EPA/600/R-10/165

December 2010

Arsenic and Uranium Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media

U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at 

Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA

Final Performance Evaluation Report

by

Lili Wang‡

Abraham S.C. Chen‡

Gary M. Lewis§

§

Battelle, Columbus, OH 43201-2693

‡

ALSA Tech, LLC, Columbus, OH 43219-0693

Contract No. 68-C-00-185

Task Order No. 0029 

for 

Thomas J. Sorg

Task Order Manager

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268
ii

DISCLAIMER

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

(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency’s 

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

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

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

recommendation for use by the EPA. 
iii

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community and to link researchers with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv

ABSTRACT

This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the performance 

evaluation of an arsenic (As) and uranium (U) removal technology demonstrated at Upper Bodfish in 

Lake Isabella, CA. The objectives of the project are to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of a hybrid ion 

exchange (HIX) technology in removing arsenic and uranium to meet the respective maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) of 10 and 30 μg/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required 

system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of 

the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution system and process residuals 

produced by the treatment system.

The HIX system designed by VEETech for the Upper Bodfish site consisted of two trailer-mounted, 

single-stage fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) vessels, each capable of treating up to 50 gal/min (gpm) of 

flow. The vessels were 42-in in diameter and 60-in in height, each containing 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp, a hybrid 

anion exchange resin impregnated with hydrous iron oxide nano-particles manufactured by Purolite. 

During normal operation, one vessel was put into service while the other was on standby. 

During the performance evaluation study from October 12, 2005, through March 23, 2007, the HIX 

system operated for a total of 9,713 hr, treating approximately 13,561,950 gal of water from the Upper 

Bodfish Well CH2-A. The average daily run time was 18.5 hr/day and the average daily production was

25,783 gal/day (gpd). System flowrates ranged from 20 to 30 gpm and averaged 23 gpm, which was 46% 

of the system design flowrate of 50 gpm. The lower flowrates experienced resulted in longer empty bed 

contact times (EBCT), i.e., 6.7 to 10.1 min, and lower hydraulic loading rates, i.e., 2.1 to 3.1 gpm/ft2

. 

Source water from Well CH2-A contained 34.3 to 50.0 μg/L of total arsenic with As(V) being the 

predominating species at an average concentration of 41.9 μg/L. Source water also contained 26.6 to 38.9 

μg/L of total uranium with concentrations exceeding the 30-μg/L MCL most of the time. In addition, 

source water had near-neutral pH values of 6.7 to 7.2, 88 to 145 mg/L of alkalinity (as CaCO3), 36 to 51 

mg/L of sulfate, and 39.5 to 47.5 mg/L of silica. 

Total arsenic concentrations in treated water were reduced initially to <0.1 μg/L and gradually increased 

to just over 10 μg/L after treating approximately 33,100 bed volumes (BV) of water through Vessel 1, and 

31,700 BV through Vessel 2. These run lengths were 66% and 59% higher than the vendor-estimated run 

length of 20,000 BV. Meanwhile, uranium was completely removed to below the method detection limit 

(MDL) of 0.1 μg/L throughout the entire study period. A laboratory rapid small-scale column test 

(RSSCT) on the Upper Bodfish water using the ArsenXnp media achieved a similar run length of 28,000 

BV for arsenic and over 50,000 BV for uranium. The HIX system did not require backwashing due to an 

insignificant headloss buildup across the adsorption vessel.

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

significant decreases in arsenic concentration at all three sampling locations, including one residence in

the historic Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network and two non-LCR residences. Arsenic 

concentrations measured at the taps of these residences mirrored the breakthrough behavior of arsenic in 

the plant effluent, but were, in general, higher than those of the plant effluent. Although uranium 

concentrations in the distribution system were not measured both during the baseline sampling and after 

system startup, its concentrations after system startup were expected to be low because uranium was 

completely removed by the treatment system. The HIX system did not appear to have any effects on 

other water quality parameters in the distribution system. 

The only residual generated by the HIX system was 54 ft3 of spent media. Due to the presence of 

uranium, the spent media was classified as a technologically-enhanced, naturally-occurring radioactive
v

material (TENORM). Because uranium is considered a “source material,” the uranium-laden spent media

may be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) licensing requirements for storage, 

transportation, and disposal (EPA, 2005). 

The vendor originally proposed to regenerate the spent media at an offsite facility and then return the 

regenerated media to the site for reuse. However, the offsite regeneration would be possible only if the 

spent media residual stream contains less than 0.05% of uranium. Otherwise, the spent media would be 

considered a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) or a non-exempt material, and may have to be partially 

regenerated onsite (to lower the uranium content to less than 0.05%) before offsite regeneration. Another 

approach would be to completely regenerate the spent media onsite to remove both uranium and arsenic. 

Both regeneration approaches would produce uranium and arsenic-laden liquids that would have to be 

hauled away due to lack of an onsite disposal method. These approaches would greatly increase 

complexity and cost, thus rendering media regeneration an un-viable option. 

As a mixed waste, the spent media was subject to waste profiling and radiological analysis. The spent 

media passed the federal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the California Soluble 

Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) tests, but failed the California Total Threshold Limit

Concentrations (TTLC) test for arsenic. As such, it was classified as a California hazardous waste

(although not a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] waste). Results of the radiological 

analysis were compared against the federal requirements for an exempt source material based on the

concentration, radioactivity, and quantity of uranium: 

• The uranium concentration in the adsorption vessels was 0.032%, which was below the 

0.05% (by weight) concentration limit 

• The radioactivity of the spent media was 206 pCi/g for U-238 and 10.6 pCi/g for U-235,

which were below the 335 pCi/g limit for an exempt material 

• The quantity of uranium in the spent media in both vessels was 1.66 lb, which was below 

the 15-lb limit for an exempt material. 

Because the spent media met all three requirements, it was deemed an “unimportant quantity” and exempt 

from applicable NRC regulations. Although the spent media, as an exempt material, might be disposed of 

at a solids waste, hazardous waste, or LLRW landfill, or any landfill licensed by a state to accept 

TENORM, it was difficult, if not impossible, to locate a solid waste landfill to accept the mixed waste 

with a radioactivity over 200 pCi/L. After 13 months of efforts, different contractors were secured to 

collect and analyze spent media samples and extract the spent media from the adsorption vessels. The

spent media was transported in 10 55-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drums to a facility in 

Turlock, CA, for temporary storage and was disposed of five months later at a U.S. Ecology facility in 

Grandview, ID, as an exempt, non-hazardous material. 

Upon completion of the performance evaluation study, the host site, Cal Water, decided to close Well 

CH2-A, drill two new wells, and install a new 150-gpm HIX system for arsenic treatment. Cal Water also 

elected not to request transfer of the trailer-mounted system to the company. After removal of the spent 

media from the adsorption vessels, the trailer-mounted system was hauled away from the site by a 

subcontractor to Battelle. 

The capital investment cost was $114,070, which included $82,470 for equipment, $12,800 for 

engineering, and $18,800 for installation. Using the system’s rated capacity of 50 gpm, the capital cost 

was $2,281/gpm (or $1.58/gpd).
vi

The O&M cost for the HIX system would include media regeneration or replacement (including disposal)

and labor for routine system operation. Spent media regeneration was proposed but not performed; thus, 

its cost could not be evaluated. The spent media was not replaced with virgin media due to removal of 

the treatment system from the site. Nonetheless, the media replacement cost was estimated to be $38,271 

based on the cost for virgin media and spent media disposal. By averaging the media replacement cost 

over the useful life of the media (i.e., 13,089,671 gal), the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was

$2.92/1,000 gal. The HIX system did not require electricity to operate. Routine activities to operate and 

maintain the system consumed only 50 min per week and the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal of 

water treated. 
vii

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .........................................................................................................................xiii

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

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

1.2 Technologies Selected for Demonstration .................................................................................... 2

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

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 5

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................................... 6

3.1 General Project Approach............................................................................................................. 6

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection ....................................................................................... 7

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules .............................................................................. 7

3.3.1 Source Water..................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water .................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Distribution System Water.............................................................................................. 10

3.3.4 Spent Media Sampling.................................................................................................... 10

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

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

3.4.2 Preparation of Sample Coolers ....................................................................................... 11

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

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

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

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure .................................... 13

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

4.1.2 Distribution System......................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Treatment Process Description ................................................................................................... 16

4.3 System Installation...................................................................................................................... 22

4.3.1 Permitting........................................................................................................................ 22

4.3.2 Building Preparation ....................................................................................................... 22

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup.............................................................................. 23

4.4 System Operation........................................................................................................................ 23

4.4.1 Operational Parameters................................................................................................... 23

4.4.2 Residual Management..................................................................................................... 25

4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity.................................................................. 26

4.5 System Performance ................................................................................................................... 28

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling............................................................................................... 28

4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling.............................................................................. 39

4.6 Spent Media Characterization and Disposal ............................................................................... 41

4.6.1 Spent Media Characterization......................................................................................... 41

4.6.2 Spent Media Removal, Transportation, and Disposal..................................................... 44
viii

4.7 System Cost ................................................................................................................................ 45

4.7.1 Capital Cost..................................................................................................................... 45

4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost.................................................................................... 46

5.0: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 48

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA

FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Upper Bodfish Site .............................. 9

Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site.............................................................................. 11

Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA............................................................... 13

Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA ................................... 14

Figure 4-3. P&ID of HIX Treatment System.......................................................................................... 18

Figure 4-4. HIX System Layout on Trailer............................................................................................. 19

Figure 4-5. Trailer-Mounted HIX System Under a Canopy ................................................................... 20

Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies.......................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4-7. HIX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port and Media Sampling Ports......................... 21

Figure 4-8. HIX System Daily Operating Time...................................................................................... 24

Figure 4-9. HIX System Flowrates......................................................................................................... 25

Figure 4-10. Decision Tree for Spent Media Disposal ............................................................................. 27

Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations 

During Adsorption Runs 1 and 2 ......................................................................................... 31

Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1 ............................................ 32

Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 ............................................ 33

Figure 4-14. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1........................................... 33

Figure 4-15. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2........................................... 34

Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves – Laboratory RSSCT.................................................. 34

Figure 4-17. Uranium Breakthrough Curves – Laboratory RSSCT ......................................................... 35

Figure 4-18. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH ......... 37

Figure 4-19. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1 ......................................................... 38

Figure 4-20. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 ......................................................... 38

Figure 4-21. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish ..................................... 41

Figure 4-22. Spent Media Removal from Vessels.................................................................................... 44

Figure 4-23. Spent Media Replacement and Disposal and O&M Cost Curves........................................ 47

TABLES 

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

Technologies, and Source Water Quality............................................................................... 3

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates.................................................... 6

Table 3-2. General Types of Data ........................................................................................................... 7

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes........................................................................... 8

Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data .................................................... 15
ix

Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenXnp Media ........................................... 17

Table 4-3. HIX Treatment System Specifications and Design Parameters........................................... 17

Table 4-4. Summary of HIX System Operation .................................................................................... 23

Table 4-5. Requirements for Exempt Source Material.......................................................................... 26

Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese..................... 28

Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results.................................................... 29

Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Lengths Between Full-Scale System and Laboratory 

RSSCT ................................................................................................................................. 35

Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results................................................................................. 40

Table 4-10. Results of Spent Media Characterization............................................................................. 42

Table 4-11. Results of Radiological Analysis on Spent Media ............................................................... 43

Table 4-12. Uranium Concentration and Quantity Calculations............................................................. 43

Table 4-13. Determination of Exempt Source Material .......................................................................... 43

Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for the HIX System....................................................................... 45

Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HIX System............................................................... 47
x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAL American Analytical Laboratories

AC asbestos cement

AEA Atomic Energy Act

AM adsorptive media

As arsenic

ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems

BAT best available technology

bgs below ground surface

BV bed volume

Ca calcium

Cal Water California Water Service Company

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDPH California Department of Public Health

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

C/F coagulation/filtration process

Cl chlorine

CRF capital recovery factor

Cu copper

DO dissolved oxygen

EBCT empty bed contact time

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F fluorine 

Fe iron 

FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic

gpd gallons per day

gph gallons per hour

gpm gallons per minute

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HIX hybrid ion exchange(r)

hp horse-power

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

ID identification

IX ion exchange

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

LLRW low-level radioactive waste

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL method detection limit

MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

Mg magnesium

Mn manganese

MPT Mobile Processing Technology

Na sodium

NA not available

NaOCl sodium hypochlorite

ND not detectable

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

O&M operation and maintenance

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORD Office of Research and Development

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram

PO4 phosphate

POU point of use

psi pounds per square inch

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RO reverse osmosis

RPD relative percent difference

RSSCT rapid small-scale column test

SBA strong-base anion

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SiO2 silica

SO4

2- sulfate

STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations

STS Severn Trent Services

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TDS total dissolved solids

TENORM technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials

TG&A Thomas Gray and Associates

TOC total organic carbon

TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentrations

U uranium

V vanadium
xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

WET Waste Extraction Test
xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the staff of the California Water Service 

Company (Cal Water) in Lake Isabella, California. The primary operator, Mr. Mike Adams, monitored 

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

schedule throughout this reporting period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible 

without their support and dedication. 
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems for reducing compliance cost. As part of 

this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations to EPA on the technologies it determined 

acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical reasons, 

only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information provided by the 

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

states, selected one technical proposal for each site. 

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

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

host sites. California Water Service Company (Cal Water)’s Upper Bodfish facility in Lake Isabella, CA, 

was one of those selected. 

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

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

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

the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA; the number of proposals per site ranged from none 

(for two sites) to a maximum of four. Final selection of the treatment technology at sites receiving at least 

one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state regulators, and the host site. Since 

then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program, reducing the number of sites to 28. In 

February 2005, VEETech’s hybrid ion exchange (HIX) technology using ArsenXnp media was selected

for demonstration at the Upper Bodfish facility. 

As of December 2010, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of all 39 

systems was completed.
2

1.2 Technologies Selected for Demonstration

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fe], and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design 

for the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital costs are provided in two EPA reports 

(Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at 

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

1.3 Project Objectives

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

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

to:

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

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

• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.

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

This report summarizes the performance of the HIX system at the Upper Bodfish site in Lake Isabella, 

CA, from October 12, 2005, through March 23, 2007. The types of data collected include system 

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

capital and preliminary O&M cost. 
3

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

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm)

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L)

Fe

(μg/L)

pH

(S.U.)

Northeast/Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Lakes/Interior Plains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midwest/Southwest

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

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

Bruni, TX

Webb Consolidated Independent School 

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

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

Anthony, NM 

Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water 

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

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

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

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

Tohono O'odham 

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

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

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

Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)

Demonstration 

Location Site Name Technology (Media) Vendor

Design 

Flowrate 

(gpm) 

Source Water Quality

As 

(μg/L) 

Fe

 (μg/L) 

pH

(S.U.)

Far West

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

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

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

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

Klamath Falls, OR Oregon Institute of Technology

POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp) 

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

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

Reno, NV

South Truckee Meadows General

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

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

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

Tehachapi, CA

Golden Hills Community Service 

District AM (Isolux) MEI 150 15 <25 6.9 

AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) Including nine residential units.

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

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information collected during the HIX system operation, the following was summarized and

concluded relating to the overall objectives of the technology demonstration study.

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

• ArsenXnp media is effective at removing arsenic and uranium to below their respective 

MCLs. The treatment system achieved a run length of 33,100 and 31,700 bed volumes (BV) 

at 10-μg/L arsenic breakthrough, which is 65 and 59%, respectively, higher than the vendor’s 

projected value. Uranium was completely removed to below the detection limit of 0.1 μg/L 

throughout the entire study period. 

• The presence of silica at 43.4 mg/L (as SiO2) had little or no effect on ArsenXnp performance. 

Silica removal was observed only during the initial 1,000 BV. 

• The use of ArsenXnp does not alter water quality parameters, such as pH, alkalinity, sulfate, 

fluoride, nitrate, and hardness. 

Required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels: 

• The system requires little attention from the operator. The daily demand is only

10 min to visually inspect the system and record operational parameters.

• System operation does not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate 

the pre-existing water supply equipment. The system is operated by a State-certified 

operator who possesses Level 2 certifications for both treatment and distribution 

systems.

Process residuals produced by the technology:

• Because backwash was not required, no backwash wastewater or solids were produced. 

• The spent media, containing arsenic and uranium, is a mixed waste, and requires waste 

profiling and radiological analysis to determine the proper disposal methods. Results of 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), 

Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and radiological analysis indicated that the spent 

media be classified as a non-hazardous, exempt material. However, it is difficult to find a 

solid waste landfill in California to accept the uranium-laden material even if it is exempt 

material.

Cost of the Technology:

• Based on the system’s rated capacity of 50 gal/min (gpm), the capital cost is $2,281 per gpm 

of the design capacity (or $1.58/gal/day [gpd]). 

• Cost of media replacement and disposal is the most significant add-on cost at $2.92/1,000 gal. 

The labor cost for routine O&M activities was $0.13/1,000 gal. 
6

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General Project Approach

Table 3-1 summarizes predemonstration activities and completion dates. The performance evaluation 

study of the HIX treatment system began on October 12, 2005, and ended on March 23, 2007. Table 3-2 

summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The 

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

to their respective MCLs of 10 and 30 μg/L. This was monitored through the collection of water samples 

across the treatment train, as described in the Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system 

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

replacement. The plant operator recorded unscheduled downtime and repair information on a Repair and 

Maintenance Log Sheet. 

Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates

Activity Date

Introductory Meeting Held October 14, 2004

Project Planning Meeting Held April 11, 2005

Draft Letter of Understanding Issued April 18, 2005

Final Letter of Understanding Issued May 6, 2005

Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor May 24, 2005

Vendor Quotation received by Battelle June 2, 2005

Purchase Order Completed and Signed July 19, 2005

Engineering Plans Submitted to CDPH August 2, 2005

Final Study Plan Issued October 4, 2005

System Permit Issued by CDPH August 24, 2005

HIX System Shipped and Arrived September 23, 2005

System Installation and Shakedown Completed October 4, 2005

Performance Evaluation Begun October 12, 2005

CDPH = California Department of Public Health

O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through a combination of quantitative data and 

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

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

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

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

Sheet. 

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

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

site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media regeneration or replacement and 

disposal, chemical supply, electricity usage, and labor.
7

Table 3-2. General Types of Data

Evaluation Objectives Data Collection

Performance -Ability to consistently meet 10 μg/L of arsenic and 30 μg/L of uranium in

treated water

Reliability -Unscheduled downtime for system

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

materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost

System O&M and 

Operator Skill

Requirements

-Pre- and post-treatment requirements

-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation

-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers

-Task analysis of preventive maintenance including number, frequency, and 

complexity of tasks

-Chemical handling and inventory requirements 

-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and 

safety practices

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

system operation

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

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

3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection

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

instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis (except for Saturdays and Sundays),

the plant operator recorded system operation data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter 

readings on a Daily Field Log Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system 

operations. In the event of problems, the operator contacted the Battelle Study Lead, who then 

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

information, including problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and 

associated cost and labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a weekly basis, the plant 

operator measured field water quality parameters, including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), 

oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and recorded the data on a Weekly Onsite

Water Quality Parameter Log Sheet. 

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

installation. The O&M cost consisted primarily of the expenditure to regenerate or replace the spent 

media and the labor to operate the system. No chemicals or electricity was required by the HIX system. 

Labor for various activities such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstrationrelated work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included 

activities, such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as 

recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related activities, including performing field 

measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the 

vendor, were recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.

3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules

To evaluate the performance of the HIX system, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the 

treatment plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides sampling schedules and chemical 

analytes measured during each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment 

system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
8

Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Chemical Analytes

Sample 

Type

Sampling

Locations(a)

No. of 

Sampling

Locations Frequency Analytes

Sampling

Date

Source 

Water

At Wellhead (IN) 1 Once during 

initial site 

visit

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Offsite: As (total and 

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

(total and soluble), Mn 

(total and soluble),

U (total and soluble),

V (total and soluble),

Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3, 

NO2, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4, 

TDS, TOC, turbidity, and 

alkalinity 

10/14/04

Treatment 

Plant Water

At Wellhead (IN), 

before HIX 

Vessel (BF), after 

HIX Vessel (AF)

3 One to four 

times a 

month

(Regular 

Sampling)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Offsite: As (total), Fe 

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

Ca, Mg, SiO2, P, turbidity, 

and alkalinity

Appendix B

Monthly

during first 

adsorption 

run; twice 

during 

second 

adsorption 

run

(Speciation 

Sampling)

Onsite: pH, temperature, 

DO, and ORP

Offsite: As (total and 

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

(total and soluble), Mn 

(total and soluble), 

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, 

P, turbidity, and alkalinity

Appendix B

Distribution 

Water

Three residences 

including one 

historic LCR 

sampling location

3 Monthly(b) Offsite: pH, alkalinity, As 

(total), Fe (total), Mn 

(total), Pb (total), and Cu 

(total)

08/10/05 to 

10/12/06

Spent 

Media

Top, middle, and 

bottom of each 

HIX vessel

6(c) Once Offsite: TTLC, STLC, and 

TCLP metals, and gamma 

spectroscopy (U-235/U238)

08/30/07

(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1.

