The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Water Reclamation in Thurston County: A Review of LOTT's Planned Class A Expansion

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng Water Reclamation in Thurston County: A Review of LOTT's Planned Class A Expansion

Date (dcterms:date)

2009

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Smith, Kathryn Ann

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

WATER RECLAMATION IN THURSTON COUNTY:
A REVIEW OF LOTT’S PLANNED CLASS A WATER EXPANSION

by
Kathryn Ann Smith

A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College

 2009 by Kathryn Ann Smith. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Kathryn Ann Smith
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

___________________________________
Edward Whitesell, PhD
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
WATER RECLAMATION IN THURSTON COUNTY:
A REVIEW OF LOTT’S PLANNED CLASS A WATER EXPANSION
Kathryn Ann Smith

The Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County (Washington
State) Alliance (LOTT) plans expansion of its reclaimed water service
to the Tumwater Valley Golf Course and eventually to other areas
of the county. Non-potable use of reclaimed water is a way to
mitigate the impacts of reduced snow pack in a warmer world and
protect valuable riparian habitat.
Safety and environmental
concerns exist with regard to reclaimed water expansion including
microbial organisms, inorganic nutrient, organic compounds and
pharmaceuticals/personal care products.
A variety of water
reclamation facilities exist throughout the U.S. and in other areas of
the world and those facilities manage to produce reclaimed water
that is below the level of concern for contaminants. By reviewing
treatment methods and efficiencies in other parts of the U.S. and
comparing those methods and efficiencies with LOTT, it is possible to
evaluate how LOTT’s operations measure up to those facilities. LOTT
operates a state-of-the-art facility that produces a high quality, safe
product and its planned expansion will help preserve precious
water resources in the South Sound region of Washington.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ...........................................................................1
Chapter 2 Background ...........................................................................8
Chapter 3 Case Study Reviews ...........................................................24
Chapter 4 LOTT Plant Operations ........................................................41
Chapter 5 Comparative Analysis ........................................................52
Chapter 6 Conclusion ...........................................................................60
References ..............................................................................................63

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Budd Inlet Plant and the Capitol Campus ............................4
Figure 2: Deschutes Parkway Reclaimed Water Line ...........................6
Figure 3: Origin and Fate of PPCPs in the Environment .....................23
Figure 4: Budd Inlet Discharge ..............................................................43
Figure 5: Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow.........................................46
Figure 6: Bardenpho Four Stage Biological Treatment.....................49

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Water reuse categories and typical applications .................3
Table 2: Estimate of Percent Removal of Selected Microbial
Pathogens Using Conventional Treatment Processes..............16
Table 3 Orange County Injection Requirements ...............................32
Table 4: Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite Ground Water
Quality Criteria …………………………………..............................35
Table 5 Yelm Groundwater Monitoring Comparison
(Averages)....................................................................................36
Table 6: PPCPs in Wells Adjacent to Sequim WWTP Water-Reuse
Project ………………………………………………..........................38
Table 7: NPDES Permit Summary, Budd Inlet Treatment Plant,
Effective October 1, 2005............................................................44

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Ted Whitesell, my reader, for helping me
through this process. I am quite confident it would not have been
completed without your help. I am extremely grateful to many of
the faculty at Evergreen for sharing their knowledge and passion for
the topics covered. I want to thank my MES cohort who always
challenged me and inspired me in the classroom.
I would also like to thank the faculty and staff at Clover Park
Technical College where I work. With the Faculty at CPTC, I owe
special thanks to Dorene DeMars who helped me out with a
particular problem I was having with this thesis!
I received
tremendous support, both financial and in time, from CPTC
Administration (Dr. John Walstrum, Lori Banaszak, Joyce Loveday) to
complete this program and without that support I would not have
participated in the MES program. I thank the CPTC Foundation for
financial assistance as well.
I owe a tremendous debt to my family for supporting me in this
endeavor – it has been a long four years. I must thank my partner,
Dan, for putting up with me all this time. I want to thank my mother
for always having faith in my abilities. And to my dad, thank you for
always being my biggest cheerleader. I wish you were here to see
this.

vi

1.

INTRODUCTION
Water is a resource necessary for life on our planet.

In

Western Washington, residents are very fortunate that water is an
abundant

commodity,

continually

renewed

by

rainfall

and

snowmelt. Concerns are mounting regarding the potential effects
of global climate change and how that phenomenon could affect
our sources of water (WA DOE 2005).

Models indicate that the

Pacific Northwest will receive less winter precipitation as snow and
more rain in the coming decades due to climate change. As a
result of warming trends, western Washington will have less snow
accumulation accompanied by higher winter stream flows,
followed by earlier spring snowmelt and earlier peak stream flows.
As a result of earlier melting of the snow pack, the summer stream
flows will be reduced (CIG 2009).

While water sources are

expected to drop, the population is expected to increase (WA DOE
2005).
If summer stream flows do decrease as modeling suggests,
riparian habitats could be threatened.

Maintaining adequate

stream flows for fish runs is also a concern in western Washington.
As riparian habitats may be threatened by reduced flow, it would
be irresponsible to continue pulling water from rivers and streams
(Cupps 2005).

1

With an expected increase in demand and a potential
decrease in supply, it is important to find a new source of water.
Many municipalities in Washington State are turning to reclaimed
water to supply that need. The Washington State Departments of
Health (DOH) and Ecology (DOE) define reclaimed water as:
…effluent derived in any part from sewage from a
wastewater treatment system that has been adequately and
reliably treated, so that as a result of that treatment, it is
suitable for a beneficial use or a controlled use that would
not otherwise occur and is no longer considered wastewater
(WA DOH and DOE 1997, 10).
Water supply is especially important for those who live in
urban areas. City dwellers (in most cases) cannot procure water for
their needs by themselves. The increase in urbanization coupled
with higher standards of living make more and more demands on
urban water supplies and those increased demands could lead to
shortages (Okun 2000).

Reclaimed water can satisfy urban

requirements for secondary, i.e., sub-potable, water (Mills and
Asano 1998).

Examples of secondary water uses include toilet

flushing, recreational lakes, and water hazards on golf courses.
Water that is introduced into the environment should be of sufficient
quality to support the native flora and fauna in the area. Water too
rich in nutrients could lead to algae blooms and subsequent
eutrophication of the area (Asano and Levine 1998).

Table 1

2

(below) identifies a variety of beneficial applications for reclaimed
water.
Table 1. Water reuse categories and typical applications
Category
Typical application
Agricultural irrigation
Landscape irrigation

Industrial recycling and reuse

Groundwater recharge
Recreational/environmental
uses

Non-potable urban uses
Potable reuse

- Crop irrigation
- Commercial nurseries
- Parks
- Schoolyards
- Freeway medians
- Golf courses
- Cemeteries
- Greenbelts
- Residential
- Cooling water
- Boiler feed
- Process water
- Heavy construction
- Groundwater replenishment
- Saltwater intrusion control
- Land subsidence control
- Lakes and ponds
- Marsh enhancement
- Streamflow augmentation
- Fisheries
- Snowmaking
- Fire protection
- Air conditioning
- Toilet flushing
- Blending in water supply reservoirs
- Blending in groundwater
- Direct pipe-to-pipe water supply
Asano 2006

We no longer have the luxury to use water just once. Water
reclamation is environmentally responsible because it preserves the
health of waterways, wetlands and their associated habitats, and it
reduces the level of nutrients and other pollutants entering
waterways and sensitive marine environments by reducing effluent
discharges (Asano 2006).

3

The urban areas of Thurston County are served by the Lacey,
Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County Alliance (LOTT) for
wastewater treatment and disposal.

Figure 1 (below) shows the

location of the Budd Inlet Wastewater Treatment plant.

LOTT

performs primary and secondary treatment on all wastewater to
remove settleable and nonsettleable solids, nutrients and biological
organisms.

A portion of that treated water receives tertiary

treatment to meet reclaimed water standards (LOTT 2006).
Figure 1: Budd Inlet Plant
and the Capitol Campus

(LOTT 2009a)

Reclaimed water might contain contaminants that eluded
the treatment process, such as microbes, organic compounds, and
4

inorganic compounds (Erickson 2004).

Pharmaceuticals and

personal care products (PPCPs), while not new compounds (some
have been known for over 30 years to be present in the
environment), are receiving increased attention, as more hazards
associated with their presence are identified (Daughton 2001).
Each type of contaminant and its associated hazard will be
discussed in chapter 2.
Washington State’s General Administration (GA) Department
converted much of the Capitol campus irrigation to reclaimed
water in 2007 (WA GA 2008).

According to the GA’s 2008

Sustainability Report, in 2007 over 6,000,000 gallons of reclaimed
water irrigated Heritage Park, Marathon Park and along Deschutes
Parkway (2008).

Figure 1 (page 4) illustrates the location of the

Capitol campus that is using reclaimed water.

LOTT plans

continued use of reclaimed water with expansion to the Tumwater
Valley Golf Course, see Figure 2 (page 6) for an illustration. This
expansion is expected in 2010 and would supply approximately
500,000 gallons of water per day to the golf course, doubling the
amount of reclaimed water used in the South Sound (Dodge 2008).
Reclaimed water appears to be the answer to many
problems associated with our growing population and potential
reduction in water availability. But is it really? Reclaimed water will

5

replace 1,000,000 gallons per day (MGD) of potable water by 2010
but is it really safe to expand its use?
Figure 2: Deschutes Parkway Reclaimed Water Line

(LOTT 2009a)
This thesis research project set out to answer the above
question. The principal finding of this research is that, yes, it is safe
to expand the use of reclaimed water in the greater Olympia area.
Furthermore, this thesis contends that such use is the most
responsible choice, given potential water shortages in the future. It
is not however, the answer to all problems associated with water
use in Thurston County. Besides adding a new source of water to
the area, citizens must also practice conservation.

