Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capabilities For California Toxics Rule Constituents And Other Trace Toxics: Evaluation

1. Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capabilities For California Toxics Rule Constituents And Other Trace Toxics: Evaluation Of Research Needs CVCWA Technical Advisory CommitteePresenter: David K. TompkinsApril 27, 2007

2. Background

3. Study Initiation • Five CVCWA Members Formed Steering Committee (2005) • Prepared Scope and Issued RFP • Reviewed Proposals, Interviewed, Selected Team • Funded the Study • Initiated Work (early 2006)

4. Study Team • CVCWA Steering Committee • David K. Tompkins, City of Vacaville • Stan R. Dean, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District • William Lewis, City of Yuba City • Arthur J. O’Brien, City of Roseville • Keith Smith, City of Davis • Research Team • West Yost Associates • Jeff Pelz • Kathryn Gies • Chris Malone • Melanie Carr • Bruce West • University of California at Davis • George Tchobanoglous, PhD, Professor Emeritus • Thomas Young, PhD, Professor • Temitope A. Ogunyoku, Graduate Student,

5. Purpose of the Study Document which wastewater treatment trains are capable of reliably meeting human health and aquatic life-based CTR permit limits at the point of discharge, without dilution

6. Status Report: Progress To Date • CVCWA Special Projects Group Initiated The Study • To win grant funding, first need: • Documentation that available research is inadequate • Assessment of the applicability of available data • Considered an aggressive and focused “data mining” effort • Adopted a more cost effective approach based on seeking and analyzing the “low hanging fruit” • Solicited effluent water quality data from dischargers • Conducted formal literature review • Prepared White Paper to demonstrate and define the research needs

7. Status Report: Current Activities • White Paper accepted by CVCWA Board in January 2007, released to general public • Initiate solicitation of grant funding for research • Assemble Technical Advisory Committee

8. White Paper Objective Identify and demonstrate research needs to fill existing data gaps To accomplished the objective: • Review published research findings to assess the adequacy • Obtain and analyze readily available data from operating treatment plants to determine the adequacy of data • Assess effluent concentration variability for constituents and process trains, where data is adequate Key: Document adequacy or inadequacy of readily available data, and identify efforts to be completed through grant-funded research

9. White Paper Overview

10. Study Approach – Reliability • California Water Code (13385) states that any exceedance is a violation (100% compliance) • EPA guidance defines an allowed frequency of exceedance: 1 exceedance every three years, on average • EPA guidance translates to 99.9% compliance • For the study, performance reliability is defined as 99.9% compliance

11. Trace Inorganics Aluminum Chromium (hexavalent) Chromium (total) Copper Cyanide Iron Lead Manganese Mercury (total) Methyl Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc Trace Organics Bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (Bis-2) Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) Bromoform Chloroform Diazinon Chlorpyrifos Dibromochloromethane (DBCM) Lindane (gamma-BHC) N‑Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Tributyltin Study Approach – Constituents These were selected because they are common (or anticipated), difficult effluent limits triggered by human health and aquatic life-based water quality objectives.

12. Study Approach – Treatment Trains (a) Refers to filtration capabilities only and does not imply the facility complies with all of the requirements promulgated under Title 22.

13. Study Approach - Data Analysis • Effluent concentrations for conventional constituents are log-normally distributed • Study approach assumed non-conventional pollutant variability can also be described using a log-normal distribution • For log-normal data, probability plots are effective in displaying frequency of compliance • This type of analysis also allows the examination of several different criteria simultaneously

14. Participating Dischargers • 67 responded with interest and intent to participate • Data received from 46 separate dischargers • 30 data sets were applicable to the white paper analysis • Other data could be used later (e.g., treatment trains represented by only a single participant)

15. Central Marin Sanitation Agency City of Atwater City of Brentwood City of Burbank City of Colusa City of Corning City of Galt City of Lodi City of Los Angeles City of Manteca City of Patterson City of Roseville City of San Jose Environmental Services City of Santa Rosa City of Stockton, Municipal Utilities Department City of Thousand Oaks City of Turlock City of Vacaville City of Williams City of Yuba City El Dorado Irrigation District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Irvine Ranch Water District Jamestown Sanitary District Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Marin County Sanitation District Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Novato Sanitary District Ojai Valley Sanitary District Olivenhain Municipal Water District Padre Dam Municipal Water District Placer County Sewer Maintenance District No. 1 Placer County Sewer Maintenance District No. 3 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District San Bernardino County Water & Sanitation San Joaquin County Selma - Kingsburg - Fowler County Sanitation District Sonoma County Water Agency South Tahoe Public Utility District Union Sanitary District Vallecitos Water Participating Dischargers Thank You!

