Membrane Bioreactor vs.

Extended Aeration
Treatment Pilot Study – Effluent and
Groundwater Quality

Presenter
Leslie Dumas

September 15, 2009

Innovative Solutions for Water and the Environment
Acknowledgements

Thanks to:
Colin Moy, REA., East Bay Municipal Utility District
[EBMUD] – Project Manager
Eileen Fanelli, P.G., East Bay Municipal Utility
District/Presidio Trust – Project Manager
David W. Smith, Ph.D., Merritt Smith Consulting –
Principal Investigator
Background
• WateReuse Foundation Project WRF-04-016
• Project Title: Development of Regulatory
Protocol for Incidental Environmental Reuse of
Title 22 Recycled Water
 Issued August 2005 to EBMUD with RMC Water &
Environment
 EBMUD’s ‘upcountry’ wastewater systems needs:
• Upgrading systems to meet evolving regulatory requirements
• Beneficial reuse of treated effluent
• Use of small MBR treatment systems
The Pardee Site
Key Challenges to Recycling in
California
• Regulatory Compliance - Resolution #68-16
Antidegradation Policy

• Cost-Benefit for Small Systems

 Higher capital cost to implement MBR treatment
 Little to no reduction in longer-term operating costs
 Permitting costs increase overall capital costs
Study Goals

• Recognize baseline assumptions on meeting

CCR Title 22 standards for unrestricted use

• Provide a standardized process (Framework) for

evaluating recycled water projects

• Utilize established and industry-accepted tools

and practices for assessment
A Two-Part Study Approach was Used

• Develop a Framework (standardized process)

• Conduct a Pilot Test

Pilot Study Design

• Conducted over 12 month period

• Sampled and analyze influent, effluent and

groundwater quality from both existing and pilot
systems

• Apply data to Framework analysis

• Identify key operating differences between the

extended aeration and MBR treatment plants
Treatment Trains

PACT Extended Aeration Plant Schematic

Pilot MBR Plant Schematic

Conventional Plant
Pilot Plant
Pilot Plant
Pilot Plant
Pilot Plant
Pilot Plant
Pilot Program Analytical Plan
Parameter Influent Effluent Groundwater
Settleable Solids (SS) 
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 
pH   
Dissolved Oxygen 
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)  
Turbidity 
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)  
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)  
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)   
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)   
Ammonia (NH3 - N)   
Nitrate (NO3 – N)  
Total Coliform Bacteria (after disinfection)  
Viruses (after disinfection) 
General Minerals   
Metals  
Trihalomethanes (THMs)  
Halogenic Acetic Acids (HAAs)  
n-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)  
Influent Water Quality Analysis

• Influent quality was consistent throughout the

pilot study

• Influent from PACT is found to be consistent with

a low-strength municipal wastewater

• Constituent concentrations appear to be on the

same order of magnitude for both pre- and pilot-
period influent data based on a trend analysis.
Effluent Water Quality Analysis
1. Confirm the assumption that the MBR effluent
met disinfected tertiary-treatment criteria

