September 2005
                          NSF05/21/EPADWCTR
                            EPA/600/R-05/117
Environmental Technology
Verification Report

Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water

Basin Water
High Efficiency Ion Exchange
Treatment System
             Prepared by
          NSF International
       Under a Cooperative Agreement with
 oEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
         THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
                                     PROGRAM
                                   ET
AM   f\
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                               NSF International
                     ETV Joint Verification  Statement
    TECHNOLOGY TYPE:   ION EXCHANGE USED IN DRINKING WATER
                           TREATMENT SYSTEMS

    APPLICATION:         REMOVAL OF ARSENIC
    TECHNOLOGY NAME:  BASIN WATER HIGH EFFICIENCY ION EXCHANGE
                           TREATMENT SYSTEM

    COMPANY:            BASIN WATER
    ADDRESS:             8731 PRESTIGE COURT            PHONE:  (951)233-9605
                           RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 FAX:    (949) 631-8108
    WEB SITE:             www.basinwater.com
    EMAIL:                lwrowe@basinwater.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV)  Program to  facilitate the  deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies
through performance verification and dissemination of information.  The goal of the ETV Program is to
further environmental  protection by accelerating the  acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on
technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of
environmental technologies.

ETV works in partnership with  recognized standards  and testing organizations, stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with the full participation of individual
technology developers.  The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory  tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data,  and preparing peer-reviewed reports.  All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous  quality  assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.

NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Systems (DWS)
Center, one of six technology areas under the ETV Program. The DWS Center recently evaluated the
performance of an  ion exchange (IX)  system used in drinking water treatment applications. This
verification  statement provides a summary of the test results for the Basin Water High Efficiency Ion
Exchange Treatment System  (Basin Water System). MWH, an NSF-qualified field testing  organization
(FTO), performed the verification testing. The verification report contains a comprehensive description of
the test.
05/21/EPADWCTR     The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.         September 2005
                                           VS-i

-------
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the Basin Water System was conducted over a 54-day period between April 4,
2005, and May 28, 2005.  The test was  conducted at the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
(EVMWD) Corydon Street Well in Lake Elsinore, California.  The source water was a raw groundwater
supply with chlorine added at 0.10-0.50 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as an oxidant to convert arsenite (As
[III]) to arsenate (As [V]).  Based on the manufacturer's recommendation, the system was operated during
the Verification Test at 850 bed volumes before regeneration.  The average total arsenic and vanadium
(both naturally occurring) in  the raw water were  15  micrograms  per liter (ug/L) and  107 ug/L,
respectively, during the Verification Test.   The Basin Water System reduced the arsenic levels to below
the detection limit (1.0 ug/L) in all 24-hour composite samples and all grab samples, with the exception
of one grab sample with a level of 1.1 ug/L.  The Basin Water System reduced the vanadium levels to
below the detection limit (3.0  ug/L) in all 24-hour  composite samples and all grab samples, with the
exception of one grab sample with a vanadium level of 4.9 ug/L in the effluent water.

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer  and has not been verified.

The equipment tested  in the ETV test was the Basin Water System. The system was a self contained,
multi-bed, mobile unit.  The Basin Water System utilized  multiple IX vessels  in a  parallel mode of
operation.  The system contained two prefilters (5 micron,  30 inches in length) in parallel and  six IX
vessels.  There were four vessels in service,  at different stages of exhaustion, and two vessels  out of
service at any one time while the IX unit was in operation.  The two vessels out of service were in the
regeneration cycle with one vessel ready to  return to service when the next vessel online was ready to go
into regeneration cycle. The resin used in the vessels  was  a strong base anion (SBA) resin.  Each vessel is
16 inches in diameter and contained 5 cubic feet (ft3) of resin.

At all times the system was in  operation, the Basin Water System utilized one of two treatment systems
for the waste brine generated from the regeneration process:  brine precipitation unit (BPU) and brine
readsorption unit (BRA).  The BPU utilized ferric chloride to coagulate the arsenic and vanadium and
precipitate it out from  the waste brine, while the BRA utilized  an iron based adsorptive media to remove
the arsenic and vanadium from  the waste brine.

VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION

Test Site
The test  site selected  for the verification testing of the Basin Water System was EVMWD's Corydon
Street Well, located in  Lake Elsinore, California. Drilled in 1983, the EVMWD's well off Corydon Street
is one of many wells that supply potable water to consumers in  a rural area of southern California.

The Corydon Street Well  normally operates at 1.2-1.5 mg/L  free chlorine, which could be  potentially
damaging to the IX resin.  Therefore, a raw  water line upstream of the well's chlorinate point was selected
for the verification testing.  Because As (III)  is present in the water, low levels of chlorine (0.10-0.50
mg/L of total chlorine) were dosed between the raw water sampling location and the prefilters to the IX
vessels to convert As  (III) to As  (V).  This setup allowed the water entering the IX treatment system
(influent  water) to maintain low levels of the desired total chlorine residual.  The feed water used during
the verification testing had an average total  chlorine residual of 0.30 mg/L.

Over the  54 days on-site at the  Corydon Street Well, the system was in operation for 48 days: 29 days for
Initial Plant Characterization, five days in operation during data review, and 14 days  for the Verification
05/21/EPADWCTR      The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.        September 2005
                                              VS-ii

-------
Test.  There were three plant shutdowns (April 7, May 12, and May 14, 2005) accounting for the balance
of the testing period.  Each shutdown was associated with construction in the area and was not a direct
result of the Basin Water System.

Methods and Procedures
Water quality  was monitored from three water streams:   raw water, chlorinated and filtered raw water
(influent), and treated water (effluent).  Measurements of free and total chlorine, pH, temperature, and
conductivity were collected on-site through grab samples, using equipment set up inside the mobile Basin
Water System at the EVMWD Corydon Street Well.  MWH Laboratories  in Monrovia, California, were
also sent samples to analyze for the following: arsenic (total [24-hour composite and grab samples] and
dissolved and As [III] grab samples); vanadium (24-hour composite and grab samples); and calcium,
chloride, hardness, alkalinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), manganese, iron,
magnesium, dissolved silica, fluoride, sulfate, and nitrate (24-hour composite samples).   Grab samples
were also collected for N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), as requested by the utility.   Previous research
suggests that in some IX resins, NDMA could form when a water plant uses chloramines. All laboratory
samples were  delivered the same  day as collection in  coolers filled with ice. They were analyzed using
either Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,  20th  edition or EPA-approved
methods.  Complete descriptions  of  the verification test, results,  and quality  assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures are included  in the verification report.

VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE

System Operation
The Basin Water System used multiple IX vessels operating in parallel to  remove arsenic and vanadium
from the water. The IX resin beds were staggered such that all beds online were operated at different, but
evenly spaced points on their respective  breakthrough  curves.   When a vessel  reached the selected
absorption limit set point (the point at which the bed would no longer provide  beneficial target ion
removal), the  bed was removed from service for regeneration.  The IX resin was regenerated using a
sodium  chloride (brine) solution.  Following regeneration, the IX resin was then  rinsed using effluent
water from the treatment process prior to returning to service, to maintain the desired number of beds in
service.   As part of the waste minimization features of the Basin Water System, cleaner portions of the
rinse water were recovered to the  salt tank to make up the next batch of brine for  the next regeneration
cycle.   The entire regeneration, rinsing, and exhaustion process  was  automatically performed  by the
programmable logic  controller (PLC).  Regeneration of the IX vessels was performed while the Basin
Water System was online and did not interrupt the production of treated water.  Individual IX vessels
were regenerated  and rinsed while  the remaining vessels were online producing treated water.

The computer automation of the exhaustion, regeneration, rinse, and waste treatment using both  BPU and
BRA  cycles  required minimal human attention, and  therefore made the  system easy  to operate.
Automated alarms (system pressure,  raw water flow rate, brine flow rate, brine tank level, etc.) further
enhanced the system to alert the operator of any problems or changes in operating conditions outside the
system's set points, as determined by the manufacturer.  However, not all alarms worked flawlessly.
Occasionally alarms  (such as low and high-level tank alerts) would go  off, and the appropriate actions
would not automatically occur.  In addition, inline sensors (pH and conductivity) could not be removed
for calibration without the treatment system being taken off-line.

When changes in onsite conditions triggered a system shutdown, the IX and waste treatment systems
would automatically go through shutdown procedures and wait in standby mode until the system pressure
and raw water flow rates resumed to the preset points.  This  automatic system start-up had the option for
manual override, but due to the remote nature of the test site, the system was operated in automatic mode.
05/21/EPADWCTR      The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.         September 2005
                                              VS-iii

-------
All alarm and operating conditions were logged by the PLC for the operator to review upon returning to
the test site.

Water Quality Results
The raw water at the test site had average total  arsenic and vanadium levels of 15 ug/L and 107 ug/L,
respectively.  From the statistical analysis of the daily, 24-hour composite data presented in the following
table, the Basin Water System consistently removed the raw water arsenic  and vanadium  to  non-
detectable levels of <1.0 ug/L and <3.0 ug/L, respectively.
Table VS-1: 24-Hour Composite Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Verification Test Total Arsenic and
Vanadium (May 12 through May 28, 2005)



Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval

Raw
Water
15
14
16
13
0.49
(15-15)
Arsenic (|ig/L)
Influent
Water
15
14
16
14
0.62
(15-15)

Effluent
Water
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
14
NC
NC
Vanadium (|ig/L)
Raw Influent
Water Water
107 105
99 97
110 110
13 14
4.9 5.6
(106-108) (104-106)

Effluent
Water
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
14
NC
NC
NC = Not Calculated.

In addition to removing arsenic and vanadium from the raw water, the BasinWater System had an impact
on other water quality parameters, as expected for an IX system.  On average as compared to the raw
water, the Basin Water System removed 18% alkalinity and 47% nitrate, and removed sulfate to below
the  detection limit.  The average chloride level increased 67%.  All  other parameters  had little to no
change between the raw water and effluent water cuality.  TSS, iron,  and  magnesium each had non-
detectable levels  in the raw water, influent water, and effluent water throughout the verification testing.

Consumables and Waste Generation
The analyses of the solid waste generated from both the BPU and the BRA brine treatment systems are
presented in the verification report. During the Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 when the bed volumes
were set at 1,100, the percentage of waste brine was 0.06-0.08%  of the treated water flow.  When the bed
volumes  were reduced to 850 for the Verification Test, the percentage  of waste brine was 0.08-0.09% of
the treated water flow.

The waste generated from the BPU was found to be classified as nonhazardous based on the results of the
California waste analysis methods of Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), Soluble Threshold
Limit Concentration (STLC), and the federal waste analysis method of Toxicity  Characteristic Leachate
Procedure (TCLP).  The total mass of arsenic in the waste was  233  milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of
waste generated, with a TTLC limit of 500 mg/kg for hazardous waste.  The results of the TCLP  were
<1.0 mg/L, with a limit of 5.0 mg/L. The total arsenic leachate from the STLC  analysis was 2.8 mg/L,
with a limit of 5.0 mg/L.   Therefore, based on both the state and federal waste analyses, the waste
generated from the BPU would be classified as nonhazardous (based on arsenic residuals).

The waste generated from the BRA was also found to be nonhazardous, with a TTLC of <3 mg/kg, a
TCLP of <0.1  mg/L, and a STLC of 2.8 mg/L for total arsenic. Additional BPU and BRA metals analyses
are provided in the verification report.
05/21/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
                         VS-iv
September 2005

-------
Quality Assurance/Quality Control

NSF provided technical and quality assurance oversight of the verification testing  as described in the
verification report, including  an audit of nearly 100% of the data.  NSF personnel also conducted a
technical systems audit during testing to ensure the testing was in compliance with the test plan.
complete description of the QA/QC procedures is provided in the verification report.
                                                                        A
      Original Signed by
      Sally Gutierrez
                10/3/05
Original Signed by
Robert Ferguson
10/5/05
    Sally Gutierrez                     Date
    Director
    National Risk Management Research Laboratory
    Office of Research and Development
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
                                     Robert Ferguson
                                     Vice President
                                     Water Systems
                                     NSF International
                           Date
    NOTICE:  Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
    predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
    expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
    technology will always operate as verified.  The end-user is solely responsible for complying with
    any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.  Mention of corporate names,  trade
    names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use  of
    specific products.  This report is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned
    herein.
       Availability of Supporting Documents
       Copies  of the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification  Testing for Arsenic Removal
       dated September 2003, the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Removal
       of Inorganic  Constituents  dated  April  2002,  the  verification statement,  and  the
       verification report (NSF Report # 05/21/EPADWCTR) are available from the following
       sources:
       (NOTE: Appendices are not included in the verification report. Appendices are available
       from NSF upon request.)

       1.  ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
           NSF International
           P.O. Box 130140
           Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
       2.  NSF web site: http://www.nsf. org/etv (electronic copy)

       3.  EPA  web site:  https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
05/21/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.        September 2005
                         VS-v

-------
                                                       EPA/600/R-05/117
                                                         September 2005
     Environmental Technology Verification Report
         Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water

                        Basin Water
    High Efficiency Ion Exchange Treatment System
                         Prepared for:

                       NSF International
                    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
                         Prepared by:

                            MWH
                   Los Angeles, California 91017
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
            National Risk Management Research Laboratory
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                                       Notice

The  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA) through its  Office  of Research  and
Development has financially  supported and collaborated  with NSF International (NSF)  under
Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301.  This verification effort was supported by the Drinking
Water  Systems (DWS) Center,  operating under the Environmental  Technology Verification
(ETV)  Program. This document has been peer reviewed, reviewed  by NSF and EPA, and
recommended for public release.

-------
                                       Foreword

       The  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA)  is  charged by Congress  with
protecting  the  Nation's  land,  air,  and water  resources.  Under  a  mandate  of  national
environmental laws, the Agency  strives to  formulate and  implement  actions  leading  to a
compatible balance between human activities  and the ability of natural  systems to support and
nurture  life. To  meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental  problems today  and building a science knowledge  base
necessary to manage our ecological  resources  wisely,  understand how  pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

       The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center
for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing  and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program  is on  methods and their cost-effectiveness  for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated  sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.  NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster  technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support  and information transfer to ensure implementation  of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community  levels.

       This publication  has been produced  as part of the  Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development
to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
                                         Sally Gutierrez, Director
                                         National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                           in

-------
                                   Table of Contents

Section                                                                            Page
Verification Statement	VS-i
Title Page	i
Notice	ii
Foreword	iii
Table of Contents	iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms	xi
Acknowledgements	xiii

Chapter 1    Introduction	1
1.1    ETV Purpose and Program Operation	1
1.2    Testing Participants and Responsibilities	1
       1.2.1  NSF International	2
       1.2.2  Field Testing Organization	2
       1.2.3  Manufacturer	3
       1.2.4  Analytical Laboratory	3
       1.2.5  Elsinore Valley Water District	4
       1.2.6  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	4
1.3    Verification Testing Site	4
       1.3.1  Source Water	4
       1.3.2  Raw Water Supply	5
       1.3.3  Treated Water (Effluent) Discharge	6
       1.3.4  Discharge Permits	6

Chapter 2    Equipment Description and Operating Processes	7
2.1    Equipment Description	7
2.2    Engineering and Scientific Concepts	8
       2.2.1  Effect of Sulfate on Arsenic Removal	9
       2.2.2  Effect of Multiple Contaminants	10
       2.2.3  Low Column Effluent pH in the Early Stages of Exhaustion	10
       2.2.4  Spent Brine Reuse and Treatment	11
2.3    Description of the Unit Processes	11
2.4    Description of Physical Construction/Components	16
2.5    Chemical Consumption and Production of Waste Material	16
       2.5.1  Chemical Consumption	16
       2.5.2  Waste Production and Physical and Chemical Nature of Wastes	16
2.6    Licensing Requirements	17

Chapter 3    Methods  and Procedures	18
3.1    Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria	18
3.2    Key Treated Water Quality Parameters	18
       3.2.1  Key Groundwater Quality Parameters the Equipment is Designed to Address	18
       3.2.2  Key Treated Water Quality Parameters For Evaluating Equipment Performance 19
3.3    Equations and Definitions of Operational Parameters	19
                                           iv

-------
       3.3.1   Equations	19
       3.3.2   Definitions	20
3.4    Testing Schedule	24
3.5    Field Operations Procedures	25
3.6    Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan	25
       3.6.1   Task 1: Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water	26
       3.6.2   Task 2: Preparation, Coordination and Start-Up	26
       3.6.3   Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization	26
       3.6.4   Task 4: Verification Testing	26
       3.6.5   Task 5: Data Management	27
       3.6.6   Task 6:  Quality Assurance Project Plan	27
3.7    Task 1: Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water	27
       3.7.1   Experimental Objectives	27
       3.7.2   Work Plan	27
       3.7.3   Schedule	27
       3.7.4   Evaluation Criteria	27
3.8    Task 2: Preparation, Coordination and Start-Up	27
       3.8.1   Experimental Objectives	28
       3.8.2   Work Plan	28
       3.8.3   Steady State Operation	28
3.9    Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization	29
       3.9.1   Experimental Objectives	29
       3.9.2   Work Plan	29
       3.9.3   Analytical Schedule	30
       3.9.4   Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Criteria	32
3.10   Task 4: Verification Testing	32
       3.10.1  Experimental Objectives	32
       3.10.2  Work Plan	32
       3.10.3  Analytical Schedule	33
       3.10.4  Evaluation Criteria	38
3.11   Task 5: Data Management	38
       3.11.1  Experimental Objectives	39
       3.11.2  Work Plan	39
3.12   Task 6: Quality Assurance Project Plan	39
       3.12.1  Experimental Objectives	40
       3.12.2  Work Plan	40
       3.12.3  Data Correctness	41
              3.12.3.1 Representativeness	41
              3.12.3.2 Statistical Analysis	45
              3.12.3.3 Methodology for Measurement of Precision and Accuracy	45
              3.12.3.4 Completeness	48
       3.12.4  Calculation of Indicators of Data Quality	49
       3.12.5  Corrective Action Plan	50
3.13   Operation and Maintenance	51

-------
Chapter 4    Results and Discussion	53
4.1    Introduction	53
4.2    Task 1: Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water	53
4.3    Task 2: Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up	54
4.4    Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization	54
       4.4.1   Initial Plant Characterization No. 1	55
              4.4.1.1   Total Arsenic and Vanadium	55
              4.4.1.2   Inorganic Constituents	58
              4.4.1.3   On-Site Laboratory Testing	67
              4.4.1.4   Mass Balance of Total Arsenic	69
       4.4.2   Initial Plant Characterization No. 2	70
              4.4.2.1   Total Arsenic and Vanadium	71
              4.4.2.2   Inorganic Constituents	73
              4.4.2.3   On-Site Laboratory Testing	73
              4.4.2.4   Mass Balance of Total Arsenic	76
4.5    Task 4: Verification Testing	76
       4.5.1   Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Quality	76
              4.5.1.1   Verification Testing Daily Laboratory Data	77
              4.5.1.2   NDMA	90
              4.5.1.3   LSI	91
              4.5.1.4   Verification Testing On-Site Laboratory Data	93
       4.5.2   Arsenic Speciation Results and Special Studies	95
       4.5.3   Online Continuous Monitoring Data during Verification Testing	101
       4.5.4   Verification Testing Operational Data	103
       4.5.5   Brine  Treatment Operation and Waste Generation	Ill
              4.5.5.1   Waste Brine Efficiency	112
              4.5.5.2   Untreated and Treated Waste Brine	113
              4.5.5.3   Solid Waste	116
4.6    Task 5: Data Management	118
4.7    Task 6: Quality Assurance Project Plan	118
       4.7.1   Precision	118
              4.7.1.1   Laboratory Duplicate Precision	119
              4.7.1.2   On-Site Analytical Precision	129
       4.7.2   Accuracy	133
       4.7.3   Spikes	134
       4.7.4   Calibrations	135
       4.7.5   Completeness	139
4.8    Operations and Maintenance	140
       4.8.1   Fluctuation in Flow Rate	140
       4.8.2   Chemical Feed Systems	140
       4.8.3   Sediment Prefilters	141
       4.8.4   Resin Depth	141
       4.8.5   Arsenic and/or Vanadium Breakthrough	141
       4.8.6   Brine  Reuse, Feed, and Treatment	141
4.9    NSF Field Inspection	142
                                            VI

-------
Chapter 5    References	143

Chapter 6    Vendor Comments	144

List of Tables                                                                        Page
Table 1-1:   Historical Water Quality Data for Corydon Street Well (2004)	5
Table 3-1:   Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria	18
Table 3-2:   Operating Range of Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange Treatment
            System	18
Table 3-3:   Key Treated Water Quality Parameters	19
Table 3-4:   Initial Plant Characterization	31
Table 3-5:   Operating and Performance Data	33
Table 3-6:   Verification Testing Analytical Methods and Sampling Frequency	34
Table 3-7:   Sampling Frequency for Characterization of Waste Brine	35
Table 3-8:   Methodology for Measurement of Precision and Accuracy	46
Table 3-9:   Methodology for Use of Method Blanks	47
Table 3-10:  Laboratory Water Quality Analyses Indicators	48
Table 3-11:  Completeness Objective Based on Sample Frequency	48
Table 3-12:  Corrective Action Plan	51
Table 4-1:   Historical Water Quality Data for Corydon Street Well (2004)	54
Table 4-2:   Initial Plant Characterization No.  1: Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Total
            Arsenic and Vanadium	58
Table 4-3:   Initial Plant Characterization No.  1 Daily Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water
            Alkalinity, Calcium, Chloride, Fluoride, Magnesium, Sulfate Nitrate, and
            Hardness	63
Table 4-4:   Initial Plant Characterization No.  1 Twice Daily Parameters for Raw, Influent and
            Effluent Water Silica, TDS, TSS, Iron, and Manganese	66
Table 4-5:   Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 pH and Conductivity	67
Table 4-6:   Initial Plant Characterization No.  1 Free and Total Chlorine	68
Table 4-7:   Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 On-Site Temperature	69
Table 4-8:   Initial Plant Characterization No.  1 Arsenic Mass Balance	70
Table 4-9:   Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Raw Water, Influent, and Effluent Water Total
            Arsenic and Vanadium	72
Table 4-10:  May 5, 2005 Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water
            Inorganic Constituents	73
Table 4-11:  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 pH and Conductivity	74
Table 4-12:  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Free and Total Chlorine	75
Table 4-13:  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Temperature	75
Table 4-14:  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Arsenic Mass Balance	76
Table 4-15:  Verification Testing 24-Hour Composite Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Total
            Arsenic and Vanadium	79
Table 4-16:  Verification Testing Daily Grab Samples for Total Arsenic and Vanadium	81
Table 4-17:  Verification Testing 24-Hour Composite Data for Raw, Influent, and Effluent
            Water Inorganic Parameters	87
Table 4-18:  Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water NDMA	91
Table 4-19:  Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water LSI	92
                                           vn

-------
Table 4-20:  Verification Testing On-Site Analytical Results of pH and Conductivity	93
Table 4-21:  Verification Testing On-Site Analytical Results of Free and Total Chlorine	94
Table 4-22:  Verification Testing On-Site Temperature	95
Table 4-23:  Total Arsenic, As (III), and As (V) from the Initial Plant Characterization and the
            Verification Testing	98
Table 4-24:  Dissolved Arsenic Results from the Initial Plant Characterization and the
            Verification Testing	99
Table 4-25:  Comparison of Edwards et al. and EDTA/Acetic Acid Preservation Methods for
            Arsenic Speciation	100
Table 4-26:  Edward etal. Method for Additional Speciation Studies	101
Table 4-27:  Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Pressure and Influent and Effluent Flow Rate 104
Table 4-28:  Brine Solution Strength	107
Table 4-29:  Exhaustion Start and Finish  Times and Dates	107
Table 4-30:  Cumulative Power Totalizer Reading During Verification Testing	109
Table 4-31:  Daily Chemical Consumption	110
Table 4-32:  Waste Brine Efficiency	112
Table 4-33:  Untreated and Treated Liquid Waste Brine	114
Table 4-34:  Combined BRA and BPU Waste Brine Analysis	116
Table 4-35:  Solids Waste Analysis	117
Table 4-36:  Total Alkalinity Precision Analysis	119
Table 4-37:  Total Arsenic Precision Analysis	120
Table 4-38:  Vanadium Precision Analysis	123
Table 4-39:  Calcium, Iron, Total Hardness, Magnesium, and Manganese Precision Analysis .125
Table 4-40:  Silica, TDS, TSS, and Fluoride Precision Analysis	126
Table 4-41:  Chloride, Sulfate, and Nitrate Precision Analysis	127
Table 4-42:  Treated and Untreated Liquid Waste Brine Precision Analysis	129
Table 4-43:  Free and Total Chlorine Precision Analysis	130
Table 4-44:  Conductivity Precision Analysis	131
Table 4-45:  Precision Analysis On-Site pH	132
Table 4-46:  Chloride Spike Results	134
Table 4-47:  Daily Calibration of pH Meter	135
Table 4-48:  Daily Calibration of Conductivity Meter	136
Table 4-49:  Flow Rate Calibration Checks	138
Table 4-50:  Completeness	140

List of Figures                                                                       Page
Figure 2-1:  Basin Water High Efficiency Ion  Exchange Treatment System detailed process
            flow	8
Figure 2-2:  Simplified Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange Treatment System process
            flow	11
Figure 3-1:  Verification testing schedule	25
Figure 4-1:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 raw, influent, and effluent
            water total arsenic	56
Figure 4-2:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 raw, influent, and effluent
            water vanadium	57
                                           Vlll

-------
Figure 4-3:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water alkalinity	59
Figure 4-4:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water calcium	59
Figure 4-5:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water chloride	60
Figure 4-6:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water fluoride	60
Figure 4-7:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water magnesium	61
Figure 4-8:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water sulfate	61
Figure 4-9:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water nitrate	62
Figure 4-10: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
            effluent water total hardness	62
Figure 4-11: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 raw, influent, and effluent
            water total arsenic	71
Figure 4-12: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 raw, influent, and effluent
            water vanadium	72
Figure 4-13: Temporal plot of verification testing 24-Hour composite  raw, influent, and effluent
            water total arsenic	78
Figure 4-14: Temporal plot of verification testing 24-Hour composite  raw, influent, and effluent
            water vanadium	78
Figure 4-15: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water grab sample
            total arsenic	80
Figure 4-16: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water grab sample
            vanadium  	80
Figure 4-17: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water alkalinity.... 83
Figure 4-18: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water chloride	83
Figure 4-19: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water fluoride	84
Figure 4-20: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water nitrate	84
Figure 4-21: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water sulfate	85
Figure 4-22: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water TDS	85
Figure 4-23: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water calcium	86
Figure 4-24: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water total
            hardness	86
Figure 4-25: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water magnesium 87
Figure 4-26: Speciated arsenic raw water results for Initial Plant Characterization through
            verification testing	96
Figure 4-27: Speciated arsenic influent water results for Initial Plant Characterization through
            verification testing	96
Figure 4-28: Speciated arsenic effluent water results for Initial Plant Characterization through
            verification testing	97
Figure 4-29: Trend screen during regeneration cycle of 4/4/05-4/10/05 of Initial Plant
            Characterization No. 1	102
                                             IX

-------
Figure 4-30: Trend screen during exhaustion cycle of 4/4/05-4/10/05 of Initial Plant
            Characterization No. 1	
                                                                    .103
Photographs
Photograph 1:
Photograph 2:
Photograph 3:
Photograph 4:
Photograph 5:
Photograph 6:
Photograph?:
                                                                     'age
Test Site at the Corydon Street Wall	4
Interior of Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange System	7
Brine Saturator	13
Data Computer and Control System	14
Inline Pressure, Flow, pH and Conductivity Meters	14
Brine Flow Control System	15
Influent Pre-filters	15
Appendices
Appendix A - Basin Water Operation and Maintenance Manual
Appendix B - Arsenic Speciation Columns and Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data
Appendix C - Field Logbook
Appendix D - MWH Laboratory Data and Proficiency Test Data
Appendix E - Programmable Logic Controller Screen Shots

-------
                             Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASTM
As (III)
As(V)
BPU
BRA
BV
°C
Cl-As (V)
°F
d
DQO
DRC
DWS
EBCT
EDTA
EPA
ETV
EVMWD
ft3
FTO
g
gpm
H
HMI
hr
ICP/MS
IX
Ib
L
LCS
LFM
1pm
LSI
M
MB
MCL
Meq
min
mL
mg
MRL
NDMA
NaCl
NaOH
American Society of Testing and Materials
arsenite
arsenate
brine processing unit
brine readsorption unit
bed volume
degree Celsius
chloride-arsenate
degree Fahrenheit
day(s)
data quality objective
dynamic reaction cell
Drinking Water Systems
empty bed contact time
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
cubic feet
field testing organization
gram
gallon per minute
hydrogen ion
human to machine interface
hour
Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
ion exchange
pound
liter
laboratory control sample
laboratory fortified matrix
liter per minute
Langelier Saturation Index
molar
method blank
maximum contaminant limit
milliequivalent
minute
milliliter
milligram
minimum reporting  limit
N-nitrosodimethylamine
sodium chloride (salt)
sodium hydroxide
                                          XI

-------
NELAC      National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
NIST        National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF         NSF International (formerly known as the National Sanitation Foundation)
NSS         nitrate over sulfate selective resin
O&M        operation and maintenance
PE          performance evaluation
PLC         Programmable Logic Controller
ppd          pounds per day
psi          pounds per square inch
psig         pound per square inch gauge
PSTP        Product Specific Test Plan
PT          proficiency testing
QAPP        Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC      quality assurance/quality control
RC1         chloride-form strong base anion resin
RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SBA         strong base anion
SCADA      Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act
SFR         service flow rate
SM          Standard Methods
STLC        soluble threshold limited concentration
T            temperature
TCLP        Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TDS         total dissolved solids
TSS         total suspended solids
TTLC        Total Threshold Limit Concentration
jig           microgram
                                          xn

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The FTO, MWH, was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of
samples,  calibration  and  verification  of  instruments,  data  collection and analysis,  data
management, data interpretation, and the preparation of this report.

       MWH
       626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
       Los Angeles, California 91017
       Contact Person: Kristie Witter

The laboratory selected for analytical work for this study was:

       MWH Laboratories
       750 Royal Oaks Lane, Suite 100
       Monrovia, California 91016
       Contact Person: Andrew Eaton, Ph.D.

The manufacturer of the equipment was:

       Basin Water
       5200 River Avenue
       Newport Beach, California 92663
       Contact Person: Larry Rowe

MWH wishes to  thank NSF International, especially Mr. Bruce Bartley,  Project Manager, and
Ms. Kristie Wilhelm and Ms. Angela Beach, Project Coordinators, for providing  guidance and
program management.  MWH also wishes to thank the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
for providing the  site for verification testing including providing assistance in connecting to the
water system and all necessary utilities (water, sewer, and electrical).

NSF wishes to thank Mr. Dale Scherger, Environmental  Consultant, Scherger Associates, for
providing technical guidance.

Finally, NSF and MWH thank Basin Water for their technical  support and for supplying the
equipment necessary for the ETV.
                                           xni

-------
                                       Chapter 1
                                      Introduction

1.1    ETV Purpose and Program Operation

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification  (ETV)   Program  to facilitate  the  deployment  of innovative  or  improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The  goal  of the ETV Program  is to  further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this
goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved
in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.

ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; with stakeholder
groups consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation
of individual technology developers.  The program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field
demonstrations,  collecting  and analyzing  data,  and preparing  peer-reviewed reports.   All
evaluations are conducted in accordance  with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that
data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.

The EPA has partnered with NSF International (NSF) under the ETV Drinking Water Systems
(DWS) Center to verify  the  performance of small  drinking water systems that serve  small
communities.  A goal of verification testing is to enhance and facilitate the acceptance of small
drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water regulatory officials and consulting
engineers,  while  reducing  the need  for  testing of  equipment at each  location where the
equipment's use is contemplated. NSF meets this goal by working with manufacturers and NSF-
qualified Field Testing Organizations (FTOs) to conduct verification testing under the approved
protocols.  It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean the equipment
is "certified" by  NSF or "accepted" by EPA.  Rather, it recognizes that the performance  of the
equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations for those conditions tested by
the FTO.

The DWS Center evaluated the performance of the Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange
Treatment System (Basin Water System), which is used in drinking  water  treatment system
applications.   The verification test evaluated the ability of the ion exchange (IX)  system to
remove arsenic from drinking water under  specific feed water quality and conditions. This
document provides the verification test results for the Basin Water System.

1.2    Testing Participants and Responsibilities

The ETV  testing of  the Basin Water  System was a cooperative effort between the  following
participants:

       NSF International
       MWH

-------
       Basin Water
       MWH Laboratories
       Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD)
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The  following  is a  brief description of each of the  ETV participants  and their  roles and
responsibilities.

1.2.1   NSF International

NSF is an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public
health  and safety and to the protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann
Arbor,  Michigan, NSF has been instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the
protection of public health and the environment.  NSF also provides testing and certification
services to ensure products bearing the NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark meet those standards. The
EPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water treatment systems through
the EPA's ETV Program.

NSF provided technical oversight of the verification testing.  An audit of the field analytical data
gathering and recording procedures was  conducted.  NSF also provided review of the Product
Specific Test Plan (PSTP) as well as this report.

Contact Information:
       NSF International
       789 N. Dixboro Road
       Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
       Phone: (734) 769-8010
       Fax:  (734)769-0109
       Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
       Email: bartley@nsf.org

1.2.2   Field Testing Organization

MWH, an environmental  engineering consulting firm, conducted the verification testing of the
Basin Water System.  MWH is an NSF-qualified FTO for the ETV DWS Center.

The FTO was responsible for conducting the verification testing for 54 calendar days.  The FTO
provided all needed logistical support, established  a communications network, and scheduled and
coordinated activities of all participants.  The FTO prepared the PSTP; oversaw the operation of
equipment;  managed,  evaluated, interpreted and  reported on  the data generated by the field
operations; and evaluated and reported on the performance of the technology.

FTO employees conducted the on-site analyses and data recording during the testing.  Oversight
of the daily tests was provided by the FTO's project engineer and project manager.

-------
Contact Information:
       MWH
       626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
       Los Angeles, California 91017
       Phone: (213)316-7013
       Fax: (213)316-7048
       Contact Person: Kristie Witter
       Email: Kristie.Witter@MWHGlobal.com

1.2.3   Manufacturer

The  treatment  system was manufactured by  Basin Water,  a water  treatment  equipment
manufacturer and supplier. The manufacturer was responsible for supplying a field-ready system
equipped with all necessary components, including treatment equipment, instrumentation  and
controls, and an operations and maintenance (O&M) manual. The manufacturer was responsible
for providing  logistical  and technical  support,  as  needed, as well  as providing technical
assistance to the FTO during operation and  monitoring of the equipment undergoing field
verification testing.

