $1,400 –

Subcontractor Labor – $500

Engineering Total – $3,400 20%

Installation Cost

Plumbing Supplies/Parts 1 $300 –

Vendor Installation Labor (hr) 10 $1,300 –

Subcontractor Labor (hr) 6 $390

Vendor Travel (day) 2 $2,800 –

Subcontractor Travel – $100 –

Installation Total – $4,890 29%

Total Capital Investment – $16,930 100%

The installation cost included the cost to unload and install the treatment system, pressure tank, and 

booster pump, complete the piping installation and tie-ins, and perform system start-up and shakedown 

(Section 4.3). The installation cost was $4,890, or 29% of the total capital investment.

Using the system’s rated capacity of 12 gpm (or 17,280 gpd), the capital cost was $1,410/gpm (or 

$0.98/gpd). The capital cost of $16,930 was converted to an annualized cost of $1,598/yr using a capital 

recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system was 

operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the design flow rate of 12 gpm to produce 6,300,000 gal of water 

per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.25/1,000 gal. However, since the system produced 180,520 gal

of water during the first year of system operations, the unit capital cost was increased to $8.90/1,000 gal 

at this reduced rate of production.

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/1200CS treatment system 

included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement and 

disposal, electricity, and labor (Table 4-14). For a three-column system operating in series, the media in 

the lead column is ideally replaced when the arsenic concentration in the lead column effluent equals the 

raw water concentration but before the concentration following the final lag column reaches the 10 μg/L 

target value. Once the lead column is exhausted, the first and second lag columns are moved up to the 

lead and first lag positions and a column containing new media is placed in the final lag position. The 

method allows the media’s capacity for arsenic to be fully utilized before its replacement. If the media 
40

has a sharp adsorption front (with a typical S-shaped breakthrough curve) and the anticipated run length is 

relatively short; however, it may be more cost-effective to replace the first two or all three columns in the 

treatment train when required. 

Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost

Cost Category Value Assumptions

Volume Processed (1,000 gal) 254 From 09/07/5 through 03/09/07

Media Replacement and Disposal

Number of Columns Replaced 1 2 3

Media Replacement and Disposal ($) 675 1,350 2,025 $675/column or $450/ft3 of media 

Sediment filter and tank accessories 115 115 115

Shipping ($) 423 845 1,268

Labor and Travel ($) 0

(1,660) 

0

(1,660) 

0

(1,660) 

Because operator conducted changeout, 

no labor and travel charged

(quote for vendor to conduct changeout)

Subtotal ($) 1,213 2,310 3,408 –

Media Replacement and Disposal Cost 

($/1,000 gal)

See Figure 4-15

–

Electricity Consumption

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) 0.001 Electrical cost negligible

Labor

Average Weekly Labor (hr) 0.33 20 min/wk

Labor Cost ($) 782 0.33 hr/wk × 79 wk × $30/hr labor rate

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) 3.10 –

Total O&M Cost ($/1,000 gal) Adsorptive media replacement + oxidizing media replacement + 3.10

At Susanville, the lead and first lag columns were changed out on March 14, 2007 after approximately 18 

months of system operation. The cost of the changeout for two columns (lead and first lag) was $2,310 

(see cost breakdown in Table 4-14). The spent media was returned to ATS and sold for use in another 

product; therefore, there was no additional cost for disposal of spent media. Using this $2,310 quote, the 

cost of changing out one and three columns was estimated to be $1,213 and $3,408, respectively. By 

averaging the media replacement cost over the life of the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated by 

replacing one, two, and three columns at a time was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV in 

Figure 4-14. To be consistent with the operational data, the media run length in BV was calculated by 

dividing the system throughput by the quantity of media in one column, i.e., 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal).

Additional electricity use associated with the hour meters on the booster pump and well pump and a new 

booster pump following the treatment system was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor 

activities consumed about 20 min/wk as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was 

$3.10/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-14). 

As shown in Table 4-14, the unit O&M cost is driven by the cost to replace the spent media and is a 

function of the media run length (see Figure 4-15). The electricity cost is minimal. The labor cost is 

based on only 20 min/wk of labor to provide a minimum amount of system O&M. Depending on how 

consistently the system performs and if any additional troubleshooting is required, the labor cost could

increase significantly after the demonstration study. 
41

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Media Working Capacity (x1,000 BV) 

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448

System Throughput (x1,000 gal)

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

Replacement of 3 Columns

Replacement of 2 Columns

Replacement of 1 Column

Note: 1 BV = 1.5 cubic feet = 11.2 gal 

Figure 4-15. Media Replacement Cost Curves for As/1200CS System
42

Section 5.0: REFERENCES 

Aquatic Treatment Systems. 2005. Operations & Maintenance Manual, As/1400CS Duplex Arsenic 

Removal System, Richmond School District, Susanville, CA. 

Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic 

Removal Technology at Susanville, California. 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.

CCR (California Code of Regulations). 2001. Operator Certification Regulations. Title 22, Division 4, 

Chapter 13. 

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/occupations/Documents/Opcert/OperatorCertificationRegulations.

pdf

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 

1998. “Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal 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, D.C. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. 

Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. SixMonth Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Six-Month Evaluation Report. 

EPA/600/R-07/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009a. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. 

Final Performance Evaluation Report. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order 
43

No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2009b. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Final Performance Evaluation 

Report. 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. 

Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. 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

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

1 09/08/05 07:00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0 - - - - 50 - - - - -

09/09/05 10:55 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.4 643 643 57 57 7.7 (-) 21.4 41 38 32 27 18 13

2 

09/12/05 15:45 1.1 1.6 3.1 4.4 1,238 1,881 110 168 6.8 (-) 18.8 53 - - - - -

09/13/05 10:28 0.3 1.9 0.8 5.3 279 2,159 25 192 5.8 (-) 15.5 42 39 33 28 19 15

09/14/05 11:00 0.7 2.6 1.9 7.2 717 2,876 64 256 6.3 (-) 17.1 55 - - - - -

09/16/05 07:06 1.3 3.9 3.6 10.8 1,615 4,491 144 400 7.5 (-) 20.7 37 42 42 42 40 42

3 09/19/05 07:15 1.0 4.9 2.8 13.6 976 5,466 87 487 5.9 (-) 16.3 35 33 27 22 15 11

09/20/05 07:10 1.1 6.0 3.1 16.6 1,390 6,856 124 611 7.5 (-) 21.1 36 42 42 42 40 42

7 10/17/05 10:25 11.1 17.1 30.7 47.4 13,669 20,525 1,218 1,829 7.4 (-) 20.5 38 35 29 24 15 10

9 11/01/05 13:06 - - - - 20,360 40,885 1,815 3,644 NM NM 40 38 32 25 16 12 

11/02/05 10:07 7.1 24.2 19.7 67.0 360 41,245 32 3,676 17.6 (-) 48.6 41 38 32 26 16 11 

12 11/21/05 14:15 - - - - 9,313 50,558 830 4,506 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

13 

11/29/05 14:20 7.9 32.1 21.9 88.9 1,029 51,587 92 4,598 7.9 (-) 21.8 37 35 30 26 18 16

11/30/05 12:56 0.5 32.6 1.4 90.3 596 52,183 53 4,651 7.1 (-) 19.9 44 41 36 30 22 18

12/04/05 12:15 1.5 34.1 4.2 94.5 1,938 54,121 173 4,824 7.7 (-) 21.5 48 45 38 31 21 15

14 

12/05/05 14:45 0.3 34.4 0.8 95.3 439 54,560 39 4,863 9.1 (-) 24.4 47 44 37 31 21 16

12/08/05 10:15 1.5 35.9 4.2 99.4 1,971 56,531 176 5,038 7.8 (-) 21.9 43 41 35 31 22 17

12/09/05 10:30 0.8 36.7 2.2 101.7 1,107 57,638 99 5,137 8.4 (-) 23.1 45 41 36 31 22 19

15 

12/12/05 14:04 1.6 38.3 4.4 106.1 2,145 59,783 191 5,328 8.1 (8.1) 22.3 36 35 29 24 15 11

12/13/05 12:25 0.3 38.6 1.0 107.0 524 60,307 47 5,375 8.7 (7.1) 29.1 38 35 29 23 15 10

12/14/05 09:30 0.3 38.9 0.7 107.7 367 60,674 33 5,408 8.7 (7.7) 20.4 36 33 27 22 15 11
A-2

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2 

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

18 01/05/06 08:00 3.6 42.5 9.9 117.6 5,115 65,789 456 5,864 8.6 (8.7) 23.7 40 36 31 26 16 11

