Lompoc_Salts_Mgt_Plan_010611.pdf

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 1

C I T Y O F L O M P O C

Salinity Management Study and Plan

Submitted to:

CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Prepared by:

LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan i January 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………. iii

1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………... 1-1

Regulatory Background and Requirements….……………………………...………… 1-1 Overview of Service Area and Hydrology…………………………………………… 1-2

Salinity Management Plan Organization……………………………………………… 1-2

2.0 Effluent and Receiving Water Quality Data…………………………………………… 2-1 Facility Effluent and Receiving Water Quality Results………..……………………... 2-1

Total Dissolved Solids……................................................................................ 2-1 Chloride……..………………………………………….................................... 2-3 Sodium…………..…………………………………………………………….. 2-5 Sulfate………………………..………………………………………………... 2-7

Boron………………………………………………………………………….. 2-8

3.0 Source Identification…………………………………………………………………….. 3-1

Existing Data Collection……………………………………………………………… 3-1 Additional Data Collection…………………………………………………………... 3-2 Summary by Constituent……………………………………………………………... 3-7

Total Dissolved Solids………………………………………………………… 3-9 Chloride……………………………………………………………………….. 3-12 Sodium………………………………………………………………………… 3-15 Sulfate…………………………………………………………………………. 3-18 Boron…………………………………………………………………………. 3-21

Summary of Common Findings………………………………………………………. 3-24

4.0 Source Reduction Options……………………………………………………………... 4-1

Water Supply Options………………………………………………………………… 4-1

Water Treatment Plant Modifications………………………………………… 4-1 Source Water Alternatives…………………………………………………….. 4-3

Other Activities Options………………………………………………………………. 4-4 Conduct Boron Source ID…………………………………………………….. 4-4

Industrial Options…………………………………………………………………….. 4-5 Significant Industrial Users Outreach………………………………………… 4-5

Water Softener Options………………………………………………………………. 4-5 Public Education and Outreach……………………………………………….. 4-6 Water Softener Ban Ordinance……………………………………………….. 4-6

Facility Options………………………………………………………………………. 4-6 MF/RO Wastewater Treatment……………………………………………….. 4-6 Ocean Outfall Discharge……………………………………………………… 4-6 Groundwater Discharge………………………………………………………. 4-7 Water Recycling………………………………………………………………. 4-7

Summary of Options…………………………………………………………………. 4-8

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan ii January 2011

5.0 Proposal to Proceed…….……………………………………………………………….. 5-1

6.0 References……………………………………………………………………………….. 6-1

Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Existing and Additional Data Appendix B: Additional Data Collection Results Appendix C: Water Softener Calculation

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan iii January 2011

Executive Summary The City is required under Provision VI.C.6 of its current NPDES permit (Order No. R3-2006- 0037) to conduct a Salt Management Study for total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, boron, sodium, and sulfate. The purpose of this document is to meet the requirements of Provision VI.C.6 by summarizing effluent and receiving water monitoring data, characterizing source water supply and wastewater quality, and evaluating and identifying feasible source control strategies.

As part of the effluent data summary, a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) was conducted.

Results indicated that all five salts constituents have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of effluent limits and/or surface water quality objectives. Additionally, the percent reduction needed to meet effluent limits and surface water quality objectives was evaluated and is summarized in Table E-1. As indicated in Table E-1, no reductions are needed for sodium and chloride to meet effluent limits.

Table E-1. Estimated % Reductions Needed

Constituent Estimated % Reduction

Needed to Meet Effluent Limit

Estimated % Reduction Needed to Meet Surface Water

Quality Objective

TDS 7% 15%

Chloride 0% 61%

Sodium 0% 54%

Sulfate n/a 43%

Boron n/a 17%

Receiving water data revealed that water quality upstream and downstream of Facility effluent exceeds surface water quality objectives. This indicates that background levels of salt are elevated prior to contributions from Facility effluent.

In order to characterize source water supply and wastewater quality, existing data was compiled and data gaps were identified. Data gaps included boron concentrations in industrial and facility influent; chloride concentrations in industrial effluent; and TDS, chloride, sodium, sulfate and boron concentrations in residential and commercial effluent. To fill these gaps, additional monitoring was conducted in May and June 2010.

Using existing data and monitoring data collected as part of this study, a mass balance was developed to determine contributions to Facility influent. The mass balance found that there are elevated loadings of all salt constituents before any anthropogenic contributions (i.e., industrial, commercial, residential) from the City were included. For example, 88% of the TDS to the facility was found to be attributable to the water supply. These elevated contributions from source water were also seen for chloride (69%), sodium (75%), sulfate (107%), and boron (34%).

A summary of mass balance findings is provided in Table E-2.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan iv January 2011

Table E-2. Summary of Mass Balance Findings by Constituent

Source Constituent

TDS Chloride Sodium Sulfate Boron

Water Supply 88% 69% 75% 107% 34%

City, VVCSD, and VAFB Activities

Residential Water Softeners 2% 5% 7% n/a n/a

Industrial 7% 9% 9% 6% 2%

Other Activities 10% 46% 26% 24% 45%

Lastly, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential for source control to address necessary reductions and the main sources of salts loadings. The analysis ranked several implementation efforts from low to high efficacy by ease of implementation/feasibility. The source reduction analysis found that capital improvements (i.e., microfiltration/reverse osmosis, source water changes) are cost prohibitive and significant hurdles exist for implementation. The City identified modifications to the VVCSD water treatment plant, borax-free detergent outreach, significant industrial user outreach, a residential water softener removal program, and water recycling as effective as potential options for the Facility to reduce influent salinity loading.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 1-1 January 2011

Section 1

Introduction The City of Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Facility) operates under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0048127, Order No.