(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from August to September 2005 before system became operational.

(c) One composite sample was submitted for laboratory analysis.

DO = dissolved oxygen; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; ORP = oxidation-reduction potential; STLC = Soluble 

Threshold Limit Concentration; TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; TDS = total dissolved solids; 

TOC = total organic carbon; TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentration. 

Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and 

holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP. 
9

INFLUENT

(UPPER BODFISH WELL CH2-A)

Weekly

Monthly

Lake Isabella, CA

HIX Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 50 gpm

Footnotes

(a) On-site analyses

(b) One vessel in service while 

the other in stand-by mode

IN

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

AERATOR

INFLUENT Unit Process

Process Flow

After HIX Filter 

(Vessel A or B) AF

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

BF Before HIX Filter

BAG FILTER

VESSEL

A(b)

BAG FILTER

VESSEL

B(b)

pH(a), temperature(a),

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

AF

Chlorine/Phosphate 

Addition Point

BF

pH(a), temperature(a)

,

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a)

,

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

INFLUENT

(UPPER BODFISH WELL CH2-A)

Weekly

Monthly

Lake Isabella, CA

HIX Arsenic Removal System

Design Flow: 50 gpm

Footnotes

(a) On-site analyses

(b) One vessel in service while 

the other in stand-by mode

IN

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

AERATOR

INFLUENT Unit Process

Process Flow

After HIX Filter 

(Vessel A or B) AF

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

BF Before HIX Filter

INFLUENT Unit Process

Process Flow

After HIX Filter 

(Vessel A or B) AF

Water Sampling Locations

LEGEND

IN At Wellhead

BF Before HIX Filter

BAG FILTER

VESSEL

A(b)

BAG FILTER

VESSEL

B(b)

pH(a), temperature(a),

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

AF

Chlorine/Phosphate 

Addition Point

BF

pH(a), temperature(a)

,

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

pH(a), temperature(a)

,

DO(a)

, ORP(a), As speciation,

Fe (total and soluble),

Mn (total and soluble)

U (total and soluble),

Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, P, 

turbidity, alkalinity

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

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

, 

ORP(a)

, As (total), Fe (total),

Mn (total), U (total), Ca, Mg, 

SiO2, P, turbidity, alkalinity

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Upper Bodfish Site

3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the site, one set of source water samples was 

collected and speciation using an arsenic speciation kit was performed (see Section 3.4.1). The sample 

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

might cause unwanted oxidation. Table 3-3 lists analytes for the source water samples. 
10

3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. Two single-vessel adsorption runs were conducted during the 

performance evaluation study. The original Study Plan called for collection of “speciation samples” at 

the wellhead (IN), before the HIX vessel (BF), and after the HIX vessel (AF) during the first week of 

each 4-week cycle and collection of “regular samples” from the same three locations during the remaining 

weeks. However, this sampling schdule was followed only briefly during the initial six weeks of system 

operation. Since then through the end of the first adsorption run, speciation samples were taken once a 

month and regular samples were taken one to two times a month. The speciation and regular samples

taken were analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3, except for one occasion on July 26, 2006, when 

the regular samples were measured only for total arsenic. 

During the second adsorption run, “speciation samples” were taken only twice on August 23 and 

September 27, 2006, and “regular samples” were taken once every one to four weeks. The speciation and 

regular samples collected were analyzed for the analytes presented in Table 3-3. Beginning on October 

26, 2006, through the end of the performance evalution study, regular samples were analyzed only for 

total arsenic and uranium.

3.3.3 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to 

determine any impact of the HIX system on the water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically, 

the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From August to September 2005, prior to startup of the HIX system, 

four baseline sampling events were conducted at three locations in the distribution system. Following 

startup of the HIX system through October 2006, monthly distribution system water samples were 

collected at the same three locations. 

Three residences were selected for distribution system water sampling: 179 Spring Court (designated as 

DS1), 66 Spring Court (DS2), and 2216 Rembach Avenue (DS3). Only DS2 was part of the historic Lead 

and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling network serviced primarily by the source well. Figure 3-2 is a 

distribution map showing the three sampling locations. The homeowners of the residences collected 

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

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

before sampling and sample collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. All samples 

were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant 

water was sampled, with the exception of DS2 on March 22, 2006. 

3.3.4 Spent Media Sampling. Spent media samples were collected from each HIX vessel for 

radiological analyses and waste characterization for the purpose of determining disposal options for the 

media. Due to potential concerns with the radioactivity of the spent media, Thomas Gray and Associates 

(TG&A) in Orange, CA, a licensed radioactive waste broker, was contracted to perform a dose rate 

radiation survey and collect spent media samples. On August 30, 2007, a TG&A technician was onsite to 

conduct a dose rate radiation survey over the exterior of both vessels prior to sample collection. The 

technician used a Bicron MicroRem radiation monitor to take readings from the bottom, center, and top of 

each vessel. A total of 12 readings were collected from each vessel, ranging from 10 to 15 μrem. These 

low readings indicated that radiological exposure was not a problem. 

After the system was pressurized, the technician collected one 1-L spent media sample from each of the 

sampling ports located at various depths (6, 18, and 30 in below the top of the media bed) from each 

vessel. A 1-L composite sample was constructed by mixing an equal amount of each sample in a 1-L 

container. From this 1-L composite sample, two 8-oz and one 4-oz containers were filled and sent to 

Teledyne Brown Engineering laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN, for TTLC, STLC, TCLP, and gamma 

spectroscopy (U-235/U-238) analyses. 
11

Figure 3-2. Distribution Map of Upper Bodfish Site

3.4 Sampling Logistics

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

shipping and handling are discussed as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a 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 designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if 

necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The 
12

labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate zip-lock bags and packed in the cooler. 

When needed, the sample cooler also included bottles for the distribution system water sampling. 

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

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

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

sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the 

following week’s sampling event. 

3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for offsite analyses were 

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

custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified that all samples indicated 

on the forms were included and intact. The Battelle Study Lead addressed discrepancies noted by the 

sample custodian with the plant operator. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were 

recorded on a cooler tracking log.

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

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

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

TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, OH, both of which were contracted by Battelle for this 

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

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

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

3.5 Analytical Procedures

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

followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control 

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

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

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

associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared 

under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project. 

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

VWR Symphony SP90MS handheld multimeter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use 

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

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

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

value was obtained. 
13

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure

Cal Water’s Kern River Valley District owns and operates three wells, i.e., CH-1, CH2-A, and CH-3, 

which serve approximately 600 residences at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA. The population 

increases in the summer months due to an influx of tourists. Prior to the performance evaluation study, 

the average monthly demand was 1,000,000 gal (or 34,000 gpd) and the peak monthly demand was 

1,900,000 gal (or 64,000 gpd). The water demand was met primarily by Well CH-1 (rated at 50 gpm) and 

Well CH2-A (rated at 38 gpm), which jointly produce a maximum of 86,400 gpd. Well CH-3, located 

adjacent to CH2-A, had been taken out of service for an extended period of time. 

Well CH2-A was selected for this EPA demonstration study due to elevated arsenic and uranium levels in 

the water. Drilled in 1980, Well CH2-A was 6-in in diameter and 348 ft deep with a static water level of 

336 ft below ground surface (bgs). The well was equipped with a 3-horsepower (hp) pump that produced 

38 gpm of flow (well pump curve was unavailable). Prior to installation of the HIX system, the well 

operated only during the summer months and had an average monthly production rate of 190,000 gal and 

a peak monthly production of 870,000 gal. Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing Well CH2-A wellhead and 

associated piping in a fenced area. 

Figure 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A in Lake Isabella, CA

The pre-existing treatment for Well CH2-A consisted of aeration, chlorination, and phosphate addition. 

Aeration was performed in a 7-ft diameter by 12 ft tall 3,500-gal steel tank (Figure 4-2) to remove radon. 

Prior to entering the aerator, water was injected with chlorine for disinfection and a phosphate blend 

solution for corrosion and scale control. The target chlorine residual level was 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2) and the 

target phosphate level was 0.5 mg/L (as PO4). The treated water was then pumped to the distribution 

system by a 10-hp booster pump. 
14

Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Aeration Tank at Upper Bodfish in Lake Isabella, CA

Well CH-1, drilled in August 1986, was located approximately a quarter of a mile southeast of Well CH2-

A. Well CH-1 water does not contain elevated arsenic or uranium so the well was previously used as the 

lead well. Existing treatment consisted of chlorination and phosphate addition at the wellhead. 

4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Table 4-1 presents the analytical data of source water samples 

collected at the wellhead of Well CH2-A on October 14, 2004. Table 4-1 also compares the October 14, 

2004, data to those provided by Cal Water for the EPA demonstration site selection and those collected 

historically by CDPH during September 18, 2002, through November 16, 2005. Source water quality 

data collected during the 18-month long study period are discussed in Section 4.5.1.

Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 35.4 to 41.3 μg/L. Based on the 

October 14, 2004, speciation results, arsenic existed almost entirely as soluble As(V), which could be 

removed directly by the HIX system without preoxidation. 

Uranium. Total uranium concentrations in Well CH2-A water ranged from 27.0 to 35.0 μg/L, which 

could exceed its MCL of 30 μg/L (see discussion in Section 4.5.1 regarding the conversion between the 

Federal and California MCLs). Based on the October 14, 2004, speciation results, uranium existed 

entirely in the soluble form. 

Radon. Radon is a radioactive gas released by uranium-bearing rocks and soil. Total radon 

concentrations in source water ranged from 22,294 to 40,000 pCi/L based on radioactivity analysis 

conducted from March 9 to November 16, 2004. As noted above, there was a pre-existing aeration tank 

to remove radon from water prior to distribution.

 

Iron and Manganese. According to the facility data, the total iron concentration of source water was 800 

μg/L. Iron concentrations reported by Battelle and CDPH were less than the respective reporting limits of 

25 and 100 μg/L. According to VEETech, iron could bind to the surface of the HIX media, thus 

increasing the capacity and removal efficiency for arsenic. Manganese concentrations in source water 

were as low as 1.1 μg/L, which existed mainly in the soluble form.
15

Table 4-1. Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A Source Water Quality Data(a) 

Parameter Unit

CDPH

Data

Facility

Data(b) 

Battelle 

Data

Date 09/18/02–11/16/05 2002 10/14/04

pH S.U. 7 7 NA

Temperature °C NA NA NA

DO mg/L NA NA NA

ORP mV NA NA NA

Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L NA 85 85

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 83 86 91

Turbidity NTU 0.1 NA 0.4

TDS mg/L 229 NA 234

TOC mg/L NA NA <0.7

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 1.0 NA 1.2

Nitrite (as N) mg/L <0.04 NA <0.01

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

Chloride mg/L 10.8 9 11.0

Fluoride mg/L 1.1 NA 1.1

Sulfate mg/L 38.6 38 36.0

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L NA 40 44.7

Orthophosphate (as PO4) mg/L NA <0.07 <0.06

As (total) μg/L 41.3 37 35.4

As (soluble) μg/L NA NA 35.8

As (particulate) μg/L NA NA <0.1

As(III) μg/L NA NA 0.8

As(V) μg/L NA NA 35.0

Fe (total) μg/L <100 800 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L NA NA <25

Mn (total) μg/L <20 20 1.1

Mn (soluble) μg/L NA NA 0.8

U (total) μg/L 27-35 30 31.5

U (soluble) μg/L NA NA 31.7

Rn (total) pCi/L 22,294–40,000 NA NA

V (total) μg/L NA NA 0.6

V (soluble) μg/L NA NA 0.4

Na (total) mg/L 27.6 28.0 36.7

Ca (total) mg/L 35.2 34.0 32.5

Mg (total) mg/L 1.7 2.0 2.5

(a) All samples collected at wellhead before aeration tank.

(b) Provided by Cal Water to EPA for site selection.

DO = dissolved oxygen; NA = not available; NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit; ORP = 

oxidation-reduction potential; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon

Competing Anions. Silica and phosphate were potential competing anions in source water. 

Concentrations of silica in source water ranged from 40 to 44.7 mg/L (as SiO2), which, according to the 

vendor, might accumulate on the HIX media to adversely affect the removal efficiency of arsenic and 

uranium. Phosphate concentrations in source water were below the detection limits of 0.06 and 0.07 

mg/L as reported by Battelle and the facility, respectively.
16

Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water averaged 7.0, which is favorable for arsenic 

adsorption onto the HIX media. Total alkalinity values averaged 85 mg/L (as CaCO3) and fluoride 

averaged 1.1 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 36 to 38.6 mg/L; sodium from 27.6 to 36.7 mg/L; 

calcium from 32.5 to 35.2 mg/L; magnesium from 1.7 to 2.5 mg/L; and chloride from 9 to 11.0 mg/L. 

The presence of these ions in source water was not expected to significantly affect the arsenic removal by

the HIX media, however, sulfate and chloride could affect the uranium removal during the IX process.

4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system at the Upper Bodfish site consisted of 

approximately 200 connections supplied by Wells CH-1 and CH2-A (CH-3 was inactive). The 

distribution system piping materials included steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and asbestos cement (AC). 

Service lines were typically composed of galvanized steel, copper, or PVC piping. Fire hydrant flushing 

was not performed regularly due to a water shortage caused by recent drought conditions. A blended 

poly- and ortho-phosphate solution was used for iron sequestration and corrosion control in the 

distribution system. Because iron concentrations in source water were low, phosphate addition was 

probably not needed for iron control; the addition was only for corrosion control. Due to exceedance over 

the copper action level, the LCR sampling program was conducted annually at 10 selected residences with 

the most recent sampling taking place in June 2003 and August 2004. In addition, samples were collected 

monthly from the distribution system for bacterial analysis. 

4.2 Treatment Process Description

The HIX technology marketed by VEETech was a fixed-bed adsorption system utilizing a hybrid 

polymeric-inorganic exchanger, known as ArsenXnp, for arsenic and uranium removal. Manufactured by 

Purolite, ArsenXnp incorporated nanoparticle technology originally developed by Dr. Arup SenGupta of 

Lehigh University, PA, and further refined by SolmeteX, Inc. of Northborough, MA. ArsenXnp was NAF 

International (NSF) 61 certified for use in municipal water treatment systems. Table 4-2 presents 

physical and chemical properties of the media. ArsenXnp consisted of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles 

impregnated into a standard strong-base anion (SBA) exchange resin. The iron content was 

approximately 25% (as Fe by dry weight). ArsenXnp media utilized iron chemistry to adsorb arsenic from 

water and simultaneously removed uranium by its base material – anionic exchange resin. The SBA resin

was known for having a high selectivity and a high capacity for uranium removal (Clifford, 1999). 

Previous EPA studies suggested that the resin technology would be a cost-effective method for removing 

uranium from small community water supplies (Sorg, 1988). Ion exchange was listed as one of the Best 

Available Technologies (BATs) for uranium treatment. 

Table 4-3 presents relevant specifications and key design parameters. Figure 4-3 is a piping and 

instrumentation diagram (P&ID). The system consisted of two single-stage, fiberglass reinforced plastic 

(FRP) vessels, each loaded with approximately 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp media. Each vessel was capable of

treating 50 gpm of flow. During normal operation, one vessel was placed in service while the other was 

on standby. This configuration allowed continuous system operation should one vessel be shipped off 

site for regeneration. As water passed downwardly through the media bed, arsenic and uranium were 

removed via a combination of adsorption and IX processes. Mounted on a 16 ft long and 6 ft wide trailer 

for easy transportation, the system was instrumented with ball valves, gauges for pressure, temperature, 

and flow, and sample collection ports. Figure 4-4 presents the layout of the HIX system on the trailer. 

Figure 4-5 is a photograph of the trailer-mounted HIX system.

 

The HIX treatment system included the following major process steps and system components:

• Intake – Raw water from Well CH2-A was pumped to the system via a 3-hp pump, which 

was interlocked with the high/low level sensors in the aerator. An hour meter was installed 

on the well pump to record the operating time.
17

Table 4-2. Typical Physical and Chemical Properties of ArsenXnp Media

Parameter Value

Physical Form and Appearance Reddish-brown spherical beads

Polymer Structure Polystyrene crosslinked with 

divinyl benzene

Matrix Structure Macro-porous matrix impregnated with 

iron nanoparticles

Bead Size (mm [mesh]) 0.3–1.2 [16 × 50]

Bulk Density (lb/ft3 [g/L]) 49–52 [790–840]

Moisture Content (%) 55–60

Arsenic Capacity (g As/L) 0.5–4.0 

(Depending on raw water composition and 

operating conditions)

Contact Time (min) 2.5 to 3.0

Specific Service Flowrate (BV/h [gpm/ft3]) Typical 20–24 [2.5–3.0] 

up to 43 [4.0]

Max. Operating Temperature (oC [oF]) 80 [176]

Operational pH (S.U.) 4.5–8.5

Source: Purolite

Table 4-3. HIX System Specifications and Design Parameters

Design Parameter Value Remark

No. of Vessels 2 One in operation, one in stand-by

Vessel Size (in) 42 OD × 60 H –

Type of Media ArsenXnp

Quantity of Media (ft3) 27 Per vessel

Backwash None –

Pressure Drop (psi) 3 1 psi/ft of media

Area of Cross Section (ft2) 9.6 –

Media Bed Depth (ft) 2.8 –

Design Flowrate (gpm) 50 –

Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 5.2 Based on 50 gpm design flowrate

Specific Service Flow Rate (gpm/ft3) 1.9 Based on 50 gpm design flowrate

EBCT (min) 4.0 Based on 50 gpm design flowrate

Estimated Working Capacity (BV) 15,000–20,000 Based on 10-μg/L arsenic 

breakthrough

Estimated Throughput to 10-μg/L 

As Breakthrough (gal)

3,000,000–4,000,000 1 BV = 202 gal

Average Daily Demand (gal) 22,800–34,200 10–15 hr of operation

Estimated Media Life (month) 4 –

No. of Regenerations (time/year) 3 –
18

Figure 4-3. P&ID of HIX Treatment System (Provided by VEETech)
19

Figure 4-4. HIX System Layout on Trailer (Provided by VEETech)
20

Figure 4-5. Trailer-Mounted HIX System Under a Canopy

• Bag-Filter – Two 1-μm bag-filter assemblies were installed before the HIX vessels to 

remove sediment/particulate matter from the influent water. The bag-filter housing was 9-in 

in diameter and 3 ft high and constructed of stainless steel (Figure 4-6). Water passed 

through only one bag-filter assembly at any given time. Once the differential pressure 

reached 5 lb/in2

 (psi), flow was diverted to the second bag-filter assembly to allow the bag 

filter in the first assembly to be replaced. Historical data for the site indicated the presence of 

elevated silica concentrations. Insoluble silica might be removed along with sediment by the 

bag filter, thus eliminating the need for HIX vessel backwash.

• HIX Media Vessels – Each media vessel was 42-in in diameter by 60-in high and contained 

approximately 27 ft3 of ArsenXnp media. Each vessel was equipped with lifting lugs to 

facilitate removal and placement of the vessel from and to the trailer, one pressure release 

port, and two sampling ports to draw samples of the media. Under the peak flow rate of 38 

gpm, the hydraulic loading rate to each vessel was 4.0 gpm/ft2 and the empty bed contact time 

(EBCT) was 5.3 min. Figure 4-7 shows one media vessel and the associated lifting lugs 

(located at the bottom of the vessel), pressure release port (the left side arm extending from 

the top of the vessel), and media sampling ports (the middle and right side arms extending 

from the top of the vessel).

