EPA-600/2-78-027
March 1978
Environmental Protection Technology Series
                       WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR
                    REUSE AND ITS CONTRIBUTION  TO
                                       WATER  SUPPLIES
                                  Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                                       Office of Research and Development
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                              Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                                           EPA-600/2-78-027
                                           March 1978
     WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR REUSE
 AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO WATER SUPPLIES
                    by

             Howard P. Warner
              John N. English
            EPA-DC Pilot Plant
          Washington, D.C.  20032
          Contract No. 68-03-0344
              Project Officer

             Irwin J. Kugelman
       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
publication.  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.
                                     11

-------
                                  FOREWORD

     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and governmentconcern 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
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, 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 publi-
cation is one of the projects of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.

     The study summarized in this report evaluates a combined biological/
physical-chemical pilot treatment system designed to produce a high
quality reusable water.  Process reliability is established and effluent
constituents are related to similar materials identified in finished
drinking waters.
                              Francis T. Mayo
                                 Director
                Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                                    iii

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
An 18 month study using cost effective municipal wastewater treatment
technology coupled with a computerized data handling system, was conducted
at the EPA/Washington, D.C. Blue Plains Pilot Plant to obtain data on the
safety of the effluent for discharge upstream of drinking water intakes, and
for potential domestic reuse purposes.  Treatment reliability was demonstrated
and performance results showed the absence of virus in the effluent.  Effluent
concentrations of radioactivity, trihalomethanes and other volatile organics,
heavy metals, pesticides, TOC, turbidity, general inorganic compounds, and
pathogenic indicator organisms were shown to be similar to those found in
finished drinking waters during the EPA National Organics Reconnaissance Survey
in 1975.  The specific organic compounds identified in the effluent are also
present in finished drinking waters.  Effluent organic concentrates did not
exhibit mutagenic properties, and results of an 80 element survey did not
detect the presence of significant quantities of any hazardous inorganic
material.  Effluent endotoxin levels were comparable to levels in public
drinking water supplies.

This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract No. 68-03-0344
by the District of Columbia Pilot Plant under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers the period from
April 1975 to September 1976.
                                      iv

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Foreword 	  iii
Abstract 	   iv
Figures 	   vi
Tables 	  vii
Acknowledgements 	 viii

     1.  Introduction	    1
     2.  Conclusions 	    3
     3.  Description of Treatment System 	    4
     4.  Performance 	    8
              Virus 	    8
              Radioactivity 	    8
              Volatile Organics 	    9
              Toxicity Screening 	    9
              Metals 	    9
              Pesticides 	   21
              General Organics 	   21
              General Inorganics 	•	   27
              Nutrients	   27
              Suspended Matter 	   27
              Microbiological and Disinfection Parameters 	   27
              Esthetic Parameters 	   38
     5.  References 	   40

-------
                                  FIGURES




Number                                                                Page




  1  Schematic flow Diagram 	  5




  2  Removal of Volatile Organics 	 13




  3  Frequency Distribution of effluent mercury 	 20




  4  Frequency distribution of effluent TOG 	 26




  5  Removal of TOC 	 28




  6  Frequency distribution of effluent COD 	 30




  7  Frequency distribution of effluent turbidity 	 36
                                    vi

-------
                                  TABLES




Number




  1  Design Data and Operating Conditions 	   5




  2  Virus 	   9




  3  Radioactivity 	  10




  4  Volatile Organics	  12




  5  Volatile Organics in Process Effluents	14




  6  Mutagenicity of Organic Concentrates 	  16




  7  Results of Bacterial Endotoxin Testing 	  17




  8  Heavy Metals 	  18




  9  Heavy Metal Removal by Lime Clarification 	  22




 10  Pesticides 	23




 11  General Organics 	  24




 12  Variability of Effluent TOC 	25




 13  Variability of Effluent COD	29




 14  General Inorganics 	  31




 15  Results of 80 Element Survey 	32




 16  Nutrients 	33




 17  Suspended Matter 	  34




 18  Variability of Effluent Turbidity 	  35




 19  Microbiological and Disinfection  Parameters  	  37




 20  Esthetics 	39
                                   vii

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     A project of this magnitude, which covers 18 months of pilot plant
operations, could not have been accomplished without the assistance of the
entire EPA-DC Pilot Plant staff.

     Mr. Paul Ragsdale supervised the mechanics and instrumentation personnel.
Mr. Calvin Taylor served as chief operator.  Laboratory analyses were
performed under the direction of Mr. David Rubis.  The efforts of all the
D.C. mechanics, technicians, crew chiefs, operators and laboratory personnel
are gratefully acknowledged.

     Mr. Thomas A. Pressley and Ms. Stephanie G. Roan, On-site EPA staff,
performed the detailed organic identification work and virus analyses were
conducted by the Cincinnati EPA Virology Laboratory under the direction of
Mr. Daniel R. Dahling.

     Special thanks are due Mr. Thomas P. O'Farrell, past Pilot Plant Chief,
for his efforts in the early stages of the project which enabled a timely
completion of fabrication of the treatment system.
                                    viii

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION

     We are living in a Nation where millions of people are presently reusing
wastewater indirectly for domestic purposes.  Severe contamination of many
surface supplies has occurred, as evidenced by the identification of
carcinogenic organic materials in finished drinking waters, and increasing
instances of groundwater contamination are being found.  There is a concern
on the part of health agencies in areas that use surface supplies for domestic
purposes as to the potential hazards of the present covert reuse of waste-
water discharged upstream of drinking water intakes.  Since the typical
wastewater treatment plant does not remove all of the contaminants from the
wastewater there is a basis for this concern, and thus a need to know the
appropriate levels of municipal treatment to ensure the safety of water
supply intakes in the vicinity of the discharges.