6

This thesis will review the expected benefits and potential
problems associated with reclaimed water and compare LOTT’s
treatment processes to other facilities, with particular attention to
safety and efficiency.

This comparison will be accomplished by a

review of authoritative sources, to determine if LOTT meets or
exceeds the technology employed by other municipalities, as
demonstrated by LOTT’s ultimate authority – its permit.
Chapter 2 provides background information regarding the
benefits municipalities may achieve with reclaimed water and
potential environmental and health hazards associated with
reclaimed water use. Chapter 3 consists of a review of several case
studies related to reclaimed water use in municipalities in other
areas of the U.S. and the world. Chapter 4 is dedicated to LOTT
plant operations and efficiency, including the treatment methods
used at the LOTT facilities and discussion of its permit. In chapter 5, I
will compare LOTT operations with those case study operations
discussed in chapter 3, to determine how LOTT compares with other
facilities. I will conclude this thesis in chapter 6.

7

2.

BACKGROUND

History and Use of Reclaimed Water
Humans

have

reused

water

–

either

intentionally

or

unintentionally – for millennia. There are indications communities
reused wastewater for irrigation as long as 5,000 years ago (Asano
and Levine 1998). Discharge of wastewaters into rivers and streams
in London led to an inadvertent use of wastewater as potable
water, leading to the spread of waterborne diseases such as Asiatic
cholera and typhoid in the 1840s and 1850s (Okun 2000). The link
between wastewater and the spread of disease in the 1850s and
’60s led to more careful planning in the discharge and use of
protected reservoirs for drinking water (Asano and Levine 1998).
Intentional reuse of wastewater in the United States started in
the early 20th century.
began

using

The community of Bakersfield, California,

wastewater

for

irrigation

in

1912.

California

promulgated wastewater regulations in 1918. Throughout the first
half of the 20th century wastewater was used around the
southwestern U.S. for a variety of agricultural and industrial purposes
(Asano and Levine 1998).
Water reclamation (as opposed to the term wastewater
reuse which indicates no treatment) came to the forefront in the
1970s as a means to supplement existing water sources and replace

8

the use of potable water in certain applications.

Technological

advances in treatment techniques made water reclamation
possible for almost any quality needed (Asano and Levine 1998). In
1990, estimated usage of reclaimed water in the United States was
1.5 billion gallons per day. California used 240 MGD in 1987 – mostly
for agricultural applications (63 percent) with approximately 23
percent for urban applications (Crook 1998).
As reclaimed water use is expanded in urban areas and in
those areas where potable and sub-potable water may both be
pumped in, water providers must install dual distribution systems to
keep the sub-potable water from the potable water supply (Crook
1998).

James Crook conducted a study for DOH regarding the

public health risks associated with reclaimed water.

DOH

summarized Dr. Crook’s findings in its 2007 Reclaimed Water Use
Legislative Report. Dr. Crook indicated that the only documented
disease outbreak in the United States from reclaimed water
happened in Arizona in 1979.

Crook stated the outbreak was

caused by a cross-connection between the reclaimed water used
for watering trees and shrubs in a campground and the potable
supply for that campground. Crook emphasized that this incident
happed prior to Arizona adopting reclaimed water regulations (WA
DOH 2007).

9

In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
developed guidelines for water reuse but it is only an advisory
document (US EPA 2004).
state level.

Actual regulation takes place at the

In Washington, reclaimed water requirements are

published by both DOE and DOH, where the former issues permits
for water usage and the latter investigates health concerns (WA
DOH 2007).

LOTT produces water that meets Class A reclaimed

water, which is defined as:
water that, at a minimum, is at all times an oxidized,
coagulated, filtered, disinfected wastewater.
The
wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if the
median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater
after disinfection does not exceed 2.2 per 100 milliliters, as
determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days
for which analyses have been completed, and the number of
total coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters
in any sample (WA DOH 1997, page 7).
LOTT distributes its reclaimed water to the Capitol campus for
landscape applications and other secondary processes (e.g., boat
washing and cleaning). It also utilizes a created treatment wetland
(CTW) in the Hawks Prairie area to recharge the local aquifer (LOTT
2009a). Aquifer recharge is a common use of reclaimed water and
will be discussed in chapters 3 and 4.
The Reclaimed Water Act of 1992, Chapter 90.46 RCW,
amended several times; mandates that reclaimed water be
adequately and reliably treated prior to distribution (RCW 1992).
10

LOTT’s requirements for distribution are directed under its National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit WA0037061
(WA DOE 2005).

Potential Benefits of Reclaimed Water Use
Communities that choose water reclamation can reap
tremendous benefits from their investment.
important benefit is water conservation.

The first and most

When a community is

facing a water shortage, the first step involves using less water.
Incentives for community conservation include “water saving
devices” such as low-flow showerheads and toilets. Also effective is
incentive pricing to decrease water use (Okun 2000).
Community conservation works well on an individual level
and helps to enforce the necessity of conservation. A community
may see lower per-capita water use, but if the community
continues to grow (as most urban areas do) that conservation will
not meet all needs. Urban areas must find more sources of water to
conserve their potable sources.

Reclaimed water can meet this

need (Okun 2000).
Another benefit of reclaimed water is the dependable nature
and local control of the source of water (Hermanowicz, Diaz and
Coe 2001). Many urban areas are dependent on surface waters

11

such as streams and rivers. By diverting water from streams and
rivers, urban communities could cause severe environmental
impacts to the ecological communities in and around those surface
waters. Water reclamation can reduce some of those ecological
impacts (Erickson 2004).
Some urban areas (like urban Thurston County) are fortunate
to have a high quality source of groundwater for use as drinking
water. The concern involves withdrawing that groundwater faster
than the recharge rate of the aquifers. Reclaimed water eases the
burden on groundwater supplies without resorting to importing
water from other areas (Okun 2000).
Water reclamation also reduces the amount of wastewater
effluent discharged into receiving waters.

The LOTT Budd Inlet

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) receives approximately 13.5
MGD of wastewater (WA GA 2007). LOTT currently has a maximum
reclamation capacity of 1.5 MGD.

That is 1.5 million gallons of

wastewater effluent that is not discharged into Budd Inlet (WA DOE
2005).

LOTT is constructing a satellite plant at Hawks Prairie (in

Lacey, adjacent to Olympia) that will eventually treat 5 MGD to
Class A standards. Additional plants are planned in Tumwater and
Chambers Prairie (also in Lacey) to further reduce wastewater
effluent (WA DOE 2005). The increased treatment of the Class A

12

water reduces the detrimental impacts of wastewater effluent
discharged to the environment.
Another positive result of water reclamation is a potential
reduction in costs for wastewater treatment. If municipal treatment
plants are able to provide a marketable product, that revenue
should reduce the cost of domestic wastewater treatment for
LOTT’s customers (Erickson 2004).
Finally, water reclamation could lead to increased or
retained economic activity in those communities.

A reliable,

affordable water supply may make a community more attractive to
new and existing businesses (Erickson 2004).

Potential Hazards in Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed water is not without problems or hazards.

As

stated earlier, a problem with a cross connection at an Arizona
campground led to dozens of campers becoming sick from a
water-borne disease.

But, as also stated earlier, this is the only

documented illness in the U.S. that has been directly linked to
reclaimed water.
Contaminants that may be present in reclaimed water are
microbes, organic compounds and inorganic compounds (Erickson
2004).

13

Microorganisms
Microbial organisms that exist in wastewater are bacteria,
viruses and parasites.

As warm-blooded organisms, humans

normally have bacteria present in their gastrointestinal tract and
shed approximately 1 trillion bacteria per gram of fecal matter.
Most bacteria found in human fecal matter is non-pathogenic and
is adapted to conditions of the gastrointestinal tract.

Therefore,

they cannot compete with other bacteria outside the body.
However, an individual infected with a gastrointestinal pathogen
can shed up to 1 billion bacterial organisms per gram of fecal
material. These bacteria can be spread to others through direct
contact or ingestion of contaminated water.

Examples of

pathogenic bacteria are: Salmonella, Shigella, E. coli, and
Legionella (Yates and Gerba 1998).
Viruses are not normally found in the intestinal tract of healthy
individuals. A person must be infected with a virus to have it present
in his or her fecal matter. An individual infected with rotavirus (the
most common cause of diarrhea in young children [CDC 2008]) can
shed as many as 1 trillion particles per gram of feces for up to two
months.

Other viruses can be shed for even longer (Yates and

Gerba 1998).

14

Parasites are also only present in affected individuals and are
classified in two groups – protozoa and helminths . The protozoa
are single celled organisms. The helminths include a variety of multicelled worms. An infected individual can shed 1 – 10 million Giardia
(protozoa) per gram of feces for up to 6 months (Yates and Gerba
1998).
Most of these pathogens are removed through the standard
treatment processes at WWTPs during both the activated sludge
process (where enhanced oxygenation of wastewater leads to
pathogenic organisms being out-competed by non-pathogenic
organisms) and during disinfection. But, most wastewater effluent is
not pathogen free when discharged to receiving waters.

