Vol.II_Appendices.pdf

June 20, 2000

Volume II – Appendices Volume II of IV

September 2002 K/J 004649.00

Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant Master Plan

Master Plan Report (Appendices) i Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\master plan report\final\appendixtoc.doc

Table of Contents (Appendices)

A Pilot Plant Study Technical Report B Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 01-87 C Flow Projections Technical Memorandum D Influent Flow Measurement Technical Memorandum E Dispersed Suspended Solids/Flocculant Suspended Solids Technical Memorandum F Biological Nutrient Removal Alternatives Technical Report G Structural Condition Survey and Evaluation Technical Report

Appendix A

Pilot Plant Study Technical Report

TECHNICAL REPORT

Pilot Plant Study

Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant

June 2002 K/J 004649.00

1000 Hill Road, Suite 200 Ventura, California 93003

805-658-0607 805-650-1522 (Fax)

Technical Report Pilot Plant Study

Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant

Prepared for

City of Lompoc 1801 West Central Ave.

P.O. Box 8001 Lompoc, California 93438-8001

K/J Project No. 004649.00

Pilot Plant Study i g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Table of Contents

List of Tables................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ii

Section 1: Introduction and Background

Section 2: Pilot Plant Process

2.1 Filtration Process

2.2 Ultraviolet Process

2.2.1 Disinfection Mechanism

2.2.2 UV Effectiveness

2.2.3 Interference and Enhancement

2.2.4 UV Dosage Necessary for Disinfection

2.2.5 Redundancy and Control

2.2.6 Use of UV Disinfection

2.2.7 Types of UV Systems

2.2.8 Advantages and Disadvantages

2.2.8.1 Advantages

2.2.8.2 Disadvantages

Section 3: Testing and Analysis

Section 4: Pilot Plant Results

4.1 Filtration Loading Rates Results

4.2 Ultraviolet Disinfection Results

Section 5: Recommendations

Section 6: References

Table of Contents (cont'd)

Pilot Plant Study ii Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

List of Tables

1-1 Current and Past Permit Limits for Metals 3-1 Operating and Sampling Schedule 3-2 Summary of NPDES Permit Limits, Detection Limits, Reporting Limits, Sampling Protocol, and Laboratory Selection 4-1 Secondary Effluent Compared to Plant Effluent 4-2 UV Only Compared to UV and Filtration 4-3 UV and Filtration with Chemical Addition Compared to UV and Filtration without Chemical

Addition 4-4 Comparative Pilot Plant Process Results 4-5 Effluent Characteristics

List of Figures

2-1 Pilot Study Schematic 2-2 Continuously Backwashing Filters 2-3 UV Disinfection System 4-1 UV Dose vs. Total Coliform 4-2 UV Dose vs. Fecal Coliform

Pilot Plant Study 1 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Section 1: Introduction and Background

The City of Lompoc undertook a pilot plant investigation of alternative disinfection and effluent polishing processes at the Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant (LRWRP) for the following reasons:

● To investigate improved methods of meeting current wastewater discharge limits.

● To address proposed new discharge limits that would include implementation of the more stringent requirements for metals and synthetic organic chemicals from the California Toxics Rule and Basin Plan.

● To address recently recognized concerns regarding the discharge of some chlorine disinfection byproducts.

● To anticipate the requirements of more complete disinfection for virus and protozoan cysts.

● To identify improvements necessary due to several effluent permit violations in 1999 and 2000, which include residual chlorine concentration >0.1 mg/l and toxicity to Ceriodaphnia and Minnows due to excessive ammonia concentration. These violations are attributable to the existing chlorine disinfection and dechlorination processes and the need to add ammonia to the secondary effluent in order to provide a stable monochloramine residual to reliably meet the coliform requirement of a median most probable number (MPN) to not exceed 23/100 ml or a maximum concentration of 400/100 ml.

The proposed revised waste discharge permit of 26 March 2001 included changes to conform to the California Toxics Rule and Basin Plan limitations on heavy metals and synthetic organic compounds. Much more restrictive limits for metals and toxicity were proposed and subsequently incorporated into National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0048127.

Four heavy metals were identified from past effluent testing of discharges of the LRWRP as exceeding California Toxics Rule limits. Those measured are cadmium, copper, mercury and molybdenum.

Overall, the new, as compared to past limits are presented in Table 1-1.

Pilot Plant Study 2 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

TABLE 1-1

CURRENT AND PAST PERMIT LIMITS FOR METALS

California Toxics Rule

Metal Units

Past Permit Limit

Average Monthly

Instantaneous Maximum

Lompoc Effluent (2000)

Antimony µg/L - 14 28 <50 Beryllium µg/L 100 0 0 9 Cadmium µg/L 3 2.0 4.0 3 Copper µg/L 70 8.9 13.4 8 Mercury µg/L 0.2 0.05 0.10 <0.3 Molybdenum µg/L 10 see note (a) see note (a) 20 Selenium µg/L 20 4 8 <50 Silver µg/L 35 1.7 3.5 <5 Lead µg/L 30 2.2 56 <30

Note: (a) CTR is silent. Basin plan limits is 0.01 mg/l (10 µg/l) instantaneous.

Difficulties of meeting the metals limits for cadmium, copper, mercury and molybdenum are recognized. Other concerns of possible future regulation include the organic endocrine disruptors, chiefly steroids, which can have an adverse effect on reproducibility of fish and other animals, and nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which has recently been identified as a human health hazard at low concentrations in drinking water. Both endocrine disruptors and NDMA concentrations are increased by wastewater chloramination.

The above concerns may be addressed through the use of filtration and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection.

Pilot Plant Study 3 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Section 2: Pilot Plant Process

Pilot plant process test units were acquired and installed at the LRWRP in the fall of 2000, and testing was conducted for a six-week period from late October until early December. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic of the pilot testing process. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show the pilot testing equipment.

2.1 Filtration Process

The filtration pilot plant was a Dynasand upflow continuous backflow filter, rented from the Parkson Corporation. The Dynasand filter features a top-feed design, with a single media of silica sand 6 feet, 6 inches in depth and 10.7 square feet in area. This pilot filter was their model DSF-10.7 and was provided with an on-line mixer for chemical coagulant and a flow meter. The tests were conducted at filter loading rates varying from 4 to 6 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sf). Filtration was performed both with and without the addition of a coagulant. Two different coagulants were used.

