United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency

            Research and Development
            Municipal Environmental Research
            Laboratory
            Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-80-1 14
August 1980
&EPA
Wastewater
Contaminate
Removal for
Groundwater
Recharge at
Water Factory 21

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
 gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
 vironmental technology. Elimination  of traditional grouping  was consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The nine series are:

      1,  Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3,  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5,  Socioeconomic  Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

•This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
 NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
 onstrate instrumentation, equipment,  and  methodology to repair or prevent en-
 vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
 provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
 of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                            EPA-600/2-80-114
                                            August 1980
WASTEWATER CONTAMINATE REMOVAL  FOR  GROUNDWATER
           RECHARGE AT WATER FACTORY  21
                         by

  Perry L.  McCarty, Martin Reinhard, James Graydon,
 Joan Schreiner, Kenneth Sutherland, Thomas Everhart
             Civil Engineering Department
                Stanford University
              Stanford, California  94305

                        and

                   David G. Argo
             Orange County Water District
          Fountain Valley, California  92708
                Grant  No.  EPA-S-803873
                   Project  Officer

                     John English
             Wastewater Research Division
     Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
    MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
         OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              CINCINNATI,  OHIO 45268

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
      This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi-
cation.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                    ii

-------
                                   FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and;welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication is one of the
products of that research; a most vital communications link between the re-
searcher and the user community.

     This report describes the performance of Water Factory 21, a 0.66 m^/s
advanced wastewater treatment plant designed to treat municipal wastewater so
that it can be used to recharge a groundwater system.  Through this project
groundwater supplies are being replenished, saltwater-endangered aquifers are
being protected, and water is being reclaimed for future use.
                                      Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                      Municipal Environmental
                                      Research Laboratory
                                     iii

-------
                                    ABSTRACT

      Water Factory 21 (WF-21) in Orange  County,  California,  is  a 0.66 m3/s
 (15 mgd) advanced wastewater treatment plant  that  has  been designed to reclaim
 biologically treated municipal wastewater  to  supply  the  injection water for a
 seawater-barrier system.  Processes included  are lime  treatment,  air strip-
 ping, filtration, activated-carbon adsorption,  reverse osmosis,  and chlorina-
 tion.  This study was undertaken because of interest in  the  use  of reclaimed
 water to augment domestic water supplies.

      There have been three distinct periods of  operation at  WF-21.   A previous
 report (2) described results from the first two periods.   This  report presents
 a  comparison between results from the second  period with trickling-filter  in-
 fluent and the first nine months of the  third period when higher-quality
 activated-sludge effluent was treated.

      A statistical analysis was made of concentration  variations  with time for
 each contaminant at each sample location, and indicated  that in  general  the
 probability variations followed a lognormal distribution.  The report contains
 summaries  of inorganic,  organic,  and biological contaminant  geometric means,
 spread factors,  removal efficiencies,  and 95% confidence intervals.

      In the influent waters to WF-21  the geometric mean  concentrations only of
 cadmium, coliforms,  and turbidity exceeded EPA National  Interim Primary  Drink-
 ing  Water  Regulations (NIPDWR)  maximum contaminant levels  (MCL) during the
 three periods  of operation as did chromium during the  first  two periods.   Fol-
 lowing treatment at  WF-21 and for at  least 98 percent  of  the time, all contam-
 inants during  all periods of operation were below NIPDWR MCL values.  Addi-
 tional quality standards have been imposed by regional authorities.   These
 standards  on the average have been met.   At least 2 percent of the time  the
 MCls  for ammonia of  4 mg/1,  for  fluoride of 0«8 mg/1, for boron of 0.5 mg/1,
 and  for electrical conductivity  of 900 yS/cm have been exceeded.

      Lime  treatment,  activated-carbon  adsorption,  and reverse osmosis were  the
 most  effective processes in overall  organics  removal as measured by COD  or
 TOG.   An average COD  removal of 88 percent  was obtained during the second  pe-
 riod  from  141  to 17 mg/1,  and of  74 percent during the third period from 47  to
 12 mg/1 by  processes  through activated-carbon adsorption.  Reverse-osmosis
 treatment  during the  latter period resulted in additional COD removal down  to
a geometric mean of  1.3  mg/1.

     Over  100  trace organic substances were found in influent waters to WF-21
 and of  these, about 30 were  monitored  regularly.   The two processes found most
efficient  in removal  were  air stripping  and activated-carbon adsorption, and
 overall removals were generally greater  than  90  percent.
                                      IV

-------
     Viruses were routinely  found  in  influent  waters to WF-21.   They were
detected in the effluent only twice during  the second period when activated-
carbon towers were operated  in  the upflow mode and some carbon attrition
resulted, but were not detected in the  effluent during the third period.

     This report was submitted  in  fulfillment  of Research Grant No. EPA-S-
803873 by the Orange County  Water  District  under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.   This  report  covers the period August 1,
1977, to December 31, 1978,  and was completed  January 1, 1980.

-------

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Foreword  ...............................
Abstract  ...............................   iv
Figures ...................... •  .........   ix
Tables  ......... , ......................   xi
Acknowledgments ............................ xiii

    1.  Introduction  ...................... ...    1

    2,  Conclusions ..........................    2
    3.  Recommendations  ........................    4
    4.  Water Factory 21 Process Description  .............    5
             General description  ....... ..... • ......    5
             Process description  ........  . ..........    5
             Periods of operation ...................    8
             Comparison between design and achieved flow rates   ....   10

    5.  Sampling and Analytical Procedures  ..............   13

             Sampling .........................   13
             General inorganics and heavy metals   ...........   13
             Organics .........................   13
             Viruses  .........................   19
    6.  Data Analysis .........................   25
             Selection of distribution model   .............   25
             Characterization of the lognormal distribution ......   30

    7.  Overall Plant Performance ...................   34
             General summary   .....................   34
             Organics removal and formation of chlorination products   .   34
             Heavy metals  .......................   47
             Virus   ..........................   50
    8.  Effectiveness of Individual Processes  .............   55
             General summary   .  . .  ..............  ....   55
             Lime  treatment  ......................   58
             Air Stripping   ......................   62
             Recarbonation and Filtration  ,  ..............   65
             Activated Carbon Adsorption  ................   65
             Reverse Osmosis   .....................   '°
                                    vii

-------
    9.  Plant Reliability  	   80

             The concept of reliability	   80
             Reliability of operation  	   81
             Reliability in meeting state requirements  	   82
             Reliability in meeting EPA primary regulations 	   86
             Reliability for removing organic materials 	   88
             Summary and discussion 	   89
References	   93
Appendices

        A.   Major design criteria for 0.66 m^/s advanced wastewater
             treatment plant  	  .....   95

        B.   Major design criteria for 0.22 m^/s reverse-osmosis
             plant	   99

        C.   Second-period organic data summary 	  103

        D.   Second-period inorganic and general data summary  	  113

        E.   Third-period organic data summary  	  122

        F.   Third-period inorganic and general data summary  	  136

        G.   Comparison between normal and lognormal distributions of
             data at various sampling points during periods two  and
             three	147
                                   viii

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number
                                                                        Page
  1    Elow schematic and sampling locations for Water Factory 21 ...   6

  2    Reverse osmosis plant flow diagram	•.  •	   9
  3    Summary of flow rates to various unit processes and applied
         chlorine concentrations during the second and third periods   .  11

  4    Analytical scheme for trace organics.  A: VGA compounds,
         B: CLSA compounds, C: pesticides, D: polyaromatic hydrocar-
         bons, E: phenols, F: aliphatic acids, and G: aromatic acids   .  17

  5    Comparison between normal and lognormal probability distribu-
         tions for effluent COD data during the third period	26

  6    Comparison between normal and lognormal distributions for
         influent methylene chloride   	 	  28
  7    Computer plots showing comparison between normal  (upper) and
         lognormal distributions for 1,3-dichlorobenzene  (ug/D
         during Period Two in Water Factory 21 influent  (Ql)	29

  8    Probability distribution of concentration as a function of S
         when M equals 10	-51
  9    Computer plot  of  lognormal probability for case where only 9 out
         of 22 values were above the detection limit.  Line is least-
         squares  fit  to  the 9 data points.  Data is in ug/1 for Period
         Two for-1,3-dichlorobetlzene'inWater Factory 21 effluent (Q9)   .  .  32

  10  Distribution of COD at various  Water Factory  21 sampling
         locations during second period (October 1976  through  February
         1978)   	•  •  •  39
  11  Distribution of COD  at various  Water Factory  21 sampling  loca-
          tions  during third  period  (March 1978  through December  1978)  .  40

   12   Trihalomethane distribution  and 95% confidence interval for  the
          geometric mean  in the  effluent (Q9)  before  and  after break-
         point  chlorination was instigated (Periods  1 and 2)	42

   13   Distribution  of chlorobenzene concentrations  in the influent and
          effluent during third period.  Curves  shown are for chloro-
         benzene (CB),  1,2-dichlorobenzene (1,2-DCB),  and 1,4-dichloro-
          benzene (1,4-DCB)   .	43
   14   Distribution of trihalomethane concentrations in the influent
          and effluent during third period 	  43
                                      ix

-------
Number
                                                                        Page
  15   Distribution of aromatic hydrocarbons in the influent and
         effluent during the third period 	   44

  16   Distribution of various chlorinated methanes and ethanes  in
         the influent and effluent during third period  	'.   44

  17   Distribution of heavy metal concentrations  in the influent  and
         effluent during third period 	  .  	   49

  18   Distribution of heavy metal concentrations  in the influent  and
         effluent during third period 	   49

  19   Seasonal variations in viruses in Water  Factory 21 influent  .  .   53

  20   Distribution of 1,4-dichlorobenzene concentrations at various
         sampling points during third period  	  	   56

  21   Distribution of tetrachloroethylene at various  sampling points
         during third period	   55

  22   Distribution of ethylbenzene at various  sampling points during
         third  period 	  .....   57

  23   Distribution of diisobutylphthalate at various  sampling points
         during third period	57

  24   Frequency distribution  for  cadmium at various sampling loca-
         tions  during the  second period  	  ........   59

  25   Frequency distribution  for  chromium at various  sampling loca-  .
         tions  during the  second period	   59

  26   Influent and effluent COD for  a typical GAG column during the
         latter part of Period  2 and  into Period 3	69

  27   Influent and effluent COD for  a GAG column over an extended
        period without regeneration   	  71

  28   Comparison of influent and effluent COD concentrations with
         time for fresh and old GAG	72

  29    Comparison of chloroform removal by fresh (Q7-12) and old
         (Q7-5)   GAG	• m   75

  30    Comparison of bromodichloromethane removal by fresh (Q7-12)
        and old (Q7-5) GAG	   75

 31    Comparison of dibromochloromethane removal by fresh (Q7-12)  and
        old (Q7-5) GAG	   76

 32   Ratio of e-ffluent trihalornethane concentrations for fresh
        (Q7-12) and old (Q7-5) GAG	76

-------
                                   TABLES
Number
  1    Different Operational Periods at Water Factory 21  .......   8
  2    Average Flow Rates to Various Processes as Percentage of Design
         Flow Rate During Periods Two and Three ............  10
  3    Water Factory 21 Sampling Schedule ...............  14
  4    General Analytical Procedures  .................  15
  5    Detection Limits and Analytical plus Sampling Errors for Trace
                                                                         on
         Organic Analysis ...... .  ................
  6    Summary of Virus Concentration Methods   ............  21
  7    Summary of Comparison Between Normal and Lognormal Distributions
         for organic, inorganic, and general parameter data ......  30
  8    Geometric Mean Influent and Effluent Concentrations for General
         Contaminants During Second Period   .....  .  ........  35
  9    Geometric Mean Influent and Effluent Concentrations for General
         Contaminants During Third Period  .  ..............  36
  10   Compounds Identified in WF-21 Influent  (Ql)  and Effluent  (Q9
         and Q22B)   ..........................  37
  11   Removals of  Organic Substances Through  AWT Treatment During
         Second Period   .  .......................  ^5
  12   Removals of  Organic Substances Through  AWT Treatment During
         Third Period  .........................  46
  13   Comparison Between Influent  and  Effluent Concentrations of
         Organic Substances  for  Second  and Third  Periods  .......  48
  14   Summary of Heavy Metal  Concentrations  and  Removals  by  AWT
         During  Second Period  ...............  • .....
   15    Summary of Heavy Metal  Concentrations and  Removals  by  AWT During
          Third Period  ........  .................  51
   16    Types  of  Viruses Identified in Influent to Water Factory  21   .  .  54
   17   Removals  of Heavy Metals  and Miscellaneous Contaminants by
          Lime Treatment ........................   60
   18   Removals of Trace Organics by Lime Treatment During the Second
          and Third Periods  ......................   61
   19   Ammonia Removal by Air Stripping ................   63
                                     xi

-------
Number                                                                  Pag£

  20   Removal of Trace Organics by Air Stripping	64

  21   Air Stripping of Trace Organics by Decarbonator Following
         Reverse Osmosis  	  .....   65

  22   Removal of Organic Materials by GAG During Periods Two  and
         Three	66

  23   Removal of Heavy Metals by GAG During Periods Two  and Three   .  .   67

  24   COD to TOG Ratios at Various Sampling Locations for Different
         Periods of Operation at WF-21  ........  	   68

  25   Average Percentage Removal of Trace Contaminants by GAG and
         95% Confidence Interval for Average Percentage Removal  ....   73
  26   Average Percentage Removal of Contaminants  by Full-Scale  and
         Pilot RO Systems During the Third Period	79
  27   Options for Increasing Reliability  to Meet  Given Water
         Quality Standards  	   81

  28   Relationship  Between  Standard Deviations Above  the  Mean and
         Probability of Occurrence for a Normal Distribution   	   82
  29    Comparison Between State  Specified  MCL for  Injection Water and
         Actual  Measured Concentrations During Period  Two; October 1976
         Through February 1978 •	83

  30    Comparison  Between State  Specified  MCL for  Injection Water and
         Actual Measured Concentrations During Period  Threee; March
         1978  Through December 1978	84

  31    Comparison  Between National Interim Primary Drinking Water
         (NIPDW) Regulations and Influent Water Quality .   . 	  86

  32    Comparison Between National Interim Primary Drinking Water
         (NIPDW) Regulations and Effluent Water Quality ...  	  87
  33   Probability in Percent of Meeting Various Hypothetical COD
        Criteria at Different Sampling Points at Water Factory 21
        During the Third Period	88

 34   Percentages of Time Hypothetical MCLs for Various Trace
        Organics Were Exceeded During Second Period   .... 	  90
 35   Percentage of Time Hypothetical MCL Values for Various Trace
        Organics Were Exceeded During the Third Period 	  91
                                   xii

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     Dr. Lawrence Leong and Dr. Rhodes Trussell,  James  M.  Montgomery,  Consult-
ing Engineers, Inc., were responsible for  viral  assay and  technical direction
for the virus phase of the project.  Ms. Betsy Martin,  Orange County Water
District, participated in the  field  virus  concentrations.   Also,  appreciation
is extended to the California  Department of  Public  Health  for their advice and
assistance in the virus assays.

     In addition to the support provided by  the  Orange  County Water District
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  project financial assistance was
provided by OWRT, U.S. Department  of the Interior through  Grant 14-34-001-
7503, the California Department of Water Resources  through Grant No. B52353,
and various member agencies of WaterCare.
                                     xiii

-------

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION
     The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has constructed Water Factory
21 (WF-21) and a series of injection wells near the Pacific Coast in order
to reduce seawater intrusion into the groundwater supply by recharge of
reclaimed wastewater (9).  Water Factory 21 is a 0.66 nrVs (15 mgd) advanced
wastewater treatment plant which was designed to improve the quality of bio-
logically treated municipal wastewater so that it could be used to provide
the injection water needed for the seawater barrier system.  Processes in-
cluded in this facility are lime treatment for suspended solids, heavy
metals and organics removal; air stripping for ammonia and volatile organics
removal; recarbonation for pH adjustment; chlorination for algae control;
and filtration and activated-carbon adsorption for organics and additional
suspended solids removal; reverse osmosis for demineralization and organics
removal, and final chlorination for disinfection and partial ammonia
removal.

     Because of the high quality of water reclaimed by WF-21, interest
has increased in the potential of using the reclaimed and injected waste-
water to augment the domestic water supply.  However, inadequate knowledge
of inorganic, organic and biological constituents remaining after advanced
wastewater treatment has caused concern among health agencies responsible
for protecting the safety of groundwater supplies.  Because of such concern,
this study was undertaken to:  (1) characterize the quality of Water Factory
21 effluent, (2) assess the reliability of treatment plant operation for
removal of trace contaminants, and (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the
individual processes and processes in combination for removing materials of
public health concern.

     This report is a summary of the results of inorganic and organic analy-
ses, and viral assays, and an evaluation of the performance for the first
three years of operation of Water Factory 21.  It provides a more detailed
analyis of results than presented earlier for the first one and one-half
years of operation (1), and also provides additional data since the influent
to WF-21 was changed from a trickling filter treated municipal wastewater
to the present activated sludge treated municipal wastewater.
                                     -1-

-------
                              SECTION 2

                            CONCLUSIONS
The change in influent water to Water Factory 21 from a trickling
filter to an activated sludge treated wastewater with less industrial
waste contribution has resulted in better influent water quality
and more economical plant operation.

The variations in inorganic and organic constitutent concentrations
in the influent, effluent, and intermediate points are generally
described well by lognormal distributions.

Several processes are effective in organics removal, especially high
lime treatment, air stripping, activated carbon adsorption, and
reverse osmosis.

Each of the above processes is effective in removing different
organic fractions:  lime treatment removes suspended organics and
some dissolved organics; air stripping removes a variety of volatile
organics including trihalomethanes, chlorinated solvents containing
one and two carbon atoms, chlorinated benzenes, and some aromatic
hydrocarbons; activated carbon removes intermediate and higher
molecular weight nonpolar organics including some aromatic hydro-
carbons, some phthalates, and heavier chlorinated hydrocarbons such
as chlorinated benzenes and PCBs; reverse osmosis is mainly effective
in removing higher molecular weight humic materials as measured by
COD.

The total treatment system through reverse osmosis at Water Factory
21 produces a water with an effluent COD averaging less than 2 mg/1,
and a TOG of less than 1 mg/1.

Heavy metals are removed effectively by lime treatment and reverse
osmosis, and in some cases by activated carbon adsorption.

No single process is capable of removing the entire range of organic
contaminants present in secondary municipal effluent, but most can
be removed by at least one of the several processes used in the Water
Factory 21 system.  In general, similar compounds (physically and
chemically) are removed by the same processes.
                               -2-

-------
 8.    Enteric virus  are prevalant in influent waters to Water Factory 21,
      but are effectively removed by treatment.   Viruses detected in the
      effluent on two occasions appear to be associated with excessive
      particulates from the activated carbon columns when previously operated
      in an upflow mode.  None have been detected during the third period
      since operated in the downflow mode.

 9.    Water Factory  21 has a high reliability for producing a water with
      contaminant levels below the maximum contaminant levels set forth in
      current and proposed EPA National Interim Primary and Secondary Drink-
      ing Water Standards, especially during the third period when water of
      improved quality was being treated.

10.    During the third period, only cadmium, coliforms, turbidity, chromium,
      and fluoride exceeded the National Primary Drinking Water MCL levels
      more than 2%-of the time in the Water Factory 21 influent, only
      chromium and perhaps mercury exceeded the MCL levels more than 2%
      of the time in the activated carbon effluent.

11.    Reverse osmosis demineralization was effective in reducing the mineral
      content of the reclaimed water sufficiently to satisfy the proposed
      National Secondary Drinking Water Criteria.

12.    Treated water from Water Factory 21 is greatly improved in quality
      over influent water; however, trace organics can still be detected.
      Since no standards exist for these materials in reclaimed waters,
      questions of reliability for their removal cannot be adequately
      addressed.  Many of the trace organics found in the effluent appear
      to be the result of chlorination for disinfection.  Most of those
      generally believed to be of industrial origin are reduced to the low
      nanogram per liter range by treatment.
                                      -3-

-------
                                 SECTION 3

                              RECOMMENDATIONS
1.   Bioassay techniques should be used in further efforts to assay the
     suitability of reclaimed municipal wastewaters for direct or indirect
     use as part of a potable supply.

2.   More effort needs to be placed on the development and evaluation of
     surrogate and collective parameters for routine monitoring of the
     quality of reclaimed waters, and for evaluating efficiency of treat-
     ment processes.

3.   A better understanding is needed of coatings used to prevent corrosion
     of tanks in water treatment plants as these appear to conttibute to
     the level of trace contaminants in treated effluents.

4.   Analytical techniques should be improved for more precise quanti-
     fication and more complete identification of the many trace organics
     present in municipal'wastewaters.

5.   The experiences at Water Factory 21 are applicable to the treatment
     of drinking water supplies taken from highly contaminated sources.
     It is recommended that these experiences be reviewed by those con-
     templating the upgrading of drinking water quality.

6.   Since chlorination produces most of the trace organics of health
     concern found in Water Factory 21  effluent, alternatives to
     chlorination need  evaluation.
                                    -4-

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                     WATER FACTORY 21 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

      Water Factory 21's advanced wastewater reclamation facilities were
designed to treat 0.66 m^/s (15 mgd) of unchlorinated secondary effluent
from municipal wastewater treatment by the processes indicated in Figure
1.  These processes include lime clarification with sludge recalcining,
air stripping, recarbonation, prechlorination, mixed-media filtration,
granular activated carbon (GAG) adsorption with carbon regeneration, final
chlorination and reverse osmosis (RO) demineralization.  Also indicated
in Figure 1 are the sample locations, designated as Ql, Q2, etc.  Detailed
design criteria for each process are contained in Appendices A and B.  All
unit processes were designed as dual or parallel units, and operation of
any given unit process was at or near design capacity during the total
study period.  Following is a general description of each process followed
by a discussion of the three major operational periods for WF-21.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Chemical Clarification

     Chemical clarification is accomplished in separate rapid mix, floc-
culation, and sedimentation basins.  Lime is used as the primary coagulant
and is added in slurry form to the rapid mix basin.  Lime feed is auto-
matically controlled to achieve an optimum pH of 11.0.  A lime dose of
350-400 mg/1 as calcium oxide is sufficient to maintain this pH level.
The three-stage flocculation basins are operated with G values of 100, 25,
and 20 s"-*- in the first, second, and third basins, respectively.  Detention
time is approximately 10 minutes in each compartment.  An anionic polymer
dose of approximately 0.1 mg/1 is used as a settling aid in the third-stage
basin.  The water flows from the bottom of this basin to the settling basin,
which is equipped with inclined settling tubes to improve clarification.
Results of lime clarification have shown this process to be effective in
reducing turbidity, phosphates, organics, and suspended solids.

Air Stripping

     Following settling, air stripping is accomplished in a counter-current
induced draft tower with a design air to water ratio of 3000 mVm^.  Origi-
nally the tower was operated to strip ammonia nitrogen from the secondary
municipal effluent.  However, changes in the secondary treatment system

-------

CHEMICAL
/•>! A nino AT-I/-MM
LIQUID PROCESSING
NITROGEN RECARBON-I .-„ TOA™ J ACTIV

WED | DISINFECTION a
                                   REMOVAL

                                                                                             109)
   r	RAPID MIXERS

   \ r-FLOCCULATORS

    \ \ ^-CHEMICAL
    \ \\ CLARIFIERS
aiA
                                    STRIPPING
                                     TOWERS
                      REGENERATED
                      CARBON TO REUSE
                                   BACKWASH
                                   WATER
                                   RECEIVING
                                   BASIN
                     SOLIDS HANDLING
I CARBON
I COLUMNS
sal

u
\
PUMP 1 \
STATION — t 1
^1 1 I
•^ i "l ^
1 FILTERS I M
I ll
© 1
|
V 1
J JL
	 K 	
f



.f














/
/ ^-


CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
/"N
0229
• **-
322A) I
^
SPENT
CARBON
/










REVERSE
OSMOSIS


J
BLENDING
RESERVOIR

•*,

\1




                                                                         INJECTION
                                                                         PUMP
                                                                         STATION
                                       OBSERVATION
                                       WELLS
                                                               INJECTION  WELLS
                                               INJECTION  SYSTEM
                          Figure 1.
                       Flow schematic and sampling locations  for Water
                       Factory 21
                                                      -6-
_

-------
beginning with period three as described later have reduced ammonia concen-
trations in the WF-21 influent to levels below 5 mg/1.  Thus the ammonia
tower fans have been shut down and the air stripping process is now used
for removal of volatile organics only.  The water from the chemical clarifier
is pumped to the top of the stripping towers, where it is allowed to cascade
over 7.6 m of polypropylene splash-bar packing.  The only draft, at present
is due to natural ventilation.  While little ammonia removal is experienced
through the towers, this process has been shown to be effective for removing
a wide range of volatile organic compounds.

Recarbonation

     Following air stripping, the pH of the treated wastewater is adjusted
in the recarbonation basin.  Carbon dioxide from lime recalcining is added
in single stage to lower the pH to approximately 7.5.  The plant was origi-
nally designed for two-stage recarbonation, but this created operational
problems with fine calcium carbonate precipitates and so the present single-
stage operation was instigated.  The recarbonation basin also serves as a
chlorine contact chamber.  Generally 10 mg/1 of chlorine is added primarily
as a disinfectant, but it also controls algal growth.  During certain periods
the chlorine dosages are increased to provide for partial ammonia nitrogen
removal.  During this phase of operation, a chlorine-to-ammonia nitrogen
weight ratio of 9 or greater is required to reduce ammonia nitrogen levels
to less than 1 mg/1.  Chlorination at this point generally results in the
production of halogenated organic compounds and so alternatives are being
examined.

Mixed-Media Filtration

     The recarbonated effluent passes through open gravity, mixed-media
filter basins designed for a hydraulic loading rate of 0.2 m3/m2/min.  The
filter media, 0.76 m deep, consist of layers of coarse coal, silica sand,
and garnet, supported by a layer of silica and garnet gravel with a Leopold
underdrain.  Alum and polymer are occasionally added  to improve clarifi-
cation.

Granular Activated-Carbon Adsorption

     The water is then pumped to the  top of one of seventeen downflow GAG
contactors which contain Calgon Filtrasorb 300 carbon.  The contactors
operate in parallel, each having an empty-bed1 contact time of 34 minutes.
The hydraulic loading rate for each column is 0.2 m^/m^/min.  Following
GAG adsorption, the  flow from the AWT plant is presently divided.  Two-
thirds goes to the  final chlorination basin  for post-chlorination, followed
by 30 minutes of contact time at design  flow.  The other one-third is
diverted  to the 0.22 m^/s RO plant which removes dissolved solids from the
reclaimed wastewater.
                                     -7-

-------
 Reverse Osmosis

      A flow diagram of the full-scale RO plant is shown in Figure 2.   Inclu-
 ded in this process are feeding of sodium hexametaphosphate as a scale-pre-
 cipitation inhibitor, addition of chlorine to control biological growth
 within the membrane modules,  and 25-micron filtration to remove particulates.
 The water is then pressurized by vertical turbine feed pumps to a total
 dynamic head of 420 m water.   Acid is injected into the high-pressure feed
 header to adjust pH to approximately 5.5 before the water is applied  to the
 RO membranes.   The RO plant is designed to provide 90 percent salt removal
 while achieving 85 percent overall water recovery.  The demineralized water
 receives post-treatment in two packed-tower decarbonators to air-strip the
 dissolved carbon dioxide which results from pH adjustment to 5.5.   These
 decarbonators  have been found to be efficient in removing volatile trace
 organics.  A detailed description of the RO plant's design criteria is
 provided in Appendix B.

 PERIODS OF OPERATION                                          ,

      WF-21 has been in operation since January 1976.   Operation since that
 time can be divided into three periods as summarized  in Table 1.
        TABLE  1.  DIFFERENT  OPERATIONAL  PERIODS AT WATER FACTORY  21.
    Period
Dates
Operational Characteristics
            Jan.  1976  to
            Oct.  1976
            Oct. 1976  to
            March 1978
            Mar. 1978 to
            Jan. 1979
               Trickling filter influent, no breakpoint
               chlorination, no reverse osmosis, no
               injection

               Trickling filter influent, breakpoint
               chlorination, no reverse osmosis,
               injection

               Activated Sludge influent, no forced
               circulation in stripping, partial ammonia
               removal by chlorination, reverse osmosis,
               injection
     During the first period, from January to October 1976, no breakpoint
chlorination was used for NH3 removal.  During the second period, from
October 1976 to March 1978, breakpoint chlorination was instigated as was
groundwater injection.  During the third period, from March 1978 to the
present, the influent to Water Factory 21 was changed from a partially
treated trickling-filter effluent to a well-treated activated-sludge
effluent, both of which are unchlorinated.  Also, the Orange County
Sanitation District, which supplies the secondary effluent, segregated a
large portion of industrial wastes away from the activated-sludge system
feeding Water Factory 21.  These changes resulted in significani improve-
ments in the quality of water received by Water Factory 21.  The 0.22 m3/s

                                    -8-

-------
                              CLEAN SOLUTION TO WASTE
                               BRINE TO WASTE
-.
ot-
tr
o
  o
   cc
   Pa:
  ibiu
  jmo
            CJ


           O
               LU

               gco
               QCC
               CTUJ
                          8§
                          IxlCL
                            -rUJ
                            gu-

                            X
                                                           I
                                                           VJ
                                                           60
                                                           CO
                                                              I
                                                              p.
                                                           CO

                                                           i
                                                           CO
                                                           o

                                                           0)
                                                           CO
                                                              ,3
                                                              CM


                                                              Q)
                                                              •H
                              -9-

-------
 reverse osmosis plant was added to the Water Factory 21 treatment system
 late in the second period and has been used throughout the third period.
 Operation during the first period was covered in a previous report (1).
 This report covers results from the second and third periods only.

