pilot testing for hexavalent chromium removal report - pilot testing for chrome 6... · pilot...

60
Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

Upload: ngongoc

Post on 03-May-2019

241 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal

Prepared for

Cadiz, IncOctober 2016

Page 2: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

CH2M III

Contents Section Page

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

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 What is the Cadiz Water Project? .................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 How Widespread is Hexavalent Chromium in Water? .................................................... 1-1 1.3 How is Chromium Removed from Drinking Water? ........................................................ 1-1 1.4 How does the RCF process work? .................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Is there much experience with the RCF Process? ............................................................ 1-2 1.6 What is the treatment technology being investigated at Cadiz? .................................... 1-3 1.7 What does the Treatment System Cost for Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic

Removal? ......................................................................................................................... 1-5

Cadiz Water Project ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Conceptual Project Overview .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................................... 2-2

Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic in Groundwater ............................................................. 3-4 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence .................................................................................. 3-4 3.3 Hexavalent Chromium Water Quality Regulations .......................................................... 3-5

3.3.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................ 3-5 3.3.2 California Regulations ......................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Treatment Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium ......................................................... 3-5 3.4.1 In –Situ Treatment .............................................................................................. 3-5 3.4.2 Ex-Situ Treatment ............................................................................................... 3-6

3.5 Arsenic Occurrence .......................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Arsenic Removal Treatment Alternatives ........................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Conventional Filtration for Arsenic Removal ...................................................... 3-9 3.5.3 Potential for Simultaneous removal of Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic .... 3-10 3.5.4 Proposed Treatment System for Pilot Testing .................................................. 3-11 3.5.5 Water Treatment Residuals .............................................................................. 3-17

Pilot Testing methods and Materials Groundwater Quality .................................................. 4-1 4.1 ATEC Pilot Equipment ...................................................................................................... 4-1

Pilot Testing Results ............................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 ATEC Testing Objectives and Findings ............................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 ATEC Testing Scenario 1 ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 ATEC Testing Scenario 2 ...................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 ATEC Testing Scenario 3 ...................................................................................... 5-4 5.1.4 ATEC Testing Scenario 4 ...................................................................................... 5-4

5.2 ATEC Overall Testing Results ........................................................................................... 5-6 5.2.1 Arsenic and Chromium Removal ........................................................................ 5-7 5.2.2 Iron Removal ..................................................................................................... 5-14

5.3 Filter Run Lengths .......................................................................................................... 5-15 5.4 ATEC Backwash Water Results ....................................................................................... 5-16

Page 3: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

CONTENTS

Section Page

CH2M IV

Conceptual Design of Facilities ............................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Treatment System Options ................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Water Delivery Options ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Water Quality Standards.................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3 Conceptual Design Using ATEC System............................................................................ 6-3

6.3.1 ATEC System Operation and Design Criteria ...................................................... 6-4 6.4 Backwash Waste Flow Handling ...................................................................................... 6-5

Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Costs for ATEC Systems Treatment .................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Cost per Acre Foot ........................................................................................................... 7-2

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

Tables

Table 1-1. Pilot Testing Treatment Results for ATEC Treatment System................................................... 1-5 Table 2-1. Summary of General Water Quality Parameters from Cadiz Wells .......................................... 2-3 Table 2-2. Preliminary Water Treatment Target Constituents .................................................................. 2-3 Table 3-1. Treatment Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium .................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-2. Comparison of Arsenic Removal Technologies ......................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-3. Surveyed Systems ATEC Iron and Manganese Facilities ......................................................... 3-11 Table 3-4. Comparison of Pilot Removal Efficiency and Full Scale Removal Efficiency in Manganese Dioxide Media Filters ............................................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-5. Project Construction Components for Surveyed ATEC Water Treatment Systems ................ 3-14 Table 3-6. Capital Costs of ATEC Water Treatment Surveyed Systems, Escalated to 2016 Dollars ........ 3-15 Table 3-7. Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Report for ATEC Systems, in 2016 dollars ......... 3-16 Table 4-1. Physical Characteristics of Filter Tanks and Media ................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2. Pipe Configurations for Varying Contact Times ........................................................................ 4-4 Table 5-1. Pilot Testing Treatment Results for ATEC Treatment System................................................... 5-7 Table 6-1. Maximum Design Flow Rates .................................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Estimated Backwash Waste Volumes, mgd .............................................................................. 6-5 Table 6-3. Dry Weight Solids Produced Per Year ....................................................................................... 6-5 Table 7-1. CAPEX Estimates for ATEC System for 10-month Operating Period ......................................... 7-1 Table 7-2. CAPEX Estimates for ATEC System for 11-month Operating Period ......................................... 7-1 Table 7-3.OPEX Comparison for Treatment Systems................................................................................. 7-1 Table 7-4: Cadiz Treatment Costs Per Acre-Foot ....................................................................................... 7-2

Figures

Figure 1-1. Hexavalent Chromium Removal with Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration (RCF) Process ......... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Hexavalent and Total Chromium Concentrations from 2005 through 2012 after Microfiltration ............................................................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1-3. ATEC Pilot Filter Schematic ...................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2-1. Google Earth Image Showing Conceptual Location of Water Treatment, Ag Wells, High Wells and Transmission Route to the Colorado River Aqueduct. ........................................................................ 2-2 Figure 3-1. Hexavalent Chromium Removal with Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration Process .................. 3-7

Page 4: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

CONTENTS

Section Page

CH2M V

Figure 3-2. Hexavalent and Total Chromium Concentrations from 2005 through 2012 after Microfiltration. ........................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3. Influence of Coagulant Dose, Arsenic Type and pH on Arsenic Removal .............................. 3-10 Figure 4-1. ATEC Pilot Filter Schematic ...................................................................................................... 4-1 Figure 4-2. ATEC Pilot Filters within the Trailer ......................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-3. Pipe Line Reactor Segments .................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-4. Venturi Eductor and Bypass Pipe ............................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-5. A 47 mm Diameter Filter Shows the PrecipitatedIiron Collected from a Prefilter Ssample during the Pilot Test at Cadiz, 8/25/2015 .................................................................................................. 4-5 Figure 5-1. ATEC Pilot Testing August 25, 2015 Time Series ...................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2. ATEC Pilot Testing Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses, August 25, 2015 .............................................................................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-3. ATEC Pilot Testing August 27, 2015, Time Series ..................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-4. ATEC Pilot Testing September 9, 2015, Time Series ................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-5. ATEC Average Hexavalent Chromium Removal at Varied Contact Times ............................... 5-4 Figure 5-6. ATEC Run 1, November 19, 2015, Time Series ........................................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-7. ATEC Run 2, November 19 to 20, 2015, Time Series ............................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-8. ATEC Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses, November 19 to 20, 2015 .......................................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-9. Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses ................. 5-14 Figure 5-14. Run 1, November 19, 2015 Iron Removal ............................................................................ 5-15 Figure 5-12. September 9, 2015 Iron Removal ........................................................................................ 5-15 Figure 5-10. August 25, 2015 Iron Removal ............................................................................................. 5-15 Figure 5-11. August 27, 2015 Iron Removal ............................................................................................. 5-15 Figure 5-13. September 10, 2015 Iron Removal ...................................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-15. Run 2, November 19, 2015 Iron Removal ............................................................................ 5-15 Figure 5-16 – Floating Decant with Plate Settlers, used for backwash clarification. ............................... 5-17

Page 5: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

CH2M VI

Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/L micrograms per liter

AF acre feet

AFY acre feet per year

As arsenic

ATEC ATEC Water Treatment Systems

ARZC Arizona and California Railroad

CH2M CH2M Engineers, Inc.

Cr chromium

Cr+6 hexavalent chromium

CRA Colorado River Aqueduct

Fe iron

GMMMP groundwater management, monitoring and mitigation plan

gpm gallons per minute

gpm/sf gallons per minute per square foot

MAF million acre feet

mgd million gallons per day

mg Fe2+ milligrams of ferrous iron

mg/L milligrams per liter

mg O2 milligrams of oxygen

Mn manganese

MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

psi pounds per square inch

RCF reduction, coagulation, filtration

slpm standard liters per minute

TCLP toxicity contaminant leachate potential

WET waste extraction test

Page 6: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1

CH2M 1-1

Executive Summary The State of California has developed a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium, also referred to as chromate or Chrome (VI) in drinking water at 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) or parts per billion. Cadiz’s groundwater contains hexavalent chromium above the new MCL.

A significant amount of research and demonstration testing has been conducted on Hexavalent chromium treatment approaches, leading to the establishment of the best available technologies (listed in the California MCL), including ion exchange; reduction, coagulation, filtration (RCF); and reverse osmosis.

Cadiz conducted pilot testing on two water treatment technologies that use the RCF treatment process and selected the ATEC Water Treatment Systems Inc., system, which is described in this report.

1.1 What is the Cadiz Water Project? The Project area is located in the eastern Mojave Desert of San Bernardino County, California approximately 200 miles east of Los Angeles, 60 miles southwest of Needles, and 40 miles northeast of Twentynine Palms. Cadiz owns 34,000 acres of land in Cadiz Valley situated over a large, naturally recharging basin. The Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Water Project) includes property that would allow for both the beneficial use of the groundwater and storage of imported surface water in the groundwater basin. Initially 25,000 to 75,000 acre-feet per year is proposed to be piped from the Cadiz Water Project well fields approximately 40 miles to the south to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) Colorado River Aqueduct. This supply will augment the supply of a number of water agencies in MET’s service area.

1.2 How Widespread is Hexavalent Chromium in Water? Hexavalent chromium can be present in water naturally and as a result of human contamination. Chromium is the 21st most common element in the earth’s crust. The occurrence of hexavalent chromium in drinking water is largely unknown, but some recent studies suggest naturally occurring hexavalent chromium may be fairly widespread. The State of California found approximately 1/3 of 7,000 water sources sampled between 1997 and 2009 had detectable concentrations of hexavalent chromium. A Water Research Foundation project (Frey et al, 2004) found more than 400 drinking water sources in the United States in 2004 and found an average concentration of 1.1 µg/L and a median concentration of 0.2 µg/L. Chromium in groundwater averages approximately 13 to 14 µg/L at Cadiz and is naturally occurring.

1.3 How is Chromium Removed from Drinking Water? Hexavalent chromium can be removed from water using a handful of proven treatment techniques including; anion exchange (both strong-base and weak-base), membrane filtration by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, reduction followed by coagulation and filtration, and adsorption can remove hexavalent chromium from drinking water. For the Cadiz wellfield, we focused on Reduction Coagulation Filtration (referred to as the RCF process) because of the potential for cost effectively treating a large-scale supply. Weak based ion exchange would require periodic replacement of the resin and strong based ion exchange would require periodic regeneration with sodium chloride or other regenerant, which would be very difficult to dispose in the remote Mojave Desert location.

Page 7: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CH2M 1-2

1.4 How does the RCF process work? The RCF process uses ferrous chloride or ferrous sulfate to reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. Trivalent chromium may be present in water as hydrated chromium oxide (Cr(OH)3). After reducing the chromium, an oxidant is used to oxidize the iron in the water. The iron and the trivalent chromium are precipitated after the oxidation step. The iron and the trivalent chromium precipitates are then removed by filtration.

The reduction reaction takes place very quickly and can be made more efficient by mixing. Only a small amount of iron are needed to reduce hexavalent chromium; however, most of the RCF treatment systems use additional iron salts to ensure reducing conditions are favorable.

1.5 Is there much experience with the RCF Process? Since 2005, CH2M HILL designed, constructed and has been operating a hexavalent chromium removal facility in California using the RCF process (Figure 1-1) that works by first reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium by dosing ferrous chloride into the water. After a few minutes of reaction time, the water is aerated to precipitate the iron and the reduced trivalent chromium is sent to a clarifier and then filtered using a microfilter membrane to remove solids. Since oxygen precipitates iron quickly, but is slow to oxidize chromium, the process successfully reduces and removes hexavalent and trivalent chromium below 10 µg/L as shown in Figure 1-2. Other filters including gravity and pressure media filters can also be used to remove the precipitated iron and trivalent chromium.

FERR

OUS

CHLO

RIDE

AERATION TANKS

MIXERMICRO

FILTRATIONCLARIFIER Figure 1-1. Hexavalent Chromium Removal with Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration (RCF) Process

(this process schematic shows a membrane filter; however, media filters are also used in the RCF process)

Page 8: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CH2M 1-3

Figure 1-2. Confidential Client Hexavalent and Total Chromium Concentrations from 2005 through 2012 after Microfiltration, demonstrates a long Operational Track Record with Reduction, Coagulation and Filtration

In addition, the City of Glendale CA, the Water Research Foundation and the USEPA investigated a number of treatment technologies for hexavalent chromium removal, including the RCF process. In one Tailored Collaboration Study between the City of Glendale and the Water Research Foundation (WRF Project: Microfiltration in the RCF Process for hexavalent Chromium Removal from Drinking Water, 2015) the results showed that a dose of 2 mg/L of iron was needed to effectively reduce the hexavalent chromium. The results also showed that oxidation with air alone resulted in some membrane fouling, which was mitigated with clean-in-place procedures. Capital cost and O&M costs were developed for hexavalent chromium treatment systems in this study and they ranged from $524 to $2,474 per acre-foot of water treated.

In another Tailored Collaboration study between the City of Glendale, California Water Service Company, the State of California and Water Research Foundation (WRF Project: Assessment of Ion Exchange, Adsorptive Media, and RCF for Cr(VI) Removal, 2015), the results indicated the RCF process needed several minutes for reduction and that re-oxidation was not always optimal with aeration.

1.6 What is the treatment technology being investigated at Cadiz?

In the testing at the Cadiz site, the technology that is used is a simplified version of RCF. The treatment system uses process equipment supplied by ATEC Water Treatment Systems (ATEC).

The treatment system uses a pipeline reactor with ferrous chloride injection. The ATEC technology tested is a pressure filtration system that has been used extensively in the US for iron, manganese and arsenic removal since 1996. There are several hundred ATEC filter installations on groundwater treatment facilities, including many in California. The ATEC system used a pipeline contactor for both the reduction reaction as well as the oxidation reaction, as shown in Figure 1-3.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

Aug-05 Apr-06 Jan-07 Oct-07 Jul-08 Apr-09 Jan-10 Oct-10 Jul-11 Mar-12 Dec-12

CR, M

G/L

Cr(VI) Cr(T) Cr(VI) Limit Cr(T) Limit

Note: Non-detect values plotted at reporting limits

Treatment Goal for this Confidential Client Site is 8 ug/L

Page 9: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CH2M 1-4

Figure 1-3. ATEC Pilot Filter Schematic

Table 1-1 lists the average treatment results across all scenarios tested using the ATEC system. Note that these numbers include samples taken after breakthrough and immediately following filter backwash. The system was able to meet the Cadiz treatment goals for hexavalent chromium and total chromium, which are significantly lower than the regulatory limits. For all the treated water pilot testing results, 68.2% of the total chromium tests and 93.2% of the hexavalent chromium tests were below the treatment goal of 2 µg/L.

