Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment For the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
Prepared for: West Yost Associates
Final Report
March 2011
6540 Lusk Blvd., Suite C274 San Diego, CA 94612
Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1! INTRODUCTION ...... 3! 2! UPDATE OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ...... 4! 3! SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS ...... 5! 3.1! Primary and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels ...... 5! 3.2! Surface Water Treatment Rules ...... 5! 3.3! Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ...... 7! 3.4! Total Coliform Rule ...... 9! 3.5! Lead and Copper Rule ...... 10! 3.6! Water Quality Criteria for Other Unregulated Contaminants ...... 11! 3.6.1! CDPH Notification Levels and Archived Notification Levels ...... 11! 3.6.2! Candidate Contaminant List (CCL) ...... 11! 3.6.3! Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) ...... 11! 4! WATER QUALITY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AT THE FUTURE INTAKE LOCATION ...... 12! 4.1! General Water Quality Parameters ...... 18! 4.2! Inorganic Contaminants ...... 19! 4.3! Microbial Parameters ...... 20! 4.4! Organic Contaminants ...... 21! 4.5! Radionuclides ...... 21! 4.6! PPCPs and EDCs ...... 22! 5! HISTORICAL SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA ...... 23! 6! WATER QUALITY TRENDS FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS IN RELATION TO TREATMENT ...... 28! 6.1! General Water Quality Parameters ...... 28! 6.1.1! Temperature ...... 28! 6.1.2! Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity ...... 30! 6.1.3! Alkalinity and pH ...... 40! 6.1.4! Hardness ...... 41! 6.1.5! Fluoride ...... 41! 6.1.6! Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Bromide, Chloride, Sodium, Specific Conductance .... 41! 6.1.7! Dissolved Oxygen ...... 45! 6.1.8! Nitrogen ...... 45! 6.2! TOC, DOC, SUVA and Disinfection Byproducts ...... 46! 6.2.1! Measured Concentrations ...... 46! 6.2.2! Discrepancies in TOC Measurements ...... 48! 6.2.3! TOC Removal through Enhanced Coagulation ...... 50! 6.2.4! Disinfection Byproduct Formation ...... 51! 6.3! Iron, Manganese and Aluminum ...... 61! 6.4! Microbial Parameters ...... 63! 6.5! Regulated and Unregulated Organic Contaminants ...... 64! 6.6! PPCPs and EDCs ...... 67
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
! 7! WATER QUALITY ISSUES RELATED TO OTHER PREDESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...... 69! 7.1! Final Disinfection and Mixing of Finished Waters ...... 69! 7.2! Reservoir Storage ...... 71! 7.3! Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) ...... 72! 8! REFERENCES ...... 73 APPENDIX A – Raw Water Quality Data from the DWWSP Monitoring Program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..!!!!!!75
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page II Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 – Water Quality Monitoring Locations, and Confluence of the Feather River and American River with the Sacramento River...... 25! Figure 6.1 – Comparison of Seasonal Temperature Fluctuations in the Sacramento River at the USGS-Verona Site (RM 78.0), DWWSP and CMP Sites (RM 70.5) and MWQI Site (RM 62.4) Between 2004 and 2010...... 29! Figure 6.2 – Comparison of Seasonal Temperature Fluctuations in the Sacramento River at the USGS-Verona Sites (RM 78.0), DWWSP Site (RM 70.5), and MWQI Site (RM 62.4) Between 2009 and 2010...... 30! Figure 6.3 – Average Daily Stream Flow at the USGS Verona Site in Relation to Daily Rainfall at the Sacramento International Airport...... 31! Figure 6.4 – Relationship Between Turbidity and Average Daily Stream Flow at the USGS-Verona Site...... 31! Figure 6.5 – Comparison of Turbidity at the DWWSP Site with Turbidity at the USGS and BBWTP Sites (Jan 2009 – Dec 2010)...... 32! Figure 6.6 – Comparison of raw water turbidity at the BBWTP intake with raw water turbidity at the SRWTP intake, between 2001 – 2011...... 35! Figure 6.7 – Probability plot of turbidity from the DWWSP site in comparison with turbidity from the BBWTP, SRWTP, and MWQI sites...... 36! Figure 6.8 – Probability plot of the duration of periods of elevated turbidity at the BBWTP intake (2001-2011)...... 37! Figure 6.9 – Comparison of TSS concentrations at the USGS-Freeport site with turbidity at the SRWTP and BBWTP intakes (2004-2008)...... 38! Figure 6.10 – Correlation between turbidity and TSS using paired data collected at the DWWSP site and DWR-Feather River site...... 39! Figure 6.11 – Correlation Between TDS and Conductivity Using Data Collected at the MWQI Monitoring Site (RM 62.5)...... 42! Figure 6.12 – Conductivity Fluctuations Versus Time at the DWWSP, MWQI, and USGS-Verona Sites (August 2009 – December 2010)...... 43! Figure 6.13 – Probability plot for conductivity at the DWWSP site in comparison with sites upstream (USGS), at the same location (CMP), and downstream (MWQI). .. 44! Figure 6.14 – TOC concentrations over time at the DWWSP, BBWTP and MWQI sites...... 47! Figure 6.15 – Probability Plot of TOC at the DWWSP Site with TOC at the Other Monitoring Sites (January 2004 – August 2010)...... 48! Figure 6.16 – TTHM and HAA5 Formation Potential in Samples from the DWWSP Site...... 52! Figure 6.17 – TTHM and HAA5 formation during jar tests that used free chlorine and combined chlorine for disinfection...... 54! Figure 6.18 – Quarterly average TTHM concentrations in BBWTP’s distribution system. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule required four sites while the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule requires additional sites that are representative of worst-case conditions...... 56! Figure 6.19 – Minimum, maximum and average LRAA TTHM concentrations at the four Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring sites in comparison with concentrations at the eight Stage 2 D/DBP Rule IDSE monitoring sites (2007-2009)...... 57!
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page III Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Figure 6.20 – Quarterly average HAA5 concentrations in BBWTP’s distribution system. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule required four sites while the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule requires additional sites that are representative of worst-case conditions...... 58! Figure 6.21 – Minimum, maximum and average LRAA HAA5 concentrations at the four Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring sites in comparison with concentrations at the eight Stage 2 D/DBP Rule IDSE monitoring sites (2007-2009)...... 58! Figure 6.22 – Quarterly TTHM concentrations at four sites within the SRWTP distribution system (2005-2009) (Starr Consulting, 2010)...... 59! Figure 6.23 – TTHM LRAA statistics for four sites in the SRWTP distribution system, between 2005 and 2009 (Starr Consulting, 2010)...... 60! Figure 6.24 – Quarterly HAA5 concentrations at four sites within the SRWTP distribution system (2005-2009) (Starr Consulting, 2010)...... 60! Figure 6.25 – HAA5 LRAA statistics for four sites in the SRWTP distribution system, between 2005 and 2009 (Starr Consulting, 2010)...... 61! Figure 6.26 – Dissolved aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the DWR-Verona site (2004-2010)...... 62! Figure 6.27 – Total aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the DWR-Verona site (2004-2010)...... 62! Figure 6.28 – Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform, and E. Coli Concentrations Over Time at the DWWSP Site...... 64! Figure 7.1 – Changes in total chlorine concentration in relation to chlorine to ammonia ratios (Crittenden, 2005)...... 70!
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page IV Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
List of Tables
Table 2.1 – Sampling Frequency for DWWSP Monitoring Program...... 4! Table 3.1 – Bin classification for filtered public water systems indicating the Cryptosporidium removal required under the LT2ESWTR...... 6! Table 3.2 – Overall regulatory pathogen removal/inactivation requirements...... 7! Table 3.3 – MCLs for the disinfection byproducts...... 8! Table 3.4 – TOC Removal Required Under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule ...... 9! Table 4.1 – Summary of Inorganic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Sacramento River at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 – Dec 2010...... 13! Table 4.2 – Summary of Organic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Sacramento River at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 – Dec 2010...... 15! Table 4.3 – PPCPs/EDCs detected in the Sacramento River at the DWWSP monitoring site (RM 70.5)...... 23! Table 5.1 – Comparison of Water Quality at the DWWSP Site with Long-Term Water Quality Data from the Other Monitoring Locations...... 26! Table 6.1 – Turbidity data sources and periods of record for monitoring stations upstream and downstream of the DWWSP site ...... 33! Table 6.2 – Suspended solids data sources and periods of record for monitoring stations upstream and downstream of the DWWSP site...... 34! Table 6.3 Duration, average turbidity, and maximum turbidity during periods of high raw water turbidity (> 50 NTU) at the BBWTP...... 37! Table 6.4 – Solids loading for the new DWWSP treatment facility based on turbidity levels and frequency of occurrence...... 40! Table 6.5 – Comparison of TOC measurements between CLS Labs and MWH Labs, and between the DWWSP monitoring site and the BBWTP intake...... 49! Table 6.6 - Comparison of DOC measurements between CLS Labs and MWH Labs, and between the DWWSP monitoring site and the BBWTP intake...... 49! Table 6.7 – TTHM and HAA5 Formation Potential in Relation to TOC Concentration and Chlorine Demand of Sacramento River Water (DWWSP Site) ...... 52! Table 6.8 – Thiobencarb Monitoring Results as Part of the CRC Rice Pesticide Program...... 66! Table 6.9 – City of Sacramento and City of West Sacramento 2010 Rice Herbicide Analyses...... 66! Table 6.10 – PPCPs Measured in the Sacramento River at the BBWTP Intake as Part of the 2010 NWRI Study (Guo, et al., 2010)...... 67! Table 6.11 – PPCPs/EDCs Detected in the Sacramento River at the DWWSP site...... 69! Table 7.1 – Effectiveness of Primary Disinfection Alternatives...... 69!
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page V Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA)—a cooperative partnership between the City of Davis and the City of Woodland—is pursuing the design and construction of a new surface water supply project to replace a large portion of the current groundwater supply. This project will divert up to 52 million gallons per day (MGD) from the Sacramento River, through an intake located near river mile (RM) 70.5, and convey it to a new water treatment facility (WTF) located near Woodland. In anticipation of treatment process selection and permitting, a water quality monitoring program was initiated in August 2009. The purpose of this report is to summarize the water quality data collected during this monitoring program between August 2009 and December 2010 as well as water quality data from other nearby sources and to assess treatment requirements. Water samples for select parameters will continue being collected quarterly. Summary water quality tables like those presented in Appendix A will be updated and posted on the WDCWA’s Facilities Procurement Sharepoint Site as more water quality data become available.
The Sacramento River at the site of the proposed intake location is a very desirable source of potable water, with limited anthropogenic contamination. The primary treatment issues concern the large fluctuations in turbidity, potential for disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation, and type of disinfectant needed for final disinfection. There may also be a need to address synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) in order to provide for public confidence. These topics are summarized briefly below:
• Turbidity – Turbidity of the raw water was generally fairly low, with a median turbidity of recent samples taken at the site of 15.6 NTU. During periods of higher stream flow, which correlated with periods of rainfall, the turbidity of the river approached 200 NTU during recent sampling, and historical levels at nearby sites have been much higher, just under 600 NTU. During the rainy season (November through April), elevated turbidity can last for extended periods (one to two months or more). These turbidity levels preclude the use of direct filtration in the new treatment facility.
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) – The average TOC concentration of the river at the proposed intake location was 3.0 mg/L. The Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct (D/DBP) Rule requires public water systems with source water TOC concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/L to practice enhanced coagulation in order to increase TOC removal and minimize DBP formation. Based on raw water TOC and alkalinity levels, the D/DBP Rule will require at least 25% TOC removal for the new WTF; 35% TOC removal could be required under differing raw water conditions. Although this enhanced coagulation requirement may be avoided through alternate DBP control strategies, it may be wise to construct a facility that includes this capability.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
• Final Disinfection – Although enhanced coagulation and other treatment measures to reduce TOC are likely sufficient to meet regulated DBP levels, the margin they provide is not great. As DBPs are one of the more important health risks associated with modern water treatment, even at regulated levels, the WDCWA may chose to consider lower targets for these contaminants. Should this choice be made, other disinfection options, such as ozone for primary disinfection and chloramines for residual maintenance, should be considered.
• Microbial Contaminants – The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) requires public water systems using surface water to provide a minimum of 3-log Giardia removal/inactivation, 4-log virus removal/inactivation, and 2-log Cryptosporidium removal. The Long- Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) requires two years of source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium to determine if additional treatment for Cryptosporidium is required. Based on the first 16 months of data, this source water falls into “Bin 1,” such that the new treatment facility will not be required to provide additional Cryptosporidium treatment. The actual Bin classification will not be known until August 2011, once 24-months of sampling is completed. Also, Bin classification can increase in the future if the observed levels of Cryptosporidium increase. Both the nearby, downstream City of West Sacramento’s Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant (BBWTP) and the City of Sacramento’s Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP) completed their LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium monitoring and were placed in the “Bin 1” classification.
• Regulated and Unregulated Organic Compounds – All regulated organic contaminants were measured below their respective reporting limit. However, there is extensive use of pesticides upstream of the DWWSP intake and some of these pesticides are also in EPA’s most recent candidate contaminant list. Moreover, the rice herbicide, thiobencarb, remains a contaminant of concern because of its high usage within the upstream watershed and association with “off-flavors” during final disinfection with free chlorine. Thiobencarb has historically been an issue for WTFs downstream of the DWWSP intake location. Process selection for the new WTF should take pesticides like thiobencarb into consideration.
Quarterly water samples have been collected and analyzed for ultra-low levels of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). These compounds are currently unregulated. Of the 86 compounds analyzed, fifteen were detected, all at concentrations well below 0.00025 mg/L, and at these levels they are not understood to have any significance to human health. Nonetheless the public has shown interest in these compounds
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 2 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
and treatment alternatives that remove them may be favored over those that do not.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) is a cooperative partnership between the City of Davis and the City of Woodland formed to implement the Davis- Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP). A new surface water treatment facility (WTF), which will supplement the current diminishing groundwater supply, is the keystone of the DWWSP. The new facility will ultimately divert up to 52 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from the Sacramento River near river mile (RM) 70.5. In order to obtain necessary permits and optimize treatment, past water quality data were reviewed and a monitoring program was implemented on the Sacramento River, at a point near the future intake. The sampling program was extensive and considered current and anticipated future water quality regulations, as well as agricultural land uses and associated herbicide/pesticide application within the upstream watershed.
The DWWSP will divert and treat Sacramento River water and then convey the treated water to the cities of Davis and Woodland. The preferred intake alternative entails replacing the Reclamation District (RD) 2035 intake and pump station (located at RM 70.5), conveying raw water to a proposed WTF in the vicinity of Woodland, conveying potable water to the project partners’ water distribution systems, and improving the existing Davis and Woodland water storage and distribution systems to make effective use of the regional water supply. Completion and start-up of the WTF is targeted for 2016.
The purpose of this report is to summarize and interpret the data collected during the DWWSP monitoring program. The TM is divided into the following sections: 1 – Introduction 2 – Update of Water Quality Monitoring Program 3 – Summary of State and Federal Drinking Water Regulations 4 – Water Quality of the Sacramento River at the Future Intake Location 5 – Historical Sacramento River Water Quality Data 6 – Water Quality Trends for Selected Parameters in Relation to Treatment 7 – Water Quality Issues Related to Other Predesign Considerations
Information from this water quality assessment will be used to select a robust, but cost effective, benchmark treatment system that is capable of meeting all water quality goals set forth in the Feasibility Study. This TM summarizes data collected between August 2009 and December 2010. For select constituents, water quality monitoring will continue beyond the date this report is finalized. Updated water quality data tables, like those included in Appendix A, will be posted periodically on the WDCWA’s Facilities Procurement Sharepoint Site.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 3 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
2 UPDATE OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
The DWWSP monitoring program began in August 2009. All chemical and microbial contaminants with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or notification levels (NLs) were monitored at the proposed intake location for a period of one year. Many other unregulated contaminants were also monitored. A summary of sample collection frequency is shown in Table 2.1. Based on recommendations from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), total mercury and 1,2-dichloroethane were analyzed monthly rather than quarterly in order to assess trends in concentration throughout the year. In addition to what is shown in Table 2.1, weekly samples were collected and analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), UV-254 absorbance, total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, pH, conductivity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO). The monitoring program is on-going for a limited number of parameters.
Table 2.1 – Sampling Frequency for DWWSP Monitoring Program.
Category Sampling Frequency General water characteristics (Physical and Chemical) Quarterly for one year
Turbidity and TOC Monthly for two years A Inorganic chemicals with CDPH MCLB Quarterly for one year Organic chemicals with CDPH MCLB Quarterly for one year Quarterly, with monthly sampling during C Thiobencarb and Molinate rice season (Apr – Sept) Disinfection by-products (DBPs) and formation potential D Quarterly for one year Radionuclides with CDPH MCL Quarterly for one year
Microbiological parameters E Monthly for two years A Contaminants with CDPH Notification Level (NL) Quarterly for one year Additional Pesticides (unregulated) Quarterly for one year
UCMR 1 (List 1 and 2 only) and UCMR 2 F Quarterly for one year
ATwo years of data were needed to satisfy the LT2ESWTR sampling requirement, and to asess TOC removal requirements of the D/DBP Rule. BMercury (total) and 1,2-Dichloroethane were monitored monthly rather than quarterly CThese samples were in addition to the quarterly monitoring for organic chemicals with an MCL. DDBP formation potential to be assessed using a simulated distribution system test (SM 5710C) EIncludes total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, E. Coli, Cryptosporidium oocysts, and Giardia cysts F Aeromonas was excluded because of high analytical cost.
In November 2010, a supplemental report was finalized which examined the potential occurrence of synthetic organic chemicals (SOC)—pesticides, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)—in the Sacramento River (Trussell Technologies 2010). The monitoring program was modified, based on SOC report recommendations. Modifications included quarterly sampling for 86 PPCPs and EDCs, and four additional unregulated pesticides. Monitoring for these additional contaminants began in July 2010.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 4 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
In addition to the “planned” monitoring, limited additional monitoring was done for various reasons including (a) need for lower detection limits, (b) checking locational differences in water quality, and (c) checking for analytical interferences. All water quality data collected between August 2009 and December 2010, including data from this “additional” monitoring, are included in Appendix A.
3 SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s future surface water treatment facility will be subject to all applicable state and federal drinking water regulations. The following is a list of MCLs that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of California (as specified in Title-22 of the California Code of Regulations (California State Department of Public Health 2010 (updated))) have legislated for the drinking water industry to ensure the public’s health and safety.
§64431 – Maximum Contaminant Levels—Inorganic Chemicals §64442 – MCLs and Monitoring – Gross Alpha Particle Activity, Radium-226, Radium- 228, and Uranium §64444 – Maximum Contaminant Levels – Organic Chemicals §64449 – Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance §64533 – Maximum Contaminant Levels for Disinfection Byproducts §64674 – Lead and Copper Rule – Large Water System Requirements
In addition to the MCLs, treatment techniques have been legislated which regulate microbial removal through particulate removal and inactivation through disinfection. The raw water quality will determine how these treatment techniques are applied, and will greatly influence the design of the future WTF. The applicable regulations and rules are summarized below.
3.1 Primary and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels Primary MCLs (pMCL) are legally enforceable limits that regulate contaminant levels based on toxicity and adverse human health effects. Secondary MCLs (sMCL) are guidelines rather than enforceable limits; they are based on aesthetics and are labeled by the regulations as “consumer acceptance contaminant levels.”
All contaminants that have primary and secondary MCLs are identified in the data tables included in Appendix A, along with their specific MCL.
3.2 Surface Water Treatment Rules There have been a series of four federally mandated Rules that have been promulgated with the intent of preventing waterborne diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms, starting with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). These Rules established treatment techniques to remove and/or inactivate microbial contaminants
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 5 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 through effective filtration and disinfection. While they are detailed and complex, the following discussion provides a brief synopsis as it relates to the DWWSP.
The SWTR was promulgated in 1989. It required that all public water systems (PWS) using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, which practiced conventional or direct filtration, to: 1. Achieve 4-log (99.99%) removal/inactivation of viruses and 3-log (99.9%) removal/inactivation of Giardia lamblia, 2. Maintain a disinfectant concentration of at least 0.2 mg/L at the entrance to the distribution system, and maintain a detectable disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system, and 3. Maintain a combined filter effluent turbidity less than 0.5 NTU.
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) built on the treatment techniques required by the SWTR. In order to address Cryptosporidium, the IESWTR required PWSs that filter to achieve a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium by increasing the stringency of the combined filter effluent turbidity standards to 0.3 NTU. Cryptosporidium are highly resistant to traditional disinfection practices using chlorine and/or chloramines, so the required 2-log removal is through filtration and not inactivation.
The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), promulgated in 2002, made the 2-log Cryptosporidium removal requirement applicable to small systems servicing less than 10,000 people.
Most recently, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), promulgated in 2006, requires utilities to monitor their source water on a monthly basis for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity. Depending on the maximum running annual average (RAA) Cryptosporidium concentration, the water is placed in a “Bin” which dictates the level of treatment required to achieve the required log removal/inactivation of Cryptosporidium. Bin classification is summarized below in Table 3.1 Table 3.1 – Bin classification for filtered public water systems indicating the Cryptosporidium removal required under the LT2ESWTR.
Cryptosporidium Bin Concentration (oocysts/L) 1 <0.075 2 0.075 to <1.0 3 1.0 to <3.0 4 !3.0
The overall microbial reduction requirements, as mandated by CDPH (California State Department of Public Health 2010 (updated)) and the USEPA (U.S. EPA 1998; U.S. EPA 2002; U.S. EPA 2006) are summarized in Table 3.2. In addition to stipulating the overall requirements, these rules require a multi-barrier treatment approach to ensure
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 6 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 effective microbial treatment. The specific treatment credit awarded for pathogen removal depends on the filtration technology applied, and the credit awarded for pathogen inactivation depends on the disinfectant type, dose and contact time. As such, regardless of the removal credit attained, at least 0.5-log Giardia inactivation and 2-log virus inactivation must be provided. Table 3.2 – Overall regulatory pathogen removal/inactivation requirements.
CDPH Removal/Inactivation Pathogen Requirements
Cryptosporidium 2-log Giardia lamblia 3-log Viruses 4-log
3.3 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule The Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) was legislated to minimize the public’s exposure through drinking water to potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The rule was promulgated in two parts. The Stage 1 D/DBPR, promulgated in 1999, established: • MCLs for two groups of organic DBPs—total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5);! • MCLs for two inorganic DBPs—bromate and chlorite;! • Treatment techniques for the effective removal of DBP precursor material, measured as TOC; and! • Maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide. !
The Stage 1 D/DBPR MCLs are summarized in Table 3.3. Compliance is based on a system-wide running annual average (RAA).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 7 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 3.3 – MCLs for the disinfection byproducts.
Disinfection By-Product MCL (mg/L) Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) 0.08 - Chloroform - Bromodichloromethane - Dibromochloromethane - Bromoform Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) 0.06 - Mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids - Mono- and dibromoacetic acids Chlorite 1.0 Bromate 0.010
Disinfectants MRDL (mg/L) Chlorine 4.0 (as Cl2) Chloramine 4.0 (as Cl2) Chlorine Dioxide 0.8 (as ClO2)
The treatment technique for TOC removal is referred to as “enhanced coagulation.” The amount of TOC removal required by the D/DBP Rule is a function of the source water TOC concentration and alkalinity, as summarized in Table 3.4. For some waters, or under some conditions, it is infeasible for a system to meet the required TOC removals. The D/DBP Rule also provides “alternative compliance criteria” which systems have the option of meeting for compliance in lieu of the TOC removal requirement. These alternative compliance criteria are: 1. System’s source water TOC is <2.0 mg/L 2. System’s treated water TOC is <2.0 mg/L 3. System’s source water TOC is <4.0 mg/L and alkalinity is >60 mg/L (as CaCO3), and the system’s TTHM and HAA5 compliance samples are <40 µg/L and <30 µg/L, respectively. 4. System’s TTHM concentration is <40 µg/L and HAA5 concentration is <30 µg/L, with only free chlorine for primary disinfection and residual maintenance. 5. System’s source water SUVA prior to any treatment is "2.0 L/mg-m; and 6. System’s treated water SUVA is "2.0 L/mg-m.
Meeting any of the above six requirements permits the utility to avoid the enhanced coagulation TOC removal requirement.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 8 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 3.4 – TOC Removal Required Under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule
Source Water Source Water Alkalinity TOC 0-60 >60-120 >120
>2.0-4.0 35% 25% 15%
>4.0-8.0 45% 35% 25%
>8.0 50% 40% 30%
The Stage 2 D/DBPR requires each system to conduct an “initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE)” to determine locations within their distribution system that represent the highest concentrations of DBPs, and to modify their monitoring and reporting requirements to include these locations. The Stage 2 Rule requires calculation of locational running annual averages (LRAA) rather than system-wide running annual averages (RAA) as had been used in the Stage 1 Rule. The RAA allowed some areas of the system to have higher DBP concentrations, while still complying with the regulations. The LRAA is more stringent because it ensures all locations in the distribution system are in compliance with the MCLs.