     The concerns of health agencies where covert reuse is prevalent are
also receiving attention by health agencies in the more arid areas of
the U.S. where water utilities are proposing the overt domestic reuse of
wastewater to supplement depleted groundwater supplies and unreliable surface
sources.  Concerns about both covert and overt reuse are the same since the
problems and the research data required to solve the problems are the same.
The questions that need answers are:

      0   •  What are the health effects of the covert/overt reuse of
            wastewater?

          •  What technology is needed to remove potential hazardous
            materials?

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) in Cincinnati, Ohio is addressing
the technology question by characterizing the ability of municipal waste-
water treatment systems to remove pollutants of health concern and providing
knowledge of treatment system performance variability and reliability.

     A combined biological/physical-chemical treatment system designed to
produce a high quality reusable water has been in operation at MERL's
Washington,  D.C. Pilot Plant for 18 months as*part of a project that had
the following objectives:

-------
Identification of specific pollutants in the final effluent
and evaluation of the performance of the individual pro-
cesses in removing these pollutants.

Provide data on process and system performance variability
and reliability with respect to pollutant removals.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS

     Performance results showed the absence of virus in the effluent, and
concentrations of radioactivity, trihalomethanes and other violatile organics,
heavy metals, pesticides, TOC, turbidity, and microbiological parameters
similar to those found in finished drinking waters during the EPA National
Organics Reconnaissance Survey in 1975.  The specific organic compounds
identified in the effluent are also present in finished drinking waters.
Effluent organic concentrates did not exhibit mutagenic properties and results
of an 80 element survey did not detect the presence of significant quantities
of any hazardous inorganic material.  Effluent endotoxin levels were compara-
ble to levels in public drinking water supplies.

     Treatment reliability was demonstrated as evidenced by the frequency
distribution of the day to day concentrations of chemical, physical, and
biological materials remaining in the effluent.  In full scale facilities
employing similar treatment processes and located upstream of drinking water
intakes, or designed for domestic reuse purposes, reliability can be further
enhanced by in-plant storage facilities to provide flexibility, process
control instrumentation, and dedicated operating personnel.  In planned
reuse situations where a monetary value is set on the water, or where enforced
legal restraints are placed on effluent quality reliability will become very
good.

-------
                                   SECTION 3
                        DESCRIPTION OF  TREATMENT  SYSTEM

      The treatment system was  located  on the grounds  of the Washington,  D.C.
 Blue Plains wastewater treatment  facility and was  supervised by  MERL  staff
 and operated in  cooperation with  the Washington, D.C.  Department of Environ-
 mental Services.  The  system treated degritted D.C. municipal  wastewater using
 a screening device to  remove coarse materials, lime clarification, dispersed
 growth nitrification,  fixed film  denitrification,  carbon adsorption,  dual
 media filtration,  and  chlorination for disinfection.   This  sequence of
 processes was chosen because of past experience with  the performance  of  the
 individual  processes and  compatibility of the unit processes when combined
 into a treatment system that could produce a reusable high  quality water from
 municipal wastewater.   Also, a similar treatment system was  identified at a
 workshop on "Research  Needs for the Potable  Reuse  of  Municipal Wastewater" ' '
 as  one of four treatment  systems  that  had potential as a cost-effective
 treatment for potable  reuse.
      A schematic flow  diagram of  the treatment system is presented in
 Figure 1 and the design and operating  conditions are  summarized  in Table 1.
 The system  operates continuously  at 35 gpm (2.2 1/s).   The backwash water
 from the denitrification,  carbon  adsorption,  and filtration  processes are
 returned to the  influent  of the lime clarification processes.  A portion of the
 sludges  from the lime  clarification and nitrification processes  are wasted to
maintain process equilibrium.
      The treatment system was operated on a  continuous basis with operators
assigned to three, 8 hour  shifts each day.  Samples were taken manually by
the  operators and composited in refrigerated  containers as required.
Twenty-four hour composites were  taken 5  days per week  and no sampling was
done between Friday 8 a.m. and Sunday 8 a.m.   Other types of sampling were
also done manually by the  operators as required.

     Establishing the reliability of any  treatment system requires a long-
term program of  routine monitoring of the system performance.  A mass of
valuable data was obtained as a result of this program  and an efficient
computerized data storage  and retrieval system was developed to sort large
quantities of data per month from  37 performance or process monitoring
stations.  The data storage and retrieval system was designed for use on the
EPA UNIVAC  1110  Computer located at EPA Research Triangle Park in North
Carolina.  All the programs run in batch  or demand mode.  The system is
modular in design to allow the addition and modification of programs without
affecting the system integrity.  Data is  entered into  and withdrawn from
the computer using a terminal hookup.  Statistical reports, data listing,
as well  as data  plots can be obtained as  required by project personnel to
aid in establishing the system performance credibility.