Arsenic was already below the regulatory level of 10 µg/L, but some reduction in arsenic was also achieved to a level below the established treatment goal. For all of the treated water arsenic tests collected during pilot testing, 70.5% were below the treatment goal of 3 µg/L for arsenic..

Iron and manganese were also both at levels below the treatment goals and regulatory standards, however, some manganese levels actually increased from the raw water to the finished water. It is believed that the source of the manganese was from new media in the filter, which is a manganese dioxide ore. As the proposed treatment system typically is used for removal of iron and manganese, the observed levels from this pilot testing are not expected to occur and will be substantially lower in the full-scale system.

Raw water iron shown in Table 1-1 is actually from the filter influent, after ferrous chloride was added. The finished water iron levels were also slightly above the treatment goal on average. There are two reasons for this; first the chemical feed dosing of ferrous chloride was at times very high, and second, the pilot operators used the effluent iron as a signal for the end of a filter run, often letting it exceed the treatment goal. The filter system selected for this pilot test, is actually used widely for iron and manganese removal in groundwater systems, and it is believed that the treated water levels will be significantly lower in a full-scale system.

Page 10: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CH2M 1-5

Table 1-1. Pilot Testing Treatment Results for ATEC Treatment System Operating Conditions

Parameter Average Value

Flow 4.6 gpm a

Loading Rate 5.9 gpm/sf a

Differential Pressure 2 – 3 psi

Water Quality Results

Parameter Raw Water Treated Water Percent Removal Treatment Goal Regulatory Standard

Hexavalent chromium

18.91 µg/L 0.99 µg/L 95% 2 µg/L 10 µg/L

Total chromium 28.42 µg/L 1.60 µg/L 91% 2 µg/L 50 µg/L

Arsenic 7.15 µg/L 1.84 µg/L 79% 3 µg/L 10 µg/L

Iron 3,623 µg /L 180 µg /L 95% 150 µg/L 300 µg/L

Manganese <2 µg /L 5.3 µg /L None 25 µg/L 50 µg/L a Values represent average conditions; variations were experienced during backwash events. Raw water iron is the filter inlet concentration µg/L = micrograms per liter gpm/sf = gallons per minute per square foot psi = pounds per square inch

1.7 What does the Treatment System Cost for Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal?

Based on the capacity of the system installed and the operating scenarios, the costs for treatment are estimated to range between $26 and $54/AF. The full range is shown in Table 1-2 and is based on the Construction and operating costs presented in Section 7 of this report.

Table 1-2. Cost Estimates for Cadiz Water Treatment

Option 1 2 3 4 5 6

Acre-Feet Delivered Per Year

50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000

Operating Period 10 Months 10 Months 11 Months 11 Months 11 Months 11 Months

Amount of Treatment

Full Partial Bypass Full Partial Bypass Full Partial Bypass

Construction Cost $23,900,000 $12,200,000 $21,800,000 $11,000,000 $32,000,000 $16,300,000

Annual O&M $810,000 $560,000 $770,000 $530,000 $1,000,000 $650,000

Cost Per Acre-Foot*

$54.56 $30.78 $50.39 $28.25 $47.57 $26.11

* Cost per Acre-Foot based on a discount rate of 5% and a 20 Year Bond Repayment. Costs do not include design or other non-construction costs or disposal of solids.

These costs are significantly lower than other estimates of hexavalent chromium treatment, primarily because of the lower capital and O&M costs achieved through using the pipeline reactors for reduction

Page 11: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CH2M 1-6

and oxidation, and by using a pressure filtration system that does not require a clearwell or re-pumping. Backwashing with the system is simplified – the system supplies backwash water internally and does not require a backwash supply tank, backwash pumps or air scour.

Page 12: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 2

CH2M 2-1

Cadiz Water Project 2.1 Introduction and Background Cadiz Inc., (Cadiz) is a private corporation that owns approximately 34,000 mostly contiguous acres in the Cadiz and Fenner Valleys (Cadiz Property), which are located in the Mojave Desert portion of eastern San Bernardino County, California.

Cadiz Inc., in collaboration with other water providers participating in the Project (Project Participants), have collaboratively developed the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Water Project) to implement a comprehensive, long-term groundwater management program for the closed groundwater basin underlying its property that would allow for both the beneficial use of the groundwater and storage of imported surface water in the groundwater basin.

Underlying the Cadiz and Fenner Valleys and the adjacent Bristol Valley is a vast groundwater basin that holds an estimated 17 to 34 million acre-feet (MAF) of fresh groundwater. The Project area, which would be sited on Cadiz Property, is located at the confluence of the Fenner, Orange Blossom Wash, Bristol and Cadiz Watersheds (Watersheds), which span over 2,700 square miles.

Within this closed basin system, groundwater percolates and migrates downward from the higher elevations in the Watersheds and eventually flows to Bristol and Cadiz Dry Lakes. The Dry Lakes represent the low point in the closed watershed basin, meaning that all surface and groundwater within the surrounding Watersheds eventually flows down gradient to these Dry Lake areas and not beyond. Once the fresh groundwater reaches the Dry Lake areas, it evaporates, first mixing with the highly saline groundwater zone under the Dry Lakes and getting trapped in the salt sink, no longer fresh, suitable, or available to support freshwater beneficial uses. The portion that evaporates is lost from the groundwater basin and is therefore also unable to support beneficial uses.

2.2 Conceptual Project Overview The proposed Project includes two distinct but related components:

• A Groundwater Conservation and Recovery Component • An Imported Water Storage Component,

It is projected that an average annual delivery of up to 50,000 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater would be pumped from the basin over a 50-year period for delivery to Project Participants in accordance with agreements with Cadiz Inc., and the Cadiz Groundwater Management, Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (GMMMP).

The GMMMP has been developed to guide the long-term groundwater management of the basin for the Project. The level of groundwater pumping proposed under the Groundwater Conservation and Recovery Component is designed specifically to extract and conserve groundwater that would otherwise migrate to the Dry Lakes, enter the brine zone, and evaporate.

The facilities proposed for this component of the Project include a wellfield, manifold (piping) system, a 43-mile conveyance pipeline, monitoring features, other appurtenances and fire suppression mechanisms. The wellfield and manifold (piping) system would be constructed on Cadiz Property to carry pumped groundwater to the conveyance pipeline, which would be constructed along the Arizona and California Railroad (ARZC) Right of Way and tie into the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which would distribute water to Project Participants via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET). A power conveyance system would be installed that would convey energy to the wellfield from

Page 13: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 2 – CADIZ WATER PROJECT

CH2M 2-2

natural gas engines or from electricity from the grid. In addition, to meet ARZC’s fire suppression and operational water needs, fire hydrants would be installed along the conveyance pipeline at strategic locations along the railroad tracks (e.g., at bridge trestles). Withdrawal of water for this Project component would be limited to a maximum of 75,000 AFY of water in any given year and a total of 50,000 AFY on average over the 50-year term of the Project.

MET owns and operates the CRA and it is anticipated that water treatment will be required on the Cadiz groundwater prior to entering the aqueduct.

It is anticipated that the treatment facilities would be located in between the two proposed well fields that would be developed as part of the Cadiz water project as shown on Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1. Google Earth Image Showing Conceptual Location of Water Treatment, Ag Wells, High Wells and Transmission Route to the Colorado River Aqueduct.

2.3 Groundwater Quality Table 2-1 summarizes water quality parameters for groundwater sampled from the alluvium, and carbonate units in Fenner Gap and from the Colorado River just below Parker Dam. Parker Dam holds Lake Havasu on the Colorado River from which MET pumps water into the CRA. Thus, the Parker Dam water sample results are considered to represent CRA water quality.

None of the parameters in Table 2-1 have primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The secondary MCLs listed in Table 2-1 are aesthetic based water quality parameters that water purveyors should achieve at the point of distribution. There was extensive water quality testing conducted for the Cadiz groundwater wells, but a discussion of the overall water quality was not part of this pilot testing project. These parameters were provided to give a general sense of the water quality.

As shown in Table 2-1, both the CRA water and the Cadiz groundwater currently meet the drinking water standards before treatment. For the Groundwater Conservation and Recovery Component of the Project, groundwater would be pumped from the alluvial and carbonate units in the Fenner Gap area into the water conveyance pipeline from the wellfield to the CRA, where the water would be added to the CRA water and then sent on to the water purveyors. The percentage of Cadiz water relative to CRA

Page 14: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 2 – CADIZ WATER PROJECT

CH2M 2-3

water may range from approximately two to 15 percent1. Based on this overall evaluation, the potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 2-1. Summary of Selected General Water Quality Parameters from Cadiz Wells

Parameter CA Secondary MCL3 CADIZ Wellfield Representative Average1

Colorado River Aqueduct Average4

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L 500-1,000 314 568

Conductivity, uS/cm 900-1000 514 923

pH, S.U. None 8.12 8.23

Calcium, mg/L None 30 69

Magnesium, mg/L None 8.3 24

Chloride mg/L 250-500 58 80

Sulfate, mg/L 250-500 36 219

Sodium, mg/L None 64 83

Potassium, mg/L None 5.4 4.3

Total Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 None 104 129

Total Organic Carbon, mg/L None2 0.413 2.95

1 - Representative Average is weighted based on the Capacity of the wells. 2 - Potential Treatment Technique above 2 mg/L based on DBP Levels 3 - California Secondary MCLs are recommended and Upper Limit are from 17 CCR 64449 4- Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2014 Annual Report

However, the groundwater does have some naturally occurring, elevated concentrations of hexavalent chromium, as well as the presence of low levels of arsenic, iron and manganese in some wells. These constituents are the preliminary water treatment constituents. The average Cadiz wellfield concentrations are shown in Table 2-2. The regulatory limits for the parameters are also listed in Table 2-2. There are primary standards for chromium, chromium-6, and arsenic. Primary standards are established to protect public health. Secondary, non-health based standards for iron and manganese are also listed in Table 2-2. Cadiz has set a treatment goal of 2 µg/L for total and hexavalent chromium. 2 µg/L is similar to the treatment goal that was established in testing completed by MET in 2015 to achieve at least 90% removal in the finished water using RCF treatment (Sun Liang and Shannon M. Macieko, 2015). Cadiz has set a treatment goal of 3 µg/L for Arsenic, which is comparable to the levels in CRA water. Goals for iron and manganese were set at the current secondary standards or 300 and 50 µg/L respectively.

Table 2-2. Preliminary Water Treatment Target Constituents

Parameter California Primary or Secondary MCL

Federal Standard Cadiz Wellfield Average

Concentrations

Cadiz Treatment Goal

Chromium, Total (includes both chromium-6 and chromium-3)

50 µg/L 100 µg/L 13.4 µg/L 2 µg/L

Chromium-6 10 µg/L None 12.9 µg/L 2 µg/L

1 This range is based on a range of CRA flows of between 500,000 and 1.1 MAF and Cadiz flows of 25,000 to 75,000 AFY.

Page 15: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-4

Arsenic 10 µg/L 10 µg/L 6.9 µg/L 3 µg/L

Iron 300 µg/L (secondary) 300 µg/L (secondary) 1.6 mg/L 150 µg/L

Manganese 50 µg/L (secondary) 50 µg/L (secondary) 15.4 µg /L 25 µg/

Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic in Groundwater

3.1 Introduction Hexavalent chromium can be removed from water using a handful of proven treatment techniques depending on the level present in the source water, removal goals, other water quality parameters, competing treatment objectives, and treatment waste disposal options. Anion exchange (both strong-base and weak-base), membrane filtration by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, reduction followed by coagulation and precipitation, and adsorption can remove hexavalent chromium from drinking water. Research conducted by a collaboration of southern California drinking water utilities Water Research Foundation, 2016), EPA, and the Water Research Foundation found that weak-base anion exchange and reduction-coagulation-filtration could remove hexavalent chromium to below 5 ppb for the utilities’ particular groundwater source. Other California utilities participating in additional studies found that strong-base anion exchange was a viable treatment for their particular water sources, particularly if residuals disposal options were readily available.

For the Cadiz wellfield, we focused on Reduction Coagulation Filtration (RCF) because of the potential for cost effectively treating a large-scale supply potentially with a treatment capacity of 80 mgd. Weak based ion exchange would require periodic replacement of the resin and strong based ion exchange would require periodic regeneration with sodium chloride or other regenerant, which would be very difficult to dispose in the remote Mojave Desert location.

3.2 Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence Hexavalent chromium is an oxidized form of chromium that can exist as chromium (VI) oxide, chromic acid, chromate or dichromate in groundwater. Hexavalent chromium can exist in natural groundwaters or in waters that have been affected by local industrial activity. In natural groundwaters, hexavalent chromium is thought to be oxidized by manganese dioxide containing minerals from naturally occurring chromium (III)-bearing minerals. The presence of hexavalent chromium is dependent on the pH and oxidation conditions of the groundwater.

Chromium is a metal found in natural deposits of ores containing other elements, mostly as chrome-iron ore. It is also widely present in soil and plants. Under most conditions, natural chromium in the environment occurs as Chromium(III), or trivalent chromium. Under oxidizing conditions, alkaline pH range, presence of manganese dioxide and minerals containing chromium, part of it may occur as hexavalent chromium dissolved in groundwater. Recent sampling of drinking water sources throughout California suggests that hexavalent chromium may occur naturally in groundwater at many locations. Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium may be associated with serpentinite-containing rock or chromium containing geologic formations.

Chromium has two main oxidation states: trivalent chromium (Cr(III), chromium-3, Cr+3), and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI), chromium-6, Cr+6). As a general rule, hexavalent chromium is expected to predominate in highly oxygenated drinking water or when strong oxidants such as chlorine or even moderately strong oxidants like chloramine are present in water. At low Cr concentrations in typical

Page 16: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-5

drinking water conditions, hexavalent chromium is present as monovalent HCrO4 – below pH 6.5 and divalent CrO4 2– between pH 6.5 to 10. At very low or no oxygen levels, Cr(III) is the dominant species, which will be in cationic (Cr+3, CrOH+2, or Cr(OH)2

+) or neutral (Cr(OH)30) form depending on the pH.

Cr(III) tends to be extremely insoluble (< 20 μg/L) between pH 7 and pH 10, with minimum solubility at pH 8 of about 1 μg/L.

