EPA/600/R-09/016 

February 2009 

Arsenic and Antimony Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media 

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at 

South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID), NV 

Final Performance Evaluation Report 

by 

Lydia J. Cumming 

Abraham S.C. Chen 

Lili Wang 

Battelle 

Columbus, OH 43201-2693 

Contract No. 68-C-00-185 

Task Order No. 0019 

for 

Thomas J. Sorg 

Task Order Manager 

Water Supply and Water Resources Division 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Cincinnati, 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) 0019 and 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. 
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

iii
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of Washoe County Department of Water 

Resources (WCDWR) in Nevada. The WCDWR staff monitored the treatment system daily and collected 

samples from the treatment and distribution systems on a regular schedule throughout this reporting 

period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without their efforts. 
ABSTRACT 

This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the operation of an 

arsenic and antimony removal technology demonstrated at the South Truckee Meadows General 

Improvement District (STMGID) in Washoe County, NV. The objectives of the project were to evaluate 

(1) the effectiveness of a Siemens granular ferric hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media system in removing 

arsenic and antimony to meet the respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 and 6 μg/L, (2) 

the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and 

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

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

The GFH system was a fixed-bed adsorption system that used GFH, an iron-based media, to adsorb 

dissolved arsenic and antimony in drinking water supplies. When the media reached its adsorption 

capacity, it was removed from the vessels and replaced with new media. Spent media was disposed of at 

a sanitary landfill after passing the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. GFH was 

produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive agreement. 

Designed to treat up to 350 gal/min (gpm) of water, the GFH system at the STMGID site consisted of 

three 66-in diameter, 72-in tall vertical carbon steel pressure vessels configured in parallel. Based on the 

total media volume of 240 ft3

, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each vessel (and the entire system) 

was 5.1 min and the hydraulic loading rate was 4.9 gpm/ft2

. 

During Run 1 extending from September 27, 2005 through May 3, 2006, the GFH system operated for a 

total of 943 hr. After it began normal daily operation on November 18, 2005, the system operated an 

average of 3.8 hr/day. The average flowrate during the 32-week study period was 275 gpm, which was 

21% lower than the design flowrate. The lower average flowrate resulted in a higher average EBCT, i.e., 

6.5 min. The system experienced little pressure buildup during operation. Major operational difficulties 

involved the system control and data acquisition (SCADA) and programmable logic controller (PLC) 

interface and a mechanical problem with the pneumatic butterfly valves for the backwash discharge line. 

Otherwise the system was relatively simple to operate, requiring little attention from the operator. The 

daily demand on the operator was typically 30 min for routine activities, including visual inspection of the 

system and recording of operational parameters. 

Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 μg/L from the GFH system occurred at approximately 7,200 bed volumes 

(BV). Breakthrough of antimony at 6 μg/L occurred at approximately 3,000 BV. The media run length 

for arsenic was much shorter than the vendor-projected working capacity of 38,000 BV. The 

unexpectedly short run length was probably caused by the presence of competing anions, such as silica 

and phosphorous. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and 

averaged 72.6 mg/L (as SiO2). Total phosphorous (as P) concentrations ranged from 89 to 150 μg/L and 

averaged 115 μg/L with some phosphorous existing as orthophosphate. Both silica and phosphorous were 

removed effectively by GFH, with silica reaching complete breakthrough about halfway through the 32-

week study period and phosphorous never reaching complete breakthrough. 

Because of the short run lengths experienced, another adsorptive media, CFH-0818, a dry iron-based 

media supplied by Kemira Water Solutions, Inc., was selected, in conjunction with GFH, for a follow-on 

study in Run 2. The selection of the media was based on the results of a series of rapid small-scale 

column tests (RSSCT) performed under two separate projects. Prior to Run 2, one of the three vessels 

was replaced with GFH while the other two were replaced with CFH-0818. Run 2 took place from April 

5, 2007, through July 3, 2007, during which time the system operated for a total of 1,166 hr. The system 

was operated at similar flowrates, which averaged 276 gpm. The system daily operating time was longer 

than that in Run 1, with an average of 13 hr/day. 

v
vi

In Run 2, breakthrough of arsenic at 10 μg/L occurred at approximately 3,700 BV; breakthrough of 

antimony at 6 μg/L occurred at approximately 1,225 BV. The media run length for arsenic was shorter 

than the RSSCT projected working capacity of 9,000 to 16,000 BV. Significantly lower arsenic 

concentrations in source water (i.e., 48.9 μg/L on average) might have contributed, in part, to the longer 

run length observed during the RSSCT tests. However, the RSSCT was useful to help predict the 

performance of a full-scale system by indicating the water was challenging to all adsorptive media tested. 

Treated water was blended with water from four other STMGID wells about one mile downstream of the 

adsorption system. During Run 1, water samples were collected at three locations in the distribution 

system, including one non-residential location prior to the blending point and two residences after the 

blending point, to evaluate the impact of the adsorption system on water chemistry in the distribution 

system. As a combined result of treatment by the GFH system and blending with other source water, 

arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution system were significantly reduced to below the 

respective MCLs (except for one exceedance). There were no noticeable changes in lead or copper 

concentrations measured in the first draw samples from two residences. The lead concentrations 

remained low (i.e., 1.5 μg/L or less) in all samples; copper concentrations fluctuated from <1 to 176 μg/L, 

far below the action level of 1.3 mg/L. 

The capital investment cost of $232,147 included $157,647 for equipment, $16,000 for site engineering, 

and $58,500 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd), the capital 

cost was $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of design capacity. The O&M cost evaluated in this report included 

only the incremental costs associated with media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and 

labor. The actual cost to change out the media in all three adsorption tanks was $58,188, including 

replacement media, shipping, spent media analysis and disposal, and labor. At the time this report was 

prepared, the CFH-0818 was taken off the market indefinitely for making improvements. The unit O&M 

cost curve per 1,000 gal of water treated was developed based on the unit cost of GFH and as a function 

of the media run length to 10-μg/L arsenic or 6-μg/L antimony breakthrough in the combined effluent. 
CONTENTS

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................................................iv 

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................v 

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................viii 

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................viii 

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................viii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................x 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection ................................................................................4 

 3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules .......................................................................6 

3.3.1 Source Water .........................................................................................................6 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water ...........................................................................................6 

3.3.3 Backwash Wsatewater and Residual Solids ..........................................................9 

3.3.4 Distribution System Water.....................................................................................9 

 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 ...........................................................................11 

 3.5 Analytical Procedures ..........................................................................................................11 

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................13 

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

4.1.1 Source Water Quality...........................................................................................14 

4.1.2 Distribution System .............................................................................................15 

 4.2 Treatment Process Description ............................................................................................17 

 4.3 Permitting and System Installation ......................................................................................23 

4.3.1 Permitting ............................................................................................................23 

4.3.2 Building Construction..........................................................................................23 

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

 4.4 System Operation.................................................................................................................25 

4.4.1 Operational Parameters........................................................................................25 

4.4.2 Backwash.............................................................................................................27 

4.4.3 RSSCT .................................................................................................................28 

4.4.4 Media Loading and Removal...............................................................................28 

4.4.5 Residuals Management ........................................................................................29 

4.4.6 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity .....................................................29 

 4.5 System Performance.............................................................................................................30 

4.5.1 Treatment Plant....................................................................................................30 

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling.........................................................................41 

vii
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling.........................................................................................44 

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling ..................................................................46 

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

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

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost.........................................................................49 

5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................52 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA

Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES

FIGURES 

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations.......................................................................8 

Figure 3-2. Distribution Sampling Map.....................................................................................................10 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House.......................................................................................13 

Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System.............................................................................14 

Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media ..................................................................................................17 

Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System ...............................................................20 

Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station .................................................................................................20 

Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge ...............................................................................................................21 

Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller..............................................................................................22 

Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components.....................22 

Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House .................................................23 

Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel ......................................................................................24 

Figure 4-11. Photographs of Media Replacement......................................................................................29 

Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and Effluent during Run 1..............33 

Figure 4-13. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves...............................................................................................34 

Figure 4-14. Antimony Breakthrough Curves ...........................................................................................36 

Figure 4-15. Silica Breakthrough Curves ..................................................................................................38 

Figure 4-16. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves.......................................................................................39 

Figure 4-17. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System after System Startup .....................48 

Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System ............................................51 

TABLES 

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

Table 3-1. Predemonstration and Interim Activities(a) and Completion Dates.............................................5 

Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities.............................................5 

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses...............................................................................................7 

Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data ....................................................................................15 

Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data..............................................................16 

Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH and CFH-0818 Adsorptive Media ........................18 

Table 4-4. Design Specifications of Siemens System................................................................................19 

Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens Adsorptive System Operations..............................................................26 

Table 4-6. Number of Bed Volumes until Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 μg/L.............................................28 

viii
Table 4-7. Summary of Run 1 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Competing Anions.........31 

Table 4-8. Summary of Run 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony and Competing Anions..........32 

Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements ........................................40 

Table 4-10. Summary of Run 2 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements ......................................42 

Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results...............................................................................42 

Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results......................................................................................43 

Table 4-13. TCLP and Other Waste Characterization Results for Spent Media........................................44 

Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Spent Media* ...................................................................45 

Table 4-15. Summary of Arsenic Loading Calculations for Run 1 and Run 2..........................................45 

Table 4-16. Distribution System Sampling Results...................................................................................47 

Table 4-17. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System...........................................................49 

Table 4-18. Summary of O&M Cost .........................................................................................................50 

ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

∆p differential pressure 

AAL American Analytical Laboratories 

Al aluminum 

AM adsorptive media 

As arsenic 

BV bed volume(s) 

Ca calcium 

Cl2 chlorine 

C/F coagulation/filtration 

CMU concrete masonry unit 

Cu copper 

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 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

hp horsepower 

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

ID identification 

IX ion exchange 

kwh kilowatt-hour(s) 

LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDL method detection limit 

MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association 

Mg magnesium 

Mn manganese 

mV millivolts 

Na sodium 

NA not available 

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite 

x
xi

ND not detected 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

NTU nephlemetric turbidity units 

O&M operation and maintenance 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

ORP oxidation-reduction potential 

P&IDs piping and instrumentation diagrams 

Pb lead 

PE professional engineer 

PO4 orthophosphate 

PLC programmable logic controller 

PM process modification 

psi pounds per square inch 

psig pounds per square inch (gauge) 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act 

RPD relative percent difference 

RSSCT rapid small-scale column test 

Sb antimony 

SCADA system control and data acquisition 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SiO2 silica 

SO4 sulfate 

STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District 

STS Severn Trent Services 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TOC total organic carbon 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WCDWR Washoe County Department of Water Resources 

WRWC White Rock Water Company
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

water system at South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID) in Washoe County, 

NV was selected to participate in this demonstration project. 

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 demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical 

reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. Using the 

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

programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. A granular ferric 

hydroxide (GFH) adsorptive media system proposed by Siemens (formerly known as USFilter) was 

selected for demonstration at the STMGID site in Washoe County, NV, for the removal of arsenic and 

antimony from drinking water supplies. 

Two test runs were conducted during the demonstration at STMGID. Run 1 utilized Siemens’ GFH 

adsorptive media in all three adsorption vessels. Because of the short run length experienced, both GFH 

(in one vessel) and a Kemira CFH-0818 iron-based adsorptive media (in two vessels) were used in Run 2. 

The Kemira media was selected based on the results of a series of rapid small-scale column tests 

(RSSCTs) and media cost. 

1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 

The technologies selected for the Round 1 EPA Arsenic Removal demonstration include nine adsorptive 

media systems, one ion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process modification 

with iron addition. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, and key source water 

quality parameters of the 12 demonstration sites. 

1
2

An overview of the technology selection and system design (Wang et al., 2004) and the associated capital 

cost (Chen et al., 2004) is provided on the EPA Arsenic Treatment Technology site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/tech/research.html. As of November 2008, all of 

the systems have been operational and 11 performance evaluations have been completed. 

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

Source Water Quality

Demonstration Site

Technology 

(Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

As 

(μg/L)

Fe 

(μg/L)

pH 

(S.U.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; IX = ion exchange; PM = process modification; 

MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows 

General Improvement District; WRWC = White Rock Water Company; STS = Severn Trent Services 

(a) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 40 gpm. 

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

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

(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to reduced flowrate of 30 gpm. 

1.3 Project Objectives 

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

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

objectives of the demonstration study at STMGID are to: 

 Evaluate the performance of the GFH arsenic and antimony removal technology 

for small systems such as STMGID. 

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

skill levels. 

 Characterize process residuals produced by the technology. 

 Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technology. 

This report summarizes the results obtained during the demonstration study at STMGID in Washoe 

County, NV, from September 27, 2005, through May 3, 2006, for Run 1 and from April 5, 2007, through 

July 3, 2007, for Run 2. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality (both across 

the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals characterization, and capital and O&M cost. 
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the information collected during Run 1 and Run 2, the following observations were summarized 

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

Performance of the arsenics and antimony removal technology for use on small systems: 

 GFH media can remove arsenic and antimony to below their respective MCLs. However, the 

media run length for either contaminant was short, with a maximum of 7,200 bed volumes 

(BV) for arsenic and 3,000 BV for antimony. The unexpectedly short media life might have 

been caused by the presence of high concentrations of silica and phosphorous, which 

averaged 72.6 mg/L (as SiO2) and 115.2 μg/L (as P), respectively, in raw water. 

 Results of a laboratory rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) confirmed the short run 

lengths of the full-scale GFH system. 

 Significant reductions in pH (i.e., from 7.1 to <4.5), alkalinity (i.e., from 92 to <1.0 mg/L [as 

CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals (i.e., from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as Cl2]) were observed in the 

system effluent during the first several days of system operation of Run 1, indicating removal 

of bicarbonate ions and consumption of chlorine by the GFH media. 

Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels: 

 Under normal operating conditions, the system requires little attention from the operator. The 

daily demand on the operator is typically 30 min for routine activities including visual 

inspection of the system and recording of operational parameters. 

 Operation of the adsorption system does not require additional skills beyond those necessary 

to operate the existing water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State of Nevada 

certified Level 3 operator. 

Process residuals produced by the technology: 

 The spent GFH media passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test 

and can be disposed of at a local landfill for non-hazardous wastes. 

 Backwash was not required when operating the adsorption system. 

Cost of the technology: 

 Using the system’s rated capacity of 350 gal/min (gpm) (or 504,000 gal/day [gpd]), the 

capital cost is $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd). 

 The cost of media replacement is the most significant add-on operational cost. The cost of 

replacing 240 ft3

 of GFH media in all three adsorption tanks is estimated to be $71,158, 

equivalent to a unit cost of $5.51/1,000 gal to $15.51/1,000 gal if the changeout is governed 

by the 10-μg/L arsenic breakthrough curve. If the changeout is governed by the 6-μg/L 

antimony breakthrough curves, the unit cost equivalent is even higher, ranging from 

$13.21/1,000 gal to $32.36/1,000 gal. 

3
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 Siemens adsorptive media system began on September 27, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of 

data collected as part of the technology evaluation process. 

The overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and 

antimony (a co-contaminant) to below the respective target MCLs of 10 and 6 g/L through the collection 

of weekly and monthly water samples across the treatment train. The study was initially intended to take 

place over a one-year period. However, because of short run length issues encountered during the first 

run, the performance monitoring was temporarily halted on May 3, 2006, with the exception of collecting 

a set of backwash wastewater/solids samples on September 12, 2006. In the interim, the system was 

operated, when needed, with blending to meet the MCLs. The performance monitoring resumed after 

rebedding of the three adsorption vessels on April 5, 2007, with media selected based on the results of a 

series of RSSCT tests performed under a separate project (Westerhoff et al., 2008). The interim period 

between the two test runs was longer than desired because of difficulties with obtaining an acceptable 

quote for performing media changeout. 

The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency 

and extent of repairs and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded 

by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. 

The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data 

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

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

and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and 

safety practices. The staffing requirements for 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 gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and 

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

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

chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. 

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 

The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following the 

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. During every site visit, the plant operator recorded 

system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer and hour meter readings on a Daily System 

Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution level; and conducted visual 

inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator contacted 

the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant 

operator recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, 

materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On 

a weekly basis, the plant operator measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction 

potential (ORP), and residual chlorine onsite, and recorded the data on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality 

Parameters Log Sheet. 

4
Table 3-1. Predemonstration and Interim Activities(a) and Completion Dates

Activity Date 

Introductory Meeting Held 08/20/03 

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor 08/25/03 

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued 09/03/03 

Final Letter of Understanding Issued 09/19/03 

Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle 10/01/03 

Purchase Order Completed and Signed 05/13/04 

Engineering Package Submitted to Washoe County Health Department 07/26/04 

Final Study Plan Issued 09/09/04 

Permit Issued by Washoe County Health Department 10/20/04 

Building Permit Issued 11/19/04 

Building Construction Initiated 11/22/04 

Building Construction Completed 03/18/05 

Siemens Equipment Shipped to Demonstration Site 03/21/05 

Plumbing of Siemens GFH System Completed 04/18/05 

Hydraulic Test Suspended due to High Wellhead Pressure that 

Exceeded Pressure Rating of Adsorption Tanks 

04/25/05 

Well Pump Reconfiguration Completed 09/06/05 

Hydraulic Test and Media Loading Completed 09/14/05 

Run 1 Performance Evaluation Commenced 09/27/05 

Laboratory RSSCT Completed(a) 02/27/06 

Field RSSCT Analysis Completed/Media Selected(a) 07/07/06 

Media Replacement Completed(a) 04/05/07 

Run 2 Performance Evaluation Commenced 04/05/07 

(a) Interim activities taking place between Runs 1 and 2. 

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

Evaluation 

Objectives Data Collection 

Performance -Ability to consistently remove arsenic and antimony to below 10 and 6 

g/L, respectively, in treated water 

Reliability -Unscheduled system downtime 

-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems 

encountered, materials and supplies needed, and labor and cost incurred 

System O&M and 

Operator Skill 

Requirements 

-Pre- and post-treatment requirements 

-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection 

-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers 

-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, 

and complexity of tasks 

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and 

safety practices 

Residual 

Management 

-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by 

process 

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

-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor 

5
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 and spent media disposal, 

chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system 

O&M, troubleshooting and repair, 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, replenishing 

the NaOCl solution, 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 the system performance, samples were collected routinely by the operator 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, 2003). The procedure for arsenic 

speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP. 

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit on August 20, 2003, one set of source water 

samples was collected and speciated using arsenic speciation kits described in 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. Analyses for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3. 

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the first run of the system performance evaluation study, 

samples were collected by the plant operator weekly, on a four-week cycle, for on- and off-site analyses. 

For the first week of each four-week cycle, samples taken at the wellhead (IN) and after Vessels A, B, and 

C combined (TT) were speciated onsite and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for monthly 

treatment plant water. For the next three weeks, samples collected at IN and after each adsorption vessel 

(i.e., TA, TB, and TC) were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the weekly treatment plant 

water. A few exceptions include: 

 Weekly sampling during the weeks of October 17, November 21, December 19, and 

December 26, 2005, was not performed. 

 Weekly sampling during February 7 through March 21, 2006, was reduced to biweekly. 

 Monthly sampling after March 31, 2006, was reduced to bimonthly. 

 Orthophosphate was replaced with phosphorus after January 10, 2006, due to difficulties 

of meeting the 48-hr holding time requirement for orthophosphate. 

Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each 

sampling location. 

During Run 2 of the study, the weekly sampling was reduced to once every three to four weeks and 

monthly speciation sampling was discontinued. Samples were collected at IN, TA, TB, TC for total P, 

SiO2, As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total), and Sb (total). On-site measurements for pH, temperature, DO, 

and ORP were performed during each sampling event. Samples also were analyzed for free and total 

chlorine at the after prechlorination (AC) and the TT locations. 