• Media Vessel Regeneration and Rinsing – When effluent arsenic or uranium concentrations 

exceeded the respective MCL, water flow was diverted to the standby vessel for continuous 

system operation and the spent media vessel was taken offline for regeneration or 

replacement. According to the vendor, the media could be regenerated and reused for up to 

20 cycles based on the water chemistry of Well CH2-A. During the performance evaluation 

study, bed breakthrough of arsenic at 10 μg/L occurred at approximately 33,100 BV and flow 

was diverted to the standby column for continuous system operation. Potential options for 

media regeneration or replacement are further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
21

Figure 4-6. Bag Filter Assemblies

Figure 4-7. HIX Media Vessel with Pressure Release Port and 

Media Sampling Ports
22

• Chlorine and Phosphate Addition – Prior to entering the aerator, chlorine was added for 

disinfection and phosphate for corrosion and scale control. A sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) 

solution (prepared by adding 1 gal of a 12.5% solution into 15 gal of water) was stored in two 

35-gal drums manifolded together and injected by a solenoid-driven metering pump with a 

maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/hr (gph). The target free chlorine residual was 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L 

(as Cl2). A blended phosphate solution, SeaQuest, was diluted by mixing 1 lb of the solution 

into 7.5 gal of water in a 35-gal drum. The SeaQuest solution consisted of 22.7% (minimum) 

of polyphosphate and 7.6% (minimum) of orthophosphate, which provided sequestration for 

iron, manganese and hardness in water and corrosion control by forming a protective film on 

metal pipes in the distribution system. The diluted solution was injected by a similar 

solenoid-driven metering pump at a target level of 0.35 to 0.5 mg/L (as PO4). 

• Aerator – Effluent from the HIX system passed through the existing aerator to remove radon 

prior to entering the distribution system. The aerator was 7-ft in diameter and 12 ft high with 

a storage capacity of 3,500 gal. Treated water entered the aerator through a 2-in galvanized 

steel pipe and a screened vent located at the top of the aerator to allow volatilized radon to 

dissipate to the atmosphere.

• Booster Pump – The treated water was pumped to the distribution system by a pre-existing 

10-hp booster pump. 

4.3 System Installation 

This section discusses system installation activities including permitting, building construction, and 

system shakedown.

4.3.1 Permitting. The permit application for the HIX system was simplified and expedited by 

CDPH because (1) only a “temporary” permit was granted and valid for the duration of the EPA 

demonstration study, and (2) waste disposal was not anticipated to be an issue considering that the HIX 

system would not require backwashing and that any spent media would be shipped offsite for 

regeneration as originally proposed by the vendor. 

The submittal for the permit application included a site plan prepared by Cal Water and documents 

prepared by VEETech, including HIX system diagrams, specifications, and an O&M manual. After the 

vendor incorporated review comments from Cal Water and Battelle, the submittal package was sent to 

CDPH for review on August 2, 2005. CDPH e-mailed its review comments to Cal Water on August 5, 

2005, which were addressed in a revised O&M manual by VEETech on August 9, 2005. CDPH provided 

Approval-to-Construct on August 24, 2005. 

 

According to CDPH, upon completion of the EPA demonstration study, a permanent permit must be 

secured by Cal Water if it plans on keeping the HIX system and continuing its operation. Cal Water also

must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements as part of the 

permitting process. A regular water supply permit application takes 30 days for initial completeness 

review by CDPH. Once the application has been determined to be complete, it normally takes 90 days to 

issue a final permit document.

4.3.2 Building Preparation. Cal Water opted to install a canopy-type enclosure around the HIX 

treatment system (Figure 4-5). Therefore, grading of the ground around the system was the only building 

preparation required. Manufactured by Carport Cover, the canopy was 12 ft wide, 21 ft long, and 10 ft 

high, with two extra panels. The cost of the canopy was approximately $1,860. 
23

4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Following successful hydraulic testing of the 

system at Mobile Processing Technology’s (MPT’s) Memphis, TN facility, the trailer-mounted HIX 

system was hauled to the site by a pickup truck on September 20, 2005, and arrived at the site on 

September 23, 2005. Cal Water plumbed the system between the well and distribution system using 2-in 

diameter polyethylene piping and completed the system installation on September 29, 2005. VEETech 

was onsite on October 3, 2005 to conduct the system shakedown and complete it the next day. The 

bacteriological test was passed on October 5, 2005. 

During the startup trip in October, the vendor conducted operator training for system O&M. Battelle staff 

arrived at the site on October 12, 2005 to perform system inspections and conduct operator training for 

sampling and data collection. The first set of samples for the performance evaluation study was collected 

on October 12, 2005. No major mechanical or installation issues were identified at system startup. 

4.4 System Operation

4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the duration of the performance 

evaluation study were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in 

Table 4-4. Two single-vessel adsorption runs were conducted during the performance evaluation study. 

The first adsorption run using Vessel 1 began on October 12, 2005, and ended on August 15, 2006. The 

second adsorption run using Vessel 2 began on August 16, 2006, and ended on March 23, 2007. Between 

October 12, 2005, and August 15, 2006, approximately 7,095,070 gal of water was processed through 

Vessel 1, whereupon arsenic concentrations in effluent exceeded 10 μg/L and flow was switched to 

Vessel 2. An additional 6,446,880 gal of water was then treated by Vessel 2 through March 23, 2007, 

which marked the end of the study. With a total of 13,561,950 gal of water treated, the average daily 

demand was 25,783 gpd, equivalent to 36% of the design capacity. The amount of water treated was

based on readings from the flow meter/totalizer installed at the effluent side of the filtration vessels. 

Table 4-4. Summary of HIX System Operation

Operational Parameter Adsorption Run 1 Adsorption Run 2 Combined

Operating Vessel Vessel 1 Vessel 2

Duration 10/12/05–08/15/06 08/16/06–03/23/07 10/12/05–03/23/07

Cumulative Operating Time (hr) 4,920 4,793 9,713

Total No. of Days System Operating (day) 307 219 526

Average Daily Operating Time (hr) 16.0 21.9 18.5

Cumulative Throughput (gal) 7,095,070 6,466,880 13,561,950

Cumulative Throughput (BV)(a) 35,124 32,014 –

Average (Range) of Flowrate (gpm) 24 (21–29) 21 (20–30) 23 (20–30)

Average (Range) of EBCT (min) 8.5 (6.9–9.5) 9.6 (6.7–10.1) 8.8 (6.7–10.1)

Average (Range) of Inlet Pressure (psi) 8.1 (1–13) 6.5 (3–10) 7.3 (1–13)

Average (Range) of Outlet Pressure (psi) 7.1 (2–11) 8.6 (3–12) 7.9 (2–12)

Average of ∆p across System (psi) 1 1 1 

(a) Calculated based on 27 ft3 of media in operating vessel. 

Through the entire study period, the system operated for a total of 9,713 hr based on the wellhead hour 

meter readings. Average daily operating time during the first adsorption run was 27% shorter than that 

during the second adsorption run (i.e., 16.0 versus 21.9 hr/day); the differences observed do not appear to 

have been caused by seasonal variations (see Figure 4-8). The system was operating for more than 20 hr 

a day during 64% of the study period. Significantly shorter daily run times were experienced through 
24

Figure 4-8. HIX System Daily Operating Time
25

most weekends during the first four months of system operation and through the periods from May to July 

2006, November 2006, and March 2007. Review of the field logs did not reveal any particular reasons 

for these shorter run times. 

System flowrates were tracked by both instantaneous readings of a flow meter installed at the system inlet 

and calculated values based on readings of the wellhead hour meter and a flow totalizer installed at the 

system outlet. As shown in Figure 4-9, both instantaneous readings and calculated values fluctuated with 

the calculated values being generally higher than the instantaneous readings throughout the entire study 

period. Flowrates to the system ranged from 20 to 30 gpm and average 23 gpm, which was 39% lower 

than the 38-gpm peak flowrate (Table 4-3) or 54% lower than the 50-gpm design flowrate. Based on the 

flowrates to the system, the EBCT for the operating vessel varied from 6.7 to 10.1 min and averaged 8.8

min. As a result, the average EBCT was 66% and 120% higher than the peak and design EBCT of 5.3 

and 4 min, respectively. Inlet and outlet pressure readings of the HIX system averaged 7.3 and 7.9 psi, 

respectively, with a 1.0 psi of headloss across the system. The pressure readings, however, were found to 

be inaccurate due to the use of pressure gauges with a span of 0 to 100 psi for this low pressure system. 

Prior to the installation of the HIX system, the wellhead pressure was approximately 10 psi, just enough 

to deliver water to the aerator. 

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

10/01/05 12/31/05 04/01/06 07/01/06 09/30/06 12/30/06 03/31/07

Flowrate (gpm)

Date

Instantaneous Flowrate

Vessel 1 Vessel 2 Calculated Flowrate

Figure 4-9. HIX System Flowrates

4.4.2 Residual Management. Backwashing of the HIX media bed was not required, thus, no 

wastewater was generated. The only residual generated by the HIX system operation was 54 ft3 of spent 

media. Depending on whether the spent media is regenerated or replaced, arsenic- and uranium-laden 

liquid or solid residual streams may be produced. Due to the presence of uranium, these residual streams 

are classified as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM). 

Uranium concentrations in TENORM, types of residual produced (liquid or solid wastes), and applicable 

federal and state regulations will affect disposal options (EPA, 2005). 
26

According to EPA’s A Regulators’ Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking 

Water Treatment Technologies (EPA, 2005), if a water system generates uranium-containing residuals, 

this uranium is considered “source material” and may be subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

(NRC’s) licensing requirements under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). If the uranium makes up less than 

0.05% (by weight) of the residuals, it is exempt from NRC regulations because it is considered an 

“unimportant quantity” (10 CFR 40.13). Table 4-5 summarizes source material quantities that are exempt 

from specific licensing requirements. If a residual contains uranium exceeding the listed requirements, 

then it is classified as a non-exempt material and is subject to relevant regulations for storage, 

transportation, and disposal. Possession of the source material in concentrations or quantities greater than 

those shown requires compliance with 10 CFR 40.19, 20, and 21. 

Table 4-5. Requirements for Exempt Source Material

Measurement Requirements

Concentration <0.05 % by weight of uranium

Radioactivity <335 pico-Curies per gram (pCi/g)

Quantity <15 lb at any given time; <150 lb over course of a year

Source: (EPA, 2005)

The HIX vendor originally proposed to regenerate the spent media upon exhaustion for arsenic at 15,000 

to 20,000 BV of throughput. The spent media would be extracted from an adsorption vessel and shipped 

to MPT in Memphis, TN, for regeneration. The regenerated media would then be returned to the site for 

reuse. Because MPT is licensed to process only non-exempt material, uranium in the residual stream may 

not exceed the 0.05% (by weight) “unimportant quantity.” Otherwise, the spent media might need to be 

partially regenerated onsite to below the 0.05% limit before taken to MPT for further regeneration. 

Another approach would be to completely regenerate the media onsite to remove uranium and arsenic. 

Both regeneration approaches would produce uranium- and arsenic-laden residuals, such as spent brine 

and rinse water. Due to lack of an onsite disposal method, liquid streams would have to be hauled away 

for offsite disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. 

When seeking a viable option for the spent media, Cal Water drilled two new wells and installed a new 

150-gpm HIX skid-mounted system similar to the demonstration unit. Meanwhile, Cal Water opted to 

close Well CH2-A and return the trailer-mounted system to EPA. This left media disposal to be the only 

option for handling the spent media. A decision tree for solid residual disposal (EPA, 2005) was used to 

guide media characterization and disposal and the process adopted was highlighted as shown in Figure 4-

10. Spent media samples were collected and submitted to laboratories for waste characterization and 

radiological analyses. Section 4.6 presents the results of spent media characterization and disposal. 

4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There were no operational problems with the 

HIX system during the performance evaluation study, resulting in no unscheduled downtime for the 

system. The only problem arising during the study period was the inaccurate readings on the pressure 

gauges so that the pressure drop across the HIX vessel could not be accurately determined. The system 

O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-treatment 

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

and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.

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

preoxidation step was not required. The only pretreatment required was the use of a 1-μm bag filter to 

remove sediment/particulate matter from raw water. Post-treatments included aeration (for radon 
27

Identify the quality and

quantity of the residual

Is the waste a solid according 

to the Paint Filter Liquids Test?

Is the waste hazardous?

• Sludge

• Granular Media

• Resin

• AA Media

• Spent Membranes

Dispose in a solid waste, 

hazardous waste, or LLRW 

landfill, or any landfill licensed 

by the state to accept 

TENORM waste

Dispose in a LLRW landfill

permitted to accept hazardous

waste or a hazardous waste

landfill licensed to accept 

TENORM waste

Dispose in a

solid waste

landfill

Yes

Yes

No

No

Does the waste contain No

radionuclides?

Does the waste contain nonexempt quantities of uranium or 

beta/photo emitters?

Figure 4-10. Decision Tree for Spent Media Disposal

(Modified after [EPA, 2005])

removal), post-chlorination, and zinc orthophosphate addition (for corrosion control), which had been 

practiced previously at the site. 

System Controls. The HIX system was a passive system, requiring only the operation of the supply well 

pump to feed water through the vessels. The system did not contain any moving or rotating parts or

equipment and all valves were manually activated. The inline flowmeter was solar powered so that the 

only electrical power required was that needed to run the supply well pump. The system operation was 

controlled manually, but would shut off once the aeration tank was full. 

Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the 

system were minimal. The operator was on site typically five times a week and spent approximately 10 

min each day performing visual inspections and recording system operating parameters on the daily log 

sheets. The operator replaced the bag filter periodically. Normal operations of the system did not require 

additional skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.

The State of California requires that all individuals who operate or supervise the operation of a drinking 

water treatment facility must possess a water treatment operator certificate and those who make decisions 

on maintenance and operation of any portion of the distribution system must possess a distribution 

operator certificate (CDPH, 2001). Operator certifications are granted by CDPH after minimum 

requirements are met, which include passing an examination and maintaining a minimum amount of 

hours of specialized training. There are five grades of operators for both the water treatment (i.e., T1 to 

T5) and distribution (i.e., D1 to D5), with T5 and D5 being the highest. The operator for the Upper 

Bodfish water system possessed T2 and D2 certifications for treatment and distribution, respectively. 
28

Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks 

of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. As recommended by the 

vendor, bag filters should be replaced after the differential pressure across the filter had reached 5 psi. 

However, the differential pressure across the filter had been showing negative values due to inaccurate 

pressure readings. The operator used his own judgment to change out the filter periodically. Typically, 

the operator performed these duties only when he was on site for routine activities. 

Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. After installation of the HIX system, chlorine 

and phosphate addition continued at the Upper Bodfish site. Inventory requirements for these two 

chemicals remained the same as before. The only inventory requirement associated with the HIX system 

was to keep additional bag filters onsite to facilitate changeout when needed. 

4.5 System Performance

The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the 

treatment plant and distribution system.

4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Treatment plant water samples were collected at IN, BF, and 

AF sampling locations across the treatment train on 46 occasions, including four duplicates, with field 

speciation performed in 13 of the 46 occasions. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results for arsenic, 

uranium, iron, and manganese; Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. 

Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

As (total)

IN μg/L 46 34.3 50.0 41.7 3.0

BF μg/L 46 34.8 47.6 41.5 3.0

AF-V1 μg/L 30 <0.1 10.5 -

(a) -(a)

AF-V2 μg/L 16 <0.1 11.7 -

(a) -(a)

As (soluble)

IN μg/L 13 36.6 49.7 42.3 3.6

BF μg/L 13 36.5 47.0 42.2 3.2

AF-V1 μg/L 11 0.12 10.3 -

(a) -(a)

AF-V2 μg/L 2 <0.1 <0.1 -

(a) -(a)

As (particulate)

IN μg/L 13 <0.1 2.1 0.5 0.7

BF μg/L 13 <0.1 1.5 0.5 0.6

AF-V1 μg/L 11 <0.1 <0.1 -

(a) -(a)

AF-V2 μg/L 2 <0.1 <0.1 -

(a) -(a)

As(III)

IN μg/L 13 0.13 0.9 0.4 0.3

BF μg/L 13 0.13 0.8 0.4 0.2

AF-V1 μg/L 11 <0.1 1.0 -

(a) -(a)

AF-V2 μg/L 2 0.11 0.4 -

(a) -(a)

As(V)

IN μg/L 13 36.3 49.2 41.9 3.6

BF μg/L 13 36.2 46.7 41.8 3.2

AF-V1 μg/L 11 <0.1 10.1 -

(a) -(a)

AF-V2 μg/L 2 <0.1 <0.1 -

(a) -(a)

U (total)

IN μg/L 45 26.6 38.9 33.2 2.7

BF μg/L 45 26.6 38.7 32.9 2.5

AF-V1 μg/L 30 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.0

AF-V2 μg/L 15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0
Table 4-6. Summary of Analytical Results for Arsenic, Uranium, Iron, and Manganese (Continued)

29

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

U (soluble)

IN μg/L 13 30.7 37.9 33.8 2.2

BF μg/L 13 30.5 38.1 33.6 2.4

AF-V1 μg/L 11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0

AF-V2 μg/L 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0

Fe (total)

IN μg/L 35(b) <25 <25 <25 0.0

BF μg/L 35(c) <25 <25 <25 0.0

AF-V1 μg/L 29 <25 <25 <25 0.0

AF-V2 μg/L 7 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Fe (soluble)

IN μg/L 13 <25 <25 <25 0.0

BF μg/L 13 <25 <25 <25 0.0

AF-V1 μg/L 11 <25 <25 <25 0.0

AF-V2 μg/L 2 <25 <25 <25 0.0

Mn (total)

IN μg/L 36 <0.1 0.9 0.2 0.2

BF μg/L 36 <0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2

AF-V1 μg/L 29 <0.1 1.7 0.5 0.4

AF-V2 μg/L 7 <0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2

Mn (soluble)

IN μg/L 13 <0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3

BF μg/L 13 <0.1 1.1 0.3 0.3

AF-V1 μg/L 11 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.4

AF-V2 μg/L 2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2

One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations. 

Duplicate samples included in calculations. 

(a) Statistics not meaningful; see arsenic breakthrough curves at AF location in Figures 4-12 and 4-13. 

(b) One outlier, 41.2 μg/L on 01/04/06, omitted.

(c) One outlier, 39.9 μg/L on 01/04/06, omitted.

Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Alkalinity 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 35(a) 88.0 145 102 9.1

BF mg/L 36 92.0 132 100 7.2

AF-V1 mg/L 29 88.0 132 101 7.3

AF-V2 mg/L 7 103 112 108 2.9

Fluoride

IN mg/L 13 0.9 1.6 1.1 0.2

BF mg/L 13 1.0 1.6 1.2 0.2

AF-V1 mg/L 11 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.1

AF-V2 mg/L 2 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.3

Sulfate

IN mg/L 12(b) 36.0 51.0 39.8 4.0

BF mg/L 13 35.0 52.0 40.7 4.2

AF-V1 mg/L 11 35.0 42.0 38.7 2.4

AF-V2 mg/L 2 42.0 52.0 47.0 7.1

Nitrate (as N)

IN mg/L 13 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.1

BF mg/L 13 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.1

AF-V1 mg/L 11 0.1 1.7 1.0 0.4

AF-V2 mg/L 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.2

Phosphorus 

(as P)

IN μg/L 35 <10 18.4 7.1 4.4

BF μg/L 35 <10 18.3 6.9 4.1

AF-V1 μg/L 28 <10 16.7 6.4 3.2

AF-V2 μg/L 7 <10 <10 <10 0.0
Table 4-7. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)

30

Parameter

Sampling 

Location Unit

Sample 

Count

Concentration Standard 

Minimum Maximum Average Deviation

Silica (as SiO2) 

IN mg/L 36 39.5 47.5 43.4 1.5

BF mg/L 36 39.7 48.2 43.4 1.4

AF-V1 mg/L 29 15.9 46.7 41.4 6.4

AF-V2 mg/L 7 39.8 44.1 42.1 1.4

Turbidity

IN NTU 36 <0.1 1.8 0.5 0.4

BF NTU 36 <0.1 1.7 0.4 0.3

AF-V1 NTU 29 <0.1 1.6 0.4 0.3

AF-V2 NTU 7 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1

pH

IN S.U. 30 6.7 7.2 6.9 0.1

BF S.U. 31 6.7 7.1 6.9 0.1

AF-V1 S.U. 25 6.4 7.3 6.9 0.2

AF-V2 S.U. 6 6.8 7.1 6.9 0.1

Temperature

IN oC 30 8.2 27.0 18.2 4.8

BF oC 31 9.3 26.2 17.8 4.4

AF-V1 oC 25 10.6 25.0 17.7 4.2

AF-V2 oC 6 14.0 26.2 19.2 4.7

DO

IN mg/L 26 1.6 4.3 2.4 0.7

BF mg/L 27 1.2 3.7 2.4 0.6

AF-V1 mg/L 21 1.5 3.8 2.3 0.6

AF-V2 mg/L 6 1.3 2.2 1.8 0.4

ORP

IN mV 29 198 479 383 74.1

BF mV 30 195 493 367 92.1

AF-V1 mV 24 205 495 338 95.9

AF-V2 mV 6 215 484 375 100

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 36 69.6 126.8 93.0 10.4

BF mg/L 36 69.3 123.1 92.4 9.0

AF-V1 mg/L 29 69.9 98.9 90.4 5.9

AF-V2 mg/L 7 91.0 123.5 106.4 11.4

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 36 60.6 120.6 86.2 10.7

BF mg/L 36 60.0 116.9 85.6 9.4

AF-V1 mg/L 29 60.1 92.3 83.5 6.4

AF-V2 mg/L 7 84.4 117.3 100.1 11.4

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) 

IN mg/L 36 5.6 10.4 6.8 1.0

BF mg/L 36 4.5 10.6 6.8 1.1

AF-V1 mg/L 29 5.5 10.3 6.9 1.1

AF-V2 mg/L 7 5.7 6.7 6.3 0.3

(a) One outlier, 356 mg/L on 11/08/05, omitted.