This

means additional treatment techniques are required prior to
classification as reclaimed water. The more intimate the human
contact with the water, the more stringent the treatment processes
required (Cooper and Olivieri 1998).

Table 2, page 16, identifies

estimated efficiency of conventional wastewater treatment plants
for selected microorganisms.
The reduction of these selected microorganisms through
secondary treatment processes is very impressive – ranging from

15

Table 2: Estimate of Percent Removal of Selected Microbial
Pathogens Using Conventional Treatment Processes
Microbial Agent
Salmonella
Enteric virus
Giardia cysts
Helminth ova

% Removal with
% Removal with
Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment
50
99
70
99
50
75
90
99.99
(Cooper and Olivieri 1998)

75 percent to 99.99 percent removal. But, as stated earlier, Giardia
may be present in up to 10 million organisms per gram of feces. This
leaves millions of Giardia that may still be present in wastewater
effluent.

The massive numbers of microorganisms present in the

water leave millions that may still be present even with 99 percent
removal during treatment (Cooper and Olivieri 1998).
The answer to more efficient removal of pathogens from
wastewater effluent lies in tertiary or advanced treatment.
Reclaimed water in Washington must undergo tertiary treatment to
ensure the water meets Class A standards. Particulars of tertiary
treatment will be discussed in chapters 3 and 4.

Organics
The next contaminant group of concern is organic chemicals.
A variety of volatile compounds (including methylene chloride,
chloroform,

dichloroethene,

tetrachloroethylene,

toluene,
16

ethylbenzene, acetone, and xylene) and semi-volatile organic
compounds (including phenols and phthalates) are present in very
low levels in wastewater effluent.

These compounds make their

way into the domestic waste stream from the disposal of a variety
of chemicals by residential and commercial users. The extreme low
levels of these types of contaminants and the fact that the water is
non-potable make them a point of non-concern for health
purposes (Asano and Levine 1998).
A recent study conducted in China suggests that wastewater
may be a source of persistent organic compounds such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and polybrominated diphenyl
ethers

(PBDE),

and

that

the

WWTP

may

enhance

the

bioaccumulation of these persistent chemicals in aquatic life. The
researchers admitted their research might have been confounded
by environmental impacts such as temperature fluctuations.
(Wang et al. 2007)
Another recent study conducted in Spain evaluated the
presence of organic compounds found in aquifers supplied by
recharge basins.

They concluded that organic chemicals could

seep through the soil and make their way into the aquifer –
potentially causing serious problems if that water is used as a
potable source.

They also concluded that those chemicals were

17

below the levels considered hazardous to health (Diaz-Cruz and
Barcelo 2008).
There are organic compounds that are found in highly
treated wastewater in milligram/liter quantities. These compounds
are resistant to treatment and cannot be readily decomposed or
broken down and are referred to as stable organic compounds.
Some

organic

compounds
treatment

compounds

because
processes.

they

are

classified

have

as

passed

Stable/trace

trace

through

organic

organic
extensive

compounds

are

significant in reclaimed water used for groundwater recharge for
the following reasons:
1. the identity of each organic compound is not well known;
2. the effects of treatment processes and soil filtration on such
compounds is not clear; and
3. the chronic health effects associated with ingestion of low
levels of stable organic compounds over time are also poorly
understood (Asano 2006).
Inorganics
Inorganic compounds including nutrients, salts, and heavy
metals are the next-listed contaminant of concern for reclaimed
water (Erickson 2004). Nutrients are of particular concern, as they
can

lead

to

eutrophication

increased
in

algae

receiving

growth

waters.

and

eventually

Advanced

to

treatment

18

techniques may use microorganisms to reduce nutrients prior to
beginning the tertiary process.

Heavy metals are responsive to

initial treatment techniques and do not pass through the treatment
process. Because metals settle out during treatment, they do not
pose a significant health risk in reclaimed water (DOH 2007).
The main concern is not whether WWTPs can treat effluent to
a point where that water is safe; rather can the WWTPs treat the
water consistently to safe levels?

Consistency is measured through

meeting the maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for regulated
inorganic contaminants found in the WWTP’s permit for water
discharge (Asano and Levine 1998).

WWTPs are required to show

consistency through frequent testing of the effluent (Nathanson
2008). Nitrates are especially problematic as they could lead to
methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome)(Asano and Levine
1998). There are treatment methods that significantly reduce the
presence of nitrates in effluent and the methods used by LOTT will
be discussed in chapter 4.

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
A relatively new category of concern in reclaimed water is
pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP). PPCPs may
pass through the treatment processes and make their way into

19

receiving waters or groundwater, posing a potential health risk
(Chefetz, Mualem, and Ben-Ari 2008). (See Figure 3, page 23 for an
illustration of how PPCPs enter the environment.) The US EPA (2009)
identifies PPCPs as problematic in wastewater (and subsequently in
reclaimed water) because:


human and animal use of PPCPs can lead to large quantities
of PPCPs entering the environment;



current technology does not provide for PPCP removal in
WWTP;



as the concentrations are so low, it is difficult to determine the
effect of PPCPs on aquatic environments and humans; and



the numbers are growing. As of 2007, more than 100
individual PPCPs have been found in both environmental
sampling and in drinking water (US EPA 2009).

A study of drinking water heavily influenced by wastewater
effluent in San Diego found phthalate esters, sunscreens, clofibrate,
clofribric acid, ibuprofen, triclosan, and DEET present in the raw
water (Lorraine and Pettigrove 2006).

Studies indicate that

exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals can lead to
long-term health risks. Also, many of these PPCPs are classified as
endocrine disruptors that affect natural hormone development and
can impact amphibians, fish and other wildlife even in the parts per
trillion (Daughton 1999).
The concern about PPCPs is growing because sampling has
detected so many at low levels (µg/L and ng/L) but little is known of

20

their potential for accumulation causing adverse human or
ecological effects (Johnson, Carey, and Golding 2004). Also, any
decomposition or degradation of their compounds is offset by their
constant reintroduction to the environment (Daughton 2001). Most
troublesome about the PPCPs is how difficult they are to detect in
effluent.

There are so many compounds that analysis becomes

prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Research is ongoing
to find an answer to this particular problem (Levine and Asano
2004).
Reclaimed water provides a new source of water that could
replace the use of potable water in many areas. As a result of using
reclaimed water, less water is pumped from rivers and streams
saving riparian habitats. Also, utilizing reclaimed water leads to less
groundwater pumping saving that precious resource for potable
needs.
Potential problems that may result from reclaimed water use
include: microbes, organic compounds and inorganic compounds.
Treatment methods have demonstrated consistent, safe treatment
of reclaimed water. Tertiary treatment methods employed in the
reclaimed water process are more efficient in removal of
pathogenic

microorganisms.

While

organic

and

inorganic

contaminants are found in reclaimed water, the levels reported are

21

so low they fall below the level of concern for human health
hazards.

PPCPs are another, relatively new contaminant of

concern. At this time, the effects of PPCPs in the environment are
relatively unknown but research is continuing.

Although not all

concerns can be answered completely at this time, Washington
State

Departments

of

Health

and

Ecology

and

the

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency are proactively researching these
issues.

22

Figure 3. Origin and Fate of PPCPs in the Environment

(US EPA 2009)

23

3.

CASE STUDY REVIEWS
A variety of case studies exist documenting research

conducted on water reclamation processes. This paper will review
several cases from different municipalities in California, a case in St.
Petersburg, FL, cases from the Catalonia region of Spain and then
review two cases in Western Washington State for comparison of
treatment technologies with the treatment operations at the LOTT
facilities. The case studies reflect a variety of methods for water
reclamation and provide a framework by which LOTT’s operations
will be compared.

LA County
Los Angeles (LA) County provides wastewater treatment to
over 5 million residents in 79 communities outside of the City of Los
Angeles. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate 10
water reclamation plants that have a capacity to treat over 220
MGD (Hartling and Nellor 1998).
Water reclamation in LA County is spurred by the climate in
the LA area – the county receives an annual average of only 15
inches of rain per year, and there are no major rivers within 100 miles
(Hartling and Nellor 1998).

24

Water was diverted, starting in 1913, from the Owens River in
central, eastern California, to supply growing communities in LA
County. Owens Lake was situated at the terminus of the Owens
River but so much water has been diverted from the Owens River
that Owens Lake is currently a dry lake and the thriving ecosystem it
once supported is gone.

Also, dust originating in the dry lake

contributes to poor air quality in the region (Reheis 1997). In 1941 –
1990 water was also diverted from the Mono Lake Basin resulting in
the loss of half the volume of Mono Lake (Mono Lake Committee
2009). As a result of significant water loss in Mono Lake and the
desiccation of Owens Lake, pumping operations from both of these
major sources of water were permanently stopped by 1994 (Hartling
and Nellor 1998).
In the 1990s, the county also anticipated a 50 percent
reduction in its water supply from the Colorado River, as more water
was being diverted in Arizona (Hartling and Nellor 1998). In 1997,
Arizona began using its full water allotment from the Colorado River,
removing between 300,000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet of water
previously available for use in California (Gelt 1997). Furthermore,
Metropolitan LA is in competition with regional agricultural users for
water supply (Hartling and Nellor 1998).

25

All the LA County plants discussed in the case study use the
same type of treatment process. Water is pumped through primary
and secondary processes.