3.4 Total Coliform Rule The current Total Coliform Rule (TCR), as promulgated in 1989, will soon be revised. Proposed revisions to the TCR were published in the Federal Register in July 2010 (U.S. EPA 2010). Currently, the TCR requires public water systems to collect a specific number of samples from their distribution system (based on the size of their system) to monitor for total coliform. Compliance is based on the presence or absence of total coliform. If a sample tests positive for total coliform, it must also be tested for fecal coliform or E. coli. A sample that tests positive for fecal coliform or E. coli is considered an acute violation.
The proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) introduces an MCL Goal (MCLG) and MCL for E. coli of zero and eliminates the MCLs and MCLGs for total coliforms (and fecal coliforms) included in the current TCR. The measurement of Total Coliform was developed at the turn of the century as an indicator of the presence of fecal contamination. From the beginning it was clear that some members of the coliform group (the organisms that test positive as coliform organisms) are not actually fecal in origin. The fecal coliform test was developed in the 1960s as a test that more narrowly targeted members of the coliform group that are of fecal origin, but even that test was not specific for the main organism found in human feces, namely Escherichia coli (E. coli). In recent decades a specific test for the E. coli organism, itself, has been developed and has seen widespread use. Under the current TCR, total coliform- positive samples trigger an assay for either fecal coliforms or E. coli. The proposed RTCR eliminates fecal coliform tests, replacing them with direct measurement of E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 9 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Perhaps the most significant change in the proposed RTCR is the requirement of corrective action and a coliform treatment technique. The coliform treatment technique requires a system to conduct an assessment of their system when monitoring results indicate the system may be vulnerable to contamination. A simple Level 1 self- assessment or a more detailed Level 2 assessment may be required depending on how severe and how frequent the contamination. Any sanitary defects identified in the Level 1 or Level 2 assessments must be corrected. Example sanitary defects include cross- connection and backflow issues; operator issues; distribution system issues; storage issues; and disinfection issues like failure to maintain the disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system.
The proposed RTCR also makes changes to the public notification requirements. Under the current TCR, public notification is required for detection of total coliforms. Under the proposed RTCR, public notification would no longer be required upon detection of total coliforms. Instead, a Tier 1 public notification (PN) is required when the E. coli MCL is violated. A Tier 2 PN is required when there is a treatment technique violation. A Tier 3 PN is required in the case of monitoring or reporting violations.
3.5 Lead and Copper Rule The lead and copper rule (LCR) promulgated by the USEPA in 1991, established action levels for lead and copper concentrations in potable water. The four basic requirements of this rule for water suppliers are (1) to optimize treatment to control corrosion in the distribution system and in customer’s plumbing, (2) determine concentrations of lead and copper at the taps of customers with lead service lines or lead solder in their plumbing, (3) rule out the source water as a source of significant lead levels, and (4) provide public education about lead if action levels are exceeded. The LCR requires PWS to monitor for lead and copper at the entry to their distribution system and at taps throughout the distribution system (the number of monitoring points is based on system size). The action level for lead is 0.015 mg/L and the action level for copper is 1.3 mg/L, both based on 90th percentile levels. If 90th percentile concentrations exceed these action levels, the utility must evaluate and implement one of the prescribed corrosion control treatment strategies, which include alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium hardness adjustment, and the addition of a phosphate or silicate based corrosion inhibitor.
In 2007, the USEPA promulgated seven short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications to the LCR, which targeted monitoring, treatment processes, public education, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement (USEPA, 2007). These minor revisions did not change the action levels, MCLG, or basic requirements of the LCR.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 10 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
3.6 Water Quality Criteria for Other Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring may be necessary for certain unregulated contaminants. Both the CDPH and the EPA maintain lists of unregulated contaminants that may be on the regulatory horizon. These lists are: (a) CDPH’s list of compounds with notification levels or archived notification levels and (b) EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) with the associated Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
3.6.1 CDPH Notification Levels and Archived Notification Levels CDPH has established health-based notification levels for certain chemicals associated with actual contamination of drinking water supplies. Contaminants with notification levels currently lack MCLs, but may be regulated in the future. If, after several years, an MCL is never adopted for a specific chemical, its notification level is then archived. Notification levels are advisory in nature and not legally enforceable standards. Nevertheless, if a contaminant is detected in a finished water above the NL then CDPH recommends consumer notification, and if the measured contaminant concentration exceeds the NL response level, then further action is recommended by CDPH.
3.6.2 Candidate Contaminant List (CCL) The EPA is mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to publish a list of candidate contaminants being considered for regulation every five years. This list is referred to as the Candidate Contaminant List (CCL). Candidates on this list are not currently regulated, but are either known or suspected to occur in PWSs. After being listed on a CCL, supporting data is evaluated to determine whether or not it is sufficient for regulatory determination. Data needs are evaluated in three categories—health effects, occurrence, and analytical methods. If insufficient occurrence data exists and regulation seems probable, candidates can be added to the list of constituents monitored under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
The EPA has published three CCLs, with the most recent published in September 2009. Monitoring for non-UCMR CCL constituents is not required. Many of the contaminants listed in the third CCL (CCL3) were monitored under the DWWSP sampling program.
3.6.3 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) The EPA uses the UCMR to collect occurrence data for contaminants known or suspected to exist in source waters and which pose a human health risk. Most of the contaminants on the UCMR list were initially on a CCL, and were selected due to a lack of occurrence data. The EPA can require PWS to monitor for as many as 30 contaminants under the UCMR, and the monitoring list is reevaluated every 5 years. Information gathered under the UCMR is used in establishing future contaminant MCLGs and MCLs. Contaminants from the first and second UCMR programs were included in the DWWSP monitoring program.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 11 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
4 WATER QUALITY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AT THE FUTURE INTAKE LOCATION
All raw water quality data collected as part of the year-long DWWSP monitoring program are included in Appendix A. A statistical summary of the inorganic contaminants and microbial parameters is provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 provides a summary of organic contaminants (most measurements were below detection). In both tables, ND means the constituent was “not detected” at or above its reporting limit (RL), and the number in parenthesis is the RL for that compound. Where applicable, MCLs and/or NLs are also provided in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, for comparison purposes.
Data from the “additional” split sampling described in Section 2 are also included in Appendix A, but are not summarized in tabular form in this section. Rather, the data are discussed in the pertinent sections.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 12 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.1 – Summary of Inorganic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Sacramento River at the ProposedSummary of Intake Inorganic Location Water Quality (RM 70.5),Parameters Aug Measured2009 – Dec in the 2010. Sacramento River * at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), August 2009 - December 2010
Parameter Reg List MCL/NL Maximum Minimum Average Median N INORGANIC PARAMETER - GENERAL WATER QUALITY:
Alkalinity, total (mg/L as CaCO3) -- -- 95 44 74 77 10 Ammonia (mg/L as N) -- -- 0.15 ND (0.1) 0.08 ND (0.1) 7 BromideA (mg/L) -- -- 0.027 0.011 0.019 -- 2 Calcium (mg/L) -- -- 19 14 17 17.5 4 Chloride (mg/L) sMCL 250 11.0 6.6 8.9 9.1 4 Color (color units) sMCL 15 10 <1 6 7.5 4 Dissolved Oxygen, Field Measurement (mg/L) -- -- 11.0 8.0 9.4 9.5 65 Fluoride (mg/L) pMCL 2 0.11 ND (0.1) 0.1 0.1 4 Foaming Agents (MBAS) (mg/L) sMCL 0.5 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 4
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) -- -- 95 65 85 89.5 4 Magnesium (mg/L) -- -- 11.0 7.3 9.8 10.5 4
Nitrate (mg/L as NO3) pMCL 45 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 4 Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L as N) pMCL 10 ND ND ND ND 4 Nitrite (mg/L as N) pMCL 1 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 4 Odor-Threshold sMCL 3 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 4 Organic Carbon, Dissolved (DOC) (mg/L) -- -- 4.5 1.3 3.1 3.1 10 Organic Carbon, Total (TOC) (mg/L) -- TT 6.3 1.1 3.0 2.9 69 Perchlorate (mg/L) pMCL 0.006 ND (0.004) B ND (0.004) B ND (0.004) B ND (0.004) B 4 pH, Field Measurement -- -- 7.83 6.05 6.90 7.18 66 pH, Lab Measurement -- -- 7.86 7.20 7.45 7.38 7 Phosphorus, Total (mg/L as P) -- -- 0.075 0.066 0.070 0.070 4 Potassium (mg/L) -- -- 2.2 1.1 1.5 1.35 4 Sodium (mg/L) -- -- 17 9.2 14.3 15.5 4 Specific Conductance, Field Measurement (µS/cm) sMCL 900 232.5 100.0 168.8 162.4 66 Specific Conductance, Lab Measurement (µS/cm) sMCL 900 230 170 210 220 4 Sulfate (mg/L) sMCL 250 15 6.4 10.5 10.2 4 Temperature, Field (°C) -- -- 23.4 7.5 15.2 15.6 68 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L) sMCL 500 150 110 133 135 4 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L) -- -- 130 ND (5) 27 19 69 Turbidity, Field Measurement (NTU) sMCL 5 195.1 6.5 26.1 15.6 65 Turbidity, Lab Measurement (NTU) sMCL 5 130.0 0.7 16.6 9.3 69 UV-254 (cm-1) -- -- 0.149 0.030 0.062 0.051 69
Updated 1-18-2011
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 13 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.1 (cont.) – Summary of Inorganic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Sacramento RiverSummary at the of InorganicProposed Water Intake Quality Location Parameters (RM Measured 70.5), Aug in the 2009 Sacramento – Dec 2010 River. * at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), August 2009 - December 2010
Parameter Reg List MCL/NL Maximum Minimum Average Median N INORGANIC PARAMETERS - HEAVY METALS: Aluminum, Total (mg/L)C pMCL/sMCL 1/0.2 2.40 0.27 0.85 0.59 10 Aluminum, Dissolved (mg/L)C -- -- 0.074 ND (0.027) 0.040 0.045 6 Antimony (mg/L) pMCL 0.006 ND(0.006) ND(0.006) ND(0.006) ND(0.006) 4 Arsenic (mg/L) pMCL 0.01 0.0029 0.0024 0.0027 0.0027 4 Asbestos (MFL) pMCL 7 <2.00 <0.40 -- -- 4 Barium (mg/L) pMCL 1 ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) 4 Beryllium (mg/L) pMCL 0.004 ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) 4 Cadmium (mg/L) pMCL 0.005 ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) 4 Chromium, Total (mg/L) pMCL 0.05 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 4 Chromium (VI) (mg/L) Future pMCL TBD ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) 4 Copper (mg/L) pMCL/sMCL 1.3/1.0 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 4 Cyanide (mg/L) pMCL 0.15 ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) 4 Iron, Total (mg/L)C sMCL 0.3 2.80 0.41 1.10 0.865 10 Iron, Dissolved (mg/L)C -- -- 0.093 ND (0.0068) 0.065 0.081 6 Lead (mg/L) pMCL 0.015 ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) 4 Manganese, Total (mg/L)C sMCL/NL 0.05/0.5 0.095 ND (0.01) 0.041 0.036 22 Manganese, Dissolved (mg/L)C -- -- 0.0088 ND (0.002) 0.0035 0.0024 9 Mercury (inorganic) (mg/L) pMCL 0.002 ND(0.001) ND(0.0002) ND ND 12 Nickel (mg/L) pMCL 0.1 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 4 Selenium (mg/L) pMCL 0.05 ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005) 4 Silver (mg/L) sMCL 0.10 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 4 Thallium (mg/L) pMCL 0.00 ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND (0.001) 4 Vanadium, Total (mg/L)C NL 0.05 0.0089 0.0039 0.0054 0.0050 10 Vanadium, Dissolved (mg/L)C -- -- 0.0047 ND (0.003) 0.0030 0.0031 6 Zinc (mg/L) sMCL 5.00 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 4 MICROBIAL PARAMETERS: Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL) pMCL TT 17,000 79 2,039 1,300 30 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 mL) -- -- 1,100 2 117 23 30 E. Coli (MPN/100 mL) pMCL TT 1,700 2 128 10 30 Giardia (cysts/L)D pMCL TT 0.737 0 0.110 0.000 17 Cryptosporidium (oocysts/L)D pMCL TT 0.273 0 0.021 0.000 17 Notes: When one or more values were less than the Reporting Limit (RL), the RL/2 was used in calculating the avg. concentration. ND(value) = Constituent was not detected above the analytical Reporting Limit. The value in parantheses is the RL. TT = Treatment Technique * Unless specifically stated, all data reported in this summary table are from samples analyzed by CLS Labs. A Analyzed by MWH Labs, which uses a lower detection limit. B The MDL for perchlorate is 0.98 ug/L, while the reporting limit is 4.0 ug/L. C Statistics include additional samples analyzed by MWH Labs. D Analyzed by BioVir Labs
Updated 1-18-2011
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 14 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.2 – Summary of Organic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Sacramento Summary of Organic Water Quality parameters Measured in the Sacramento River River at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 – Dec 2010. at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 - Dec 2010
Parameter MCL/NL Units Maximum Minimum Average A N Organic Contaminants with a primary or secondary MCL (excludes DBPs) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (Freon 113) 1.2 mg/L 6 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 0.006 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.0005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 3.00E-08 mg/L ND (1.04E-9) ND (2.39E-10) ND 4 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 mg/L ND (0.0002) ND (0.0002) ND 4 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.07 mg/L ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND 4 Alachlor 0.002 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Atrazine 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Bentazon 0.018 mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Benzene 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 Carbofuran 0.018 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Chlordane 0.0001 mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 6 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Dalapon 0.2 mg/L ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND 4 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.004 mg/L ND (0.003) ND (0.003) ND 4 Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 mg/L ND (0.00001) ND (0.00001) ND 4 Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Dinoseb 0.007 mg/L ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND 4 Diquat (dissolved) 0.02 mg/L ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND 4 Endothall 0.1 mg/L ND (0.045) ND (0.045) ND 4 Endrin 0.002 mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 6 Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 mg/L ND (0.00002) ND (0.00002) ND 4 Glyphosate 0.7 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Heptachlor 0.00001 mg/L ND (0.00001) ND (0.00001) ND 6 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.00001 mg/L ND (0.00001) ND (0.00001) ND 6 Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 6 Lindane 0.0002 mg/L ND (0.0002) ND (0.0002) ND 6 Methoxychlor 0.03 mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 6 Methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013/0.005 mg/L ND (0.003) ND (0.003) ND 6 Molinate 0.02 mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.0001) ND 12 Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Oxamyl 0.05 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Pentachlorophenol 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0002) ND (0.0002) ND 4 Picloram 0.5 mg/L ND (0.0006) ND (0.0006) ND 4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Simazine 0.004 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Styrene 0.1 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Thiobencarb 0.07/0.001 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 12 Toluene 0.15 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Total Xylenes 1.75 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Toxaphene 0.003 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.0005) ND 6 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4
Updated on 2-13-2011 Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 15 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.2 (continued) – Summary of Organic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the SacramentoSummary River ofat Organicthe Proposed Water Quality Intake parametersLocation (RM Measured 70.5), Augin the 2009 Sacramento – Dec 2010 River. at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 - Dec 2010
Parameter MCL/NL Units Maximum Minimum Average A N OrganicTrichlorofluoromethane Contaminants with (Freon a primary 11) or secondary0.15 MCLmg/L (excludes DBPs)ND (0.005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Disinfection By-Products Total Haloacetic acids (HAA5) 0.06 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA) mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Monobromoacetic acid (MBAA) mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 0.08 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Chloroform (CHCl3) mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Bromodichloromethane (CHBrCl2) mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Dibromochloromethane (CHBr2Cl) mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Bromoform (CHBr3) mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Bromate 0.01 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Chlorite 1 mg/L ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND 4 CDPH Notification Level (NL) Contaminants (excluding MCL contaminants) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) 5.00E-06 mg/L ND(5.0E-06) ND(5.0E-06) ND 2 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.33 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.33 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 1,4-Dioxane 0.003 mg/L ND (0.003) ND (0.003) ND 4 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 0.001 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 2-Chlorotoluene 0.14 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 4-Chlorotoluene 0.14 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Boron 1 mg/L ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND 4 Carbon disulfide 0.16 mg/L ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND 2 Chlorate 0.8 mg/L ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND 4 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 1 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Ethylene glycol 14 mg/L ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND 4 Formaldehyde 0.1 mg/L 0.019 ND (0.01) 0.009 4 HMX 0.35 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Isopropylbenzene 0.77 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) 0.12 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 6 Naphthalene 0.017 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 n-Butylbenzene 0.26 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 N-Nitrosodiethyamine (NDEA) 1.00E-05 mg/L ND (5.0E-06) ND (5.0E-06) ND 4 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) 1.00E-05 mg/L ND (2.0E-06) ND (2.0E-06) ND 4 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) 1.00E-05 mg/L ND (7.0E-06) ND (7.0E-06) ND 4 n-Propylbenzene 0.26 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Propachlor 0.09 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 RDX 0.0003 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 sec-Butylbenzene 0.26 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 tert-Butylbenzene 0.26 mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 6 Tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.012 mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 6 Vanadium 0.05 mg/L 0.0089 0.0039 0.0054 10 Additional unregulated contaminants and select pesticides with CDPH archived notification level (aNL) Aldicarb 0.007 mg/L ND (0.003) ND (0.003) ND 4 Baygon 0.03 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Captan 0.015 mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Carbaryl 0.7 mg/L ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND 4 Chloropicrin 0.05 mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Chlorpyrifos -- mg/L ND (5.0E-05) ND (5.0E-05) ND 6 Diazinon 0.0006 mg/L ND (5.0E-05) ND (5.0E-05) ND 6 Dimethoate 0.001 mg/L ND (0.0007) ND (0.0007) ND 4 Disulfoton -- mg/L ND (5.0E-05) ND (5.0E-05) ND 6 Diuron -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 5 Fenamiphos -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (5.0E-05) ND 3 Hexazinone -- mg/L ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND 4 Malathion 0.16 mg/L ND (5.0E-05) ND (5.0E-05) ND 6 Methyl bromide (bromomethane) -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Updated on 2-13-2011
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 16 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.2 (continued) – Summary of Organic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Summary of Organic Water Quality parameters Measured in the Sacramento River Sacramento Riverat at the the Proposed Proposed Intake Intake Location Location (RM (RM70.5), 70.5) Aug ,2009 Aug - 2009Dec 2010 – Dec 2010.
Parameter MCL/NL Units Maximum Minimum Average A N OrganicMethyl Contaminantsparathion with a primary or secondary0.002 MCLmg/L (excludesND DBPs) (5.0E-05) ND (5.0E-05) ND 6 Metribuzin -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 N-Methyl dithiocarbamate (Metam ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND Sodium) and Ziram 0.02 mg/L 4 Parathion (Ethyl Parathion) 0.04 mg/L ND (0.001) ND (5.0E-05) ND 3 Pentachloronitrobenzene 0.02 mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) -- mg/L ND(0.00001) ND(5.0E-06) ND 4 Permethrin -- mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): -- mg/L 4 Acenaphthene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Acenaphthylene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Anthracene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Benzo (a) anthracene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.0002 mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 Benzo (b) fluoranthene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Benzo (k) fluoranthene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Chrysene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Dibenz (a,h) anthracene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Fluoranthene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Fluorene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Naphthalene -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Phenanthrene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Pyrene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 Propanil -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 3 UCMR 1 (List 1 and 2 only) and UCMR 2 1,2-diphenylhydrazine -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 1,3-dinitrobenzene -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl (HBB) -- mg/L ND (0.0007) ND (0.0007) ND 4 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl ether mg/L ND (BDE-153) -- ND (0.0008) ND (0.0008) 4 2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether mg/L ND (BDE-99) -- ND (0.0009) ND (0.0009) 4 2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether mg/L ND (BDE-100) -- ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) 4 2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE- mg/L ND 47) -- ND (0.0003) ND (0.0003) 4 2,4,6-trichlorophenol -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 2,4-dichlorophenol -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 2,4-dinitrophenol -- mg/L ND (0.025) ND (0.025) ND 4 2,4-dinitrotoluene -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 2,6-dinitrotoluene -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 2-methylphenol -- mg/L ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND 4 4,4'-DDE -- mg/L ND(0.0001) ND(5.0E-05) ND 6 Acetochlor -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Acetochlor ethane sulfonic acid (ESA) -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Acetochlor oxanilic acid (OA) -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Alachlor ethane sulfonic acid(ESA) -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Alachlor oxanilic acid (OA) -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 DCPA di-acid degradgate -- mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 DCPA mono-acid degradate -- mg/L ND (0.0001) ND (0.0001) ND 4 EPTC -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Fonofos -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Linuron -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Metolachlor -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 5 Metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid(ESA) -- mg/L ND (0.001) ND (0.001) ND 4 Metolachlor oxanilic acid (OA) -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Nitrobenzene -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA) -- mg/L ND (4.0E-06) ND (4.0E-06) ND 4 N-nitroso-methylethylamine (NMEA) -- mg/L ND (3.0E-06) ND (3.0E-06) ND 4
Updated on 2-13-2011
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 17 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.2 (continued) – Summary of Organic Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Summary of Organic Water Quality parameters Measured in the Sacramento River Sacramento River at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 – Dec 2010. at the Proposed Intake Location (RM 70.5), Aug 2009 - Dec 2010
Parameter MCL/NL Units Maximum Minimum Average A N OrganicN-nitroso-pyrrolidine Contaminants (NPYR) with a primary or secondary-- MCLmg/L (excludesND DBPs) (2.0E-06) ND (2.0E-06) ND 4 Prometon -- mg/L ND (0.0002) ND (0.0002) ND 4 Terbacil -- mg/L ND (0.002) ND (0.002) ND 4 Terbufos -- mg/L ND (0.0005) ND (0.0005) ND 4 Terbufos sulfone -- mg/L ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND 4 Additional Unregulated Pesticides Acrolein -- µg/L ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND 2 Chlorothalonil -- µg/L ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND 6 Oxyfluorfen -- µg/L ND(1.0) ND(1.0) ND 2 Trifluralin -- µg/L ND(0.1) ND(0.01) ND 2 A When some values were ND and some were above the MRL, the MRL/2 was used in calculating the average.
Detected concentrations of all these compounds in relation to MCLs and NLs are discussed briefly below. A more detailed discussion of these water quality constituents, as they relate to water treatment, is provided in Section 6 of this TM.
4.1 General Water Quality Parameters Turbidity measured in the field at the site of the future DWWSP intake ranged from 6.5 NTU to 195.1 NTU, with a median turbidity of 15.6 NTU. Raw water turbidity seemed to be consistently less than 50 NTU, with occasional seasonal and/or storm-related turbidity spikes.
Color was less than its MCL of 15 color units in all four quarterly samples. The maximum measurement was 10 color units and the minimum was <1 color unit. Color causing natural organics in the water should be effectively removed through treatment, during the coagulation process.
Ammonia was measured seven times and concentrations ranged from <0.1 mg/L to 0.15 mg/L, with an average concentration of 0.08 mg/L. The first three quarterly samples had unexpectedly high ammonia concentrations between 0.11 mg/L and 0.15 mg/L, while the remaining samples—one in May and three in December—all had concentrations below the RL of 0.1 mg/L. There is no MCL for ammonia, but it does exert a chlorine demand during disinfection. The only known upstream sources of ammonia would be municipal wastewater dischargers, but these facilities are well upstream of the proposed intake location. Additional samples were collected in December and split between CLS Labs and MWH Labs to determine whether the detectable levels of ammonia were real or whether they could have been the result of analytical interferences. Both labs reported that ammonia was not detected.
Bromide was not detected in any of the quarterly samples, with a RL of 0.1 mg/L. Bromide is a treatment issue, even at very low concentrations, because the disinfection byproduct bromate can form during ozonation. The MCL for bromate is 0.01 mg/L. Although bromide concentrations were always below detection, additional water samples were collected and analyzed using an instrument with a lower detection limit.
Updated on 2-13-2011 Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 18 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Concentrations measured in these additional samples were 0.027 mg/L in November, 0.011 mg/L in December, and 0.023 mg/L in January. Hence, bromide concentrations in this source water are low, so bromate formation in conjunction with ozonation should not be a treatment issue.
Fluoride concentrations ranged from < 0.1 mg/L to 0.11 mg/L, well below the primary MCL of 2 mg/L. These concentrations are quite low and it is expected that the cities will be considering whether fluoride will be added to the finished water. Many utilities add fluoride to treated water at doses of approximately 1.0 mg/L to reduce dental decay (Crittenden et al. 2005).
Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations ranged from 1.1 mg/L to 6.3 mg/L, with an average concentration of 2.9 mg/L. As per the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule, a conventional filtration system with an average source water TOC concentration greater than 2.0 mg/L must practice enhanced coagulation, or satisfy one of the alternative compliance criteria included in the Rule, to minimize DBP formation.