 COMPARISON BETWEEN DESIGN AND ACHIEVED FLOW RATES

      WF-21 has not been operated at the design flow rate of 0.66 m3/s
 throughout its history of operation.   Because it is generally possible to
 vary the number of units in operation for any given process, the percentage
 of design flow rate for the different processes could be varied.  Also,  it
 is not necessary to continuously produce water for the seawater barrier
 system, so that WF-21 can and has been shut down periodically for routine
 maintenance or plant modifications.

     Table 2 is an overall summary of  the average flow rate to the various
 operating processes in percentage of  the design flow rate for the second
 and third periods.   Figure 3 presents a more detailed picture of the
 relative flow rates for these two periods,  including the time when the
 plant was shut down for maintenance and process modification.   Also shown
 are the chlorine dosages to the recarbonation basin and the final chlorine
 contact basin.  During the second period chlorine was added in relatively
 high concentration to the recarbonation basin to achieve reduction in
 ammonia concentration.   Later during  the second period,  chlorination  for
 ammonia removal was moved to the final contact tanks.   Some chlorine
 addition to the recarbonation basin was maintained,  however,  for the
 control of algae.

      TABLE 2.   AVERAGE  FLOW RATES  TO  VARIOUS  PROCESSES  AS  PERCENTAGE
                OF DESIGN FLOW RATE DURING PERIODS TWO AND  THREE
Process
Clarification
Air Stripping
Recarbonation
Activated Carbon
Final Chlorination
Reverse Osmosis
Period
Two*
58 + 21
46 + 18
83 + 22
64 + 18
25 + 5
68 + 25
Period
Three*
79 + 30
89 + 28
90 + 30
96 + 20
51 + 16
99 + 14
*Values given as percent of design flow rate + standard deviation
                                    -10-

-------
                                                                     00
                                                                     h-
                                                                     CD
                                                                     ,
                                                                     r>-
                                                                     f>-
                                                                     ID
                                                                     N-
SI
Td  co
Ol ^O
•H  O
iH iH
ft M

cd  ft
                                                                              nj -H

                                                                              CO 4-1
                                                                              0>
                                                                              CO T3
                                                                              co  £
                                                                              0)  0)
                                                                              o
                                                                              O T3
                                                                              S-i  C
                                                                              ft O
                                                                                 o
                                                                              4-1  O>
                                                                              •H  CO
                                                                               O 60

                                                                               J-4 *H
                                                                               Ct) >-l
                                                                               > a
 o
 t->
                                                                                 CO
                                                                               o 01
                                                                              IH a

                                                                                 o
                                                                              m o
                                                                               o
                                                                                 01
                                                                               >•> C3
                                                                               M -H
                                                                               3 rC
                                                                               W o
 
 M

 60
 •H
 fa
                         MOU  N91S3Q JO %
                                 -11-

-------
     Most processes were operated below their design flow rate until the
last six months of the third period.  Sampling for trace organics was
intensified during this latter period since this represents the normal
mode of operation which is planned for WF-21.
                                    -12-

-------
                                 SECTION 5

                     SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
SAMPLING

     Analyses for chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOG),
inorganic constituents, and heavy metals were conducted on daily composite
samples by the Water Factory 21 analytical laboratory.  Viral analyses
were conducted by James Montgomery Engineers, Pasadena, California.  Specific
organic constituents were analyzed in the Stanford Water Quality Control
Research Laboratory.  Grab and composite samples were stored under refrig-
eration prior to organic analysis.  Composite samples were prepared by
mixing equal volumes of nine grab samples taken at three-hour intervals
over a 24-hour period.  Samples analyzed at Stanford were shipped by air
in insulated containers, and arrived on the same day.  Specific methods
used in sample preservation prior to analysis are given under the specific
analytical procedures which follow.  Sampling locations are designated by
numbers preceded by the letter Q in Figure 1.

GENERAL INORGANICS AND HEAVY METALS

     The sampling and analytical procedures for general inorganics and heavy
metals are described for two distinct periods.  First is the period prior  to
injection and encompasses January, 1976, through June 1976.  The other period
coincides with the start of injection, from October 1976 through June, 1977.
Table 3 indicates the sampling schedule and frequency for all inorganic and
heavy metal analyses for the period after October, 1976 covered by this
report.  All analyses were conducted in accordance with Standard Methods (2).
Table 4 summarizes the particular procedures from Standard Methods used for
each parameter.

ORGANICS

     COD and MBAS were determined on daily composite  samples using the
standard procedures listed in Table 4.  TOG was determined on daily com-
posite  samples using a Beckman 915A TOG analyzer.  The characterization of
trace organic substances in water was performed for a number of selected
substances on a  routine basis.  A broad and detailed  characterization was
attempted with some of the samples.

     The general scheme which was applied  for  the analysis of specific
organics is  depicted  in Figure 4.  This procedure has evolved during  this
study.
                                     -13-

-------























td
1

pj
o
co

o
g

&
"STJ
*2
CO

H

rH 1
-1 CO
3 cd
x: o M
0 0





















(



C
JQ
M
nj
o




^|
O
4J
iH
•H
F^



CM
d =fe
•H
C J.J
c
I
1
<






CO

c
•H
0



rH


CO














2 cu

1 o
C H

J_J
OJ
•H
«-f
•H
M
cd
rH
O





§
rH
















4-J
C
cu
3
H

1-4
td
4-1
P*
CU
rH

C
M


M
CU
•5




4-1
C
S
rH
1-1
•W


4J
C
P
r-*i
MH
14-1
w


4-1
(3
a)
O
H
*H
M-4
w


4J
c
§
i-H
m
n
fd


4J
cu
3
,_{
m
M-1
td


4-J
c
a)
3
1-1
P3
M

















CN
CM
o-




) &4 CU
4-J 13
•H <^f -H CU
TJ !-l rH -W
•H 13 13 rH O O mH
XI 1 1 cd rH M C3 C
COM cnco4-ix!opO





•
^
a
t-
•1-!
CO

*
0
s
•H
€
cd
CJ

r
9
•rl
C
CU
H
CU
CO
f\
[>,
M
U
>-l
01
0
H
M

ft
ft
O
O

f\
g
j3

"e'

•H
0
0

rc"j
o
*\
o
*s~\
a
cu

M
cd

• •
CU
3
rH
CJ
a
•H

CO
4-J
rj
CU


•-I
CU

CU
O
cd
M
H






































































•
(3
S

n
CU
P*

*\
0
(3
•H
N

*\
13
CU
rH
















•
co
!J
Qj
CU
(3
•H
60
£

^4
CU

60

(3
£

t^
XI

CO
•H
CO
t-*^
I — 1
cd

cd
n
rj
•iH
4-1
>J

S
•
FQ

^1
Xl

CU
4-1
•H
CO
1
(3
O

(3
O
•H
4-1
cd
4-J
(3
0)
u
a
0
CJ

rrj
C
cd

60
C

rH
ft
C/3
rH CM



1
r^"t C
!-( 0
CU U
>
X, > CO CU
rH O 0
•H ft (3
cd 0 o
T3 O
O CU

J_| p.t
O xi B
p i S
--<
1 60 •«
O CU
0 X! 60
LO 4-J cd
C M
• O CU
l-i B >
X! cd
M
-S- CU 4-J
ft (3
>, CU
i-i cu B
CU 0 3

CU O 4-1
CO
Xl 1 13
cd "H
s-i a
60 O CU
(3

*>, a
0) rH 0
4-1 CH
•H 0 1
CO
O 4-> 0)
ft m 3
B -H rH
o x! cd
CJ co >

^ [>, , — 1
rH Cd CU
•H 13 C
cd *-^ cd
•a ft
1 M rH
o^2
P CM 4-1
-14-

-------
                    TABLE 4. 'GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
  Parameter
        Method
Page Number from
Standard Methods
(2), 14th Edition
conductivity @ 25°C
PH
total dissolved
  solids (TDS)
calcium
magnesium
sodium
potassium
aluminum
iron
manganese
silver
arsenic
barium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
selenium
zinc
mercury
alkalinity
chloride
fluoride
sulfate
phosphate
nitrate-nitrogen
ammonia-nitrogen

organic-nitrogen
boron
methylene blue active
  substance (MBAS)
chemical oxygen
  demand (COD)
silica
hardness, total
phenol
dissolved oxygen
dissolved sulfide
coliform
fecal coliform
color
cyanide
direct, specific conductance meter         71
direct, pH meter                          460
glass fiber filtration, water bath
(100°C) and oven drying (180°C)            92
tltration with EDTA                       189
atomic absorption, flame                  148
atomic absorption, flame                  250
atomic absorption, flame                  234
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
atomic absorption, graphite furnace       148
flameless atomic absorption               156
as CaC03, titration with H2S04            278
titration with Hg(N03)2                   304
specific ion electrode                    391
turbidimetric                             496
ascorbic acid                             481
brucine sulfate                           427
1.  Kjeldahl method                       438
2.  phenate method                        416
Kjeldahl                                  437
curcumin                                  287

methylene blue                            600

dichromate digestion                      550
molybdosilicate                           487
EDTA                                      202
colorimetric (AAP)                        582
iodometric, azide modification            443
methylene blue                            503
membrane filter                           928
membrane filter                           937
visual comparison                          64
distillation and colorimetric             361
                                    -15-

-------
                            TABLE  4.  (CONTINUED)
  Parameter
        Method
Standard Methods
 (2), 14th Edition
residual  chlorine

total organic carbon
odor
radioactivity
  gross alpha
  gross beta
1.  amperometric
2.  DPD
combustion-infrared
threshold procedure

internal proportional count.
internal proportional count.
        322
        332
        532
         A

        648
        648
*"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," page 287, EPA-625-6-
  74-003 (1974).
VOA

     The pentane-extraction procedure described by Henderson, et al, (3)
was used for this analysis.  Grab samples were placed in 50-ml hypovials
capped with teflon seals and containing one ml of sodium thiosulfate and
filled to prevent possible loss of volatile organics.  They were refrig-
erated until sent (within 24 hours) by air in insulated containers to
Stanford.  The samples were then extracted with 1 ml of pentane containing
an appropriate amount of internal standard (1,2-dibromoethane), and an
aliquot of 5 pi was analyzed by gas chromatography on a 6 ft packed
column (10% squalene on chromosorb W/AW) using an electron-capture detector.
Results were integrated and computed by a System I integrator (Spectra
Physics).  Organics measured were most haloforms including chloroform, and
various other halogenated one- and two-carbon organics.  The detection limit
was about 0.1 yg/1.

CLSA

     Closed-loop stripping by the Grob procedure (4) allowed analysis for
a broad range of volatile organics present in the ng/1 range and above,
such as solvents, petroleum products, and chlorobenzenes.  However, several
of the organics determined by VOA are not measured quantitatively by this
method.  Thus, VOA and CLSA are complementary procedures.  One-liter bottles
(solvent cleaned) were filled with daily composite sample and refrigerated
until analyzed.  Organics in 250-1000 ml of the sample were removed by
recirculation of a small volume of air through the sample and over an
activated charcoal filter for two hours.  The filter was then extracted
with 20 yl of CS2, approximately 13 yl of which was recovered.  An
aliquot of 1.5 yl was used for high-resolution gas chromatographic (GC)
analysis (Carlo Erba), using a glass capillary column (50 m UCON HB, Jaeggi
Laboratory for GC, Trogen, Switzerland).  The gas chromatograph was equipped
with a Grob-type injector (Brechbuhler AG, Urdof, Switzerland).   Flame-
ionization detection was used.  Chromatograms were analyzed with a Sigma
                                    -16-

-------
                                                                                       to
                                                                                       (U
                                                                                      13
Q
O
LU
\
O
O
x
CD
CD
CL
000
CD   CD   CD
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       PH
                                                                                      o
                                                                                          CO
                                                                                         T3
                                                                                         •H
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          6
                                                                                          o
                                                                                       3  "
                                                                                       O  O
                                                                                       P<
                                                                                       S  -O
                                                                                       o  a
                                                                                       O  tfl
                                  W  CO

                                  U  -H

                                  ••  Ctf
                                  PQ
                                     O
                                   •> -H
                                  CO  W
                                  *T3  t$

                                  g-a
                                  O  -rl

                                  6  <
                                  o
                                  o  ••
                                                                                          co
                                                                                         .H
                                                                                          O
 CO
 o ••
•HW

 (0  «
 60 to
 M 0
 O O
   ,£>
 0) V<
 O CS
 tt) O
 M O
 •U !-i
   13
                                                                                       to  M
                                                                                          C8
                                                                                      tH  >,
                                                                                       ffl i-H
                                                                                       O  O
                                                                                      •H PM
                                                                                       60
                                      -17-

-------
10 reporting integrator.  For mass spectrometric (MS) identification
(Finnigan 4000), a 3-ul aliquot was used.  Monochlorinated normal
alkanes (l-ci-Cs, l-Cl-Ci2> an(i l-Cl-C^g) were added to samples as
internal standards prior to air stripping.

Solvent Extraction Without Methylation (SEA).

     Solvent extraction analysis was used for the non-volatile organics.
A Finnigan 9610 Model gas chromatograph equipped with a glass capillary
column (50 m SE 54, Jaeggi Laboratory), and a wide-range electron capture
detector (ECD, Analog Technology Model 140) was used.  The interface con-
sisted of a temperature-stabilized heating block for pre-heating argon/
methane (95/5) pure gas and capillary column inlet.  One liter of daily
composite collected as for CLSA analysis was sent for each analysis.  These
samples were extracted with 30 ml of hexane/15% ether, dried with sodium
sulfate, concentrated to 2 ml, and cleaned on a florisil column (5).  Two
pi were injected splitless onto the column at 170°C, and after 15 minutes,
the oven temperature was increased at a rate of 3°C/min from 170°C to 230°C.
An internal standard, 
-------
waterbath method, followed by the addition of 100 yl of dry ethyl ether.
The solution was mixed well and was then ready for analysis.

     For sample analysis, about 4 yl of the extract was injected splitless
for 42 seconds onto a 50 m SE 54 column (glass cap. I.D 0.33) at 50°C.
After 4 minutes the temperature was raised to 250°C at a rate of 3°C/minute.
The final isothermal period was 10 minutes. The column was coupled directly
to a Finnigan 4000 mass spectrometer by means of a 1/16-inch glass-lined
stainless-steel tube.

Quality Assurance

     A number of measures were taken to ensure the consistency and quality
of the analytical data.  These measures included

     - running sample blanks for testing cleanliness of glassware and sol-
       vents
     - running sample blanks and spiked samples
     - analyzing standard mixtures to ensure proper functioning of
       analytical equipment
     - running duplicate samples
     - tests with reference compounds
     - routine verification of GC peaks.

Analytical Precision

In order to determine the precision of the above analyses, duplicate samples
were collected on numerous occasions at WF-21 and sent to Stanford for
analysis.  Precision of measurement varied with concentration as indicated
by the summary in Table 5.  The organics listed in this table were selected
for routine analysis because they are present on the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency's list of priority pollutants or used as indicators of
industrial contamination [6], and were routinely present in measurable
concentration in the influent waters to WF-21.

VIRUSES

     Virus monitoring was conducted by James M. Montgomery, Consulting
Engineers, Inc., Pasadena, California (JMM).  The concentration methods
used are summarized in Table 6, which includes a brief description of each
method, the amount and type of chemical added, the sample volume usually
tested, methods of elution, detection limits, the location where the method
was used, and the corresponding dates.  These methods were developed from
a pooling of the information gathered by the San Diego County Health Depart-
ment; Baylor University; the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts; the
University of California, Berkeley; the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill; and James M. Montgomery.  The various methods were employed
in an effort to improve virus recovery and to reduce manpower requirements.

     The concentration of enteric viruses in the final concentrated eluate
was first determined by the plaque assay method employing either a Buffalo
Green Monkey kidney continuous cell line (BGM) maintained at JMM or a
                                    -19-

-------
     TABLE 5.  DETECTION LIMITS AND ANALYTICAL PLUS  SAMPLING ERRORS
                       FOR TRACE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
   Compound
Detection    Standard
  Limit     Deviation
  Mg/I       Vig/1**
  Applicable    Number
Concentration  Duplicate
    Range       Samples
    Mg/1        Analyzed
Trihalomethanes
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochlorome thane
Bromoform
Other Volatile Organics
Methylene chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Me thylnaphthalene
SEA Components*
Dime thy Iphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-buty Iphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis- [ 2-ethylhexyl ]
phthalate
Polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (Arochlor
1242
Lindane

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3

4.0


0.3
0.05

0.085C+0.25
0.048C+0.09
0.064C+0.06
0.18C +0.2

—
0.039C+0.05
0.083C+0.09
0.085C+0.09
0.12C +0.05

0.22C+0.002
0.15C+0.029
0.44C+0.002
0.19C+0.002
0.28C+0.014

0.94C+0.004
0.87C+0.004
0.87C+0.004
-
—
—

0.42C
1.1C
0.83C
0.66C

0.61C


0.14C
0.09C

0.00-10
0.00-8
0.00-5
0.00-19

—
0.00-1.5
0.00-20
0.00-13
0.00-8

0.00-3
0.00-14
0.00-5
0.00-14
0.00-3

0.00-0.1
0.00-0.15
0.00-0.05
-
-
-•

0.0 -6
0.0 -3
0.0 -5
0.0 -8

0.0 -17


0.0 -0.6
0.00-0.15

95
114
115
98

-
58
95
83
89

21
12
16
12
9

18
18
9
-
-
—

9
6
7
10

5


4
6
 * SEA refers to Solvent Extraction Analysis.
** C is the concentration of the compound in yg/1.
                                  -20-

-------
g


f-
z:
r*
u
oc
<
t-































































£
— >-. O
O X V.
CJ K >,
< v:


"x —
« o
1— 1C
~
1 C 1 -C
v _c s _S
I C -J^S1
^ ^ *^« ^*
— ' O
^ C S
H 3 -^ E

C!

_t
4_t
" T3
U C
4-J JT
C -U
O O

o
o


4-1 O
c s
3 -3 1=
r-H O
f*
0
T-l
4-J
3
w

r—< E iH
C* "* 71
S «H 61
C O
£
3
0

•C
£ 1-1 T:
\ V*
r-l r-l C3
fe- oc — '

o
0

^~~
c •

U rH

'tc:§.

o
O"*
r~>
*"
•s.
m m
o •
O ft
c c-
^^
i-1 -o
^— ' O
0
c  C- 0 0
•-1 S g
o c c3 c
03 i ' vs y^

2 ' S
CN CN

in
c " •

O rM

i-H H
oc &.

oo ^c
4 *
(*i r^»


0
0
o
x-s ^-s
h- 1 M
5 3
c
o
•H

(C
1— I
•U 3
C O
QJ O
M O
•H rH

*

-c
C m ~ i ~ •< i*
"*~ j-; w" ^ ^ •— * -"
d — *-. I— ^ TT

= •- = :-
OC (^ ^ -C -S i -=

t^ 	 -^ ^^. L--' sC o cr
Of" — ^ — — CN^J
-^ r-j ^oo^r-^


O1 O1 'C.' O"
^=
-
S £
1 0
i — • " _ _

~ -, . 'S. £

c c> — c~ j-j cr
O *^ ™ ^v C£

i-^ u ^ "5 C- •<

•p 3 C c: > -c tc
'„ T5 O -C • O 5
y c v cc a o
caC*-~)j-Jc;cco s
^-HSSCC-H* cc
tt-,u-a-JOUT3^ CO

C O
Lf*> '""^
55
U
C O

••-* ^Z • *H
S-; a-J C^ O
•W O ^_ >%
S SQ "E. M

\C c^
• c
r-. CN
-:»•
S
in in
O •
O ft
o ^
o '5.
^, ^
M I-l 1-1
t— 1 f— i
C
C O U
O ' 0)
i-l C •"
4J 0 ^
(1J *r-< *H
u "3 c.1"
u o • ti r~
cu o o CM
lJ O W 1
•H r-l T3 M
O IJH 


O"
fsl
X
§








<;

"

e
cc
X

c
in
___2. 	
u^
C! •

CJ rH
"^ «-
'sc'E

o
O"1
•-J

S in
m •
C CO
c _
o "S.
^
I-l T3
^-^ O
-H <
C
O X
0
c o
o
.1-1 "O
0. CO M
J-l QJ
0 r- 4J
CO CSJ r-l
•a i -H
<; t^ EL)

Id

iM S
i- — —
'— 21 ™
— « ™

-*
1 OC
r^ h-
^ , —
O c"
•> N


O*
CN]
X
OC








^

r.

o
s
C3
c/:

O
in
_J^ 	
4-J
C
a c

V-j 4-J CT>
4-J O
z « "S.

o
O^
^H

in m
o •
O en
O
• X
o o.
t— 1

h- 1 f-l
**-s O
c
0 X
o
c o
0
i-l ~o
AJ C
a. co h
M 01
o r^ -u
ra CN i-
< i S

b

                                         -21-

-------
                6










1
1

1
u
c
—
_
r:
c
SI










_





























—
A







c
^_>
r:

*-
c
c
^j
e

JS
i:







u
c
=
-C




u


E





1
O
r=









1
E
5

£• c
ie a;
4£


•3
r 1
w Z2
—
1 T5
5-1

rjj

! i>
— —
E

"Z "s
>
o
c -o
1- 0
JJ —
si
o
Ci


o
E
^ "E
>
c
XJ
™
(-4
a:
0
S r-l
™ {3
_1 SO
«l
c
3
0
4

•o
(£ Ci
tr T3
_o <


c
c
•H
XJ
C.
L4
O
1C
U
G
c1 -
WJ JJ
C.S
£ cT -c
i- E r — us
>— £ S £• s
C d. M »
II II
co cc a -> cc x
r^DC r^r^ ccc i — ac r^-cc
r^^ r-r- ~~--j: r--.-~. t-.-^
.^^ .^ ,^^ ^^ ^ 	 £ ^ 	 ^^ ^^ ^^
u^^ r^r^ ccc- L-^ ^.c
< 2;
— — — CM CM
O* O* O* CM CM
-L X



'c- 0 0 = 0
— L" CN1


a


•
g
|
K



c
O £ ! S Z
_^ 	
JJ
U 0
U_ U C\ : r ; r
£J iJ
cg^i.

CC xC 0 0 O
r^ r^ c> u~» o
~J O^ ON
S Tl
m •
O c^> : : r :
S =
o e.
^.^
•— -a
^- "t; : : r r
^ <
<
C
c

c
C 0
l-l XJ
C. U U
Li O O
C -U J_)
"&•*••<-•
<: •— •—
m
O





1

r-. c
P*- X C
	 L.
r*^ c.
(^ —
o* o


r^




CC


•
'Jl
o
E
c
:/:

S
: O


: u-
CJ
O
sc

O vC
in r^.
a*

: i
1



: |
1

C
c

c
o
•H
4J
C.

C
1
•
—





y;

c;
S
C
c.






















4-1
O
u
JJ
X
^

CN














K
f— i
O-

CC
CJ



































,->.
O^

"c.
























                                               -22-
_

-------
Primary African Green Monkey kidney (PAG) cell line purchased commercially.
The general method consisted of adding Earle's Balanced Salts, Fetal Calf
Serum (FCS), and antibiotics to the sample, incubating at 37°C for 90 min,
diluting with 0.05M Tris Buffer, inoculating a 30- or 60-ml prescription
bottle containing the attached cell line, incubating for 90 min at 37°C
(absorptio-n) , washing the cells with Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS),
overlaying them with agar, and incubating at 37°C.  Plaques were counted
on days 2 through 7.

     During the course of this study it was found that many of the apparent
plaques were not caused by -animal viruses, and hence confirmation of plaques
was required in order to obtain a time count.  For confirmation, cellular
debris from all suspected plaques were passed to tubes containing a mono-
layer of BGM cells and maintenance media, placed on a roller apparatus,
and incubated for 7 to 8 days.  A small sample was then passed to a new
tube of the same kind and these tubes were examined for cytopathic effects
during 2 to 7 days incubation'.  The positives were then recorded as confirmed
plaques.  Tubes determined as positive were then frozen at -70°C.  All
Q9 positives were identified as were a small percentage of the positive
Ql samples by JMM.  In addition, identifications were made by the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), using a greater variety of cell lines  in
order to obtain a broader range of identifications.  The CDPH was involved
directly for several.months initially to help select cell lines most useful
for monitoring reclaimed wastewaters, and have continued to oversee and
review the virus monitoring efforts.

     Virus identifications by JMM were accomplished using the Lim-Belnish-
Melnick cross-secting antisera.  A microtiter system using a cytopathic
effect (CPE) as a positive response was employed in some identifications and
a plaque reduction method was employed for others.  After an initial titering
of the isolated virus, it is appropriately diluted to 100 TCID5Q/0.1 nl mixed
with the cross-secting antisera, incubated one hour at room temperature, and
inoculated into microtiter dishes or plaquing bottles.  Neutralization of
the CPE from a plus four to a plus one or an 80% reduction of plaques is
the criteria used for identification.

     Later during the study it was determined that BGM liquid culture and
the human RD cell line (RD) provided a broader range of sensitivity to the
enteric virus found in secondary effluent.  For a short period rhesus monkey
kedney cells (RMK) were also tested.  Procedures were changed to these two
cell lines.  A BGM liquid culture was inoculated with a small sample volume
(0.2 ml).  If toxicity occured, an observable effect was noted within 24 to
48 hours.  Toxic samples were either diluted or extracted with dithizone in
chloroform, to remove the toxicity.  The screened and detoxified samples were
then inoculated into BGM and RD liquid cultures.  Two tubes per type were
inoculated with 0.25 ml of sample.  Fetal calf serum and an antibiotic,
kanatnycin, were added to reduce toxicity and microbial contamination.  The
samples were, allowed to adsorb for 1 hour before 2 ml of maintenance media
per tube was added.  The tubes were then rolled for 7 to 14 days and peri-
odically checked for cytopathic effects.  The negative tubes were then dis-
carded and the remainder were transferred to other tubes for confirmation.

-------
 In this procedure  the most  probable  number  of  cytopathogenic  units  (MPNCU)
 was calculated with  the  formula
where
                           MPNCU =   - ln(S/N)/V
(5-1)
                 MPNCU  =  most probable number of cytopathic units
                           per ml of concentrate

                     V  =  ml of concentrate inoculated per  tube

                     S  =  number of negative tubes

                     N  =  number of tubes inoculated
In order to convert the MPNCU for the concentrate to the MPNCU for the
water being tested, the value from Eq. 5-1 was multiplied by the ratio of
the total volume of concentrate collected to the total sample volume of
water used.

     The plaque counting technique results in reported values of PFU per
liter while the liquid culture technique leads to reported values in MPNCU
per liter.  It is hoped that these different methods of reporting results
do not cause too much confusion to the reader.

-------
                                 SECTION 6

                               DATA ANALYSIS
SELECTION OF DISTRIBUTION MODEL
      The.characteristics of the influent and effluent waters, and the per-
formance of Water Factory 21, vary from day to day.  In order to interpret
the data obtained from monitoring, a model which adequately describes the
probability distribution of each organic contaminant and each location in
the treatment system was sought .  Several probability models were consid-
ered, parameters for each were evaluated using various sets of organic and
inorganic concentration data from Water Factory 21, and the results of
model predictions were compared to determine which model most consistently
provided good statistical correlation with the data.  Madels for normal
and lognormal probability distributions [7] received most consideration
since they gave reasonable fits to much of the data and also readily lent
themselves to statistical interpretation.

     Dean [8] indicated that concentrations of constituents in untreated
and treated wastewaters generally follow a lognormal rather than normal
distribution.  He suggested that the lognormal distribution has a strong
theoretical justification based on the concept that fluctuations are pro-
portional rather than additive.  From these considerations, a lognormal
distribution was expected to be an appropriate model for the data.  Never-
theless, it was felt that verification was desirable since no other exten-
sive analysis for such a wide range of trace substances in wastewater was
presently available .

     A graphical approach using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S) test [7]
was selected for initial screening of possible models (Figure 5).  Data were
arranged in descending rank order and the probability distribution F* for
each measured concentration was determined from  [9] :
                       F*(X(i)) = i ~ 3/8
                                N + 1/4
(6-1)
Where X^)  is  the ith-largest obseryed value in  the  random  sample of  size
N.  Equation 6-1 rather than F*(X  (i)) = i/N was used  in  the K-S test in
order to avoid problems with endpoints .