16. Treatment / Constituent Data Sets • Data was adequate to develop combined effluent data sets for the following: • Conventional activated sludge with nitrification (3 dischargers) • Activated sludge with nitrification/denitrification & Granular Media and/or Cloth Media Filtration with Chlorine Disinfection (16 dischargers) • Granular Media and/or Cloth Media Filtration with UV Disinfection (4 dischargers) • Readily available data was not sufficient for other treatment trains • Data was adequate to evaluate 22 different combinations of treatment process and effluent constituent concentration

17. Probability Plot Example 1

18. Probability Plot Example 2

19. Data Problems • Stair-step distribution • Predominantly non-detect data • Extreme values • Multiple data populations within a category

20. Stair-Step Distribution

21. Predominantly Non-Detect Data

22. Extreme Values

23. Multiple Populations

24. Multiple Populations

25. White Paper Findings • Published research does not address compliance with current standards • Analytical issues strongly affected the ability to develop a rigorous data analysis • Even in the absence of analytical problems, compliance is affected by many factors in addition to the type of treatment process

26. Major Conclusions • Significant, focused data collection effort will be needed. • It will be necessary to evaluate sources of observed variability in existing data. • Probability plot methodology is useful for predicting the probability of compliance, but compromised by poor or insufficient data.

27. Major Conclusions • Readily available data is of insufficient quality and quantity for most constituents and processes. • No conventional activated sludge treatment system using chlorine disinfection, with or without filtration, can reliably achieve end-of-pipe compliance with human health-based water quality objectives for THMs.

28. Recommendations • Conduct a focused data compilation and analysis effort • Data from existing advanced treatment plants • Evaluate the data using the methods identified in the white paper • Conduct detailed field studies at: • Existing full-scale treatment plants with treatment trains that appear to be successful at meeting the criteria • Pilot-scale advanced treatment trains

29. Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capabilities For California Toxics Rule Constituents And Other Trace Toxics: WaterReuse Foundation Opportunities CVCWA Technical Advisory CommitteePresenter: David K. TompkinsApril 27, 2007

30. WateReuse Foundation Two Current Opportunities • Unsolicited Research Program • MBR Effluent Quality / Technology Investigation

31. WateReuse Unsolicited Research Program • Mission: “Promote applied research… serving water reuse and desalination community” • Two to four projects • Up to $175,000 maximum per project • 25% minimum in-kind and/or cash contribution (water/wastewater agencies encouraged) • WateReuse publishes final report

32. WateReuse Unsolicited Research Program • Preproposal Submitted (February 20) • Committee selects a short-list (June 15) • Full Proposals Due (July 27) • Selection (August - September) • Award (September 28)

33. WateReuse MBR Investigation • Desktop Study • “Effluent Quality Investigation” = CVCWA White Paper Approach The CVCWA White Paper demonstrates understanding of the issues to be encountered and a strong, well defined technical approach. • “Operations / Technology” = Need to identify state-of-the-art Contemplating additional team member with MBR operations expertise. Funding partners provide international connections to current practices and data.

34. WateReuse MBR Investigation Plan: 1) Tap resources of UCD PhD candidate doing dissertation on MBRs 2) Clarify likelihood of finding applicable data with this study 3) Steering Committee give input on potential to add team members 4) Win the grant funding based on • Strength of technical approach • Team credentials • CVCWA support? • Proposal Due May 17 (on east coast) • $200,000 Max + 25% Minimum Match • Match: Direct Funding or In-Kind