Contact Information:
       Basin Water
       8731 Prestige Court
       Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
       Phone: (909) 233-9605
       Fax: (909)631-8108
       Contact Person: Larry Rowe, Vice President for Governmental Affairs
       Email: lrowe@basinwater.com

1.2.4   A nalytical Laboratory

The specific responsibilities of the water quality analytical  staff, MWH Laboratories, were to
provide the following:  all  off-site water quality analyses prescribed in the PSTP according to the
Quality Assurance/Quality  Control (QA/QC)  and  the  protocols  contained  therein,  reports
including  analytical results to the data manager, and detailed  information on the  analytical
procedures implemented.

Contact Information:
       MWH Laboratories
       750 Royal Oaks, Suite 100
       Monrovia, California 91016
       Phone: (626)386-1100
       Fax: (626)386-1101
       Contact Person: Andrew Eaton, Ph.D.
       Email: Andrew.Eaton@MWHGlobal.com

-------
1.2.5  Elsinore Valley Water District

EVMWD supported the ETV by providing access to the Corydon Street Well, raw water, treated
water blow-off structure, and electrical source;  modification to the wellhead to connect to the
well; and support throughout the project.

1.2.6  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The  EPA,  through its Office of Research and Development,  has  financially  supported and
collaborated with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort
was  supported by the DWS Center operating under the ETV Program.  This document has been
peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and recommended for public release.

1.3    Verification Testing Site

The  test site  selected for the verification testing  of the Basin Water  System was  EVMWD's
Corydon Street Well,  located 50 feet south of Corydon and 200 feet west of Mission Trails in
Lake Elsinore, California.  Drilled in  1983, the EVMWD's well off Corydon Street is one of
many wells that supply potable water to consumers in a rural area of southern California. The
following  sections  provide additional information on  the  test site,  including source water
characteristics and discharge method.
                   Photograph 1: Test site at the Corydon Street Well.

1.3.1   Source Water

The  Corydon  Street Well  normally operates  at 1.2-1.5  mg/L  free chlorine, which  could  be
potentially  damaging  to  the IX resin.   Therefore, a raw water  line upstream of the well's
chlorinate point was selected for the verification testing.  However, As (III) is present in the
                                           4

-------
water,  and therefore, a low  level of chlorine  (0.10-0.50 mg/L of total chlorine)  was dosed
between the raw water sampling location and the prefilters to the IX vessels to convert As (III) to
As (V). This setup allowed the water entering the system (influent water) to maintain low levels
of the desired total chlorine residual.  The feed water used during the verification testing had an
average total chlorine residual of 0.30 mg/L.  The chlorine source was dosed by an LMI Milton
Roy  PX  pump.   A  summary of the historical water quality  at the Corydon Street  Well is
presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Historical Water Quality Data for Corydon Street Well (2004)
Parameters
Conductivity
pH
Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Sulfate
Calcium
Hardness
Magnesium
LSI
Total As2
As (III)
As(V)
Iron
Manganese
Silica
Vanadium
IDS
Total
Suspended
Solids (TSS)
Method
Lab Meter
SM 4500H+ B
SM 2320B
EPA 300.0
SM 4500F C
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA 200. 7
SM3120B
EPA 200. 7
SM2330B
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 8
SM 2540C
EPA 160.2


Units
^mhos/cm
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
None
^g/L
re/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L


3/25/04
506
9.1
91.0
77
0.40
6.3
38
6.1
19.0
0.10
0.36
19
16
2.5
O.2
0.015
12
93
300
<10


Collection
4/22/04 5/20/04
475
9.1
89.2
72
0.41
1.4
34
6.3
19.4
0.89
0.48
13
19
1.0
O.2
0.015
12
110
290
<10


478
9.1
86.1
75
0.41
1.4
36
6.1
18.8
0.87
0.45
20
16
3.8
O.2
0.015
12
98
300
<10


Date
6/17/04
479
9.1
84.6
72
0.42
1.4
35
6.1
18.8
0.86
0.44
16
15
2.8
O.2
0.015
12
120
280
<10


7/22/04
481
9.2
87.6
74
0.41
1.4
36
6.1
18.6
0.83
0.55
15
12.5
2.2
O.2
0.015
13
89
290
<10


Mm1
475
9.1
84.6
72
0.40
1.4
34
6.1
18.6
0.10
0.36
13
12.5
1.0
0.2
0.015
12
89
280
<10


Max1
506
9.2
91.0
77
0.42
6.3
38
6.3
19.4
0.89
0.55
20
19
3.8
0.2
0.015
13
120
300
<10


Ave1
484
9.1
87.7
74
0.41
2.4
36
6.1
18.9
0.71
0.46
17
16
2.5
0.2
0.015
12
102
292
<10


   Min = Minimum value; Max = Maximum value; Ave = Average value.

1.3.2   Raw Water Supply

The raw water was delivered to the site from the discharge manifold of the Corydon Street Well
at an available pressure of approximately 65 pounds per square  inch  (psi).  The water was
pumped from the well into Loop 1434  pressure zone.  Previous testing at the site has shown
constant pressure of approximately 65 psi.  No booster pumps were required for the verification
testing.

Due to construction in the area of the well site, EVMWD experienced power failures at the site
that caused the  well to shutdown.  When this occured, a run-signal from the well  to the Basin
Water System enabled the Basin Water  System to start-up automatically once  the well was put
back into service.

-------
1.3.3  Treated Water (Effluent) Discharge

All treated water was sent to a blow-off drain for disposal.  The treated water produced from the
system  was  not anticipated to adversely affect  the  environment.   The blow-off  drain had
sufficient capacity to accept the treated water flow rate (approximately 37.5 gallons per minute
[gpm]) for the duration of the study.  All residuals generated from the study were stored on-site
until analysis could confirm proper disposal method. Basin Water disposed of the treated waste
brine liquid waste through Remedy  Environmental Services in Anaheim,  California.  Basin
Water disposed of the solid  waste generated  during the verification  testing through Clean
Harbors, a certified solids waste disposal company.

1.3.4  Discharge Permits

No discharge permits were necessary for this verification study.

-------
                                        Chapter 2
                     Equipment Description and Operating Processes
2.1    Equipment Description

The  equipment tested in the ETV test was the Basin Water System.  The  system was a self-
contained,  multi-bed, mobile unit  that  utilized  multiple  IX vessels in a parallel  mode of
operation, as shown in Photograph 2.  The system contained two prefilters (5 micron, 30 inches
in length) in parallel and ten IX vessels.  At any given time while the IX unit was in operation,
there were four vessels  in service at different stages of exhaustion and two vessels in standby,
either  in  regeneration  or recently  regenerated  and waiting  to  go  back into service.   The
manufacturer elected not to  use four vessels during verification testing.  The resin used in the
vessels was a strong base anion (SBA) resin.  Each vessel was  16 inches in diameter and housed
5 cubic feet (ft3) of resin.
        Photograph 2: Interior of Basin Water high efficiency ion exchange system.

In the adsorption phase, the raw water entered  the  prefilters,  then the IX  beds,  and was
discharged as treated water (see Figure 2-1).  When a vessel reached the selected absorption limit
set point (the manufacturer's estimate of the point at which the bed would not longer provide
beneficial target  ion  removal), the bed was taken  out  of service for regerenation.  After a
regeneration cycle, the brine was treated in  either the brine processing unit (BPU) using ferric
chloride  precipitation or the brine readsorption unit (BRA), an iron based adsorptive media,
which is  discussed in Section 2.3.

-------
                                                      Boundary of Mobile Unit
          Feed water
                              Absorption
                                  Stage
         Regeneration
         Stage
                         Pre-Filters
                                     IX
v^y
                                     i'
                                   Treated
                                   Water
                                                         Sludge
                                                         Storage
Figure 2-1: Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange Treatment System detailed process
flow.

2.2    Engineering and Scientific Concepts

When a specific ion comes in contact with an IX resin, a simple exchange takes place between
the target ion (in this case arsenic and vanadium) and a chloride ion on the resin.  This is called
the exhaustion cycle of the IX process. In addition to being easily attracted to resin sites, arsenic
and vanadium can easily be  removed from the resin with a strong salt  solution (regeneration
cycle).

This operation (exhaustion and regeneration cycles) implies the production  of a sludge and a
waste brine stream. After the regeneration step, the waste brine stream  from the Basin Water
System flowed immediately into either the BPU or the BRA, where it was treated with either a
ferric chloride solution or an iron-based adsorptive media.   After treatment of the waste brine,
the sludge was dewatered, and the nonhazardous waste brine was stored until  hauled off site for
disposal.  The precipitation process reduced the arsenic level in the brine to a  level where it was
characterized as nonhazardous (<5 mg/L total arsenic).  This allowed the brine to be disposed of
at a standard brine-handling facility, such as Remedy Environmental Service in  Anaheim.  For
every 1,000 bed volumes (BV) of water processed, only 1.3 BV of waste brine was produced by
the Basin Water System.  It should be  noted that the volume of waste  brine  produced is
manufacturer and site specific.

With  the Basin  Water  System, the online  vessels operated  at  staggered  points  in the
exhaustion/regeneration  cycle. Thus, if four vessels were online, the first vessel  would be at 0-
10% of the exhaustion cycle, while vessels two, three, and four would be at 20-30%, 40-50% and

-------
60-70%, respectively. The dampening, or dilution, effect created by staggered operation allowed
for more consistent (or steady-state) effluent water quality.

Total chlorine may be  detrimental to the  IX resin, but low doses (0.10-0.50  mg/L  of total
chlorine) are considered safe (i.e., not believed  to cause long-term damage).   Low doses  of
chlorine were required at this site to oxidize arsenite (As  [III]) to arsenate (As [V]); otherwise the
arsenic left in the arsenic (III) state would pass through the IX resin beds to the effluent water.

Oxidized and filtered raw water was passed through a bed of chloride-form SB A resin (RC1), and
the chloride-arsenate (Cl-As [V]) IX reaction,  Eq.  (2.1),  yielded resin in  the As (V)  form
(R2HAsO4). When the column capacity for arsenic was exhausted, the arsenic "broke through"
into  the effluent water.  The reaction was  easily reversed, and regeneration, as shown in Eq.
(2.2), returned the resin to  the chloride form, ready for another exhaustion cycle:
                            2 RC1 + HAsO24- = R2HAsO4 + 2 CT                     (2.1)

                            R2HAsO4 + 2NaCl = 2 RC1 + Na2HAsO4                 (2.2)
Although the  Cl-As  (V) IX reaction  appears simple, several  issues must be addressed when
implementing the process for drinking water treatment.  Among the important factors that would
be expected to influence verification testing were:

(1) Effect of competing ions such as sulfate and bicarbonate,
(2) Multiple contaminants such as arsenic and vanadium,
(3) Low pH of the column effluent early in the run, and
(4) Waste brine reuse and treatment.

As mentioned, preoxidation to  convert As  (III) to As (V) was necessary (Frank and Clifford,
1986), but pH adjustment was not necessary because the chloride-arsenate exchange reaction
took place readily in the ambient pH range of the Cory don Street Well.

2.2.1  Effect of Sulfate on Arsenic Removal

Because arsenic  and vanadium are trace species, their concentrations do not greatly influence the
run length to arsenic breakthrough. However, because sulfate, a common ion, is preferred over
arsenic,  vanadium,  nitrate, chloride,  bicarbonate,  and  most  other  common  anions,  its
concentration largely determines the run length to arsenic breakthrough.  For example, in a low-
sulfate (5 mg/L) water  in McFarland, California, arsenic run length exceeded  3,500 BV.   In
contrast, the arsenic run length of a McFarland, California, water  spiked with 220 mg/L sulfate
was  only 250 BV.  (These data are  provided for informational  purposes  only and were not
verified.)  Thus, in testing the Basin Water System for  arsenic removal, considerable attention
was paid to the background sulfate concentration at the Corydon Street Well, which measured  on
average 41 mg/L during verification testing.

Not  only does increasing  sulfate  concentration lead to  shorter arsenic and vanadium removal
runs, it can lead to chromatographic  peaking or  "dumping" of arsenic and/or vanadium.  For
example, arsenic process effluent concentration peaks in the  range of 1.3-6 times the raw water
arsenic concentration would not be unusual following  arsenic breakthrough.  These  peaks were

-------
avoided by stopping a run at or before arsenic breakthrough for the Basin Water System. Another
way of coping with the potential peaking of arsenic or any other contaminant less preferred than
sulfate was to exhaust several columns in parallel and in different stages of exhaustion (as with
the Basin Water System).  Thus, if one column ran beyond breakthrough, its effluent peak would
be diluted by the effluents from the other columns.

There  are two types  of IX systems that exhaust multiple  columns in parallel: fixed bed and
rotating carousel.  The Basin Water  System was a fixed bed design that did not rotate.  With the
carousel design, IX beds are mounted on a slowly rotating carousel; the physical rotation of the
carousel moves the beds slowly through  the  required sequence  of operations, which include
adsorption, regeneration and displacement.

2.2.2  Effect of Multiple Contaminants

Sub-maximum contaminant limit (MCL) levels  (<10 mg nitrate as N) of nitrate  were present
along with arsenic or vanadium as a drinking  water contaminant.  For the study, the IX system
removed nitrate, arsenic, and vanadium.  However, nitrate  will generally break through before
arsenic, vanadium, and even sulfate. Additionally, a nitrate peak will appear in the effluent of
the column if it is allowed to run to  arsenic and/or vanadium breakthrough.  To avoid the nitrate
peak in the event it would  exceed the nitrate MCL, the column may be stopped at a design set
point for nitrate rather than arsenic breakthrough. This will lead to shorter run lengths, but will
avoid exceeding the nitrate MCL even for a short time.  Another approach to avoiding the nitrate
peak is to exhaust multiple (fixed or moving) beds in parallel. Even if one of the beds  is subject
to a nitrate peak, effluents  from the other beds will dilute and smooth out the peak. The Basin
Water  System did not experience nitrate peaking  during the verification testing, due to low levels
of nitrate at the verification site (between 6-16 mg/L) and the use  of multiple beds in staggered-
parallel operation.

2.2.3  Low Column Effluent pH in the Early  Stages of Exhaustion

When  an  RC1 is used to treat  natural  water,  as  in the arsenic and vanadium IX process, the
column effluent pH during the first  50-300 BV can be significantly reduced compared with the
influent pH.  For example, column effluent pH values as low as 5.0 can be observed (Clifford,
1990). The pH is reduced by the conversion of bicarbonate to carbonate within the resin (Horng
and Clifford,  1997).  This conversion occurs with the resulting expulsion  of a proton (hydrogen
ion, [H+ ion]), which increases the H+ ion concentration and lowers the pH.  The bicarbonate to
carbonate reaction occurs because all standard SBA resins prefer  divalent ions (e.g., carbonate)
to monovalent (such as  bicarbonate) at the typical total dissolved solid (TDS) levels  found in
drinking water supplies.  An exception to this preference for divalent ions  occurs with nitrate-
selective, or nitrate over sulfate  selective (NSS) resins, which  are designed to prefer monovalent
nitrate to divalent sulfate. The NSS resins do not exhibit the pH-lowering effect.

The extent of the  pH lowering depends primarily on the  characteristics of the resin and the
bicarbonate concentration in the raw water. Because seriously acidic pH values must be avoided
when  delivering treated water  into a distribution  system, the pH  of the  IX system  during
verification testing for arsenic and vanadium removal was measured and recorded.
                                            10

-------
As in the case with potential arsenic, vanadium and nitrate peaking, the low pH values observed
during the early stages of a single column anion exchanger run can be avoided by exhausting
multiple columns in parallel.  This way, the low-pH column effluent from one of the columns
was  blended with the other column effluents to produce  a neutral pH water.  This was the
configuration of the Basin Water System.

2.2.4  Spent Brine Reuse and Treatment

Spent arsenic-contaminated IX brine can be directly reused for regeneration of the spent resin
(Clifford and Ghurye, 1998).  Brine reuse can substantially cut down on the volume of brine
discharged and the salt (NaCl) consumption by the process.  The Basin Water System reduced
the volume of waste brine through a continuous regeneration process.  Brine was passed over one
exhausted IX bed at a time until the brine reached a theoretical exchange capacity.  The spent
brine was then treated prior to disposal.

2.3     Description of the Unit Processes

The  process  flow of the Basin Water System is represented  in Figure 2-2.  Raw water was
pumped into the Basin Water System utilizing the available pressure from the well pump.  The
raw water was chlorinated and filtered prior to entering the IX columns.  Chlorination was used
because As (III) was present in the raw water. Filters were recommended for this (and most) sites
to remove sand or other solids from the raw water prior to entering the IX columns.
               Well Pump
    Raw
    Ground
    Water
Ch
arinator
Basin Water Mobile Ion
 Exchange Treatment
        Unit
                                                                    Treated Water
                                                         Waste Brine
                                          Waste Brine Storage Tank
Figure  2-2:  Simplified  Basin Water  High  Efficiency  Ion Exchange  Treatment System
process flow.

The raw water was chlorinated to a level of 0.10-0.50 mg/L total chlorine using a 0.5% sodium
hypochlorite solution. The chlorine was fed through a 2 gallon per hour Milton Roy (LMI series
AA) pump with adjustable stroke and frequency to ensure the influent water was within the
desired  design criteria of 0.10-0.50 mg/L of total chlorine.  Dilution of the chlorine solution was
made on-site using distilled water. The dilution  ratios were recorded in the on-site logbook.

The Basin Water System used multiple  IX vessels  operating  in parallel to remove arsenic and
vanadium from the water.  The IX resin beds were staggered such that all beds online  were
                                            11

-------
operated at different, but evenly spaced points on their respective breakthrough curves.  When a
vessel  reached the selected absorption  limit set point, defined for this system  as  a  specific
number of bed volumes processed, the  bed was removed from service for regeneration.  The
manufacturer specified the number of bed volumes that triggered regeneration based on treated
water results from the start-up and shakedown period.  The IX resin was regenerated using a
sodium chloride solution.  Following regeneration, the resin was rinsed using effluent water from
the treatment process prior to returning the bed to service.  As part of the waste minimization
features of the Basin Water System,  cleaner portions of the rinse water were recovered to the salt
tank to reduce the volume of liquid waste generated.

The entire regeneration, rinsing, and exhaustion process was automatically performed by the
programmable logic controller (PLC).  Individual  IX vessels of the  Basin Water System  were
regenerated and rinsed while the remaining vessels were online producing treated water.  Four
vessels were always online, while the other two were on standby following regeneration.

The waste brine produced by the regeneration and rinse cycles was  sent to the brine treatment
unit, which had two methods for treating the waste brine: the BRA, which used adsorption onto
iron based media, or the BPU, which used ferric chloride precipitation.  Both the  adsorptive
media method and the ferric chloride precipitation  method of brine treatment were evaluated for
removal efficiency of metals  from the  waste brine.  The two brine treatment processes were
evaluated independently (i.e., not a comparison evaluation) for effectiveness at reducing arsenic
levels to below hazardous levels (i.e., less than 5.0 mg/L) in the liquid waste.  Both the liquid
and  solid waste generated were analyzed upon completion of the verification testing for those
parameters found in Table 3-7 (discussed in further  detail in Chapter 3).   The brine treatment
method was deemed effective if successful in reducing the liquid waste to below  hazardous
levels for those parameters listed in Table 3-7.  The  on-site field engineer selected which brine
treatment unit was in operation at any specific time.

The BRA used BW-33-60, an iron  oxide absorptive media.   This  system utilized a  120-gallon
batch treatment system  with timed mixing of the iron oxide media with the waste liquid brine.
Upon completion of the timed mixing set,  the BRA  system allowed the iron oxide  adsorptive
media to settle, and the treated waste liquid brine was decanted off and sent to a liquid waste
storage tank. The media was characterized upon completion of the ETV.

The BPU system was an iron co-precipitation process.  This process treated 240 gallons per
batch using sulfuric acid (93% solution), caustic soda (50% solution), and ferric chloride (39.4%
solution).


The raw water (pre-chlorinated water) was  sampled outside of the testing unit by the raw water
intake.  The influent (chlorinated raw water) sample line was located inside the Basin Water
trailer.   There were  two effluent sample lines.   The effluent sample line  inside the trailer was
used for the 24-hour composite samples.   The  effluent sample line outside the  trailer by the
effluent blow  off  drain was used for grab  samples.  All sample lines were  1/8-inch flexible
plastic.  These lines were not standard for the Basin Water System, but were installed as part of
the verification testing.   The  sample lines were allowed to purge (run) for one minute prior to
collecting each sample.
                                            12

-------
The brine was sampled from the salt saturator,  shown with the top removed in Photograph 3.
Samples were collected once per week (two samples total) during the verification testing for
IDS, chloride, sodium, and conductivity to calculate the brine concentration.
                            Photograph 3: Brine saturator.

The Basin Water System had a computerized data management system, as shown in Photograph
4.  The following items are logged through the data management system: pressure (influent and
effluent water, and  regeneration  cycle),  pH (influent and effluent water), process flow,  and
conductivity (influent and effluent water).
                                           13

-------
                   Photograph 4: Data computer and control system.

The influent flow meter and the influent and effluent inline pressure, pH,  and conductivity
meters are shown in Photograph 5.
            Photograph 5: Inline pressure, flow, pH and conductivity meters.
                                          14

-------
The brine flow control system is shown in Photograph 6.
                        Photograph 6: Brine flow control system.

The influent prefilters located in the rear of the Basin Water System are shown in Photograph 7.
                           Photograph 7: Influent pre-filters.

The untreated brine flowed directly into one of two waste brine treatment processes: the 240-
gallon BPU tank or the 120-gallon BRA tank.  Basin Water added a 1/8-inch ball valve on the
untreated waste brine line to allow the brine to be sampled prior to treatment.  A continuous
sample of untreated brine was collected during the regeneration cycle to make a composite for
each batch of untreated brine. Samples of the brine were collected before and after treatment for
six brine treatment batches.  Treated waste brine was sampled three times from each treatment
process.  BPU-treated brine was sampled from a sample tap on the treated  brine line to the
treated brine storage tank.  BRA-treated brine was sampled from the top of each treatment tank.
The iron oxide absorptive media treatment  tank was accessible  through  an opening. Samples
were collected from the top of each tank once the system indicated through the human machine
interface (HMI) that the batch treatment process was completed.
                                           15

-------
2.4    Description of Physical Construction/Components

This section summarizes the devices in the Basin Water System:

•  Footprint: The footprint of the Basin Water System was eight feet wide by 27 feet long, not
   including storage of treated waste brine or waste solids.
•  Treated brine waste tank:  The treated brine waste tank was located next to the Basin Water
   System.  This 6,500-gallon,  eight foot-diameter polypropylene tank was  used to  store the
   treated waste brine from both the precipitation and adsorption waste brine treatment methods.
•  Solid waste tank: The solid waste was stored on-site in a 55-gallon drum with a sealing top.
•  Brine treatment  units: Two brine treatment units were tested. The BPU, using precipitation
   with ferric chloride, was located within  the treatment unit.  The BRA, using absorptive media,
   was located adjacent to the IX system.
•  Salt tank: This tank was located within the Basin Water  System. It was manually filled daily.
•  Bag filters: There were two bag filters with a capacity of  100 gpm each (see Photograph 6).
   They were in parallel flow configuration, with one in operation at a time.  These  filters were
   30 inches long and designed to remove particles down to 5 micron.

2.5    Chemical Consumption and Production of Waste Material

2.5.1   Chemical Consumption
NaCl, ferric chloride, acid, and  caustic were consumed during the ETV for the Basin Water
System.

•  NaCl was required for regeneration of the IX resin once the exhaustion cycle was completed.

•  Ferric chloride was used for the precipitation of arsenic.

•  Acid was used to drop the  pH of the waste brine.

•  Caustic was required after precipitation  to increase brine effluent pH to noncorrosive levels.

A 0.5% sodium  hypochlorite solution was fed between the raw water sampling  point and the
influent sampling point (prior to the prefilters) and was monitored at the influent sampling point.
The sodium hypochlorite was fed at a range of 0.10-0.50 mg/L (total chlorine) through a 2-gallon
per hour Milton Roy (LMI series AA) pump.  The  sodium  hypochlorite level was monitored
daily through free and total chlorine analyses.  Levels of sodium hypochlorite in the feed tank
and any adjustments necessary to the Milton Roy pump were recorded in the on-site logbook.

2.5.2   Waste Production and Physical and Chemical Nature of Wastes

The precipitation process enabled the separation of the waste effluent into two  categories of
waste: solids (sludge) and  liquid. The sludge and  liquid were separated through decanting,
which left nonhazardous  levels of arsenic (<5 mg/L)  in the liquid waste  brine. The brine was
then disposed of at a standard brine  handling facility, such as the Remedy Environmental
Services  in Anaheim, California.  The brine waste represented less than 0.1% of the amount of
water treated.  It was stored in a 6,500-gallon tank (with containment) on-site until  analysis could
confirm proper disposal method.
                                           16

-------
The solid waste  volume was minimal.  Disposal was arranged through an experienced waste
management company, Clean Harbors in California. The solid waste was classified as hazardous.
This waste was stored and disposed of appropriately.

2.6    Licensing Requirements

There were no special licensing requirements to operate the Basin Water System
                                           17

-------
                                         Chapter 3
                                 Methods and Procedures

3.1    Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria

The objectives of the ETV were to evaluate the equipment in the following areas:

1 .   Performance relative to Basin Water' s stated range of equipment capabilities;
2.   The impact on  performance of variations in feed  water quality (such as  TDS,  sulfate,
    hardness, temperature,  pH, alkalinity and iron);
3.   The logistical, human,  and economic resources necessary to operate the equipment; and
4.   The reliability, ruggedness, range of usefulness, and ease of operation of the equipment.

To address these objectives, the ETV employed the quantitative and qualitative factors listed in
Table  3-1  in evaluating  the  IX equipment  performance.   In  this  ETV  study, the  primary
application of the IX system was arsenic and vanadium removal.

  Table 3-1. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria

 _ Quantitative Factors _ Qualitative Factors _
  •  Finished water quality                     •  Ease of operation
  •  Maintenance requirements                  •  Safety
  •  Required level of operator attention           •  Susceptibility to environmental conditions
  •  Spatial requirements                       •  Ruggedness
  •  Waste disposal                          •  Impact of operator experience on successful operation
  •  Power consumption                       •  Portability of equipment
  •  Influent flow requirement                  •  Modular nature of equipment
  •  Discharge requirement                        (ease of capacity expansion)
  •  Chemical composition and disposal of waste
  •  Chemical consumption
  •  Length of operating cycle _

3.2    Key Treated Water Quality Parameters

3. 2. 1   Key Groundwater Quality Parameters the Equipment is Designed to Address

The operating range of the Basin Water System is summarized in Table 3-2.

  Table 3-2. Operating Range of Basin Water High Efficiency Ion Exchange Treatment
  System
 _ Parameter _ Range _ _
                   Arsenic                                  Less than 100
                  Vanadium                                 Less than 150 ng/L
             Total Dissolved Solids                            Less than 650 mg/L
                   Sulfate                                  Less than 250 mg/L
                   Nitrate                                  Less than 25 mg/L
                   Chloride                                  Less than 250 mg/L
             Bicarbonate Alkalinity                            Less than 250 mg/L
                     p_H _ 6.0- 11.0
    For verification testing, the range of arsenic was anticipated to be <50 (ig/L.
                                              18

-------
3.2.2  Key Treated Water Quality Parameters for Evaluating Equipment Performance

Key treated water quality parameters  that were  employed for evaluation of the Basin Water
System equipment  are  listed  in  Table  3-3.    In addition to  these  key  parameters,  N-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was sampled from the raw water and the treated water effluent
during the Initial Plant Characterization testing.   Researchers  suspect that NDMA is a possible
human carcinogen and may be formed during the drinking water treatment chlorination process,
especially if chloramines are used.   Suspects  for precursors  to NDMA are  coagulant aid
polymers and SBA exchange resins containing quaternary amines.

 Table 3-3. Key Treated Water Quality Parameters

 •   pH                         •  Arsenic (total)           •   Manganese
 •   Hardness                    •  As (III)                •   Sulfate
 •   Alkalinity                    •  As (V) (calculated)       •   IDS
 •   Chlorine (free and total)         •  Arsenic -dissolved        •   TSS
 •   Chloride                     •  Iron                   •   Vanadium
 •   Dissolved Silica               •  Conductivity            •   Temperature
 •   Fluoride _ •  Nitrate _ •   Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) _

3.3   Equations and Definitions of Operational Parameters

3.3.1  Equations

Mass Balance:  Calculation of  the  mass  balance was performed  during  the Initial Plant
Characterization in order to verify the steady state of the system and arsenic removal through the
IX columns, using Equation 3-1.

                                                                           (3-1)
where:   V;   = influent water volume to the IX columns (gallons)
         Ve   = effluent water volume (gallons)
         Vb   = brine and washwater volume (gallons)
         C;   = influent water concentration of arsenic (|ig/L)
         Ce   = effluent concentration of arsenic (|ig/L)
         Cb   = brine concentration of arsenic (|ig/L)

It should be noted that the mass balance of arsenic for the Basin Water System might have been
influenced by the following factors:

•  Brine (wastewater) flow and concentration may have been affected by washwater/rinse water
   during the regeneration cycle that was collected with the waste brine;
•  Electrical outages on-site that lead to plant shutdowns and intermittent flows; and
•  Effluent concentrations (Ce) were consistently  non-detect (<1.0 |ig/L), but for calculation of
   the mass balance a value of  1 |ig/L was used.
                                            19

-------
3.3.2   Definitions

The following are definitions of terms used in the evaluation:

Adsorption:   The step in the IX process that removes arsenate from water by chemical or
physical attraction to a medium such as an IX resin.  It is also referred to as the service step or
the exhaustion step. Note: In this document, the term adsorption is used in its general sense as a
process for removing contaminants from a liquid by adsorbing them on  a solid adsorbent by
processes including IX, adsorption, and ligand exchange.

Anion: A negatively charged ion. The major anions of concern  are divalent arsenate (HAsO42),
monovalent  arsenate (ItAsO/r),  nitrate  (NCb), sulfate (SO42),  chloride  (Cl),  and bicarbonate
(HCOs-).

Anion  Exchange  Resin:   A  polymeric matrix,  usually  polystyrene cross-linked  with
divinylbenzene, containing fixed  positively charged functional  groups that hold exchangeable
anions by electrostatic attraction.  During an anion-exchange reaction,  a  harmless ion such as
chloride is exchanged for a target contaminant ion such as arsenate (HAsO42).

Attrition: Breakage and wear of IX resin beads.

Backwashing:  The upward flow of water through an IX bed to clean it of foreign material and
reduce the compaction of the resin bed.   Usually the bed is  fluidized  by the upward flow of
water.

Bed:  The IX material contained in a column or vessel of an operating unit.

Bed Depth: The height of the resin material in the column after the exchanger has settled into a
packed-bed condition.

Bed Expansion:  The effect produced during backwashing. When the bed is fluidized, the resin
particles become separated and rise in the column.

Bed Volumes (BV) or Bed Volumes Treated:  A dimensionless ratio that refers to the volume
of water that can be treated by a bed of resin. B V = volume of water  treated/volume of resin
including voids.

Breakthrough:   The portion  of the effluent  history curve that exhibits a  rapid  increase in
effluent concentration of a substance, which signals that adsorption of the substance is near
completion, and further operation of the column will not be productive.  During plant operation,
the adsorption cycle is terminated prior to breakthrough of the  ion of interest.  The breakthrough
point  can be defined in several ways, such as the point on the breakthrough curve where the
concentration of the target contaminant reaches the  MCL or a predetermined fraction of the
MCL,  or where  the inflection point in the breakthrough curve occurs.   Breakthrough can be
gradual or sharp depending on several factors, including the isotherm shape,  the resin particle
size, mass transfer considerations, channeling in the bed, and so forth.
                                           20

-------
Brine Recycle:   The  reuse of  spent brine with or without treatment to remove the target
contaminant, arsenic. Direct brine reuse, or brine recycling without treatment to remove arsenic,
is possible during arsenic IX because arsenate is removed as a divalent ion (HAsO42) undergoes
electroselectivity reversal and  is not attracted to the resin when it is in contact with high-
concentration brine.

Capacity:  Generally, the advertised IX capacity expressed in milliequivalents per milliliter or
equivalents per liter; the number  of equivalents of exchangeable ions from the water that would
be contained in one liter of an IX material.   The volume is measured when the material is wet
and fully saturated with adsorbed  water.

Channeling:  Random paths of relatively lower flow resistance in the resin bed resulting from
improper  operating  procedures,  including  failure  to remove  particulate matter, improper
backwashing, insufficient flow velocity,  and so forth.  Channeling, which can occur during
exhaustion or regeneration, results in diminished mass transfer between the water and the resin.

Chromatography:  The separation of ions, molecular species, or complexes into highly purified
fractions by means of IX materials or adsorbents.

Chromatographic Peaking:  The phenomenon that  causes the effluent concentration of an ion
to  be higher than the  influent  concentration for  a  short time during  the  effluent  history.
Chromatographic peaking is also  referred to as  "dumping," and it occurs immediately following
the breakthrough of each ion.   All ions in the column influent are subject to peaking except the
most preferred ion, which is  usually sulfate.  During Chromatographic peaking, significant
amounts of the adsorbed ion are "dumped" from the resin bed into the process effluent water.

Column Operation:  The most common method of employing IX materials, in which the liquid
to be treated passes through a fixed bed of IX resin held within a cylindrical vessel or column.

Composite Sample:  A sample that  has been collected from a continuous flow  sample port over
a predetermined period.  For example, a one-gallon sample taken for a 24-hour composite period
would be collected in the appropriate sample container and preservative (if required) at a flow
rate of 2.6 ml per minute.

Cycle:  A complete series of operational steps. For instance, a  complete  cycle of arsenate IX
would involve the complete adsorption step,  followed by backwash, regeneration, slow rinse, fast
rinse, and return  to adsorption service.

Dumping:  The  phenomenon that causes the effluent concentration of an ion to be higher than
the influent concentration for a short time during the effluent history.  Dumping is also referred
to  as "Chromatographic  peaking," and it occurs immediately following the breakthrough of an
ion.  All ions in  the column influent  are subject to peaking except the most-preferred ion, which
is usually sulfate. During Chromatographic peaking, significant amounts of the  adsorbed ion are
"dumped" from the resin bed into the effluent water.
                                           21

-------
Effluent:   Column effluent is the treated water leaving an IX column.  Process effluent is
synonymous with treated water, which can be the result of blending several column effluents
together to smooth out water quality variations resulting from a single column. Process effluent
can also contain bypass water that has not been treated by IX.  The regenerant emerging from the
column after regeneration is referred to as the eluent, eluate or spent regenerant.