3.3 Hexavalent Chromium Water Quality Regulations 3.3.1 Federal Regulations There is no federal standard for hexavalent chromium. There is a national primary drinking water regulation that established the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total chromium of 0.1 mg/l or 100 µg/L, which was promulgated in 1991. In 2010, the USEPA initiated a reassessment of the health risks associated with hexavalent chromium and total chromium. That assessment is still underway.

3.3.2 California Regulations In 1999, as part of the process of reviewing MCLs in response to public health goals (PHGs), the California Department of Public Health's (CDPH's) precursor, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), identified the total chromium MCL (see below) as one for review. (CDPH’s Drinking Water Program is now the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water.)

In July 2011 OEHHA established a Public Health Goal (PHG) for chromium-6 of 0.02 μg/L. The PHG represents a de minimis lifetime cancer risk from exposure to chromium-6 in drinking water, based on studies in laboratory animals. OEHHA also prepared a PHG fact sheet. The availability of the chromium-6 PHG enabled CDPH to proceed with setting a primary drinking water standard.

In August 2013 CDPH proposed an MCL for chromium-6 of 0.010 milligram per liter (equivalent to 10 μg/L) and announced the availability of the proposed MCL for public comment. On April 15, 2014, CDPH submitted the hexavalent chromium MCL regulations package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for its review for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. On May 28, OAL approved the regulations, which were effective on July 1, 2014.

3.4 Treatment Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium 3.4.1 In –Situ Treatment Hexavalent chromium is readily and rapidly reduced to the somewhat insoluble, low-toxicity trivalent form, which precipitates out of solution. Most in-situ treatment technologies rely on creating geochemically reducing conditions in an aquifer to remove hexavalent chromium from groundwater. Reducing conditions can be achieved through injection of organic substrates such as ethanol or lactate, or by injecting inorganic reductants such as calcium polysulfide (also effective on vadose zone soils when flushed) and zero valent iron. Because hexavalent chromium is often co-located with chlorinated solvents related to metal-plating operations, it is not uncommon to treat both contaminants with biologically induced reductive chemistry. Localized geochemically reduced zones in aerobic aquifers can also reduce hexavalent chromium and cause it to precipitate.

In-situ remediation of hexavalent chromium most often is designed to form chromium hydroxide (Cr(OH)3) which has a low solubility in water and can often be immobilized in the aquifer matrix. Methods to remediate hexavalent chromium in the groundwater matrix include:

• Sulfur reduction methods

Page 17: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-6

• Calcium polysulfide reduction • Sodium dithionate reduction of ferrous iron • Aerobic microbial reduction • Anaerobic microbial reduction

3.4.2 Ex-Situ Treatment Hexavalent chromium is found more often in groundwaters than in surface waters. It can be removed using a handful of proven treatment techniques depending on the level present in the source water, removal goals, other water quality parameters, competing treatment objectives, and treatment waste disposal options.

Current treatment options for hexavalent chromium in drinking water are shown in Table 3-1. In development of the hexavalent chromium MCL, the state of California identified Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration and Ion Exchange as Best Available Treatment (BAT).

Table 3-1. Treatment Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium

Treatment Process Benefits Drawbacks

BAT: Reduction/Coagulation/

Filtration

Uses readily available technologies

General familiarity with process

Residuals handling

Control of Reduction step important for removal

BAT: Anion Exchange with Weak Base Anion (WBA) Resins

High removal capacity in some resins Resin disposal

pH dependent

Varies among manufacturers

Not well understood

BAT: Anion Exchange with Strong Base Anion (SBA) resins

Well understood technology and process

Brine disposal

Loss of capacity after multiple regenerations

Granular Activated Carbon Some Effectiveness at very low pH pH adjustment required

may not work well for very low concentrations

Reverse Osmosis Very effective High costs, High energy use

Brine disposal

Reduction/Microfiltration Should be effective Little installed capacity

Reject water disposal

Nanofiltration Very effective High costs, High energy use

Brine disposal

Electrodialysis Very effective High costs, High energy use

Brine disposal

Zero-Valent Iron Adsorption Should be effective Little installed capacity

Biological Reduction/Filtration Reduction occurs with IRB and SRB Little installed capacity

BAT – Listed as best available treatment by California Water Boards for Hexavalent Chromium Removal

Reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium is relatively easy to accomplish. It involves providing a source of electrons (reductant) so that hexavalent chromium can be reduced to trivalent chromium. Potential reductants include stannous chloride, sulfide, sulfite, and ferrous iron compounds. Ferrous iron coagulants are among the most effective reductants for treating hexavalent chromium in

Page 18: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-7

drinking water. The hexavalent chromium reduction reactions involving ferrous iron is shown in Equation 1.

Equation 1: 3 Fe(OH)2 + CrO42- + 4 H2O => 3 Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3 + 2 OH-

Since 2005, CH2M HILL designed, constructed and has been operating a hexavalent chromium removal facility in California using a Reduction-Coagulation-Filtration process (Figure 3-1) that works by first reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium by dosing ferrous chloride into the water. After a few minutes of reaction time, the water is aerated to precipitate the iron and the reduced trivalent chromium is sent to a clarifier and filter (in this case a microfiltration membrane is used for the filter) to remove solids. Because oxygen precipitates iron quickly, but is slow to oxidize chromium, the process successfully reduces and removes hexavalent and trivalent chromium below 10 µg/L as shown in Figure 3-2. Media

FERR

OUS

CHLO

RIDE

AERATION TANKS

MIXERMICRO

FILTRATIONCLARIFIER Figure 3-1. Hexavalent Chromium Removal with Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration Process

Figure 3-2. This treated water Hexavalent and Total Chromium Concentrations from 2005 through 2012 after Microfiltration for a Confidential Client Demonstrates a Long Operational knowledge based for Reduction, Coagulation

and Filtration.

In addition to reduction/coagulation/filtration, other techniques including high pressure membranes, weak base anion (WBA) resin ion exchange and strong base anion (SBA) resin ion exchange are also

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

Aug-05 Apr-06 Jan-07 Oct-07 Jul-08 Apr-09 Jan-10 Oct-10 Jul-11 Mar-12 Dec-12

CR, M

G/L

Cr(VI) Cr(T) Cr(VI) Limit Cr(T) Limit

Note: Non-detect values plotted at reporting limits

The Treated Water Goal for this Confidential Client was 8 µg/L

Page 19: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-8

effective. WBA resin ion exchange treatment consists of polymeric resin that must be utilized near pH 6 for effective hexavalent chromium removal, so pH readjustment is often necessary. One benefit of this treatment is that the resin can often run for very long periods without requiring regeneration, so it can be used as a disposable media. SBA resin ion exchange is also able to remove hexavalent chromium from water but requires regeneration with salt and brine disposal. Other processes are developing or have little installed capacity for hexavalent chromium removal.

3.5 Arsenic Occurrence Arsenic is found in surface and groundwater as a result of natural processes such as weathering of minerals and microbial activities. Major anthropogenic sources include mining, particularly smelting, and pesticide manufacture and use. A variety of industries also use arsenic compounds in their production processes.

Generally, naturally occurring arsenic concentrations below 1 mg/L are most common but higher concentrations occur in some geologic environments. Inorganic forms of arsenic are most common, although organic arsenic compounds associated with microbial activity and pesticide manufacture do occur. Significant concentrations of organic arsenic are generally not found in groundwater used for drinking water supply.

Aqueous, inorganic arsenic can exist in four valence states, As+5, As+3, As, As-3. Only As+5 (also referred to as As(V) or arsenate) and As+3 (referred to as As(III) or arsenite) are relevant for drinking water treatment. Speciation is dependent on pH and redox conditions. Oxidizing environments tend to produce arsenate forms while arsenite is produced in acidic reducing environments. Distribution diagrams for As(III) and As(V) as a function of pH indicate that arsenite is present largely as the undissociated acid, H3AsO3, below a pH of 9. As(V) is present largely as HAsO4

2- at pH values above 7; H2AsO-

4 predominates below 7.

3.5.1 Arsenic Removal Treatment Alternatives Since the arsenic MCL was lowered in 2001, there has been considerable research activity and implementation of full-scale treatment systems for arsenic removal. Several technologies are capable of removing arsenic to low levels. These include conventional and newer technologies including: coagulation, iron and manganese oxidation with precipitation and filtration, lime softening, activated alumina, oxide coated media, ion exchange, membrane filtration, and electrodialysis reversal. Adsorption onto media containing granular ferric hydroxide, titanium and aluminum has also been used effectively. Source water quality, operational characteristics and cost are all factors important to successful application. Each of these removal processes has advantages and disadvantages as shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Comparison of Arsenic Removal Technologies

Technology Benefits Drawbacks

Reverse Osmosis Membrane Filtration

• Removal of As(III) and As(V)

• Inorganic, microbial, and organic removal also achieved.

• Low recovery and flux rates are typical

• Pretreatment and post treatment required

Nano-Filtration Membranes • Removal of As(V)

• Microbial and organic removal also achieved

• Removal of calcium and magnesium may be achieved

• Sensitivity to water quality

• Low recovery and flux rates are typical

• Pretreatment and post treatment required

• May not be effective for As(III)

Page 20: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-9

Technology Benefits Drawbacks

Ultra-Filtration Membranes • Higher flux and recovery rates than RO or Nano-Filtration membranes

• Microbial removal achieved

• Waste Stream to can often be sent to WWTP

• Removal of particulate As only unless pretreatment with a coagulant is needed for removal

• Preoxidation and pH adjustment may be needed.

Coagulation/Micro-Filtration Membranes

• Highest flux and recovery rates of membrane processes

• Some microbial removal achieved

• Waste Stream to can often be sent to WWTP

• Pretreatment with a coagulant is needed for removal

• Preoxidation and pH adjustment may be needed.

Activated Alumina • Less sensitive to water quality than ion exchange

• Longer run times than ion exchange

• pH adjustment often needed

• Aluminum levels may increase in finished water

• Hazardous chemicals needed for regeneration

• Residuals handling is difficult with concentrated high pH liquid stream

Ion Exchange (Anion Exchange)

• Works better at higher pH levels than activated alumina

• Nitrate removal can also be achieved

• Sulfate levels may reduce run times

• Higher arsenic levels may leach from resin near end of run

• Requires regeneration and handling of concentrated brine solution

Iron Based Sorbents • Arsenic in backwash water is usually very low

• Relatively easy disposal of solids

• Some adsorbents have a fairly high sorption capacity

• Periodic media replacement required

• Cost and length of media use before replacement is needed is dependent on water quality

• Capacity decreases with increasing pH

Titanium Based Sorbents • Arsenic in backwash water is usually very low

• Relatively easy disposal of solids

• Some adsorbents have a fairly high sorption capacity

• Works over wide range of pH

• Periodic media replacement required

• Cost and length of media use before replacement is needed is dependent on water quality

3.5.2 Conventional Filtration for Arsenic Removal Conventional filtration can be used to remove arsenic. Its effectiveness depends on the arsenic species, the type and dose of coagulant used and the pH of coagulation. Key process considerations for arsenic removal include:

• Arsenic has a high affinity for co-precipitation with iron, and to a lesser degree with aluminum. • Removal is nearly always better for As(V) compared to As(III) • It is relatively easy to convert As(III) to As(V) with free chlorine. • Removal declines as pH increases, and is limited above pH 8.5 • Ferric chloride and ferric sulfate generally remove arsenic at lower doses than alum • Silica may interfere with coagulation around pH 7.5 • Once co-precipitated, arsenic does not tend to leach from solids after drying.

Page 21: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-10

Coagulation can be improved by carefully controlling pH, pre-oxidizing water prior to coagulation, and adding the proper amount of coagulant. A free chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/L is sufficient to oxidize As(III) to As(V) in 30 to 60 seconds for most waters within a pH range of 6 to 9. The disadvantages of conventional filtration are the relatively high capital cost, the relatively high O&M cost and the large amount of solids that must be disposed.

Conventional filtration, which is similar to the RCF process can be used to remove arsenic. Its effectiveness depends on the arsenic species, the type and dose of coagulant used and the pH of

coagulation. As shown in Figure 3-3, arsenic has a high affinity for iron coagulants. Removal is better at lower coagulant doses for As(V) than for As(III) at low pH. When pH is raised above 7.5 the removal decreases. Coagulation can be improved by carefully controlling pH oxidation, arsenic III to arsenic V and adding additional coagulant. The disadvantages of this technology are the relatively high capital cost, the relatively high O&M cost and the large amount of solids that must be disposed.

Figure 3-3. Influence of Coagulant Dose, Arsenic Type and pH on Arsenic Removal

Several studies have shown the arsenic removal capabilities of manganese oxides. Phommavong (1992) concluded that KMnO4 oxidation of As(III) in conjunction with manganese dioxide filtration could reduce arsenic by 61%–98%. The removal mechanism was not determined, although adsorption to the oxide media surface was suspected. Competition between arsenic and manganese for surface sites was also a factor suspected of affecting treatment performance. The Department of Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety has developed an unpublished report documenting up to 95% arsenic removal from several full-scale manganese greensand plants.

Subramamian, et al. (1995) found that manganese dioxide could effectively reduce As(III) if Fe(II) is present in the raw water at an iron/arsenic ratio of at least twenty and raw water As(III) concentration is below 200 µg/L.

3.5.3 Potential for Simultaneous removal of Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic While treating for hexavalent chromium removal with ferrous chloride or ferrous sulfate, it is possible to see some arsenic removal. For optimized arsenic removal, we would normally want to pre-oxidize the arsenic prior to adding an iron based coagulant. However, in a Water Research Foundation Study (Simultaneous Oxidation and Removal of As(III) and As(V) by Electrocoagulation Filtration, 2011), Lakshamanan, Clifford and Samanta found that ferrous iron was formed in the electrocoagulation cell and that after oxidizing it to ferric iron, arsenic removal could occur. The oxidation used in this study is

Page 22: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-11

with air, therefore it is likely that the arsenic will remain in the As(III) form prior to filtration, but some removal should be realized.

3.5.4 Proposed Treatment System for Pilot Testing The treatment system that CH2M proposed for pilot testing is a simplified version of Reduction – Coagulation – Filtration. The reduction from hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium occurs in a pipeline, rather than a mixing tank. Similarly, the oxidation of iron occurs in a pipeline rather than in a mixing vessel or reactor tank. The reasons to use a pipeline for the reduction and oxidation reactions are two-fold. First, Cadiz already must construct a pipeline to transfer the water from the wells to the treatment plant site, which reduces the treatment infrastructure costs considerably, and second, by using a pipeline reactor, the pumped water can be maintained under pressure, which eliminates the need for re-pumping and storage. For the removal of trivalent chromium and iron, CH2M proposed using pressure filters with manganese dioxide media based on ATEC’s system. ATEC has a long history of successful cost-effective operations for treatment of iron, manganese and arsenic in groundwater and their manufacturing facility is based in California.

