21-WTP_PilotTestingRpt.pdf

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

F i n a l S u b m i t t a l

Water and Wastewater Utility Systems Capital Improvement Plan - Project W1

Fort Irwin Water Treatment Process

Selection Based on Pilot Testing Results

Prepared for

U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) Fort Irwin, California

February 2007

Prepared by

Post Office Box 10450

Fort Irwin, California 92310-0450

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS I

Contents

Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................................vi

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Scope ........................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Report Organization ..............................................................................................1-2

2. Existing Water Facilities at Fort Irwin ............................................................................2-1

2.1 Fort Irwin Water System Characteristics ............................................................2-1

2.1.1 Groundwater Wells...................................................................................2-1

2.2 Existing Reverse Osmosis Treatment Facilities..................................................2-2

2.3 Existing Distribution and Storage Facilities .......................................................2-3

2.3.1 Distribution System...................................................................................2-3

2.3.2 Storage Facilities ........................................................................................2-3

3. Drinking Water Regulations and Their Impact............................................................3-1

3.1 Regulatory Summary.............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Historical Perspective ............................................................................................3-1

3.3 Pertinent Regulations.............................................................................................3-2

3.3.1 Current Regulations..................................................................................3-2

3.3.2 Fort Irwin Parameters of Concern...........................................................3-3

3.3.3 New and Future Regulations...................................................................3-5

3.4 Selection of Treatment Process to Meet Water Quality Goals..........................3-5

4. Water Demands and Treatment Plant Capacity ...........................................................4-1

4.1 Water Demand Projections ...................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Historical Water Use .................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Projected Future Water Demands...........................................................4-3

4.1.3 Projected Future Water Demands Considering Conservation ...........4-3

4.2 Treatment Plant Capacity......................................................................................4-4

5. Pilot-Scale Testing Results ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Activated Alumina Regeneration (AAR) Process..............................................5-1

5.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Objectives of the AAR Pilot Testing .......................................................5-1

5.1.3 Operational Modes for AAR pilot studies .............................................5-4

5.1.4 Trial 1 – Ambient (winter) Feedwater ....................................................5-4

5.1.5 Trial 2 – Ambient (summer) Feedwater .................................................5-9

5.1.6 Trial 3 – Spiked (High) Fluoride and Low Silica Water.....................5-13

5.1.7 Discussion.................................................................................................5-17

CONTENTS

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS II

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

5.1.8 AAR Process Performance and Conclusions.......................................5-21

5.2 Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) Membrane Process.........................................5-22

5.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................5-22

5.2.2 Operational Modes for EDR Pilot Studies ...........................................5-25

5.2.3 Trial 1 – Ambient Feedwater Testing ...................................................5-26

5.2.4 Trial 2 – Spiked Feedwater Testing.......................................................5-32

5.2.5 Trial 3 – Steady State Operation at Optimized Condition.................5-37

5.2.6 EDR Performance and Conclusions......................................................5-42

6. Full-Scale Treatment Process Alternatives ....................................................................6-1

6.1 AAR Treatment Processes.....................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Main Processes...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Blending......................................................................................................6-3

6.1.3 Feed and Processed Water Quality.........................................................6-4

6.1.4 Waste Stream Processes............................................................................6-5

6.1.5 Waste Stream Quality ...............................................................................6-8

6.1.6 AAR Process Summary ............................................................................6-9

6.1.7 AAR Process Design Criteria...................................................................6-9

6.2 EDR Treatment Processes....................................................................................6-14

6.2.1 Main Process ............................................................................................6-14

6.2.2 Blending....................................................................................................6-16

6.2.3 Feed and Processed Water Quality.......................................................6-17

6.2.4 Waste Stream Processes..........................................................................6-18

6.2.5 Waste Stream Quality .............................................................................6-20

6.2.6 EDR Process Summary ...........................................................................6-21

6.2.7 EDR Process Design Criteria..................................................................6-22

7. Estimated Capital and Annual O&M Costs ..................................................................7-1

7.1 Factors Influencing Capital and Operating Costs..............................................7-1

7.2 Capital Costs for AAR and EDR Main Processes ..............................................7-2

7.2.1 AAR Main Process Facilities ....................................................................7-2

7.2.2 AAR Waste Stream Treatment and Disposal Facilities........................7-5

7.2.3 EDR Membrane Main Process Facilities ................................................7-6

7.2.4 EDR Waste Stream Treatment and Disposal Facilities ........................7-8

7.3 Cost for Annual Operation and Maintenance of Treatment Facilities..........7-10

7.3.1 Economic Analysis of Mechanical Evaporator

vs. Evaporation Ponds ............................................................................7-12

8. References ............................................................................................................................8-1

Tables 2-1 Fort Irwin Groundwater Production Active Well and Pump Information.................2-1