01/06/06 13:10 0.7 43.2 1.7 119.3 876 66,665 78 5,942 8.6 (8.7) 20.9 42 38 31 26 16 12 

19 

01/09/06 10:30 0.2 43.4 0.7 120.0 370 67,035 33 5,975 8.8 (9.3) 30.8 46 44 36 30 20 16

01/10/06 10:00 0.5 43.9 1.3 121.3 678 67,713 60 6,035 8.7 (8.5) 22.6 40 36 31 26 16 11 

01/11/06 10:25 0.6 44.5 1.7 123.0 859 68,572 77 6,112 8.4 (8.6) 23.9 44 40 35 29 20 16

01/12/06 11:01 0.7 45.2 1.9 124.9 975 69,547 87 6,198 8.6 (9.3) 23.2 47 44 38 31 21 16 

01/13/06 14:35 0.6 45.8 1.8 126.7 929 70,476 83 6,281 8.6 (8.7) 26.8 42 40 34 27 18 12

20 

01/17/06 10:45 0.2 46.0 0.5 127.2 276 70,752 25 6,306 9.2 (8.1) 23.0 42 39 33 27 18 12

01/18/06 09:05 0.5 46.5 1.4 128.6 717 71,469 64 6,370 8.5 (8.3) 23.9 41 39 33 27 18 13

01/19/06 09:40 0.7 47.2 1.9 130.5 1,007 72,476 90 6,460 8.8 (7.6) 22.8 31 29 23 19 10 8

01/20/06 13:40 0.9 48.1 2.0 132.5 1,016 73,492 91 6,550 8.5 (9.5) 18.8 49 47 39 33 21 16

21 01/23/06 12:00 0.4 48.5 1.0 133.5 510 74,002 45 6,596 8.5 (9.8) 21.3 53 50 42 35 24 18

01/26/06 11:31 1.2 49.7 3.6 137.1 1,854 75,856 165 6,761 8.6 (7.7) 25.8 36 34 28 22 14 10

22 

01/30/06 14:30 1.2 50.9 3.3 140.4 1,746 77,602 156 6,916 8.8 (8.9) 24.3 54 51 43 36 25 18

02/01/06 11:00 0.6 51.5 1.7 142.1 908 78,510 81 6,997 8.9 (8.5) 25.2 40 37 31 26 16 11

02/02/06 12:00 0.7 52.2 1.8 143.9 934 79,444 83 7,081 8.6 (9.3) 24.2 46 44 38 31 21 16

02/03/06 10:00 0.5 52.7 1.7 145.6 916 80,360 82 7,162 9.0 (7.9) 30.5 36 34 27 21 14 8

23 

02/06/06 11:30 2.1 54.8 4.9 150.5 2,528 82,888 225 7,388 8.6 (9.6) 22.4 55 52 44 36 24 19

02/07/06 14:30 0.8 55.6 2.4 152.9 1,265 84,153 113 7,500 8.8 (8.8) 26.4 43 41 34 28 18 12

02/08/06 12:00 0.6 56.2 0.8 153.7 443 84,596 39 7,540 9.2 (9.8) 12.3 49 47 40 33 22 17

02/09/06 11:00 0.2 56.4 1.5 155.2 738 85,334 66 7,606 8.2 (9.6) 61.5 54 51 44 36 25 18
A-3

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

24 

02/14/06 10:15 0.6 57.0 1.6 156.8 897 86,231 80 7,685 9.3 (8.4) 24.9 42 39 33 26 17 12

02/15/06 15:00 0.7 57.7 2.0 158.8 970 87,201 86 7,772 8.1 (9.7) 23.1 50 48 40 34 22 16

02/16/06 14:00 0.2 57.9 0.5 159.3 264 87,465 24 7,795 8.8 (9.1) 22.0 44 42 34 28 18 12

02/17/06 13:00 0.7 58.6 2.0 161.3 1,095 88,560 98 7,893 9.1 (8.4) 26.1 43 40 33 27 17 12

25 02/22/06 12:00 0.7 59.3 2.2 163.5 1,113 89,673 99 7,992 8.4 (8.0) 26.5 36 35 29 22 9 9 

02/24/06 11:05 0.9 60.2 2.5 166.0 1,324 90,997 118 8,110 8.8 (7.5) 24.5 37 24 29 23 11 11

26 

02/27/06 12:00 0.8 61.0 2.0 168.0 1,042 92,039 93 8,203 8.7 (8.6) 21.7 54 51 44 36 25 18 

02/28/06 13:00 0.4 61.4 1.3 169.3 690 92,729 61 8,265 8.8 (9.7) 28.8 53 50 44 36 24 18

03/01/06 12:00 0.3 61.7 0.8 170.1 443 93,172 39 8,304 9.2 (8.9) 24.6 42 39 31 26 16 11 

03/02/06 09:20 0.4 62.1 1.1 171.2 555 93,727 49 8,354 8.4 (8.4) 23.1 40 37 30 24 15 11

27 

03/06/06 14:00 1.3 63.4 3.6 174.8 1,912 95,639 170 8,524 8.9 (9.9) 24.5 50 47 40 33 21 16 

03/07/06 07:20 0.2 63.6 0.4 175.2 211 95,850 19 8,543 8.8 (9.3) 17.6 52 48 41 34 23 18

03/09/06 08:15 1.0 64.6 2.9 178.1 1,525 97,375 136 8,679 8.8 (9.3) 25.4 40 37 32 26 17 14 

03/10/06 13:10 0.7 65.3 2.1 180.2 1,095 98,470 98 8,776 8.7 (-) 26.1 54 51 44 36 25 18

28 

03/14/06 15:00 1.5 66.8 3.0 183.2 1,528 99,998 136 8,911 8.5 (8.6) 17.0 42 40 33 26 17 12

03/15/06 15:00 0.1 66.9 0.3 183.5 143 100,141 13 8,925 7.9 (8.4) 23.8 40 37 31 26 16 12

03/17/06 15:00 0.7 67.6 3.5 187.0 1,855 101,996 165 9,090 8.8 (8.2) 44.2 39 35 30 25 15 11

29 

03/20/06 14:15 0.4 68.0 1.0 188.0 543 102,539 48 9,138 9.1 (9.2) 22.6 49 47 39 38 21 16 

03/22/06 7:00 0.9 68.9 2.6 190.6 1,321 103,860 118 9,256 8.5 (8.2) 24.5 39 36 30 24 16 10 

03/24/06 6:30 1.0 69.9 2.8 193.4 1,466 105,326 131 9,387 8.7 (8.5) 24.4 49 46 39 32 21 16 
A-4

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2 

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

30 

03/27/06 11:59 0.6 70.5 2.0 195.4 1,046 106,372 93 9,480 8.7 (9.7) 24.9 51 49 42 35 24 19

03/28/06 13:30 0.7 71.2 1.7 197.1 903 107,275 80 9,560 8.9 (9.7) 21.5 50 47 40 33 22 16 

03/29/06 10:40 0.3 71.5 0.9 198.0 491 107,766 44 9,604 9.1 (8.4) 27.3 40 36 30 25 16 10

03/30/06 10:15 1.4 72.9 2.4 200.4 1,236 109,002 110 9,714 8.6 (8.1) 14.7 40 36 30 26 16 11 

31 04/03/06 14:00 1.4 74.3 4.1 204.5 2,149 111,151 192 9,906 8.7 (8.5) 25.6 41 37 31 26 16 11

04/06/06 15:00 1.5 75.8 4.1 208.6 2,160 113,311 193 10,099 8.8 (9.4) 24.0 47 44 39 31 21 16

32 04/11/06 9:00 1.4 77.2 3.2 211.8 1,693 115,004 151 10,250 8.8 (-) 20.2 51 49 41 36 22 16 

33 

04/17/06 10:45 0.2 77.4 0.7 212.5 343 115,347 31 10,281 8.2 (8.5) 28.6 54 51 46 40 31 24

04/19/06 10:30 0.9 78.3 2.6 215.1 1,341 116,688 120 10,401 8.6 (8.6) 24.8 43 41 35 31 22 20

04/20/06 10:15 1.0 79.3 2.8 217.9 1,500 118,188 134 10,535 8.9 (8.3) 25.0 38 35 29 24 14 11

34 

04/25/06 11:30 1.0 80.3 3.0 220.9 1,572 119,760 140 10,675 8.7 (8.0) 26.2 46 43 36 30 21 16

04/26/06 14:00 0.6 80.9 2.0 222.9 1,057 120,817 94 10,769 8.8 (7.6) 29.4 36 34 28 22 14 9