RCF treatment based on ATEC’ system was also recently successfully tested for hexavalent chromium removal at California Water Service Company’s Las Lomas and Oak Hills facilities using a manganese dioxide pilot system, which was completed by Corona Environmental Consulting in April 2015. The system tested was similar to the proposed treatment system for Cadiz, however, they used chlorine to oxidize the iron rather than air. They found that reduction of hexavalent chromium occurred in as little as one minute and once reduced was effectively removed by the manganese dioxide media. California Water Service Company has been successfully operating the Las Lomas facility for over a year (personal communication Bill Ketchum 2016).

Manganese dioxide media has been used extensively for iron, manganese and arsenic removal since 1996 in California, the U.S, and Canada by ATEC Water Treatment Systems. Table 3-3 shows a summary of ATEC facilities that have been pilot tested, designed, constructed between 1997 and 2003, and are in full-scale operation in Oregon, Washington and California. These systems participated in a survey of full-scale operations, water quality and treatment costs. Well capacities in the survey ranged from 31 to 4,500 gpm. Loading rates of the adsorption facilities range from 8.0 gpm/sq. ft. to 15 gpm/sq.ft.

Table 3-3. Surveyed Systems ATEC Iron and Manganese Facilities

Location Well Capacity gpm

(m3/hr)

Facility Installed

year

Vessels

No – dia.

Loading Rate

gpm/sq ft (m/hr)

Raw Water

Iron Conc. mg/L

Raw Water Manganese

Conc. mg/L

Jefferson County PUD, WA 12 31 (8) 1999 4-12” 9.9 (26) 1.5 0.06

Garden Farms, CA 1 45 (12) 2000 4-12” 14.3 (37) 0.7 0.05

Klickitat County PUD, WA NW 100 (27) 2000 4-36” 10.6 (27) 0.25 0.069

Skagit County PUD, WA A1 100 (27) 2000 4-18” 12.7 (33) 0.12 0.096

Ames Lake, WA 9 127 (34) 1998 4-24” 10.0 (26) 0.069 0.103

Skagit County, WA CG1 150 (40) 2000 4-24” 12 (31) 0.122 0.094

Cedar Shores, WA 1 96 (26) 2000 4-24” 7.64 (20) 0.38 0.139

Glacier Vista, WA 1 64 (17) 2000 4-18” 9.04 (23) 0.18 0.134

The Dalles, OR DC 350 (94) 2001 4-36” 10.7 (28) 0.06 0.058

Clark Public Utilities, WA FBP 200 (54) 1997 2-36” 11 (28) 0.54 0.115

Page 23: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-12

Location Well Capacity gpm

(m3/hr)

Facility Installed

year

Vessels

No – dia.

Loading Rate

gpm/sq ft (m/hr)

Raw Water

Iron Conc. mg/L

Raw Water Manganese

Conc. mg/L

Kitsap County PUD, WA K2 400 (107) 2001 3-48” 10.6 (27) 0.044 0.096

Kitsap County PUD, WA E5 250 (67) 2001 3-36” 22.7 (59) 0.032 0.087

Rainier View Water Co., Country Park, WA

2 250 (67) 1998 3-36” 10.9 (28) 0.002 0.09

Cape George, WA 4 140 (38) 2000 4-36” 4.9 (13) 0.11 0.602

Halsey, OR 1 350 (94) 1998 4-36” 10.7 (28) 0.06 0.058

Rainier View Water Co., Artondale, WA

2 235 (63) 1998 3-36” 11 (28) 0.090 0.162

Kitsap County PUD, WA K1 200 (54) 2001 4-30” 10.2 (26) 0.015 0.042

Clark Public Utilities, WA 110 400 (107) 1997 4-36” 15 (39) 0.54 0.05

Fullerton, CA 12A 500 (134) 2001 4-48” 10.0 (26) 0.42 0.054

Clark Public Utilities 21 1,025 (275) 1997 8-48” 10.2 (26) 0.21 0.182

Battle Ground, WA 7/8 2,000 (537) 1999 12-48” 13.3 (34) 1.21 0.164

Sherwood, OR (Tualatin Valley Water District)

6 550 (148) 2000 4-48” 10.95 (28) 0.18 0.039

Utility A* 8 1,200 (322) 2000 8-48” 12 (31) 0.019 0.115

Southern California Water Co. Century 500 (134) 2000 4-48” 9.95 (26) 0.116 0.085

Southern California Water Co. Juan 850 (228) 2000 6-48” 11.3 (29) 0.104 0.116

Spanaway Water Company, WA 4 1,200 (322) 2000 8-48” 12 (31) 0.144 0.225

Lakewood Water District, WA S1 800 (215) 2001 6-48” 10.6 (27) 0.064 0.101

Lakewood Water District, WA Q1 1,200 (322) 2001 8-48” 11.95 (31) 0.004 0.267

City of Lacey, WA 7 1,700 (456) 2002 14-48” 9.68 (25) 0.404 0.401

City of Batavia, IL 6,7,8 4,500 (1,208)

2003 40-48” 8.96 (23) 2.157 0.143

*This utility requested its name not be used in this paper

Table 3-4 shows the removal efficiencies obtained in pilot testing compared to full-scale operation. Removal efficiencies for iron are typically somewhat less than for manganese however, both are typically above 90%.

Table 3-4. Comparison of Pilot Removal Efficiency and Full Scale Removal Efficiency in Manganese Dioxide Media Filters

Pilot Testing Removal (%) Full-Scale Removal (%)

Location Well Iron Mang. n Iron Mang. n

Jefferson County, WA 12 94.3 99.8 8 97.3 >99 5

Garden Farms, CA 1 95.6 98.6 17 >99 >99 4

Page 24: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-13

Pilot Testing Removal (%) Full-Scale Removal (%)

Klickitat County PUD, WA NW 87.4 95.3 13 0

Skagit County PUD, WA A1 90 94 14 >99 >99 3

Ames Lake, WA 9 97 97 14 23 to >99 34 to 99 8

Skagit County PUD, WA CG1 75 91 18 >99 >99 3

Cedar Shores, WA 1 79 93 9 >99 >99 2

Glacier Vista, WA 1 83 96 14 >99 >99 2

The Dalles, OR DC 88 68 24 >99 >99 4

Clark Public Utilities, WA FBP 93.5 96.5 12 >99 >99 21

Kitsap County PUD, WA K2 98 98.9 21 >99 >99 4

Kitsap County PUD, WA E5 97.1 98.6 25 >99 >99 4

Rainier View Water Co., Country Park, WA

2 >99 98.7 8 >99 >99 7

Cape George, WA 4 88 97 10 95.3 >99 5

Halsey, OR 1 87.7 68 24 >99 >99 3

Rainier View Water Company, Artondale, WA

2 93 99.6 19 >99 >99 5

Kitsap County PUD WA K1 95 97 24 >99 >99 3

Clark Public Utilities, WA 110 93.1 99.4 5 99.6 99.3 25

Fullerton, CA 12A 90 91.8 19 >99 >99 6

Clark Public Utilities, WA 21 84.2 97 19 >99 >99 4

Battle Ground, WA 7/8 90.2 97.3 13 74 to >99 86 to >99 148

Sherwood, OR (Tualatin Valley Water District)

6 92.36 91.43 13 >99 >99 4

Utility A 8 98.5 99 17 >99 >99 6

Southern California Water Co. Century 98.3 98.8 25 >99 >99 24

Southern California Water Co. Juan 98.1 98.1 3 >99 >99 8

Spanaway Water Company, WA 4 78 97 59 95.6 >99 2

Lakewood Water District, WA S1 95.81 97.87 69 97.4 >99 13

Lakewood Water District, WA Q1 86.36 99.21 30 95.4 76 15

City of Lacey, WA 7 63.31 93.95 32 93.0 94.8 23

City of Batavia, IL 6,7,8 99.3 92.9 39 - - 0

Multiple tanks, mani-folded together at the top and bottom, are used in the design of the ATEC filters to provide an-internally-supplied source of treated backwash water, eliminating the need for a backwash pump or an external source of supply. This is an important cost saving feature, because backwashing

Page 25: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-14

requires between 26 and 30 gpm/sq ft to fluidize the bed and adequately scrub the iron and manganese from the filter media.

Table 3-5 shows the design components that were included in each of the full-scale projects for these facilities. All facilities included iron and manganese removal equipment, some were retrofitted into existing buildings (Ret), and some required construction of additions (Add) or new buildings (New). Some projects included installation of well pumps; new motor control centers, SCADA systems and chemical feed systems. Backwash disposal was accomplished either by infiltration (Inf), treatment and disposal to stormwater systems (Tre), recycling (Rec), or in the sanitary sewer (San).

Table 3-5. Project Construction Components for Surveyed ATEC Water Treatment Systems

Location Fe/Mn Building Chem Feed

MCC/PLC Backwash SCADA Pump

Jefferson County PUD, WA √ Ret Inf √

Garden Farms, CA √ New √ Inf √

Klickitat County PUD, WA √ New √ Inf √

Skagit County PUD, WA √ Ret √ Tre √

Ames Lake, WA √ Ret √ Inf

Skagit County PUD, WA √ Ret √ Tre √

Cedar Shores, WA √ Ret √ Inf

Glacier Vista, WA √ Ret √ Inf

The Dalles, OR √ New √ Inf √

Clark Public Utilities, WA √ New √ Inf √ √

Kitsap County PUD, WA √ New Tre √

Kitsap County PUD, WA √ New Tre √

Rainier View Water Co., Country Park Well, WA

√ New √ Inf √ √

Cape George, WA √ New √ Inf

Halsey, OR √ New √ √ San √ √

Rainier View Water Company, Artondale, WA

√ New √ √ Inf √ √

Kitsap County PUD, WA √ New √ Inf √ √

Clark Public Utilities, WA √ New √ √ Rec √

Fullerton, CA √ Pad √ Rec √

Clark Public Utilities, WA √ New √ √ Inf √ √

Battle Ground, WA √ New √ √ Inf √ √

Sherwood, OR (Tualatin Valley Water District)

√ Ret √ √ San √ √

Utility A √ New √ √ Inf √ √

Southern California Water Co. – Century

√ Pad √ √ Tre √ √

Page 26: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-15

Location Fe/Mn Building Chem Feed

MCC/PLC Backwash SCADA Pump

Southern California Water Co. - Juan √ Pad √ √ Tre √ √

Spanaway Water Company, WA √ New √ √ Inf √ √

Lakewood Water District, WA – S1 √ New √ √ Tre √ √

Lakewood Water District, WA – Q1 √ New √ √ Inf √ √

City of Lacey, WA √ Pad √ √ Inf √

City of Batavia, IL √ New √ √ Inf √ √

Table 3-6 shows capital costs for each facility updated to 2016 dollars using ENR Construction Cost Index 20 Cities Average. Capital costs are broken down by treatment equipment cost, and total project cost. Treatment costs include vessels, media, manifolds, backwash controller, backwash flowmeter and pressure relief valve. Total project costs include equipment costs; chemical feed costs, design, administration, permitting, and construction of project components shown in Table 3-5.

Table 3-6. Capital Costs of ATEC Water Treatment Surveyed Systems, Escalated to 2016 Dollars

Location Capacity, gpm

Year Constructed

Equipment Cost 2016$

Total Project Cost 2016 $

Jefferson County PUD, WA 31 1999 $16,000 $24,000

Garden Farms, CA 45 2000 $26,000 $41,000

Klickitat County PUD, WA 90 2000

Skagit County PUD, WA 100 2000 $28,000 $50,000

Ames Lake, WA 127 1998 $31,000 $54,000

Skagit County PUD, WA 150 2000 $35,000 $76,000

Cedar Shores, WA 96 2000 $27,000 $45,000

Glacier Vista, WA 64 2000 $27,000 $51,000

The Dalles, OR 350 2001 $59,000 $67,000

Clark Public Utilities, WA 200 1997 $54,000 $144,000

Kitsap County PUD, WA 400 2001 $61,000 $286,000

Kitsap County PUD, WA 250 2001 $42,000 $254,000

Rainier View Water Company, Country Park Well, WA

230 1998 $50,000 $96,000

Cape George, WA 140 2000 $62,000 $242,000

Halsey, OR 350 1998 $64,000 $72,000

Rainier View Water Company, Artondale, WA

235 1998 $50,000 $135,000

Kitsap County PUD, WA 200 2001 $57,000 $344,000

Clark Public Utilities, WA 425 1997 $55,000 $142,000

Fullerton, CA 500 2001 $203,000 $479,000

Page 27: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-16

Location Capacity, gpm

Year Constructed

Equipment Cost 2016$

Total Project Cost 2016 $

Clark Public Utilities, WA 1,025 1997 $160,000 $429,000

Battle Ground, WA 2,000 1999 $96,000 $1,366,000

Sherwood, OR (Tualatin Valley Water District)

550 2000 $81,000 $134,000

Utility A 1,200 2000 $176,000 $624,000

Southern California Water Co. – Century* 500 2000 $292,000 $1,095,000

Southern California Water Co. - Juan, CA* 800 2000 $257,000 $930,000

Spanaway Water Company, WA 1,200 2000 $176,000 $732,000

Lakewood Water District, WA – S1 800 2001 $127,000 $585,000

Lakewood Water District, WA – Q1 1,200 2001 $158,000 $686,000

City of Lacey, WA 1,700 2002 $260,000 $1,023,000

City of Batavia, IL 4,500 2003 $966,000 $3,493,000

Table 3-7 shows operations and maintenance costs for each facility, escalated to 2016 dollars. Electrical costs are limited to filter and controller costs, building heating and ventilation, and other associated electrical costs. Electrical costs do not include well pumping, except to for headloss through the treatment equipment.

Chemical costs are limited to chlorine feed costs. Monitoring costs for systems using field-monitoring equipment are amortized over a 5-year life of the equipment. Labor costs are based on actual visits reported by utility personnel for iron and manganese monitoring, or maintenance. Backwash disposal cost is not provided for the one system discharging to sanitary sewer since no monthly or flow fees are charged to the utility.