Effluent History Curve: An x-y plot showing the relationship between time or BV of water
passed through a bed of IX resin (on the x-axis) and the effluent concentration (on the y-axis).
Effluent concentration may be expressed as milliequivalents/L,  mg/L, or the ratio Gmuent/CMuem.
Contaminant breakthrough occurs when the effluent history curve  begins to rise sharply.  The
run is terminated at the breakthrough point when the effluent  concentration reaches the MCL or
some predetermined fraction of the MCL.  Prior to contaminant breakthrough, the measurable
amount of contaminant in the effluent  history curve is referred to  as leakage.  As long as the
leakage is below the predetermined MCL, it is tolerable.

Elution:   The stripping of adsorbed ions from the IX resin by the regenerant  solution, which is
usually highly concentrated (e.g., 1-2 molar NaCl [6-12%NaCl]).

Electroselectivity Reversal:   The  reversal of selectivity, which occurs when  the ionic strength
of the aqueous solution is changed between natural water (low ionic strength [e.g., 0.005 M]) and
brine solution (high ionic strength  [e.g., 1.0 M]).  Divalent  ions such as sulfate and arsenate
undergo selectivity  reversal during regeneration. These are easily stripped from the resin during
regeneration, even  though they  are strongly  attracted to the resin during exhaustion, which
occurs in low ionic strength water.

Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT):   The time it would take  for water to pass through the
volume of the column occupied by the resin bed if the resin were not present, hence "Empty
Bed" Contact Time. It is calculated as the volumetric flow rate  divided by the resin BV. For
example, if the flow rate is 350 gpm and one BV  is 700 gallons, the EBCT is 2 minutes (i.e., 2
min per BV or 0.5 BV per min, or 30 BV per hr).

Equivalent:  Short for gram  equivalent weight, the molecular weight of an ion divided by its
ionic charge.   One equivalent of ions contains  Avogadro's  number (6.023 x  1023) of ionic
charges.  For example one equivalent (i.e., one gram equivalent weight = 139.9/2 = 69.95 grams)
of divalent arsenate (HAsO42~) anions contains  6.023 x 1023 negative charges.  Equivalents rather
than grams of ions are used in IX calculations because one equivalent of chloride (35.5/2 = 17.75
grams) is replaced by exactly one equivalent of arsenate (69.95 grams).

Exhaustion:  That portion of the operating  cycle during which  the resin adsorbs (actually,
removes by IX) the contaminant from the raw  water.  The resin is spent or exhausted at the end
of the exhaustion step.

Fouling:  Any deposit or concentration of foreign material on or in  an IX material that interferes
with the chemical and physical processes.  Typical  foulants are  lubricating oil  from pumps,
clays, silts, bacteria, algae, and so forth.  Fouling  can  cause reduced efficiency, channeling, loss
of resin during backwashing, and many  other plant malfunctions.
                                            22

-------
Freeboard: The space provided above the resin bed in a vessel or column to accommodate the
expansion of the resin bed during the backwash cycle.

Gauge Pressure (psig):  The pressure read from a gauge that measures the difference between
the pressure of the fluid and the pressure of the atmosphere.

Headless:  The loss of liquid pressure head resulting from the passage of water through a bed of
IX material.

Hydraulic Loading Rate:  Also referred to as the approach velocity (v0) or the volume of water
passing through a given  area of resin within a given time.   Hydraulic loading rate is usually
expressed in terms of gallons per minute per square foot of bed cross sectional area.  Hydraulic
loading rate is not the same as the service flow rate (SFR), which is expressed as volumetric flow
rate divided by resin BV  (e.g., gal/min-ft3). For arsenic IX processes, these values are typically
as follows: v0= 10-15 gal/min-ft2; SFR = 3-5 gal/min-ft3.

Influent Water:  The influent water is the arsenic-contaminated water entering an  IX column
after pretreatment (chlorination and prefiltration).

Interstitial Volume:  The space between the  particles of an IX material  in a column or an
operating unit  (see Void Volume).

Leakage:  The presence of the target contaminant  (in this case, arsenate) in the treated water
exiting from an IX column before its breakthrough has occurred, giving the impression that the
contaminant has "leaked"  through the resin bed.  Leakage is different from breakthrough.

Milliequivalent (meq):   Short  for one milligram equivalent  weight; one  thousandth of an
equivalent (i.e., 6.023 x 1020 ionic charges).

Operating Cycle:   A single  completion  of all steps in the exhaustion-regeneration process
consisting of adsorption, backwash, regeneration, fast rinse, slow rinse, and standby.

Preferred Ion:  The one of at least two different ions having equal concentrations that will be
adsorbed on the resin to the greatest extent.

Raw Water:  Water from the well that has  not been treated, either through the pretreatment
process or the  IX treatment process.

Recontamination:  A potential problem in IX systems consisting of removing a contaminant
from one point in a water supply and then adding the same  and/or other contaminant into the
supply at a different point.  For example, by incomplete rinsing of resin beds, arsenate, nitrate,
chloride, bicarbonate, sulfate, and sodium can be added to the supply.  Also, by running  beds
beyond their bed life, arsenate ion can be "dumped" from the bed into the treated water.

Regenerant:  The solution (6-12% NaCl  for arsenate removal) used to convert an IX material
from its exhausted state to the desired regenerated form for reuse.
                                            23

-------
Regeneration:  Conversion of the spent resin back to the presaturant condition by elution of the
contaminants after completion of the exhaustion and backwashing steps.  In arsenate treatment,
the regeneration is performed by passing a sodium chloride brine slowly through the  bed in
either a co- or countercurrent direction.

Regeneration Level: The amount of regenerant chemical used per unit volume of IX resin bed,
commonly expressed as lb/ft3 or equivalents  Cl/equivalent resin.  Also  see Salt Loading. The
lower the regeneration level, the more efficient the process.

Resin:  Synthetic organic IX materials, usually in bead form, with a  large number (= 6xl023
sites/L lesin) of charged IX sites within the  hydrated  solid.   The typical SBA resins used in
arsenate anion removal from water are divinylbenzene cross-linked polystyrene polymers with
positively charged quaternary amine functional groups.

Resin BV:  The volume of IX resin material in a bed including voids between particles. The
volume of the resin in the bed, referred to as one BV, is expressed in cubic feet, gallons, or liters.

Rinse:  The passage of water through an IX bed to wash out excess regenerant and residual
contaminants. The slow rinse or displacement rinse is generally less than 3 BV and is performed
at the same rate as the regenerant flow rate (0.5-1 gal/min-ft3). The fast rinse is generally less
than 20 BV and is performed at the service (exhaustion) flow rate (3-5 gal/min-ft3).

Run:  A run is defined as one complete cycle: exhaustion,  regeneration, and rinse.  It will take
approximately 17  hours.

Run Length: The number of BV or the exhaustion time (hrs) until the breakthrough point of the
contaminant  ion of  interest (in  this case, arsenic).  For arsenic removal, the Run Length to
Arsenic Breakthrough will be evaluated.

Salt Loading: Salt loading is the amount of regenerant applied to a resin during the regeneration
step.  It can be expressed in terms of pounds  of NaCl per cubic foot of resin, grams of salt/L of
resin, equivalents of salt/L of resin or, more conveniently, in terms of BV of brine (volumes
brine/volumes resin) having a specified concentration of NaCl.  Salt loading  and regeneration
level are equivalent terms.

3.4    Testing Schedule

The ETV testing  schedule is presented in Figure 3-1.  Verification testing activities took place
over a total period of approximately 25 weeks  beginning December 2004, and ending in May
2005.  Initial Plant Characterization activities  occurred in April and early May 2005.  The
Verification Test  occurred from May  12 to May 28, 2005.  The six tasks of the  verification
testing are described in further detail in  Section 3.7.
                                            24

-------
Task
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
Description
Selection and Characterization of Raw and Influent Water
Reparation, Coordination, and Startup
Initial Plant Characterization
Second Initial Plant Characterization
Verification Testing
Data Management
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Duration 12/6 12/13 12/20 12/27 Irt - 3/28 4/4 4/11 4/18 4/25 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23
4 weeks
17 weeks
3 weeks
2.5 weeks
2 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
1








*Dates denote beginning of each full week

Figure 3-1: Verification testing schedule.

Verification testing activities included equipment setup, initial operation, verification operation,
sampling, and analysis.  A setup period was conducted to test equipment for proper function and
to reach a  steady  state  of operation.   Setup served as the shakedown period  to  determine
appropriate operating parameters.

3.5    Field Operations Procedures

Testing of the  Basin Water System was conducted by MWH, an NSF-qualified FTO.  Water
quality analytical work carried out as part of the verification testing, was conducted by MWH
Laboratories.   Field  analytical work was performed by MWH  field personnel using  field
laboratory  equipment and procedures for  pH, temperature, conductivity, chlorine, and on-site
speciation of arsenic.

The verification unit was operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week with staff on-site each day
to operate the verification unit and collect water quality data during one 8-hour shift.  Tasks
performed by the operations staff are described in detail below.

3.6    Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan

The following section provides a brief overview of the tasks included in the Basin Water System
verification testing  at the Corydon Street Well in Lake Elsinore, California. The verification
tasks included:

Task 1:  Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water
Task 2:  Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up
Task 3:  Initial Plant Characterization
Task 4:  Verification Testing
Task 5: Data Management
Task 6:  Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Verification testing activities included equipment setup, initial operation, verification operation,
and sampling and analysis.  Initial operations were conducted so that equipment could be tested
to be sure  it was functioning as intended.  An overview of each task  is provided below  with
detailed information following this section of the report.
                                            25

-------
3.6.1   Task 1: Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water

The objective of Task 1 was to obtain a chemical and physical characterization of the raw water.
The EVMWD's Cory don Street Ground Water Well was selected for verification testing because
of its representative arsenic, vanadium, sulfate, nitrate, and TDS concentrations.

3.6.2   Task 2: Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up

Task 2 activities were conducted to test that equipment  was functioning as intended and to bring
the system into a steady state of operation.  Initial operations allowed the manufacturer to refine
the operating procedures and to make operation adjustments, as needed, to successfully treat the
influent water.

Upon completion of start-up (i.e., the system had reached steady state operations), an orientation
meeting was held at the verification test site.   The manufacturer met with the FTO personnel to
explain the process and the detailed plant design and provide training to the FTO staff.

3.6.3   Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization

The objective of this  task was to provide a preliminary evaluation  of the  quality of water
produced  by  the IX  system  at the  specified operational  conditions.    The  Initial Plant
Characterization was conducted for three complete exhaustion and regeneration cycles  over a
period of 18 days.   Mass balance for arsenic was conducted  on the  IX system to verify the
removal of arsenic.

3.6.4   Task 4: Verification Testing

The objective of this task was to evaluate the performance  of the Basin Water System at the
specified  operational conditions  set once  the  Initial Plant Characterization was  found to  be
satisfactory to the manufacturer, Basin Water.  System performance was evaluated relative to the
removal of arsenic and vanadium. For verification testing purposes, the equipment was operated
24 hours per day, seven days per week, for 313.35 hours total over a period of 17 days.  The IX
system performance was evaluated at one set of operating conditions for the evaluation period.
The effluent water quality was monitored and evaluated in relation to the raw and influent water
quality and operational conditions.

The following  is  an overview  of the equipment  operational and production characteristics
evaluated for each task of the verification testing:

     • Influent water pressure and flow rate,
     • Effluent water pressure and flow rate,
     • Brine consumption,
     • Power consumption, and
     • Chemical  consumption  (acid,  caustic,  ferric  chloride,  sodium  hypochlorite,  and
       adsorptive media).
                                            26

-------
3.6.5   Task 5: Data Management

The objective of this task was to establish effective field protocols for data management at the
field operations site and data transmission between the FTO and NSF during verification testing.
Prior to the beginning of field testing, the spreadsheet design was developed by the FTO, and
reviewed and approved by NSF. This ensured that the required data were collected during the
testing and that results could be effectively transmitted to NSF for review.

3.6.6   Task 6:  Quality Assurance Project Plan

The objective of this task was to assure accurate measurement of operational  and water quality
parameters during IX equipment verification testing.  An important aspect of verification testing
was the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

3.7    Task 1:  Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water

The manufacturer  chose a  groundwater location to  test the IX system.   The water from the
Cory don Street Well at Lake Elsinore met the requirements of the ETV protocol.

3.7.1   Experimental Objective

The objective of Task 1 was to demonstrate the appropriate water conditions for the IX system at
the test site.  Complete chemical and physical characterization of the raw water was obtained
during this task.

3.7.2   Work Plan

All water quality parameters corresponded to the expectations listed in the ETV protocol.

3.7.3   Schedule

The water characterization was performed prior to the start of the project.

3.7.4     Evaluation Criteria

The  raw  water  was  evaluated to  verify that the  capabilities  of  the  equipment  would be
challenged, but not beyond the range of water quality  suitable for the IX system.

3.8    Task 2: Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up

Meetings of the manufacturer and the FTO were held regarding the tasks and scheduling of tasks.
The manufacturer and the FTO were both present during  the plant start-up to train the testing
personnel in plant operation and maintenance.
                                           27

-------
3.8.1   Experimental Objectives

The objectives of the preparation, coordination, and start-up activities were to train the FTO to
operate the plant, provide an opportunity for the manufacturer and the FTO personnel to reach a
common understanding of the objectives  and execution of the testing plan,  and allow the
manufacturer to bring the IX system into a steady state of operation.  The meetings provided  an
opportunity to clarify any areas of concern by either party. Special attention was given to critical
equipment such as alarms, controls, and  safety devices.  Additionally,  emergency shutdown
procedures were carefully reviewed.

3.8.2   Work Plan

The treatment objectives included the following:

   •   The effluent  water arsenic and vanadium concentrations would always  be less than 4
       jig/Land 15 |ig/L, respectively.
   •   The effluent water pH would be within the specified design range (6.0-11.0).
   •   The volume of wastewater, including brine and rinses, discharged from the process would
       be equal to or less than the manufacturer's objectives (0.1% of processed water).
   •   The regenerant  salt consumption  would meet  the manufacturer's objectives  [2.145
       pounds per 1,000 gallons (lbs/1000 gal)].

3.8.3   Steady State Operation

Prior to the Initial Plant Characterization (Task 3), the IX system was brought into steady state
operation  by the manufacturer.  For the Basin Water System  with  multiple parallel  columns
operating  simultaneously, this applied to each operating column in the system. With a flow of
approximately 37.5 gpm and  four beds in operation at any time, the flow through one bed was
9.38 gpm.  Each bed has a volume of 40.74 gallons and an absorption capacity set point of 1,050
BVs.  Thus, the time for one bed to reach its capacity set point was:

•  1,050 BV x 40.74 gal/BV / 9.38 gpm = 4560.4 min/absorption cycle or 76.01 hours (hrs) per
   cycle.

•  Since four beds were in service and the time between regeneration cycles was evenly divided
   among the in-service beds, the time between beds being removed  and brined and new beds
   added  was 1,140.1 min, or  19.00 hrs.

•  Since there were two additional beds that were not active at any time, but all the beds had to
   be  equalized, the total time for steady state was:  6 beds x 19.00 hrs x 3 cycles = 342 hrs or
   14.25 days.

The regeneration time was relatively  short and did not contribute to the equalization time.  The
14.25 days required to reach equalization was conducted by Basin Water during  Task 2 prior to
the Initial  Plant Characterization (Task 3).
                                            28

-------
3.9    Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization

Upon completion of Task 2, the Initial Plant Characterization was conducted by the FTO, and the
base line performance data were recorded.  During this task, a preliminary assessment of plant
performance was made.  Initially the plant did not meet the performance objects as set by the
manufacturer specification.  Performance of the IX system deteriorated over the  span of the
Initial  Plant Characterization, and  arsenic breakthrough was observed in the effluent at an
increasing rate (i.e., arsenic in the effluent increased over time).  Additionally, a mass balance of
the raw water  and waste  brine indicated  that initially  the system  was  not  regenerating
completely.

These  preliminary test results were reported to the manufacturer,  who chose to  make NSF-
approved changes  in  operating procedures prior to the Verification Test.  Adjustments were
made to the absorption capacity set point (reduced to 850 BV), salt addition during regeneration
(increased to 0.7 BV), and salt contact time during regeneration (increased to 5 minutes) prior to
the actual Verification Test.  Due to the initial performance and adjustments to the IX systems
set points,  the  Initial Plant  Characterization  period  was  repeated  until each  column  had
undergone two complete exhaustion cycles.  The second Initial Plant Characterization took  7.69
days to perform two complete exhaustion cycles.  The second Initial  Plant Characterization  with
the new plant settings was able to meet the manufacture's  claim  on arsenic  removal.   The
performance data obtained during these preliminary tests provided baseline data for comparison
with the Verification Test performance.

3.9.1   Experimental Objectives

The objectives of this task were  to establish the initial plant performance characteristics and to
permit  NSF  and  the  manufacturer to   make approved  changes  in  the PSTP prior to  the
Verification Test.  Mass balances were  performed as part of this task in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the regeneration of the IX columns. The approved preliminary  data were used as
baseline data for comparison with future plant performance.

3.9.2   Work Plan

Some of the water quality parameters described in this task were measured on-site by the FTO.
These  analyses  included  pH,  conductivity,  chlorine,  temperature,  and  arsenic  speciation.
Analyses of the  remaining  water quality parameters were performed by MWH Laboratories, a
state-certified laboratory.   The methods  used for measurement of water quality parameters are
identified in Table 3-4.  A number of the  analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site
monitoring of raw, influent, and  effluent water qualities are further described in Task 6, Quality
Assurance Project Plan.

For the water quality parameters  submitted to MWH Laboratories, water samples were collected
in appropriate containers (containing necessary preservatives as applicable) prepared  by MWH
Laboratories.  These samples were then  preserved, stored, shipped, and analyzed in accordance
with appropriate procedures and holding times.
                                            29

-------
3.9.3   A nalytical Schedu le

The Initial Plant Characterization test was  performed after tie preparation, coordination, and
start-up step (see Task 2), which included the manufacturer's time to reach a steady state
operation.   Table 3-4  presents the water quality parameters,  frequency, and  total  number  of
samples that were collected during the first Initial Plant Characterization.  Each parameter was
analyzed per the methods  listed  in Table 3-4.   To the extent possible, analyses for inorganic
water quality parameters were performed on water sample aliquots obtained simultaneously from
the same sampling location, in order to ensure the maximum degree of comparability between
water quality analytes.

The collection  of Initial Plant Characterization data was  completed over the course of two
sessions. The first Initial Plant Characterization was completed over three complete exhaustion
and regeneration cycles (April 4-23, 2005), which was approximately 15 days.   The second
Initial  Plant Characterization was completed over two complete exhaustion and regeneration
cycles (April 29 - May 9,  2005), which was  approximately  eight days.  The second Initial Plant
Characterization's analytical sampling schedule was less rigorous than the first.  During the
second Initial Plant Characterization,  sulfate, nitrate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, alkalinity,
fluoride, TDS, TSS, iron, manganese, hardness, and dissolved silica, were sampled only once.

In order to perform the mass balance, the precipitation treatment method was not used during the
first three days of the  plant characterization tests.  Twenty-four-hour composite samples were
collected from the influent, effluent,  and untreated waste brine and sent to MWH Laboratories
with a request for 24- to 48-hour turnaround times.  The data were evaluated, and a mass balance
was performed.   These data were provided to NSF and Basin Water prior to beginning the
Verification Test.  It should be noted that the waste brine also included the wastewater from the
rinse process, which affected the mass balance by diluting the brine waste. It was not possible to
segregate the waste brine from the waste rinse water in the Basin Water System.

Additionally, the following operating data were recorded  once daily  during  the Initial  Plant
Characterization:

•  Controller  set points  for  each  bed including:  start  time,  finish  time,  and  volume  to
   exhaustion;  flow rate, mass of salt and volume of regenerant used for each regeneration; and
   volume of chemicals (or adsorptive media) required  for brine treatment.
•  Pressure readings for the columns and pre-filter device.
•  Number of vessels in exhaustion, regeneration, and standby.
•  Visual observations of piping leaks and scaling and fouling problems.
                                            30

-------
Table 3-4. Initial Plant Characterization
Parameter Frequency1
Arsenic [As 2/week on raw, influent and effluent water
(III)]4
Dissolved 2/week on raw, influent and effluent water
Arsenic
Total Arsenic 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Sulfate 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Nitrate 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Chloride 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Calcium 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Magnesium 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Alkalinity 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Fluoride 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
pH Continuous monitoring of column influent and
effluent water, and
I/day on-site verification of system influent and
effluent
IDS 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
TSS 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Iron 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Manganese 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Vanadium 1 composite per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Hardness5 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Dissolved 1 composite per week on the raw, influent, and
Silica effluent water
Total Chlorine I/day on raw, influent, and effluent water
Free Chlorine I/day on raw, influent, and effluent water
Conductivity Continuous monitoring of column influent and
effluent water, and
I/day on-site verification of system influent and
effluent
NDMA6 1 grab sample on the raw water line, and
2 grab samples on the effluent (one chlorinated;
one without chlorinated raw water)
Standard EPA Hach
Facility Method1 Method3 Method
Laboratory 200.8
Laboratory 200.8
Laboratory 200.8
Laboratory 300.0
Laboratory 300.0
Laboratory 300.0
Laboratory 200.7
Laboratory 200.7
Laboratory 2320B
Laboratory 4500-F C
On-site 4500-FT B
Laboratory 2540 C
Laboratory 2540 D
Laboratory 200.7
Laboratory 200.8
Laboratory 200.8
Laboratory 2340B
Laboratory 200.7
On-site 8167
On-site 8021
251 OB
1625
1 The verification plant was staffed seven days per week.
2 Standard Methods 20th Edition.
3 "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples -Supplement I", EPA/600/R-94/111, May 1994.
Available at (NTIS) PB95-125472.
4 Arsenic samples were speciated in the field using arsenic speciation resin columns provided by NSF.
5 Calculated using calcium and magnesium concentrations from one composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water.
6 NDMA samples collected per E VMWD' s request.
31

-------
3.9.4  Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Criteria

•   The following data are presented in Chapter 4:
    =>    A temporal plot of target inorganic constituents (arsenic and vanadium) in the raw,
          influent, and effluent water over the period of operation.
    =>    Temporal plots of all other inorganic water quality parameters in the raw, influent,
          and effluent water over the period of operation.
    =>    A table with twice-weekly values of percent removal of target inorganic constituents
          (arsenic  [total, As (III), As  (V) and dissolved] and vanadium) and  other pertinent
          water quality parameters (vanadium) for the period of operation.
    =>    Mass balances through the IX system for total arsenic were conducted.  The mass
          balance equation presented in Section 3.3.1 was used for the calculation.
    =>    Raw, influent and  effluent  water  concentrations of any measured water quality
          parameters are provided in tabular form for the period of operation.
    =>    Power consumption over the period of operation presented in a tabular format.
    =>    A table  of daily chemical consumption (salt,  hypochlorite, ferric chloride, caustic
          soda, sulfuric acid) for the period of operation.

3.10   Task 4: Verification Testing

This task, which included the  actual Verification Test,  was the core  of the verification testing
plan.  During this task, the Basin Water System was operated 24 hours per day, seven days per
week, for a total of 313 hours over a 17-day period to collect data on equipment performance and
water quality for the purpose of performance verification.

3.10.1 Experimental Objectives

The objectives of the verification testing runs were to:

    •   Observe and record the plant operating conditions and  equipment performance;
    •   Determine the raw, influent, and effluent water quality;
    •   Characterize the effectiveness of the brine treatment processes;  and
    •   Establish the arsenic and vanadium removal performance of the plant.

3.10.2 Work Plan

The plant was operated  using the  set  point  conditions   determined  in the  Initial  Plant
Characterization test.  Table 3-5 lists the operating and performance data  collected during the
verification testing runs.
                                            32

-------
Table 3-5. Operating and Performance Data

 Operational Parameter for the Entire Plant	Monitoring Frequency	
 Instantaneous effluent water flow rate, gpm                                   Twice daily
 Cumulative effluent water flow rate, gal                                     Twice daily
 Cumulative waste water flow, gal                                             Daily
 Brine consumption, gal                                                      Daily
 NaCl consumption, Ibs and lbs/1000 gal effluent water                             Daily
 Volume of arsenic-contaminated sludge, gal                            Once, at the end of testing
 Solids cone, of arsenic-contaminated sludge, wt% solids                  Once, at the end of testing
 Mass of arsenic -contaminated sludge, Ibs                              Once, at the end of testing
 Number of columns exhausted                                               Daily
 Number of columns regenerated                                              Daily
 Electrical energy consumption, kwhr                                           Daily
 Equipment malfunctions, description of each malfunction and its                As they occur
 result on plant performance	
 Operational Parameter for Each Column in a Fixed-Bed Plant	Monitoring Frequency	
 Instantaneous column influent flow rate, gpm                                  Twice daily
 Pressure drop, psig                                                      Twice daily
 Cumulative column influent flow, gal                                          Daily
 Exhaustion start and stop times, time of day                                Each exhaustion
 Regeneration start and stop times, time of day                               Each regeneration
 Displacement rinse start and stop times, time of day                             Each rinse
 Brine consumption, gal                                                 Each regeneration
 Brine flow rate, gpm                                                        Daily
 NaCl consumption, Ibs	Each regeneration	


 3.10.3  Analytical Schedule


 Water Quality Characterization
 Water  quality data were collected from the raw, influent, and effluent water, as shown in Table
 3-6, during the Verification Test.  The sampling  frequency  and analytical methods are also
 presented in Table 3-6.

 Water Quality Sample Collection
 Water  quality samples that were shipped to the state-certified analytical laboratory for analysis
 were collected in appropriate containers (containing preservatives, as applicable) prepared by the
 state-certified  analytical  laboratory.    These  samples  were preserved,  stored,   shipped,  and
 analyzed in accordance  with appropriate  procedures and holding times,  as  specified  by the
 analytical laboratory.  Note that unless otherwise stated, samples shown in Table 3-6 are grab
 samples. For those samples shown as "composite samples," a single sample was collected over a
 24-hour period.  Composite samples were collected in 2.5-  or 5.0-gallon cube containers and
 then poured  into their  appropriate  sample  bottles provide by the  analytical  laboratory.
 Composite samples were stored (both  during collection and after) on  ice in a  cooler  on-site.
 Composite samples were collected through the continuous running of the  sample line into the
 sample container at a rate not to exceed  the volume of the sample container.


 In addition to  samples collected on-site, the HMI logged the following flow parameters: flow
 (effluent, brine, rinse), pressure (raw water, column influent and effluent water), pH (influent and
 effluent water), conductivity (influent and effluent water), and brine tank level.
                                               33

-------
Table 3-6. Verification Testing Analytical Methods and Sampling Frequency

Parameter
Arsenic [As
(III)]4
Dissolved
Arsenic
Total Arsenic



Sulfate

Nitrate

Chloride

Calcium

Magnesium

Alkalinity

Fluoride

pH



IDS

TSS

Iron

Manganese

Vanadium



Hardness5

Dissolved Silica

Total Chlorine
Free Chlorine
Conductivity



NDMA6

Frequency1
2/week (grab) on the raw, influent, and effluent water

2/week (grab) on the raw, influent, and effluent water

1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water;
4/day (grab) on the effluent water; and
I/day (grab) on the raw and the influent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
Continuous monitoring of influent and effluent water;
and
I/day (grab) on-site verification of raw, influent, and
effluent water.
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw water, influent,
and effluent water;
4/day (grab) on the effluent water; and
I/day (grab) on the raw and the influent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
1 composite sample per day on the raw, influent, and
effluent water
2/day (grab) on the raw, influent, and effluent water
2/day (grab) on the raw, influent, and effluent water
Continuous monitoring of effluent water from each
column (recorded I/day), and
I/day (grab) on-site analysis of raw, influent, and
effluent water
Once at end of verification test
Standard
Facility Method1
Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory



Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory 2320B

Laboratory 4500-F C

On-site 4500-LI+
B


Laboratory 2540 C

Laboratory 2540 D

Laboratory

Laboratory

Laboratory



Laboratory 2340B

Laboratory

On-site
On-site
On-site 251 OB



Laboratory
EPA Hach
Method3 Method
200.8

200.8

200.8



300.0

300.0

300.0

200.7

200.7













200.7

200.8

200.8





200.7

8167
8021




1625
1 The verification plant was staffed seven days per week.
2 Standard Methods 20th Edition.
3 "Mpthnrk f
r\r thp T^ptprminpitirui r\f A/TptnlQ in THnvirrmmpntnl Ssnrrmli
=Q-Simn1pmpnt T" PPA /fifin/R.
-Q4/1 1 1 A/Tnv 1 QQ4
Available at (NTIS) PB95-125472.
Arsenic samples were speciated in the field using arsenic speciation resin columns provided by NSF.
Calculated using calcium and magnesium concentrations from one composite sample per day on the raw, influent,  and
effluent water.
NDMA samples collected per EVMWD's request/ suggestions to testing plan.
                                                    34

-------
Characterization of Waste Brine
Waste brine samples were submitted to a state-certified laboratory for analysis from three waste
sources: non-treated liquid waste brine, treated liquid waste brine, and waste solids from brine
treatment  process.   The liquid  waste samples  were  analyzed  for conductivity  and  pH.
Additionally, each of the three samples were submitted to a state-certified laboratory for analysis
of the  eight metals regulated  under the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA)
(arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver), as well as antimony,
beryllium, cobalt, copper, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium,  and zinc, as identified in
Table 3-7.   Solid waste  samples from the  BPU and BRA were also submitted  for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),  Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC),  and
Soluble Threshold Limit  Concentration (STLC).  Duplicate samples  of solid  waste from both
waste treatment processes were submitted for analysis.  There was no field testing of the waste
streams due to the possible classification of non-RCRA hazardous waste.

Once treatment was completed for the precipitation method, the treated waste brine was decanted
off leaving a portion of the treated brine in the batch treatment tank as "seed" for the next batch
treatment cycle. The treated waste brine was then pumped to a holding tank until hauled off-site
for disposal.
Table 3-7. Sampling Frequency for Characterization
Parameter Sample Location
Conductivity



PH



Antimony





Arsenic





Barium





Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
of Waste Brine
Sampling Analytical Reporting
Frequency Method Limit (mg/L)
6 samples 251 OB
3 samples
3 samples
1 sample
6 samples 4500-H+ B
3 samples
3 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
NA



NA



0.01





0.005





0.01





                                           35

-------
Table 3-7. Sampling Frequency for Characterization of Waste Brine (continued)
Sampling Analytical Reporting
Parameter Sample Location Frequency Method Limit (mg/L)
Beryllium





Cadmium





Chromium





Cobalt





Copper





Lead





Mercury





Molybdenum





Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 7470A
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples EPA 601 OB
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
0.004





0.005





0.005





0.01





0.01





0.005





0.0002





0.02





36

-------
 Table 3-7. Sampling Frequency for Characterization of Waste Brine (continued)
Parameter
Nickel





Selenium





Silver





TSS





Thallium





Vanadium





Zinc





Sample Location
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Untreated brine (liquid)
Treated brine (liquid) from precipitation method
Treated brine (liquid) from adsorption method
Solids from precipitation method
Solids from adsorptive media
Combined treated brine (liquid)1
Sampling
Frequency
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
6 samples
3 samples
3 samples
2 samples
2 samples
1 sample
Analytical Reporting
Method Limit (mg/L)
EPA 6010B 0.01





EPA 6010B 0.005





EPA 6010B 0.01





SM2540D NA





EPA 6010B 0.005





EPA 6010B 0.01





EPA 6010B 0.02





    Combined treated brine analysis was performed for characterization prior to disposal.
NA = Not Applicable.
                                                37

-------
3.10.4 Evaluation Criteria

Performance of the IX system was evaluated in the context of the manufacturer's statement of
performance objectives with respect to: (1) treatment equipment performance, (2) finished water
quality, and (3) arsenic and vanadium removal performance.

Treatment Equipment Performance
The goal of this subtask was to operate the plant within the mechanical and electrical constraints
for a  minimum of three complete exhaustion cycles during the verification testing runs.  This
included  the following criteria: capacity in terms of total  daily treated water production, liquid
waste brine discharges, solid waste production, NaCl consumption, electrical consumption, and
other relevant equipment performance criteria.

Arsenic and Vanadium Removal Performance
The Verification Test was performed to demonstrate the system's ability to remove arsenic and
vanadium to below 4 jig/L and 15 jig/L, respectively (in 95% of effluent water samples).

The assessment of arsenic removal performance was not dependent on the form of arsenic fed to
the plant.  Regardless of whether As (III)  or As (V) or a mixture of the two was fed, the
performance requirements were determined by the measurement of total arsenic  in the effluent
water.

3.11   Task 5: Data Management

The data management system used in the  verification testing involved the use of both computer
spreadsheets and manual recording  (on-site  logbook) of  operational parameters for the water
treatment equipment on a daily basis.  All field activities were thoroughly documented.  Field
documentation included field notebooks,  photographs, field data sheets, and chain-of-custody
forms. The following guidelines were followed:

•  Field notes were kept in a bound logbook;
•  Field logbook was used to record all water treatment equipment operating data;
•  Each page was sequentially numbered;
•  Each page was labeled with the project name and number;
•  Completed pages were signed and dated by the individual responsible for the entries; and
•  Errors had one line drawn through them, and this line was initialed and dated.

All photographs  were logged in the field logbook.  These entries included the time, date, and
subject of the photograph, and identified the photographer.

Original  field  sheets and chain-of-custody  forms  accompanied all samples shipped  to the
analytical laboratory.   Copies  of field sheets and chain-of-custody  forms for all samples are
included  in Appendix C.
                                           38

-------
3.11.1 Experimental Objectives

The objective of this task was to establish a viable procedure for the recording and transmission
of field testing data such that the FTO provided  sufficient and  reliable operational  data for
verification purposes.

3.11.2 Work Plan

FTO  operators  recorded data and calculations  by hand in  laboratory notebooks.   Daily
measurements were recorded on specially prepared data log sheets as appropriate.  The original
notebooks were  stored on-site. Electronic copies were forwarded to the project manager of the
FTO at least once per week during the testing period. Operating logs included a description of
the IX equipment (description of test runs, names  of visitors, description  of any problems or
issues, etc.), in addition to experimental calculations and other items.