6
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analyses

Sample 

Type 

Samplin 

 Locations(a)

No. of 

Samples Frequency Analytes 

No. of 

Sampling 

Events 

Source 

Water 

IN 1 Once 

(during 

initial site 

visit) 

Off-site: As (total and 

soluble), As(III), As(V), 

Sb (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), 

Al (total and soluble), 

V (total and soluble), 

Mo (total and soluble), Na, 

Ca, Mg, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4, 

TOC, alkalinity, and pH 

Pre-Run 1: 1 

IN, TA, TB, and TC 4 Run 1: 

Weekly(b)

Run 2: once 

every three 

to four 

weeks(d) 

On-Site: pH, temperature, DO, 

ORP, and chlorine(c)

Off-Site: As (total), Sb (total), 

Fe (total), Mn (total), P (total), 

SiO2, alkalinity, and turbidity 

Run 1: 18 

Run 2: 3 

Treatment 

Plant Water 

IN, and TT 2 Run 1:

Monthly(b)

Run 2:

None

On-Site: pH, temperature, DO, 

ORP, and chlorine(c)

Off-Site: As (total and 

soluble), As(III), As(V), 

Sb (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble), Ca, 

Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4

(f), 

P (total), alkalinity, and 

turbidity 

Run 1: 6(e) 

Run 2: 0 

Distribution 

Water 

Three LCR Locations 3 Monthly Total As, Sb, Fe, Mn, Cu, and 

Pb, pH, and alkalinity 

Pre-Run 1: 4 

Run 1: 7

Run 2: 0 

Backwash 

Water 

Backwash Discharge 

Line 

3 Once As (total and soluble), 

Sb (total and soluble), 

Fe (total and soluble), 

Mn (total and soluble) 

TDS, TSS, and pH 

Run 1: 1 

Run 2: 0 

Backwash 

Solids 

Backwash Discharge 

Line 

3 Once Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca, V, Mn, Fe, 

Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Sb, Ba, 

and Pb 

Run 1: 1 

Run 2: 0 

Spent Media One to Three Vessels 

per Media 

1 to 3 per 

media 

Once TCLP metals 

Mg, Al, Si, P, Ca, V, Mn, Fe, 

Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Sb, Ba, 

and Pb 

Run 1: 1 

Run 2: 1 

(a) IN = at wellhead; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TC = after Vessel C; TT = after effluent from 

Vessels A, B, and C combined; abbreviations corresponding to sampling locations shown in Figure 3-1. 

(b) Run 1 weekly sampling skipped during weeks of 10/17/05, 11/21/05, 12/19/05, and 12/26/05; sampling frequency 

reduced from weekly to biweekly during 02/07/06 through 03/21/06 and from monthly to bimonthly after 03/31/06. 

(c) Chlorine measured at AC and TT only. 

(d) Alkalinity and turbidity analyses discontinued. 

(e) Samples also collected at TA, TB, and TC locations. 

(f) PO4 replaced with P (total) analysis beginning 01/10/06. 

7
MEDIA 

TANK

A

MEDIA 

TANK

B

INFLUENT

(STMGID WELL #9)

South Truckee Meadows 

General Improvement District

Reno, NV

GFH Technology

Design Flow: 350 gpm

TCLP

SEWER

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly

Monthly

Footnotes

(a) On-site analyses

(b) Blending with other source water

(c) PO4 was replaced with P (total) 

beginning 1/10/06

pH, TDS,

turbidity,

As (soluble),

Fe (soluble),

Mn (soluble)

Sb (soluble)

IN

MEDIA 

TANK

C

TT

TA

DA: Cl2

AC

LEGEND

LEGEND

IN Influent

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

Chlorination

After Tanks A, B, and C 

Combined TT

TA After Tank (A, B, C)

Water Sampling Locations

DA: Cl2

AC After Chlorination

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

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

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

Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, alkalinity

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

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

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

Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, alkalinity

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

As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),

Sb (total), SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, 

alkalinity

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

As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),

Sb (total), SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, 

alkalinity

BLENDING(b)

BW SS

chlorine

chlorine

TB

TC

MEDIA 

TANK

A

MEDIA 

TANK

B

INFLUENT

(STMGID WELL #9)

South Truckee Meadows 

General Improvement District

Reno, NV

GFH Technology

Design Flow: 350 gpm

TCLP

SEWER

DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM

Weekly

Monthly

Footnotes

(a) On-site analyses

(b) Blending with other source water

(c) PO4 was replaced with P (total) 

beginning 1/10/06

pH, TDS,

turbidity,

As (soluble),

Fe (soluble),

Mn (soluble)

Sb (soluble)

IN

MEDIA 

TANK

C

TT

TA

DA: Cl2

AC

LEGEND

LEGEND

IN Influent

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

Chlorination

After Tanks A, B, and C 

Combined TT

TA After Tank (A, B, C)

Water Sampling Locations

DA: Cl2

AC After Chlorination

LEGEND

LEGEND

IN Influent

BW Backwash Sampling Location

SS Sludge Sampling Location

Process Flow

Backwash Flow

Chlorination

After Tanks A, B, and C 

Combined TT

TA After Tank (A, B, C)

Water Sampling Locations

DA: Cl2

AC After Chlorination

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

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

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

Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, alkalinity

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

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

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

Sb (total and soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, 

SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, alkalinity

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

As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),

Sb (total), SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, 

alkalinity

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

As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),

Sb (total), SiO2, PO4

(c), turbidity, 

alkalinity

BLENDING(b)

BW SS

chlorine

chlorine

TB

TC

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations

8
9

3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater and Residual Solids. Backwash wastewater samples were collected 

during the September 12, 2006, backwash event. A sidestream of backwash water was directed into a 

clean, 32-gal container over the duration of backwash for each vessel. After the content in the container 

was thoroughly mixed, composite samples were collected and/or filtered onsite with 0.45-μm filters. 

Analytes for the backwash samples are listed in Table 3-3. The solids in the 32-gal plastic container were 

allowed to settle and the supernatant was carefully siphoned using a piece of plastic tubing to avoid 

agitation of settled solids in the container. The remaining solids/water mixture was then transferred to a 

1-gal plastic jar. After solids in the jar were settled and the supernatant was carefully decanted, one 

aliquot of the solids/water mixture was air-dried before being acid-digested and analyzed for the metals 

listed in Table 3-3. 

The other residual solid produced by the treatment process was spent media. Spent GFH media samples 

were collected on March 27, 2007, using a long-handled scoop, while the spent media was being removed 

from the vessels. Grab samples were collected from the top (0 to 6 in depth), middle (17 to 23 in), and 

bottom layers (34 to 40 in). The media collected from each layer was well-mixed in a clean 5-gal pail 

prior to being filled in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle. One 

aliquot of each sample was tested for TCLP and another aliquot air dried for metal analyses. 

Composite samples of the spent GFH media were collected on February 2, 2007, prior to the media 

replacement for site-specific waste characterization required by the local landfill: TCLP regulated metals 

(i.e., Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Hg, Pb, and Se), TCLP regulated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), paint 

filter test, and pH. These samples were collected by the operator under direction of the contractor 

responsible for rebedding the media. 

At the end of Run 2 on July 3, 2007, one spent sample each of GFH and CFH-0818 was collected 

approximately 2 in beneath the bed surface and transferred to an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth HDPE 

bottle. These samples were analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3. 

 

3.3.4 Distribution System Water. During the first run of the demonstration, 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, antimony, lead, and copper levels. 

Prior to the system startup from June to September 2004, four sets of baseline distribution water samples 

were collected from three locations within the distribution system. Following system startup, distribution 

system sampling continued monthly at the same locations. Distribution system water sampling was not 

performed during the second run of the demonstration because the treated water was blended and it would 

not be possible to differentiate the impact caused by the two different media. 

The three sampling locations included two residences, which are part of the current STMGID Lead and 

Copper Rule (LCR) sampling locations, and one newly-installed sampling station, which was located 

4,700 ft downstream from Well No. 9 and 500 ft upstream from a blending point where Well No. 9 water 

blended with water from other wells. The two LCR residences selected were located after the blending 

point. Figure 3-2 shows a distribution system map and the three distribution system sampling locations. 

Homeowners assisted by the Washoe County Department of Water Resources (WCDWR) staff collected 

samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and 

Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First-draw samples were collected from 

cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The 

sampler recorded the date and time of last water usage before sampling and the date and time of sample 

collection for calculation of the stagnation time. Arsenic speciation was not performed on these samples.
Figure 3-2. Distribution Sampling Map (Source: WCDWR)

10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 

All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample 

shipping and handling are discussed below. 

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, 2003). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

example, red, orange, yellow, green, and blue were used for IN, TA, TB, TC, and TT sampling locations. 

The labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each corresponding to a 

specific sample location) in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample cooler also included bottles for the 

distribution system sampling. 

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

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

cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were completed except for the operator’s signature and 

the sample date and time. 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 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry 

(ICP-MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and 

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

Labs in Englewood, OH, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. 

The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and 

final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of 

the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter. 

3.5 Analytical Procedures 

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

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control 

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

method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative 

percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The QA data 

11
12

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 

WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the 

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

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

water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was 

obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine 

test kits following the user’s manual.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

4.1 Facility Description 

Established in 1981, STMGID provides water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services to a portion of 

the South Truckee Meadows in southern Washoe County, NV. The water systems are operated by 

WCDWR. A total of five supply wells (i.e., Wells No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11) were used to supply water to 

approximately 8,300 customers (see map of service area in Figure 3-2). Well No. 9 on South Virginia 

Street and Damonte Parkway was designated for this demonstration study. Drilled in October 1994, Well 

No. 9 was constructed of 12-in-diameter casing with a 50-ft slotted screen to a total depth of 130 ft. The 

well was equipped with a Hays Model 400T-6GP 10-stage submersible pump with a 50-horsepower (hp) 

three-phase motor set at an approximate depth of 60 ft. The well was capable of yielding up to 350 gpm 

flow. Figure 4-1 shows the Well No. 9 wellhead and pump house. 

Figure 4-1. Preexisting Well No. 9 Pump House

Figure 4-2 shows the preexisting system housed within the pump house. Water treatment consisted of 

only chlorination using a gas feed system to reach a target free chlorine residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as 

Cl2). Chlorine gas cylinders were kept in a room partitioned from the rest of the pump house for safety 

and connected to the system piping via underground conduit. The chlorine gas feed rate was regulated at 

3.5 lb/day using a panel-mounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to 

monitor the chlorine gas consumption. Chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where a Baldor 11⁄4- in 

centrifugal pump with a 2-hp motor was used to create a venturi effect to mix chlorine gas with carrier 

water. Chlorinated water then was blended with source water prior to entering a one-mile-long 

transmission main. After reaching the blending station, the treated water was blended with water from 

four other wells, i.e., Wells No. 11, 1, 2, and 3, before entering the distribution system. 

13
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Wellhead Chlorination System 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples from Well No. 9 were collected at the 

wellhead on August 20, 2003, and analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The analytical results, 

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

by EPA on October 3, 2002, and by the technology vendor in August 2003 in response to EPA’s 

technology solicitation, are presented in Table 4-1. Additional historic source water quality data, 

including historical high and low results for the parameters monitored by the facility between 1992 and 

2003, are presented in Table 4-2. 

Total arsenic and antimony concentrations of the samples obtained by Battelle on August 20, 2003 were 

87.9 and 15.8 g/L, respectively, which were close to the historic high concentrations of 93 and 18 g/L 

for these elements. Based on the speciation results, arsenic existed almost entirely as soluble As(V), with 

only a trace amount, i.e., 0.3 g/L, existing as soluble As(III). Antimony existed entirely in the soluble 

form. The data obtained/provided by the facility, EPA, and/or the vendor showed somewhat lower 

arsenic concentrations, ranging from 45 to 79 g/L. The facility arsenic speciation data were in 

agreement with Battelle’s data, with soluble As (V) being the only species detected. Therefore, the 

purpose of prechlorination was only to provide chlorine residuals through the treatment train (to prevent 

biological growth) and to the distribution system. 

pH values of source water ranged from 7.4 to 7.5 based on the samples provided/collected by the facility, 

EPA, the vendor, and Battelle for this demonstration study. The values fell within the range of the 

historic high and low values, i.e., 7.9 and 6.9, respectively. The GFH adsorptive media selected for this 

study adsorbs arsenic and, perhaps, antimony more effectively at the lower end of a pH range extending 

from 5.5 to 8.5. With source water pH values ranging from 6.9 to 7.9 historically and 7.4 to 7.5 within 

the last several years, no pH adjustment was used at this site. 

Competing ions such as silica and phosphate in source water can be adsorbed onto the GFH media, thus 

reducing its arsenic and antimony removal capacities. Data obtained by Battelle showed 68.6 mg/L of 

silica (as SiO2) and <0.1 mg/L of orthophosphate, comparable to the levels reported by others. Silica 

concentrations were high and most likely will impact arsenic and antimony adsorption. Published data 

14
15

Table 4-1. Well No. 9 Source Water Quality Data

Parameter Unit STMGID (a) EPA Siemens Battelle 

Sampling Date – Not specified 10/03/02 08/03 08/20/03 

pH – 7.4 NS 7.5 7.4 

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 85.0 96.0 NS 100.0 

Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 32.0 23.0 20 17.1 

Chloride mg/L 5.0 9.4 14 10.0 

Fluoride mg/L NS NS NS 0.1 

Sulfate mg/L 28.0 8.4 23 8.0 

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L NS 66.0 52.5 68.6 

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L 0.16(b) NS NS <0.10 

TOC mg/L NS NS NS <1.0 

As (total) g/L  79.0 >70 87.9 

As (total soluble) g/L NS NS NS 89.4 

As (particulate) g/L NS NS NS <0.1 

As(III) g/L <2.0 NS NS 0.3 

As(V) g/L 45.0 NS NS 89.1 

Sb (total) g/L NS <25 NS 15.8 

Sb (soluble) g/L NS NS NS 15.8 

Fe (total) g/L 20.0 5.0 6 <30 

Fe (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <30 

Al (total) g/L NS <25 NS <10 

Al (soluble) g/L NS NS NS <10 

Mn (total) g/L <10.0 <0.4 3 0.1 

Mn (soluble) g/L NS NS NS < .1 

V (total) g/L NS NS NS 3.0 

V (soluble) g/L NS NS NS 3.0 

Mo (total) g/L NS NS NS < .1 

Mo (soluble) g/L NS NS NS < .1 

Na (total) mg/L 30.0 37.2 113 36.4 

Ca (total) mg/L 8.0 6.0 16 5.1 

Mg (total) mg/L 3.0 1.9 4 1.7 

(a) Data to EPA for demonstration site selection. 

(b) Data provided by EPA. 

NS = not sampled 

have shown that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric oxides/hydroxides and activated 

alumina (Smith and Edwards, 2005; Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002) and that the effect of silica was 

most noticeable at pH 8 or above. As such, the effect of silica was carefully monitored during this study. 

Source water from Well No. 9 had low or less than detectable concentrations of iron, manganese, 

aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, sodium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and total 

organic carbon (TOC). 

4.1.2 Distribution System. As shown on the distribution map in Figure 3-2, the distribution 

system at the eastern half of STMGID was supplied by five wells, including Wells No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11. 

(Note that there were five other independently-operated wells, i.e., Well No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, in the 

western half of STMGID.) Water feeding the GFH system was supplied by Well No. 9 only. Water from 

Well No. 9 was transported through a 6-in diameter, 1-mile long polyvinyl chloride (PVC) transmission 
Table 4-2. Summary of Historic Well No. 9 Water Quality Data 

Constitute Unit Year 2003 Historic High 

(1992–2003) 

Historic Low 

(1992–2003) 

Primary Standards

Antimony g/L 17 18 6 

Arsenic g/L 80 93 18 

Barium mg/L 0.05 0.06 0.01 

Beryllium g/L <1 <1 <1 

Cadmium g/L <1 <1 <1 

Chromium g/L 1 2 <1 

Cyanide g/L <5 <5 <5 

Fluoride mg/L 0.04 0.17 0.02 

Mercury g/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

Nickel g/L <1 <1 <1 

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.9 2.3 0.6 

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

Selenium g/L <1 <1 <1 

Thallium g/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

Secondary Standards

Chloride mg/L 8 9 3 

Color – 3 5 3 

Copper mg/L 0 0.04 <0.01 

Fluoride mg/L 0.04 0.17 0.02 

Iron mg/L 0.02 0.07 <0.01 

Magnesium mg/L 2 3 0 

Manganese mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

pH – 7.2 7.9 6.9 

Sulfate mg/L 8 9 6 

Zinc mg/L 0.01 0.03 <0.01 

TDS mg/L 177 195 160 

Additional Constituents

Lead g/L <5 <5 <5 

Hardness mg/L 37 37 21 

Calcium mg/L 10 10 5 

Potassium mg/L 5 6 2 

Sodium mg/L 27 45 26 

Silica mg/L 70 81 65 

 Data Source: Washoe County Department of Water Resources 

line to a blending station where it was blended with water from the other four wells (i.e., Wells No. 11, 1, 

2, and 3) at a combined flowrate of approximately 1,400 to 1,500 gpm. Due to elevated arsenic and 

antimony concentrations, Well No. 9 was operated under a bilateral compliance agreement with local 

regulators. According to the agreement, WCDWR had to collect water quality samples weekly from the 

wellhead for arsenic and antimony analyses when the well was in operation. Prior to the demonstration 

study, to save analytical and data reporting costs, the well was not operated during periods of low 

demand, which normally extended from the beginning of November through the end of February the 

following year. 

After the blending point, water flows through a 16-in ductile iron transmission main to connect to the 

distribution system and then to one 500,000- and one 750,000-gal storage tank. The distribution system 

16
consists of 8- to 12-in ductile iron, PVC, and asbestos cement pipe. The residential service lines are 

constructed of 3⁄4-in HDPE with some commercial and irrigation service lines using 1- to 2-in copper pipe. 

4.2 Treatment Process Description 

The Siemens arsenic treatment system used GFH, a granular ferric hydroxide media, for arsenic and 

antimony removal from drinking water supplies (Figure 4-3). Produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh, 

the media was imported from Germany and marketed by Siemens under an exclusive marketing 

agreement. Because of short run length issues, another media, i.e., CFH-0818, also was tested after 

rebedding. CFH-0818 was a dry granular mixture of ferric oxides and hydroxides supplied by Kemira 

Water Solutions, Inc. Both GFH and CFH-0818 have received NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 

listing for use in drinking water applications. The physical and chemical properties of each media are 

presented in Table 4-3. 

 Source: Siemens 

Figure 4-3. A Photograph of GFH Media 

Both adsorptive media can remove both As(V) and As(III), but the capacity for As(III) is much less than 

that for As(V). The media life for arsenic and antimony removal relies on factors, such arsenic and 

antimony concentrations, raw water pH, and the presence of other competing anions. Both media have a 

pH operating range of 5.5 to 8.5 with the removal capacity increasing with decreasing pH. Competing 

anions such as silica and phosphate are known to adsorb onto ferric hydroxides and reduce arsenic 

removal capacity of the media (Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002). 

Once exhausted, spent media are removed from the adsorption vessels and replaced with virgin media. 

The spent media can be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste after passing the TCLP test. This single 

use media approach eliminates the need for onsite storage of regeneration chemicals and issues related to 

the handling, storage, and disposal of concentrated regeneration wastes. 

A standard Siemens adsorption system consists of two or more downflow pressure vessels with factory 

installed internals for distribution and collection of effluent and backwash flows. The media vessels can 

be placed in either parallel or series configuration. According to the vendor, if a consistent 90% reduction 

is needed across the system, the series design is used. The parallel design is typically used if the percent 

reduction needed is less than 90%. The treatment system at the STMGID site consists of three vertical 

pressure vessels configured in parallel with each vessel treating one-third of the incoming flow. 