(b) One outlier, <1.0 mg/L on 07/06/06, omitted.

(c) One outlier (i.e., <1.0 on 07/06/06) omitted.

One-half of detection limit used for concentrations less than detection limit for calculations. 

Duplicate samples included in calculations. 

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

results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.

Arsenic Removal. Figure 4-11 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of various arsenic 

species at IN, BF, and AF for each of the 11 and two speciation events performed during the first and 

second adsorption runs, respectively. Total As concentrations in source water ranged from 34.3 to 50.0

μg/L and averaged 41.7 μg/L. Of the soluble fraction, As(V) was the predominating species, ranging 

from 36.3 to 49.2 μg/L and averaging 41.9 μg/L. Particulate arsenic concentrations were low, ranging 
31

Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10/13/2005

11/8/2005

12/28/2005

1/11/2006

2/8/20063/8/20064/5/20065/3/2006

6/14/2006

7/6/20068/3/2006

8/23/20069/27/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III)

As (V)

Arsenic Speciation Before Filtration (BF)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10/13/2005

11/8/2005

12/28/2005

1/11/2006

2/8/20063/8/20064/5/20065/3/2006

6/14/2006

7/6/20068/3/2006

8/23/20069/27/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III)

As (V)

Arsenic Speciation Before Filtration (BF)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10/13/2005

11/8/2005

12/28/2005

1/11/2006

2/8/20063/8/2006

4/5/2006

5/3/2006

6/14/2006

7/6/20068/3/2006

8/23/20069/27/2006

Date

As Concentration (μg/L)

As (particulate)

As (III)

As (V)

Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, BF, and AF Sampling Locations

During Adsorption Runs 1 and 2 
32

from <0.1 to 2.1 μg/L and averaging 0.5 μg/L. The arsenic concentrations were consistent with those 

measured during source water sampling in October 2004 (Table 4-1).

The key parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the HIX system were arsenic and uranium 

concentrations in treated water, which were plotted in Figures 4-12 through 4-15. During the first 

adsorption run, arsenic concentrations following Vessel 1 gradually increased from <0.1 to 10.5 μg/L 

after treating approximately 6,693,700 gal (or 33,100 BV) of water. During the second adsorption run, 

arsenic concentrations following Vessel 2 increased from <0.1 to 11.7 μg/L after treating approximately 

6,398,500 gal (or 31,700 BV) of water. Run lengths achieved during the adsorption runs were 65 and 

58% higher than the vendor’s estimated run length of 20,000 BV. The 66% to 120% longer EBCT as 

discussed in Section 4.4.1 might have contributed, in part, to the better-than-expected media performance. 

As part of another EPA study (Westerhoff et al., 2007), run lengths of five different adsorptive media, 

including ArsenXnp, E33, GFH, MetsorbG, and Adsorbsia GTO (the last two are titania-based media), for 

arsenic and uranium removal from Well CH2-A water were evaluated using a rapid small-scale column 

test (RSSCT). Figures 4-16 and 4-17 present the arsenic and uranium breakthrough curves from the 

RSSCT columns, respectively. Table 4-8 summarizes run length data measured during respective RSSCT 

and full-scale system operations. All RSSCT columns were scaled to a 5.3 min full-scale EBCT except 

for the two titania-based media, which were scaled to 2.5 min EBCT. As shown in Figure 4-16, the two 

iron-based media, E33 and GFH, exhibited the best arsenic removal with respective run lengths 

approaching 44,000 and 50,000 BV. ArsenXnp achieved a run length of approximately 28,000 BV, 

similar to the 33,100 and 31,700 BV observed during the two adsorption runs. MetsorbG and Adsorbsia 

GTO attained short run lengths of approximately 21,000 and 16,000 BV, respectively. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Bed Volumes (103)

As Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

10 μg/L MCL 

Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1
33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (103)

As Concentration (μg/L)

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

10 μg/L MCL

Figure 4-13. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (103)

U Concentration μg/L

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

30 μg/L MCL

Figure 4-14. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1
34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

U Concentration (ug/L)

Bed Volumes (103)

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

30 μg/L MCL

Figure 4-15. Total Uranium Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Bed Volumes Treated

Effluent Arsenic Concentration (μg/L) .

E33

HIX

GFH

MetsorbG (ReSc=1000**)

GTO (ReSc=1000**)

Influent Conc = 41 μg/L

(Source: Westerhoff et al., 2007) 

Figure 4-16. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves – Laboratory RSSCT 
35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Bed Volumes Treated

Effluent Uranium Concentration (μg/L) .

E33

HIX

GFH

MetsorbG (ReSc=1000**)

Influent Conc = 56 μg/L

(Source: Westerhoff et al., 2007) 

Figure 4-17. Uranium Breakthrough Curves – Laboratory RSSCT

Table 4-8. Comparison of Media Run Lengths Between 

Full-Scale System and Laboratory RSSCT 

Media Run Length (BV)

Test Media

10-μg/L

Arsenic

30-μg/L

Uranium

Full-Scale ArsenXnp 33,100 > 33,100

RSSCT ArsenXnp 28,000 > 50,000

E33 44,000 12,000

GFH 50,000 25,000

MetsorbG 21,000 > 24,000(a)

Adsorbsia GTO 16,000 26,000

(a) Column failed at about 24,000 BV due to pressure 

buildup and bed compaction. 

Based on the system throughput and arsenic concentrations before and after the treatment during the 

performance evaluation study, the mass of arsenic removed by the media was estimated to be 1,961 g 

with 989 g from Vessel 1 and 972 g from Vessel 2. The weight of 27 ft3 of media in each vessel was 
36

1,350 lb (i.e., 614 kg) based on the bulk density of 50 lb/ft3. Therefore, the arsenic loading onto the 

media was approximately 1,597 mg/kg of media or 0.16% (by wet weight).

Uranium Removal. Originating from rocks and mineral deposits, uranium found in most drinking water 

sources is naturally occurring and contains three isotopes: U-238 (over 99% by weight), U-235, and U234. Due to varying amounts of each isotope in the water, the ratio of uranium concentration (μg/L) to 

activity (pCi/L) varies with drinking water sources from region to region. Based on considerations of 

kidney toxicity and carcinogenicity, EPA proposed a uranium MCL of 20 μg/L in 1991 (corresponding to 

30 pCi/L based on a mass/activity ratio of 1.5 pCi/μg); the final rule was set at 30 μg/L in December 2000 

after the conversion factor was revised to 1 pCi/μg (EPA, 2000b). California adopted revisions in the 

radionuclide regulations in June 2006 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/Regulations/R-12-02/PDFs/R12-02-FINALRegText.pdf). The California current MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L, which is equivalent to 

30 μg/L (same as the federal MCL) using a conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/μg (Note: in California, a 

conversion factor of 0.67 pCi/μg is used to convert uranium from activity to mass). In this study, uranium 

was analyzed by an ICP-MS method (EPA Method 200.8) with the results expressed in μg/L. Uranium 

activity (pCi/L) was not reported herein to avoid potential confusion associated with the use of different 

conversion factors. 

Total uranium concentrations in source water ranged from 26.6 to 38.9 μg/L and averaged 33.2 μg/L, 

which were consistent with the data collected during the initial site visit (Table 4-1). As shown in Figures 

4-14 and 4-15, uranium was removed to below its MDL of 0.1 μg/L throughout the performance 

evaluation study. Based on the system throughput and average uranium concentrations before and after 

the treatment system, the uranium mass removed by Vessels 1 and 2 was 892 and 813 g, respectively. 

Therefore, the uranium loading on the HIX media was 1.3 mg/kg of media (or 0.13% [by wet weight]), 

assuming 1,350 lb (i.e., 614 kg) of media in each vessel. The RSSCT results indicated that ArsenXnp

removed uranium far better than the iron-based (E33 and GFH) and titanium-based (Metsorb G) media. 

ArsenXnp continued to remove uranium to <1 μg/L as sampling was discontinued at about 50,000 BV due 

to complete arsenic breakthrough. 

Uranium has four oxidation states: III, IV, V, and VI; only IV and VI oxidation states are stable. The 

most stable state of uranium in aerated aqueous solution under acidic conditions (pH <5.0) is UO2

2+, 

which forms soluble complexes with common anions in water, such as CO3

2-, F-

, Cl-, NO3

-

, SO4

2-, and 

HPO4

2-. Carbonate is the most important uranium ligand in natural water. Figure 4-18 presents the 

distribution of uranium carbonate and hydroxide complexes as a function of pH in aerobic groundwater at 

a CO2 partial pressure of 0.01 atmospheres (Langmuir, 1978). Under neutral and slightly alkaline 

conditions, UO2

2+ combines with bicarbonate and carbonate anions to form uranyl carbonates, 

UO2(CO3)2

2- and UO2(CO3)34-, which have a strong affinity for IX resins. 

In many bench, pilot, and full-scale uranium IX studies, SBA resins have demonstrated enormous 

capacities for the uranyl carbonate complexes – UO2(CO3)2

2- and UO2(CO3)34-. For example, in a pilotscale study conducted at Chimney Hill, Texas (Zhang and Clifford, 1994; Clifford and Zhang, 1995), an 

SBA column was operated continuously for 478 days for a total throughput of 302,000 BV at pH 7.6 to 

8.2. The feed water contained 120 μg/L of uranium, 25 pCi/L of radium, 310 mg/L of TDS, 150 mg/L of 

alkalinity, 47 mg/L of chloride, and <1 mg/L of sulfate (very low sulfate water). Despite the high 

uranium capacity, IX systems generally are not operated to complete uranium breakthrough because of 

problems with resin fouling and excessive pressure drop. Run lengths in the range of 30,000 to 50,000 

BV would be more appropriate for uranium removal from drinking water (Clifford, 1999). 

Effect of pH and Silica. The effective ArsenXnp media life decreases significantly as both source water 

pH and silica concentration increase. It is known that the capacity of iron-based media for arsenic 
37

 (Source: Langmuir, 1978)

Figure 4-18. Distribution of Uranium Carbonate and 

Hydroxide Complexes as a Function of pH

decreases as the pH increases. pH values of source water measured at the IN sampling location ranged 

from 6.7 to 7.2 and averaged 6.9 (Table 4-7). These near-neutral pH values are desirable for metal-oxide 

adsorptive media to remove arsenic. 

Several batch and column studies found that silica reduced arsenic adsorptive capacity of ferric 

oxides/hydroxides and activated alumina (Meng et al., 2000; Meng et al., 2002; Smith and Edwards, 

2005). Mechanisms proposed to describe the role of silica in iron-silica and iron-arsenic-silica systems 

included: 

(1) Adsorption of silica may change the surface properties of adsorbents by lowering the isoelectric point or pHzpc. 

(2) Silica may compete with arsenic for available adsorptive sites.

(3) Polymerization of silica may accelerate silica sorption and lower available surface sites for 

arsenic adsorption. 

(4) Reaction of silica with divalent cations, such as calcium, magnesium and barium, may form 

precipitates. 

Laboratory data provided by Solmetex showed that the effect of silica was most noticeable at pH values 8 

or above and that ArsenXnp could tolerate the presence of 30 mg/L silica at neutral pH. Silica 

concentrations in CH2-A source water ranged from 39.5 to 47.5 mg/L and averaged 43.4 mg/L. As 

shown in Figure 4-19 during the first adsorption run, silica concentrations were reduced by ArsenXnp

during the first few hundred BV of system operation and complete silica breakthrough occurred soon after 

that. Figure 4-20 presents silica concentrations across the treatment train during the second adsorption
38

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Bed Volumes (103)

Silica (as SiO2) Concentration mg/L

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

Figure 4-19. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 1

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bed Volumes (103)

Silica (as SiO2) Concentration mg/L

At Wellhead (IN)

Before Filtration (BF)

After Filtration (AF)

Figure 4-20. Silica Breakthrough Curve During Adsorption Run 2 
39

run. Because no samples were collected immediately after switching from Vessel 1 and Vessel 2, silica 

had already completely broken through Vessel 2 when treatment plant samples were taken at 1,100 BV of 

throughput.

Effect of Other Water Quality Parameters. Alkalinity ranged from 88 to 145 mg/L (as CaCO3) in source 

water and remained unchanged after treatment. Sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate concentrations in source 

water ranged from 36.0 to 51.0 mg/L, from 0.9 to 1.6 mg/L, and from 0.9 to 1.3 mg/L (as N), 

respectively; their concentrations remained unchanged after treatment. Therefore, ArsenXnp did not seem 

to alter the concentrations of these common anions in water. Although it is possible that some sulfate 

might have been removed by the media’s anionic resin substrate, the sulfate concentration in Vessel 1 

effluent taken at 200 BV had already reached the source water level. 

DO levels in source water ranged from 1.6 to 4.3 mg/L and averaged 2.4 mg/L; ORP readings of source 

water ranged from 198 to 479 mV and averaged 383 mV. The results indicated that source water was 

oxidizing, thus causing arsenic to exist primarily as As(V). Although the DO and ORP data showed some 

variations throughout the performance evaluation study, the range and average of these measurements 

were essentially unchanged across the treatment train. 

Total iron concentrations were below the MDL of 25 μg/L for all measurements, except for one at 41 

μg/L at IN and one at 40 μg/L at BF on January 4, 2006 (Appendix B). Total manganese levels ranged 

from <0.1 to 0.9 μg/L for all measurements with no significant changes after treatment. Total hardness 

ranged from 69.6 to 127 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained relatively constant across the treatment train.

4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution water samples were collected at three 

residences before and after system startup to determine whether the HIX system had any impacts on lead 

and copper levels and water chemistry in the distribution system. Table 4-9 presents the analytical 

results. Uranium was not monitored because of its absence in the plant effluent. 

The most noticeable change in the distribution system after system startup was the reduction in arsenic 

concentration at each sampling location as shown in Figure 4-21. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged 

from 16.2 to 44.2 μg/L and averaged 26.2 μg/L at all three locations. These concentrations were lower 

than those in Well CH2-A water, which ranged from 34.3 to 50.0 μg/L and averaged 41.7 μg/L measured 

during the performance evaluation study (Section 4.5.1). As noted in Section 4.1, prior to system startup, 

the distribution system was supplied by both Well CH-1, which did not contain elevated arsenic or 

uranium, and Well CH2-A. Well CH-1 was used as a primary well and Well CH2-A as a backup well. 

After system startup, arsenic concentrations at all three sampling locations essentially followed the 

arsenic breakthrough behavior of the plant effluent, although only DS2 was served primarily by Well 

CH2-A. Arsenic concentrations were noticeably higher than those in the plant effluent most of the time, 

suggesting possible solubilization, destablization, and/or desorption of arsenic-laden particles/scales in the 

distribution system (Lytle, 2005).

Lead concentrations decreased from an average baseline level of 4.6 to 1.6 μg/L after system startup. 

One exceedance at 16.4 μg/L occurred at DS3 on August 10, 2005, during baseline sampling. Copper 

concentrations decreased from an average baseline level of 823 to 788 μg/L at DS1, from 67.4 to 49.4 

μg/L at DS2, and from 71.0 to 50.7 μg/L at DS3. However, three exceedances occurred at DS1 after 

system startup (i.e., 1,304 μg/L on October 26, 2005; 1,473 μg/L on January 4, 2006, and 1,390 μg/L on 

March 22, 2006). Because a concentration of 1,213 μg/L was measured at DS1 on September 28, 2005, 

before system startup, the HIX system was unlikely to cause the elevated copper concentrations at DS1. 
40

Table 4-9. Distribution System Sampling Results

Sampling 

Event

DS1 DS2 DS3

179 Spring Ct. 66 Spring Ct. 2216 Remback Ave.

Residence LCR Residence

1st draw 1st draw 1st Draw

Stagnation Time

pH 

Alkalinity 

As 

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu 

Stagnation Time

pH 

Alkalinity 

As 

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu 

Stagnation Time

pH 

Alkalinity 

As 

Fe

Mn

Pb

Cu 

No. Date hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. Mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L hr S.U. mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

BL1 08/10/05(a) 7.5 7.1 106 35.6 <25 0.2 0.4 585 7.0 7.1 101 30.8 <25 1.0 13.9 57.0 8.8 7.1 128 29.5 630 4.1 16.4 42.4

BL2 08/30/05(b) NA 6.7 101 44.2 <25 <0.1 0.5 636 6.5 NA(c) NA(c) 25.6 <25 2.8 6.1 23.2 8.6 7.0 97 34.1 <25 0.2 1.1 54.1

BL3 09/13/05 NA 7.0 101 20.3 <25 0.2 0.8 860 7.5 7.1 114 17.6 35 1.1 2.9 92.2 7.3 6.8 110 19.8 <25 0.2 1.5 74.5

BL4 09/28/05 NA 6.7 110 16.2 <25 0.3 0.8 1213 8.8 6.9 101 17.8 <25 0.6 9.2 97.2 7.5 6.9 110 23.3 <25 0.3 2.2 113

1 10/26/05 NA 7.1 92 7.3 <25 0.5 0.7 1304 6.8 7.1 92 7.9 <25 0.9 2.1 91.9 7.7 7.1 88 5.0 <25 0.1 0.9 84.4

2 12/08/05 NA 7.2 88 3.4 <25 0.4 <0.1 592 6.0 7.3 101 6.6 <25 2.5 2.3 14.6 8.0 7.4 110 2.5 <25 0.2 0.3 14.8

3 01/04/06 8.0 7.4 101 3.4 <25 <0.1 0.8 1473 8.2 7.5 106 5.6 34 <0.1 6.4 68.6 6.0 7.4 101 2.2 <25 <0.1 1.0 100

4 02/22/06 5.8 7.6 104 1.4 <25 <0.1 0.1 528 6.0 7.6 104 1.9 <25 0.5 1.1 50.1 7.7 7.4 104 1.1 <25 <0.1 0.7 49.8

5 03/22/06 7.0 7.5 103 1.3 <25 0.3 0.3 1390 1.9 7.4 103 0.9 <25 0.5 1.3 49.0 6.5 7.3 103 1.1 <25 0.7 1.9 136

6 04/26/06 13.0 7.3 104 4.3 <25 0.3 0.1 540 6.5 7.3 104 8.6 <25 0.6 6.2 73.2 Sample containers broken during shipment

7 05/17/06 8.0 7.1 101 10.8 <25 0.2 <0.1 141 6.0 7.2 101 13.2 <25 0.2 1.3 10.1 7.5 7.2 97 6.2 <25 <0.1 0.2 26.5

8 06/22/06 8.5 7.1 100 11.4 <25 0.1 <0.1 190 NA(d) 7.1 96 13.4 <25 0.1 1.3 6.6 7.0 7.1 100 9.9 <25 0.2 0.8 24.6

9 07/19/06 8.3 7.3 101 12.4 <25 0.5 0.6 1035 7.0 7.2 109 14.1 58 1.0 6.8 101 Homeowner not present for sample collection.

10 08/17/06 8.5 7.0 91 16.5 <25 0.3 0.4 826 6.0 7.0 123 15.3 <25 0.8 9.3 63.7 9.3 7.1 121 4.0 <25 0.5 0.4 30.4

11 09/14/06 9.0 7.1 110 2.0 <25 <0.1 0.3 576 7.0 7.0 108 2.4 <25 <0.1 0.9 25.4 7.0 7.1 105 2.1 <25 <0.1 0.4 20.3

12 10/12/06 7.3 7.2 112 1.7 <25 0.5 0.3 866 6.5 7.1 110 6.2 <25 0.4 3.4 38.5 8.3 7.2 110 1.1 <25 0.2 0.2 19.7

(a) Sample DS1 collected on 08/11/05. 

(b) Sample DS2 collected on 08/31/05. 

(c) Sample outside of holding time for laboratory analysis.

(e) Blending with untreated Well CH-1 due to increased water demand.