R3-2006-0037. Provision VI.C.6 of the NPDES permit requires the Facility to conduct a Salt Management Study for the following constituents:

total dissolved solids (TDS) chloride boron sodium sulfate

The goals of the Salts Management Study, as defined by Provision VI.C.6 of Order No. R3- 2006-0037, are to control “levels of salts in discharges from the wastewater treatment facility to San Miguelito Creek and the Santa Ynez River and [attain] applicable water quality objectives for salts in the Lompoc Plain Sub-basin of the Santa Ynez Drainage Basin.” The NPDES permit further specifies that the Salt Management Study:

summarize effluent and receiving water monitoring data characterize source water supply and wastewater quality evaluate alternative control strategies develop a Salt Management Plan

REGULATORY BACKGROUND AND REQUIREMENTS

For the Salts Management Study, several regulatory requirements come into play. According to the NDPES permit, the Facility is subject to effluent limitations for TDS, chloride, and sodium.

Similarly, the Facility’s NPDES permit specifies that “discharges shall not cause receiving water to exceed the following water quality objectives.” Table 1-1 displays effluent limits and surface water quality objectives in comparison with the Facility’s maximum effluent concentrations based on a 12-month running mean.

Table 1-1. Effluent Limitations and Surface Water Quality Objectives

Parameter Effluent Limitation Average Monthly1

(mg/L)

Surface Water Quality Objective2

(mg/L)

Maximum Effluent Concentration

12-Month Running Mean (mg/L)

TDS 1,100 1,000 1,181

Chloride 250 100 216 Sodium 270 100 258 Sulfate n/a 350 420 Boron n/a 0.4 0.7 1: Compliance is based on 12-month running means 2: Annual mean values

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 1-2 January 2011

OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA AND HYDROLOGY

The Facility is a tertiary treatment plant with an average dry weather flow design capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD). Influent is received from the City of Lompoc, Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), and the Vandenberg Village Community Services District (VVCSD).

VAFB and VVCSD contribute 0.63 and 0.5 MGD1, respectively to the Facility. Source water to the City primarily consists of well water with a small portion coming from Frick Springs. Frick Springs water is treated at the Frick Springs Water Treatment Plant which provides water to several residences in Miguelito Canyon and Miguelito County Park. VVCSD obtains its source water from wells while VAFB utilizes well water and State Water Project water (approximately 25% well water and 75% state water). It is estimated that approximately 5 – 10% of the City’s residents have water softeners compared to 40 – 60% of VVCSD’s residents. For the purposes of the study, it was assumed that VAFB has little to no water softeners.

The Santa Ynez River flows east to west through the Santa Ynez Valley, reaching the Pacific Ocean near VAFB and the City. Upstream of the Facility, the Santa Ynez River is generally dry during from June through October with the exception of water releases from the Bradbury Dam at Lake Cachuma. The major tributary to the Santa Ynez River in the City is San Miguelito Creek. San Miguelito Creek is spring fed, originates in the Lompoc Hills and approaches the City from the south. The Facility discharges to San Miguelito Creek approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with the Santa Ynez River. During dry months, the combined flow of San Miguelito Creek (if any) and the Facility effluent are the only flow in the Santa Ynez River downstream of the discharge point. These features are depicted in Figure 1-1.

SALINITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ORGANIZATION

As required by the NPDES permit, the major elements of this Plan include the following:

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Effluent and Receiving Water Quality Data

Section 2: Source Identification

Section 3: Source Reduction Options

Section 4: Proposal to Proceed

1 VVCSD and VAFB contributions include dry and wet weather flows

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 1-3 January 2011

Figure 1-1. City of Lompoc Locator Map

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-1 January 2011

Section 2

Effluent and Receiving Water Quality Data The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of effluent and receiving water quality data as required by NPDES permit Provision VI.C.6. Existing data was obtained from the Facility, Central Coast Conditional Agricultural Waiver Program (Ag Waiver Program), and Lompoc Molybdenum Study (Mo Study). At a minimum, the Facility monitors levels of TDS, chloride, sodium, sulfate and boron in the Facility on a quarterly basis. The Facility also monitors receiving waters (San Miguelito Creek) upstream and downstream of the Facility effluent. The Facility’s receiving water quality data was supplemented with data from the Ag Waiver Program and the Mo Study which monitored TDS levels in the Santa Ynez River at Floradale Ave (downstream of effluent) and in San Miguelito Creek. A description of the monitoring sites is provided in Table 2-1 followed by a summary of available data in Table 2-2.

Table 2-1. Description of Receiving Water Quality Monitoring Sites

Site Name Site ID Site Description

San Miguelito Creek at V St R-001 San Miguelito Creek located upstream of Facility Effluent

San Miguelito Creek, downstream of Effluent

R-002 San Miguelito Creek located just downstream of Facility Effluent

Santa Ynez River at Floradale Ave

SYR-2 Santa Ynez River located below confluence with San Miguelito

Table 2-2. Summary of Available Receiving Water Quality Data

Site Constituent(s) Monitored Data

Source TDS Chloride Sodium Sulfate Boron

San Miguelito Creek at V St (R-001)

2001 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010 Facility, Mo Study

San Miguelito Creek, downstream of Effluent

(R-002) 2001 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010 2006 – 2010

Facility, Ag Waiver, Mo Study

Santa Ynez River at Floradale Ave (SYR-2)

2006 – 2009 n/a n/a n/a n/a Ag Waiver, Mo Study n/a: data not available

FACILITY EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING WATER QUALITY RESULTS

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Facility Effluent

The Facility’s TDS effluent limit is 1,100 mg/L and compliance is based on a 12-month running mean. Figure 2-1 shows the Facility’s TDS 12-month running mean in comparison with the

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-2 January 2011 effluent limit and illustrates the Facility’s ability to comply with the limit over time. The average 12-month running mean is 1,071 mg/L which is less than the effluent limit.

A Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) was also conducted to determine whether or not TDS has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the effluent limit and the surface water quality objective. According to the RPA, TDS show reasonable potential to exceed both the effluent limit and the surface water objective. In comparison with the maximum 12-month running mean (1,181 mg/L), approximately a 7% reduction in TDS levels is needed to achieve compliance with the effluent limit.

Figure 2-1. Facility TDS 12-Month Running Mean in Comparison with the Effluent Limit

Receiving Waters

As illustrated in Figure 2-2, both upstream (R-001) and downstream (R-002 and SYR-2) locations exceed the surface water quality objective of 1,000 mg/L. TDS concentrations are lower downstream of the Facility effluent. Concentrations at R-001 (San Miguelito Creek at V St., upstream of Facility effluent) indicate that background TDS levels in receiving waters are elevated prior to the contribution from the Facility’s effluent.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-3 January 2011

Figure 2-2. TDS Concentrations in Receiving Waters

(Error bars are one standard error)

Chloride

Facility Effluent

The Facility’s average 12-month running mean is 203 mg/L and as Figure 2-3 illustrates, the Facility’s chloride 12-month running mean is able to comply with the 250 mg/L effluent limit.

The maximum 12-month running mean was 216 mg/L so no reduction is needed for compliance.

In contrast, an RPA was conducted and determined that chloride shows reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the effluent limit.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-4 January 2011

Figure 2-3. Facility Chloride 12-Month Running Mean in Comparison with the Effluent Limit

As illustrated in Figure 2-4, both upstream (R-001) and downstream (R-002) locations exceed the surface water quality objective of 100 mg/L. On average, downstream concentrations are approximately 4% greater than upstream concentrations. Similar to TDS, concentrations at R- 001 (San Miguelito Creek at V St., upstream of Facility effluent) indicate that background chloride levels in Lompoc receiving waters are elevated prior to contribution from the Facility’s effluent.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-5 January 2011

Figure 2-4. Chloride Concentrations in Receiving Waters

Sodium

Facility Effluent

The Facility’s effluent average 12-month running mean for sodium is 209 mg/L with a maximum 12-month running mean of 258 mg/L. The Facility’s sodium effluent limit is 270 mg/L and as illustrated in Figure 2-5, the Facility is able to meet this limit. Therefore no reduction is needed to achieve compliance. However, an RPA was conducted and determined that sodium shows a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the effluent limit.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-6 January 2011

Figure 2-5. Facility Sodium 12-Month Running Mean in Comparison with the Effluent Limit

As illustrated in Figure 2-6, both upstream (R-001) and downstream (R-002) locations exceed the surface water quality objective of 100 mg/L. On average, downstream concentrations are approximately 20% higher than upstream concentrations. Concentrations at R-001 (San Miguelito Creek at V St., upstream of Facility effluent) indicate that background levels of sodium in Lompoc receiving waters are elevated prior to the contribution from the Facility’s effluent.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-7 January 2011

Figure 2-6. Sodium Concentrations in Receiving Waters

Sulfate

The Facility’s effluent average 12-month running mean for sulfate is 372 mg/L and the maximum 12-month running mean is 420 mg/L. Effluent limits do not exist for sulfate, however Order No. R3-2006-0037 indicates that Facility discharges should not cause receiving water to exceed a sulfate surface water quality objective of 350 mg/L (annual mean value). In order to meet the surface water quality objective, Facility effluent would have to be reduced by 17%. The RPA confirmed that sulfate shows reasonable potential to exceed surface water quality objectives.

Receiving Waters

Sulfate concentrations in receiving waters were obtained from Facility monitoring. As illustrated in Figure 2-7, both upstream (R-001) and downstream (R-002) locations exceed the surface water quality objective of 350 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations are lower downstream of the Facility effluent. Elevated concentrations at R-001 (San Miguelito Creek at V St., upstream of Facility

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-8 January 2011 effluent) indicate that background levels of sulfate in Lompoc receiving waters are elevated prior to the contribution from the Facility’s effluent.

Figure 2-7. Sulfate Concentrations in Receiving Waters

Boron

The average and maximum 12-month running mean for boron in Facility effluent are 0.6 and 0.7 mg/L, respectively. While there is no effluent limit for boron, Order No. R3-2006-0037 indicates that Facility discharges should not cause receiving water to exceed a boron surface water quality objective of 0.4 mg/L (annual running mean). An approximate 42% reduction is needed in order to meet surface water quality objectives. The RPA confirmed that boron shows reasonable potential to exceed the surface water quality objective.

Receiving Waters

Boron concentrations in receiving waters were obtained from Facility monitoring. As illustrated in Figure 2-8, both upstream (R-001) and downstream (R-002) locations exceed the surface water quality objective of 0.4 mg/L. Boron concentrations are lower downstream of the Facility effluent. Elevated concentrations at R-001 (San Miguelito Creek at V St., upstream of Facility

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 2-9 January 2011 effluent) indicate that background levels of boron in Lompoc receiving waters are elevated prior to the contribution from the Facility’s effluent.

Figure 2-8. Boron Concentrations in Receiving Waters

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-1 January 2011

Section 3

Source Identification Existing data for source water and industries was compiled as a first step to identifying sources of salts to the Facility’s influent. This data was used to conduct a preliminary mass balance which highlighted data gaps. To fill these gaps, additional monitoring was conducted in May and June 2010.