2. Identify the main differences in effluent quality

produced by the extended aeration and the
MBR pilot systems

3. Compare to groundwater quality over the pilot

study period
Comparison of Expected and Actual
MBR Effluent Quality
Parameter Units Published Pilot MBR Effluent Quality
Expected
Effluent Value Average Range
BOD5 mg/L <5 1.2 ND (< 2) - 2.2
TSS mg/L <1 Not Sampled Not Sampled
Ammonia mg/L as N <1 0.63 ND (<0.3) - 6.72
Nitrate mg/L as N NA 30.03 0.19 – 53
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L as N NA 1.58 ND (< 1) – 11
Nitrite mg/L as N NA 0.16 ND (<0.0035) –
0.44
Total Nitrogen mg/L as N <3 32.40* 0.19 – 71.16*
Total Phosphorous (measured mg/L < 0.2 6.8 1.7 - 9.9
as Orthophosphate as P)
Turbidity NTU < 0.2 0.34 0.13 – 1
Bacteria (measures as Total Log removal Up to 6 log 23.3 ND (< 2) – 230
Coliform) (99.9999%)
Viruses Log removal Up to 3 log ND ND
(99.9%)
MBR Effluent Water Quality Analysis
- Results
• Improved for clarity, aluminum removal
and BOD degradation
• No difference for nitrogen, phosphates,
total dissolved solids and most metals
• Reduction in lead, manganese, and
orthophosphate
• Poor denitrification (no change in TKN,
ammonia and nitrate concentrations)
Groundwater Water Quality Analysis
• Water quality analyzed to:
 characterize groundwater quality for both the pre- and
MBR pilot periods
 Identify statistical differences that could be
attributable to the MBR pilot system
• The aquifer underlying the effluent pond is
composed fractured bedrock
• Used major ionic species to ‘fingerprint’ the
water quality
Piper Diagram shows no difference between
pilot and pre-pilot groundwater quality
 Similar shaped Stiff Diagrams support the
same conclusion

Pre-Pilot Data Pilot Data

Groundwater Quality Results did not
Reflect Change in Effluent Quality
• Few anomalies observed, but longer
monitoring required to determine cause
• Pre- and pilot effluent qualities are
significantly different from groundwater
• No changes in groundwater quality may
be result of:
 slight change in effluent chemistry
 low volumes of effluent discharged to
pond
 short monitoring period
Study Conclusions
• MBR system produced generally better effluent
• MBR system was efficient in biodegradable and
organic compounds removal
• MBR was not efficient in phosphorus removal or
denitrification
• Groundwater does not appear to be impacted by
either pre-pilot or pilot data over the monitoring
period
Based on testing, not reasonable to upgrade plant
to achieve improved environmental results
The Framework was Tested with Pilot Data

• Highlighted need for

thorough data
collection

• Demonstrated
flexibility needed in
developing the reuse
scenario
The Full Report
• A Protocol for Estimating Potential Water Quality
Impacts of Recycled Water Projects: Final
Report and Pilot Test Results; WateReuse
Foundation: Alexandria, VA. 2009.

• A Protocol for Estimating Potential Water Quality

Impacts of Recycled Water Projects: Framework
and User Guidance; WateReuse Foundation:
Alexandria ,VA. 2009.
QUESTIONS?
Framework Design
• Internally consistent process
• Early disclosure of potential impact
• Allow project refinement to address possible
impacts
• Rely on established analytical tools and
accepted industry practices
• Apply on a constituent basis
• Broadly applicable
• Scalable relative to both project size and
number of constituents of potential concern
Framework Analysis Process
Figure 1 – Framework Analysis Process

Consists of two main

elements
 Preliminary Screening
 Detailed Site Evaluation
Preliminary Screening

 Process
 Step 1 –Water Quantity Analysis
 Step 2 –General Water Quality Analysis
 Step 3 – Screen Applicable Guidelines and Regulations
 Assumptions
 Meets criteria for disinfected tertiary recycled water
 Beneficial reuse for irrigation at agronomic rates
 Storage not in a water of the United States
 Outcomes
 Identification of constituents of potential concern
 Identification of applicable water quality goals and objectives
 Identification of site-specific parameters for detailed analysis
Detailed Site Analysis

 Process
 Step 4 –Prepare site assessment focused on vegetation,
soil geochemistry and soil hydraulics
 Step 5 –Complete the constituent analysis

 Assumptions
 Rely on site-specific data or literature values ,as
appropriate
 Outcomes
 Refine list of potential constituents of concern
 Estimate short and long term magnitude of potential impact
 Identify options for mitigating potential impacts
Framework Tools

 Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphate)

 Nutrient budget

 Salts (measured by water and soil salinity & sodicity)

 Determination of leaching fraction relative to assimilative
capacity
 Metals (aluminum, copper, lead, nickel & zinc)
 Metals inventory and attenuation

 Organic carbon (as precursor for disinfection by-

products and HAA formation)
 Effluent organic matter (EfOM)