-------
        HO
tt"                    BACKWASH TANK
S = LIME  CLARIFICATION   ST°RAGE
METHANOL —
              18
             19
f
H5

18
*—

i i
__! !H9
N

Y



                           DRAIN
                                              AO   NITRIFICATION
                                                 M
                                    A2
A3
A4
1
A6
                                   BACKWASH WATER FROM:
                                   DENITRIFICATION COLUMNS,
                                   CARBON COLUMNS,
                                   AND FILTERS WASTE
                                                         f
                                                      WASTE
                                                              POLYMER    KO
ii!. d
1
^

12
_i

-}|
13
f
17

j
J
1
                                               J2
                                    J3
                   DENITRIFICATION
                           CARBON ADSORPTION
}

4



1 7

_l

V
K1




I
K3




1
K

                                                                                      FILTRATION
                                                      HOLDING TANK
                                                                            K7
                                                                              CHLORINE
                                                                       CONTACT
                                                                       TANK
                                                                CHLORINATION

                                                               L7
                           FIGURE 1. SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
                                                                             FINAL EFFLUENT

-------
            TABLE 1.  DESIGN DATA AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
       PARAMETER
            VALUE
Raw Wastewater (Constant Flow)

Screening Device

   Type

   Size of Openings

Lime Clarification

   Lime Dosage (pH 10.0)(as CaO)

   FeCl_ Dosage (as Fe)

   Hydraulic Loading Rate

   Detention Time

   Sludge Wasting Rate

   Percent Solids in Waste Sludge

Nitrification (Suspended Growth)

   Detention Time

   MLSS

   SRT

   Air Requirement

   Clarifier Overflow Rate and
      Detention Time

Denitrification (Fixed Film)

   Media Size

   Specific Surface Area
   Hydraulic Loading Rate

   Methanol/N03-N Ratio
35 gpm (2.2 x 10"3m3/s)
Bauer Hydrasive Model 552

0.040 in. (1.02 mm)



200 mg/1

15 mg/1

1050 gpd/sq.ft. (42.8m3/m2d)

2.7 hr.

2% to 3%

1.5% to 2.0%



3.5 hr.

2000 mg/1

8 day

1450 cu.ft./lb BOD (90.6m3/k )
                            o
526 gpd/sq.ft. (21.4m3/m2d)
  2-3.6 hr.



3 to 6 mm

245 sq.ft./cu.ft.   (QOOm2^3^
5.9 gpm/sq.ft. (4.1 l/m2s)

2:1 to 4:1

-------
                          TABLE 1 (cont'd)
        PARAMETER
          VALUE
    Bed Depth




    Detention Time (Empty Bed)



    Operation




Granular Carbon Adsorption




    Detention Time (Empty Bed)




    Hydraulic Loading Rate




    Columns in Series




    Carbon Size (Filtrasorb 300)




    Operation




Filtration with Alum and Polymer



    Hydraulic Loading Rate



    Dual Media




       Coal  1.2-1.4 mm



       Sand  0.6-0.7 mm



    Alum




Disinfection with Chlorine




    Detention Time




    Residual
15 ft. (4.6 m)




9.5 min.



Downflow Packed Bed








35 min.




7 gpm/sq.ft. (4.8 l/m2s)



4




8 x 30 Mesh




Downflow Packed Bed








3 gpm/sq.ft. (2.04 l/m2s)








2.0 ft. (0.61 m)



1.0 ft. (0.30 m)



5 mg/1








20 min.




1 mg/1 Free Available

-------
                                   SECTION 4

                                 PERFORMANCE
VIRUS
     Virus  in wastewater effluents are of concern to health agencies dealing
with the use of contaminated surface drinking water supplies and proposed
domestic reuse situations.  For this reason it is important that virus analyses
be included in any reuse technology monitoring program.  Virus and other patho-
gens were monitored at various points in the treatment system on three
occasions over a  three month period using methods described by Rao, V.C.,
et al  C2)and Wallace, C., et al<3>.

     Samples of the raw sewage, finished effluent, and dual media filtration
effluent were taken during the first sampling period.  As shown in Table 2
animal viruses in raw sewage samples ranged from about 7000 to more than
17,000 PFU/100 gal  (1,850-4,500 PFU/100 1).  No animal viruses were observed
in the dual media filtration effluent before chlorination, or the finished
effluent following concentration of 100-150 gal (379-568 1) of each effluent.

     During the second and third months samples of the raw sewage, finished
effluent and effluent from the nitrifying activated sludge were taken.  Animal
viruses in  the raw sewage from 17,000 to 68,000 PFU/100 gal (4,500-18,000
PFU/100 1)  and from 28,000 to 68,000 PFU/100 gal (7,400-18,000 PFU/100 1).
Animal viruses were not detected in the final effluent in either sampling
period.  A  total  of 7 samples were concentrated during these periods ranging
in volume from 50 to 238 gal (190-900 1).  During the last two sampling
periods, effluent from the nitrifying sludge system was tested on five
occasions following concentration of 40 to 160 gal (151-605 1) of each system.
In this phase of  treatment, animal viruses still could not be detected.
Assays were carried out on solids remaining on prefilters used for clarifying
both the nitrification and final effluents.  Viable animal viruses could
not be detected after processing these solids.

RADIOACTIVITY
     Samples of effluent were periodically taken for gross beta and gross
alpha analyses and the results are summarized in Table 3.  These levels are
well below the maximum contaminant level set forth in the EPA Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations ^'  for radioactivity and they are comparable
to those reported in finished drinking water supplies
                                      8

-------
                           TABLE  2.  VIRUS
Sampling
Period
1
2
*t
o
Animal Virus pfu/100 liters

Influent
1,850 - 4,500
4,500 - 18,000
7,400 - 18,000
PROCESS
Nitrification
-
N.D.
N.D.
Filtration
N.D.
-
-
Chlorination
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Sample Volumes - 189 liters to 900 liters




N.D. - None Detected

-------
                       TABLE  3.   RADIOACTIVITY
Sampling Period
1
2
3
4
Average in Drinking
Water*
Effluent Values pci/1
Gross Alpha
< 0.3
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
5.5
Gross
7.9 +
8.1 t
7.4 +
5.0 +
2.9
Beta
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9

''Summary of Interstate Carrier Water Supply Radionuclide Data
 "Preliminary Assessment  of' Suspected Carcinogens  in Drinking Water"
 EPA,  December 1975.
                                .10

-------
VOLATILE ORGANICS

     Four trihalomethanes, carbon tetrachloride, and 1, 2 - dichloroethane
were determined in the influent and effluent from individual processes on a
twice per month basis to determine the effectiveness of the treatment system
in removing these materials.  A summary of the influent and effluent concen-
trations of the compounds compared to the range of concentrations found in
finished drinking water supplies is included in Table 4.  Figure 2 shows the
variation of the volatile organics through each process.  Although the
concentrations are quite low there is definite indication that chlorination
increases the quantities of each of the six compounds.

