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 iii
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-
-------
I1 11 1IIII1
INFLUENT (Ql)
- NORMAL
12 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95
PERCENT LESS THAN
99
6a. Influent (Ql)-
normal distribution.
i 1 1iiiii
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-
-------
I1III 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% KS
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, andDavid 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 LaboratoryCm. ,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
------- |