Table 3-7. Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Report for ATEC Systems, in 2016 dollars

Location Electrical Chemical Labor Monitoring Total

Jefferson County PUD, WA $800 $200 $3,200 $1,500 $5,700

Garden Farms, CA $1,300 $300 $6,100 $1,500 $9,200

Klickitat County PUD, WA $500 $800 $6,100 $1,500 $8,900

Skagit County PUD, WA $500 $800 $6,100 $1,500 $8,900

Ames Lake, WA $1,000 $300 $3,200 $200 $4,700

Skagit County PUD, WA $200 $1,100 $3,100 $1,500 $5,900

Cedar Shores, WA $100 $2,600 $3,100 $500 $6,300

Glacier Vista, WA $100 $2,600 $3,100 $500 $6,300

The Dalles, OR $300 $1,000 $3,000 $1,200 $5,500

Clark Public Utilities, WA $1,300 $3,600 $3,300 $1,500 $9,700

Kitsap County PUD, WA $1,400 $6,600 $6,000 $1,400 $15,400

Kitsap County PUD, WA $1,000 $4,600 $6,000 $1,400 $13,000

Page 28: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-17

Location Electrical Chemical Labor Monitoring Total

Rainier View Water Company, Country Park Well, WA

$600 $2,700 $3,200 $600 $7,100

Cape George, WA $300 $300 $6,100 $1,100 $7,800

Halsey, OR $400 $2,500 $3,200 $1,800 $7,900

Rainier View Water Company, Artondale, WA

$600 $2,700 $3,200 $1,500 $8,000

Kitsap County PUD, WA $400 $3,000 $6,000 $1,300 $10,700

Clark Public Utilities, WA $1,300 $3,600 $3,300 $1,500 $9,700

Fullerton, CA $100 $3,300 $6,000 $6,900 $16,300

Clark Public Utilities, WA $3,600 $6,400 $6,500 $1,500 $18,000

Battle Ground, WA $3,100 $8,300 $18,000 $5,200 $34,600

Sherwood, OR (Tualatin Valley Water District)

$200 $3,900 $3,100 $1,500 $8,700

Utility A $7,700 $3,600 $6,100 $1,500 $18,900

Southern California Water Co. – Century* $2,400 $3,100 $24,800 $13,400 $43,700

Southern California Water Co., Juan, CA* $2,700 $3,400 $24,800 $13,400 $44,300

Spanaway Water Company, WA $7,700 $3,900 $6,100 $1,500 $19,200

Lakewood Water District, WA $1,000 $3,500 $3,000 $1,300 $8,800

Lakewood Water District, WA $1,400 $3,800 $3,000 $1,300 $9,500

City of Lacey, WA $3,500 $19,500 $34,500 $7,900 $65,400

City of Batavia, IL $20,500 $10,400 $32,600 $6,000 $69,500

The survey demonstrates that the ATEC Water Treatment Systems provides an efficient cost-effective alternative for removing dissolved iron and manganese from groundwater supplies. Removal in pilot testing has been repeated in full-scale monitoring. Capital and annual O&M are reduced by the simplified design and smaller footprint of the equipment compared to conventional RCF systems that are typically described in the literature.

3.5.5 Water Treatment Residuals The types of residuals that are generated from the treatment processes are different for each type of treatment. In general, reduction/coagulation/filtration produces an iron sludge that can be dewatered and landfilled. Where sanitary sewers are available discharge limits for total chromium are normally 10 mg/L. The landfilled sludge cannot leach more than 5 mg/L of chromium in the Toxic Contaminant Leachate Potential (TCLP) test or the Waste Extraction Test (WET) in California.

Cadiz is in an unusual position, in that it requires significant amounts of irrigation water year round. It may be possible that the reduced chromium in the filter backwash water, blended with additional with additional irrigation water would be suitable for crop irrigation. A mass balance is provided in the results section of this project report.

Page 29: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 3 – HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER

CH2M 3-18

Page 30: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 4

CH2M 4-1

Pilot Testing methods and Materials Groundwater Quality

Pilot testing was conducted with a vendor supplied system; ATEC Water Treatment System’s Manganese Dioxide pressure filters. Initial testing was conducted to assess the applicability of the technology to Cadiz groundwater. Subsequent pilot tests were conducted to assess efficacy of the treatment process for a range of operating conditions as described below.

4.1 ATEC Pilot Equipment A schematic drawing of the pilot test equipment used in this study is shown on Figure 4-1. The pilot system consisted of the following:

• Ferrous chloride injection followed by 6-inch-diameter contact pipe from 6-foot to 25-foot-long

• Air eduction through a venturi eductor followed by an 8-foot-long, 6-inch-diameter contact pipe

• Four 6-inch-diameter cylindrical filters each containing approximately 0.6 cubic foot of ATEC 741 (Tradename) manganese dioxide media

Figure 4-1. ATEC Pilot Filter Schematic

Figure 4-2 shows a photograph of the Pilot Filters inside the ATEC Trailer. Figure 4-3 shows the reactor pipe segments. Figure 4-4 shows a photograph of the eductor and bypass pipe.

Page 31: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 4 – PILOT TESTING METHODS AND MATERIALS GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CH2M 4-2

Figure 4-2. ATEC Pilot Filters within the Trailer

Figure 4-3. Pipe Line Reactor Segments

Page 32: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 4 – PILOT TESTING METHODS AND MATERIALS GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CH2M 4-3

Figure 4-4. Venturi Eductor and Bypass Pipe

The ATEC pilot filter consisted of four 6-inch filter columns connected by common manifolds for influent, effluent, and backwash water. Each filter was controlled by a three-way ball valve. The system was set up to closely represent a full-scale filter system in terms of media depth, flow rates in terms of gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot (gpm/sf) of filter area, and backwash characteristics. During backwash of the pilot filters, the effluent valve and eductor bypass valve are adjusted to reduce headloss and increase flow to the backwashing filter. The filters stay on line during backwashing in full-scale systems.

Source water was metered using a totalizing flow meter. Pressure was measured on the influent and effluent manifold to determine headloss. Manganese dioxide granules (pyrolusite) were used as filter media. The media has been certified through NSF Standard 61 as being suitable for drinking water applications. Details on the filtration tanks and media are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Physical Characteristics of Filter Tanks and Media

Pilot Filters

Sidewall Height 60 inches

Overall Height 72 inches

Diameter 6 inches

Filter Surface Area (each) 0.20 (feet2)

Total Filter Surface Area 0.79 (feet2)

Underdrain Stainless steel wedgewire, 0.01-inch slots

Media Support ¾-inch minus crushed granite, 4-inch

Source Water Connections ¾-inch standard hose

Recommended Maximum Working Pressure 75 psi

Page 33: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 4 – PILOT TESTING METHODS AND MATERIALS GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CH2M 4-4

Filter Media

Depth in Filters 42 Inches

Volume in Filters (total) 2.75 feet3

Approximate Weight in Filters 352 pounds

Weight 125 pounds/feet3

Physical Size 20 to 40 US mesh

Chemical Dosing Equipment Prominent Concept 100 Solution metering Pumps (capacity vary)

mg/L = milligrams per liter psi = pounds per square inch

Ferrous chloride was added to the well water using a stock solution of ferrous chloride diluted to 1,700 mg/L and dosed using a peristaltic feed pump. The concentration of the diluted ferrous chloride stock solution was determined through field measurements, and the feed pump flow-rate was controlled to maintain the desired dose at the raw water injection point.

Sections of 6-inch PVC contact pipe were connected with mechanical joints for simple modification of the contact pipe length. The lengths for the tested contact times are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Pipe Configurations for Varying Contact Times Ferrous Chloride Contact Time

(minutes) Required Pipe Length

(feet)

2 6

4 12

6 18

8 24

Air injection was achieved using a ½-inch Model 0484 Mazzei Injector and a 1-inch ball valve to control the bypass water flowrate. Maximum air injection was reached by closing the eductor bypass valve fully and pushing 100 percent of the flow through the ½-inch eductor and increasing the pressure differential. Pressure differential across the eductor was maintained between 10 and 25 psi by adjusting the bypass valve position. Based on stoichiometry, 0.14 milligram of oxygen (mg O2) are required per milligram of ferrous iron (mg Fe2+) present in the water for oxidation. Dissolved oxygen was measured periodically during the pilot testing from November 19 to 20. The air flow was not measured, but an estimated 1 to 2 standard liters per minute (slpm) of air was injected according to the Mazzei product data. Sufficient oxidation was verified by passing the water through a filter and measuring the dissolved iron. No iron was measured in the filtrate showing that full oxidation had occurred. A visual representation of the iron precipitated on the filter is included in Figure 4-5. Additional testing could be conducted during a long-term pilot test to help optimize the air injector flow for a full-scale facility.

Page 34: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 4 – PILOT TESTING METHODS AND MATERIALS GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CH2M 4-5

Figure 4-5. A 47 mm Diameter Filter Shows the PrecipitatedIiron Collected from a Prefilter Ssample during the Pilot Test at Cadiz, 8/25/2015

Measurements of total iron concentrations were taken using a Hach DR/2000 Spectrophotometer (Hach Company, Loveland, CO). Flow was continuously monitored using a Seametrics flow meter. Grab samples were analyzed in the lab to measure hexavalent chromium, total chromium, arsenic, iron, and manganese for the raw water, filter influent, and treated filter effluent (treated or finished water). Total suspended solids were measured in addition to these constituents for the filter backwash waste.

Page 35: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5

CH2M 5-1

Pilot Testing Results 5.1 ATEC Testing Objectives and Findings CH2M conducted the pilot testing together with ATEC Systems, Inc. (ATEC). MWH, specifically, Mr. James Borchardt, provided recommendations for comprehensively testing the efficacy of the treatment process across a range of operating conditions. The tests were conducted from August 24 to 27, 2015, from September 9 to 10, 2015, and from November 19 to 20, 2015 using raw water supplied from Cadiz Ranch Well No. 21N. The following summarizes the objectives for each phase of pilot testing:

• Scenario 1 (August 25, 2015): Test different ferrous chloride doses to select optimal dose. Ferrous chloride is needed to reduce the hexavalent chromium, but excess iron in the water will shorten the filter run times.

• Scenario 2 (August 27 and September 9, 2015): Test selected ferrous chloride dose until breakthrough. Samples are collected throughout the filter run to confirm consistent performance throughout the run.

• Scenario 3 (September 10, 2015): Test ferrous chloride contact times of 2, 4, 6, and 8 minutes. This scenario evaluates the length of the pipeline reactor required to reduce the hexavalent chromium.

• Scenario 4 (November 19 to 20, 2015): Test selected design criteria for a complete 8 12-hour filter run. In this scenario, an extended run would be developed to demonstrate the run time. An extended run time minimizes backwash frequency and waste volumes.

New filter media was installed before the initial pilot testing and was backwashed at the end of each filter run. Iron samples were collected approximately every 30 minutes, while raw, pre-filter, and finished water samples for total chromium, hexavalent chromium, and arsenic were collected approximately every hour. Samples were also collected of the backwash waste.

5.1.1 ATEC Testing Scenario 1 Ferrous chloride is used to reduce the hexavalent chromium, but excess iron in the water will shorten the run time. An optimal dose is the minimal amount of ferrous chloride that will provide complete reduction of hexavalent chromium. Ferrous chloride doses of 0.80 to 6.3 mg/L, equivalent to 0.35 to 2.8 mg/L as ferrous iron, were tested during Scenario 1. The dosing was initially low and was gradually increased over the day to allow the system to stabilize at each dose for 30 to 60 minutes. A time series of the results is shown in Figure 5-1. The point of filter breakthrough (shown as a red dashed line where the total iron in the treated water, labeled as FeTot-TW, is greater than 0.15 mg/L) is included for reference.

Removal of hexavalent chromium was excellent at ferrous iron doses above 1.4 mg/L, as shown in Figure 5-2. For ferrous iron doses between 1.4 and 3 mg/L, removal averaged 97.4 percent.

Removal of arsenic was excellent across all ferrous chloride doses, as shown in Figure 5-2. Ferrous iron doses below 1 mg/L showed better than expected removal of arsenic from the source water. In fact, arsenic removal remained steady across all ferrous chloride doses.

Page 36: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-2

Figure 5-1. ATEC Pilot Testing August 25, 2015 Time Series

Figure 5-2. ATEC Pilot Testing Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses, August 25, 2015

5.1.2 ATEC Testing Scenario 2 This scenario was used to demonstrate consistent removal through a full filter run. A ferrous chloride dose of 6.8 mg/L, equivalent to 3 mg/L as ferrous iron, was chosen for filter breakthrough performance testing. The results of the filter breakthrough testing are shown in the time series plots in Figures 5-3 and 5-4. The total iron concentration in the treated water (FeTot-TW) acts as a surrogate for filter breakthrough. The red dashed line separates the normal filter operation (less than 0.15 mg/L) from filter breakthrough (more than 0.15 mg/L) conditions.

The lab results showed efficient removal of hexavalent chromium (Cr6-TW) and arsenic (AsTot-TW) at all stages of the filter run, even past significant iron breakthrough of the filter. At breakthrough, the

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM

Fe (m

g/L)

, Cr-6

and

As (µ

g/L)

Cr6-RW

Cr6-TW

FeTot-PF

FeTot-TW

AsTot-RW

AsTot-TW

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

% R

emov

al

Ferrous Chloride Dose as Fe-Tot (mg/L)

Hexavalent Chromium Removal Arsenic Removal

90% Removal Achieves Treatment Goal of 2 ug/L

Page 37: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-3

average chromium-6 concentration is 0.18 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and arsenic concentration is 1.7 µg/L.

Note that the filter run time and time until breakthrough were linked to the ferrous chloride dose used during that run. Higher ferrous chloride doses caused increased solids loading onto the filters which resulted in shorter run times.

Figure 5-3. ATEC Pilot Testing August 27, 2015, Time Series

Figure 5-4. ATEC Pilot Testing September 9, 2015, Time Series

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM

Fe (m

g/L)

, Cr-6

and

As (µ

g/L) Cr6-RW

Cr6-TW

FeTot-PF

FeTot-TW

AsTot-RW

AsTot-TW

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM

Fe (m

g/L)

, Cr-6

and

As (µ

g/L) Cr6-RW

Cr6-TW

FeTot-PF

FeTot-TW

AsTot-RW

AsTot-TW

Page 38: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-4

5.1.3 ATEC Testing Scenario 3 Identifying the optimal contact time helps in designing the length of the pipeline contactor needed for the full-scale facility. Ferrous chloride contact times of 2, 4, 6, and 8 minutes were tested at a ferrous chloride dose of 6.8 mg/L and compared to one another with respect to efficiency of chromium reduction and subsequent removal efficiency. Figure 5-5 contains the average removal efficiency for each contact time, representative of two samples per contact time.

All four tested contact times provided efficient hexavalent chromium removal without a clear trend. Shorter contact times could be tested in the future to determine the minimum time required to achieve substantial chromium reduction.