BL = baseline sampling; NA = data not available; NS = not sampled

Lead action level = 15 μg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
41

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

08/01/05 09/20/05 11/09/05 12/29/05 02/17/06 04/08/06 05/28/06 07/17/06 09/05/06 10/25/06

Sampling Date

Total AS (ug/L)

DS1

DS2

DS3

AF

Baseline After System startup on 

10/12/05

After Vessel change 

on 08/16/06

Figure 4-21. Total As Concentrations in Distribution System at Upper Bodfish

pH, alkalinity, and manganese remained relatively constant with baseline levels measured at 6.9, 107 

mg/L (as CaCO3), and 0.9 μg/L, respectively, and after-startup levels measured at 7.2, 103 mg/L (as 

CaCO3), and 0.4 μg/L, respectively. Iron was not detected for all baseline and after-startup samples 

except for two measurements (630 and 35 μg/L) before system startup and two measurements (34 and 58 

μg/L) after system startup.

4.6 Spent Media Characterization and Disposal

4.6.1 Spent Media Characterization. A composite spent media sample was analyzed to 

determine if the spent media was a hazardous waste and if it contained a non-exempt quantity of uranium. 

TCLP, TTLC, and STLC Tests. TCLP, TTLC, and STLC tests were conducted to determine if the 

spend media was a hazardous waste. Most arsenic demonstration sites using adsorptive media performed 

only the TCLP test prior to media disposal per federal guidelines. TTLC and STLC tests also were 

performed per California State regulations, as outlined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, 

to determine if the waste would be classified as California hazardous waste. 

• TCLP is one of four characteristics used to identify a hazardous waste; the other three are 

ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. TCLP uses acetic acid to simulate the climatic 

leaching action expected to occur in landfills. The TCLP metal analysis identifies and 

quantifies eight Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals with the potential 

to leach into groundwater. If any substance in the waste extract equals or is greater than the 

TCLP limit, the waste is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste. 
42

• TTLC determines the total concentration of each target analyte in a waste stream. When any 

target analyte exceeds the corresponding TTLC limit, the waste is classified as California

hazardous waste. The result of TTLC also is compared with 10 times the STLC value to 

determine if Waste Extraction Test (WET) is necessary. If the TTLC result exceeds 10 times 

the STLC value, WET is required. If below, the waste is classified as non-hazardous and no 

further analysis is required. 

• STLC determines the amount of each analyte that is soluble in the WET leachate. The WET 

procedure uses citric acid to mimic climatic conditions in a landfill over time. If any analyte

in the WET extract is equal to or greater than the STLC limit, it is considered a California 

hazardous waste. 

Table 4-10 presents the results of TCLP, TTLC, and STLC analyses and the respective regulatory limits. 

The spent media passed TCLP analysis with concentrations of all eight RCRA metals below the 

respective quantifiable limits. TTLC results indicated that the total arsenic concentration of the spent 

media was 2,960 mg/kg, which exceeded the TTLC limit of 500 mg/kg and 10 times the STLC limit for 

arsenic (i.e., 50). Therefore, WET was required for arsenic; the STLC arsenic level was below the 

quantifiable limit. In sum, the spent media passed the TCLP limit; therefore, it was classified as a nonRCRA waste. However, since the total arsenic concentration exceeded the TTLC limit (even though it 

passed STLC), the spent media was considered a California hazardous waste. 

Table 4-10. Results of Spent Media Characterization

Test Analytical Method Analyte Unit

Regulatory

Limit

Result 

TCLP SW6010B

Arsenic mg/L 5.0 <0.20

Barium mg/L 100 <1.0

Cadmium mg/L 1.0 <0.06

Chromium mg/L 5.0 <0.05

Lead mg/L 5.0 <0.10

Selenium mg/L 1.0 <0.20

Silver mg/L 5.0 <0.05

SW7471A Mercury mg/L 0.2 <0.002

TTLC SW6010B

Arsenic mg/kg 500 2,960

Barium mg/kg 10,000 2.2

Cadmium mg/kg 100 <13.8

Chromium mg/kg 2,500 4.4

Lead mg/kg 1,000 4.5

Selenium mg/kg 100 <46.2

Silver mg/kg 500 1.9

SW7471A Mercury mg/kg 20 0.25

STLC SW6010B Arsenic mg/L 5.0 <2.0

Radiological Analysis. A gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed to determine if the spent media 

was an exempt material or a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Table 4-11 presents the results and 

compares them with the requirements for an exempt source material (as discussed in Section 4.4.2 and 

Table 4-5). Table 4-12 presents the calculations of the uranium concentration and quantity based on 

laboratory results, the quantity of the media, and the weights of water and media in each vessel. The 

uranium concentration based on the total weights of water and media was approximately 0.03% and the 
43

quantity of uranium was approximately 0.83 lb per vessel and 1.66 lb for both vessels, which are below 

the 0.05% concentration limit and 15 lb quantity limit for an exempt material, respectively. Results of the 

radiological analysis indicated that the radioactivity of the spent media was 206 pCi/g for U-238 and 10.6 

pCi/g for U-235, which are below the 335 pCi/g limit for an exempt material. Therefore, all three 

requirements for an exempt material were met based on the concentration, radioactivity, and quantity of 

uranium (Table 4-13). The spent media in the vessels was of an “unimportant quantity” and was exempt 

from NRC regulations. As an exempt material, the spent media could be disposed of in a solids waste, 

hazardous waste, or LLRW landfill, or any landfill licensed by a state to accept TENORM waste.

Table 4-11. Results of Radiological Analysis on Spent Media

Analyte t1⁄2

Specific 

Activity 

(pCi/g)

Activity

(pCi/g)

Concentration

(μg/g)

U-238 4.47E09 3.37E05 206 611

U-235 7.04E08 2.16E06 10.6 4.87

Total 616

Table 4-12. Uranium Concentration and Quantity Calculations

Parameter Value

Bulk Density of Media (lb/ft3) 50

Density of Water (lb/ft3) 62.4

Quantity of Media (ft3) 27

Vessel Size (in) 42 OD × 60 H

Parameter Equation Value

Vessel Volume(a) (ft3) πr2h = π(1.75)2(5) 48.1

Media Volume (ft3) - 27

Volume of Water in One Vessel (ft3) 48.1 – 27 21.1

Weight of Water in One Vessel (lb) 21.1× 62.4 1,317

Weight of Media in One Vessel (lb) 27 × 50 1,350

Total Weight of Water & Media (lb) 1,317 + 1,350 2,667

U Concentration (μg/g) Laboratory analytical result 616

Mass of U on Media (lb) (616×1,350)/1,000,000

0.83 (one vessel)

1.66 (two vessels)

% U by Weight(b) (0.83×100)/2,667 0.03

(a) Volume based on straight height of vessel, not including domes.

(b) Based on combined weight of water and media. 

Table 4-13. Determination of Exempt Source Material

Measurement Requirements(a) Result 

Requirements Met? 

(Yes/No)

Concentration <0.05 % by weight of uranium 0.03% by weight(b) Yes

Radioactivity <335 pCi/g

U-238: 206 pCi/g

U-235: 10.6 pCi/g Yes

Quantity

<15 lb at any given time; 

< 150 lb over the course of a year 1.66 lb(b) Yes

(a) EPA, 2005.

(b) See calculations in Table 4-12. 
44

4.6.2 Spent Media Removal, Transportation, and Disposal. On April 24, 2008, technicians 

from Samuel L. Serpa Environmental Consulting and Support were onsite to extract the spent media from 

the trailer-mounted vessels using a 16-gal, 6-hp Rigid Model WD1665 wet/dry shop vacuum. A vacuum 

hose connected to the wet/dry vacuum was lowered into the vessels to remove the media, which was 

temporarily stored in the shop vacuum’s 16-gal collection tank. Once the vacuum’s collection tank was 

full, the extracted media was transferred to a 55-gal high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drum (provided 

by TG&A) for transportation. This process was repeated until all of the spent media had been extracted 

from the vessels. A total of 10, 55-gal HDPE drums were used to contain the 54 ft3 of spent media. A 

TG&A technician loaded the drums on a flat-bed truck and transported them to its facility in Turlock, CA. 

Figure 4-22 presents a photo of a technician removing the spent media from an adsorption vessel. 

Throughout the media extraction, packaging, and loading process, representatives from Cal Water, 

including a member from its Environmental Affairs Office, were present to provide oversight.

Figure 4-22. Spent Media Removal from Vessels

On April 29, 2008, the drums of spent media arrived at TG&A’s facility in Turlock, CA, where a 

radiation survey was conducted to determine if solidification of the spent media would be required prior 

to transport to the disposal facility in Grandview, ID. The radiation survey results indicated that the spent 

media emitted 10 μRem, which was below the 40 μRem limit. Thus, solidification of the spent media

was not necessary. In an effort to minimize transportation cost, the spent media was stored at TG&A’s 

facility in Turlock, CA, until TG&A had accumulated enough materials to schedule a shipment to the 

disposal facility.

On September 30, 2008, the spent media was shipped to U.S. Ecology in Grandview, ID. Located 70 

miles southeast of Boise, ID, U.S. Ecology is a permitted facility to treat and dispose of non-hazardous 

industrial wastes, hazardous waste, and LLRW. On October 1, 2008, the spent media was disposed of at 

the landfill as an exempt, non-hazardous material. Technically speaking, the spent media, as an exempt, 
45

non-hazardous material, can be disposed at a solid waste landfill. However, according to TG&A, in the 

State of Idaho, a solid waste landfill would only accept waste with an activity less than 8 pCi/g, which is 

considered a non-radiological waste. The spent media had an activity over 200 pCi/g. Although this 

concentration is below the 335 pCi/g limit, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solid waste 

landfill that is willing to accept it. 

4.7 System Cost

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

O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost included the cost for equipment, site

engineering, and installation. The O&M cost included the estimated costs for three different options of 

residual management (i.e., partial media regeneration, complete media regeneration, and media 

replacement) and labor cost. 

4.7.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the 

HIX system was $114,070 (see Table 4-14). The equipment cost was $82,470 (or 73% of the total capital 

investment), which included $25,250 for the trailer-mounted HIX unit, $21,600 for the ArsenXnp media 

(54 ft3 of media to fill two vessels at $400/ft3

), $2,500 for shipping, and $33,120 for labor. The labor cost 

included $1,920 for procurement of the system, $19,200 for technical support and troubleshooting for the 

duration of the study, $10,000 for initial system hookup on the trailer, and $2,000 for travel. 

The engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment system, 

equipment drawings, and a schematic of the equipment layout used as part of the permit application 

submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was $12,800, or 11% of the total capital investment.

The installation cost included the cost for providing equipment and labor to anchor the trailer-mounted 

unit, to perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, to perform system shakedown and startup, and to 

conduct operator training. The installation was performed jointly by VEETech and Cal Water. The 

installation cost was $18,800, or 16% of the total capital investment.

Table 4-14. Capital Investment Cost for the HIX System

Description Quantity Cost

% of Capital 

Investment

Equipment Cost

HIX Trailer-Mounted Unit 1 $25,250 –

HIX Media(ft3) 54 $21,600 –

Shipping – $2,500 –

Vendor Labor – $33,120 –

Equipment Total – $82,470 73%

Engineering Cost

Vendor Labor – $12,800 –

Engineering Total – $12,800 11%

Installation Cost

Material – $1,500 –

Subcontractor Labor – $10,000 –

Subcontractor Travel – $500 –

Vendor Labor – $4,800 –

Vendor Travel – $2,000 –

Installation Total – $18,800 16%

Total Capital Investment – $114,070 100%
46

The total capital cost of $114,070 was normalized to the system’s rated capacity of 50 gpm (72,000 gpd), 

which resulted in $2,281/gpm of design capacity (or $1.58/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to 

an annualized cost of $10,767/year by multiplying by a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on 

a 7% interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week at the design flowrate of 50 gpm to produce 26,280,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost 

would be $0.41/1,000 gal. The system operated 18.5 hr/day at 23 gpm (see Table 4-4). Based on this 

reduced use rate, the system would produce only 9,318,450 gal of water in one year (assuming 365 days 

per year) and the unit capital cost would increase to $1.16/1,000 gal.

4.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the HIX system should include 

media regeneration or replacement and labor for routine operation. Media regeneration was proposed, but 

not performed. Thus, its cost could not be evaluated. Media replacement, although was not performed 

due to returning of the system to EPA, could be estimated based on the cost for new media and spent 

media disposal. The cost of 54 ft3 of media was $21,600 according to the vendor’s cost breakdowns 

(Table 4-14). The total cost for media disposal was $16,671, including $1,650 for sample collection, 

$1,177 for laboratory analysis, $2,827 for media extraction, and $11,017 for pickup, transportation, and 

disposal (Table 4-15). Therefore, the media replacement and disposal cost totaled $38,271 for both 

vessels (or $19,136 per vessel). By dividing the media replacement and disposal cost by the useful life of 

the media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV 

as shown in Figure 4-23. The media run length in BV was calculated by dividing the system throughput 

in each vessel by the quantity of media in each vessel, i.e., 27 ft3

. On average, each HIX vessel processed 

approximately 32,400 BV (or 6,544,836 gal) prior to reaching the 10-μg/L arsenic breakthrough; based on 

this volume, the unit cost for spent media disposal was $2.92/1,000 gal.

The HIX treatment system did not contain any parts or equipment requiring electricity. Therefore, no 

additional electrical cost was incurred by the HIX system operation.

Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 

only 50 min per week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.13/1,000 gal 

of water treated. The total O&M cost including media replacement and disposal and labor was 

$3.05/1,000 gal (Figure 4-23). 
47

Table 4-15. Operation and Maintenance Cost for HIX System

Cost Category Value Assumptions

Volume processed (kgal) 13,090 Through March 21, 2007

Media Replacement

54 ft3 of HIX Media $21,600 See Table 4-12

Spent Media Sample Collection

Labor ($) $1,650 -

Spent Media Characterization

Subtotal ($) $1,177 -

Spent Media Removal 

Labor ($) $1,840 -

Materials ($) $632 -

Travel ($) $233 -

Miscellaneous ($) $122 -

Subtotal ($) $2,827 -

Pick-up, Transportation, and Disposal of Spent Media

Labor ($) $750 -

Transportation ($) $3,500 -

Disposal of Spent Media ($) $6,000 10, 55-gal drums

Materials and Tax ($) $767 -

Subtotal ($) $11,017 -

Total Media Disposal ($) $16,671 -

Total Media Replacement and Disposal ($) $38,271 -

Labor for Routine O&M

Average Weekly Labor (hr) 0.83 50 min/wk

Labor ($/1,000 gal) $0.13 Labor rate = $26/hr

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Cost ($/1000 gal)

Media Working Capacity (BV)

Spent Media Replacement and Disposal

O&M (including Spent Media Replacement and 

Disposal)

10-μg/L As breakthrough 

at 32,400 BV (average)

Figure 4-23. Spent Media Replacement and Disposal and O&M Cost Curves
48

5.0: REFERENCES

Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Battelle. 2005. Study Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology at Lake Isabella, CA. 

Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

CDPH. 2001. California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 13. Operator 

Certification Regulations. California Department of Public Health. 

Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal 

Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. 

EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Clifford, D.A. 1999. “Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption.” Chapter 9 in R. Letterman (ed.), Water 

Quality and Treatment Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 

Clifford, D.A., and Z. Zhang, 1995. ‘Removing Uranium and Radium from Ground Water by Ion 

Exchange Resins.” In Ion Exchange Technology: Recent Advances in Pollution Control by A.K. 

Sengupta, Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing Company, 1-59.

Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 

1998. “Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation.” J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.

EPA. 2005. A Regulators’ Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water 

Treatment Technologies. EPA/816/R/05/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 2003. “Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.” 

Federal Register, 40 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.

EPA, 2000a. Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability Technical Support Document. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

EPA. 2000b. “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Final Rule.” Federal 

Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.

Langmuir, D. 1978. “Uranium Solution –Mineral Equilibrium at Low Temperatures with Applications to 

Sedimentary Ore Deposits.” Geochimica et Cosmoshimica, 42: 547-569.
49

Lytle, D.A. 2005. Coagulation/Filtration: Iron Removal Processes Full-Scale Experience. EPA 

Workshop on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in Cincinnati, OH, August 16-18. 

Meng, X.G., G.P. Korfiatis, S.B. Bang, and K.W. Bang. 2002. "Combined Effects of Anions on Arsenic 

Removal by Iron Hydroxides." Toxicology Letters,133(1): 103-111.

Meng, X.G., S. Bang, and G.P. Korfiatis. 2000. "Effects of Silicate, Sulfate, and Carbonate on Arsenic 

Removal by Ferric Chloride." Water Research, 34(4): 1255-1261. 

Narasimhan R., J. D. Lowry, J. Culley, and N. Young-Pong. 2005. Management of the Disposal of 

Radioactive Residuals in Drinking Water Treatment. American Water Works Association 

Research Foundation, Denver, CO. 

Smith, S.D., and M. Edwards. 2005. "The Influence of Silica and Calcium on Arsenate Sorption to 

Oxide Surfaces." Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA,54(4): 201-211. 

Sorg, T.J. 1988. “Methods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water.” J. AWWA, 80(7):105.

L Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design:U.S. EPA 

Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

Wang, L., A.S.C. Chen, and K.A. Fields. 2000. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange 

and Activated Alumina Plants. EPA/600/R-00/088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

Westerhoff, .P.K., T.M. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, and L.J. 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.

Zhang, Z., and D.A. Clifford. 1994. “Exhaustion and Regeneration of Resins for Uranium Removal.” J. 