2.2 Ultraviolet Process

For the pilot testing, a two-lamp low-pressure, medium-intensity monochromatic 254 nanometer ultraviolet pilot plant was rented from Suntec Environmental of Toronto, Canada, Model LP200.

This unit has a capacity for a flow range of 25 to 80 gpm, and can produce a manually-adjustable ultraviolet intensity in the monochromatic range from 10 to 220 millijoules per centimeter squared (mj/cm2) by low pressure medium intensity UV lamps.

The UV test apparatus was installed in a manner that it could be tested either directly with secondary effluent or filtered effluent from the filtration pilot plant. The UV dosage intensity could be varied by utilizing either of the two UV lamps and the rheostat, which can reduce the intensity. As a consequence, a 6:1 dosage range was provided.

2.2.1 Disinfection Mechanism

UV disinfection is a non-chemical disinfection technology for wastewater that is effective against all of the major types of pathogenic microorganisms: bacteria (e.g., Coliform, Salmonella), viruses (e.g., Hepatitis, Polio), and protozoa (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium).

Ultraviolet irradiation is produced from specially constructed lamps that are much like fluorescent lamps, which are immersed in the water and emit light in the wavelength of 200 to 300 nanometers. Intense light radiation in the frequency of about 240 to 270 nanometers sterilizes a microorganism by disruption of the organism’s DNA molecules, preventing replication or reproduction of that microorganism.

This is a different mechanism of disinfection as compared to chemicals such as chlorine, ozone, or hydrogen peroxide, which oxidize (burn) cellular matter, destroy enzymes, and cause the death of the organism.

Pilot Plant Study

Continuously Backwashing Filters

June 2002 K/J 004649.00

Figure 2-2

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

G:\PROJECTS\2000\004649.00\PILOT\PILOTPHOTOS\Figure2&3.PPT

Parkson Dynasand Pilot Filter

Fill Pipe to Parkson Dynasand Pilot Filter

Top of Parkson Dynasand Pilot Filter

Pilot Plant Study

UV Disinfection System

June 2002 K/J 004649.00

Figure 2-3

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

G:\PROJECTS\2000\004649.00\PILOT\PILOTPHOTOS\Figure2&3.PPT

Pilot UV Disinfection System

Interior of UV Chamber

UV Dose Controller

Pilot Plant Study 4 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

2.2.2 UV Effectiveness

The effectiveness of UV is related to dosage or intensity as measured by the production of electric potential (i.e., volts) and time onto a certain area.

For example: UV Dosage = millijoule/centimeter2 (mj/cm2)

In this regard, it is not too different from the disinfecting power of chlorine, which is related to its concentration over time in a contact chamber. The decline of the viability of a particular microorganism is a linear logarithmic function of the UV dosage or of chlorine residual and time of exposure expressed as “CT”. Both are affected by properties of the wastewater.

2.2.3 Interference and Enhancement

UV is affected by the transmittance or the ability of the UV irradiation to pass through or be attenuated by the fluid, i.e., color or other transmittance blocking properties have an effect, and relative to the distance of light travel through the fluid, usually less than a few inches between the light source and the furthest microorganism.

Chlorine disinfection is affected by other properties of the wastewater that reduce its concentration, called chlorine demand, which may be organic matter, sulfides, nitrites, ammonia, and other chemical species that react with chlorine.

The disinfecting power of both UV or chlorine is enhanced by hydraulic turbulence. For UV, turbulence maximizes exposure by passing all portions of the fluid quickly and as often as possible to be close to the UV lamp source. Similarly, for chlorine, the intensity of rapid mixing and minimization of hydraulic short circuiting in contact chambers increases the disinfection effectiveness.

Both UV and chlorine are adversely affected by particles in the water. In the case of UV, this lowers the transmittance and provides a shield if the microorganisms are encapsulated in the particle. Similar particulate microorganism encapsulation affects chlorine disinfection.

Particles that exceed 10 to 20 microns in wastewater effluent, as is typical for clarified secondary effluent, usually cannot result in coliform concentration much below 200 MPN/100 ml. Filtration is usually required prior to UV disinfection to achieve the less than

2.2 or 2.3 MPN/100 ml coliform concentrations required for water reclamation or discharges to receiving water without high degrees of dilution capabilities in California.

2.2.4 UV Dosage Necessary for Disinfection

The dosage of UV required for disinfection varies from about 20 MWs/cm2 for protozoa like Cryptosporidium to 60 MWs/cm2 for coliform and as high as 140 MWs/cm2 for enteric viruses.

Thus, using disinfection to achieve a recycled water quality for irrigation of parks or other areas of potential public contact where virus inactivity is required can require more than twice the UV dosage of what is required for coliform reduction to meet receiving water discharge limits.

Pilot Plant Study 5 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Electronic dosage controllers and sensors to adjust the UV intensity to desired levels are provided as part of the UV equipment package. There are several factors that also affect the actual UV dosage, including:

● Age of the UV lamps, which can have service lives as low as 3,000 hours for medium pressure lamps and 10,000 to 15,000 hours for low pressure lamps.

● Fouling or scaling on the lamp surface, which can be calcium carbonate, iron, manganese, or organic films. Typically, either periodic lamp cleaning by removal for dipping into a weak acid solution to dissolve the film, or clean-in-place brushing and acid cleaning are performed.

● Transmittance of the fluid, which can vary from 10 to 30 percent for primary effluent, 50 to 70 percent for secondary effluent, to 70 to 90 percent for highly polished tertiary effluents.

Each of these factors can be measured and the UV system designed to have the capacity to deliver an effective dosage as measured by sensors located in the fluid a short distance from the lamps.

2.2.5 Redundancy and Control

Redundancy must be built into UV disinfection systems by providing an extra rack of lamps, etc., to be in place while another is removed for lamp cleaning or replacement. In a similar vein, multiple racks of lamps and dosage control allow energy conservation during lower flow, or higher fluid transmittance conditions.

2.2.6 Use of UV Disinfection

Wastewater UV disinfection has become increasingly popular in the last ten years in the U.S., due in part to concern of chlorine and dechlorination system toxicity and safety, as well as the extra costs required to meet current building safety requirements for these chemicals, and the preparation of Risk Management Plans.