17
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of GFH and CFH-0818 Adsorptive Media 

Physical Properties 

Parameter GFH CFH-0818 

Matrix β-ferric oxyhydroxide 

and ferric hydroxide 

Ferric oxide and ferric 

hydroxide 

Physical Form Granular Granular 

Color Dark-brown to black Brown or reddish-brown 

Bulk Density (kg/L) 1.15 1.20 

Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 71.8 74.9 

Moisture Content (%) 47 16 

Grain Size (mm) 0.3–2.0 0.8–1.8 

Adsorption Density (g/kg) >8 based on wet weight Not listed 

Chemical Properties 

Constituent GFH CFH-0818 

Fe (%) 61 44 

As (mg/kg) <10 <1 

Cd (mg/kg) <5 <2 

Pb (mg/kg) <10 3 

Cu (mg/kg) 30 <5 

Cr (mg/kg) 100 10 

Ni (mg/kg) 100 140 

Zn (mg/kg) 100 400 

Mn (mg/kg) 1,500 1,000 

Sources: Siemens and Kemira Water Solutions 

The site-specific design features of the arsenic removal system are summarized in Table 4-4. Key process 

steps and major system components are discussed as follows: 

 Intake. Raw water pumped from Well No. 9 was prechlorinated before being fed into the 

arsenic removal system. The peak flow rate was estimated to be 350 gpm. The existing 

wellhead pressure was approximately 180 pounds per square inch (psi), which was higher 

than the 100-psi pressure rating of the adsorption vessels. Therefore, the well pump had to be 

reconfigured to produce a pressure of less than 100 psi at the system inlet. The well pump 

reconfiguration is further discussed in Section 4.3.3. 

 Prechlorination. Prechlorination with chlorine gas was used to provide chlorine residuals 

through the treatment train (to prevent biological growth) and in the distribution system. 

Figure 4-2 presents photographs of the prechlorination system, which was located in the 

preexisting pump house. The chlorine gas feed rate was 3.5 lb/day and controlled by a panelmounted automatic switchover rotometer. A dual-cylinder scale was used to monitor the 

chlorine gas consumption. The chlorine gas was injected to a side stream where it was mixed 

with carrier water prior to being drawn into the main line. Chlorinated water was then flown 

to the adsorption vessels in a nearby building constructed to house the treatment system. A 

sample tap was installed (“AC”) on a common feed line to the adsorption vessels to collect 

chlorinated water prior to treatment by the adsorptive media. 

 Adsorption System. The skid-mounted adsorption system consisted of three 66-in × 72-in 

carbon steel vessels configured in parallel and rated for 100 psi of working pressure (Figure 

4-4). During Run 1, each vessel was loaded with 80 ft3

 of GFH media supported by a 2 to 3 

mm (with a 1.6 uniformity coefficient) underbedding gravel. During Run 2, one vessel was 

18
loaded with 80 ft3

 of GFH media and the other two with 80 ft3 each of CFH-0818 media. 

Based on the peak flowrate of 350 gpm, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 5.1 min and 

the hydraulic loading rate was 4.9 gpm/ft2

. The system included a header lateral underdrain 

with media retaining strainers, front piping, fittings, valves, and meters. A 20-hp booster 

pump was installed to boost the effluent pressure back to the preexisting levels of 

approximately 180 psi (Figure 4-5).

Table 4-4. Design Specifications of Siemens System 

Parameter Value Remarks 

Pretreatment 

Chlorine Dosage (lb/day [as Cl2]) 3.5 For 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) of target 

free chlorine residual 

Adsorbers 

Number of Vessels 3 

Configuration Parallel 

Vessel Size (in) 66 D × 72 H Vessel height at straight side shell 

Cross-sectional Area (ft2) 23.8 

Type of Media GFH/CFH 

Quantity of Media (ft3/vessel) 80 240 ft3 total 

Media Depth (in) 40 

Backwash 

Flowrate (gpm) 285 Through each vessel 

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 12 

Duration (min) 15–20 

Frequency (times/month) 1–2 

Adsorption System 

Peak Flowrate (gpm) 350 

Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm) 117 

EBCT (min/vessel) 5.1 Based on peak flow 

Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) 4.9 

Average Use Rate (gpd) 336,000 Based on 16 hr of daily operation 

at 350 gpm 

Daily Throughput (BV/day) 187 1 BV = 240 ft3 = 1,795 gal 

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 38,000 

Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal ×106) 68.2 Based on 10-μg/L As 

breakthrough 

Estimated Media Life (day) 203 Estimated frequency of changeout 

at 75% utilization 

 Backwash. The adsorption vessels were taken offline one at a time for upflow backwash 

using treated water to remove particulates and media fines and prevent media compaction. 

Backwashing could be initiated manually, semi-automatically, and automatically. Semiautomatic backwash was set for the system at STMGID, i.e., the programmable logic 

controller (PLC) sounds an alarm when it receives a high differential pressure signal across 

the adsorption vessels or a time elapsed signal from the adjustable clock and the operator 

acknowledges the alarm and initiates the backwash cycle. During a backwash event, all 

vessels are backwashed sequentially, using the treated water from the two vessels in service 

to backwash the third. Backwash wastewater 

 

19
Figure 4-4. Siemens GFH Arsenic/Antimony Removal System 

Adsorption 

Tank 

Sample Tap 

Figure 4-5. A New Booster Pump Station 

(TT) 

Treated water 

from filters 

Booster 

Pump 

20
produced was discharged to the sanitary sewer (Figure 4-6). A backwash flowrate and a loss 

of head gauges were installed in the front piping. The backwash flowrate gauge was 

provided with a 6-in-diameter standard weight pipe flange and installed to the end of the GFH 

system backwash waste header piping with standard flange gasket and mounting bolts. 

Figure 4-6. Backwash Discharge 

 Programmable Logic Controller. A control panel was provided for automated system 

control (Figure 4-7). This panel was interfaced with the local system control and data 

acquisition (SCADA) enclosure as a means for remote communication. The filter system 

could be operated locally from the operator interface terminal. Each adsorption vessel had 

two electronically actuated butterfly valves and one manual butterfly valve with handwheel 

actuator for the process flow control. The electronically actuated valves were the influent 

valve and the backwash waste valve. The manual valve was the effluent valve, which 

remained open. Pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop 

across each vessel and the treatment train. In addition, a flowmeter/totalizer was installed in 

the effluent line of each adsorption vessel to monitor the flowrate and track the volume 

throughput through each vessel (Figure 4-8). 

21
Figure 4-7. Programmable Logic Controller 

Figure 4-8. Third Pressure Vessel and Associated Plumbing and Monitoring Components 

22
 Media Replacement. When the adsorptive capacity of the GFH media was exhausted, the 

spent media was taken out of the vessels for disposal and replaced with virgin media. 

According to Siemens, the media changeout was to take place once every 203 days based on 

the water analysis and a 75% water usage rate. The actual run length of the media was 

determined based on the results of the performance evaluation study as discussed in 

Section 4.5. 

4.3 Permitting and System Installation 

4.3.1 Permitting. WCDWR prepared engineering plans and permit submittals for the project using 

input from Siemens, such as system specifications and process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs). 

The plans included site engineering drawings, equipment tie-ins, and site plans. After certified by a State 

of Nevada-registered professional engineer (PE), the submittal package was sent to the Washoe County 

Department of Health for review and approval on July 26, 2004. The approval was granted on October 

20, 2004. 

4.3.2 Building Construction. A building was constructed by STMGID to house the treatment 

system. A photograph of the treatment building and pump house is shown in Figure 4-9. The 

construction bid for the building was awarded on September 28, 2004. Construction of the building was 

delayed because the building contractor did not submit the adequate bonding paperwork for building 

permit application. Siemens stored the equipment at its Ames, IA facility until the construction was 

completed and delivery of the equipment could be scheduled. Upon payment of building permit fees on 

October 25, 2004, the building permit was granted. Building construction began on November 22, 2004, 

and was completed the week of March 14, 2005. The free-standing building constructed of concrete 

masonry unit (CMU) blocks measured 32 ft × 18 ft, with an interior wall height of 14 ft and a three tab 

asphalt shingle roof. Due to the close proximity to a commercial shopping center, the pump house and 

treatment building had stone/stucco exterior and/or a stone water table to match the architectural style of 

the neighborhood. The building had one walk-through door and an 8-ft × 12-ft rollup door. 

Figure 4-9. New Treatment Building and Preexisting Well Pump House 

23
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The equipment for the treatment system arrived at 

the site on March 21, 2005, and installation began immediately after the system off-loading (Figure 4-10). 

Because the well riser pipe and the system inlet piping did not match, a custom piece had to be 

constructed to connect the system and the well. Plumbing of the system was completed on April 18, 

2005, by Siemens’s subcontractor, Christman Construction. The system was originally scheduled for 

hydraulic testing before the media loading; however, the hydraulic testing and media loading had to be 

put off because it was discovered that the wellhead pressure exceeded the 100-psi pressure rating of the 

adsorption vessels. As a result, the wellhead pressure had to be reduced before the adsorption vessels 

could be hydraulically tested and subsequently operated. Meanwhile, Siemens collected 1 gal of the 

media that had been stored at the site since October 2004 for precautionary testing and determined that 

the moisture content of the media was not impacted due to the long term storage. 

Figure 4-10. Delivery of One Adsorption Vessel 

Reduction of the wellhead pressure was achieved by well pump reconfiguration, which was undertaken 

by WCDWR with partial funding provided by EPA. From April to July 2005, WCDWR pursued required 

funding and contractors to perform the well pump modification. The well pump reconfiguration work 

extended from August 29, 2005, through September 6, 2005. The work involved removing the existing 

submersible well pump and motor and associated piping and electrical wiring from the well casing, 

removing four stages from the pump, trimming one or more impellers to achieve a new pump design 

operating point of 285 ft total dynamic head at 305 gpm, and reinstalling the pump and appurtenances into 

the well. The reconfigured well pump produced a maximum pressure of 100 pounds per square inch 

(gauge) (psig). A Goulds 4-in booster pump with a Baldor 20-hp motor and a check valve was installed 

on the filter discharge piping to boost the pressure back to 180 psi. The booster pump and associated 

electrical work was completed by September 6, 2005. The existing SCADA system was modified to 

control the well and booster pump. In addition to the initial engineering design, WCDWR also performed 

final construction inspections. 

24
Following the modification, Siemens’s subcontractor returned to the site on September 12, 2005, to 

perform hydraulic testing and media loading. The hydraulic testing was conducted by initiating the flow 

through each vessel, partially closing the discharge valve, adjusting the flow to approximately 100 gpm, 

and measuring the inlet, outlet, and differential pressure across each vessel and the system. The results of 

the hydraulic testing on the empty vessels indicated minimal pressure drop across each vessel and the 

system at a combined flowrate of 300 gpm, and an evenly balanced flow across each of the three vessels. 

The media was loaded following the hydraulic testing. The underbedding support was first installed to a 

depth of 12 in. Water was added to the vessel to a depth of approximately 3 ft above the top of the 

underbedding support and the GFH media was then loaded to a depth of about 40 in. Due to lack of a 

roof hatch, the media loading was conducted manually and took three days to complete. The media 

loading was followed by initial backwash that was performed at half of the normal backwash flowrate for 

30 to 45 min. The loading of GFH media was completed on September 14, 2005. The system was 

subsequently disinfected with a 5.25% NaOCl solution on September 15, 2005, and bacterial samples 

were collected on September 16, 2005. The bacterial results passed; however, the PLC did not function 

properly so the system could not be put into service. A Siemens technician returned to the site on 

September 19, 2005, to complete the startup and perform O&M training. The technician reprogrammed 

the PLC to interface with the SCADA system so that the well pump, treatment system, and booster pump 

might work together in the service mode. 

Battelle made a site visit on September 23, 2005, to conduct system inspections and operator training for 

sampling and data collection. Upon careful inspections of the system, a punch list was developed and 

summarized as follows: 

 Revise PLC program to enable automatic backwash. 

 Replace six 0 to 100 psig pressure gauges with 0 to 150 psig gauges to enable 

measurements of the system pressure, which was slightly above 100 psig. 

 Adjust the PLC totalizer screen to display throughput readings properly. 

 Increase the pressure set point for automatic backwash from 3 to 7 psi. 

The Siemens technician returned to the site during the week of September 26, 2005. The first set of water 

samples was collected on September 27, 2005, marking the commencement of the performance 

evaluation study at the STMGID site. The items on the punch list were addressed during a site visit by 

the Siemens technician on October 11 to 12, 2005. One exception was that the backwash totalizer did not 

display properly on the PLC screen. The backwash totalizers were connected to the PLC by the Siemens 

technician during a later site visit, which took place on December 22, 2005. 

4.4 System Operation 

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters recorded during Run 1 and Run 2 

system operations are tabulated and attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-

5. The operating parameters (e.g., flowrate, EBCT, and pressure) recorded during Run 1 were similar to 

those recorded during Run 2 except that the system maintained a longer daily operating time and thus a 

higher daily use rate during Run 2. 

Run 1. From September 27, 2005, through May 3, 2006, the treatment system operated for 

approximately 943 hr based on hour meter readings of the well pump. The system operating schedule 

varied during this 32-week study period. In the first three weeks, the system ran for 18 days, with daily 

operating hours ranging from 4.0 to 22.1 hr/day and averaging 13.8 hr/day. The system was operated for 

25
longer periods of time during startup, but the daily operating time was decreased following a decrease in 

water demand. During the following four and a half weeks, the system ran for 16 days, with daily 

operating times ranging from 1.2 to 6.8 hr/day and averaging 3.6 hr/day. Starting from November 18, 

2005 (except for the three-week duration from December 17, 2005, through January 6, 2006, when the 

system was shut down to make repairs as described in Section 4.4.4), the system began operating daily 

(including weekends), with daily operating times ranging from 1.7 to 9.7 hr/day and averaging 3.8 hr/day. 

The total system throughput during this 32-week period was 15,567,000 gal, equivalent to 8,677 BV of 

water processed through the entire system. The BV for the system was calculated based on a total of 240 

ft3

 (or 1,795 gal) of media in the three adsorption vessels. The total flow processed through the system 

was based on the sum of the throughputs through each of the three vessels measured with individual 

totalizers. Individually, the number of BV processed through each vessel was slightly different (i.e., 

9,033, 8,390, and 8,609 BV for Vessels A, B, and C, respectively) due to uneven flow distributed through 

each vessel. The total system throughput thus obtained was 1.2% lower than that from the master 

totalizer at the wellhead. 

Table 4-5. Summary of Siemens Adsorptive System Operations 

Test Run (Test Duration) Run 1 (9/27/05–05/03/06) Run 2 (04/05/07–07/03/07) 

Adsorption Vessel A B C A B C 

Adsorptive Media GFH GFH GFH GFH CFH CFH 

Total Operating Time (hr) 943 943 943 1166 1166 1166 

Throughput Based on Individual Totalizers (kgal) 5,402 5,017 5,148 6,401 6,265 6,246 

Throughput (BV)(a) 9,033 8,390 8,609 10,703 10,476 10,444 

Range of Flowrate (gpm) 93–107 87–95 89–97 66–148(d) 64–104 48–104 

Average Flowrate (gpm) 95 89 91 92 92 92 

Range of EBCT (min)(a) 5.6–6.4 6.3–6.9 6.2–6.7 4–9.1 5.8–9.3 5.8–12.5 

Average EBCT (min)(a) 6.2 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 

Average Inlet Pressure (psi) 103.6 103.2 102.6 103.8 103.1 102.7 

Average Outlet Pressure (psi) 102.5 102.1 102.0 102.4 102.6 102.7 

Average Pressure Loss across Vessel (psi) 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.5 0 

Range of Daily Operating Time (hr/day) 1–20 6–17 

Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day) 3.8(b) 13 

Throughput Based on Master Flow Totalizer (gal) 15,753,000 18,848,000 

Throughput Based on Individual Totalizers (gal) 15,567,000 18,910,000 

Throughput (BV)(c) 8,677 10,541 

Range of Combined Flowrate (gpm) 205–333 260–287 

Average Combined Flowrate (gpm) 275 276 

Range of Daily Use Rate (gpd) 46,740–75,924(b) 91,556–278,098 

Average Daily Use Rate (gpd) 62,700(b) 215,280 

Inlet Pressure (psi) 102.8 103.8 

Outlet Pressure (psi) 100.8 101.1 

Average Pressure Loss across System (psi) 2 2.7 

(a) Calculated based on throughput from individual totalizers and 80 ft3 of media in each vessel. 

(b) Calculated based on operational data collected during normal system operations starting from November 18, 2005 

through May 2, 2006 (except for a three-week duration when system was shut down for repairs). 

(c) Calculated based on combined throughput from individual totalizers and 240 ft3

 (or 1,795 gal) of media in three 

vessels. 

(d) Operator adjusted valves to maintain balanced flow during second run to account for different flow through 

vessels. One day imbalanced flow of 148 gpm observed; typically evenly balanced flow achieved, as indicated by 

average flowrate. 

26
The average flowrates measured by individual flowmeters installed on Vessels A, B, and C were 95, 89, 

and 91 gpm, respectively. These values were comparable to calculated average flowrates of 96, 88, and 

90 gpm from readings generated by the individual totalizers and well-pump hour meter. Thus, the 

flowmeters/totalizers installed on the adsorption vessels appeared to be calibrated accurately. The range 

of flowrates through the entire system was 205 to 333 gpm, with an average of 275 gpm (compared to the 

design flowrate of 350 gpm). These resulted in EBCTs ranging from 5.6 to 6.7 min with an average of 

6.5 min (compared to the design EBCT of 5.1 min). Based on the average flowrate and average daily 

operating time, the average volume of water treated each day under normal system operations was 

62,700 gpd (Table 4-5). 

The average pressure loss across each tank ranged from 1.1 to 1.4 psi. The average influent pressure 

reading at the head of the system was 102.8 psi, and the average pressure reading at the combined effluent 

was 100.8 psi. Thus, the pressure loss across the system averaged 2.0 psi. 

Run 2. From April 5, 2007, through July 3, 2007, the treatment system operated for approximately 1,166 

hr based on hour meter readings of the well pump. The system operating schedule varied during this 14-

week study period, increasing in daily operating times from 6 to 13 hr during the first half of the run and 

from 14 to 17 hr during the second half, with an overall average of 13 hr/day. The total system 

throughput was 18,848,000 gal, equivalent to 10,541 BV of water processed through the entire system. 

Again, the total flow processed through the system was based on the sum of the throughputs through each 

of the three vessels measured with individual totalizers. The operator made a special effort to adjust 

relevant valves to create a balanced flow through the three vessels. Without adjustment, the flow between 

the vessels would have been notably imbalanced between the GFH media (Vessel A) and the CFH-0818 

media (Vessels B and C). The number of BV processed through each vessel was very similar, i.e., 

10,703, 10,476, and 10,444 BV for Vessels A, B, and C, respectively. 

The average flowrates measured by individual flowmeters installed on Vessels A, B, and C were 92 gpm 

each. These values were comparable to calculated average flowrates (i.e., 89, 90, and 90 gpm, 

respectively) from readings generated by the individual totalizers and well-pump hour meter. The range 

of flowrates through the entire system was 260 to 287 gpm, with an average of 276 gpm. This resulted in 

an overall average EBCT of 6.5 min. Based on the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the 

average volume of water treated each day under normal system operations was 215,280 gpd. 

The average pressure loss across Tank A, which contained the GFH, was 1.4 psi. The average pressure 

loss across Tank B and Tank C was slightly lower at 0 and 0.5 psi. The average influent pressure reading 

at the head of the system was 103.8 psi, and the average pressure reading at the combined effluent was 

101.1 psi. Thus, the total pressure loss across the system averaged 2.7 psi. 