The treated effluent is dosed with a

coagulant and chlorine, and is then filtered. The filtered water is
again chlorinated and stored in a chlorine contact tank for at least
90 minutes while continuous monitoring takes place to ensure
proper dosage. The three stages of treatment remove more than
99 percent of suspended solids. Dissolved salts are unchanged in
this process. The water is now considered fully treated and ready
for reuse.

Any water discharge to a river or stream must be

dechlorinated to protect flora and fauna (Hartling and Nellor 1998).
According to Hartling and Nellor’s study, there are no adverse
health effects associated with using properly treated reclaimed
water (1998).

The reclaimed water produced by the Sanitation

District meets EPA and California drinking water standards for heavy
metals, pesticides, trace organics, and radioactivity.

The tertiary

effluent produced contains less than 1 coliform bacterium per 100
mL.

Virus sampling was conducted on 981 samples of tertiary

effluent from 1979 – 1998 and only one sample tested positive for
virus (Hartling and Nellor 1998).
A problem with the tertiary effluent is the lack of nutrient
removal. Nutrients are not removed by standard treatment and the

26

tertiary process does not include nutrient removal either.

This

provides a benefit for those using water for irrigation, as this would
supplement or even replace fertilizers, but it leads to algae growth
in the storage ponds; due to the problem of algae, storage ponds
were discontinued.

A more serious problem is the presence of

nitrogen in water used for groundwater recharge – that nitrogen
can be nitrified into nitrates by soil bacteria. Nitrates can lead to
methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). Regular sampling of
the aquifers has shown only slight changes in nitrate levels (Hartling
and Nellor 1998).

Irvine (CA) Ranch
An early entry into use of reclaimed water is the Irvine (CA)
Ranch Water District (IRWD). IRWD began supplying reclaimed
water to agricultural customers in 1967. By 1998, IRWD distributed
reclaimed water to landscape irrigation, recreational uses and toilet
flushing. It also received permits in 1991 to become the first water
district to provide reclaimed water in the interior of office buildings,
cutting potable water demands by as much as 75 percent. Irvine
utilizes reclaimed water to supply toilets, urinals, and landscape
requirements in the city. In Irvine, all new developments must be

27

built with dual distribution systems to provide both reclaimed and
potable water (Young et al. 1998).
IRWD operates under an NPDES permit that requires the
highest quality water for use in parks, playgrounds, school irrigation
and water contact recreation. The water must have an average of
less than 2.2 coliforms per 100 mL over a one-week period. The
IRWD

reclaimed

water

meets

all

California

reuse

requirements.(Young et al. 1998).
The method used for tertiary treatment is the same as that of
LA County.

Like the LA County treatment plants, IRWD did not

originally treat for nutrients in its tertiary effluent. This led to several
quality problems in its reclaimed water reservoirs including
increased turbidity levels and algae growth. Also, dissolved sulfide
levels are elevated, causing odor issues (Young et al. 1998).
IRWD currently utilizes a biological nitrification/denitrification
process in its tertiary treatment process that removes those nutrients
(IRWD 2009). Utilizing a nutrient removal system reduces the amount
of eutrophication in the receiving waters.

St. Petersburg, Florida
St. Petersberg is a city of 250,000 permanent residents and
thousands of transient residents, and it is surrounded by saltwater on

28

three sides.

The unique hydrology of the area led to significant

water shortages starting in the 1920s, after the only freshwater lake
in the area was over-pumped.

An increasing number of wells

supplied the city with water. In the 1970s, the wells began to show
signs of overstress and the city was facing potential water shortages
with very few options for new development (Johnson and Parnell
1998).
In 1972, St. Petersburg developed a plan to reclaim
wastewater for irrigation of golf courses and for a deep injection
well system. The plan was very ambitious, with a goal to reach zero
discharge to surface water from the city’s WWTPs.

The city’s goal

was achieved in 1989. The deep well disposal is only used when
storage capacity is full at the appropriate facilities (Johnson and
Parnell 1998). Storage capacity is only reached during rainy months
as the water district fully utilizes all water for irrigation during dry
months (Pinellas County 2009). Deep well disposal includes injecting
the reclaimed water into a confined saltwater aquifer, where the
water ends up in the Gulf of Mexico (Johnson and Parnell 1998).
St.

Petersburg’s

WWTPs

are

defined

as

secondary” rather than tertiary treatment plants.

“advanced
The treated

effluent undergoes filtration and chlorination prior to discharge
(Johnson and Parnell 1998).

29

The St. Petersburg City Council commissioned a study that
determined “there is no evidence of increased enteric disease in
urban areas irrigated with treated reclaimed water…” or from any
aerosols from spray irrigation (Johnson and Parnell 1998, page
1055).
Interestingly, the authors identified the presence of nutrients in
the effluent as beneficial to the communities. Elevated levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as trace amounts of calcium,
magnesium and iron are considered a selling point for the water
when used for landscaping.

Orange County, CA
Orange County, California started groundwater recharge
using both direct injection and surface spreading of effluent in the
1970s. Agricultural water uses in the county have been replaced
with urban needs, leading to over-pumping and consequent
intrusion of seawater into the aquifer. Orange County uses over 200
wells to supply 75 percent of the water for its 2 million customers.
The rest of its water is imported from the Colorado River and
northern California (Mills, Bradford, Rigby and Wehner 1998).
Maximizing the availability of high-quality ground water is a
prime goal of the Orange County Water District (OCWD).

By

30

effectively managing groundwater resources, OCWD can reduce
its dependence on water imports. Its first project was to inject high
quality effluent into coastal aquifers, preventing the intrusion of
seawater into the aquifer.

The second program called for

spreading the water for groundwater recharge in the northeastern
part of the county. By spreading the water there, OCWD was able
to benefit from the natural percolation and recharge capabilities of
the site (OCWD 2004).
Since OCWD directly discharges reclaimed water into
aquifers, it is required to perform more stringent treatment than
would a standard WWTP. The treated effluent is chemically clarified
by the addition of lime to the stream, achieving a pH of 11.2,
followed by rapid mixing, flocculation and sedimentation.

This

removes over 99 percent of coliform bacteria, 26 percent of total
organic compounds, and significantly reduced levels of the
inorganic compounds.

Table 3 (page 32) is a summary of the

injection water-quality requirements for Orange County (only those
parameters found in the DOE’s additional groundwater criteria for
Washington are identified) (Mills, Bradford, Rigby, and Wehner
1998).
OCWD conducts extensive testing for microbial, organic and
inorganic contaminants. Water quality from the OCWD treatment

31

plants consistently meets or exceeds drinking water standards (Mills,
Bradford, Rigby, and Wehner 1998).
The OCWD manages the underground water reserves that
supply approximately 500 wells within its district boundaries. In 2006
about 333 million m3 of this water is pumped for use each year.
That quantity continues to grow steadily, and projections indicate
the demand may reach as much as 555 million m3 per year by 2030
(Asano 2006).
Table 3

Orange County Injection Requirements
Additional Ground Water Quality Criteria

Parameter
Concentration
Total Dissolved Solids
500 mg/L
Chloride
120 mg/L
Sulfate
125 mg/L
1000 μg/L
Copper
50 μg/L
Lead
50 μg/L
Manganese
50 μg/L
Silver
5000 μg/L
Zinc
pH
6.5 to 8.5 standard units
Lead
0.3 mg/L
(Mills, Bradford, Rigby, and Wehner 1998, page 1118)

Catalonia
A municipality in the Catalonia Region of northeastern Spain
recently began using reclaimed water to rehabilitate wetlands.
Besides looking at conventional pollutants (which are highly
studied), a recent study focused on the presence of PPCPs in
32

created treatment wetlands (CTWs) (Llorens, Matamoros, Domingo,
Bayona, and Garcia 2009).
A small (1 hectare) CTW in an urban environment near the
Mediterranean Sea is where researchers tested both the influent
and effluent for eight PPCPs.

The removal efficiency for these

compounds ranged from 35 percent to 98 percent.

Two of the

compounds had better than 95 percent, three greater than 80
percent, one was 72 percent, and the final two had poor efficiency
at 34 percent and 39 percent (Llorens, Matamoros, Domingo,
Bayona, and Garcia 2009).
Llorens and his colleagues also observed environmental
benefits as the CTW greatly enhanced the biodiversity of the area.
They concluded that natural processes may be efficiently used for
reclaiming water (Llorens, Matamoros, Domingo, Bayona, and
Garcia 2009).
Due to potential drought conditions in the Catalonia region,
reclaimed water use is expected to increase sharply. In 2007, a
two-year drought forced the region to import water by boat, as
reservoir levels fell to 15 percent (a level at which water is rendered
non-potable due to sediment). To prevent something like this in the
future, the Catalonian government is planning to meet 50 percent

33

of future water demand with reclaimed water, including agricultural
irrigation water (Andrews 2008).
Water quality from the Catalan region is of high enough
quality that it could be diverted directly into the potable water
system.

However, the treatment plant operations plant director

indicated that Europeans are not psychologically ready for utilizing
reclaimed water for drinking water (Andrews 2008).

Yelm, Washington
Water reclamation in the city of Yelm provides interesting
insight into the contamination that may be present in groundwater
as a result of reclaimed water use. The Washington Department of
Ecology (DOE) has strict standards regarding reclaimed water used
for groundwater recharge (see Table 4, page 35). The water must
meet the Class A standard and must undergo biological nitrogen
reduction (Cupps 2005).
Yelm is a rapidly growing city located in Thurston County,
Washington. Faced with an increasing population, declining water
resources and a need to protect declining salmon runs in the
Nisqually River, in 1993 Yelm began planning for ground water
recharge with reclaimed water. In 2000, Yelm became the first city

34

in Washington to achieve 100 percent water reclamation (Skillings
2000).
Table 4.

Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite
Ground Water Quality [Discharge] Criteria

Parameter
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Zinc
pH
Total Iron
Toxics

Concentration
500 mg/L
250 mg/L
250 mg/L
1300 μg/L
15 μg/L
50 μg/L
100 μg/L
5000 μg/L
6.5 to 8.5 standard units
0.3 mg/L
No toxics in toxic amounts
(WA DOE 2006, page 7)

Yelm has shallow drinking water wells. It currently produces
about 250,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water, which is used for
irrigation of schools and a city park (including a fish pond followed
by a series of CTWs.) Yelm received DOE’s “Environmental
Excellence Award” in 2002 for successfully implementing Class A
reclaimed water (Cupps 2005).
Along with the standard treatment operations required by the
Clean Water Act, Yelm employs nitrogen removal during secondary
treatment. The effluent is then sent through filtration, mixing and
chlorination (Cupps 2005).

35

The Yelm area has complex hydrology that makes it
especially susceptible to groundwater contamination. The area has
multiple aquifers and aquitards, and the Nisqually River influences
groundwater flows.

Earlier sampling indicated the presence of

nitrates in aquifers east of Yelm, so the DOE conducted a
background water quality assessment from 1996-97 to determine
the extent of contamination prior to implementing use of reclaimed
water for groundwater recharge (Cupps 2005).
Table 5. Yelm Groundwater Monitoring Comparison (Averages)
2004 Monitoring Study

1998
Baseline

Analyte

Units

Reclaimed
Water
(Class A)

C. Park Wells
(Rec.
Outwash)

Yelm Well
#2
(Adv.
Outwash)

Yelm Well
#2
(Adv.
Outwash)

Nitrate-N

mg/L

3.2

3.23

2.9

3.2

TDS

mg/L

302

125

85.2

110

Chloride
Fecal
coliform
Ammonia-N

mg/L
#/100 mL

59.8
ND

19.3
6

6.0
<2

4.9
ND

mg/L

ND

0.13

<0.1

a.

NDa
(Cupps 2005)

Ammonium-N was measured in two samples in the baseline study at 0.014
and 0.015 mg/L.

In 2004, Yelm conducted a follow-up study to determine the
impact of reclaimed water aquifer recharge. The data indicated
high quality water with little impact on groundwater quality. The
2004 study did not exactly replicate the earlier sampling operation

36

but, as illustrated in Table 5 (page 36), those samples taken from the
Yelm City well # 2 showed no significant change.

Sequim, Washington
The Sequim WWTP is a tertiary treatment plant producing
approximately 600,000 gallons per day of Class A water. Sequim
uses the reclaimed water for garden irrigation, wetland creation,
and for cooling, aeration, and flow augmentation of Bell Creek.
Sequim is located on the northeast corner the Olympic Peninsula. It
is an ideal study area for PPCPs because close to 50 percent of the
population is over the age of 59, and 20 percent is over the age of
65 – making the use of pharmaceuticals higher than the average
usage statewide (Johnson, Carey, and Golding 2004).
Samples were collected in 2003 from the reclaimed facility
effluent as well as the wells and creeks receiving reclaimed water.
The DOE’s intent was to determine the potential and extent of
pharmaceutical contamination in areas served by reclaimed water
(Johnson, Carey and Golding, 2004).
The study found 16 compounds present in the WWTP
effluent (see Table 6, page 38). Of these compounds, the most
significant was the diabetes drug metformin, a highly soluble
compound that ranks as the 15th most prescribed medication in

37

Table 6

PPCPs in Wells Adjacent to Sequim WWTP Water-Reuse Project
(PPCPs in ug/L, except Estrone and beta-Estradiol in ng/L)

Sample Type
Sample Number
Collection Date
Collection Time
Temp. (oC)
pH (S.U.)
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
TSS (mg/L)
Nitrate-Nitrite
(mg/L)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)
Acetaminophen
Antipyrine
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Cimetidine
Codeine
Cotinine
Diltiazem
Erythromycin
Fenofibrate
Fluoxetine
Hydrocodone
Ketoprofen
Metformin
Nicotine
Nifedipine
Paraxanthine
Ranitidine
Salbutamol
Sulfamethoxazole
Trimethoprim
Warfarin
Estrone
beta-Estradiol

Sequim
WWTP

Bell Meadows
Residence

Rhodefer
Community

Bell
Creek

Effluent
474135
18-Nov-03
0745 / 1335
na
na

Groundwater
474131
17-Nov-03
1340
10.9
7.2

Groundwater
474130
17-Nov-03
1220
10.5
8.0

Surface Water
474138
17-Nov-03
1100
7.7
7.2

Bell
Creek –
Replicate
Surface Water
474139
17-Nov-03
1105
na
na

510
<1

422
na

328
na

347
5

na
4

na

<0.10

0.17

1.7

2.1

na
nd
nd
21
43
127
12
21
10
nd
nd
nd
2.9
52
97
54
nd
200
5.1
60

0.9
nd
nd
1.0
nd
nd
<LOQ
<LOQ
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.5
6.3
nd
nd
nd
<LOQ

0.0
nd
nd
3.8
nd
nd
<LOQ
<LOQ
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.4
1.9
nd
nd
nd
nd

na
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11
25
nd
nd
nd
nd

na
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12
16
nd
nd
nd
nd

4.2
13
nd
2.6
nd

nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

nd
nd
nd
0.26
nd

nd
nd
nd
nd
nd

(Johnson, Carey, and Golding, 2004)
na = not analyzed
nd = not detected
<LOQ = below the limit of quantification
*tentatively identified

Washington. It was found in all samples collected for the study.
Also found in most of the samples were nicotine and codeine. The
nicotine was found, in many cases, to be the result of sample

38

handling procedures. It should be noted that nicotine and codeine
are considered ubiquitous compounds and the reclaimed water is
not the only source of these compounds in the environment.
Sampling found 13 products in the effluent that were not present
elsewhere in the environment. The DOE determined that the levels
of PPCPs found in the Sequim reclaimed water were at very low
levels compared to conventional wastewater treatment effluents
(non-tertiary treatment effluent) and below the level of concern
(Johnson, Carey, and Golding 2004).
These case studies indicate that reclaimed water is becoming
more and more acceptable around the United States.

Utilizing

state of the art treatment techniques, municipalities are able to
reclaim water and preserve valuable sources of water. Protecting
stream quality is important to ecosystems, salmon runs, and human
health. Urban areas are able to recharge groundwater aquifers
and extend their useful supply or prevent intrusion of seawater into
the aquifers.
Studies also indicate that the water is safe for reuse.
Regulatory authorities place a much higher standard on reclaimed
water to safeguard human health and the environment from its
effects. PPCPs are still a potential problem in the environment but
the small volumes present in effluent and the enhanced removal

39

demonstrated by CTW make reclaimed water a good source of
quality water.

40

4.

LOTT PLANT OPERATIONS
LOTT serves Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and urban Thurston

County for wastewater treatment and disposal. As required by the
Clean Water Act of 1972, LOTT utilizes primary and secondary
treatment

on

all

wastewater

to

remove

settleable

and

nonsettleable solids, and biological organisms. LOTT also removes
nutrients from wastewater as part of its NPDES permit requirements.
A portion of that treated water receives tertiary treatment to meet
reclaimed water standards (LOTT 2006).
Much of the state Capitol campus irrigation was converted in
2007 to reclaimed water (WA GA 2008). According to the GA’s
2008 Sustainability Report, in 2007 over 6,000,000 gallons of
reclaimed water irrigated Heritage Park, Marathon Park and along
Deschutes Parkway (2008). Figure 1 (page 4) illustrates the location
of the Capitol campus that is using reclaimed water.
LOTT plans expansion of reclaimed water use by extending
service to the Tumwater Valley Golf Course. This expansion, to be
completed in 2010, will double the amount of reclaimed water
produced by the Budd Inlet Plant and used in the South Sound
(Dodge 2008).

This is a positive step for LOTT as it will save

groundwater currently pumped for irrigation. Also, the state-of-the-

41

art technology LOTT employs for its processes will keep the public
safe while reclaiming water.

LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant
LOTT operates the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (the Plant) in
downtown Olympia and serves most of the greater Olympia area as
well as the communities of Lacey and Tumwater (LOTT 2006). The
capacity of the plant is over 28 MGD (peak wet weather capacity)
with an average treatment of 15 MGD (LOTT 2009a).
The Plant operates under NPDES Permit #WA0037061, issued in
2005.