2-2 Fort Irwin Water System Storage Tank Description.......................................................2-3

3-1 Source Water Quality Constituents and Fort Irwin Drinking Water Quality Goals for the 6 mgd Water Treatment Plant....................................................................3-6

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS III

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

4-1 Fort Irwin Historical Monthly Water Demands..............................................................4-2

4-2 Reported and Projected Population and Water Demand by Previous Studies ..........4-3

5-1 AAR Pilot Testing Operating Parameters........................................................................5-3

5-2 Trial 1 – AAR Pilot Testing – Ambient Fluoride Feedwater1 ........................................5-4

5-3 Pilot Unit Chemical Regeneration Procedure..................................................................5-5

5-4 Trial 1 – Feedwater and Treated Water Quality Data ....................................................5-6

5-5 Trial 2 – AAR Pilot Testing on New Media. ..................................................................5-10

5-6 Trial 2 – Feedwater and Treated Water Quality Data ..................................................5-11

5-7 Trial 3 – AAR Pilot Testing on New Media and Only with AA-1 Column in Operation............................................................................................................................5-14

5-8 Trial 3 – Spiked Blended Water and AA-1 Column Effluent Quality Data ..............5-14

5-9 Trial Comparison - AAR Performance Parameters ......................................................5-18

5-10 Regeneration Waste Stream Quality in Trial 1 and Trial 2 ..........................................5-21

5-11 EDR Pilot Testing Operating Parameters.......................................................................5-24

5-12 Trial 1 (Ambient Feedwater) Operations Summary.....................................................5-27

5-13 Trial 1 (Ambient Feedwater) Operations Field and Lab Data Results Summary ....5-27

5-14 Trial 2 (Spiking) Operations Summary ..........................................................................5-32

5-15 Trial 2 (Spiking) Operations Field and Lab Data Results Summary..........................5-33

5-16 Trial 3 (Optimization) Operations Summary ................................................................5-38

5-17 Trial 3 (Optimization) Operations Field and Lab Data Results Summary................5-38

6-1 AAR Projected Quality of the Feedwater, Softened Water, AAR Feedwater and AAR Product Water ....................................................................................................6-4

6-2 AAR Waste Streams Quality Projection ...........................................................................6-8

6-3 Full-Scale AAR Process Design Criteria.........................................................................6-10

6-4 EDR Average Feed Quality and WATSYS Projection of EDR Product Water..........6-17

6-5 EDR Waste Stream Quality Projection at 92% WR .......................................................6-20

6-6 Full-Scale EDR Process Design Criteria .........................................................................6-22

7-1 Capital Estimate Summary for AAR Main Treatment Process.....................................7-5

7-2 Capital Estimate Summary for AAR Waste Stream Treatment Process......................7-6

7-3 Capital Estimate Summary for EDR Membrane Main Treatment Process .................7-8

7-4 Capital Estimate Summary for EDR Waste Stream Treatment Process ......................7-9

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS IV

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

7-5 O&M Estimate Summary for AAR Process Treatment Facilities ...............................7-10

7-6 O&M Estimate Summary for EDR Membrane Process Treatment Facilities............7-11

7-7 Summary of Cost Including Life Cycle Cost per Alternative .....................................7-13

Figures

4-1 Fort Irwin Total Monthly Production from 2002 to 2005...............................................4-2

5-1 AAR Pilot Unit Simplified Process Flow Diagram.........................................................5-2

5-2 Trial 1 - Fluoride Concentration in Feedwater and Treated Water ..............................5-7

5-3 Trial 1 - Fluoride Removal for AA-1 Column in Lead Position as a Function of Total Volumes of Water......................................................................................................5-8

5-4 Trial 1 - Arsenic Concentration in Feedwater and Treated Water ...............................5-8

5-5 Trial 1 - Media Adsorption Capacity in AA-1 Column at Fluoride Breakthrough of 1 mg/L..............................................................................................................................5-9

5-6 Trial 2 - Fluoride Concentration in Feedwater and Treated Water ............................5-11

5-7 Trial 2 - Feedwater Fluoride Concentration and AA-1 Fluoride Breakthrough Curves for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2........................................................................................5-12

5-8 Trial 2 - Arsenic Concentration in Feedwater and Treated Water in Run 1, Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 ...........................................................................................................5-12

5-9 Trial 2 - Media Adsorption Capacity in AA-1 Column at Fluoride Breakthrough of 1 mg/L............................................................................................................................5-13

5-10 Trial 3 - Fluoride Concentration in Spiked Water and AA-1 Effluent in Run 1 and Run 2............................................................................................................................5-15

5-11 Trial 3 - Arsenic Concentration in Spiked Water and AA-1 Column Effluent .........5-16