04/28/06 14:00 0.7 81.6 2.6 225.5 1,363 122,180 101 10,890 8.7 (8.9) 32.5 49 46 39 32 21 16

35 05/01/06 9:45 0.3 81.9 1.0 226.5 505 122,685 45 10,935 8.4 (8.2) 28.1 42 39 33 26 16 11 

05/03/06 8:00 1.6 83.5 22.6 249.1 12,947 135,632 1,154 12,089 9.5 (9.8) 134.9 43 38 27 29 19 16

36 05/08/06 7:45 1.9 85.4 9.7 258.8 5,230 140,862 466 12,555 9.0 (8.1) 45.9 39 36 30 24 16 10

05/10/06 9:15 1.9 87.3 5.5 264.3 2,788 143,650 248 12,803 8.4 (8.4) 24.5 41 37 31 25 16 11

37 05/16/06 8:20 1.9 89.2 5.2 269.5 2,669 146,319 238 13,041 8.6 (8.7) 23.4 42 38 32 26 16 11

05/18/06 14:00 3.1 92.3 3.8 273.3 2,040 148,359 182 13,223 8.9 (8.2) 11.0 40 37 31 25 16 11 

38 05/22/06 8:55 1.2 93.5 3.5 276.8 1,762 150,121 157 13,380 8.4 (7.9) 24.5 42 39 33 27 18 12

05/27/06 8:00 2.4 95.9 6.8 283.6 3,575 153,696 319 13,699 8.8 (8.5) 24.8 48 45 38 32 22 16
A-5

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

39 

05/30/06 15:00 0.4 97.3 1.1 284.7 567 154,263 51 13,750 8.6 (9.9) 23.6 51 48 41 35 22 16

05/31/06 14:45 0.4 97.7 1.2 285.9 637 154,900 57 13,807 8.8 (9.2) 26.5 49 45 39 33 22 17 

06/01/06 9:00 0.2 97.9 1.0 286.9 525 155,425 47 13,854 8.8 (7.6) 43.8 40 37 30 26 16 12

06/02/06 11:00 0.5 98.4 1.2 288.1 583 156,008 52 13,906 8.1 (7.9) 19.4 36 33 27 21 15 10 

40 06/05/06 13:00 0.9 99.3 2.3 290.4 1,367 157,375 122 14,028 9.9 (8.6) 25.3 41 38 32 26 16 11

06/07/06 7:45 1.3 100.6 2.3 292.7 628 158,003 56 14,084 4.6 (9.2) 28.1 48 45 38 32 21 16

41 06/13/06 7:30 1.6 102.2 4.4 297.1 2,808 160,811 250 14,334 10.6 (9.1) 29.3 42 39 33 26 18 12 

06/14/06 15:30 0.2 102.4 0.5 297.6 278 161,089 25 14,359 9.3 (8.6) 23.2 41 38 32 26 16 11

42 06/21/06 7:40 1.1 103.5 0.6 298.2 296 161,385 26 14,385 8.2 (8.9) 4.5 41 36 31 26 16 12

43 06/28/06 8:00 2.1 105.6 1.2 299.4 705 162,090 63 14,448 9.8 (12.0) 5.6 51 48 41 34 23 17 

06/29/06 9:30 0.1 105.7 0.2 299.6 112 162,202 10 14,458 9.3 (11.5 18.7 41 38 33 26 17 12

44 07/06/06 8:00 0.6 106.3 0.6 300.2 356 162,558 32 14,490 9.9 (8.6) 9.9 41 36 29 23 16 11

45 07/13/06 14:00 3.0 109.3 4.7 304.91 2,513 165,071 224 14,714 8.9 (9.0) 14.0 49 46 39 32 21 16 

46 07/20/06 8:00 1.6 110.9 0.7 305.6 402 165,473 36 14,750 9.6 (9.2) 4.2 41 38 32 26 16 12

47 07/27/06 11:30 0.9 111.8 1.6 307.2 912 166,385 81 14,831 9.5 (8.1) 16.9 55 52 44 36 25 19

50 08/16/06 11:05 5.3 117.1 7.1 314.3 3,904 170,289 348 15,179 9.2 (8.5) 12.3 40 36 30 24 16 11

51 08/24/06 7:40 1.6 118.7 2.0 316.3 1,086 171,375 97 15,276 9.1 (8.5) 11.3 41 39 33 27 18 12 

52 

08/28/06 15:00 1.9 120.6 4.7 321.0 2,500 173,875 223 14,499 8.9 (13.1) 21.9 44 41 34 27 18 12

08/29/06 9:30 0.4 121.0 1.0 322.0 520 174,395 46 15,545 8.7 (9.4) 21.7 49 46 39 32 21 16 

08/31/06 9:29 1.5 121.5 3.9 325.9 2,034 176,429 181 15,726 8.7 (8.0) 22.6 35 32 26 21 12 8
A-6

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2 

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

53 

09/05/06 10:45 1.6 123.1 3.5 329.4 2,164 178,593 193 15,919 10.3 (9.6) 22.5 55 53 48 40 30 23

09/07/06 11:30 0.9 124.0 3.0 332.4 1,927 180,520 172 16,091 10.7 (9.3) 35.7 58 55 47 39 27 20 

09/08/06 12:00 1.3 125.3 1.3 333.7 855 181,375 76 16,167 11.0 (11.9) 11.0 60 58 50 42 30 22

54 09/11/06 11:00 0.7 126.0 1.2 334.9 861 182,236 77 16,244 12.0 (8.2) 20.5 39 36 29 22 14 9

09/13/06 9:00 1.2 127.2 2.4 337.3 1,557 183,793 139 16,383 10.8 (8.3) 21.6 40 36 30 26 16 11

55 

09/19/06 13:00 5.4 132.6 8.6 345.9 3,143 186,936 280 16,663 6.1 (8.9) 9.7 45 42 35 30 20 15

09/20/06 11:00 0.9 133.5 1.9 347.8 1,227 188,163 109 16,772 10.8 (8.1) 22.7 48 45 38 32 22 16 

09/21/06 11:35 1.1 134.6 2.1 349.9 1,313 189,476 117 16,889 10.4 (8.3) 19.9 49 47 42 37 27 23

09/22/06 13:30 0.9 135.5 1.8 351.7 1,171 190,647 104 16,993 10.8 (14.5) 21.7 46 43 36 29 18 14 

56 09/26/06 14:00 2.0 137.5 2.2 353.9 1,631 192,278 145 17,138 12.4 (8.9) 13.6 55 52 46 39 30 24

57 10/03/06 14:00 2.7 140.2 3.3 357.2 3,727 196,005 332 17,470 18.8 (10.0) 23.0 57 54 45 37 26 19

10/05/06 10:15 0.9 141.1 0.7 357.9 949 196,954 85 17,555 22.6 (10.1) 17.6 56 55 48 40 28 21 

58 10/11/06 10:30 2.0 143.1 1.9 259.8 2,230 199,184 199 17,754 19.6 (10.2) 18.6 55 51 43 36 24 18

59 

10/17/06 8:00 2.3 145.4 1.9 361.7 2,723 201,907 243 17,997 23.9 (10.3) 19.7 55 51 44 36 24 18

10/18/06 10:30 0.8 146.2 0.8 362.5 798 202,705 71 18,068 16.6 (1.6) 16.6 61 60 60 59 56 56

10/20/06 12:50 3.7 149.9 4.8 367.3 3,623 206,328 323 18,391 12.6 (9.8) 16.3 55 52 45 38 26 19

60 10/23/06 12:00 0.5 150.4 0.4 367.7 541 206,869 48 18,439 22.5 (9.5) 18.0 52 50 45 38 28 22 

61 10/31/06 12:50 3.8 154.2 3.2 370.9 4,220 211,089 376 18,815 22.0 (9.9) 18.5 57 55 47 40 28 22

63 

11/14/06 12:30 5.0 159.2 4.3 375.2 5,745 216,834 512 19,327 22.3 (10.1) 19.2 64 62 56 49 38 31

11/15/06 10:30 0.6 159.8 0.3 375.5 456 217,290 41 19,368 25.3 (7.1) 15.2 53 51 43 38 28 23

11/16/06 8:50 0.5 160.3 0.5 376.0 620 217,910 55 19,423 20.7 (15.5) 20.7 52 50 44 36 26 20
A-7

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation 

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2 

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational HoursOperational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

65 11/27/06 12:55 2.3 162.6 1.9 377.9 2,230 220,140 199 19,622 19.6 (10.0) 16.1 53 50 42 36 26 19