AWWA, 86(4): 228-241.
APPENDIX A

OPERATIONAL DATA
A-1

Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter 

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

1 

W 10/12/05 20.1 NA 1 1 7.5 8 8.5 25.3 21,460 NA 21,365 NA 0 NA

R 10/13/05 35.5 15.4 1 1 7.5 10 9.5 26.6 44,158 22,698 44,475 23,110 114 25.01

F 10/14/05 59.1 23.6 1 1 7 8 9 24.0 78,353 34,195 79,280 34,805 287 24.58

2 

M 10/17/05 78.9 19.8 1 1 7 10 8 25.3 106,979 28,626 108,370 29,090 431 24.49 

T 10/18/05 101.5 22.6 1 1 9 10 10 28.0 139,895 32,916 141,820 33,450 596 24.67

W 10/19/05 125.1 23.6 1 1 6 8 7 24.0 174,136 34,241 176,600 34,780 768 24.56

R 10/20/05 146.4 21.3 1 1 7 8 8 22.6 204,479 30,343 207,420 30,820 921 24.12

F 10/21/05 169.3 22.9 1 1 7.5 8 8.5 22.6 236,966 32,487 240,410 32,990 1,084 24.01

3 

M 10/24/05 216 46.7 1 1 6 7 7 24.0 303,691 66,725 308,195 67,785 1,420 24.19 

T 10/25/05 235.4 19.4 1 1 6 8 7 22.6 331,448 27,757 336,237 28,042 1,559 24.09

W 10/26/05 256.7 21.3 1 1 7 8 8 24.0 361,589 30,141 366,785 30,548 1,710 23.90 

R 10/27/05 258.3 1.6 1 1 8 9 8 25.3 392,204 30,615 397,835 31,050 1,864 NA

F 10/28/05 263.5 5.2 1 1 3 5 6 0.0 414,099 21,895 420,000 22,165 1,973 NA

4 

M 10/31/05 298.5 35.0 1 1 6 8 6 22.6 421,861 7,762 427,870 7,870 2,012 24.36 

T 11/01/05 317.4 18.9 1 1 7 9 8 22.6 448,938 27,077 455,330 27,460 2,148 24.22

W 11/02/05 342.7 25.3 1 1 6.5 8 7.5 22.6 484,773 35,835 491,670 36,340 2,328 23.94 

R 11/03/05 363.6 20.9 1 1 8 8 8.5 22.6 514,319 29,546 521,635 29,965 2,477 23.90

F 11/04/05 387.8 24.2 1 1 8 9 9 22.6 548,447 34,128 556,260 34,625 2,648 23.85

5 

M 11/07/05 398.4 10.6 1 1 9 10 10 28.0 563,456 15,009 571,585 15,325 2,724 24.10

T 11/08/05 401.7 3.3 1 1 8 9 8 25.3 568,738 5,282 576,840 5,255 2,750 26.54

W 11/09/05 419.1 17.4 1 1 7.5 9 8 24.0 594,270 25,532 602,720 25,880 2,878 24.79 

R 11/10/05 446.1 27.0 1 1 7 8 8 22.6 632,950 38,680 641,975 39,255 3,072 24.23

F 11/11/05 467.6 21.5 1 1 8 8.5 8.5 22.6 663,107 30,157 672,570 30,595 3,224 23.72

6 

T 11/15/05 477.4 9.8 1 1 8 9 8 NM NM NA 687,270 14,700 3,297 25.00 

W 11/16/05 492 14.6 1 1 7.5 9 8 22.6 698,570 35,463 708,520 21,250 3,402 24.26

R 11/17/05 516.4 24.4 1 1 8 9 9 22.6 733,267 34,697 743,715 35,195 3,576 24.04

F 11/18/05 539.3 22.9 1 1 8 9 8.5 22.6 765,793 32,526 776,720 33,005 3,739 24.02

7 M 11/21/05 616.4 77.1 1 1 7 9 7 22.6 873,942 108,149 886,510 109,790 4,283 23.73

T 11/22/05 627.3 10.9 1 1 0 4 6 0 889,186 15,244 901,977 15,467 4,359 23.65 

8 

M 11/28/05 627.3 0.0 1 1 0 0 3 0.0 889,269 83 902,059 82 4,360 NA

T 11/29/05 645 17.7 1 1 9 8 8 22.6 915,013 25,744 928,200 26,141 4,489 24.61 

W 11/30/05 669.6 24.6 1 1 9 8 8 22.6 950,174 35,161 963,900 35,700 4,666 24.19

R 12/01/05 690.3 20.7 1 1 10 9 9 22.6 979,185 29,011 993,344 29,444 4,812 23.71

F 12/02/05 713.6 23.3 1 2 7 9 10 22.6 1,012,129 32,944 1,026,800 33,456 4,977 23.93 

9 

M 12/05/05 19:12 9.2 1 2 7 10 10 25.3 1,025,500 13,371 1,040,370 13,570 5,045 24.58

T 12/06/05 743.2 20.4 1 2 7 9 11 22.6 1,057,988 32,488 1,070,330 29,960 5,193 24.48

W 12/07/05 772.7 29.5 1 2 7 9 9.5 22.6 1,096,712 38,724 1,112,680 42,350 5,403 23.93

R 12/08/05 784.5 11.8 1 2 7 9 10 24.0 1,114,464 17,752 1,130,985 18,305 5,493 25.85

F 12/09/05 784.9 0.4 1 2 2 4 8 0.0 1,114,479 15 1,130,995 10 5,493 0.42 

10 F 12/16/05 789.7 4.8 1 2 0 0 2 0.0 1,114,524 45 1,131,038 43 5,493 0.15

11 

T 12/20/05 794.4 4.7 1 2 7.5 10 10 0.0 NA NA 1,138,400 7,362 5,530 26.11 

W 12/21/05 809.4 15.0 1 2 7 10 10 24.0 1,144,320 NA 1,161,030 22,630 5,642 25.14

R 12/22/05 813.5 4.1 1 2 0 4 6 0.0 1,150,323 6,003 1,167,180 6,150 5,672 25.00

12 

W 12/28/05 822.2 8.7 1 2 8 9 10 24.0 1,163,522 13,199 1,180,500 13,320 5,738 25.52 

R 12/29/05 845.8 23.6 1 2 7 10 10 24.0 1,198,051 34,529 1,215,603 35,103 5,912 24.79

F 12/30/05 863.8 18.0 1 2 8 9 10 22.6 1,223,845 25,794 1,241,759 26,156 6,042 24.22 

13 

T 01/03/06 962.5 98.7 1 2 8 9 10 22.6 1,364,839 140,994 1,384,980 143,221 6,751 24.18

W 01/04/06 975.8 13.3 1 2 9 10 11 24.0 1,384,236 19,397 1,404,678 19,698 6,848 24.68

R 01/05/06 990.8 15.0 1 2 9 10 11 25.1 1,406,828 22,592 1,427,620 22,942 6,962 25.49

14 

M 01/09/06 990.9 0.1 1 2 0 0 4 0.0 1,406,860 32 1,427,634 14 6,962 NA

T 01/10/06 1001.2 10.3 1 2 8 9 10 24.0 1,422,957 16,097 1,444,000 16,366 7,043 26.48 

W 01/11/06 1018.2 17.0 1 2 8.5 9 10.5 24.0 1,448,132 25,175 1,469,550 25,550 7,169 25.05

R 01/12/06 1036.3 18.1 1 1 7.5 9.5 10.5 22.4 1,474,734 26,602 1,496,575 27,025 7,303 24.88

F 01/13/06 1054.6 18.3 1 1 8 9.5 11 24.0 1,501,617 26,883 1,523,985 27,410 7,439 24.96 

15 

T 01/18/06 1136.7 82.1 1 1 8 10 11 24.0 1,621,670 120,053 1,645,860 121,875 8,042 24.74

R 12/29/05 1175.1 38.4 1 1 7.5 10 11 24.0 1,678,129 56,459 1,703,275 57,415 8,326 24.92

F 12/30/05 1193.4 18.3 1 1 8 10 11.5 24.0 1,704,885 26,756 1,730,405 27,130 8,461 24.71
Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-2

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System 

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate 

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

16 

M 01/23/06 1265.4 72.0 1 F-1 6 9 9 22.6 1,808,419 306,802 1,835,600 311,615 10,003 72.13

T 01/24/06 1278.4 13.0 1 1 8.5 12 11 29.3 1,827,416 18,997 1,854,915 19,315 10,099 24.76 

W 01/25/06 1299.3 20.9 1 1 7.5 9 10 24.0 1,857,715 30,299 1,885,705 30,790 10,251 24.55

R 01/26/06 1321 21.7 1 1 7.5 9.5 10.5 24.0 1,889,065 31,350 1,917,570 31,865 10,409 24.47 

F 01/27/06 1342.3 21.3 1 1 8 10 10 24.0 1,919,352 30,287 1,948,350 30,780 10,561 24.08

17 

M 01/30/06 1414 71.7 1 1 7 9 10 24.0 2,021,455 102,103 2,052,160 103,810 11,075 24.13 

T 01/31/06 1434.2 20.2 1 1 8 10 10.5 24.0 2,050,323 28,868 2,081,510 29,350 11,221 24.22

W 02/01/06 1452.3 18.1 1 1 8 9.5 10.5 24.0 2,076,107 25,784 2,107,724 26,214 11,350 24.14

R 02/02/06 1472 19.7 1 1 7 9.5 10 24.0 2,105,097 28,990 2,137,290 29,566 11,497 25.01 

F 02/03/06 1493.8 21.8 1 1 6 9.5 9.5 22.6 2,136,616 31,519 2,169,200 31,910 11,655 24.40

18 

M 02/06/06 1561.9 68.1 1 1 7 9 10 22.6 2,232,824 96,208 2,266,950 97,750 12,139 23.92

T 02/07/06 1583.2 21.3 1 1 7.5 9.5 10 22.6 2,263,455 30,631 2,298,070 31,120 12,293 24.35

W 02/08/06 1604.2 21.0 1 1 8 10 10 24.0 2,293,349 29,894 2,328,465 30,395 12,443 24.12

R 02/09/06 1625 20.8 1 1 8 9 10 22.6 2,323,370 30,021 2,358,060 29,595 12,590 23.71 

F 02/10/06 1647.8 22.8 1 1 8 9 10 22.6 2,355,451 32,081 2,391,558 33,498 12,756 24.49

19 

M 02/13/06 1722.5 74.7 1 1 6 9 9 22.6 2,460,961 105,510 2,498,700 107,142 13,286 23.90 

T 02/14/06 1742.8 20.3 1 1 7.5 10 9 24.0 2,499,993 39,032 2,528,180 29,480 13,432 24.20

W 02/15/06 1758.6 15.8 1 1 9 10 10 22.6 2,512,792 12,799 2,551,325 23,145 13,546 24.41

R 02/16/06 1781.3 22.7 1 1 10 11 11.5 25.3 2,545,191 32,399 2,584,212 32,887 13,709 24.15 

F 02/17/06 1802.3 21.0 1 1 9 10 11 24.0 2,575,305 30,114 2,614,750 30,538 13,860 24.24

20 

T 02/21/06 1899.3 97.0 1 1 8 9.5 10.5 22.6 2,712,176 136,871 2,753,570 138,820 14,548 23.85

W 02/22/06 1922.3 23.0 1 1 8.5 10 10 22.6 2,744,409 32,233 2,786,260 32,690 14,709 23.69

R 02/23/06 1950.1 27.8 1 1 7 9.5 9 22.6 2,783,841 39,432 2,826,250 39,990 14,907 23.97

F 02/24/06 1967.7 17.6 1 1 7.5 9.5 9.5 22.6 2,808,971 25,130 2,851,700 25,450 15,033 24.10 

21 

M 02/27/06 2033.4 65.7 1 1 8 9 9 22.6 2,907,667 98,696 2,951,775 100,075 15,529 25.39

T 02/28/06 2063.6 30.2 1 1 9 10 10 24.0 2,943,459 35,792 2,988,045 36,270 15,708 20.02

W 03/01/06 2077 13.4 1 1 9 10 10 22.6 2,962,922 19,463 3,007,765 19,720 15,806 24.53

R 03/02/06 2097.5 20.5 1 1 12 12 7.5 29.3 2,992,447 29,525 3,037,675 29,910 15,954 24.32

F 03/03/06 2118.5 21.0 1 1 10 10 6 22.6 3,022,606 30,159 3,068,283 30,608 16,106 24.29 

22 

M 03/06/06 2191.6 73.1 1 1 10 9.5 7 22.6 3,125,905 103,299 3,172,900 104,617 16,624 23.85

T 03/07/06 2217.4 25.8 1 1 10 10 5.5 23.6 3,162,045 36,140 3,219,480 46,580 16,854 30.09

W 03/08/06 2233.3 15.9 1 1 11 10 6 24.0 3,184,636 22,591 3,232,360 12,880 16,918 13.50 

R 03/09/06 2262.9 29.6 1 2 8 10 6 22.6 3,226,762 42,126 3,274,705 42,345 17,128 23.84

F 03/10/06 2284.5 21.6 1 2 8 10 6 22.6 3,257,453 30,691 3,306,085 31,380 17,283 24.21 

23 

M 03/13/06 2350.7 66.2 1 2 8 10 6 24.0 3,350,650 93,197 3,400,410 94,325 17,750 23.75

T 03/14/06 2375.9 25.2 1 2 8 9 6 22.6 3,386,100 35,450 3,436,390 35,980 17,928 23.80 

W 03/15/06 2396.5 20.6 1 2 8 10 6 22.7 3,415,704 29,604 3,466,250 29,860 18,076 24.16

R 03/16/06 2420.9 24.4 1 2 8 10 6 22.6 3,449,970 34,266 3,500,940 34,690 18,248 23.70

F 03/17/06 2450.3 29.4 1 F-2 8 9.5 5.5 22.6 3,491,260 41,290 3,542,700 41,760 18,454 23.67 

24 

M 03/20/06 2516.6 66.3 1 2 8 10 5.5 22.6 3,584,167 92,907 3,636,767 94,067 18,920 23.65

T 03/21/06 2541.6 25.0 1 2 8 10 6 24.0 3,619,446 35,279 3,672,420 35,653 19,096 23.77

W 03/22/06 2564.1 22.5 1 2 8 9.5 6 22.6 3,650,763 31,317 3,704,155 31,735 19,254 23.51

R 03/23/06 2590.7 26.6 1 2 8 10 6 22.6 3,687,990 37,227 3,741,835 37,680 19,440 23.61

F 03/24/06 2612.8 22.1 1 2 8 10 5 22.6 3,718,953 30,963 3,773,173 31,338 19,595 23.63 

25 

M 03/27/06 2690.1 77.3 1 2 8 9.5 5 22.6 3,827,078 108,125 3,882,500 109,327 20,136 23.57

T 03/28/06 2708.0 17.9 1 2 8 9.5 5 22.6 3,851,985 24,907 3,907,746 25,246 20,261 23.51

W 03/29/06 2729.1 21.1 1 2 7.5 9.5 5.5 22.6 3,882,525 30,540 3,938,655 30,909 20,414 24.41

R 03/30/06 2755.7 26.6 1 2 8.5 9.5 5.5 22.6 3,920,498 37,973 3,977,063 38,408 20,605 24.07

F 03/31/06 2776.9 21.2 1 2 8.5 9.5 5.5 22.6 3,950,515 30,017 4,007,411 30,348 20,755 23.86 

26 

M 04/03/06 2854.1 77.2 1 2 8 10 5 22.6 4,059,818 109,303 4,118,000 110,589 21,302 23.88

T 04/04/06 2873.0 18.9 1 2 8.5 9.5 5.5 22.6 4,086,615 26,797 4,145,070 27,070 21,436 23.87

W 04/05/06 2892.4 19.4 1 2 8.5 10 6 22.6 4,114,886 28,271 4,173,670 28,600 21,578 24.57

R 04/06/06 2914.9 22.5 1 2 9 10 6 24.0 4,147,332 32,446 4,206,475 32,805 21,740 24.30

F 04/07/06 2937.7 22.8 1 2 9 10 6 22.6 4,180,043 32,711 4,239,500 33,025 21,904 24.14 

27 M 04/10/06 3016.8 79.1 1 2 0 4 0 0.0 4,283,049 103,006 4,343,718 104,218 22,420 21.96

28 

T 04/18/06 3017.9 1.1 1 1 11 13 5 29.3 4,283,460 411 4,344,120 402 22,422 6.09

W 04/19/06 3037.4 19.5 1 1 8 10 6 22.6 4,313,826 30,366 4,374,850 30,730 22,574 26.26

R 04/20/06 3065.4 28.0 1 1 8.5 10 4 24.0 4,354,105 40,279 4,415,565 40,715 22,775 24.24

F 04/21/06 3085.1 19.7 1 1 8 10 5 22.6 4,382,345 28,240 4,444,120 28,555 22,917 24.16 
Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-3

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System 

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate 

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

29 

T 04/25/06 3181.5 96.4 1 1 8 10 5 22.6 4,519,479 137,134 4,582,755 138,635 23,603 23.97

W 04/26/06 3204.8 23.3 1 1 8 10 5 24.0 4,553,055 33,576 4,616,705 33,950 23,771 24.28 

R 04/27/06 3231.5 26.7 1 1 8 10 5 22.6 4,590,982 37,927 4,655,060 38,355 23,961 23.94

F 04/28/06 3252.1 20.6 1 1 8.5 10 5 22.6 4,620,088 29,106 4,684,480 29,420 24,107 23.80 

30 

M 05/01/06 3304.2 52.1 1 1 11 12 5.5 28.0 4,693,732 73,644 4,758,970 74,490 24,475 23.83

T 05/02/06 3319.2 15.0 1 1 8 10 4 22.6 4,716,205 22,473 4,781,661 22,691 24,588 25.21 

W 05/03/06 3339.3 20.1 1 1 8.5 10 5 22.6 4,745,085 28,880 4,810,880 29,219 24,732 24.23

31 

M 05/08/06 3389.5 50.2 1 1 11 12 4 26.6 4,818,258 73,173 4,884,850 73,970 25,099 24.56

T 05/09/06 3401.9 12.4 1 1 10 11 4 25.3 4,837,679 19,421 4,907,455 22,605 25,210 30.38 

W 05/10/06 3411.6 9.7 1 1 0 4 0 0.0 4,851,814 14,135 4,918,723 11,268 25,266 19.36

R 05/11/06 3416.7 5.1 1 1 10 11 4 25.3 4,868,128 16,314 4,927,133 8,410 25,308 27.48

F 05/12/06 3436.7 20.0 1 1 9 10 3 22.6 4,889,616 21,488 4,956,925 29,792 25,455 24.83

32 

M 05/15/06 3466.7 30.0 1 1 10 11 4 25.3 4,935,042 45,426 5,002,840 45,915 25,683 25.51

T 05/16/06 3486.4 19.7 1 1 9 10 2 22.6 4,963,852 28,810 5,031,944 29,104 25,827 24.62 

W 05/17/06 3500.3 13.9 1 1 10 11 4 24.0 4,984,070 20,218 5,052,380 20,436 25,928 24.50

R 05/18/06 3519.9 19.6 1 1 10 10 3 24.0 5,012,372 28,302 5,080,975 28,595 26,069 24.32 

F 05/19/06 3535.9 16.0 1 1 9 9 2.5 24.0 5,035,475 23,103 5,104,330 23,355 26,185 24.33

33 

M 05/22/06 3566.5 30.6 1 1 1 4 1 0.0 5,079,362 43,887 5,148,661 44,331 26,405 24.15

T 05/23/06 3572.3 5.8 1 1 9 9 3 24.0 5,088,729 9,367 5,158,145 9,484 26,451 27.25 

W 05/24/06 3577.9 5.6 1 1 10.5 10 3 28.0 5,097,146 8,417 5,166,700 8,555 26,494 25.46

R 05/25/06 3591.5 13.6 1 1 0 4 0 0.0 5,117,726 20,580 5,187,439 20,739 26,597 25.42

F 05/26/06 3594.8 3.3 1 1 9.5 9 3 24.0 5,123,001 5,275 5,192,880 5,441 26,623 27.48

34 

T 05/30/06 3659.0 64.2 1 1 2 4 0 0.0 5,216,890 93,889 5,287,675 94,795 27,093 24.61

W 05/31/06 3665.1 6.1 1 1 2 4 0 0.0 5,226,600 9,710 5,297,587 9,912 27,142 27.08 

R 06/01/06 3670.6 5.5 1 1 11 10 2 26.6 5,235,326 8,726 5,306,320 8,733 27,185 26.46

F 06/02/06 3686.8 16.2 1 1 11 8.5 3 24.0 5,259,562 24,236 5,330,825 24,505 27,306 25.21

35 

T 06/06/06 3752.3 65.5 1 1 12 9 2 22.6 5,354,161 94,599 5,426,400 95,575 27,779 24.32

W 06/07/06 3770.8 18.5 1 1 12 9 1 22.6 5,380,687 26,526 5,453,200 26,800 27,912 24.14

R 06/08/06 3790.6 19.8 1 1 12.5 9 7 22.6 5,408,836 28,149 5,481,700 28,500 28,053 23.99 

F 06/09/06 3813.8 23.2 1 1 13 9 7 22.6 5,441,054 32,218 5,514,200 32,500 28,214 23.35

36 

M 06/12/06 3847.9 34.1 1 1 0 5 0 0.0 5,490,471 49,417 5,564,209 50,009 28,462 24.44

T 06/13/06 3854.4 6.5 1 2 7.5 9 3 24.0 5,500,323 9,852 5,574,295 10,086 28,512 25.86 

W 06/14/06 3858.9 4.5 1 2 8 9 6 24.0 5,507,199 6,876 5,581,237 6,942 28,546 25.71

R 06/15/06 3877.7 18.8 1 2 7 9 5.5 24.0 5,534,851 27,652 5,609,180 27,943 28,684 24.77 

F 06/16/06 3885.4 7.7 1 2 8.5 10 6 25.3 5,546,040 11,189 5,620,494 11,314 28,740 24.49

37 

M 06/19/06 3922.3 36.9 1 2 8 9 6 24.0 5,601,725 55,685 5,676,600 56,106 29,018 25.34 

T 06/20/06 3942.7 20.4 1 2 7.5 9 6 24.0 5,632,062 30,337 5,707,322 30,722 29,170 25.10

W 06/21/06 3955.7 13.0 1 2 8 9.5 6 24.0 5,651,758 19,696 5,726,827 19,505 29,267 25.01

R 06/22/06 3962.3 6.6 1 2 8.5 9.5 6 25.3 5,661,336 9,578 5,736,960 10,133 29,317 25.59 

F 06/23/06 3974 11.7 1 2 9 10 6.5 26.6 5,678,719 17,383 5,754,480 17,520 29,404 24.96

38 

M 06/26/06 4045.4 71.4 1 2 8.5 9 6 22.6 5,780,398 101,679 5,857,250 102,770 29,912 23.99

T 06/27/06 4060.7 15.3 1 2 0 4 4 0.0 5,802,229 21,831 5,879,398 22,148 30,022 24.13

W 06/28/06 4073.6 12.9 1 2 8 9 6 22.6 5,824,807 22,578 5,899,185 19,787 30,120 25.56

R 06/29/06 4096.9 23.3 1 2 8 9 5.5 22.6 5,855,403 30,596 5,933,050 33,865 30,288 24.22 

39 

M 07/03/06 4183.5 86.6 1 2 8 9 6 22.6 5,976,964 121,561 6,055,400 122,350 30,893 23.55

T 07/05/06 4228.3 44.8 1 2 8 9 6 22.6 6,040,185 63,221 6,119,835 64,435 31,212 23.97

W 07/06/06 4249.8 21.5 1 2 9 10 6.5 22.6 6,070,087 29,902 6,150,035 30,200 31,362 23.41

R 07/07/06 4270.0 20.2 1 2 9.5 10 6.5 22.6 6,099,002 28,915 6,179,270 29,235 31,507 24.12

40 

M 07/10/06 4330.4 60.4 1 1 8 10 6 23.3 6,183,043 84,041 6,264,222 84,952 31,927 23.44 

W 07/12/06 4331.9 1.5 1 1 9 11 6 29.3 6,184,304 1,261 6,265,595 1,373 31,934 15.26

R 07/13/06 4361.3 29.4 1 1 7 9 5.5 22.6 6,226,584 42,280 6,308,250 42,655 32,145 24.18

F 07/14/06 4378.1 16.8 1 1 7.5 9 6 22.6 6,250,016 23,432 6,331,925 23,675 32,262 23.49

41 

M 07/17/06 4457.1 79.0 1 1 7 9 6 21.3 6,359,387 109,371 6,442,530 110,605 32,810 23.33

T 07/18/06 4481.4 24.3 1 1 7 9 5.5 22.6 6,393,072 33,685 6,476,693 34,163 32,979 23.43 

W 07/19/06 4482.0 0.6 1 1 9 11 6.5 28.0 6,394,208 1,136 6,477,760 1,067 32,984 29.64

R 07/20/06 4484.7 2.7 1 1 9 11 6 26.6 6,398,487 4,279 6,482,000 4,240 33,005 26.17

F 07/21/06 4486.3 1.6 1 1 8 9 6 24.0 6,401,006 2,519 6,484,600 2,600 33,018 27.08

42 

M 07/24/06 4488 1.7 1 1 10 11 6.5 29.3 6,403,868 2,862 6,487,590 2,990 33,033 29.31

W 07/25/06 4490.3 2.3 1 1 9 10 6 26.6 6,407,735 3,867 6,491,490 3,900 33,052 28.26 

R 07/26/06 4511.4 21.1 1 1 8 9 6 22.6 6,438,010 30,275 6,521,973 30,483 33,203 24.08

F 07/27/06 4536.5 25.1 1 1 8 9 6 22.6 6,473,107 35,097 6,557,420 35,447 33,379 23.54
Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-4