Figure 5-5. ATEC Average Hexavalent Chromium Removal at Varied Contact Times

5.1.4 ATEC Testing Scenario 4 Two extended filter runs were performed to demonstrate proper performance throughout the filter run, and to document the filter run length and operating conditions such as headloss during the filter run. A ferrous chloride dose of 3.4 mg/L, equivalent to 1.5 mg/L as ferrous iron, was chosen due to results from testing Scenarios 1 and 2. The results of the filter breakthrough testing are shown in the time-series plots in Figures 5-6 and 5-7. Similar to Scenario 2, the red dashed line separates the normal filter operation (less than 0.15 mg/L) from filter breakthrough (more than 0.15 mg/L) conditions. Note that Run 2 had several variations in the ferrous chloride dose due to inconsistencies in the equipment and site conditions.

Removal of hexavalent chromium was excellent at all stages of the filter run, with a treated water range of 0.3 to 2.9 µg/L. Note that the 2.9 µg/L is an outlier due to a drop in the ferrous chloride dose. Removal averaged 93.9 percent as shown in Figure 5-8.

Arsenic removal was consistent through all stages of the filter run, with a treated water range of 1.6 to 2.7 µg/L.

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

2 4 6 8

% R

emov

al of

Hex

avale

nt C

hrom

ium

Contact Time (min)

Page 39: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-5

Figure 5-6. ATEC Run 1, November 19, 2015, Time Series

Figure 5-7. ATEC Run 2, November 19 to 20, 2015, Time Series

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

Fe (m

g/L)

, Cr-6

and

As (µ

g/L)

Cr6-RW

Cr6-TW

FeTot-PF

FeTot-TW

AsTot-RW

AsTot-TW

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

Fe-T

ot (m

g/L)

, Cr-6

and

As-T

ot (µ

g/L)

Cr6-RW

Cr6-TW

FeTot-PF

FeTot-TW

AsTot-RW

AsTot-TW

Page 40: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-6

Figure 5-8. ATEC Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses,

November 19 to 20, 2015

5.2 ATEC Overall Testing Results A summary of the testing results is presented in Table 5-1. All of the pilot testing operating data, raw water quality and finished water quality are shown in Table 5-2. Raw water quality and finished water quality results are all from Eurofins Eaton Laboratory, Monrovia CA.

Table 5-1 lists the average treatment results across all scenarios tested using the ATEC system. Note that these numbers include samples taken after breakthrough and immediately following filter backwash. The system was able to meet the Cadiz treatment goals for hexavalent chromium and total chromium, which are significantly lower than the regulatory limits. For all the treated water pilot testing results, 68.2% of the total chromium tests and 93.2% of the hexavalent chromium tests were below the treatment goal of 2 µg/L.

Arsenic was already below the regulatory level of 10 µg/L, but some reduction in arsenic was also achieved to a level below the established treatment goal. For all of the treated water arsenic tests collected during pilot testing, 70.5% were below the treatment goal of 3 µg/L for arsenic..

Iron and manganese were also both at levels below the treatment goals and regulatory standards, however, some manganese levels actually increased from the raw water to the finished water. It is believed that the source of the manganese was from new media in the filter, which is a manganese dioxide ore. As the proposed treatment system typically is used for removal of iron and manganese, the observed levels from this pilot testing are not expected to occur and will be substantially lower in the full-scale system.

Raw water iron shown in Table 1-1 is actually from the filter influent, after ferrous chloride was added. The finished water iron levels were also slightly above the treatment goal on average. There are two reasons for this; first the chemical feed dosing of ferrous chloride was at times very high, and second, the pilot operators used the effluent iron as a signal for the end of a filter run, often letting it exceed the treatment goal. The filter system selected for this pilot test, is actually used widely for iron and manganese removal in groundwater systems, and it is believed that the treated water levels will be significantly lower in a full-scale system.

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

% R

emov

al

Ferrous Chloride Dose as Fe-Tot (mg/L)

Hexavalent Chromium Removal Arsenic Removal

Page 41: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-7

Table 5-1. Pilot Testing Treatment Results for ATEC Treatment System Operating Conditions

Parameter Average Value

Flow 4.6 gpm a

Loading Rate 5.9 gpm/sf a

Differential Pressure 2 – 3 psi

Water Quality Results

Parameter Raw Water Treated Water Percent Removal Treatment Goal Regulatory Standard

Hexavalent chromium

18.91 µg/L 0.99 µg/L 95% 2 µg/L 10 µg/L

Total chromium 28.42 µg/L 1.60 µg/L 91% 2 µg/L 50 µg/L

Arsenic 7.15 µg/L 1.84 µg/L 79% 3 µg/L 10 µg/L

Iron 3,623 µg /L 180 µg /L 95% 150 µg/L 300 µg/L

Manganese <2 µg /L 5.3 µg /L None 25 µg/L 50 µg/L a Values represent average conditions; variations were experienced during backwash events. Raw water iron is the filter inlet concentration µg/L = micrograms per liter

The system operated at filter loading rates from 5.09 gpm/sf to 8.28 gpm/sf and averaged 5.9 gpm/sf. The average flowrate was approximately 5.1 gpm, and differential pressure was between 2-3 psi across all filter runs. Pre-filtered water iron concentrations (from ferrous chloride dosing) averaged approximately 3.62 mg/L and varied according to the scenario being tested.

5.2.1 Arsenic and Chromium Removal Laboratory data was used for calculating results. Where a result was less than the detection limit, the detection limit was used for the result.

Raw water arsenic concentrations were between 6.58 and 14.5 µg/L, with an average of 7.2 µg/L. Finished water arsenic was reduced to concentrations ranging from <1 µg/L to 4.6 µg/L, with an average of 1.7 µg/L. Average arsenic removal was 79 percent. The maximum arsenic concentration in the treated water was higher than expected because of a sudden rise in raw water arsenic concentration to 14.5 mg/L at 17:15 on September 9. This resulted in a spike in the treated water concentration of 4.60 µg/L which was still below the California standard of 10 µg/L. It is unknown what caused this change of water quality, but the raw water levels were reduced to normal levels the next day.

Raw water hexavalent chromium concentrations were 18.6 to 20.0 µg/L, with an average of 18.9 µg/L. Finished water hexavalent chromium was reduced to between 0.05 and 9.69 µg/L, with an average of 0.99 µg/L. Removal of hexavalent chromium averaged 95 percent throughout the pilot test. The maximum value of 9.69 µg/L was higher than expected because of a drop in the ferrous chloride dose to 0.35 mg/L as total iron at 10:30 am on August 25. This caused insufficient reduction of the hexavalent chromium to chromium III. Note that at this low coagulant dose condition, the hexavalent chrome concentration was still below the California standard of 10 µg/L.

Total chromium levels were also reduced below the treatment goal of 2 µg/L and averaged1.6 µg/L with an average removal of 91%

Page 42: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-8

Table 5-2. ATEC Pilot Testing Results from Cadiz Well 21N

Operating Results Raw Water Quality Finished Water Quality

Scenario Date Time Flow Loading Fe-Tot, PF

Comments As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

gpm gpm/sf mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L

1 8/25/2015 9:15 4.5 5.7 17.2 Testing performed to determine solution percent

1 8/25/2015 9:45 4.4 5.6 1.42 7.19 19.2 <2 <0.02 19.3 <1 <1 3.8 <0.02 0.57

1 8/25/2015 10:00 4.5 5.7 0.41 7 18.2 <2 <0.02 19.3 <1 1.94 3.8 <0.02 1.91

1 8/25/2015 10:30 4.5 5.7 0.35 7.06 19.3 <2 <0.02 19.3 <1 9 5.4 <0.02 9.69

1 8/25/2015 10:50 4.5 5.7 0.99 6.7 17.6 <2 <0.02 19.4 <1 5.36 8.9 0.027 4.72

1 8/25/2015 11:20 4.5 5.7 0.96 7.4 19.5 <2 <0.02 19.2 <1 1.19 6 0.045 0.96

1 8/25/2015 11:45 4.6 5.9 1.84

1 8/25/2015 12:00 4.5 5.7 1.55 6.86 18.3 <2 <0.02 19.1 1.02 1.19 15.1 0.102 0.52

1 8/25/2015 12:20 4.5 5.7 2.05 7.1 19.2 <2 <0.02 19.1 1.04 1.29 18 0.132 0.4

1 8/25/2015 13:30 4.4 5.6 2.87 7 18.8 <2 <0.02 19.5 1.13 1.48 19.4 0.145 0.32

1 8/25/2015 14:00 4.6 5.9 2.44 7.19 19.5 <2 <0.02 19.6 1.18 1.48 6.1 0.148 0.67

1 8/25/2015 14:20 4.5 5.7 2.76 7.16 19.1 <2 <0.02 19.2 1.2 1.46 13 0.18 0.27

6.58 17.6 <2 <0.02 18.6 1.24 1.13 15.6 0.164 0.25

Backwash 8/27/2015 8:20

2 8/27/2015 9:08 4 5.1 2.12 8.32 19.5 <2 <0.02 19.1

2 8/27/2015 9:40 4.9 6.2 6.23 2.04 <1 <2 0.026

2 8/27/2015 10:00 5.4 6.9 6.3 <1 <1 <2 0.04

2 8/27/2015 11:00 4.3 5.5 6.4 19.3 <1 <1 <2 0.059 0.27

Page 43: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-9

Operating Results Raw Water Quality Finished Water Quality

Scenario Date Time Flow Loading Fe-Tot, PF

Comments As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

gpm gpm/sf mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L

2 8/27/2015 12:00 4.5 5.7 3.72 <1 <1 <2 0.214 0.18

2 8/27/2015 12:30 5 6.4 2.39

2 8/27/2015 13:00 4.6 5.9 3.48 8.3 19.1 19.2 2.18 <1 2.2 0.276 0.15

Backwash 8/27/2015 13:30 Issues with new diesel generator

2 9/9/2015 9:30 4.6 5.9 2.23 Testing performed to determine solution percent

2 9/9/2015 10:00 4.3 5.5 8.07 7.25 18.2 19.3 1.4 <1 <2 <0.02 0.92

2 9/9/2015 10:30 4.9 6.2 6.25

2 9/9/2015 11:18 4.9 6.2 5.06 7.05 17.9 <2 <0.02 20 1.45 <1 <2 0.144

2 9/9/2015 11:30 4.6 5.9 5.02

2 9/9/2015 12:00 4.9 6.2 3 Target FeCl2 dose achieved

7.14 17.7 <2 <0.02 20 1.57 <1 <2 0.18 0.18

2 9/9/2015 12:30 5 6.4 2.88 7.16 17.4 20 1.59 <1 <2 0.143 0.17

2 9/9/2015 13:00 4.6 5.9 3.05 Generator ran out of fuel

6.99 17.4 <2 <0.02 19.9 1.66 <1 <2 0.151 0.15

2 9/9/2015 15:05 4.5 5.7 3.15 6.92 17.3 19.5 2.01 <1 <2 0.329 0.21

Backwash 9/9/2015 15:25

2 9/9/2015 16:00 4.5 5.7 3.08

2 9/9/2015 16:30 4.4 5.6 3.14

2 9/9/2015 17:15 4.4 5.6 2.97 14.5 35.3 <2 <0.02 19.8 4.58 3.77 6.1 0.585a 0.06

Page 44: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-10

Operating Results Raw Water Quality Finished Water Quality

Scenario Date Time Flow Loading Fe-Tot, PF

Comments As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

gpm gpm/sf mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L

Backwash 9/10/2015 9:05

3 9/10/2015 11:45 4.6 5.9 2.81 14.1 35.2 19.4 2.37 1.74 <2 0.583 0.06

3 9/10/2015 12:18 4.6 5.9 3.28 7.18 17.7 <2 <0.02 19.9 1.98 1.17 <2 0.442 0.05

3 9/10/2015 13:25 4.3 5.5 3.5 7.26 17.8 <2 <0.02 19.4 1.78 <1 <2 0.315 0.55

3 9/10/2015 13:55 5.2 6.6 2.85 7.1 17.4 <2 <0.02 19.2 1.84 <1 <2 0.266 0.12

3 9/10/2015 14:55 4.6 5.9 3.5 7.26 17.9 <2 <0.02 19.8 1.65 <1 <2 0.208 0.5

3 9/10/2015 15:15 4.4 5.6 3.22 6.99 18.2 <2 13.9 19.8 1.51 <1 <2 0.161 0.15

3 9/10/2015 16:00 4.6 5.9 3.09 7.32 18 <2 <0.02 19.8 1.57 <1 <2 0.153 0.27

3 9/10/2015 16:20 4.5 5.7 3 6.96 17.4 <2 <0.02 19.9 1.51 <1 <2 0.13 0.12

Backwash 11/19/2015 7:00

4 11/19/2015 8:30 5.4 6.9 35.8 Testing performed to determine stock solution %

4 11/19/2015 9:00 5.8 7.4 18.3 1.69 3.6 3.4 0.225 1.22

4 11/19/2015 9:30 5.4 6.9 5.4

4 11/19/2015 10:00 5.6 7.1 1.49 1.78 3.32 1.13

4 11/19/2015 10:30 5.4 6.9 1.47

4 11/19/2015 11:00 5.6 7.1 1.5 1.56 2.39 1.28

4 11/19/2015 12:00 5.1 6.5 1.52 1.56 1.76 0.98

4 11/19/2015 13:00 5.6 7.1 1.62 1.65 2.58 1.69

4 11/19/2015 14:00 5.6 7.1 2.35 2.02 3.66 2.7 0.142 1.82

Page 45: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-11

Operating Results Raw Water Quality Finished Water Quality

Scenario Date Time Flow Loading Fe-Tot, PF

Comments As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

As (Total)

Cr (Total)

Mn (Total)

Fe (Total)

Cr+6 (Diss)

gpm gpm/sf mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L

4 11/19/2015 14:30 5.3 6.8 1.27

4 11/19/2015 15:00 5.8 7.4 1.24

4 11/19/2015 16:00 5.9 7.6 1.14 2.49 4.86

4 11/19/2015 17:00 6.5 8.2 1.42

4 11/19/2015 18:00 6.5 8.3 1.33 1.18

4 11/19/2015 19:00 6.4 8.1 2.05

4 11/19/2015 20:00 6.4 8.2 1.3 1.2

Backwash 11/19/2015 20:05

4 11/19/2015 21:00 6.1 7.8 0.69 2.67b 6.33b 2.6 0.162 2.92

4 11/19/2015 22:00 6.4 8.2 1.65 2.52 2.36 0.48

4 11/20/2015 0:00 6.4 8.1 1.95 2.15 2.09 0.81

4 11/20/2015 1:00 6.4 8.2 1.18 2.2 2.37 1.1

4 11/20/2015 2:00 6.5 8.2 1.28 2.33b 3.14b <2 0.095 1.54

4 11/20/2015 3:00 6.2 7.9 1.31 1.34

4 11/20/2015 4:00 6.4 8.1 1.14 2.48 1.59 0.3

4 11/20/2015 5:00 6.3 8 2.98 0.31

4 11/20/2015 5:30 6.3 8 1.86

As = arsenic Cr = chromium Mn = manganese Cr+6 = hexavalent chromium a Note that 3-TW7 was sampled following the backwash and shows that the backwash was incomplete b Concentration represents the average value from two samples taken simultaneously

Page 46: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-12

Raw water total chromium averaged 19.6 µg/L, and finished water total chromium was reduced to concentrations ranging from non-detect to 9 µg/L, with an average of 2.05 µg/L. The California standard for total chromium is 50 µg/L. Removal of total chromium averaged 89.5 percent.