     Normally  distributed data will  plot as a  straight line on  probability
paper if the ordinate  scale is arithmetic, while lognormally distributed
data will plot as a  straight line  if the ordinate  scale is  logarithmetic .
The K-S test allows  a  statistical  determination  of how much deviation from

                                     -25-

-------
                              60

                              50

                           ~ 40
                            o>
                            -§30
                            a
                            o
                            ° 20
                              10
    i   i   i   i  i  i  i
EFFLUENT (Q8)
NORMAL
                                  12  5  10  20  40 60   80 90 95   99
                                            PERCENT LESS THAN

                               5a.   Effluent  (Q8) - normal distribution.
                                              i  i  i  l  i—i—i
                                   EFFLUENT (Q8)
                                   LOGNORMAL
                                    2  5  10  20  40  60   80 90 95
                                           PERCENT LESS THAN
                              5b.  Effluent  (Q8) - lognormal distribution.

                  Figure 5.  Comparison  between normal and lognormal probability
                             distributions for effluent COD data during the  third
                             period .
                                               -26-
.

-------
the straight line is acceptable.  Curves are drawn above and below the data
line to represent boundaries beyond which no data in the distribution should
cross', except with low probability, if the mo^el is an adequate description
of the data distribution.  The curves shown in Figure 5 represent those
for 10-percent significance, which was the level used in this evaluation.
A model is rejected in this screening test if the data at any point pass
over the K-S boundary.  In Figure 5 both the normal and lognormal dis-
tributions of Q8 COD data fit within these boundaries and so neither model
can be rejected at the 10-percent significance level.  For t'his set of
data, also, the normal distribution seems to be a better fit in the middle
portion of the distribution, but lognormal is better for the upper tail.
Thus, there is no obvious choice here between the two models .

     An example of a clear choice between models is illustrated in Figure
6 for methylene chloride.  The lognormal distribution fits the data
exceptionally well, while the normal distribution can be rejected at the
10-percent significance level.  Probability plots with K-S limits for the
trace organic data in general were prepared by computer graphics.  An
example is given in Figure 7 for 1,3-dichlorobenzene.  The abscissa
coordinates here represent a normalization of the percent probability
coordinates.  One on the scale represents one standard deviation from the
mean.

      Computer plots for models which could not be rejected by the initial
screening were examined visually to determine whether one model provided
an obvious better fit over the other.  A comparison was made between
plotted and predicted values near  the 50-percent and 90-percent less than
values .   If one model provided an  obvious better fit visually and a check
at the midpoint and upper limits confirmed the visual test,  then that
model was  selected over the other.  A summary of the results of this
analysis  is given in Table 7, and more specific details are  contained in
Appendix  G.

      Distributions for  186 sets of  trace organics data  from  12 different
sampling  locations and  for periods  two and three were examined.  Distribu-
tions  for 156 sets of data for general parameters and inorganics at nine
sampling  locations for  the same periods were also examined.  The lognormal
distribution was  found  best for 47-percent of the distributions, normal
for  8-percent of  the distributions  and both models  fit  the data well for
39-percent of the distributions .   In 22-percent  of  the  cases the normal
distribution was  rejected by  the K-S  test, but  the  lognormal distribution
was  rejected  in  only 8% of  the cases .   Six percent  of  the  latter were  from
distributions for only  two parameters, ammonia  and  electroconductivity.
 It was  concluded  that the  lognormal distribution adequately  represented
 the  results  at  least 92-percent of the  time  and thus provided  an adequate
description of  the  probability  for organic and  inorganic  materials  at
 Water Factory 21.
                                     -27-

-------
       I—1	1—1	1—I—I—I—I—1
        INFLUENT (Ql)
      -  NORMAL
       12  5 10 20   40 60   80 90 95
                PERCENT LESS THAN
99
                                                 6a.   Influent  (Ql)-
                                                 normal distribution.
            i	1	1—i—i—i—i—i
       INFLUENT (Ql)
       LOGNORMAL
                  1 — i — i — i _ i _ ii   it   ii
                                                6b.  Influent (Ql)-
                                                lognormal distribution.
      12  5  10  2O  40  6O   8O 9O.95   99
               PERCENT LESS THAN

Figure 6.  Comparison between normal 'and lognormal distributions  for
           influent methylene chloride.
                                 -28-

-------
                  Ql
            1,3-DICHL0R0BENZENE
                   -2


             15 0UT 0F  15
             -1         0         1
                 PROBABILITY SCALE

            SL0PE  0.95373   C0NSTANT  1.07862
                   Ql
            1.3-DICHL0R0BENZENE
            UJ

            UJ
            fsl
            •z.
            LU
            CQ
            IS
            QL
            S
            —I
            :i:
            O

            3

            n
            is
-0.5 -
               -1.0
                             -1         0          1
          I                      PR0BABILITY SCALE

              15 0UT 0F  15   SL0PE  0.49025   C0NSTANT  -0.16495
Figure 7.  Computer plots showing  comparison between normal (upper)

           and Ipgnormal distributions  for  1,3-dichlorobenzene (iag/1)

           during Period Two in  Water Factory 21 influent (Ql).
                                  -29-

-------
                 TABLE 7.  SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN NORMAL
            AND LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ORGANIC, INORGANIC, AND
                             GENERAL PARAMETER DATA
 Best Fit Model

          Log-
 Normal  normal
      Both
           X
           X
  X
  X
    Neither
Fit Within K-S
   Boundries

          Log-
Normal   normal

     Both
  X        X
           X
  X        X
  X
     Neither

           Totals
  Number of Distributions

          Inorganic
Organic  and General  Totals
  90
  65
  17
  12
   2
  _0

 186
45
37
41
 8
 7
                                                            156
135
102
 58
 20
  9
 18

342
 CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
     Dean  [8] presented  procedures  for  interpretation  of  data which  follow
a lognormal distribution, and has described  the usefulness  of the model  for
evaluation of plant  reliability.  In  order to  analyze  a set of data,  logs
of each datum are taken  and  the average and  standard deviation of the logs
are determined by common statistical  procedures .  The  antilog of the  mean  so
obtained represents  the  geometric mean, M, and the antilog  of the standard
deviation gives the  spread factor,  S.  For a lognormal distribution  68.3
percent of the data  will lie between  concentrations represented by M/S and
MS, and 95.5 percent of  the data will lie between M/S2 and  MS2.  The  rela-
tionships between M, S,  and the distribution of concentrations for the case
when M - 10 and S varies between 1  and  10 is illustrated  in Figure 8.

     For many trace  constituents, concentrations were  frequently below the
detection limit and  an approach was needed which would not  lose the value
of this information. For this case,  the total number  of  analyses, N,  which
includes those below the detection  limit, were used to determine F*(x(i)),
but only the values  above the detection limit  were plotted  on log probability
paper.  The total number of data points at or  above the detection limit is
recorded as Nu.  A straight line using least-squares was  fitted to the data.
The antilog of the zero  intercept of  this line represents M, and the  antilog
of the slope of the  line is equal to  S.  Data  were always displayed graph-
ically by computer plots so that possible errors from  using  this approach
might become apparent (Figure 9).
                                    -30-

-------
                     I—1—I—I—I   I
   12   5  10   20   40   60    80  90 95
                PERCENT LESS THAN
99
Figure 8.  Probability distribution of concentration as a function
         of S when M equals 10 .
                        -31-

-------
              Q9
     LU
          o
1,3-DICHL0R0BENZENE
                        0.5           1          1.5
                             PR0BABILITY SCALE
        9 0UT 0F  22    SL0PE   1.07908    C0NSTANT  -1.96690
Figure 9.  Computer plot of lognormal  probability for case where only
          9 out of 22 values were above the detection limit.  Line is
          least-squares fit to the 9  data points . Data is in yg/1
          for Period Two for  1,3-dichlorobenzene in Water Factory 21
          effluent (Q9).
                              -32-

-------
     In order to give a better indication of the uncertainty in calculated
M values, the 95-percent confidence interval (CI) was determined by
                      95% CI = MS
                                                                (6-2)
where t is the value from a t-distribution table for a two-tailed 0.95
point with Nu - 1 degrees of freedom.

   At times it was desirable to determine the efficiency of a given
process or of a combination of processes.  This was generally computed as
follows:
                    % Removal Efficiency - 100 (ML-Jfe)/ML
                                            (6-3)
where Mi and Ms are the geometric mean influent and effluent concentrations,
respectively, for the process or combination of processes .  The 95% con-
fidence interval for the average removal efficiency was determined from:
95% CI = 100 [1 - ±jr
                  Mi
                                                                 (6-4)
in which,
                     sr -  [(logSi)2/Nui +  (logSe)2/Nue]1/2        (6-5)
   and  t  is based upon  a  two-tailed  0.05  level of  significance with
   Nue  -  1 degrees of freedom.   The  confidence interval  for  percent  removal
   provides a measure of  the adequacy  of  the  data  for  drawing firm conclu-
   sions  about  removal  efficiency.

       In summary,  the lognormal distribution was used  for  analysis of  data
   obtained from Water  Factory  21.   A  summary of the data  for a  given com-
   pound  or parameter at  a given sampling location over  a  given  interval is
   represented  by the geometric mean,  M,  spread factor,  S, 95-percent confi-
   dence  interval of the  mean,  95%  CI, the total number  of data  points,  N,
   the  number of data points above  the analytical  detection  limit, Nu, and
   the  range of data, R,  which  includes the lowest and highest measured  values
   among  the N  data. This statistical analysis can provide  the  information
   needed to make decisions concerning the reliability of  Water  Factory  21 to
   meet given standards,  and allows  an evaluation  of the overall performance
   of the treatment  system.
                                    -33-

-------
                                            SECTION 7

                                    .OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE
           GENERAL SUMMARY

                Tables 8 and 9 indicate the influent and effluent concentrations for
           general organics as measured by COD and TOG, turbidity, electroconductivity
           (EC), coliforms, and other general contaminants for WF-21 during the second
           and third periods.  Detailed information on confidence intervals, spread
           factors, and sample numbers is contained in the appendices .  A comparison
           of changes in influent concentrations between the two periods indicates a
           general reduction in most contaminants occurred following the changeover
           to activated sludge treated water with reduced industrial contribution.
           Only the concentrations of inorganic constituents represented by EC, boron
           and fluoride changed little between the'two periods.  Also indicated in
           the tables is the change in concentration which resulted from advanced
           treatment through activated carbon (Q8 or Q9 samples) during the two
           periods, and in COD, TDS, EC, and nitrate by reverse osmosis during the
           third period.

                The quality of the blended water prior to injection is  also indicated
           in these tables.  During the second period, the blended water consisted
           primarily of a mixture of AWT effluent and deep well water.   The objective
           of blending was to reduce the EC below 900 j^S/cm as required by State
           and Regional authorities .  During the third period, the blended water was
           primarily a mixture of AWT and RO effluents, although some deep water was
           also mixed in.  The COD of the blended water for injection was generally
           below 10 mg/1.

           ORGANICS REMOVAL AND FORMATION OF CHLORINAT10N PRODUCTS

           Detailed Characterization

                Water Factory 21  influent (Ql) and effluent samples  (Q8,  Q9 or Q22B)
           were analyzed for specific compounds with the  procedures  detailed in Section
           5.  The  compounds identified are  listed in Table 10.  They are classified as
           aromatic hydrocarbons,  synthetic  chlorinated compounds,  chlorination pro-
           ducts, natural products,  phthalate  esters,  and miscellaneous compounds.
           Also indicated by underlining are the particular compounds which are con-
           tained on  the  EPA list  of  priority  pollutants.   Compounds  from Table 10
           which were in  sufficiently high concentration and measurable by the  rou-
           tine procedures  of VGA,  CLSA,  and SEA were measured  on a  routine basis .
           The  results  of  these analyses  are summarized in  the  Appendices.

                                               -34-
.

-------
TABLE 8.  GEOMETRIC MEAN INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
          FOR GENERAL CONTAMINANTS DURING SECOND PERIOD

Contaminant
COD, mg/1
TOG, mg/1
TDS, mg/1
EC, yS/cm
Coliforms, MPN/10,Oml
Total
Fecal
Turbidity, TU .
Organic-N, mg/1
Ammonia— N, mg/1
Nitrate-N, mg/1
B, mg/1
F, mg/1
Influent
Ql
141
30
1,012
1,730

89xl06
25xl06
42 '
7.4
30
0.23
0.94
1.4
AWT
Eff .
Q8 or
Q9,
17
7
892
1,330

0.01
<1

1.1
2.0
0.4
0.59
0.6
Blended
Effluent
Q10
9.6

413
708 ,

0.03
<1
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
, 0.33
0.6
                            -35-

-------
      TABLE 9.  GEOMETRIC MEAN INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS FOR GENERAL CONTAMINANTS DURING THIRD PERIOD

Contaminant
COD, rag/1
TOG, mg/1
TDS, mg/1
EC, pS/cm
Coliforms, MPN/lOOml
Total
Fecal
Turbidity, TU
Organic-N, mg/1
Ammonia-N, mg/1,
Nitrate-N, mg/1
B,. mg/1
F, mg/i
Influent
Ql
47
12.4
902
1,500

1 ,6xl06
O.SSxlO6
6.5
2.0
4.0
2.8
0.74
1.3
AWT
Eff .
Q8 or
Q9
12
6.2
849
1,320

0.05
<1

'1.1
0.8
7.7
0.53
0.81
RO Blended
Eff . Water
Q22B Q10
1 .3 6 .0

77 280
156 500

0.01
<1
0.28
0.43
0.3
3 .3 2 .5
0.38
0.57
                         -36-

-------
                                  TABLE 10

              COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN WF-21 INFLUENT (Ql) AND
                           EFFLUENT (Q9 AND Q22B)
                           Aromatic Hydrocarbons
 benzene
etoluene
eethylbenzene
ep-xylene
em-xylene
eo-xylene
el-ethyl-4-methylbenz ene
el-ethyl-3-methylbenzene
el,3,5-trimethylbenzene
el-ethyl-2-methylbenzene
el,2,4-trimethylbenzene
el, 2,3-trimethylbenzene
 C4~benzenes
 indane
 methylindanes
 enaphthalene
 el-methylnaphthalene
 e 2-methylnaphthaletie
  Co-napthalenes
  Cg-naphthalenes
  styrene
  biphenyl
  phenanthrene/anthracene
 emethylphenanthrene (4 isomers)
  phenylnonane isomers
  phenylundecane isomers
  C3~biphenyl isomers
  Cg-biphenyl isomers
  pyrene/fluoranthene
                      Synthetic Chlorinated Compounds
emethylene chloride
etrichloroethylene
etetrachloroethylene
el, 1,1-trichloroethane
el>l>2-trichloroethane
ehexachloroethane
echlorobenzene
el,2-dichlorobenzene
el,3-dichlorobenzene
el,4-dichlorobenzene
 el,3,5-trichlorobenzene
 el,2,4-trichlorobenzene
 ePCB Aroclor 1242
  pentachlorophenylmethylether
  tetrachlorophenylmethylether
    isomers
 trichlorophenylmethylether isomers
 dichlorophenylmethylether isomers
 ecarbon tetrachloride
  lindane
                                           tetrachlorobenzene isomer
                           Chlorination Products
echloroform
edichlorobromomethane
echlorodibromomethane
ebromoform
edichloroiodomethane
el ,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
e3~chlorostyrene isomers
 echlorobromoiodomethane
 el,l,l-trichloroacetone
 echloroxylene
 echlorobromopentanone
 ebromoketone
 emethylchlorobenzene
ect,3-dichloroethyl benzene
                                                                (continued)
                                     -37-

-------
                            TABLE 10 (Continued)
                              Natural Products
 terpenes
 terpene alcohols
 fenchone
 fenchyl alcohol
 t rans-beta-farnesane
 heptaldehyde
*lauric acid methyl ester
*myristic acid methyl ester
*peritadecanoic acid methyl ester
   isomers
*heptadecanoic acid methyl ester
 stearic acid methyl ester
 palmitic acid methyl ester
                              Phthalate Esters
edimethylphthalate
 diethylphthalate
edi-n-butylphthalate
edi-isobutylphthalate
ebis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
                          Miscellaneous Compounds
 camphor
 isophorone
 p-t-amylphenol
 octylcyanide
 hexylcyanide
 other alkylcyanide
emethyl-2-(p-chloro-phenoxy)-
   2-methyl-propionate
 o-isomer clofibrate metabolite
 methylbenzoate
etolualdehyde isomers
 ethylphenol
 2-chloropyridine
ebenzaldehyde
epentadecane
eoctadecane
eacetophenone
^Priority pollutants are underlined

eFound in effluents

*Identified after methylation
COD Removal

     Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the distribution of COD at various
sampling locations at Water Factory 21 during the second and third periods,
respectively.  The 50-percent point on each line represents the geometric
mean concentration, M, and the slope of the line is equal to the spread
factor, S, as described in Section 6.  The geometric jmean influent concen-
tration of COD decreased significantly from 14i mg/1 during the second
period to 47 mg/1 during the third period.  Lime treatment, filtration,

                                    -38-

-------
                                                                         o
                                                                         •r)
                                                                         0)
                                                                         ft
o  o
o  o
CD  sfr
O
O
<\J
ooo  o    o
OOOtD  sf    CJ
                      (l/Boi) 000
OJ
                                                                         fi
                                                                         o
                                                                         o
                                                                         0)
                                                                         CO

                                                                         &0
                                                                         CO
                                                                         a
                                                                         o
                                                                         •r)
                                                                         •u
                                                                         «a
                                                                         o
                                                                         o
                                                                         H
                                                                         •rl
                                                                         H
                                                                         ft
                                                                          to

                                                                         ,H
                                                                         CM
                                                                          O
                                                                          4J
                                                                          a
                                                                          cd
                                                                          0) OO
                                                                          CO >•>
                                                                          3 !•<
                                                                          O t$
                                                                         •rl 3

                                                                          nj ,Q
                                                                          > cu

                                                                          4->
                                                                          Cti rd
O O
O M

m -u
o
  ^o
a r^
O CT>
•H r-H
J-l
3 !-)
rQ 0)
•H ,n
n o
4-1 -U
CO O
•H O
R ^
                                                                          a;

                                                                          E
                                                                          •H
                                    -39-

-------
                                                    10
                                                    o
                                                    00
                                                        UJ

                                                    o  I
                                                    in  i-
                                                    s'g
                                                        UJ
in
CM   bi
                                —    in
eg    —
d    O
                              gOO
                                                               (U  •
                                                               +J ^
                                                               cd oo
                                                               W
                                                       •H Q)
                                                        M ,0
                                                               cd R

                                                               P J3
                                                               O 00
O OO
•H r>
                                                               •U t-t
                             -40-

-------
and carbon adsorption, and reverse osmosis all resulted in significant
decreases in COD.  The regulatory requirement for COD after carbon adsorp-
tion (Q8) for daily composite samples is less than 30 mg/1.  Based upon
the distribution shown, this requirement was met 92 percent of the time
during period two and more than 99 percent of the time during period three.
The spread factor as reflected by an increased slope of the distribution
lines increased with decrease- in COD through the reclamation plant, and
was due in large measure to an increased contribution of analytical error
to the overall concentration variance as COD approached the detection
limit of about 1 mg/1.

Trihalomethanes

     The effects of breakpoint chlorination on trihalomethane concentra-*-
tions in che effluent is illustrated by a comparison of the two graphs in
Figure 12 .  Thiqsulfate was added to the sample bottle prior to sample
collection to reduce residual chlorine, and thus prevent further trihalome-
thane formation beyond that resulting from about two hours of residence
time in the final chlorine contact tank.  Even following breakpoint chlori-
nation for ammonia removal the sum of the effluent trihalomethane concentra-
tions was well below the EPA-proposed (1978)(6) IQQ pg/1 level for drinking
waters in more than 99 percent of the samples taken.  The relatively low
concentration is partly a result of precursor removal by treatment and
partly because breakpoint chlorination was not complete and a large portion
of the residual chlorine was present as chloramines.  Chloramines are not  as
effective as free chlorine in trihalomethane formation (10),

Trace Organics Removal

     Over 25 trace organic materials were in sufficient concentration so
that their distribution could be well quantified and the efficiency of
removal by treatment could be measured.  The influent and effluent concen-
tration distributions for some of these materials are summarized in Figures
13 through 16 .  A comparison of the influent and effluent concentrations
in Figure 13 indicates the chlorobenzenes were removed effectively by
treatment.  Figure 14 indicates that the trihalomethane concentrations
generally increased during treatment, as a net result of removal through
some processes and formation by chlorination in others as already indicated.
Figure 15 shows that the aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations were relatively
low in the influent and were only partially removed by treatment .

     Figure 16 shows that several chlorinated methane and ethane compounds
were relatively high in concentration in the influent waters, and treatment
produced varying results.  The concentration of carbon tetrachloride, CC14,
increased slightly during treatment.  It was probably added as a contaminant
in chlorine.  On the average, CC13CH3 was removed well by treatment, although
for a small percentage of the time the effluent concentration was quite
high.  Similar results were obtained with CC^CHCl, although in  this case
the high values all occurred during one short period.  This may have .been  an
analytical artifact, and this is being explored.  Finally, overall CC12CC12
removal was relatively poor.  In this case, the processes through activated
carbon treatment removed this compound well, but it subsequently increased

                                    -41-

-------
|/67/'NOIlVHlN30NOO
                                                    S-J
                                                    o
                                                    t-H 0) CM
                                                    ca 4-1
                                                    0)   cfl
                                                    4-1 13
                                                    fi a H
                                                    •H cfl
                                                        CO
                                                    cu cu 13
                                                    o !-i o
                                                    C o -i-i
                                                    cu m !-i
                                                    T3 D a;

                                                    M-)   x»^

                                                    o a-> 13
                                                    O O1 OJ

                                                    &-?   cO
                                                    m 4J 60
                                                        •H
                                                    CTi
                                                      at 4->

                                                    "S.3 g
                                                    co m -H
                                                      4-1
                                                    p! CU co
                                                    O   CO
                                                    •H 0) 3

                                                        a
                                                        o
                                                    ,£>
                                                    •H
                                                      -r-l 4J
                                                    co d
                                                    •H CO
                                                    T3 Q)
                                                    3
                                                      B o
                                                    .  O ,£3
                                                    cO.-H O
                                                    rC i-l
                                                    4-14-14-1
                                                    d) CL) 0
                                                    e e -H
                                                    o o o

                                                    CO 60 ^i
                                                    ^a   co
                                                    •H 
-------
                         CHLOROBENZENES
          ce
          I-

          uu
          o
          •z.
          o
          o
                \-  INFLUENT  Ql
I-CB

2- 1,2-DCB

3- 1,4-OCB
0.01 '
            0.001
                    10   50    90  99  I    10   50   90


                       PERCENT  OF  TIME LESS THAN
Figure 13.  Distribution of  chlorobenzene concentrations in the

            influent and effluent during third period.  Curves

            shown are  for  chlorobenzene (CB),  1,2-dichlorobenzene

            (1,2-DCB),  and 1,4-dichlorobenzene . (1,4-DCB).
              100
           O
              0.00
      TRIHALOMETHANES	
                   -i	1—	r

                   EFFLUENT Q9
                     10    50    90 99  I    10   50   90  99

                        PERCENT OF TIME  LESS THAN
 Figure  14.   Distribution of trihalomethane concentrations  in the

             influent and effluent during third period.
                               -43-

-------
              100
               10
                          AROMATIC  HYDROCARBONS

           LU
              0.1
             0.001
                      I    I
                     INFLUENT Ql
                EFFLUENT Q9

              I-ETHYLBENZENE
              2- m-XYLENE
             - 3-NAPTHALENE
              4-STYRENE
                 I    10    50    90  99 I    10   50   90  99
                        PERCENT OF TIME LESS  THAN

Figure  15 .  Distribution of  aromatic hydrocarbons in  the influent
             and effluent during  the third period.
                     CHLORO-METHANES AND ETHANES
               100
               10
           a:

           LU
               o.i
              0.01
           O
           o
             O.OOI
                     INFLUENT Ql
                              2,
                          I - CCU
                          2-
3- CCUCHCI
4-ecu ecu
                            CCIgCHj
                                \
                EFFLUENT Q9
                     10   50    90  99  I   10   50    90  99
                          PERCENT OF TIME LESS  THAN
Figure 16 .  Distribution of various  chlorinated methanes and  ethanes
            in  the influent and effluent  during third period.
                                 -44-

-------
in concentration through the filial chlorine contact basin.  This occurred
during the third period only after the basin was coated with a CC12CC12
containing coal-tar epoxy in order to reduce concrete corrosion from low pH
due to chloririatibn.

     the average removal efficiency for the various organic materials which
were routinely quantified, and the 95% confidence interval for the average
removal was determined as outlined in Section 6 using the detailed summary
data in the appendices.  Results together with geometric mean influent
concentrations are given in Tables 11 and 12 for periods two and three
respectively.
     TABLE 11.   REMOVALS OF ORGANIC SUBSTANCES THROUGH AWT TREATMENT
                            DURING SECOND PERIOD
                                                     Percentage Removal
Contaminant
COD
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
1— Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis^ [2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
PCBs measured as Aroclor 1242
Inf *
Cone .*
(Ql)
141
17
4.7
0.9
0.6
2.5
2.4
0.68
2.1
0.46
1.4
0.57
0.86
1.0
16
2.9
28
3.3
E'ff .
Cone .*
(Q9)
17
1.6
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
1.7
0.74
3.2
<0.3
Average
88.2
90.6
98.5
97.8
91.7
98.0
98.8
98.5
99.0
97.8
97.9
94.7
95.3
98.0
89.4
40.0
88.6
> 91
95% Confidence
Inter . for Aver .
87.6 to 88.8
85 to 94
97 to 99
91 to 99
67 to 98
96 to 99
96 to 100
91 to 100
94 to 100
86 to 100
96 to 99
90 to 97
91 to 97
92 to 99
69 to 96
0 to 94
60 to 97


 *pg/l except COD which is in mg/1
                                     -45-

-------
      TABLE 12.     REMOVALS OF ORGANIC SUBSTANCES THROUGH AWT TREATMENT
                             DURING THIRD PERIOD
                                                     Percentage Removal
Contaminant
COD
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
Heptaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Naphthalene
1-Me thylnaph tha lene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Styrene
Dime thy Iphtha late
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis-[2-ethylhexy] phthalate
Polychlorinated biphenyls
measured as Aroclor 1242
Lindane
Infl.
Cone.
(QD
47
3.25
0.74
1.67
0.14
0.64
0.16
1.9
0.11
0.10
0.043
0.035
0.015
0.033
0.008
0.01
0.048
4.8
0.79
4.7
11

0.47
0.14
Eff.
Cone.*
(Q9)
12
0.20
<0.1
0.83
0.05
0.02

0.012

0.03
0.014
0.02
0.012
0.01
<0.02
<0.02
0.003
0.47
0.33
0.27
3.1

<0.3
<0.05
Average
73.8
94
>86
50
65
97
>97
99.4
>99
71
67
43
20
70
?
?
94
90
58
94
72

>36
>67
95% Confidence
Inter, for Aver.
72.2 to 75.4
83 to 98
-
22 to 68
40 to 80
93 to 99
-
98.2 to 99.8
-
-5 to 92
41 to 82
-9 to 70
-45 to 56
0 to 91
-
-
45 to 99
81 to 95
7 to 81
84 to 98
60 to 80

-
—

*]ig/l except COD which  is  in mg/1 and was measured at  location Q8.
     The confidence intervals for average percent removals for the second
period (Table 11) are generally quite small and in general indicate overall
removals of 90 percent or better.  Diisobutylphthalate is one exception and
has a very wide confidence interval.  Much more data would be required to
narrow the interval here.  On the other hand, the data available for the
third period presents less certainty in the efficiency of treatment (Table
12).  The confidence intervals in general are much wider and in fact for
many constitutents it is not certain whether the concentration increased
or decreased with treatment.  Tetrachloroethylene, m-xylene, and the
methylnaphthalenes are good examples of this.  More data were generally
available for each constituent during the third period, but the data had a

                                  -46-

-------
greater spread and less was above the detection limit.  More data would be
required to reduce these uncertainties .  The greater spread is partially
a result of the significant decrease in influent concentration at Water
Factory 21 following the changeover from trickling-filter to activated-sludge
treatment of the source water.  The concentration of several constituents
was then lowered to near the detection limit where variance due to analytical
errors became highly significant .

     A comparison between influent (unchlorinated) and effluent concentra-
tions is given in Table 13 for the two periods to illustrate the changes in
influent water which occurred.  Also included in the table are the levels of
significance for the differences between the two periods based upon a t-test
comparison.  Values of 0.05 or less indicate the differences are highly
significant.