Next, a source identification was conducted to examine the relative contributions of three primary sources to the Facility influent: water supply, collection systems (i.e., residential and commercial source), and significant industrial users. Water supply data was obtained from municipal water treatment facilities in Frick Springs, City of Lompoc, VVCSD and VAFB.

Additional data was collected to characterize collection systems and included the VVCSD and VAFB trunk lines and homogenous commercial and residential drainage areas. Additionally, significant industrial user2 monitoring data was reviewed and included Fagerdala, the City of Lompoc Aquatic Center, In-Shape City, Raytheon, and Culligan. A description of each site is provided in Table 3-1.

This section identifies existing data, describes additional data collected, and provides a summary of sources by constituent.

EXISTING DATA COLLECTION

Municipal supply water, collection systems, industrial and Facility water quality data was compiled from a number of sources and included the following:

Frick Springs Water Treatment Plant (Frick Springs WTP)

City of Lompoc Water Treatment Plant (City WTP)

VAFB Water Supply

VVCSD Water Supply

City of Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Facility)

City of Lompoc Molybdenum Study (Mo Study)

Significant Industrial User data (SIU), excluding VAFB

Table 3-1 provides a description of all the sites with salts data. This table encompasses both existing data and additional data collected. Table 3-2 summarizes the data collected and identifies the general timeline of data collection and the source of data for each site. As shown in Table 3-2, data is available for the salts constituents (TDS, chloride, sodium, sulfate, boron) at the majority of sites. Additional data collected as part of this Salt Management Plan is referred to

2 According to the City of Lompoc Wastewater Ordinance, a “Significant Industrial User (SIU) means any IU that:

a. is subject to federal categorical pretreatment standards; or

b. discharges 25,000 gal/d or more of process wastewater (average annual daily flow); or

c. contributes a process wastestream which makes up five percent (5%) or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic loading capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant; or

d. has a reasonable potential, in the opinion of the Director, to adversely affect the Wastewater Treatment Plant (e.g., cause Interference, Pass-Through, or endangerment to employees of the Wastewater System).”

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-2 January 2011 as “Salts Study” in the following tables. A summary of existing and additional data collected is provided in Appendix A.

ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION

Data gaps were identified once the existing data was compiled and analyzed. Data gaps included:

Boron concentrations in VAFB and VVCSD water supply, industrial user effluent, and

Facility influent;

Chloride concentrations in industrial user effluent; and TDS, chloride, sodium, sulfate, boron concentrations in residential and commercial effluent.

To fill these gaps, wastewater was sampled from the Facility’s influent and effluent, collection system focus areas (including VAFB and VVCSD), residential and commercial areas, and select significant industrial users. A residential site and commercial site were selected to represent and characterize these contributions to the wastewater stream. Table 3-3 summarizes the additional sampling sites and methods that were conducted in May and June of 2010. The locations of sites are provided in Figure 3-1 and a summary of monitoring results is provided in Appendix B.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-3 January 2011

Table 3-1. Description of Sites with Salts Data

Type Site Site Description

Water Supply

Frick Springs Water Treatment Plant Municipal water supply from Frick Springs; provided to several residences in Miguelito Canyon and Miguelito County Park

VVCSD (Well) VVCSD source water obtained from 3 groundwater wells; samples are taken directly from wells, prior to water treatment processes

VAFB State Water VAFB source water consists of a combination of State Water Project water and groundwater. State water makes up apx. 75% of water supply

VAFB Well Groundwater makes up apx. 25% of VAFB’s water supply

City of Lompoc Water Treatment Plant Effluent Effluent from Water Treatment Plant; water supply is obtained from groundwater wells

Wastewater:

Collection Systems

VAFB trunk sewer Wastewater from VAFB

VVCSD trunk sewer Wastewater from VVCSD

Residential sewer Wastewater from a typical Lompoc residential neighborhood

Commercial sewer Wastewater from a typical Lompoc commercial area

Wastewater:

Industrial

Fagerdala World Foams Plastic and molding manufacturer; periodic process water discharges to sewer system

City of Lompoc Aquatic Center Includes backwash water discharges from the therapy, competition, and activity pools

In-Shape City Includes discharges from spa, pool, and laundry facilities

Raytheon Includes process discharges and domestic waste from restrooms

Culligan Water Conditioning Discharge includes water used to clean water softening tanks and brine water generated through the addition of concentrated brine; facility also serves Buellton

Wastewater:

Facility

Facility Influent Influent to the City of Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility

Facility Effluent (data presented in Section 2) Effluent to the City of Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-4 January 2011

Table 3-2. Summary of Available Data (includes both existing data and additional data collection)

Type Site Constituent(s) Monitored

Data Source TDS Chloride Sodium Sulfate Boron

Water Supply

Frick Spring Water Treatment Plant 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 Frick Springs WTP

VVCSD (Well) 2002 – 2008 2002 – 2008 2002 – 2008 2002 – 2008 2002 – 2008 VVCSD

VAFB State Water 2006 –2009 2006 –2009 2006 –2009 2006 –2009 2007 –2009 VAFB

VAFB Well 2004 –2007 2004 –2007 2004 –2007 2004 –2007 2007 VAFB

City of Lompoc Water Treatment Plant (Well)

2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 City WTP

Wastewater:

Collection Systems

VAFB trunk sewer 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 Facility, Mo Study, Salts Study

VVCSD trunk sewer 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 Facility, Mo Study, Salts Study

Residential sewer 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Salts Study

Commercial sewer 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Salts Study

Wastewater:

Industrial

Fagerdala World Foams 2008 – 2009 2008 – 2009 2008 – 2009 n/a n/a SIU

City of Lompoc Aquatic Center 2009 – 2010 2009 – 2010 2009 – 2010 2010 2010 SIU, Salts Study

In-Shape City 2008 – 2010 2008 – 2010 2008 – 2010 2010 2010 SIU, Salts Study

Raytheon 2007 – 2010 2007 – 2010 2007 – 2010 2010 2010 SIU, Salts Study

Culligan Water Conditioning 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2010 2010 SIU, Salts Study

Wastewater:

Facility

Facility Influent 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2010 Facility, Mo Study, Salts Study

Facility Effluent (data presented in Section 2)

2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 2000 – 2010 Facility, Mo Study, Salts Study n/a: data not available

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-5 January 2011

Table 3-3. Salts Study Sampling Sites and Monitoring Frequency

Type Site Name Site ID Sampling Method

Months Sampled

Wastewater:

Collection Systems

VAFB trunk sewer VAFB 24-hour

Composite May & June

VVCSD trunk sewer VVCSD 24-hour

Composite May & June

Residential sewer RES 24-hour

Composite May & June

Commercial sewer COM 24-hour

Composite May & June

Wastewater:

Industrial

Aquatic Center - Therapy Pool AQC-TP Grab May & June

Aquatic Center - Activity Pool AQC-AP Grab May & June

Aquatic Center - Competition Pool AQC-CP Grab May & June

In-Shape City - Spa ISC-S Grab May & June

In-Shape City - Laundry ISC-L Grab May & June

In-Shape City - Pool ISC-P Grab May & June

Raytheon RAY Business hour

Composite May & June

Culligan Water Conditioning CUL Business hour

Composite May & June

Wastewater:

Facility*

Facility Influent WW-I 24-hour

Composite April & May

Facility Effluent WW-E 24-hour

Composite April & May

*Monitoring of the Facility effluent and influent occurred in April and May.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-6 January 2011

Figure 3-1. Additional Data Collection for the Salts Management Plan

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-7 January 2011

SUMMARY BY CONSTITUENT

A mass balance was conducted for TDS, chloride, sodium, sulfate and boron in order to estimate salt contributions to the Facility influent. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, the primary inputs to the Facility include:

municipal water supply (source water) from VVCSD, VAFB, and the City.

residential water softeners. The mass balance assumes that approximately 8% of City of Lompoc residents and 40% of VVCSD residents have water softeners. An example water softener calculation is provided in Appendix C.

industrial activities. Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes.

“other” commercial and residential activities. This encompasses activities that may contribute to salts levels to the Facility influent beyond water supply and water softener discharges. This could include use of detergents by businesses and residents, etc.

It should be emphasized that several assumptions were made with respect to flows and concentrations for the different sources. Therefore, the loading contributions shown in the mass balance tables should be considered useful for planning purposes and identifying potentially significant versus insignificant sources.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-8 January 2011

Figure 3-2. Flow Chart Illustrating the Major Inputs to the Facility

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-9 January 2011

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

A mass balance was conducted to determine primary sources of TDS loads to the Facility influent using available data. As indicated in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3, the primary contributor is water supply which makes up 88% of the load to the Facility influent. Contributions are further discussed in the sections below.

Water Supply

Water supply is the largest contributor to TDS loads in Facility influent. The City of Lompoc, which obtains its water supply through groundwater wells, makes up more than 68% of the total load to Facility influent. Figure 3-4 provides a breakdown of the contributors to TDS within water supply.

Water Softeners

Water softener use by City and VVCSD residents make up approximately 2% of the Facility influent. VVCSD water softeners make up the majority of this load (Figure 3-5).

Industrial

Cumulatively, industries comprise approximately 7% of the total loading to the Facility influent.

Culligan is the largest contributor, making up 5% of the total load.

Other Activities

Ten percent (10%) of the loading is accounted for by “other” contributions to the Facility influent from residential and businesses activities in VVCSD, and VAFB.

Table 3-4. TDS Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Water Supply - - 22,738 88%

VVCSD, Well 0.5 798 3,357 13%

VAFB, Well 0.2 494 654 3%

VAFB, State Water Project Water 0.5 291 1,156 4%

City of Lompoc, Well [c] 2.5 842 17,571 68%

Residential Water Softeners [a], [e] - - 596 2%

VVCSD, Water Softeners 0.2 305 509 2%

City of Lompoc Water Softeners 0.2 62 87 0.3%

City of Lompoc (Sum of Industrial, Res, Comm) - - 1,919 7%

Industrial [g] - - 1,919 7%

Fagerdala 0.01 3,571 312 1%

Aquatic Center 0.008 1,931 136 0.5%

Raytheon 0.02 953 131 0.5%

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-10 January 2011

Table 3-4. TDS Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Culligan 0.2 1,081 1,315 5%

In-Shape City 0.002 1,297 25 0.1%

Commercial, Other [d], [f] 0.4 - 0 0%

Residential, Other [d], [f] 1.9 - 0 0%

Other - - 2,553 10%

VAFB, Other 0.3 206 1,102 4%

VVCSD, Other 0.6 576 1,471 6%

Total Identified Sources - - 27,806 107%

Facility Influent [b] 3.1 1,014 25,936 -

[a] Estimated that 8% of Lompoc residents and 40% of VVCSD residents have a water softener [b] Wastewater effluent data from Frick Springs community into the Facility not available [c] Water deliveries estimated using 2005 City of Lompoc Urban Water Management Plan. Water deliveries adjusted for losses (e.g. irrigation) per report studying water consumption habits for City of Lompoc (Source:

Heaney et al. "Nature of Residential Water Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs”)

[d] 0 loading denotes that the source water is the primary source of this constituent [e] Estimated value. See Appendix C for water softener calculations [f] Flows were estimated using best professional judgment and limited water delivery data [g] Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-11 January 2011

Figure 3-3. Relative Contributions of TDS to Facility Influent

Figure 3-4. Sources of TDS within Water Supply

Figure 3-5. Sources of TDS from Residential Water Softeners

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-12 January 2011

A mass balance was conducted to determine the primary sources of chloride loads to the Facility influent using available data. As indicated in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6, the largest contributor of chloride loads is water supply.