In 1995, there were about 200 operating wastewater UV systems in the U.S. Within 5 years this number increased to 2,000. At the present time, perhaps as many as 25 percent of all new disinfection systems in wastewater facilities are UV. There are also many retrofits to replace chlorination disinfection when lower effluent residual concentrations are applied, or health and safety concerns and costs increase.

UV technology is improving rapidly and costs are decreasing with competition and quantity of systems being sold. It is expected that the life of a UV system will be less than 15 years, and then replacement with improved technology can occur.

Pilot Plant Study 6 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

There are a several experienced major producers of UV equipment, which include:

Major Producers Manufacturing

Site Type Aquionics USA LPMI – Pipe Capital Control England LPMI - Horizontal - Open Channel Infilco Degremont France LPLI - Vertical - Open Channel Suntec Japan LPMI - Horizontal - Open Channel Trojan Canada LPLI LPMI, MP, Horizontal - Open Channel U.S. Filter/UV Systems Canada LPMI, Horizontal - Open Channel Wedeco/Ideal Horizons Germany LPLI LPMI, MP, Horizontal - Open Channel

2.2.7 Types of UV Systems

There are three major types of UV systems utilized for wastewater disinfection at the present time. Usually they are particularly advantageous for the following capacity ranges:

Type of UV Lamps Flow Rate of

Appropriate Use Low Pressure - Low Intensity LP-LI <2 MGD Low Pressure - Medium Intensity LP-MI 2 - 10 MGD Medium Pressure - High Intensity MP-HI >10 MGD

The size and number of lamps required for a particular unit flow decrease dramatically from low to high intensity lamps. However, the lamp costs, life, and energy consumption are quite different, and a careful analysis of these factors for a particular facility of differing flows, site availability, energy costs, and demand play a significant role in the actual selection of the appropriate type of UV.

2.2.8 Advantages and Disadvantages

2.2.8.1 Advantages

The advantages of using UV disinfection include the following:

1. Reduces or eliminates use of haul and storage of large quantities of toxic/hazardous chemicals.

2. Eliminates potential for chlorine residual discharge to receiving water. (A very important factor in an age of mandatory fines for waste discharge permit violations.)

3. Effective disinfection for all types of pathogenic microorganisms – protozoa, bacteria and viruses. (Chlorination is effective for bacteria and viruses, but not very effective for protozoa cysts.)

4. No formation of chlorinated organic compounds discharged to the receiving water and reduction of NDMA and endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Pilot Plant Study 7 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

5. Initial and operational costs can be less than chlorination/dechlorination.

6. Occupies less room onsite than chlorination/dechlorination facilities

2.2.8.2 Disadvantages

The disadvantages of using UV disinfection include the following:

1. System must be designed for peak flow plus redundancy.

2. Lamp systems require full access on top and sides for removal, replacement, and cleaning.

3. Seldom completely avoids the use of chlorine needed for odor control, sludge bulking, or trickling filter fly control, algal slime control, and bioslime and odor control in recycled water piping systems or for additional disinfection when unusually low transmittance, system upsets or bypasses adversely affect UV effectiveness.

4. Utilizes electric energy at the point of use, which may be much more expensive than what is consumed for chlorine production offsite (e.g., UV in California at 8¢ to 15¢/KWH

vs. chlorine production in Southern Nevada or the Pacific Northwest at 3¢ to 4¢/KWH).

5. Care must be provided for operators to prevent exposure to UV light that is harmful to eyes.

6. Quality of water can substantially affect UV performance regarding transmittance, particles, and fouling characteristics.

7. High wet weather flows and biological upsets can be a problem to UV.

8. UV dosage sensing equipment is not completely reliable, and typically excessive dosage and energy use are required to provide sufficient disinfection reliability.

9. Acid solutions that are toxic/hazardous chemicals are required onsite for lamp cleaning.

10. Continuing costs for lamp replacement at intervals of 3 to 18 months.

11. Possible microorganism DNA photochemical repair when disinfected wastewater exposed to light and non-permanence of apparent disinfection effectiveness.

Pilot Plant Study 8 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Section 3: Testing and Analysis

A pilot plant test schedule was developed for six weeks of testing. Flows through the filter were varied from 4 to 6 gpm/sf. This is a usual range for activated sludge secondary effluent. The UV pilot plant irradiation intensity varied from 30 to 180 mj/cm2. A cationic polyelectrolyte was tested to condition the water before the filter to determine if significantly better solids and metals removal could be achieved as compared to filtering without coagulant addition.

An operating and sampling schedule was developed to provide information on the occurrence and potential reduction by filtration and/or UV disinfection, shown on Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1

OPERATING AND SAMPLING SCHEDULE

Operating Sampling UV Power

Run Date Day Flow

(GPM) Filter Coag A% B%

Sec.

Effluent

#1

Filter Effluent

#2

UV

Effluent

#3

UV

Effluent

#4 10/30 M 150 Bypass 100 100 1,2 - 2 1,2 10/31 T 80 Bypass 100 100 1,2 - 2 1,2 11/1 W 80 On 100 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/2 Th 80 On 100 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/3 F 80 On 100 100 1,2,3 1,2 2,3 1,2 11/4 Sat 80 On 100 100 - - - -

11/5 Sun 80 On 100 100 - - - - 11/6 M 65 On 100 100 1,2 1,2 2,3 1,2 11/7 T 65 On 100 100 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 11/8 W 65 On 100 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/9 Th 65 On 100 100 1,2 2 2 1,2

Holiday F 65 On 100 100 1,2 - 2 1,2 11/11 Sat 65 On 100 100 - - - -

11/12 Sun 65 On 100 100 - - - - 11/13 M 65 On/ Bypass 100 100 1,2 Tac 1,2 Tac 1,2 Tac 1,2 Tac 11/14 T 65 Bypass 100 100 1,2,3 - 2,3 1,2 11/15 W 55 On On 0 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/16 Th 55 On On 0 100 1,2 2 2 1,2 11/17 F 55 On On 0 100 1,2 2 2 1,2 11/18 Sat 55 Bypass 0 100 - - - -

11/19 Sun 55 Bypass 0 100 - - - - 11/20 M 45 Bypass/On Off/

On 0 100 1,2,3 - 2,3 1,2

11/21 T 45 On On 0 100 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3 1,2,3,4,5 11/22 W 45 On On 0 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2

Holiday Th 45 On 0 100 1,2 2 2 1,2 Holiday F 45 On 0 100 1,2 2 2 1,2 11/25 Sat 45 On 0 100 - - - -

11/26 Sun 45 On 0 100 - - - - 11/27 M 65 On 0 100 1,2,3 Tac 1,2 Tac 2,3 Tac 1,2 Tac 11/28 T 65 On 0 100 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/29 W 65 On 0 75 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 11/30 Th 65 On 0 75 1,2 2 2 1,2 12/1 F 65 On 0 50 1,2 2 2 1,2 12/2 Sat 65 On 0 50 - - - -

12/3 Sun 65 On 0 50 - - - -

Pilot Plant Study 9 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Operating Sampling UV Power

Run Date Day Flow

(GPM) Filter Coag A% B%

Sec.