     For COD and most  trace organics there was a large and significant
decrease in concentration between the two periods .  The greatest decrease
in general was among the aromatic hydrocarbons, which were reduced almost
two orders of magnitude.  The decrease in concentration was about 60 to
90 percent for the chlorobenzenes, phthalates, and PCBs, which was about
the same as the COD reduction.   On the other hand, the trihalomethanes
increased  in concentration.   The concentration of certain compounds did not
change  significantly.  These  included the chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes,
diisobutylphthalate, and lindane .  In general, industrial-waste  segregation
and activated-sludge treatment greatly improved the quality of influent
water  to WF-21.

     The comparison between effluent  concentrations during  the second  and
third  periods  is  interesting. For several  trace  organic  substances no  sig-
nificant difference could  be  found between  effluent concentrations between
these  two  periods .  This does not  necessarily mean  that  there are no  dif-
ferences,  it may  only  mean that  there  is  insufficient data  to show a  sig-
nificant difference.   Many of the  effluent  organics have  concentrations
near  or well  below the detection limit,  thus  contributing  to  the uncertainty
of  the true  concentration. A general conclusion  from  the  data available
is  that WF-21  is  capable of removal  to near or  below  the  detection  limit  of
many  important trace  organics with a wide range in  volatility and polarity.

      The case  of  tetrachloroethylene is  an  exception  to  the above.   Here,
 the effluent  concentration increased significantly  between the  second and
 third  periods.  The increase  occurred from  the  beginning  of the  third period
 between sampling  points Q8 and  Q9  after  the final chlorination  basin was
 coated with a tetrachloroethylene  containing coal-tar  epoxy in  order to
 reduce concrete, corrosion  from  low pH due to chlorination.  Thus the water
 became contaminated with this compound during treatment .

 HEAVY METALS

      Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the distributions of heavy metals  in the
 influent and effluent of Water  Factory 21 during  the third period.  Tables
 14 and 15 are summaries of geometric mean influent  and effluent  heavy metal
 concentrations and percentage overall removals both during the second and

                                     -47-

-------
TABLE 13.   COMPARISON BETWEEN INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
                  ORGANIC SUBSTANCES FOR SECOND AND THIRD PERIODS

Influent (Ql)
Concentration
(Ug/1)
Constituent
COD
Chloroform
Bromodichloro-
me thane
Dibromochloro-
rae thane
Bromoform
1,1, 1-Trichloro-
e thane
Trichloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-dichloro-
benzene
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
1,2,4-Dichloro-
benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
1-Methyl-
naphthalene
2-Methyl-
naphthalene
Dimethyl-
phthalate
Diisobutyl-
phthalate
Bis- [ 2-ethylhexyl]
phthalate
Polychlorinated bi-
phenyls measured
as Aroclor 1242
Lindane 0
Second
Period
141,000
1.6

0.09

0.15
0.12

4.7

0.9

0.6
2.5

2.4

0.68

2.1

0.46
1.4
0.57

0.86

1.00

16

2.9

28


3.3
.19
Third
Period
47,000
3.2

0,53

0.69
0*40

3.2

0.74

1.7
0.14

0.64

0.16

1.9

0.11
0.043
0.033

0.008

0.010

4.8

4.7

11


0.47
0.14
Per-
cent
Change
. -67
100

490

360
230

-32

-18

183
-94

-73

-76

-10

-76
-97
-94

-99

-99

-70

62

-61


-86
-26
Sig.
Level
of
Diff.
0.002
0.002

0.002

0.01
0.1

0.2

0.8

0.01
0.002

0*002

0.002

0.8

0.01
0.002
0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.2

0.002


0.002
0.5
Effluent (Q9)
Concentration
(yg/i)
Second
Period
17,000
7.3

2*1

0.78
0.17

0*07

0.02

0.05
0.05

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.01
0.03
0.03

0.04

0.02

1.7

0.74

3.2


<0.3
<0.05
Third
Period
12,000
8*6

2.7

1.3
0.38

0.20

<0.1

0.83
0.05

0.02

<0.02

0.012

0.000
0.014
0.010

<0.02

<0.02

0.47

0.27

3.1


<0.3
<0.05
Per-
cent
Change
-29
18

29

67
123

186

?

1560
0

33

?

-40

>90
-53
-67

<-50

?

-72

-63

-3


9
?
Sig*
Level
of
Diff.
0.002
0.5

0.5

0.1
0.05

0.1

?

0.002
0.8

0.8

?

?

?
0.05
0.1

?

?

0.05

0.5

0.8


?
?
                              -48-

-------
          10,000
          1,000
            100
         1   10
         UJ
         o
         O    I
         u
            0.1
                          HEAVY METALS
                  INFLUENT Ql
                        EFFLUENT Q9
                  10  50   90  99 I    10   50  90  99
                      PERCENT OF TIME LESS THAN
Figure 17.  Distribution of heavy metal  concentrations in the
            influent and effluent during third period.
          10,000
                         HEAVY    METALS
Figure  18,
   I   10   50   90  99 I    10  50   90
         PERCENT OF TIME LESS THAN

Distribution of heavy metal  concentrations in the
influent and effluent during third period.
                              -49-

-------
         TABLE 14.   SUMMARY-OF HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS AND REMOVALS
                          BY AWT DURING SECOND PERIOD

Geom . Mean Conc.,pg/l
Heavy
Metal
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Pb
Se
Zn
As
Inf lu .
Ql
3.0
77
26
140
250
280
1.6
33
16
<2.5
350
<5
Efflu.
Q8
2.5
26
1.3
18
20
36
1.7
3.7
2.2
<4
. 81
<5
Percent
Average
17
66
95
87
92
87
-6
89
86
'
77
-
Removal
95% Conf .
Inter, for
Avg.
-7 to 34
57 to 74
93 to 96
83 to 90
89 to 94
81 to 91
-100 to 44
85 to 91
76 to 92
-
62 to 86
-

third periods.  During period  two more analyses were made and  the more highly
polluted trickling-filter effluent was being  received at WF 21.  For  this
period, the confidence intervals for, percent  removal are not as broad as
during the third period, although results are comparable.  The average
influent concentrations of heavy metals were generally greater during the
second period, although the differences between the two periods are not as
great as was generally found for trace organic contaminants.   Substantial
removal of many heavy metals was obtained by treatment.

VIRUS

     During the three years of virus monitoring by James M. Montgomery,
Engineers, with the assistance of the California Department of Public
Health, waters examined included plant influent, lime clarified effluent,; RO

                                    -50-

-------
       .TABLE  15.    SUMMARY OF HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS AND REMOVALS
                          BY AWT DURING THIRD PERIOD
                    Geom .  Mean Cone .,  Pfi/1
Percent Removal
Heavy
Metal
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Pb
Se
Zn
. As . .
Infl.'
Ql
1.2
30
33
48 •
72
98
<1
29
7.1
<5
127
<5
Efflu.
Q8
0.7
7.4
9.5
3.1
.-16
42
<1
1.7
1.0
<5
<100
<5
Average
42
75
71
94
78
57
,.-
94
86
.
>21
-
95% Conf .
Inter . for Avg .
-24 to 73
41 to 90
47 to 84
90 to 96
16 to 94
40 to 70
-
86 to 97
-164 to 99
-
-
-
influent, RO effluent, chlorinated effluent, and blended injection water.
In addition, granular activated carbon from three different carbon adsorption
contactors was examined.  Since the beginning of the project, 156 assays
were done on the plant influent .  The geometric mean concentration entering
the plant was 1.1 PFU per liter during phase two with trickling filter
influent and only 0.13 MPNCU per liter during the third phase with activated
sludge influent.  Also, different virus assay methods were used during these
two periods.  The BGM liquid culture technique used during the third period
was found to be about .three times more sensitive than the BGM plaque tech-
nique used during the second period.  Thus the difference between the two
periods was even greater than indicated by the above numbers .

                                    -51-

-------
     Results show the log mean concentration entering the plant was 1.1
plaque-forming units per liter.  A seasonal variation similar to that
reported by other investigators has been observed,  Figure 19 shows the
variation in natural viruses in WF-21 influent and indicates that the peak
occurs during late summer and early fall, with the highest concentrations
during October.  A partial summary of the types of viruses identified in the
WF-21 influent is shown in Table 16, which indicates that the predominant
virus type found was Polio 2.  The next most common typeg were Echo 1 and
Echo 17, followed by Reo and Echo 14.  The CDPH used a greater number of
cell lines than JMM-ERL, and this resulted in the greater variety of
identifications by them shown.

     Evaluation of WF-21 plant processes has shown the treatment to be very
effective in removing virus .  The lime clarification process has been found
to remove 98% to 99.9% of viruses present, based on BGM and PAG assay
systems, respectively.  Limited wprk was completed on the RO influent, which
is unchlorinated activated carbon effluent, and on the RO effluent»  No
positive samples were ever found at these sample locations.  In addition, 19
samples of the blended injection water were tested, and all proved negative.

     There have been 123 samples tested on the chlorinated AWT effluent at
Q9.  Of these samples, two positives were found.  The first incident
occurred during the second period on March 1, 1977, and the isolate was
identified as polio 2.  The first positive isolated may have been caused by
high turbidity (2.3 TU) resulting from carbon fines in the chlorinated
effluent.  Another possible explanation for the positive virus occurrence is
sample contamination during concentration or sample assay.  This possibility
could not be ruled out.  The second incident also occurred during period two
on October 18, 1977, with the isolation of a virus identified as Echo 7.
This second positive finding was also associated with high turbidity in the
Q9 water (1.0 TU), the presence of 4/100 ml total coliforms, and a low total
chlorine residual of 5.4 mg/1.  A possible explanation for the occurrence of
this virus may be a combination of the presence of carbon fines in the
chlorinated effluent and a malfunction in the chlorine analyzers, which
resulted in a lower than normal applied chlorine dose.  It is believed that
cross-contamination was less likely in this incident because of precautionary
measures instituted on site at the virus analysis laboratory as a result of
the March 1, 1977 isolate.
                                    -52-

-------
     50

   £ 40
  — 30

     20
  U_ 10
  a.
      0
imm
,ll
OCT
.Illil,
NQV
l,ll It
DEC
ii ill
JAN

FEB
	 1
1,1.,,, ll,
MAR | APR
II ,,i.h
MAY
,|
JUNE
1977
      50

   £  40
   *—
   —  30

   ^20
   ID
   LJ_  10
   Q_
       0
     50

   u. 40
   O)
   — 30
   U.
      20
      10
•111
,ll
JULY

AUG

SEPT

L
OCT
I,LJ
NQV
Hill,
1

DEC
lllll
JAN
-
FEB
1977
                        a. Second  Period
-
MAR

APR
i
MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT
1 ill
OCT
i i i
NOV
-
DEC
1978
                          b. Third  Period
Figure  19.   Seasonal variations in viruses in Water Factory 21 influent.
                                -53-

-------
                    TABLE 16 .  TYPES OF VIRUSES IDENTIFIED
                       IN INFLUENT TO WATER FACTORY 21
         CDPH#

       Polio 2 (27)*
       Echo 1 (17)
       Echo 7 (16)
       Reo 2 (12)
       Echo 14 (8)
       Coxsackie B5 (8)
       Polio 3 (7)
       Echo 8 (6)
       Reo (6)
       Unknown (5)
       Echo 12 (5)
       Coxsackie B4 (5)
       Coxsackie B2 (4)
       Coxsackie B3 (3)
       Echo 11 (3)
       Reo 1 (3)
       Coxsackie B6 (2)
       Coxsackie A17 (2)
       Coxsackie A13 (1)
       Coxsackie A18 (1)
       Coxsackie A20 (1)
       Echo 3 (1)
       Echo 9 (1)
       Echo 19 (1)
       Polio 1 (1)
   JMM-ERL#

Polio 2 (6)
Coxsackie B5 (5)
Echo 7 (1)
Echo 25 (1)
Polio (1)
*Numbers in parentheses indicate frequency
 of occurrence

#CDPH, California Department of Public Health; JMM-ERL,
 James M. Montgomery Environmental Research Laboratory, the Subcontractor
 for the virus monitoring program.
                                     -54-

-------
                                 SECTION 8

                   EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESSES

GENERAL SUMMARY

Introduction

      The general overall effectiveness of WF-21 inremoval of inorganic,
organic, and biological contaminants was given in Section 7.  This removal
was the result of contribution by each of the processes.  While some pro-
cesses are generally thought to be useful for one specific purpose, it is
generally found that they can efficiently remove other contaminants.  For
example, air stripping was originally included at WF-21 for removing ammonia,
but since has been found to be important in the removal of several chlori-
nated and volatile organics.  Also, reverse osmosis was originally included
to meet mineral requirements, but is one of the most efficient processes for
removing high molecular weight organic materials.

     This section begins with an overview of the contribution each process
makes in the removal of inorganic and organic materials.  This is followed
by a more detailed discussion of each process.

Organics Removal

     The removal of COD by various processes was described in some detail in
Section 7.  Lime clarification, air stripping, activated carbon adsorption,
and reverse osmosis all play important parts.  Chlorination also plays a
significant role; it results in the formation of chlorinated organics.  The
effect on trihalomethane formation was presented in Section 7.

     In order to illustrate that different processes have different remo-
val characteristics for different trace organic chemicals the distributions
of selected chemicals are presented in Figures 20 through 23.  Figure 20
indicates that 1,4-dichlorobenzene was removed well by the stripping process
(between Q2 and Q4), and by activated carbon (between Q6 and Q9).  Figure 21
indicates that significant removals of tetrachlorethylene occurred only
during stripping.  These results are particularly interesting because the
blowers were not operating in the stripping towers during this period;
removal took place as the water cascaded down through the tower with no
forced air circulation.

     Figure 22 indicates that one of the aromatic hydrocarbons, ethylbenzene,
appears to have been partially removed by several processes, although concen-
trations were so low that confidence intervals are quite broad for these
results.  Finally Figure 23 indicates the diisobutylphthalate was removed

                                    -55-

-------
                100
                10
            o>
                O.I
            LJ
            O

            I 0.01
              0.001
                             1,4,- DICHLOROBENZENE
Q9
                       5  10  20     50     80  90 95
                       PERCENT OF TIME  LESS THAN
                 99
Figure  20.   Distribution  of 1,4-dichlorobenzene  concentrations  at
             various sampling points  during  third period.
               100
                10
             o>
            tE

            UJ
               O.I
               ooi
              OOOI
                          II      I       I   I   I
                         TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
                                       Q2
                                           1   I   t
                       5  10  20    50     80 90 95   99
                      PERCENT OF TIME LESS THAN
Figure 21.   Distribution of tetrachloroethylene at various sampling
             points during third period.
                                -56-

-------
          z
          o
          z
          UJ
          o
          z
          o
          o
 100




 10





  I




 0.1




0.01




0.001
                    III      I      I


                          ETHYLBENZENE
                                       i    i  i
                    5  10  20     50     80 90 95

                    PERCENT OF Tl ME  LESS THAN
                                       99
Figure 22.  Distribution of ethylbenzene at various  sampling

            points during third period.
            100
                     i	1	1	1	1	1	1

                           DIISOBUTYLPHTHALATE
         o  0.01
           0.001
                     5  10  20     50     80  90 95

                     PERCENT OF TIME LESS THAN
 Figure 23.   Distribution of diisobutylphthalate at various

             sampling points during third period.
                             -57-

-------
 primarily by activated-carbon adsorption.  Also passage through reverse
 osmosis appeared to increase the spread factor for this material signifi-
 cantly.  This phenomenon needs further exploration.  It may simply have been
 an analytical artifact because concentrations were generally below the detec-
 tion limit.  Phthalates are particularly difficult to quantity because of
 poor detector sensitivity and difficulty in preventing sample contamination.

 Heavy Metals Removal

      Figures 24 and 25 indicate the lognormal distributions for cadmium and
 chromium at various sampling locations at WF-21.   Both metals were removed
 most effectively by lime treatment (Q2), as was found true for most heavy
 metals.  The dashed lines indicate the maximum contaminant level for these
 metals as set for drinking water by the EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water
 Regulations.   Lime treatment was sufficient to reduce cadmium concentration
 below its MCL 99 percent of the time,  but reduced chromium below its MCL
 only about 75 percent of the time.   Subsequent treatment through GAG (Q8)
 reduced chromium sufficiently so that  the MCL was exceeded only about 8
 percent of the time.   Thus although the effect of additional  treatment
 seems small,  the added benefit in terms of meeting a given MCL may be
 significant.

 LIME TREATMENT

      The effectiveness of lime treatment during both the second and third
 periods in reducing the concentration  of heavy metals,  coliforms,  COD,  and
 other miscellaneous contaminants is given in Table 17.   Indicated  are the
 influent concentrations,  the percent removal based upon the difference
 between geometric means,  and the 95 percent confidence  interval for the
 percent removal.   In  general heavy  metals are  removed quite effectively by
 lime treatment.   An exception is mercury.   Also removed to a  significant
 extent are flouride,  organic nitrogen,  turbidity,  and COD.  Boron  and
 ammonia nitrogen were little affected  by lime  treatment.   Coliforms  which
 were high in  concentration in the influent  were reduced by greater  than
 99.999% by lime  treatment.

      Calculated  reductions  in trace organic materials by lime  treatment
 are  listed in Table 18 for  the  second  and  third periods.  The  compounds
 are  listed in order from  highest  to lowest  removal  during the  third  period.
 Some  removal  of  pesticides,  phthalates,  PCBs,  and  perhaps chlorinated
 benzenes  appears  to have  occured  during  lime treatment.   These materials
 perhaps  absorded  to some  extent  on  the suspended materials in  the plant
 influent,  or  perhaps  to the  lime  precipitate.   Removals  appear  to be  some-
what higher in general during the second period, perhaps because the con-
 centration of suspended material  and the  trace  organic  compounds, were
considerably higher in  the plant  influent.

     Many trace organics were not removed by lime  treatment during the
 third period, and in fact appear  to have increased in concentration  (nega-
 tive percent  removal).  This includes  the aromatic hydrocarbons and  the
halogenated methanes, ethanes, and  ethylenes.  No confirmed explanation is
available  for these increases.  Perhaps some contamination with oil or

                                    -58-

-------
                 0.01
                    I  2  5  10 20     50     80 90 95 98 99
                       PERCENT  OF TIME LESS THAN
Figure 24.   Frequency distribution  for  cadmium at  various sampling
             locations during the second period.
                1000
                      2   5  10  20     50    80  90 95  9899
                        PERCENT OF TIME  LESS THAN
Figure 25.   Frequency distribution  for  chromium at various sampling
             locations during  the  second period.
                                -59-

-------
TABLE 17.   REMOVALS OF HEAVY METALS AND MISCELLANEOUS
            CONTAMINANTS BY LIME TREATMENT

Second Period


Contaminant
Ag, yg/1
Ba, yg/1
Cd, yg/1
Cr, yg/1
Cu, yg/1
Fe, yg/1
Hg, yg/1
Mn, yg/1
Pb, yg/1
Se, yg/1
Zn, yg/1
As, yg/1
B, mg/1
Org-N, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
Inf.
Cone
Ql
3.0
77
26
140
250
280
1.6
33
16
<2.5
350
<5
0.94
7.4
30
Turbidity, TU 42
COD, mg/1
Coliforms,
MPN/100
Total
Fecal
141

ml
89xl06
25xl06
Eff.
. Cone
Q2
2.5
32
2.0
30
68
22
1.9
1.5
2.9
<2.5
135
<5
0.81
3.1
26
1.2
52


0.21
<1

. % Removal
(95% CI)
17 (-8 to 37)
58 (48 to 67)
92 (90 to 94)
79 (72 to 84)
73, (67 to 78)
92 (88 to 95)
-18 (-110 to 34)
95 (93 to 97)
82 (74 to 88)
—
61 (36 to 77)
— —
14 ( 5 to 22)
85 (84 to 86)
13 ( 6 to 20)
97 (96.9 to 97.3)
63 (62 to 64)


>99.999(>99.999)
>99.999(>99.999)
Inf.
Cone.
Ql
1.2
30
33
48
72
98
<1
29
7

127
<5

2.0
4.0
6.5
47


1.6xl06
0.6xl06
Third
Eff.
Cone
Q2
0.46
9.2
8.7
6.6
23
13
<1
2.6
3.1

<100
<5

1.0
5.9
0.54
27


0.2
0.08
Period

% Removal
(95% CI)
61 (-54 to 90)
69 (52 to 80)
74 (47 to 87)
86 (78 to 92)
68 (20 to 87)
87 (76 to 93)

91 (65 to 98)
56 (15 to 78)

>21


50 (46 to 54)
-48 (-79 to -21)
92 (90 to 93)
42 (40 to 45)


>99.999(>99.999)
>99.999(>99.999)

                        -60-

-------
           TABLE 18.  REMOVALS OF TRACE ORGANICS BY LIME TREATMENT
                          DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD PERIODS

Contaminant

Inf.
Cone.
Ql
US/1
Second
Eff.
Cone.
Q2
us/l
Period
% Removal
(95% CI)
Third Period
Inf.
Cone.
Ql
yg/i
Eff.
Cone.
Q2
ug/i
% Removal
(95% CI)
Di-n-butyl-
  phthalate
1,2,4-Trichloro-
  benzene        0.46
Bis-[2-diethylhex-
  yl]-phthaiate
Lindane
1,3-Dichloro-
  benzene        0.68
DimethyIphthaiate
Diisobutyl-
  phthalate
1,4-Dichloroben-
  zene           2.1
PCBs as Aroclor
  1242
1,2-Dichloroben-
  zene           2.4
2-Me thyInaphtha-
  lene
Bromodichloro-
  me thane        0.09
Chlorobenzene    2.5
Dibromochloro-
  me thane
Trichloroethy-
  lene           0.9
Heptaldehyde
Naphthalene     0.57
Chloroform      1.6
1,1,1-Trichloro-
  ethane         4.7
Tetrachloro-
  ethylene       0.6
p-Xylene
Ethylbenzene      1.4
 Styrene
 Trib rdrnQme thane
 1-Me thy Inaph tha-
   lene
 nt-Xylene
0.22   52 (-96 to 88)
0.12   82 (15 to 96)
1.02   51  (-7  to  78)
1.2    50  (-71  to  85)
0.21  -1330-1340  to 62)
3.0    -20  (-174  to 47)
 0.21   77 (-19 to 95)

 0.21   63 (-22 to 89)
 1.09   32 (-26 to 63)

 0.94   80 (-30 to 97)

 0.16   73 (10 to 92)

 0.23   83 (62 to 93)
0.79   0.23

0.11   0.035

 11    3.8
0.14  <0.05

0.16   0.10
4.8    3.1

4.7    3.2

1.85 1.29

0.47   0.37

0.64   0.56

0.01   0.009

0.53   0.56
0.14   0.15
 71 (-80 to 95)

 68 (2 to 90)

 65 (32 to 82)
>64

 38 (10 to 57)
 35 (-5 to 60)

 32 (12 to 48)

 30 (16 to 42)

 21 (-15 to 46)

 12 (-54 to 50)

 10 (-253  to  77)

 -6 (-33 to 16)
 -7 (-80 to 36)
                         0.69   0.79   -14 (-42 to 8)
 0.74    0.86
 0.10    0.12
 0.033  0.041
 3.2    4.1
 -16 (-270 to 63)
 -20 (-132 to 38)
 -24 (-548 to 76)
 -30 (-79 to 5)
 3.3    4.7    -45 (-198 to 30)
 1.67   2.5
 0.015  0.023
 0.043  0.067
 0.048  0.076
 0.40   0.67

 0.008  0.019
 0.035  0.086
 -50 (-141 to 7)
 -53 (-206 to 23)
 -56 (-202 to 20)
 -58 (-294 to 36)
 -68 (-143 to -15)

-138 (-510 to 8)
-146 (-329 to 41)
                                     -61-

-------
 other petroleum product occurred during this stage of treatment.  Caution
 must be exercised in overinterpreting these data, however, because of the
 wide confidence intervals on the percentage removals.

 AIR STRIPPING

      The air stripping towers were designed for removal of ammonia through
 forced air circulation which exposed the wastewater to about 3000 m3 of air
 per mj of water.   Forced air circulation was provided during the second
 period when the influent ammonia nitrogen concentration was high, but not
 during the third period when the ammonia level dropped considerably.   The
 towers were used then primarily for the removal of volatile trace ogranics
 for which they were found to be very effective.

      The removal of ammonia by the stripping towers during the second and
 third period are  listed in Table 19.  With forced air circulation during
 the second period the removal was about 81 percent, but when this was
 stopped during the third period, removal dropped to 25 percent.   The  25
 percent removal is still significant since it means that less chlorine is
 required in subsequent removal of ammonia by oxidation.

      Table 20 indicates the removal of various trace organic materials which
 were obtained by  air stripping.   The compounds are listed in order from the
 highest to the lowest percentage removal during the third period.   A  compar-
 ison with removals obtained during the second period suggests approximately
 the same order.   It  is evident that removal of these materials did not
 depend  upon forced air circulation as  the  percentage removals were similar
 for the two periods.   This  indicates that  stripping of volatile  organics
 is  kinetically limited primarily by transfer through the  liquid  rather
 than the air film.   Thus, power  requirements for stripping  of organics can
 be  small.

      Table 20 indicates  that  the chlorinated benzenes  and  the halogenated
 methanes,  ethanes, and  ethylenes  are effectively removed by  air  stipping,
 but the  phathalates,  aromatic  hydrocarbons,  and  cyanides are  not.

      During  this evaluation it was  also  found  that  several of  the volatile
 compounds  appeared to  be removed  by the  full scale  reverse osmosis units,
which is contradictory to the observations made  earlier with a similar
 pilot scale  reverse osmosis unit.   It was determined that these  removals
 took place in  the small decarbohators, described in Appendix B, which
 follow the reverse osmosis system.   Table 21 is  a summary of  trace organic
removal through the decarbonator.   The influent  concentration is the
effluent from  the reverse osmosis unit (Q22R).   Again, the halogenated
methanes, ethanes, and ethylenes were removed efficiently by air stripping.
The decarbonator is a reasonably  inexpensive process (about $20,000 capital
cost  to treat  0.22 m3/s), and thus  such  a unit has excellent potential
for removal of some trace organics.
                                    -62-

-------
                TABLE 19.  AMMONIA REMOVAL BY AIR STRIPPING

Second Third
Period Period*
Influent (Q2) NH3~N
Average (M), mg/1
Range, mg/1
Spread Factor, S
No. of Samples
Effluent (Q4) NH3-N
Average (M) , mg/1
Range, mg/1
Spread Factor, S
No. of Samples
Percent Removal
Average
95% CI

26 5.9
4-85 0.6-47
1.54 2.03
226 . 164

5 4.4
1-18 1.1-12
1.80 1.68
206 90

81 25
79-83 13-36

*No forced air circulation
                                     -63-

-------
TABLE 20.  REMOVAL OF TRACE ORGANICS BY AIR .STRIPPING

Period

Contaminant
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Tribromomethane
Heptaldehyde
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
l~Me thylnaph tha lene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Diisobutylphthalate
Chlorobenzene/o-Xylene
ra-Xylene
Naphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
PCB as Aroclor 1242
2-Methylnaphthalene
Heptylcyanide
p-Xylene
Inf.
Cone.
Q2
Mg/1

1.0
0.94
1.2


0.12
0.21

1.1
0.21


0.22
0.23

3.0

0.21





Eff.
Cone.
Q4
ng/i

0.03
0.09
0.18


0.02
0.08

0.18
0.013


0.11
0.10

0.11

0.18





Two
Period Three
Removal %
Avg. 95% CI

97
90
85


83
62

83
94


50
57

96

14






88
0
-10


-46
-320

70
-73


-440
-110

89

-257






to
to
to


to
to

to
to


to
to

to

to






99
99
98


98
97

91
100


95
91

99

79





Inf.
Cone.
Q2
ug/i
2.5
1.3
4.7
0.56
0.67
0.12
0.10
0.56
0.79
4.1
0.86
0.076
0.019
0.035
0.067
3.2
0.15
0.086
0.041
3.1
0.37
0.009
0..047
0.023
Eff.
Cone.
Q4
ug/l
0.13
0.10
0.43
0.07
<0.1
<0.02
0.02
<0.1
0.14
0.88
<0.2
0.037
0.011
0.02
0.041
2.3
0.11
0.07
0.37
2.8
0.36
0.009
0.048
0.031
Removal , %
Avg.
95
92
91
88
>85
>83
83
>82
82
79
>77
51
42
40
39
28
27
19
10
10
3
0
-2
-35
95% CI
88
89
76
61


60

76
64

-180
-170
-290
-58
-1
-46
-84
-840
-79

-740
-160
-200
to 98
to 94
to 96
to 96

—
to 93

to 87
to 87

to 92
to 88
to 91
to 76
to 49
to 63
to 64
to 91
to 54

to 88
to 60
to 39

                    -64-

-------
         TABLE  21.  . AIR STRIPPING  OF TRACE  ORGANICS  BY  DECARBONATOR
                     FOLLOWING  REVERSE OSMOSIS



Contaminant
Bromodichlorome thane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Tribromomethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Inf.
Cone.
g/1
4.2
10.6
1.93
0.59
0.21
0.07
Eff.
Cone.
g/1
Q22B
0.67
1.83
0.54
0.18
0.09
0.04
Removal , %

Avg.
84
83
72
69
57
43
95%
CI
75 to 90
76 to 88
54 to 83
31 to 86
-98 to 91
-131 to 86

RECARBONATION AND FILTRATION

    These unit processes were found not to be highly effective in trace
organic or heavy metal removal.  The changes in concentration across these
two unit processes can be obtained by comparing the concentrations at the
Q4 and Q6 sampling points as listed in Appendices C and E.