4.4.2 Backwash. Siemens recommended that the media beds be backwashed, either manually or 

automatically, approximately once every 2 to 6 weeks. Automatic backwash could be initiated either by a 

timer setting or by a differential pressure (p) setting across the vessels. The timer set point was set at the 

maximum time allowable, which was 630 hr. Due to the steady pressure in the vessels, the system did not 

require backwashing. However, the system was backwashed to test the automatic backwash system about 

one month after the system startup with only 219 hr of operating time. Also, although the differential 

pressure remained low, the system was backwashed once in September 2006 during the interim period 

between the end of performance monitoring for Run 1 and start of performance monitoring for Run 2 and 

once during Run 2 in an attempt to improve media run length. As discussed in Section 4.5.1, 

backwashing the media had little or no affect on media run length. 

27
4.4.3 RSSCT. In an attempt to find an adsorptive media that possessed more adsorptive capacities 

for arsenic and antimony, a series of RSSCT tests was performed in the laboratory and field using Well 

No. 9 water under two separate projects (Westerhoff et al., 2007). The media tested included four ironbased media (i.e., GFH, E33, ARM 200, and CFH-12 [similar to CFH-0818 except for a larger granular 

size]), two titanium-based media (i.e., MetsorbTM and Adsorbsia GTO), and one hybrid iron oxide/ion 

exchange resin-based media (i.e., ArsenXnp ). The number of bed volumes until arsenic breakthrough at 

10 μg/L for both laboratory and field tests are summarized in Table 4-6. The results of these studies 

indicated that all seven media tested had rather short run lengths for arsenic, thereby, confirming the fullscale GFH data. In fact, GFH had the longest run length in both tests, followed by Kemira CFH-12. 

Because CFH-0818 media was less expensive than GFH, it was selected along with GFH for the second 

test run. 

Table 4-6. Number of Bed Volumes until Arsenic Breakthrough at 10 μg/L 

Media 

Media 

Type Manufacturer 

Laboratory 

RSCCT 

Field 

RSCCT 

GFH(a) Iron-based GEH Wasserchemie 11,000 16,200 

E33 Iron-based Bayer AG NA 8,700 

ARM200 Iron-based BASF 7,900 NA 

CFH-12 Iron-based Kemira NA 12,400 

CFH-12(b) Iron-based Kemira NA 9,400 

Metsorb Titanium-based HydroGlobe NA 5,200 

Adsorbsia GTO Titanium-based Dow Chemcial 4,500 NA 

ArsenXnp Iron/IX resin-based Purolite 7,900 NA 

(a) Selected to simulate full-scale run length. 

(b) Air became entrained in column and a second test was conducted using a new column. 

4.4.4 Media Loading and Removal. Upon selecting the CFH-0818 media, the process of 

procuring the media and installation services began. One difficulty encountered was finding installation 

services within the project budget. The cost for spent media removal and disposal and virgin media 

reloading as included in the original media replacement quote provided by the vendor in October 2003 

was $7,500. However, the cost of services provided by Siemens had risen significantly to $38,500, which 

included 75 man-days for manual media loading. Repeated negotiations with Siemens and its local 

subcontractor failed to bring the cost down. After contacting several other vendors, installation services 

were procured at a more obtainable price of $12,950 in December 22, 2006. The spent media 

replacement began on March 26, 2007 (a long lead time was required because of contractor’s busy 

schedule) and completed in approximately four days. Before the removal of spent media, the heights of 

the freeboard were measured from the flange at the top of the vessel to the top of the media bed. No 

difference was noted between the initial (before commencement of Run 1) and final measurements (after 

completion of Run 1), indicating no media loss. The spent media then was sampled and removed from 

each vessel as described in Section 4.5.3. 

Media installation is typically accomplished by either bulk placement or slurry transfer. In the bulk 

placement method, bulk media containers (i.e., Supersacs) are positioned above a top-mounted access 

hatch to a vessel and a bottom bag opening allows the media to flow through a chute into the vessel. This 

method may be performed if the vessel is located outdoors or if there is a hatch in the roof to allow access 

to the top of the vessel. Because the treatment building at STMGID lacked a roof hatch, Siemens 

proposed the slurry transfer method, which uses a portable eductor system to slurry the media into the 

vessel (Figure 4-11). However, just before media installation, a Kemira representative who was onsite 

28
expressed concern that the high operating pressure (between 50 to 100 psi) could damage the media and 

requested that the media be loaded by hand in small increments. With the assistance of the Kemira 

representative and WCDWR staff, media loading was completed in two days. A portion of the CFH-0818 

was missing from the initial delivery; consequently, the Kemira representative returned on April 5, 2007 

to complete the installation. Following installation, the system was backwashed and disinfected. Upon 

notification that treated water samples passed the bacteria test, the system was put into operation. 

Educator/Vacuum Truck Removing media

Supersacs 

Figure 4-11. Photographs of Media Replacement 

4.4.5 Residuals Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the GFH 

treatment system were backwash wastewater and spent media. The backwash wastewater was discharged 

to the sewer directly. The spent media was disposed of as nonhazardous waste in the local landfill. 

4.4.6 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. In general, operation of the GFH system did 

not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water system. However, 

several problems related to the PLC and system components arose during the first 32-week study period. 

Additional discussions regarding system operation and operator skill requirement follow. 

Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V), therefore, 

a preoxidation step was not required. However, prechlorination was provided to prevent biological 

growth in the treatment system and maintain chlorine residuals in the distribution system. 

29
30

System Controls. The treatment system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic 

backwash. During system startup, the system was tested, but failed to perform automatic backwash 

because the PLC did not interface with the SCADA system properly. When the system initiated a 

backwash cycle, the backwash valves would completely close for 5 to 10 sec as the system attempted to 

backwash the next vessel in line. The closed valves caused the system pressure to spike, which, in turn, 

caused the well pump to shut off, resulting in an aborted backwash. The SCADA design included a high 

pressure well shutoff when a pressure of 125 psi was maintained for more than 5 sec. The PLC program 

was revised to eliminate the time delay between valves closing and opening in order to prevent the spike 

in the system pressure. The vendor instructed the facility operator to exercise the valves on a routine 

basis to prevent sticking. A subsequent site visit also was required to ensure the backwash totalizer 

reading would be displayed on the PLC screen during backwash. 

Another problem encountered was that the pneumatic butterfly valves associated with the backwash 

discharge line were not resting properly, causing the vessels to bleed off pressure as they sat idle. The 

existing chlorine gas system had a check valve that was held closed by the pressure in the inlet piping to 

the vessels. When the pressure was lost, the check valve opened, allowing water to enter the chlorine gas 

lines. The system was turned off for three weeks during December 17, 2005, through January 6, 2006, 

while Siemens serviced the butterfly valves and replaced the chlorine gas lines. 

Operator Skill Requirements. The State of Nevada has an operator certification program that applies to 

all persons who operate community or non-transient, non-community public water systems and to persons 

who operate transient non-community systems that utilize surface water as a source. Grade levels of 

operator certification start at Grade 1 and progress to Grade 4. The grade level required is determined by 

the complexity of the system, such as the population served, type of source water, disinfection method, 

treatment for contaminants, and other factors. 

Prior to system installation, the preexisting plant required a Grade 2 distribution system operator (i.e., D2). The Siemens treatment system was operated by a Grade 3 operator in both treatment and distribution 

systems (i.e., D-3 and T-3). A Grade 3 operator requires several post secondary courses of instruction, 

such as successful completion of 36 hr college level courses related to drinking water. 

Under normal operating conditions, no additional skills were required beyond those necessary to operate 

the existing water supply equipment. However, as described above, some initial adjustments to the PLC 

made by the Siemens technician were required to achieve the desired interface with the SCADA and 

correct readings on the display screen. 

Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity 

recommended by the vendor was to exercise the backwash valves occasionally so that they might function 

properly in case backwash was needed. The treatment system operator visited the site about five times 

per week and stayed for about 30 min each time 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 treatment and 

distribution systems. 

4.5.1 Treatment Plant. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 summarize the results of arsenic, antimony, and three 

competing anions for samples collected across the treatment train during Run 1 and Run 2. Appendix B 

contains a complete set of analytical results through the 32- week Run 1 and the 14-week Run 2 

performance monitoring. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed as follows. 
Table 4-7. Summary of Run 1 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony, and Competing Anions 

Concentration 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location Unit 

Number of 

Samples Minimum Maximum Average(a)

Standard 

Deviation(a)

IN g/L 25 35.0 88.0 67.2 13.0 

TA g/L 25 0.2 25.1 - - 

TB g/L 25 0.1 20.0 - - 

TC g/L 25 <0.1 19.8 - - 

As (total) 

TT g/L 10 0.2 21.6 - - 

IN g/L 6 29.5 79.7 60.0 17.4 

TA g/L 3 0.7 1.4 - - 

TB g/L 3 0.2 0.7 - - 

TC g/L 3 0.3 0.8 - - 

As (soluble) 

TT g/L 6 0.1 8.4 - - 

IN g/L 6 <0.1 5.5 1.2 2.2 

TA g/L 3 <0.1 1.1 - - 

TB g/L 3 <0.1 0.9 - - 

TC g/L 3 0.2 1.1 - - 

As (particulate) 

TT g/L 6 <0.1 0.5 - - 

IN g/L 6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 

TA g/L 3 0.2 0.3 - - 

TB g/L 3 0.2 0.3 - - 

TC g/L 3 <0.1 0.3 - - 

As (III) 

TT g/L 6 <0.1 0.3 - - 

IN g/L 6 29.1 79.4 59.7 17.4 

TA g/L 3 0.3 1.1 - - 

TB g/L 3 <0.1 0.5 - - 

TC g/L 3 <0.1 0.6 - - 

As (V) 

TT g/L 6 <0.1 8.3 - - 

IN g/L 25 10.2 21.0 14.6 2.1 

TA g/L 23 0.2 14.5 - - 

TB g/L 23 0.1 14.6 - - 

TC g/L 23 0.1 14.5 - - 

Sb (total) 

TT g/L 10 0.5 14.0 - - 

IN g/L 5 11.1 15.4 13.6 1.7 

TA g/L 3 0.1 9.9 - - 

TB g/L 3 0.1 9.4 - - 

TC g/L 3 0.1 9.3 - - 

Sb (soluble) 

TT g/L 6 0.3 13.9 - - 

IN mg/L 25 51.5 95.1 72.6 6.7 

TA mg/L 23 5.0 75.2 - - 

TB mg/L 23 4.9 76.0 - - 

TC mg/L 23 4.4 75.6 - - 

Silica (as SiO2) 

TT mg/L 6 9.1 72.4 - - 

IN g/L 23 89.0 150.4 115.2 15.6 

TA g/L 21 <10.0 90.8 - - 

TB g/L 21 <10.0 87.3 - - 

TC g/L 21 <10.0 85.5 - - 

Total P (as P) 

TT g/L 7 <10.0 203.9 - - 

IN mg/L 7 <0.05 0.13 0.08 0.03 

TA mg/L 7 <0.05 <0.05 - - 

TB mg/L 7 <0.05 <0.05 - - 

TC mg/L 7 <0.05 <0.05 - - 

Orthophosphate 

(as P) 

TT mg/L 4 <0.05 <0.05 - - 

(a) Average and standard deviation only provided for inlet samples; not meaningful for effluent data with 

breakthrough curves. One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples 

included in calculations.

31
Table 4-8. Summary of Run 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Antimony and Competing Anions

Concentration 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location Unit 

Number of 

Samples Minimum Maximum Average(a)

Standard 

Deviation(a)

IN g/L 3 59.4 109.6 90.1 26.9 

TA g/L 3 0.5 55.4 - - 

TB g/L 3 0.3 46.2 - - 

TC g/L 3 0.2 44.9 - - 

As (total) 

TT g/L 0 - - - - 

IN g/L 3 10.0 15.7 13.7 3.2 

TA g/L 3 5.3 14.7 - - 

TB g/L 3 4.3 14.5 - - 

TC g/L 3 4.4 14.5 - - 

Sb (total) 

TT g/L 0 - - - - 

IN mg/L 2 73.7 75.5 74.6 1.3 

TA mg/L 2 61.3 75.5 - - 

TB mg/L 2 49.0 74.0 - - 

TC mg/L 2 48.8 74.0 - - 

Silica (as SiO2) 

TT mg/L 0 - - - - 

IN g/L 3 105.9 118.6 111.8 6.4 

TA g/L 3 <10.0 91.6 - - 

TB g/L 3 <10.0 57.6 - - 

TC g/L 3 <10.0 57.3 - - 

Total P (as P) 

TT g/L 0 - - - - 

(a) Average and standard deviation only provided for inlet samples; not meaningful for effluent data with 

breakthrough curves. One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples 

included in calculations. 

Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the adsorption system was the 

concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 25 occasions 

during the first 32 weeks of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with 

field speciation performed on six occasions. The treatment plant water was sampled on three occasions 

during the 14-week Run 2 test; no speciation sample was taken during this run. 

Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 35.0 to 88.0 μg/L and averaged 67.2 μg/L during 

the Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 59.4 to 110 μg/L and averaged 90.1 μg/L during Run 2 (Table 4-

8). Arsenic existed primarily as soluble As(V), with trace amounts present as soluble As(III) (i.e., 

0.3 μg/L on average) and particulate (1.2 μg/L on average). Arsenic speciation results for samples taken 

on three occasions at TA, TB, and TC and six occasions at TT during Run 1 are presented in bar charts 

shown in Figure 4-12. Except for three occasions, As(V) was the predominating species in the treated 

water. As(III) in raw water remained essentially unchanged, with 0.3 μg/L (on average) entering the 

system and 0.2 to 0.3 μg/L coming out of the system. It was possible that the 0.2 to 0.3 μg/L of As(III) 

observed was an artifact of the arsenic speciation method because the chlorine applied to raw water 

should have completely oxidized As(III) to As(V). 

Figure 4-13 shows the influent and effluent total arsenic concentrations plotted against the number of bed 

volumes processed through each vessel and the entire system at the time of sampling for both runs. (Note 

that one BV equals to the combined volume of three parallel adsorptive media beds at 240 ft3

 or 

1,795 gal.) The influent arsenic concentrations measured during this period showed a steadily increasing 

trend, rising from 35.0 μg/L at the system startup to 88.0 μg/L by the end of this Run 1. During Run 2, 

influent arsenic concentrations increased even higher, up to 110 μg/L, exceeding the historic high 

concentration of 93 μg/L. It is not clear why the arsenic concentrations continued to rise as observed. 

32
Arsenic Speciation at Inlet (IN)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06

Date

Total As (g/L)

As (particulate)

As (V)

As (III)

Arsenic Specialtion after Tank A (TA)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06

Date

Total As (g/L)

As (particulate)

As (V)

As (III)

Not Sampled

Arsenic Speciation after Tank B (TB)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06

Date

Total As (g/L)

As (particulate)

As (V)

As (III)

Not Sampled

Arsenic Speciation after Tank C (TC)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06

Date

Total As (g/L)

As (particulate)

As (V)

As (III)

Not Sampled

Arsenic Speciation after All Tanks (TT)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

09/27/05 11/03/05 12/07/05 01/10/06 01/31/06 04/12/06

Date

Total As (g/L)

As (particulate)

As (V)

As (III)

Figure 4-12. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species in Influent and Effluent during Run 1 

33
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Arsenic Concentration (g/L)

IN

TA

TB

TC

TT

TT (Facility)

MCL

End of

Run 1 

(May 2006)

System operated 

briefly in 

September 2006

prior to media 

replacement 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Arsenic Concentration (g/L)

IN

TA (GFH)

TB (CFH-0818)

TC (CFH-0818)

TT (Facility)

MCL

Figure 4-13. Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 

(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom) 

34
Figure 4-13 also plots the total arsenic concentration measured after each vessel at TA, TB, and TC and 

after the entire system at TT. WCDWR took TT samples for arsenic analysis by Sierra Environmental 

Monitoring Laboratory (Reno, NV) and the results also are plotted in the graphs. In general, WCDWR’s 

data matched closely with Battelle’s data, except for two high data points observed just before and after 

the 2,000-BV mark. As shown in the top graph, all three adsorption vessels removed arsenic to <0.5 μg/L 

initially and below 10 μg/L until approximately 7,200 BV of water had been treated. The system 

continued to operate until about 8,700 BV of water because, to meet the MCLs, the treated water could be 

blended downstream with low-arsenic and low-antimony water from other source wells supplying the 

distribution system. The system was shut down in May 2006 when the effluent arsenic concentrations 

had exceeded 20 μg/L. During the interim between the shutdown of Run 1 in May 2006 and the startup 

of Run 2 in April 2007, the system was operated for a brief period from September 12, 2006, through 

October 13, 2006 to meet water demand. Before restarting the system, the operator performed backwash 

for the three adsorption vessels. After the extended shutdown, the influent concentrations were much 

lower upon startup. As a result, the treated effluent concentrations also decreased. The influent and 

effluent concentrations soon approached levels observed in May 2006 and the operator shut down the 

system. 

Run 2 results confirmed the short run length observed during Run 1, with breakthrough at 10 μg/L 

occurring even earlier at approximately 3,700 BV based of the facility TT data (Figure 4-13). Higher 

influent arsenic concentrations observed in Run 2 most likely had caused even earlier arsenic 

breakthrough from the GFH media in Vessel A. Similar arsenic breakthrough patterns also were observed 

for the CFH-0818 media in Vessels B and C. These results were significantly less than the vendor 

estimated capacity of 38,000 BV for GFH and the RSSCT estimated capacity of 9,400 to 12,400 BV for 

CFH-0818. 

The short run length observed for both media was believed to be the result of competitive adsorption by 

competing anions, such as silica and phosphorous. The effects of these anions are further discussed in the 

following sections. 

The 7,200 to 3,700 BV run lengths experienced in Runs 1 and 2 were significantly shorter than the 

RSSCT projected run lengths of 9,000 to 16,200 BV (see Table 4-6). Considerably higher arsenic 

concentrations in source water (i.e., 67.2 μg/L [on average] in Run 1 and 90.1 μg/L [on average] in Run 2 

vs. 48.9 μg/L [on average] in RSSCT) might have contributed to the shorter run lengths observed. 

Nonetheless, the RSSCT results were useful in terms of helping predict the performance of a full-scale 

system. 

Antimony. Total antimony concentrations in raw water measured during Run 1 ranged from 10.2 to 21.0 

g/L and averaged 14.6 g/L (Table 4-7), existing almost entirely in the soluble form. Influent antimony 

concentrations measured during Run 2 ranged from 10.0 to 15.7 μg/L and averaged 13.7 μg/L (Table 4-

8). Figure 4-14 shows antimony breakthrough curves from Vessels A, B, and C and the entire system. 

The test results obtained by WCDWR on treated water samples also are included in the graphs. 

Breakthrough at 6 g/L occurred at approximately 2,000 (facility data) to 3,000 BV (Battelle data) during 

Run 1 and 1,225 BV during Run 2, indicating that both media had a limited adsorptive capacity for 

antimony. 

One pilot study conducted by Siemens in Salt Lake County Service Area No. 3, Utah showed that GFH 

could remove antimony up to 50,000 BV. More information on this study can be found at 

http://www.canyonwater.com/antimony.htm. 

35
0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Antimony Concentration (

g/L)

IN

TA

TB

TC

TT

TT (Facility)

MCL

End of

Run 1 

(May 2006)

System operated 

briefly in 

September 2006

prior to media 

replacement 

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Antimony Concentration (

g/L)

IN

TA (GFH)

TB (CFH-0818)

TC (CFH-0818)

TT (Facility)

MCL

Figure 4-14. Antimony Breakthrough Curves 

(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)

36
37

Silica. Silica concentrations in raw water ranged from 51.5 to 95.1 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 72.6 

mg/L (as SiO2) during Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 73.7 to 75.5 mg/L (as SiO2) during Run 2 

(Table 4-8). Silica was removed until reaching complete breakthrough about halfway through the 32-

week study period in Run 1 (Figure 4-15). In Run 2, only two data points were obtained and silica 

already had reached complete breakthrough when the second set of samples was taken. Silica adsorption 

on porous metal-oxide adsorptive media can be a major factor that impacts arsenic and, perhaps, 

antimony, removal by these media (Smith et al., 2005). Several batch and column studies document that 

silica reduces arsenic adsorptive capacities on ferric oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et 

al., 2002; Meng et al., 2000). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and ironarsenic-silica systems include: 1) adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by 

lowering the iso-electric point (or pHzpc), 2) silica may compete for arsenic adsorption sites, 3) 

polymerization of silica may accelerate silica sorption but lower the available surface sites for arsenic 

adsorption, and 4) chemical reactions of silica with divalent cations such as calcium, magnesium, and 

barium may form precipitates. Therefore, the high level of silica in Well No. 9 might have reduced 

arsenic and antimony removal capacities of both media. 