A database  for the  project was set up using custom-designed spreadsheets.  The spreadsheets
were  capable  of storing and manipulating  each monitored  water quality and operational
parameter from each task, sampling location, and sampling time.  All data from the laboratory
reports and  data log  sheets  were entered into the appropriate  spreadsheet.   Data entry was
conducted on-site by the designated field testing operators.  All recorded calculations were also
checked at this time.  Following data entry, the spreadsheets were printed out, and the printouts
were  checked  against the handwritten data sheets.  Any corrections were noted on the hard
copies and corrected on the screen, and a corrected version of the  spreadsheet was printed out.
Each  step of the  verification process was initialed by the field testing operator performing the
entry  or verification step.  Backup of the computer databases to diskette was performed on a
weekly basis.

Data from MWH Laboratories were received and reviewed by the  field-testing operator.  These
data were entered into the data spreadsheets,  corrected, and verified in the same manner as the
field data. As available, electronic data storage and retrieval capabilities were  employed in order
to maximize data collection and minimize labor hours required for monitoring.

Data tracking included each of the following tasks:

•  Data were tracked using the same system of run numbers as samples were collected and sent
   to state-certified analytical laboratories (MWH Laboratories).
•  Data from the analytical laboratories were received and reviewed by the FTO.
•  These data were entered  into the  data spreadsheets,  corrected, and verified  in the same
   manner as the field data.

3.12   Task 6: Quality Assurance Project Plan

QA/QC of the operation of the Basin Water System and the measured water quality parameters
were  maintained  during  verification testing through a QAPP as described in this section  A
number of individuals were responsible for monitoring equipment and operating parameters, and
for sampling and analysis QA/QC throughout the verification testing. Primary responsibility for
                                            39

-------
ensuring that both equipment operation and sampling and analysis activities complied with the
QA/QC requirements rested with the FTO and the analytical laboratory.

QA/QC activities  for the analytical laboratory that analyzed samples  sent off-site were the
responsibility of that analytical laboratory's supervisor.  If problems arose or any data appeared
unusual, they were thoroughly documented and corrective actions were implemented as specified
in Chapter 4.

3.12.1  Experimental Objectives

The  objective of  this task was  to  maintain  strict QA/QC  methods  and procedures during
verification testing. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures was important so that if a question
arose when analyzing or interpreting data collected for a given experiment, it would be possible
to verify exact conditions at the time of testing.  The elements of the Quality Assurance Project
Plan included:

•  Data correctness
•  Methodology for use of blanks
•  Performance evaluation samples
•  Duplicate samples
•  Calculation of indicators of data quality
•  Data reporting
•  Measurement of precision and accuracy
•  Corrective action plan.

3.12.2  Work Plan

Equipment flow rates and associated signals were verified and  recorded on a routine daily basis.
A daily walk-through during testing verified that each piece of equipment or instrumentation was
operating properly. Particular care was taken to verify that water, brine,  and flow rates  were
correct.  Inline  monitoring equipment,  such as flow  meters and conductivity meters, were
checked  to verify that the readouts matched  with  the actual measurements (i.e.,  flow  rate,
specific conductance) and that the  signals being recorded were correct.

QA/QC Verifications
The  effluent  water pH meter was checked and calibrated daily.  Additionally, the following
parameters were verified daily by weight or by volume:

•  NaCl, ferric chloride,  sodium hypochlorite, acid and caustic consumption rates,
•  Saturated brine flow rate, and
•  Brine flow rate.

Other QA/QC checks included:

•  Inline conductivity meters  (calibrated  prior  to beginning verification testing [after the
   shakedown period] and daily during verification testing), and
                                           40

-------
•   Tubing  (verification of  condition  of  all tubing  and  connections,  and replacement  if
    necessary).

3.12.3 Data Correctness

Data correctness refers to data quality, for which there are five indicators:

•   Representativeness,
•   Statistical uncertainty,
•   Precision,
•   Accuracy, and
•   Completeness.

3.12.3.1  Representativeness

Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent the
conditions or characteristics of the parameter represented by the data.  As specified by the ETV
Protocol, representativeness of water quality samples for the ETV test was ensured by executing
consistent sample collection procedures, including:

•   Sample locations,
•   Timing of sample collection,
•   Sampling procedures,
•   Sample preservation,
•   Sample packaging,  and
•   Sample transport.

Sample Locations
Sample locations for all water quality parameters were specified in Section 2.3.  Specifically,
sample locations for the IX  system include the raw water,  influent,  effluent, untreated brine,
treated brine, and the solids from the waste brine treatment process.

Timing of Sample  Collection
In an IX verification study, the timing of sample collection was not as critical as in, for example,
a granular media filtration verification study in which the filter run time can influence the quality
of water produced  by the filter. For the IX verification test, there was no filter maturation time,
stable period of filter operation,  or turbidity  breakthrough period.   To the extent possible,
analyses  for inorganic water quality  parameters were performed on  water sample  aliquots
obtained simultaneously from the  same sampling location,  in order to ensure the maximum
degree of comparability between water quality analytes.

Sampling Procedures, Sample Preservation Packaging, and  Transport
Sampling procedures  for  each  water  quality  parameter  are  described  below;  additional
information  may be found in Tables 3-4 and 3-6. The samples were collected in bottles prepared
by  MWH Laboratories with the  appropriate  preservative  for the analyte.   For the 24-hour
composite samples, 2.5- or 5-gallon cube containers were used and stored (both during and after
                                            41

-------
sample  collection) on ice  in a  cooler.  Field analyses  were performed  using portable field
analytical equipment.

Once collected, all samples were stored and transported to MWH Laboratories in coolers packed
with ice.  Samples were analyzed within the Standard  Methods or EPA recommended holding
times, if not analyzed on-site (i.e.,  pH, conductivity, free and total chlorine, temperature, and
arsenic speciation).  The following parameters were sampled during verification testing:

       Alkalinity
       Samples were collected  and analyzed off-site  by the analytical  laboratory using SM
       2320B, within the 14-day holding period.  Samples were not agitated or exposed to the
       atmosphere for prolonged periods of time.  No preservative was used  for  alkalinity
       samples.

       Arsenic (As [Till and Dissolved)
       Samples were collected on-site and  speciated using  the procedures and resin columns
       provided by NSF (see Appendix C).  The samples were collected in polyethylene bottles
       provided by MWH Laboratories and preserved in accordance with  the ETV required
       procedures.  The samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.8  within the six-month
       holding period of the preserved samples.

       Arsenic (Total)
       Samples were collected headspace free into  polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
       analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and transported daily to the analytical laboratory.
       The  sample bottles  from the laboratory included the preservative  HNOs  for a holding
       period of up to six months.  The samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.8 within
       the holding period of the preserved samples.

       Calcium
       Samples were collected headspace free into  polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
       analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and transported daily to the analytical laboratory.
       The  sample bottles  from the laboratory included the preservative  HNCb  for a holding
       period of up to six months. All calcium samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.7
       within the holding period of the preserved samples.

       Chloride
       Samples were collected headspace free into  polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
       analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and transported daily to the analytical laboratory.
       All chloride samples were analyzed using EPA  Method 300.0 within the holding period
       of 28 days.

       Chlorine (Free and Total)
       Samples were collected  and analyzed on-site immediately using Hach Method 8021 for
       free  chlorine and Hach  Method 8167  for total  chlorine per the  analysis instructions in
       Appendix C.   Instructions  for on-site calibration of the chlorine  analyzer  are  also
       provided in Appendix C.  Calibrations were conducted weekly.
                                            42

-------
Conductivity
Samples were collected and analyzed on-site immediately using SM 2510B.   Sample
agitation and prolonged exposure to  air were avoided.   The conductivity meter was
calibrated daily  on-site using a three-point calibration method and  standard solutions
manufactured by Hach at 180, 1000, and 1990 |j,mho/cm.

Fluoride
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided  by  the
analytical laboratory,  capped tightly, and transported daily to the analytical laboratory.
The  sample bottles from  the  laboratory  did not  include  a preservative,  and  when
refrigerated, had a holding period of up to 28 days.  All fluoride samples were analyzed
using SM 4500F C within the allowable holding period.

Hardness
Samples were collected and analyzed on-site immediately using SM 2340B, with  a six-
month holding period using HNCb as a preservative.  Samples  were not agitated or
exposed to the atmosphere for prolonged periods of time.

Iron
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided  by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory. The
sample bottles from the laboratory included the preservative FINCb for a holding period
of up to six months. All iron samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.7 within the
holding period of the preserved samples.

Magnesium
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided  by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory. The
sample bottles from the laboratory included the preservative HNOs for a holding period
of up to six months.  All magnesium samples were analyzed using EPA Method  200.7
within the holding period of the preserved samples.

Manganese
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided  by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory. The
sample bottles from the laboratory included the preservative FINCb for a holding period
of up to six months.  All  manganese  samples were analyzed using EPA Method  200.8
within the holding period of the preserved samples.

NDMA
Samples were collected headspace free in two one-litter bottles, each preserved with  1
milliliter thio  (8%) provided by the  analytical laboratory,  capped  tightly, and stored
refrigerated.  All NDMA  samples were  analyzed using EPA Method  1625 within  the
holding period of seven days of the preserved samples.
                                     43

-------
Nitrate
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided by the
analytical laboratory, capped  tightly,  and stored  refrigerated.   The bottles  from the
laboratory did not include a preservative.  All nitrate samples were analyzed using EPA
Method 300.0 within the holding period of 48 hours.
Samples were collected and analyzed on-site immediately using SM 4500-H^B, and the
temperature at which the pH reading was made was recorded.   Sample  agitation and
prolonged exposure to air were avoided. The pH probe was calibrated daily on-site using
a three-point calibration method and standard solutions manufactured by Hach at 4,0, 7.0,
and 10.0.  The pH probe was stored in the appropriate solution defined in the instrument
manual.

Silica (Dissolved)
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory.  The
sample bottles from the laboratory included  the preservative HNCb for a holding period
of up to six months. All silica samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.7 within
the holding period of the preserved samples.

Sulfate
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory.  All
sulfate samples were analyzed using EPA Method 300.0 within the 28-day holding period
of the preserved samples.

TDS
Plastic sample bottles were used, as provided by the analytical laboratory. Analyses were
made as soon as possible (within the seven-day holding period) due to  impracticality of
preserving  samples, as specified in SM  2540.  Samples were refrigerated until the time
of analysis.

Temperature
Readings for temperature were conducted in accordance with Standard Method 2550.
Raw  water temperatures were obtained daily.   The  thermometer  was  a  precision
thermometer certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

TSS
Plastic sample bottles were used, as provided by the analytical laboratory. Analyses were
made as soon as possible (within the seven-day holding period) due to  impracticality of
preserving  samples, as specified in SM 2540 D. Samples were refrigerated until the time
of analysis.

Vanadium
Samples were  collected  headspace free into polyethylene bottles  provided by  the
analytical laboratory, capped tightly, and shipped daily to the analytical laboratory.  The
                                     44

-------
       sample bottles from the laboratory included the preservative HNCb for a holding period
       of up to six months.   All vanadium samples were analyzed using EPA Method 200.8
       within the holding period of the preserved samples.

Representativeness of Operational Parameters
As specified by the ETV protocol,  representativeness  for  operational parameters  entailed
collecting a  sufficient quantity of data during operation to be  able  to  detect a  change in
operations.  As specified by the ETV protocol, detecting a ±10 percent change in an operating
parameter, such as pressure, was sufficient.  Operational parameters including flow and pressure
were recorded twice per day, which the ETV protocol specified as sufficient for tracking changes
in operational conditions that exceed this 10 percent range.

Effluent Flow Rate
Effluent flow rate of the Basin Water  System was verified daily using a calibrated container and
stopwatch method to manually verify the flow rate.  While no adjustments to the HMI flow rate
display was possible, the  manual "check" could verify if the HMI flow rate display was accurate.

3.12.3.2  Statistical analysis

Arsenic data developed from  grab samples collected according to the Analytical Schedule in
Task 4 of this  test plan were analyzed  for statistical  uncertainty.  The FTO  calculated 95%
confidence intervals for the arsenic data obtained during verification testing as  described in the
EPA/NSFProtocolfor Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal.

The statistics developed were  helpful in  demonstrating the degree of reliability with which the
water treatment equipment could attain quality goals under the treatment conditions tested.  The
results of the statistical analysis were used to determine if the performance of the equipment was
equal to or better than that given in the statement of performance objectives.

3.12.3.3  Methodology for Measurement of Precision and Accuracy

Precision and Accuracy for Water Quality Parameters
Table 3-8 summarizes the methodology used for the measurement of precision and accuracy for
each water quality analysis performed during verification testing.  Arsenic speciation columns
were QA/QC checked by NSF and were provided  by NSF for  the verification testing. The
sampling location for each duplicate  sample alternated from raw  water, influent, and effluent.
One duplicate was taken from  each of the following: untreated brine, treated brine, and the solids
from the  waste brine.

Precision and Accuracy for Operational Parameters
The operational parameters in  the ETV test included flow rates and pressures.  Effluent flow rate
was verified daily using a bucket test with calibrated containers and a stopwatch. The duration
of the bucket test was 15 seconds.
                                            45

-------
Table 3-8. Methodology for Measurement of Precision and Accuracy
Minimum
Reporting On-site Duplicate Acceptable
Parameter Limit (MRL) Frequency Precision Accuracy
Arsenic (Total)1
(report to nearest 1 .0
Mg/L)
pH
(report to nearest 0. 1
pH unit)


Calcium
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Magnesium
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Chloride
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Free and Total
Chlorine
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Iron
(report to nearest 0.5
mg/L)
Manganese
(report to nearest 0.5
mg/L)
Sulfate
(report to nearest 1
mg/L)
Nitrate
(report to nearest 1
mg/L)
Vanadium
(report to nearest 1
Mg/L)
Dissolved Silica
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Fluoride
(report to nearest 0. 1
mg/L)
Alkalinity
(report to nearest 1
mg/L as CaCO,)
Hardness2
(report to nearest 1
mg/L as CaCO,)
1.0 ng/L


0-14pHunits




1.0 mg/L


0. 1 mg/L


1 mg/L


1 mg/L



0.2 mg/L


0.015 mg/L


2 mg/L


1 mg/L


10ng/L


0.05 mg/L


0. 1 mg/L


2 mg/L


5 mg/L


20 measurements per
week in duplicate (32%
of samples)
7 measurements per
week in duplicate (19%
of samples)


4 measurements per
week in duplicate (19%
of samples)
4 measurements per
week in duplicate (19%
of samples)
4 measurements per
week in duplicate (19%
of samples)
1 0 measurements per
week in duplicate (12%
of samples)

4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
20 sample per week in
duplicate (32% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
10% Daily 3-point calibration
with certified pH buffers
in range of
measurements (4.0, 7.0
and 10.0)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
20% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
20% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
20% Weekly verification
using known standards at
three concentration
levels (see Appendix C)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
20% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
20% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
30% See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
46

-------
  Table 3-8. Methodology for Measurement of Precision and Accuracy (continued)
Parameter
TDS
(report to nearest 1
mg/L)
TSS
(report to nearest 1
mg/L)
NDMA3
(report to nearest 1
ng/L)
Conductivity
(report to nearest 0. 1
|jmho/cm)


Minimum
Reporting
Limit (MRL)
10 mg/L


10 mg/L


2 ng/L


4 |imho/cm




On-site Duplicate
Frequency
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
4 sample per week in
duplicate (19% of
samples)
1 sample


7 samples per week in
duplicate (33% of
samples)


Acceptable
Precision
30%


30%


30%


10%




Accuracy
See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
See procedures of MWH
Laboratories (see Table
3-10)
Daily calibration using
known standards at three
concentration levels.
Acceptable accuracy was
+10%.
    As (III) and dissolved arsenic samples were prepared on-site using arsenic speciation procedures developed by
    Battelle for the EPA (Edwards et al.) (see Appendix B).
2   Calculated using calcium and magnesium concentrations.
3   A total of three samples for NDMA analysis were collected during the Initial Plant Characterization testing.

Method Blanks
The methodology for use of method blanks is summarized in Table 3-9.

Field Blanks
Field blanks were submitted with each set of samples submitted to MWH Laboratories for each
parameter collected.  One field blank was collected for each parameter submitted for analysis.

 Table 3-9. Methodology for Use of Method Blanks
             Method
                    Methodology for Blanks
 Arsenic, TDS,  alkalinity, calcium,  Blanks  were used  in  accordance  with  the  procedures of  MWH
 magnesium,  hardness,  and  other  Laboratories1.
 inorganic constituents for laboratory
 analysis
 pH                             Purchased certified pH buffers were used - no use of blanks.
 Conductivity
 Free and Total Chlorine
No use of blanks.

A reagent-grade ultra-pure water was kept in stock at the verification site
for use as a blank prior to analyzing each free or total chlorine sample.
    See Table 3-10.
Spiked Samples
Spiked samples were utilized at MWH Laboratories as presented in Table 3-10.  Spiked samples
were not applicable for the analyses performed on-site at the treatment system for conductivity or
pH, but were performed for total and free chlorine at a frequency of 10%.
                                               47

-------
Table 3-10. Laboratory Water Quality Analyses
Laboratory
Fortified LFM
Matrix Acceptance


Parameter

Total
Arsenic
IDS
Vanadium
Dissolved
Silica
Iron
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sulfate
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
NDMA
(LFM),
i.e., spike
sample
10%
(1 per 10
samples)
10%
10%

10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%

LFM
Duplicate

10%
10%
10%

10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Limits
(%
Recovery)

100 +30
<5% RPD
100 +30

100 +30
100 +30
100+30
100 +30
100 +30
100 +20
100 +30
100 +30
100 +20
100 +30
100 +30
100 +30
Indicators
Method
Blank
(MB)
5%
(1 per 20
samples or
less)
5%
5%

5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
10%
5%
5%
10%
5%
5%
5%

MB
Acceptance
Limits

50
       90%
       95%
                                           48

-------
3.12.4 Calculation oflndictors of Data Quality

Calculation of Precision
As specified in Standard Method 1030 C, precision is specified by the standard deviation of the
results of replicate analyses.  The overall precision  of a study includes the random  errors
involved in sampling as well as the errors in sample preparation and analysis.

                                          n
          Precision = Standard Deviation = V[Z (xz - x)2 -^ (n - 1)]
                                         /=!

where:    x  = sample mean
          X; = Ah data point in the data set
          n  = number of data points in the data set

Precision refers to the degree of mutual  agreement among individual measurements and provides
an estimate of random error.  Analytical precision is a measure  of how far  an individual
measurement may  be from the mean of replicate measurements.  The  standard  deviation and
relative standard deviation recorded from sample analyses were recorded as a means to quantify
sample  precision.   The percent relative standard deviation  was calculated  in  the following
manner:

          %Relative Standard Deviation = S(100)/Xaverage
where     S = Standard Deviation
              age= the arithmetic mean of the  recovery values
For acceptable analytical precision  under verification  testing, the  percent relative  standard
deviation for drinking water  samples must be less than the acceptance  limits, as indicated in
Table 3-8 and Table 3-10.  If the data generated during the ETV test did not meet the data quality
objectives defined in the QA/QC section, additional testing and sampling was conducted.

Calculation of Accuracy
Accuracy  is quantified as the percent recovery of a parameter in  a sample to which a known
quantity of that parameter was added.  An example of an  accuracy determination in this ETV
was the analysis of an arsenic proficiency sample and  comparison of the measured arsenic to the
known level of arsenic in the sample.

          Accuracy = Percent Recovery = 100 x  [1- (Xknown - Measured) +-
where     Xknown = known concentration of measured parameter
                   = measured concentration of parameter
                                           49

-------
Statistical Uncertainty
For the water quality parameters monitored, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for data
sets of eight values or more. The count, average, minimum, and maximum values were tabulated
for all data sets.  The following equation was used for confidence interval calculation:

          Confidence Interval = x± [Vi,i -(a/2) x (S/Vn)]

where:    x = sample mean
          S  = sample standard deviation
          n  = number of independent measurements included in the data set
          t  = Student's t distribution value with n-1 degrees of freedom
          a = significance  level, defined for 95 percent confidence as:  1  - 0.95 = 0.05

According to the 95% confidence interval  approach, the a term is defined  to have the value of
0.05, thus simplifying the equation for the 95% confidence interval in the following manner:

          95% Confidence Interval  = x + [In-1,0.975 x (SA/n)]

With  input of the analytical results  for  pertinent water quality  parameters into  the  95%
confidence interval equation, the output appears as the sample mean value plus or minus the
second term. The results of  this statistical calculation  are also presented as a range  of values
falling within the 95% confidence interval.  For example, the result of the confidence interval
calculation provides the  following  information:  520 +/- 38.4 mg/L, with a 95% confidence
interval range described as (481.6, 558.4).

Calculation of Completeness
Completeness is defined as the following for all measurements:

       %C = (V/T) X 100

where:    %C = percent completeness
          V = number of measurements judged valid
          T = total number of measurements

3.12.5 Corrective Action Plan

The  corrective  action  plan  followed  during  the  ETV test  for water quality parameters  is
summarized in Table 3-12.
                                           50

-------
  Table 3-12. Corrective Action Plan

      Parameter         Acceptance Criteria
                                Sequence of Steps for Corrective Action
  Any Duplicate
  Analysis
See Tables 3-8 and 3-10
  Any Method Blank   See Tables 3 -9 and 3-10
  pH and
  Conductivity
  Alkalinity,
  Hardness, Calcium,
  Magnesium, TDS,
  As (III), As (V),
  As(Total), Sulfate,
  Nitrate, Chloride,
  Fluoride, Iron,
  Manganese,
  Vanadium,
  Dissolved Silica,
  Free Chlorine and
  Total Chlorine
<10% difference from
previous day
<20% difference from
previous reading
•   Re-sampled duplicates.
•   Checked  instrument  calibration;   recalibrated
    instrument.

•   Lab analyses: performed procedures specific  to
    each   analysis   as   determined   by   MWH
    Laboratories.
•   On-site analysis: performed procedures specific to
    on-site analyses.
  Any Performance     Within recovery specified for  •
  Evaluation (PE) or    each PE or proficiency
  Proficiency Sample   sample                     •
                              Checked and verified all steps in sample collection
                              and analysis.
                              Re-do PE or proficiency sampling and analysis.
•   Checked for change in column influent source or
    supply.
•   Checked instrument calibration.
•   Recalibrated instrument.

•   Verified change  in  column influent  source or
    supply.
3.13   Operation and Maintenance

The manufacturer's O&M documentation for the Basin Water System was reviewed by the
project engineers and the verification plant operations staff prior to the verification testing.  The
O&M manual for the Basin Water System may be found in Appendix  A.  In addition, the
following aspects of operability are addressed in Chapter 4:

•   Fluctuation of flow  rates and  pressures  through the IX unit  - the time interval at which
    resetting is needed (i.e., how long could chemical feed pumps hold on  a set value for the
    chemical feed rate?).
•   Were devices present to aid the operator with flow control adjustment?
•   Was chemical feed paced with raw water flow?
•   Did  the  system  have  an  indicator  if sediment prefilter was  changed ahead of scheduled
    quarterly maintenance?
•   How successful was  a SCADA system (i.e., complete automation and computer control) with
    data  acquisition as a means of operating an arsenic and vanadium removal IX plant?
                                               51

-------
•  How did one ensure that arsenic or vanadium had not broken through the column without
   actually making a continuous online arsenic measurement, which is impractical?
•  How did the operator ensure that the regenerant brine had actually been fed to the spent resin
   column?
•  What was the preferred means of measuring or estimating brine consumption?
•  How many times could the brine be reused without treatment?
•  How did one automate the precipitation of arsenic from the spent brine?
•  Did the reuse of the brine cause any precipitation problems?
•  How did a plant operator check on the condition and depth of the IX media?
•  Was there any easily measured parameter, such as pH or conductivity, that would signal the
   breakthrough of arsenic from a column?
•  How often was it necessary to reset the brine flow rate?

This report addresses the above questions.  The  issues of operability were dealt with in the
portion of the reports written in response to Tasks 3 and 4 of the verification testing plan and
may be found in Chapter 4.
                                           52

-------
                                        Chapter 4
                                 Results and Discussion
4.1    Introduction

Verification testing of the Basin Water System performed at the EVMWD Corydon Street Well
in Lake Elsinore, California, occurred over a 54-day period that began on April 4, 2005,  and
concluded on May 28,  2005.   The system ran continuously with the  exception of 13 system
shutdowns due to construction in the nearby area and electrical modifications to the site.  Of the
13 shutdowns, three were considered major shutdowns (i.e., lasting eight hours or longer).  These
shutdowns occurred on April 7, May 12, and May 14, 2005.

Over the 54-day test period, the system was in operation and treating water for 48 days: 29 days
for two Initial Plant Characterizations (Task 3), five days for data review between the two Initial
Plant Characterizations and the Verification Test, and 14 days for the Verification Test (Task 4).
Results and discussion of the  operation of the Basin Water  System, brine treatment efficiency
(both BRA and BPU systems), finished water quality, and data management are presented in this
chapter as the following six tasks:

Task 1: Selection and Characterization of the Raw Water
Task 2: Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up
Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization
Task 4: Verification Testing
Task 5: Data Management
Task 6: Quality Assurance Proj ect Plan

The field data (operational and water quality) were maintained in a field logbook per Section
3.11 (Task 5) and may be found in Appendix C. The corresponding off-site laboratory  data may
be found in Appendix D.

4.2    Task 1: Selection and  Characterization of the Raw Water

The  experimental  objective,  work plan,  schedule,  and evaluation criteria  for Task 1 were
previously presented in Section 3.7. Historical data were collected (see Table 4-1) and reviewed,
and the  site  was  determined to  have appropriate conditions  for the  Basin Water System
verification  testing based on the operational parameters  presented in Chapter 3 (see Table 3-2).
The data provided  in Table 4-1 is for informational purposes only to characterize the raw water
quality and was not verified by NSF.

The average total arsenic, As  (III), and As (V) concentrations in the  raw water (based on the
historical data available) are  17  |ig/L, 16 |ig/L,  and  2.5  |ig/L, respectively.  The average
historical vanadium level in the raw water was 102 |ig/L.
                                           53

-------
Table 4-1. Historical Water Quality Data for Corydon Street Well (2004)
Parameters
Conductivity
pH
Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Sulfate
Calcium
Hardness
Magnesium
LSI
Total As
As (III)
As(V)
Iron
Manganese
Silica
Vanadium
IDS
TSS
Method
Lab Meter
SM 4500H+ B
SM 2320B
EPA 300.0
SM 4500F C
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA 200.7
SM3120B
EPA 200.7
SM2330B
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200. 8
SM 2540C
EPA 160.2
Units
(imhos/cm
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
None
(ig/L
(ig/L
(ig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
mg/L
mg/L
3/25/04
506
9.1
91.0
77
0.40
6.3
38
6.1
19.0
<0.10
0.36
19
16
2.5
<0.2
O.015
12
93
300
<10
Collection Date
4/22/04 5/20/04 6/17/04
475
9.1
89.2
72
0.41
1.4
34
6.3
19.4
0.89
0.48
13
19
1.0
<0.2
O.015
12
110
290
<10
478
9.1
86.1
75
0.41
1.4
36
6.1
18.8
0.87
0.45
20
16
3.8
<0.2
O.015
12
98
300
<10
479
9.1
84.6
72
0.42
1.4
35
6.1
18.8
0.86
0.44
16
15
2.8
<0.2
O.015
12
120
280
<10
7/22/04
481
9.2
87.6
74
0.41
1.4
36
6.1
18.6
0.83
0.55
15
12.5
2.2
<0.2
O.015
13
89
290
<10
Min
475
9.1
84.6
72
0.40
1.4
34
6.1
18.6
O.10
0.36
13
12.5
1.0
<0.2
O.015
12
89
280
<10
Max
506
9.2
91.0
77
0.42
6.3
38
6.3
19.4
0.89
0.55
20
19
3.8
<0.2
O.015
13
120
300
<10
Ave
484
9.1
87.7
74
0.41
2.4
36
6.1
18.9
0.71
0.46
17
16
2.5
<0.2
O.015
12
102
292
<10
4.3    Task 2: Preparation, Coordination, and Start-Up

The  experimental  objectives, work  plan, schedule, and  evaluation criteria for Task 2 were
previously presented  in Section 3.8.  Basin Water performed start-up activities on-site from
March 3-April 4, 2005. There are no data to present from Task 2.

4.4    Task 3: Initial Plant Characterization

The  experimental  objectives, work  plan, schedule, and  evaluation criteria for Task 3 were
previously presented in Section 3.9. Water quality data were collected on the raw water, influent
water, and effluent water at the frequencies provided in Table 3-4.

There were two Initial Plant Characterizations conducted as part of the ETV at the direction of
Basin  Water.   These are  discussed in sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.  The second Initial Plant
Characterization was  initiated based on the percent arsenic removals and  arsenic breakthrough
observed  in the effluent of  concentrations  greater than 4  |ig/L  during the first Initial Plant
Characterizati on.

The  on-site  and laboratory data for the two Initial  Plant Characterizations are provided in this
section.  Twenty-four-hour composite samples were collected daily for total arsenic,  vanadium,
alkalinity, calcium, chloride,  fluoride, total hardness, magnesium, nitrate, and sulfate.  The 24-
hour  composite samples were analyzed twice per week for iron,  manganese, dissolved silica,
TDS, and TSS.
                                            54

-------
During the Initial Plant Characterization task, the system required salt,  sodium hypochlorite,
acid, and caustic.  Discussion of operational data, including chemical and power consumption
during the Initial Plant Characterization (Task 3) as well as the Verification Testing (Task 4) is
provided in  Section 4.5.4.  A number of special studies were conducted on  speciation of the
arsenic concentration  during both the Initial Plant Characterizations and  the Verification Test;
the results of these special tests are presented in Section 4.5.2.

4.4.1  Initial Plant Characterization No. 1

On April 4, 2005, the manufacturer turned the ETV site and IX  system over to  the FTO to
characterize the raw water, influent water, and effluent water for a minimum of three complete
exhaustion cycles of each IX vessel online over a period of approximately 19 days.  During this
19-day period, 16 days were sampled for arsenic and vanadium.  On one of the 19 days (April 7,
2005), the system was shutdown due to construction in the area.  On two of the 19 days (April
18-19, 2005), the IX system was in operation but no samples were  collected.  During these two
days,  the site was not staffed while  the available data were under review.  In addition, other
parameters were not sampled during the last three days while  the FTO was waiting for laboratory
results and notice to proceed with the Verification Test. The  Initial  Plant Characterization No.  1
concluded with the last 24-hour composite sample beginning  on April 22, 2005, and  collected on
April  23, 2005.  All  composite sample data presented in the following figures and tables are
shown as the ending date that the 24-hour composite was collected.

The IX  system operating conditions were set at the flow rate, pressures, and regeneration rate
determined during the start-up activities (March 3-April 4, 2005) by  Basin Water.  The total flow
rate was targeted at approximately 37.5 gpm with four beds in operation at any time.  The flow
rate through each bed was uniform, giving a flow rate of approximately 9.38 gpm per  vessel.
The absorption capacity set point for the first  Initial Plant Characterization was established  at
1,100 BV.

The pressure and flow rate for the Basin Water system had  very little variation throughout the
characterization test.   The  average pressure drop across the system  over the 19 days of the first
characterization test was approximately 10.3 psi with an average effluent flow rate of 38.0 gpm.
Operating data collected during the Initial Plant Characterization No.  1 are presented in Section
4.5.5 with the Verification  Test data (Table 4-27).

4.4.1.1 Total Arsenic and Vanadium

The Initial Plant Characterization No.  1  did  not meet the performance expectations  of the
manufacturer, because total arsenic breakthrough began to occur earlier  than anticipated (i.e.,
prior  to  1,100  BV).   Total  arsenic  and  vanadium  data collected during Initial  Plant
Characterization No.  1  are presented in Figures 4-1  and 4-2, and the corresponding data are
provided in Table 4-2. Due to a system shutdown on April 7, 2005, no composite samples were
collected on April 8,  2005.  In addition,  no composite samples were collected on April 19-20,
2005, while the testing data were under review by NSF and the FTO.
                                           55

-------
The manufacturer's goal was for 95% of the  total  arsenic  effluent water samples to have
concentrations less than 4 jig/L and 95% of the  vanadium  samples to have concentrations less
than 15 |ig/L.  On the sixth day of the first Initial Plant Characterization (April 11, 2005), the
effluent total arsenic level was 4.5 |ig/L.  For the  16 days when samples were collected, eight of
the 16 (50%) total arsenic samples were greater than 4 |ig/L, while one of the 14 (7%) vanadium
samples were greater than 15 |ig/L. During the  Initial Plant Characterization, the average raw,
influent and effluent water  total arsenic concentrations were 16 |ig/L, 15 |ig/L, and 4.7  |ig/L,
respectively.    The vanadium  concentrations  were  109  |ig/L,  111  |ig/L,  and  6.4   |ig/L,
respectively.

The vanadium  data appear  to have outlying data points  for the raw  and the influent water on
April 5, 2005, and for the influent water on April 9, 2005.  On these dates, data points indicate
vanadium levels were below the detection limit (<3.0 |ig/L) with higher  levels  of vanadium in
the effluent.  All  other  vanadium data points  appear  within  the anticipated range for the
analytical technology.  The  outlying data points are possibly due to labeling  errors (either in the
field or the laboratory) and are not included in the statistical analyses of the data.

                                 Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-1: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 raw, influent, and effluent
water total arsenic.
                                            56

-------
       140 '
       100
     o
     E
                                   No Samples Collected - Review
                                   of Laboratory Data 4/19-20/05
                             o   ^
                                                                     o   ^
                                  Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-2: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 raw, influent, and effluent
water vanadium.
                                                57

-------
Table 4-2. Initial Plant Characterization No. 1: Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water
Total Arsenic and Vanadium


Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Total
Raw
Water
14
18
15
NA
14
16
18
15
15
17
15
15
15
16
NA
NA
16
15
15
16
14
18
16
1.2
(15-16)
Arsenic ((j
Influent
Water
15
19
14
NA
13
16
13
14
15
17
15
15
15
16
NA
NA
15
15
14
15
13
19
16
1.5
(15-15)
g/L)
Effluent
Water
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
NA
1.4
3.3
4.5
4.2
6.5
9.8
3.9
6.7
14
3.3
NA
NA
3.8
6.8
4.5
4.7
<1.0
14
16
3.5
(4.2-5.3)
Vanadium (ng/L)
Raw
Water
O.O1
100
100
NA
100
110
110
110
110
110
120
120
110
110
NA
NA
110
110
110
109
100
120
15
5.9
(108-110)
Influent
Water
<3.0'
110
110
NA
O.O1
110
110
110
110
110
120
120
110
110
NA
NA
110
110
110
111
110
120
14
3.6
(111-112)
Effluent
Water
4.8
<3.0
<3.0
NA
951
<3.0
5.7
5.6
6.9
16
7.8
8.7
HO1
3.1
NA
NA
3.2
9.5
9.8
6.4
<3.0
16
14
3.7
(5.7-7.2)
   Data are considered aberrant and are not included in the statistical analysis.
NA = Not Available.