    However, because of chlorination in the recarbonation basin for algae
control and disinfection, the concentration of trihalomethanes increased
significantly between points Q2 and Q6 (see Appendices C and E for details).
For example, during the second period the geometric mean chloroform concen-
tration increased from 0.2  to 8.4  g/1, and during the third period from 0.9
to 5.3  g/1.  Use of alternative disinfectants such as C102, or covering of
the recarbonation basin could perhaps reduce this problem.

ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION

General Performance

    Tables  22 and 23 present summaries of the general performance of
granular activated carbon  (GAC)  for  the removal of COD, TOG, trace organic
contaminants and various heavy metals during periods two and three.  During
period two, about 14 percent of  the  GAC in  each column was  regenerated
every 40 to 70  days, while  during  the third period, about 50 percent was
regenerated about once  every six months.

    The  trace organic  contaminant  data  in Table 22 are arranged  in order  of
removal  efficiency by  GAC  during the third  period.  In general,  chlorinated
benzenes,  some  of the  phthalates and aromatic hydrocarbons, and  the brominated

                                      -65-

-------
  TABLE 22.    REMOVAL OF ORGANIC MATERIALS BY GAG DURING PERIODS  TWO AND THREE

Period
Contaminant

COD
TOC
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
Diisobutylphthalate
Tribromomethane
Dimethylphthalate
Chlorobenzene/o-
xylene
Bromodichlorome thane
Dibromochlorome thane
m-xylene
Naphthalene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
Bis- [ 2-ethylhexyl] -
phthalate
1-Methylnaphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
2-Methylnaphthalene
Chloroform
*Eff.
Cone.
Inf. (Q8
Cone, or
(Q6)
42
14
0.02
0.17



0.09

4.8
1.4





0.06



0.04
1.5


8.2

Q9)
16.6
7
0
0



0

1
0





.0
.02
.03



.05

.3
.23





0.03



0,
1.





.01
.6


6.7
Two
Period
% Removal
(95% CI)
60
51
17
82



46

72
84





45



72
-7


21
(58 to
(48 to
63)
54)
(-750 to 90)
( 0 to



(-5 to

(46 to
(58 to





97)



72)

86)
94)





(3 to 69)






(-260 to 98)
(-98 to


(-70 to
43)


63)
Inf.
Cone.
(Q6)
24

0.07
0.02
2.0
0.41
1.3
0.11

1.8
0.65
0.05
0.05
0.59
0.07

0.02
3.4

0.02
0.16

0.16
0.07
5.3
Three
*Eff.
Cone.
(Q9 or % Removal
Q22A)#
12.3


0.001
0.002
0.27
0.08
0.47
0.04

0.

'81
0.31
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
3.

0.
3.

0.
0.
7.
023
023
33
06

019
1

009
1

018
02
5
49

98
91
87
81
64
63

54
52
50
50
44
20

17
9

0
-6

-12
-18
-41
(95% CI)
(46 to 52)

(43 to 100)
(-150 to 100)
(61 to 95)
(40 to 94)
(24 to 83)
(30 to 80)

(5 to 77)
(2 to 77)
(7 to 73)
(-8 to 76)
(-90 to 84)
(-110 to 70)

(-77 to 61)
(-69 to 51)

(-660 to 87)
(-190 to 61)

(-430 to 76)
(-150 to 45)
(-146 to 19)

 _	 	 _„_.,_,  ._....  i-^/ * ^.*>.v-^-^i.  TOG ciiiu COD which cirs  in ms/1*
#Q22A (unchlorinated activated carbon  effluent) for VGA and  CLSA constituents
 Q9 for SEA constituents.
                                      -66-

-------
trihalomethanes were removed ,at least as efficiently as COD.  The one and
two carbon chlorinated compounds, on the other hand, were not removed by
GAG under the conditions of operation at WF-21. 'Fortunately, these compounds
are removed effectively by stripping.  Confidence intervals on percent
removal are in general quite broad and so it is necessary to be careful in
data interpretation.

    The heavy metal data in Table 23 indicate that chromium, copper, and
lead are partially removed by GAG treatment.  Iron was fairly efficiently
removed during the second period, but during the third period, GAG treatment
increased the effluent iron concentration.  This change is probably due to
wear on the linings and increased corrosion of the GAG vessels.  Since the
efficiency of GAG for heavy metal removal was not of high priority during
the third period, the number of samples collected for this purpose was low
and the resulting confidence interval is broad.  Thus, some caution is
needed in drawing firm conclusions from the data.

    TOG has frequently been proposed as a general monitoring tool for GAG
performance rather than COD.  At WF-21, however, COD is used more generally
as a control parameter since the TOG instrument was not always operable,
and TOG analysis has been of questionable accuracy.  Table 24 is given for
reference so that COD results may be translated in terms of TOG.  The
COD/TOG ratio generally lies between 2.0 and 3.0.
   TABLE 23.
REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS BY GAG DURING PERIODS TWO AND THREE
                       Period Two
                                          Period Three
Inf.
Cone
Contaminant (Q6)
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Pb
2.
26
1.
29
56
105
1.
3.
3.
.*
6

4



9
2
0
Eff.
Cone.
(Q8)
2.5
26
1.3
18
20
36
1.7
3.7
2.2
, % Removal
(95% CI)
4
0
7
38
64
66
11
-16
27
(-27 to
(-37 to
(-32 to
( 9 to
(51 to
(41 to^
(-47 to
(-83 to
(-56 to
27)
27)
35)
58)
74)
80)
46)
27)
66)
Inf.
Cone.*
(Q6)
0.77
7.8
7.2
5.6
36
28

1.3
3.1
Eff.
Cone.
(Q8)
0.69
7.4
9.5
3.1
16
42

1.7
1.0
% Removal
(95% CI)
10
5
-32
45
56
-50

-35
68
(-250
(-150
(-210
to 77)
to 64)
to 43)
(-3 to 70)
(-85
(-530

(-270
(-780
to 89)
to 64)

to 51)
to 99)

*Geometric mean cone,  in  ug/1
                                    -67-

-------
           TABLE 24.  COD TO TOC RATIOS AT VARIOUS SAMPLING LOCATIONS
                      FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS OF OPERATION AT WF-21
Period Parameter
Two


Three


COD*, mg/1
TOC*, mg/1
COD/TOG ratio
95% CI for ratio
COD*, mg/1
TOC*, mg/1
COD/TOG ratio
95% CI for ratio
Chem. Filt.
Eff. Eff.
Q2 Q6
52 (N=274) 42 (N=272)
21.5 (N=19) 14.4 (N=156)
2.41 2.92
2.3-2.6 2.8-3.0
27 (N=156)
10 (N=44)
2.70
2.6-2.8
GAG
Eff.
Q8
16.6 (N=264)
7.0 (N=163)
2.37
2.2-2.5
12.3 (N=125)
6.2 (N=91)
1.98
1.8-2.2
    * Geometric Mean Concentration
Fresh Versus Old GAG

     Figure 26 is a summary of the effectiveness of a single GAG column in
the removal of COD towards the end of period 2 and through period 3.   During
period 2 with upflow operation, the column influent concentration of COD was
generally greater than 35 mg/1 and an average of about 30 mg/1 of COD was
removed.  Whenever effluent COD from a column reached 20 mg/1, about 5.5
metric tons were regenerated, about 0.8 kg of COD was removed per kg of
regenerated carbon.

     With the beginning of period three, the influent COD decreased con-
siderably so that carbon regeneration to maintain a planned 20 mg/1 in the
effluent did not need to be so frequent.  One million gallons of throughput
is equivalent to about one day of operation.  Thus, almost 6 months of oper-
ation appears possible before regeneration.  During this time COD removal by
activated carbon treatment averaged about 7 mg/1, for a cumulative total
over the period of about 1.7 kg COD per kg of regenerated carbon.
                                   -68-

-------
                                ro_
                                cvi_
                                Q-
                                00-
                                IO-
                                ro-
                                OJ-
                                OJ
                                     Ld
o


H

CL

CD
                                               4J
                                               tti
                                                60
                                                (3
                                                O
                                                O
|/6lU  *
                                                                  a.  •
                                                                  £00

                                                                    T3
                                                                  ctf  O
                                                                    •H
                                                                  ^  M
                                                                  O  0)
                                                                  1-1 P-i

                                                                  Q  O
                                                                  O -P
                                                                  a
                                                                  a)
                                                                 U-l CM
                                                                 M-l
                                                                  (U -T3
                                                                     O
                                                                 13 -H
                                                                  d  VI
                                                                  
-------
                   In order to evaluate  the effect of biological processes  within the
              activated ca'rbon system, one GAG column, initially started during  phase  2,
              was  operated  continuously  with no regeneration.  The COD removal by this
              system is illustrated in Figure 27.  For the first 125 million gallons of
              throughput,  COD  removal gradually decreased.  For the next 125 million gal-
              lons,  COD removal remained nearly constant  at about 32 percent. This is
              believed to  be the result  of biological removal or transformation  of organlcs
              by microorganisms growing  on the GAG.  The  trickling filter effluent received
              by WF-21 at  that time was  inefficiently treated and no doubt  contained a
              significant  proportion of  biodegradable organics.

                   With the change  to the more efficiently treated activated sludge waste-
              water,  the fractional removal of'COD by this GAG column decreased  to about
              20 percent after a short acclimation period.  The operation of this column
              indicates that biological  processes are significant in GAG performance,  and
              may  in part  explain the high organic removals per kg of GAG obtained.

              Trace  Organics Removal by  Fresh and Old GAG

                   A comparative evaluation was made  of trace organics removal during  the
              third period  by  a normally regenerated  (fresh) GAG column and the  old GAG
              column represented in Figure 28 .  The effluent from the fresh GAG  is desig-
              nated  as Q7-12,  and that from the old as Q7-5 .  At the beginning of this
              evaluation on July 5, 1978, about 7 .5 x 10^ m^ had been passed, through the
              "fresh" GAG  since the previous regeneration, and a total of about  3 .8 x
              10^  m^  (100 million gallons) had been passed through this GAG since it was
              put  in service .   The  "fresh" GAG had just been transferred to a new vessel
              and  about 10  percent  new GAG was added.  Thus, the initial performance was
              similar to that  of freshly regenerated  GAG.  Water was passed through the
              column at the design  flow  rate until September 1 when 100 percent  of the
              GAG  was regenerated.   The  unit was placed back into operation on October 1.
              Data on trace organics was gathered over the period from July 5 through
              December 31.

                   Figure  28 shows  the COD of daily composite samples for the fresh and
              old  GAG after the October  1 complete regeneration.  The effluent COD from
              the  fresh column was  initially about 5  mg/1, which is typical for  regene-
              rated  carbon, and rose fairly rapidly at a  rate of about 0.17 mg/l/day for
              the  first 60  days . This corresponds to an  increase in effluent TOG of about
              0.08 mg/l/day.

                  Normal practice  at present is to regenerate only about one-half of  the
              GAG  in a bed. The rate of effluent COD increase is then about twice that
              depicted in  Figure 28 . This figure also indicates there is an apparent
              variation in  effluent COD  which parallels the variation in influent COD.
              This is important to  consider when developing criteria for GAG performance
              and  regeneration.

                   Table 25 is a comparative summary  of the removal of trace organic
              materials by  fresh and old GAG.  The constituents are arranged, in  order  from
              that with the highest calculated removal (by fresh GAG) to that with the
              lowest.  Many of the  constituents were  present in low concentration, very

                                                  -70-
_

-------
                                                    go


                                                    N;


                                                    CO


                                                    in


                                                    5


                                                    ro
                                                       e
                                                    cy  E
                                                      10
                                                    _  O

                                                       III
                                                    oo
                                                    to  CD
                                                       ZD
                                                    ro


                                                    OJ
13
O
•i-l
T3
a)
C!
n)
 I
rH
 O
 O
                                                                    O

                                                                     cS
                                                                     O
                                                                    4-1
                                                                    Q
                                                                    O
•P   •
   a
   O
   -H
r-l  4-1
4-1  tfl
 OJ
i/6iu  aoo
                                                                     Q) a>
                                                                       0
                                                                    13 0)
                                                                     e «i
                                                                     Ctf 
                                                                     60
                                                                    •i-l
                         -71-

-------
                                              CM
                                                        O
                                                        o
                                                        O  c/>
                                                        CD  >-


                                                            Q



                                                        ^  UJ
                                                        O
                                                        CVJ
O
O
ro
O
cvi
                                 QOO
                                                        8
                                                        •r)
                                                                      s

                                                                      CO

                                                                      o
                                                                      cd
                                                                      S-l
                                                                      o
                                                                      o

                                                                      o
                                                                     1

                                                                     •u •
                                                                     (3 P
                                                                     (U 
-------
         TABLE 25.  AVERAGE  PERCENTAGE  REMOVAL  OF  TRACE  CONTAMINANTS
                    BY GAG AND  95%  CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR
                          AVERAGE PERCENTAGE REMOVAL






Fresh


GAG



(Q7-12)


Contaminant
Heptaldehyde
Naphthalene
Pentachloroanisole
Tribromome thane
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Diisobutylphthalate
Styrene
Bromodichlorome thane
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Chlprobenzene/o-xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Bis- [ 2-ethylhexyl] -
phthalate
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene

Removal
%
97
96
95
95
91
86
83
80
69
66
64
63
61
20
17
15
3

0 .
-4
-44

95%
CI
59 to 100
-13 to 100
82 to 99
-280 to 100
54 to 98
22 to 98
30 to 96
-85 to 98
13 to 89
-96 to 66
24 to 83
-110 to 93
3 to 84
-130 to 71
-400 to 87
-300 to 82
-150 to 63

-130 to 55
-190 to 63
-560 to 68



Old GAG
(Q7-5)

Removal 95%
%
88
91
>87
59
>70
5
87
53
-7
56
-30
69
36
61
—
17
-41

-33
35
-19
CI
32 to 98
33 to 99
—
-65 to 90
—
-97 to 54
72 to 94
-30 to 50
-130 to 50
-33 to 86
-130 to 26
-87 to 95
-3 to 61
20 to 81
—
-200 to 77
-150 to 21

-170 to 34
-51 to 72
-270 to 62
Level of
Signifi-
cance for
Difference
Between
Effluent
Means*
0.5
>0.5
—
0.5
—
0.05
>0.5
>0.5
0.02
>0.5
0.01
>0.5
0.5
0.5
—
>0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5
>0.5

* Values below 0,1 indicate differences are statistically significant
                                     -73-

-------
 near the detection limit.  Nevertheless,  the data are adequate to indicate
 that many trace constituents are removed  with high efficiency by GAG.  How-
 ever, this is not the case with all constituents, especially chloroform and
 several of the two-carbon chlorinated solvents.

      A surprising result of this analysis is that the efficiency of  removal
 of trace constituents by old GAG is generally comparable to  that found  with
 freshly regenerated material.  In order to evaluate this further,  a  t-test
 was conducted to determine whether there  was a statistically significant
 difference between the GAG effluent concentrations for any of the  constit-
 uents.  The data from this analysis are contained in the last column of
 Table 25.  Small numbers,  generally less  than 0.1, indicate  that the dif-
 ferences are statistically significant.  Only with the two THMs, dibromo-
 chloromethane,  bromodichloromethane,  and  with dimethylphthalate  were the
 data adequate to show significant differences in  performance between fresh
 and old GAG.

 Effectiveness of GAG for Trihalomethane (THM) Removal

      The difficulty of removing THMs  and  other halogenated one-  and  two-
 carbon compounds with GAG is well recognized and  is indicated by the data in
 Tables 22 and 25.  In general,  THMs are removed much better  by fresh GAG
 than with old GAG.   Also,  the more highly brominated THMs are removed more
 efficiently than chloroform. Further comparisons  between the fresh  and old
 GAG are shown in Figures 29  through 32 .  The water applied to GAG  had been
 chlorinated in  the  recarbonation basin for control of algae.  The  higher
 effluent compared with influent  concentrations of  chloroform frequently
 found (Figure 29) perhaps  were  the result  of additional  formation  during
 passage of  the  chlorinated water through  the GAG  column.

      After  about 100 days, the  concentration of THMs  in  the  influent  to  the
 GAG increased as a  result  of a  short-term decrease  in the influent ammonia
 concentration,  and  a resulting  free chlorine residual in the  recarbonation
 basin.  GAG effluent concentrations appeared to be  tempered with respect to
 influent  concentrations.   However,  when the  influent  concentrations  of  THMs
 decreased after  about  180  days,  some  desorption from the GAG  took  place and
 the  effluent  concentrations  remained  high  for a short  period  during which
 they  exceeded the influent concentrations.   These  results are  similar for
 the fresh and old GAG, although  the fresh  GAG was  in  general more  efficient
 in THM removal.

     A comparison of the relative  effectiveness of  new versus  old GAG for
 THM removal is given in  Figure 32.  With chloroform,  fresh GAG after regen-
 eration is  just  a little better  than  old GAG.  With  time, the  difference
 diminished, and  in  the period after 180 days,  the chloroform in  the effluent
from fresh GAG effluent was higher  than from  old GAG.  Relative  removal of
brominated trihalomethanes by freshly regenerated GAG was much better.
However, the ability of fresh GAG to  remove these materials decreased rapidly
so that within 50 days after regeneration, there was little difference in
removal between fresh and old GAG.
                                    -74-

-------
   o>
   =1.
      20
   <
   cr
   LjJ
   o
   Z:
   o
   o
      10
0
              CHCL
               REGENERATION
       1
50      100     150


     TIME  (DAYS)
                                    Q7-I2
                             Q7-5
                                           200     250
Figure 29.  Comparison of chloroform removal by fresh (Q7-12) and old

          (Q7-5) GAG.
                 50    " ICO      150     200     250

                      TIME  (DAYS)



   Figure 30.  Comparison of bromodichloromethane removal by fresh

             (Q7-12) and old (Q7-5) GAG. .
                           -75-

-------
c: 6
 Figure 31,
  50      100      150      200
         TIME (DAYS)
Comparison of dibromochloromethane removal
by fresh (Q7-12) and  old (Q7-5) GAG.
                                                 250
                                       HBrCI,
                                     CHB^CI
             50       100      150     200     250
                    TIME (DAYS)
Figure 32.  Ratio of effluent trihalomethane concentrations
          for fresh  (Q7-12) and old (Q7-5) GAG.
                      -76-

-------
Rationalization of Trace Organics Removal

     Even though the calculated removals of the specifically measured trace
organics are afflicted with wide confidence intervals and no definite rela-
tionship between structure and removal can be deducted, some trends in Tables
22 and 25 appear .to be consistent.  Within the group of the THMs, the removal
increases with increasing number of bromines.  D.ichlorobenzene is better
removed than chlorobenzene, and within the group of aromatic hydrocarbons,
naphthalene is more efficiently removed than the xylenes and ethylbenzene.
These increases in removal may be rationalized by the increase in the hydro-
phobicity of these compounds as measured by the n-octanol water partition
coefficient, Poct(ll).  Poct increases in the sequence
                       CHCl3
-------
           was reduced during prolonged use or else biological factors are important in
           removal.

                In summary, GAG was effective in removing many trace organic materials
           even after it had become exhausted as measured by breakthroughs of COD and
           TOG.  Such breakthrough occurred with about one to two months of operation
           after the GAG had been regenerated.  Breakthrough of THM's also occurred
           during this period.  Thus, a question remains as to the required frequency
           for regeneration.  Based upon the results of this study, this depends upon
           the objective to be achieved.  If GAG is being used to maintain low concen-
           trations of THM's, COD, or TOG in the effluent, then regeneration must be
           done much more frequently than if the GAG is being used to remove more hydro-
           phobic materials such as pesticides and PCB's.  Thus, proper design and
           operation of GAG depends upon a clear understanding of the objectives to be
           achieved.

           REVERSE OSMOSIS

                Figure 11 in Section 7 indicates the distribution of COD at various
           sampling locations in WF-21.  This Figure shows that RO is highly effective
           in the removal of COD.  During the third period the geometric mean influent
           and effluent COD concentrations were 14.6 and 1.3 mg/1, respectively, for
           an average removal of 91 percent, with a 95% confidence interval of 89 to
           92 percent.

                While RO was most effective in COD removal, it was quite ineffective
           in the removal of trace organics .  Table 26 is a summary of the percentage
           removals with 95 percent confidence intervals observed for the full scale
           reverse osmosis system and for a 55 m^/day (10 gpm) pilot RO system employ-
           ing similar RO membranes, but  treating water taken from point Q2 (after
           chemical treatment) .  The full scale system was followed by a decarbonator
           which removed carbon dioxide from the treated water by air stripping.  The
           percentage removals noted in Table 26 for the full scale system represent
           that for the reverse osmosis treatment plus decarbonation.  It was deter-
           mined subsequently that almost all of the removal of volatile organics
           including trihalomethanes,  carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
           trichloroethylene, resulted from air stripping in the decarbonator rather
           than from removal by reverse osmosis .  The poor removal of trace organics
           by reverse osmosis is best  indicated by the pilot RO system which did not
           have an air stripping system.

                The trace organic  materials represented in Table 26 generally have
           molecular  weights below 200 and are nonionic.  The data obtained thus indi-
           cate that  nonionic low  molecular weight organic materials are poorly  removed
           by the RO membranes. However,  higher molecular weight polymeric materials,
           which represent the majority of organics in secondary effluents as measured
           by the COD test, are effectively removed by RO.  These higher molecular
           weight materials represent  the class of compounds generally referred  to as
           the huraic and fulvic materials .  Many of the higher molecular weight  and
           hydrophilic materials in secondary municipal effluents are also not removed
           well by GAG.  Thus, RO  is a complimentary process to lime treatment,  air
           stripping, and GAG.

                                               -78-
.

-------
          TABLE 26.  AVERAGE PERCENTAGE REMOVAL OF CONTAMINANTS BY
          FULL-SCALE AND PILOT RO SYSTEMS DURING.THE THIRD PERIOD










Full Scale RO
Contaminant
Chloroform
Bromodichlorome thane
Dibromochlorome thane
Tribromome thane
Carbon tetrachloride
1.1, 1-Trichloroethane
9 7
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
7
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
9
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 . 2 . 4-Trichloro-
99
benzene
Heptaldehyde
Heptylcyanide
Ethylbenzene
m— Xylene
p— Xylene
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Me thylnaphthalene
Styrene
Dimethylphthalate
D ie thylphtha late
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis-[2-ethylhexyl]-
phthalate
Llndane
Inf.
Cone.
(Q22A)
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
-




0.
0.

0.
0.

2.
0.
0,

7,
5
81
31
08
06
18

17
04





02
02

02
,02

,4
,90
,33

,8
Eff.
Cone.
(022B)
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.





0.
0.

0.
0.

1.
1.
0.

2.
0
24
13
007
008
083

20
034





02
02

03
008

,0
,1
.23

,9


Pilot RO
% Removal Inf. Eff.
(95% CF) Co'nc.. Cone.
(021A) (021B)
87(81 to
70(53 to
58(27 to
91(-1 to
86(-3 to
53(-168

-18(-222
91)
81)
76)
99)
98)
to 92)

to 57)
17(-93 to 64)
-
-
-

-
0(-117
-4(-104
-
-22(-237





to 54)
to 47)

to 56)
60(-36 to 88)
—
58(4 to
-22(-337
30(-566

63(-109

82)
to 66)
to 93)

to 93)
5.
0.
8.
0.

4.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
2.


5
87
82
63
—
9
5
5
14
46
12
2

04
18
04
05
08
02
05
02
02
,02
3
,45
,69
,9

—
0.08
5.
0.
0.
0.

6.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
5
95
91
65

3
7
8
07
38
065
99

% Removal
(95% CI)
0(-51 to 34)
-9(-72 to 31)
-1K-41 to 13)
-3(-61 to 34)
—
-28(-151 to 35)
-12(-118 to 42)
-2K-79 to 18)
49(-18 to 78)
17(-72 to 60)
46(10 to 67)
17(-9 to 37)

11 -150(-541 to 3)
05
02
029
045
022
067
,02
02
,01
,0
,52
,73
2.5




0.06
71(39 to 86)
49(-90 to 86)
44(-66 to 81)
45(-67 to 82)
8(-236 to 75)
-3K-865 to 82)
5(-191 to 69)
-19(-264 to 61)
44(-373 to 93)
19(-47 to 56)
-16(-168 to 50)
-6(-194 to 62)
14(-22 to 39)

•"
27(0 to 47)
COD, mg/1             14.6   1.3
TOG, mg/1              7.2   2.6
Electrocond., uS/cm   1470   156
91 (89 to 92)
64 (55 to 71)
89 (89.1 to 90)  -
 Concentrations in yg/1 unless otherwise shown.
     The RO unit was installed primarily for removal of dissolved inorganic
solids rather than organic materials.  Based upon electroconductivity, 89 per-
cent of the inorganic salts were removed by RO treatment, resulting in an ef-
fluent with an electroconductivity of 156 uS/cm.  This is equivalent to an
inorganic dissolved solids concentration of about 100 mg/1.

                                     -79-

-------
                                 SECTION  9

                             PLANT RELIABILITY
 THE  CONCEPT  OF RELIABILITY
     Reliability is a measure of  the degree of  successful performance of a
 facility with respect to required conditions of operation.  In order to
 determine  the reliability of a system, one must know what it is supposed to
 do under all relevant conditions9 and what it is likely to do under all
 relevant circumstances.  The question then is what is the probability that
 the achieved performance will meet the required performance?

     When  the required performance is specified in a list of water quality
 standards, then a reliable system might be defined as one which delivers
 water meeting these standards close to 100 percent of the time.  It would
 not actually be necessary to always produce water meeting the standards..
 The quality of treated water could be continuously monitored and only that
 which meets the standards could be selected for delivery.  Since the demand
 for water  is generally continuous, adequate storage or another source of
 water must be available so that water delivery can also be reliable.  The
 ground water basin into which WF-21 effluent is injected meets this
 requirement.

     Water from the treatment system need be delivered to the injection
 system only when it meets the required quality.  This capability means that
WF-21 need not function in a fail-safe mode as far as equipment or process
 operation is concerned.   If a piece of equipment fails to operate properly,
 then operation of the treatment system can be stopped, or the water can be
wasted without injection.  Also, routine maintenance can be conducted at
scheduled times of the year.  Use of the storage capabilities of the ground
water reservoir thus^ gives much flexibility to the operation of WF-21.   It
also helps reduce the cost of wastewater reclamation since no standby pro-
cesses need be available.

     Nevertheless it is desirable that WF-21 be capable of meeting water
quality requirements with high frequency in order to minimize the cost of
the water delivered.  The reliability of a treatment system to produce water
meeting given standards can be increased in several ways as indicated in
Table 27.   An important aspect is the improvement in the quality of the
influent water,  as was achieved in March 1978 when the input water to WF-21
changed from trickling filter system to an activated sludge effluent and the
industrial waste contribution was reduced.   These changes have had a dramatic
                                    -80-

-------
effect on the quality of the influent water and have increased reliability
of operation considerably.

     WF--21 also takes advantage of the other options listed in Table 27 for
increasing reliability*  the reverse osmosis system was added in 1977 in
order to meet mineral requirements for injection.  Also, water from a deep
aquifer can be blended with WF-21 effluent to help meet mineral requirements
for injection.  Whenever, the given water quality criteria cannot be met,
the treated water is not injected, but is wasted.  Also, if necessary, the
efficiency of the activated carbon process can be improved by more frequent
regeneration.  Thus,, the combination of options indicated in Table 27 are
being used at WF-21 to improve system reliability to meet water quality
requirements.
 TABLE 27.   OPTIONS FOR  INCREASING RELIABILITY  TO MEET  GIVEN WATER
                            QUALITY STANDARDS

           1.   Improve Quality of  Influent  Water
           2.   Increase Removal Efficiency  of  Individual Processes
 4         3.   Add Additional  Processes  in  Series
           4.   Do not use treated  water  when standards exceeded
           5.   Blend effluent  with other water
 RELIABILITY OF OPERATION

      What is the reliability with which WF-21 produces water which meets
 water quality requirements?   This was one of the major research objectives
 of this  study.  In anticipation of the time when direct potable reuse of
 reclaimed wastewaters becomes acceptable, it is desirable to know what is
 the performance of an advanced wastewater treatment plant with respect to
 the variety of organics of health concern which are present in municipal
 wastewaters.  What is the effectiveness of each process in the removal of
 each contaminant, and how does the overall system improve this effectiveness?
 These questions are important in designing treatment systems for other waste-
 waters with different qualities of influent waters and with different quality
 requirements on the water to be delivered.  This question required informa-
 tion on the frequency distribution of organics at different .points within
 the treatment system as obtained in this study.