Phosphorous. Total phosphorous concentrations in raw water ranged from 89.0 to 150.4 μg/L (as P) and 

averaged 115.2 μg/L during Run 1 (Table 4-7) and ranged from 105.9 to 118.6 μg/L (as P) and averaged 

111.8 μg/L (as P) during Run 2 (Table 4-8). Orthophosphate was measured on seven occasions during 

the first three months of Run 1 system operation, with concentrations peaking at 0.13 mg/L (as P) and 

averaging 0.08 mg/L. Total phosphorous was removed to below the method reporting limit of 10 μg/L 

(as P) until about 3,500 BV and then gradually broke through from the adsorption vessels (see 

breakthrough curve for Run 1 in Figure 4-16). Phosphorous did not reach 100% breakthrough by the end 

of either run. Phosphorous removal by iron-based adsorptive media has been observed at several EPA 

arsenic removal demonstration sites (McCall et al, 2006; 2008). Similar to silica, phosphorous apparently 

competed with arsenic and, perhaps antimony for available adsorption sites, thus significantly reducing 

the useful media life for arsenic and antimony. 

Other Water Quality Parameters. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 provide a summary for the water quality 

parameters observed during normal system operation for Run 1 and Run 2, respectively. During the first 

day of Run 1 operation, the water quality measured was not typical of those measured thereafter. For 

example, an elevated iron concentration (i.e., 232 μg/L) was measured in the influent during startup on 

September 27, 2005, compared to <25 μg/L for all samples collected thereafter. Also, significant 

decreases in pH (from 7.1 to <4.5), alkalinity (from 92 to <1.0 mg/L [as CaCO3]), and chlorine residuals 

(from 0.8 to 0.2 mg/L [as Cl2]) were observed in the effluent of adsorption vessels shortly after the system 

was placed online, indicating removal of bicarbonate ions and consumption of chlorine by the GFH 

media. Within a week, the pH, alkalinity, and chlorine residual levels after the adsorption vessels 

returned to normal. Further, elevated total and dissolved manganese concentrations were measured in the 

effluent of the adsorption vessels on September 27, 2005, i.e., ranging from 12.4 to 16.8 μg/L as 

compared to an average of 0.1 mg/L for all samples collected thereafter), indicating leaching of some 

manganese from the GFH media during the initial operation. 

As shown in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, pH values of raw water varied from 6.5 to 7.9, which fell within the 

desirable pH range for adsorptive media without any pH adjustment. pH values of the treated water 

ranged from 6.4 to 7.6. Therefore, the water pH did not change significantly after the treatment, except 

for shortly after the system was placed online. All other constituents in raw water did not appear to have 

been altered by the treatment system. 
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Silica Concentration (mg/L)

IN

TA

TB

TC

TT

End of

Run 1 

(May 2006)

System operated 

briefly in 

September 2006

prior to media 

replacement 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Silica Concentration (mg/L)

IN

TA (GFH)

TB (CFH-0818)

TC (CFH-0818)

Figure 4-15. Silica Breakthrough Curves 

(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)

38
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Total P Concentration (ug/L)

IN

TA

TB

TC

TT

End of

Run 1 

(May 2006)

System operated 

briefly in 

September 2006

prior to media 

replacement 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

 Bed Volumes (X 1000)

Total P Concentration (ug/L)

IN

TA (GFH)

TB (CFH-0818)

TC (CFH-0818)

Figure 4-16. Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves 

(Run 1, top; Run 2, bottom)

39
Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements

Number of Concentration 

Samples 

Sampling 

Parameter Location Unit Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation 

IN g/L 24 <25 <25 <25 0 

TA g/L 22 <25 <25 - - 

TB g/L 22 <25 <25 - - 

TC g/L 22 <25 <25 - - 

Fe (total) 

TT g/L 9 <25 873 - - 

IN g/L 5 <25 <25 <25 0 

TA g/L 2 <25 <25 - - 

TB g/L 2 <25 <25 - - 

TC g/L 2 <25 <25 - - 

Fe (soluble) 

TT g/L 5 <25 72.4 - - 

IN g/L 24 <0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 

TA g/L 22 <0.1 0.6 - - 

TB g/L 22 <0.1 0.3 - - 

TC g/L 22 <0.1 0.7 - - 

Mn (total) 

TT g/L 9 <0.1 40.4 - - 

IN g/L 5 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 

TA g/L 2 <0.1 0.4 - - 

TB g/L 2 <0.1 0.2 - - 

TC g/L 2 <0.1 0.2 - - Mn (soluble) 

TT g/L 5 <0.1 1.9 - - 

IN mg/L 5 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.05 

TA mg/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 

TB mg/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 

TC mg/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 

Fluoride 

TT mg/L 5 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0 

IN mg/L 5 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.02 

TA mg/L 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 

TB mg/L 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 

TC mg/L 3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 

Nitrate 

(as N) 

TT mg/L 5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 

IN mg/L 5 6.7 7.4 7.0 0.3 

TA mg/L 3 7.0 8.0 7.5 0.5 

TB mg/L 3 7.0 8.0 7.5 0.5 

TC mg/L 3 7.0 8.0 7.5 0.5 

Sulfate 

TT mg/L 5 7.0 8.0 7.4 0.4 

IN mg/L 24 88.0 101 93.4 3.9 

TA mg/L 22 83.0 101 92.2 3.7 

TB mg/L 22 79.0 101 92.3 4.8 

TC mg/L 22 80.0 97.0 92.1 3.9 

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) 

TT mg/L 5 83.0 185 108 43.4 

IN NTU 24 <0.1 2.0 0.4 0.4 

TA NTU 22 <0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 

TB NTU 22 <0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 

TC NTU 22 <0.1 1.2 0.3 0.3 

Turbidity 

TT NTU 5 0.2 9.5 2.2 4.1 

40
Table 4-9. Summary of Run 1 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Continued)

Concentration 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location Unit 

Number of 

Samples Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation

IN S.U. 26 6.5 7.9 7.1 0.3 

TA S.U. 26 6.5 7.6 7.0 0.2 

TB S.U. 26 6.5 7.6 7.0 0.2 

TC S.U. 26 6.5 7.5 7.0 0.2 

pH 

TT S.U. 24 6.5 7.5 7.0 0.2 

IN °C 26 14.6 17.7 16.5 0.7 

TA °C 26 14.6 17.7 16.4 0.8 

TB °C 26 14.6 17.7 16.2 0.8 

TC °C 26 10.6 17.6 15.9 1.3 

Temperature 

TT °C 25 14.7 17.0 16.1 0.6 

IN mg/L 26 0.8 6.2 1.9 1.4 

TA mg/L 26 0.9 4.7 1.9 1.0 

TB mg/L 26 0.9 4.6 1.9 1.0 

TC mg/L 26 1.0 4.6 1.9 1.1 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

TT mg/L 25 0.8 6.0 2.0 1.3 

IN mV 26 115 381 255 52.8 

TA mV 26 215 739 657 129 

TB mV 26 236 744 672 129 

TC mV 26 242 753 682 130 

ORP 

TT mV 25 264 754 699 97.8 

Notes: Samples collected on first day of operation, i.e., September 27, 2006, not included because they were 

not representative of normal operation. See Appendix B for September 27, 2006 results. One-half of 

detection limit used for less than detection calculations. Duplicate samples included in calculations. 

4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash wastewater samples were collected on 

September 12, 2006, and the analytical results are summarized in Table 4-11. 

The average pH value of backwash wastewater was 7.0, similar to the pH values of the treated water used 

for backwash. Soluble arsenic concentrations of the backwash wastewater averaged 15.7 g/L, similar to 

those of the treated water. Soluble iron and soluble manganese concentrations of the backwash 

wastewater averaged 26.5 and 1.6 g/L, respectively, also similar to those of the treated water. Soluble 

iron concentrations were considerably lower than the corresponding total iron concentrations, which 

averaged 1,984 g/L. The presence of particulate iron most likely was associated with media fines, 

because little or no iron was measured in raw water. Assuming that 45 mg/L of TSS was produced in 

8,850 gal of backwash wastewater from the vessels (based on totalizer readings), approximately 3.3 lb of 

solids would be discharged during each backwash event. Based on the total metal (or, more correctly, 

digested metal) data, the solids discharged would be composed of <0.001, 0.145, and 0.002 lb of arsenic, 

iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 2.4 μg/L of particulate arsenic, 1,962 μg/L of particulate 

iron, and 34.2 μg/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater. 

Table 4-12 presents total metal results of three backwash solid samples (one each from Vessels A, B, and 

C backwash) collected on September 13, 2006 and analyzed in triplicate. Iron levels in the solids ranged 

from 168 to 190 mg/g (of dry media) and averaged 178 mg/g (or 18%). Arsenic levels ranged from 0.85 

to 0.95 mg/g and averaged 0.90 mg/g (or 0.09%). 

41
42

Table 4-10. Summary of Run 2 Other Water Quality Parameter Measurements

Concentration 

Parameter 

Sampling 

Location Unit 

Number 

of 

Samples Minimum Maximum Average 

Standard 

Deviation 

IN g/L 3 <25 <25 <25 0 

TA g/L 3 <25 <25 - - 

TB g/L 3 <25 <25 - - 

TC g/L 3 <25 <25 - - 

Fe (total) 

TT g/L 0 - - - - 

IN g/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 

TA g/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 - - 

TB g/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 - - 

TC g/L 3 <0.1 <0.1 - - 

Mn (total) 

TT g/L 0 - - - - 

IN S.U. 4 7.1 7.6 7.3 0.2 

TA S.U. 4 6.4 7.0 - - 

TB S.U. 4 6.4 7.4 - - 

TC S.U. 4 6.5 8.0 - - 

pH 

TT S.U. 4 6.4 7.6 - - 

IN °C 4 17.2 18.3 17.9 0.5 

TA °C 4 17.3 18.5 - - 

TB °C 4 17.4 18.4 - - 

TC °C 4 17.4 18.6 - - 

Temperature 

TT °C 4 16.7 18.4 - - 

IN mg/L 4 4.2 7.6 5.6 1.4 

TA mg/L 4 4.1 7.4 - - 

TB mg/L 4 3.9 6.1 - - 

TC mg/L 4 3.9 6.4 - - 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

TT mg/L 4 3.5 5.9 - - 

IN mV 4 121 256 179 57 

TA mV 4 388 676 - - 

TB mV 4 536 717 - - 

TC mV 4 477 720 - - 

ORP 

TT mV 4 603 742 - - 

One-half of detection limit used for less than detection calculations. 

Table 4-11. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results pH TDS TSS As (total) As (soluble) Fe (total) Fe (soluble) 

Mn (total) Mn (soluble) 

Vessel Date S.U. mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

A 9/12/2006 7.02 208 44 15.9 15.8 1,586 33.1 35.0 2.8 

B 9/12/2006 6.98 154 52 19.0 15.9 2,833 34.0 49.3 0.9 

C 9/12/2006 6.97 160 39 19.3 15.4 1,534 <25 23.1 1.1 

Average 7.00 174 45 18.1 15.7 1,984 26.5 35.8 1.6 
Table 4-12. Backwash Solid Total Metal Results 

Sample ID Unit Mg Al Si P Ca V Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd 

BW1-Solids-A μg/g 5,150 29,342 1,393 1,116 18,611 509 172,665 806 46.4 1,655 400 854 1.17 BW1-Solids-B μg/g 5,291 31,087 1,743 1,117 19,067 532 180,765 845 46.8 1,675 435 875 1.26 BW1-Solids-C μg/g 5,159 29,240 1,602 1,097 19,087 525 178,371 831 46.7 1,740 455 883 1.35 Vessel A Average μg/g 5,200 29,890 1,579 1,110 18,922 522 177,267 827 46.6 1,690 430 871 1.26 BW2-Solids-A μg/g 3,993 25,329 1,495 1,096 15,243 589 189,544 761 39.3 778 252 936 0.48 BW2-Solids-B μg/g 3,687 20,255 1,167 1,078 14,493 589 188,229 765 39.5 784 232 945 0.45 BW2-Solids-C μg/g 3,643 21,371 1,289 1,087 15,831 591 186,038 755 39.6 770 285 926 <0.5 Vessel B Average μg/g 3,774 22,318 1,317 1,087 15,189 590 187,937 760 39.5 778 257 936 0.46 BW3-Solids-A μg/g 4,044 26,471 1,598 1,059 16,213 564 168,172 610 34.7 1,506 356 885 <0.5 BW3-Solids-B μg/g 3,556 17,521 1,475 1,049 14,436 558 167,817 606 33.7 1,522 371 894 <0.5 BW3-Solids-C μg/g 3,889 23,512 1,573 1,022 16,102 554 168,416 613 34.9 1,473 335 872 <0.5 Vessel C Average μg/g 3,830 22,501 1,549 1,043 15,584 559 168,135 610 34.4 1,500 354 884 <0.5 

43
4.5.3 Spent Media Sampling. On March 27, 2007, spent GFH media samples were collected for 

total digestive metals and TCLP analyses as part of the demonstration study (Section 3.3.3). The results 

of TCLP analysis (Table 4-13) characterized the spent media as a non-hazardous material that could be 

disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Among the eight Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

metals analyzed, only barium was detected at 3.1 mg/L. The other RCRA metals were at concentrations 

less than the respective method detection limits. Spent GFH samples also were collected by WCDWR on 

February 2, 2007 prior to the media replacement for site specific waste characterization required by a 

local landfill. WCDWR shared the results of these tests, which, as also shown in Table 4-13, were very 

similar to those of the samples taken on March 27, 2007, with only barium detected at 3.4 mg/L. 

Table 4-13. TCLP and Other Waste Characterization Results for Spent Media 

Concentration 

Parameter Unit Method 

Collected by Battelle 

on 03/27/07 

Collected by WCDWR 

on 02/02/07(a)(b) 

TCLP Results 

Arsenic mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.05 <0.1 

Barium mg/L SW1311/6010B 3.1 3.4 

Cadmium mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.05 <0.1 

Chrome mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.05 <0.1 

Lead mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.1 <0.1 

Mercury mg/L SW7470 <0.003 NA 

Selenium mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.3 <0.5 

Silver mg/L SW1311/6010B <0.05 <0.1 

Iron mg/L SW846/6010A NA <0.5 

Other Waste Characterization Test Results(a)

Paint Filter Test Pass/Fail SW-846-9095 NA Pass 

pH-Saturated Test S.U. SW-846-9045A NA 7.32 

TCLP VOCs mg/L EPA SW 1311/8260B NA All <0.1 

(a) Waste characterization test results provided by WCDWR for informational purposes. 

(b) WCDWR laboratory followed SW846/6020 method for TCLP analysis for metals. 

ICP-MS results of the media analysis are presented in Table 4-14. The virgin GFH media contained 

mostly iron at 609 mg/g (as Fe), which is consistent with the vendor reported value of 61% in Table 4-3. 

The spent GFH media contained an average of 440 and 324 mg/g of iron for the Run 1 and Run 2 media, 

respectively. The lower iron content in the spent media might have contributed to the higher levels of 

impurities in the spent media. The virgin CFH-0818 media was not analyzed, but reportedly contained 

44% of iron (Table 4-3). The corresponding spent media contained 394 mg/g of iron. 

The spent GFH media results indicated that the media removed arsenic and other elements such as P, V, 

Cu, Zn, Sb, and Ba as water passed through the tank as evident by the decreasing concentrations from the 

top to the bottom of the tank. The average arsenic concentration on the spent GFH media was 2,000 g/g 

(0.2%) during Run 1. The spent GFH and CFH-0818 media collected from the top of the tanks at the end 

of Run 2 contained 1,655 g/g (0.166%) and 590 g/g (0.059%) of arsenic, respectively. 

The arsenic loading on the spent media was also calculated in terms of μg As/g of dry media by dividing 

the arsenic mass represented by the area between the influent and effluent curves on the breakthrough 

curves, shown in Figure 4-13, by the amount of dry media in each tank. Table 4-15 presents a summary 

of the arsenic loading calculations for each media during Run 1 and Run 2. As shown in this table, the 

44
Table 4-14. Total Metals Analysis Results for Spent Media 

Mg Al Si P Ca V Fe Mn Ni Cu Zn As Cd 

Location in Tank g/g g/g g/g  g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g g/g  g/g g/g Virgin GFH(a) 83.3 523 399 85 228 NA 609,306 384 109 15.9 23 6.6 <0.5 Run 1(b)Top (GFH) 519 722 750 1,972 3,366 1,656 440,113 271 60.7 28.7 243 2,607 <0.5 Middle (GFH) 553 787 953 1,912 3,295 1,833 443,477 291 65.7 40.2 261 2,540 <0.5 Bottom (GFH) 447 462 980 1,366 2,699 687 435,010 249 66.2 5.4 59 852 <0.5 Average 506 657 894 1750 3,120 1,392 439,533 270 64 24.8 188 2,000 <0.5 Run 2(b)Top (GFH) 425 461 2,868 1,544 2,571 NA 324,048 903 36.3 14.7 26 1,655 <0.5 Top (CFH-0818) 5402 504 1,511 1,225 5,831 NA 394,014 922 151 6.19 380 590 <0.5 

(a) Virgin media characterized in a separate study. 

(b) Average compositions calculated from triplicate analyses.

Table 4-15. Summary of Arsenic Loading Calculations for Run 1 and Run 2

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 

45 Run 2 

Media GFH GFH CFH- 0818 Volume (ft3) 240  160 Bulk Density (lb/ft3) 71.8  74.9 Wet Weight (lb) 17,232  11,984 Moisture Content (%) 47  16 Dry Weight (lb) 9,133  10,067 As Removed from Raw Water (g) 4,556  2,939 Average As Loading (μg/g) 1,100  644 As Concentration in Spent Media (μg/g) 2,000  590 
arsenic loadings on the Run 1 GFH media, Run 2 GFH media, and Run 2 CFH-0818 media were 1,100, 

984 and 644 g/g, respectively. These calculated arsenic loadings represent the average loadings on the 

entire volume of the media. Due to the arsenic concentration gradient from the top to the bottom of the 

tanks, these average loadings may or may match the results of the ICP-MS analysis of the respective 

media. 

4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the operation of the GFH system, baseline 

distribution water samples were collected from three locations for four consecutive months in 2004. 

Following system startup in September 2005, distribution sampling continued on a monthly basis at the 

same three locations. The sampling results are presented in Table 4-16. Figure 4-17 plots the total arsenic 

and antimony concentrations measured in the distribution system after system startup. 

Prior to the installation of the GFH system, total arsenic and antimony concentrations in the distribution 

system upstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS1) averaged 87.2 and 16.8 μg/L, respectively, 

representing the high concentrations in Well No. 9 water. Downstream of the blending point (i.e., at DS2 

and DS3), total arsenic concentrations averaged 16.7 μg/L at DS2 and 17.4 μg/L at DS3, whereas total 

antimony concentrations averaged 2.6 μg/L at DS2 and 2.8 μg/L at DS3. These values were significantly 

lower than those in Well No. 9 water due to blending with low-arsenic and low-antimony water from 

other source wells supplying the distribution system. After the GFH system was put into service, both 

arsenic and antimony concentrations at all three locations were significantly reduced to below the 

respective MCLs (except for one exceedance), as shown in Figure 4-17. These concentration reductions 

resulted primarily from treatment by GFH system and blending with other source waters. Due to lack of 

records of actual blending ratios and water quality of other source wells, the exact cause of the reductions 

observed may not be identified. 