11/28/06 13:05 0.6 163.2 0.4 378.3 646 220,786 58 19,680 26.9 (10.3) 17.9 52 50 43 37 26 20 

66 12/07/06 14:00 3.8 167.0 3.2 381.5 4,399 225,185 392 20,072 22.9 (9.9) 19.2 54 51 45 37 26 21

67 

12/11/06 9:30 1.8 168.8 1.6 383.1 2,042 227,227 182 20,254 21.3 (9.9) 18.9 52 49 42 36 24 18

12/12/06 14:00 0.9 169.7 0.9 384.0 1,079 228,306 96 20,350 20.0 (9.8) 20.0 51 49 42 36 24 18 

12/13/06 8:45 0.1 169.8 0.1 384.1 137 228,443 12 20,362 22.8 (9.8) 22.8 57 54 46 40 28 21

68 12/19/06 8:00 2.3 172.1 1.9 386.0 2,576 231,019 230 20,592 22.6 (9.6) 18.7 52 50 44 37 27 20

12/20/06 14:00 1.0 173.1 0.8 386.8 1,088 232,107 97 20,689 22.7 (10.5) 18.1 55 51 43 36 23 18

71 

01/08/07 14:30 1.3 174.4 1.0 387.8 1,473 233,580 131 20,820 24.6 (10.7) 18.9 64 61 55 46 32 26

01/090/7 14:10 0.5 174.9 0.5 388.3 591 234,171 53 20,873 19.7 (10.2) 19.7 56 53 46 38 26 19

01/10/07 13:30 0.5 175.4 0.4 388.7 521 234,692 46 20,919 21.7 (11.1) 17.4 55 51 44 36 24 18

72 01/18/07 7:00 2.6 178.0 2.1 390.8 2,970 237,662 265 21,184 23.6 (10.1) 19.0 60 56 50 42 31 24 

74 01/31/07 8:00 5.2 183.2 4.1 394.9 6,032 243,694 538 21,722 24.5 (9.9) 19.3 55 53 45 39 26 20

02/02/07 14:30 1.3 184.5 1.1 396.0 1,516 245,210 135 21,857 23.0 (9.7) 19.4 55 53 45 39 26 20

75 02/05/07 13:30 0.4 184.9 0.3 396.3 480 245,690 43 21,900 26.7 (9.8) 20.0 56 54 47 41 28 22 

02/06/07 8:30 0.2 185.1 0.1 396.4 192 245,882 17 21,917 32.0 (9.6) 16.0 63 62 54 48 37 31

76 02/14/07 13:00 3.9 189.0 3.1 399.5 4,513 250,395 402 22,319 24.3 (9.4) 19.3 53 50 43 36 26 21

02/15/07 10:00 0.4 189.4 0.4 399.9 506 250,901 45 22,364 21.1 (9.7) 21.1 56 54 47 40 28 22

77 02/22/07 7:00 2.1 191.5 1.6 401.5 2,400 253,301 214 22,578 25.0 (10.8) 19.0 55 52 44 38 28 22

79 03/07/07 8:00 3.6 195.1 3.1 404.6 353 253,654 31 22,909 1.9 (10.1) 1.6 56 54 47 41 28 21

03/08/07 8:15 0.5 195.6 0.5 405.1 634 254,288 57 22,666 21.1 (10.1) 21.1 56 54 47 41 28 21
A-8

EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in Susanville, CA – Summary of Daily System Operation

Week 

No. Date Time

Well No. 2 

Hour Meter

Booster Pump 

Hour Meter Treatment System Flow Readings

Treatment System Pressure 

Readings

Operational HoursCumulative Operational Hours Operational Hours(a)Cumulative Operational HoursVolumeTreatedCumulative Volume TreatedBed Volumes Treated(b)Cumulative Bed Volumes Treated

Booster 

Pump/ 

System

Well 

Pump

IN OA OB TA TB TC

Average (Instanteous) Flowrate Average Flowrate 

hrs hrs hrs hrs gal gal BV BV gpm gpm psi psi psi psi psi psi

80 03/14/07 15:30 3.0 198.6 2.8 407.9 3,544 257,832 316 22,982 21.1 (-) 19.7 - - - - - -

03/15/07 8:30 0.4 199.0 0.3 408.2 476 258,308 42 23,024 26.4 (10.4) 19.8 55 53 46 36 28 20 

81 03/23/07 12:00 4.1 203.1 3.3 411.5 4,807 263,115 428 23,452 24.3 (9.7) 19.5 56 54 46 38 28 22

82 03/28/07 7:00 1.7 204.8 1.5 413.0 2,056 265,171 183 23,635 22.8 (10.2) 20.2 55 53 46 38 30 22

83 04/04/07 14:00 3.3 208.1 2.8 415.8 3,801 268,972 339 23,974 22.6 (10.1) 19.2 59 57 46 36 26 19

84 04/14/07 11:00 2.8 210.9 2.6 418.4 3,216 272,188 287 24,261 20.6 (11.1) 19.1 59 56 47 36 26 18 

85 04/19/07 8:15 1.1 212.0 1.3 419.7 1,418 273,606 126 24,387 18.2 (10.5) 21.5 60 57 49 39 29 21

04/20/07 11:00 1.0 213.0 0.8 420.5 1,199 274,805 107 24,494 25.0 (10.3) 20.0 56 54 48 38 30 22

86 04/27/07 12:50 3.9 216.9 3.8 424.3 4,816 279,621 429 24,923 21.1 (10.4) 20.6 60 58 50 40 32 26 

89 05/14/07 13:00 7.5 224.4 7.0 431.3 9,160 288,781 816 25,739 21.8 (9.7) 20.4 57 55 48 40 32 25

05/16/07 8:00 0.9 225.3 0.6 431.9 948 289,729 84 25,823 26.3 (11.3) 17.6 57 55 48 40 32 25 

90 05/23/07 14:30 3.9 229.2 3.8 435.7 4,707 294,436 420 26,243 20.6 (10.2) 20.1 59 57 49 44 33 25

91 06/01/07 12:50 3.8 233.0 3.3 139.0 4,495 298,931 401 26,644 22.7 (11.1) 19.7 57 55 46 36 26 18

93 06/13/07 8:00 4.5 237.5 2.6 441.6 4,029 302,960 359 27,003 25.8 (10.1) 14.9 55 53 45 35 28 21

(a) booster pump hours estimated by multiplying well pump hours by 2.77 until booster pump hour meter installed on 12/09/05.

(b) 1 bed volume = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
B-1

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA

Sampling Date 09/19/05 10/17/05 11/02/05 11/21/05

Sampling Location IN OA TA IN OA TA TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - 0.5 - - 1.8 - - - - - 3.7 - - - - - 4.5 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 88 97 92 88 88 88 88 - - - - - - 88 - 92 - - 88

Fluoride mg/L 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 - - - - - - 0.2 - 0.1 - - 0.1

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - 20.1 122 263 264 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodine (AAL) mg/L - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodide mg/L - - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L 18.0 18.0 20.0 17.5 17.6 17.9 19.2 - - - - - - 16.9 - 17.1 - - 17.2

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - <5 - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05

Orthophosphate mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 - <10 - - <10

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.4 8.7 2.2 13.5 8.5 3.7 0.8 14.2 6.2 5.6 4.4 3.3 2.3 14.5 8.2 6.9 4.5 3.2 2.3

Turbidity NTU 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 - - - - - - 0.7 - <0.1 - - 0.4

pH S.U. 8.4 7.8 7.4 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.6 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a) 8.4 8.2 - 7.8 - 7.7

Temperature °C 16.2 15.9 15.8 14.5 14.0 13.6 13.6 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a) 12.8 12.3 - 12.8 - 12.8

DO mg/L 1.2 0.5 0.4 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.6 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a) 0.9 0.8 - 0.8 - 0.9

ORP mV 162 141 135 181 184 191 197 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a) 207 210 - 216 - 218

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 43.4 40.9 40.9 41.1 41.3 40.2 38.7 46.2 48.2 50.7 58.3 - 58.7 - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 34.3 32.4 32.4 31.5 31.6 30.8 29.5 36.1 38.5 40.2 46.5 43.1 48.0 - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 9.0 8.5 8.5 9.6 9.7 9.4 9.2 10.0 9.8 10.5 11.7 - 10.7 - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 31.1 2.1 0.2 33.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 32.4 3.2 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 30.4 6.3 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