     Table 5 shows the results of analyses of other volatile organics in
the pilot plant influent and in the effluent from various unit processes.
The types of compounds and their corresponding concentrations are similar
to those present in finished drinking water supplies (•*' >  Blanks in the
tables indicate the compounds were below the detection limit of the GC/MS
technique used (6)__


TOXICITY SCREENING

     Organic materials were concentrated from 500 gal  (1,900 1) samples of
effluent using a reverse osmosis technique that employed cellulose acetate
and nylon membranes in series (''.  The concentrate from each type membrane
was extracted with pentane or methylene chloride at acidic (pH 2) and neutral
(pH 7) conditions.  The separate extracts and a composite of the extracts
were tested for mutagenicity using the Ames procedure  (Q) that utilizes iri
vitro microbiological assays with strains of Salmonella Typhimurium TA 98
and TA 100.  No mutagenicity was detected as shown by the data in Table 6.

     Table 7 shows the results of bacterial endotoxin tests on effluent
samples as compared to similar data from ten public drinking water systems.
These results were reported by Jorgensen, J.H., et al  ^   from studies in
which they used a Limulus assay technique for the detection of bacterial
endotoxins.  The concentration of endotoxins in the Blue Plains effluent
is comparable to the concentrations in public drinking waters.


METALS

     Data on the metals present in the influent and effluent are presented
in Table 8 along with a list of the concentrations present in the Washington,
D.C. drinking water, and the levels allowed in finished drinking water
supplies as contained in the "EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations", December 1975 ^  .   None of the effluent samples taken exceeded
metal concentrations cited  in the EPA regulations.  The reliability of the
treatment system to meet these regulations is further demonstrated by the
frequency distribution of effluent mercury for the second four month period of
operation as shown in Figure 3.  All twenty two of the data values were less
than the 2 yg/1 standard.  The median value was 0.70 yg/1.
                                     11

-------
                                     TABLE 4.  VOLATILE ORGANICS
COMPOUNDS
(All Units
Vg/1)
Chloroform
Bromodi-
chloro-
methane
Dibromo-
chloro-
methane
Bromoform
Carbon Tet:
chloride
1,2-Dichlo
ethane
INFLUENT
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
14

14

14
14
ra- 13
ro-
14
ARITH.
MEAN
13

0.9

5.9
<0.1
5.6

9.7
RANGE
4.44

<0.1-4.5

<0.1-23
<0.1-0.2
<0.1-32

<0. 1-134
EFFLUENT
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
12

12

12
12
11

12
ARITH.
MEAN
8.0

5.4

5.2
2.6
1.0

0.5
RANGE
*FINISHED
DRINKING WATERS
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATIONS
<0.1-22

<0.1-2]




<0.1-28
<0.1-23
<0.1-S.

<0.!-2.
2

6
<0. 1-311

0.3-116

<0. 4-110
<0.8-92
<2-3

<0.2-6
DRINKING WATER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(DELACARLIA
PLANT)
41

8

2
**N.D.
N.D.

<0.3
 *Based on 80 samples from National Organics Reconnaissance Survey -  "Preliminary Assessment  of
 Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking Water,  Report to Congress",  EPA, December 1975

**N.D.  - None Detected

-------
0)
Q
Z
D
o
Q.
u
Z
<
o
CK
O
O
>
O CHLOROFORM
O BROMODICKLOROAAETHANE
X DIBROMOCHLOJIOMETHANE

A BROMOFORM

0 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE

  1,2  DICHLOROETHANE
                     TREATMENT PROCESS

          FIGURE 2.  REMOVAL OF  VOLATILE ORGANICS
                             13

-------
TABLE 5.  VOLATILE ORGANICS IN PROCESS EFFLUENTS
Compound
(Unit yg/l)
Acetaldehyde
Methanol
Acetone
Dichloro-
methane
Acrolein
Carbon
Disulfide
Chloroform
Bromodichloro-
methane
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Chlorodir
bromoethane
Benzene
Influent
TR.*
TR.
TR.
4
TR.
TR.
10
1
TR.
4
2
Nitri-
fication


TR.



3
TR.

TR.
1
Denitri-
fication
TR.

TR.
TR.
TR.

2



1
Carbon
TR.

TR.
1

TR.
5


TR.
1
Chlorin-
ation


TR.
TR.
TR.
TR.
7
4

2
2
Drinking
Water**
„,
j
j
J

/
j
/
/
/
j

-------
                                           TABLE  5  (cont'd)
Compound
(Unit yg/1)
Dimethyl
disulfide
Toluene
N-Hexanol
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Xylene
Alkyl benzene
Benzaldehyde
Carbon
tetrachloride
Influent
3
2

3

TR.
TR.

2
Nitri-
fication

TR.




TR.

TR.
Denitri-
fi cat ion

TR.
TR.


TR.

TR.

Carbon

TR.
TR.


TR.


TR.
Chlorin-
ation

TR.



TR.