5-12 Trial 3 - Total Volumes of Effluent Produced through AA-1 at Fluoride Breakthrough of 1 mg/L ..................................................................................................5-16

5-13 Trial 3 - Media Adsorption Capacity in the AA-1 Column at Fluoride Breakthrough .....................................................................................................5-17

5-14 Trial 2 - Silica Removal from the Feedwater as a Function of pH ..............................5-19

5-15 Trial 3 - Silica Removal form the Spiked Water as Function of pH............................5-20

5-16 The EDR Pilot Unit Simplified Process Flow Diagram ................................................5-25

5-17 Trial 1 Feed and Treated Water Fluoride, Including Operational Setups .................5-28

5-18 Trial 1 Feed and Treated Water Conductivity, Including Operational Setups.........5-29

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS V

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

5-19 Trial 1 Feed and Treated Water Arsenic.........................................................................5-30

5-20 Trial 1 Feed and Treated Water TDS ..............................................................................5-30

5-21 Trial 1 Feed and Treated Water Nitrate .........................................................................5-31

5-22 Trial 2 Feed, Feed (Spiked) and Treated Water Fluoride, Including Operational Setups ............................................................................................................5-34

5-23 Trial 2 Feed, Feed (Spiked) and Treated Water Conductivity, Including Operational Setups ............................................................................................................5-35

5-24 Trial 2 Feed, Feed (Spiked) and Treated Water Arsenic ..............................................5-36

5-25 Trial 2 Feed, Feed (Spiked) and Treated Water TDS ....................................................5-36

5-26 Trial 2 Feed, Feed (Spiked) and Treated Water Nitrate ...............................................5-37

5-27 Trial 3 Feed and Treated Water Fluoride .......................................................................5-39

5-28 Trial 3 Feed and Treated Water Conductivity...............................................................5-40

5-29 Trial 3 Feed and Treated Water Arsenic.........................................................................5-40

5-30 Trial 3 Feed and Treated Water TDS ..............................................................................5-41

5-31 Trial 3 Feed and Treated Water Nitrate .........................................................................5-41

6-1 AAR Main Process Flow Diagram ....................................................................................6-2

6-2 EDR Waste Stream Process Flow Diagram......................................................................6-6

6-3 Summary of the Full-scale AAR Treatment Process for Fort Irwin 6 mgd WTP .......6-9

6-4 EDR Main Process Flow Diagram...................................................................................6-15

6-5 EDR Waste Stream Process Flow Diagram....................................................................6-19

6-6 Summary of the Full-Scale EDR Treatment Process for Fort Irwin 6 mgd WTP......6-22

Appendixes A CH2M HILL Responses to Government’s Review Comments

B Pilot Testing Results

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS VI

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AACE American Association of Cost Engineers

AACEI Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering International

AAR Activated Alumina, Regenerable

As Arsenic

BBD Brine Blowdown

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHPPM Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine

CPES CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating System

DBPR Disinfection Byproducts Rule

DHS Department of Health Services

DLR Detection Levels for purposes of Reporting

DO Domestic Water

DWP Drinking Water Program

EBCT Empty Bed Contact Time

EDR Electrodialysis Reversal

F Fluoride

FOB Field Operation Branches

GAC Granular Activated Carbon gpd Gallons Per Day gpm Gallons Per Minute

GWR Groundwater Disinfection Rule

IDSE Initial Distribution System Evaluation

LRAA Locational Running Annual Average

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MG Million Gallons

MGD Million Gallons Per Day

N Nitrogen

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS VII

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

NTC National Training Center

O&M Operations & Maintenance

OSP Off-Specification Product

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

RO Reverse Osmosis

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TS Total Solids

TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

U.S. United States

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile Organic Chemical and non-volatile

WTP Water Treatment Plant

WR Water Recovery

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS ES-1

Executive Summary

This document describes the pilot testing and evaluation processes used in selecting the technologies best suited for a new 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) water treatment plant (WTP) at the United States (U.S.) Army’s National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin.

Fort Irwin is located in the north-central part of the Mojave Desert of Southern California, about 35 miles northeast of Barstow. Three groundwater basins - Irwin Basin, Bicycle Lake Basin, and Langford Lake Basin, located within the boundaries of Fort Irwin, are the current sources of water supply. The source water quality varies from basin to basin and from well to well, and is characterized by high concentrations of fluoride, arsenic, silica, and a moderate level of total dissolved solids (TDS). Blended water from all three basins has fluoride and arsenic concentrations above current maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).

TDS at the maximum blended concentration of about 600 mg/L slightly exceeds the California recommended concentration of 500 mg/L and silica concentration ranges from 70 to 95 mg/L.

Fort Irwin currently uses two separate distribution systems for potable and domestic water.