4.4.1.2 Inorganic Constituents

In addition to the target parameters (total arsenic  and vanadium), raw, influent, and effluent
water samples were  collected daily for alkalinity,  calcium,  chloride, fluoride, magnesium,
sulfate,  nitrate, and total hardness.   Samples were collected twice weekly for dissolved silica,
TDS, TSS, iron,  and manganese.

Daily 24-Hour Composite Inorganic Parameters
The   daily  24-hour  composite  inorganic  parameters  collected  during  the  Initial  Plant
Characterization No. 1 are presented in Figures 4-3  through Figure 4-10 with the corresponding
data provided in Table 4-3. The results of the daily  24-hour composite samples for inorganic
parameters indicated the treatment  system removed very low levels of inorganic constituents
from the raw water, including on average 11% alkalinity and 28% nitrate. Sulfate concentrations
were reduced to less than the detection limit. However, in the  case of chloride, the treatment
system contributed 35 to 59% more chloride than observed in the raw water.
                                            58

-------
                                        No Samples Collected - Review
                                        of Laboratory Data 4/19-22/05
                                System Shut Down 4/7/05
                                      Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-3: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water alkalinity.
            7 '
          33
                                          No Samples Collected - Review
                                          of Laboratory Data 4/19-22/05
                                System Shut Down 4/7/05
                                    Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-4: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water calcium.
                                                  59

-------
               140
                                            No Samples Collected - Review
                                            of Laboratory Data 4/19-22/05
                                      Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-5: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water chloride.
                                           No Samples Collected - Review
                                           of Laboratory Data 4/19-22/05
                                       Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-6: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water fluoride.
                                                60

-------
          1.4
          0.4-
          0.2
                                      No Samples Collected - Review
                                      of Laboratory Data 4/18-22/05
            ooooooooooooooooooo
                                   Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-7: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water magnesium.
          a
          E
                •*—*
                               System Shut Down 4/7/05
                                     No Samples Collected - Review
                                     of Laboratory Data 4/18-22/05
                                  Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-8: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water sulfate.
                                               61

-------
                                 Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-9: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent, and
effluent water nitrate.
         30
         25-
      ffi
      -£  10
                                   System Shut Down 4/7/05
                              No Samples Collected - Review
                              of Laboratory Data 4/18-22/05
                                  Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Date
Figure 4-10: Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 of daily raw, influent,
and effluent water total hardness.
                                                62

-------
Table 4-3. Initial Plant Characterization No.
Alkalinity, Calcium,
Chloride,
1 Daily Raw, Influent,
Fluoride, Magnesium, Sulfate, Nitrate,
Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L)

Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval


Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Raw
Water
91.4
98.6
88.0
NA
88.9
89.2
92.0
98.8
91.7
91.5
91.0
90.8
92.0
88.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
91.7
88.0
98.8
13
3.39
Influent
Water
92.5
88.6
100
NA
89.7
88.5
91.8
91.9
92.2
101
91.9
92.0
92.2
86.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
94.5
92.4
86.9
101
14
3.97
(91.0-92.4) (91.6-93.2)

Raw
Water
75
74
74
NA
75
74
70
71
74
74
69
74
74
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
69
75
13
1.9
(73-74)
Chloride (mg/L)
Influent
Water
74
74
74
NA
78
75
71
71
74
74
70
74
74
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
74
70
78
14
1.9
(73-74)
Effluent
Water
82.3
76.6
78.2
NA
79.5
80.4
83.7
83.8
91.8
82.2
83.6
83.5
81.3
78.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
82.0
76.6
91.8
13
3.77
(81.2-82.8)

Effluent
Water
110
110
110
NA
117
110
110
110
100
110
110
110
108
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
100
117
13
3.5
(109-110)
and Effluent
Water
and Hardness
Calcium (mg/L)
Raw
Water
5.9
5.8
5.8
NA
7.0
6.6
6.2
6.0
5.9
6.1
5.9
6.1
5.9
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.1
5.8
7.0
13
0.35
(6.0-6.2)
Influent
Water
6.0
5.9
5.8
NA
7.7
6.3
6.0
6.1
5.9
6.3
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.1
5.8
7.7
13
0.50
(6.0-6.2)
Effluent
Water
5.9
5.9
5.9
NA
7.9
6.5
6.1
6.1
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.3
5.8
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.2
5.8
7.9
13
0.55
(6.1-6.3)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Raw
Water
0.44
0.42
0.41
NA
0.43
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.36
0.39
0.45
0.41
0.42
0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.42
0.36
0.45
13
0.02
(0.41-0.43)
Influent
Water
0.44
0.41
0.42
NA
0.44
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.39
0.40
0.46
0.42
0.42
0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.39
0.46
13
0.02
(0.42-0.43)
Effluent
Water
0.46
0.42
0.41
NA
0.43
0.46
0.44
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.44
0.40
0.41
0.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.40
0.50
13
0.03
(0.43-0.44)
63

-------
Table 4-3. Initial Plant Characterization No.
Alkalinity, Calcium,
(continued)


Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/1 1/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval


Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
Chloride,


Raw
Water
0.81
0.80
0.80
NA
1.1
0.99
0.89
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.81
0.85
0.81
0.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.86
0.80
1.1
13
0.09
(0.84-0.88)

Raw
Water
6.2
6.3
6.2
NA
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.3
5.6
5.6
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Daily Raw, Influent, and Effluent
Fluoride, Magnesium, Sulfate,

Magnesium (mg/L)
Influent
Water
0.83
0.82
0.80
NA
1.2
0.92
0.85
0.87
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.82
0.81
0.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.87
0.80
1.2
13
0.11
(0.84-0.89)
Nitrate (mg/L)
Influent
Water
6.2
6.2
6.2
NA
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.1


Effluent
Water
0.82
0.82
0.82
NA
1.2
0.95
0.86
0.87
0.83
0.85
0.83
0.88
0.81
0.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.87
0.81
1.2
13
0.11
(0.85-0.90)

Effluent
Water
2.5
3.9
4.5
NA
4.1
4.4
4.9
5.1
4.4
4.2
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Raw
Water
37
37
37
NA
38
38
37
37
37
37
36
38
37
39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37
36
39
13
0.75
(37-37)
Water
Nitrate and Hardness

Sulfate (mg/L)
Influent
Water
37
37
37
NA
39
37
37
37
37
37
36
37
37
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
37
36
39
14
0.70
(37-37)


Effluent
Water1
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
NA
O.50
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2.5
0.050
<2.5
13
NA
NA
Total Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L)
Raw
Water
18.1
17.8
17.8
NA
22.0
20.6
19.1
18.4
NA
18.7
NA
NA
NA
18.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Influent
Water
18.4
18.1
17.8
NA
24.2
19.5
18.5
18.8
NA
19.3
NA
NA
NA
18.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Effluent
Water
18.1
18.1
18.1
NA
24.7
20.1
18.8
18.8
NA
19.0
NA
NA
NA
18.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
64

-------
Table 4-3. Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Daily Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water
Alkalinity,  Calcium,  Chloride,  Fluoride,  Magnesium,  Sulfate,  Nitrate and  Hardness
(continued)
                                  Nitrate (mg/L)              Total Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L)

Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Raw
Water
6.3
5.6
7.0
13
0.44
(6.2-6.4)
Influent
Water
6.4
6.1
6.9
14
0.29
(6.3-6.4)
Effluent
Water
4.5
2.5
5.3
13
0.76
(4.4-4.7)
Raw
Water
19.0
17.8
22.0
9
1.42
(18.5-19.5)
Influent
Water
19.2
17.8
24.2
9
1.94
(18.6-19.9)
Effluent
Water
19.3
18.1
24.7
9
2.11
(18.6-20.1)
    Detection limits for sulfate in effluent water are raised by the dilution factor. A dilution was made because of either a
    matrix interference such as high TDS, a high concentration of sulfate to bring calibration of the instrument in range, and/or a
    high concentration of another parameter detected in the same analysis.
NA = Not Available.
24-Hour Twice Weekly Composite Inorganic Parameters
Since the historical water quality data indicated low to non-detect concentrations of silica, TDS,
TSS, iron, and manganese, these parameters were collected at a reduced frequency of twice per
week.   These data are presented in Table 4-4.  The sample collection times were  targeted to
collect  one sample towards the beginning and one sample  towards the end of a regeneration
cycle.   There was little to no change  in the inorganic parameters between the raw water and
effluent water, with the exception of an average 4% reduction in TDS.  All raw, influent, and
effluent water samples for TSS, iron, and manganese were below the detection limit (10 mg/L,
0.020 mg/L, and 2.0 |ig/L, respectively).
                                           65

-------
Table 4-4. Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Twice Weekly Parameters
Influent, and Effluent


Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples


Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples


Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Water Silica, TDS, TSS,

Raw
Water
12
12
12
11
12
11
12
4

Raw
Water
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
4

Raw
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
4
Iron, and Manganese
Dissolved Silica (mg/L)
Influent
Water
12
12
11
11
12
11
12
4
TSS (mg/L)
Influent
Water
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
4
Manganese (|ig/L)
Influent
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
4
Effluent
Water
13
13
12
12
13
12
13
4

Effluent
Water
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
4

Raw
Water
300
390
290
280
290
280
300
4

Raw
Water
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
4

Effluent
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
4

TDS (mg/L)
Influent
Water
290
300
290
290
293
290
300
4
Iron (mg/L)
Influent
Water
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
4











for Raw,


Effluent
Water
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
4

Effluent
Water
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
4











66

-------
4.4.1.3 On-Site Laboratory Testing

On-site laboratory testing during Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 included pH, conductivity,
free and total chlorine, and temperature, as presented in Tables 4-5 through 4-7.  There was very
little difference between the influent and effluent water for pH, conductivity, and temperature.
The average chlorine residuals in the influent water were 0.10 mg/L and 0.12 mg/L for free and
total chlorine, respectively.   These measurements were within the target range of 0.10-0.50
mg/L.
Table 4-5: Initial Plant


Date
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/1 1/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
Median/ Average1
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Characterization No.

Raw
Water
9.04
9.25
9.17
8.92
9.21
9.13
8.95
8.98
9.08
8.97
9.17
9.11
9.16
9.12
9.11
9.11
9.24
9.11
8.92
9.25
17
NA
NA
pH
Influent
Water
9.02
9.21
9.19
8.86
9.21
9.18
9.05
9.04
9.11
9.11
9.16
9.17
9.16
9.14
9.10
9.10
9.23
9.14
8.86
9.23
17
NA
NA
1 pH and Conductivity

Effluent
Water
8.65
8.64
8.89
9.16
8.99
9.05
9.10
9.01
9.10
9.05
8.70
8.69
8.76
9.04
9.02
9.07
9.21
9.02
8.64
9.21
17
NA
NA


Conductivity ((imho/cm)
Raw
Water
564
537
503
595
530
527
512
527
521
533
540
533
520
526
541
540
536
534
503
595
17
20.5
(531-538)
Influent
Water
535
529
515
596
528
526
537
527
524
520
543
517
520
527
545
545
534
533
515
596
17
18.6
(531-536)
Effluent
Water
543
541
508
581
542
529
543
547
523
522
556
532
530
530
550
551
525
538
508
581
17
16.6
(536-541)
    The median values of the pH analyses are presented.  The averages were calculated for the conductivity
    analyses.
NA = Not Applicable.
                                            67

-------
Table 4-6. Initial Plant

Date
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/20/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Characterization No. 1 Free
Free
Raw
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
NA
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.05
17
0.01
(0.02-0.02)
Chlorine (mg/L)
and Total Chlorine

Influent Effluent
0.04
0.14
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.21
0.10
0.13
0.12
0.20
0.08
0.17
0.14
0.10
0.02
0.21
18
0.06
(0.10-0.11) (0
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.06
17
0.01
02-0.02)
Total
Raw
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.01
NA
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
17
0.01
(0.02-0.02)

Chlorine (mg
Influent
0.08
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.22
0.12
0.15
0.11
0.21
0.09
0.15
0.17
0.12
0.02
0.22
18
0.05
(0.11-0.13)

/L)
Effluent
0.00
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
NA
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.14
16
0.03
(0.02-0.03)
NA = Not Available.
                                                68

-------
Table 4-7. Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 On-Site Temperature
                                           Temperature (°C)
           Date               Raw Water      Influent Water     Effluent Water
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/27/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
27.0
27.0
27.0
25.0
NA
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.3
25.0
27.0
8
0.71
(26.0-26.5)
27.0
27.0
27.0
25.0
NA
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.3
25.0
27.0
8
0.71
(26.0-26.5)
27.0
27.0
27.0
25.0
NA
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.3
25.0
27.0
8
0.71
(26.0-26.5)
NA = Not Available.
4.4.1.4 Mass Balance of Total Arsenic

A mass balance through the Basin Water System for total arsenic was conducted for the Initial
Plant Characterization  No. 1.   The mass balance was  calculated based on the influent water,
effluent water,  and waste  brine arsenic concentrations to ensure the arsenic was being removed
from the resin during the regeneration cycles.

The  equation used for the mass balance was previously presented in Equation 3-1:  V;C; = VeCe +
VtCt,.  In  this  equation, \(C; represents  the influent water volume to the  IX treatment system
multiplied by the influent water total arsenic concentration.  VeCe represents the effluent water
volume from the IX treatment system multiplied by the effluent water total arsenic concentration.
Lastly,  VbCb represents the brine volume from the IX treatment system multiplied by the brine
total arsenic concentration.  In total, six data sets were collected to calculate the mass balance
during the Initial  Plant Characterization  No.  1.  The results  are  provided in Table 4-8.  The
influent and effluent total arsenic values for  each of the  dates presented in Table 48 were
previously presented in Table 4-2. The brine total  arsenic values were presented in Table 4-8 as
Cb (brine concentration).

Throughout most of the Initial Plant Characterization, the total arsenic mass balance had a 1 to
45% difference between VeCe + VbCb and V;C;, with the exception of the  samples collected on
April 4, 2005.   On that  date, the arsenic  concentration in  the brine was 0.36  g arsenic as
compared to 1.31 to 2.22  g arsenic in the remaining five samples collected.  The lower arsenic
level in the waste brine led to an 82% difference in the mass balance.  When this data point  is
                                          69

-------
included in the  summed six data sets,  the percent difference is 28%,  as  compared to a  17%
difference when this data point is not included in the summed mass balance.
Table 4-8: Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 Arsenic Mass Balance
Date
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
Total
Total
VeCe
0.21 gAs
0.19gAs
0.21 gAs
0.83 gAs
1.39gAs
0.92 gAs
3. 75 gAs
3. 55 gAs
Cb
930 ug/L
5300 ug/L
3600 ug/L
3200 ug/L
4300 ug/L
5 100 ug/L
22,430 ug/L
2 1,500 ug/L
VbCb
0.36 g As
2.22 g As
1.48 gAs
1.31 gAs
1.78 gAs
1.99 gAs
9.15 gAs
8.78 g As
ViCi
3.08 gAs
2.63 gAs
2.92 gAs
3.33 gAs
3.08 gAs
2.88 gAs
17. 9 gAs
14.84 gAs
% Difference
-82
-8
-42
-35
+3
+1
-28
-17
Comments






Includes all data points.
4/4/05 not included in total.
4.4.2  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2

Data  from  Initial  Plant Characterization  No.  1  were  reviewed  and  discussed with  the
manufacturer.   While the arsenic results showed that the treated water met the drinking water
standard (<10 |ig/L), the results did not meet the manufacturer's goal of 95% of the total  arsenic
effluent water samples having a concentration less than 4 |ig/L.  The manufacturer returned to
the  site to  make  modifications  to operational   set  points,   and a Second  Initial  Plant
Characterization was performed.  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 was conducted from April
29-May 9, 2005, for a total of two complete exhaustion and regeneration cycles (10 days). There
were no major shutdowns during the second Initial Plant Characterization.

The only change made to the operation of the IX system was to adjust the regeneration rate from
1,100 BV to 850 BV.  It  was expected that increasing the frequency of regeneration (i.e.,
lowering the loading rate on the resin) should result in a lower total arsenic concentration in the
blended water from the four operating vessels.  All other operating parameters, such as pressure
and flow rates,  were held constant at the same conditions used during the first characterization.
The target total  flow rate was 37.5 gpm, with approximately 9.38 gpm per vessel.

The pressure and flow rate  for the Basin Water system had very little variation throughout the
second Initial Plant Characterization.  The average pressure drop across the system over the 10
days of Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 was approximately 10.3 psi with an average effluent
flow rate of 37.0 gpm from the treatment system.   Operating data collected during the Initial
Plant Characterization No. 2 are presented in Section 4.5.5 with the Verification Test data (Table
4-27).

Total arsenic and vanadium were sampled daily from 24-hour composite samples.  Sulfate,
nitrate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, fluoride, TDS, TSS, iron, manganese, hardness,
and dissolved silica were collected once during the Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 on  May 4,
2005, from  the 24-hour composite  sample.   The sampling  frequency  for  the  non  critical
parameters was decreased during the Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 from that of the Initial
Plant Characterization No. 1, because the purpose of repeating the Initial Plant Characterization
test was to the evaluate the arsenic and vanadium breakthrough with a reduction of BVs.
                                          70

-------
4.4.2.1 Total Arsenic and Vanadium

The Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 met the performance expectations of the manufacturer.
Total  arsenic was consistently less than 4  |ig/L,  and vanadium was consistently less than 15
|ig/L.  The effluent water total arsenic was consistently below the detection limit of 1.0 |ig/L
until the last day of the Initial Plant Characterization, when the effluent water total arsenic was
1.6 |ig/L. The vanadium concentration was less than the detection limit of 3.0 |ig/L throughout
the second  Initial Plant Characterization.   Total  arsenic and vanadium data collected during
Initial  Plant Characterization No. 2 are  presented in   Figures  4-11  and 4-12, with  the
corresponding data presented in Table 4-9.
                               Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Date
Figure 4-11:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant Characterization No.  2 raw,  influent, and
effluent water total arsenic.
                                           71

-------
         120
         100
          60
          40 '
          20
          0+-
                               Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Date
Figure  4-12:  Temporal plot of Initial Plant  Characterization No.  2 raw,  influent, and
effluent water vanadium.
Table 4-9. Initial Plant Characterization No.
Total Arsenic and Vanadium
                                             2 Raw Water, Influent, and Effluent Water


Date
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval

Raw
Water
16
14
14
15
15
15
15
18
NA
NA
15
14
18
8
1.3
(15-16)
Total Arsenic (|ig
Influent
Water
15
14
15
16
16
17
17
15
NA
NA
16
14
17
8
1.1
(15-16)
/L)
Effluent
Water
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.6
NA
NA
1.1
1.6
8
0.21
(<1. 0-1.2)

Raw
Water
110
110
110
110
100
110
99
97
NA
NA
106
97
110
8
5.9
(103-108)
Vanadium (ng/L)
Influent
Water
110
110
110
110
110
105
99
94
NA
NA
106
94
110
8
6.3
(103-109)

Effluent
Water
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
NA
NA
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
8
NC
NC
NA = Not Available.
NC = Not Calculated.
                                         72

-------
4.4.2.2 Inorganic Constituents

In addition  to the target  parameters  (total  arsenic and vanadium),  raw, influent, and effluent
water samples were  collected for sulfate,  nitrate, chloride,  calcium,  magnesium, alkalinity,
fluoride, TDS, TSS, iron,  manganese, hardness, and dissolved  silica.  The inorganic constituents
collected during the Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 are provided in Table 4-10.  There was
little to no change in the inorganic parameters between the raw water and effluent water, with the
exception of a 67% increase in chloride.  Nitrate and fluoride were removed by 48 and 22%,
respectively, and sulfate was removed to below the detection  limit of 2.5 mg/L.  Reducing the
BVs from 1,100 (Initial Plant Characterization No. 1) to 850 BVs (Initial Plant Characterization
No. 2) had little impact on the general water quality other than arsenic and vanadium removal.

Table 4-10.  May 5, 2005 Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Raw, Influent, and Effluent
Water Inorganic Constituents
Parameter
Sulfate
Nitrate as NO3
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity
Fluoride
TDS
TSS
Iron
Manganese
Hardness
Silica
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
Raw Water
37
6.1
72
5.8
0.79
93.6
0.63
300
<10
O.020
<2.0
17.7
12
Influent Water
38
6.2
73
6.3
0.86
72.8
0.56
290
<10
O.020
<2.0
19.3
12
Effluent Water
<2.5
3.2
120
5.8
0.79
94.4
0.49
310
<10
O.020
<2.0
17.7
12
4.4.2.3 On-Site Laboratory Testing

On-site laboratory testing during Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 included pH, conductivity,
free and total chlorine, and temperature, as presented in Tables 4-11 through 4-13.  As with the
previous characterization test, there was very little difference between the raw and effluent water
for conductivity and temperature.  There was a slight reduction in pH between both the raw and
influent water compared to the effluent water.  The average influent chlorine residuals were 0.21
mg/L and 0.25 mg/L for free and total chlorine, respectively.  These averages were a little higher
than the previous characterization test, but still within the target range of 0.10-0.50 mg/L.
                                          73

-------
Table 4-11. Initial

Date
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
Median/Average '
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Plant Characterization
Raw
Water
9.08
9.10
9.08
9.08
9.07
9.09
8.64
9.13
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
8.64
9.13
11
NC
NC
PH
Influent
Water
9.10
9.09
9.12
9.10
9.06
9.09
8.33
9.11
9.10
9.08
9.10
9.10
8.33
9.12
11
NC
NC
No. 2 pH and Conductivity
Effluent
Water
8.13
7.85
8.82
8.26
8.71
8.67
7.83
8.72
8.03
8.58
7.93
8.26
7.83
8.82
11
NC
NC

Conductivity
Raw Influent
Water
545
545
538
533
528
532
508
548
537
518
534
533
508
548
11
12.0
(530-536)
Water
536
546
540
530
534
534
527
543
532
518
534
534
518
546
11
7.68
(532-536)

Effluent
Water
561
560
544
544
540
541
551
549
558
528
541
547
528
561
11
10.0
(544-550)
    The  median values of the  pH analyses are presented.  The  averages were calculated for the conductivity
    analyses.
NC = Not Calculated.
                                                 74

-------
Table 4-12. Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Free an
Free Chlorine (mg/L)
Date
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval (0
Raw Influent Effluent
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
11
0.01
01-0.01) (0
0.15
0.15
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.24
0.28
0.14
0.24
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.28
11
0.05
20-0.23) (0.
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.05
11
0.01
01-0.02)
d Total Chlorine
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
Raw Influent Effluent
0.00 0.17 0.01
0.02 0.19 0.02
0.01 0.30 0.01
0.00 0.27 0.02
0.01 0.29 0.02
0.01 0.30 0.02
0.01 0.28 0.02
0.00 0.25 0.00
0.01 0.27 0.02
0.01 0.23 0.02
0.01 0.23 0.00
0.01 0.25 0.01
0.00 0.17 0.00
0.02 0.30 0.02
11 11 11
0.01 0.04 0.01
(0.01-0.01) (0.24-0.26) (0.01-0.02)

Table 4-13. Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Temperature

Date

4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval

Raw Water

26.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
27.0
26.1
26.7
26.0
26.0
26.5
26.0
26.3
26.0
27.0
11
0.36
(26.2-26.3)
Temperature
Influent
Water
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
27.0
26.1
26.6
26.0
26.0
26.5
26.0
26.2
26.0
27.0
11
0.35
(26.2-26.3)
(°C)
Effluent Water

26.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
27.0
26.5
26.7
26.0
26.0
26.5
26.0
26.3
26.0
27.0
11
0.36
(26.2-26.4)
75

-------
4.4.2.4 Mass Balance of Total Arsenic

A mass balance through the Basin Water System for total arsenic was conducted for the Initial
Plant Characterization No. 2 using equation 3-1, previously presented and discussed in Section
4.4.1.4.  In total, three data sets were collected during the Initial Plant Characterization No. 2.
The results are provided in Table 4-14.  The total arsenic influent and effluent values used for the
calculation of the mass balance were previously presented in Table 4-9.  The total arsenic brine
concentrations (Cb) are presented in Table 4-14.

When mass balance  data were summed (see totals in Table 4-14), the percent difference in the
influent volume and  concentration (V;C;) was  13% higher than the combined effluent and brine
volume and concentration  (VeCe and VbCb, respectively).

Table 4-14.  Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 Arsenic Mass Balance
Date
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
Total
VeCe
0.20g As
0.19 g As
0.20g As
0.59g As
Cb
4600 ug/L
5400 ug/L
4300 ug/L
14, 3 00 ug/L
VbCb
1.78 g As
4.40 g As
1.85 g As
8. 02 g As
ViCi
3.21 g As
3.32 g As
3.34 g As
9.86 g As
% Difference
-38
+38
-39
-13
4.5    Task 4: Verification Testing

The  verification  testing period for the Basin  Water  System  was May 12-28, 2005.   The
experimental objectives, work plan, analytical schedule, and evaluation criteria were previously
presented in Section 3.10.  The objectives of the Verification Test were:

•  Determine the raw, influent and effluent water quality (see Sections 4.5.1-4.5.2);
•  Observe and record the plant operating conditions and equipment performance (see Section
   4.5.4) with additional O&M observations discussed in Section 4.8; and
•  Characterize the effectiveness of the brine treatment processes (BRA and BPU) (see Section
   4.5.5).

4.5.1   Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water Quality

Water quality samples  were collected throughout the Verification Test  and analyzed by the
MWH Laboratories.  Daily 24-hour composite samples of the raw, influent, and effluent water
were  checked for the following parameters:  total arsenic, vanadium,  sulfate, nitrate,  chloride,
calcium, magnesium,  alkalinity,  fluoride, TDS, TSS, iron,  manganese, hardness, and dissolved
silica.  Grab samples were collected four times per day for total arsenic  and vanadium on the
effluent water.  Twice weekly parameters during the Verification Test included on-site speciation
of arsenic (As [III] and As [V]) on  the raw, influent, and effluent  water.

Daily on-site testing  included free and total chlorine (twice daily),  conductivity (continuous
online monitoring and daily grab samples), and turbidity (continuous online monitoring  and daily
                                          76

-------
grab samples).   The results of the analytical data collected during the  Verification Test are
presented in this section.  Results of the waste generated during the Verification Test (BRA and
BPU waste) are presented in Section 4.5.5.

There were two short-term system shutdowns between May 12-15, 2005. These shutdowns were
not due to problems with the Basin Water System, but rather caused by construction in the area
of the Cory don Street Well. The shutdowns occurred on the following dates and for the noted
approximate durations:

•   May 12, 2005 at 4:11 PM until May 13, 2005 at 3:53 PM, approximately 24 hours; and
•   May 14, 2005 at 7:07 PM until May 15, 2005 at  10:01 AM, approximately 15 hours.

4.5.1.1 Verification Testing Daily Laboratory Data

Daily 24-hour composite  samples were collected from the raw, influent, and effluent water and
analyzed for total arsenic and vanadium. Grab samples were also collected for total arsenic and
vanadium to spot-check the effluent water quality and to collect one grab sample per day of the
raw and influent water.  Daily analyses were  also conducted on the 24-hour composite samples
from the raw, influent, and effluent water for  alkalinity, chloride,  fluoride, nitrate, dissolved
silica,  sulfate, TDS, TSS,  calcium,  iron,  total hardness, magnesium, and manganese.  The
following sections present the data from these  analyses.

Daily 24-Hour Composite Total Arsenic and Vanadium
The 24-hour composite data shown in Figures 4-13 and 4-14  and presented in  Table 4-15
indicate that the Basin Water System removed total arsenic and vanadium in  the raw water to
non-detectable levels in each  of the sample sets collected. The detection limits were 1.0 jig/L
and 3.0 jig/L for total arsenic and vanadium, respectively.
                                         77

-------
            18
            14
          43 lo-
            4-
                        Partial Day System Shut
                        Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                       Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-13: Temporal plot of verification testing 24-hour composite raw, influent, and
effluent water total arsenic.
              120
               60-
            O
            g
               20-
                           Partial Day System Shut
                           Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                         Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-14: Temporal plot of verification testing 24-hour composite raw, influent, and
effluent water vanadium.
                                             78

-------
Table 4-15. Verification Testing
24-Hour Composite Raw, Influent,
and Effluent Water Total
Arsenic and Vanadium

Date

5/14/2005
5/15/2005
5/16/2005
5/17/2005
5/18/2005
5/19/2005
5/20/2005
5/21/2005
5/22/2005
5/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/25/2005
5/26/2005
5/27/2005
5/28/2005
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Total Arsenic (ng/L)
Raw
Water
15
NA
15
16
14
15
<1.0'
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
14
16
13
0.49
(15-15)
Influent Effluent
Water Water
14 <1.0
NA NA
14 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
15 <1.0
16 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
16 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
16 <1.0
14 14
0.62 NC
(15-15) NC

Raw
Water
110
NA
110
100
110
99
<3.0'
100
110
100
110
110
110
110
110
107
99
110
13
4.9
(106-108)
Vanadium (|ig/L)
Influent
Water
110
NA
100
110
98
97
110
100
100
100
110
110
110
110
110
105
97
110
14
5.6
(104-106)

Effluent
Water
<3.0
NA
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
14
NC
NC
   Considered aberrant data point and removed from statistical analysis.
NA = Not Available.
NC = Not Calculated.

   Grab Samples of Total Arsenic and Vanadium
   Grab samples were collected once a day from the raw and influent water lines and four times per
   day from the effluent water line to analyze for total arsenic and vanadium. The grab sample data
   are presented in Figures 4-15 and 4-16, with the corresponding data in Table 4-16. The results of
   the grab sample analyses show that all total arsenic samples collected from the system effluent
   were at non-detectable levels (<1.0 |ig/L) with the exception of one grab sample collected on
   May  26, 2005  with  a result of 1.1 |ig/L.  All vanadium  grab samples  collected during the
   Verification Test were at non-detectable levels  (<3.0 |ig/L) with the exception of one sample
   collected on May 26,  2005 with a result of 4.9 |ig/L.
                                             79

-------
             20
             10 -
             6 -
Partial Day System Shut
Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                                                     -0	0	O
                                        Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-15: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water grab
sample total arsenic.
             120
             100-
              80
           
-------
Table 4-16. Verification Testing Daily Grab Samples foi
Total Arsenic (|ig/L)
Grab Sample Raw Influent Effluent
Date No. Water Water Water
5/13/2005
5/14/2005
5/1 6/2005 '
5/17/2005
5/18/2005
5/19/2005
5/20/2005
5/21/2005
5/22/2005
5/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/25/2005
1 16
2
3
4
1 14
2
3
4
1 15
2
3
4
1 14
2
3
4
1 14
2
32 14
4
1 14
2
33
1 15
2
3
4
1 15
2
3
4
1 15
2
3
4
1 15
2
3
4
1 16
2
3
4
1 16
2
3
4
14 <1.0
14 <1.0
17 <1.0
14 <1.0
14 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
16 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
16 <1.0
14 <1.0
r Total Arsenic and Vanadium
Vanadium (|ig/L)
Raw Influent Effluent
Water Water Water
110 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 100 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
100 100 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
97 97 <3.0
<3.0
NA NA NA
<3.0
98 98 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
100 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 100 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 100 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
110 110 <3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
81

-------
Table 4-16. Verification Testing Daily Grab Samples for Total Arsenic and
(continued)

Grab
Date Sample No.
5/26/2005 1
2
3
4
5/27/2005 1
2
3
4
5/28/2005 1
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Total Arsenic (|ig/L)
Raw
Water
18



15



15
15
14
18
16
1.1
(15-15)
Influent Effluent
Water Water
19 <1.0
1.1
<1.0
<1.0
15 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
14 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
19 1.1
16 56
1.4 0.01
(15-15) (O.l-O.l)
Vanadium
Vanadium (|ig/L)
Raw
Water
110



110



110
107
97
110
15
5.2
(106-108)
Influent
Water
100



110



110
105
97
110
15
5.6
(104-106)
Effluent
Water
4.9
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
4.9
54
0.26
(<3.0-<3.0)
    Data for 5/15/05 not available due to plant shutdown.
2    Extra samples were collected on 5/18/05 due to the site audit. Regular samples were collected and then speciated for arsenic
    in the afternoon for NSF. NA = Additional vanadium samples were not collected on this day.
3    Fourth grab sample for 5/19/05 not available due to plant shutdown.

Daily 24-Hour Composite  Samples for Other Inorganic Parameters
Samples  from the raw, influent,  and  effluent water  were  collected daily from the 24-hour
composite samples  to  analyze for sulfate,  nitrate, chloride, calcium, magnesium,  alkalinity,
fluoride, IDS, TSS, iron,  manganese, hardness, and dissolved silica.  The results for sulfate,
nitrate, chloride, calcium,  magnesium,  alkalinity, fluoride, TDS, and hardness are graphically
presented in Figures 4-17 through  4-25.   Corresponding data  for all  of the parameters are
provided  in  Table 4-17.   Data were not graphically presented for TSS, iron,  and manganese
because these  parameters  were all  at non-detectable levels for the raw, influent, and effluent
water samples.

On average as compared to the raw water, the Basin Water System removed 18% alkalinity and
47% nitrate, and removed  sulfate to below the  detection limit.  Chloride levels increased from
53% to 82% (67% on average). All other parameters had little to no change in the effluent water
quality as compared to the raw water quality.
                                            82

-------
          120
          100 '
                            Partial Day System Shut
                            Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                       Verification Testing Date
Figure  4-17:  Temporal  plot  of  verification  testing  raw,  influent,  and effluent water
alkalinity.
          250 '
        .2 200 -
                           , Partial Day System Shut
                           Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                       Verification Testing Date
Figure  4-18:  Temporal  plot  of  verification  testing  raw,  influent,  and  effluent water
chloride.
                                               83

-------
                            Partial Day System Shut
                            Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                       Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-19: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water fluoride.
                         Partial Day System Shut
                         Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                      Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-20: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water nitrate.
                                              84

-------
          120
          100 '
           60 •
        •3  40:
           20 -
'Partial Day System Shut
 Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                      Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-21:  Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water sulfate.
                                      Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-22:  Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water TDS.
                                             85

-------
          5 -
         .2 4
Partial Day System Shut
Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                      Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-23: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water calcium.
                           Partial Day System Shut
                           Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                       Verification Testing Date

Figure 4-24: Temporal plot of verification testing raw, influent, and effluent water total
hardness.
                                              86

-------
                       Partial Day System Shut
                       Down on 5/14 and 5/15
                                   Verification Testing Date

Figure  4-25: Temporal plot  of verification testing raw, influent,  and  effluent  water
magnesium.