Lead levels in the first draw samples from two residences (DS2 and DS3) were low (< 0.1 to 1.5 μg/L) 

and did not appear to be affected by the treatment system. Copper levels fluctuated, ranging from 17.1 to 

148 μg/L before the treatment system was installed and from 0.6 to 176 μg/L afterwards, which were well 

below the copper action level of 1,300 μg/L. Iron and manganese concentrations in the distribution 

system were below the respective detection limits most of the time. The pH and alkalinity values 

remained fairly constant in 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 gallons of water treated. This required tracking of the capital cost for the 

equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for the media replacement and disposal, 

electricity consumption, and labor. The cost incurred for treatment building construction ($186,000 

funded by STMGID) and well reconfiguration (provided by EPA with partial funding of $34,840) were 

not included in this cost evaluation. 

4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was 

$232,147 (see Table 4-17) as provided by Siemens in a cost proposal to Battelle dated October 1, 2003. 

The equipment cost was $157,647 (or 68% of the total capital investment), which included the cost for 

three skid-mounted carbon steel pressure vessels ($45,500), 240 ft3 of GFH media ($238/ft3

 or $3.03/lb 

for a total cost of $57,000), process piping and valving ($11,000), instrumentation and controls ($9,500), 

and field services, labor, and travel ($27,000). The equipment cost also included a change order of 

$7,647 for adding three flow meters and three differential pressure gauge assemblies. The items on the 

change order were not standard items and were added for monitoring purposes. 

46
Table 4-16. Distribution System Sampling Results 

No. of 

Location DS1 DS2 

Sample Type Non-Residence LCR 

Flushed /1st Draw 1st Draw Flushed(a) 1st Draw 

rs)

rs)

rs)

Sampling 

Events

Sampling Date

Stagnation Time (h

pH

Alkalinity

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

Sb

pH

Alkalinity

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

Sb

Stagnation Time (h

pH

Alkalinity

As

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu

Sb

Stagnation Time (h

pH

BL1 06/09/04 164 6.8 116 65.3 <25 0.6 8.9 13.1 15.4 6.8 91 63.2 <25 0.1 1.4 5.2 15.5 8.8 7.1 104 13.1 <25 <0.1 0.4 110 2.4 9.5 6.9 BL2 07/08/04 740 6.9 93 87.9 212 0.7 32.6 7.6 15.6 6.9 93 81.4 <25 <0.1 2.0 5.4 15.7 NA 7.0 97 20.4 <25 <0.1 0.3 43.9 2.9 NA 7.1 BL3 08/11/04 211 7.4 94 93.5 <25 0.8 3.4 8.2 15.3 7.3 94 93.4 <25 0.5 0.6 7.0 15.2 10.8 7.3 102 15.9 <25 <0.1 <0.1 17.1 2.2 8 7.5 BL4 09/08/04 672 7.2 97 108 555 2.2 46.2 13.3 21.3 7.3 93 111 <25 0.4 0.7 7.6 20.9 7.0 7.2 105 17.6 <25 <0.1 0.1 74.4 2.9 8.3(b) 7.4 

1 10/25/05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.3 97 3.1 106 1.5 4.5 51.2 2.0 NA 7.5 106 4.7 <25 <0.1 0.6 11.8 0.5 NA 7.5 2 11/30/05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 88 4.1 <25 2.3 2.7 4.7 2.1 8.0 7.5 97 5.5 <25 <0.1 0.1 20.9 1.0 7.5 7.5 3 12/14/05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.5 101 4.0 <25 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.3 13.0 7.6 106 4.2 <25 <0.1 0.1 0.6 2.1 8.5 7.6 4 01/18/06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.1 92 1.2 <25 0.5 1.2 10.4 10.5 8.5 7.4 101 3.9 <25 <0.1 0.4 172 2.1 NA 7.7 5 02/15/06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.5 104 4.3 <25 1.0 0.7 6.5 2.2 7.3 7.5 104 4.4 <25 0.2 0.5 86.2 2.0 7.5 7.5 6 03/15/06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.5 100 4.1 <25 <0.1 0.5 100 2.0 7.3 7.4 100 4.0 <25 <0.1 0.3 176 2.0 7.7 7.4 7 04/12/06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.6 106 7.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 2.1 3.2 7.5 7.4 106 7.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 121 3.3 8.0 7.4 

(a) DS1 was located upstream of the Well No. 9 blending point. First draw sampling discontinued after the baseline sampling due to i

tap as indicated by the long stagnation time. Stagnation times not appliable for flushed samples. 

(b) Resident's roommate may have used the water before the draw. 

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L Unit of μg/L for all anlaytes except for pH and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 

BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = not available 

47
20

Plant Effluent As

DS1 As

DS2 As

Total Sb Concentration (ug/L) Total As Concentration (ug/L)

DS3 As

15

10-ug/L As MCL 10

5

0

10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06

Sampling Date

20

Plant Effluent Sb

DS1 Sb

DS2 Sb

DS3 Sb

15

10

6-ug/L Sb MCL

5

0

10/01/05 10/31/05 11/30/05 12/30/05 01/29/06 02/28/06 03/30/06 04/29/06 05/29/06

Sampling Date

Figure 4-17. Total As and Sb Concentrations in Distribution System after System Startup 

48
Table 4-17. Summary of Capital Investment Cost of GFH System

Description Quantity Cost 

% of Capital 

Investment Cost 

Equipment Costs

GFH Media (ft3) 240 $57,000 – 

Vessels 3 $45,500 – 

Process Piping and Valves – $11,000 – 

Instrumentation and Controls – $9,500 – 

Field Services and Miscellaneous Items – $12,000 – 

Labor – $10,000 – 

Travel – $5,000 – 

Change Order for Adding Three Flow 

Meters and Three Differential Pressure 

Gauge Assembles 

– $7,647 – 

Equipment Total – $157,647 68% 

Engineering Costs

Labor – $16,000 – 

Engineering Total – $16,000 7% 

Installation Costs

Material – $13,500 – 

Labor – $30,000 – 

Travel – $10,000 – 

Subcontractor – $5,000 – 

Installation Total – $58,500 25% 

Total Capital Investment – $232,147 100% 

WCDWR prepared, at its own cost, the required engineering plans and permit submittals, which included 

the system layout and footprint, piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, and system 

specifications and P&IDs provided by Siemens. The engineering cost charged by Siemens was $16,000, 

about 7% of the total capital investment. The engineering work performed by Siemens was limited to its 

system design information and PE-stamped P&IDs. The cost incurred by WCDWR for the plans 

preparation and submittals are not included in Table 4-17. 

 

The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system; 

complete the piping installation and tie-ins; and perform the system startup and shakedown (Section 

4.3.3). The installation cost was $58,500, or 25% of the total capital investment. 

The capital cost of $232,147 was normalized to $663/gpm (or $0.46/gpd) of the design capacity using the 

system’s rated capacity of 350 gpm (or 504,000 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an 

annualized cost of $21,912 by applying a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate 

and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design flowrate of 

350 gpm to produce 183,960,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.12/1,000 gal. 

Using the 3.8 hr/day of average daily system run time and 275 gpm of average system flowrate, the 

system would produce only 22,885,500 gal of water per year. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit 

capital cost increased to $0.96/1,000 gal. 

4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the Siemens GFH system included 

only the incremental cost associated with the system, such as media replacement and disposal, electricity 

consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-18. Additional electricity use associated with the air 

49
compressor and PLC was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed 

about 30 min/day, 5 day/wk as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the labor cost was calculated to be 

$0.18/1,000 gal of water treated. 

Table 4-18. Summary of O&M Cost 

Cost Category Value Assumptions 

Volume Processed (1,000 gal) 15,567 Actual volume treated for 32-week period 

Media Replacement and Disposal

Volume of Media Replaced (ft3) 240 

$240/ft3 Replacement Media ($) 57,600 of media, includes shipping 

Labor and Disposal($) 12,950 

Waste Characterization ($) 608 

Subtotal ($) 71,158 Estimated cost 

As a function of media run length to 10-

g/L As or 6-g/L Sb breakthrough 

Media Replacement and Disposal 

Cost ($/1,000 gal) See Figure 4-18 

Chemical Usage

Chemical Cost ($) 0.00 No additional chemicals required 

Electricity

Electricity Cost ($/1,000 gal) 0.001 Incremental electrical cost negligible 

Labor

Average Weekly Labor (hr) 2.5 30 min/day, 5 day/wk 

Labor Cost ($) 2,800 80 hr × $35/hr for 32-wk period 

Labor Cost ($/1,000 gal) 0.18 Based on 15,567,000 gal of water treated 

Total O&M Cost ($/1,000 gal) See Figure 4-18 

The unit O&M cost is driven primarily by the cost to replace the spent media and is a function of the 

media run length. The media run length is measured by the number of bed volumes treated by the system 

until reaching 10-μg/L arsenic breakthrough or 6-μg/L antimony breakthrough in the combined effluent, 

whichever occurs first. CFH-0818 was tested in an attempt to find a less expensive adsorptive media that 

would work as well as the GFH because of the short run length. However, at the time this report was 

prepared, the CFH-0818 was taken off the market to make improvements to the product and the 

reintroduction of this media is pending further evaluation of the marketplace. The cost estimate focused 

on the cost to operate the Siemens adsorptive system utilizing GFH. The pending media replacement cost 

is estimated to be $71,158, including 240 ft3

 of virgin GFH media ($57,600), labor and spent media 

disposal ($12,950), and waste characterization ($608). By averaging the media replacement cost over the 

media life, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV 

or the system throughput in gal (see Figure 4-18). The media run length in BV was calculated by 

dividing the total system throughput by the total quantity of media, i.e., 240 ft3

. As shown in this figure, 

the unit media replacement cost would be $5.51/1,000 gal for a media run length of 7,200 BV (or 

12,925,000 gal) – if the system operation was governed by arsenic. If the system operation was governed 

by antimony, the media would be replaced around 3,000 BV (or 5,386,000 gal) and the unit replacement 

cost would be higher at $13.21/1,000 gal. Unit costs would be even higher if governed based on the 

faster arsenic and antimony breakthrough observed during Run 2 (i.e., $15.51/1,000 gal and $32.36/1,000 

gal, respectively). 

50
$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (x1000)

Cost ($/1,000 gal)

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

SystemThroughput (X 1000 gal)

Total O&M cost

Media replacement

cost

Figure 4-18. Media Replacement and Total O&M Curves for GFH System 

51
5.0 REFERENCES 

Battelle. 2003. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998. 

“Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWW, 90(3): 103-113. 

EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal 

Register, 40 CFR Part 141. 

EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems. 

EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance 

and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 

McCall, S.E., L. A.S.C. Chen, and Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH, Six-Month Evaluation Report. 

EPA/600/R-06/125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive 

Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Bow, NH, Final Performance Evaluation Report. 

EPA/600/R-08/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic 

Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261. 

Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic 

Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters, 133(1): 103-111. 

Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to 

Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211. 

Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

Westerhoff, P., T. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, L.J. Cumming. 2007. Assessing Arsenic Removal by 

Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. Prepared under 

Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0019, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH

52
APPENDIX A 

OPERATIONAL DATA
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV – Summary of Run 1 Daily Syste

Pump House Total System Operation Data Tank Pressure 

Total Flow Flow Flow 

Hour 

Meter

Avg. Op 

Hours

Total 

Hours

Avg. 

Flowrate

Master Flow 

Meter

Treated 

Volume

Treated 

Volume

Totalizer 

Tank A

Totalizer 

Tank B

Totalizer 

Tank C

Cumulative 

Flow

Cumulative 

Bed Volume Tank A Tank B 

Week Date hr hr hr gpm gal Kgal Kgal gal gal gal Kgal # of BV P Inlet Outlet P Inlet Outlet 

1

09/27/05 6564.9 4 270 116,028,000 62 62 21,142 20,218 20,218 62 34.0 0.0 101.0 100.0 0.0 99.0 100.0 

09/28/05 6583.8 18.9 23 288 116,355,000 327 389 129,929 124,431 124,431 379 211.1 1.0 103.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 102.0 

09/29/05 6587.7 11.4 27 278 116,420,000 65 454 151,832 145,433 145,433 443 246.8 1.1 105.0 105.0 1.1 106.0 106.0 

09/30/05 6606.4 13.8 45 287 116,742,000 322 776 258,020 248,072 248,072 754 420.4 1.1 103.0 103.0 1.0 104.0 102.0 

2

10/03/05 6653.3 14.7 92 286 117,548,000 806 1,582 524,876 507,150 508,370 1,540 858.6 1.3 104.0 102.0 0.5 106.0 101.0 

10/04/05 6666.5 14.5 105 287 117,775,000 227 1,809 599,420 599,420 581,426 1,780 992.3 1.1 101.0 101.0 1.0 103.0 101.0 

10/05/05 6688.6 15.5 128 287 118,156,000 381 2,190 725,650 725,650 705,298 2,157 1202.1 1.1 104.0 103.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 

10/06/05 6702.2 15.3 141 287 118,390,000 234 2,424 801,333 801,333 779,650 2,382 1327.9 1.1 103.0 103.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 

10/07/05 6716.9 15.2 156 286 118,642,000 252 2,676 884,862 884,862 861,230 2,631 1466.5 1.2 101.0 101.0 1.0 102.0 101.0 

3

10/10/05 6765.0 15.4 204 287 119,469,000 827 3,503 1,157,292 1,121,250 1,128,411 3,407 1899.1 1.3 101.0 101.0 1.1 102.0 101.0 

10/11/05 6779.8 15.4 219 331 119,763,000 294 3,797 1,240,530 1,202,300 1,210,200 3,653 2036.2 1.3 101.0 101.0 1.1 101.0 101.0 

10/12/05 6788.0 14.9 227 205 119,864,000 101 3,898 1,287,858 1,246,258 1,255,442 3,790 2112.4 1.1 102.0 102.0 1.1 102.0 102.0 

10/13/05 6800.0 14.7 239 285 120,069,000 205 4,103 1,357,570 1,310,324 1,321,711 3,990 2223.9 1.2 102.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 103.0 

4

10/17/05 6810.4 12.3 249 282 120,245,000 176 4,279 1,417,138 1,365,029 1,378,363 4,161 2319.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 

10/18/05 6810.4 11.7 249 0 120,245,000 0 4,279 1,417,138 1,365,029 1,378,363 4,161 2319.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 

10/19/05 6810.5 11.2 249 333 120,247,000 2 4,281 1,417,700 1,365,600 1,378,990 4,162 2320.1 0.0 104.0 103.0 0.0 104.0 104.0 

10/20/05 6816.2 10.9 255 287 120,345,000 98 4,379 1,449,942 1,395,794 1,409,061 4,255 2371.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10/21/05 6816.2 10.5 255 0 120,345,000 0 4,379 1,450,500 1,395,700 1,409,600 4,256 2372.2 0.4 103.0 101.0 1.1 102.0 101.0 

5

10/24/05 6822.3 9.5 261 279 120,447,005 102 4,481 1,485,546 1,427,875 1,442,384 4,356 2428.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10/25/05 6822.4 9.2 261 166 120,448,000 1 4,482 1,486,127 1,428,431 1,442,971 4,358 2428.9 0.9 102.0 101.0 1.3 101.0 100.0 

10/26/05 6829.2 9.1 268 284 120,564,000 116 4,598 1,527,269 1,463,755 1,478,871 4,470 2491.6 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 

10/27/05 6832.8 8.9 272 292 120,627,000 63 4,661 1,549,712 1,483,007 1,498,466 4,531 2525.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

6

10/31/05 6832.8 7.9 272 0 120,627,000 0 4,661 1,549,712 1,483,007 1,498,466 4,531 2525.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11/01/05 6837.9 7.8 277 288 120,715,000 88 4,749 1,580,898 1,509,900 1,525,900 4,617 2573.4 0.8 102.0 101.0 1.2 102.0 101.0 

11/02/05 6839.3 7.6 278 262 120,737,000 22 4,771 1,588,801 1,516,666 1,532,747 4,638 2585.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11/03/05 6841.9 7.5 281 282 120,781,000 44 4,815 1,604,500 1,530,200 1,546,600 4,681 2609.4 0.8 103.0 101.0 1.2 102.0 101.0 

11/04/05 6846.1 7.4 285 282 120,852,000 71 4,886 1,629,640 1,552,000 1,568,800 4,750 2648.0 0.8 102.0 101.0 1.3 102.0 101.0 

7

11/07/05 6852.7 7.0 292 288 120,966,000 114 5,000 1,669,050 1,586,400 1,603,830 4,859 2708.6 1.0 102.0 101.0 1.3 101.0 100.0 

11/08/05 6853.9 6.9 293 278 120,986,000 20 5,020 1,676,500 1,593,100 1,610,700 4,880 2720.3 1.0 103.0 102.0 1.4 102.0 101.0 

11/09/05 6859.4 6.8 298 288 121,081,000 95 5,115 1,708,705 1,622,368 1,640,596 4,972 2771.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11/10/05 6860.9 6.7 300 278 121,106,000 25 5,140 1,717,600 1,630,500 1,648,800 4,997 2785.3 1.0 104.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

8

11/14/05 6862.9 6.2 302 275 121,139,000 33 5,173 1,728,625 1,640,491 1,659,012 5,028 2802.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11/15/05 6864.9 6.1 304 275 121,172,000 33 5,206 1,741,600 1,652,400 1,671,100 5,065 2823.4 1.0 103.0 101.0 1.4 102.0 101.0 

11/16/05 6866.4 6.0 305 311 121,200,000 28 5,234 1,749,080 1,659,240 1,678,070 NA NA 1.0 102.0 101.0 1.4 102.0 101.0 

11/17/05 6868.0 5.9 307 271 121,226,000 26 5,260 1,758,400 1,667,800 1,686,600 5,113 2849.9 1.0 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

11/18/05 6871.4 5.9 310 284 121,284,000 58 5,318 1,778,300 1,686,200 1,705,100 5,170 2881.6 1.0 103.0 102.0 1.4 102.0 102.0 

9

11/21/05 6890.1 5.9 329 283 121,602,000 318 5,636 1,885,360 1,784,250 1,804,250 5,474 3051.2 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 

11/22/05 6893.4 5.9 332 278 121,657,000 55 5,691 1,904,560 1,801,850 1,821,980 5,528 3081.6 1.0 106.0 105.0 1.4 104.0 103.0 

11/23/05 6898.9 5.9 338 288 121,752,000 95 5,786 1,938,100 1,832,417 1,855,248 5,626 3135.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10

11/28/05 6919.3 5.7 358 283 122,099,000 347 6,133 2,056,000 1,937,850 1,960,250 5,954 3318.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

11/29/05 6922.9 5.7 362 278 122,159,000 60 6,193 2,075,850 1,956,010 1,978,700 6,011 3350.4 1.1 104.0 103.0 1.4 104.0 103.0 

11/30/05 6924.6 5.6 364 294 122,189,000 30 6,223 2,086,230 1,965,500 1,988,460 6,040 3366.9 1.1 104.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

12/1/05 6928.1 5.6 367 276 122,247,000 58 6,281 2,105,990 1,983,600 2,006,840 6,096 3398.2 1.1 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

12/2/05 6932.5 5.6 371 284 122,322,000 75 6,356 2,131,260 2,006,720 2,030,410 6,168 3438.3 1.1 106.0 105.0 1.4 105.0 104.0 

A-1
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV – Summary of Run 1 Daily System Ope

Pump House Total System Operation Data Tank Pressure O

Avg. Flow Flow Flow 

Hour Op Total Avg. Master Flow Treated Total Treated Totalizer Totalizer Totalizer Cumulative Cumulative 

Meter Hours Hours Flowrate Meter Volume Volume Tank A Tank B Tank C Flow Bed Volume Tank A Tank B 

Week Date hr hr hr gpm gal Kgal Kgal gal gal gal Kgal # of BV P Inlet Outlet P Inlet Outlet 