This permit mandates treatment levels for all wastewater

discharged from the treatment plant as well as treatment standards
for reclaimed water (WA DOE 2005). The Plant discharges
wastewater effluent into Budd Inlet. Figure 4 (page 43) illustrates the
discharge of wastewater effluent.
Since Budd Inlet is especially vulnerable to eutrophication
from conventional wastewater discharge during the summer and
shoulder seasons (April, May and October), the permit identifies
loads for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total inorganic
nitrogen in terms of pounds per day rather than as a flow discharge.
Table 7 (page 44) summarizes the NPDES maximum limits for
conventional wastewater. LOTT’s maximum levels during summer

42

and shoulder seasons for BOD and TIN are expressed in terms of
pounds per day (lb/d) as opposed to milligrams per liter (mg/L) the
rest of the year. Regardless of the flow volume through the plant,
during summer and shoulder seasons LOTT must meet the lb/d load.
As the flow increases into the treatment plant, the load also
increases; therefore, the greater the flow, the more efficient the
plant must be at removing BOD and TIN (LOTT 2006). LOTT is not
required to monitor for nitrates and total suspended solids during
summer and shoulder seasons or to monitor for total inorganic
nitrogen during winter (WA DOE 2005).
Figure 4: Budd Inlet Discharge

LOTT 2009a
LOTT projects an increase to 22 MGD average influent to the
plant by 2025, which would cause LOTT to exceed its permitted load

43

for both BOD and TIN at current discharge rates (9 mg/L and 3 mg/L
respectively).

LOTT therefore plans to build satellite reclamation

plants (SRPs) to draw flow from the Budd Inlet Plant, treating to Class
A water standards.

Diverting the increase will keep LOTT at its

current discharge load into Budd Inlet and within the permit
limitations (LOTT 2006).
Table 7.

NPDES Permit Summary, Budd Inlet Treatment Plant,
Effective October 1, 20051

Parameter
BOD
TIN
NH3
TSS
Fecal Coliform
Total Recoverable Copper
pH

Seasonal Condition
Summer2
Shoulder3
Winter4
671 lb/d
900 lb/d
30 mg/L
288 lb/d
338 lb/d
---26 mg/L
--30 mg/L
200 per 100 ml sample
0.006 mg/L
Between 6-9

1. All values refer to monthly averages. Certain parameters also have weekly or
daily limits.
2. Summer = June, July, August, September
3. Shoulder = April, May, October
4. Winter = November, December, January, February, March

(LOTT 2006, ES-2)
Hawks Prairie Reclaimed Water Satellite
Limited area for expansion in downtown Olympia led LOTT to
expand operations to satellite plants.

The Hawks Prairie (Lacey)

Reclaimed Water Satellite (Satellite) is the first of the planned
satellites to come online (LOTT 2006).

44

The Satellite treats approximately 2 MGD of wastewater that
originate in Lacey. LOTT treats this water to Class A standards and
discharges it to a CTW/recharge basin area on Hogum Bay Road
also in Lacey. This 41-acre facility is used to store reclaimed water
for use in irrigation and toilet flushing. That water not pumped for
other purposes flows to recharge basins where it percolates 90 feet
through the soil and enters the groundwater aquifer. LOTT installed
10 monitoring wells to track the quality of the water present in the
aquifer (WA DOE 2006).
The Satellite operates under Ecology Permit ST6206.

In

addition to meeting the requirements outlined under the Plant
requirements, the Satellite must meet groundwater discharge
criteria (see Table 4, page 35 ).
Additional benefits of the Hogam Bay facility include both
public education and habitat creation (WA DOE 2006). The area is
aesthetically pleasing and it features a walking trail with information
boards providing visitors with background information on the water
treatment processes. The area also developed into a habitat area
for birds and a variety of aquatic plants and animal species.

45

Figure 5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow
Influent

Screening
Screening /
Grit Disposal
Grit Removal

Sedimentation

Secondary
Treatment

Sludge Treatment

Disinfection

Discharge

Sludge Disposal

Tertiary Treatment

Nathanson 2008, page 288

46

LOTT Treatment Process
The influent enters through the plant headworks and
undergoes preliminary treatment, consisting of large debris and grit
removal.

The wastewater then flows into primary sedimentation

tanks, where the floating materials are skimmed off the top. The
heavier materials settle to the bottom, where they are pumped out
as sludge. See Figure 5 (page 46) for a water flow diagram.
In a typical wastewater treatment plant, the influent would
then undergo a biological (or secondary) treatment process using
activated sludge to remove solids that did not settle in the primary
process (Nathanson 2008). However, at the LOTT plant, processes
change from the typical during the secondary treatment phase. In
order to meet its NPDES permit limit, LOTT must remove both organic
carbon and nitrogen during summer and shoulder seasons. Class A
Reclaimed Water production also requires nitrogen removal – as
LOTT increases Class A production, they expanded nitrogen
removal to year round as opposed to only summer and shoulder
seasons (LOTT 2006).
LOTT utilizes the Bardenpho™ process for nitrogen removal
(see Figure 6, page 49), consisting of two alternating treatments in
anoxic and aeration basins.

Alternating anoxic and aerobic

environments allows both nitrification and denitrification to occur

47

sequentially.

Organic nitrogen and ammonia are nitrified into

nitrate and nitrite in the aerobic basin.

The nitrified water is

recycled to the anoxic basin where denitrifying organisms reduce
the nitrate to nitrogen gas. Any nitrates not removed in the first
basin will be removed in the second anoxic basin.

Water is re-

aerated in the second aeration basin prior to clarification (LOTT
2006). Clarification removes residual solids from the treated water.
Water enters through the center of the tank where it then radiates
out to the edges.

The residual bacteria and solid material

(activated sludge) fall, while the clarified water flows over weirs and
into a collection trench.

Effluent from the secondary clarifiers

generally has a suspended solids concentration below 10 mg/L
(limit 30 mg/L). The clarified water is then pumped to disinfection.
LOTT utilizes ultraviolet light for disinfection to keep the coliform
levels within permit limits (LOTT 2006).

48

FIGURE 6: Bardenpho Four-Stage Biological Treatment

Internal Mixed Liquor Recycle

First Anoxic Basin

Intermediate
Pumping
Station

First Aeration Basin
Second
Anoxic Basin

Second
Aeration
Basin

Secondary
Clarifiers

To UV
Disinfection

Splitter
Box
From
Primary
Clarifiers

Diversion Structure

KEY
Mixers

(LOTT 2006)

Flows During Conventional Activated Sludge
Mode of Operation Only
RAS Flows
Liquid Flow

The Budd Inlet plant has a 1.5 MGD reclaimed water
treatment capacity.

Water intended for additional treatment is

pumped toward the sand filters. The pipeline includes chemical
injection ports where sodium hypochlorite and a coagulant are
flash mixed into the water upstream of the filters.

This provides

additional disinfection as well as increased filtering efficiency by
coagulating the solids still present in the water. The water is then
forced through the sand filters and the filtered water is pumped to
basins where the water remains for 30 minutes, undergoing chlorine
disinfection.

Washington State requires a chlorine residue in all

reclaimed water of 0.5 mg/L. Solely using UV will not allow for that

49

chlorine residual.
compliance.

LOTT continually monitors the effluent for

The resulting reclaimed water meets Class A

standards (LOTT 2006).
LOTT achieved 100 percent compliance with all permit
limitations in 2008 and has an excellent compliance record overall
(LOTT 2009a).

LOTT’s permit limitations included removal of

microorganisms,

suspended

solids

and

nutrients.

The

DOE

determined that, although organic chemicals and heavy metals
are present in the effluent, they are within acceptable levels for
discharge into the environment (WA DOE 2005).
PPCPs, however, are not a category identified in the WWTP
permit since this is a relatively new category of concern. In 2008,
LOTT participated in a study conducted by the EPA to test the levels
of PPCPs present in wastewater effluent. Earlier studies suggested
that biological nutrient removal processes are more effective in
PPCP removal than conventional treatment processes.

EPA

collected samples of influent, effluent, biosolids and reclaimed
water from the LOTT process as well as from two facilities that do not
utilize nutrient removal but which also discharge into Puget Sound.
They will compare the data to test whether nutrient removal helps in
the removal of PPCPs. The results will be available sometime in 2009
and, although this is a very small study with a small sample size, LOTT

50

hopes those results will provide more information regarding PPCPs
and removal effectiveness through advanced biological treatment
(LOTT 2009a).
LOTT employs state-of-the-art treatment processes for both
wastewater and reclaimed water effluent. In 2008, LOTT won both
the National Association of Clean Water Agency (NACWA)
Excellence in Management Award and the Thurston County Green
Business Award, in part for its reclaimed water operations. NAQWA
also awarded LOTT its Silver Level Peak Performance Award in 2008
for LOTT’s excellence in meeting permit requirements (LOTT 2009a).
LOTT’s

reclaimed

water

meets

or

exceeds

all

permit

requirements for groundwater recharge, irrigation and all nonpotable uses.

Expanding reclaimed water use is a responsible

choice for the LOTT service area.

51

5.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
In this chapter, LOTT operations will be compared with those

facilities described in chapter 3. After briefly reviewing each case
study operation, I will describe how LOTT’s treatment processes and
effluent characteristics compare.
The only illnesses directly related to reclaimed water
happened in Arizona in 1979. This outbreak was caused by a crossconnection between the reclaimed water used for watering trees
and shrubs in a campground and the potable supply for that
campground (WA DOH 2007). LOTT utilizes a dual distribution system
to ensure this will not happen in Thurston County. It also color codes
the distribution pipes so that a cross connection is extremely unlikely.
In accordance with DOE and DOH requirements, LOTT paints in
purple all pipes and appurtenances related to reclaimed water
(LOTT 2009b).
The first case study reviewed earlier involved LA County
wastewater

treatment

plants,

which

use

coagulation

and

chlorination, followed by filtration as a tertiary process, with an
additional chlorination treatment (Hartling and Nellor 1998). The LA
County Sanitation District’s reclaimed water meets drinking water
criteria

for

heavy

metals,

pesticides,

trace

organics

and

radioactivity. This effluent contains less than 1 coliform bacterium

52

per 100 mL.