Table  4-17.  Verification Testing  24-Hour  Composite  Data for  Raw, Influent,  and
Effluent Water Inorganic Parameters


Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval

Raw
Water
87.4
87.8
95.1
88.3
88.3
94.9
94.8
95.8
95.4
101
99.8
95.6
95.0
97.6
94.1
87.4
101
14
4.42
(93.2-94.6)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Influent
Water
87.7
88.2
94.7
88.5
88.5
101
74.5
95.0
95.0
96.0
98.3
95.3
95.1
96.0
92.4
74.5
101
14
6.56
(91.1-93.7)

Effluent
Water
70.4
70.6
82.4
72.6
69.3
66.5
95.6
78.2
76.0
81.1
72.9
79.0
78.8
85.0
77.0
66.5
95.6
14
7.63
(75.5-78.5)

Raw
Water
71
71
72
72
71
66
72
71
71
190
71
72
72
75
80
66
190
14
32
(74-86)
Chloride (mg/I
Influent
Water
71
71
72
72
72
67
71
71
72
190
72
72
72
73
80
67
190
14
32
(74-86)
,)
Effluent
Water
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
290
120
120
120
120
132
120
290
14
45
(123-141)
                                          87

-------
Table 4-17. Verification Testing
24-Hour
Composite Data for Raw,
Influent,
and
Effluent Water Inorganic Parameters (continued)
Fluoride (mg/L)

Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Raw
Water
0.40
0.39
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.38
0.37
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.44
0.44
0.38
0.32
0.44
14
0.04
(0.37-0.39)
Influent
Water
0.41
0.40
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.41
0.36
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.33
0.45
0.44
0.38
0.32
0.45
14
0.04
(0.37-0.39)
Effluent
Water
0.42
0.39
0.42
0.39
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.31
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.45
0.43
0.38
0.31
0.45
14
0.05
(0.37-0.38)
Dissolved Silica (mg/L)

Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Raw
Water
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
12
14
0.51
(11-12)
Influent
Water
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
11
12
14
0.50
(12-12)
Effluent
Water
13
12
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
0.43
(12-12)
Nitrate as NO3
Raw
Water
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
16
6.3
6.3
6.1
6.2
7.0
6.1
16
14
2.6
(6.5-7.5)
Influent
Water
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
16
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
7.0
6.2
16
14
2.6
(6.5-7.5)
(mg/L)
Effluent
Water
3.7
3.4
2.9
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.7
3.5
3.5
9.9
2.6
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.8
2.5
9.9
14
1.8
(3.4-4.1)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Raw
Water
37
37
39
37
37
35
37
37
37
96
37
37
37
38
41
35
96
14
16
(38-44)
Influent
Water
37
37
37
37
37
35
37
37
37
95
37
37
37
38
41
35
95
14
16
(38-44)
Effluent
Water
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
14
NC
NC

-------
Table 4- 17. Verification Testing 24-Hour
Water Inorganic Parameters


Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval


Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval

Raw
Water
290
300
280
300
300
290
290
280
290
300
3001
300
300
280
293
280
300
14
8.3
(291-294)

Raw
Water
5.7
6.0
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.1
6.0
6.1
5.7
6.4
14
0.18
(6.0-6.1)
(continued)
IDS (mg/L)
Influent
Water
290
290
290
300
300
290
300
290
300
300
3001
290
300
290
295
290
300
14
5.2
(294-296)
Calcium (mg/L)
Influent
Water
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.0
6.3
6.0
5.9
6.3
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.6
6.3
14
0.17
(6.0-6.1)
Composite Data for


Effluent
Water
280
290
290
290
290
280
280
290
290
3001
2901
290
280
280
287
280
300
14
6.1
(286-288)

Effluent
Water
5.7
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.7
6.2
14
0.13
(6.0-6.0)

Raw
Water
Raw, Influent,

TSS (mg/L)
Influent
Water
and Effluent


Effluent
Water
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10
<10
<10
<10
14
NC
NC

Raw
Water
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
14
NC
NC
<10
<10
<10
14
NC
NC
Iron (mg/L)
Influent
Water
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
14
NC
NC
<10
<10
<10
14
NC
NC

Effluent
Water
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
O.020
O.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
O.020
0.020
0.020
14
NC
NC
89

-------
Table 4- 17. Verification Testing 24-Hour Composite Data for Raw, Influent, and Effluent
Water Inorganic Parameters (continued)
Total Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L)

Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval


Date
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Raw
Water
17.5
18.4
18.0
18.9
18.8
18.4
18.3
19.7
19.7
18.7
18.7
18.6
18.7
18.5
18.6
17.5
19.7
14
0.58
(18.5-18.7)

Raw
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
6.5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.3
<2.0
6.5
14
2.1
(2.1-2.6)
Influent
Water
17.1
18.4
18.3
18.7
18.4
19.4
18.4
18.1
19.4
18.7
18.8
18.7
18.4
18.4
18.5
17.1
19.4
14
0.56
(18.4-18.6)
Manganese (ng/L)
Influent
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
14
NC
NC
Effluent
Water
17.5
18.4
18.2
18.4
18.2
18.4
18.1
18.4
19.0
18.7
18.7
19.1
18.5
18.4
18.4
17.5
19.1
14
0.39
(18.4-18.5)
Magnesium (mg/L)
Raw
Water
0.79
0.83
0.79
0.84
0.86
0.84
0.81
0.90
0.90
0.84
0.85
0.87
0.84
0.85
0.84
0.79
0.90
14
0.03
(0.84-0.85)

Effluent
Water
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
7.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.4
<2.0
7.0
14
2.1
(2.1-2.6)
Influent
Water
0.76
0.84
0.81
0.84
0.84
0.88
0.83
0.82
0.88
0.85
0.86
0.84
0.76
0.83
0.83
0.76
0.88
14
0.04
(0.82-0.84)























Effluent
Water
0.79
0.82
0.79
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.83
0.79
0.87
14
0.02
(0.83-0.84)























    Target analyte detected in method blank for TDS was at or above method reporting limit.
    sample was 10 times above the concentration found in the method blank.
NC = Not Calculated.
Concentration found in the
4.5.1.2 NDMA

At the request of the water utility, NDMA was added to the ETV test plan for the evaluation of
the Basin Water System.  NDMA is a potential by-product from IX systems and is classified as a
carcinogen. It is believed that chlorinated water sources increase the potential for NDMA in the
effluent of an IX facility. Therefore, additional samples were collected at the beginning and end
of verification testing for NDMA.  The first two samples were collected either with or without a
chlorinated water source,  as presented in Table 4-18.
                                           90

-------
On April 4, 2004, the effluent water was sampled without chlorine addition to the raw water
supply.  The result was a non-detectable level (<2.0 |ig/L) of NDMA. Throughout the remainder
of the test,  chlorine was added to the raw water.  The raw water was sampled on April 6, 2005,
and the  influent water was sampled on May  27, 2005, to analyze for NDMA; the NDMA levels
were non-detectable in the raw and influent water, but 10-16 jig/L in the effluent.

Table 4-18. Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water NDMA
                                               NDMA (Hg/L)
                                                                         Chlorinated Water
      Date           Raw Water        Influent Water      Effluent Water          Source
4/4/05
4/6/05
5/27/05
NA
<2.0
NA
NA
NA
<2.0
<2.0
16
10
No
Yes
Yes
NA = Not Available. NDMA was spot-checked throughout the verification testing.

4.5. 1.3 LSI

The LSI was calculated with the following equation: LSI = pH - pHs. Where pH is the measured
pH of the water and pH is the pH at saturation (calcium carbonate).

                               pHs = (9.3 + A + B) - (C + D)

Where:       A = (Logio  [IDS] - 1) / 10
              B = -13.12 x Logio (°C + 273) + 34.55
              C = Logio [Ca2+ as CaCO3] - 0.4
              D = Logio [alkalinity as
The LSI is an indictor of how corrosive or scaling water may be, and is primarily based on the
TDS, calcium, water temperature,  and alkalinity.   Using the  data provided  from the daily
analyses (Section 4.5.1.1), the LSI of the water was calculated for the raw, influent, and effluent
water.   The results of the calculated LSI, provided in  Table 4-19, indicate that the raw and
influent waters during the Initial Plant Characterizations  and  Verification Test were both at or
near equilibrium1 with slightly scaling tendencies, with the one exception of May 20, 2005, when
both the raw and the influent LSI were less than zero (-0.90 and -0.53, respectively).  The LSI of
the effluent water from the Basin Water  System  during  the  Verification Test indicated  a
corrosive environment to slightly scaling environment, with values ranging from -1.25 to 0.05.

Throughout verification  testing,  the raw,  influent, and effluent  water were measured for
temperature using an NIST thermometer.  There is no temperature data available from April 4-
15, because the NIST thermometer was not being available at the site.  The primary purpose of
measuring  the temperature was to  calculate the LSI of  the water.  For those  dates when the
thermometer was not available, a value of 26° C was assumed for use in the calculation.
1 Equilibrium LSI is zero and means neither corrosive or scaling tendencies are present.
                                          91

-------
Table 4-19. Raw, Influent, and Effluent Water LSI
Date Raw Water
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (4/4/05-
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/18/05
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 (4/29/05
5/5/05
4/22/05)
0.25
0.49
0.36
0.20
0.46
0.37
0.21
0.20
0.31
0.18
0.42
0.39
- 5/09/05)
0.31
LSI
Influent Water

0.25
0.49
0.44
0.18
0.44
0.40
0.28
0.28
0.40
0.33
0.40
0.38

0.24

Effluent Water

-0.18
-0.22
0.04
0.44
0.14
0.24
0.29
0.23
0.29
0.23
-0.08
-0.06

-0.10
Verification Testing (5/12/05- 5/28/05)
5/14/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.28
0.31
-0.90
0.15
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.31
0.33
0.32
0.34
0.26
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.30
-0.53
0.01
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.33
-0.41
-0.65
-0.57
-0.61
-0.80
-1.25
-0.78
-0.85
-0.49
0.05
-0.10
-0.50
-0.09
-0.56
Verification Test Statistical Analysis
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval (0
0.22
-0.90
0.37
14
0.33
.16-0.29)
0.24
-0.53
0.37
14
0.24
(0.19-0.28)
-0.54
-1.25
0.05
14
0.34
(-0.61-0)0.48)
92

-------
4.5.1.4 Verification Testing On-Site Laboratory Data

In addition to laboratory data, on-site testing was conducted for pH, conductivity, free and total
chlorine and temperature.  The  results of the on-site laboratory testing are provided in Tables
4-20-4-22.   The on-site  testing indicated that there was very  little  variability  in  the pH,
conductivity, free chlorine, total chlorine, or temperature at the Cory don Street Well.

As presented in Table 4-20, the pH reduced slightly from 9.07 in both the raw and influent water
to 8.27 in the effluent water.  The conductivity increased from 534  |imho/cm in both the raw and
influent water to 551  |imho/cm in the effluent water.
Table 4-20. Verification


Date
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Median/ Average1
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Testing On-Site

Raw
Water
9.08
9.07
9.06
9.07
9.08
9.06
9.09
7.82
8.93
9.07
9.08
9.08
9.03
9.07
9.08
9.07
9.06
9.07
7.82
9.09
17
NC
NC
Analytical
pH
Results of pH and

Influent Effluent
Water
9.07
9.07
9.06
9.07
9.06
9.08
9.09
8.15
8.90
9.10
9.09
9.09
9.06
9.05
9.07
9.07
9.07
9.07
8.15
9.10
17
NC
NC
Water
8.27
8.48
8.57
8.22
8.25
8.27
8.10
7.64
8.02
7.97
8.34
8.88
8.32
8.31
8.75
8.23
8.56
8.27
7.64
8.88
17
NC
NC
Conductivity

Conductivity ((imho/cm)
Raw
Water
543
523
534
521
545
528
552
543
548
529
527
551
517
528
525
528
534
534
517
552
17
11.0
(532-536)
Influent
Water
546
533
538
523
548
530
545
527
545
532
524
551
518
528
526
530
538
534
518
551
17
9.89
(533-536)
Effluent
Water
562
545
544
545
562
540
583
563
565
553
542
561
529
542
532
547
548
551
529
583
17
13.7
(549-553)
    The median values of the pH analyses are presented.  The averages were calculated for the conductivity
    analyses.
NC = Not Calculated.
                                            93

-------
The free and total chlorine results are presented in Table 4-21. The target chlorine residual in the
influent water was 0.10-0.50 mg/L.  From the results presented, the average influent water free
and total chlorine residuals were 0.24 and 0.30 mg/L, respectively.
Table 4-21. Verification Test

Date
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
On-Site Analytical
Free
Raw
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
17
0.01
(0.02-0.03)
Results of Free and Total Chlorine
Chlorine (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
0.20
0.24
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.30
0.30
0.14
0.20
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.24
0.14
0.30
17
0.05
(0.24-0.
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.05
17
0.01
25) (0.01-0.01)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
Raw
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.06
17
0.01
(0.02-0.03)
Influent Effluent
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.34
0.25
0.21
0.31
0.34
0.28
0.33
0.33
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.21
0.35
17
0.04
(0.30-0.31) (0
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.04
17
0.01
01-0.02)
As  shown by  the  data  provided in Table  422, there  was very  little change  in the water
temperature of approximately 27°C during the Verification Test, as indicated by a low range of
standard deviation values of 0.69-0.83 in the raw, influent, and effluent water.
                                          94

-------
Table 4-22. Verification Test On-Site Temperature
                                        Temperature (°C)
          Date              Raw Water      Influent Water   Effluent Water
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
28.0
25.0
27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
26.8
25.0
28.0
17
0.69
(26.7-26.9)
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
28.0
25.0
27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
26.7
25.0
28.0
17
0.71
(26.6-26.8)
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
26.5
27.5
24.0
27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
26.7
24.0
27.5
17
0.83
(26.5-26.8)
4.5.2  Arsenic Speciation Results and Special Studies

Arsenic speciation data collected from April  6-May 5 during the Initial Plant Characterization
task  and from May 16-28 during the Verification Test are presented in Table 4-23 and illustrated
in Figures 4-26-4-28.  The dissolved arsenic  data,  presented in Table 4-24,  confirm that all or
most of the arsenic was in the dissolved form.  Arsenic (V) concentrations were calculated by
subtracting  the  As  (III)  concentration from the  dissolved  arsenic  concentration.   Arsenic
speciation was performed in the field using the Edwards et al. preservation method, as required
and  presented in the ETV Protocol.  The  samples were then analyzed by MWH Laboratories
using EPA Method 200.8.

Although the arsenic species data  collected during the Initial Plant Characterization task are
erratic, the arsenic species data during the Verification Test are consistent with the historical data
(Table 4-1) where the dominant species is As  (III).  The raw water samples collected during the
Verification Test contained more As (III) than As (V), except for the sample collected on May
25,  2005,  that  may have  resulted  from  a  sample  mix-up.    Sample  collection errors  or
                                          95

-------
transposition of samples during laboratory analysis could also explain the apparently erratic As
(III) and As (V) results during the two Initial Plant Characterization periods.
                                  Verification Testing Date

Figure 4-26: Speciated arsenic raw water results for Initial Plant Characterization through
verification testing.
                                   Verification Testing Date
Figure 4-27: Speciated arsenic influent water results for Initial Plant Characterization
through verification testing.
                                          96

-------
                                  Verification Testing Date

Figure 4-28: Speciated arsenic effluent water results for Initial Plant Characterization
through verification testing.
                                           97

-------
Table 4-23. Total Arsenic, As (III), and As (V) from the Initial Plant Characterization and
the Verification Testing

Raw
Date Water
Total Arsenic
Influent
Water

Effluent
Water

Raw
Water
As (III)
Influent
Water

Effluent
Water

Raw
Water
As (V) (ng/L)
(calculated)
Influent
Water

Effluent
Water
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05- 04/23/05)
4/6/05
4/9/05
4/14/05
4/16/05
18
14
17
15
19
13
17
15
<1.0
1.4
9.8
6.7
1.5
<1.0
5.8
41
25
21
20
24
<1.0
3.7
14
5.3
12 <
16 <
14 <
<1.0 <
.0 <1.0
.0 <1.0
.0 <1.0
1.0 2.4
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 (04/29/05- 05/09/05)
5/3/05
5/5/05
15
18
16 <1.0
17 <1.0
15
23 <1.0
21
21 <1.0
Verification Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
5/16/05
5/18/05
5/22/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
15
14
15
16
18
15
15
17 <1.0
15 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
19 <1.0
15 <1.0
14 <1.0
25
25
22
3.3
1.4
34
28
2.7 <1.0
25 <1.0
17 <1.0
18 <1.0
1.0 <1.0
27 1.2
27 <1.0
<1.0 20 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 3.0 <1.0
17 <1.0 <1.0
20 19 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Verification Test Statistical Analysis
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of
Samples
15
14
18
7
16 <1.0
14 <1.0
19 <1.0
7 7
20
1.4
34
7
17 <1.0
1.0 <1.0
27 1.2
7 7
6.0
<1.0
20
7
6.6
<1.0
20
7
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
7
                                               98

-------
   Table 4-24: Dissolved Arsenic Results from the Initial Plant Characterization and the Verification
   Testing

                                                      Dissolved Arsenic (|ig/L)
           Date               Raw Water              Influent Water         Effluent Water
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1
4/6/05
4/9/05
4/14/05
4/16/05
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2
5/3/05
5/5/05
(04/04/05 - 04/23/05)
13
17
20
19
(04/29/05 - 05/09/05)
18
22

14
18
18
18

19
22

2.1
12
7.7


-------
raw and feed water that was approximately ten times less than the results using the Edwards et al.
method.

Table 4-25. Comparison of Edwards et al. and EDTA/Acetic Acid Preservation Methods
for Arsenic Speciation

Date
5/18/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples

Edwards et al. Method
As (III) (ng/L)
Influent Effluent
Raw Water Water
25
3.3
21
34
21
3.3
34
4
25
18
20
27
23
18
27
4
Water
<1.0
<1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
<1.0
1.2
4
Gallagher et al. Method
As (III) (ng/L)
Influent Effluent
Raw Water Water
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
4
2.9
1.8
1.0
1.6
1.8
1.0
2.9
4
Water
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
4
A second investigation into the unusual arsenic speciation results examined whether the resin
column and the preservatives used in the sample bottles with the Edwards et al. method were a
possible source of arsenic contamination. The resin columns used for the Edwards et al. method
were QA/QC checked by NSF prior to use in the  field.  Table 4-26 presents sample results of
deionized water that was  preserved using the Edwards et al. method.  The arsenic results  were all
non-detectable (<1.0 |ig/L), indicating that the resin speciation columns and preservatives were
not contributing arsenic to the samples.

A third investigation examined whether the chlorine injected into the  raw water source could
contribute arsenic into the samples. The chlorine solution was analyzed but the result indicated
that non-detectable levels of arsenic (<1.0 |ig/L) were present.

A fourth  and  final investigation  examined whether the ultra pure nitric acid and ultra pure
sulfuric acid used to preserve the samples could influence the arsenic results. The Edwards et al.
method requires a nitric acid preservative for the total  arsenic sample and the  As (III)  sample,
and sulfuric acid for the filtered sample.   The filtered sample with sulfuric acid was passed
through a resin column that removed As (V), according to the method.

The effect of nitric and sulfuric acid preservatives were evaluated  on the raw and influent water
and reported in Table  4-26.   The  samples  preserved with nitric acid had  a total  arsenic
concentration of 15 |ig/L for both the raw and influent water, and values of 6.4 and 15 |ig/L
dissolved arsenic for the raw and influent samples, respectively.  Both the raw and influent water
preserved with sulfuric acid had results of 20  jig/L  for total and dissolved arsenic.  This method
requires the preserved total arsenic samples to have a pH less than 2.0 to prevent a bias.  The pH
of the  samples  were not verified in the field; however,  the  samples were  tested at MWH
Laboratories, and each sample's pH was less than 2.0.
                                         100

-------
Table 4-26. Edwards et al. Method for Additional Speciation Studies
Date
5/5/05
5/17/05
5/27/05
5/27/05
5/27/05
5/27/05
Edwards et al. Method
Total As Dissolved As
Sample (ug/L) (ug/L)
Deionized (DI) Water
0.5% Chlorine Solution
Raw Water Preserved with Nitric Acid
Raw Water Preserved with Sulfuric Acid
Influent Preserved with Sulfuric Acid
Influent Preserved with Nitric Acid
T

15
20
20
15
<1.0
NA
6.4
20
20
15
As (III)
(ug/L)
" <1.0 "
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Available

While  the  exact reason is unknown, these results suggest that there is a bias in the  arsenic
concentration depending on the acid preservative used.  Since the preservatives were checked
through the use of DI blanks and all results were non-detect, the data suggest the combination of
the preservative and the water quality may be one contributing factor to variable arsenic results.
Regardless of the erratic and  unusual  arsenic speciation  results, the data were  sufficient to
suggest that  As  (III) was  the dominant  form of arsenic in the raw  water, thus requiring
pretreatment of raw water to oxidize As  (III) to As (V). The actual amount of total  arsenic or As
(III) in the raw water may not be known due to the influence of the acid  preservatives on either
the water chemistry at this specific site  and/or its influence on the ICP/MS method used by the
laboratory to analyze  the samples.  However, the effluent As (III) results suggest that sufficient
oxidant was provided to the raw water  (sodium hypochlorite at 0.10-0.50 mg/L) to convert the
As  (III) to  As (V).  Tne results were all non-detect with the exception of two effluent As (III)
samples of 1.1 |ig/L and 1.2 |ig/L, collected on May 26 and 27, 2005, respectively  (see Table 4-
25).

The chlorine residual data provided further proof that the water chemistry at the site may have
influenced  the speciation results.  After liquid hypochlorite was added  to the raw water, the
residual chlorine ranged from 0.18-0.28 mg/L, and yet the pH did not decline, with a mean raw
water pH of 9.05 and mean influent pH of 9.05.  This would suggest that the raw water contained
a buffering capacity to hypochlorous acid.  This unexplained capacity  of the water to  resist
change in pH from the addition of hypochlorous acid might also have contributed to the variance
observed in the acid preservatives and arsenic speciation results.

The arsenic speciation studies concluded that most of the  arsenic present at the Corydon Street
Well was in the As (III) state and that after oxidation by chlorination, the system could remove
the arsenic to non-detectable levels (<1 |ig/L).

4.5.3   Online Continuous Monitoring Data during Verification Testing

In addition to laboratory  and  on-site analytical data, the Basin Water  System recorded pH,
conductivity, flow rates, and brine tank levels continuously through the PLC.  Two example
snapshot screens from the PLC are presented  in Figures 4-29 and 4-30 from April 4-10, 2005,
with additional information provided in Appendix E.  The information recorded by  the PLC was
used to compare data with field analyses and operation parameters measured on-site.
                                          101

-------
The manufacturer calibrated the online pH, conductivity, and flow meters prior to beginning the
test.   However, it was not possible to calibrate them during the  test without bringing the
treatment system off-line.   Comparing the PLC data to the daily-calibrated hand-held pH and
conductivity meters  indicated that online  pH  measurements  were  not  comparable,  but  the
conductivity measures  did  appear comparable.  The  instantaneous  flow rate varied from the
bucket and stopwatch test, but did provide a close estimate of the system flow rate.
                     IS"*- IM U*
Figure  4-29:  Trend  screen during  regeneration cycle of 4/4/05-4/10/05  of Initial Plant
Characterization No. 1.
                                         102

-------
           i- £*

           Mam I
                                                                        en
                                                                                -IQt
                          Effluent Conductivity
                                                           4/7/05 - 4/8/05
                                                           System Shutdown
                                       Influent Conductivity
                                                                                -40

                                                                                 •30
                                                                                 •10
                                                                  TMMIWMHi 188.Q
         HUBS 11.Si:
Figure 4-30: Trend screen during exhaustion cycle of 4/4/05-4/10/05 of Initial Plant
Characterization No. 1.

4.5.4  Verification Testing Operational Data

The purpose of this task was to evaluate the general operational performance of the Basin Water
System.  Operational information regarding this task was collected throughout the verification
testing according  to  the  frequency presented  in Chapter  3 (see Table  3-6).  Operation  data
collected during verification testing included:

•   The raw, influent, and effluent water pressure;
•   Water flow and waste generation rates;
•   Brine solution strength;
•   Number of columns exhausted/regenerated per day; and
•   Power consumption.

Each of these operation  parameters is discussed in  this section with the exception of waste
generation.   The waste flow rate and solids volumes generated  during verification testing are
presented in Section 4.5.5.

Pressure and Flow Rate
There  was  very  little  variation in the  pressure and  flow rate of the Basin Water  System
throughout verification testing.  The  results of the  daily pressure  and flow rate  readings are
provided in Table 4-27.  The  average pressure drop  across the system during  the Verification
Test was  approximately  10.5  psi with  an  average  effluent flow rate of 36.6 gpm  from  the
treatment system.  It was noted that the flow meter on the unit typically gave flow rates about
                                            103

-------
16% higher than the bucket and stopwatch measurement used to check the flow rate on a daily
basis.  The bucket and stopwatch data show that the average flow rate during the Verification
Test was  32 gpm.   While this difference may not be considered large, it does affect the
regeneration bed volume calculations and other calculations that depend on the flow rate.  The
regeneration flow rates were based on the flow meters and not the automated flow rates.
Table 4-27.
Rate
Date
Raw, Influent,
Raw
Water
(psi)
and Effluent
Pressure
Influent
Water
(psi)
Water Pressi
Effluent
Water
(psi)
ire and Influent and Effluent Flow
Flow Rate1
Influent Calculated Calculated
Water Influent Water Effluent Water
(gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05- 04/23/05)
4/4/05
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/6/05
4/8/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/10/05
4/1 1/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/18/05
4/20/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
46.6
45.4
47.6
47.4
48.0
48.0
46.6
47.2
46.7
46.9
47.0
47.4
46.7
NA
46.7
47
45.3
45.8
47.1
47.0
47.0
49.1
48.0
47.2
47.3
47.2
47.2
49.3
47.4
47.7
46.9
45.4
46.7
46.0
45.7
46.6
46.3
44.7
45.5
45.0
44.9
45.4
45.5
44.9
45.4
NA
NA
43.4
43.9
45.3
44.7
45.3
47.3
46.2
45.6
45.8
45.4
45.6
47.6
45.6
45.8
45.3
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.4
38.1
38.1
36.7
37.3
36.4
36.5
37.1
37.2
36.2
37.4
36.6
36.3
35.3
35.7
37.2
36.3
36.7
38.6
37.6
36.9
36.1
36.0
37.5
38.4
37.3
37.6
37.2
37.7
NA
38.0
37.4
37.7
NA
38.2
38.0
37.2
36.5
37.5
37.9
37.8
36.9
37.1
37.6
36.8
37.4
39.1
39.7
39.1
39.4
38.6
38.3
38.9
38.2
37.4
36.8
37.9
38.8
37.7
NA
NA
34.5
NA
38.3
NA
40.0
NA
38.6
NA
37.6
NA
37.8
NA
34.3
NA
39.6
NA
37.9
NA
39.4
NA
40.0
NA
38.9
NA
38.1
NA
37.5
NA
37.7
NA
NA
34.5
NA
38.3
NA
40.2
NA
38.6
NA
37.4
NA
38.0
NA
34.9
NA
38.6
NA
37.8
NA
39.3
NA
39.9
NA
38.9
NA
38.8
NA
37.1
NA
37.6
                                          104

-------
Table 4-27. Raw, Influent and Effluent Water Press
Rate (continued)
Pressure
Date
Raw
Water
(psi)
Initial Plant Characterization No.
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
4/23/05
4/27/05
45.9
46.0
46.9
47.9
48.0
45.5
Initial Plant Characterization No.
4/29/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/9/05
47.4
46.2
47.5
46.3
47.5
46.7
47.6
45.7
45.8
44.7
45.6
45.3
46.0
46.0
48.7
49.5
47.5
46.3
48.1
47.1
46.9
45.6
Influent
Water
(psi)
1 (04/04/05-
43.9
44.1
45.1
46.2
46.2
43.6
2(04/29/05-
45.6
44.2
45.8
44.3
45.9
44.8
46.1
43.7
44.0
42.8
43.9
45.0
43.9
44.1
47.0
47.8
45.9
44.3
46.4
45.4
45.2
43.5
Effluent
Water
(psi)
ure and Influent and Effluent Flow
Flow Rate
Influent
Water
(gpm)
04/23/05)
35.3
35.7
36.4
37.1
37.1
36.2
38.1
37.4
36.9
38.3
37.8
35.5
05/09/05)
37.9
35.9
38.1
36.0
37.8
36.7
37.6
34.8
36.0
34.5
36.6
34.4
34.9
35.0
38.2
38.5
37.1
34.9
38.0
36.3
37.2
34.9
36.7
38.6
36.6
38.5
37.6
38.7
36.3
37.4
35.2
37.1
35.6
33.3
39.5
37.7
37.4
38.3
36.7
37.9
37.5
38.1
36.9
38.0
Calculated
Influent Water
(gpm)

NA
37.7
NA
37.1
NA
38.0

37.2
36.6
37.8
38.0
37.7
36.9
36.3
36.4
36.8
36.1
35.8
36.1
36.0
33.5
39.4
37.8
39.9
37.4
38.1
37.6
37.7
37.2
Calculated
Effluent Water
(gpm)

NA
37.6
NA
38.0
NA
37.7

37.1
36.6
37.8
38.0
37.7
36.9
36.2
36.4
36.8
36.1
35.7
35.9
35.9
33.5
39.3
37.8
39.4
37.4
38.0
37.6
37.6
37.2
Verification Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
5/12/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
46.2
45.5
48.2
48.4
45.8
44.4
47.8
44.4
43.8
46.4
46.5
43.9
46.1
46.2
36.3
34.8
37.3
37.5
35.0
36.8
37.3
35.0
37.9
38.1
37.7
36.1
36.3
37.4
37.6
35.9
41.7
37.5
37.3
35.9
37.4
37.5
35.9
41.7
37.5
37.3
35.9
37.2
105

-------
Table 4-27. Raw,
Rate (continued)



Date
Influent and Effluent


Raw
Water
(psi)

Pressure
Influent
Water
(psi)
Water Pressure and


Effluent
Water
(psi)

Influent
Water
(gpm)
Influent and

Flow Rate
Calculated
Effluent Flow


Calculated
Influent Water Effluent
(gpm)
Water(gpm)
Verification Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
5/28/05
47.5
44.9
46.9
44.7
45.8
46.0
50.4
46.4
45.8
46.8
47.2
47.1
47.2
48.4
49.2
48.9
48.4
48.0
47.0
47.8
47.2
48.2
47.4
48.2
47.2
48.4
47.7
45.8
42.9
45.1
43.0
43.8
44.0
48.7
44.4
43.8
44.8
45.2
45.3
45.3
46.4
47.6
47.1
46.4
48.0
44.7
45.7
45.2
46.1
45.2
46.2
45.2
46.3
45.6
36.7
35.2
36.7
35.3
36.0
36.0
38.6
35.4
36.1
36.8
36.9
36.6
36.8
37.6
38.8
37.3
36.3
37.3
36.1
37.4
36.1
37.6
36.8
37.7
35.5
37.9
35.9
37.7
36.7
38.0
34.0
37.0
35.7
40.6
36.4
36.3
37.7
37.8
37.6
38.2
37.7
38.2
37.7
38.2
37.8
38.0
37.8
38.1
36.8
36.5
36.2
37.6
37.0
38.6
37.7
37.4
36.3
36.9
36.6
36.1
37.1
36.3
44.3
38.7
23.3
40.3
37.6
37.4
46.7
35.1
37.5
39.1
38.1
37.8
38.0
37.9
37.6
36.4
36.5
36.6
37.4
37.7
37.3
36.3
36.8
36.4
36.0
37.1
44.1
13.6
38.6
23.1
40.3
37.4
37.3
37.7
37.9
37.5
39.0
38.1
37.7
38.0
37.8
37.3
36.4
36.5
36.6
37.4
Verification Test Statistical Analysis
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence
Interval
47.2
44.4
50.4
34
1.34
(47.1-47.3)
45.4
42.9
48.7
34
1.35
(45.4-45.5)
36.7
34.8
38.8
34
0.98
(36.6-36.7)
37.3
34.0
40.6
34
1.17
37.5
23.3
46.7
34
3.41
(37.2-37.4) (37.3-37.7)
36.6
13.6
44.1
34
5.03
(36.2-36.9)
    The reported flow rates may be biased high based on manual calibration results- see Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-
    49.
NA = Not Available.
                                                   106

-------
Brine Solution Strength
The fresh brine was sampled once during the first Initial Plant Characterization and twice during
the Verification Test to evaluate the percentage of brine used during the regeneration process.
The results of the sampling are provided in Table 4-28 and indicate that there is variability in the
brine  strength used for the  regeneration cycle, with chloride levels ranging from  67,000 to
230,000 mg/L.
Table 4-28. Brine Solution Strength

Date
4/17/05
5/12/05
5/18/05
Chloride
(mg/L)
67000
230000
200000
Sodium
(mg/L)
41000
98000
97000
IDS
(mg/L)
108000
319000
313000
Conductivity
(^mho/cm)
NA
177000
180000
NA = Not Available.

Number of columns exhausted/regenerated per day
The  number  of  columns exhausted  and regenerated per  day  was  consistent throughout
verification testing.  Four IX columns were online at all times, with one column in regeneration
and one in standby.  Table 4-29 presents the start and finish times and dates when each column
was in an exhaustion (water treatment) cycle.