4.2 Inorganic Contaminants Iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al) were the only inorganic constituents measured above their respective MCLs. The secondary MCL (sMCL) for iron is 0.3 mg/L, and total iron was measured at concentrations between 0.41 and 2.80 mg/L. The sMCL for manganese is 0.05 mg/L, and concentrations were measured above this level several times with a maximum measured concentration of 0.095 mg/L. In California, the primary MCL (pMCL) for aluminum is 1 mg/L, and concentrations as high as 2.40 mg/L were measured. Total aluminum concentration exceeded the pMCL on only one date, but all other measured concentrations were above the sMCL of 0.2 mg/L. All total aluminum samples were not filtered, so the aluminum was likely aluminum oxide as found in clays and sediments, and should be readily removed through conventional treatment.
Samples were collected late in the monitoring program to determine the dissolved versus particulate fractions of the Fe, Mn, and Al. For all three metals, the dissolved fraction was only a small fraction of the total concentration. Dissolved iron concentrations ranged from <0.0068 to 0.093 mg/L, or 0% to 9% of the total concentration; dissolved manganese concentrations ranged from <0.002 to 0.0088 mg/L, or 0% to 13% of the total; and dissolved aluminum concentrations ranged from <0.027 to 0.074 mg/L, or 0% to 8% of the total. In particulate form, these metals should be easily removed through conventional treatment. The high dissolved oxygen levels measured in the river should ensure very low levels of dissolved iron because iron is readily oxidized by oxygen at the pH of most natural waters. In fact, the measured dissolved iron concentrations may actually have been colloidal particles, which were able to pass through the 0.45 µm filter, rather than being truly in the reduced, or soluble, state. Dissolved manganese (Mn2+ of Mn(II)), on the other hand, can be difficult to oxidize and remove, which can lead to staining and discolored water if not effectively removed during treatment. The rate of manganese oxidation is pH dependent and is
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 19 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 very low below a pH of about 9 (Crittenden et al. 2005). In comparison with iron oxidation, Mn(II) oxidation requires a longer reaction time, stronger oxidant, higher pH, or an autocatalytic process such as occurs in a greensand filter for effective removal. Dissolved and colloidal manganese is of particular concern in association with membrane filtration or reverse osmosis treatment as it can permanently foul the membranes.
Arsenic, fluoride and vanadium were the only inorganic constituents measured at concentrations below their regulatory limit but above their RL. All measured arsenic levels were well below the MCL of 0.01 mg/L; the highest measured concentration was 0.0029 mg/L. Fluoride concentrations were all well below the MCL of 2 mg/L, with the highest measured concentration being 0.11 mg/L. As mentioned, natural fluoride concentrations are low and the Cities will be considering whether or not to add fluoride to the finished water for prevention of dental decay. Vanadium was measured above its analytical RL, but all measured concentrations were well below the NL of 0.05 mg/L, with the highest measured concentration being 0.0089 mg/L (measured by MWH Labs). Unlike iron and aluminum, a large percentage of the total vanadium concentration was in the dissolved form. Dissolved vanadium concentrations ranged from 35% to 94% of the total vanadium concentration. There is currently no MCL for vanadium.
4.3 Microbial Parameters Cryptosporidium oocyst concentrations, measured monthly between August 2009 and December 2010, ranged from “not detected” to 0.273 oocysts/L, with an average concentration of 0.021 oocysts/L (Aug 2009 - Dec 2010). The LT2ESWTR states that PWSs that collect between 24 and 47 samples during a 2-year period, should determine Bin placement from the highest average concentration for any 12 consecutive months during the 2-year monitoring period (i.e., Running Annual Average). While 24 months of data have not yet been collected, the maximum 12-month average is 0.030 oocysts/L. So, in relation to the LT2ESWTR, this source water will likely fall into Bin 1, and only 2-log Cryptosporidium removal will be required for the future water treatment facility.
Giardia concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.737 cysts/L, with an average concentration of 0.111 cysts/L between August 2009 and December 2010.
The average total coliform concentration was 2,039 MPN/100 mL, with counts ranging from 79 to 17,000 MPN/100 mL. Fecal coliform counts ranged from 2 to 1,100 MPN/100 mL, and E. coli counts ranged from 2 to 1,700 MPN/100 mL. The average microbial concentrations were skewed by one unusually contaminated sample, collected in December 2010. The sample with the second highest concentrations had microbial counts roughly five times less than the counts measured in the peak December 2010 sample. As discussed in the Proposed RTCR (U.S. EPA 2010), while total coliform bacteria are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, they are also found in soil, aquatic environments and elsewhere, and their presence does not necessarily imply fecal contamination. Fecal coliform bacteria are a subgroup of the total coliform
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 20 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 bacteria. While fecal coliform bacteria have traditionally been associated with fecal contamination, the test used to measure these bacteria often includes bacteria that do not originate in the human or mammal gut ((Edberg et al. 2000) as referenced in (U.S. EPA 2010)). E. coli are a subset of the fecal coliforms. E. coli bacteria almost always originate in the human or mammal gut, and thus are a better indicator of fecal contamination than the fecal coliforms. The average total coliform/fecal coliform and total coliform/E. coli ratios measured for this water are 2,589 and 2,612, respectively. These high ratios suggest most of the coliforms are not of fecal origin. The proposed RTCR will establish an MCLG and MCL of zero for E. coli. At the present time, there are no State or Federal treatment regulations based on source water coliform or E. coli concentrations.
To satisfy compliance requirements of the LT2ESWTR, these microbiological constituents will continue to be measured through July 2011.
The measured concentrations of microbial contaminants in relation to drinking water regulations and treatment are discussed further in Section 6.4 of this report.
4.4 Organic Contaminants Of the 170 organic contaminants sampled during the DWWSP monitoring program, all were below their respective regulatory limit and only one was measured above its analytical RL. This includes all pesticides and other SOCs addressed in the drinking water regulations. In one quarterly sample, formaldehyde was measured at a concentration of 0.019 mg/L, above its analytical RL of 0.01 mg/L, but well below its notification level of 0.1 mg/L.
Trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) measured in the raw water were less than the detection limit in each quarterly sample. However, when chlorine was added to the raw water to measure the DBP formation potential, the total THM (TTHM) concentration and HAA5 concentration was measured above regulatory limits. HAA5 formation potentials ranged from 0.109 mg/L to 0.304 mg/L, and TTHM formation potentials ranged from 0.104 mg/L to 0.232 mg/L. While these numbers are not representative of DBP formation in treated water, they are well above the MCL of 0.06 mg/L for HAA5 and 0.08 mg/L for TTHMs. DBPs form through the reaction of an oxidant—in this case chlorine—with naturally occurring organic material (NOM). TOC is a measure of the NOM in the water. TOC concentrations corresponding to these DBP formation potentials (e.g., same sample collection date) ranged from 1.4 mg/L to 4.7 mg/L. TOC reduction in the new treatment facility will be required to control DBP formation.
4.5 Radionuclides Radionuclides were all measured below their MCL. While below the MCLs, radium-228 and uranium were each measured above the analytical RL in one of four quarterly samples.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 21 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
4.6 PPCPs and EDCs In recent years, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have received attention from the scientific community, the water treatment industry and the media. The presence of these compounds is not a new phenomenon, but advances in analytical chemistry have enabled detection of these compounds at ultra-low levels. The new analytical abilities have resulted in detections of these chemicals in surface waters throughout the world.
Municipal wastewater is the primary source of PPCPs and EDCs in surface waters. Currently, the majority of these compounds are not regulated. Compared to many surface waters in the US, the Sacramento River receives a small contribution from wastewater discharges upstream of the proposed WTF intake. Considering seasonal flow variation, the Sacramento River contains between 0.2%-2.3% water that is of wastewater origin. The concentrations of wastewater-derived compounds in the river are initially diluted and then, for many compounds, reduced through natural processes of photolysis and biological degradation.
In considering the need for PPCP/EDC removal in the design of the future WTF, DWWSP initiated quarterly sampling and analysis for 86 PPCPs and EDCs. Quarterly samples have been collected three times, and a total of 15 contaminants have been detected. Measured concentrations are shown in Table 4.3 below. All PPCPs/EDCs were measured at concentrations well below 1 µg/L, in these three sampling events. The compound detected at the highest concentration was the artificial sweetener, acesulfame-K, at 200 ng/L. The second highest concentrations were measured for the artificial sweetener, sucralose, at 110 ng/L, and iohexal, an x-ray contrast agent, also at 110 ng/L. Several of the detected compounds, such as sucralose and iohexal, are known to be recalcitrant compounds, and poorly biodegraded through wastewater treatment or in the environment. Most of the PPCPs/EDCs are currently unregulated. 2,4-D, however, which has a pMCL of 70 µg/L, was detected at a very low concentration of 17 ng/L (0.017 µg/L). It should also be noted that none of the PPCPs/EDCs sampled were consistently present, that is, none were found in all three samples.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 22 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.3 – PPCPs/EDCs Pharmaceuticalsdetected in the and Sacramento Personal Care River Products at the (PPCPs)DWWSP monitoring site (RM 70.5). Detected in Sacramento River Water Samples Collected from RM 70.5 *
July-10 October-10 January-11 Compound Usage Concentration Concentration Concentration (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)
2,4-D Herbicide ND 17 ND
Acesulfame-K Artificial Sweetner ND 200 ND
Acetaminophen Analgesic ND ND 27 **
Butalbital Prescription Analgesic-NSAID ND ND 6.5
DACT Pesticide-Triazine Degradate ND ND 8.4 **
DEET Mosquito Repellant ND 2.5 ** ND
Dehydronifedipine Heart Medication 22 ND ND
Estradiol Hormone 5.1 ND ND
Furosimide Diuretic 36 ND ND
Iohexal X-ray Contrast Agent 12 110 ND
Meclofenamic Acid Anti-Inflammatory 7.9 ND ND
Sucralose Artifical Sweetner ND 110 ND
TDCPP Flame Retardant ND ND 7.5 **
Theobromine Caffine Degradate ND 38 19
Triclosan Antibacterial 14 ND ND * Samples were analyzed for 86 PPCPs. Only those compounds detected at concentrations above the Method Reporting Limit (MRL) are included in this table. The complete list of all PPCPs analyzed is shown in Attachment 1. ** Possible contamination. Contaminant was also present in the field blank. ND =Not Detected
5 HISTORICAL SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Water samples have been collected from the Sacramento River by agencies other than WDCWA for many years. The sampling sites considered most applicable to the water quality at the proposed intake location are described below. These sites, as well as the DWWSP site, are all located on the section of the Sacramento River that is downstream of the Feather River and upstream of the American River. The relative locations of these monitoring sites are shown in Figure 5.1.
1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Site Number 11425500 at Verona – RM 78.0. This site is located at River Mile (RM) 78.0, which is 7.5 miles upstream of the proposed DWWSP intake location at RM 70.5 and 1.5 miles downstream of the confluence of the Feather River and the Sacramento River. The monitoring site is located on the left bank of the river, facing downstream. Stream flow data have been collected at this site since 1929, and limited water quality data were collected in 1952, 1969-1970, 1996-1998, and 2008.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 23 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
2. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Site at Verona – RM 78.4. This site is located at RM 78.4, just downstream of the USGS Verona site. Water quality data were collected at the site between August 2000 and August 2010. Sample collection at this site was also from the left bank of the river, facing downstream.
3. Sacramento Coordinated Monitoring Program (CMP) – RM 70.5.! The Sacramento Coordinated Monitoring Program (CMP) is a joint effort of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership. The program was implemented in 1991. The partnering agencies collect river water samples each year from the Sacramento River and the American River, which are analyzed for a wide variety of constituents. One of their Sacramento River sampling sites is located at the Veterans Bridge (RM 70.5), approximately the same location as the DWWSP monitoring site. Between 6 and 12 samples are collected each year from this site. Samples are a composite of the horizontal cross- section of the river and three depths. This is the only sample program in the vicinity of the proposed intake which attempts to assess the entire river cross-section.
4. Intake to the City of West Sacramento’s Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant (BBWTP) – RM 62.4. This site is located 8.1 miles downstream of the DWWSP sampling site, at RM 62.4. The City of West Sacramento has kindly allowed the consultant team to use data from the BBWTP as a point of comparison with DWWSP’s one year of water quality data, and to provide a longer-term assessment of water quality trends and fluctuations on the Sacramento River. The intake structure for this WTP is located on the right bank of the river, facing downstream. Only select raw water quality data were requested from the BBWTP.
5. The California Department of Water Resources’ Municipal Water Quality Investigations (MWQI) Program Site Near the Intake to the BBWTP – RM 62.4. The MWQI Program (formerly the Interagency Delta Health Aspects Monitoring Program) was formed in 1982 to monitor and assess drinking water quality of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. MWQI Station Number A0210451 is located in the Sacramento River at the West Sacramento Intake Structure (RM 62.4, right bank facing downstream). Roughly 28 water quality parameters—general water quality indicators, microbial indicators, metals, etc.—have been monitored monthly at this site since 1982.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 24 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Water quality monitoring sites upstream of the Feather River and downstream of the American River are not included in this summary of historical water quality because it is assumed the water quality would not be representative of the water at the DWWSP intake due to the influence of these other major rivers. Turbidity and TSS, however, have been evaluated at three sites downstream of the American River—Sacramento River water treatment plant (SRWTP), USGS-Sacramento site, and USGS-Freeport site—in order to ascertain peak concentrations for a longer period of record.
A statistical summary of water quality at the DWWSP site, in comparison with water quality at the other sites, is provided in Table 5.1. Turbidity and TSS concentrations downstream of the American River are summarized and discussed separately, however.
Figure 5.1 – Water Quality Monitoring Locations, and Confluence of the Feather River and American River with the Sacramento River.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 25 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 5.1 – Comparison of Water Quality at the DWWSP Site with Long-Term Water Quality Data from the Other Monitoring Locations.
DWWSP Sac CMP BBWTP MWQI DWR USGS-Verona at RM 70.5 at RM 70.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 78.0 at RM 78.0 Parameter Statistic (8/09 - 12/10) (8/05-6/09) (1/04 - 7/10) (1/04 - 7/10) (11/03-8/10) (2/08-8/10) Max 95 103 99 70 Min 44 25 32 41 Alkalinity Median 77 65 66 53 Average 74 65 67 54 (mg/L as CaCO ) 3 N 10 79 92 30 Quarterly Sampling Freq. (+some monthly) No Data Monthly Monthly quarterly No Data Max 0.027 0.5 Min 0.011 < 0.01 Bromide A Median -- 0.01 (mg/L) Average 0.019 0.016 N 2 92 Sampling Freq. Special Sampling No Data No Data Monthly No Data No Data Max 19 68 19 16 Min 14 12.5 7 9 Calcium B,E Median 17.5 14.3 13 12 (mg/L) Average 17 27.1 13 12 N 4 4 79 33 Sampling Freq. Quarterly No Data 1 - 2 times/yr Monthly quarterly No Data Max 11 8.5 11 9 Min 7.3 6.8 3 4 Magnesium B Median 10.5 7.2 7 6 (mg/L) Average 9.8 7.4 7 6 N 4 4 79 33 Sampling Freq. Quarterly No Data 1 - 2 times/yr Monthly quarterly No Data Max 95 120 75 93 77 Min 65 48 58 30 36 B Total Hardness Median 89.5 66 60.1 61 55
(mg/L as CaCO3) Average 84.8 68.8 63.3 62 55 N 4 27 4 79 38 Sampling Freq. Quarterly 6 - 9 times/yr 1 - 2 times/yr Monthly quarterly No Data Max 232.5 240 195 240 230.1 208 Min 100.0 58 138 76 88.0 81 Conductivity, Field Median 162.4 170 159 163 127.6 129 Measurement Average 168.8 170 163 164 133.0 136 N 66 28 4 92 38 792 (µS/cm) Daily (avg of max daily and Sampling Freq. Weekly 6 - 9 times/yr 1 - 2 times/yr Monthly quarterly min daily) Max 150 170 126 147 135 Total Dissolved Min 110 63 76 52 55 Solids Median 135 120 104 97 79 Average 132.5 123 103 98 85 (mg/L) N 4 26 4 79 38 Sampling Freq. Quarterly 6 - 9 times/yr 1 - 2 times/yr Monthly quarterly No Data Max 130 150 44 Total Suspended Min < 5 5 2 Solids Median 19 17 17 Average 27 24 17 (mg/L) N 69 27 38 Sampling Freq. Weekly 6 - 9 times/yr No Data No Data quarterly No Data Max 195.1 200 580 212 73.4 310 Min 6.5 4.9 0.7 3.8 3.4 5.1 Turbidity, field Median 15.6 12.5 16.0 14.8 12.8 16.0 meas. C Average 26.1 25.4 26.3 27.8 20.8 23.7 (NTU or FNU) N 65 28 3,041 89 21 832 Peak Daily Daily Max Sampling Freq. Weekly 6 - 9 times/yr ('01-'10) Monthly quarterly (3/08-1/11)
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 26 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 5.1 (Continued) – Comparison of Water Quality at the DWWSP Site with Long-Term Water Quality Data from the Other Monitoring Locations.
DWWSP Sac CMP BBWTP MWQI DWR USGS-Verona at RM 70.5 at RM 70.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 78.0 at RM 78.0 Parameter Statistic (8/09 - 12/10) (8/05-6/09) (1/04 - 7/10) (1/04 - 7/10) (11/03-8/10) (2/08-8/10) Max 6.3 7.3 4.8 6.2 7.3 Total Organic Min 1.1 0.52 1.1 0.8 1.4 AlkalinityCarbon Median 2.9 3.3 2.3 2 2.4 Average 3 3.4 2.3 2.2 3.6 (mg/L(mg/L) as CaCO ) 3 N 69 24 80 92 7 Sampling Freq. Weekly 5 - 7 times/yr Monthly Monthly quarterly No Data Max 0.149 0.300 0.628 Min 0.030 0.026 0.029 UV-254 Median 0.051 0.064 0.047 (cm-1) Average 0.062 0.080 0.066 N 69 27 92 Sampling Freq. Weekly 6 - 9 times/yr No Data Monthly No Data No Data Max 11.0 17.0 12.6 13.10 Min 8.0 8.4 5.2 5.36 Dissolved Oxygen Median 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.20 (mg/L) Average 9.4 11.1 9.1 9.24 N 65 27 88 38 Sampling Freq. Weekly 6 - 9 times/yr No Data Monthly quarterly No Data Max 2.80 2.070 0.68 2.54 Min 0.41 0.00016 0.036 0.067 Iron, total Median 0.87 0.790 0.325 0.365 Average 1.10 0.929 0.357 0.590 (mg/L) N 10 16 14 27 Quarterly 1 - 6 times/mo Sampling Freq. (+some weekly) 3 - 6 times/yr ('05-'09) No Data quarterly No Data Max 0.093 0.0875 0.516 Min <0.0068 0.00013 0.0013 Iron, dissolved Median 0.081 0.040 0.024 (mg/L) Average 0.065 0.044 0.083 N 6 15 24 Sampling Freq. Special Sampling 3 - 6 times/yr No Data No Data quarterly No Data Max 0.095 0.170 0.100 Min <0.01 0.002 0.0081 Manganese, total Median 0.036 0.030 0.0282 Average 0.041 0.038 0.0357 (mg/L) N 22 73 27 Monthly (+some 2 - 9 times/mo Sampling Freq. weekly) No Data ('08-'09) No Data quarterly No Data Max 0.088 0.0596 Min <0.002 0.00013 Manganese, Median 0.0024 0.00085 Average 0.0035 0.00425 dissolved N 9 27 (mg/L) Monthly + some weekly (added Sampling Freq. 9/2010) No Data No Data No Data quarterly No Data Max 7.83 8.1 7.90 8.50 8.2 Min 6.05 6.7 6.60 6.90 6.1 pH, field meas. Median 7.18 7.7 7.30 7.70 7.6 Average 6.90 7.5 7.24 7.60 6.9 N 66 28 28 89 30 Sampling Freq. Weekly 3 - 6 times/yr No Data Monthly quarterly No Data Max 23.4 22.6 24.9 73.4 25.8 Min 7.5 7.1 8.1 3.4 6.4 Temperature, field Median 15.6 12.0 16.3 12.8 16.4 meas. Average 15.2 13.3 16.1 20.8 16.4 (°C) N 68 28 89 21 1761 Daily Max and Sampling Freq. Weekly 3 - 6 times/yr No Data Monthly quarterly Daily Min
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 27 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 5.1 (Continued) – Comparison of Water Quality at the DWWSP Site with Long-Term Water Quality Data from the Other Monitoring Locations.
DWWSP Sac CMP BBWTP MWQI DWR USGS-Verona at RM 70.5 at RM 70.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 62.5 at RM 78.0 at RM 78.0 Parameter Statistic (8/09 - 12/10) (8/05-6/09) (1/04 - 7/10) (1/04 - 7/10) (11/03-8/10) (2/08-8/10) Max 0.273 0.095 Min 0 0 CryptosporidiumAlkalinity Median 0 0 Average 0.021 0.007 (oocysts/L) (mg/L as CaCO3) N 17 28 Monthly ('08- Sampling Freq. Monthly No Data '10) No Data No Data No Data Max 17,000 11,000 12,303 Min 79 27 1 Total Coliform Median 1,300 500 1,120 Average 2,039 1,448 1,316 (MPN/100 mL) N 30 27 341 Monthly (+some Sampling Freq. weekly) 3 - 6 times/yr Weekly No Data No Data No Data
A For DWWSP, statistics for bromide were based on detection limit rather than reporting limit. All measurements were "not detected". MDL=0.012 mg/L; RL=0.1 mg/L B MWQI data is "dissolved" rather than "total" for this parameter. C USGS turbidity measurements are reported in units of "Formazine Nephelometric Units". The USGS states that "FNU data often are not directly comparable to NTU data." Statistics for USGS turbidity data is based on median daily turbidity values. D Historical turbidity data is summarized and discussed separately because longer periods of record exist for this parameter. E The maximum calcium value reported for BBWTP is likely erroneous, and skewed the average concentration. It was unusually high compared to other years at the same site. Also, Ca plus Mg (mg/L as CaCO3) should be approximately equal to the hardness, but was not for the year with the maximum Ca concentration of 68 mg/L.
6 WATER QUALITY TRENDS FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS IN RELATION TO TREATMENT
6.1 General Water Quality Parameters
6.1.1 Temperature Temperature has been measured in the river for many years. Figure 6.1 provides a comparison of the temperature measured at the DWWSP site with temperatures measured upstream (USGS site) and temperatures measured downstream (MWQI site). The USGS data were collected every 15 minutes, and Figure 6.1 shows the maximum daily temperatures and the minimum daily temperatures. This figure includes data collected between 2004 and 2010. Each year, the peak temperatures ranged between 23°C and 26°C and the low temperatures ranged between 7°C and 9°C.
Temperature data at the DWWSP site (January 2009 – December 2010) in comparison with upstream and downstream data is shown in Figure 6.2. For the USGS data, the average of the daily maximum and daily minimum temperature is shown rather than the individual maximum and minimum points. Temperature at all three sites tracked each other, with no obvious differences.
Diurnal, as well as seasonal, temperature fluctuations are important in a treatment facility design because they affect hydraulics through the basins as well as chemical reaction kinetics. For example, diurnal fluctuations can cause density currents and
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 28 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 short-circuiting through conventional sedimentation basins and chemical reaction rates decrease in relation to decreasing water temperature. Thus, disinfection is less effective in colder water than warmer water, and either a longer contact time or a higher disinfectant dose is necessary to achieve the required disinfection credit. Based on the USGS maximum day temperature and minimum day temperature, the average temperature change over a day was 1.5°C, with the smallest change being 0.1°C and the largest change being 3.5°C. 30 MWQI USGS-Verona, Max USGS-Verona, Min Sac CMP DWWSP 25
20
15
Temperature (C) Temperature 10
5
0 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Aug-08 Jul-09 Jul-10 Date Figure 6.1 – Comparison of Seasonal Temperature Fluctuations in the Sacramento River at the USGS-Verona Site (RM 78.0), DWWSP and CMP Sites (RM 70.5) and MWQI Site (RM 62.4) Between 2004 and 2010.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 29 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
25
20
15
10 Temperature (C) Temperature
5 USGS-Verona Avg of Max, Min DWWSP MWQI 0 Nov-08 May-09 Nov-09 May-10 Oct-10 Date Figure 6.2 – Comparison of Seasonal Temperature Fluctuations in the Sacramento River at the USGS-Verona Sites (RM 78.0), DWWSP Site (RM 70.5), and MWQI Site (RM 62.4) Between 2009 and 2010.