2
TR.
Drinking
Water**
'
'

/

'

'
/
Ul
        * TR.  - Trace  (<1 yg/1)
       ** "Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens  in Drinking Water,"  Report to  Congress,
          EPA,  Dec.  1975.

-------
          TABLE  6.   MUTAGENICITY OF ORGANIC  CONCENTRATES
R.O. Membrane

    and

Solvent Fraction	*Mutagenic Potential
  Cellulose Acetate



     •  Pentane                                      **N.D.



     •  Methylene Chloride Neutral                    N.D.



     •  Methylene Chloride Acidic                     N.D.



  Nylon



     •  Pentane                                        N.D.



     •  Methylene Chloride Neutral                    N.D.



     •  Methylene Chloride Acidic                     N.D.



  Composite                                           N.D.
 .. .._ ..  _^	 ...._.._  ..   _.,...._ ^. _..  .  ...---..-..... ....,_._—...._.- , ., . _»,— . _.—.^ 	-„-•,-„_


  *  — VJ-tro with strains  of salmonella typhimurium TA98  and TA100



  **  N.D.  - None Detected
                                   16

-------
       TABLE 7.  RESULTS OF BACTERIAL ENDOTOXIN TESTING*
SOURCE

Blue Plains Reuse System
Public Drinking Water Systems
1
2
3
4
5
6
s
7
8
9
10
ENDOTOXIN EQUIVALENTS
ng/ml
2.5 - 12.5

1.25
12.5
2.5
12.5
0.625
500.0
125.0
10.0
2.5
2.5
*Limulus Assay Procedure - Jorgensen et al., Applied and Environmental
                           Microbiology, September 1976.
                                  17

-------
TABLE 8.  HEAVY METALS
Metal
(Unit-yg/1)
Mercury
Cadmium
Selenium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Arsenic
Iron (mg/1)
Barium
Copper
Zinc
Boron (mg/1)
Final Effluent
n
47
44
38
57
53
60
56
227
49
56
57
8
Arit. Mean
0.666
0.143
4.76
2.24
0.308
7.96
2.25
0.0599
82.3
4.86
10.6
0.313
Range
0.100-1.25
0.020-0.530
2.00-5.00
0.600-4.30
0.030-1.07
1.40-20.0
0.300-6.00
N.D. -0.810
3.10-200
1.40-21.0
5.10-19.1
0.300-0.400
Washington, DC
Drinking
Water*
<0.5
<2
<5
<5
<5

<5

<50



EPA
Regulations**
2
10
10
50
50

50

1000




-------
                                   TABLE 8.  (cont'd)
Metal
(Unit-yg/1)
Flour ide (mg/1)
Silver
Cyanide
Aluminum (mg/1)
Final Effluent
n
62
49
32
210
Arit. Mean
0.722
0.134
4.23
0.251
Range
0.380-1.10
0.009-0.400
1.00-9.80
N.D. -0.900
Washington, DC
Drinking
Water*
1.0
<10
<20

EPA
Regulations**
1.8 @ 65°F
50


 *"Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking Water"
   Report to Congress, EPA, December 1975.

**National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA, Federal Register,
  Vol. 40, No. 248, December 1975.

-------
                                                                  PERIOD 2
                                                                   N=22
                                                            ARITHMETIC MEAN - 0.720
                                                            GEOMETRIC MEAN - O.685
                                                                    MEDIAN - 0.695
                                                         STANDARD DEVIATION - 0.245
                              I	I	'  i t  t i  i i I  i i  i
0.0001
0.0020
  0.0500        0.3000       0.70OO       0.9500     O.9950
FRACTION EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN GIVEN CONCENTRATION
                                                                                  0.9999
                 FIGURE 3. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT MERCURY

-------
    In addition to determining metals in samples of the AWT system influent
and effluent, the effluent from the lime clarification process was monitored
for a four month period since previous data has shown that heavy metals can
be removed by this process.  Table 9 shows that concentration of metals in
the influent, after the lime process, and in the final effluent.  It is
evident that the lime process is primarily responsible for the reduction in
the metal concentrations.
PESTICIDES

     Pesticide analyses were made on a less frequent basis than were analyses
for metals.  The data presented in Table 10 are based on samples taken twice
per month.  The levels in the effluent are significantly less than the EPA
standards for drinking water that are listed in the table.
GENERAL ORGANICS
     A summary of various gross measurements or organics in the influent and
effluent is presented in Table 11 and includes the average of the parameters
for a 14 month operation period.  The treatment system is capable of reliably
producing a high quality effluent on a continuous basis as evidenced by the
TOG data presented in Table 12 and Figure 4.  The 311 pieces of TOG data were
grouped into 5 periods covering 18 months of operation and the arithmetic
averages and standard deviations were determined.  The average TOG in the
finished drinking waters from 80 U.S. cities '*' is included in Table 12 for
comparison purposes.
     Figure 4 is a frequency distribution of 77 pieces of TOG data taken
during the fifth and last period of operation.  Included in the figure for
comparison purposes is a frequency distribution of the TOG data from 80
drinking waters taken during the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey
in 1975 (5^.  The median TOG concentrations were 1.5 mg/1 for the drinking
waters and 2.5 mg/1 for the wastewater effluent.  The lower levels of TOG in
the drinking water data may be attributed to the cities in the survey using
groundwater supplies.
     In an attempt to determine if additional TOG reduction was possible grab
samples of effluent were ozonated on three separate occasions.  An ozone
dosage of 60 mg/1 in the gas stream was introduced.into a 1 liter sample
using the reactor system described by Roan, S.  *   .  The sample was reacted
with the ozone stream for 60 minutes.  The initial average TOG concentration
was 1.21 mg/1 and the final TOG was 0.84 mg/1 which is a reduction of 30
percent.  In addition, a short term side stream study was conducted using a
strong acid cation resin in series with an intermediate base anion resin to
determine the removal of the remaining TOG by ion exchange.  These resins
reduced the effluent TOG about 40 percent.
                                     21