Virus sampling was conducted on 981 samples of

tertiary effluent from 1979 – 1998 and only one sample tested
positive for a virus (Hartling and Nellor 1998).

No data were

recorded for PPCPs in the reclaimed water output. The LA County
Sanitation district does not utilize nutrient removal in its treatment
process. This can lead to a variety of issues, including algae growth
in storage ponds and increased nitrogen in groundwater (Hartling
and Nellor 1998).
Similarly to LA County, LOTT’s Budd Inlet Plant also uses an
additional coagulant and disinfection prior to filtration. LOTT also
disinfects the water after the filtration operation for a minimum of 30
minutes to achieve a state-mandated chlorine residual (LOTT
2009a).

In 2008, LOTT’s reclaimed water output met all permit

requirements for microorganisms, suspended solids and nutrients.
Sampling detected organic chemicals and heavy metals in the
effluent but at levels DOE considers below concern for the receiving
environment (LOTT 2009a; WA DOE 2005).
A specific benefit LOTT has over LA County is LOTT’s nutrient
removal prior to initiating the tertiary treatment process.

This

advanced secondary treatment removes nitrogen through a
biological process that alternates anoxic and aerated conditions
(LOTT 2006).

This additional treatment makes LOTT’s reclaimed

53

water less likely to cause environmental degradation through algae
blooms and eutrophication than the water released by LA County.
The next case study involved the Irvine (CA) Ranch Water
District (IRWD). By 1998, IRWD was distributing reclaimed water to
landscape irrigation, recreational uses and toilet flushing (Young et
al. 1998). IRWD’s NPDES permit requires an average of less than 2.2
coliforms per 100 mL over a one-week period. The IRWD reclaimed
water meets all California reuse requirements. The method used for
tertiary treatment is the same as in LA County. IRWD does treat for
nutrients in tertiary effluent.

This led to the resolution of several

quality problems in its reclaimed water reservoirs, including
increased turbidity levels and algae growth (Young et al. 1998).
Like

IRWD,

LOTT’s

reclaimed

water

meets

all

permit

requirements (LOTT 2009a). This includes meeting an average 2.2
MPN/100mL over a one-week period with a 23 MPN/100mL sample
maximum (MPN = most probable number of microorganisms
present in effluent) (WA DOE 2005). This value is comparable to
IRWD’s effluent.
The next case study reviewed was the St. Petersburg, FL,
reclaimed water system.

St. Petersburg reclaims wastewater for

irrigation of golf courses and for a deep-injection well system. In
1989, the city achieved its goal of zero discharge of wastewater

54

effluent to receiving waters. The deep well disposal is only used
when storage capacity is full at the appropriate facilities.

St.

Petersburg’s treated effluent undergoes filtration and chlorination
prior to discharge. The St. Petersburg City Council commissioned a
study that determined “there is no evidence of increased enteric
disease in urban areas irrigated with treated reclaimed water…” or
from any aerosols from spray irrigation (Johnson and Parnell 1998,
1055). Elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, trace amounts
of calcium, magnesium and iron are present in the reclaimed
water, which is considered a selling point for the water when used
for landscaping (Johnson and Parnell 1998).
Again, LOTT’s use of advanced secondary treatment for
nutrient removal leads to a superior water quality for discharge. But,
the majority St. Petersburg’s water is used for irrigation not
discharge. This may lead to a cost savings for golf course operators
– less fertilizer to apply – but runoff or injection could lead to
eutrophication in receiving waters.
The goal of Orange County’s reclaimed water program is to
maximize the availability of high-quality groundwater in the OCWD.
Specifically the county wants to reduce the amount of water
imports necessary for Orange County (Mills, Bradford, Rigby, and
Wehner 1998).

55

Since OCWD discharges reclaimed water into aquifers, it is
required to perform more stringent treatment than a standard
WWTP (see Table 3, page 32). The treated effluent is chemically
clarified by the addition of lime to the stream achieving a pH of 11.2
followed by rapid mixing, flocculation and sedimentation.

This

removes over 99 percent of coliform bacteria, 26 percent of total
organic compounds, and significantly reduces the inorganic
compounds.

OCWD conducts extensive testing for microbial,

organic and inorganic contaminants.

Water quality from the

OCWD treatment plants consistently meets or exceeds drinking
water standards (Mills, Bradford, Rigby, and Wehner 1998).
LOTT does not perform direct discharge of reclaimed water
into a drinking water aquifer. Rather, LOTT spreads water over a
CTW and then pumps it into recharge basins. The reclaimed water
then percolates through soil and into the aquifer (LOTT 2009a).
Because this reclaimed water is used in the recharge basin, it must
meet additional requirements (see Table 4, page 35) (WA DOE
2006). Orange County must meet more stringent requirements than
LOTT for removal of a variety of contaminants (see tables 3 and 4 on
pages 20 and 28 for comparison.)
There are four criteria where Orange County is more stringent
than Washington DOE requirements and one where LOTT’s permit is

56

more stringent than Orange County.

Although most of Orange

County’s requirements are more stringent than LOTT’s, Orange
County does a direct injection into aquifers while LOTT utilizes a
recharge basin. Water passing through a recharge basin into the
aquifer will undergo additional filtration and the resulting water
meets all drinking water standards (Nathanson 2008; WA DOE 2006).
A study in northeastern Spain focused on the presence of
PPCPs in CTWs. Researchers studied influent and effluent at a small
urban CTW near the Mediterranean Sea for 8 PPCPs. The removal
efficiency for these compounds varied widely from 35 percent to 98
percent.

Researchers also noted benefits, as the CTW greatly

enhanced the biodiversity of the area.

The natural processes

appeared to be an efficient method for reclaiming water (Llorens,
Matamoros, Domingo, Bayona, and Garcia 2009). Currently, there
are no data regarding PPCPs in LOTT’s reclaimed water but a study
is pending to identify process efficiency (LOTT 2009).
The Yelm study illustrates the effectiveness of the Department
of Ecology’s strict standards regarding reclaimed water used for
groundwater recharge (see Table 4, page 35).

All of Yelm’s

reclaimed water must meet Class A standards and must undergo
biological nitrogen reduction.

Like LOTT, Yelm employs nitrogen

removal during secondary treatment, followed by filtration, mixing

57

and chlorination. The effluent is then pumped to a CTW and
recharge basin (Cupps 2005).
In 2004, DOE funded a study to determine the impact of using
reclaimed water for aquifer recharge. That study indicated high
quality groundwater with little impact from reclaimed water (Cupps
2005).
LOTT and Yelm must meet the same criteria prior to discharge
to a recharge basin, as both must meet the same DOE
requirements.

Significantly, both Yelm and LOTT must utilize

advanced secondary treatment for nutrient removal, and sampling
shows that this removal is effective in maintaining high quality
groundwater supplies (WA DOE 2006; Cupps 2005).
The Sequim WWTP is a tertiary treatment plant producing
reclaimed water for garden irrigation, wetland creation, and for
cooling, aeration, and flow augmentation of a local creek. Sequim
made an ideal study area and, in 2003 DOE took samples from the
reclaimed water treatment facility effluent, as well as from the wells
and creeks receiving reclaimed water, to determine the potential
and extent of pharmaceutical contamination (Johnson, Carey, and
Golding 2004). As previously stated, DOE determined that these
levels were very low compared to conventional wastewater
treatment effluents (non-tertiary treatment effluent) and below the

58

level of concern (Johnson, Carey, and Golding, 2004).

LOTT

participated in an EPA-sponsored study in 2008 to determine the
effectiveness of its treatment process for PPCP removal. At this time,
those data are not yet available (LOTT 2009a) but, as LOTT has
processes similar to those at Sequim (and must meet the same
permitting standards) it is reasonable to infer at least comparably
low levels of PPCPs in its effluent.
LOTT
favorably

utilizes
with

state-of-the-art

other

providers

of

processes
reclaimed

that

compare

water.

Other

municipalities have used reclaimed water for decades.

LOTT

adopted many similar or better processes for its operations when it
upgraded to tertiary treatment plant operations.

The discharge

limits are similar among those providers in the United States and the
reclaimed water produced at the LOTT facilities meets all permit
limits for pathogenic microbes, organic compounds, and nutrients.
LOTT’s reclaimed water is as safe for use as that discharged from
other municipalities.

59

6.

CONCLUSION
Using reclaimed water for irrigation, groundwater recharge or

any sub-potable use is a worthwhile financial and structural
investment for municipal facilities. Its use can help an urban area
conserve the precious water resources required for expanding
populations, replacing potable water currently diverted for those
purposes. Climate change may lead to water resource scarcity,
making reclaimed water even more important.
Questions remain about the safety of reclaimed water and
whether or not LOTT should expand reclaimed water distribution in
South Puget Sound.

Dangers discussed in chapter 2 included

microorganisms, organics, inorganics, and PPCPs. LOTT meets all its
permit requirements for those contaminants and discharge levels in
effluent are at levels that DOE has determined are well below levels
of regulatory concern.
LOTT disinfects Class A water three times, using UV light and
two doses of sodium hypochlorite; one dose includes a 30 minute
contact basin to ensure a 0.5 mg/L residual in the distribution lines.
LOTT also meets all requirements for inorganics and organics. The
main unknown remains what PPCPs are present in the reclaimed
water. There is no permit standard for PPCPs in LOTT’s NPDES permit.
Since PPCPs may cause health and ecosystem problems, LOTT

60

proactively participated in an EPA study to determine the
effectiveness

of

its

treatment

methods

for

PPCP

removal.