Effluent

#1

Filter Effluent

#2

UV

Effluent

#3

UV

Effluent

#4 12/4 M 65 On 0 35 1,2,3,4

Tac 1,2,3,4,5

Tac 1,2,3,4

Tac 1,2,3,4

Tac 12/5 T 65 On 0 35 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 12/6 W 65 Bypass 0 35/

1,2 1,2 2 1,2

12/7 Th 65 Bypass 0 50 1,2 2 2 1,2

12/8 F 65 Bypass 0 90 1,2 2 2 1,2 Notes (see Table 3-2 for water quality details):

1. 3x Daily - M-F only, approx. 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 2 p.m.

Turbidity, Suspended Solids, Temperature, pH, Conductivity

2. Daily – M-F only, approx. 2 p.m.

Total Coliform, UV Transmittance

3. Weekly – approx. Mon. or Tues. 11 a.m.

Calcium, Alkalinity, Iron, Silica

4. Biweekly – Mon. or Tues. (see runs) 11 a.m.

MS2-Phage, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Fecal Coliform Metals, Organics, Toxicity (Ta=acute, 12 p.m.; Tc=chronic, 9 a.m.,12 p.m.,2 p.m.), Hardness, CBOD, COD, TOC, DO, TDS, Grease & Oil, Radioactives (see Table 3-2)

5. Biweekly – Mon. or Tues. (see runs) 11 a.m.

Inorganics (see Table 3-2)

A list of effluent constituents to analyze was prepared and is shown on Table 3-2, which includes the USEPA Test Method for analysis, desired detection limits, sample container volume, preservative agents, holding time, and suggested analytical laboratory. This list was provided to and discussed with the supervisory, operational, and laboratory staff of the LRWRP.

It is to be noted that each of the constituents had listed minimum reporting limits well below the predicted and proposed NPDES limits. The need for very low detection limits was forecast to provide information for compliance objectives of the California Toxics Rule for heavy metals, organics, and toxicity.

The Laboratory Director of the LRWRP then coordinated sampling and analyses. There was difficulty in finding a laboratory that would conduct the testing of the endocrine disrupting organic compounds and, as a consequence, these tests were not performed. However, there is still a considerable body of test data, in order to consider and recommend filter polishing and disinfection procedures.

TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF NPDES PERMIT LIMITS, DETECTION LIMITS, REPORTING LIMITS, SAMPLING PROTOCOL, AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 10 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected General

Alkalinity – EPA E310.1 2 mg/L 2 mg/l PE 1L none 14 days L CBOD – 5 day 30/45/90 mg/l – – <30 mg/l L COD – 5 day – – – Color 15 CU – – 1 unit Conductivity – – – Dissolved oxygen 5 mg/l (min.) – – 0.1 mg/l glass 500 mL none none F Dissolved solids, Total 1100 mg/l EPA E160.1 10 mg/L 10 mg/l PE 500 mL none 7 days L Grease and Oil 5/10 mg/l 1 mg/l Hardness, Total – SM S2340B 10 mg/L <10 mg/l PE 1L none 6 months L pH 6.5-8.3 EPA E150.1 0.1 unit 0.1 unit PE 1L none none F Settleable Solids 0.1/0.3 mL/L – – <0.1 ml/L Suspended solids, Total 30/45/90 mg/l EPA E160.2 4 mg/L 4 mg/l PE 1L none 7 days L Temperature +5oF SM S212 0.5oC 0.5oC PE 1L none none F Turbidity 10/20 NTU EPA E180.1 0.05 NTU 0.05 NTU PE 1L none none F UV Transmittance – SM S5910B 0.01 cm 0.01 cm PE 1L none 1 day L

Inorganics – – – Ammonia, as N – EPA E350-1 0.05 mg/L 10 µg/L 125 mL HNO3 2 days L Calcium – EPA E215.1 1 mg/L 1 mg/l PE 1L HNO3 6 months L CaCO3 Saturation Index – EPA S2330B 0.01 mg/L 0.01 mg/l PE 250 mL none 6 months Z Chloride 250 mg/l EPA E300.0 1 mg/L 1 mg/l PE 1L none 4 weeks L Cyanide 4.25 µg/L

8.52 µg/l 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 1L none Z

Fluoride 1.0 mg/l EPA E340.2 100 µg/L 100 mg/l PE 1L none Z Nitrate, as N 10 mg/l EPA E300.0 10 µg/L 10 mg/l PE 250 mL none 2 days L Nitrite, as N 10 mg/l EPA E300.0 10 µg/L 10 mg/l PE 125 mL none 2 days L Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl – EPA E351-2 1 mg/L 1 mg/l PE 125 mL HNO3 2 days L Phosphate, Ortho – EPA E365.4 50 µg/L 50 mg/l PE 1L HNO3 4 weeks L Phosphate, Total – EPA E365.4 50 µg/L 50 mg/l PE 1L HNO3 Potassium – EPA E258.1 1 mg/L 1 mg/l PE 1L none 6 months L Silicates – EPA E200.7 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/l PE 1L none 6 months L Sodium 270 mg/l EPA E273.1 1 mg/L 1 mg/l PE 1L none 6 months L Sulfate – EPA E300.0 2 mg/L 2 mg/l PE 1L none 4 weeks

TABLE 3-2 (CONT.)