High-quality drinking water, which complies with all drinking water quality standards, is produced at the existing reverse osmosis (RO) facility. This facility removes fluoride from the groundwater. Chlorinated groundwater is provided through the domestic (DO) water supply system for all other uses, such as bathing, irrigation, toilet flushing, laundry, etc.

Fort Irwin is home to approximately 16,000 soldiers and their families. Water demand at Fort Irwin fluctuates due to troop rotations, non-training periods, and seasonal increases in irrigation. The current average daily demand on an annual basis is about 2.44 million gallons per day (mgd) and the current maximum day demand for Fort Irwin is above

5.3 mgd, based on historical peak day demand. There is a possibility that the post population could increase substantially. Therefore, the maximum daily demand is expected to increase to 6 mgd in the near future and up to 12 mgd in the long-term.

The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has determined that both the RO and DO water systems are potable. Effectively, this requires that all water delivered to Fort Irwin’s water consumers must be in compliance with federal, state, and U.S. Army drinking water quality standards. Hence, water from all three basins must be treated in a new WTP using an appropriate treatment technology.

Based on the removal efficiency for high levels of fluoride and arsenic, Activated Alumina, regenerable, (AAR) and Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) were pilot tested over an 8-month period at Fort Irwin to determine performance of each technology.

AAR pilot testing demonstrated the ability of AAR to reduce arsenic in the water to meet Fort Irwin water quality goals. Due to the feedwater pH adjustment required by the adsorption process; however, TDS in the treated water was higher than that in the feedwater.

The process efficiency for fluoride removal suffered heavily from high silica levels in the feedwater. The lower adsorption capacity prompted frequent fluoride breakthroughs and, therefore, frequent media regeneration. A better AAR performance and successful media

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS ES-2

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

regeneration were observed when feedwater with low silica was treated. This strongly suggested that implementing a pretreatment process for silica removal would be necessary for a full-scale AAR facility. The AAR pilot unit required full-time operation and maintenance and was a labor-intensive process.

EDR pilot testing demonstrated the ability of the process to reduce fluoride and arsenic levels to below California MCLs and the Fort Irwin drinking water quality goals. The results also indicated the EDR process provided a robust technique for treating groundwater from each of the basins, either individually or as blends from the basins. The results also showed that EDR technology is well-suited for removing contaminants from deteriorated source water quality that could occur in the future. The EDR pilot unit performed well. The unit was reliable and easy to operate, with minimal maintenance requirements, once the general operating parameters were established. The inherent flexibility of the process allows adjustment of power use (voltage settings) to easily match contaminant removal to meet the water quality goals and to optimize power consumption.

Waste stream water quality data generated by each technology were analyzed and extrapolated to predict full-scale waste stream composition. Based on the pilot study results, two full-scale treatment process alternatives, including main processes and waste stream processes, were developed. For AAR treatment process, the main process included partial lime softening as pretreatment, AAR process as main process treatment, degasification, pH adjustment using hydrated lime and soda ash, and disinfection as post treatment. The waste stream treatment included chemical precipitation and filtration, EDR process, vapor compression evaporation, and pond evaporation. For EDR treatment process, the water treatment process included filtration (if necessary) and chlorination as pretreatment, EDR process as main treatment, and conditioning using hydrated lime and disinfection as post treatment. The waste stream treatment included partial lime softening and filtration, RO membrane filtration, vapor compression evaporation, and pond evaporation. Subsequently, the preliminary full-scale design criteria of AAR and EDR treatment trains were established for a 6.0 mgd first phase and 12 mgd ultimate capacity WTP.

Finally, opinions of capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each of the main treatment trains were prepared for comparing the relative costs of the two treatment alternatives.

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 1-1

1. Introduction

This document will serve to describe the process used in selecting a new water treatment plant at Fort Irwin. Pilot studies were performed over an 8-month period to determine the performance of two technologies for treating 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) first phase, 12 mgd ultimate capacity. Activated Alumina, regenerable, (AAR) and Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) were selected as the two treatment options for Fort Irwin based on their ability to treat high levels of fluoride and arsenic. Pilot testing data were then used to establish design criteria and preliminary full-scale design of AAR and an EDR treatment trains. Waste stream water quality data were also analyzed from the pilot results, and were extrapolated to predict full-scale waste stream composition for each type of treatment. This report also describes how the full-scale waste streams would be treated. Finally, opinions of capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each of the main treatment trains were established to help in the final selection of Fort Irwin’s new drinking water plant.

This Draft Report is submitted to fulfill the scope of work requirements for Project W1, Water Treatment Pilot Testing, covered by Task Order No. 0003 under Contract No.

DACA87-02-D-0037.