Water Supply

Water supply makes up almost 70% of the chloride in Facility influent. Of the water supply sources, the City’s supply accounts for 62% of the total water supply contribution to chloride loading (Figure 3-7).

Water Softeners

Water softeners account for approximately 5% of chloride loads to Facility influent. As illustrated in Figure 3-8, VVCSD water softeners make up more than 85% of the water softener loading.

Industrial

Industries contribute less than 10% of chloride to the Facility influent. Culligan makes up the majority of this loading and contributes approximately 6% of the total chloride loading to Facility influent.

Other Activities

Residential and commercial activities in the City, VVCSD and VAFB are accounted as “Other.”

These activities comprise more than 40% of the chloride loading.

Table 3-5. Chloride Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Water Supply - - 3,233 69%

VVCSD, Well 0.5 157 756 16%

VAFB, Well 0.2 103 136 3%

VAFB, State Water Project Water 0.5 87 347 7%

City of Lompoc, Well [c] 2.5 96 1,995 43%

Residential Water Softeners [a], [d] - - 234 5%

VVCSD, Water Softeners 0.2 120 200 4%

City of Lompoc, Water Softeners 0.2 24 34 1%

City of Lompoc(Sum of Industrial, Res, Comm) - - 1,537 33%

Industrial [f] - - 441 9%

Fagerdala 0.01 1033 90 2%

Aquatic Center 0.008 620 44 0.9%

Raytheon 0.02 119 16 0.3%

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-13 January 2011

Table 3-5. Chloride Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Culligan 0.2 234 285 6%

In-Shape City 0.002 287 6 0.1%

Commercial, Other 0.4 79 245 5%

Residential, Other 1.9 53 862 18%

Other - - 1,067 23%

VAFB, Other 0.3 319 804 17%

VVCSD, Other 0.6 20 263 6%

Total Identified Sources - - 6,082 130%

Facility Influent [b] 3.1 183 4,681 -

[a] Estimated that 8% of Lompoc residents and 40% of VVCSD residents have a water softener [b] Wastewater effluent data from Frick Springs community into the Facility not available [c] Water deliveries estimated using 2005 City of Lompoc Urban Water Management Plan. Water deliveries adjusted for losses (e.g. irrigation) per report studying water consumption habits for City of Lompoc (Source:

Heaney et al. "Nature of Residential Water Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs”

[d] Estimated value. See Appendix C for water softener calculations [e] Flows were estimated using best professional judgment and limited water delivery data [f] Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes

Figure 3-6. Relative Contributions of Chloride to Facility Influent

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-14 January 2011

Figure 3-7. Sources of Chloride within Water Supply

Figure 3-8. Sources of Chloride from Residential Water Softeners

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-15 January 2011

Sodium

Similar to TDS and chloride, water supply is identified as the largest contributor of sodium to Facility influent. Relative contributions of sodium to Facility influent are provided in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-9.

Water Supply

Water supply is the largest contributor of sodium to Facility influent. The City’s water supply makes up 77% of the total water supply sodium loading (Figure 3-10).

Water Softeners

Water softeners make up approximately 7% of the total sodium loading to the Facility influent.

As indicated in Figure 3-11, VVCSC water softeners comprise 85% of the total water softener sodium load.

Industrial

Industries comprise less than 10% of the total load to the Facility influent. Culligan makes up the majority of the load, contributing 7% of sodium to the total load to the Facility influent.

Other Activities

Other City, VAFB, and VVCSD activities are estimated to contribute approximately a fourth (25%) of the total sodium load to Facility influent.

Table 3-6. Sodium Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Water Supply - - 3,660 75%

VVCSD, Well 0.5 127 535 11%

VAFB, Well 0.2 68 89 2%

VAFB, State Water Project Water 0.5 57 227 5%

City of Lompoc, Well [c] 2.5 135 2,808 57%

Residential Water Softeners [a] - - 361 7%

VVCSD, Water Softeners 0.2 185 309 6%

City of Lompoc, Water Softeners 0.2 37 52 1%

City of Lompoc (Sum of Industrial, Res, Comm) - - 1,031 21%

Industrial [g] - - 474 10%

Fagerdala 0.01 877 77 2%

Aquatic Center 0.008 457 32 0.7%

Raytheon 0.02 239 33 0.7%

Culligan 0.2 270 328 7%

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-16 January 2011

Table 3-6. Sodium Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

In-Shape City 0.002 215 4 0.1%

Commercial, Other [d] [f] 0.4 0 0 0%

Residential, Other [f] 1.9 34 557 11%

Other - - 730 15%

VAFB, Other 0.6 25 329 7%

VVCSD, Other 0.3 159 401 8%

Total Identified Sources - - 5,782 118%

Facility Influent [b] 3.1 191 4,885 -

[a] Estimated that 8% of Lompoc residents and 40% of VVCSD residents have a water softener [b] Wastewater effluent data from Frick Springs community into the Facility not available [c] Water deliveries estimated using 2005 City of Lompoc Urban Water Management Plan. Water deliveries adjusted for losses (e.g. irrigation) per report studying water consumption habits for City of Lompoc (Source:

Heaney et al. "Nature of Residential Water Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs”)

[d] 0 loading denotes that the source water is the primary source of this constituent [e] Estimated value. See Appendix C for water softener calculations [f] Flows were estimated using best professional judgment and limited water delivery data [g] Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes

Figure 3-9. Relative Contributions of Sodium to Facility Influent

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-17 January 2011

Figure 3-10. Sources of Sodium within Water Supply

Figure 3-11. Sources of Sodium from Residential Water Softeners

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-18 January 2011

The mass balance indicates that water supply is the primary source of sulfate to Facility influent.