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 11 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected Metals

Aluminum 5.0 mg/L – – 50 µg/l Antimony 14.00 µg/L

28.00 µg/L EPA E200.7 1 µg/L 1 µg/L

Arsenic 0.02/0.04 µg/L EPA F200.4 0.01 µg/L 0.01 µg/l PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Barium – – 10 µg/l Beryllium 0/0 µg/L EPA E200.7 1 µg/L 1 µg/l PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Boron 0.75 mg/l EPA E200.7 10 µg/L 10 µg/L PE 125 0.5 mL HNO3 6 months L Cadmium 2.00/4.00 µg/L EPA E200.9 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Chromium III –- EPA E200.7 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Chromium IV – EPA E218.5 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Chromium, Total 71.47/569.76 µg/L EPA E200.7 0.01 µg/L 0.01 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Copper 8.9/13.4 µg/L EPA E200.9 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Iron 5 mg/l EPA E200.7 100 µg/L 100 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Lead 2.20/56 µg/L EPA E239.2 2 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Magnesium –- EPA E242.1 1 mg/L 1 mg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months L Manganese 0.2 mg/l EPA E200.7 15 µg/L 15 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Mercury 0.05/0.10 µg/L EPA E245.1 0.05 µg/L 0.05 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Molybdenum 0.01/52.00 µg/L 1 µg/L 1 µg/L Nickel 468.24 µg/L EPA E200.9 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Selenium 4/8 µg/L EPA E270.2 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Silver 1.7/3.5 µg/L EPA E200.9 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Thallium 0/0 µg/L EPA E200.7 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Vanadium – EPA E200.7 1 µg/L 1 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months Zinc 117.18/118.14 µg/L EPA E200.7 20 µg/L 20 µg/L PE 125 0.5 ml HNO3 6 months

Organics Acenaphthene 1200.00 µg/L

2412.00 µg/L

Acrolein 320.00 µg/L

643.20 µg/L

Acrylonitrile 0.06 µg/L

0.12 µg/L

0.1 µg/L

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 12 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected Aldrin 0 µg/L

0 µg/L EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L

Anthracene 9600.00 µg/L

19296.00 µg/L

Atrazine 0.003 µg/L 0.5 µg/L M Benzene 1.20 µg/L

2.41 µg/L

0.001 µg/L

Benzidine 0.00 µg/L

0.00 µg/L

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.00 µg/L

0.01 µg/L

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00 µg/L

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00 µg/L

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00 µg/L

Bisphenol – GCMS 1 µg/L 1 µg/L Butylbenzylphthalate 3000.00 µg/L

6030.00 µg/L

Carbaryl – Carbon tetrachloride 0.25 µg/L

0.50 µg/L

0.05 µg/L

Chlorobenzene 680.00 µg/L

1366.80 µg/L

Chlorodane 0.0001 mg/l EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L Chloroethylether-bis-2 0.03 µg/L

0.06 µg/L

Chloroisopropylether-bis-2 1400.00 µg/L

2814.00 µg/L

2-chloronaphthalene 1700.00 µg/L

3417.00 µg/L

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 13 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected 2-chlorophenol 120.00 µg/L

241.20 µg/L

4-chlorophenol-3-methyl 1800.00 µg/L

3618.00 µg/L

2,4-D 0.1 mg/l 10 µg/L DDE – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L DDT – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L Diazonon – 1,4-dichlorobenzene 400.00 µg/L

800.00 µg/l

0.5 µg/L

1,2-dichloroethane 0.38 µg/L

0.76 µg/L

0.05 µg/L

1,1-dichloroethylene 0.06 µg/L

0.11 µg/L

0.01 µg/L 0.01 µg/L

2,4-dichlorophenol 93.00 µg/L

186.93 µg/L

1,2-dichloropropane 0.52 µg/L

1.05 µg/L

1,3-dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/l 0.05 µg/L Dieldrin 0.00 µg/L

0.00 µg/L EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L

2,4-dimethylphenol 540.00 µg/L

1085.40 µg/L

2,4-dinitrophenol 70.00 µg/L

140.70 µg/L

4,6-dinitrophenol-2-methyl 13.40 µg/L

26.93 µg/L

2,4-dinitrotoluene 0.11 µg/L 0.22µg/L

0.5 µg/L

1,2-diphenylhydrazine 0.04 µg/L

0.08 µg/L

0.5 µg/L

Endosulfans, Total – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L Endrin 0.04 µg/L

0.13 µg/L

0.05 µg/L

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 14 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected Ethylbenzene 0.680 mg/L 0.5 µg/L Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid – Ethylene dibromide 0.00002 mg/l 0.001 µg/L Ethylhexylphthalate-bis-2 1.80 µg/L

3.62 µg/L

Heptachlor 0.00 µg/l

0.00 µg/l

0.001µg/L

Hydrazine – GCMS 1 µg/L 1 µg/L M Isophorone 36.00 µg/l

72.36 µg/l 5 µg/L M

Keptone – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L M Lindane 0.02 µg/l

0.04 µg/l

0.2 µg/L

M.B.A.S – <0.2 µg/L PE 125 mL none L Malathion – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L Methoxychlor 0.1 mg/l 10 µg/L Methyl bromide 48.00 µg/L

96.48 µg/L

Methylene chloride 4.70 µg/L

9.45 µg/L

Monochlorobenzene 0.030 mg/L 0.5 µg/L Nitrobenzene 17.00 µg/l

34.17 µg/l

0.5 µg/L

N-nitrosodimethylamine 0.00 µg/l

0.00 µg/l

GC-MS 0.001 µg/L 0.001 µg/L

Pentachlorophenol 0.28 µg/L

0.56 µg/L

Phenols, Total 21000.00 µg/L

42210.00 µg/L

1 µg/L

Phthalate esters – GC-MS 1 µg/L 1 µg/L Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.00 µg/l

0.00 µg/l

0.05 µg/L

Prometon – Pyroethanols – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 15 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected Simazine 0.010 mg/L 1 µg/L 2,3,7,8 – TCDD 0.00 µg/L

0.00 µg/L

THC – EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L 2,4,5 - TP Silvex 0.01 mg/l 0.5 µg/L 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.17 µg/L

0.34 µg/L

0.05 µg/L

Tetrachloroethylene 0.80 µg/L

1.61 µg/L

0.5 µg/L

Toluene 6800.00 µg/L

13668.00 µg/L

Total organic carbon – Toxaphene 0.00 µg/l

0.00 µg/l EPA E507 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L

1,2 transdichloroethylene 0.01 mg/l 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.22 µg/L