      From a distribution such as that given previously in Fig. 6 for methylene
 chloride, an estimate can be made of the percentage of time that the concen-
 tration of the contaminant exceeds a given value.  For example, Figure 6
 indicates that about 5 percent of the time, the influent concentration of
 methylene chloride exceeded 50 yg/1.  Such estimates can also be made
 mathematically from given values for M and S.

      For example, it might be desired to determine the percentage of time
 that a given maximum contaminant level (MCL) is exceeded.  First, the number

                                     -81-

-------
 of standar.d deviations (b) that the MCL is away from M can be determined
 from the following relationship:
                                     log MCL-log M
                                        log S
               (9-1)
 A table listing the cumulative frequency function for a standardized normal
 distribution can then be consulted to determine the appropriate frequency
 value corresponding to b> (3).  Table 28 is a summary of a few such values
 of interest.
 TABLE 28.    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STANDARD DEVIATIONS ABOVE THE MEAN
        AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE FOR A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
             Number of Standard
          Deviations MCL is  above
       Geometric  Mean  Concentration
                    (b)
   Percentage of
Time Concentration
 is less than MCL
0.00
0.84
1.28
1.64
2.06
2.33
3.03
50
80
90
95
98
99
99.9

The frequency with which a given MCL or other selected value is exceeded
can then readily be determined from the straight line plot of concentration
distribution drawn on log probability paper, by use of values for M and S
or from use of Eq. 9-1.  The results of this analysis are summarized in
the following.
RELIABILITY IN MEETING STATE REQUIREMENTS

     The California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State
Department of Health have established requirements for injection water
quality for WF-21 (Tables 29 and 30).  The geometric mean concentration
for all constituents was well below the specified MCL values for both
periods.  However, there have been some violations of the regulations at
times.  The number and frequency of violations are given in the last
column of the two tables as the ratio of number of times the MCL was
exceeded to the number of analyses which were made.  The fraction so

                                   -82-

-------
TABLE 29.   COMPARISON BETWEEN STATE SPECIFIED MCL FOR INJECTION WATER
             AND ACTUAL MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS DURING PERIOD TWO;
                     OCTOBER 1976 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1978
                                         Injection Water (Q10)
Contaminant
Electrical
Conductivity
Ammonium
Total Nitrogen
Fluoride
Boron
Chromium
Cadmium
Selenium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Barium
Silver
Coliforms
Turbidity#
State
Specified
MCL
900 pS/cm

4 mg/1
10 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.005 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
2.2/100 ml
1.0 YU
Predicted
Percent of
Geometric Time MCL
Mean Cone. Exceeded*
708 pS/cm

0.6 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.6 mg/1
0.33 mg/1
0.004 mg/1
0.0004 mg/1
<0.01 mg/1
0.008 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
<0.01 mg/1
0.045 mg/1
0.004 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
0.03/100 ml
0.4TU
19

5
10-3
3
12
0.6
10-2
-
10-8
0.1
1
-
0.8
ID'3
10-9
0.1
7
3
Number
of Times
MCL
Exceeded**
31/377

5/195
0/150
0/50
1/56
0/55
0/55
0/55
0/49
0/48
1/50
0/49
0/55
0/55
0/48
0/47
0/1166
4/237

  *Based upon lognormal distribution model

  ^  Six  samples exceeded 2.2/100 ml, but not in consecutive samples.

  **Given as m/n where m = no. of  times MCL was exceeded out of n samples
    analyzed.

  #MCL  for COD at  Q8 and for  turbidity at Q6.
                                    -83-

-------
 TABLE 30.    COMPARISON BETWEEN STATE SPECIFIED MCL FOR INJECTION WATER
            AND ACTUAL MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS DURING PERIOD THREE;
                      MARCH 1978 THROUGH DECEMBER 1978
                                       Injection Water (Q10)
Contaminant
Electrical
Conductivity
Sodium
Hardness (CaC03>
Sulfate
Chloride
Ammonium
Total Nitrogen
Fluoride
Boron
Chromium
Cadmium
Selenium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Barium
Silver
COD #
MBAS
Cyanide
Phenol
Coliforms
Turbidity//
State
Specified
MCL
900 yS/cm

110 mg/1
220 mg/1
125 mg/1
120 mg/1
4 mg/1
10 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.005 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
30 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
1.0 yg/1
2.2 /100 ml
1.0 TU
Predicted Number
Percent of of Times
Geometric Time MCL MCL
Mean Cone. Exceeded* Exceeded**
500 yS/cm

70 mg/1
64 mg/1
43 mg/1
69 gm/1
0.3 mg/1
0.7 mg/1
0.57 mg/1
0.38 mg/1
0.0016 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
<0.005 mg/1
0.012 mg/1
0.0016 mg/1
<0.001 mg/1
<0.005 mg/1
0.03 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
12 mg/1
0.04 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
0.6 yg/1
0.01/100 ml
0.36 TU
12

21
11
23
20
7
3
18
17
0.1
10
—
10-3
0.1
--
--
0.2
0.4
10~6
10-3
0.2
<0.001
<0.001
32
7
0.5
0/306

6/31
1/31
3/29
5/31
0/183
0/183
1/31
1/39
0/40
1/40
0/34
0/39
0/40
0/42
0/32
0/39
1/39
0/39
0/40
0/125
0/28
0/32
10/30
10/137**
0/275
  # MCL for  COD  at  Q8  and  for  turbidity at Q6.

  * Based  on lognormal  distribution model.
$$
   Ten samples  exceeded  2.2/100 ml, but not  in consecutive samples.

 ** Given  as m/n where  m  =  no.  of  times MCL exceeded out of n samples
   analyzed.
                                  -84-

-------
represented gives the proportion of the time for which the MCL was exceeded.
In the next to the last column, a predicted percentage of the time for which
the MCL would be exceeded as calculated from the lognormal distribution
model (Eq. 9-1) is also given for comparison.  The predicted frequency of
violations and measured frequency are quite similar, indicating in general
that the lognormal model is a good representation of the data.

     The lognormal model, however, was not a good predictor of violation
frequency for electrical conductivity, boron, and fluoride during the third
period (Table 30).  In these cases the electrical conductivity is continu-
ously measured and water is not injected if the MCL is exceeded.  Because
of the close operational control which is possible here, the MCL for elec-
trical conductivity need never be exceeded.  The selected rejection which
results disturbs the otherwise random fluctuation in data for electrical
conductivity and other dissolved salts.  The predicted value is perhaps a
reasonable (but not accurate) indicator of the frequency with which the MCL
would be exceeded if such operational control were not possible.

     A review of the more complete data in Table 30 for the third period
indicates that inorganic constituents such as sodium, sulfate, and chloride
exceeded the State and Regional specified MCL values more than 5% of the
time.  These inorganic constituents are not removed by any of the advanced
wastewater treatment processes except reverse osmosis.  A review of the
data indicates that all violations occurred when the electrical conductivity
exceeded 700 pS/cm.  At least one of the MCL values was exceeded about 50%
of the time (8 out of 10 when the electrical conductivity exceeded this
value). Thus, better conformity with the State and Regional MCL values
appears possible if the electrical conductivity of the injection water is
not allowed to exceed 700 yS/cm.

     Another constituent which frequently exceeded the MCL was phenol.  The
current MCL is very near the detection limit of the analytical method.
This has caused difficulty in obtaining accurate measurements for phenol,
and this may be a cause for the high frequency with which this constituent
appears to have exceeeded the MCL.  The EPA recognised this difficulty when
they dropped the phenol limit in the presently proposed National Interim
Secondary Drinking Water Bagulations.

     The coliform concentration exceeded the specified MCL of 2.2/100 ml
on occasion (10 out of 137), but did not do so in consecutive samples.
Thus, the regulations for coliforms were always met.

     The results in Tables 29 and 30 suggest that performance has been quite
reliable for all constituents except sodium, chloride, and sulfate, salts
which do not have 'health implications and thus are not of major importance*
Performance with respect to these salts could be improved if injection water
were rejected when the electrical conductivity exceeded 700 pS/cm.  Opera-
tionally this is not difficult to do.  A question which might be raised is
whether these values are sufficiently critical to require rejection of the
water, or whether modification of the specified MCL's might be appropriate.
                                     -85-

-------
RELIABILITY IN MEETING EPA PRIMARY REGULATIONS

     While Water Factory 21 effluent is not used for direct potable pur-
poses, a comparison of treatment results with the EPA National Interim
Primary Drinking Water (NIPDW) MCL values is desirable because of
interest in advanced wastewater treatment for this purpose.  In this
comparison, only the influent to Water Factory 21 (Table 31) and the
effluent from the basic AWT plant through activated carbon adsorption
and disinfection (Table 32) are considered.  Table 31 indicates that
in the influent the geometric mean concentrations of only cadmium,
lead, coliforms, and turbidity exceeded the NIPDW MCL values.  In
addition, during at least 2 percent of the time, lead, mercury and
fluoride exceeded the MCL values.  Thus, these are the only
constituents which Water Factory 21 would have to remove effectively
to meet the NIPDW regulations.
TABLE 31.   COMPARISON BETWEEN NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
            (NIPDW) REGULATIONS AND INFLUENT WATER QUALITY*
Influent Water (Ql)
Contaminant
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nitrate (as N), mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Coliforms, MPN/lOOml
Endrin, yg/1
Lindane, yg/1
Toxaphene , Mg/1
2,4-D, ug/1
2,4,5-TP, yg/1
Methoxychlor, yg/1
Turbidity, TU
NIPDW
MCL
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.002
10
0.01
0.05
1.4*
1
0.2
4
5
100
10
100
1
Second
Period
98% of
Time
Geometric Less
Mean Than
<0.005
0.08
0.026
0.14
0.02
0.0016
0.23
<0.0025
0.003
1.4
89
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
42

<0.005**
0.14
0.07
0.31
0.051
0.025
1.2
<0.0025**
0.007
2.0
38,000
<0.01
0.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
79

Third Period
Geometric
Mean
<0.005
0.03
0.033
0.048
0.007
<0.001
2.8
<0.0025
0.001
1.3
1.6
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
7

98% of
Time
Less
Than
<0.005**
0.06
0.15
0.11
0.017
?
49
?
0.006
1.9
195
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
54

 ^Underlined values represent those exceeding MCL
 * Temperature > 26.3 C°
** Based on less than 1 in 20 samples analyzed
                                   -86-

-------
TABLE 32.   COMPARISON BETWEEN NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
               (NIPDW) REGULATIONS AND EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY
                                        Effluent Water (Q8 or Q9)
                                              Second Period

Contaminant
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Coliforms, MPN/100 ml
Endrin, ug/1
Lindane, ug/1
Toxaphene , ug/ 1
2,4,5-TP, ug/1
Methoxyclor, ug/1
Turbidity, ug/1
NIPDW
MCL
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.002
10
0.01
0.05
1.4*
1
0.2
4
5
10
100
1
Geometric
Mean
<0.005
0.03
0.001
0.02
0.002
0.0017
0.4
<0.004
0.003
0.6
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
0.4
98% of Time
Less Than

0.08
0.006
0.09
0.036
0.012
2.4
•?
0.007
1.2
14;
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
1.1

//Underlined values represent those exceeding MCL

*Temperature > 26.3 °C
     Table 32 indicates that the geometric mean concentration of all
contaminants in the effluent from AWT treatment (Q8 or Q9) met the NIPDW
requirements.  Also, during the second period, only chromium and
mercury did not meet the requirements more than 98 percent of the time.
Lognormal probability plots for cadmium and chromium during the second
period are shown in Figures 22 and 23, Section 8, and are based upon the
calculated values for M and S at various sampling locations.  Figure 22
indicates that lime treatment was most effective in removing cadmium,
bringing the concentration well below the MCL at the Q2 sampling point.
Figure 23 also indicates that lime treatment was efficient in removing
chromium, although not sufficiently to meet the MCL.  Activated carbon
adsorption (between points Q6 and Q8) also was beneficial, so that in
the AWT effluent (Q9) the MCL was exceeded only about 10 percent of the
time.

                                  -87-

-------
 RELIABILITY FOR REMOVING ORGANIC MATERIALS

      Current drinking water  regulations  cover  few organic  materials,
 such as  the pesticides  listed  in Tables  31 and 32 and  a  current  proposed
 MCL of 100  yg/1 for  trihalomethanes  (6) .  However,  there is  concern
 over other  trace organic substances  which  might be  present in waste-
 waters reclaimed for potable use. Thus, there is a need for information
 on  organic  materials in reclaimed water.

      Figure 11,  Section 7, shows  the distribution of COD at  various
 sampling locations at WF-21  during the third period of operation.
 It  is evident  that several processes are effective  in  removing COD
 including lime treatment, activated  carbon adsorption  (between Q6
 and Q8),  and RO treatment.   While the latter process is  expensive,
 the result  is  water  having a geometric mean COD concentration of
 about 2 mg/1,  (equivalent to about 0.8 mg/1 organic carbon)  which is
 as  low a  value as found in many water supplies in the  United States
 (12).

      Table  33  is a summary of  the percent  probability  of water meeting
 various  COD concentrations after  different stages of treatment,  At
 Water Factory  21, the COD after activated  carbon  treatment (Q8)  must
 be  less  than 30  mg/1, and in current operation this  is reached 99 .8
 percent of  the time. It is  also  met by  chemical  treatment 82 percent
 of  the time and  subsequent filtration increases  this to  96 percent
 of  the time.  The current COD  requirement  can  thus  be  met with high
 reliability.  However,  stricter COD  requirement,  say 10  mg/1, would
 necessitate more frequent regeneration of  activated  carbon or addition
 of  other  unit  processes.
TABLE 33 . PROBABILITY IN PERCENT OF MEETING VARIOUS HYPOTHETICAL COD
          CRITERIA AT DIFFERENT SAMPLING POINTS AT WATER FACTORY 21
                           DURING THE THIRD PERIOD
Sampling Point
Ql - Plant Influent
Q2 - Lime Effluent
Q6 - Filter Effluent
Q8 - Act. Garb. Effluent
Q22B - RO Effluent
Q10 - Inject. Water
                                   Hypothetical COD Criteria
2
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69
1.2
5
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
95
35
10
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
99.8
85
20
mg/1
0.0
0.5
9.2
94
99.97
99.3
30
mg/1
1.0
82
96
99.8
>99.99
99.9
                                  -88-

-------
     While MCLs for most trace organics have not been established, it
is useful to pose hypothetical values in order to determine which
compounds or classes of compounds may present the most difficulty
in meeting potable reuse regulations should they eventually be devel-
oped.  In order to do this, hypothetical MCL values which are probably
below concentrations which would cause a health effect were chosen.
The hypothetical MCLs are'l yg/1 for the non-chlorinated trace
organics and 0.5|jg/l for the chlorinated trace organics.  These
values are significantly below all NIPD MCL values for pesticides
except endrin.

     Tables 34 and 35 indicate the percentage of time the influent
and effluent waters from WF-21 exceeded these hypothetical MCL values
during the second and third periods at WF-21.  During the second
period, all of the organics exceeded the hypothetical MCL in the
influent more than 10 percent of the time, while during the third
period only about onehalf did.  This illustrates an advantage of
efficient biological treatment and segregation of industrial wastes
prior to advanced treatment.  The data in Table 35 indicate that
after treatment through activated carbon adsorption and disinfection
(Q9) during the third period, only some of the chlorinated methanes
and ethanes, and some of the phthalates exceeded the hypothetical
MCL values more than 10 percent of the time.  It is interesting to
note that reverse osmosis was of little help in removing these
compounds.  The chlorobenzenes, aromatic hydrocarbons, and pesticides
were all efficiently and reliably removed by treatment.

     The chlorinated methanes and ethanes are common solvents and appear
to present a  special problem.  They were removed most effectively by
air  stripping, even during  the third period when forced air circulation
was  not used  in the stripping towers.  However, during subsequent
treatment, contamination frequently resulted.  These materials are
generally used in solvents, paints, and coatings.  Occasional
increased concentrations at different points in the treatment plant
may  have resulted from use  of materials containing organic solvents
during normal plant maintenance.  This needs further investigation.
The  phthalates are commonly used as plasticizers and can be leached
from plastic  pipe.  It is also difficult to keep samples from becoming
contaminated  with phthalates after collection so that reliable analysis
is difficult.  Thus, if actual standards near the hypothetical MCL
values for these materials  are proposed, then greater care would  be
needed in the selection of  materials for treatment plant process
coatings and  pipe lines, of materials used  in normal plant maintenance,
and  of sampling and analytical procedures.
 SUMMARY  AND DISCUSSION

      This  study  has  shown that  a  full  scale  advanced  wastewater treat-  .
 ment  system was  capable  of good reliability  in the removal of  many
 contaminants  from biologically  treated municipal wastewater.   Relia-
 bility at  WF-21  is increased through the operating philosophy  which has

                                  -89-

-------
    TABLE 34.    PERCENTAGES OF TIME HYPOTHETICAL MCLS FOR VARIOUS TRACE
                   ORGANICS WERE EXCEEDED DURING SECOND PERIOD
                                            Percent of Time Hypothetical
Contaminant
Methylene Chloride
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Napthalene
1-Methylnapthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis-[ 2-ethylhexyl] -
phthalate
PCS as Aroclor 1242
Lindane
Hypo-
thetical
MCL
Mg/1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5
Geometric
Mean
Influent
Cone.
yg/l
17
4.7
0.9
0.6
2.5
2.4
0.7
2.1
0.5
1.4
0.6
0.9
1.0
16
<0.5
2.9
28

3.3
0.2
MCL Exceeded
Influent
Ql
99.9^
98
67
54
95
96
61
95
48
63
28
42
50
100
-
86
100

99.9
10
AWT
Effluent
Q9
82
6
5
21
1
5
6
15
6
0.2
10-3
10~6
0.5
79
20
42
85

<12
<12
RO
Effluent
Q21B

—
—
_
0.4
10-7
10-*
0.2
_
10-4
0.2
0.7
2.5
_
87"
100
86

<20
<20

been adopted-.  This plant is operated under a constant flow condition
so that hydraulic fluctuations are eliminated.  Significant removal of
industrial wastes from municipal sewage and efficient biological treat-
ment of wastewaters prior to advanced wastewater treatment has had major
effects in reducing the concentratration of some of the contaminants of
concern, thus enhancing the reliability for meeting the treated water
requirements.  WF-21 can be shut down when poor quality water is
received or when desirable for routine maintenance because water need
not be injected continuously for maintenance of the seawater barrier
system.  This increases the flexibility of operation considerably and
enhances reliability in the delivery of water meeting given water
quality requirements.
                                 -90-

-------
 TABLE 35.   PERCENTAGE OF TIME  HYPOTHETICAL MCL VALUES FOR VARIOUS
             TRACE ORGANICS WERE EXCEEDED DURING THE THIRD PERIOD




Hypo-
thetical

Contaminant
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
Heptaldehyde
Heptylcyanide
Ethylbenzena
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Napthalene
1-Methylnapthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Styrene
Dimethylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis-[2-ethylhexyl]
phthalate
PCB as Aroclor 1242
Lindane
MCL
yg/i
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5
Geometric
Mean
Influent
Cone.
yg/l
0.03
3.2
0.74
1.7
0.14
0.64
0.16
1.8
0.11
0.1
0.002
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0..01
0.05
4.8
0.10
0.79
" 4.7
11

0.47
0.14
Percent
thetical

Influent
Ql
0.1
92
40
92
8
60
8
99.5
12
1
0.2
0.4
0.003
10~8
0.2
.^
0.1
0.1
99
15
39
99.7
99.9

45
ID'7
of Time Hypo-
MCL Exceeded
AWT
Effluent
Q9
6
33
<7
27*
2
0.03
<3
• 1
<3
2
0.1
c
10 5
0.003
10-10
0.001
<3
<3
0.5
26
<4
14
21
>99.9

<5
<5
RO
Effluent
Q22B
5
28
<4
17
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.03
<6
—
-
10"-3
0.002
10-9
0.001
0.8
c
10"5
—
50
<8
56
25
85

<7
<8

 .UCIOC^J. \JLIJ\S LL V^V^LJtN^^iLI.t-A.t*.t«-t.VXl.J. t*. *- V^"-* J  » w> -*- «••»•• t-r M w *^ ~  ..•——•

 leaching from coating on chlorine contact basin.
     Another factor affecting reliability  is  the  physical-chemical
(rather than biological) system.  Little time is  required to adjust
plant operating conditions properly after  starting  or  stopping,  or when-
ever desirable.  In addition, the groundwater basin itself enhances the
reliability of this type of system.   The aquifer  represents a very large
underground storage reservoir.  As the  reclaimed  water travels from the
injection point through layers  of clay  and sand,  some  constituents may

                                 -91-

-------
be removed from the water, which is ultimately withdrawn at points
several hundreds of meters from the injection point.  Other constituents
will alternately adsorb and desorb, and by this process the effects of
any peak concentrations will be evened out as the water moves through
the groundwater system (13).  For this reason, occasional maximum values
which exceed requirements may not be as important as average values.
Thus, the mean values could possibly be more meaningful than extremes
in reclaimed effluents used for groundwater injection.  These considera-
tions should be carefully evaluated before facilities for potable reuse
of municipal wastewaters are designed.

     Finally, a note of caution must be expressed when considering the
limited analysis presented here in relation to direct reuse for potable
purposes.   While the distribution of concentrations for many trace
materials have been quantified in this study, a large fraction of the
organic carbon remains yet uncharacterized.  The possible health signi-
ficance of these materials still needs to be evaluated before direct
reuse of municipal wastewater for potable purposes can be implemented.
                                -92-

-------
                              REFERENCES
 1.   Argo,  D.  G.  Wastewater Reclamation Plant Helps Manufacture Fresh
     Water.   Water and Sewage Works,  Reference Issue,  R-160,  April 1976.

 2.   McCarty,  P.  L.,  M.  Reinhard,  C.  Dolce,  H.  Nguyen, and D. G.  Argo.
     Water  Factory 21:  Reclaimed Water,  Volatile Organics, Virus, and
     Treatment Performance, EPA-600/2-78-076, U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 1978.

 3.   Henderson,  J. E., G.  R. Peyton,  and W.  H.  Glaze.   A Convenient
     Liquid-Liquid Extraction Method for the Determination of Halo-
     methanes in Water at  the Parts-per-Billion Level.  Identification
     and Analysis of  Organic Pollutants in Water, L. H. Keith, ed.,
     Ann Arbor Science,  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976.

 4.   Grob,  K., and F.  Zurcher.  Stripping of Trace Organic Substances.
     J.  Chromatography,  117, 285,  1976.

 5.   Law, M.  L.  R.,  and D. F. Goerlitz.  Microcolumn Chromatographic
     Cleanup  for the  Analysis of Pesticides in Water.   J. Assoc.  of
     Official Analytical Chemists, 53,  (6),  1286, 1970.

 6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Interim Primary Drinking
     Water  Regulations - Control of Organic Chemical Contaminants in
     Drinking Water.    Federal Register, 5756, February 9, 1978.

 7.   Benjamin, J. R.  and C. A. Cornell.  Probability,  Statistics and
     Decision for Civil Engineers.  McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
     1970.

 8.   Dean,  R. B.   Estimating the Reliability of Advanced Waste Treat-
     ment.  Water and Sewage Works, 87, June 1976, and 57, July 1976.

 9.   Ryan,  T. A., Jr., B.  L. Joiner,  and B.  F. Ryan.  MINTAB II Reference
     Manual.   Pennsylvania State University, March 20, 1978.

10.   Symons,  J.  M.,  et al.  Interim Treatment Guide for the Control of
     Chloroform and Other Trihalomethanes.  Municipal Environmental
     Research Laboratory,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati,  Ohio, June 1976.
                                -93-

-------
11.  Leo A., C. Hansch and D. Elkins.  Partition Coefficients and their
     Uses.  Chem. Rev., 71,  (6), 525, 1971.

12.  Symons, J. M. et.al.   National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for
     Halogenated Organics in Drinking Water.  J. American Water Works
     Association, 67, 634, 1975.

13.  Roberts,  P. V., P. L. McCarty, M. Reinhard and J. Schreiner.
     Organic Contaminant Behavior During Groundwater Recharge.
     Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation (In Press).
                                -94-

-------
                                  APPENDIX A
   MAJOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR 0.66 m3/s ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT-PLANT
INFLUENT PUMP STATION

     Number of pumps:
     Capacity:
     Type:
                             1
0.41 m3/s @ 8.8 m TDH, 0.44 in /s <§ 8.2 m TDH
Vertical mixed flow
CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION SYSTEM
Rapid Mixing
     Number of basins
     Dimension:
     Detention time:
     Chemical addition:
2 in series; mechanical mixer in each basin
Length, 3.7 m; width, 3.7 m; depth, 3.7 m
2.4 minutes total (§0.66 nr/s
  First basin, lime alum, recycled lime sludge;
second basin, polymer
Flocculation
     Number of basins:  2,  three compartments each                 3
     Detention time:    10  min/compartment  (30 min total) @ 0.66 m /s
     Chemical addition:  Polymer, 1st and  3rd compartment
     Dimensions:        Length, 15 m; width,'12.5 m; depth, 3.4 m
     Flocculator mechanism:  Oscillating type

 Settling Basin

     Number of basins:  2 rectangular
     Dimensions:        37  m long x  12 m wide, each
     Surface overflow rate:   2.7 m3/m2-hr  @  0.66 m  /s
     Each  basin  equipped with settling  tubes

 Clarifier  Effluent Pump Station

     Number  of pumps:   4
     Capacity:          0.21 mj/s  @  23 m; 0.22 nrVs  @  20 m
     Discharge:         To  air stripping tower or to the  OCSD plant or to
                        the recarbonation basins
                                     -95-

-------
 Lime Feeders and Slakers
      Number:
      Capacity:

 Polymer Feed  System
                   2  gravimetric  feeders  and  paste-type  slakers
                   0.5  kg/s
      Number of mixing tanks:   2  (4  m3  each)
      Number of feed pumps:  4  dual  head
      Capacity:         0  to 0.1  m3/h each head

 Alum Feed System

      Number of storage tanks:  2 (18 m3  each)
      Number of feed pumps:  3  (2 double  head and  1 single head)
      Capacity:          0.1 m3/h  each head.
AIR STRIPPING/COOLING  TOWERS
     Number of  towers:
     Dimensions:
     Capacity:
     Number of  fans:
     Air capacity:
     Net water  streams
                  Length. 63 m; width, 19 m; depth of packing, 7.6 m
                  0.33 m3/s each (§0.44 m3/m2-min
                  6 per tower, 5.5 m diameter, 2-speed electric motors
                  990 m3/s per tower (3000-m3/m3)
                   Tower No. 1, 0.50 m3/s cool 46°C to 26°C
                   Tower No. 2, 0.69 m3/s cool 50°C to 30°C
RECARBONATION

     Number:
                  Two 3-compartment basins, originally designed for two-
                  stage recarbonation but always used as one-stage
                  recarbonation basin
Detention time:   30 minutes (15 min. each basin)
Overflow rate, intermediate settling:  5 m3/m3-h @ 0.66 m'Vs
FILTRATION
     .Number of filters:  4
     Dimensions:       6.7mx7.3m
     Type:             Open, gravity, mixed media
     Hydraulic loading rate:  .0.2 m3/m2-min (§0.66 m3/s
     Maximum operating head loss:  3 m
     Filter aids:      Alum and polymers
     Backwash svstem:   Hydraulic with rotating surface wash arms.   Backwash
                       rate, 0.6 m3/m2-min; surface wash rate,  0.024 m3/m2-min
     Backwash water receiving tank volume:   705 m3
                                    -96-

-------
ACTIVATED-CABBON ADSORPTION

     Number of contactors:  17
     Normal service:

     Type:

     Dimensions:

     Contact time:
     Carbon size:
     Carbon weight:
CHLORINATION
                  16 in parallel operation, 1 for carbon storage and
                  standby service
                  Countercurrent, in steel pressure vessels,  upflow during
                  first and second periods,but downflow during third period
                  Overall height, 12.5 m; sidewall height,  7.3 m;
                  diameter,  3.7 m
                  34 minutes at 0.66 m3/s
                  8 x 30  mesh (Filtrasorb 300,  bulk de.nsity  - 420  kg/m3)
                  35 Mg per contactor (660 Mg total)
     Number of contact basins:  1
     In-line feeding and mixing
     Contact time:     30 minutes
     Chlorine feeders: 3 (900 kg/day each)
     On-site generation of chlorine:  900 kg/day
CHEMICAL SLUDGE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS

Sludge Pumps

     Number:           3
     Capacity:         0.032 to 0.044 m3/s
     Influent solids capability:  5% maximum

Sludge Thickener
     Numb er:
     Dimensions:
     Loading:
                  14 m diameter, 2.5 m sidewater depth
                  24 m3/m2-d @ 1.5% solids from clarifier at flow of
                  0.66 m3/s; dry solids loading = 15 kg/m3-h
Thickened sludge concentration:  8 to 15% solids
Thickened Sludge Pumps

     Number:           3
     Capacity:         5 liter/m at 18 m head each, variable speed
     Influent solids capability:  18% maximum
Centrifuges