Small amounts of manganese (less than the secondary standard of 50 µg/L) were found in the finished water samples on several occasions. Table 5-3 contains mass balance calculations for manganese accumulation on the filter media on those dates when backwash water was also tested. According to these calculations, the filter media is the main source, as the ferrous chloride solution accounts for only 4 to 17 percent of the manganese measured in the backwash water. The new manganese dioxide media was apparently insufficiently washed after installation, resulting in some additional manganese fines in the backwash water. Testing conducted in November with previously used media resulted in treated water manganese levels of less than 3.5 µg/L.

Table 5-3. Mass Balance of Manganese Backwash Water and Contribution from Ferrous Chloride

Date Time Elapsed min

Segment min

Flow gpm

Mn-Tot µg/L

Accum Mn-Tot (ug)

Notes

8/27/2015 8:30 0 0 Begin Filter Run

8/27/2015 9:40 70 70 4.9 50.4 65346

8/27/2015 10:00 90 20 5.4 43.6 17799

8/27/2015 11:00 150 60 4.3 34.0 33158

8/27/2015 12:00 210 60 4.5 18.0 18371

8/27/2015 13:00 270 60 4.6a 12.0 12519

8/27/2015 13:30 300 30 4.6a 10.0a 5216 End Filter Run

Sum = 152410 µg Mn-Tot

Expected Manganese concentration in a 5 min BW at 5 gpm= 1610 µg/L Mn-Tot (calc)

Mn-Tot Concentration in Backwash from Ferrous Chloride Solution = 336 µg/L Mn-Tot (calc)

Mn-Tot Measured in Backwash = 2900 - 9500 µg/L Mn-Tot (measured)

a Values extrapolated from data; not measured directly

Table 5-4 shows the percent removal during each laboratory sampling event over the pilot testing period.

Table 5-4. Percent Removal of Arsenic, Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium during Testing Date Time Arsenic Removal Total Chromium

Removal Hexavalent Chromium

Removal

8/25/2015 9:45 86.1% a 94.8% a 97.0%

8/25/2015 10:00 85.7% a 89.3% 90.1%

8/25/2015 10:30 85.8% a 53.4% 49.8%

8/25/2015 10:50 85.1% a 69.5% 75.7%

8/25/2015 11:20 86.5% a 93.9% 95.0%

8/25/2015 12:00 85.1% 93.5% 97.3%

8/25/2015 12:50 85.4% 93.3% 97.9%

8/25/2015 13:50 83.9% 92.1% 98.3%

Page 47: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-13

Date Time Arsenic Removal Total Chromium Removal

Hexavalent Chromium Removal

8/25/2015 14:00 83.6% 92.4% 96.6%

8/25/2015 14:20 83.2% 92.4% 98.6%

8/25/2015 14:50 81.2% 93.6% 98.7%

8/27/2015 9:40 75.5% 94.8% a

8/27/2015 11:00 98.6%

8/27/2015 13:00 73.7% 94.8% a 99.2%

9/9/2015 10:00 80.7% 94.5% a 95.3%

9/9/2015 11:18 79.4% 94.4% a

9/9/2015 12:00 78.0% 94.4% a 99.1%

9/9/2015 12:30 77.8% 94.3% a 99.2%

9/9/2015 13:00 76.3% 94.3% a 99.3%

9/9/2015 15:05 71.0% 94.2% a 98.9%

9/9/2015 17:15 68.4% 89.3% 99.7%

9/10/2015 11:45 83.2% 95.1% 99.7%

9/10/2015 12:18 72.4% 93.4% 99.7%

9/10/2015 13:25 75.5% 94.4% a 97.2%

9/10/2015 13:55 74.1% 94.3% a 99.4%

9/10/2015 14:55 77.3% 94.4% a 97.5%

9/10/2015 15:15 78.4% 94.5% a 99.2%

9/10/2015 16:00 78.6% 94.4% a 98.6%

9/10/2015 16:20 78.3% 94.3% a 99.4%

11/19/2015 11:00 78.0% 82.8% 93.8%

11/19/2015 16:00 72.1% 81.8%

11/19/2015 18:00 94.0%

11/19/2015 21:00 63.9% 69.1% 85.2%

11/20/2015 1:00 94.4%

11/20/2015 2:00 68.3% 84.8%

a To calculate the removal percentage, non-detect lab results were replaced with the detection limit value. Actual removal percentages may be higher.

Hexavalent chromium and arsenic removal data is shown at various ferrous chloride doses in Figure 5-9. Removal was consistently above 90% at iron doses above 1 mg/L. Arsenic removal was generally steady across all ferrous chloride doses, though there is a wide range of removal percentages at each dose.

Based on these pilot testing results, it is concluded that the treatment system is effective at removing both arsenic and hexavalent chromium simultaneously.

Page 48: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

5-14 CH2M

Figure 5-9. Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic Removal at Various Ferrous Chloride Doses

5.2.2 Iron Removal This section analyzes the ability of the ATEC pressure filters to remove iron that was added in the coagulant chemical.

A plot of the iron removal for the five days of pilot testing is shown in Figures 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, and 5-15. The ferrous chloride dose is measured as total iron to compare to the finished water total iron concentration. Finished water iron concentrations ranged from non-detectable to 0.59 mg/L and averaged 0.17 mg/L, resulting in an average removal of 94 percent. High iron concentrations were measured throughout the pilot study because of the following factors: (1) the pilot plan called for testing of a wide range of ferrous chloride doses, resulting in a higher loading of iron than would normally be experienced; (2) the pilot plan called for testing past filter breakthrough, so filters were allowed to continue running past their recommended filter volume; (3) iron was being released from the lower regions of the filter that had not been sufficiently backwashed, which is evidenced by the slow decrease in iron concentration on September 10 as the filters cleared themselves of residual iron.

Despite the high iron loading rates and breakthrough conditions at various times throughout the pilot study, the ATEC treatment system still meet treatment objectives for arsenic and hexavalent chromium removal as previously shown.

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4

% R

emov

al

Ferrous Chloride Dose as Fe-Tot (mg/L)

Hexavalent Chromium Removal Arsenic Removal

90% Removal Achieves Treatment Goal of 2 ug/L for Hexavalent Chromium

Page 49: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-15

5.3 Filter Run Lengths The filter run lengths achieved were limited by operational and water quality constraints. In the pilot testing unit filter run volumes of 3,700 and 5100 gal/sq ft were achieved in the November 19th and 20th test runs. Little or no headloss build up was noted during the filter runs. It is expected that there is a balance between ferrous chloride dose and filter run length. The lack of headloss buildup during all of the filter runs indicates that a filter aid polymer could potentially be effective at extending filter runs. At other locations using ATEC filters with raw water iron concentrations exceeding 1 mg/L, longer filter runs are often seen, as shown in Table 5-4. Unit filter run volumes of greater than 5,000 gal/sq foot should be easily achievable and 10,000 gal/sq foot could potentially be reached, with additional testing or operational optimization of a full-scale system. For conceptual design, discussed in Section 6, a conservative assumption of f 6 hours filter runs has been used.

Figure 5-11. August 25, 2015 Iron Removal Figure 5-12. August 27, 2015 Iron Removal

Figure 5-102. September 9, 2015 Iron Removal

Figure 5-13. September 10, 2015 Iron Removal

Figure 5-14. Run 1, November 19, 2015 Iron Removal

Figure 5-145. Run 2, November 19, 2015 Iron Removal

Page 50: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

5-16 CH2M

Table 5-4. Full-Scale Systems with Iron Concentrations above 1 mg/L and Filter Run Lengths

Location Well Capacity gpm (m3/hr)

Loading Rate gpm/sq ft

(m/hr)

Raw Water Iron Conc.

mg/L

Backwash Frequency

Hours of Run Time

Unit Filter Run Volume

gal/sq ft

Jefferson County PUD, WA 12 31 (8) 9.9 (26) 1.5 12 7128

Battle Ground, WA 8-Jul 2,000 (537) 13.3 (34) 1.21 8 6384

City of Batavia, IL 6,7,8 4,500 (1,208) 8.96 (23) 2.157 12 6451

5.4 ATEC Backwash Water Results Backwash water is characterized in Table 5-5. Each filter vessel was backwashed for five minutes at a loading rate of 28 gpm/sf (equal to 5.5 gpm for a 6” column). The sample water was grab samples collected during at various times during the backwash cycle.

Table 5-5. ATEC Backwash Water Characterization

Sample ID Date Time As-Tot µg/L

Cr-Tot µg/L

Mn-Tot µg/L

Fe-Tot mg/L

Cr6 µg/L

TSS mg/L

2-BW1-A 27-Aug 8:20 132 760 9540 286 19.9 824

2-BW1-B 27-Aug 8:20 137 830 8740 320 20.0 744

2-BW1-C 27-Aug 8:20 814

2-BW2 27-Aug 13:30 226 826 0.166 148

3-BW1 9-Sep 15:25 135 473 2910 180 0.170 72

Arsenic concentrations ranged from 132 to 226 µg/L, with an average value of 159 µg/L. Chromium concentrations ranged from 470 to 830 µg/L, with an average value of 722 µg/L.

Iron concentrations ranged from 180 to 320 mg/L, with an average value of 262 mg/L. The fluctuation in these numbers could be a result of the variability of dosing on August 25 and 27. Manganese concentrations ranged from 2,900 to 9,540 µg/L. It is hypothesized that as the filter media was rinsed, the accumulation of manganese from the manganese dioxide granules lessened, as evidenced by the reduction in Mn-Tot concentration from August 27 to September 9, 2015.

Hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from 0.166 to 20.0 µg/L. The high values may occur as total chromium is oxidized after the backwash waste was removed from the filter media and exposed to the air. Total suspended solids concentrations ranged from 72 to 824 mg/L, with an average value of 520 mg/L.

Because of high loading of metals and solids in the backwash, it is recommended that the backwash water be sent to settling ponds with floating decant (As shown in Figure 5-16) and then either recycled to the front of the water treatment plant or blended with additional well water for irrigation of the Cadiz farm operation. Table 5-6 shows recommended metals water quality for irrigation, as well as potential dilution ratio with native groundwater to achieve the recommended levels.

Page 51: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 5 – PILOT TESTING RESULTS

CH2M 5-17

Figure 5-16 – Floating Decant with Plate Settlers, used for backwash clarification.

Table 5-6 would be used if the backwash water was to be used without settling as part of the irrigation water. However, because the dilution ratios are fairly high for iron and manganese, it is more likely that water would be settled in a backwash holding pond prior to using the clarified water for irrigation supply.

Table 5-6. Recommended Irrigation Levels and Dilution Factors for Backwash Water

Parameter Units Irrigation Limits Average Backwash Concentration

Dilution Ratio with Additional Irrigation Water Needed

Arsenic mg/L 0.1 0.158 0.62

Chromium mg/L 0.1 0.722 6.34

Iron mg/L 5.0 262 51.40

Manganese mg/L 0.2 7.063 34.32

Source: Ayers, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1989. Water Quality for Agriculture (FAO 29). FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 rev. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Page 52: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 6

CH2M 6-1

Conceptual Design of Facilities 6.1 Summary This Section 6 presents treatment costs, with equipment provided by ATEC Systems (ATEC), for reducing levels of chromium-6 and arsenic in the Cadiz groundwater supply. The ATEC system uses steel pressure filter vessels filled with manganese dioxide media. The use of pressure filters allows for the conservation of energy whereas the gravity filters require additional pumping. The capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) cost estimates for the ATEC treatment system are significantly lower than other published costs (Blute, 2012)

6.1.1 Treatment System Options The treatment system uses process equipment supplied by ATEC. Pilot tests have been conducted for using this system to confirm the treatment effectiveness and process sizing as described above.

6.1.2 Water Delivery Options There are two production rate options. One option is to size the plant for a maximum delivery rate of 50,000 acre feet per year (AFY). The second option is to size the plant for a maximum delivery rate of 75,000 AFY; however, in each case, the annual production will average 50,000 AFY over the 50-year operating period of the Water Project. The annual delivery rate will be accomplished over either a 10-month or 11-month period for the 50,000 AFY option and over an 11-month period for the 75,000 AFY option.

Because the treatment systems can reduce levels of chromium-6 and arsenic to well below drinking water standards, a blending option is presented. A portion of the raw water supply can be routed through the treatment plant and a portion can bypass the treatment plant, with the two flow streams blended downstream of the treatment facility. The blended water would have chromium-6 and arsenic levels below the drinking water standards but not as low as with treatment of the full supply. It is likely that MET will require treatment of the full flow to avoid or minimize degradation of MET’s water in the CRA.

The following naming conventions has been adopted for the resulting six delivery options:

• 50.10.F (50,000 AFY delivered over a 10-month period, with treatment of the full flow)

• 50.10.B (50,000 AFY delivered over a 10-month period, with blending of treated and untreated water)

• 50.11.F (50,000 AFY delivered over an 11-month period, with treatment of the full flow)

• 50.11.B (50,000 AFY delivered over an 11-month period, with blending of treated and untreated water)

• 75.11.F (75,000 AFY delivered over an 11-month period, with treatment of the full flow)

• 75.11.B (75,000 AFY delivered over an 11-month period, with blending of treated and untreated water)

These six delivery options are summarized in Table 6-1, with various units shown for the maximum design flow rates.