-------
TABLE 9.  HEAVY METAL REMOVAL BY LIME CLARIFICATION
Metal
(Unit-yg/1)
Mercury
Cadmium
Selenium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Arsenic
Iron (mg/1)
Barium
Copper
Zinc
Boron (mg/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Silver
Cyanide
Aluminum (mg/1)
Influent
0.813
1.92
4.76
16.9
23.4
149
1.49
1.30
54.3
48.9
110
0.250
0.701
3.98
5.80
-
Lime
Clarification
0.931
-
-
5-59
0.682
19.5
1.05
-
34.3
7.72
10.7
-
0.679
0.333
-
-
Final
Effluent
0.802
0.143
4.76
3.18
0.399
5.04
0.967
0.0467
27.2
5.66
12.6
0.313
0.724
0.0987
4.23
0.251
                         22

-------
                       TABLE 10.   PESTICIDES
Pesticide
Unit - ng/1 (ppt)
Effluent**
*EPA
Regulations
Aldrin

DDT

Dieldrin

Endrin

Heptaclor

Heptaclor Epoxide

Lindane

Methoxychlor

Diazin

Guthion

Malathian

Parathian
   4

  10

   1

   5

   0.7

   1

   2

  40

   5

 200

  10

  10
  200
 4000

   105
   *EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Federal
    Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975

  **Average of 4 data values for each pesticide
                                   23

-------
                                    Table 11.  GENERAL ORGANICS
PARAMETER
(units - mg/1)
TOC
COD
BOD
MBAS
CCE
CAE
Phenol
(yg/i)
UV @ 290
mu (%T)
INFLUENT
N*
231
229
245
13
-
-
9
-
Arithmetic
Mean
74.1
240
106
8.92
-
-
12.9
	 i. 	 	 - - -
Standard
Deviation
11.0
30.5
15.7
1.71
-
-
4.02
-
EFFLUENT
N
234
226
221
35
2
2
54
19
Arithmetic
Mean
2.79
6.53
3.12
0.14
0.75
2.25
3.66
96.9
Standard
Deviation
1.35
3.12
2.15
0.08
0.64
0.64
1.52 i
0.87
NJ
               *N-number of samples

-------
           TABLE  12.   VARIABILITY  OF EFFLUENT TOG
4 Month
Periods
1
2
3
4
5
Total
*Finished
Drinking
Water
Number of
Samples
58
64
69
43
77
311
80
Arithmetic
Mean (mg/ 1 )
2.26
2.35
3.72
2.67
2.68
2.76
2.21
Standard
Deviation
1.31
1.00
1.59
1.50
1.02
-
Range
0.05-12.2
'Preliminary  Assessment  of Suspected  Carcinogens  in  Drinking  Water,"
Report  to  Congress, EPA, December  1975.
                             25

-------
                                                                                               u
                                                                                               O
                                                        ARITHMETIC MEAN - 2.68
                                                        GEOMETRIC MEAN - 2.50
                                                                MEDIAN - 2.50
                                                     STANDARD DEVIATION - 1.02

                                                PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENS
                                                IN DRINKING WATER*,    EPA, DEC. 1975
                                                FINISHED DRINKING WATER-80 CITIES  .
                                                                       I   I   I    I  I  I   I
0.0001
0.0020          0.0500       0.3000      0.7000         0.9500
    FRACTION  EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN GIVEN CONCENTRATION

 FIGURE 4.  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT TOC
                                                                           0.9950
0.9999

-------
     Figure 5 shows a graph of the removal of TOC by each of the processes
in the treatment system.  Ninety-two percent of the TOC is removed in the
lime clarification and nitrification processes.  The increase in TOC in the
denitrification process effluent is due to some leakage of methanol.
     Table 13 shows the variability of the effluent COD for each of the five
operating periods and Figure 6 shows a frequency distribution of 74 pieces
COD data taken during the fifth operating period.  The median COD value
is 5.61.
GENERAL INORGANICS

     A summary of the inorganic constituents in the influent and effluent is
presented in Table 14.  The arithmetic means and standard deviations of each
constituent are shown.  Samples of the effluent were checked for 80 elements
by the Proton Induced X-ray Emission Procedure ^ ' to determine the presence
of any unusual inorganic component.  The results are shown in Table 15.  No
significant concentrations of hazardous inorganics were observed.
NUTRIENTS
     The concentration of the phosphorus and nitrogen compounds are shown
in Table 16. Over 200 pieces of data were used for each parameter in determining
the means and standard deviations.  No attempt was made to completely
denitrify the effluent.  The amount of methanol added to the denitrification
process was based on allowing 2 to 4 mg/1 of N03~N in the effluent.