1.1 Project Background

Fort Irwin is the U.S. Army’s National Training Center (NTC), located approximately 35 miles northeast of Barstow, California. Fort Irwin is home to approximately 16,000 soldiers and their families. CH2M HILL is currently under contract to provide drinking water to all residents of Fort Irwin, as well as onsite contractors and employees, and visiting rotational troops. Water demand at Fort Irwin fluctuates due to troop rotations, non-training periods, and seasonal increases in irrigation.

Fort Irwin currently uses two separate distribution systems for potable and domestic water.

High-quality drinking water, which complies with all drinking water quality standards, is groundwater treated at the existing reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment plant (WTP) to remove fluoride. The domestic water supply system provides water for all other uses such as bathing, irrigation, toilet flushing, laundry, etc.

Considering pending water quality regulatory changes, expected increase in water demand, and risk of possible cross connection between the two systems, Fort Irwin’s existing dual water system must be changed to a unified, single-line water supply system. All water delivered through the future single-line system will be in compliance with federal, state, and United States (U.S.) Army drinking water quality standards. To accomplish this objective, water from all three basins must be treated with an appropriate treatment technology and disinfected before distribution.

1. INTRODUCTION

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 1-2

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

1.2 Scope

To support the planning and development of a new water treatment plant for Fort Irwin, groundwater treatment pilot testing was conducted to evaluate candidate treatment technologies, to select treatment plant unit operations and to determine unit process sizes on a full-scale treatment application. Pilot testing was necessary to assess performance of the two proposed treatment techniques. The main objectives of pilot testing were as follows:

• Demonstrate, through pilot scale studies, that the proposed processes meet or exceed current and future drinking water regulations for arsenic and fluoride.

• Evaluate the efficiency of the treatment process in meeting all other water quality requirements, such as iron, nitrate, and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

• Define key process design criteria and operating parameters necessary for design of the Fort Irwin WTP and preparation of the equipment procurement documents.

• Quantify and characterize the waste streams generated by the treatment processes.

Once the pilot testing was completed, results were compiled and analyzed to assist with full-scale WTP process selection. Waste stream characterization and disposal options were other main components of analyzing treatment techniques. Additional key information used for process selection included capital, O&M, and overall life-cycle costs of each treatment technologies.

1.3 Report Organization

The remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

• Section 2. Review of Existing Water Facilities at Fort Irwin: Provides a description of the existing WTP, distribution, and storage facilities.

• Section 3. Drinking Water Regulations: Provides a historical overview of regulatory impacts at Fort Irwin, as well as a review of pertinent current and future regulations that are significant drivers in the design of a new WTP.

• Section 4. Water Demands and Treatment Plant Capacity: Provides an analysis of current and historical water demand at Fort Irwin, which has and will have a substantial impact on the sizing of the new WTP.

• Section 5. Pilot Plant Results and Design Criteria: Provides a description and analysis of results from Fort Irwin AAR and EDR pilot testing and bench testing, as well as preliminary design criteria resulting from pilot testing.

• Section 6. Full-scale Treatment Process Alternatives: Presents AAR and EDR full-scale treatment process alternatives based on the pilot testing results described in Section 5, as well as the projected quality of product water and generated waste stream for each process. The process design criteria for each unit process are included at the end of this section.

1. INTRODUCTION

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 1-3

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

• Section 7. Estimated Capital and Annual O&M Costs: Provides a description of factors influencing capital and operation costs, the methodology used for cost estimates, and capital, O&M, and life-cycle costs for both full scale EDR and AAR.

• Section 8. References.

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS

2-1

2. Existing Water Facilities at Fort Irwin

2.1 Fort Irwin Water System Characteristics

Fort Irwin currently has two separate water distribution systems—Reverse Osmosis (RO) treated water and Domestic (DO) water. The RO system water is produced by the existing reverse osmosis (RO) treatment facility and is intended for drinking and cooking uses. The DO system provides disinfected (chlorinated) well water for all other uses such as bathing, irrigation, toilets, and laundry. The majority of residences and offices on post are currently supplied with RO and DO water.

2.1.1 Groundwater Wells

The domestic water is supplied directly from Bicycle Lake, Irwin and Langford Lake Groundwater Basins. Water from the individual wells at Bicycle and Langford Lake basins is combined in a raw water tank, disinfected with a sodium hypochlorite solution, and pumped to the distribution system by a high-service pump station. Domestic water may also be pumped from the Irwin Basin (currently only Well I-7).

Fort Irwin has nine active groundwater wells that supply water from three basins (Table 2-1). The Bicycle Lake well field has five active wells (B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-9) and one booster pump station. Well B-9 supplies DO water to the Bicycle Lake Airfield and is not connected to the DO water supply system within the Cantonment. The Langford Lake Basin has three active wells (L-1, L-2, and L-3) and one booster pump station. The Irwin Basin well field currently has only one active well (I-7).