0.44 µg/L

0.05 µg/L

1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.60 µg/L

1.21 µg/L

0.1 µg/L

Trichloroethylene 2.70 µg/L

5.43 µg/L

0.5 µg/L

2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2.10 µg/L

4.22 µg/L

Vinyl chloride 0.0005 mg/l 0.05 µg/L Xylenes, Total 1.750 mg/l 0.5 µg/L

Organic - Endocrine Disruptors - Synthetic Estrogens

Alkylphenols (octyl and nonyl) (APs) – M Alkylphenol polyethoxy-lates (octyl and nonyl) (APEs)

– M

Alkylphenol polyethoxy carboxylates (octyl and nonyl) (APECs)

– M

Bisphenol A – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Columestrolbestrol – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Dimethylstibestrol – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 16 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected

3.9 Dihydroxy-benzene-

(a) anthacene

– GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M

Equolbestrol – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M 17a Ethinyloestrediol (EE2) – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 µg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M 17b Estradiol (EE2) – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Ethinyl estradiol – M 4 Nonylphenol – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Oestrone – GC-MS 1 pg/L <1 mg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M

Organic - Endocrine Disruptors - Natural Estrogens

B Sitosterol – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Chloresterol – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Genespein – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Nonxl-phenoxy acetic acid – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Stigmaspetrol – GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Tert-Octylphenoxy-diethoxy (EtOH)

– GC-MS 1 pg/L 1 pg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M

Organics - Polyethylene Hydroxides - Polymers

Polyisobutylene – GC-MS 1 µg/L 1 µg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M Polyurethane – GC-MS 1 µg/L 1 µg/L Gis 20 L None 4 weeks M

Organics - Disinfection By-Products Bromate – EPA E300.0B 5 µg/L 5 µg/L PE 125 ml None 4 weeks Bromide – EPA E300.00 0.04 µg/L 0.04 µg/L PE 125 ml None 4 weeks Bromoform 4.30 µg/L

8.64 µg/L EPA E501.2 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days

Bromodichloromethane – EPA E501.2 0.1 µg/L 0.1 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days Chlorate – EPA E300.0 100 µg/L 100 µg/L PE 125 ml None 4 weeks M Chlorite – EPA E300.0B 10 µg/L 10 µg/L AmbGis 250 ml None 1 day M Chlorodibromomethane 0.41 µg/L

0.82 µg/L EPA E501.2 0.1 µg/L 0.1 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days

Chloroform 5.70 µg/L

11.46 µg/L

EPA E501.2 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days

Haloacetic acids, Total –- EPA E552 2 µg/L 2 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days M Trihalomethanes, Total –- EPA E501.2 0.5 µg/L 0.5 µg/L AmbGis 1 L None 14 days

AND LABORATORY SELECTION

Pilot Plant Study 17 Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Parameter

NPDES Permit Limit

Average/Max.(a) Method

Method Detection

Limit Reporting Limit Container Suggested

Volume (mL) Preservative

Agent Holding Time Lab.

Selected Radioactives

Gross Alpha – EPA E903.0 1 pCi/L 1 pCi/L M Gross Beta – EPA E900.0 1 pCi/L 1 pCi/L M Radium – EPA E903.1 0.6 pCi/L 1 pCi/L M Uranium – ASTM D2097 1 pCi/L 1 pCi/L M

Microbiologicals Coliforms, Total 23 MPN SM S9921 1/100 ml 1/100 ml PE 100mL Bisulfite 1 day L Coliforms, Fecal – SM S9921 1/100 ml 1/100 ml PE 100mL Bisulfite 1 day B Cryptosporidium – Animal

Interactivity 1/1000 ml 1/L PE 100L Bisulfite 1 day B

Giardia – Microscopic 1/1000 ml 1/L PE 100L Bisulfite 1 day B Coliphage - MS2 – Tissue Culture 1/1000 ml 1/L PE 100L Bisulfite 1 day B

Toxicity Acute Pass USEPA(b) 10% Pass PE 20L None 1 day A Chronic 1 TUc USEPA(c) 10% 1 TUc PE 20L None 1 day A

Notes:

(a) Required by current NPDES Permit, City of Lompoc, Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 01-87, NPDES No. CA0048127

(b) Bioassay with fish. USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 600-4-94-27F.

(c) Bioassay with fish, Daphnia, and Selanastrum. USEPA. 1994. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater

Organisms. 600-4-91-002.

Parameter limits are below the method detection limit.

A = ABC Laboratory B = BioVir Laboratory USEPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency F = Field Analyzed L = LRWRP Laboratory M = Montgomery Laboratory NA = not applicable PE = polyethylene SM = Standard Methods mg/L = milligrams per liter µg/L = micrograms per liter pg/L = picograms per liter Z = Zymax Laboratory

Pilot Plant Study 18 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Section 4: Pilot Plant Results

A comparison of the results of the pilot plant studies is summarized in Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3.

The overall results of the present chlorine disinfection process are shown on Table 4-1. This shows significant reduction in BOD, as well as elevation of dissolved oxygen, pH, gross Beta radioactivity.

The biological test data showed significant reduction of coliform and fecal coliform and coliphage. However, there was no reduction in either Cryptosporidium or Giardia. Gross beta, Cryptosporidium and Giardia all showed inexplicable increases from the Secondary Effluent to Plant Effluent.

The toxicity results were mixed. There was indication that chlorination increased toxicity to the chronic growth rate of minnows but, surprisingly, appeared to reduce chronic reproduction and acute survival rates of Ceriodaphnia.

Testing of ultraviolet transmittance indicated that it was relatively low and would range from 51 to 69 percent with an average of 65 percent. More typically, activated sludge effluent transmittance is in the 65 to 75 percent range without filtration.

A comparison of UV after secondary treatment as compared to UV following effluent filtration is shown on Table 4-2. There are a number of significant findings, which include:

● The UV transmittance is improved to be in a narrow range of 64 to 69 percent with an average of 66 percent.

● Coliform and total coliform are significantly reduced to UV following filtration to desired low levels to meet NPDES requirements.

● Toxicity to both minnows and Ceriodaphnia is significantly reduced by UV following filtration.

The effects of coagulant addition to the results of the UV and filtration processes are summarized in Table 4-4. These data indicate the following:

● pH is reduced by coagulation, and could be below discharge limit of 6.5, unless elevated by alkaline chemical addition.