6.1.2 Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity TSS and turbidity are both measures of particulate matter in the water, but TSS is a measure of the mass of solids suspended in the water and turbidity is a measure of light scattering due to particles in the water (cloudiness). TSS and turbidity fluctuate throughout the year, and these fluctuations tend to correlate well with rainfall and stream flow. As illustrated in Figure 6.3, flow rates in the Sacramento River were highest during the winter months, and the higher stream flow rates correlated with increased rainfall. Figure 6.4 shows that turbidity spikes correlated with peaks in flow rates.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 30 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 Sacramento River at USGS Verona CA Site Average Daily Flow & Daily Rainfall at Sac Inter Airport 5 70000 Rainfall at Sac Inter Airport Average Daily Flow at USGS-Verona (cfs) 60000 4
50000
3 40000
30000 (cfs) Flow 2 Daily Rainfall (in) (in) DailyRainfall 20000
1 10000
0 0 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Date Figure 6.3 – Average Daily Stream Flow at the USGS Verona Site in Relation to Daily Rainfall at the SacramentoSacramento International River Airport.Turbidity at USGS Verona CA Site Comparison of Daily Max and Median Turbidity with Average Daily Streamflow at the USGS Verona Monitoring Site 350 70000 Turbidity - Median Turbidity - Max 300 Daily Flow (cfs) 60000 One unusually high Max Turbidity of 1310 FNU on 8/16/2010 was excluded from plot. 250 50000
200 40000
150 30000 Flow (cfs) Flow Turbidity (FNU) Turbidity
100 20000
50 10000
0 0 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Date
Figure 6.4 – Relationship Between Turbidity and Average Daily Stream Flow at the USGS- Verona Site.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 31 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
A comparison of turbidity at four sites—the upstream USGS site (median and maximum turbidities), the DWWSP site, and the downstream BBWTP and MWQI sites—over roughly the same time period between 2009 and 2010 is provided in Figure 6.5. Turbidity levels at all four sites track each other, with peaks occurring in February 2009 and January 2010. Generally, the turbidity was less than roughly 30 NTU. When the peaks occurred, however, the turbidity spiked to 300 NTU or higher; the two highest turbidities were measured at the BBWTP, and were 425 NTU and 567 NTU. Sustained periods of elevated turbidity (>30 NTU) lasted between one and two months. From an operational point of view, the treatment facility must be capable of providing effective treatment and solids handling capabilities of turbid water for extended periods of time.
When comparing data from these different sites, it should be noted that the USGS measured turbidity in Formazine Nephelometric Units (FNU) rather than Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) at its Verona monitoring site. Both Standard Methods (Eaton et al. 2005) and USEPA (O'Dell August 1993) analytical methods recommend measuring turbidity in NTU. In brief, both analytical methods measure light scatter caused by particulate matter in the water, but NTUs are measured with a white light and FNUs are measured with an infrared light. The USGS has indicated that turbidity in FNU is often not directly comparable to turbidity in NTU (USGS 2005). Nevertheless, as indicated by the data in Figure 6.5, the USGS data appear comparable to the other turbidity data sets. Turbidity of the Sacramento River Near the Proposed DWWSP Intake (RM 70.5) Dec '08 - Dec '10 600 USGS-Verona Max Turbidity (FNU) USGS-Verona Median Turbidity (FNU) BBWTP-Peak Turbidity (NTU) 500 DWWSP Field Turbidity (NTU) DWR/MWQI Field Turbidity (NTU) One high USGS Max Turbidity of 1310 FNU on 400 8/16/2010 was excluded
300
200 Turbidity (NTU or FNU)(NTUor Turbidity
100
0 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-10 Jun-10 Sep-10 Dec-10 Date Figure 6.5 – Comparison of Turbidity at the DWWSP Site with Turbidity at the USGS and BBWTP Sites (Jan 2009 – Dec 2010). The intent of Figure 6.3, Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5 was to show that (a) peaks in stream flow correlate with rainfall events, (b) peaks in turbidity correlate with peaks in stream
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 32 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 flow, and (c) data points upstream and downstream of the DWWSP site (on the stretch of river between the Feather River and American River) track each other, with peaks and duration of elevated turbidity being the same. This is important because in order to properly evaluate solids loading at the new treatment facility, a much longer period of record should be evaluated. Knowing that the turbidity at the DWWSP site correlates with turbidity at the USGS-Verona site and BBWTP intake allows evaluation of average and maximum turbidity at these alternate sites for a longer period of record. In order to effectively assess solids loading potential on the new treatment facility, the longest period of record of turbidity and suspended solids should be examined for peaks and duration of “high” concentrations. In addition, because turbidity is an instantaneous measurement while TSS requires one or more days of laboratory time for analysis, the correlation between turbidity and TSS is important.
A tremendous amount of historical turbidity and TSS data were reviewed. A summary of the data sources and periods of record—both upstream and downstream of the DWWSP monitoring site—are summarized in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. All USGS and DWR data were retrieved from their on-line data libraries. Personnel at BBWTP and Sacramento River WTP (SRWTP) very generously shared several years of raw water turbidity data, which were gathered as part of their regular operations. The data provided by BBWTP and SRWTP was that which was readily available electronically. Additional data were also available from log books, and all that could be retrieved were digitized to aid in this assessment of historical trends.
Table 6.1 – Turbidity data sources and periods of record for monitoring stations upstream and downstream of the DWWSP site
Daily Turbidity (NTU or FNU) DWR DWR DWR USGS DWWSP BBWTP DWR Sac River USGS USGS Upstream of Feather Verona Verona (MWQI) WTP Sacramento Freeport Feather River West Sac River WTP Intake
Max -- 46.8 73.4 310 195.1 580 245 675 320 280
Min -- 2.8 3.4 5.1 6.5 0.7 3.8 0.62 2 1
Avg -- 13.7 20.8 23.7 26.1 26.3 29.8 17.8 47.2 21.0
Median -- 5.4 12.8 16 15.6 16.0 17.1 9.4 14.5 11
N -- 21 21 832 65 3,041 238 27,887 466 599 (1/88-10/88; 4/89-10/89; 5/96-1/11 All periods have gaps Period of Record (no data) (8/05-8/10) (8/05-8/10) (3/08-1/11) (8/09-12/10) 6/92-1/11) (4/94-6/10) in data.) (10/77-9/79) (11/77-9/95)
Some monthly Turbidity average Notes measured in turbidity data FNU available back to 1970.
Upstream of ! ! ! ! ! ! DWWSP ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Downstream DWWSP of DWWSP
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 33 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 6.2 – Suspended solids data sources and periods of record for monitoring stations upstream and downstream of the DWWSP site.
TSS (mg/L) *
DWR Upstream of DWR DWR/MWQI Feather Feather DWR USGS West Sac USGS USGS River River Verona Verona DWWSP BBWTP WTP Intake Sacramento Freeport
Max 193 102 44 -- 130 -- -- 1,960 1,960
Min 10 1 2 -- 5 -- -- 8 1
Avg 52.7 14.4 17.4 -- 27 -- -- 72.7 57.7
Median 35.5 9 17 -- 19 -- -- 46 35
N 28 54 38 -- 57 -- -- 6,962 17,920
Period of Record (3/02-4/04) (3/02-8/10) (8/00-8/10) (no data) (8/09-9/10) (no data) (no data) (1/60-9/79) (1/60-9/09)
Data back to Data back to Notes 1956 is 1956 is available. available.
Upstream of ! ! ! ! ! ! DWWSP ! ! ! ! ! ! Downstream of DWWSP DWWSP
* USGS measures "suspended sediment," which is nonfiltered and not a Standard Method, rather than TSS.
The longest period of record for turbidity was collected by MWQI, followed by SRWTP and BBWTP. MWQI data were collected monthly, while SRWTP and BBWTP data were collected daily and thus are more useful for identifying peaks and duration of elevated turbidity. In comparing the BBWTP and SRWTP data sets, two key points are (a) BBWTP provided the longest period of continuous daily turbidity data—18.5 years and (b) while the SRWTP has been in operation longer than BBWTP, the daily record had many gaps and for several years no data were available for the winter months. Figure 6.6 provides a comparison of SRWTP and BBWTP data for the same period of record. There is good comparison between the timing of turbidity peaks at these two sites, even though the SRWTP is just downstream of the American River. While the timing of the peaks coincided, maximum turbidity levels were more often higher at the BBWTP than at the SRWTP.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 34 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Comparison of Raw Water Turbidity at the BBWTP Intake with the Raw Water Turbidity at the SRWTP (2001 - 2011) 700 SRWTP Turbidity
600 BBWTP Turbidity
500
400
300 Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity 200
100
0 Aug-00 Aug-02 Aug-04 Aug-06 Aug-08 Aug-10 Date Figure 6.6 – Comparison of raw water turbidity at the BBWTP intake with raw water turbidity at the SRWTP intake, between 2001 – 2011. A probability plot of turbidity at the DWWSP, BBWTP, MWQI and SRWTP sites is shown in Figure 6.7. Even though the periods of record are different, the DWWSP, BBWTP, and MWQI data sets have almost identical distribution, while the SRWTP turbidity levels are lower, presumably because of the influence of the American River. Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 show that the turbidity in the river is generally less than 30 NTU. This same point is illustrated in Figure 6.7, which shows that the raw water turbidity was less than 30 NTU roughly 75% of the time.
The next objective is to define “unusually high” or “elevated” turbidity, so that the duration and peaks of these events can be identified. For this purpose, “high” turbidity is defined as that which occurs " 10% of the time, which is 50 NTU.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 35 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 Probability Plot of Turbidity at DWWSP and Downstream Sites
1000 BBWTP Turbidity (NTU) 2001-2010 SRWTP Turbidity (NTU) 1998-2011 DWR/MWQI Turbidity (NTU) 1994-2010 DWWSP - Field Turbidity (NTU) 2009-2010
100
10 Turbidity (NTU)
1
Turbidity is greater than 50 NTU 10% of the time. 0. 5 1 .1 80 70 90 95 99 50 30 20 10 .01 99.9 .001 99.99 99.999 Percent of Time Less Than Corresponding Value
Figure 6.7 – Probability plot of turbidity from the DWWSP site in comparison with turbidity from the BBWTP, SRWTP, and MWQI sites. Looking back through the turbidity data from the BBWTP (a longer period of record than DWWSP), the periods when the turbidity was above 50 NTU were identified, and the duration, maximum turbidity, and average turbidity of these periods were determined. This information is summarized in Table 6.3. A probability plot of the duration of “high” turbidity episodes is provided in Figure 6.8. The longest period of elevated turbidity lasted 63 days, but had an average turbidity of only 68 NTU. On the other hand, the episode with the highest turbidity—580 NTU—had an average turbidity of 130 NTU and duration of 20 days. The episode with the highest average turbidity of 232 NTU lasted only one day. Clearly, duration and max or average turbidity do not necessarily coincide. From Figure 6.8, we see that high turbidity episodes had a duration longer than 4 days 50% of the time, and had a duration longer than 24 days 10% of the time. The turbidity levels measured during these periods of elevated turbidities, along with their duration, may preclude the use of direct filtration in the new WTF.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 36 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 6.3 Duration, average turbidity, and maximum turbidity during periods of high raw water turbidity (> 50 NTU) at the BBWTP.
Periods of Elevated Turbidity Periods of Elevated Turbidity Periods of Elevated Turbidity Measured at the BBWTP Intake Measured at the BBWTP Intake Measured at the BBWTP Intake (continued) (continued) Duration of Duration of Duration of Elevated Avg Max Elevated Avg Max Elevated Avg Max Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity (days) (NTU) (NTU) (days) (NTU) (NTU) (days) (NTU) (NTU) 1 50 50 3 61 65 11 76 142 1 50 50 3 83 105 11 66 154 1 58 58 3 142 206 14 71 182 1 60 60 4 54 72.3 15 64 104 1 65 65 4 98 131 18 75 168 1 80 80 4 105 150 20 88 182 1 87 87 4 108 153 20 130 580 1 232 232 4 176.5 288 23 103 268 2 51.7 51.7 5 49.78 79.5 23 154 535 2 59 65 5 140 279 26 92 314 2 67 79.2 6 112 257 28 126 567 2 78 95 8 102.5 214 29 59 100.3 2 109 137 10 106 197 63 68 143.28 3 51 51.1 10 84.1 202
Probability Plot of the Duration of Elevated Turbidity BBWTP (2001-2010) 70 BBWTP Duration of Elevated Turbidity (days)
Turbidity is considered "elevated" 60 if it is 50 NTU or greater.
50
40
30
20
Duration of TurbidityElevated (days) 10
0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent Figure 6.8 – Probability plot of the duration of periods of elevated turbidity at the BBWTP intake (2001-2011).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 37 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
The next question to ask is “How will turbidity translate into solids loading at the new treatment facility?” Turbidity at BBWTP and SRWTP were compared with suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) at the USGS-Freeport site over a four-year period in Figure 6.9, to determine if they would correlate and allow evaluation of solids loading over the past 50 years—a much longer period of record than available with turbidity data. Turbidity measurements at the USGS-Freeport site did not overlap with available turbidity records at either the SRWTP or BBWTP, so direct correlation of turbidity at these sites could not be made. (Note: The USGS measures “suspended sediment concentration” rather than the standard “total suspended solids.” For the sake of this water quality assessment, these parameters are assumed to be equivalent, even though the analytical methods are different. In fact, a study by Glysson, et al. (2002) compared the TSS method with the SSC method and found the two parameters were not the same, with TSS tending to be lower than SSC.) While the timing of the SSC and turbidity peaks coincided on many dates, several suspended sediment peaks occurred at the Freeport site that were not associated with peaks in turbidity at the upstream SRWTP and BBWTP sites. Obviously, factors other than just the American River were affecting Comparisonsolids concentration of Raw Waterat the TurbidityUSGS-Freeport at the BBWTP site. Intake with the Raw Water Turbidity at the SRWTP (2004 - 2008) 700 SRWTP Turbidity BBWTP Turbidity 600 USGS-Freeport SSC
500
400
300 Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity 200
100
0 Aug-04 Aug-06 Aug-08 Date Figure 6.9 – Comparison of SSC at the USGS-Freeport site with turbidity at the SRWTP and BBWTP intakes (2004-2008). The correlation between turbidity and TSS, using data from the DWWSP monitoring program, was assessed. The resulting regression equation, which results in a TSS:Turbidity ratio of 0.85, was as follows:
TSS = 0.85 * (Turbidity) R2 = 0.616 ; N = 65
As per Crittenden, et al. (2011), the TSS:Turbidity ratio can be quite variable, but is generally between 1 and 2 for most natural waters. For turbidities less than 10 NTU,
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 38 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 this ratio should be nearly equal to 1. A similar correlation was done using the paired TSS and turbidity data from the DWR-Feather River site combined with the DWWSP data set—shown in Figure 6.10—which gave the following correlation:
TSS = 1.09 * (Turbidity) R2 = 0.728; N = 85
There were not many data points at the higher turbidities (>100 NTU) for either correlation, so they may not be generally applicable to all turbidities. However, for the purposes of calculating solids loading rates for the new treatment facility, the TSS:Turbidity ratio of 1.09 will be used because it seems more in-line with literature reported ratios (Crittenden et al. 2011, In Press). Correlation Between Turbidity and TSS 160 Data Sources: DWR-Feather River and DWWSP 140
120
100 y = 1.0923x R! = 0.72805 80 TSS (mg/L) (mg/L) TSS 60
40
20
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Turbidity (NTU) Figure 6.10 – Correlation between turbidity and TSS using paired data collected at the DWWSP site and DWR-Feather River site. Using information provided in the probability plot of turbidity at DWWSP—Figure 6.7— and the correlation between turbidity and TSS—Figure 6.10—the daily solids load projected for the new treatment facility at a build-out design flow of 52 mgd, due to sediment and sediment plus coagulant, is shown in Table 6.4 for different turbidity levels and frequency of occurrence. When the additional solids load from the coagulant is factored in, it is based on an assumed ferric chloride dose of 35 mg/L for the higher turbidity (83 NTU) which occurs only 5% of the time and 20 mg/L for the lower turbidity (16 NTU) which occurs 50% of the time (refer to the 2010 Jar Test TM), and the stoichiometric relationship between ferric chloride and ferric hydroxide of 0.66 grams of ferric hydroxide produced for every gram of ferric chloride added.
+ - FeCl3 + 3H2O Fe(OH)3(s) + 3H + 3Cl
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 39 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
These numbers however, are single day loading rates and do not take into account the duration of a “high” turbidity episode. Considering the actual high turbidity episodes summarized in Table 6.3, the worst-case scenario occurred when the average turbidity was 68 NTU and the event duration was 63 days, which would produce 9.2 x 105 kg (or 2.0 x 106 lbs) of solids just from the sediment in the river.
Table 6.4 – Solids loading for the new DWWSP treatment facility based on turbidity levels and frequency of occurrence.
Solids Load due to Solids Load due to Calculated TSS Suspended Suspended Percent of Samples Corresponding (mg/L) Sediment and Sediment plus 20-35 with Lower Turbidity (NTU) [TSS:Turbidity Design Flow of 52 mg/L FeCl3 Concentration [from Fig 6.7] Ratio=1.09] MGD (kg/day) (kg/day) 95 83 90 1.78E+04 2.24E+04 90 50 55 1.07E+04 1.46E+04 80 30 33 6.44E+03 9.68E+03 70 22 24 4.72E+03 7.32E+03
50 16 17 3.43E+03 6.03E+03
6.1.3 Alkalinity and pH The alkalinity of the raw water at the DWWSP site ranged from 44 to 95 mg/L as CaCO3, with an average alkalinity of 74 mg/L as CaCO3. The average pH at this site (based on field data with more data points) was 6.90, and the median pH was 7.18. Because this water is normally moderately well buffered, the addition of aluminum or iron salts for coagulation will not consume all of this water’s buffering capacity (i.e., coagulants consume 0.5 mg of alkalinity per mg of alum and 0.92 mg of alkalinity per mg of ferric chloride.). Alum and ferric coagulants are both acids, so the pH of the water will be reduced somewhat during coagulation, which will improve TOC removal thereby reducing DBP formation. (Refer to the jar test results, discussed in a separate TM.) Clarification issues could arise during rainy seasons, however, when the river is diluted with rainwater such that alkalinity is low while turbidity is high, and a higher than normal coagulant dose is needed for clarification. Under such conditions, the pH may drop too low for effective clarification and caustic (or other source of alkalinity) may need to be added ahead of coagulant addition.
At the MWQI site (which is also the intake for the BBWTP) between January 2004 and July 2010, the alkalinity of the raw water ranged from 32 to 99 mg/L as CaCO3, with an average of 67 mg/L as CaCO3. Over the same time period as the DWWSP monitoring program (2009-2010), the MWQI average alkalinity was 65 mg/L. The raw water alkalinity at the BBWTP, between 2004 and 2010, ranged from 25 to 103 mg/L as CaCO3, with an average concentration of 65 mg/L. The average raw water pH (2004 - 2010) at the MWQI site was 7.6. Based on these limited data, it appears the alkalinity is
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 40 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 slightly higher at the DWWSP site than at the MWQI site, and the pH is somewhat lower.
6.1.4 Hardness The average hardness of Sacramento River water at the DWWSP future intake location was 85 mg/L as CaCO3. This is moderately hard water, so softening will not be necessary. Roughly half of the hardness is due to calcium and half due to magnesium; the average calcium concentration was 17 mg/L (or 42.5 mg/L as CaCO3) and the average magnesium concentration was 9.8 mg/L (or 40.8 mg/L as CaCO3).
It should be noted that the hardness of the surface water supply is much lower than the current groundwater supply. Many customers are likely to have home water softeners to soften their current groundwater supply. The new water supply, however, will not need softening so once the DWWSP is implemented, the customers should be encouraged to remove their home softeners which could reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the wastewater beyond the reduction that will result from the lower TDS of the water supply itself.
6.1.5 Fluoride The fluoride concentrations of this water were quite low, and ranged from < 0.1 mg/L to 0.11 mg/L. As discussed in Section 4, fluoride is often added to finished water to reduce dental decay, at a dose of approximately 1 mg/L. The State of California requires public water systems with more than 10,000 connections to provide fluoridation of treated water if an outside source offers to pay capital and associated costs related to such treatment. The optimum “temperature-appropriate” fluoride levels listed in the CDPH regulations range from 1.2 mg/L at 10°C to 0.7 mg/L at 32.5°C.
6.1.6 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Bromide, Chloride, Sodium, Specific Conductance One of the major driving forces behind the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project is the high TDS concentration of its groundwater supply. The TDS concentration of the City of Woodland’s groundwater ranges from 550 – 630 mg/L (City of Woodland 2009), and the TDS concentration in the City of Davis’ well ranged from 270 to 1,000 mg/L (City of Davis, 2010). The secondary MCL for specific conductance is 900 µS/cm, and the secondary MCL for TDS is 500 mg/L. Most groundwater in the area currently exceeds these secondary MCLs at times.
Another restriction on TDS concentrations is the increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations. The wastewater discharge limit for conductivity is anticipated to be reduced to 700-1,400 µS/cm (corresponding to TDS of 450-900 mg/L) (City of Woodland 2009). Available information indicates that the use of self-regenerating water softeners cause a wastewater electrical conductivity (EC) increase of about 300 µS/cm above the EC of the potable water supply, and consumptive uses (from sanitary wastes and food wastes) causes an additional net wastewater EC increase of about 300 to 350 µS/cm. The use of self-generating water softeners may be expected to decline significantly after the introduction of a surface water supply. Recently passed Assembly
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 41 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Bill 1366 allows local water agencies to ban self-regenerating water softeners if they make a "finding" that banning is necessary to meet wastewater discharge requirements. The bill also requires the local water agencies to give advance notice and hold public meetings if they wish to ban self-regenerating water softeners. The wastewater NPDES permits for both the City of Woodland and the City of Davis discuss a recommended agricultural water quality goal for TDS of 450 mg/L (or conductivity of 700 µS/cm), for the protection of salt-sensitive crops that are currently grown in the area or may be grown in the future (City of Davis 2007; City of Woodland 2009).
TDS and specific conductance (or conductivity) are both a measure of the concentration of the total ions in water. Conductivity has the advantages of being a more sensitive measurement, and can be measured instantaneously or continuously. For a given water quality, there should be a fairly strong correlation between TDS and specific conductance. The ratio of TDS:conductivity is typically between 0.55 and 0.7 (Eaton et al. 2005). This correlation for Sacramento River water is based on data from the MWQI site and is shown in Figure 6.11. MWQI data were used in developing this correlation rather than DWWSP data, because of the limited number of DWWSP data points (only four TDS data points were available). The linear regression equation shown in Figure 6.11 predicts a TDS concentration at the DWWSP site within 10% of the actual measured TDS concentration. Correlation between TDS and Conductivity 160 !"#"$%&'()*+$$!,-./,01$!"#"$)&22*)#*3$"#$#4*$55,67$18#"9*:$ 140
120
100 y = 0.5852x R! = 0.7959 80
TDS (mg/L) (mg/L) TDS 60
40
20
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Conductivity (uS/cm) Figure 6.11 – Correlation Between TDS and Conductivity Using Data Collected at the MWQI Monitoring Site (RM 62.5). Changes in conductivity over time are shown in Figure 6.12 for the water at the DWWSP, MWQI, and USGS-Verona monitoring sites, between August 2009 and December 2010. Conductivity at the DWWSP site ranged from 100-233 µS/cm. Except for one data point in December 2009, the MWQI (RM 62.5) and DWWSP (RM 70.5) data track each other closely. The conductivity at the USGS-Verona site (RM 78.0),
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 42 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 however, was often significantly lower than at the DWWSP site, indicating a possible difference in water quality between the sites, most likely caused by the Feather River whose confluence with the Sacramento River is just upstream of the USGS monitoring site.
A probability plot of conductivity at the USGS site (RM 78.0), DWWSP and Sacramento CMP sites (RM 70.5), and MWQI site (RM 62.5) is shown in Figure 6.13. Although the monitoring periods are not consistent between sites, Figure 6.13 indicates the conductivity at the upstream USGS site is consistently lower than at the downstream sites. The data also indicate comparable conductivity between the DWWSP, MWQI, and Sacramento CMP datasets.
Trend in Conductivity Over Time Between Aug 2009-Dec 2010 250
200
150
100 Conductivity (uS/cm) Conductivity
USGS-Verona 50 DWWSP DWR/MWQI
0 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Date Figure 6.12 – Conductivity Fluctuations Versus Time at the DWWSP, MWQI, and USGS- Verona Sites (August 2009 – December 2010).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 43 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
250
200 S/cm) µ
150 Conductivity (
100
Sacramento CMP Conductivity (8/05-6/09) MWQI Conductivity (8/09-8/10) DWWSP Conductivity (8/09-12/10) USGS-Verona Avg Daily Conductivity (8/09-12/10) 50 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent of Samples with Less Than Corresponding Conductivity Figure 6.13 – Probability plot for conductivity at the DWWSP site in comparison with sites upstream (USGS), at the same location (CMP), and downstream (MWQI). Sodium and chloride concentrations of the raw water were low. Chloride, which has a secondary MCL of 250 mg/L, ranged from 6.6 mg/L to 11 mg/L, and sodium concentrations ranged from 9.2 mg/L to 17 mg/L.
Bromide concentrations measured by CLS Labs were all less than the RL of 0.1 mg/L. Bromide, even at very low concentrations, can be a water treatment issue when ozone is used in treatment, because it reacts with natural organic matter in the water to form bromate, with an MCL of 0.010 mg/L. Therefore, additional samples were collected and analyzed using instrumentation with a lower detection limit to ensure that bromate formation would not be a treatment concern. Results of these analyses, which are the numbers included in summary
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 44 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 4.1, reported bromide concentrations of 0.011 mg/L and 0.027 mg/L. These concentrations are low enough that bromate formation with ozonation should not be a problem. As part of the DWWSP monitoring program, monthly bromide samples will continue being collected through the end of the monitoring program in July 2011.