TABLE 2-1

Fort Irwin Groundwater Production Active Well and Pump Information

Groundwater Basin

Well Number

Building Number

Cased Depth

(ft)

Production Rate

(gpm)

Casing Diameter (inches) Pump Type

Capacity (gpm)

Motor (hp)

Bicycle Lake B-1 5998 430 720 14 Vertical turbine

486 60

Bicycle Lake B-4 5,996 616 680 14 Submersible 384 125

Bicycle Lake B-5 5,997 600 700 NA Submersible 777 125

Bicycle Lake B-6 NA 535 900 14 Vertical turbine

600 125

Bicycle Lake B-9a 5,994 600 22 14 Submersible 22 NA

Langford Lake

L-1 18,017 500 750 14 Submersible 300 75

Langford Lake

L-2 18,018 560 660 14 Submersible 500 100

2. EXISTING WATER FACILITIES AT FORT IRWIN

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 2-2

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

TABLE 2-1

Fort Irwin Groundwater Production Active Well and Pump Information

Groundwater Basin

Well Number

Building Number

Cased Depth

(ft)

Production Rate

(gpm)

Casing Diameter (inches) Pump Type

Capacity (gpm)

Motor (hp)

Langford Lake

L-3 18,019 370 560 14 Submersible 700 125

Irwin Basin I-7 663 490 800 14 Vertical turbine

1,000 125 a Well B-9 is not connected to the distribution system ft – feet gpm – gallon per minute hp – horsepower

2.2 Existing Reverse Osmosis Treatment Facilities

The RO facility was originally designed in 1988 for Irwin Basin Well I-2A, which went out of service in 1996 due to high nitrate levels. The facility was then upgraded to treat disinfected domestic water from the 16-inch line, which connects the Bicycle Booster Pump Station with the JPL water storage tanks. The existing RO plant has a normal production capacity of 120,000 gallons per day (gpd) and can produce up to 150,000 gpd peak production. The RO system effectively removes all fluoride and arsenic in the treated water. However, the facility only operates at about 40percent recovery with waste brine discharged to the sewer.

RO-treated water is blended with DO water to meet fluoride Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) requirements before being pumped to the distribution system. The current treatment process at the RO facility consists of:

• Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) – three, 36-inch-diameter pressure vessels serve to dechlorinate the source water for compatibility with the RO process.

• Dual-Media Filtration – Two anthracite/sand filters reduce particulate loading before RO.

• Cartridge Filtration – provides removal of media fines and particulates to 5 microns.

• Reverse Osmosis – Currently consists of a single stage of four pressure vessels containing thin-film composite, spiral-wound membrane elements. The RO plant operates at a low produced water recovery design point of 40 percent.

• Degasification – A forced-draft, counter-current packed tower degasifier removes excess CO2 from the RO product water.

• Calcite Media Filtration – Three calcite-media pressure vessels are used to further stabilize RO product water by scavenging residual CO2 and introducing calcium and carbonate to the water through the gradual dissolution of the media.

• Water Blending – RO effectively removes all fluoride from the water, therefore DO water is blended with the stabilized RO product to produce finished water with the desired fluoride content.

• Disinfection – Blended water from the treatment plant is disinfected using sodium hypochlorite prior to distribution.

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 2-3

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

2.3 Existing Distribution and Storage Facilities

2.3.1 Distribution System

The domestic water distribution system is comprised of 62 miles of piping, ranging from 1 to 16 inches in diameter. An entirely separate water distribution system conveys RO water throughout Fort Irwin. There are approximately 28 miles of pipeline distributing RO water, with pipelines ranging from 0.75 to 8 inches in diameter. The RO distribution system was installed between 1956 and 1996.

2.3.2 Storage Facilities

Fort Irwin’s water system currently has nine storage tanks (Table 2-2). There is one tank located at the Bicycle Lake Booster Pump Station (Tank 5) and one tank at the Langford Lake Booster Pump Station (Tank 6). Both tanks store raw well water before it is chlorinated.

Langford Lake Booster Pump Station pumps water from the Langford Lake Basin to three, 1-MG aboveground domestic water storage reservoirs: Tank 1 (JPL-1), Tank 2 (JPL-2), and Tank 3 (JPL-3). Bicycle Lake Booster Pump Station pumps water from the Bicycle Lake well field tank and provides chlorinated domestic water service to the Cantonment area at the same time it fills Tanks JPL-2 and JPL-3. Treated RO water is stored in three tanks (Tanks 7, 8, and 9) with a combined capacity of 0.43 MG.

TABLE 2-2

Fort Irwin Water System Storage Tank Description

Tank Number and

Designation Location Water Type Capacity (gallons) Characteristics

Tank 1

JPL-1

Goldstone and Outer Loop Roads

Domestic (non-potable)

1,000,000 Welded steel tank filled from JPL-2 and JPL-3 altitude valve. Provides storage for Goldstone.