● The total suspended solids and turbidity are reduced by about half. Coagulant addition would further reduce turbidity.

● The UV transmittance is slightly improved by coagulant addition.

● Iron and, quite likely, most metals are reduced by coagulant addition on the order of 33 to 50 percent.

Pilot Plant Study 19 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

● Total and fecal coliform were slightly greater in the coagulated filtered water, perhaps due to floc encapsulation of organisms. However, the overall concentrations were still very low and would meet NPDES discharge.

An overall assessment of the effluent of each of the treatment processes is shown in Table 4-5 and compared to NPDES limits. The following overall findings result:

● Low pH values of 6.6 occur, which are desirable considering effluent toxicity due to ammonia; however, they are not as desirable for the precipitation or biosorption of heavy metals.

● The conductivity and total dissolved solids (TDS) are lessened by 5 to 8 percent.

● Filtration removes significant portions of iron and, quite likely, most metals.

● UV is not as effective in reducing coliform concentration below NPDES permit requirements as compared to chlorination.

● It is necessary to provide filtration ahead of UV to provide low effluent coliform concentration to meet current NPDES and possible future Title 22 requirements.

● UV and filtration can remove all of the Cryptosporidium and Giardia cysts, which are of concern for municipal water supply, but not effectively removed by the LRWRP’s chlorine disinfection system.

Overall, significant effluent quality improvement can be obtained by utilizing filtration polishing and UV disinfection to replace the current chlorine disinfection practice. Considering the sensitivity to discharge in the Santa Ynez River where the LRWRP’s effluent is not significantly diluted for much of the dry season, it appears desirable to consider including both filtration and UV disinfection in the Master Plan.

4.1 Filtration Loading Rates Results

The tests were conducted at filter loading rates, which varied from 4 to 6 gallons per minute per square foot, indicated little difference in performance with respect to turbidity, suspended solids, or metal reduction. This is no doubt due to the low concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) in the plant effluent, which is less than 10 NTU. Therefore, a design rate of 5 gpm/sf can be comfortably used for effluent polishing at the LRWRP, with a peak flow rate of 7 gpm/sf.

Coagulant addition proved beneficial in lowering turbidity and metal concentrations, and should be used in conjunction with filtration.

4.2 Ultraviolet Disinfection Results

The testing of coliform reduction with UV dosage is shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. A trend of higher UV reduction with increased dosage is shown as is expected. Normally, coliform is significantly reduced to very low levels at UV dosages of 60 to 80 mj/cm2 while Cryptosporidium

Pilot Plant Study

UV Dose vs. Total Coliform

June 2002 K/J 004649.00

Figure 4-1

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

G:\PROJECTS\2000\004649.00\DELIVERABLES\PILOTSTUDYTM\Figure4.PPT

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

UV Dose (mWs/cm2)

To ta l C ol ifo rm

(M

PN

/1 m L)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

UV Dose (mWs/cm2)

Fe ca l C ol ifo rm

(M

PN

/1 m L)

City of Lompoc Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant

Pilot Plant Study

UV Dose vs. Fecal Coliform

June 2002 K/J 004649.00

Figure 4-2

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

G:\PROJECTS\2000\004649.00\DELIVERABLES\PILOTSTUDYTM\Figure5.PPT

Pilot Plant Study 20 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc and Giardia are significantly reduced at lower UV dosages of 20 to 40 mj/cm2. However, it is virus inactivation that requires the highest UV dosage.

The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has recently provided criteria for sufficient virus inactivation to meet Coliform Title 22 requirements for recycled water. This is for a UV dosage of 100 mj/cm, at a minimum UV transmission of 55 percent and a lamp UV emission reduction to 80 percent. This, in effect, requires a UV dosage output capability to 227 mj/cm2.

Although, the City does not currently distribute recycled water, practically, these are appropriate criteria for consideration at the LRWRP, where filtered effluent UV transmittance was measured at about 65 percent. Use of the DHS criteria results in a factor of safety of about 20 percent.

Pilot Plant Study 21 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

TABLE 4-1

SECONDARY EFFLUENT COMPARED TO PLANT EFFLUENT

Secondary Effluent Plant Effluent

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit

Limits(a) # of

Samples Mean Min Max # of

Samples Mean Min Max General

BOD - 5 Day mg/l 30(d) 1 35 35 35 1 3.90 3.90 3.90 COD - 5 Day mg/l NA 1 39 39 39 1 34 34 34 Conductivity umhos NA 70 1543 1400 1743 70 1506 1430 1665 DO mg/l 5.0 (min.) 1 4.2 4.2 4.2 2 5.1 5.1 5.1 TDS mg/l 1,100 2 943 924 962 2 953 946 960 Hardness mg/l NA 1 282 282 282 1 272 272 272 pH 6.5-8.3 70 6.59 6.22 6.94 70 6.84 6.46 7.45 TSS mg/l 30(d) 77 5.9 1.2 16 69 5.82 1.20 12.8 Temperature °C NA 70 20.6 17.3 27.0 70 20.6 18.8 24 Turbidity NTU 20 70 2.6 1.5 5.8 70 2.9 1.5 9.0 UV Transmittance % NA 37 65.0 51.0 69.0 11 65.2 61.0 67.0

Inorganics Calcium mg/l NA 2 41.1 39.0 43.2 2 39.6 30.0 49.2 Fluoride mg/l 1.0(b) 3 0.63 0.60 0.70 3 0.60 0.60 0.60

Metals Aluminum mg/l 5.0 3 0.068 ND 0.11 3 0.052 ND 0.07 Antimony µg/l 20(c) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Arsenic µg/l 0.04(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Barium mg/l NA 3 0.007 0.007 0.008 3 0.007 0.006 0.007 Beryllium µg/l 10(c) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Cobalt µg/l NA 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Iron mg/l 5.0(b) 2 0.24 0.11 0.36 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 Manganese mg/l 0.2(b) 2 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Molybdenum mg/l 0.05(c) 3 0.02 0.01 0.03 3 0.02 0.01 0.03 Selenium µg/l 20(c) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Thallium µg/L 50(c) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND

TABLE 4-1 (CONT.)