6.1.7 Dissolved Oxygen The solubility of oxygen into water is a function of temperature and the partial pressure of oxygen. The saturation concentration of any gas decreases as the temperature increases. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations at the DWWSP site ranged from 8.0 mg/L to 11.0 mg/L, with an average concentration of 9.4 mg/L. At the coldest water temperature observed (7.46°C), the measured DO was 10.1 mg/L. Based on solubility data at 7.5°C, the oxygen saturation concentration is 11.98 mg/L (Tchobanoglous et al. 2003), and thus the measured DO concentration was at roughly 85% saturation. At the maximum water temperature of 23.4°C, the measured DO concentration was 7.98 mg/L, while the oxygen saturation concentration at this temperature is 8.50 mg/L. For all water temperatures and seasons, the Sacramento River was well oxygenated.
In water treatment, the DO concentration of the source water is important because under anoxic conditions, naturally occurring metals such as iron and manganese may be reduced and then released in the dissolved form. (At the DWWSP site, the Sacramento River is well oxygenated, not anoxic.) Iron and manganese often occur together in natural waters. These metals are relatively soluble in a reducing environment. In a high dissolved oxygen environment, the iron should be present in its oxidized state, Fe(III), and the manganese may be in its oxidized state, Mn(IV). The reaction kinetics for oxidizing manganese with oxygen are slow, however, (iron is oxidized by oxygen in minutes to hours, manganese in days to weeks) so manganese is often found in reduced form (soluble) in natural systems even when iron is not.
6.1.8 Nitrogen Nitrite concentrations (as nitrogen) were always below the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.0022 mg/L and the RL of 0.1 mg/L. Nitrate concentrations were measured above the MDL, but consistently below the RL (2.0 mg/L as NO3); measured nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.44 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L. Ammonia concentrations ranged from <0.1 mg/L to 0.15 mg/L, with an average concentration of 0.08 mg/L. (Note: The MDL is based on the precision of the measurement (and instrument) and the lowest concentration of analyte that can be detected, while the RL is the concentration that can be confidently quantified by the lab. The MDL is lower than the RL.)
In a well-oxygenated stream, ammonia is usually absent unless a source is nearby. This is because ammonia-oxidizing-bacteria (AOBs) convert it to nitrate. With no known nearby upstream source of ammonia, the concentrations measured above the RL of 0.1 mg/L were unexpected. As a check, additional samples were collected and sent to another lab using a lower detection limit (MWH Labs in Pasadena, CA) for ammonia analysis. Ammonia was not detected in these samples.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 45 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
There are two concerns over detectable ammonia concentrations in the raw water. First, the ammonia will exert a chlorine demand. Breakpoint chlorination occurs at a ratio of 1.5 moles Cl2 : 1 mole NH3-N. So, for example, an ammonia concentration of 0.12 mg/L would exert a chlorine demand of 0.91 mg/L Cl2, which would have to be taken into account in the design of the disinfection system. Second, ammonia in the source water can lead to nitrification in the filters, which can increase nitrate levels in the finished water and, perhaps more importantly, the presence of high levels of AOBs in the treated water. AOBs are undesirable in treated water because they can also metabolize chloramines, making the residual unstable.
6.2 TOC, DOC, SUVA and Disinfection Byproducts In addition to discussing the measured concentrations of these parameters, this section will also summarize the results of jar tests that were performed to assess TOC removal through enhanced coagulation—as required by the D/DBP Rule—and associated DBP formation using the simulated distribution system disinfection byproduct (SDSDBP) formation test. The SDSDBP formation potential results are also discussed in relation to the experience of the downstream BBWTP and SRWTP.
6.2.1 Measured Concentrations Between August 2009 and December 2010, TOC concentrations measured at the DWWSP site ranged from 1.1 mg/L to 6.3 mg/L, with an average concentration of 3.0 mg/L. Changes in concentration over time at the DWWSP site (RM 70.5) is shown in comparison with TOC concentrations measured at the BBWTP and MWQI sites (both at RM 62.5) in Figure 6.14. Six years of data were available for the BBWTP and MWQI sites, while only one and a half years of data were available for the DWWSP site. At the BBWTP, TOC concentrations ranged from 1.1 mg/L to 4.8 mg/L. For the same time period—August 2009 to December 2010—the average TOC concentration for DWWSP was 3.0 mg/L and 2.3 mg/L for BBWTP.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 46 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
*" 00123"4,5"1,678"29:" ;11<3"29:" ;14=>1?@"29:" )"
("
'"
&" !"#$%&'()*$ %"
$"
#"
!" +,-.!&" +,-.!'" +,-.!(" +,-.!)" +,-.!*" +,-.!/" +,-.#!" +,-.##" +,-.$ Figure 6.14 – TOC concentrations over time at the DWWSP, BBWTP and MWQI sites. A probability plot of TOC concentrations at these three sites, along with the TOC concentrations at the USGS-Feather River site, is shown in Figure 6.15. All of these sites have variable TOC concentrations that fluctuated between approximately 1 mg/L and 5-6 mg/L. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule requires that WTSs that have an average TOC concentration greater than 2 mg/L practice enhanced coagulation (or comply with one of the alternative compliance criteria) in order to control DBP formation. Figure 6.15 indicates the raw water TOC at the DWWSP site is less than 2.0 mg/L only 25% of the time. The TOC at the BBWTP is less than 2.0 mg/L roughly 35% of the time. As discussed in Section 3, the required percentage TOC removal using enhanced coagulation is based on an average source water TOC concentration and average source water alkalinity. Based on 17 months of sampling at the proposed intake site, the average TOC is 3.0 mg/L and the average alkalinity is 74 mg/L as CaCO3. The new Woodland-Davis water treatment facility, therefore, falls into the category requiring at least 25% TOC removal. Over the 17-month monitoring period, the source water alkalinity ranged from 44 to 95 mg/L as CaCO3; if the average alkalinity were to drop to 60 mg/L or below, then 35% TOC removal would be required.
Besides achieving the required TOC removal, the treatment facility could comply with the D/DBP Rule by meeting the requirements of one of the alternative compliance criteria. The only alternative criterion that the facility could claim on a long-term basis is the one applying to source water with a TOC < 4.0 mg/L, alkalinity > 60 mg/L (as CaCO3), and finished water TTHM concentration < 40 µg/L and HAA5 concentration < 30 µg/L. These DBP treatment goals could be met on a consistent basis by limiting free chlorine contact to restrict THM and HAA formation. Using an alternative disinfectant such as ozone for primary disinfection (to meet the required Giardia and virus
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 47 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 inactivation) and chloramines for residual maintenance, would achieve these low level DBP goals. Results of bench-scale SDSDBP tests using 1-hour of free chlorine contact followed by ammonia addition to form chloramines produced TTHM and HAA5 levels well below these conservative DBP levels of 40 µg/L and 30 µg/L for the TTHMs and HHA5, respectively. (These bench-scale test results are discussed further in Section 6.2.4, and in a separate TM entitled “Enhanced Coagulation Jar Test Results for the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.”)
8.0 DWWSP TOC (mg/L) Aug 09-Dec 10 BBWTP TOC (mg/L) Jan 04-Dec 10 MWQI TOC (mg/L) Jan 04-July 10 Sacramento CMP TOC (mg/L) Aug 05-June 09 7.0 Feather River Jan 04-Aug 10
6.0
5.0
4.0 TOC (mg/L) 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent of the Time Less Than Corresponding Value Figure 6.15 – Probability Plot of TOC at the DWWSP Site with TOC at the Other Monitoring Sites (January 2004 – August 2010).
6.2.2 Discrepancies in TOC Measurements The data in Figure 6.14 and Figure 6.15 indicate that TOC concentrations measured at the BBWTP and MWQI sites track each other quite closely, while the numbers at the DWWSP site seems consistently higher. Because there was no obvious cause for this discrepancy between the sites, such as the confluence of another river, the question was asked as to whether the difference was “real” or related to laboratory analytical methodologies. As a check, split samples were collected for one month at both the DWWSP site and the BBWTP intake, and analyzed by both CLS Labs and MWH Labs. Results of this split sampling is shown in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 for TOC and DOC, respectively.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 48 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 6.5 – Comparison of TOC measurements between CLS Labs and MWH Labs, and between the DWWSP monitoring site and the BBWTP intake. Comparison of TOC Measurements Between Labs and Between Locations
TOC (mg/L) for Difference in TOC Concentrations for the Difference in TOC Concentrations for TOC (mg/L) for Samples Collected at Same Location, Different Labs Different Locations, Same Lab Samples Collected at BBWTP DWWSP Proposed (Lab@Location) (Lab@Location) Intake Structure Intake CLS@BB - MWH@BB - CLS@BB - CLS@DWWSP - CLS@BB - MWH@BB - Date Lab=BBWTP Lab=CLS Lab=MWH Lab=CLS Lab=MWH BB@BB BB@BB MWH@BB MWH@DWWSP CLS@DWWSP MWH@DWWSP 9/14/10 2.10 3.0 -- 2.2 -- 0.9 ------0.8 -- 9/21/10 2.34 2.8 -- 3.1 -- 0.5 ------0.3 -- 9/28/10 1.64 2.9 -- 3.0 -- 1.3 ------0.1 -- 10/5/10 1.48 2.8 -- 3.2 -- 1.3 ------0.4 -- 10/12/10 1.10 2.3 -- 1.9 -- 1.2 ------0.4 -- 10/26/10 2.03 3.3 -- 2.9 -- 1.3 ------0.4 -- 11/2/10 1.78 2.0 -- 2.0 -- 0.2 ------0.0 -- 11/9/10 1.99 2.1 -- 2.3 -- 0.1 ------0.2 -- 11/16/10 2.33 3.0 -- 2.1 2.1 0.7 -- -- 0.0 0.9 -- 11/23/10 2.87 3.6 2.9 3.2 2.8 0.7 0.03 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 11/30/10 2.93 3.9 2.7 4.3 2.7 1.0 -0.23 1.2 1.6 -0.4 0 12/7/10 2.92 3.7 2.9 3.7 2.7 0.8 -0.02 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 12/14/10 1.94 4.8 3.5 5.1 3.5 2.9 1.56 1.3 1.6 -0.3 0 12/21/10 2.69 3.3 -- 3.5 -- 0.6 ------0.2 -- 12/28/10 2.13 3.8 -- 4.1 -- 1.7 ------0.3 --
Avg. (all dates) 2.2 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 1.0 -- -- 0.9 0.0 -- Avg (11/23-12/14) 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.1 2.9 1.3 0.3 1.0 1.2 -0.1 0.1
Table 6.6 - Comparison of DOC measurements between CLS Labs and MWH Labs, and between the DWWSP monitoring site and the BBWTP intake. Comparison of DOC Measurements Between Labs and Between Locations
Difference in DOC Difference in DOC Concentrations for the Concentration for DOC (mg/L) Concentrations for DOC (mg/L) Concentrations for Same Location, Different Labs Different Locations, Same Lab Samples from BBWTP Intake Samples from DWWSP Intake (Lab@Loc) (Lab/Loc) CLS@BB - CLS@DWWSP - CLS@BB - MWH@BB - Date Lab=CLS Lab=MWH Lab=CLS Lab=MWH MWH@BB MWH@DWWSP CLS@DWWSP MWH@DWWSP 11/23/10 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.6 0.4 -0.1 0.8 0.3 11/30/10 3.7 2.8 3.6 2.6 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 12/7/10 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.7 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 12/14/10 4.1 3.5 4.5 3.4 0.6 1.1 -0.4 0.1 12/21/10 -- -- 3.2 ------12/28/10 -- -- 3.4 ------
Avg. (all dates) -- -- 3.4 2.8 ------Avg (11/23-12/14) 3.7 3.0 3.4 2.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2
These data show that there is not a difference in water quality between the two sites, and that on the average the TOC measurements by CLS are roughly 1 mg/L higher than the lab at the BBWTP and MWH Labs. The probable reason is the result of different type TOC instruments used by the different labs. Najm, et al. (2002) compared TOC analytical results measured by the combustion method with those measured by the ultraviolet-persulfate oxidation method. Both methods operate off the principle of complete combustion of organic carbon to carbon dioxide (CO2), and then measurement of the CO2 concentration. However, as discussed by Najm, et al. (2002), the two methods vary in their ability to oxidize particulate organic matter to CO2. The combustion method is more effective than the UV-persulfate method at oxidizing the particulate organic matter, which therefore can result in higher measured TOC
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 49 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 concentrations. It is important to note that both methods are approved for regulatory compliance under the D/DBP Rule.
The difference in DOC measurements (Table 6.6) is not so easy to explain, except to say that the difference in DOC concentration between sites is negligible. When measuring DOC, the sample is first filtered through a 0.45 µm filter before analysis. The additional sample handling or the potential for the membrane filter to leach DOC is a possible explanation in the differences in DOC concentrations between labs.
6.2.3 TOC Removal through Enhanced Coagulation Specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA) provides an indication of how well TOC can be removed from water through enhanced coagulation. Hydrophobic organic material is more easily removed through coagulation than hydrophilic organic material. SUVA (units of L/mg-m) is defined as the UV-254 value divided by the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration. As discussed by White, et al. (1997), and in the Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual (USEPA, 1999), waters with a high SUVA are amenable to larger TOC reductions through enhanced coagulation while waters with a low SUVA exhibited significantly lower TOC removal. In the White, et al. (1997) study using alum for coagulation, the authors observed that waters with an average SUVA of 3.9 L/mg-m were able to meet the required TOC removal before the point of diminishing return, while those waters with an average SUVA of 2.6 L/mg-m could not achieve the required TOC removal before reaching the point of diminishing return.
SUVA values calculated from the DWWSP data ranged from 1.5 to 3.8 L/mg-m, using CLS lab data, and from 2.7 to 3.4 L/mg-m, when calculated using MWH lab results. DOC and UV-254 were also measured (monthly) by MWQI (RM 62.5), adjacent to the BBWTP intake. On the average the TOC was 93% DOC. SUVA at the MWQI site ranged from 1.91 to 15.70 L/mg-min, with an average SUVA of 3.03 L/mg-min.
A series of three separate jar tests were performed on water collected from the proposed DWWSP intake location to evaluate TOC removal through enhanced coagulation, and the associated THM and HAA formation during simulated disinfection. Key findings of these tests are summarized below, while a more detailed discussion of the results are presented in a separate technical memorandum entitled “Enhanced Coagulation Jar Test Results for the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project” (Trussell Technologies, February, 2011). When collecting water for these jar tests, attempts were made to collect water immediately after a storm event in order to test a “high” turbidity and “high” TOC water. The raw water quality ended up being more representative of average to below average quality rather than worst-case conditions. The raw water turbidity ranged from 10 to 26 NTU, and the TOC concentration ranged from 2.1 to 3.4 mg/L. Average turbidity for the monitoring period was 26.1 NTU, and average TOC was 3.0 mg/L.
Three different coagulants were tested—ferric chloride, aluminum sulfate, and polyaluminum chloride. While ferric chloride was the preferred coagulant for turbidity
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 50 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 removal, all three coagulants were able to meet the target removal goal for TOC of 35%. Ferric chloride was selected as the coagulant of choice for preparing water for the SDSDBP tests, and was therefore used for all subsequent jar tests. In addition, pH reduction was found to increase TOC removal. Depending on raw water quality, ferric chloride doses between 18 mg/L and 29 mg/L, and a coagulation pH of 6.7 were used, which resulted in 47% to 50% TOC removal—higher than required by the regulations. The bottom line is that these “snap shot” jar test results indicate this source water is amenable to effective TOC reduction through coagulation, with the appropriate coagulant dose and coagulation pH.
6.2.4 Disinfection Byproduct Formation DBP formation is a function of TOC concentration, chemical makeup of the TOC, chlorine dose, bromide concentration, pH, temperature and contact time. In general, more THMs form at higher pH and more HAAs form at lower pH. An increase in TTHM concentration in relation to bromide concentration is related to the higher molecular weight of bromide relative to that of chloride. Both DBPs are generally higher in warmer water. The formation of THMs and HAAs in the future treatment facility, as well as the potential formation of bromate if ozone is used for disinfection, is discussed in the sections below.
6.2.4.1 DBP Formation Potential at the DWWSP Site THM and HAA formation potential tests were conducted monthly to assess seasonal DBP formation of Sacramento River water. TTHM and HAA5 formation in relation to sampling date, chlorine dose, and TOC concentration is summarized in Table 6.7. (It is important to note that DBP levels formed during the “formation potential” test are much higher than would be expected in a distribution system from a WTF, as a very high chlorine dose is used for this test.) This information is depicted graphically in Figure 6.16. The greatest DBP formation potential occurred between November and February. The highest chlorine demands were seen in December and January. Interestingly, the highest TOC concentration (Feb 2010) was not associated with the largest DBP formation potential or the highest chlorine demand, perhaps indicating a difference in chemical character of the TOC that month.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 51 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 6.7 – TTHM and HAA5 Formation Potential in Relation to TOC Concentration and Chlorine Demand of Sacramento River Water (DWWSP Site)
Initial Chlorine Final Chlorine Chlorine Sample Concentration Concentration Demand TTHM HAA5 TOC Date (mg/L) (7 days; mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aug-09 9.8 6.5 3.3 0.159 0.182 2.9 Sep-09 10.1 7.9 2.2 0.124 0.122 2.5 Oct-09 8.8 5.6 3.2 0.131 0.161 1.4 Nov-09 7.8 4.2 3.6 0.215 0.250 3.6 Dec-09 4.7 0.2 4.5 0.186 0.181 2.5 Jan-10 6.3 0.5 5.8 0.232 0.304 3.7 Feb-10 4.3 1.6 2.7 0.201 0.153 4.7 Mar-10 5.4 3.4 2.0 0.109 0.109 3.0 Apr-10 4.6 3.0 1.6 0.143 0.158 2.0 May-10 6.0 2.0 4.0 0.104 0.113 2.2 Jun-10 6.0 2.4 3.6 0.145 0.144 2.9 Jul-10 5.5 2.0 3.5 0.124 0.107 1.1
0.35 5.0 TTHM (mg/L) HAA5 (mg/L) 4.5 0.30 TOC (mg/L) 4.0
0.25 3.5
3.0 0.20 2.5 0.15 2.0
0.10 1.5 TOC Concentration (mg/L) (mg/L) Concentration TOC
DBP Concentration (mg/L) (mg/L) Concentration DBP 1.0 0.05 0.5
0.00 0.0
Date Figure 6.16 – TTHM and HAA5 Formation Potential in Samples from the DWWSP Site. Bromate is another regulated DBP, with an MCL of 0.010 mg/L. This DBP forms during ozonation of a water containing bromide. Ozone reacts with bromide to form the hypobromite ion (OBr-), which is in equilibrium with hypobromous acid (HOBr). The pKa for hypobromous acid is 8.8 (Crittenden et al. 2005). The hypobromite ion is the species that forms bromate, while the hypobromous acid reacts with natural organic matter to form brominated organic byproducts such as bromoform. Thus, the formation
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 52 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 of bromate is pH dependent, and less bromate is formed at lower pHs (i.e., < 8.8). So, what is a reasonable raw water bromide limit in order to stay below the bromate MCL? Based solely on stoichiometry, if 100% of the bromide were converted to bromate, 0.006 mg/L of bromide would be needed to form 0.010 mg/L bromate (its MCL). This is a worst case scenario because in surface waters there would be competition by natural organic matter to form brominated THMs and HAAs, and the pH of the water (unless chemically adjusted) would be less than the pKa for hypobromous acid.
As discussed in Section 6.1.6, bromide concentrations measured at the DWWSP site were very low, with the maximum measured concentration being 0.027 mg/L. Only a limited amount of historical bromide data in the vicinity of the future DWWSP intake was found for comparison. Bromide was measured by MWQI (near the BBWTP intake), and the concentrations ranged from 0.5 mg/L to < 0.01 mg/L, with an average of 0.016 mg/L. The maximum concentration of 0.5 mg/L is likely erroneous considering the next highest bromide concentration is 0.06 mg/L, in a dataset containing 92 measurements between 2004 an 2007. Bromide in the Sacramento River (at the BBWTP intake) was also measured during a recent National Water Research Institute study of pharmaceuticals in the river, and was not detected with a MRL of 0.02 mg/L (Krasner 2010). Additionally, during a 1995 study looking at bromate formation in Delta water, Sacramento River water collected from the BBWTP intake was used as the baseline water and, when ozonated, bromate was not detected with a MRL of 3 µg/L (Najm and Krasner 1995). Thus, bromate formation in conjunction with ozonation should not be a treatment issue of concern for this water. 6.2.4.2 Simulated Distribution System Disinfection Byproduct Formation As part of the jar tests done to assess TOC removal through enhanced coagulation, THM and HAA formation in the coagulated/settled water was also evaluated using the simulated distribution system DBP (SDSDBP) test method, with both free chlorine and combined chlorine disinfection. Under the free chlorine disinfection scenario, chlorine was dosed at an appropriate concentration to produce a free chlorine residual between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/L after a 24 hour holding time. The combined chlorine disinfection scenario included one hour of free chlorine contact followed by ammonia addition at a 4:1 weight ratio to give a combined chlorine residual of 1.5 to 2.5 mg/L after a total 24 hour holding time. Results of the two SDSDBP tests—shown in Figure 6.17—reported TTHM and HAA5 concentrations less than half the respective MCLs, for both the free chlorine and combined chlorine disinfection scenarios. (Refer to the “Enhanced Coagulation Jar Test Results TM” for a more detailed discussion.)
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 53 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
90
!!"#$#%&$'$()$*+,&$ 80
70
"--.$#%&$'$/)$*+,&$ 60
50 SDS(TTHM) (ug/L) SDS(HAA5) (ug/L) 40
30
SDSDBP Concentration (µg/L) (µg/L) Concentration SDSDBP 20
10 TOC initial = 2.1 TOC initial = 2.1 TOC initial = 3.4 TOC initial = 3.4 TOC final = 1.5 TOC final = 1.5 TOC final = 1.7 TOC final = 1.7 0 1F-Free Cl2 1F-Combined Cl2 3B-Free Cl2 3B-Combined Cl2
SDSDBP Test Figure 6.17 – TTHM and HAA5 formation during jar tests that used free chlorine and combined chlorine for disinfection.
While these SDSDBP numbers are encouraging they should be viewed in perspective and the DBP formation experience of downstream water treatment plants should be examined for an understanding of seasonal variability in DBP formation, over several years. The SDSDBP numbers shown in Figure 6.18 represent only two discrete samples in time, with raw water TOC concentrations representative of below average and average water quality conditions. In addition, the Cities have indicated their desire to producing finished water with low levels of THMs and HAAs—well below the regulatory MCLs. Epidemiological evidence has demonstrated an association between chlorinated water and certain cancers, consequently DBPs are regulated to protect public health. In preparing the D/DBP Rule, the EPA conducted an extensive analysis of health effects, and concluded the data supports the link between DBP exposure and cancer (specifically bladder, colon and rectal). Estimates are that, even at regulated levels, the DBPs formed during chlorination represent one of the more important health risks in modern treated drinking water. Therefore, disinfection options known to minimize the formation of DBPs should be carefully considered for use in the new WDCWA treatment facility.
6.2.4.3 DBP Formation Experience of Downstream WTPs Both BBWTP (RM 62.5) and the SRWTP (RM 60.0) use Sacramento River water as their source water. Water quality at the BBWTP is very similar to the water at the proposed DWWSP intake. The SRWTP, however, is just downstream of the confluence of the American River and the Sacramento River, so the water quality at that point is heavily influenced by the American River which has even better quality. The following
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 54 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 discussion summarizes the experiences of these two utilities in complying with the D/DBP Rule.
The BBWTP uses the Actiflo process for clarification. Historically, the treatment facility employed pre-chlorination ahead of the Actiflo. However, as DBP levels increased and approached the MCLs, operators moved the point of chlorination to be after clarification. During seasons where influent TOC concentrations are “low,” the operators have the flexibility of moving the point of chlorine addition ahead of the Actiflo, and then moving it back to post-clarification when TOC levels and DBP formation increase (Sanders 2010; Arthurs August 2010).
As discussed in Section 3.3, under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule utilities were required to collect TTHM and HAA5 samples from the distribution system, with at least 25% being representative of the maximum residence time and the rest being representative of average residence times. To determine compliance, the running annual average (RAA) of quarterly system-wide average DBP concentrations must be less than the respective MCLs. Under the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, the utility must conduct an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) to identify locations within their distribution system with the highest disinfection byproduct concentrations. Some of these sites must then be used for Stage 2 compliance monitoring, and compliance will be based on running annual averages at each individual site, known as a Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA). Thus, instead of compliance being measured by the average of the whole system, under the new rules, compliance will be determined by the LRAA at the worst site in the system.