     Number:
     Capacity:
     Feed rate:

Recalcining Furnace

     Number:
     Dimensions:
     Capacity:
     Scrubber:
     Fuel:
                  900 kg/hour each
                  3 to 6.6 liters/m
                  1, 6 hearth
                  6.8 m OD; 6.1 m ID
                  0.1 to 0.5 kg/s dry CaO
                  3-stage jet impingement
                  Natural gas with propane standby
                               -97-

-------
 Lime Storage Bins

      Number:
      Capacity:
      Dimensions:
 32 Mg each
 3.8 m diameter by 4.6 m storage depth (overall height
 = 8.7 m)
 Carbon Dioxide Compressors
      Number:
      Capacity:
 0.76 m3/s (12% C02)  each
ACTIVATED CARBON REGENERATION

Regeneration  Furnace

     Number of  furnaces:   1,  6 hearth
     Dimensions:        2.8 m  OD;  2.1 m ID
     Capacity:          0.01 to 0.063 kg/s  (dry basis)
     Steam addition:    No. 4  and  No. 6 hearths (optional); 1 kg steam per kg
                        carbon
     Air  pollution control:
        Fuel:           Natural gas with propane standby
        Scrubber:       Venturi followed by water separator
        Afterburner:    Vertical,  refractory lined steel, 760°C at 0.5 seconds
                        minimum gas retention time

Carbon Wash and Transfer Tanks

     Number:            2
     Dimensions:        1.5 m  diameter by 3 m high
     Equipped with bag  dump and dust collector

Regenerated Carbon Wash Tanks

     Number:            2
     Dimensions:        1.5 m diameter by 3 m high

Spent Carbon Dewatering Tanks

     Number:            2 (open top)
     Dimensions:       1.5 m x 1.5 m x 4.4 m high
     Furnace feed system:  0.3 m diameter screw conveyor, stainless  steel
                       with capacity of 0.01 to 0.063 kg/s on a dry  basis

Carbon Slurry Pumps (transfer carbon from regeneration furnace to carbon wash
                       tanks)
     Number:
     Type:

     Capacity:
Diaphragm slurry, air operated, 7.6 cm suction and
discharge
0.03 m^/s max. with 4:1 turndown ratio
              -98-

-------
                                 APPENDIX B

         MAJOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR 0.22 m3/s REVERSE-OSMOSIS PLANT
GENERAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
                                                     o
     Minimum permeate flow rate:               0.22 m /s
     Maximum concentrate flow rate:            0.04 m /s
     Feed flow rate:                           0.26 m3/s
     Design feed water temperature:            18°C
     Annual throughput requirement:            6.4 x 10  m
     Minimum permeate water recovery:          85%
     Minimum salt rejection:                   90%
     Concentrate pH:                           5.0 to 8.0
     Permeate pH:                              6.5 to 8.0
     Contract completion time:                 670 calendar
     Maximum noise level outside RO building:  55 dba
                                                            days
PRE-TREATMENT

Feed Water Source

     Normal:
     Op tional:

Filter Feed Pumps

     Type:
     Number:
     Capacity:
     TDH:
     Power:

Scale-Inhibitor Feeder

     Number:
     Design irate:
     Maximum capacity:
     Inhibitor:

Chlorinaters

     Number:
     Capacity:
     Note:
                       Activated-carbon adsorption effluent
                       Mixed-media-filtration effluent
                       Vertical turbine, single stage
                       3 (includes 1 standby)
                       0.13 m3/s
                       18 m
                       37 k₯ each
                       1.9 kg/hr  (2 ing/1)
                       10 kg/hr (10.5 mg/1)
                       Sodium hexametaphosphate
                        230 kg/d  (10.2 mg/1)
                        Backup  to  this unit  from Water Factory  21  chlorinators
                                     -99-

-------
 Feed  Clearwell

      Number:            1                              •••—...
      Total  capacity:    57 m3
      Average  detention  time at 0.26 m3/s:   3.67 min

 RO Flow Rates
                                            o                     o
      Feed flow:         Per section, 0.043 m /s; per  unit, 0.13 m /s;  total
                        plant, 0.26 m3/s
      Permeate flow:     Per section, 0.037 m3/s; per  unit, 0.11 m3/s;  total
                        plant, 0.22 m3/s
      Concentrate  flow:  Per section, 0.0064  m3/s; per unit, 0.019 m3/s;  total
                        plant, 0.039 m3/s
POST-TREATMENT

Pecarbonators

     Number:           2  (both normally in operation)
     Type:             Countercurrent packed bed
     Air flow rate:    22 m3/m3
     Hydraulic loading:  25 m/min

Permeate Clearwell

     Number:           1
     Total capacity:   34 m
     Average detention time at 0.22 m3/s:  2.55 min
Permeate Pumps

     Type:
     Number:
     Capacity:
     TDH:
     Pox^er:
Vertical turbine, single stage
3 (includes 1 standby)
0.11 m3/s
7.6m
15 kW each
ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                            Voltage   Total Installed (kW)
                              2300
                               480

                             Total
                       2000
                        250

                       2250
Cartridge Filters

     Number:
     Elements:

     Rating:
4 (includes 1 standby)
240 250-mm or 120 500-mm polypropylene cartridges per
filter
25 ym
            -100-

-------
RO Feed Pumps Clearwell

     Number:           1
     Total capacity:   128 m3
     Average detention time at 0.26 m3/s:  825 min
RO Feed Pumps

     Type:
     Number:  i
     Capacity:
     TDK:
     Power:

Acid Feeders
Vertical turbine, 17 stages
3 (includes 1 standby)
0.13 m3/s
420 m, maximum; 280 m, normal
670 kW each
     Acid:
     PH;
     Type:
     Number:
     Capacity:
Concentrated sulfuric acid (93% or 66°Be')
RO feed adjusted to pH 5.5
Positive displacement
3 (includes 1 standby)
0.66 liters/ min each, design; 1.3 liters/min each,
maximum
REVERSE OSMOSIS

RO Membranes, Sections, Units

     Number of units:  2 (both normally in operation)
     Number of sections:  3 per unit
     Number of pressure vessels:  35 per section
     Number of membranes:  6 per pressure vessel
     Total number of:  Units, 2; sections, 6; pressure vessels, 210;
                       membranes, 1260
     Pressure vessel array per section:  20-10-5
     Pressure vessel length:  6.7 m
     Nominal pressure vessel diameter:  200 mm
    % Membrane diameter:  200 mm
     Membrane length:  1 m
     Membrane type:    Spiral wound, cellulose acetate
SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Air Compressors

     Number:
     Capacity:
     TDH:
     Power:
2 (includes 1 standby)
0.62 m3/min
8.8 kg/cm2
5.6 kW
                                    -101-

-------
Cleaning System

     Tanks:
     Pumps:

Flushing System

     Tanks:
     Pumps:
2 at 5.7 m  each
2 at 0.055 m3/s each, 28 m TDK, 22 kW each
2 at 25 m  each
2 at 0.019 m3/s each, 30 m TDK, 11 kW each
                                   -102-

-------
                            APPENDIX C

                SECOND-PERIOD ORGANIC DATA SUMMARY
       TABLE C-l.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF VGA CONSTITUENTS
                     DURING THE SECOND PERIOD

A.  Sampling Locations Ql, Q2, Q4, and Q6



Constituent
Chloroform





Bromodi-
chloro-
methane



Dibromo-
chloro-
me thane



Tribromo-
me thane







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 1976-
Mar . 19 78
1.6
1.2-2.0
2.50
52
52
0.2-39
0.09
0.05-0.17
4.2
42
23
<0. 1-1.1
0.15
0.05-0.46
12.6
35
22
<0.1-10
0.12
0.03-0 .-5
8.1
24
11
<0.1-3
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
1.09
0.5-2.2
2.14
7 .
7
0.3-2.3
0.21
0.01-7
4.22
6
3
O.1-1.4
<0.1
-
-
6
1
<0.1-0.2
<0.1
-
-
5
0
<0.1
Strip.
Effluent
Q4

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.18
0.1-0.2
1.87
29
29
0.1-0.5
0.08
0.01-0.5
2.09
5
3
<0 .1-0.2
0.10
0.01-1
2.85
4
3
<0.1-0.3






Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
8.45*
4.2-17.1
6.62
32
30
<0.1-97
4.82
2.7-8.6
4.21
33
26
<0.1-32
1.44
0.7-3.1
5.77
29
23
<0. 1-1-8
0.15
0.02-1.5
15.7
19
8
<0.1-23
 Poor lognormal fit - exceeds 10% K—S
 boundary (normal fit okay).
(TABLE C-1A CONT.)
                              -103-

-------
TABLE C-1A CONT.



Constituent
Methylene
chloride




1,1,1-Tri-
chloro-
e thane



Trichloro-
ethylene




Tetrachloro-
ethylene







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
17
13-23
2.57
41
41
1.7-74
4.7
3.5-6.3
2.86
50
47
<0.3-38
0.9
0.6-1.4
3.9
46
41
<0.1-12
0.6
0.3-1.1
5.8
39
31
O.1-15
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978 •






0.94
0.1-11
10.1
7
6
<0.1-28
0.21
0.02-2.0
6.06
7
5
O.1-2.4
0.16
0.04-0.7
3.30
6
5
<0.1-0.8
Strip.
Effluent
Q4

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978






0.09
0.02-0.3
7.55
17
12
<0.1-2.5
0.013
KT4-0.4
15.8
16
5
O.1-1.4
<0.1
_
_
3
1
<0.1-0.2
Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
1.5
0.9-2.3
4.4
38
37
<0.2-18
0.018
0.002-0.1
7.14
30
6
<0.1-1.2
0.002
lQ-6-i
210
29
5
<0.1-2.4
0.036
0.01-0.1
7.70
28
11
<0. 1-2.0
                              -104-

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q8, Q9, Q21A, and Q21B

Constituent
Chloroform





Bromodi-
chloro-
me thane



Dibromo-
chloro-
me thane



Tribromo-
me thane




Methylene
chloride




1,1,1-Tri-
chloro^-
e thane




Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M,
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
GAC
Effluent
Q8
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
6.7
4.7-9.5
2.87
34
34
0.3-36
1.34
0.9-1.9
2.96
34
33
O.1-10
0.23
0.1-0.5
4.71
25
22
<0.1-3.5
0.17
3. 003-10
5.08
4
3

-------
TABLE C-1B CONT.


Constituent
Trichloro-
ethylene




Tetrachloro-
ethylene






Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
GAG
Effluent
Q8
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.057
0.03-0.1
2.01
17
6
<0.1-0.2
0.01
10~3-0.2
10.1
21
5
<0.1-0.9
Final
Effluent
Q9
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.02
0.004-0.1
6.7
48
8
0.1-1.7
0.05
0.01-0.19
17
50
20
O.I- 26
R.O.
Influent
Q21A*
Jan. 19 7 7-
June 1978
0.1
-
3
0
O.I
O.I
-
4
1
O.I- 0.1
R.O.
Effluent
Q21B*
Jan. 1977-
June 1978
9-04
10~b-10J
3.12
7
2
<0 .1-0.2
'1.15
0.2-7.7
9.76
8
8
O.1-17
*
Pilot reverse osmosis unit.
                               -106-

-------
       TABLE C-2.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF CLSA CONSTITUENTS
                      DURING THE SECOND PERIOD

A.  Sampling Locations Ql, Q2, Q4, and Q6



Constituent
Chloro-
benzene




1,2-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,3-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,4-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,2,4-Tri-
chloro-
benzene



Ethyl-
benzene







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
2.5
1.4-4.3
2.6
14
14
0.2-9.4
2.4
1.5-4.0
2.5
15
15
0.3-8.9
0.68
0.4-1.3
3.1
15
15
0.2-1.7
2.1
1.3-3.4
2.4
15
15
0.8-9.2
0.46
0.2-1.1
4.5
15
13
<0. 01-4.1
1.4
0.8-2.6
2.7
13
13
0.2-8.7
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
3.0
1.2-7.7
1.81
4
4
0.16-0.65
1.2
0.2-6.6
2.92
• 4
4
0.38-3.2
0.12
0.01-1.1
3.97
4
4
0.03-0.53
1.02
0.4-2.7
1.83
4
4
0.51-1.9
0.22
_ 0.02-2.0
2.44
4
3
<0.01-0.5
0.23
0.07-0.8
1.62
3
3
0.16-0.37
Strip .
Effluent
Q4
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0 . 11
0.04-0.3
2.67
6
6
0.02-0.24
0.18
0.03-1.2
4.53
6
5
0.01-0.75
0.020
0.002-0.2
2.62
6
3
<0. 01-0. 06
0.029
0.01-0.2
2.87
6
4
<0. 01-0. 12
0.11
0.004-3
3.81
5
3
<0.01-0.6
0.10
0.02-0.5
4.49
6
6
0.02-1.4
Filt.
Effluent
Q6
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.092
0.05-0.2
1.84
7
7
0.04-0.21
0.17
0.03-0.9
6.38
7
7
0.01-1.2
0.010
10-5-4
11.4
6
3
0.01-0.16
0.024
0.004-0.1
4.29
6
5
<0.01-0.2
0.019
10-8_104
4.39
5
2
<0. 01-0. 11
0.055
0.04-0.08
1.56
7
7
0.03-0.1
(TABLE C-2A CONT.)
                               -107-

-------
TABLE C-2A CONT.



Constituent
Naphthalene





1-Methyl-
naphthalene




2-Methyl-
naphthalene







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.57
0.3-1.0
2.6
16
16
0.1-4.1
0.86
0.5-1.4
2.1
11
11
0.1-3.9
1.0
0.6-1.7
2.1
10
10
0.4-2.6
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.21
0.04-1.1
2.83
4
4
0.09-0.82












Strip.
Effluent
Q4

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.18
0.07-0.5
2.40
6
6
0.04-0.5












Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.091
0.02-0.4
4.34
6
6
0.01-0.30












                               -108-

-------
B. Sampling Locations Q9 , Q22B, and Q21B

Constituent
Chloro-
benzene




1,2-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,3-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,4-Di-
chloro-
benzene



1,2,4-Tri-
chloro-
benzene



Ethyl-
benzene





Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
c
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.05
0.03-0.08
2.7
23
20
<0. 02-0. 37
0.03
0.01-0.08
5^7
23
15
<0.02-0.9
0.01
0.001-0.07
12
22
9
<0. 01-0. 61
0.02
0.003-0.14
21
23
12
<0. 02-2. 41
0.01
0.002-0.06
13
23
10
<0.01-0.5
0.03
0.02-0.05
3.0
24
24
<0. 01-0. 18
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
No v. 197 7-
Mar.1978
0.16
0.10-0.25
1.51
6
6
0.11-0.29
0.03
0.02-0.05
1.6
6
5
<0. 02-0. 05
0.04
0.02-0.07
1.74
6
6
0.02-0.08
0.01
0.000-0.24
3.6
6
3
<0. 01-0. 04






0.05
0.03-0.10
1.9
6
6
0.02-0.11
R.O.
Effluent
Q21B*
Jan. 19 7 7-
June 1977
0.043
0.01-0.2
'3.71
6
5
<0. 01-0. 15
0.034
0.01-0.2
4.04
6
5
<0.01-0.2






0.014
10~3-0.4
3.81
4
3
<0. 01-0. 06






0.022
0.01-0.07
2.55
6
5
<0. 01-0. 06
              (TABLE C-2B CONT.)
-109-

-------
TABLE C-2B CONT.



Constituent
Naphthalene





1-Methyl-
naphthalene




2-Methyl
naphthalene







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
0.03
0.02-0.04
2.2
23
18
<0. 02-0. 15
0.04
0.03-0.06
1.77
10
9
0.01-0.1
0.02
0.005-0.09
4.1
10
6
<0. 01-0.1
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B

Nov. 19 7 7-
Mar.1978
0.10
0.05-0.22
2.1
6
6
0.06-0.28
0.03
0.005-0.2
4.1
6
5
0. 01-0. 15
0.04
0.003-0.5
5.1
6
4
<0. 01-0. 26
R.O.
Effluent
Q21B*

Jan. 19 7 7-
June 1977
0.029
0.002-0.4
8.54
6
5
0. 01-0. 4












*
Pilot reverse osmosis unit.
                        -110-

-------
TABLE C-3.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF SEA CONSTITUENTS
              DURING THE SECOND PERIOD




Constituent
Dime thy 1-
phthalate




Diethyl-
phthalate




Di-n-butyl-
phthalate




Diisobutyl-
phthalate

V


Bis-[2-ethyl
hexyl]—
phthalate



PCBs as
Aroclor 124







aram-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
16
11-23
1.15
3
3
14.7-18.7
<2
—
—
11
0
<2
<0.5


3
<0.5-0.5
2.9
1.4-5.9
2.7
11
10
<0 . 3-16
28
19-42
1.83
11
11
15-65
3.3
2.2-4.8
1.77
11
11
2-7.6
Final
Effluent
Q9
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
1.7
0.3-8.6
1.92
3
3
0.9-2.8
<2
— •
~-
8
1
<2-4.5
0.84
0.5-1.4
1.54
8
5
<0.5-1.5
0.74
0.1-3.8
4.7
8
6
<0 .3-4.2
3.2
0.6-18
3.0
7
4
<4-15
<0.3
-
-
8
0
<0.3
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
Nov. 19 7 7-
Mar.1978






<2
~~
—
6
0
<2
0.84
0.5-1.4
1.68
6
6
0.5-2.3
0.75
0.2-3.3
3.3
6
5
<0. 3-3.0
7.0
5-10
1.42
6
6
4.6-12
<0.3
—
-
6
0
<0.3
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
Nov. 19 7 7-
Mar.1978






<2
^
~~
5
0
<2
1.8
0.9-3.5
1.69
5
5
0.9-3.1
1.7
0.7-4.0
1.1
2
2
1.6-1.7
6.2
1.2-32
2.8
5
4
<4-ll
<0.3
—
—
5
0
<0.3
(TABLE C-3 CONT.;
                        -111-

-------
TABLE C-3 CONT.



Constituent
Lindane








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
E
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.19
0.1-0.35
2.1
10
8
<0.1-0.6
Final
Effluent
Q9

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
<0.05
-
-
8
0
<0.05
R.O.
Influent
Q22A

Nov. 19 7 7-
Mar.1978
<0.05
_
_
6
0
<0.05
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B

Nov. 19 7 7-
Mar.1978
<0.05
_
—
5
0
<0.05
                               -112-

-------
                   APPENDIX D

SECOND-PERIOD INORGANIC AND GENERAL DATA SUMMARY
TABLE D-l.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF HEAVY METALS
            DURING THE SECOND PERIOD



Metal
Ag





Ba





Cd





Cr








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
Oct. 19 76-
June 1977
3.0
2.6-3.5
1.48
27
27
1.5-5.0
77
68-87
1.35
26
26
40-177
26
22-31
1.60
32
32
12-97
140
122-160
1.48
33
33
62-490
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
Oct. 1976-
June 1977
2.5
2.0-3.1
1.74
27
26
<1. 0-5.0
32
26-39
1.64
26
26
15-114
2.0
1.6-2.5
1.97
32
32
0.4-8.4
30
24-38
2.00
33
33
9-111
Filt.
Effluent
Q6
Oct. 1976-
June 1977
2.6
2.1-3.2
1.66
27
25
<1. 0-5.0
26
21-33
1.78
62
26
10-97
1.4
1.1-1.8
2.04
32
32
0.3-5.4
29
22-38
2.24
33
33
8-219
GAG
Effluent
•Q8
Oct. 19 76-
June 1977
2.5
2.0-3.1
1.66
27
25
<1. 0-5.0
26
21-33
1.78
26
26
12-114
1.3
1-1.7
2.05
32
32
0.3-9.8
18
14-23
2.18
33
33
4-92
Injection
Water
Q10
Oct. 1976-
June 1977
3.1
2.4-4.0
2.46
49
47
<0.1-10
9.9
8.3-11.8
1.86
48
48
1.2-48
0.42
0.33-0.53
2.35
54
54
0.1-1.5
3.7
2.8-4.8
2.76
55
55
0.5-49
                                              (TABLE D-l CONT.)
                      -113-

-------
TABLE D-l CONT.



Metal
Cu





Fe





Hg





Mn





Pb





Se








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
250
218-287
1.42
27
27
129-466
280
231-340
1.76
33
33
52-780
1.6
0.93-2.8
3.83
26
26
0.1-177
33
29-38
1.48
33
33
9-98
16
13-20
1.76
26
26
3.3-62
<2.5
-
-
33
0
<2.5
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
68
58-80
1.52
27
27
19-122
22
15-32
3.03
33
33
2-216
1.9
1.4-2.5
1.99
25
25
1-11
1.5
1.0-2.3
3.39
33
33
0 . 2-45
2.9
2.1-4.0
2.22
26
26
0.6-10.9
<2.5
—
-
33
0
<2.5
Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
56
47-67
1.58
27
27
12-114
105
69-160
:3.41
33
33
13-1500
1.9
. 1.3-2.7
2.36
26
26
0 . 8-46
3.2
2.2-4.7
3.16
33
33
0 . 3-34
3.0
1.7-5.3
4.13
26
26
0.2-71
<3
_
—
33
0
<3
GAG
Effluent
Q8

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
20
15-26
1.97
27
27
4-63
36
26-50
2.66
33
33
2-175
1.7
1.1-2.5
2.60
25
25
0.5-57
3.7
2.9-4.7
2.03
33
33
0.8-26
2.2
1.3-3.8
3.88
26
26
0.2-72
<4
_
_
33
0
<4
Injection
Water
Q10

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
8
6.4-10
2.16
49
49
1-50
45
37-55
2.18
55
55
10-280
1.3
1.1-1.5
1.77
50
50
0.6-11
3.5
3-4.1
1.78
55
55
1.3-49
1.2
0.87-1.6
3.08
48
48
0.1-9.8
<10
—
_
55
0
<10
                                                          (TABLE D-l CONT.)
                                   -114-

-------
TABLE D-l CONT.



Metal
Zn





As








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 19 76-
June 1977
350
300-408
1.47
27
27
130-830
<5
-
—
27
0
<5
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
135
81-226
3.57
26
26
5-640
<5
-
-
27
0
<5
Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 19 76-
June 1977
319
239-426
2.07
27
27
70-2000
<5
-
—
27
0
<5
GAG
Effluent
Q8

Oct. 19 76-
June.1977
81
49-134
3.59
27
27
5-304
<5
-
-
27
0
<5
Injection
Water
Q10

Oct. 1976-
June 1977
22
11-44
11.6
48
48
0.1-490
<10
-
-
49
0
<10
                                   -115-

-------
                TABLE D-2.  CONCENTRATION OF GENERAL PARAMETERS
                            DURING THE SECOND PERIOD
A.  Sampling Locations Ql, Q2, Q4, and Q6.



Constituent
COD, mg/1





TOG, mg/1





Electroconductivity ,
yS/cm




Total Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml
(106 MPN/100 ml for
QD


Fecal Coliforms ,
MPN/100 ml
(lO6 MPN/100 ml for
QD


B, mg/1








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
141
137-144
1.23
274
274
89-288
30.0
27.3-33.0
1.22
19
19
23-55
1730
1700-1756
1.15
341
341
1230-2730
89
41.2-192
19
56
56
3.1-105
25
11-56
21.4
55
55
1.1-105
0.94
0.89-0.99
1.23
61
61
0.7-1.8
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
52
51-53
1.20
274
274
34-109
21.5
20.2-23.0
1.14
19
19
18-30
1980
1950-2010
1.16
344
344
1240-3460
0.21
0.03-1.3
7.11
35
7
<1-10
<1
-
-
35
1
<1-1
0.81
0 . 74-0 . 88
1,30
34
34
0.5-1.6
Strip.
Effluent
Q4





































Filt.
Effluent
Q6
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
42
41-43
1.26
272
272
7-78
14.4
13.9-14.9
1.24
156
156
7.5-28






5
3.1-8.0
14.6
212
125
<1-3600
0.25
0.2-0.4
6.71
218
57

-------
TABLE D-2A CONT.



CONSTITUENT
Ca, mg/1





F, mg/1





Mg , mg/1





Org-N , mg/1





NH--N , mg/1
J




Turbidity , TU








Param —
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

Oct. 1976- .
Mar. 1978
124
112-137
1.53
70
70
59-443
1.4
1.3-1.5
1.18
27
27
0.9-1.8
24
23-25
1.12
61
61
20-33
7.4
7.2-7.6
1.25
273
273
3.1-23
30
28-32
1.68
269
269
12-138
42
41-43
1.36
319
319
19-95
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978












0.16
0.13-0.19
1.75
35
35
0.08-0.5
3.1
3-3.2
1.47
273
273
0.5-14'
26
25-27
1.54
266
266
4-85
1.2
1.1-1.3
1.64
325
325
0.1-7.2
Strip.
Effluent
Q4

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978


















2.2
2.1-2.3
1.25
111
111
1.5-4.3
5
4.6-5.4
1.80
206
206
1-18






Filt.
Effluent
Q6

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978






























0.4
0.37-0.43
1.68
237
237
0.1-3.9
                                                           (TABLE D-2A CONT.)
                                    -117-

-------
TABLE D-2A CONT.



CONSTITUENT
NO~-N, mg/1
o




TDS, mg/1








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.23
0.16-0.34
2.20
23
19
<0.1-0.9
1010
986-1030
1.11
76
76
830-1296
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978


-.&









Strip.
Effluent
Q4
Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978












Filt.
Effluent
Q6
Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978












                                                           (TABLE D-2 CONT.)
                                     -118-

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q8, Q9, Q10, Q22A, and Q22B



Constit-
uent
COD, mg/1





TOG, mg/1





Electro-
conduc-
tivity,
US/cm


Total
Co li forms,
MPN/100 ml



Fecal
Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml



B , mg/1








Par am- -
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N-
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
GAG
Effluent
Q8

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
16.6
15.9-17.4
1.46
264
264
4-51
7.0
6.6-7.4
1.41
163
163
2.5-15








•















Final
Effluent
Q9

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978












1330
1307-1354
1.12
159
159
1000-1840
0.01
18
33.2
115
19
<1-101
<1
-
-
115
0
<1
0.59
0.53-0.66
1.30
23
23
0.3-0.8
Injection
Water
Q10

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
9.6
9.0-10.3
1.55
148
148
1-42






708
689-728
1.31
377
377
140-1370
0.03
0.01-0.1
18.4
116
20
<1-160
<1
-
-
116
1

-------
TABLE 3>-2B CONT.



Constit-
uent
Ca





F





Mg





Org-N





NH_-N
X
_J




Turbidity








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M

95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
GAG
Effluent
Q8

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978





































Final
Effluent
Q9

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978
148
124-176
1.76
41
41
24-314
0.6
0.52-0.7
1.41
23
23
0.3-0.9
0.35
0.24-0.51
2.33
22
22
0.1-1.8
1.1
1.1-1.2
1.45
265
265
0.1-3.8
2.0

1.7-2.3
3.05
261
228
O.1-14






Injection
Water
Q10

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
36
33-39
1.42
69
69
7-94
0.6
0.58-0.63
1.16
50
50
0.4-0.8
0.50
0.47-0.54
1.30
57
57
0.2-1.0
0.4
0.36-0.44
1.80
150
150
0.1-3.3
0.6

0.5-0.71
3.06
195
159
<0.1-7.6
0.4
0.38-0.42
1.78
360
360
0.1-3.3
R.O.
Influent
Q22A







































R.O.
Effluent
Q22B







































                                                         (TABLE D-2B CONT.)
                                    -120-

-------
TABLE D-2B CONT.