Unfortunately, the results of that study are not yet available. Other
studies indicate PPCPs are present in Class A water but well below
health concern levels. PPCPs may accumulate in the ecosystem,
however, and cause problems later.
Regardless of the problems that may result from PPCPs or
other contaminants that may pass into the environment through
reclaimed water, LOTT should continue with its planned expansion
into Tumwater and other areas. Wastewater will still be discharged
into the environment, specifically Budd Inlet, if the water is not
reclaimed.

Reclaimed water is subjected to more rigorous

treatment standards using filtration and chlorination.
treatment

removes

significantly

more

The tertiary

contaminants

than

conventional treatment methods, making it a better choice for the
environment.
LOTT, DOE, and the EPA should all continue to study the
various treatment methods to enhance removal of PPCPs before
they reach the environment, developing additional detection
methods for PPCPs.
disposal

of

Also, educating the public about proper

pharmaceuticals

and

the

potential

hazards

of

household products that make their way into the wastewater

61

stream should be a priority. Studies should continue with regard to
the impacts that PPCPs have on the environment, and including
PPCPs in the NPDES permitting process should be considered as
well.
LOTT compares very well with reclaimed water providers in
other areas of the country.

It utilizes similar methods for water

treatment and achieves comparable results.

LOTT meets the

stringent standards for required discharge and reclaimed water.
Increasing reclaimed water use will save precious water
resources

in the South

Sound

for

salmon habitat, riparian

ecosystems and potable use. LOTT’s reclaimed water product is
safe for non-potable uses and LOTT should expand its service area.
With our growing population and decreased water resources, we
cannot maintain the luxury of using water only once.

62

REFERENCES
Andrews, A. (2008, September 19). Spanish water company uses
reclaimed water to cope with extreme drought. Utilityweek.
Retrieved on May 23, 2009 from www.utilityweek.co.uk.
Asano, T. (2006). Water reuse via groundwater recharge.
International Review for Environmental Strategies. 6(2) 205–216.
Asano, T. and Levine, A. (1998). Wastewater reclamation, recycling,
and reuse: An introduction. In T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality
management library – Volume 10 (1-52). Lancaster, PA:
Technomic.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control). (2008). Rotavirus Home.
Retrieved on May 22, 2009 from www. cdc.gov/rotavirus.
Chefetz, B., Mualem, T., and Ben-Air, J. (2008). Sorption and mobility
of pharmaceutical compounds in soil irrigated with reclaimed
wastewater. Chemosphere, 72, 1338-1343.
CIG (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group). (2009)
Climate impacts on Pacific Northwest water resources: Climate
impacts in brief. Retrieved on May 22, 2009 from
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/pnwwater.shtml.
Cooper, R. and Olivieri, A. (1998). Infectious disease concerns in
wastewater reuse. In T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality
management library – Volume 10 (489-516). Lancaster, PA:
Technomic.
Crook, J. (1998). Water reclamation and reuse criteria. In T. Asano
(Ed.) Water quality management library – Volume 10 (627-696.)
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Cupps, K. (2005). Groundwater impact assessments of reclaimed
water use in western Washington State. Presented at
Groundwater Under the Pacific Northwest • November 2-3,
2005 • Stevenson, Washington. Originally submitted and
published at the 2005 National Water Reuse Association
Symposium, September 2005 in Denver. Retrieved January 13,
2009 from ecy.wa.gov.

63

Cupps, K., and Morris, E. (2005). Case studies in reclaimed water
use: Creating new water supplies in Washington State.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication Number
05-10-013. Olympia, WA.
Daughton, C. (2001). Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
in the environment: Overarching issues and overview. In C.
Daughton and T. Jones-Lepp (Ed.) Pharmaceuticals and
personal care products: Scientific and regulatory issues (2-38).
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Daughton, C. and Ternes, T. (1999). Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products in the environment: Agents of subtle change?
Environmental Health Perspectives 107, Supplement 6. (907938).
Diaz-Cruz, M., and Barcelo, D. (2008). Trace organic chemicals
contamination in ground water recharge. Chemosphere, 72,
333-342.
Dodge, J. (2008, October 18) One agency that's not strapped for
cash: LOTT. The Olympian. Retrieved April 5, 2009 from
www.theolympian.com.
Erickson, M. (2004). Reclaimed water: merits and constraints as an
alternative water source. University of Georgia, Center for Food
Safety, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
Griffen, GA. Retrieved on January 13, 2009 from
www.ugacfs.org.
Goldstein, J. (2006). Sustainable water supplies with wastewater
recycling. BioCycle 47 (1) 24-5.
Hartling, E., and Nellor, M. (1998). Water recycling in Los Angeles
County. In T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality management library –
Volume 10 (917-940). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Hermanowicz, S.W., Sanchez Diaz, E., and Coe, J. (2001). Prospects,
problems and pitfalls of urban water reuse: a case study. Water
Science and Technology, 43 (10), 9–16.
IRWD (Irvine Ranch Water District). (2009). Tertiary treatment
process. Retrieved on May 23, 2009 from www.irwd.com.

64

Johnson, A., Carey, B., and Golding, S. (2004). Results of a screening
analysis for pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment plant
effluents, wells, and creeks in the Sequim-Dungeness area.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 0403-051.
Johnson, W., and Parnell, J. (1998). Wastewater reclamation and
reuse in the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. In T. Asano (Ed.)
Water quality management library – Volume 10 (1037-1103).
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
LOTT Alliance. (2006). Budd Inlet Treatment Plant master plan.
Olympia, WA: Author.
LOTT Alliance. (2009a). State of the utility report – 2009. Olympia,
WA: Author.
LOTT Alliance. (2009b). Water reuse summary plan for the Budd Inlet
Treatment Plant Reclaimed Water Facility. Olympia, WA:
Author.
Mills, R., and Asano, T. (1996). A retrospective assessment of water
reclamation projects. Water Science and Technology, 33 (1011), 59-70.
Mills, R., and Asano, T. (1998). Planning and analysis of water reuse
projects. In T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality management library –
Volume 10 (57-110). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Mills, R., Bradford, S., Rigby, M., and Wehner, M. (1998).
Groundwater recharge at the Orange County Water District. In
T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality management library – Volume 10
(1105-1141). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Mono Lake Committee. (2009). About Mono Lake. Retrieved on
May 23, 2009 from www.monolake.org.
Nathanson, J. (2008). Basic environmental technology: Water
supply, waste management and pollution control. Columbus:
Prentice Hall.
Okun, D. (2000). Water reclamation and unrestricted nonpotable
reuse: A new tool in urban water management. Annual
Review of Public Health. 21(1) 223-45.
65

OCWD (Orange County Water District). (2004). A redundant
approach to drought-proof water supplies. Retrieved on May
23, 2009 from www.gwrsystem.com.
Pinellas County Planning Department. (2008). Potable water supply,
wastewater, and reuse element of the Pinellas County
comprehensive plan. Retrieved May 23, 2009 from
www.pinellascounty.org.
RCW (Revised Code of Washington). (1992). The reclaimed water
act of 1992. Chapter 90.46 RCW.
Reheis, M. (1997). Dust deposition downwind of Owens (dry) Lake,
1991-1994: Preliminary findings. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 102 (D22) 25.
Skillings, T. (2000, November 16). Little Yelm sets big environmental
goals — and meets them. Seattle Daily Journal. Retrieved May
23, 2009 from www.djc.com.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2009).
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Retrieved on
May 2, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2004).
Guidelines for water reuse. EPA/625/R04/018. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Center for Environmental Research Information,
Cincinnati, Ohio: Author.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1998).
Water recycling and reuse: The environmental benefits. (EPA090-F-09-001). Washington D.C.: Author.
WA DOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). (2005). Fact sheet
for NPDES permit WA0037061: LOTT Alliance Budd Inlet Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from ecy.wa.gov.

66

WA DOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). (2006). Fact
sheet for state reclaimed water permit ST 6206: LOTT Alliance
Martin Way Reclaimed Water Plant. Retrieved May 11, 2009
from ecy.wa.gov.
WA GA (Washington State Department of General Administration).
(2007). Chapter 10: Campus-wide plan for reclaimed water
wse on the State Capitol Campus Fulfilling E2SSB 6117
Requirements. Olympia, WA: Author
WA DOH (Washington State Department of Health). (2007). Report
from the Department of Health on related public health issues:
Fulfilling E2SSB 6117 Requirements – Section 7: 2007 Reclaimed
Water Use Legislative Report. Olympia, WA: Author.
WA DOH and DOE (Washington State Department of Health and
Washington State Department of Ecology). (1997). Water
reclamation and reuse standards. Olympia, WA: Author.
White River Municipal Water District. (2004). Water reuse and
conservation study: augmentation of water supply using
reclaimed water: Final report. Spur, TX: Author.
Yates, M., and Gerba, C. (1998). Microbial considerations in
wastewater reclamation and reuse. In T. Asano (Ed.) Water
quality management library – Volume 10 (437-479). Lancaster,
PA: Technomic.
Young, R., Thompson, K., McVicker, R, Diamond, R, Gingras, M.,
Ferguson, D., Johannessen, J, Herr, G. and Parsons, J. (1998). In
T. Asano (Ed.) Water quality management library – Volume 10
(941-1034). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

67

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Smith_KMESThesis2009.pdf