SECONDARY EFFLUENT COMPARED TO PLANT EFFLUENT

Pilot Plant Study 22 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Secondary Effluent Plant Effluent

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit

Limits(a) # of

Samples Mean Min Max # of

Samples Mean Min Max Organics - General

Acrolein µg/l 320 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Acrylonitrile µg/l 0.06 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Atrazine mg/l 0.003(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Benzene µg/l 1.20 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Benzidine µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Butylbenzylphthalate µg/l 3,000 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Carbon tetrachloride µg/l 0.25 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Chloroethylether-bis-2 µg/l 0.03 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Chloroisopropylether-bis-2 µg/l 1,400 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 2,4-D mg/l 0.1(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/l 400 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,2-dichloroethane µg/l 0.38 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 2,4-dichlorophenol µg/l 93 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,3-dichloropropene mg/l 0.0005(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 4,6-dinitrophenol-2-methyl µg/l 13.40 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 2,4-dinitrotoluene µg/l 0.11 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,2-diphenylhydrazine µg/l 0.04 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Endrin µg/l 0.04 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.680(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.00002 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Ethylhexylphthalate-bis-2 µg/l 1.80 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Isophorone µg/l 36 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Lindane µg/l 0.02 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Methoxychlor mg/l 0.1(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Monochlorobenzene mg/l 0.030(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Nitrobenzene µg/l 17 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND N-nitrosodimethylamine µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND

Phenols, Total µg/l 21,000 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND

Pilot Plant Study 23 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Secondary Effluent Plant Effluent

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit

Limits(a) # of

Samples Mean Min Max # of

Samples Mean Min Max Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCB 1016 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1221 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1232 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1242 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1248 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1254 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND PCB 1260 µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Simazine mg/l 0.010 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 2,4,5 - TP Silvex mg/l 0.01(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.17 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Toxaphene µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/l 0.22 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/l 0.6 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.0005(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Xylenes, Total mg/l 1.75(b) 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Extra Organics 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.06 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Tetrachloroethene (PCE) µg/l 0.80 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Trichloroethene (TCE) µg/l 2.70 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Di-n-butyl phthalate µg/l 2,700 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine µg/l 0.04 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Diethyl phthalate µg/l 23,000 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Dimethyl phthalate µg/l 313,000 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Di-n-octyl phthalate µg/l NA 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Hexachlorobutadiene µg/l 0.44 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/l 240 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Hexachloroethane µg/l 1.90 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND N-Nitrosodiphenylamine µg/l 0 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND Total Phenolics µg/l NA 3 ND ND ND 3 ND ND ND

Pilot Plant Study 24 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Secondary Effluent Plant Effluent

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit

Limits(a) # of

Samples Mean Min Max # of

Samples Mean Min Max Radioactives

Gross Alpha pCi/l NA 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND Gross Beta pCi/l NA 2 12.70 12.70 12.70 2 29.45 16.30 42.60 Radium 226 pCi/l NA 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND Radium 228 pCi/l NA 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND Uranium (Total) µg/l NA 2 0.07 0.05 0.10 2 0.03 0.02 0.05

Biological Coliform, Total MPN/1000mL 23 52 200 200 200 36 20 0 145 Coliform, Fecal MPN/100mL NA 52 200.13 200.00 200.50 36 0.14 0.00 1.00

Cryptosporidium Fluorescence Antibody orgm/L NA 3 2.57 2.00 3.30 3 4.67 0.90 7.70

Giardia Fluorescence Antibody orgm/L NA 3 37.40 21.10 49.90 3 63.50 37.20 79.30 Coliphage - MS2 PFU/mL NA 3 9.3 6.0 12.0 3 ND ND ND

Toxicity Minnow Chronic Survival

NOEC % 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

TU units 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

IC25 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

IC50 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

Minnow Chronic Growth

NOEC % 100 3 70 10 100 3 100 100 100

TU units 1 3 4 1 10 3 1 1 1

IC25 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 69.6 8.8 100

IC50 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

Minnow Acute Survival

LC50 % 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

TU units 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Pilot Plant Study 25 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

Secondary Effluent Plant Effluent

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit

Limits(a) # of

Samples Mean Min Max # of

Samples Mean Min Max Ceriodaphnia Chronic Survival

NOEC % 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

TU units 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

IC25 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

IC50 % NA 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100

Ceriodaphnia Chronic Reproduction

NOEC % 100 3 55 32 100 3 71 100 56

TU units 1 3 1.8 3.1 1.0 3 1.4 1.0 1.8

IC25 % NA 3 37 34 40 3 73 62 84

IC50 % NA 3 90 69 100 3 99 97 100

Ceriodaphnia Acute Survival

LC50 % 100 3 95 85 100 3 98.3 95.0 100

TU units 1 3 1.05 1.18 1.0 3 1.02 1.0 1.05

Notes and Abbreviations:

(a) Daily maximum unless otherwise noted. (c) Interim limit.

(b) Instantaneous maximum. (d) Monthly average.

DO - Dissolved Oxygen IC25 - Inhibitive Concentration (dilution of effluent at which 25% of organisms affected). A higher percentage of effluent indicates a lower toxicity.

IC50 - Inhibitive Concentration (dilution of effluent at which 50% of organisms affected). A higher percentage of effluent indicates a lower toxicity.

LC50 - Test concentration wp hich caused 50% mortality in the population TDS - Total Dissolved Solids TSS - Total Suspended Solids TU - Toxicity Units (inverse of NOEC value) NOEC - No Observable Effect Concentration (highest concentration tested which is not significantly lower than the control)

Pilot Plant Study 26 g:\projects\2000\004649.00\deliverables\pilotplant\techmemo3.doc

TABLE 4-2

UV ONLY COMPARED TO UV AND FILTRATION

UV Only UV and Filtration

Parameter Units

NPDES

Permit Limit(a)

# of Samples Mean Min Max

# of Samples Mean Min Max

General Alkalinity mg/l NA 1 49 49 49 1 49 49 49 UV Transmittance % NA 17 64 61 66 24 66 64 69

Metals Iron mg/l 5.0(b) 1 0.27 0.27 0.27 3 0.12 0.08 0.15

Biological Coliform, Total MPN/100 mL 23 26 72 0 200 62 3 0 22 Coliform, Fecal MPN/100 mL NA 26 5 0 16 62 0.2 0 5 Coliform, Total Alt Method blows NA 26 28 0 51 62 3.0 0 18 Coliform, Fecal Alt Method…