Page 53: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 6 – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FACILITIES

6-2 CH2M

Table 6-1. Maximum Design Flow Rates

Delivery Option 50.10.F 50.10.B 50.11.F 50.11.B 75.11.F 75.11.B

Maximum Annual Delivery, AFY

50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000

Operating Period, Mos 10 10 11 11 11 11

Treated Flow Full Blended Full Blended Full Blended

Maximum Flow Rate, cfs 83 41 75 38 113 57

Maximum Flow Rate, gpm 37,000 19,000 34,000 17,000 51,000 26,000

Maximum Flow Rate, mgd 54 27 49 24 73 37

6.2 Water Quality Standards The contaminants of concern are total chromium, chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium), and arsenic. The treated water quality must comply with the drinking water limits (maximum contaminant levels) for these contaminants, which could be accomplished by treatment of only part of the flow, followed by blending. Alternatively, MET may require that treatment of the full production flow is necessary.

Additionally, iron and manganese may be present in the raw well water or added through the treatment process. Iron and manganese are regulated in drinking water for their aesthetic impacts and not for health concerns.

The regulatory limits for the parameters are listed in Table 6-2. There are primary standards for chromium, chromium-6, and arsenic. Primary standards are established to protect public health. Secondary, non-health based standards for iron and manganese are also listed in Table 6-2. Cadiz has set a treatment goal of 2 µg/L for total and hexavalent chromium. A treatment goal of 2 µg/L is similar to the treatment goal that was established in testing completed by MET in 2015 to achieve at least 90% removal in the finished water using RCF treatment (Sun Liang and Shannon M. Macieko, 2015). Cadiz has set a treatment goal of 3 µg/L for Arsenic, which is comparable to the levels in CRA water. Goals for iron and manganese were set at half the current secondary standards or 150 and 25 µg/L respectively.

Table 6-2. Preliminary Treatment Goals

Parameter California Standard Federal Standard California Public Health Goal

Criteria for Treated Cadiz Water

Chromium, Total (includes both chromium-6 and chromium-3)

50 µg/L 100 µg/L None <2 µg/L

Chromium-6 10 µg/L None 0.02 µg/L <2 µg/L

Arsenic 10 µg/L 10 µg/L 0.004 µg/L <3 µg/L for Full Treatment and <10 µg/L for Blended

Options

Iron 300 µg/L (secondary) 300 µg/L (secondary) None 150 µg/L

Manganese 50 µg/L (secondary) 50 µg/L (secondary) None 25 µg/L

Note: µg/L = micrograms per liter

Page 54: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 6 – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FACILITIES

CH2M 6-3

Well 21N supplied water for the pilot tests. Its average chromium-6 level during the tests was approximately 20 µg/L. The pilot testing results indicated that the treatment system is capable of reducing chromium-6 levels to less than 1.0 µg/L. Based on sampling conducted from other wells, it has been estimated that the overall wellfield average raw water chromium-6 level is 13.4 µg/L. For a raw water level of 13.4 µg/L and a treated water level of 1.0 µg/L, a blend of 50 percent treated and 50 percent untreated would result in a treated water chromium-6 level of 7.2 µg/L, which is below the drinking water standard of 10 µg/L. While it may be possible to treat less than 50 percent and still comply with the drinking water standard, the 50/50 blend provides a small safety factor. The raw water chromium-6, total chromium, and arsenic levels will vary depending on the wells being used and long-term pumping impacts on groundwater quality. Also, the full-scale treatment results may vary from pilot test results. These factors suggest that the treatment system should include some conservative factors in the design and/or the flexibility to modify the system to improve performance if the need arises.

6.3 Conceptual Design Using ATEC System Preliminary design criteria for a full-scale plant are shown in Table 6-1 based on pilot test results. Values are illustrated for a flow of 54, 49 and 73 million gallons per day (mgd) using vertical pressure filter vessels and a loading rate of 6 gpm/sf. The 54 mgd-flow-rate is the daily production rate for delivery option 50.10.F, 50.11.F and 75.11.F which means 50,000 or 75,000 acre-feet delivered over a 10 or 11-month period, with treatment of the full flow.

In addition to the equipment supplied by ATEC (or a similar package from another vendor), the system will require a ferrous chloride chemical injection system including metering pumps, day tank, bulk tank, and an air injection system, including a side stream booster pump, air injector, and mass flow controller to control air flow into the system.

Table 6-1. ATEC Treatment System Preliminary Design Criteria

Parameter 50,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 10 Mos

50,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 11 Mos

75,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 11 Mos

Capacity (mgd) 54 49 73

Plant Capacity (gpm) 37,500 34,028 50,694

Peak Day Run Time (hours/day) 24 24 24

Average Day Run Time (hours/day) 24 24 24

Pressure Filters

Filter Surface Area Required (sq ft) 6,875 6,238 9,294

Loading Rate (gpm/sf) 6 6 6

Media Depth (in) 42 42 42

Media (cubic feet) 24,063 21,834 32,529

Media Weight (tons) 1,540 1,397 2,082

Backwash

Minimum Backwash Frequency (Hours) 6 6 6

Backwash Loading Rate (gpm/sf) 28 28 28

Backwash Duration (min) 5 5 5

Page 55: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 6 – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FACILITIES

6-4 CH2M

Parameter 50,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 10 Mos

50,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 11 Mos

75,000 AFY, Full Treatment, 11 Mos

Backwash Volume (Gal/Backwash) 962,500 873,380 1,301,157

Number of Backwashes Per Day 4 4 4

Backwash (Percent of Production) 7% 7% 7%

Equalization Pond Volume (Gal) 2,410,000 2,190,000 3,260,000

Ferrous Chloride

Solution Strength 40% 40% 40%

Contact Time (min) 2 2 2

Solution Feed Rate (gal/hr) each 11 10 15

Solution Feed Pumps 1 1 1

Solution Feed Pump Capacity (gph) each 17 15 23

Day Tanks 1 1 1

Day Tank Volume (gal) 2000 2000 2000

Peak Day - Day Tank Holding Time (days) 7 8 5

Bulk Tanks 1 1 1

Bulk Tank Volume (gal) 10000 10000 10000

Peak Day - Bulk Tank Holding Time (days) 37 41 27

Air Injection

Stoichiometry (mg O2/mf Fe) 0.14 0.14 0.14

Oxygen Dose Required (mg/L) 0.48 0.48 0.48

Mass transfer efficiency 0.5 0.5 0.5

Target Oxygen Residual (mg/L) 0.2 0.2 0.2

Oxygen Needed (mg/L) 1.15 1.15 1.15

Oxygen from Air (lb/scf) 0.08 0.08 0.08

Air Delivery Required (scf/gal) 1.16E-04 1.16E-04 1.16E-04

Max Injector Air Flow (slpm) 84 76 114

Contact Time (min) 2 2 2

6.3.1 ATEC System Operation and Design Criteria The ATEC system relies on reduction of chromium-6 to chromium-3, followed by oxidation and filtration of chromium-3. The filtration stage removes the precipitated chromium-3, arsenic, and iron (the iron having been introduced through the ferrous chloride addition). It uses pressure filters and takes advantage of the pressure of the raw water feed as the driving force through the filters. The excess head is retained so this system does not require finished water pumping. Ferrous chloride is added to reduce chromium-6 to chromium-3, followed by the introduction of air to oxidize and precipitate the chromium.

Page 56: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 6 – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FACILITIES

CH2M 6-5

6.4 Backwash Waste Flow Handling There will be a waste flow from the filter backwashing process used with the ATEC treatment system. According to information supplied by the equipment manufacturer and based on CH2M’s experience with this system, the estimated quantity of backwash waste produced by this system is summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Estimated Backwash Waste Volumes, mgd

Option ATEC Systems

Full Flow Treatment Options 2.5 to 3.7 million gallons per day

Blended Flow Treatment Options 1.3 to 1.8 million gallons per day

The backwash water will contain coagulated ferric chloride particulates, dissolved iron, and trace amounts of total chromium, chromium-6, and arsenic. The levels of arsenic, chromium (total and chromium-6), iron, manganese, and fluoride may exceed recommended values for irrigating crops, and it is likely that the levels of iron may cause fouling of the existing micro-sprinklers at the site.

Therefore, the proposed plan for backwash waste handling is to provide backwash settling basins that may be operated as flow through basins or alternating fill and draw basins. Table 6-3 shows the dry weight solids produced each year for each of the alternatives.

Table 6-3. Dry Weight Solids Produced Per Year

Delivery Option 50.10.F 50.10.B 50.11.F 50.11.B 75.11.F 75.11.B

Maximum Flow Rate, mgd 54 27 49 24 73 37

Dry Weight Solids Produced, Tons per Year 123 62 112 55 167 85

Page 57: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 7

CH2M 7-1

Cost Estimates 7.1 Costs for ATEC Systems Treatment Capital costs for the two ATEC operating periods are presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. CAPEX estimates were developed using vendor-supplied quotes and CH2M’s internal water treatment estimating software (CPES). They include sales tax at 7.75 percent. The tables provide estimated CAPEX for the six water delivery options described earlier in this memorandum.

Table 7-1. CAPEX Estimates for ATEC System for 10-month Operating Period

Option 50.10.F 50.10.B

Fully Burdened Construction Cost $23,900,000 $12,200,000

Note: Does not include construction contingency or Owner costs, such as engineering and construction management; legal; right-of-way mitigation monitoring; and similar items.

Table 7-2. CAPEX Estimates for ATEC System for 11-month Operating Period

Option 50.11.F 50.11.B 75.11.F 75.11.B

Fully Burdened Construction Cost $21,800,000 $11,000,000 $32,000,000 $16,300,000

Note: Does not include construction contingency or Owner costs, such as engineering and construction management; legal; right-of-way mitigation monitoring; and similar items.

OPEX costs account for electricity, chemicals, lab analyses, property taxes, maintenance, and labor. The labor cost was set equal for each option and assumed the use of two full time equivalent employees. The level of staffing and rate per full time equivalent should be reviewed and adjusted as appropriate. Analytical costs were also set equal for each option, and assumed an expenditure of $4,000 per month during the operating period (10 or 11 months per year, depending on the delivery option). Annual property tax was estimated at 1.2 percent of the fully burdened construction cost. Annual maintenance was estimated at 1.0 percent of the fully burdened construction cost. The OPEX estimates are summarized in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3.OPEX Comparison for Treatment Systems ATEC Systems Annual Costs

Item 50.10.F 50.10.B 50.11.F 50.11.B 75.11.F 75.11.B

Electricity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Chemicals 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000

Labor 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

Analytical Allowance 40,000 40,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000

Maintenance 239,000 122,000 218,000 110,000 320,000 163,000

Subtotal O&M 526,000 409,000 509,000 401,000 611,000 454,000

Property Taxes at 1.2% of Construction 287,000 146,000 262,000 132,000 348,000 196,000

Annual OPEX $813,000 $555,000 $771,000 $533,000 $959,000 $650,000

Page 58: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

SECTION 7 – COST ESTIMATES

7-2 CH2M

7.2 Cost per Acre Foot Costs per acre-foot were developed using the construction and annual O&M costs provided above. The construction costs were assumed to be financed through issuance of a 20-year bond with a 5% interest rate. The combined annual cost included the annual payment of construction plus the annual O&M cost. The costs per acre-foot are shown in Table 7-4. These costs do not include non-construction costs such as design, and do not include contingencies. The O&M costs do not include residuals disposal costs.

Table 7-4: Cadiz Treatment Costs Per Acre-Foot

Option 50.10.F 50.10.B 50.11.F 50.11.B 75.11.F 75.11.B

Fully Burdened Construction Cost $23,900,000 $12,200,000 $21,800,000 $11,000,000 $32,000,000 $16,300,000

Annual O&M $810,000 $560,000 $770,000 $530,000 $1,000,000 $650,000

Annual Bond Payment $1,917,798 $978,960 $1,749,288 $882,668 $2,567,763 $1,307,954

Total Annual Cost $2,727,798 $1,538,960 $2,519,288 $1,412,668 $3,567,763 $1,957,954

Cost per Acre Foot Delivered $54.56 $30.78 $50.39 $28.25 $47.57 $26.11

Page 59: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

CH2M 8-1

References Blute, N.K.; Wu, X.; Porter, K.; Imamura, G.; & McGuire, M.J., 2013. Hexavalent Chromium Removal Research Project Report. Submitted to California Department of Public Health. www.glendalewaterandpower.com/about/chromium6_report_appendices.aspx

(Accessed August 5, 2013).

Blute, N.; Wu, X.; Visosky, T.; & DeWolfe, J., 2012. Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Residuals Management. Association of California Water Agencies. www.acwa.com/sites/default/files/news/water-quality/2012/04/acwa-cr6-report-final-appendices-032712_1.pdf(Accessed August 5, 2013).

Corona Environmental Consulting in April 2015. Pilot Testing for California Water Service Company

Edwards, M. & Benjamin, M.M., 1989. Adsorptive Filtration Using Coated Sand: A New Approach for Treatment of metal-Bearing Wastes. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 61:9:1523.

Drago, J.A., 2001. Technology and Cost Analysis for Hexavalent Chromium Removal from Drinking Water Supplies, AWWA Water Quality and Technology Conference, Nashville, TN.

Lee, G.H. & Hering, J.G., 2005. Oxidative Dissolution of Chromium(III) Hydroxide at pH 9, 3, and 2 with Product Inhibition at pH 2. Environmental Science & Technology, 39:13:4921.

Ling, Sun and Macieko, 2015, Hexavalent Chromium Removal through Conventional Filtration Treatment Processes, Journal AWWA, 2015, April, Pages E210-E223.

McGuire, M.; Blute, N.; & Qin, G., 2007. Hexavalent Chromium Removal Using Anion Exchange and Reduction With Coagulation and Filtration. Water Research Foundation Report 91193, Denver.

McGuire, M.; Blute, N.; Seidel, C.; Qin, G.; & Fong, L., 2006. Pilot-Scale Studies of Hexavalent Chromium Removal From Drinking Water. Journal AWWA, 98:2:134.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), 2011. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI). California Environmental Protection Agency. http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/Cr6PHG072911.pdf(Accessed August 5, 2013).

Chad J. Seidel, Issam N. Najm, Nicole K. Blute, Christopher J. Corwin, and Xueying Wu, National and California treatment costs to comply with potential hexavalent chromium MCLs Journal AWWA http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0080

(Accessed August 5, 2013).

Seidel, C.J. & Corwin, C.J., 2013. Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence Analysis. Journal AWWA, 105:6:E310. http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0050(Accessed August 5, 2013).

Sharma, S.K., Petrusevski, B. & Amy, G., 2008. Chromium Removal from Water: A Review.

Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA, 57:8:541.

Water Research Foundation, 2016 Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Regulatory Update and Treatment Options

Page 60: Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Report - Pilot Testing for Chrome 6... · Pilot Testing for Hexavalent Chromium Removal Prepared for Cadiz, Inc October 2016

Contact:

Lee [email protected]

www.ch2m.com