Quarterly average TTHM concentrations for the BBWTP distribution system are shown in Figure 6.18 for the four Stage 1 monitoring sites and the eight Stage 2 monitoring sites, between 2005 and 2009. These data indicate that average TTHM concentrations in the distribution system approached 60 µg/L during several quarters, and in two quarters the average concentrations approached or exceeded the MCL. The MCL was exceeded at several individual locations in February 2009 and August 2009, with a maximum TTHM concentration of 110 µg/L at IDSE6. Modifications to the points of chlorine injection have since been made at the plant to lower the TTHM levels.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 55 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 TTHM Concentration in West Sacramento Distribution System (2005-2009) 100.0 Stage 1 - Quarterly Avgs - 4 Sites Note: Comparing Alum with PACl & 90.0 Adjusting chlorine feed point between 9/09 Stage 2 - Quarterly Avgs - 8 Sites and 10/09 80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 TTHM Concentration (ug/L) (ug/L) Concentration TTHM 10.0
0.0
Sample Collection Month Figure 6.18 – Quarterly average TTHM concentrations in BBWTP’s distribution system. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule required four sites while the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule requires additional sites that are representative of worst-case conditions.
Minimum, maximum and average LRAA TTHM concentrations at each of the Stage 1 and IDSE sites are shown in Figure 6.19. Average LRAAs were below 60 µg/L at most sites, but the maximum concentrations approached 70 µg/L—less than 10% below the MCL—at several sites.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 56 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Locational Running Annual Averages for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 D/DBP Monitoring Locations for the BBWTP (2007-2009) 100.0
90.0 Min Max Avg TTHM MCL=80 ug/L 80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 TTHM Concentration (ug/L) (ug/L) Concentration TTHM 10.0
0.0
Location Figure 6.19 – Minimum, maximum and average LRAA TTHM concentrations at the four Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring sites in comparison with concentrations at the eight Stage 2 D/DBP Rule IDSE monitoring sites (2007-2009).
Quarterly HAA5 concentrations for the BBWTP distribution system are shown in Figure 6.20. Except for one unusually high average of 88 µg/L in February 2009, HAA5 concentrations were generally below 40 µg/L—roughly 30% below the HAA5 MCL of 60 µg/L. Minimum, maximum, and average LRAA HAA5 concentrations at each of the Stage 1 and IDSE individual sites are shown in Figure 6.21. Average concentrations were consistently about 50% of the MCL, and maximum concentrations were 40 µg/L or less. HAAs, it seems, are much less likely to exceed their respective MCLs than are the THMs.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 57 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 HAA5 Concentration in West Sacramento Distribution System (2005-2009) 100.0 Stage 1 - Quarterly Avgs - 4 Sites Note: Comparing Alum with PACl & 90.0 Adjusting chlorine feed point between 9/09 Stage 2 - Quarterly Avgs - 8 Sites and 10/09 80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 HAA5 Concentration (ug/L) HAA5(ug/L) Concentration 10.0
0.0
Sample Collection Month
Figure 6.20 – Quarterly average HAA5 concentrations in BBWTP’s distribution system. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule required four sites while the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule requires additional sitesLocational that are Runningrepresentative Annual of worstAverages-case conditions.for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 D/DBP Monitoring Locations for the BBWTP (2007-2009) 100.0
90.0 Min Max Avg
80.0
70.0 HAA5 MCL=60 ug/L 60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 HAA5 Concentration (ug/L) HAA5(ug/L) Concentration 10.0
0.0
Location Figure 6.21 – Minimum, maximum and average LRAA HAA5 concentrations at the four Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring sites in comparison with concentrations at the eight Stage 2 D/DBP Rule IDSE monitoring sites (2007-2009).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 58 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Disinfection byproducts in the distribution system from the SRWTP are discussed in the Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010 Update (Starr Consulting et al. 2010), and Figure 6.22 through Figure 6.25 were taken from that report. The SRWTP is just downstream of the confluence of the American River with the Sacramento River, and so its raw water quality is influenced by the American River which is of even better quality. The average TOC concentration of the river at the SRWTP’s intake was 1.75 mg/L between 2005 and 2009, while at the upstream BBWTP it was 2.37 mg/L for this same time period. Because the DBP precursor concentration is lower at the SRWTP, one would expect to see lower TTHM and HAA5 concentrations in the treated water and distribution system. The SRWTP pre-chlorinates the influent water ahead of clarification.
Figure 6.22 shows the quarterly TTHM averages for samples collected at four sites monitored as part of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. (The City of Sacramento collects quarterly samples at twelve sites that are representative of average and maximum residence times in the distribution system. Data from 4 of those 12 sites were used in the statistical summaries and figures included in the Sanitary Survey.) Those quarterly averages ranged from 24 µg/L to 60 µg/L—all well below the MCL of 80 µg/L. The minimum, maximum and average LRAA TTHM concentrations for each of these four sites are shown in Figure 6.23. Average LRAA concentrations were generally about half of the MCL, but at Site 11-5SE, the average LRAA concentration was just under 60 µg/L (25% below the MCL) and the maximum LRAA was just slightly below the MCL.
Figure 6.22 – Quarterly TTHM concentrations at four sites within the SRWTP distribution system (2005-2009) (Starr Consulting, 2010).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 59 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Figure 6.23 – TTHM LRAA statistics for four sites in the SRWTP distribution system, between 2005 and 2009 (Starr Consulting, 2010). Quarterly average HAA5 concentrations at the four SRWTP monitoring sites are shown in Figure 6.24. They range from 18 µg/L to 56 µg/L. Most quarterly averages were well below the HAA5 MCL, but in a few quarters, the concentrations approached this MCL. LRAA HAA5 concentrations are shown in Figure 6.25, and average concentrations were all approximately 50% of the MCL. The maximum LRAAs were approximately 30 #g/L, below the MCL of 40 #g/L, but not low enough meet the alternative criteria in the Stage 1 DBP rule when the effects of the IDSE are considered.
Figure 6.24 – Quarterly HAA5 concentrations at four sites within the SRWTP distribution system (2005-2009) (Starr Consulting, 2010).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 60 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Figure 6.25 – HAA5 LRAA statistics for four sites in the SRWTP distribution system, between 2005 and 2009 (Starr Consulting, 2010). In summary, while the two SDSDBP test results indicated low THM and HAA formation following enhanced coagulation, experience of downstream water treatment utilities indicate there is enough variability in water quality for the TTHM concentrations to periodically approach the regulatory MCL. So alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, should be also considered for the new DWWSP treatment facility.
6.3 Iron, Manganese and Aluminum Total iron concentrations ranged from 0.41 mg/L to 2.80 mg/L, total aluminum concentrations ranged from 0.27 mg/L to 2.40 mg/L. These two metals exceeded their respective secondary MCLs—0.3 mg/L for iron and 0.2 mg/L for aluminum (CaDPH, only)—in all samples. Aluminum also has a primary MCL in California of 1 mg/L, and the concentration exceeded this limit on one occasion, December 2010. The high concentrations of total Al and Fe were most likely associated with suspended clay and sediment in the river. Total manganese was measured monthly rather than quarterly and concentrations ranged from < 0.01 mg/L to 0.095 mg/L, with a secondary MCL of 0.05 mg/L. Manganese exceeded its sMCL in 7 out of 22 monthly samples. In order to determine what percentage of these total metal concentrations were present in particulate versus dissolved form, several samples were analyzed for both states beginning in September 2010 for manganese, and December 2010 for iron and aluminum. As was discussed in Section 4.2, the dissolved fraction of all three of these metals was only a small fraction of the total concentration.
A limited amount of historical data is available. DWR measured total and dissolved concentrations of these metals at its Verona monitoring site, remembering that water quality at Verona is heavily influenced by the Feather River. These data are plotted over time in Figure 6.26 and Figure 6.27. Peak dissolved Al and Fe concentrations measured at Verona are much higher than the dissolved concentrations measured at the DWWSP site. Also, the maximum total Al and Fe concentration measured in February 2009 is higher than the peak DWWSP concentration.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 61 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Dissolved Metal Concentrations in Source Water (Samples collected by DWR at the Verona monitoring station) 600 Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Iron 500 Dissolved Manganese
400
Secondary MCL for Fe (0.30 mg/L) 300
Secondary MCL for Al (0.20 mg/L) 200
Dissolved Metal Concenetration (ug/L) (ug/L) DissolvedMetalConcenetration 100 Secondary MCL for Mn (0.050 mg/L)
0 May-04 May-05 May-06 May-07 May-08 May-09 May-10 Date Figure 6.26 – Dissolved aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the DWR-Verona site (2004-2010). Total Metal Concentrations in Source Water (Samples collected by DWR at the Verona monitoring station) 3000 Total Aluminum Total Iron 2500 Total Manganese
2000
Secondary MCL for Mn 1500 (0.050 mg/L)
Secondary MCL for Secondary MCL for Al (0.20 mg/L) Fe (0.30 mg/L) 1000 Total Metal Concentration (ug/L) (ug/L) MetalConcentration Total 500
0 May-03 May-04 May-05 May-06 May-07 May-08 May-09 May-10 Date Figure 6.27 – Total aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the DWR- Verona site (2004-2010).
In particulate form, these metals should be fairly easily removed through clarification and filtration. In reduced form, treatment for these metals generally involves oxidation to an insoluble state, followed by sedimentation and/or filtration. Given the high oxygen concentrations in the river, both Fe and Al should consistently be predominantly in
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 62 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 particulate form. Manganese, however, can be found as Mn(II) even in an oxygenated environment because the rate of Mn oxidation by oxygen is slow at the pH of most surface waters. Mn(II) can lead to staining and discolored water if not effectively removed during treatment. Effective oxidation of these metals is particularly important for membrane filtration. Low-pressure membrane filtration (both with and without coagulation) has been found effective for removing particulate iron, but less effective for manganese because its oxidation is dependent on the type of oxidant applied and the dose (American Water Works Association 2005). If oxidation of the soluble metal is incomplete prior to filtration, Fe and Mn may precipitate within the membrane material, which could damage and permanently foul the membrane. Even after oxidation, colloidal iron and manganese are known to foul low-pressure membranes.
6.4 Microbial Parameters The LT2ESWTR requires 24 months of source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on the maximum RAA1 Cryptosporidium oocyst concentration, source waters are classified into different “Bins,” which dictate the level of microbial treatment required. The Rule states that a system with an average source water Cryptosporidium concentration less than 0.075 oocysts/L requires no additional treatment beyond the 2- log removal required under the IESWTR. Because monitoring is incomplete, it is premature to conclude what treatment Bin the DWWSP treatment facility will fall into. After 16 months of sampling, though, the average Cryptosporidium concentration is 0.021 oocysts/L and the maximum RAA concentration is 0.030 oocysts/L (the Aug 2009 through Dec 2010), indicating the DWWSP intake will fall into “Bin 1” and no additional Cryptosporidium treatment will be required. The BBWTP is in Bin 1 (Arthurs August 2010). Thus it seems the new treatment facility will be required to achieve at least 3-log removal/inactivation of Giardia, 4-log removal/inactivation of virus and 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium.
Giardia concentrations observed in the DWWSP sampling program ranged from 0 to 0.737 cysts/L. The geometric mean was 9.2 cysts/100 L. To put these numbers into perspective, the SWTR Guidance Manual (1991) provides recommendations of an appropriate degree of removal/inactivation of Giardia cycts based on source water geometric mean Giardia concentration. A 3-log Giardia removal/inactivation is recommended when the average (geometric mean) cyst concentration is " 1 cyst/100 L. When the source water concentration is between 1 and 10 cysts/100 L, the Guidance Manual recommends 4-log removal/inactivation. So, for this water, the Guidance Manual recommends 4-log removal/inactivation. It should be noted that this additional level of treatment, above the required 3-log removal/inactivation, is not a requirement of either the federal or state (CDPH) regulations—it is only a recommendation within the Guidance Manual.
The average total coliform concentration was 2,039 MPN/100 mL, with the most probable number (MPN) ranging from 79 to 17,000 MPN/100 mL. The SWTR Guidance
1 Running Annual Averages are also used for Cryptosporidium
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 63 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Manual (USEPA, 1990) provides general guidelines for selecting an appropriate filtration technology based on raw water microbial conditions. According to these guidelines, conventional filtration without pre-disinfection should be effective for a source water with a total coliform concentration <5,000/100 mL, and direct filtration with flocculation should be effective for a source total coliform concentration <500/100 mL. Based on these guidelines and the average total coliform concentration of this source water (2,039/100 mL), conventional filtration will likely be an effective technology. There currently is no State or Federal treatment regulation based on source water coliform or E. coli concentrations. Rather, as discussed in Section 3.4, the existing TCR and proposed RTCR require public water systems to monitor their distribution systems for total coliforms and E. coli, and to implement corrective actions within the distribution system should the microbial data indicate possible fecal contamination.
Total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, and E coli concentrations over the 16- month long monitoring period are shown in Figure 6.28. Concentrations were variable throughout the year, with the largest spike occurring in December 2010.
2000 18000 Fecal Coliform 1800 16000 E Coli 1600 Total Coliform 14000
1400 12000 1200 10000 1000 8000 800 6000 600
4000 400 (MPN/100 mL) Coliform Total
200 2000 Fecal Coliform and E. Coli (MPN/100 mL) Coli E. and FecalColiform
0 0
Date Figure 6.28 – Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform, and E. Coli Concentrations Over Time at the DWWSP Site.
6.5 Regulated and Unregulated Organic Contaminants As mentioned in Section 4, all organic contaminants (exclusive of the disinfection byproducts and formaldehyde in one sample) were measured below their respective RLs. This includes pesticides and other synthetic organic chemicals that have MCLs or required monitoring.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 64 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
The two rice herbicides, thiobencarb and molinate, are of particular interest to this project because of past heavy use within the watershed and past detection in the river. Both herbicides are regulated with primary MCLs—0.07 mg/L and 0.02 mg/L for thiobencarb and molinate, respectively. Thiobencarb also has a secondary MCL, set at 0.001 mg/L, based on taste issues. Sampling for these two herbicides was conducted eight times over the course of the monitoring program. While both have been widely used within the watershed in the past, molinate is now banned and thiobencarb use requirements have become more stringent and methods of application have changed in ways that may reduce incidental contamination outside the rice fields themselves. At the present time (March 2011) neither herbicide was detected in the DWWSP monitoring program.
Outside of the DWWSP water quality monitoring program, samples were collected as part of the California Rice Commission (CRC) Rice Pesticide Program at one location in the Sacramento River (SR1), two drains into the Sacramento River (CBD1 and CBD5), and two sloughs of the Sacramento River (BS1 and SSB), and analyzed for thiobencarb. These results are shown in Table 6.8. Thiobencarb was detected at levels above the analytical detection limit of 0.0005 mg/L (0.5 µg/L) once in the Sacramento River (SR1). In this sample, the thiobencarb concentration was 0.08 mg/L, which exceeded the primary MCL. Thiobencarb was detected in several samples from the drains and the sloughs.
The City of Sacramento and the City of West Sacramento also collected water samples from the Sacramento River at their intakes and analyzed the samples for molinate and bolero, a herbicide with thiobencarb as the active ingredient (Table 6.9). Both of these intake locations are downstream of the proposed DWWSP intake, and all samples had molinate and bolero concentrations below the analytical detection limit (0.0001 mg/L) and below their respective MCLs. Where these two pesticides are considered, conditions seem to be improving, particularly with the ban of molinate. Where thiobencrb is concerned, there is also reason for optimism, but, because of the compound’s adverse impact on the flavor of water, even when present at very low levels, prudence would suggest that the DWWSP treatment facility should be designed to address the need for its removal.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 65 2010 Rice Pesticides Program Monitoring Results Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table 5. Thiobencarb Monitoring Results Table 6.8 – Thiobencarb(Samples Monitoring collected Results for CRCas Part Rice ofPesticide the CRC Program) Rice Pesticide Program. Rice Pesticides Program 2010, Thiobencarb Monitoring Results Monitoring Sites Sampling Detection Limit for Valent (V) <0.5 ug/L, McCampbell (M) <0.5 ug/L, California Dates Laboratory Services (CLS) <0.5 ug/L CBD5 BS1 CBD1 SSB SR1 11-May ND ND ND ND ND 18-May ND ND ND ND ND 25-May 0.14 ND 0.75 0.10 0.08 27-May 0.85 ND 0.50 ND ND 1-Jun 0.61 0.10 0.35 ND ND/ND V/M 3-Jun 0.24 0.28/0.80 0.42 0.05 ND V/M 8-Jun 0.80 0.22 1.58/1.8 0.10 ND V/M 10-Jun 1.12/1.5 0.14 0.55 0.09 ND V/M 15-Jun 0.28 0.25 0.4 ND ND 17-Jun 0.22 0.14 0.53 ND/ND ND V/CLS 22-Jun ND ND ND ND ND ND/ND 24-Jun ND ND ND ND V/CLS 29-Jun 1-Jul 6-Jul
Monitoring Site Descriptions: CBD5 - Colusa Basin Drain within the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge south of Highway 20 BS1 - Butte Slough on Lower Pass Road northeast of Meridian CBD1 - Colusa Basin Drain at Road 99E and near Road 108 west of Knights Landing SSB - Sacramento Slough downstream CITY of the OF Karnack SACRAMENTO pumps SR1 - Sacramento UTILITIESRiver at the Village DIVISION, Marina on GardenWATER Highway QUALITY LABORATORY
2010 RICE HERBICIDE ANALYSIS Table 6.9 – City of Sacramento SRR-SACRAMENTO and City of West RIVER Sacramento WTP INTAKE 2010 Rice Herbicide Analyses. WSR-BRYTE BEND WTP INTAKE
DATE MOLINATE BOLERO MOLINATE BOLERO % SACTO. WSR WSR SRR SRR RIVER AT UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L SRR INTAKE 29-Apr-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 78.2 11-May-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 71.1 18-May-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 70.6 20-May-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 49.5 26-May-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 47.6 27-May-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 48.6 29-May-10 <0.1 a <0.1 a <0.1 <0.1 49.0 31-May-10 <0.1 b <0.1 b <0.1 <0.1 60.5 7-Jun-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.4 9-Jun-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 56.2 16-Jun-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 56.6 21-Jun-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 56.0 1-Jul-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 80.8 6-Jul-10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 74.2
a Sample taken at Crawdad's b Sample taken at Sand Cove Park
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 66 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
6.6 PPCPs and EDCs In May 2010, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) published results from a year-long study which investigated PPCPs and EDCs in drinking water sources in California (Guo et al. 2010). Results from that study which are particularly relevant to the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project, are summarized below.
Quarterly water samples were collected from the State Project Water (SPW) system, the Colorado River Water (CRW) system, and the Santa Ana River (SAR), and analyzed for 49 PPCPs and EDCs. Two of the study sampling sites were in the Sacramento Region: (1) the American River at the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant (FWTP), and (2) the second was in the Sacramento River at the City of West Sacramento’s BBWTP intake.
Samples from the American River site had no detectable levels of any of the PPCPs/EDCs, but a few compounds were detected in the Sacramento River (Table 6.10). Of the 49 PPCPs and EDCs analyzed, eight were detected, and of those eight, four had a detection frequency greater than 25%. Their concentrations were all extremely low, and only caffeine (stimulant), DDD (pesticide) and diuron (herbicide) had concentrations greater than 10 ng/L (or 10 parts per trillion). Sulfamethoxazole was found in all five samples, but at an average level of 5 ng/L (0.000005 mg/L).
Table 6.10 – PPCPs Measured in the Sacramento River at the BBWTP Intake as Part of the 2010 NWRI Study (Guo, et al., 2010).
Average Detection Compound Concentration (B) Frequency (A) (ng/L) Caffeine 25% 18 Carbamazepine 75% 2 DDD 25% 47 Diuron 75% 39 Gemfibrozil 50% 6 Primidone 25% 2 Sulfamethoxazole 100% 5 TCEP 25% 6 (A) Detection frequency calculated from a total of 4 samples, collected quarterly over one year. (B) Only concentrations above the detection limit were included in calculating the average. Compound included on the Recommended Monitoring List.
Quarterly sampling for PPCPs and EDCs was also initiated as part of the DWWSP water quality monitoring program in July 2010, following preparation of a whitepaper looking at synthetic organic chemicals in the Sacramento River watershed, and their potential for being in the river (Trussell Technologies, 2010). Samples were collected in July and October of 2010, and January 2011. Results were presented and discussed in Section 4.6, and are shown again in Table 6.11. Fifteen of the 86 compounds analyzed were detected. Just as for the NWRI study, the concentrations of detected PPCPs are all low, with the highest measured concentration being 200 ng/L (or 0.0002 mg/L) for the
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 67 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 artificial sweetener Acesulfame-K. Interestingly, the compounds detected in this study were all different from those detected in the NWRI study, even though the sample collection sites are very close (approximately 8 miles apart).
Municipal wastewater is often cited as the primary source of PPCPs and EDCs in surface waters. However, the Sacramento River receives only a minimal wastewater discharge upstream of the proposed WTF intake. Several of the detected PPCPs have been identified in literature as being recalcitrant, and poorly biodegraded through wastewater treatment or in the environment. The PPCPs listed in Table 6.11 that have also been cited in literature as being recalcitrant are DEET, iohexal, sucralose, and TDCPP.
All concentrations of detected PPCPs were very low, and there is no evidence that they pose a human health risk at these low levels. So far, evidence suggests that the presence of PPCPs and EDCs in the environment is more of an issue for aquatic life than for humans. Snyder, et al. (2008) did a very thorough assessment of the toxicity of these contaminants on human health in relation to the ultralow levels occasionally found in drinking water, and substantiated no evidence of human health risk from consumption of these waters. The authors concluded that human exposure to these compounds is exceedingly small compared to other routes of exposure such as foods, beverages, medications, etc. Nevertheless, the occurrence of PPCPs in a drinking water supply is often of great interest to the public. As a result treatment options for these contaminants will be briefly explored.
There is no single treatment process that has been demonstrated to effectively and efficiently remove all PPCPs and EDCs (to below detection). The persistence of the individual chemicals to be removed in treatment is a function of their structure, molecular size, polarity, etc. Snyder, et al. (2007) evaluated the effectiveness of various treatment processes on PPCP/EDC removal and reported ozone or ozone/H2O2 as being the most effective for the majority of PPCPs and EDCs. Their report also stated that NF and RO systems were shown to reject most target compounds. One process not considered by Snyder, et al. (2007) was ozone/biofiltration. Pilot results show that ozone in combination with biofiltration provides very effective removal of most PPCPs/EDCs, except for some of the most recalcitrant compounds (Lee et al. 2010; Gerrity et al. 2011, In Press).
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 68 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) Table 6.11 – PPCPs/EDCsDetected in Sacramento Detected Riverin the Water Sacramento Samples Collected River from at the RM 70.5DWWSP * site.
July-10 October-10 January-11 Compound Usage Concentration Concentration Concentration (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)
2,4-D Herbicide ND 17 ND
Acesulfame-K Artificial Sweetner ND 200 ND
Acetaminophen Analgesic ND ND 27 **
Butalbital Prescription Analgesic-NSAID ND ND 6.5
DACT Pesticide-Triazine Degradate ND ND 8.4 **
DEET Mosquito Repellant ND 2.5 ** ND
Dehydronifedipine Heart Medication 22 ND ND
Estradiol Hormone 5.1 ND ND
Furosimide Diuretic 36 ND ND
Iohexal X-ray Contrast Agent 12 110 ND
Meclofenamic Acid Anti-Inflammatory 7.9 ND ND
Sucralose Artifical Sweetner ND 110 ND
TDCPP Flame Retardant ND ND 7.5 **
Theobromine Caffine Degradate ND 38 19
Triclosan Antibacterial 14 ND ND * Samples were analyzed for 86 PPCPs. Only those compounds detected at concentrations above the Method Reporting Limit (MRL) are included in this table. The complete list of all PPCPs analyzed is shown in Attachment 1. ** Possible contamination. Contaminant was also present in the field blank. ND =Not Detected
7 WATER QUALITY ISSUES RELATED TO OTHER PREDESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Final Disinfection and Mixing of Finished Waters If enhanced coagulation does not remove enough DBP precursor material for compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule (MCL for TTHM = 0.080 mg/L; MCL for HAA5 = 0.060 mg/L), then primary disinfection and residual maintenance options other than free chlorine may be necessary. A qualitative comparison of alternative primary disinfectants, in comparison with free chlorine, is provided in Table 7.1. Combined chlorine is the best option for residual maintenance when free chlorine contact must be restricted. Table 7.1 – Effectiveness of Primary Disinfection Alternatives.
Microorganism Free Chlorine Ozone UV Bacteria Excellent Excellent Good Virus Excellent Excellent Fair Giardia lamblia Fair Good Excellent Cryptosporidium Poor Good Excellent
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 69 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
During the times of the year that existing groundwater sources are needed to supplement the surface water supply from the new WTF, the two sources will be mixed for distribution. Two viable scenarios for mixing are to (1) mix in the distribution system or (2) mix in a common finished water storage reservoir. Free chlorine is the disinfectant used in the groundwater. Under the scenario that chloramines are used for secondary disinfection at the new WTF, there may be spots in the distribution system where it may be difficult to maintain a disinfectant residual decreases due to mixing of the chlorinated and chloraminated waters, and the associated chlorine to ammonia ratio. There is also the possibility of chlorinous odors if the pH is below 7. Changes in total chlorine residual as a function of chlorine to ammonia ratio (mass basis) is shown in Figure 7.1, as explanation for the potential decrease in disinfectant residual.