Tank 2

JPL-2

Goldstone and Outer Loop Roads

Domestic (nonpotable)

1,000,000 Welded steel tank filled from booster pump stations and equalized with JPL-3.

Telemetry sends start and stop signals to booster pump stations.

Tank 3

JPL-3

Goldstone and Outer Loop Roads

Domestic (nonpotable)

1,000,000 Welded steel tank equalized with JPL-2.

Tank 4 Underground Reservoir

Pork Chop Hill Domestic (nonpotable)

1,000,000 Concrete reservoir coated with creosote.

Roof trusses are also coated with creosote. Tank is filled with well pumps in the cantonment area.

Tank 5 Bicycle Lake Booster Station

Barstow Road at Live Firing Range

Untreated well water

500,000 Welded steel tank filled via well pumps in Bicycle Lake Basin.

Tank 6 Langford Lake Booster Station

Langford Lake Road at Live Firing Range

Untreated well water

250,000 Welded steel tank filled via well pumps in Langford Lake Basin.

Tank 7 RO Tank 1

Goldstone and Outer Loop roads

RO Drinking Water

20,000 Bolted steel tank that fills the pumps at the RO plant. Controlled by telemetry at the tank.

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 2-4

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

TABLE 2-2

Fort Irwin Water System Storage Tank Description

Tank Number and

Designation Location Water Type Capacity (gallons) Characteristics

Tank 8 RO Tank 2

Pork Chop Hill RO Drinking Water

150,000 Riveted steel tank equalized with RO Tank 3 (Tank 9) water. Filled manually from RO plant.

Tank 9 RO Tank 3

Pork Chop Hill RO Drinking Water

263,000 Welded steel tank equalized with RO Tank 2 (Tank 8)

JPL – Jet Propulsion Laboratory

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 3-1

3. Drinking Water Regulations and Their Impact

This section provides a summary of pertinent state and federal drinking water regulations that are major drivers in the design of Fort Irwin’s new water treatment plant. An overview of regulations is provided, followed by an historical perspective and a summary of pertinent current and future regulations, and finally by a description of how the new WTP treatment process will be selected to address specific regulatory concerns.

3.1 Regulatory Summary

Fort Irwin’s community water system is subject to all requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as amended in 1996. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) under the SDWA contain enforceable health-based standards, which are detailed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141. Federal drinking water standards include MCLs and treatment techniques. National secondary drinking water regulations under the SWDA include those regulations that address aesthetic qualities of drinking water and are not health based. Secondary MCLs serve as non-enforceable guidelines to help water systems produce clear water that smells and tastes good.

Under the SDWA, administration of the federal drinking water standards was assigned to each state. States have the discretion to enforce the federal regulations, or they can enforce more stringent standards. The California Department of Health Services (DHS), Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management operates the state’s Drinking Water Program (DWP). The DHS administers the California Safe Drinking Water Act and regulates drinking water standards for the State of California through the DWP. State regulatory requirements regarding drinking water quality are specified in the CCR, Titles 17 and 22.

As a U.S. Army installation, the Fort Irwin water system is also subject to applicable Army regulations and reviewed by Army agencies. The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (CHPPM) may also conduct audits of the water system and make recommendations to protect Army personnel.

3.2 Historical Perspective

The Fort Irwin water system has historically operated as a dual-piped distribution system, providing two grades of water for consumers. RO water is provided for drinking purposes and the DO water (chlorinated groundwater) is provided for all other uses. From a regulatory standpoint there are concerns with continued use of this approach. The federal drinking water regulations defined in 40 CFR Sec. 141 apply to all community water systems. The original SDWA definition of a community water system was a public water

3. DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 3-2

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

system that: (1) serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents of the area served by the system; or (2) regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.

In a notice published in the Federal Register on August 5, 1998, USEPA provided guidance entitled Definition of a Public Water System in SDWA Section 1401(4) as Amended by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. This guidance notes:

USEPA has interpreted the term human consumption to include drinking, bathing, showering, cooking, dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene, and this interpretation has been upheld by the courts. See United States v. Midway Heights County Water District, 695 F. Supp. 1072, 1074 (E. Cal. 1988) (‘‘Midway Heights’’).

This guidance suggests that all water distributed for drinking, bathing, showering, cooking, dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene must meet all applicable Primary Drinking Water standards. USEPA also cites legal precedent that a water supplier is responsible for the public’s consumption of water even in the presence of a “waiver” agreement between the supplier and consumers that purported to limit the use of the supplier’s water for non-potable uses. The same principle could be applied to public notification efforts where two grades of water are distributed. The acceptance of a dual distribution system by the state will not absolve a water system owner from being liable to enforcement action by the federal government regarding the delivery of two grades of water.