As (soluble) μg/L 31.7 1.6 <0.1 - - - - 32.4 3.3 0.6 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 0.5 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L 28.3 0.5 0.4 - - - - 28.5 0.1 0.1 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L 3.4 1.1 <0.1 - - - - 3.9 3.2 0.5 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 41 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 47 - <25 - - <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 4.9 0.1 <0.1 4.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 5.3 - <0.1 - - 0.5

Mn (soluble) μg/L 5.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 5.0 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L 2.7 31.2 22.7 <10 20.6 20.3 17.5 2.7 20.9 34.7 35.3 - 31.6 <10 - 14.2 - - 29.2

Al (soluble) μg/L 2.0 27.7 21.8 - - - - 1.9 17.8 23.0 - - 31.8 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
B-2

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 11/29/05 12/14/05 01/05/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 4.6 - - - - - 5.4 - - - - - 5.9

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 89 - 85 - - 87 - - - - - - 

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 0.1 - 0.2 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L 4.5 - 196 - - 193 11.3 - 152 - - 84.6 - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 16.0 - 16.0 - - 17.0 - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - <5 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.1 10.9 7.8 5.7 3.9 2.3 NA(b) 11.2 8.8 6.7 4.4 3.1 14.6 9.8 9.1 6.1 4.4 3.2

Turbidity NTU - - - - - - 1.1 - 0.2 - - 0.9 - - - - - - 

pH S.U. 8.4 7.9 - 7.6 - 7.6 8.5 8.1 7.7 - - 7.6 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 13.9 14.1 - 14.2 - 13.9 13.9 14.8 14.7 - - 15.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L 1.6 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.5 1.5 1.9 2.3 - - 1.9 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 134 168 - 175 - 178 198 191 194 - - 199 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 43.3 - 41.3 - - 43.4 - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 35.6 - 33.6 - - 35.6 - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 7.7 - 7.7 - - 7.8 - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 31.5 10.7 0.6 0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.8 17.1 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 31.1 17.9 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

As (soluble) μg/L 31.4 - 0.4 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 31.8 17.9 0.7 - - <0.1

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 - 0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 0.1 - - <0.1

As (III) μg/L 8.9 - 0.3 - - 0.4 - - - - - - 10.0 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1

As (V) μg/L 22.5 - 0.2 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 21.8 17.9 0.7 - - <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 39 - <25 - - <25 26 - <25 - - <25 55 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 - <25 - - <25 - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25

Mn (total) μg/L 5.7 - <0.1 - - 0.1 4.3 - <0.1 - - <0.1 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 5.5 - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1

Al (total) μg/L <10 - 18.0 - - 27.0 <10 - 13.9 - - 20.8 <10 25.8 19.1 23.4 25.2 26.0

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 - 17.5 - - 26.1 - - - - - - <10 23.2 17.3 - - - 

 (a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Sampling error.
B-3

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 01/17/06 02/02/06 (b) 02/16/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 6.3 - - - - - 7.1 - - - - - 7.8

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 87 - 84 - - 84 - - - - - - 91 - 87 - - 79

87 - 84 - - 84 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 0.1 - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 0.2 - 0.3 - - 0.3

0.1 - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L 4.7 - 46.6 - - 38.9 - - - - - - 1.4 - 17.5 - - 36.1

9.1 - 46.9 - - 39.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L 16 - 16 - - 16 - - - - - - 23 - 22 - - 23

16 - 16 - - 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.1 - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.4 - <0.05 - - 0.1 - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05

0.1 - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 20.5 - <10 - - <10

<10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.2 10.4 8.3 6.4 4.5 3.0 14.4 12.8 10.6 8.4 6.1 4.0 15.2 12.5 10.3 8.4 6.0 4.3

14.7 9.8 8.2 6.3 4.6 2.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Turbidity NTU 1.7 - 2 - - 2.3 - - - - - - 0.7 - 0.6 - - 0.5

1.6 - 2.3 - - 2.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

pH S.U. NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 8.4 8.2 7.9 - - 7.6 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 16.0 14.6 15.0 - - 15.2 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 321 302 316 - - 320 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 39.4 - 35.4 - - 36.2 - - - - - - 43.9 - 42.0 - - 39.3

39.7 - 35.9 - - 36.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 30.5 - 27.5 - - 27.9 - - - - - - 34.5 - 32.6 - - 30.4

30.9 - 27.8 - - 28.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 8.8 - 7.8 - - 8.3 - - - - - - 9.4 - 9.4 - - 8.9

8.8 - 8.2 - - 8.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 33.6 23.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 29.2 29.1 5.5 0.2 0.1 <0.1 30.1 30.4 7.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

32.5 22.4 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 30.8 30.1 6.1 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 12.2 1.2 0.5 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 18.6 29.0 5.6 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 88 - <25 - - <25 39 <25 <25 - - <25 45 - <25 - - <25

85 - <25 - - <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 5.9 - <0.1 - - <0.1 7.7 0.4 0.4 - - 0.3 6.9 - <0.1 - - <0.1

5.8 - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 7.5 0.1 0.2 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L 1.6 - 19.7 - - 25.6 <10 24.8 20.0 - - 22.2 <10 - 25.3 - - 25.8

1.8 - 18.6 - - 25.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Al (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <10 20.2 15.1 - - 13.9 - - - - - -

 (a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements were taken on 2/3/2006.
B-4

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 03/02/06(b) 03/15/06 3/29/06(c)

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 8.4 - - - - - 8.9 - - - - - 9.6 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 83 - 79 - - 83 - - - - - - 

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 0.2 - 0.2 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - 24.5 - 57.5 - - 127 - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 17.9 - 17.5 - - 18.1 - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - <5 - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 15.3 12.9 10.7 8.5 6.6 5.2 13.2 12.0 9.0 9.0 6.7 4.7 15.2 12.4 11.9 11.1 8.8 7.7

Turbidity NTU - - - - - - 1.5 - 1.2 - - 1.1 - - - - - - 

pH S.U. 8.6 8.4 8.3 - - 8.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 8.8 8.3 8.1 - - 7.7

Temperature °C 14.8 13.9 13.8 - - 15.1 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 14.3 14.3 14.6 - - 14.6

DO mg/L - - - - - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 0.3 0.4 0.6 - - 0.3

ORP mV 329 338 341 - - 342 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 298 287 287 - - 288

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 33.2 - 31.3 - - 31.1 - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 25.1 - 23.5 - - 23.4 - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 8.1 - 7.8 - - 7.7 - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 28.3 29.1 9.7 0.1 <0.1 0.1 25.6 24.5 10.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.7 29.5 27.5 3.1 0.5 0.1

As (soluble) μg/L 28.9 29.2 9.3 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 32.1 29.3 27.7 - - 0.1

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.4 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 0.6 0.2 <0.1 - - <0.1

As (III) μg/L 12.1 0.4 0.4 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 15.0 1.8 1.2 - - 0.2

As (V) μg/L 16.7 28.8 8.9 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 17.1 27.5 26.6 - - <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 55 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 - - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L 25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25

Mn (total) μg/L 6.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.5 - <0.1 - - <0.1 5.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 6.5 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 5.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1

Al (total) μg/L <10 21.3 18.1 18.0 18.8 19.1 <10 - 19.8 - - 21.9 <10 28.0 27.2 27.1 24.6 22.3

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 17.9 16.5 - - 18.5 - - - - - - <10 29.1 28.5 - - 23.7

 (a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 03/09/06 (c) Water quality measurements taken on 03/30/06.
B-5

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 04/11/06(b) 04/27/06 05/08/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 10.3 - - - - - 10.8 - - - - - 12.1

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 92 - 97 - - 88 - - - - - 3 83 - 83 - - 88

92 - 97 - - 92 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fluoride mg/L 0.2 - 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 0.2 - 0.2 - - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4 - 242 - - 176

Sulfate mg/L 18.2 - 18.5 - - 18.5 - - - - - - 15 - 18 - - 19

18.5 - 18.4 - - 18.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <5 - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - 0.1 - 0.1 - - 0.1

<0.05 - <0.05 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 16.3 - <10 - - <10

<10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.4 11.7 11.4 8.8 7.8 5.7 14.8 13.1 12.9 10.1 8.1 6.5 14.0 11.7 10.2 8.9 7.5 6.7

14.3 11.3 11.3 8.9 7.4 5.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Turbidity NTU 0.6 - 0.5 - - 0.7 - - - - - - 1.9 - 0.8 - - 2.2