SUSPENDED MATTER
     Turbidity, and suspended and total solids data for the treatment system
influent and effluent are shown in Table 17.  The effluent turbidity level is
within the requirements of the EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (4) which establishes the standard at 1 turbidity unit on a
monthly average basis.  The variability of the effluent turbidity is shown
in Table 18.  At the beginning of the last four months of operation (period 5)
it was noted that the turbidimeter had not been properly standardized when
making readings.  Implementation of the correct standardization procedure
accounts for the lower turbidity values during the fifth period.  Figure 7
is a frequency distribution of the 332 turbidity values for samples taken in
period five.  Between 98 and 99 percent of the values were less than the
standard of one.  The median turbidity was 0.39 FTU.
MICROBIOLOGICAL AND DISINFECTION PARAMETERS

     Data on the chlorine dosage, demand, and free residual in the effluent
are included in Table 19 along with data on the concentration of various
pathogenic indicator organisms.  The free residual chlorine concentration
of 2.23 mg/1 and low turbidity of 1 FTU have combined to produce an effluent
that consistently meets the EPA Drinking Water Regulations.
                                       27

-------
     60
O)

E
    20
    10
          * & <
          4?  J$

              TREATMENT PROCESS
         FIGURE 5.  REMOVAL OF TOC
                       28

-------
TABLE 13.   VARIABILITY OF EFFLUENT COD
4 Month
Periods
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Number of
Samples
58
64
67
37
74
300
Arithmetic
Mean (mg/1)
5.28
5.96
7.64
7.45
6.25
6.45
Standard
Deviation
2.55
3.09
2.54
3.29
2.20
-
                      29

-------
Ul
o
                                                                              PERIOD 5
                                                                                N=74
                                                                         ARITHMETIC MEAN - 6.25
                                                                         GEOMETRIC MEAN - 5.92
                                                                                 MEDIAN - 5.61
                                                                      STANDARD DEVIATION - 2.20
                                             1  1  1 I I  I I I  I I  I I  I  I  I   I
            O.OO01      0.0020         0.0500       0.3000      0.7000        0.9500     0.9950

                         FRACTION EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN GIVEN  CONCENTRATION

                         FIGURE 6. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION  OF EFFLUENT COD
0.9999

-------
                                            TABLE 14.   GENERAL INORGANICS
PARAMETER
(unit - mg/1)
PH
Total
Alkalinity
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
TDS
Hardness
CaCo3
Stability
Chloride
Sulphate
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
INFLUENT
N*
2274

2435
-
137
35
-
-
-
176
178
-
-
Arithmetic
Mean
7.20

125
-
283
115
-
-
-
31.2
6.47
-
-
Standard
Deviation
0.118

15.1
_
28.6
7.65
_
-
-
2.73
0.579
-
-
EFFLUENT
N
1081

980
830
210
40
40
158
122
218
224
228
21
Arithmetic
Mean
7.34

102
514
357
162
0.198
68.6
50.1
56.6
5.49
34.1
8.23
Standard
Deviation
0.146

12.1
36.0
31.6
7.18
0.394
4.56
3.83
4.40
0.481
2.94
0.318
* N-number of samples
U»

-------
             TABLE 15.  RESULTS OF 80 ELEMENT SURVEY*
                   Elements Detected in Effluent
                              Cng/1)
Na - 37.8                 Zn - 0.017                 Ba - 0.034

K  - 7.08                 Cd - 0.002                 As - 0.006

Ca - 54.0                 I  - 0.013                 NI - 0.004

V  - 0.003                Pb - 0.003                 Cu - 0.013

Cr - 0.001                Ga - 0.001                 Sr - 0.151

Fe - 0.031                Br - 0.100                 Sn - 0.002

Co - TR.                  Rb - 0.007                 S  - 2.85


                       Elements Not Detected
                               Ong/1)

Mn, Mo, Ag, Sc, Ti, Ge, Y, Pd, In, Sb, Te, Cs, La, W,
Pt, Tl, Bi, Si, P, Ar, Se, Kr, Zr, Nb, Ru, Rh, Xe, Ce, Pr,
Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf, Ta, Re,
Os, Ir, Au, Hg, Po, At, Rn, Fr, Ra, Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu


    *Proton - Induced X-Ray Emission Procedure
                               32

-------
                 TABU- 16.  NUTRIENTS
PARAMETER
(unit - mg/1)
TP04
TKN
NH3-N
N03+N02-N

N*
244
128
24.3
232
INFLUENT
Arithmetic
Mean
15.1
19.0
17.5
0.095
Standard
Deviation
2.19
2.50
2.32
0.08
N
232
98
223
229
EFFLUENT
Arithmetic
Mean
0.153
0.222
0.069
3.84
Standard
)eviation
0.09
0.17
0.15
1.84
* N-number of samples
                             33

-------
  TABLE 17.   SUSPENDED MATTER
PARAMETER
(unit - mg/1)
Turbidity
(FTUD
Suspended
Solids
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
Total
Solids
INFLUENT
N*
_
241
294
-
Arithmetic
Mean
_
109
84.0
-
Standard
Deviation
-
21.3
16.0
-
N
1395
225
.
209
EFFLUENT
Arithmetic
Mean
0.884
1.02
mm
362
Standard
Deviation
0.448
0.954
.
30.4
* N-number of samples
                34

-------
TABLE 18.  VARIABILITY OF EFFLUENT TURBIDITY
4 Month
Periods
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Number of
Samples
161
262
313
327
332
1395
Arithmetic
Mean (FTU)
0.730
0.885
1.06
1.26
0.418
0.884
Standard
Deviation
0.256
0.800
0.464
0.520
0.182
-
                         35

-------
            o
            o
u>
o

GO
                                                                                          o
                                                                                           o
                                                                              PERIOD  5

                                                                               N= 332


                                                                        ARITHMETIC MEAN -  0.420

                                                                        GEOMETRIC MEAN -  0.386

                                                                                MEDIAN -  0.385

                                                                     STANDARD DEVIATION -  0.182
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                      oe.
                I  I  I   I	I   I   I
                              I
          I   I  I  I  I I  I I I  I I  I 1  I  I  I   I
I
II   I  I   i  I
                                                                                                  es
             0.0001
              0.0020
   0.0500        0.3000       0.7000       0.9500      0.9950