12/5/05 6945.9 5.5 385 282 122,549,000 227 6,583 2,207,880 2,076,960 2,101,980 6,387 3560.1 0.0 32.0 32.00 0.0 32.0 32.0 12/6/05 6951.0 5.5 390 353 122,657,000 108 6,691 2,237,370 2,103,970 2,129,550 6,471 3607.0 0.0 8.0 8.00 0.0 8.0 8.0 

11 12/7/05 6954.4 5.5 393 181 122,694,000 37 6,728 2,259,500 2,127,100 2,153,400 6,540 3645.5 1.1 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

12/8/05 6958.7 5.5 398 279 122,766,000 72 6,800 2,283,850 2,149,441 2,176,221 6,610 3684.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12/9/05 6961.5 5.4 400 280 122,813,000 47 6,847 2,300,000 2,164,000 2,191,000 6,655 3709.6 1.1 104.0 103.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

12/12/05 6974.9 5.4 414 284 123,041,000 228 7,075 2,377,000 2,235,000 2,263,000 6,875 3832.2 0.0 103.0 101.0 1.0 103.0 102.0 12/13/05 6979.3 5.4 418 288 123,117,000 76 7,151 2,403,000 2,258,000 2,288,000 6,949 3873.5 1.1 102.0 101.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 

12 12/14/05 6982.5 5.4 421 281 123,171,000 54 7,205 2,422,000 2,275,000 2,305,000 7,002 3903.0 1.1 103.0 101.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 

12/15/05 6986.6 5.3 426 285 123,241,000 70 7,275 2,445,000 2,297,000 2,327,000 7,069 3940.4 1.2 104.0 102.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 12/16/05 6991.4 5.3 430 295 123,326,000 85 7,360 2,473,000 2,322,000 2,353,000 7,148 3984.4 1.1 103.0 102.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 01/09/06 7006.8 5.5 446 NA 123,537,000 211 7,571 2,547,000 2,389,000 2,422,000 5,005 2789.9 0 104 104.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 01/10/06 7010.5 5.5 449 288 123,601,000 64 7,635 2,568,000 2,408,000 2,441,000 7,417 4134.3 1.2 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

16 01/11/06 7014.3 5.5 453 285 123,666,000 65 7,700 2,590,000 2,428,000 2,462,000 7,480 4169.5 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

01/12/06 7018.1 5.5 457 276 123,729,000 63 7,763 2,613,000 2,449,000 2,483,000 7,545 4205.7 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 01/13/06 7022.4 5.4 461 275 123,800,000 71 7,834 2,637,000 2,471,000 2,506,000 7,614 4244.1 1.1 103 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 01/17/06 7035.0 5.3 474 340 124,057,000 257 8,091 2,728,000 2,554,000 2,591,000 7,873 4388.5 0.0 103 102.0 1.0 103.0 102.0 01/18/06 7042.4 5.4 481 164 124,130,000 73 8,164 2,755,000 2,579,000 2,616,000 7,950 4431.4 1.0 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

17

01/19/06 7047.2 5.4 486 271 124,208,000 78 8,242 2,781,000 2,603,000 2,641,000 8,025 4473.2 1.1 103 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 01/20/06 7050.6 5.3 490 279 124,265,000 57 8,299 2,801,000 2,621,000 2,659,000 8,081 4504.5 1.0 103 102.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 01/23/06 7064.6 5.3 504 275 124,496,000 231 8,530 2,883,000 2,696,000 2,736,000 8,315 4634.9 0.0 100 98.0 1.0 106.0 104.0 01/24/06 7067.8 5.3 507 276 124,549,000 53 8,583 2,910,000 2,712,000 2,753,000 8,375 4668.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

18 01/25/06 7074.1 5.3 513 270 124,651,000 102 8,685 2,936,000 2,745,000 2,787,000 8,468 4720.2 1.0 104 103.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

01/26/06 7076.4 5.3 515 275 124,689,000 38 8,723 2,950,000 2,758,000 2,800,000 8,508 4742.5 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 01/27/06 7079.7 5.3 519 273 124,743,000 54 8,777 2,969,000 2,775,000 2,818,000 8,562 4772.6 1.0 103 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 01/30/06 7091.7 5.2 531 275 124,941,000 198 8,975 3,039,000 2,839,000 2,883,000 8,761 4883.5 0.0 103 102.0 0.0 103.0 102.0 01/31/06 7095.5 5.2 534 276 125,004,000 63 9,038 3,061,000 2,859,000 2,904,000 8,824 4918.6 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

19 02/01/06 7100.1 5.2 539 275 125,080,000 76 9,114 3,087,000 2,884,000 2,929,000 8,900 4961.0 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 

02/02/06 7105.5 5.2 544 272 125,168,000 88 9,202 3,118,000 2,912,000 2,958,000 8,988 5010.0 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 103.0 02/03/06 7108.9 5.2 548 275 125,224,000 56 9,258 3,137,000 2,930,000 2,977,000 9,044 5041.2 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 02/06/06 7120.7 5.1 560 274 125,418,000 194 9,452 3,206,000 2,993,000 3,041,000 9,240 5150.5 0.0 104 102.0 0.0 103.0 102.0 02/07/06 7124.3 5.1 563 278 125,478,000 60 9,512 3,227,000 3,012,000 3,061,000 9,300 5183.9 1.0 106 105.0 1.5 106.0 105.0 

20 02/08/06 7127.9 5.1 567 269 125,536,000 58 9,570 3,247,000 3,030,000 3,080,000 9,357 5215.7 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

02/09/06 7131.0 5.1 570 274 125,587,000 51 9,621 3,265,000 3,047,000 3,097,000 9,409 5244.7 1.0 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 02/10/06 7135.0 5.1 574 275 125,653,000 66 9,687 3,287,000 3,068,000 3,118,000 9,473 5280.4 0.9 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 02/13/06 7147.1 5.1 586 274 125,852,000 199 9,886 3,358,000 3,133,000 3,185,000 9,676 5393.5 1.0 103 102.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 02/14/06 7152.1 5.1 591 270 125,933,000 81 9,967 3,386,000 3,159,000 3,212,000 9,757 5438.7 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 

21 02/15/06 7155.6 5.0 595 276 125,991,000 58 10,025 3,406,000 3,177,000 3,231,000 9,814 5470.5 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 

02/16/06 7159.1 5.0 598 271 126,048,000 57 10,082 3,426,000 3,195,000 3,249,000 9,870 5501.7 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 02/17/06 7164.1 5.0 603 277 126,131,000 83 10,165 3,455,000 3,222,000 3,276,000 9,953 5547.9 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 02/21/06 7180.9 5.0 620 273 126,406,000 275 10,440 3,553,000 3,312,000 3,369,000 10,234 5704.6 1.0 107 106.0 1.5 106.0 105.0 

22 02/22/06 7184.3 5.0 623 275 126,462,000 56 10,496 3,571,000 3,329,000 3,387,000 10,287 5734.1 0.9 105 104.0 1.6 105.0 104.0 

02/23/06 7187.3 5.0 626 267 126,510,000 48 10,544 3,588,000 3,345,000 3,403,000 10,336 5761.4 1.0 105 104.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 02/27/06 7205.7 5.0 645 274 126,812,000 302 10,846 3,694,000 3,442,000 3,504,000 10,640 5930.9 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 02/28/06 7208.6 5.0 648 282 126,861,000 49 10,895 3,711,000 3,458,000 3,520,000 10,689 5958.2 0.9 104 103.0 1.4 103.0 102.0 

23 03/01/06 7212.1 4.9 651 271 126,918,000 57 10,952 3,731,000 3,476,000 3,539,000 10,746 5990.0 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 

03/02/06 7215.7 4.9 655 273 126,977,000 59 11,011 3,753,000 3,496,000 3,559,000 10,808 6024.5 1.0 104 103.0 1.6 103.0 101.0 03/03/06 7221.1 4.9 660 275 127,066,000 89 11,100 3,783,000 3,523,000 3,587,000 10,893 6071.9 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 

A-2
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV – Summary of Run 1 Daily System Ope

Pump House Total System Operation Data Tank Pressure Operation D

Total Flow Flow Flow 

Hour Avg. Op Total Avg. Master Flow Treated Treated Totalizer Totalizer Totalizer Cumulative Cumulative 

Meter Hours Hours Flowrate Meter Volume Volume Tank A Tank B Tank C Flow Bed Volume Tank A Tank B Tank 

Week Date hr hr hr gpm gal Kgal Kgal gal gal gal Kgal # of BV P Inlet Outlet P Inlet Outlet P Inlet 

03/06/06 7232.4 4.9 671 274 127,252,000 186 11,286 3,848,000 3,584,000 3,650,000 11,082 6177.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 104.0 03/07/06 7236.1 4.9 675 275 127,313,000 61 11,347 3,869,000 3,603,000 3,669,000 11,141 6210.1 1.0 103 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

24 03/08/06 7239.9 4.9 679 272 127,375,000 62 11,409 3,891,000 3,623,000 3,690,000 11,204 6245.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 

03/09/06 7244.1 4.9 683 274 127,444,000 69 11,478 3,915,000 3,643,000 3,713,000 11,271 6282.6 1.4 103 102.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 1.3 102.0 03/10/06 7248.5 4.9 687 277 127,517,000 73 11,551 3,940,000 3,668,000 3,737,000 11,345 6323.9 1.4 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 102.0 03/13/06 7258.7 4.9 698 271 127,683,000 166 11,717 3,999,000 3,723,000 3,793,000 11,515 6418.6 1.4 106 105.0 1.4 105.0 104.0 1.3 105.0 03/14/06 7263.0 4.8 702 275 127,754,000 71 11,788 4,023,000 3,745,000 3,816,000 11,584 6457.1 1.8 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

25 03/15/06 7267.5 4.8 706 278 127,829,000 75 11,863 4,050,000 3,769,000 3,841,000 11,660 6499.4 1.8 103 101.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 

03/16/06 7271.6 4.8 711 272 127,896,000 67 11,930 4,073,000 3,791,000 3,863,000 11,727 6536.8 1.8 104 102.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 03/17/06 7276.5 4.8 715 276 127,977,000 81 12,011 4,102,000 3,817,000 3,890,000 11,809 6582.5 1.8 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 03/20/06 7288.8 4.8 728 275 128,180,000 203 12,214 4,173,000 3,882,000 3,958,000 12,013 6696.2 1.5 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 03/21/06 7291.3 4.8 730 273 128,221,000 41 12,255 4,187,000 3,895,000 3,971,000 12,053 6718.5 1.1 104 103.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

26 03/22/06 7295.1 4.8 734 268 128,282,000 61 12,316 4,208,000 3,915,000 3,992,000 12,115 6753.1 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

03/23/06 7299.3 4.8 738 278 128,352,000 70 12,386 4,233,000 3,938,000 4,015,000 12,186 6792.6 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 03/24/06 7302.7 4.8 742 275 128,408,000 56 12,442 4,252,000 3,956,000 4,034,000 12,242 6823.9 1.1 104 103.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 03/27/06 7315.7 4.8 755 273 128,621,000 213 12,655 4,327,000 4,024,000 4,105,000 12,456 6943.1 1.0 105 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.0 104.0 03/28/06 7319.1 4.8 758 275 128,677,000 56 12,711 4,346,000 4,042,000 4,124,000 12,512 6974.4 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 

27 03/29/06 7323.3 4.8 762 274 128,746,000 69 12,780 4,370,000 4,065,000 4,147,000 12,582 7013.4 1.0 103 102.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 1.0 103.0 

03/30/06 7327.9 4.8 767 272 128,821,000 75 12,855 4,396,000 4,088,000 4,171,000 12,655 7054.1 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 03/31/06 7332.4 4.8 771 274 128,895,000 74 12,929 4,422,000 4,112,000 4,196,000 12,730 7095.9 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 04/03/06 7344.3 4.8 783 272 129,089,000 194 13,123 4,490,000 4,175,000 4,262,000 12,927 7205.7 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 04/04/06 7347.9 4.7 787 273 129,148,000 59 13,182 4,510,000 4,194,000 4,281,000 12,985 7238.0 1.9 104 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

28 04/05/06 7353.2 4.7 792 274 129,235,000 87 13,269 4,540,000 4,222,000 4,312,000 13,074 7287.6 1.8 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

04/06/06 7355.2 4.7 794 275 129,268,000 33 13,302 4,553,000 4,234,000 4,323,000 13,110 7307.7 1.8 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 04/07/06 7361.8 4.7 801 275 129,377,000 109 13,411 4,590,000 4,268,000 4,359,000 13,217 7367.3 1.8 102 100.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 1.3 102.0 04/03/06 7344.3 4.8 783 272 129,089,000 194 13,123 4,490,000 4,175,000 4,262,000 12,927 7205.7 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 04/04/06 7347.9 4.7 787 273 129,148,000 59 13,182 4,510,000 4,194,000 4,281,000 12,985 7238.0 1.9 104 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

28 04/05/06 7353.2 4.7 792 274 129,235,000 87 13,269 4,540,000 4,222,000 4,312,000 13,074 7287.6 1.8 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

04/06/06 7355.2 4.7 794 275 129,268,000 33 13,302 4,553,000 4,234,000 4,323,000 13,110 7307.7 1.8 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 04/07/06 7361.8 4.7 801 275 129,377,000 109 13,411 4,590,000 4,268,000 4,359,000 13,217 7367.3 1.8 102 100.0 1.5 102.0 101.0 1.3 102.0 04/10/06 7381.2 4.8 820 274 129,696,000 319 13,730 4,700,000 4,370,000 4,467,000 13,537 7545.7 1.5 105 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 1.0 103.0 04/11/06 7383.9 4.8 823 272 129,740,000 44 13,774 4,713,000 4,383,000 4,480,000 13,576 7567.4 0.9 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

29 04/12/06 7388.2 4.8 827 271 129,810,000 70 13,844 4,739,000 4,407,000 4,505,000 13,651 7609.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 

04/13/06 7392.7 4.8 832 274 129,884,000 74 13,918 4,764,000 4,431,000 4,513,000 13,708 7641.0 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 1.3 103.0 04/14/06 7406.8 4.8 846 279 130,120,000 236 14,154 4,845,000 4,506,000 4,611,000 13,962 7782.6 1.1 104 103.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 04/17/06 7407.0 4.7 846 167 130,122,000 2 14,156 4,846,000 4,507,000 4,612,000 13,965 7784.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 103.0 1.0 103.0 04/18/06 7410.4 4.7 849 275 130,178,000 56 14,212 4,865,000 4,525,000 4,631,000 14,021 7815.5 1.1 104 102.0 1.6 104.0 103.0 1.4 103.0 

30 04/19/06 7414.6 4.7 854 270 130,246,000 68 14,280 4,888,000 4,546,000 4,654,000 14,088 7852.8 1.1 104 103.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

04/20/06 7419.6 4.7 859 280 130,330,000 84 14,364 4,917,000 4,573,000 4,683,000 14,173 7900.2 1.0 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.0 104.0 04/21/06 7427.7 4.7 867 272 130,462,000 132 14,496 4,962,000 4,615,000 4,729,000 14,306 7974.4 NA 104 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.5 103.0 04/24/06 7448.2 4.8 887 275 130,800,000 338 14,834 5,080,000 4,723,000 4,842,000 14,645 8163.3 1.0 104 103.0 1.5 104.0 102.0 1.0 104.0 04/25/06 7453.6 4.8 893 275 130,889,000 89 14,923 5,111,000 4,752,000 4,872,000 14,735 8213.5 1.2 104 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 103.0 

31 04/26/06 7460.2 4.8 899 275 130,998,000 109 15,032 5,149,000 4,787,000 4,908,000 14,844 8274.2 1.7 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 102.0 

04/27/06 7465.3 4.8 904 275 131,082,000 84 15,116 5,179,000 4,814,000 4,936,000 14,929 8321.6 1.7 104 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.3 103.0 04/28/06 7470.4 4.8 909 275 131,166,000 84 15,200 5,208,000 4,840,000 4,964,000 15,012 8367.9 1.7 104 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.3 102.0 05/01/06 7492.8 4.8 932 272 131,531,000 365 15,565 5,336,000 4,958,000 5,086,000 15,380 8573.0 1.5 103 102.0 1.5 103.0 102.0 1.0 103.0 

32 05/02/06 7502.5 4.9 941 273 131,690,000 159 15,724 5,392,000 5,008,000 5,139,000 15,539 8661.6 0.9 103 102.0 1.6 103.0 102.0 1.4 102.0 

05/03/06 7504.3 4.8 943 269 131,719,000 29 15,753 5,402,000 5,017,000 5,148,000 15,567 8677.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

A-3
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at STGMID in Washoe County, NV – Summary of Run 2 Daily Syste

Week Date

Pump House Total System Operation Data Tank Pressure Operation 

Hour 

Meter

Avg. Op 

Hours

Total 

Hours

Avg. 

Flowrate

Master Flow 

Meter

Treated 

Volume

Total 

Treated 

Volume

Flow 

Totalizer 

Tank A

Flow 

Totalizer 

Tank B

Flow 

Totalizer 

Tank C

Cumulative 

Flow

Cumulative 

Bed Volume Tank A Tank B Tank 

hr hr hr gpm gal Kgal Kgal gal gal gal Kgal # of BV P Inlet Outlet P Inlet Outlet P Inlet 

1 04/05/07 8549.0 148,292,000 958,400 454,300 674,500 1.4 104.0 102.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 0.8 104.0 

04/06/07 8564.5 12.8 16 271 148,544,000 252 252 1,019,500 551,400 772,500 256 142.8 0.7 105.0 105.0 1.1 104.0 103.0 0.8 104.0 

2

04/10/07 8596.2 8.4 47 268 149,054,000 510 762 1,141,000 744,000 968,000 766 426.9 1.1 105.0 104.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 0.8 104.0 

04/11/07 8605.4 7.9 56 268 149,202,000 148 910 1,191,000 793,000 1,018,000 915 509.9 1.3 103.0 102.0 0.9 102.0 102.0 0.8 102.0 

04/12/07 8610.9 6.0 62 264 149,289,000 87 997 1,220,000 823,000 1,047,000 1,003 559.0 1.3 103.0 102.0 0.9 102.0 101.0 0.7 101.0 

3

04/17/07 8646.6 7.0 98 267 149,860,000 571 1,568 1,410,000 1,014,000 1,239,000 1,576 878.4 1.2 102.0 101.0 0.8 102.0 102.0 0.7 102.0 

04/18/07 8651.9 6.2 103 264 149,944,000 84 1,652 1,437,000 1,042,000 1,266,000 1,658 924.1 1.3 105.0 104.0 0.8 105.0 104.0 0.6 104.0 

04/19/07 8658.3 5.7 109 260 150,044,000 100 1,752 1,471,000 1,076,000 1,301,000 1,761 981.5 1.2 103.0 102.0 0.8 102.0 101.0 0.7 102.0 

04/20/07 8663.8 6.0 115 267 150,132,000 88 1,840 1,500,000 1,106,000 1,330,000 1,849 1030.5 1.2 103.0 102.0 0.8 101.0 101.0 0.6 101.0 

4

04/24/07 8694.8 7.6 146 266 150,626,000 494 2,334 1,663,000 1,272,000 1,497,000 2,345 1307.0 1.2 103.0 102.0 0.8 102.0 102.0 0.7 102.0 

04/25/07 8707.5 12.7 159 268 150,830,000 204 2,538 1,730,000 1,341,000 1,565,000 2,549 1420.7 1.4 102.0 100.0 1.0 102.0 102.0 0.8 100.0 

04/27/07 8728.4 10.4 179 270 151,168,000 338 2,876 1,841,000 1,456,000 1,679,000 2,889 1610.3 1.9 102.0 100.0 0.9 101.0 101.0 0.6 101.0 

5 05/01/07 8768.3 10.1 219 271 151,816,000 648 3,524 2,054,000 1,672,000 1,899,000 3,538 1972.0 1.8 103.0 101.0 0.8 103.0 103.0 0.5 102.0 