The mass balance is detailed in Table 3-7 and relative contributions are depicted in Figure 3-12.

Water Supply

Nearly all of the sulfate loading can be attributed to water supply. The mass balance estimates that 107% of the loading comes from municipal water sources with 101% coming from the City’s groundwater supply.

Industrial

Industrial sulfate contributions add up to 7% of the total sulfate load. Culligan makes up more than 85% of the total industrial contribution.

Other Activities

Residential and commercial activities conducted in the City, VAFB, and VVCSD contributed close to a quarter (22%) of the sulfate loading. Residential activities in the City comprise the majority of this loading.

Table 3-7. Sulfate Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Water Supply - - 8,947 107%

VVCSD, Well 0.5 157 171 2%

VAFB, Well 0.2 88 117 1%

VAFB, State Water Project Water 0.5 50 198 2%

City of Lompoc, Well [b] 2.5 406 8,462 101%

Residential Water Softeners - - - -

VVCSD, Water Softeners n/a n/a n/a n/a

City of Lompoc, Water Softeners n/a n/a n/a n/a

City of Lompoc (Sum of Industrial, Res, Comm) - - 1,666 7%

Industrial [e] - - 542 7%

Fagerdala 0.01 n/a - -

Aquatic Center 0.008 527 37 0.4%

Raytheon 0.02 460 63 0.8%

Culligan 0.2 355 432 5%

In-Shape City 0.002 532 10 0.1%

Commercial, Other [c] [d] 0.4 - 0 0%

Residential, Other [d] 1.9 69 1,124 13%

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-19 January 2011

Table 3-7. Sulfate Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Other - - 729 9%

VAFB, Other 0.6 19 102 1%

VVCSD, Other 0.3 249 627 8%

Total Identified Sources - - 11,342 136%

Facility Influent [a] 3.1 326 8,338 -

[a] Wastewater effluent data from Frick Springs community into the Facility not available [b] Water deliveries estimated using 2005 City of Lompoc Urban Water Management Plan. Water deliveries adjusted for losses (e.g. irrigation) per report studying water consumption habits for City of Lompoc (Source:

Heaney et al. "Nature of Residential Water Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs”)

[c] 0 loading denotes that the source water is the primary source of this constituent [d] Flows were estimated using best professional judgment and limited water delivery data [e] Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes

Figure 3-12. Relative Contributions of Sulfate to Facility Influent

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-20 January 2011

Figure 3-13. Sources of Sulfate within Water Supply

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-21 January 2011

Boron

The largest contributor to boron loading is other activities followed by water supply. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-14 provide a detailed breakdown of contributors to boron in Facility influent.

Water Supply

Unlike the other constituents, water supply is the second highest contributor of boron to Facility influent. Water supply makes up approximately a third of the boron loading. A little less than 25% of the water supply loading can be attributed to the City’s groundwater supply.

Industrial

Industries make up a very small portion of the overall loading. The mass balance estimates that industries contribute 2% to the overall boron load. Culligan comprises the majority of this loading.

Other Activities

The majority of boron loading to Facility influent can be attributed to other activities. Other activities make up approximately 45% of the boron load.

Table 3-8. Boron Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Water Supply - - 5.1 34%

VVCSD, Well 0.5 0.3 1.2 8%

VAFB, Well 0.2 0.1 0.2 1%

VAFB, State Water Project Water 0.5 0.1 0.2 1%

City of Lompoc, Well [b] 2.5 0.2 3.5 23%

Residential Water Softeners - - 0 0%

VVCSD, Water Softeners 0.2 n/a n/a n/a

City of Lompoc, Water Softeners 0.2 n/a n/a n/a

City of Lompoc (Sum of Industrial, Res, Comm) - - 4 28%

Industrial [d] - - 0.4 2%

Fagerdala 0.01 n/a - -

Aquatic Center 0.008 0.3 0.02 0.1%

Raytheon 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.1%

Culligan 0.2 0.3 0.3 2%

In-Shape City 0.002 0.3 0.005 0.03%

Commercial, Other [c] 0.4 0.1 0.3 2%

Residential, Other [c] 1.9 0.04 3.6 24%

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-22 January 2011

Table 3-8. Boron Mass Balance

Source Flow

(MGD)

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading

(lbs/day)

% of Facility Influent

Other - - 2.9 19%

VAFB, Other 0.3 0.6 1.6 10%

VVCSD, Other 0.6 0.1 1.4 9%

Total Identified Sources - n/a 12.4 81%

Facility Influent [a] 3.1 0.6 15 -

[a] Wastewater effluent data from Frick Springs community into the Facility not available [b] Water deliveries estimated using 2005 City of Lompoc Urban Water Management Plan. Water deliveries adjusted for losses (e.g. irrigation) per report studying water consumption habits for City of Lompoc (Source:

Heaney et al. "Nature of Residential Water Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs”)

[c] Flows were estimated using best professional judgment and limited water delivery data [d] Industrial concentrations may include source water contributions in addition to industrial processes

Figure 3-14. Relative Contributions of Boron to Facility Influent

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-23 January 2011

Figure 3-15. Sources of Boron within Water Supply

Figure 3-16. Sources of Boron within Other Activities

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 3-24 January 2011

Summary of Common Findings

Several conclusions can be drawn across constituents:

As illustrated Table 3-9, water supply is consistently the largest contributor of salt loading to the Facility, with the exception of boron.