0.5 - 0.5 - - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

pH S.U. 8.4 7.9 7.9 - - 8.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 15.1 16.5 15.8 - - 15.1 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L 23.4 31.3 21.4 - - 17.3 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 348 323 313 - - 310 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 45.4 - 46.9 - - 47.9 - - - - - - 50.8 - 48.5 - - 49.4

50.0 - 47.2 - - 53.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 37.5 - 39.0 - - 40.0 - - - - - - 39.4 - 38.5 - - 39.4

42.3 - 39.4 - - 45.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 7.9 - 7.9 - - 7.9 - - - - - - 11.3 - 10.0 - - 10.0

7.7 - 7.8 - - 7.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 31.8 27.5 23.2 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 87.9 28.4 25.4 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 32.7 12.7 15.3 4.3 0.6 <0.1

30.8 27.5 23.3 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 75.0 28.6 25.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 12.9 <0.1 0.3 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 28.2 0.3 0.2 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 46.8 28.3 24.8 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 - - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - <25 58 - <25 - - <25

<25 - <25 - - <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 6.4 - <0.1 - - <0.1 5.6 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 4.5 - <0.1 - - 0.2

6.4 - <0.1 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 5.8 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - -

Al (total) μg/L <10 - 21.8 - - 21.0 <10 25.3 26.3 - - 25.4 <10 - 25.0 - - 34.1

<10 - 21.8 - - 20.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Al (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <10 24.7 26.0 - - 24.8 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 04/08/06.

Yellow highlight indicates that data are outliers and not used for system evaluation. 
B-6

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued). 

Sampling Date 06/01/06 06/07/06 06/21/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 13.8 - - - - - 14.1 - - - - - 14.4

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 93 - 97 - - 93 - - - - - - 

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - 2.3 - 39.8 - - 43.0 - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - 19 - - 18 - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L <5(b) - - - - - <5 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 12.8 11.5 10.6 9.8 8.6 6.5 14.1 13.0 13.1 11.3 9.9 8.1 14.2 12.4 11.3 10.4 9.5 6.9

Turbidity NTU - - - - - - 1.2 - 1.3 - - 1.4 - - - - - - 

pH S.U. 8.3 8.1 7.9 - - 7.7 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 8.4 8.2 8.0 - - 7.7

Temperature °C 17.6 17.7 17.9 - - 18.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 16.3 16.3 17.0 - - 18.3

DO mg/L 6.6 7.3 8.9 - - 6.1 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 1.2 2.3 0.5 - - 0.5

ORP mV 273 271 296 - - 275 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) 262 263 262 - - 261

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 43.9 - 45.9 - - 47.3 - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 35.5 - 37.3 - - 38.4 - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 8.4 - 8.5 - - 9.0 - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 25.1 24.6 16.3 5.4 0.6 <0.1 30.2 28.1 21.1 6.4 0.6 <0.1 33.2 32.8 19.5 6.2 0.6 <0.1

As (soluble) μg/L 27.3 23.8 15.0 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 33.9 31.4 19.6 - - <0.1

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 0.7 1.3 - - <0.1 - - - - - - <0.1 1.4 <0.1 - - <0.1

As (III) μg/L 8.3 0.2 0.1 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 6.2 0.8 0.2 - - 0.2

As (V) μg/L 19.1 23.7 14.9 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 27.7 30.6 19.4 - - <0.1

Fe (total) μg/L 44 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 - - <25 57 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L 41 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 39 <25 <25 - - <25

Mn (total) μg/L 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.7 - <0.1 - - <0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 4.4 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 - - 0.2

Al (total) μg/L <10 22.9 19.0 22.4 25.1 27.0 <10 - 18.2 - - 26.1 <10 21.3 15.1 23.0 24.5 25.1

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 21.8 17.2 - - 26.2 - - - - - - <10 19.8 14.2 - - 23.4

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Analyzed outside of hold time.
B-7

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 07/06/06 07/20/06 08/01/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 14.5 - - - - - 14.7 - - - - - 14.9

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 88 - 84 - - 84 - - - - - - 88 - 88 - - 84

84 - 84 - - 84 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fluoride mg/L 0.3 - 0.2 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 0.2 - 0.2 - - 0.3

0.2 - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L 5.7 - 256 - - 682 - - - 4.3 - 44 - - 58

5.4 - 245 - - 707 - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfate mg/L 18 - 18 - - 21 - - - - - - 18 - 18 - - 17

19 - 18 - - 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - <5 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05

0.1 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - 14.0 - <10 - - <10

<10 - <10 - - <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.4 12.0 9.9 9.3 8.2 6.6 13.2 12.3 9.5 8.6 7.9 6.9 15.7 12.2 11.5 9.7 8.2 7.4

14.4 11.7 10.0 9.3 8.3 6.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Turbidity NTU 0.5 - 0.6 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 0.6 - 0.4 - - 0.6

0.8 - 0.5 - - 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

pH S.U. NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 36.7 - 36.1 - - 34.7 - - - - - - 46.6 - 45.1 - - 44.4

37.3 - 35.9 - - 34.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 27.7 - 27.5 - - 26.6 - - - - - - 36.4 - 35.9 - - 35.5

28.0 - 27.2 - - 26.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L 8.9 - 8.6 - - 8.0 - - - - - - 10.2 - 9.2 - - 8.9

9.3 - 8.7 - - 7.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 32.1 24.6 14.8 5.5 0.8 4.2 32.2 25.9 15.5 4.4 0.5 <0.1 30.8 23.7 14.2 4.1 0.4 0.1

30.1 23.3 14.0 5.0 0.4 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 32.2 26.5 15.4 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 12.8 0.6 0.2 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 19.4 25.8 15.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 50 - <25 - - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - <25 <25 - <25 - - <25

67 - <25 - - <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 5.3 - 0.5 - - 0.6 3.5 <.01 <0.1 - - <0.1 4.0 - <0.1 - - 0.1

5.9 - 0.5 - - 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 - 22.5 - - 34.4 <10 34.6 27.8 - - 40.4 <10 - 26.7 - - 35.8

<10 - 23.0 - - 34.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Al (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <10 35.0 26.2 - - 38.6 - - - - - - 

 (a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
B-8

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 08/29/06(b) 09/13/06(c) 09/27/06

Sampling Location

IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 15.5 - - - - - 16.4 - - - - - 17.2 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 94 - 101 - - 101 - - - - - - 95 - 93 - - 95

Fluoride mg/L 0.3 - 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - - - - <0.1 - 0.2 - - 0.2

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - 0.8 - 16.2 - - 21.6

Sulfate mg/L 21 - 21 - - 22 - - - - - - 24 - 19 - - 20

Sulfide μg/L <5 - - - - - 6.2 - - - - - <5 - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - - - <0.05 - <0.05 - - <0.05

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 - <10 - - <10

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

13.4 11.4 10.4 9.6 7.8 6.9 13.8 12.6 10.5 9.9 8.4 7.0 14.1 12.8 12.5 10.4 9.4 8.5

14.0 11.5 10.8 9.3 7.9 6.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Turbidity NTU 0.3 - 0.5 - - 0.4 - - - - - - 0.7 - 0.2 - - 0.8

pH S.U. 8.3 8.2 8.0 - - 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.6 - - 8.2 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 15.8 15.6 15.6 - - 15.9 14.7 14.8 14.7 - - 14.7 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 266 251 252 - - 253 266 275 277 - - 263 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 47.2 - 47.9 - - 46.0

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.6 - 38.1 - - 36.4

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.7 - 9.8 - - 9.6

As (total) μg/L 29.3 32.9 23.1 7.1 0.7 <0.1 32.0 30.7 26.6 10.4 1.1 0.1 32.4 31.2 32.0 16.0 2.2 0.2

As (soluble) μg/L 31.2 29.3 21.8 - - <0.1 32.0 31.2 26.1 - - 0.1 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 3.6 1.6 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L 7.6 1.7 1.2 - - <0.1 9.8 1.8 0.5 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L 23.6 27.6 20.6 - - <0.1 22.2 29.4 25.6 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - - <25 <25 - <25 - - <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 5.2 - <0.1 - - <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 3.8 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 27.9 24.4 28.4 29.8 29.3 <10 27.2 23.3 - - 28.6 <10 - 24.5 - - 26.4

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 25.2 24.3 - - 28.8 <10 25.3 23.7 - - 27.4 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Samples were collected on 8/29/06 and 8/30/06 (only one set of samples were analyzed with the exception of silica (c) Water quality 

measurements taken on 09/20/06.
B-9

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 10/11/06(b) 10/26/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 17.7 - - - - - 18.6