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System 

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate 

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

43 

M 07/31/06 4584.3 47.8 1 1 0 3 0 0.0 6,540,923 67,816 6,625,993 68,573 33,718 23.91

T 08/01/06 4586.5 2.2 1 1 8.5 9.5 6 24.0 6,544,602 3,679 6,629,620 3,627 33,736 27.48 

W 08/02/06 4607.3 20.8 1 1 8 9 6 22.6 6,576,818 32,216 6,662,150 32,530 33,897 26.07

R 08/03/06 4631.8 24.5 1 1 8.5 9 6 22.6 6,608,077 31,259 6,693,716 31,566 34,053 21.47 

F 08/04/06 4654.9 23.1 1 1 8.5 9 6 22.6 6,640,134 32,057 6,726,185 32,469 34,214 23.43

44 

M 08/07/06 4733.6 78.7 1 1 8.5 9 6 22.6 6,748,808 108,674 6,835,850 109,665 34,757 23.22 

T 08/08/06 4759.4 25.8 1 1 8.5 9 6 22.6 6,789,355 40,547 6,871,730 35,880 34,935 23.18

W 08/09/06 4780.1 20.7 1 1 8.5 9 6 22.6 6,812,858 23,503 6,900,545 28,815 35,077 23.20

R 08/10/06 4799.2 19.1 1 1 9 9 6 22.6 6,839,085 26,227 6,927,045 26,500 35,208 23.12 

F 08/11/06 4822.8 23.6 1 1 9 9 6 22.6 6,871,485 32,400 6,959,773 32,728 35,370 23.11

45 

T 08/15/06 4920.2 97.4 1 2 7 9 6 21.3 7,005,409 133,924 7,095,070 135,297 36,040 23.15

W 08/16/06(b) 4927.2 7.0 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.6 7,010,088 4,679 7,099,822 4,752 36,064 11.31

F 08/18/06 4970 42.8 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,069,564 59,476 7,159,850 60,028 297 23.38

46 

T 08/22/06 5068.4 98.4 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,205,235 135,671 7,296,865 137,015 975 23.21 

W 08/23/06 5090.2 21.8 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,235,058 29,823 7,327,093 30,228 1,125 23.11

R 08/24/06 5117.7 27.5 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,272,806 37,748 7,365,130 38,037 1,313 23.05 

F 08/25/06 5138.8 21.1 2 2 6 8 5 22.6 7,301,676 28,870 7,394,390 29,260 1,458 23.11

47 

M 08/28/06 5212.4 73.6 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,402,316 100,640 7,495,900 101,510 1,961 22.99

T 08/29/06 5239.3 26.9 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,439,042 36,726 7,533,100 37,200 2,145 23.05 

W 08/30/06 5259.6 20.3 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.6 7,466,761 27,719 7,561,100 28,000 2,284 22.99

R 08/31/06 5285.6 26.0 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,502,291 35,530 7,597,000 35,900 2,461 23.01

F 09/01/06 5306.8 21.2 2 2 6 8 6 21.3 7,531,162 28,871 7,626,180 29,180 2,606 22.94

48 

T 09/05/06 5408.0 101.2 2 2 6 8 6 21.3 7,668,884 137,722 7,765,340 139,160 3,295 22.92

W 09/06/06 5428.5 20.5 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.8 7,696,849 27,965 7,793,600 28,260 3,435 22.98 

R 09/07/06 5449.9 21.4 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.6 7,725,928 29,079 7,823,090 29,490 3,581 22.97

F 09/08/06 5476.2 26.3 2 2 6.5 8 6 21.3 7,761,121 35,193 7,859,000 35,910 3,758 22.76

49 

M 09/11/06 5552.2 76.0 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 7,864,923 103,802 7,963,500 104,500 4,276 22.92

T 09/12/06 5571.3 19.1 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 7,890,953 26,030 7,989,750 26,250 4,406 22.91

W 09/13/06 5601.5 30.2 2 2 6 8 5 21.3 7,931,933 40,980 8,031,150 41,400 4,611 22.85 

R 09/14/06 5623 21.5 2 2 6.5 8 5.5 22.6 7,961,119 29,186 8,060,625 29,475 4,756 22.85

F 09/15/06 5642 19.0 2 2 6.5 8 5.5 21.3 7,986,929 25,810 8,086,705 26,080 4,886 22.88

50 

M 09/18/06 5714.9 72.9 2 2 7 8 6 22.6 8,085,628 98,699 8,186,440 99,735 5,379 22.80 

T 09/19/06 5744.8 29.9 2 2 6.5 8 6 21.3 8,126,196 40,568 8,227,411 40,971 5,582 22.84

W 09/20/06 5764.2 19.4 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.6 8,152,416 26,220 8,253,905 26,494 5,713 22.76 

R 09/21/06 5787.7 23.5 2 2 6.5 8 6 21.3 8,184,242 31,826 8,286,070 32,165 5,873 22.81

F 09/22/06 5813.4 25.7 2 2 6.5 8 6 21.3 8,219,078 34,836 8,321,260 35,190 6,047 22.82 

51 

M 09/25/06 5888.2 74.8 2 2 6.5 8 6 22.6 8,320,200 101,122 8,423,470 102,210 6,553 22.77

T 09/26/06 5910.7 22.5 2 2 6.5 8 6 21.3 8,350,536 30,336 8,454,075 30,605 6,704 22.67

W 09/27/06 5929.6 18.9 2 2 9 10 6 28.0 8,376,375 25,839 8,480,265 26,190 6,834 23.10 

R 09/28/06 5950.3 20.7 2 2 7 8 6 22.6 8,405,039 28,664 8,509,180 28,915 6,977 23.28

F 09/29/06 5972 21.7 2 2 7 8 6 22.6 8,434,260 29,221 8,538,700 29,520 7,123 22.67

52 

M 10/02/06 6051.4 79.4 2 2 7 8 6 22.6 8,541,196 106,936 8,646,730 108,030 7,658 22.68

T 10/03/06 6076.1 24.7 2 2 7 8 5.5 22.6 8,574,278 33,082 8,680,170 33,440 7,824 22.56

W 10/04/06 6092.7 16.6 2 2 7 8 5.5 21.3 8,596,645 22,367 8,702,760 22,590 7,935 22.68 

R 10/05/06 6122.6 29.9 2 2 7 8 5.5 22.6 8,637,014 40,369 8,743,565 40,805 8,137 22.75

F 10/06/06 6139.6 17.0 2 2 7.5 8 6 24.0 8,660,046 23,032 8,766,845 23,280 8,253 22.82

53 

T 10/10/06 6242.4 102.8 2 1 6 8 6 21.3 8,798,565 138,519 8,906,840 139,995 8,946 22.70

W 10/11/06 6262 19.6 2 1 6 8 5.5 21.3 8,824,943 26,378 8,933,500 26,660 9,078 22.67

R 10/12/06 6285.1 23.1 2 1 6.5 8.5 5.5 21.3 8,856,023 31,080 8,964,910 31,410 9,233 22.66 

F 10/13/06 6308.1 23.0 2 1 6 8 6 21.3 8,886,976 30,953 8,996,205 31,295 9,388 22.68

54 

M 10/16/06 6386.4 78.3 2 1 6 8 5.5 21.3 8,992,689 105,713 9,103,050 106,845 9,917 22.74

T 10/17/06 6406.3 19.9 2 1 6 8 5.5 22.6 9,019,593 26,904 9,130,212 27,162 10,051 22.75

W 10/18/06 6430.6 24.3 2 1 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,052,342 32,749 9,163,320 33,108 10,215 22.71

R 10/19/06 6453.6 23.0 2 1 6 8 5.5 22.6 9,083,293 30,951 9,194,690 31,370 10,371 22.73 

F 10/20/06 6481.4 27.8 2 1 6 8 6 22.6 9,120,673 37,380 9,232,360 37,670 10,557 22.58

55 

M 10/23/06 6549.1 67.7 2 1 6.5 8 6 21.3 9,211,471 90,798 9,324,110 91,750 11,011 22.59

T 10/24/06 6575.5 26.4 2 1 7 8.5 6 22.6 9,247,342 35,871 9,360,355 36,245 11,191 22.88

W 10/25/06 6598.4 22.9 2 1 6.5 8 5.5 21.3 9,278,384 31,042 9,391,715 31,360 11,346 22.82

R 10/26/06 6619.4 21.0 2 1 6 8 5.5 22.6 9,306,543 28,159 9,420,160 28,445 11,487 22.58 

F 10/27/06 6640.9 21.5 2 1 6.5 8 5.5 24.0 9,334,493 27,950 9,449,490 29,330 11,632 22.74
Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-5

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System 

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate 

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

56 

M 10/30/06 6719.3 78.4 2 2 6 8 6 22.6 9,440,817 106,324 9,555,830 106,340 12,158 22.61

T 10/31/06 6738.4 19.1 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,466,725 25,908 9,582,008 26,178 12,288 22.84 

W 11/01/06 6762.6 24.2 2 2 6 8 5.5 22.6 9,499,249 32,524 9,614,875 32,867 12,451 22.64

R 11/02/06 6785.6 23.0 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,530,275 31,026 9,646,210 31,335 12,606 22.71 

F 11/03/06 6808.2 22.6 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,560,728 30,453 9,676,970 30,760 12,758 22.68

57 

M 11/06/06 6870.1 61.9 2 2 0 4 2 0.0 9,644,147 83,419 9,761,232 84,262 13,175 22.69 

T 11/07/06 6870.9 0.8 2 2 8 9 6 28.0 9,645,562 1,415 9,762,675 1,443 13,182 30.06

W 11/08/06 6872.7 1.8 2 2 7 8 6 24.0 9,648,339 2,777 9,765,502 2,827 13,196 26.18

R 11/09/06 6897.6 24.9 2 2 6.5 8 5.5 21.3 9,682,419 34,080 9,799,990 34,488 13,367 23.08 

58 

T 11/14/06 7016.2 118.6 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,840,915 158,496 9,959,945 159,955 14,159 22.48

W 11/15/06 7040.5 24.3 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,872,919 32,004 9,992,265 32,320 14,319 22.17

R 11/16/06 7062.9 22.4 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,902,945 30,026 10,022,680 30,415 14,470 22.63

F 11/17/06 7087.5 24.6 2 2 6 8 5.5 21.3 9,935,474 32,529 10,055,450 32,770 14,632 22.20

59 

M 11/20/06 7156.7 69.2 2 2 0 3 2 0.0 10,026,811 91,337 10,147,790 92,340 15,089 22.24 

T 11/21/06 7156.7 0.0 2 2 0 3 2 0.0 10,026,811 0 10,147,790 0 15,089 NA

W 11/22/06 7156.7 0.0 2 2 0 3 2 0.0 10,026,811 0 10,147,790 0 15,089 NA

60 

M 11/27/06 7160.2 3.5 2 2 9 11 6 28.0 10,032,586 5,775 10,153,520 5,730 15,117 27.29

T 11/28/06 7168.0 7.8 2 2 7 10 6 22.6 10,039,435 6,849 10,160,450 6,930 15,152 14.81

W 11/29/06 7186.4 18.4 2 2 7.5 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,064,699 25,264 10,185,980 25,530 15,278 23.13 

R 11/30/06 7211.8 25.4 2 2 7 9 5.5 21.3 10,099,125 34,426 10,220,770 34,790 15,450 22.83

F 12/01/06 7233.6 21.8 2 2 8 9 5.5 21.3 10,128,384 29,259 10,250,365 29,595 15,597 22.63

61 

M 12/04/06 7250.8 17.2 2 2 10 11 6.5 28.0 10,151,620 23,236 10,273,808 23,443 15,713 22.72

T 12/05/06 7269.0 18.2 2 2 9 9 5.5 21.3 10,176,917 25,297 10,299,455 25,647 15,840 23.49

R 12/07/06 7317 48.0 2 2 9 9 5.5 21.3 10,248,550 71,633 10,364,855 65,400 16,164 22.71 

F 12/08/06 7340.5 23.5 2 2 8.5 10 5.5 21.3 10,279,420 30,870 10,396,440 31,585 16,320 22.40

62 

M 12/11/06 7410.7 70.2 2 2 9 10 5.5 21.3 10,366,310 86,890 10,490,810 94,370 16,787 22.41

T 12/12/06 7434.3 23.6 2 2 9 10 5.5 22.6 10,397,622 31,312 10,522,445 31,635 16,944 22.34

W 12/13/06 7459.7 25.4 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 22.6 10,431,372 33,750 10,566,560 44,115 17,162 28.95

R 12/14/06 7487.1 27.4 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,468,030 36,658 10,593,610 27,050 17,296 16.45 

F 12/15/06 7506.1 19.0 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,493,461 25,431 10,619,320 25,710 17,423 22.55

63 

M 12/18/06 7577.7 71.6 2 2 6 10 5.5 21.3 10,589,154 95,693 10,716,035 96,715 17,902 22.51

T 12/19/06 7608.2 30.5 2 2 6 10 5.5 21.3 10,628,856 39,702 10,757,175 41,140 18,106 22.48 

W 12/20/06 7630.6 22.4 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,659,719 30,863 10,787,370 30,195 18,255 22.47

R 12/21/06 7657.7 27.1 2 2 6 9 5.5 NA NA NA 10,823,760 36,390 18,435 22.38 

F 12/22/06 7672.8 15.1 2 2 6 9 5.5 NA NA NA 10,844,135 20,375 18,536 22.49

64 

T 12/26/06 7772.0 99.2 2 2 6.5 9 5.5 20.0 10,847,807 188,088 10,977,850 133,715 19,198 22.47 

W 12/27/06 7795.6 23.6 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,879,018 31,211 11,008,000 30,150 19,347 21.29

R 12/28/06 7818.8 23.2 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 10,910,008 30,990 11,040,322 32,322 19,507 23.22

F 12/29/06 7843.3 24.5 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 22.6 10,942,613 32,605 11,073,270 32,948 19,671 22.41 

65 

T 01/02/07 7937.6 94.3 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,106,782 164,169 11,199,810 126,540 20,297 22.36

W 01/03/07 7966.7 29.1 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,106,896 114 11,219,310 19,500 20,394 11.17

R 01/04/07 7984.6 17.9 2 2 8 11 6.5 29.3 11,130,874 23,978 11,267,585 48,275 20,632 44.95

F 01/05/07 8012.4 27.8 2 2 6.5 9.5 5.5 NA 11,165,589 34,715 11,298,605 31,020 20,786 18.60

66 

M 01/08/07 8082.8 70.4 2 2 6 9 5.5 22.6 11,261,248 95,659 11,395,270 96,665 21,265 22.88 

T 01/09/07 8106.7 23.9 2 2 6 9 5.5 21.3 11,292,678 31,430 11,427,030 31,760 21,422 22.15

W 01/10/07 8133.4 26.7 2 2 7 10 5.5 NA NA NA 11,462,720 35,690 21,599 22.28

R 01/11/07 8154.6 21.2 2 2 6 9 5.5 21.3 11,356,288 63,610 11,491,310 28,590 21,740 22.48

F 01/12/07 8178.5 23.9 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,387,806 31,518 11,523,170 31,860 21,898 22.22

67 

T 01/16/07 8277.2 98.7 2 2 7 10 6 NA NA NA 11,653,450 130,280 22,543 22.00 

W 01/17/07 8296.3 19.1 2 2 6 10 6 21.3 11,543,875 156,069 11,690,120 36,670 22,724 32.00

F 01/19/07 8345.6 49.3 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 11,689,632 145,757 11,744,975 54,855 22,996 18.54

68 

M 01/22/07 8418.9 73.3 2 2 6.5 9.5 6 21.3 11,705,753 16,121 11,842,705 97,730 23,480 22.22

T 01/23/07 8436.9 18.0 2 2 6 9.5 6 21.3 11,729,338 23,585 11,860,550 17,845 23,568 16.52

R 01/25/07 8489 52.1 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,797,974 68,636 11,935,920 75,370 23,941 24.11 

F 01/26/07 8515.1 26.1 2 2 6.5 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,832,391 34,417 11,970,790 34,870 24,114 22.27

69 

M 01/29/07 8584.7 69.6 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 11,923,819 91,428 12,063,190 92,400 24,571 22.13

T 01/30/07 8610.5 25.8 2 2 6 9.5 6 21.3 11,957,758 33,939 12,097,375 34,185 24,740 22.08

W 01/31/07 8628.7 18.2 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 11,981,559 23,801 12,121,430 24,055 24,859 22.03

R 02/01/07 8653 24.3 2 2 6 9.5 6 21.3 12,013,527 31,968 12,153,735 32,305 25,019 22.16 

F 02/02/07 8679.4 26.4 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,048,124 34,597 12,188,700 34,965 25,192 22.07
Table A-1. US EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Lake Isabella, CA - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)

A-6

Week

Day of 

Week Date

Well CH2-A Treatment System 

Hour Meter Opt Hour Working 

Column

Working 

Bag Filter

Pressure

Inst. 