Zone A Zone B Zone C
l Cl2/NH3 mole ratio = 1.0 Cl2/NH3 mole ratio = 1.5 a u d i s t e r n i
o e p n i k r a o e l r h B
c Un-
l Stable,
a stable, t
o combined combined T Free chlorine chlorine chlorine e n i ![NH3 + NH2Cl + NHCl2 + NCL3] r o l h c t
n d i e o n p
i Free k b
NH3 a e m r o B c
d n a
3 H N 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cl2/NH3-N, weight ratio Figure 7.1 – Changes in total chlorine concentration in relation to chlorine to ammonia ratios (Crittenden, 2005). After considering the options, the Cities have expressed that residual maintenance with chloramines is likely the preferred option for minimizing DBP formation. Three disinfection/mixing scenarios considered viable are:
1. Mix the chlorinated groundwater with the chloraminated surface water in the distribution system; 2. Change groundwater disinfection to chloramines at the individual wells and mix the two waters in the distribution system; or 3. Provide common storage reservoirs where the two waters can be mixed and the chloramine residual can be adjusted as necessary before distribution.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 70 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Considering the pros, cons, and potential costs, the first option—feeding both chlorinated and chloraminated water to the distribution system—is the preferred scenario, and loss of disinfectant residual is possibly not a critical issue for the following reasons:
1. The Sacramento River will become the primary source of water for the Cities, and the need for supplementing with groundwater should be infrequent; 2. Mixing of the two waters may be negligible as they may move independently, maintaining plug-flow conditions, through the system; and 3. Other utilities successfully distribute chlorinated and chloraminated water through their system without significant loss of disinfectant residual.
The distribution system will have to be managed to avoid blending of free chorine and chloramines in reservoirs. A more rigorous monitoring of reservoir residuals would be advised during those periods. Another mixing-related issue to be considered is the potential for “red water” caused by iron release from distribution system piping. Several factors influence the occurrence of red water episodes, the most important being pipe materials. Old galvanized pipe and cast iron pipe that is not mortar-lined are most commonly associated with the problem. Other confounding factors include: introducing a new water quality into the distribution system (unavoidable in this situation), increased water velocity through old pipe, changes in the direction of flow (e.g., Tucson, AZ), high sulfates and/or chlorides, low alkalinity, low pH, and changes in TDS levels.
7.2 Reservoir Storage Another design consideration is that systems that use chloramines for final disinfection are subject to nitrification in their reservoir(s) and/or distribution system. Quite a bit of literature is available regarding monitoring the system for nitrification, as well as measures that can be taken to prevent nitrification (Odell et al. 1996; Wilczak et al. 1996; Cohen et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2005).
Nitrification is the process by which ammonia is sequentially oxidized by autotrophic nitrifying bacteria to nitrite (by Nitrosomonas bacteria) and then to nitrate (by Nitrobacter bacteria). Nitrification is accompanied by a decrease in combined chlorine residual, ammonia concentration, dissolved oxygen concentration, and both alkalinity and pH, and an increase in nitrite and nitrate concentrations as well as heterotrophic bacteria (measured as heterotrophic plate count or HPC). Some of these changes are subtler than others, and thus more difficult to monitor.
Preventative measures include (a) providing a moderately high chloramine residual at the point of final disinfection to maintain a moderate residual in the distribution system (> 2 mg/L) and prevent re-growth of the ammonia nitrifying bacteria, (b) use a high chlorine (Cl2) to ammonia (NH3-N) mass ratio (between 4:1 and 5:1), (c) design the reservoir to provide good circulation in the reservoir to minimize and/or eliminate dead- zones, (d) minimize detention time in both the reservoir and distribution system (Odell et al. 1996; Harrington et al. 2002). Once the WTF is on-line, preventive operational
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 71 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 measures include periodic breakpoint chlorination and system-wide flushing. Experience shows that once nitrification has begun, increasing the combined chlorine residuals (even to very high levels) is ineffective at inactivating the nitrifying bacteria. In this situation, breakpoint chlorination and flushing of the system is the most effective action. Another alternative recently demonstrated is the use of low levels of chlorite ion, which seems to interfere with the nitrification process (McGuire et al. 2006).
From a water treatment point of view, research has shown that effective removal of TOC and DBP precursor material (e.g., enhanced coagulation) may also help prevent the onset of nitrification in systems using combined chlorine rather than free chlorine for final disinfection and residual maintenance (Odell et al. 1996; Harrington et al. 2002). A logical extension of this argument is that biofiltration to reduce biodegradable organic carbon may also be benficial. Other evidence suggests that efforts to maintain low levels of ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) can also be beneficial. This can, in part, be accomplished by using low doses of free chlorine or UV light.
7.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is the practice of injecting excess water into an aquifer for storage, and later recovering water from the same well during periods of demand. DWWSP is considering this option and wants to know the water quality implications of this practice. Employing ASR will allow water to be stored during the winter months when demand is lower and then recovered for distribution during the dry summer months when demand is higher. This scenario may allow the Cities to reduce reliance on their existing groundwater supply and supplement treated surface water with (surface) water previously treated and stored in the aquifer.
When water is injected into an aquifer for storage, whether or not changes in the injected water will occur depend on characteristics of the aquifer (e.g., geochemistry, permeability, composition of the aquifer material, etc.), and the chemical makeup, microbial makeup, and redox conditions of the native groundwater as well as the injected water.
It is difficult to assess ASR related water quality changes without more information about the aquifer. Key water quality issues to be considered, however, are dissolution of minerals, degree of mixing with native groundwater and the associated changes in TDS, attenuation or formation of disinfection byproducts since the injected water would carry a disinfectant residual, and nitrification if combined chlorine rather than free chlorine is used for final disinfection.
Besides water quality, there are many more regulatory, engineering and operational issues that would need to be considered if ASR is pursued.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 72 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
8 REFERENCES
American Water Works Association (2005). AWWA Manual M53 - Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes for Drinking Water. Denver, CO. Arthurs, B. (August 2010). Personal Communication. California State Department of Public Health (2010 (updated)). Title 22 Code of Regulations. Sacramento. City of Davis, C. o. W., UC Davis (2007). Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project Community Report. City of Woodland, C. (2009). Annual Water Quality Report. PWS ID#:5710006. Cohen, U. K., C. Smith and H. Baribeau (2001). "Nitrification: Causes, Prevention, and Control." Journal American Water Works Association(December): 6-12. Crittenden, J. C., R. R. Trussell, D. W. Hand, K. J. Howe and G. Tchobanoglous (2005). Water Treatment: Principles and Design, Second Edition, John Wiey & Sons, Inc. Crittenden, J. C., R. R. Trussell, D. W. Hand, K. J. Howe and G. Tchobanoglous (2011, In Press). Water Treatment: Principles and Design, Third Edition, John Wiey & Sons, Inc. Eaton, A. D., L. S. Clesceri, E. W. Rice and A. E. Greenberg (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st Edition. Edberg, S. C., E. W. Rice, R. J. Karlin and M. J. Allen (2000). "Escherichia Coli: The Best Biological Drinking Water Indicator for Public Health Protection." Journal of Applied Microbiology 88: 106S-116S. Gerrity, D., S. Gamage, J. C. Holday, D. B. Mawhinney, O. Quinones, R. A. Trenholm and S. A. Snyder (2011, In Press). "Pilot-Scale Evaluation of Ozone and Biologicl Activated Carbon for Trace Organic Contaminant Mitigation and Disinfection." Water Research. Glysson, G. D. and J. R. Gray (2002). Total Suspended Solids Data for Use in Sediment Studies. Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates Workshop. Reno, NV. Guo, Y. C., S. W. Krasner, S. Fitzsimmons, G. Woodside and N. Yamachika (2010). Source, Fate, and Transport of Endocrine Disruptors, Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products in Drinking Water Sources in California, National Water Research Institute. Harrington, G. W., D. R. Noguera, A. I. Kandou and D. J. Vanhoven (2002). "Pilot-Scale Evaluation of Nitrification Control Strategies." Journal American Water Works Association 94(11): 78-89. Krasner, S. W. (2010). Personal Communication. Lee, C. O., K. J. Howe and B. M. Thomson (2010). Ozone and Biofiltration as an Alternative to Reverse Osmosis for Removing PPCPs and EDCs from Wastewater. Albuquerque, NM, New Mexico Environment Department, University of New Mexico. Liu, B. S., J. S. Taylor, A. A. Randall and J. D. Dietz (2005). "Nitrification Modeling in Chloraminated Distribution Systems." Journal American Water Works Association 97(10): 98-108.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 73 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
McGuire, M. J., K. Arnold, N. K. Blute and M. Pearthree (2006). "Demonstration-Scale Study of Nitrification Control Using Chlorite Ion in a Distribution System Reservoir." AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Najm, I., J. P. Marcinko and J. Oppenheimer (2002). "Evaluating TOC Analytical Results." Journal American Water Works Association 92(8): 84-92. Najm, I. N. and S. W. Krasner (1995). "Effects of Bromide and NOM on By-Product Formation." Journal American Water Works Association 87(1): 106-115. O'Dell, J. W. (August 1993). Method 180.1 - Determination of Turbidity by Nephelometry. I. C. B. U.S. EPA. Odell, L. H., G. J. Kirmeyer, A. Wilczak, J. G. Jacangelo, J. P. Marcinko and R. L. Wolfe (1996). "Controlling Nitrification in Chloraminated Systems." Journal American Water Works Association(July): 86-98. Sanders, M. (2010). Personal Communication. Snyder, S. A., R. A. Trenholm, E. M. Snyder, G. M. Bruce, R. C. Pleus and D. C. Hemming (2008). Toxicological Relevance of Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water. Denver, CO, WateReuse Foundation, California Urban Water Agencies, Southern Nevada Water Authority. Snyder, S. A., E. C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff and Y. Yoon (2007). Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes Denver, CO, AWWARF. Starr Consulting, Palencia Consulting Engineers and Talavera & Richardson (2010). Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010 Update. Tchobanoglous, G., F. L. Burton and H. D. Stensel (2003). Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill. Trussell Technologies, I. (2010). Synthetic Organic Chemicals in the Sacramento River Watershed: Use, Monitoring, and Treatment Related to the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project. U.S. EPA (1998). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. U.S. EPA (2002). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. U.S. EPA (2006). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. 4 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. U.S. EPA (2010). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule; Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142. USGS. (2005). "http://or.water.usgs.gov/grapher/fnu.html." White, M. C., J. D. Thompson, G. W. Harrington and P. C. Singer (1997). "Evaluating Criteria for Enhanced Coagulation Compliance." Journal American Water Works Association 89(5): 64-77. Wilczak, A., J. G. Jacangelo, J. P. Marcinko, L. H. Odell and G. J. Kirmeyer (1996). "Occurrence of Nitrification in Chloraminated Distribution Systems." Journal American Water Works Association(July): 74-85.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 74 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Appendix A – Raw Water Quality Data from the DWWSP Monitoring Program
°C pH MFL NTU TON mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units mg-N/L colorunits µmhos/cm Updated2-11-2011 0.032 10/26/10
0.020 9/28/10
7/13/10 G E E 9 64 64 14 65 17 6.6 9.4 7.3 2.4 2.2 1.1 9.2 6.4 ND 110 170 7.86 0.63 0.55 0.026 0.066 16.65 0.037 ND(1) 0.0024 <0.40 5/25/10 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(2.0) ND(0.1) ND(1.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.006) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) G E E E 11 11 86 86 19 10 95 15 15 37 28 A 2.7 4.7 1.5 0.1 ND 220 140 0.13 9.96 0.98 7.68 0.76 11.47 0.072 0.071 0.058 0.0025 <2.00 2/24/10 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(2.0) ND(0.1) ND(1.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.006) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater G E E 5 11 11 92 92 18 92 17 12 8.6 4.0 3.6 2.2 9.1 ND 230 150 0.11 0.15 0.41 7.83 9.86 0.27 10.02 0.032 0.075 0.085 0.0028 <0.99 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(2.0) ND(0.1) ND(1.0) ND(0.1) 11/30/09 ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.006) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) 9.98 16.1 0.037 10/5/09 Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring G
E E - llected from the Sacramento River at RM 70.5) -- -- 95 95 17 10 87 10 16 15 10 9.5 1.3 2.9 1.2 8.4 ND 220 130 0.11 0.35 0.028 0.067 0.050 0.48 0.0029 <0.99 8/25/09 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(2.0) ND(0.1) ND(1.0) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.006) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) A.1 A.1 -1 -- °C S/cm cm MFL NTU units Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units ! mg-N/L mg-N/L colorunits Table Table (Samplesco 2 ------(Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.05 DLR 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 CDPH 1 3 5 7 1 2 ------15 45 10 0.5 0.3 250 900 250 500 0.01 0.05 0.15 TBD 1/0.2 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.015 0.002
1.3/1.0 0.05/0.5 MCL/NL ------List sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL sMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL sMCL/NL pMCL/sMCL pMCL/sMCL FuturepMCL ) 3 Parameter General Water Characteristics Chemical) (Physicaland GeneralWater total Alkalinity, -Bicarbonate asCaCO3 -Carbonate asCaCO3 -Hydroxide asCaCO3 Ammonia(asN) Bromide Calcium Chloride Color DissolvedOxygen (Field Measurement) Agents(MBAS) Foaming HardnessasCaCO3 Total Iron, Magnesium Manganese Nitrate(asNO NitrateNitrite+ (asN) Nitrite(asN) Odor-Threshold OrganicCarbon, Dissolved (DOC) (TOC) Total OrganicCarbon, pH Phosphorus(totalasP) Potassium Sodium SpecificConductance Sulfate (Field Measurement) Temperature Dissolved Solids (TDS) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Turbidity UV-254 generalwater characteristics) in included (not secondaryaprimaryor (s)MCL (p) with Contaminants Inorganic Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Asbestos Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium(Total) Chromium(VI) Copper Cyanide Fluoride Lead Mercury(inorganic) Appendix A (Page 8) 1outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 75 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units Updated2-11-2011 10/26/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005)
9/28/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 7/13/10 (continued)
B 5/25/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.003) ND(0.045) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.004) ND(0.00001) ND(0.00002) ND(2.12E-10) I I B I A 2/24/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.045) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(0.003) ND(0.002) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.00001) ND(0.00002) ND(2.12E-10) B Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater
11/30/09 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.003) ND(0.045) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.004) ND(1.04E-9) ND(0.00001) ND(0.00002) 10/5/09 ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0001) B 8/25/09 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.05) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.003) ND(0.002) ND(0.045) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(1.0E-5) ND(1.0E-5) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.004) ND(0.00001) ND(0.00002) ND(2.39E-10) Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring
- Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units A.1 A.1 (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 DLR 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.045 0.025 0.001 0.003 0.002 CDPH 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0005 0.00001 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 5.00E-09 Table Table 5 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.018 0.001 0.018 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.00005 0.00001 0.00001 3.00E-08 MCL/NL 0.013/0.005 List sMCL sMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL
pMCL/sMCL
Parameter (Freon113) Nickel Perchlorate Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc (excludes DBPs) aprimary secondaryor MCL with Contaminants Organic (1,1,1-TCA) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane(1,1-DCA) 1,1-Dichloroethylene(1,1-DCE) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2-DCA) 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p-DCB) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(Dioxin) (Silvex) 2,4,5-TP 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid (2,4-D) Alachlor Atrazine Bentazon Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Carbofuran Tetrachloride Carbon Chlordane cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Dalapon Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Dibromochloropropane(DBCP) Dichloromethane(Methylene chloride) Dinoseb Diquat(dissolved) Endothall Endrin Ethylbenzene EthyleneDibromide (EDB) Glyphosate Heptachlor HeptachlorEpoxide Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Lindane Methoxychlor butylMethyl ethertert (MTBE) Molinate Monochlorobenzene Oxamyl Appendix A (Page 8) 2outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 76 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
µg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L Units
oocysts/L MPN/100mL Updated2-11-2011 10/26/10 ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005)
9/28/10 ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) 7/13/10 (continued)
H E E 02) 23 0.090 0.113 0.104 0.0452 0.0599 <0.10 5/25/10 0.00443 0.00325 0.01360 0.00170 ND(386) ND(0. ND(1.53) ND(1.81) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.278) ND(0.703) ND(0.422) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0006) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) H E E 02) 17 A 0.181 0.153 0.201 0.0577 0.0899 <0.10 2/24/10 0.00586 0.02000 0.00194 ND(381) ND(1.38) ND(1.73) ND(0. ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.262) ND(0.766) ND(0.329) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0006) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater H E E 02) 7.8
0.25 0.198 0.215 0.0073 0.0929 0.1390 0.0018 <0.10 0.00879 0.01680 0.00129 11/30/09 ND(381) ND(1.36) ND(1.72) ND(0. ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.766) ND(0.267) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0006) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) 0.332 ± 1.20 10/5/09 ND(0.0002) ND(0.0006) H E E 02) 7.8 0.141 0.182 0.159 0.0730 0.0998 <0.10 8/25/09 0.00643 0.00231 0.01760 0.00195 ND(381) ND(1.38) ND(1.67) ND(0. ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.280) ND(0.766) 2.73 ± 1.23 ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring
- µg/L Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L Units mrem/yr oocysts/L MPN/100mL A.1 A.1 3 1 2 1 ------(Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) 0.02 DLR 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1,000 CDPH 0.0002 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 4mrem/yr Table Table 1 4 8 -- 15 30 TT TT 0.5 0.1 0.15 1.75 0.01 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 20,000 MCL/NL 0.07/0.001 List pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL/sMCL
(Formation Potential) Parameter 5 Monochloroaceticacid (MCAA) Dichloroaceticacid (DCAA) acid (TCAA) Trichloroacetic Monobromoaceticacid (MBAA) Dibromoaceticacid (DBAA) Chloroform(CHCl3) Bromodichloromethane(CHBrCl2) Dibromochloromethane(CHBr2Cl) Bromoform(CHBr3) Monochloroaceticacid (MCAA) Dichloroaceticacid (DCAA) acid (TCAA) Trichloroacetic Monobromoaceticacid (MBAA) Dibromoaceticacid (DBAA) Chloroform(CHCl3) Bromodichloromethane(CHBrCl2) Dibromochloromethane(CHBr2Cl) Bromoform(CHBr3) Pentachlorophenol Picloram PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs) Simazine Styrene (PCE) Tetrachloroethylene Thiobencarb Toluene Xylenes Total Toxaphene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (TCE) Trichloroethylene (Freon 11) Trichlorofluoromethane Chloride Vinyl By-Products Disinfection Haloacetic acids (HAA5) Total (TTHMs) Trihalomethanes Total Bromate Chlorite Potential By-Products Formation Disinfection HAA Total - (FormationTHMs Potenital) -Total MCLan with Radionuclides AlphaParticle Gross BetaParticleGross Radium-228 Strontium-90 Tritium Uranium results) summary(see monthly additional for Microbiological Cryptosporidium coli E. Appendix A (Page 8) 3outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 77 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
No.