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 91 - 91 - - 91

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - 4.6 - 36.7 - - 22.4

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sulfide μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.6 12.1 11.2 9.6 8.5 7.7 13.9 13.2 11.1 11.2 10.0 9.3

Turbidity NTU - - - - - - - - - - - - 

pH S.U. 8.0 8.0 7.9 - - 7.5 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a)

Temperature °C 15.1 14.8 14.8 - - 15.5 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a)

DO mg/L 2.2 1.5 1.4 - - 1.0 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a)

ORP mV 285 259 258 - - 257 NA(a) NA(a) - NA(a) - NA(a)

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (total) μg/L 34.7 32.8 36.9 22.2 3.3 0.2 34.0 30.4 37.2 29.3 7.0 0.6

As (soluble) μg/L 34.9 31.3 36.5 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 1.5 0.4 - - 35.6 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L 7.1 0.4 0.5 - - 0.6 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L 27.8 30.8 36.0 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 40 - <25 - - <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L 12 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 5.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.5 - <0.1 - - 0.2

Mn (soluble) μg/L 4.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 26.1 25.0 20.7 27.3 25.1 <10 - 21.6 - - 24.9

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 23.6 23.7 - - 24.4 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 10/16/06.
B-10

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 11/15/06(b) 11/29/06 12/13/06

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 19.3 - - - - - 19.7 - - - - - 20.3

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 96 - 90 - - 92 91 - 97 - - 95

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L - - - - - - 4.5 - 61.1 - - 26.1 0.5 - 30.5 - - 30.4

Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - 32.4 29.8 28.8 15.5 14.1 14.6 - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.1 13.2 13.0 11.6 11.0 9.4 13.2 11.6 10.8 9.7 7.7 8.0 13.6 12.8 12.4 11.3 10.0 9.0

pH S.U. 8.3 8.4 8.4 - - 8.2 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 14.6 15.1 15.3 - - 15.6 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L 0.6 0.5 0.8 - - 0.5 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 261 232 231 - - 232 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

As (total) μg/L 31.9 30.5 36.3 35.2 12.4 0.7 33.6 26.6 31.4 28.8 9.7 0.7 31.0 28.0 33.9 35.9 16.8 1.1

As (soluble) μg/L 32.4 33.8 37.1 - - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L 13.8 2.0 1.2 - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L 18.6 31.8 35.9 - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 43 <25 <25 - - <25 47 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 34 - <25 - - <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 4.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 5.0 - <0.1 - - <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 5.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 24.6 25.1 - - 27.7 <10 21.0 20.0 23.6 24.3 23.8 <10 - 18.6 - - 21.9

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 24.3 23.7 - - 26.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 11/16/06. 
B-11

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 12/19/06 01/10/07(b) 01/18/07

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 20.6 - - - - - 20.9 - - - - - 21.2 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 94 - 92 - - 92 - - - - - - 91 - 93 - - 90

Iodine (ICPMS) μg/L 0.6 - 17.9 - - 44.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.0 12.6 11.6 11.1 9.8 8.7 13.8 11.8 11.3 10.4 9.4 8.1 14.3 13.6 12.2 12.1 10.6 9.9

pH S.U. 8.3 8.3 8.1 - - 7.9 8.4 8.3 8.3 - - 8.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 12.7 13.8 13.1 - - 13.8 11.4 11.6 11.6 - - 12.5 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L 0.9 0.6 0.6 - - 0.7 - - - - - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 263 260 259 - - 259 298 270 267 - - 264 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

As (total) μg/L 31.6 30.2 32.4 39.9 19.9 1.4 32.1 28.9 33.1 32.8 17.1 1.6 33.0 33.9 34.8 40.1 24.5 3.4

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 32.8 29.6 34.0 - - 1.6 - - - - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 7.4 0.7 0.7 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 25.4 28.9 33.3 - - 1.3 - - - - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 46 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 50 <25 <25 - - <25 136 - 15 - - 15

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 31 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.5 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 7.3 - <0.1 - - <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 5.8 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 - 18.5 - - 21.2 <10 16.5 17.4 - - 20.7 3.1 - 24.8 - - 29.5

Al (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <10 15.7 16.9 - - 19.6 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator (b) Water quality measurements taken on 01/12/07.
B-12

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 01/31/07(b) 02/15/07 03/07/07

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 21.7 - - - - - 22.3 - - - - - 22.6 

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L - - - - - - 90 - 87 - - 90 - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 13.8 12.9 11.8 11.4 9.9 9.7 14.6 11.3 15.7 15.1 12.1 14.1 13.8 13.1 12.3 11.7 10.7 10.0

pH S.U. 8.4 8.2 8.2 - - 8.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

Temperature °C 13.9 14.5 14.7 - - 15.2 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

DO mg/L 2.6 1.3 1.2 - - 1.4 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

ORP mV 276 296 297 - - 309 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a)

As (total) μg/L 34.4 31.8 35.8 38.3 26.5 5.2 31.2 25.8 32.4 36.2 29.3 7.4 29.8 26.2 28.8 33.6 30.8 8.9

As (soluble) μg/L 33.1 30.3 32.7 - - 5.5 - - - - - - 28.8 24.9 27.4 - - 8.6

As (particulate) μg/L 1.3 1.5 3.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 1.0 1.3 1.4 - - 0.3

As (III) μg/L 13.9 1.2 1.0 - - 1.0 - - - - - - 8.6 0.6 0.3 - - 0.2

As (V) μg/L 19.2 29.1 31.7 - - 4.5 - - - - - - 20.2 24.3 27.1 - - 8.4

Fe (total) μg/L 30 <25 <25 - - <25 28.7 - <25 - - <25 28 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25

Mn (total) μg/L 6.1 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 5.9 - <0.1 - - <0.1 6.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L 6.0 <0.1 <0.1 - - 0.2 - - - - - - 5.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1

Al (total) μg/L <10 36.2 34.3 - - 40.9 <10 - 25.9 - - 31.1 <10 28.7 29.0 34.7 37.5 37.3

Al (soluble) μg/L <10 35.4 31.7 - - 38.6 - - - - - - <10 29.3 29.0 - - 36.5

(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator. (b) Water quality measurements taken on 02/06/07.
B-13

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 03/15/07(b) 03/28/07 04/19/07

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 23.0 - - - - - 23.8 - - - - - 24.7

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 121 - 118 - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Total P (as P) μg/L 12.4 15.1 11.6 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 14.4 13.5 13.0 10.7 1.4 0.5 13.9 12.8 11.7 11.0 1.8 0.4 - - - - - - 

pH S.U. NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 

Temperature °C NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 

DO mg/L NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 

ORP mV NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 

As (total) μg/L 32.7 28.6 32.5 15.0 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 28.5 34.0 23.5 <0.1 <0.1 35.0 31.2 33.2 30.8 0.5 0.3

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 32.0 27.2 32.7 - - <0.1 34.0 30.2 31.7 - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 0.9 1.3 1.3 - - <0.1 1.0 1.1 1.5 - - - 

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 8.9 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 12.8 1.9 0.8 - - - 

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 23.1 27.2 32.7 - - <0.1 21.3 28.3 31.0 - - - 

Fe (total) μg/L 25 - <25 - - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - <25 - - - - - - 

Mn (total) μg/L 6.1 - <0.1 - - 0.4 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 4.0 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 

Al (total) μg/L <10 - 29.5 - - <10 <10 27.5 26.4 - - <10 - - - - - - 

Al (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <10 24.7 24.2 - - <10 - - - - - - 

(a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator (b) Media changeout occurred on March 14, 2007 and TC column was moved to lead position and named TA.

Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Susanville, CA (Continued)

Sampling Date 05/16/07 06/13/07

Sampling Location IN OA OB TA TB TC IN OA OB TA TB TC

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume BV - - - - - 26.2 - - - - - 27.3

pH S.U. NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 8.1 8.2 8.2 - - 7.7

Temperature °C NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 16.5 17.1 16.4 - - 16.9

DO mg/L NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 1.2 1.2 1.0 - - 1.4

ORP mV NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) - - 222 209 203 - - 195

As (total) μg/L 35.4 28.3 33.4 30.9 <0.1 <0.1 33.2 33.6 31.3 30.9 1.0 <0.1

As (soluble) μg/L 34.5 26.5 32.0 - - - 31.8 32.6 29.3 - - - 

As (particulate) μg/L 0.9 1.8 1.4 - - - 1.4 1.0 2.0 - - - 

As (III) μg/L 11.3 1.1 0.2 - - - 10.1 2.7 <0.1 - - - 

As (V) μg/L 23.2 25.4 31.9 - - - 21.7 29.9 29.3 - - - 

 (a) Water quality measurements not taken by operator.
APPENDIX C 

ARSENIC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
C-1

Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column A

Bed Volumes 

Treated between 

Sampling Points

Concentration (μg/L)

μg/L × 

BV(a)

Mass 

Influent OA Difference (μg)

0 32.0 0.5 31.5 - -

500 31.1 2.1 29.0 15,125 642,324

1,300 33.6 6.9 26.7 36,205 1,537,543

1,900 32.4 3.2 29.2 53,105 2,255,247

800 30.4 6.3 24.1 21,320 905,411

100 31.5 10.7 20.8 2,245 95,340

800 32.8 17.1 15.7 14,600 620,028

500 31.1 17.9 13.2 7,225 306,829

400 33.6 23.3 10.3 4,700 199,598

800 29.2 29.1 0.1 4,160 176,666

700 30.1 30.4 0.0 35 1,486

Total Arsenic Mass Removed (μg) 6,740,472

Mass of Media (as is) in Oxidation Column A (mg) 34,700,400

Media Loading (μg of As/mg of dry media) 0.20

(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal

Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk 

density of 51 lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content. 

OA = after Oxidation Column A
C-2

Arsenic Mass Removed by Oxidation Column B

Bed Volumes 

Treated between 

Sampling Points

Concentration (μg/L)

μg/L × 

BV(a)

Mass 

OA OB Difference (μg)

0 3.2 0.6 2.6 - -

800 6.3 0.4 5.9 3,400 144,390

100 10.7 0.6 10.1 800 33,974

800 17.1 0.8 16.3 10,560 448,459

500 17.9 0.8 17.1 8,350 354,605

400 23.3 1.8 21.5 7,720 327,851

800 29.1 5.5 23.6 18,040 766,117

700 30.4 7.2 23.2 16,380 695,621

600 29.1 9.7 19.4 12,780 542,737

500 24.5 10.7 13.8 8,300 352,482

700 29.5 27.5 2.0 5,530 234,846

700 27.5 23.2 4.3 2,205 93,641

3,500 24.6 16.3 8.3 22,050 936,413

300 28.1 21.1 7.0 2,295 97,463

300 32.8 19.5 13.3 3,045 129,314

100 24.6 14.8 9.8 1,155 49,050

200 25.9 15.5 10.4 2,020 85,785

200 23.7 14.2 9.5 1,990 84,511

600 32.9 23.1 9.8 5,790 245,888

900 30.7 26.6 4.1 6,255 265,635

800 31.2 32.0 0.0 1,640 69,647

Total Arsenic Mass Removed (μg) 5,958,431

Mass of Media (as is) in Oxidation Column B (mg) 34,700,400

Media Loading (μg of As/mg of dry media) 0.18

(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal

Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51 

lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.

OA = after Oxidation Column A 

OB = after Oxidation Column B
C-3

Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column A

Bed Volumes 

Treated between 

Sampling Points

Concentration (μg/L)

μg/L × 

BV(a)

Mass

OB TA Difference (μg)

0 0.6 0.1 0.6 - -

800 0.4 0.1 0.4 360 15,288

100 0.6 0.1 0.5 43 1,805

800 0.8 0.1 0.8 500 21,234

500 0.8 0.1 0.8 375 15,925

400 1.8 0.2 1.6 470 19,960

800 5.5 0.2 5.3 2,760 117,211

700 7.2 0.1 7.2 4,358 185,053

600 9.7 0.1 9.6 5,025 213,400

500 10.7 0.1 10.7 5,063 214,993

700 27.5 3.1 24.4 12,268 520,973

700 23.2 0.7 22.5 16,415 697,107

3,500 16.3 5.4 10.9 58,450 2,482,237

300 21.1 6.4 14.7 3,840 163,076

300 19.5 6.2 13.3 4,200 178,364

100 14.8 5.5 9.3 1,130 47,989

200 15.5 4.4 11.1 2,040 86,634

200 14.2 4.1 10.1 2,120 90,032

600 23.1 7.1 16.0 7,830 332,522

900 26.6 10.4 16.2 14,490 615,357

800 32.0 16.0 16.0 12,880 546,984

500 36.9 22.2 14.7 7,675 325,940

900 37.2 29.3 7.9 10,170 431,897

700 36.3 35.2 1.1 3,150 133,773

400 31.4 28.8 2.6 740 31,426

600 33.9 35.9 0.0 780 33,125

Total Arsenic Mass Removed (μg) 7,522,304

Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column A (mg) 34,700,400

Media Loading (μg of As/mg of dry media) 0.23

(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal

Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51 

lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.

OB = after Oxidation Column B

TA = after Adsorption Column A
C-4

Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column B

Bed Volumes 

Treated between 

Sampling Points

Concentration (μg/L)

μg/L × 

BV(a)

Mass

TA TB Difference (μg)

0 0.2 0.2 0.0 - -

800 0.2 0.1 0.1 40 1,699

700 0.1 0.1 0.0 35 1,486

600 0.1 0.1 0.1 15 637

500 0.1 0.1 0.0 13 531

700 3.1 0.5 2.6 910 38,646

700 0.7 0.1 0.7 1,138 48,307

3,500 5.4 0.6 4.8 9,538 405,036

300 6.4 0.6 5.8 1,590 67,524

300 6.2 0.6 5.6 1,710 72,620

100 5.5 0.8 4.7 515 21,871

200 4.4 0.5 3.9 860 36,522

200 4.1 0.4 3.7 760 32,275

600 7.1 0.7 6.4 3,030 128,677

900 10.4 1.1 9.3 7,065 300,034

800 16.0 2.2 13.8 9,240 392,402

500 22.2 3.3 18.9 8,175 347,173

900 29.3 7.0 22.3 18,540 787,351

700 35.2 12.4 22.8 15,785 670,353

400 28.8 9.7 19.1 8,380 355,879

600 35.9 16.8 19.1 11,460 486,680

300 39.9 19.9 20.0 5,865 249,073

300 32.8 17.1 15.7 5,355 227,415

300 40.1 24.5 15.6 4,695 199,386

500 38.3 26.5 11.8 6,850 290,904

600 36.2 29.3 6.9 5,610 238,244

300 33.6 30.8 2.8 1,455 61,791

Total Arsenic Mass Removed (μg) 5,462,514

Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column B (mg) 34,700,400

Media Loading (μg of As/mg of dry media) 0.17

(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal

Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51 

lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.

TA = after Adsorption Column A

TB = after Adsorption Column B
C-5

Arsenic Mass Removed by Adsorption Column C

Bed Volumes 

Treated between 

Sampling Points

Concentration (μg/L)

μg/L × 

BV(a)

Mass 

TB TC Difference (μg)

0 0.1 0.1 0.0 - -

700 0.5 0.1 0.4 140 5,945

700 0.1 0.1 0.0 140 5,945

3,500 0.6 0.1 0.6 963 40,875

300 0.6 0.1 0.6 165 7,007

300 0.6 0.1 0.6 165 7,007

100 0.8 0.1 0.8 65 2,760

200 0.5 0.1 0.5 120 5,096

200 0.4 0.1 0.3 75 3,185

600 0.7 0.1 0.7 285 12,103

900 1.1 0.1 1.0 743 31,532

800 2.2 0.2 2.0 1,200 50,961

500 3.3 0.2 3.1 1,275 54,146

900 7.0 0.6 6.4 4,275 181,549

700 12.4 0.7 11.7 6,335 269,033

400 9.7 0.7 9.0 4,140 175,816

600 16.8 1.1 15.7 7,410 314,686

300 19.9 1.4 18.5 5,130 217,859

300 17.1 1.6 15.5 5,100 216,585

300 24.5 3.4 21.1 5,490 233,148

500 26.5 5.2 21.3 10,600 450,158

600 29.3 7.4 21.9 12,960 550,381

300 30.8 8.9 21.9 6,570 279,013

400 32.5 15.0 17.5 7,880 334,645

800 34.0 23.5 10.5 11,200 475,638

900 33.2 30.8 2.4 5,805 246,525

1,500 33.4 30.9 2.5 3,675 156,069

1,100 31.3 30.9 0.4 1,595 67,736

Total Arsenic Mass Removed (μg) 4,395,407

Mass of Media (as is) in Adsorption Column C (mg) 34,700,400

Media Loading (μg of As/mg of dry media) 0.13

(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal

Dry media in each column = 32,965,380 mg based on a bulk density of 51 

lb/ft3 and 5% moisture content.

TB = after Adsorption Column B

TC = after Adsorption Column C