Flowrate 

Influent 

Totalizer Volume In

Effluent 

Totalizer

Volume 

Out

Cum Bed 

Volumes(a)

Average 

Influent Flowrate 

Post Bag 

Filter Effluent 

hr hr psig psig psig gpm gal gal gal gal BV gpm

70 

M 02/05/07 8754.9 75.5 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,147,126 99,002 12,288,730 100,030 25,688 22.08

T 02/06/07 8774.5 19.6 2 2 6 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,172,778 25,652 12,314,650 25,920 25,816 22.04 

W 02/07/07 8798.8 24.3 2 2 6.5 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,204,521 31,743 12,346,720 32,070 25,975 22.00

R 02/08/07 8825.8 27.0 2 2 6 9.5 6 21.3 12,239,969 35,448 12,382,540 35,820 26,152 22.11 

F 02/09/07 8845.6 19.8 2 2 6.5 9.5 6 21.3 12,265,903 25,934 12,408,740 26,200 26,282 22.05

71 

M 02/12/07 8917.6 72.0 2 2 6.5 9.5 6 21.3 12,360,043 94,140 12,503,865 95,125 26,753 22.02 

T 02/13/07 8940.2 22.6 2 2 9 12 6 29.7 12,389,559 29,516 12,533,778 29,913 26,901 22.06

W 02/14/07 8962.2 22.0 2 2 6.5 9 6 21.3 12,419,313 29,754 12,563,740 29,962 27,049 22.70

R 02/15/07 8986.4 24.2 2 2 6.5 9 6 21.3 12,451,008 31,695 12,595,875 32,135 27,208 22.13 

F 02/16/07 9011.3 24.9 2 2 6.5 9.5 6 21.3 12,483,874 32,866 12,628,915 33,040 27,372 22.12

72 

T 02/20/07 9107.1 95.8 2 2 6.5 9.5 6 21.3 12,609,172 125,298 12,755,530 126,615 27,999 22.03

W 02/21/07 9125 17.9 2 2 6.5 9 5.5 21.3 12,632,594 23,422 12,779,290 23,760 28,116 22.12

R 02/22/07 9150.6 25.6 2 2 6.5 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,666,019 33,425 12,812,960 33,670 28,283 21.92

F 02/23/07 9179.2 28.6 2 2 7 9 6 20.0 12,703,262 37,243 12,850,680 37,720 28,470 21.98 

73 

M 02/26/07 9249.6 70.4 2 2 6.5 9.5 5.5 21.3 12,795,020 91,758 12,943,390 92,710 28,929 21.95

T 02/27/07 9268.8 19.2 2 2 6.5 9 6 21.3 12,828,097 33,077 12,968,625 25,235 29,053 21.91 

W 02/28/07 9291.1 22.3 2 2 6.5 9 6 21.3 12,849,845 21,748 12,998,670 30,045 29,202 22.46

F 03/02/07 9331.2 40.1 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 12,903,158 53,313 13,052,525 53,855 29,469 22.38

74 

M 03/05/07 9403.4 72.2 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 12,997,399 94,241 13,147,735 95,210 29,940 21.98 

T 03/06/07 9428.6 25.2 2 2 0 5.5 4 0.0 13,030,177 32,778 13,180,840 33,105 30,104 21.89

W 03/07/07 9430 1.4 2 2 0 5 0 0.0 13,030,395 218 13,181,065 225 30,105 2.68

R 03/08/07 9430 0.0 2 2 0 5 0 6.0 13,030,395 0 13,181,065 0 30,105 0.00

F 03/09/07 9463.1 33.1 2 2 6.5 11 6 26.6 13,032,083 1,688 13,182,780 1,715 30,114 0.86

75 

M 03/12/07 9501.1 38.0 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,126,007 93,924 13,277,640 94,860 30,583 41.61 

T 03/13/07 9526.3 25.2 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,159,298 33,291 13,311,270 33,630 30,750 22.24

W 03/14/07 9549.6 23.3 2 2 6 9.5 6 21.3 13,189,791 30,493 13,342,075 30,805 30,902 22.04

R 03/15/07 9573.2 23.6 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,221,171 31,380 13,373,800 31,725 31,059 22.40

F 03/16/07 9578.3 5.1 2 2 3 6 4 0.0 13,227,853 6,682 13,380,525 6,725 31,093 21.98

76 

M 03/19/07 9631.5 53.2 2 2 3 6 0 0.0 13,299,249 71,396 13,452,660 72,135 31,450 22.60 

T 03/20/07 9643.7 12.2 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,316,197 16,948 13,469,890 17,230 31,535 23.54

W 03/21/07 9661.6 17.9 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,339,786 23,589 13,493,615 23,725 31,652 22.09

R 03/22/07 9687.4 25.8 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,369,523 29,737 13,523,660 30,045 31,801 19.41 

F 03/23/07 9713.4 26.0 2 2 6 9 6 21.3 13,407,425 37,902 13,561,950 38,290 31,991 24.54

(a) Bed volume = 27 ft3 or 202 gallons 

(b) Flow was switched to Vessel 2

NA = not available

NM = not measured
APPENDIX B 

ANALYTICAL DATA
IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-1

Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103) BV - - 0.2 - - 0.9 - - 1.8 - - 2.4 - - 3.0 - - 3.5

106 101 101 145 132 132 92 97 101 92 92 88 356 92 101 101 97 97

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.2 - - -

Sulfate mg/L 38 42 40 - - - - - - - - - 37 38 37 - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 1.1 1.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.0 - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 30 30 <10 18 18 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.5 43.6 23.2 41.5 41.5 39.9 44.0 43.3 41.1 43.9 43.3 43.3 43.0 43.1 41.6 41.5 42.1 41.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 6.8 6.9 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0

Temperature °C 18.2 17.8 18.0 20.2 19.7 19.5 16.6 16.4 16.4 21.1 19.9 19.7 16.4 16.4 16.4 17.6 17.1 17.1

DO mg/L 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.0 NA(b) NA(b) NA(b)

ORP mV 198 213 230 258 195 205 370 298 268 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) 303 336 321 293 291 294

83.6 85.0 88.3 89.3 90.0 88.4 91.8 93.8 93.9 93.3 94.4 98.9 93.5 93.8 95.2 92.9 91.0 97.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

77.0 78.4 81.1 83.0 83.7 82.3 85.6 87.5 87.7 87.1 88.0 92.3 86.7 86.8 88.3 87.2 86.5 91.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6.6 6.6 7.2 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9 5.7 4.5 5.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

39.6 41.1 0.3 41.9 42.1 0.4 43.1 43.8 0.2 41.8 41.5 0.1 36.5 36.2 0.1 39.5 40.2 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 38.8 39.6 0.3 - - - - - - - - - 36.6 36.5 0.1 - - -

As (particulate) μg/L 0.8 1.5 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - -

As (III) μg/L 0.9 0.7 0.7 - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - -

As (V) μg/L 37.9 38.9 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - 36.3 36.2 <0.1 - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - -

0.4 0.4 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 0.3 0.3 0.4 - - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.7 0.8 - - -

35.3 34.4 <0.1 33.8 33.6 <0.1 33.3 34.0 <0.1 35.2 34.0 - 35.9 36.2 0.1 34.9 33.3 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L 35.6 34.3 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - 35.7 35.9 0.1 - - -

(a) ORP probe not operational. (b) DO probe was not operational.

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

IN BF AF

11/08/05

IN BF AF

Sampling Date 11/16/05

Sampling Location IN BF AF

10/13/05

AF

10/19/05

IN BF

10/26/05 11/02/05

IN BF AF IN BF AF
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-2

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103) BV - - 4.9 - - 5.6 - - 5.8 - - 7.0 - - 7.3 - - 9.3

88 92 88 97 97 106 97 101 97 97 97 97 101 97 101 101 101 101

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 101 101 101

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 36 36 36 - - - 37 38 36 - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.3 1.3 1.7 - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 13 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10

45.2 44.5 44.7 44.0 42.8 44.1 44.2 45.6 44.8 43.1 42.2 42.9 43.9 44.6 44.9 43.4 43.7 42.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43.7 42.9 43.8

0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 0.2

pH S.U. 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 NA NA NA 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.0

Temperature °C 19.1 18.2 17.4 12.9 14.1 14.4 NA NA NA 17.0 16.6 13.7 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.2 12.4 12.5

DO mg/L 3.9 3.0 3.0 NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) NA NA NA NA(a) NA(a) NA(a) 3.1 3.5 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.4

ORP mV 415 453 453 332 411 426 NA NA NA 478 489 490 378 265 245 432 471 445

88.6 87.9 91.5 92.2 89.9 89.5 93.6 93.7 92.6 89.5 90.7 90.9 79.9 82.4 80.3 94.9 94.9 94.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 95.4 94.3 95.7

81.5 81.0 84.4 85.8 83.6 83.3 87.3 87.3 86.2 82.2 83.2 83.3 72.7 75.2 73.1 88.5 88.5 88.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89.0 88.1 89.1

7.0 7.0 7.1 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.5 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.5 6.4 6.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.5 6.3 6.5

39.2 39.5 <0.1 42.1 40.5 <0.1 39.4 38.9 0.3 39.4 39.2 0.6 43.0 43.5 0.5 38.4 38.6 0.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.4 37.9 0.2

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 40.0 39.4 0.7 - - - 43.2 45.2 0.4 - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 39.6 39.0 0.4 - - - 42.5 44.4 <0.1 - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 41.2 39.9 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - <25 <25 <25 - - -

<0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 0.4

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 0.8 1.1 1.6 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.7 - - -

26.6 26.6 <0.1 29.2 29.1 <0.1 33.6 33.8 <0.1 32.7 32.5 <0.1 30.9 32.0 <0.1 30.3 29.6 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.8 29.5 <0.1

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 33.6 33.6 <0.1 - - - 32.6 32.8 <0.1 - - -

 (a) DO probe was not operational. 

U (total) μg/L

01/25/06

IN BF AF

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

IN BF AF

12/08/05 01/11/06

IN BF AF

01/04/06

IN

12/01/05

IN BF AF

Sampling Date

Sampling Location BF AF

12/28/05

IN BF AF
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-3

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103

) BV - - 11.5 - - 13.8 - - 16.0 - - 18.3 - - 20.5 - - 21.7

96 100 100 100 104 100 100 100 100 103 99 99 95 95 99 106 106 106

- - - - - - - - - 103 99 99 - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - - 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - -

Sulfate mg/L 36 35 35 - - - 41 40 39 - - - 40 40 40 - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 1.1 1.1 1.0 - - - 1.1 1.1 1.0 - - - 1.3 1.2 1.2 - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - - - 18 17 <10

- - - - - - - - - <10 <10 <10 - - - - - -

42.6 43.8 43.3 44.9 44.3 45.0 42.0 41.6 42.1 42.3 42.8 42.7 42.9 42.2 42.4 42.1 42.3 41.2

- - - - - - - - - 43.1 43.1 42.6 - - - - - -

0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2

- - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.5 - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.8

Temperature °C 14.7 14.6 14.8 12.1 12.1 12.0 11.2 11.2 11.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 8.2 9.3 10.6 17.7 12.7 17.9

DO mg/L 4.3 3.7 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.8 NA(b) NA(b) NA(b) 266 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.5

ORP mV 436 338 315 416 411 390 300 305 325 443 486 495 285 264 232 384 345 254

69.6 69.3 69.9 88.9 91.5 88.8 94.8 95.8 96.9 95.7 93.6 93.8 84.4 85.4 86.5 94.7 95.4 93.2

- - - - - - - - - 92.3 93.0 93.2 - - - - - -

60.6 60.0 60.1 82.3 84.8 82.2 87.5 88.5 89.4 90.0 88.1 88.3 77.9 78.7 79.8 84.2 84.8 82.8

- - - - - - - - - 86.7 87.3 87.6 - - - - - -

9.0 9.3 9.8 6.6 6.7 6.6 7.3 7.3 7.6 5.7 5.6 5.5 6.5 6.7 6.7 10.4 10.6 10.3

- - - - - - - - - 5.6 5.6 5.6 - - - - - -

42.5 42.4 0.4 41.9 41.8 0.2 40.3 41.4 0.3 43.1 42.8 0.3 42.3 41.6 1.2 38.9 38.6 0.6

- - - - - - - - - 41.5 41.6 0.3 - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 42.7 42.8 0.4 - - - 39.5 40.0 0.2 - - - 43.6 42.7 1.5 - - -

As (particulate) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - 0.8 1.4 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - -

As (III) μg/L 0.7 0.8 1.0 - - - 0.4 0.4 0.5 - - - 0.8 0.5 0.5 - - -

As (V) μg/L 42.0 41.9 <0.1 - - - 39.2 39.5 <0.1 - - - 42.8 42.2 1.0 - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - <25 <25 <25 - - -

<0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.7

- - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.4 - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - - - 0.3 0.2 0.4 - - - 0.1 <0.1 0.5 - - -

30.6 30.2 <0.1 34.6 35.1 <0.1 32.1 31.9 <0.1 30.3 29.5 <0.1 36.7 34.6 <0.1 27.8 28.3 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - 28.4 27.8 <0.1 - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L 32.7 30.7 <0.1 - - - 32.1 31.9 <0.1 - - - 35.6 36.4 <0.1 - - -

(a) Water quality measurements taken on 04/05/06. 

(b) Measurements not taken

03/08/06

IN BF AF AF

03/22/06

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

02/08/06 02/22/06

IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF BF AF

04/04/06(a)

IN IN BF AF

04/19/06
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-4

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103

) BV - - 23.8 - - 25.0 - - 26.3 - - 27.6 - - 28.4 - - 30.4

105 97 105 97 97 97 96 96 100 106 102 106 100 100 100 100 100 100

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - - - - 0.9 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.1 1.6 1.4

Sulfate mg/L 40 40 40 - - - - - - 41 42 42 - - - <1 43 41

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.9 1.0 1.0 - - - - - - 1.0 1.0 0.9 - - - 0.9 1.0 1.0

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 15 14 10.0 17 17 17 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.6 43.9 44.4 45.2 45.2 45.6 39.5 41.0 39.1 47.5 48.2 46.7 43.8 44.3 15.9 43.3 44.0 42.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0

Temperature °C 19.9 19.5 19.9 23.6 23.2 23.4 20.3 20.0 19.7 18.6 18.1 18.3 23.3 23.1 2.3 24.3 23.5 22.8

DO mg/L 2.7 2.1 1.9 2.7 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0

ORP mV 408 407 386 471 474 494 305 276 278 401 386 277 415 345 310 453 470 470

90.8 88.0 86.6 80.9 85.1 82.8 90.2 86.1 91.1 90.7 89.5 90.0 95.4 90.4 94.3 86.3 85.2 88.9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

83.8 81.1 79.7 73.7 77.8 75.5 80.7 76.6 82.0 83.5 82.5 83.2 87.8 82.8 87.5 80.5 79.5 82.8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.3 9.5 9.6 9.2 7.2 7.0 6.8 7.5 7.5 6.8 5.8 5.7 6.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.7 43.6 2.2 41.3 42.4 2.7 38.8 35.8 3.1 40.1 40.4 4.4 41.3 38.1 4.9 41.9 40.7 8.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L 44.5 44.0 2.2 - - - - - - 38.5 39.7 4.4 - - - 42.2 40.6 7.8

As (particulate) μg/L 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - 1.6 0.7 <0.1 - - - <0.1 0.1 0.3

As (III) μg/L 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - - - - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.1 <0.1

As (V) μg/L 44.4 43.8 2.0 - - - - - - 38.3 39.5 4.3 - - - 42.1 40.5 7.7

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - <25 <25 <25

0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L 0.1 0.1 0.5 - - - - - - 0.4 0.3 0.2 - - - <0.1 <0.1 0.2

35.2 34.8 <0.1 37.4 35.5 <0.1 36.6 34.9 <0.1 38.9 38.7 <0.1 37.0 35.7 <0.1 31.3 31.0 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L 35.3 35.6 <0.1 - - - - - - 37.9 38.1 <0.1 - - - 31.2 30.5 <0.1

07/06/06

IN BF AF

06/14/06

IN BF AF

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

05/03/06

IN BF AF

05/17/06

IN BF AF

06/01/06

IN BF AF

06/22/06

IN BF AF
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-5

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103

) BV - - 32.0 - - 32.3 - - 33.1 - - 1.1 - - 2.3 - - 3.6

97 101 97 - - - 101 101 101 105 105 103 107 110 112 111 109 109

97 92 101 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - 40 40 41 51 52 52 - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 - - - 15 13 13 <10 <10 <10 11.5 10.9 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 12.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.2 42.6 43.3 - - - 42.6 42.4 41.8 42.7 42.8 42.2 40.5 39.7 39.8 39.6 40.4 40.8

43.0 43.8 43.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.4 0.3 0.5 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1

0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 6.9 6.9 6.9 - - - 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 - - - - - -

Temperature °C 24.2 23.1 22.3 - - - 23.4 22.7 22.3 27.0 26.2 26.2 - - - - - -

DO mg/L 2.0 2.1 2.0 - - - 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 - - - - - -

ORP mV 479 317 251 - - - 372 277 269 463 468 437 - - - - - -

86.4 85.1 84.3 - - - 93.3 95.3 93.6 102 99.9 101 109 106 110 102 102 103

86.7 86.1 91.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

79.6 78.3 77.8 - - - 86.7 89.3 87.6 96.0 94.2 94.8 102 100 104 95.5 95.3 97.0

79.9 79.2 84.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6.8 6.8 6.5 - - - 6.6 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.4

6.8 6.8 6.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

38.2 37.5 9.4 46.0 46.0 9.2 47.3 45.8 10.5 50.0 47.6 <0.1 44.8 43.8 0.2 42.1 40.6 0.2

37.5 37.0 9.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 45.2 44.8 10.3 49.7 46.9 <0.1 - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 <0.1 - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - 44.9 44.5 10.1 49.2 46.5 <0.1 - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 - - - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

<25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - -

0.5 0.5 0.2 - - - 0.2 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.1 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.4

0.5 0.5 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 - - - - - -

32.8 32.9 <0.1 - - - 34.1 34.2 0.1 32.5 31.7 <0.1 32.4 32.8 <0.1 32.1 31.5 <0.1

32.1 31.9 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - 34.3 33.4 <0.1 30.7 30.9 <0.1 - - - - - -

(a) Sampling conducted for Total As only between bi-weekly sampling event due to As levels approaching 10 μg/L.

(b) Flow switched to Vessel 2 on August 16, 2006.

08/03/06

BF AF IN BF AF

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

07/19/06 7/26/2006(a)

IN BF AF IN

8/23/06(b) 08/30/06 09/07/06

IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-6

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103

) BV - - 4.8 - - 6.8 - - 9.3 - - 11.5 - - 13.2 - - 15.5

105 105 105 106 104 109 108 105 108 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 110 108 108 - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - 1.1 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - 41 43 42 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - <10 <10 <10 - - - - - - - - -

41.7 43.1 42.6 42.0 42.6 42.5 44.4 43.7 44.1 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 44.4 44.0 42.6 - - - - - - - - -

0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. - - - 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.7 NA NA NA 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9

Temperature °C - - - 22.4 22.3 22.9 18.1 18.1 19.1 NA NA NA 17.9 17.8 18.1 12.5 13.8 14.0

DO mg/L - - - 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 NA NA NA 1.7 2.7 1.9 2.6 1.2 1.5

ORP mV - - - 344 463 445 465 395 320 NA NA NA 400 493 484 287 231 215

89.7 90.6 91.0 94.2 95.2 98.9 124 123 124 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 127 113 118 - - - - - - - - -

83.3 84.1 84.4 87.7 88.5 92.2 117 117 117 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 121 107 112 - - - - - - - - -

6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.1 6.2 6.2 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 6.2 6.1 6.3 - - - - - - - - -

41.7 42.1 <0.1 45.5 45.7 <0.1 42.0 42.4 0.7 42.2 43.1 0.3 34.3 34.8 0.3 40.0 40.8 0.3

- - - - - - 42.2 42.0 0.8 - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - 45.8 47.0 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - 0.3 0.3 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - 45.5 46.7 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - <25 <25 <25 - - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 0.1 <0.1 0.3 - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - <0.1 <0.1 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.4 32.1 <0.1 32.3 32.0 <0.1 34.5 34.9 <0.1 32.6 32.9 <0.1 34.4 34.1 <0.1 35.3 35.5 <0.1

- - - - - - 34.9 34.3 <0.1 - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - 31.8 32.2 <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

(a) Water samples only analyzed for total arsenic and uranium.

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

09/14/06 09/27/06 10/12/06 10/26/06(a) 11/08/06 11/30/06

IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF
Table B-1. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Lake Isabella, CA (Continued)

IN = influent; BF = before filter; AF = after filter. 

NA = not available. 

B-7

Parameter Unit

Bed Volume (103

) BV - - 17.2 - - NA - - 24.9 - - 28.3 - - 30.6 - - 31.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fluoride mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sulfate mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrate (as N) mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

pH S.U. 6.8 6.8 6.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.0 6.9 7.1

Temperature °C 14.2 1.5 14.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13.3 13.2 13.7

DO mg/L 2.8 1.8 1.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.8 2.4 4.3

ORP mV 434 442 346 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 464 466 446

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.0 46.2 0.8 44.7 45.9 0.8 43.1 43.1 5.1 43.7 43.2 7.7 41.2 40.8 8.8 45.6 46.6 11.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (particulate) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (III) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As (V) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fe (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mn (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31.1 30.7 <0.1 35.7 36.5 <0.1 33.5 33.2 0.1 32.2 32.9 <0.1 36.7 36.4 <0.1 35.0 34.9 <0.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U (soluble) μg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NA = not available

U (total) μg/L

Fe (total) μg/L

Mn (total) μg/L

Mg Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

As (total) μg/L

Total Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Ca Hardness 

(as CaCO3) mg/L

Alkalinity (as CaCO 3) mg/L

Turbidity NTU

Silica (as SiO2) mg/L

Total P (as P ) μg/L

Sampling Date

Sampling Location

12/13/06 01/04/07 01/31/07 02/22/07 03/12/07 03/21/07

IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF IN BF AF