Constit-
uent
NQ--N, mg/1
•J




TDS, mg/1








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
GAG
Effluent
Q8

Oct. 1976-
Mar.1978












Final
Effluent
Q9

Oct. 19 76-
. Mar. 1978
0.40
0.28-0.58
2.41
24
23
<0.1-1.8
892
816-975
1.23
23
23
526-1216
Injection
Water
Q10

Oct. 19 76-
Mar.1978
0.38
0.28-0.56
3.23
56
56
<0.1-3.5
413
390-438
1.26
60
60
214-528
R.O.
influent
Q22A














R.O.
Effluent
Q22B














                                    -121-

-------
                          APPENDIX E

              THIRD-PERIOD ORGANIC DATA SUMMARY
     TABLE E-l.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF VOA CONSTITUENTS
                    DURING THE THIRD PERIOD

A.  Sampling Locations Ql, Q2, Q4j Q6, and Q9.
4J
ti

-------
TABLE E-1A CONT.
4-1
fi
0)
4J
•rl
4-1
CD
C
O
a
cu
•r!
u
a 0
0 r-l
"S 0
cd cd
O M
4J
a)
4-1
a)
I C
•H cd
H "5
1 CU
rH O
•H 0
H* 5
O
1
o cu
S-l Cl
O 1)
rH r-i
rC ^%
0 rC
•rl 4-1
^4 CU
EH
1
O
rl 4)
0 C
rH 0)
O >,
cd f!
^ 4-1
4J CD
a)
H

^
cu
4-1
cu
cd
cd
PM
M
95%Cl
S
N
Nu
R

M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R

M
95%CI

S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R

Plant
Influent
Ql

3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.033
0.01-0.08
2.31
36
6
<0.1-0.2

3.25
2.1-5
3.82
38
38
0.3-71

0.74
0.4-1.4

3.8
22
20
O.I- 20
1.67
1.3-2.2
2.37
38
38
0.2-9.6

Chem.
Effluent
Q2

3/1/78-
12/31/78
<0.1
_
-
12
3
<0. 1-0.1

4.7
2.4-9,
2.80
12
12
0.6-10.0

0.86
0.2-3.2

2.9
5
5
0.3-4.1
2.5
1.6-3.9
1.99
12
12
0.7-9.1

Strip.
Effluent
Q4

3/1/78-
12/31/78
<0.1
—
-
11
4
<0 .1-0.1

0.43
0.19-0.95
3.25
11
11
0.1-4.8

<0.2
_-

—
4
1
O.1-2
0.13
0.06-0.29
2.59
11
8
<0.1-0.5

Filt.
Effluent
Q6

3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.07
0.03-0.17
3.34
17
10
<0.1-0.6

0.16
0.03-0.75
11.3
17
12
0.1-30

<0.1
_

—
4
0
0.1
0.16
0.09-0.28
2.47
17
13
O.1-0.6

Final
Effluent
Q9

3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.16
0.12-0.22
2.05
25
24
<0.1-0.5

0.20
0.07-0.55
8.1
25
19
O .1-41

<0.1
_

—
14
1
0.1-0.1
0.83
0.56-1.2
2.49
25
24
O.1-7.6

                             -123-

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q7-05, Q7-12, Q22A, Q22B, Q21A, and Q21B
4J
B

-------
TABLE
•u
0
m
3
j-i
•rf
•P
03
C
.3

O CU
o cu
H i— 1
•H -U
M 0)
H

O
M CU
0 C
H (U
a rH
rt J2*
(i TJ
4-J CU
P
E-1B CONT.


QJ
JJ
0)

2
td
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R

Column
Effluent
Q7-05


7/78-
1/79
<0 1
1
H
4
1

0.19
0.06-0.6
4.32
14
9
<0.1-3.7

Column
Effluent
Q7-12


7/78-
1/79
<0.1
^
«
3
0

0.23
0.05-1.1
7.81
11
9
<0.1-24

R.O.
Influent
Q22A


3/1/78-
12/31/78
O.I
w
»
19
0
0.1
0.17
0.07-0.42
5.73
27
17
0.1-3.2

R.O.
Effluent
Q22B


3/1/78-
12/31/78
O.I
„
_
24
0
0.1
0.20
0.12-0.35
2.60
30
14
O.1-0.9


R.O. £
Influent
Q21A


8/78-
1/79
.1.26
0.3-5.5
2.46
4
4
0.6-4.0
1.49
1.1-1.9
1.55
13
13
0.8-3.0


R.O. £-
Effluent
Q21B


8/78-
1/79
1.33
0.4-4.6
1.89
4
4
0.7-2.7
1.80
1.3-2.5
1.70
13
13
0.7-4.6

*
Pilot Scale.
-125-

-------
A.
  TABLE E-2.  CONCENTRATION IN Jig/1 OF CLSA CONSTITUENTS
                 DURING THE THIRD PERIOD
Sampling Locations Ql» Q2, Q4, Q6, and Q9
4-1
§
3
•H
4J
(0
c
o
o
S
01
N
0
ai
•§
n
o
rH
§
. S
*p» J-J
Q 0)
cJ) "o
« M
rH O
rH
O
0)
1 N
•rl (3
Q CO
CO O
r-T 0
rH
CJ
0)
a
o
1 N
38
-*• "o
**§
J2
a
co
1 C
•rl CD
M N
H C
1 CU
<3- ,0
« O
CM M
•> O
rH rH
'o

-------
TABLE E-2A CONT.
=
4-1
fi
CU
S
4-1
•H
4J
en
o

4 r§
jj'Tj
g- ?
ffi 0

Q)
a
a)
N

-------
TABLE E-2A CONT.
4-1
C
A)
E»
4J
S

o
o
0)
a
r-i 0)
ja^al
JJ _f-4

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q7-05, Q7-12, Q22A,  Q22B,  Q21A,  and Q21B
4-1
Pi
4-1
•H
Jj
CO
fi
o
u
s
0)
N
c
0)
0
o
H
6
QJ
S
•H fl
P 0)
f^l O
" M
rH 0
rH
0)
CJ
(1)
1 N
•rl C
P 0)
1 ft
CO O
H" 0
i— 1
-a
 O
CN SH
* O
rH rH
O
0)
£
0)
rH
td
4-1
CU
CD
W

M
4-1
3
I
cfl
PM
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
s
N
Nu
- R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R

M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R

M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Co lumn
Effluent
Q7-05
7/78-
1/79
0.070
0.05-0.1
1.85
15
14
<0. 02-0. 15
0.028
0.002-0.32
2.68
14
3
<0. 02-0. 15
<0.02

_
14
0
<0.02
<0.02.

-
15
1


0.000
0.000
47
14
2
<0. 02-0. 14

0.034
0.004-^0.31
5.93
14
5
<0. 06-0. 71
Column
Effluent
Q7-12
7/78-
1/79-
0.043
0.02-0.11
3.39
11
9
<0. 02-0. 34
<0.02
—
11
1
<0. 02-0. 03
<0.02

_
11
0
<0.02
0.006
io-4-o.i
3.60
11
3
<0. 02-0. 05

0.003
io-9-io4
5.53
11
2
<0. 02-0. 05

0.009
10-9_io4
5.12
11
2
<0. 06-0. 12
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
3/78-,
9/78
0.041
0.02-0.07
2.24
12
10
<0. 02-0. 12
0.002
io"13--io5
8.1
12
2
<0. 02-0. 06
<0.02
_
_
12
2
<0. 02-0. 02
0.001
io-13-io6
10.9
12
2
<0. 02-0. 07

0.017
0.003-0.09
1.92
12
3
<0. 02-0. 05







R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
3/78-
9/78
0.034
0.02-0.07
3.0
16
12
<0. 02-0. 25
0.001
io-14-io7
13
16
2
<0. 02-0. 07
0.004
10~4-0.1
4.1
16
3
<0. 02-0. 05
0.015
0.006-0.04
2.8
16
7
<0. 02-0. 07

<0.02
-
-
16
1
<0. 02-0. 03







R.O.
Influent*
Q21A
8/78-
1/79
0.14
0.08-0.23
2.12
12
11
<0. 02-0. 32
0.46
0.25-0.84
2.32
12
10
<0.02-1.2
0.12
0.08-0.17
1.66
12
10
<0. 02-0. 24
1.19
0.94-1.5
1.41
12
11
<0.02-1.8

0.044
0.02-0.11
2.39
12
6
<0. 02-0. 18

0.18
0.13-0.25
1.48
12
8
O.02-0.3
R.O. A
Effluent
Q21B
8/78-
1/79
0.072
0.03-0.15
2.98
12
11
<0. 02-0. 21
0.38
0.23-0.64
2.15
12
11
<0. 02-0. 87
0.065
0.04-0.1
1.83
12
11
<0. 02-0. 13
0.99
0.83-1.2.
1.32
12
12
0.51-1.4

0.11
0.06-0.2
2.04
12
8
<0. 02-0. 30

0.053
0.02-0.12
1.97
12
5
<0. 02-0. 13
                                                           (TABLE E-2B CONT.)
                                     -129-

-------
TABLE E-2B CONT.

fi
w
•H
4J
0)
1

0)
rH 'O
4J C
D. CO
W &

0)
0)
N
Q)
rH
5>
AJ

0)
C
H
£
B

0)
g

f
a.

m
c
Q)
l-l
CO

1


a)
^J
,C CO

I ex,
H co


•u
CO
M
CO
P-i
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Column
Effluent
Q7-05
7/78-
1/79






0.015
0.007-0.03
1.85
14
5
<0. 02-0. 04
0.018
0.009-0.03
2.16
14
8
<0. 02-0. 06
<0.02
-
-
14
3
<0.02
0.004
io-4-o.2 :
4.87
15
3
<0. 02-0. 07
<0.02

—
15
1
<0. 02-0. 03
Column
Effluent
Q-7-12
7/78-
1/79






0.024
0.009-0.06
2.84
10
7
<0. 02-0. 18
0.037
0.01-0.11
3.63
10
8
<0. 02-0. 39
0.01
0.001-0.09
4.10
10
4
<0. 02-0. 10
0.002
lO-H-105
7.77
11
2
<0. 02-0. 06
<0.02

-
11
1
<0. 02-0. 02
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
3/78-
9/78






0.019
0.01-0.03
1.81
11
7
<0. 02-0. 05
0.023
0.01-0.04
1.97
12
10
<0. 02-0. 10
<0.02
-
—
12
1
<0. 02-0. 03
0.023
0.01-0.05
2.33
12
7
<0. 02-0. 09
0.009
0.001-0.1
2.9
12
3
<0. 02-0. 05
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
3/78-
9/78






0.019
0.01-0.04
2.1
15
7
<0. 02-0. 06
0.024
0.01-0.04
2.4
16
13
<0. 02-0. 05
0.014
0.005-0.03
1.90
16
4
<0. 02-0. 04
0.028
0.01-0.06
3.1
16
10
<0. 02-0. 15
0.001
10~5-0 . 1
18
16
4
<0. 02-0. 19
R.O.
&
Influent
Q21A
8/78-
1/79
0.045
0.02-0.08
1.76
12
6
<0. 02-0. 10
0.052
0.02-0.11
2.69
12
9
<0. 02-0. 46
0.082
0.04-0.16
2.64
12
11
<0. 02-0. 17
0.024
0.01-0.06
2.74
12
7
<0. 02-0. 12
0.051
0.01-0.22
4.11
12
6
<0. 02-0. 39
0.018
0.005-0.06
1.64
12
3
<0. 02-0. 04
jf
Effluent
Q21B
8/78-
1/79
0.023
0.004-0.13
2.91
12
4
<0. 02-0. 11
0.029
0.01-0.07
3.31
12
9
<0. 02-0. 33
0.045
0.02-0.12
4.10
12
10
<0. 02-0. 65
0.022
0.01-0.07
3.44
12
7
<0. 02-0. 22
0.067
0.01-0.38
6.54
11
7
<0.02-1.4
0.017
0.006-0.05
2.63
12
6
<0. 02-0. 08
                                                          (TABLE E-2B CONT.)
                                     -130-

-------
TABLE E-2B CONT.
JJ
d
3
•H
4-1
CO
d
CJ
d)
d
iH 0)
j~"ca
4J ,£
0) 4-1
1 p.
CN 03

d
S
4-1
CO


cu
4-1

-------
          TABLE E-3.  CONCENTRATION IN yg/1 OF SEA CONSTITUENTS
                         DURING THE THIRD PERIOD

A.  Sampling Locations Ql, Q2, Q4, Q6, and Q9
u
(!)
4J
•H
f i
03
e
O
O

1 0)
i— * i >
>, «
£ i— <
XJ «
O r*

•H ,C
a c.

i a
r-t 4J
>, «J
X! fH
u eg
OJ A
1-1 •"
^^ pC
"~ e.
ri. C.
Srt
3 !-(
-C C3
£5
1 J=
•—4 P
a
4, a
>, u
J-l (3
S r-j
ja ca
^ j=
cc u
tQ x:
•H C.
R
iH
>•! 
-------
TABLE E-3A CONT.
-M
a
0)
4J
•H
to
c
o
CJ


0)
s
1
•r)

M
0)
4J
OJ
P
tfl
CW
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.14
0.13-0.15
1.24
33
33
0.09-0.19
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
8/1/78-
12/31/78
<0.05
-
_
11
2
0. 05-0. 06
Strip.
Effluent
Q4
8/1/78-
12/31/78
0.023
10-3^o . 75
4.08
9
3
<0 .05-0 . 21
Filt.
Effluent
Q6
8/1/78-
12/31/78
0.088
0.06-0.12
1.80
16
16
0.04-0.7
Final
Effluent
Q9
3/1/78-
12/31/78
<0.05
-
	
22
0
<0.05
                                -133-

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q7-05, Q7-12, Q22A, Q22B, Q21A, and Q21B
4J
c
5
3
4J
•H
4J
CO
c
3

rH 2
j^rH
•U CO
•H 43
P P.

t-H 4J

ol !i
p S
p.
H a)
Ss
3 H
rQ Cd

f 431
•M p*

1
£,$
,Q CO
0 43
03 -U
05 43
•H p.
P
rl,
>> 01
J r— i flj
QJ rH rH
CM £p43
1 — ' 
-------
TABLE E-3B CONT.
Constituent


cu
§
c
•H
Parameter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Column
Effluent
Q7-05
7/78-
1/79
<0.05
—
-
15
0
<0.05
Column
Effluent
Q7-12
7/78-
1/79.
<0.05
—
-
13
0
<0.05
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
3/78-
9/78
O.CJ5
-
-
7
0
<0.05
R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
3/78-
9/78
<0.05
-
-
12
0
<0.05
R.O.
JL
Influent ,
Q21A
8/78-
1/79
0.081
0.06-0.1
1.39
12
8
<0. 05-0. 12
R.O. ^
Effluent
Q21B
8/78-
1/79
0.059
0.05-0.07
1.27
12
7
<0. 05-0. 08
Pilot Scale.
                                     -135-

-------
                   APPENDIX F

 THIRD-PERIOD INORGANIC AND GENERAL DATA SUMMARY
TABLE F-l.  CONCENTRATION IN ug/1 OF HEAVY METALS
             DURING THE THIRD PERIOD


Metal
Ag




Ba





Cd





Cr







Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
1.19
0.6-2.2
2.22
9
9
0.4-3.5
30
23.3-38.7
1.39
9
9
15-42
33
18.7-58
2.09
9
9
3.5-54
48
35.5-65.0
1.48
9
9
21-74
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.46
0.1-1.8
6.04
9
9
0.1-7.3
9.2
6.1-14.0
1.72
9
9
3.6-21
8.7
5 . 2-14 . 7
1.97
9
9
2-19
6.6
4 . 3-10 . 2
1.76
9
9
3.4-14
Filt.
Effluent
Q6
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.77
0.2-3.2
3.91
6
6
0.1-3.3
7.8
4.8-12.6
1.58
6
6
4.5-15
7.2
3.0-17.7
2.36
6
6
1.4-15
5.6
3.0^10.4
1.81
6
6
2-10
GAG
Effluent
Q8
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.69
0.3-1.4
1.57
4
4
0.6-1.1
7.4
2.2-25.2
2.16
4
4
3.1-15
9.5
6.3-14.4
1.30
4
4
7.2-12
3.1
2.0-4.7
1.30
4
4
2.1-3.7
Inj ection
Water
Q10
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.91
0.7-1.2
2.48
40
40
0.1-3.8
3.2
2.3-4.4
2.78
39
39
0.1-1.1
1.1
0.7-1.9
5.43
40
40
0.1-16
1.6
1.1-2.4
2.80
40
38
<1-17
                                             (TABLE F-l CONT.)
                     -136-

-------
TABLE F-l CONT.



Metal
Cu





Fe





Hg





Mn





Pb





Se








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nil
R
M.
95%CI
S
N.
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
72
37.4-139
2.34
9
9
11-160
98
73.6-130
1.45
9
9
58-210
<1
—
-
4
0
<1
29
24.4-34.4
1.25
9
9
22-41
7.1
5.1-9.8
1.52
9
9
3.6-11
<5
-
-
6
0
<5
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
. 12/31/78
23
10.6-49.7
2.72
9
9
2-51
13
7.4-22.8
2.08
9
9
3-49
<1
—
-
6
0
<1
2.6
0.6-11.3
6.76
9
9
0.1-1.5
3.1
1.6-6.1
2.09
9
7

-------
TABLE F-l CONT.



Metal
Zn





As








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
,N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
127
81-198
1.43
6
5
<100-200
<5
—
—
6
0
<5
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
12/31/78
<100
-
-
6
0
<100
<5
_
_ •
6
0
<5
Filt.
Effluent
Q6.
3/1/78-
12/31/78
222
112-439
1.73
6
5
<100-440
<5
_
_
6
0
<5
GAG
Effluent
Q8
3/1/78-
12/31/78
<100
—
—
4
0
<100
<5
_
_
4
0
<5
Injection
Water
Q10
3/1/78-
1 2/^1/78
'72
31-169
1.41
38
3
<100-150
<5
_
—
32
0
<5
                                    -138-

-------
                 TABLE F-2.  CONCENTRATION OF GENERAL PARAMETERS
                              DURING THE THIRD PERIOD
A.  Sampling Locations ,0.1, Q2, Q6, and Q8



Constituent
COD, mg/1





TOC, mg/1





Electro conductivity,
yS/cm




Total Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml
(106 MPN/100 ml for
QD


Fecal Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml
(106 MPN/100 ml for
QD


B , mg/1








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu .
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql

3/1/78-
-. 12/31/78
47
46-48
1.21
155
155
21-86
12.4
11-13
1.41
45
45
1.0-24
1500*
1493-1506
1.12
269
269
1200-2800
1.64
0.86-3.1
6.6
33
33
1-55
0.55
0.13-2.4
68
33
32
<1-70,000
0.74
0.69-0.80
1.27
40
40
0.5-1.6
Chem.
Effluent
Q2

3/1/78-
12/31/78
27
26.5-27.5
1.12
156
156
20-38
10
9.5-10.5
1.17
44
44
7-13
1560
1525-1596
1.20
246
246
1180-2400
0.2
0.03-1.3
23
24
13
<1-510
0.08
0.002-2
40
24
7

-------
TABLE F-2A. CONT.

Constituent
Ca, mg/1




F, mg/1




Mg, mg/1




Org-N, mg/1




NH3-N, mg/1




Turbidity , TU





Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
• N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
.Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78





1.28
1.2-1.35
1.20
40
40
0.7-2.8





2.0
1.9-2.1
1.33
117
117
1-4.8
4.0
3.4-4.7
2.87
164
162
<0.1-48
6.5
5.8-7.3
2.80
275
275
0.17-64
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
12/31/78















1.0
0.94-1.1
1.43
117
117
0.2-3.1
5.9
5.3-6.6
2.03
164
164
0.6-47
0.54
0.5-0.58
1.77
276
276
0.08-3.1
Strip.
Effluent
Q4
3/1/78-
12/31/78















1.0
0.97-1.0
1.27
43
43
0.6-2.0
4.4
4.0-4.9
1.68
90
90
1.1-12





Filt.
Effluent
Q6
3/1/78-
12/31/78

























0.36
0 . 34-0 . 38
1.47
275
275
0.09-1.0
                                                            (TABLE F-2A CONT.)
                                   -140-

-------
TABLE F-2A. CONT.



Constituent
NO~-N, mg/1
j




Na, mg/1





Cl, mg/1





S04, mg/1





Total Hardness,
mg/1 as CaC03




TDS, mg/1








Param —
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
' N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
2.78
2,03-3.81
4.04
79
75
<0.1-18
171
164-178
1.12
31
31
140-220
192
187-197
1.08
31
31
165-230
205
186-225
1.29
30
30
130-340
296
282-311
1.14
31
31
232-400
902
868-937
1.11
31
31
758-1160
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
12/31/78




































Strip .
Effluent
Q4
3/1/78-
12/31/78




































Filt.
Effluent
Q6
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















t















                                                             (TABLE F-2A CONT.)
                                    -141-

-------
TABLE F-2A. CONT.
Constituent
MBAS, mg/1




Phenol, yg/1




Cyanide, yg/1




Color, units




Par am- -
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
• s
N
Nu
R
Plant
Influent
Ql
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.25
0.22-0.29
1.44
28
28
0.13-0.76
4.9
4.2-5.7
1.51
30
29
<1.0-11.4
25
20-31
1.81
32
32
10-110
37
35-39
1.14
30
30
30-55
Chem.
Effluent
Q2
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















Strip .
Effluent
Q4
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















Filt.
Effluent
Q6
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















                                                        (TABLE F-2 CONT.)
                                   -142-

-------
B.  Sampling Locations Q9, QlO, Q22A, and Q22B



Constituent
COD, mg/1





TOG, mg/1





Electroconductivity ,
yS/cm




Total Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml




Fecal Coliforms,
MPN/100 ml




B, mg/1








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9
3/1/78-
12/31/78












1320
1304-1336
1.09
202
202
1100-1850
0.05
0.001-2
4.5
101
3

-------
TABLE F-2B CONT.



Constituent
Ca, mg/l





*, mg/1





Mg, mg/1





Org-N, mg/1





NH3-N, mg/1





Turbidity , TU








Param-
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
952CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9

3/1/78-
12/31/78






0.81
0.75-0.88
1.22
27
27
0.5-1.1






1.09
0.99-1.2
1.51
76
76
0.4-2.5
0..80
0.56-1.1
6.10
117
97
<0.01-8.5






Injection
Water
Q10

3/1/78-
12/31/78






0.57
0.51-0.64
1.44
40
40
0.3-1.2






0.43
0.38-0.48
2.24
183
183
0.1-2.7
0.30
0.23-0.4
5.74
183
144
<0.01-3.9
0.28
0.27-0.29
1.53
306
306
0.1-0.95
R.O.
Influent
Q22A

3/1/78-
12/31/78




































R.O.
Effluent
Q22B

3/1/78-
12/31/78




































                                                          (TABLE F-2B CONT.)
                                    -144-

-------
TABLE F-2B. CONT.



Constituent
N0~ -N, mg/1
3




Na, mg/1





Cl, mg/1





SO,, mg/1
f




Total Hardness,
mg/1 as CaCOo
J



TDS, mg/1








Param —
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9
3/1/78-
12/31/78
7.7
5 . 8-10 . 2
2.01
27
27
0.4-15
























849
806-894
1.11
18
18
770-1060
Injection"
Water
Q10
3/1/78-
12/31/78
2.5
1.8-3.4
2.71
37
37
0.2-11.3
70
57-86
1.77
31
31
21-130
69
54-88
1.94
31
31
16-195
43
25-75
4.30
29
29
3-223
64
44-92
2.72
31
31
8-328
280
215-365
2.04
30
30
68-520
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
3/1/78-
12/31/78
6.3
4.6-8.9
2.31
27
27
0.3-18.7






























R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
3/1/78-
12/31/78
3.3
2.5-r4.4
2.02
26
26
0.2-6.7










—













77
71-83
1.21
27
27
53-114
                                                            (TABLE F-2B CONT.)
                                     -145-

-------
TABLE F-2B. CONT.

Constituent
MB AS, mg/1




Phenol, yg/1




Cyanide, yg/1




Color, units





Par am- •
eter
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
•Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
M
95%CI
S
N
Nu
R
Final
Effluent
Q9
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.08
0.05-0.12
1.75
14
11
<0.03-0.2





6.9
4.4-10.9
2.65
20
20
0.3-26
0.8 ,
0-106
4.19
17
2
<5-10
Injection
Water
Q10
3/1/78-
12/31/78
0.036
0.027-0.048
1.85
28
20
<0. 03-0. 12
0.60
0.29-1.24
2.95
30
11
<1.0-8
1.9
1.3-2.8
2.71
32
30
<0.1-7.9
7
5-10
2.14
29
23
<5-25
R.O.
Influent
Q22A
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















R.O.
Effluent
Q22B
3/1/78-
12/31/78




















                                    . -146-

-------
                               APPENDIX G


     COMPARISON BETWEEN NORMAL AND LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF DATA AT
          VARIOUS  SAMPLING POINTS DURING PERIODS  TWO AND THREE''
Meaning  of  Symbols Used;


     0  - both  distributions  fit within K-S boundaries equally well


     L  - lognormal distribution fits best, both within K-S boundaries


     L_  - lognormal distribution fits within K-S boundaries, normal does not


     N  - normal distribution fits best, both within K-S boundaries


     N  - normal distribution fits within K-S boundaries, lognormal does not


     X  - neither distribution fits within K-S boundaries



Period Designations:


     Under each  sample location, two distributions may be indicated, that


on the left is  for period two, that on the right is for period three.
*
 Only distributions with at least 8 data points above detection limits
 used.


                                   -147-

-------
TABLE G-l.  DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON FOR ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
Contaminants
Chloroform
Bromodichlorome thane
Dibr omo chlorome thane
Tribromome thane
Carbon tetrachloride
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-DIchlorobenzene
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichloro-
benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Naphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Heptaldehyde
Dimethylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Pi-n-butylphthalate
Diisobutylphthalate
Bis- [ 2-ethylhexyl ]-
phthalate
PCB as Aroclor 1242
Lindane
Nature of Distribution
Ql
L
L_
L
L_

L
L
L
0 L
0 L
L _L
L L.

0 I,
L L
0
L
0
L L
0 0
0 L
0
0
L
0
L

L
0
M
Q2
0
0
0
0

N
0
0
L L
L N
L 0
0 0


L

L
L




0


0


0

Q4
0 L




0 L


0
0

0




0





0


0




Q6
N L
N L
0 L
L N
0
L


0
0

0


L

L

0


0
L
0

0



I
Q8
L
L
L


0


L
L

N

L
L



L
0










Q9
L
L
L
0
0
L
0
0
L

0



0

0




0
L

0
L




Q7-5
L
L
L_


L


0







0





0







57-12
L
L






L







L





0







Q21A
L_
0
0
0

0
0_
0
0
N
-0
0


L

0



0

L

0
0


0

Q21B
L L
L 0
0
0

N
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
L

L

0



L
0
L
0




Q22A
L
N.
0
0

L
N
N
0







0













Q22B
L_
0
0

0
L
N
N
L







L





L

L





                            -148-

-------
TABLE G-2.  DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON FOR GENERAL PARAMETERS
               ' AND INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
COD
TOG
Turbidity
Organic-N
Ammonia-N
Electro conductivity
»
B
Ca
F
Mg
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Nature of Distribution
Ql
0
0 N
L X
_L _L
X I,
X X
L L
X
0 0
0
N 0
L 0
L N
L 0
0 0
L 0
L
L 0
L
Q.2
0
0 0
L L
L_ L^
X L
L X
L
L

L
L L
L 0
L 0
L 0
0 N
_L 0
L
0
N
Q4


L
L_ L
L L
L

0











Q6
0
0 0
L L







L
L
0
L
0
L L
X
L_
L
Q8
N
L L


N


0


L
L,
L
L
0
L
L
L
E
Q9


0
X 0
x N;
0 X
0 0
0
0 0
L









Q10
L

L L
i L
X N
X X
N 0
L
0
0
N I.
I, N
0 N
L L
L L
LL
X
L L
X
Q22A
L,
0



L X













Q22B
0
0



X N













                          -149-

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/2-80-114
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
WASTEWATER CONTAMINATE REMOVAL FOR GROUNDNATER RECHARGE
AT WATER FACTORY 21
7 AUTHOR^) Perry L. McCarty, Martin Reinhard,
James Graydon, Joan Schreiner, Kenneth Sutherland,
Thomas Everhart, and—David GT Arqo
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Civil Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS _
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cm. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
35B1C, SOS#4, Task 07
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. EPA-S-803873
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 7-77 t.n 1?-7R
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14*
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See al so "Water Factory 21: Reclaimed Water, Volatile Urganics,
Virus, and Treatment Performance," EPA-600/2-78-076, NTIS PB285053/AS.
Proiect Officer: John N. Enqlish 513/684-7613.
This is the second  report in a series which describes  the  performance of Water
Factory 21, a  0.66 m3/s advanced wastewater treatment plant designed to reclaim secon-
dary effluent  from  a municipal wastewater treatment plant  so that it can be used for
injection  and  recharge of a groundwater system.   Included  in this evaluation of the
second one and one-half years of operation are data on the efficiency  and reliability
of individual  processes and the overall system for removal of general inorganics,
heavy metals,  virus, and a broad range of organic materials.  Probability distributions
of the various contaminants in the influent and  effluent from the system are
included along with a general statistical analysis of  data.  During the first six months
of this evaluation, the influent to Water Factory 21 was trickling filter treated
wastewater, and during the last year, the influent was activated sludge treated waste-
water from the same municipal system.  Processes included  in the plant are lime treat-
ment, air  stripping, filtration, activated carbon, adsorption, reverse osmosis, and
chlorination.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                         c. COSATI Field/Group
Waste  Treatment, Treatment, Water Reclama-
tion,  Advanced Wastewater Treatment,  Nutri-
ents,  Virus, Organic Compounds, Potable
Water,  Microorganisms, Trace Organic Ma-
terials, Toxic Substances, Heavy Metals,
Wastewater Treatment, Wastewater Reuse,
Groundwater Injection, Activated Carbon,  Re-
 ______  /•*	 • 	  n ^ ... O4....4w»-.4fi.n
                                        Reuse,  Heavy Metals, Hal
                                         orms,  Trihalomethanes,
                                        Virus,  Toxic Substances,
                                        Reclamation, Wastewater
13B
-fc
                     tripping
 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

      Release to Public
                                        19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)

                                            Unclassified
   164
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

                                                  Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
 EPA Fojm 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
                                     -150-
                                                             4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1980-657-165/0139

-------