Table 3-9. Summary of Mass Balance Findings by Constituent

Source Constituent

TDS Chloride Sodium Sulfate Boron

Water Supply 88% 69% 75% 107% 34%

City, VVCSD, and VAFB Activities

Residential Water Softeners 2% 5% 7% n/a n/a

Industrial 7% 9% 9% 6% 2%

Other Activities 10% 46% 26% 24% 45% n/a: not applicable

“Other Activities” (e.g., undefined contributions from residential and commercial activities) is consistently the second largest contributor of salts to the Facility influent with the exception of boron.

Water softeners in the City make up a small percentage of loading (7% or less).

Industries contribute less than 10% of salts loading.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 4-1 January 2011

Section 4

Source Reduction Options This section builds on the previous sections which laid out the reductions needed to meet effluent limits and surface water quality objectives and identified the relative sources to salts loading in Facility influent. A summary of necessary reductions is provided in Table 4-1. As indicated in the previous section, the water supply is estimated to be the most significant source of salts to the Facility followed by other activities, industries, and VVCSD water softeners.

Table 4-1. Estimated % Reductions Needed

Constituent Estimated % Reduction

Needed to Meet Effluent Limit

Estimated % Reduction Needed to Meet Surface Water

Quality Objective

TDS 7% 15%

Chloride 0% 61%

Sodium 0% 54%

Sulfate n/a 43%

Boron n/a 17% n/a: not applicable

Source reduction options that address necessary reductions and the main sources of salts loadings are discussed below.

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS

Several options that address water supply’s contribution to salts are reviewed below for their applicability and feasibility.

Water Treatment Plant Modifications

City of Lompoc

The current source of drinking water for the City of Lompoc is groundwater that contains high levels of hardness (greater than 700 mg/L). To make this water supply suitable for potable uses the City treats the water using a lime-soda softening process to reduce the hardness to approximately 300 mg/L. The soda-lime process involves addition of chemical salts, most, but not all of which, are precipitated and removed in the process. Thus some additional salt is added to the water supply during treatment. The average TDS concentration in Lompoc final drinking water is approximately 800 mg/L.

Converting water treatment from the soda-lime hardness removal process to reverse osmosis (RO) would reduce both the salts and hardness concentrations in the drinking water. A portion of the water supply could be treated by RO and blended with the remainder to achieve a desired level of salts and hardness in the final product water. The water treatment plant currently produces approximately 5 MGD at an O&M cost of approximately $1.4 million per year, including chemicals and sludge disposal. The resulting cost per million gallon treated is

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 4-2 January 2011 approximately $767/MG To produce final water with a hardness of 300 mg/L and a TDS of 400 mg/L using RO would require RO treatment of approximately 3.2 MGD. The annual O&M cost for 3.2 MGD of RO treatment would be approximately $1,400/mg or $2.55 million per year. The amortized cost of construction for 3.2 MGD of RO treatment for 20 years at 5% interest would be approximately $1.3 million per year. Thus the total cost for RO water treatment would be approximately $3.85 million/year, which would be approximately 2.75 times the cost of current chemical water treatment.

Another option may be to reduce or eliminate soda-lime water softening process. The disadvantage of this approach may be an increase in water softener installation.

Vandenberg Village Community Service District (VVCSD)

VVCSD’s well water data reflects the quality of the water prior to treatment. Part of VVCSD’s well water treatment includes the addition of sodium hypochlorite as a disinfectant (Personal communication, Martin Damwyk, VVCSD Operations and Maintenance). This may partially account for the contribution of VVCSD’s “other” contribution to chloride and sodium loading.

The hardness of VVCSD’s source water is fairly high at more than 300 mg/L. As a result, it is estimated that between 40 – 60% of VVCSD residents own a water softener. To address the hardness of water supplied to residents, VVCSD recently contracted with Procorp Enterprises LLC (Procorp) to perform a pilot test of Crystalactor (Pellet Reactor) water softening technology on VVCSD’s source water. Pilot testing included two trials: one trial with soda ash as the chemical treatment and the second trial with sodium hydroxide (Procorp Enterprises, 2010).

Table 4-2 summarizes these results of the trials which generally resulted in a decrease in hardness and increase in salts.

Table 4-2. Pilot Test Results

Constituent Soda Ash (Trial 1)

% Change

Sodium Hydroxide (Trial 2)

% Change

Hardness - 73% - 64%

Calcium - 90% - 77%

Manganese - 88% --

Iron - 47% - 27%

TDS + 3% - 5%

Sodium + 42% + 50% --: reduced to non-detectable levels

To determine the overall potential benefit of this technology, the mass balance described in Section 2 was modified to account for a hypothetical decrease in water softener use and changes in TDS and sodium levels in VVCSD’s water supply. In this scenario, water softener use was decreased from 40% to 10%. Tables 4-3 and4-4 provides the results of the mass balance scenarios for TDS and sodium, respectively.

Lompoc Salinity Management Study and Plan 4-3 January 2011

Table 4-3. Projected TDS Levels in Response to Pilot Test Results

Source Current Scenario With Soda Ash

With Sodium Hydroxide

Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading lbs/day Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading lbs/day Conc.

(mg/L)

Loading lbs/day

Water Softener 305 509 76 32 76 32

Well Water 798…