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units
MPN/100mL MPN/100mL Updated2-11-2011 05)
10/26/10 ND(0.0 ND(0.002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(5.00E-06) 05) 9/28/10 ND(0.001) ND(0.0 ND(0.002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(5.00E-06)
7/13/10 H 03) 05) F F 23 170 0.0049 <0.10 5/25/10 ND(0.1) ND(5.0) ND(0.02) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) (continued) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.002) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001)
ND(0.5E-05) ND(0.2E-05) ND(0.7E-05) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) H 03) 05) F F F F 17 A 430 0.019 0.0056 <0.10 2/24/10 ND(0.1) ND(5.0) ND(0.02) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.002) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.5E-05) ND(0.2E-05) ND(0.7E-05) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater 03) 05) F F F F 23 1300 0.195 0.0047 ND(0.1) ND(5.0) 11/30/09 ND(0.02) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.002) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.5E-05) ND(0.2E-05) ND(0.7E-05) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005)
F F F F 10/5/09 ND(0.001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0005) ND(0.5E-05) ND(0.2E-05) ND(0.7E-05) H 03) 05) F F F F 23 1100 0.0056 <0.10 8/25/09 ND(0.1) ND(5.0) ND(0.02) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.0 ND(0.005) ND(0.002) ND(0.003) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.00005) Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units cysts/L MPN/100mL MPN/100mL Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring
------(Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) 0.1 0.02 DLR 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.003 CDPH 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 5.00E-06 A.1 A.1 1 1 ------14 TT TT 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.35 0.77 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.003 0.001 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.015 0.001 0.002 0.0003 0.0006 5.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 MCL/NL Table Table NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL aNL List CCL3 CCL3 CCL3 CCL3 pMCL pMCL aNL and CCL3 aNL
Parameter Sodium)and Ziram FecalColiform Giardia Coliform Total contaminants) MCL (excluding Contaminants Level(NL) CDPHNotification (1,2,3-TCP) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,4-Dioxane (TNT) 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 2-Chlorotoluene 4-Chlorotoluene Boron Carbondisulfide Chlorate Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freon 12) Ethyleneglycol Formaldehyde HMX Isopropylbenzene Methylisobutyl ketone (MIBK) Naphthalene n-Butylbenzene N-Nitrosodiethyamine(NDEA) N-Nitrosodimethylamine(NDMA) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine(NDPA) n-Propylbenzene Propachlor RDX sec-Butylbenzene tert-Butylbenzene butyl alcohol (TBA) Tertiary Vanadium level(aNL) CDPH selectarchived notification and pesticideswith contaminants unregulated Additional Aldicarb Baygon Captan Carbaryl Chloropicrin Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Dimethoate Disulfoton Diuron Fenamiphos Hexazinone Malathion Methylbromide (bromomethane) Methylparathion Metribuzin N-Methyldithiocarbamate (Metam Parathion(EthylParathion) Pentachloronitrobenzene Appendix A (Page 8) 4outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 78 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units Updated2-11-2011 10/26/10 ND(0.0001)
9/28/10 ND(0.0001) (continued)
7/13/10 5/25/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.025) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0008) ND(0.0009) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0003) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0000056) A 2/24/10 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.025) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0008) ND(0.0009) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0003) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.00005) ND(0.000005)
Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater 11/30/09 ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.025) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0008) ND(0.0009) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0003) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.00001) 10/5/09 ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0007) ND(0.0008) ND(0.0009) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0003) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) -- Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring 8/25/09
ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.01) ND(0.025) ND(0.001) - ND(0.0001) ND(0.0001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0001) ND(0.000005) A.1 A.1 Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units Table Table ------(Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) DLR CDPH ------0.0002 MCL/NL
List CCL3 CCL3 pMCL UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR D
UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3
Parameter
Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzofluoranthene(k) Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
(BDE-153) (BDE-99) (BDE-100) (BDE-47) Perfluorooctanoic Acid(PFOA) Perfluorooctanoic Permethrin PolyaromaticHydrocarbons (PAHs): Propanil UCMR and 2 2only) UCMR1and 1(List 1,2-diphenylhydrazine 1,3-dinitrobenzene 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl(HBB) 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenylether 2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenylether 2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenylether 2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenylether 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2,4-dichlorophenol 2,4-dinitrophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene 2,6-dinitrotoluene 2-methylphenol 4,4'-DDE Acetochlor Acetochlorethane sulfonic acid (ESA) Acetochloroxanilic acid (OA) Alachlorethane sulfonic acid(ESA) Alachloroxanilic acid (OA) di-acid degradgate DCPA mono-acid degradate DCPA EPTC Fonofos Linuron Metolachlor Metolachlorethane sulfonic acid(ESA) Metolachloroxanilic acid (OA) Nitrobenzene Appendix A (Page 8) 5outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 79 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units
Updated2-11-2011
2.5 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(1.0) ND(20) ND(10) ND(20) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(20) ND(20) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) 10/26/10 ND(0.01) ND(100) 9/28/10 ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(1.0) ND(0.1)
22 7.9 7/13/10 ND(20) ND(10) ND(20) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(20) ND(10) ND(20) ND(20) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(2.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) 5/25/10 ND(5.0) (continued)
ND(0.002) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.4E-05) ND(0.3E-05) ND(0.2E-05) A 2/24/10 ND(5.0) ND(0.002) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.4E-05) ND(0.3E-05) ND(0.2E-05) Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater ND(5.0) 11/30/09 ND(0.002) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.4E-05) ND(0.3E-05) ND(0.2E-05)
10/5/09 ND(0.002) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0004) ND(0.4E-05) ND(0.3E-05) ND(0.2E-05) 8/25/09 ND(5.0) µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring
------(Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) DLR CDPH A.1 A.1 ------MCL/NL Table Table -- -- List CCL3 CCL3 CCL3 UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3 UCMR/CCL3
Parameter
N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine(NDBA) N-nitroso-methylethylamine(NMEA) N-nitroso-pyrrolidine(NPYR) Prometon Terbacil Terbufos sulfone Terbufos September 2010)in list monitoring to pesticides(added unregulated Additional Acrolein Chlorothalonil Oxyfluorfen Trifluralin SPE - Mode DisruptorsPositive PPCPsEndocrine - 1,7-Dimethylxanthine Acetaminophen Albuterol Amoxicillin(semi-quantitative) Andorostenedione Atenlol Atrazine Bezafibrate Bromacil Caffeine Carbadox Carbamazepine Carisoprodol Chloridazon Chlorotoluron Cimetidine Cotinine Cyanazine DACT DEA DEET Dehydronifedipine DIA Diazepam Dilantin Diuron Erythromycin Flumeqine Fluoxetine Isoproturon Ketoprofen Ketorolac Lidocaine Lincomycin Linuron Lopressor Acid Meclofenamic Meprobamate Metazachlor Nifedipine Appendix A (Page 8) 6outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 80 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L Units
Updated2-11-2011 38 17 110 200 ND(10) ND(10) ND(50) ND(10) ND(10) ND(20) ND(10) ND(10) NA (5.0) NA ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) 10/26/10 ND(100)
9/28/10 -- -- 36 12 5.1
7/13/10 ND(10) ND(10) ND(50) ND(10) ND(10) ND(20) ND(10) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(100) 5/25/10 (continued)
A 2/24/10 Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater 11/30/09
10/5/09 8/25/09 ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water Units Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5)
DLR CDPH - A.1 A.1 ------MCL/NL Table Table List CCL3 CCL3 CCL3 Parameter Norethisterone Acid Oxolinic Pentoxifylline Primidone Progesterone Propazine Quinoline Simazine Sulfachloropyridazine Sulfadiazine Sulfadimethoxin Sulfamerazine Sulfamethazine Sulfamethizole Sulfamethoxazole Sulfathiazole TCEP Testoterone Theobromine Theophylline Trimethoprim SPE DisruptorsNegative- Mode PPCPsEndocrine - 2,4-D 4-nonylphenolsemi- quantatitive 4-tert-Octylphenol Acesulfame-K Bendroflumethiazide (Bisphenol-A) BPA Butalbital Butylparaben Chloramphenicol Diclofenac Estradiol(17 beta) Estrone EthinylEstradiol 17- alpha Ethylparaben Furosimide Gemfibrozil Ibuprofen Iohexal Iopromide Isobutylparaben Appendix A (Page 8) 7outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 81 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L Units Updated2-11-2011
110 ND(20) ND(10) ND(10) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) 10/26/10
9/28/10 14 7/13/10 ND(20) ND(10) ND(5.0) ND(5.0) ND(100) (continued)
5/25/10 A 2/24/10 Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater
11/30/09 10/5/09 8/25/09 Quarterly Monitoring Data DWWSPQuarterlyfor Monitoring
- ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L Quarterly Water Quality Data for DWWSP Data DWWSP for Quality Quarterly Water Units A.1 A.1 (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) DLR CDPH Table Table ------MCL/NL List orGiardia counted in thesample was zero,even though thereporting limit ishigher. cryptosporidium Parameter notincluded. Some UCMR 1and 2compounds are listed elsewhere within thistable. Aeromonas Thenumber asbestosof fibers counted in thesample was zero,even though thereporting limit ishigher. (1) For all(1)For compounds reported asNotDetected (ND),thevalue in parantheses istheReporting Limit. TheMethod Detection Limitperchlorate for is0.98 µg/L,while theReporting Limit is4.0µg/L. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) are always lower than theDLRs. TheReporting Limit (RL) isgreater than CDPH's Detection LimitReporting for (DLR).However, Thenumber of Measured value isgreater than treated water MCL. Data notreported. The lab reported a value that was above the MDL, but below the RL. Theparameter isconsidered ND,because theconcentration was less than theRL. Thelab reported avalue wasthat above theMDL,butbelow theRL. Methylparaben Naproxen Propylparaben Sucralose Triclosan Warfarin Notes: methods. (2)Some compounds were measured bymore than one analytical method, which was simply afunction thedifferent of When thisoccurred, themeasurement with thelower Detection Limit was included in thisdata table. Chlorite: MDL=0.004 RL=0.10mg/L; mg/L 1,4-Dioxane: MDL=0.0016 RL=0.01mg/L; mg/L MDL=0.00055 MIBK: RL=0.01 mg/L; mg/L A B C D E F G H I Appendix A (Page 8) 8outof A Appendix
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 82 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units cysts/L oocysts/L
Updated2-11-2011 MPN/100mL MPN/100mL MPN/100mL
-- 0.023 1/25/11 0 -- 1100 1700 0.011 0.095 0.071 0.073 0.002 2.300 2.800 0.088 0.093 1.900 2.400 0.047 0.074 17000 0.0049 0.0046 0.0089 0.0031 0.0031
12/28/10
490 490 2200 0.056 0.920 0.580 0.0088 0.0055 0.0027 12/21/10 ND(0.027) ND(0.0068) 33 33
1700 0.055 0.043 0.810 1.000 0.074 0.090 0.005 0.600 0.700 0.045 0.044 0.0021 0.0048 0.0031 0.0047 12/14/10 ND(0.002) 240 240 1100 0.054 0.660 0.043 0.380 0.0024 0.0039 12/7/10 ND(0.003) ND(0.027) 0 0 -- 22 7.8 3300 0.029 0.027 0.0039 11/30/10 0 490 490 3300 0.286 0.032 0.0039 10/26/10 0 0 14 9.3 1700
0.020 0.0021 9/28/10
0 0 ------170 130 3100 0.031 8/31/10 0 0 6.8 6.8 790 0.113 0.036 0.124 0.107 0.0116 0.0434 0.0585 7/27/10 0.00102 0.00534 ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 0 0 63 26 2300 0.036 0.127 0.145 0.082 0.144 0.0177 0.0546 0.0013 6/29/10 0.00209 0.00572 ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 0 0 23 23 170 0.113 0.026 0.630 0.550 0.090 0.104 0.0049 0.0136 0.0017 0.0452 0.0599 5/25/10 0.00443 0.00325 ND(0.1) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) Raw Water Quality Monitoring Data - Lab Results Data Lab - Monitoring Quality RawWater 0 26 17 1300 0.186 0.038 0.132 0.143 0.158 0.0113 0.0599 0.0888 4/27/10 0.00076 0.00624 0.00295 ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 0 0 2 -- -- 79 4.5 0.021 0.109 0.109 0.0113 0.0972 0.0039 0.0428 0.0591 3/30/10 0.00124 0.00277 ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 0 0 17 17 430 0.058 0.980 0.760 0.181 0.020 0.201 0.153 0.0056 0.0577 0.0899 2/24/10 0.00194 0.00586 ND(0.1) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) Monitoring Data DWWSPfor Monitoring
Monthly Water Quality Data DWWSP for Quality Water Monthly 0 -- -- 330 330 3500 0.273 0.095 0.220 0.232 0.091 0.208 0.304 0.0113 1/26/10 0.00485 ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) -- -- 7.8 7.8 3500 0.089 0.178 0.041 0.170 0.186 0.107 0.181 0.0159 0.0077 0.0666 0.00111 12/28/09 ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ND(0.00015) Monthly
- 0 23 7.8 llected from the Sacramento River at RM 70.5) 1300 0.195 0.032 0.410 0.270 0.198 0.215 0.139 0.250 0.0047 0.0168 0.0073 0.0929 0.0018 0.00129 0.00879 ND(0.1) 11/30/09 ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) A.2 A.2 0 2 2 -- -- 540 0.011 0.737 0.024 0.120 0.131 0.161 0.0008 0.0637 0.0895 0.00573 0.00164 10/27/09 ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) 0 13 7.8 280 Table Table 0.112 0.195 0.124 0.122 0.0122 0.0491 0.0639 9/28/09 0.00108 0.00517 0.00267 0.00137 ND(0.01) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0002) ND(0.0005) (Samplesco 0 0 23 7.8 1100 0.028 0.480 0.350 0.141 0.159 0.073 0.182 0.0056 0.0176 0.0998 8/25/09 0.00195 0.00643 0.00231 ND(0.1) ND(0.001) ND(0.002) ND(0.001) ND(0.001) ND(0.0005) ND(0.0005) ------mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Units cysts/L oocysts/L MPN/100mL MPN/100mL MPN/100mL CDPH ------TT TT TT TT 0.3 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.06 1/0.2 0.002 0.0005 0.05/0.5 MCL/NL 0.07/0.001 ------NL List* sMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL pMCL sMCL/NL pMCL/sMCL pMCL/sMCL Lab MWH CLS CLS CLS CLS CLS CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS MWH CLS BioVir BioVir Bromide Parameter (DBAA) (HAA5) (MCAA) Crypto Giardia Thiobencarb Molinate Coliforms Total FecalColiforms Coli E. Dissolved Vanadium, Aluminum,Dissolved Chloroform(CHCl3) Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane Bromoform(CHBr3) THMs Total Monochloroaceticacid Dichloroaceticacid acid Trichloroacetic Monobromoaceticacid Dibromoaceticacid Acids Haloacetic Total Mercury(unfiltered) 1,2-dichloroethane (CHBr2Cl) (DCAA) (CHBrCl2) (MBAA) (TCAA) Crypto/Giardia &Thiobencarb Molinate Parameters Microbiological SelectMetals Mercury(unfiltered) 1,2-dichloroethane Bromide Manganese, Total Manganese, Manganese, Dissolved Total Iron, DissolvedIron, Total Vanadium, Total Aluminum, Potential Formation &HAA THM Note: For allFor Note: compounds reported asNotDetected (ND),thevalue in parantheses istheReporting Limit. ratheroroocysts/L, than theReporting Limit,isshown Giardiafor and Cryptosporidium whenever zero were counted in the10-liter (+) Zerocysys/L Thereason isbecause zero,rather than theReporting Limit,isused calculateto theaverage concentration. sample.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 83 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
-- -- 9.8 9.9 NA 9.4 8.37 8.35 9.87 9.61 9.98 9.96 9.98 9.92 9.76 9.43 9.85 10.6 9.23 9.85 9.96 9.67 9.89 9.51 9.73 8.83 8.92 9.28 9.24 9.75 8.76 8.87 8.71 8.51 7.98 8.41 8.43 10.14 10.02 10.12 10.72 10.41 10.88 10.51 10.25 10.08 10.44 (mg/L) Oxygen
Dissolved Updated2-11-2011
-- -- (°C) 16.1 9.86 7.46 8.28 8.32 7.66 9.56 9.34 8.36 18.2 11.43 11.47 11.02 11.77 11.53 11.14 11.62 Temp. 22.63 20.16 21.15 20.71 15.82 16.66 15.82 14.63 13.64 10.12 10.05 10.08 10.48 10.87 14.46 14.16 15.91 16.83 16.27 15.31 18.39 16.65 18.83 19.54 20.57 23.37 21.74 21.85 D D 7 8 ------76 8.1 9.3 9.5 19.4 12.2 10.7 15.9 10.6 12.6 17.3 20.1 15.6 15.5 14.9 13.7 47.2 69.5 72.8 40.4 52.7 41.3 25.4 24.9 16.4 46.3 53.5 30.3 38.4 22.6 14.2 10.2 36.2 27.7 14.2 14.7 12.3 12.1 13.9 Field (NTU) 195.1 192.4 282.8 Turbidity Turbidity Field Analyses Field B ------196 146 189 178 170.1 132.3 120.2 125.8 207.5 224.7 220.2 216.8 223.9 232.5 221.8 221.2 191.6 212.5 217.7 144.5 181.5 127.2 122.6 216.7 182.4 202.6 175.3 195.6 162.6 168.5 162.1 170.4 156.5 144.6 157.6 154.5 153.9 156.6 133.1 137.7 145.5 141.9 128.3 (µS/cm) 141.5 Specific Conductance C -- -- pH 7.21 6.37 7.52 7.61 7.83 7.76 7.52 7.73 6.93 6.35 6.05 6.82 6.57 6.78 7.32 7.08 7.10 6.91 7.63 7.77 7.08 6.88 6.75 6.82 6.83 6.70 6.90 6.75 6.71 6.69 6.92 7.42 7.16 7.06 7.46 7.36 7.26 7.20 7.15 7.04 7.20 7.37 7.18 7.31
5.66
pH 7.83 7.68 7.86 0.11 0.15 0.13 (mg/L-N) ND(0.1) Ammonia E m/mg) ! 3.846 2.125 2.630 1.542 SUVA (L DOC MWH Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; 1.3 4.0 2.7 2.4 CLS DOC Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; 95 92 86 64 Sacramento River at RM 70.5) RM at River Sacramento Total Total CaCO3) (mg/L as (mg/L Alkalinity Alkalinity Monitoring Data DWWSPfor Monitoring 2 2
17 17 23 26 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 mL) 330 E. Coli E. (MPN/100 2 23 13 23 17 26 23 63 7.8 4.5 mL) 330 Fecal Coliform Weekly (MPN/100 Weekly Water Quality Data DWWSP for Quality Water Weekly
- llected from the 79 mL) 280 540 430 170 Total 1100 1300 3500 3500 1300 2300 Coliform A.3 A.3 (MPN/100 (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) 9 9 11 11 10 14 10 26 20 18 13 13 37 79 60 26 28 24 14 28 17 20 14 8.8 5.5 1.4 2.8 2.8 3.5 6.9 9.3 9.3 7.8 9.1 9.6 3.3 7.1 4.4 6.7 9.2 8.9 8.8 9.9 9.6 6.4 130 130 (NTU) Turbidity Turbidity Table Table TOC MWH (Samplesco Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; Laboratory Analyses Laboratory 2.9 4.4 4.6 3.7 3.9 2.5 1.2 2.0 3.1 1.4 2.8 6.3 6.0 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.9 5.7 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.2 2.5 2.0 2.2 3.0 2.8 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.9 2.2 3.3 1.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 1.6 2.1 CLS TOC Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; ; -1 MWH (cm Labs) UV-254 UV-254
A 89 86 90 89 91 91 92 93 87 90 90 87 85 84 82 84 82 79 82 87 87 77 72 76 71 78 85 75 84 88 92 92 91 91 87 89 89 91 91 92 90 92 92 89 90 92 91 Trans- mittance Percent ; -1 CLS (cm Labs) 0.116 0.119 0.110 0.050 0.067 0.048 0.052 0.042 0.042 0.037 0.030 0.058 0.047 0.047 0.062 0.069 0.078 0.085 0.075 0.085 0.102 0.085 0.062 0.058 0.144 0.149 0.071 0.127 0.074 0.054 0.037 0.034 0.041 0.043 0.060 0.049 0.051 0.041 0.039 0.037 0.044 0.035 0.038 0.049 0.047 0.035 0.042 UV-254 UV-254 5 11 15 19 18 19 12 16 15 16 12 14 12 34 26 16 22 19 46 75 59 43 37 44 33 24 12 17 15 51 40 43 31 23 17 48 26 25 25 23 20 7.6 6.8 8.7 130 120 TSS TSS (mg/L) ND(5.0) Date 9/8/09 1/5/10 2/2/10 2/9/10 3/2/10 3/9/10 4/6/10 5/4/10 6/1/10 6/8/10 7/6/10 Sample 11/3/09 5/11/10 8/25/09 8/31/09 9/14/09 9/21/09 9/28/09 10/5/09 12/8/09 1/12/10 1/19/10 1/26/10 2/16/10 2/24/10 3/16/10 3/23/10 3/30/10 4/13/10 4/20/10 4/27/10 5/18/10 5/25/10 6/15/10 6/22/10 6/29/10 7/13/10 11/10/09 11/17/09 11/23/09 11/30/09 10/12/09 10/19/09 10/27/09 12/15/09 12/21/09 12/28/09
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 84 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
B NA NA 8.19 8.37 8.49 8.41 8.44 8.62 8.68 8.78 8.38 8.47 8.54 9.21 9.34 9.08 9.42 10.7 9.71 9.98 9.19 10.98 10.46 (mg/L) Oxygen
Dissolved Updated2-11-2011
8 NA (°C) 11.2 17.9 10.5 10.1 10.11 Temp. 22.53 21.35 21.27 21.06 21.43 20.63 20.07 21.82 19.03 19.56 18.96 17.62 16.26 14.34 13.75 13.88 12.75
11 14 95 9.2 6.8 7.1 6.5 NA 11.7 10.4 12.2 16.7 15.1 18.2 14.6 14.3 16.9 12.5 31.6 27.6 30.3 17.2 23.8 45.5 Field (NTU) Turbidity Turbidity Field Analyses Field
NA 114 153 167 232 230 205 100 139.7 146.4 141.5 177.3 179.6 169.4 152.4 141.2 138.3 191.2 149.5 144.7 136.7 142.2 153.8 163.6 (µS/cm) Specific Conductance
B pH 6.9 NA 7.18 7.42 7.31 7.29 7.77 7.27 7.34 7.43 7.18 7.26 7.43 7.36 7.17 7.55 7.41 6.09 6.88 6.46 7.78 7.43 6.22
pH 7.38 7.30 7.20 7.35 (mg/L-N) (continued) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) Ammonia
E m/mg) ! 2.769 2.654 2.796 3.412 SUVA (L 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.4 DOC MWH Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; 2.5 3.6 3.0 4.5 3.2 3.4 CLS DOC Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; 80 77 76 68 44 54 Total Total CaCO3) (mg/L as (mg/L Alkalinity Alkalinity 2 4 11 26 49 33 6.8 7.8 4.5 9.3 4.5 7.8 7.8 mL) 130 490 170 240 490 1700 E. Coli E. (MPN/100 Monitoring Data DWWSPfor Monitoring 11 11 21 14 49 22 33 6.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.8
mL) 170 170 490 130 240 490 1100 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 Weekly Water Quality Data DWWSP for Quality Water Weekly Calculatedusing CLS Lab results. mL) 790 700 790 790 350 920 230 Total 1100 3100 1700 2400 1700 3300 1300 3300 3300 1700 2200 -A 17000 Coliform (MPN/100 (Samples collected from the Sacramento(Samplesfromthe collected River atRM70.5) Weekly
- 12 10 14 13 18 30 49 4.6 4.9 4.7 6.1 5.7 5.8 6.2 5.2 3.9 5.2 5.2 4.4 2.9 5.2 8.1 9.1 0.69 (NTU) Turbidity Turbidity A.3 A.3 2.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.5 1.7 TOC MWH Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; Laboratory Analyses Laboratory Table Table 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.0 2.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 1.9 3.1 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.1 3.2 4.3 3.7 5.1 3.5 4.1 CLS TOC Labs) (mg/L; (mg/L; Calculatedusing LabMWH results ; -1 MWH (cm Labs) UV-254 UV-254 0.1160 0.0720 0.0690 0.0755
A 91 91 90 91 91 90 90 89 86 87 90 92 93 92 88 89 89 87 85 85 85 79 76 78 Trans- mittance Percent ; -1 CLS (cm Labs) 0.110 0.043 0.040 0.045 0.041 0.043 0.047 0.048 0.052 0.066 0.060 0.048 0.038 0.032 0.036 0.057 0.051 0.050 0.062 0.069 0.070 0.070 0.100 0.120 UV-254 UV-254 11 11 17 17 16 17 12 14 14 22 32 17 13 22 22 14 23 17 17 29 27 61 67 9.6 TSS TSS (mg/L) Date 8/3/10 9/7/10 Sample 11/2/10 11/9/10 1/25/11 7/20/10 7/27/10 8/10/10 8/17/10 8/24/10 8/31/10 9/14/10 9/21/10 9/28/10 10/5/10 12/7/10 This is a calculated value. SUVA = UV/DOC*100.= Thisisacalculated value. SUVA This value was calculated from UV absorbance value. Percent Transmittance = 100= 10 x Transmittance Thisvalue was calculated UVabsorbancefrom value. Percent Instrumentnotcalibrated correctly. Thislow value isconsidered an outlier and was notincluded in theaverage an median calculations. Data point invalid due instrumentto error. 11/16/10 11/23/10 11/30/10 10/12/10 10/19/10 10/26/10 12/14/10 12/21/10 12/28/10 Note: For all compounds reported as Not Detected (ND), the value in parantheses is the Reporting Limit. Alldata in thistable were analyzed byCLS Labs, unless specifically noted. allFor Note: compounds reported asNotDetected (ND),thevalue in parantheses istheReporting Limit. A B C D E
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 85 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table A.4 – Results of split sampling betweenSplit Sampling labs and Results locations. (Samples were split between labs and locations)
Location - DWWSP RD2035 Location - BBWTP Intake
MWH Labs CLS Labs CLS Labs MWH Labs CLS Labs MWH Labs CLS Labs BBWTP Collection Site #1- Site #1- Site #3- Site #3- Site #4- Parameter Date Downstream Downstream Farthest Out Farthest Out Upstream Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 86 80 ------79 74 11/30/10 82 77 ------76 74 12/7/10 76 76 78 -- -- 70 76 12/14/10 71 68 70 -- -- 66 66 12/21/10 -- 44 39 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 54 54 -- --
TOC (mg/L) 11/02/10 -- 2.0 ------2.0 1.78 11/9/10 -- 2.3 ------2.1 1.99 11/16/10 2.1 2.1 ------3.0 2.33 11/23/10 2.8 3.2 ------2.9 3.6 2.87 11/30/10 2.7 4.3 ------2.7 3.9 2.93 12/7/10 2.7 3.7 3.9 -- -- 2.9 3.7 2.92 12/14/10 3.5 5.1 4.6 -- -- 3.5 4.8 1.94 12/21/10 -- 3.5 3.7 -- -- 3.3 2.69 12/28/10 -- 4.1 4.1 -- -- 3.8 2.13
DOC (mg/L) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 2.6 2.5 ------2.9 3.3 11/30/10 2.6 3.6 ------2.8 3.7 12/7/10 2.7 3.0 4.4 -- -- 2.9 3.5 12/14/10 3.4 4.5 4.3 -- -- 3.5 4.1 12/21/10 -- 3.2 3.0 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 3.4 3.6 -- --
UV-254 11/02/10 -- 0.051 ------11/9/10 -- 0.050 ------11/16/10 -- 0.062 ------11/23/10 0.0720 0.069 ------0.082 0.081 11/30/10 0.0690 0.070 ------0.074 0.069 12/7/10 0.0755 0.070 0.075 -- -- 0.0825 0.074 12/14/10 0.1160 0.100 0.100 -- -- 0.113 0.098 12/21/10 -- 0.120 0.120 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 0.110 0.120 -- --
TSS (mg/L) 11/02/10 -- 22 ------11/9/10 -- 14 ------11/16/10 -- 23 ------11/23/10 -- 17 ------13 11/30/10 -- 17 ------12/7/10 -- 29 38 -- -- 12/14/10 -- 27 30 -- -- 12/21/10 -- 61 58 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 67 74 -- --
Turbidity, Lab (NTU) 11/02/10 -- 2.9 ------11/9/10 -- 5.2 ------11/16/10 -- 8.1 ------11/23/10 -- 9.1 ------9.2 11/30/10 -- 14 ------11 12/7/10 -- 13 16 -- -- 23 12/14/10 -- 18 20 -- -- 22 12/21/10 -- 30 24 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 49 43 -- --
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 86 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP March 2011
Table A.4 – Results of split sampling between labs and locations (continued).
Location - DWWSP RD2035 Location - BBWTP Intake
MWH Labs CLS Labs CLS Labs MWH Labs CLS Labs MWH Labs CLS Labs BBWTP Collection Site #1- Site #1- Site #3- Site #3- Site #4- Parameter Date Downstream Downstream Farthest Out Farthest Out Upstream Bromide (ug/L) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 11/16/10 11/23/10 27 11/30/10 12/7/10 12/14/10 12/21/10 12/28/10 11 1/25/11 23
Ammonia (mg/L as N) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 ------11/30/10 ------12/7/10 ------
ND (RL=0.10; 12/14/10 ND (0.05) MDL=0.032 mg/L) ND (0.10) ND (0.05) -- 12/21/10 -- ND (0.10) ND (0.10) -- -- 12/28/10 ND (0.05) ND (0.10) 0.12 ND (0.05) -- pH 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 ------11/30/10 ------12/7/10 -- 7.38 7.45 -- -- 12/14/10 -- 7.30 7.37 -- -- 12/21/10 -- 7.20 7.20 -- -- 12/28/10 -- 7.35 7.35 -- --
Iron, total (µg/L) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 ------11/30/10 ------12/7/10 -- 660 710 -- -- 12/14/10 1000 810 790 1500 12/21/10 -- 920 800 -- -- 12/28/10 2800 2300 1300 1900
Iron, dissolved (µg/L) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 ------11/30/10 ------12/7/10 -- 43 48 -- -- 12/14/10 90 74 74 130 -- 12/21/10 -- ND (6.8) ND (6.8) -- -- 12/28/10 93 88 89 92 --
Vanadium, total (µg/L) 11/02/10 ------11/9/10 ------11/16/10 ------11/23/10 ------11/30/10 ------12/7/10 -- 3.9 4.3 -- -- 12/14/10 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.1 -- 12/21/10 -- 5.5 5.0 -- -- 12/28/10 8.9 4.6 4.4 7.0 --
Trussell Technologies, Inc. ! PASADENA ! SAN DIEGO ! OAKLAND Page 87