Table 4-29:  Exhaustion Start and Finish Times and Dates
Cycle.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cycle
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Column 5
Start Finish
4/2/05 10:26 PM 4/5/05 6:21 PM
4/8/05 11:33 PM 4/12/05 5:33 PM
4/14/05 1:43 PM 4/18/05 3:20 AM
4/20/05 12:05 AM 4/23/05 2:52 PM
4/25/05 10:10 AM 4/28/05 4:51 PM
4/30/05 3:13 AM 5/2/05 11:35 PM
5/4/05 1 1 :28 AM 5/8/05 5: 15 AM
5/9/05 3:46 PM 5/15/05 10:01 AM
5/16/05 8:47 PM 5/19/05 9:32 AM
5/21/05 8:21 PM 5/23/05 3:32 PM
5/25/05 12:57 AM NA
Column 8
Start Finish
4/4/05 8:45 PM 4/9/05 8: 37 PM
4/1 1/05 7:47 PM 4/15/05 12:22 PM
4/17/05 6:29 AM 4/20/05 9: 12 PM
4/22/05 5 :4 1 PM 4/26/05 7:20 AM
4/28/05 4:46 AM 4/30/05 7:36 PM
5/2/05 6:47 AM 5/5/05 4:44 AM
5/7/05 1:23 PM 5/10/05 7:49 AM
5/14/05 2:04 AM 5/17/05 1:43 PM
5/19/05 12:07 AM 5/21/05 12:36 PM
5/22/05 11:19 PM 5/25/05 5:12 PM
5/27/05 11:01 AM NA
Column 6
Start Finish
4/3/05 9:40 PM 4/6/05 4: 14 PM
4/9/05 9:05 PM 4/13/05 3:39 PM
4/1 5/05 12:47 PM 4/19/05 1:24 AM
4/20/05 9:39PM 4/24/05 1 1 :57 AM
4/26/05 7:48 AM 4/29/05 9:50 AM
4/30/05 8:10 PM 5/3/05 5:06 PM
5/5/05 5:20 AM 5/8/05 10: 12 PM
5/1 1/05 3:56 PM 5/16/05 2:50 AM
5/1 7/05 2:07 PM 5/20/05 2:55 AM
5/21/05 1 : 1 1 PM 5/24/05 7:47 AM
5/24/05 5:45 PM NA
Column 9
Start Finish
4/5/05 7:21 PM 4/10/05 7:05 PM
4/12/05 5:57 PM 4/16/05 8:45 AM
4/18/05 3:46 AM 4/21/05 7:13 PM
4/23/05 3:18 PM 4/27/05 5:59 AM
4/28/05 5:24 PM 5/1/05 12:41 PM
5/3/05 12:07 AM 5/5/05 9:07 PM
5/8/05 5:47 AM 5/12/05 8:43 AM
5/15/05 10:30 AM 5/18/05 7:11 AM
5/19/05 10:05 AM 5/22/05 5:20 AM
5/23/05 4:04 PM 5/26/05 12:46 PM
NA NA
Column 7
Start Finish
4/4/05 9:08 AM 4/8/05 1 1 :04 PM
4/10/05 7:32 PM 4/14/05 1:15 PM
4/16/05 9:11 AM 4/19/05 11:37PM
4/21/05 7:39 PM 4/25/05 9:42 AM
4/27/05 6:26 AM 4/30/05 2:39 AM
5/1/05 1:14 PM 5/4/05 10:53 AM
5/5/05 9 : 3 9 PM 5/9/05 3 : 1 3 PM
5/12/05 9:16 AM 5/17/05 8:13 PM
5/19/05 7:44 AM 5/20/05 7:47 PM
5/22/05 5:52 AM 5/25/05 12:22 AM
5/26/05 1:20 PM NA
Column 10
Start Finish
4/1/05 8:09 PM 4/4/05 8:15 PM
4/6/05 4:47 PM 4/1 1/05 7:20 PM
4/13/05 4:07 PM 4/17/05 6:03 AM
4/19/051: 52 AM 4/22/05 5 : 1 6 PM
4/24/05 12:26 PM 4/28/05 4:20 AM
4/29/05 10:25 AM 5/2/05 6:16 AM
5/3/05 12:07 AM 5/6/05 1 :48 PM
5/8/05 10:45 PM 5/14/05 1:33 AM
5/16/05 3:24 AM 5/19/05 12:09 AM
5/20/05 2:55 AM 5/22/05 10:49 PM
5/24/05 8:21 AM 5/27/05 6:13 AM
NA = Not Available.
                                           107

-------
Power Consumption
The Basin Water System is a hydraulically driven system that required approximately 42 KW-
Hrs total during the Initial Plant Characterizations and the Verification Test for a total of 48 days
(0.88  KW-Hrs per day).  The average daily power consumption during the first characterization
test (regeneration set at 1,100 BV) was 0.84 KW-Hrs per day. The average consumption during
the second Initial Plant Characterization and  the Verification Test was slightly higher at 0.92
KW-Hrs per day and 0.88 KW-Hrs per day, respectively.  The cumulative daily power totalizer
readings are presented in Table 4-30.
                                           108

-------
Table 4-30. Cumulative Power Totalizer Reading
Date
During Verification Testing
Power Totalizer (KW-Hrs)
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05- 04/23/05)
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
0
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
14
14
15
16
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 (04/29/05- 05/09/05)
4/27/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
18
20
21
21
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
Verification Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
29
29
30
31
31
32
33
33
33
34
36
38
38
39
40
41
42
109

-------
Chemical Consumption
The  chemicals consumed  during the Initial Plant Characterizations and the Verification  Test
included sodium hypochlorite for preoxidation, sodium chloride (salt) for the regeneration of the
IX resin, and sulfuric acid, caustic soda, and ferric chloride for the brine treatment process.  The
daily chemical consumption information is provided in Table 4-31. On average throughout both
Initial Plant Characterizations and the Verification Test, the Basin Water system consumed 0.11
pounds per day (ppd) of sodium hypochlorite for preoxidation, 107 ppd of sodium chloride for
regeneration, and 4.10 ppd sulfuric acid, 1.83  ppd caustic soda, and 1.63 ppd ferric chloride for
the brine treatment process.
Table 4-31. Daily Chemical Consumption
Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium Chloride
Consumption Consumption
Date (Ibs) (Ibs)
4/4/05
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/19/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/23/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
NA
0.18
0.08
NA
0.13
NA
NA
NA
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.17
0.01
0.08
NA
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.15
0.09
NA
0.10
0.18
0.10
85.5
97.0
101.0
83.1
83.9
87.4
84.6
73.3
81.5
84.2
83.5
86.6
89.7
83.9
86.1
88.2
83.5
81.4
83.9
102.0
197.3
94.5
189.5
95.8
104.5
200.0
NA
18.5
189.7
Sulfuric Acid
Consumption
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
1.43
0.71
1.43
1.43
1.90
1.43
2.75
3.86
4.64
3.86
4.64
3.09
3.09
2.32
4.64
4.64
6.95
4.64
4.64
8.50
5.41
3.86
3.86
4.64
3.09
3.86
Caustic Soda
Consumption
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
0.96
1.49
0.85
1.06
1.06
1.28
1.92
2.42
3.11
2.42
2.42
3.11
1.38
1.04
3.11
2.76
3.97
2.07
1.38
2.76
1.38
1.38
3.11
1.04
1.73
1.73
Ferric Chloride
Consumption
(Ibs)
NA
NA
NA
0.54
0.59
0.52
0.49
0.52
0.56
1.77
0.50
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.51
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
2.65
1.51
1.77
3.03
1.77
1.77
3.53
1.51
3.03
1.77
                                          110

-------
Table 4-31. Chemical Consumption (continued)
Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium Chloride
Consumption Consumption
Date (Ibs) (Ibs)
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/051
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Daily Average
0.08
0.10
NA
0.12
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.12
0.11
95.8
95.9
NA
97.3
83.7
93.5
96.5
94.0
190.9
195.5
98.5
188.1
98.3
97.6
193.2
94.4
92.5
107
Sulfuric Acid
Consumption
(Ibs)
3.86
NA
NA
3.86
2.32
3.86
10.05
4.64
4.64
NA
6.18
3.09
4.64
NA
NA
9.27
NA
4.10
Caustic Soda
Consumption
(Ibs)
1.38
NA
NA
1.38
1.04
0.35
2.76
1.38
1.04
NA
1.73
1.04
1.73
NA
NA
2.76
NA
1.83
Ferric Chloride
Consumption
(Ibs)
1.51
NA
NA
2.02
3.28
1.77
3.03
1.77
1.26
NA
1.77
1.26
1.51
NA
NA
3.03
NA
1.63
   Data not available because there was not a regeneration cycle on this day; a shutdown occurred on 5/12-5/13/05.
NA = Not Available.

4.5.5  Brine Treatment Operation and Waste Generation

The  Basin Water System generated two waste streams: solid waste (from BPU and  BRA) and
liquid waste. Each of these waste streams is discussed in additional detail in Section 4.5.5.1 and
4.5.5.2.

The BRA utilized one 55-gallon drum (2 cubic feet) of an iron-based  adsorptive media (BW-33-
60).  The brine circulated between a holding tank and the 55-gallon drum of adsorptive media for
10 hours prior to discharging to the waste storage tank.  The settling time prior to discharge to
the waste tank was two hours. The treated brine was clear, indicating the brine/adsorptive media
were not difficult to separate.  The results of the analysis of the treated waste brine are presented
and discussed in Section 4.5.5.2

The BPU system operated in batch precipitation mode.  As the waste  brine was pumped into the
reaction tank, ferric chloride was  added at a rate of 0.041 pounds of ferric chloride per gallon of
waste brine.  The mixing was instantaneous, and no additional mixing mechanism was applied.
Acid was then added to the reaction tank,  followed by 30 minutes of slow mixing. Caustic was
then added followed by 30 minutes of additional slow mixing.  Upon completion of chemical
additions and mixing, the reaction tank was allowed to settle for three hours.  After one hour the
sludge reached what appeared to be the final settled volume.
                                           Ill

-------
The optimal pH (as defined by the manufacturer) during the BPU reaction was 6.0 during the
acid addition phase and 7.3 during the caustic addition phase.  However, the pH meter in the
BPU was not calibrated as part of the verification test, and the optimal pH for the acid and
caustic addition phases were not consistently achieved.  The pH of the brine was sometimes less
than 6.0 during the acid addition phase and greater than 7.3 during the caustic addition phase.
These differences  may have been attributed to  the location  of the pH  meter or the mixing
conditions.

4.5.5.1 Waste Brine Efficiency

As discussed in  Section 2.5.2, the manufacturer indicated the waste brine represented less than
0.1% of the treated water.  Table 4-32 presents the percentage of waste brine to treated water, or
waste brine efficiency.  During the Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 when the bed volumes
were set at 1,100, the percentage of waste brine was 0.06-0.08% of the treated water flow.  When
the bed volumes were reduced to 850 for the Verification Test, the percentage of waste brine was
0.08-0.09% of the treated water flow. These calculations are based on the flow rate measured by
the  flow meter.  As  noted in Section 4.5.4 and Section 4.7.4 and presented in Table 4-49, the
manual flow measurements showed that the flow meter may have read about 16% high.  If this
was the case, the actual regeneration set points were 950 BV and 730 BV versus the reported set
points of  1,100  BV  and 850 BV.   The percentage of waste brine to treated water would be
slightly above 0.1% of the treated water flow, if the treated water volumes shown in Table 4-32
were adjusted for the flow rate measured by the manual method.
Table 4-32.
Date
Initial Plant
4/4/2005
4/5/2005
4/6/2005
4/8/2005
4/9/2005
4/10/2005
4/1 1/2005
4/12/2005
4/13/2005
4/14/2005
4/15/2005
4/16/2005
4/17/2005
4/18/2005
4/19/2005
4/20/2005
4/21/2005
4/22/2005
Waste Brine Efficiency
Brine
(gallons)
Effluent Water
(gallons)
Bed
Volumes1
Percentage of Brine
to Treated Water
Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05 - 04/23/05)
28.50
32.32
33.66
27.69
27.95
29.12
28.20
24.42
27.17
28.08
27.82
28.86
29.90
27.95
28.70
29.40
27.82
27.12
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
44814
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
0.06%
0.07%
0.08%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
                                           112

-------
Table 4-32.

Date
Initial Plant
4/23/2005
Initial Plant
4/29/2005
4/30/2005
5/1/2005
5/2/2005
5/3/2005
5/4/2005
5/5/2005
5/6/2005
5/7/2005
5/8/2005
5/9/2005
Verification
5/12/2005
5/13/051
5/14/2005
5/15/2005
5/16/2005
5/17/2005
5/18/2005
5/19/2005
5/20/2005
5/21/2005
5/22/2005
5/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/25/2005
5/26/2005
5/27/2005
Waste Brine Efficiency (continued)
Brine
(gallons)
Characterization No.
27.95
Characterization No.
34.00
65.76
31.50
63.17
31.93
34.83
66.65
NA
6.18
63.22
31.93
Effluent Water
(gallons)
1 (04/04/05 - 04/23/05)
44814
2 (04/29/05 - 05/09/05)
34629
69258
34629
69258
34629
34629
69258
34629
34629
69258
34629
Bed
Volumes1

1100

850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
Percentage of Brine
to Treated Water

0.06%

0.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.10%
0.10%
NA
0.02%
0.09%
0.09%
Test (05/12/05 - 05/28/05)
31.95
NA
32.21
27.82
31.00
32.16
31.33
63.63
64.75
32.60
62.29
32.55
32.32
64.19
31.37
30.74
34629
34629
34629
34629
34629
34629
34629
69258
69258
34629
69258
34629
34629
69258
34629
34629
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
0.09%
NA
0.09%
0.08%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
    The reported volumes may be biased high based on manual calibration results- see Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-
    49.
NA = Not Available.

4.5.5.2 Untreated and Treated Waste Brine


During the Verification Test, six samples of untreated and treated waste brine were collected fcr
analysis of the parameters listed in Table 3-7.  The results of the analyses are presented in Table
4-33.  These results indicate that both  the BPU and the BRA were effective at removing arsenic
from the waste brine.
                                             113

-------
Table 4-33. Untreated and Treated Liquid Waste Brine

Date
5/16/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/18/05
5/25/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/26/05
5/28/05
5/28/05
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine
(Preciptation)
Treated Brine
(Adsorption)
Sample
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Precitrtation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Precitrtation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Conductivity pH
mmho/cm
99700
97200
106000
99200
105000
101000
96500
48600
111000
81100
108000
72200
104000
96500
111000
6
99100
97200
101000
3
67300
48600
81100
3
9.
8.
9.
8.
9.
7.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
7
0
7
1
7
9
7
8
6
8
8
9
9.7
9.6
9.8
6
8.0
7.9
8.1
3
9.8
9.8
9.9
3
Total As
U2/L
3800
1100
4700
<100
4100
140
4800
1100
1200
1100
2700
1500
3600
1200
4800
6
450
<100
1100
3
1200
1100
1500
3
Antimony Barium
ma/L ma/L
<0.025
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.050
<0.050
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.050
<0.050
<0.100
<0.025
<0.100
6
<0.100
<0.050
<0.100
3
<0.100
<0.050
<0.100
3
0.200
<0.200
0.230
<0.200
0.380
<0.100
0.420
<0.200
<0.200
<0.200
0.350
0.290
0.300
<0.200
0.420
6
<0.200
<0.100
<0.200
3
0.230
<0.200
0.290
3
4 4
Beryllium Cadmium
ma/L m2/L
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
.025
.100
.100
.100
.050
.050
.100
.100
.100
.100
.050
.050
.100
.025
.100
6
.100
.050
.100
3
.100
.050
.100
3
<0.012
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0
<0
.025
.025
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.025
<0.025
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
.050
.012
.050
6
.050
.025
.050
3
.050
.025
.050
3

Date
5/16/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/18/05
5/25/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/26/05
5/28/05
5/28/05
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine
(Preciptation)
Treated Brine
(Adsorption)
Sample
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Chromium4
mg/L
O.025
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.050
O.050
O.100
0.470
0.580
0.490
O.050
0.150
0.150
O.025
0.580
6
0.083
0.050
0.100
3
0.370
0.150
0.490
3
Cobalt4
mg/L
O.050
O.200
O.200
0.200
0.100
O.100
O.200
O.200
0.200
O.200
O.100
O.100
0.200
O.050
O.200
6
O.200
0.100
O.200
3
O.200
0.100
O.200
3










Copper4
mg/L
O.050
O.200
O.200
0.200
0.100
O.100
O.200
O.200
0.200
O.200
O.100
O.100
0.200
O.050
O.200
6
O.200
0.100
O.200
3
O.200
0.100
O.200
3
Lead4
mg/L
O.012
O.050
O.050
0.050
0.025
O.025
O.050
O.050
0.050
O.050
O.025
O.025
0.050
O.012
O.050
6
O.050
0.025
O.050
3
O.050
0.025
O.050
3
Mercury5
mg/L
0. 00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
0.00020
0.00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
0.00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
0.00020
0. 00020
0. 00020
6
0. 00020
0.00020
0. 00020
3
O.00020
0.00020
O.00020
3
Molybdenum
mg/L









1.400
4.700
4.500
3.500
3.500
3.200
4.400
1.200
1.300
0.840
3.900
1.900
3.200
1.300
4.500
6
3.800
3.200
4.700
3
1.300
0.840
1.900
3
4









Nickel4
mg/L
O.125
O.500
O.500
0.500
0.250
O.250
O.500
O.500
0.500
O.500
O.250
O.250
0.500
O.125
O.500
6
O.500
0.250
O.500
3
O.500
0.250
O.500
3
114

-------
 Table 4-33. Untreated and Treated Liquid Waste Brine (continued)

Date
5/16/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/18/05
5/25/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/26/05
5/28/05
5/28/05
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine
(Preciptation)
Treated Brine
(Adsorption)
Sample
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Preciptation)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Untreated Brine
Treated Brine (Adsorption)
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Selenium4
mg/L
O.500
0.820
0.610
0.690
0.570
O.500
0.550
0.500
0.500
0.690
0.580
0.470
0.550
O.500
0.610
6
0.670
0.500
0.820
3
0.550
0.470
0.690
Silver4
mg/L
O.012
0.050
0.050
O.050
0.025
0.030
O.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
O.025
0.025
0.050
O.012
0.050
6
0.040
0.030
0.050
3
O.050
O.025
0.050
TSS6
mg/L
<10
340
76
190
26
24
70
<10
47
<10
43
<10
45
<10
76
6
180
24
340
3
<10
<10
<10
Thallium4
mg/L
O.025
0.100
0.100
O.100
0.050
O.050
O.I 00
0.100
0.100
0.100
O.050
0.050
0.100
O.025
0.100
6
O.I 00
0.050
0.100
3
O.I 00
O.050
0.100
Vanadium4
mg/L
14.000
1.001
4.024
0.360
3.940
0.890
3.954
9.900
11.000
9.200
4.113
1.996
6.839
3.940
14.000
6
0.750
0.360
1.001
3
7.032
1.996
9.900
Zinc4
mg/L
O.I 25
0.500
0.500
O.500
0.250
O.250
O.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.250
0.250
0.500
O.I 25
0.500
6
O.500
0.250
0.500
3
O.500
O.250
0.500
    Conductivity was measured using SW9050 analytical method instead of method 251 OB, as stated in Table 3-7.
    pH was measured using E 150 analytical method instead of method 4500-H+ B, as stated in Table 3-7.
    Arsenic was measured using EPA 200.8 analytical method except on 05/24/05 for untreated brine, when EPA
    method 200.7 was used.
    EPA 200.8 analytical method was used instead of EPA 601 OB method, as stated in Table 3-7.
    Mercury was measured using EPA 245.1 analytical method instead of EPA 7470A method, as stated Table 3-7.
    TSS was measured using EPA 160.2 analytical method instead of SM 2540D method, as stated Table 3-7.
The combined (BPU and BRA) treated waste was analyzed prior to disposal to characterize the
liquid waste for appropriate disposal.  The results of the liquid brine waste analysis are presented
in Table 4-34.
                                              115

-------
Table 4-34: Combined BRA and BPU Waste Brine Analysis
Parameter                 Units                    Results
Antimony                 ug/L                      <50
Total Arsenic              l^g/L                      580
Barium                   ug/L                      100
Beryllium                 l^g/L                      <50
Cadmium                 ug/L                      <25
Cobalt                    ug/L                      <100
Chromium, Total           l^g/L                      56
Copper                   ug/L                      <100
Conductivity               umho/cm                 94,500
Mercury                  ug/L                     <0.20
Molybdenum              l^g/L                      3400
Nickel                    \ig/L                      <250
Lead                     ug/L                      <25
pH                       pH units                   9.2
Selenium                 l^g/L                      690
Silver                    (ig/L                      <25
Thallium                 l^g/L                      <50
TSS                      mg/L                     <10
Vanadium                 l^g/L                      5800
Zinc                      ug/L                      <250
4.5.5.3 Solid Waste

The  analysis of the solid waste  generated from both the BPU and  the BRA brine treatment
systems is presented in Table 4-35.  The waste generated from the BPU on May 19, 2005, was
found to be classified as nonhazardous based on  the results of the  California waste  analysis
methods of TTLC, STLC, and the federal waste analysis method of TCLP based on the total
arsenic.  The total mass of arsenic in the waste was 233 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of
waste generated, with a TTLC limit of 500 mg/kg for hazardous waste.  The result of the TCLP
was <1.0 mg/L total arsenic, with a hazardous limit of 5.0 mg/L. The total arsenic leachate from
the STLC analysis was 2.8 mg/L, with a limit of 5.0  mg/L for hazardous waste.  The waste
generated from the BRA on June  2, 2005, was  also found to be classified as nonhazardous based
on the results of the California waste analysis methods of TTLC,  STLC, and  the federal waste
analysis method of TCLP based on the total arsenic.  The total mass of arsenic in the waste was
<3 mg/kg of waste generated, with a TTLC limit of 500 mg/kg for hazardous waste.  The result
of the TCLP was <1.0 mg/L  total arsenic,  with a hazardous limit of 5.0 mg/L.  The total arsenic
leachate from the STLC analysis was <0.5 mg/L, with a limit of 5.0 mg/L for hazardous waste.

Precision results are also presented in Table 4-35 for solid samples collected  on both May 19,
2005, and June  2, 2005.  These results show the  variation  possible in  the TTLC  samples
collected. There was very little variation between the sample and duplicate collected on May 19
(approximately 4%), while there was great variation in those samples and duplicates collected on
June 2 (approximately 51%).  Most duplicate samples collected for the TCLP and STLC samples
were<10%.
                                          116

-------
Table 4-35: Solid Waste Analysis



Sample Date





Solids
(Precipitation)

Duplicate
Solids
(Precipitation)
5/19/05

Percent
Precision

TTLC
Antimony
Total As1
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium3
Silver
Thallium3
Vanadium
Zinc
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
<10
233
21
0.5
<1
16
<2
10
9
O.05
80
<5
<3
<1
O.4
1980
19
<10
199
20
0.5
<1
16
<2
9
<5
0.05
76
<5
<3
<1
0.4
1910
19
0%
11%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
40%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
TCLP
Total As
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
O.I
<1
0.01
O.01
0.05
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
<1
O.01
0.01
O.05
O.01
0.1
O.01
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
STLC
Antimony
Total As
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.5
2.8
0.6
0.05
O.05
0.6
O.I
0.63
O.5
O.01
O.5
2.9
0.7
O.05
0.05
0.70
0.1
0.70
0.5
0.01
0%
2%
11%
0%
0%
11%
0%
7%
0%
0%

Solids
(Adsorption)
Duplicate
Solids
(Adsorption)

Percent
Precision
6/2/05

<10
<3
1.31
0.5
<1
46.9
11.2
<2
25.4
0.05
10.2
37.8
<3
<1
O.4
<1
23.1
<20
<7
3
<1
<2
100
24
<5
53
0.1
<20
83
<1
<2
0.9
<2
50
47%
57%
55%
47%
47%
51%
51%
61%
50%
47%
46%
53%
57%
47%
54%
47%
52%

0.1
<1
O.01
0.01
O.05
O.01
O.I
O.01
0.1
<1
O.01
0.01
O.05
O.01
O.I
O.01
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

O.5
O.5
O.5
O.05
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.01
O.5
O.5
O.5
O.05
0.05
0.22
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.01
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Threshold
Levels


500
500
10,000
75
100
2,500
8,000
2,500
1,000
20
3,500
2,000
100
500
700
2,400
5,000

5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0

15
5.0
100
0.75
1.0
560
80
25
5.0
0.2
                                          117

-------
Table 4-35: Solid Waste Analysis (continued)



Sample Date





Solids
(Precipitation)

Duplicate
Solids
(Precipitation)
5/19/05

Percent
Precision

STLC
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Solids
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
%
3.7
0.3
<0.5
0.05
0.6
76
1.0
20
4.3
0.3
0.5
0.05
0.5
84
1.1
20
11%
0%
0%
0%
13%
7%
7%
0%

Solids
(Adsorption)
Duplicate
Solids
(Adsorption)

Percent
Precision
6/2/05

0.3
O.2
0.5
0.05
0.5
0.05
O.I
45
0.32
O.2
0.5
0.05
0.5
0.05
0.11
43
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
3%

Threshold
Levels


350
20
1.0
5
7.0
24
250
NA
   EPA 6020 method was used to test total arsenic instead of EPA 601 OB method, as stated in Table 3-7.
   EPA 7471A method was used to test mercury instead of EPA 7470A method, as stated in Table 3 -7.
3  EPA 6020 method was used to test selenium and thallium instead of EPA 6010B method, as stated in Table 3-7.
NA = Not Applicable.

4.6    Task 5: Data Management

The objective of this task was to establish an effective field protocol for data management at the
field operations site and for data transmission between the  FTO and NSF during verification
testing.  Prior  to  the beginning  of the field testing, the database or spreadsheet design was
developed by the FTO and received and approved by NSF.  This ensured that the required data
were collected  during  the testing, and that results could be  effectively transmitted  to NSF for
review. The FTO  followed all data handling procedures that were presented in Chapter 3.

4.7    Task 6: Quality Assurance Project Plan

An important aspect of verification testing is  the  Quality Assurance Project  Plan (QAPP)
developed for QA/QC, as described in Section 3.12.  The objective  of this task was to assure
accurate measurement  of operational and  water  quality  parameters  during IX equipment
verification testing.  The primary  areas of  evaluation were precision,  accuracy,  statistical
uncertainty, and completeness.  Statistical uncertainty  was  calculated on data  sets containing
eight or more data points and is presented in tables in Chapter 4 as the  95% confidence interval.

Each day the tubing, fittings, and general condition of the Basin Water System were inspected to
verify that there were no leaks or needed repairs. No leaks in tubing were reported.

4.7.1   Precision

Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements, as discussed
in Section 3.12.3.3.  The percent acceptable  precision among duplicate samples was previously
presented in Table 3-8. The calculated precision for each analytical parameter is presented in the
following tables.
                                            118

-------
4.7.1.1 Laboratory Duplicate Precision

The  total alkalinity precision  analyses  for duplicates collected from the 24-hour composite
samples  are presented in Table  4-36.   In total,  there were 21 duplicates collected for total
alkalinity. All samples were within the acceptable precision of 30%.
Table 4-36.
Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05

Total Alkalinity Precision Analysis
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

Alkalinity
(mg/L of CaCO3)
91.4
88.6
78.2
79.5
88.5
83.7
98.8
91.7
82.2
91.0
92.0
81.3
88.5
87.7
94.7
88.3
101
95.8
81.1
95.3
78.8

Duplicate Alkalinity
(mg/L of CaCO3)
104
87.8
78.8
78.6
90.0
85.8
92.9
99.5
83.5
92.6
91.9
81.5
80.6
88.2
95.7
88.0
94.8
95.2
77.5
94.9
77.9
Acceptable Precision
Percent
Precision
9%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
6%
1%
1%
0%
0%
7%
0%
1%
0%
4%
0%
3%
0%
1%
30%
The total arsenic precision analyses for duplicates collected from the 24-hour composite samples
are presented in Table 4-37.  Of the 94 duplicate sets collected for arsenic, all samples were
within the acceptable precision of 30%, with the exception of two on April 17, 2005,  and one
May 20, 2005.  The two duplicate sets on April 17, 2005, that were outside the acceptable range
were  evaluated  for possible mislabeling (e.g.,  effluent sample  labeled  as  a raw  or  influent
sample). Both sets of data appear to fall within this possible scenario. The sample arsenic result
on May 20, 2005, with a percent precision of 126% is considered aberrant.
                                            119

-------
Table 4-37.
Date
Total Arsenic Precision
Sample
Location
Analysis
Sample Arsenic
Oig/L)
Duplicate Arsenic
((ig/L)
Percent
Precision
Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05-04/23/05)
4/5/05


4/6/05


4/7/05


4/9/051


4/10/05


4/11/05


4/12/05


4/13/05


4/14/05


4/15/05


4/16/05


4/17/05


Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
14
15
<1.0
18
19
<1.0
15
14
<1.0
14
13
1.4
16
16
3.3
18
13
4.5
15
14
4.2
15
15
6.5
17
17
9.8
15
15
3.9
15
15
6.7
15
15
14
14
15
<1.0
18
14
<1.0
15
14
<1.0
14
13
1.6
14
14
3.7
13
16
4.3
16
14
4.2
14
15
7.7
15
16
9.9
15
16
3.7
15
15
6.2
6.4
15
6.2
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
9%
9%
8%
23%
15%
3%
5%
0%
0%
5%
0%
12%
9%
4%
1%
0%
5%
4%
0%
0%
5%
57%
0%
55%
120

-------
Table 4-37.
Date
4/18/05
4/21/051
4/22/05
4/23/05
Total Arsenic Precision
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Analysis (continued)
Sample Arsenic
(Hg/L)
16
16
3.3
16
15
3.8
15
15
6.8
15
14
4.5
Duplicate Arsenic
(MgtfO
15
15
2.7
15
15
4.0
15
16
7.5
14
15
4.7
Percent
Precision
5%
5%
14%
5%
0%
4%
0%
5%
7%
5%
5%
3%
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 (04/29/05- 05/9/05)
4/30/052
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
Verification
5/14/05'
5/16/051
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
15
<1.0
14
15
16
<1.0
15
15

15
14
<1.0
15
14
<1.0
16
15
<1.0
14
14
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
14
<1.0
16
15
15
<1.0
14
16

14
15
<1.0
14
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
14
14
<1.0
14
15
<1.0
5%
0%
9%
0%
5%
0%
5%
5%

5%
5%
0%
5%
5%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
121

-------
Table 4-37.

Date
5/20/05


5/21/05


5/22/05


5/23/05


5/25/054


5/26/05

5/27/05


5/28/05



Total Arsenic Precision
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

Analysis (continued)
Sample Arsenic
(Hg/L)
<1.0
16
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0


Duplicate Arsenic
(re/L)
15
15
<1.0
14
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
15
15
<1.0
Acceptable Precision

Percent
Precision
124%
5%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
    Missing data on 4/8, 4/19-4/20, and 5/15 due to plant shutdown.
2   Data not available 4/24-4/29 while awaiting approval from NSF to continue testing.
3   Missing data from 5/8-5/13 due to switch over from Initial Plant Characterization to the Verification Test.
4   Grab samples not collected on 5/24.

The vanadium precision analyses for duplicates  collected from the 24-hour composite samples
are presented  in Table 4-38.   Of the 62 duplicate samples collected,  four  duplicate  sets  of
vanadium results were outside the acceptable precision of 30% and were evaluated for possible
mislabeling.  All four of the data sets (April 5: raw  water,  April 9: effluent water, April  17:
effluent water, and May 20: raw water) appear to  fall within this possible scenario.
                                              122

-------
Table 4-38. Vanadium Precision Analysis
Date

Sample Location Sample Vanadium

Initial Plant Characterization No. 1 (04/04/05-
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/9/051
4/10/05


4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/21/051
4/22/05
4/23/05
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Initial Plant Characterization No. 2 (04/29/05-
4/30/052
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
(Hg/L)
04/23/05)
<3.0
110
<3.0
95
110
110
5.7
110
110
110
16
120
120
110
110
3.2
110
9.8
05/9/05)
110
<3.0
110
110
110
<3.0
99
94
Duplicate Vanadium
(Hg/L)

100
110
<3.0
<3.0
110
110
5.8
110
110
110
16
120
120
8.5
110
3.2
110
9.6

110
<3.0
110
110
100
<3.0
110
96
Percent
Precision

133%
0%
0%
133%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
121%
0%
0%
0%
1%

0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
7%
1%
Verification Testing (05/12/05- 05/28/05)
5/14/05"


5/16/051
5/17/05


Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
110
110
<3.0
110
100
110
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
100
110
110
<3.0
0%
0%
0%
7%
7%
0%
0%
123

-------
Table 4-38. Vanadium Precision Analysis (continued)
Date Sample Location
5/18/05 Raw Water
5/18/05 Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/19/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/20/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/21/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/22/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/23/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/25/054 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/26/05 Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/27/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
5/28/05 Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

Sample Vanadium
(MgflO
110
98
<3.0
99
97
<3.0
<3.0
110
<3.0
100
100
<3.0
110
100
<3.0
100
100
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
110
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
110
110
<3.0

Duplicate Vanadium
(Hg/L)
99
97
<3.0
96
96
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
100
100
<3.0
100
100
<3.0
100
100
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
110
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
110
110
<3.0
Acceptable Precision
Percent
Precision
7%
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
134%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
    Missing data on 4/8/05, 4/19-4/20, and 5/15 due to plant shutdown.
    Data not available 4/24-4/29 while awaiting approval from NSF to continue testing.
3   Missing data from 5/8-5/13 due to switch over from Initial Plant Characterization to the Verification Test.
4   Grab samples not collected on 5/24/05.
                                                   124

-------
Table 4-39  presents the calcium, iron,  total  hardness,  magnesium,  and manganese  precision
analyses.  All of the duplicate data sets were within the acceptable precision range of 30% for
each parameter.
Table 4-39. Calcium, Iron, Total Hardness, Magnesium, and Manganese Precision Analysis
Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05

Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

Sample
Location
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Sample
Calcium
(mg/L)
5.9
6.1
6.0
6.2
5.6
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.0

Duplicate
Calcium
(mg/L)
5.8
6.0
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.0
6.7
6.2
6.0
Acceptable Precision
Sample Duplicate
Hardness Hardness
(mg/L) (mg/L)
18.1
18.8
18.4
19.0
17.1
18.3
18.8
19.4
19.7
18.7
18.7
18.5
17.8
18.5
18.2
19.0
18.4
18.2
17.9
18.4
18.4
20.2
19.0
18.4
Acceptable Precision
Percent
Precision
1%
1%
1%
0%
5%
0%
4%
3%
5%
7%
1%
0%
30%
Percent
Precision
1%
1%
1%
0%
5%
0%
3%
4%
5%
5%
1%
0%
30%
Sample Duplicate
Iron Iron
(mg/L) (mg/L)
0.020 0.020
0.020 0.020
O.020 O.020
O.020 O.020
0.020 0.020
0.020 0.020
O.020 O.020
O.020 O.020
0.020 0.020
0.020 0.020
O.020 O.020
O.020 O.020
Acceptable Precision
Sample Duplicate
Magnesium Magnesium
(mg/L) (mg/L)
0.81 0.81
0.86 0.85
0.83 0.83
0.85 0.85
0.76 0.84
0.81 0.79
0.86 0.82
0.88 0.84
0.90 0.82
0.85 0.84
0.84 0.85
0.85 0.84
Acceptable Precision
Percent
Precision
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
Percent
Precision
0%
1%
0%
0%
7%
2%
3%
3%
7%
1%
1%
1%
30%
                                           125

-------
Table 4-39.
(continued)


Date
4/5 705
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Calcium, Iron, Total Hardness, Magnesium, and Manganese Precision Analysis


Sample
Location
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

Sample
Manganes e
(mg/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0

Duplicate
Manganese
(mg/L)
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0


Percent
Precision
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Acceptable Precision 30%
Table 4-40
presents the dissolved silica,

































TDS, fluoride, and TSS precision analyses.
duplicate data sets were within the acceptable precision range for each
Table 4-40.



Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/14/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Silica, TDS,


Sample
Location
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
parameter.

















All of the

TSS, and Fluoride Precision Analysis
Sample
Dissolved
Silica
(mg/L)
12
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
11
12
Duplicate
Dissolved
Silica


Percent
(mg/L) Precision
12
13
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
11
12
Acceptable Precisbn
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
6%
0%
0%
0%
30%

Sample
TDS
(mg/L)
300
280
290
280
290
290
300
290
280
300
290
280
Acceptable

Duplicate
TDS
(mg/L)
300
280
290
280
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
280
Precision


Percent
Precision
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
2%
0%
0%
30%
126

-------
Table 4-40.
Date
4/5/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/051
4/1405
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05

Silica, TDS,
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water

TSS, and Fluoride Precision Analysis (continued)
Sample Duplicate
Fluoride Fluoride
(mg/L) (mg/L)
0.44 0.45
0.44 0.44
0.43 0.44
0.36 0.39
0.40 0.40
0.41 0.42
0.42 0.41
0.40 0.45
0.41 0.44
0.33 0.32
0.32 0.40
0.33 0.31
0.45 0.45
Acceptable Precision
Percent
Precision
2%
0%
2%
6%
0%
2%
2%
8%
5%
2%
16%
4%
0%
20%
Sample Duplicate
TSS TSS Percent
(mg/L) (mg/L) Precision
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
NA NA NA
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
<10 <10 0%
Acceptable Precision 30%
    Fluoride duplicate sample  collected on 4/13 was an  additional  sample collected during the Initial Plant
Characterization task; therefore, a TSS duplicate sample was not collected.

Table 4-41 presents the chloride, sulfate, and nitrate precision analyses.  With the exception of
three sample sets, all of the duplicate data sets were within the acceptable precision range.  The
sulfate duplicate set on April 9, 2005, had a percent precision of 47% due to a difference in the
minimum detection limits of the samples.  The duplicate sets for chloride and nitrate on May 24,
2005, had percent precisions of 59 and 60%, respectively, with an acceptable percent precision
range of 0 to 20% for chloride and 0-30% for nitrate.
Table 4-41. Chloride, Sulfate, and Nitrate Precision Analysis
Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Sample
Chloride
(mg/L)
75
74
110
117
75
110
71
74
110
Duplicate
Chloride
(mg/L)
74
75
110
117
74
110
70
75
110
Percent
Precision
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
Sample
Sulfate
(mg/L)
37
37
<1.0
<1.0
37
<2.5
37
37
<2.5
Duplicate
Sulfate
(mg/L)
37
37
<1.0
0.50
37
<2.5
37
37
<2.5
Percent
Precision
0%
0%
0%
47%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
                                             127

-------
Table 4-41. Chloride, Sulfate, and Nitrate Precision Analysis (continued)
Date
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05

Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/7/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/12/05
4/13/05
4/14/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
5/14/05
5/17/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/22/05
5/24/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Acceptable Precision
Sample
Location
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Sample
Chloride
(mg/L)
69
74
108
74
71
72
71
67
71
290
72
120

Sample
Nitrate
(mg/L)
6.2
6.2
4.5
4.1
6.2
4.9
6.3
5.6
4.2
6.9
6.9
5.2
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
9.9
6.2
3.5
Duplicate
Chloride
(mg/L)
69
74
110
74
71
72
72
71
71
120
72
120

Duplicate
Nitrate
(mg/L)
6.2
6.2
4.5
4.2
6.2
4.9
6.3
5.7
4.1
6.8
6.9
5.2
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.3
4.0
6.2
3.5
Acceptable Precision
Sample Duplicate
Percent Sulfate Sulfate Percent
Precision (mg/L) (mg/L) Precision
0% 36 36 0%
0% 37 37 0%
1% <2.5 <2.5 0%
0% 39 38 2%
0% 37 37 0%
0% 37 37 0%
1% 37 37 0%
4% 35 37 4%
0% 37 37 0%
59% <2.5 <2.5 0%
0% 37 37 0%
0% <2.5 <2.5 0%
20% Acceptable Precision 20%
Percent
Precision
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
60%
0%
0%
30%
128

-------
Table 4-42 presents the precision data for the one set of duplicate samples collected on May 19,
2005  from the treated brine and the untreated brine. The high precision levels are due to  a
difference in the minimum  detection limits of the  samples. Another likely explanation  for the
high  precision  levels could  be variability in the  waste (i.e.,  non-homogeneous samples).
Precision levels for detectable data ranged from 0-70%.
Table 4-42. Treated
Parameter Units
Conductivity umho/cm
pH units
Total Arsenic (ig/L
Antimony (ig/L
Barium (ig/L
Beryllium (ig/L
Cadmium (ig/L
Chromium (ig/L
Cobalt (ig/L
Copper (ig/L
Lead (ig/L
Mercury (ig/L
Molybdenum (ig/L
Nickel (ig/L
Selenium (ig/L
Silver (ig/L
TSS mg/L
Thallium (ig/L
Vanadium (ig/L
Zinc (ig/L
and Untreated Liquid
Sample Duplicate
Treated Brine Treated Brine
101000
7.9
140
<50
<100
<50
<25
<50
<100
<100
<25
<0.20
3200
<250
<500
30
24
<50
890
<250
101000
8.1
140
<20
43
<20
<10
<20
<40
<40
<10
0.327
3200
<100
660
<10
43
<20
830
<100
Waste Bri
Percent
Precision
0%
1.8%
0%
60%
56%
60%
61%
60%
60%
60%
61%
34%
0%
61%
20%
70%
40%
60%
4.9%
61%
ne Precision Analysis
Sample Duplicate
Untreated Brine Untreated Brine
105000
9.7
4100
<50
380
<50
<25
<50
<100
<100
<25
O.20
3500
<250
570
<25
26
<50
3940
<250
105000
9.7
3500
<20
140
<20
<10
22
<40
73
<10
<0.20
3000
<100
420
<10
56
<20
3831
<100
Percent
Precision
0%
0%
11%
60%
65%
60%
61%
55%
60%
22%
61%
0%
11%
61%
21%
61%
52%
60%
2.0%
61%
4.7.1.2 On-Site Analytical Precision

Duplicate samples were collected and the on-site analytical precision was calculated for free and
total chlorine, conductivity, and pH. The precision analyses of these parameters are presented in
Tables 4-43 through 4-45.

As  presented in Table 4-43, there were 31 total chlorine duplicate sets, with 14  sets above the
acceptable precision value  of 20%.  The low  number  of  sample  sets that fell within the
acceptable precision level may be attributed to the volatile nature of chlorine and/or the very low
levels of chlorine being analyzed.  The similar scenario was observed  for free chlorine, with 14
of the 30 sample duplicates exceeding the acceptable precision of 20%.
                                            129

-------
Table 4-43.

Date
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/12/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/20/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/4/05
5/6/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Free and Total

Sample
Location
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Chlorine
Sample
Total
Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.17
0.03
0.13
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.17
0.17
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.03
0.02
0.34
0.02
0.03
0.34
0.01
0.04
0.33
0.02
0.03
0.30
Precision Analysis
Duplicate
Total
Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.13
0.05
0.13
0.02
0.07
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.29
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.03
0.02
0.33
0.02
0.01
0.28
Acceptable Precision

Percent
Precision
19%
35%
0%
0%
79%
18%
0%
85%
141%
19%
9%
47%
141%
141%
0%
0%
141%
0%
0%
141%
47%
0%
0%
28%
2%
71%
47%
0%
0%
71%
5%
20%
Sample
Free
Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.14
0.06
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.14
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.05
0.24
0.00
0.01
0.26
0.01
0.03
0.27
0.05
0.02
0.28
0.02
0.02
0.17
Acceptable
Duplicate
Free
Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.02
0.04
0.13
0.02
0.04
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.13
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.00
0.01
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.27
NA
0.04
0.26
0.07
0.03
0.25
0.01
0.02
0.23
Precision

Percent
Precision
106%
28%
18%
0%
85%
28%
0%
61%
141%
5%
5%
94%
0%
47%
47%
14%
0%
94%
3%
0%
0%
3%
NA
20%
3%
24%
28%
8%
47%
0%
21%
20%
NA = Not Available.
Conductivity was measured on-site using Standard Method 2510B.  The percent precision results
are presented in Table 4-44.  All 40 duplicate sample sets were within the acceptable precision
range of 10%.
                                           130

-------
Table 4-44. Conductivity Precision Analysis
Sample Sample Conductivity
Date Location (nmho/cm)
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/8/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/11/05
4/13/05
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
529
508
595
528
529
512
527
543
532
520
527
550
540
534
536
560
538
533
534
541
508
543
558
518
534
543
533
544
521
548
540
552
529
524
561
517
528
532
528
Duplicate Conductivity Percent
(nmho/cm) Precision
541
508
572
529
540
522
519
540
533
526
526
548
542
536
533
562
535
528
536
543
507
542
551
516
534
541
533
547
523
549
539
545
531
524
562
513
532
535
531
2%
0%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
131

-------
Table 4-44. Conductivity Precision Analysis (continued)
Sample Sample Conductivity Duplicate Conductivity Percent
Date Location (nmho/cm) (nmho/cm) Precision
5/28/05 Influent Water 538 540
Acceptable Precision
0%
10%
In total, 30 duplicate pH samples were collected for precision analysis.  The results of the precision
analyses for on-site pH data are presented in Table 4-45.  All of the duplicate sets were within the
acceptable precision range of 10%.
Table 4-45. Precision Analysis of On-Site
Date Sample Location
4/5/05
4/6/05
4/9/05
4/10/05
4/13/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/20/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/4/05
5/6/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05

Influent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Effluent Water
Influent Water
Raw Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water
Effluent Water
Raw Water
Influent Water

pH
Sample pH
9.21
8.89
9.21
9.05
8.98
8.69
9.16
9.02
9.23
9.10
7.85
9.08
9.08
8.67
9.11
9.09
9.08
9.07
8.57
9.07
9.06
8.27
9.07
9.09
8.88
9.03
9.05
8.75
9.07
9.07

Duplicate pH
8.64
8.89
9.12
9.05
9.08
8.68
9.19
9.03
9.19
9.11
8.02
9.10
9.05
8.66
9.11
9.11
9.08
9.07
8.59
9.04
9.07
8.26
9.08
9.08
8.72
9.06
9.09
8.76
9.07
9.06
Acceptable Precision
Percent Precision
5%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
                                              132

-------
4.7.2   Accuracy

Arsenic Speciation and Analysis
Total  arsenic samples were collected daily and analyzed using EPA Method 200.8.  Additional
arsenic  samples were collected twice per week 6r As (III) and dissolved arsenic.  The  field
speciation columns for  the dissolved arsenic and As (III) samples were  provided by NSF.
QA/QC evaluations of the speciation columns using known concentrations of As (III) and As (V)
were conducted by the NSF laboratory prior to verification testing; this QA/QC documentation is
provided in  Appendix B.   Additional speciation studies were previously  discussed in Section
4.5.2.  There is currently no explanation for the inconsistent speciation results observed during
the test. However, the arsenic present at the test site appeared to be in the  As (III) state, and the
Basin Water System consistently removed the arsenic to non-detectable levels (<1 |ig/L).

Other Laboratory Parameters
Accuracy  checks  performed by MWH  Laboratories for  all  samples  analyzed by  MWH
Laboratories were within the specified acceptance limits outlined in Table 3-10.

pH Meter
The pH meter was calibrated daily using certified  pH solutions (4.0, 7.0, and 10.0) purchased
from Hach. Analyses were made daily according to Standard Method 4500-H+B.

Pressure Gauges
Basin Water indicated that the pressure gauges installed were factory-calibrated. No additional
accuracy checks were performed.

Temperature
Temperature  was measured with a  NIST-certified thermometer.   Because temperature  was
measured daily using a NIST-certified thermometer, no accuracy checks were necessary.

Conductivity Meter
The handheld conductivity meter was used according to Standard Method 2510 B.  A three-point
calibration with certified conductivity solutions (184, 1000, and 1990 umoh/cm) was made  each
day the meter was in use.

Chlorine Meter
Three times during the testing the chlorine meter was  checked for accuracy using known spike
samples provided by Hach with the Hach 8167 method for total  chlorine and Hach 8021 method
for free chlorine.  The accuracy of the free and total chlorine spikes is discussed in additional
detail in Section 4.7.3 with corresponding data provided in  Table 4-45. All results were within
the acceptable accuracy range.

Flow Monitoring
The Basin Water System was equipped with panel-mounted  flow meters to read the influent and
effluent flow  rates.   The  effluent  flow  rate  was  also checked  daily using the bucket and
stopwatch method.   The flow  meters appeared to be accurate according  to this method of
calibration, with an average accuracy of 86%  for the effluent flow rate. The flow meters  were
                                          133

-------
not designed to allow adjustment or calibration, so the differences (when present) were recorded;
however, no adjustments could be made to "calibrate" the flow meters.

4.7.3   Spikes

All spikes were performed and analyzed  at MWH Laboratories, with the exception of chlorine.
Field  spikes were measured using a handheld chlorine  analyzer.   The results are presented in
Table 4-46.
Table 4-46.
Date
4/8/05


4/13/05


4/14/05


4/18/05


4/29/05


5/2/05


5/9/05


5/16/05


5/23/05


Chlorine Spike Results
Spike
(mg/L)
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
0.27
0.53
0.80
Total Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.25
0.57
0.79
0.25
0.47
0.77
0.25
0.54
0.80
0.22
0.46
0.70
0.22
0.46
0.76
0.24
0.49
0.75
0.27
0.51
0.75
0.32
0.56
0.74
0.26
0.53
0.81
Percent
Accuracy
93%
108%
99%
93%
89%
96%
93%
102%
100%
81%
87%
88%
81%
87%
95%
89%
92%
94%
100%
96%
94%
119%
106%
93%
96%
100%
101%
Free Chlorine
(mg/L)
0.18
0.42
0.74
0.16
0.47
0.68
0.21
0.49
0.77
0.22
0.45
0.69
0.22
0.47
0.75
0.18
0.48
0.76
0.28
0.49
0.73
0.26
0.40
0.73
0.22
0.49
0.74
Percent
Accuracy
67%
79%
93%
59%
89%
85%
78%
92%
96%
81%
85%
86%
81%
89%
94%
67%
91%
95%
104%
92%
91%
96%
75%
91%
81%
92%
93%
                                           134

-------
4.7.4  Calibrations

Calibrations of the pH meter and conductivity meter and manual checks of the flow rate using
the bucket and stop watch method were completed daily.  The results of the daily calibrations are
presented in Tables 4-47 through 4-49.  The results indicate a 99-100% degree of accuracy with
each pH buffer solution used  for the pH calibrations, 99-102% degree of accuracy of the
conductivity meter, and approximately 86% accuracy of the flow meter.
Table 4-47. Daily Calibration of pH Meter
Measurement Percent Measurement Percent Measurement Percent
Date with 4.01 Buffer Accuracy with 7.00 Buffer Accuracy with 10.01 Buffer Accuracy
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/18/05
4/20/051
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
3.97
3.83
3.77
3.74
4.00
3.99
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.02
4.02
4.02
4.01
4.01
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
99%
96%
94%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7.03
7.00
6.97
6.97
7.02
7.02
7.01
7.01
7.01
7.02
7.01
7.00
7.02
7.00
7.02
7.01
7.00
7.01
7.00
6.99
6.99
6.99
7.01
7.00
7.01
7.01
7.01
6.99
7.00
6.99
6.99
7.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
9.99
10.03
10.01
10.08
10.07
10.07
10.04
10.05
10.06
10.08
10.05
10.03
10.06
10.07
10.07
10.04
10.01
10.04
9.99
9.96
9.98
9.98
10.03
10.02
10.05
10.05
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.98
9.99
10.00
100%
100%
100%
101%
101%
101%
100%
100%
100%
101%
100%
100%
100%
101%
101%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
                                           135

-------
Table 4-47. Daily Calibration of pH Meter (continued)
Date
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Measurement
with 4.01 Buffer
4.01
4.01
4.01
3.99
3.74
4.02
1 Data not available on 4/1 9/05
Table 4-48.
Date
Percent Measurement Percent Measurement Percent
Accuracy with 7.00 Buffer Accuracy with 10.01 Buffer Accuracy
100% 7.01
100% 6.99
100% 7.00
99% 7.00
93% 6.97
100% 7.03
due to plant-shutdown.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

10.04
9.99
10.00
10.03
9.96
10.08

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
101%

Daily Calibration of Conductivity Meter
With 180
(imho/cm Sol.
Percent With 1000
Accuracy ^mho/cm Sol.
Percent
Accuracy
With 1990
(jmho/cm Sol.
Percent
Accuracy
First Conductivity Reading
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/5/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
186.2
187.2
NA
180.0
182.8
183.1
182.5
179.0
177.4
182.7
183.0
173.4
180.7
188.1
190.0
185.6
175.5
180.2
185.0
180.5
195.2
177.6
185.3
181.5
182.3
181.9
178.9
183.9
103% 1002
104% 1034
NA 1015
100% 1000
102% 1002
102% 1020
101% 1010
99% 998
99% 1008
102% 1003
102% 992
96% 1006
100% 985
105% 1016
106% 1023
103% 1023
98% 975
100% 995
103% 1032
100% 1000
108% 1040
99% 968
103% 1035
101% 1005
101% 1000
101% 1003
99% 1016
102% 1013
100%
103%
102%
100%
100%
102%
101%
100%
101%
100%
99%
101%
99%
102%
102%
102%
98%
100%
103%
100%
104%
97%
104%
101%
100%
100%
102%
101%
1940
NA
NA
2000
1975
1975
1989
1977
1975
2020
1976
1996
1997
1811
1969
2000
1980
1963
1978
1973
1958
1969
1989
2000
1995
1999
2010
1979
97%
NA
NA
101%
99%
99%
100%
99%
99%
102%
99%
100%
100%
91%
99%
101%
99%
99%
99%
99%
98%
99%
100%
101%
100%
100%
101%
99%
136

-------
Table 4-48. Daily Calibration of Conductivity Meter (continued)
Date

5/23/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
With 180
(imho/cm Sol.
163.3
227.0
182.5
180.0
188.2
179.0
183.3
163.3
227.0
Percent
Accuracy
91%
126%
101%
100%
105%
99%
102%
91%
126%
With 1000
(imho/cm Sol
959
844
961
981
1013
1009
1000
844
1040
Second Conductivity
4/15/05
4/16/05
4/17/05
4/20/05
4/21/05
4/22/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/12/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/18/05
5/19/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
NA
NA
NA
180.1
178.9
179.1
178.2
179.3
180.0
178.2
178.0
179.9
179.4
179.2
178.3
179.0
178.5
178.4
177.5
177.7
180.4
180.0
178.5
180.0
180.3
179.6
178.0
180.1
184.2
NA
NA
NA
100%
99%
100%
99%
100%
100%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
102%
NA
NA
NA
998
1000
996
996
997
1000
1000
999
998
1001
999
999
996
1000
996
1000
993
997
995
995
999
1005
1007
998
998
988
Percent
Accuracy
96%
84%
96%
98%
101%
101%
100%
84%
104%
Reading
NA
NA
NA
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
101%
101%
100%
100%
99%
With 1990
(imho/cm Sol.
1990
1984
2020
1996
1934
1958
1977
1811
2020

NA
NA
NA
1997
1998
1990
1986
1984
1992
1983
1990
1984
1978
1992
1980
1979
1994
1997
1981
1988
2000
1989
2010
1998
1991
1990
1985
1980
1971
Percent
Accuracy
100%
100%
102%
100%
97%
98%
99%
91%
102%

NA
NA
NA
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
101%
100%
101%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
137

-------
Table 4-48. Daily Calibration of Conductivity Meter
Date
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
Average
Minimum
Maximum
With 180
(imho/cm Sol.
179.2
180.6
178.3
180.0
179.3
177.5
184.2
Percent
Accuracy
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
99%
102%
With 1000
(imho/cm Sol.
1001
1000
1006
994
998
988
1007
(continued)
Percent
Accuracy
100%
100%
101%
99%
100%
99%
101%

With 1990
(imho/cm Sol.
1988
1986
1996
1999
1989
1971
2010

Percent
Accuracy
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
101%
NA = Not Available.

Flow rate calibration readings from April 22-May 28, 2005, are presented in Table 4-49.  The
effluent flow rate values  were based on the  measurements from the flow meter gage and its
recorded readings from the PLC screen.  Once a reading was recorded, a manual check using the
bucket and stopwatch test, measuring volume  per time, was conducted to test the accuracy of the
HMI flow meter.
Table 4-49.
Date
4/22/05
4/27/05
4/29/05
4/29/05
4/30/05
4/30/05
5/1/05
5/1/05
5/2/05
5/2/05
5/3/05
5/3/05
5/4/05
5/4/05
5/6/05
5/6/05
5/7/05
5/7/05
5/8/05
5/8/05
5/9/05
5/9/05
Flow Rate Calibration Checks
Collection Effluent Flow
Time1 Rate Reading (gpm)
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
37.6
37.7
37.1
36.6
37.8
38.0
37.7
36.9
36.2
36.4
36.8
36.1
35.7
35.9
39.3
37.8
39.4
37.4
38.0
37.6
37.6
37.2
Measured Flow
Rate (gpm)
32.0
30.8
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
29.3
29.3
30.2
30.2
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
% Accuracy of
HMI Flow Meter
85%
82%
86%
87%
85%
84%
85%
87%
88%
88%
80%
81%
85%
84%
81%
85%
81%
86%
84%
85%
85%
86%
                                          138

-------
Table 4-49.
Date
5/13/05
5/13/05
5/14/05
5/14/05
5/15/05
5/15/05
5/16/05
5/16/05
5/17/05
5/17/05
5/20/05
5/20/05
5/21/05
5/21/05
5/22/05
5/22/05
5/23/05
5/23/05
5/24/05
5/24/05
5/25/05
5/25/05
5/26/05
5/26/05
5/27/05
5/27/05
5/28/05
5/28/05
Flow Rate Calibration Checks (continued)
Collection Effluent Flow Measured Flow
Time1 Rate Reading (gpm) Rate (gpm)
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
41.7
37.5
37.3
35.9
37.2
37.7
37.3
36.3
36.8
36.4
38.6
23.1
40.3
37.4
37.3
37.7
37.9
37.5
39.0
38.1
37.7
38.0
37.8
37.3
36.4
36.5
36.6
37.4
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
30.5
30.5
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
31.1
31.1
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
35.0
35.0
32.0
32.0
% Accuracy of
HMI Flow Meter
77%
85%
86%
89%
86%
85%
82%
84%
87%
88%
83%
139%
77%
83%
86%
85%
84%
85%
82%
84%
85%
84%
85%
86%
96%
96%
87%
86%
   AM/PM refers to morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) calibration checks.

4.7.5  Completeness

Calculation of data completeness was made for on-site water quality measurements and MWH
Laboratories  water quality measurements, as discussed in Section  3.12.3.4 and  presented in
Table 3-11.  During the test, duplicate samples  were collected in a rotating manner  (i.e.,
duplicates were taken of the raw water during one round  of duplicate analysis, then influent
water, and finally effluent water). Based on the completeness goals  defined in Table 3-11 and
the  completeness results presented in  Table  4-50,  all parameters were within  the  stated
completeness goals.
                                            139

-------
Table 4-50. Completeness
Parameter
As (III)
Dissolved As
Total As
Sulfate
Nitrate
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity
Fluoride
IDS
TSS
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Hardness
Dissolved Silica
pH
Conductivity
Free Chlorine
Proposed
Results Duplicates
24
24
168
84
84
84
48
48
84
48
48
48
48
48
168
48
48
64
64
126
0
0
80
22
22
22
10
10
22
10
10
10
10
10
54
10
10
20
24
16
Actual
Results Duplicates
36
39
202
85
84
85
78
78
85
84
57
57
51
51
196
66
57
135
135
186
NA
NA
92
21
20
21
11
11
21
13
12
12
11
11
59
11
12
30
39
16
Completeness (%)
Results Duplicates
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
NA
NA
>100%
95%
91%
95%
>100%
>100%
95%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
>100%
Completeness Goal
Results Duplicates
90%
90%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
100%
100%
95%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
95%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
NA = Not Available.

4.8  Operations and Maintenance

The following section discusses the FTO's experience with the operation and maintenance of the
Basin Water System.

4.8.1   Fluctuation in Flow Rate

The Basin Water System is an automated system that may be a staffed or un-staffed system (with
periodic visits to check chemical feed levels and overall system performance).  The influent and
effluent flow rates and  pressures are continuously recorded through the system's PLC, which
logs  any fluctuations.  If necessary, the flow may be adjusted through settings on the  PLC.
During verification testing these settings were preset by Basin Water and not adjusted.

4.8.2   Chemical Feed Systems

For purposes of verification testing (which had set system flow rates), the chlorine feed rate was
set during the Initial Plant Characterization phase at 0.10-0.50 mg/L and not adjusted during the
testing.

Sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, ferric chloride, and  salt were fed by batch processes associated
with the regeneration phase and were not dependent upon the system flow rate.  Sulfuric acid and
sodium hydroxide were dosed to reach a certain brine pH and were dependent on the initial brine
pH and buffering capacity.  The ferric chloride and  salt had  a preset volume per batch.  If the
system flow rates were to vary, the chemical  feed rates would only vary based on an increase or
                                           140

-------
decrease in the number of batches per day.  The brine flow rate (volume per day) was set based
on the number of IX bed volumes to exhaustion.  The bed volumes were adjusted from 1,100 to
850 BVs between the first and second Initial Plant Characterization.  The brine was sent through
two IX vessels before it was sent to either the BRA or BPU for treatment.

4.8.3   Sediment Prefilters

The sediment prefilters were monitored through the differential pressure across the filters.  This
differential pressure was logged daily through the PLC.  During verification testing, the filters
did not require changing (i.e., did not exceed the set differential pressure [12 psi]  as set by Basin
Water).

4.8.4   Resin Depth

The depth of the resin in each IX vessel could not be measured or monitored during verification
testing, because there was not a site glass or other means to measure the depth of resin in each
vessel.

4.8.5   Arsenic and/or Vanadium Breakthrough

With the exception of off-site laboratory testing of arsenic and vanadium, there was no means to
monitor if arsenic and/or vanadium had broken through the IX resin.  Online monitoring of pH
and conductivity were not indicator parameters if either ion had broken through the resin.

4.8.6   Brine Reuse, Feed, and Treatment

The on-site field engineer could monitor if brine had been fed to the IX vessels through the PLC,
which recorded  each step (salt addition,  salt dilution,  and rinse) of the regeneration.  The
information  recorded included the particular  liquid's  flow rate  and  duration.    The brine
consumption could be monitored in a number of ways, such as through the PLC, but the simplest
method was through calculating the flow rate of the brine and the time the brine pump was in
operation.   Tne  operator could detect an  improperly  regenerated IX vessel by observing the
information  recorded on the  PLC.  The regeneration step was set to utilize a certain volume of
brine, dilution  water, and rinse water.  A deviation from the  set volume of brine,  dilution water,
or rinse water would be recorded on the PLC and would indicate that IX vessel was not properly
regenerated.

No observable issues were noted in the ability to precipitate  arsenic  and vanadium from the
waste brine due to recycling of the brine. The BPU and the BRA were both automated treatment
systems that were placed on  set points by Basin Water during the Initial Plant Characterization.
The only  maintenance required was for the high-level indicator and waste pump on the BRA
recirculation tank, which failed during the verification testing.
                                           141

-------
4.9  NSF Field Inspection

On May 19, 2005, NSF conducted a field  inspection of the verification test and found the
practices in place on-site to be in accordance with the PSTP that was approved prior to beginning
the testing.
                                          142

-------
                                      Chapter 5
                                     References

The following references were used in the preparation of this report:

Clifford,  D. A. and  G.  Ghurye, "Ion  Exchange  With Spent Brine Recycling As A Viable
Treatment  Technology  for  Arsenic Removal  From Drinking  Water,"  In preparation  for
submission to J. AWWA, April 1998.

Clifford,  D.A.,  "Ion Exchange  and Inorganic Adsorption,"  Water Supply and Treatment:  A
Handbook of Community Water Supplies, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.

Edwards, Marc, Sapna Patel, Laurie McNeill, Hsiao-wen Chen, Michelle Frey, Andrew Eaton,
Ronald C. Antweiler, and Howard E. Taylor, "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation," J.
AWWA, 90:3:103,  1998.

Frank, P. and D. A. Clifford, Arsenic (III) Oxidation and Removal from Drinking Water, PB  86-
158  607/ NTIS,  Springfield,  Va.,  1986;  Summary Report,  EPA/600/5286/021, U.S.EPA,
Cincinnati, April 1986.

Gallagher, P. A., C.A. Schwegal, B. Parks, L. Wymer, and J. Creed, "Preservation of As (III) and
As (V) in Drinking Water Supply Samples from  Across the United States Using EDTA and
Acetic Acid as a Means of Minimizing Iron  - Arsenic Coprecipitation," Environmental  Science
and Technology, 38, 2919-2927, 2004.

Horng, L. L. and D. A. Clifford, "The Behavior of Polyprotic Anions in Ion Exchange Resins,"
Reactive and Functional Polymers?>5 (1/2):  41-54, 1997.

Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes  (MCAWW), EPA/600/4-79-202 - Revised
March 1983.

Methods for Determination  of Organic Compounds in  Drinking Water, EPA/600/4-88/039-
December 1988 (Revised July 1991).

Samanta, Gautam, and D. Clifford, "Preservation of Inorganic Arsenic Species in Groundwater,"
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 8877-8882.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed.,  APHA, AWWA, and
WEF, Washington D.C.,  1999.

U.S. EPA/NSF  International, EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for
Arsenic Removal, September 2003.

U.S. EPA/NSF  International, EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for
Removal of Inorganic Constituents, April 2002.
                                         143

-------
                                       Chapter 6
                                   Vendor Comments

Basin Water submitted the following comments concerning the ETV test and report.  These
statements were not validated in the verification test and are the opinion of Basin Water:

"The  Basin Water pre-packaged ion  exchange  system has been specifically  designed for
wellhead installation and  has  numerous  advantages both  from an operational and economic
standpoint.   In recognition of its unique design and high efficiency, it has been granted patent #
6,706,195 by the US Patent and Trademark Office.  The Title of this patent is "High Efficiency
Ion Exchange for Removing Arsenic from Water."

Ion Exchange

The use of ion  exchange  for  arsenic removal  has  been  studied for many years and  its
performance is well known. Ion exchange has been designated as a Best Available Technology
(B.A.T.) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Some of the advantages of ion exchange
for arsenic removal are:

    1.  Not sensitive to pH.
    2.  Not affected by silica / phosphate.
    3.  Will also remove vanadium with minimal loss of capacity.
    4.  Can consistently remove arsenic to non-detect levels.

The negative aspect to using ion exchange  has always been  related to  disposal of brine wastes
produced during the regeneration process.

Traditional  ion exchange  plants consist of three large vessels,  two in operation  and one in
regeneration. A standard ion exchange treatment  plant will  produce anywhere from  3  - 10%
waste, which usually cannot be disposed of in a domestic sewer because of the high salt content.
The disposal of these large quantities of brine waste makes  wellhead installation of traditional
ion exchange plants very difficult and expensive. It is precisely for this  reason that ion exchange
was discounted as a viable technology for arsenic removal.

Basin Water Ion Exchange System

The Basin Water IX System has incorporated the advantage  of ion exchange technology into a
package, which is  extremely well suited  to either wellhead  or  centralized treatment  facilities.
This multibed system operates continuously and has the following advantages over traditional
ion exchange systems:

    1.  Very low waste rates - Typically less than 0.25%.
    2.  Consistent Effluent Quality -  The  staggered,  multibed system allows for very consistent
       effluent water quality.
    3.  Low power requirements - Operates  off of well head pressure.
                                           144

-------
       Reliability  - Multiple  beds provide  redundancy  not available  with traditional  ion
       exchange systems.
       Operational  flexibility  -  Can  operate  from 0  to  100% of  well capacity  while
       accommodating the frequent starting and stopping of the well(s).
       Small foot print - A 1,000 GPM system can fit onto a site as small as 1,100 ft2.
       Mobility - An entire system can be delivered and installed in 7 to 10 working days.
Comments on Elsinore EPA - ETV Testing

Both MWH and EPA/NSF did a great job in organizing the ETV test and the processing of all
data collected. It is worth noting that this test utilized one of the Basin Water mobile units (T-2),
which is a 10-bed system with a maximum capacity of 110 GPM. Since this test operated at 35
GPM instead of its full capacity, only 4 out of the 10 ion exchange beds were used.

The net result of this was a less consistent effluent water quality  since there where far fewer beds
in service  to damp out changing water quality. A typical Basin Water 1,000 GPM system has 16
beds with  13 in absorption at all times. This plurality of vessels produces very consistent effluent
water quality and a  negligible change in pH through the system. For example, a 1,000 gpm
arsenic removal system operating at the Baldy Mesa Water District in High Desert of Southern
California had a pH change of less than 0.2 units with a very similar water quality.

It is also worth noting that the amount of waste produced by a Basin Water system is completely
dependent on the source  water quality. The test system at Elsinore Valley operated at 850 bed
volumes, as predicted by  Basin Water's proprietary computer simulation model. Basin Water has
seen different water qualities, which result in bed  lifes ranging from  300 - 10,000 bed volumes.
Basin Water has deployed an arsenic treatment system in Arizona that  operates at 10,000 bed
volumes and has a waste rate of 0.01%. This translates to only 100 gallons of waste per one
million  gallons treated, or a  net recovery of 99.99%. This reduced waste rate  has  the  added
benefit of creating additional water supply for anyone choosing a Basin Water IX System over
traditional ion exchange conserving a precious natural resource.

Conclusions

Basin Water wishes to thank EPA/NSF  for the opportunity to  demonstrate the  efficiency and
operational characteristics of the Basin  Water "High Efficiency Arsenic Treatment  System".
Basin Water also wishes to  thank the  MWH project team for the diligent and  professional
manner in which they conducted this test and operated the Basin  Water Demonstration  Unit.

It is Basin Water's belief that by optimizing the use of ion exchange for  arsenic treatment we
have created the opportunity for the economic and conserved water benefits to be passed on to
the end user."
                                           145

-------