FRACTION EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN GIVEN CONCENTRATION
                                                                                             0.9999
                           FIGURE 7.  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF EFFLUENT TURBIDITY

-------
TABLE 19.  MICROBIOLOGICAL AND DISINFECTION PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Chlorine Dosage mg/1
Chlorine Demand mg/1
Chlorine Residual
(free) mg/1
Total Coliforms
cells/100 ml
Fecal Coliforms
cells/100 ml
Pseudomonas
Aeruginosa
cells/100 ml
Salmonella
cells/100 ml
Total Count
cells/100 ml
EFFLUENT
N*
2030
43
57
114
119
36
40
44
Arithmetic
Mean
4.35
1.83
2.23
0.11
0.17
0.81
0
66.8
Standard
Deviation
-
1.62
1.45
0.39
O.SO
1.53
0
42.3
*N-Number of samples
                           37

-------
ESTHETIC PARAMETERS

     The effluent had no odor when compared to samples of odor free water
prepared for the threshold odor test, and exhibited a level of color equal
to 3.5 color units based on the platinum - cobalt standard.  This data along
with the average influent and effluent temperature are shown in Table 20.
                                    38

-------
TABLE 2Q.  ESTHETICS
PARAMETER
Temperature
(°C)
Odor (TON)
Color
(P-C units)

N*
382
-
-
INFLUENT
Arithmetic
Mean
20.9
-
-
Standard
Deviation
2.50
-
-
N*
320
35
84
EFFLUENT
Arithmetic
Mean
22.0
**N.D.
3.52
Standard
Deviation
2.32
N.D.
0.37
    *N-number of samples



   **N.D.  -  none detected
          39

-------
                                   SECTION 5

                                  REFERENCES
 1.  "Research Needs for the Potable Reuse of Municipal Wastewater",
     EPA-600/9-75-007, Dec. 1975.

 2.  Roa, V. C., et al., "A Simple Method for Concentrating and Detecting
     Viruses in Wastewater".  Water Research 6_: 1565-1576, 1972.

 3.  Wallace, C., et al., "A Portable Virus Concentrator for Testing Water
     in the Field".  Water Research 6_:  1249-1256, 1972.

 4.  "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations", EPA, Federal
     Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, Dec, 1975.

 5.  "Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking Water",
     Report to Congress, EPA, Dec. 1975.

 6.  Bellar, T. A., S Lichtenberg, J. J., "The Determination of Volatile
     Organic Compounds at the yg/l Level in Water by Gas Chromatography",
     EPA-670/4-75-009, Nov. 1974.

 7.  Smith, J. K., et al., "Characterization of Reusable Municipal Wastewater
     Effluents and Concentration of Organic Constituents", EPA Contract
     Project No. 68-03-2090 (Final Report in review stage).

 8.  Ames, B. N., et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
     Vol. 70, p. 2281, 1973.

 9.  Jorgensen, J. H., et al., "Rapid Detection of Bacterial Endotoxins in
     Drinking Water and Renovated Wastewater", Applied and Environ. Microb.,
     Vol. 32, No. 3, p. 347, Sept. 1976.

10.  Roan, S. G., et al., "Laboratory Ozonation of Municipal Wastewaters",
     EPA-670/2-73-075, Sept. 1973.

11.  Sims, P., "Proton Induced X-ray Emission Procedure", Dept. of Physics,
     Purdue University.
                                      40

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i  REPORT NO.
    EPA-600/2-78-027
                             2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    WASTEWATER  TREATMENT FOR REUSE AND ITS  CONTRIBUTION
    TO WATER SUPPLIES
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
             5. REPORT DATE
              March 1978  (Issuing Date)
7. AUTHOR(S)
    Howard P. Warner
    John N. English
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
    Government  of  the District of Columbia
    Department  of  Environmental Services
    EPA-DC Pilot Plant,  5000 Overlook Ave.,  S.W.
    Washington, D.C.   20032
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTR~A"CT7Cnilli|IIT MO.

                   68-03-0344
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
    Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
    Office of Research and Development
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
             FINAL. 4/75  to 9/76
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                   EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
    Project Officer:   Irwin J. Kugelman  513/684-7633
16. ABSTRACT

         An 18 month study using cost effective  municipal wastewater  treatment
    technology coupled with a computerized data  handling system, was  conducted
    at the EPA/Washington, D.C. Blue Plains  Pilot Plant to obtain data  on  the
    safety of the  effluent for discharge upstream of drinking water intakes,  and
    for potential  domestic reuse purposes.   Treatment reliability was demonstrated
    and performance  results showed the absence of virus in the effluent.   Effluent
    concentrations of radioactivity, trihalomethanes and other volatile organics,
    heavy metals,  pesticides, TOC, turbidity, general inorganic compounds, and
    pathogenic indicator organisms were shown to be similar to those  found in
    finished drinking waters during the EPA  National Organics Reconnaissance
    Survey in 1975.   The specific organic compounds identified in the effluent
    are also present in finished drinking waters.  Effluent organic concentrates
    did not exhibit  mutagenic properties, and results of an 80 element  survey did
    not detect the presence of significant quantities of any hazardous  inorganic
    material.  Effluent endotoxin levels were comparable to levels in public
    drinking water supplies.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
    Waste Treatment
   *Water Reclamation
    Nutrients
    Viruses
    Organic Compounds
    Potable Water
    Microorgani sms
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
  Reuse
  Heavy Metals
  Advanced Wastewater
    Treatment
                             COSATI Field/Group
    13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

    RELEASE TO  PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES

    49
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            41
  «U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 260-880/16 1-}

-------