05/04/07 8794.5 8.4 246 267 152,235,000 419 3,943 2,192,000 1,812,000 2,042,000 3,959 2206.7 1.9 105.0 103.0 0.8 105.0 105.0 0.6 105.0 

6 05/09/07 8839.8 9.2 291 268 152,964,000 729 4,672 2,434,000 2,060,000 2,289,000 4,696 2617.5 1.9 105.0 103.0 0.8 105.0 104.0 0.5 104.0 

7 05/15/07 8925.4 14.3 376 271 154,358,000 1,394 6,066 2,882,000 2,531,000 2,757,000 6,083 3390.6 1.8 103.0 101.0 0.8 101.0 101.0 0.5 101.0 

05/18/07 8974.9 17.0 426 270 155,159,000 801 6,867 3,152,000 2,804,000 3,023,000 6,892 3841.6 1.9 104.0 106.0 0.9 104.0 103.0 0.5 103.0 

9 05/30/07 9180.4 17.1 631 271 158,496,000 3,337 10,204 4,240,000 3,945,000 4,141,000 10,239 5707.2 1.6 104.0 102.0 1.0 104.0 103.0 0.8 103.0 

10 06/08/07 9325.1 15.9 776 270 160,837,000 2,341 12,545 5,052,000 4,707,000 4,914,000 12,586 7015.5 1.5 105.0 103.0 0.8 103.0 103.0 0.7 104.0 

11 06/12/07 9389.9 16.2 841 267 161,874,000 1,037 13,582 5,630,000 4,963,000 5,127,000 13,633 7599.1 1.4 105.0 100.0 0.8 101.0 101.0 0.4 101.0 

12 06/20/07 9507.6 14.9 959 271 163,788,000 1,914 15,496 6,273,000 5,595,000 5,766,000 15,547 8666.0 0.8 105.0 104.0 0.8 105.0 104.0 0.6 105.0 

13 06/27/07 9612.7 14.8 1064 269 165,487,000 1,699 17,195 6,792,000 6,178,000 6,371,000 17,254 9617.5 1.1 104.0 103.0 1.1 104.0 103.0 0.8 103.0 

14 07/03/07 9714.7 17.1 1166 270 167,140,000 1,653 18,848 7,359,000 6,719,000 6,920,000 18,911 10541.1 1.3 105.0 104.0 0.8 105.0 104.0 0.5 105.0 

Notes: Tank A contains GFH Tank B contains Kemira CFH-0818 Tank C contains Kemira CFH-0818 

A-4
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV 

Sampling Date 09/27/05 10/04/05 10/12/05 

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-1

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC IN AC TA 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 2.2 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 92 - <1 <1 <1 <1 88 - 92 92 92 97 - 92 Fluoride mg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L 6.1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.9 - 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 - - - - - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - 115 - <10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 95.1 - 6.3 4.9 4.4 9.1 51.5 - 52.7 51.2 48.8 69.9 - 61.7 Turbidity NTU 0.3 - 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 - 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 - <0.1 pH S.U. 7.1 - 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.2 7.0 - 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.4 - 7.3 Temperature °C 16.2 - 16.3 16.6 16.6 16.6 14.6 - 14.6 14.6 14.7 15.7 - 15.5 DO mg/L 4.4 - 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.2 - 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 - 4.2 ORP mV 269 - 280 392 280 269 237 - 626 648 650 242 - 598 Free Chlorine mg/L - 1.1 - - - 0.2 - 0.0 - - - - 0.8 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 1.1 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - 0.9 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) 29.3 - 24.8 27.4 31.8 29.2 - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 20.2 - 14.9 16.6 20.7 18.5 - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 9.1 - 9.9 10.8 11.1 10.7 - - - - - - - - As (total) μg/L 35.0 - 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 53.7 - 0.5 0.3 0.2 66.5 - 0.5 As (soluble) μg/L 29.5 - 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L 5.5 - 0.2 0.2 0.3 <0.1 - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L 0.4 - 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L 29.1 - 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 - - - - - - - - Fe (total) μg/L 232 - <25 35.9 <25 34.1 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - Mn (total) μg/L 0.9 - 15.1 14.8 16.0 12.4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <Mn (soluble) μg/L 1.0 - 15.3 15.4 16.8 13.3 - - - - - - - - Sb (total) μg/L 10.2 - 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 14.7 - 3.7 4.2 3.5 16.2 - 8.4 Sb (soluble) μg/L 11.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 - - - - - - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 

. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 10/25/05 11/03/05(b,d) 11/08/05(c)

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-2

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC IN TA TB TC TT IN TA TB TC 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 2.5 2.4 2.4 - 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 - 2.8 2.7 2.7 Alkalinity Mg/L(a) 92 - 88 88 88 88 83 79 80 83 97 101 88 92 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - 7 8 8 8 8 - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L 0.1 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.0Total P (as P) μg/L 123 - <10 <10 <10 128 <10 <10 <10 <10 139 <10 <10 <10 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 68.5 - 5.0 48.8 47.0 69.7 56.7 56.1 55.5 54.6 - - - - Turbidity NTU 0.2 - 0.2 0.5 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 <0.1 9.5 - - - - pH S.U. 7.1 - 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 7.0 6.7 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 Temperature °C 17.0 - 17.0 16.9 16.9 15.6 15.4 15.3 15.4 15.4 16.5 16.7 16.6 16.6 DO mg/L 6.2 - 4.7 4.6 4.6 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 ORP mV 307 - 603 619 629 252 699 723 733 732 245 688 714 721 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 - - - - - - - 0.8 - - - - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.8 - - - - - - - 0.8 - - - - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - 17.3 18.0 17.4 17.5 17.9 - - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - 9.5 9.9 9.4 9.4 9.4 - - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - 7.8 8.1 7.9 8.1 8.4 - - - - As (total) μg/L 50.1 - 0.2 1.9 0.3 60.0 1.8 1.1 1.4 0.3 53.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - 60.1 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - <0.1 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.2 - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - 59.7 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 42.4 <25 <25 <25 <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25 72.4 - - - - Mn (total) μg/L 0.2 - 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.9 - - - - Sb (total) μg/L 13.8 - 3.2 2.8 3.1 15.3 4.7 4.0 3.8 4.5 12.3 3.5 3.0 2.7 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - 14.4 4.6 3.8 3.7 4.7 - - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 

(b) Water quality parameters measured on 11/04/05. (c) Chlorine residual not measured at AC. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 11/15/05 11/29/05 12/07/

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-3

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA T

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 - - 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 - - 3.8 3Alkalinity mg/L(a) 94 - 91 91 91 - 88 - 88 92 92 - 88 - 88 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - <0.1 <Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1 - 7.4 7Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.9 - 0.9 0Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - <0.05 <0Total P (as P) μg/L 89 - <10 <10 <10 - 130 - <10 <10 <10 - 132 - 13 <Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 69.7 - 59.1 56.7 56.9 - 75.4 - 66.8 65.7 66.8 - 71.4 - 67.2 6Turbidity NTU <0.1 - 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 2.0 - 0.1 0.1 0.2 - 0.2 - <0.1 0pH S.U. 6.8 - 6.9 6.9 6.5 6.8 7.0 - 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.2 - 7.1 7Temperature °C 16.7 - 17.0 16.7 10.7 16.7 17.1 - 16.9 16.7 16.6 14.9 15.9 - 15.2 1DO mg/L 1.1 - 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 - 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 - 1.3 1ORP mV 245 - 739 742 753 739 260 - 675 712 721 730 381 - 735 7Free Chlorine mg/L - 1.2 - - - 1.1 - 1.7 - - - 0.7 - 1.0 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 1.3 - - - 1.3 - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 1.0 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.1 - 20.9 2Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.0 - 12.0 1Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.1 - 8.9 8As (total) μg/L 59.8 - 0.6 0.6 <0.1 - 71.7 - 0.9 0.5 0.4 - 69.3 - 1.4 0As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 70.1 - 1.4 0As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 <As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - 0.2 0As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - 69.7 - 1.1 0Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <25 - <25 <Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.4 - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1 0Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 <Sb (total) μg/L 21.0 - 7.2 6.0 3.0 - 15.8 - 7.4 7.0 6.7 - 15.9 - 10.0 9Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.9 9

(a) As CaCO3. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 12/13/05 01/10/06 01/18/

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-4

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA T

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9 - - 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 - - 4.6 4Alkalinity mg/L(a) 88 - 92 88 92 - 92 - 92 92 92 185 97 - 92 9Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 6.7 - 7 7 7 7 - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - 0.9 - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - 0.1 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 150 - 39 31.4 32.4 - 105 - <10 <10 <10 <10 94.6 - 17.3 <Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 75.5 - 69.5 68.5 67.5 - 73.6 - 66.2 67.5 66.1 66.7 73.9 - 70.8 7Turbidity NTU 0.1 - 0.1 0.3 0.1 - 0.4 - 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 - 0.2 0pH S.U. 7.1 - 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.4 - 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 - 7.3 7Temperature °C 16.8 - 16.1 16.1 15.7 16.1 15.8 - 15.1 15.0 15.1 15.9 16.6 - 16.6 1DO mg/L 1.4 - 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 - 1.3 1ORP mV 202 - 682 693 711 703 260 - 264 273 273 264 279 - 719 7Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 - - - 0.6 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.9 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 1.0 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 20.6 - 22.7 22.3 22.0 21.9 - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 13.3 - 14.5 14.3 14.3 14.1 - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 7.3 - 8.2 8.0 7.6 7.8 - - - As (total) μg/L 55.6 - 2.2 1.0 1.0 - 54.0 - 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 61.1 - 2.0 0As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 53.4 - - - - 0.3 - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 0.5 - - - - <0.1 - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - 0.2 - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 53.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 <Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 - - - - 25.0 - - - Mn (total) μg/L 0.3 - 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 0.8 - 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 - <0.1 <Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - 1.0 - - - Sb (total) μg/L 11.7 - 7.8 7.1 6.9 - 13.0 - 7.8 7.0 6.9 7.4 13.7 - 11.6 1Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 12.6 - - - - 0.4 - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 01/24/06 01/31/06 02/07/0

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-5

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.7 - - 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.9 - - 5.4 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 97 - 92 97 97 - 93 - - - - 93 92 - 92 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 7.0 - - - - 7.1 - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - 0.9 - - - - 0.9 - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 124 - 29.6 16.6 15.4 - 96.5 - - - - 13.5 109 - 29.7 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 74.7 - 71.2 70.9 70.6 - 72.1 - - - - 72.4 72.6 - 69 Turbidity NTU 0.3 - 0.4 0.2 0.4 - 0.3 - - - - 0.6 0.3 - 0.7 pH S.U. 7.4 - 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.8 - 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.9 - 7.6 Temperature °C 16.2 - 14.9 14.8 15.8 16.0 16.5 - 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.7 16.8 - 16.9 DO mg/L 1.4 - 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.3 - 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 - 1.3 ORP mV 278 - 729 736 744 749 256 - 691 709 713 725 380 - 713 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.9 - - - 0.9 - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.7 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.9 - - - 1.0 - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.7 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 21.8 - - - - 22.1 - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 15.0 - - - - 15.2 - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - 6.8 - - - - 6.8 - - - As (total) μg/L 75.6 - 4.1 1.1 0.9 - 68.2 - 2.9 2.8 0.9 1.7 54.2 - 4.4 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 67.2 - - - - 1.7 - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - <0.1 - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - 0.3 - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 66.9 - - - - 1.4 - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - - - - <25 <25 - <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 - - - - <25 - - - Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - - - - 0.4 <0.1 - <0.1 Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 - - - - 0.4 - - - Sb (total) μg/L 14.1 - 9.5 8.7 9.0 - 16.2 - - - - 10.1 12.0 - 9.3 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 15.4 - - - - 10.3 - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 02/22/06 03/07/06(b) 03/21/06 

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-6

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB 

Bed Volume 10^3 - 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.7 - - 6.5 6.0 6.1 6.2 - - 7.0 6.5 Alkalinity Mg/L(a) 96 96 - 96 91 91 96 96 91 - 95 - 95 95 91 - 91 - 91 91 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 114 116 - 54.0 55.9 45.4 46.0 44.6 44.7 - 95 - 42.3 31.8 39.9 - 97.9 - 54.7 47.6 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 77.1 76.0 - 73.7 73.8 73.4 72.4 71.9 75.1 - 70.9 - 68.4 70.3 67.9 - 73 - 69.7 71.2 Turbidity NTU 0.5 0.4 - 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.3 0.7 1.2 - 0.3 - 0.3 0.4 pH S.U. 7.4 - 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 - 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 - 7.1 7.0 Temperature °C 16.8 - 16.3 14.8 14.6 15.2 17.2 - 16.9 16.8 16.7 16.5 16.5 - 16.2 16.DO mg/L 1.5 - 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 - 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 - 2.1 2.2 ORP mV 263 - 696 723 731 707 115 - 676 695 706 710 219 - 699 710 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 - - - 0.6 - 0.6 - - - 0.7 - 0.7 - - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.6 - - - 0.6 - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.7 - - Total Hardness Mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness Mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.2 - 10.6 10.7 Mg Hardness Mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (total) μg/L 71.1 75.9 - 6.2 6.7 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.1 - 77.7 - 7.9 4.6 3.8 - 78.7 - 14.7 6.2 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sb (total) μg/L 15.1 14.1 - 11.7 11.3 10.5 10.7 10.6 10.3 - 14.2 - 10.5 10.1 10.6 - 15.7 - 12.9 12.2 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 

(b) Water quality measurements taken on 03/02/06. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 03/28/06 04/04/06 04/11/

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-7

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 7.4 6.9 7.0 7.1 - - 7.5 7.0 7.2 7.2 - - 7.9 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 91 - 91 91 95 - 95 - - - - 87 101 97 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - 0.2 - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 7.4 - - - - 7.4 - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - 2.0 - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 124 - 77.0 69.2 66.4 - 116 - - - - 67.4 102 - 63.4 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 72 - 73.7 70.7 72.4 - 71.8 - - - - 70 70 - 70.1 Turbidity NTU 0.4 - 0.6 0.4 0.5 - 0.3 - - - - 0.3 0.7 - 0.7 pH S.U. 6.9 - 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.2 - 7.0 7.0 7.0 - 7.1 - 7.0 Temperature °C 17.1 - 17.0 17.0 16.5 16.4 16.5 - 16.6 16.4 15.3 16.4 17.0 - 16.9 DO mg/L 1.9 - 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.1 - 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.8 - 0.9 ORP mV 220 - 713 719 723 728 218 - 706 720 728 731 273 - 730 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.8 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.7 - - - 0.7 - 0.8 - - - 0.7 - 0.8 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) 22.8 - 24.2 24.4 24.4 - 25.1 - - - - 26.9 - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) 16.7 - 17.6 17.7 17.7 - 18.4 - - - - 19.5 - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) 6.1 - 6.6 6.6 6.7 - 6.7 - - - - 7.4 - - - As (total) μg/L 80.1 - 11.1 6.9 6.2 - 78.6 - 11.1 10.8 10.9 8.9 83.8 - 15.4 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 79.7 - - - - 8.4 - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 - - - - 0.5 - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - 0.1 - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 79.4 - - - - 8.3 - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - - - - <25 <25 - <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 - - - - <25 - - - Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - - - - 0.7 <0.1 - <0.1 <Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 - - - - 1.2 - - - Sb (total) μg/L 14.1 - 11.1 10.8 10.7 - 14.7 - - - - 13.7 17.6 - 14.5 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 14.4 - - - - 13.9 - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 04/18/06 04/25/06 05/02

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-8

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 8.1 7.6 7.7 7.8 - - 8.5 7.9 8.1 8.2 - - 9.0 Alkalinity mg/L(a) 101 - 96 101 97 - 92 - 92 92 96 - 92 - 96 Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 126 - 82.9 72.5 75.6 - 123 - 90.8 97.3 85.5 204 109 - 87.9 Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 71.3 - 69.7 69.4 69.7 - 72.9 - 71.2 73 72.1 - 75.5 - 75.2 Turbidity NTU 0.6 - 0.3 0.1 0.2 - 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 0.2 - 0.1 - 0.5 pH S.U. 7.1 - 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 - 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.9 - 6.9 Temperature °C 15.9 - 16.3 16.2 15.8 15.6 17.1 - 16.7 16.7 16.6 16.6 17.7 - 17.7 DO mg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 - 2.0 2.0 203.0 2.3 1.6 - 2.0 ORP mV 263 - 721 733 743 748 241 - 739 739 749 746 230 - 215 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.9 - - - 0.8 - 0.9 - - - 0.9 - 0.0 - Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.9 - - - 0.9 - 0.9 - - - 1.0 - 0.0 - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (total) μg/L 75.7 - 13.2 9.3 8.8 11.0 81.5 - 17.9 13.3 12.1 18.9 88.0 - 25.1 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 873 <25 - <25 Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 40.4 <0.1 - <0.1 Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sb (total) μg/L 14.2 - 11.2 11.1 10.9 11.5 15.0 - 12.6 12.4 12.2 9.1 14.9 - 12.6 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. 
Run 1 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV (Continued) 

Sampling Date 09/19/06 09/28/06 10/03

Sampling Location 

Parameter 

B-9

Unit 

IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - 10 9.4 9.6 9.6 - - 11 10.4 10.6 10.7 - - 11.5 Alkalinity mg/L(a)Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L 112 - 82.6 80.1 77.0 - - - - - - - - - - Silica (as SiO2) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Turbidity NTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DO mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Free Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Chlorine mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (total) μg/L 70.2 - 17.1 15.8 14.1 15.5 51.3 - 20.1 15.8 16.8 18.1 81.9 - 31.2 As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fe (total) μg/L <25 - <25 <25 <25 57.9 - - - - - - - - - Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mn (total) μg/L <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.71 - - - - - - - - - Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sb (total) μg/L 13.0 - 11.6 11.7 11.6 11.6 9.16 - 9.99 10.0 9.87 9.91 14.9 14.9 13.6 Sb (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(b) As CaCO3. 

. 
B-10

Run 2 Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Reno, NV 

Sampling Date 04/05/07(b) 4/27/2007 5/30/2007 

Sampling Location 

Parameter Unit IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT IN AC TA TB TC TT 

Bed Volume 10^3 - - - - - - - - 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 - - 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.7 Alkalinity mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orthophosphate (as P) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total P (as P) μg/L - - - - - - 106 - <10 <10 <10 - 119 - 78.7 46.9 49 - Silica (as SiO2) mg/L - - - - - - 73.7 - 61.3 49 48.8 - 75.5 - 75.5 74 74 - Turbidity NTU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 7.6 - 6.9 7.4 8 7.6 7.2 - 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.4 7.1 - 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Temperature 0C 17.2 - 17.3 17.4 17.4 16.7 17.9 - 17.9 17.9 17.9 18 18.3 - 18.5 18.4 18.6 18.4 DO mg/L 4.2 - 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.5 7.6 - 7.4 6.1 6.4 5.9 5 - 5.3 5.2 5.3 5 ORP mV 256 - 654 536 477 603 121 - 388 717 720 742 157 - 643 666 670 680 Free Chlorine mg/L - 0.90 - - - 0.4 - 1.25 - - - 1.2 - 0.88 - - - 0.8 Total Chlorine mg/L - 0.92 - - - 0.4 - 0.88 - - - 1.3 - 0.90 - - - 0.9 Total Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ca Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mg Hardness mg/L(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (total) μg/L - - - - - - 59.4 - 0.5 0.3 0.2 - 101 - 30.6 29.2 28.7 - As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Fe μg/L - - - - - - <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 <25 - Soluble Fe μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Mn μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <Soluble Mn μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Sb μg/L - - - - - - 10 - 5.3 4.3 4.4 - 15.7 - 14.4 14 13.8 - Soluble Sb μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(a) As CaCO3. (b) No samples collected, only water quality parameters taken. (c) Water quality parameters taken on 06/27/07