3.3 Pertinent Regulations

3.3.1 Current Regulations

Fort Irwin’s water system must comply with all current pertinent federal and state guidelines, which are summarized below:

• The Disinfectants, Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBP Rule) – Groundwater systems had to be in compliance with Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) by January 2004. Stage 1 DBPR has enforceable maximum residual disinfectant levels for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide and MCLs for total trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, chlorite, and bromate. Compliance is calculated by the system’s total annual average for all locations.

• Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) – The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required that the USEPA establish criteria for a monitoring program for chemicals that are not currently regulated. Although contaminants on UCMR lists do not have a promulgated primary drinking water standard, additional data are needed about the chemical’s occurrence to help evaluate and prioritize contaminants. These chemicals are known or are anticipated to occur in some public water systems and may require regulatory action in the future. Fort Irwin has already completed UCMR List 1 sampling. The second cycle of the UCMR became a proposed rule on August 22, 2005. This rule will require the monitoring of 26 new chemicals from two lists.

• Bacteriological Quality – California Title 22, Article 3 of Chapter 15 requires that water systems have in place a siting plan to collect routine, repeat, and replacement water

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 3-3

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

quality samples when necessary; have all samples analyzed at approved laboratories;

report results to the DHS; notify the DHS when there is an increase in coliform bacteria;

and comply with MCLs.

• Inorganic Chemicals – California Title 22, Article 4 of Chapter 15 requires that Fort Irwin sample its source water for inorganic chemicals every 3 years at each well head, with the exception of nitrate/nitrite and asbestos. Monitoring frequency of nitrite, nitrate, and nitrite + nitrate is based on prior source water sampling results. If any nitrate, nitrite + nitrate, or nitrite results are greater than or equal to one-half of the MCL, then source water monitoring must be performed quarterly for at least 1 year.

• Organic Chemicals – California Title 22, Article 5.5 of Chapter 15 states that Fort Irwin must sample its source water at each well head for organic chemicals, including volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and non-volatile synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs). Any chemical added to the list of organic chemicals with MCLs must be sampled for in January of the calendar year after the MCLs’ effective date. Fort Irwin is not considered vulnerable to contamination by organic chemicals, per the DHS Vulnerability Assessment, therefore required sampling ranges from every 3 to 6 years.

• Radionuclides Rule – In 2000, the EPA promulgated the final rule for non-radon radionuclides in drinking water. California Title 22, Article 5 of Chapter 15, §64441 currently requires that Fort Irwin monitor its source water on a quarterly basis for four consecutive quarters, for 1 out of every 4 years for gross alpha particle activity, (or) radium-226 and radium-228, and uranium to determine compliance. Monitoring must be conducted at each entry point to the distribution system. This rule includes a determination of how future sampling collection frequency will be calculated based on the four quarters of samples collected before December 2007.

• California Title 22 Secondary Standards – Article 16 of Chapter 15 outlines California’s secondary drinking water standards (secondary MCLs), which are not to be exceeded in water served to the public. These standards are not health-based standards, but rather safeguard the appearance, odor, and taste of drinking water. Some constituents, such as copper and color, have MCLs, while others such as chloride and total dissolved solids (TDS) have secondary MCL consumer acceptance ranges. If these levels are exceeded in sampling performed every 3 years at Fort Irwin, the water system may be required to conduct a study to investigate the cause of the problem and how it can be mediated.

• California Title 22 Lead and Copper – Fort Irwin is considered to be a medium-sized system according to Title 22 Lead and Copper requirements, and therefore must analyze for lead, copper, pH, conductivity, calcium, alkalinity, orthophosphate, silica, and temperature at 30 taps if on reduced tap sampling, or at 60 taps if on standard tap sampling.

3.3.2 Fort Irwin Parameters of Concern

Fluoride

Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found in all three groundwater basins currently used for Fort Irwin’s water supply. Fluoride at low concentrations has been proven to be beneficial for dental health, while higher concentrations can cause dental fluorosis which

WB082006003SCO/DRD2170.DOC/ 070320001/ WTP SELECTION BASED ON PILOT TESTING RESULTS 3-4

CONTRACT NO. DACA87-02-D-0037

can cause brown staining or pitting of teeth under extreme or extended high fluoride conditions.

The existing RO water treatment system at Fort Irwin is primarily designed to remove fluoride from the source water to meet the California MCL of 2 mg/L, which is more stringent than the federal MCL of 4 mg/L. The State of California published guidance on the optimal range of fluoride for finished water as a function of water temperature. Based on this guidance, the current fluoride target level at Fort Irwin is 0.6 to 0.8 mg/L. Bicycle Basin has the highest flow production capacity, which produces water with an average fluoride concentration of 2.3 mg/L.