Re: San Mateo Coliform Study

From: Kckarmendy@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Fri Feb 14 1997 - 08:55:44 PST


Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA238589564; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:24 -0800
Return-Path: <Kckarmendy@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA186999563; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:23 -0800
Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA26742; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:55:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:55:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Kckarmendy@aol.com-DeleteThis
Message-Id: <970214115543_76165193@emout12.mail.aol.com-DeleteThis>
To: poulton@zonker.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Cc: bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, wind_talk@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: San Mateo Coliform Study
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.4451.emout12.mail.aol.com.855939343"

Content-ID: <0_4451_855939343@emout12.mail.aol.com.76203-DeleteThis> Content-type: text/plain

Ken-

The file I sent yesterday was in WordPerfect 6.1 format. I have saved it now
as an ASCII text file (I think). Sorry for the inconvenience. I am still
very much a novice on e-mail. I hope this works better. If not, I can
resort to the good old US Postal Service.

I will keep you posted.

Kacey Karmendy

Content-ID: <0_4451_855939343@emout12.mail.aol.com.76204-DeleteThis>
Content-type: text/plain; name="SFBANOTE.ASC"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


         City of San Mateo Water Quality Control Plant
     Study to Evaluate Alternative Effluent Coliform Limits

On behalf of the City of San Mateo, I would like to bring the sailboard community up to date on
the study we are implementing to evaluate alternative effluent coliform limits. My name is Kacey
Karmendy, and I am the Laboratory Supervisor for the City of San Mateo's Wastewater
Treatment Plant. This study is based on workplans previously approved by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff for the South Bayside System Authority (SBSA), East Bay
Dischargers Authority, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, San Francisco, East Bay
Municipal Utilities District, and Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Receiving water monitoring in
the studies completed to date has documented that beneficial uses remained fully protected
when the treatment plants operated with fecal coliform limits of 200 to 500 MPN/100 mL.
Operating at this level of disinfection also benefitted water quality due to the associated
reduction in chlorinated hydrocarbons (disinfection byproducts) discharged to the Bay.

The Basin Plan fecal coliform water quality objective is a log mean of 200 MPN/100 mL for
water contact recreation. The San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges an advanced
secondary effluent into the deep water channel through a diffuser about 3400 feet offshore in
about 40 feet of water. The outfall is designed to provide an initial dilution of about 40:1. Dye
and drogue studies conducted for the RWQCB Shellfish Program showed subsequent dilution
of 10:1 to over 50:1.

The intent of the study is to demonstrate that water contact recreation objectives will be fully
protected when chlorinating the effluent to a 240 MPN/100 mL fecal coliform level. The study
will take up to six months, to allow evaluation of plant disinfection performance under both wet
and dry weather conditions. Initial receiving water monitoring will be conducted once per week,
increasing to twice weekly (weather permitting) when target coliform levels are achieved. In
addition, the wastewater plant effluent will be monitored daily for total and fecal coliform. In the
unlikely event that receiving water objectives are exceeded due to factors attributable to this
study, chlorine dosages will be returned to previous levels.

The six receiving water stations are as follows:
     WS-A: directly over the San Mateo WQCP outfall diffuser located just north of the San
               Mateo Bridge at the west end of the deep water channel.
     WS-B: 100 yards NW of diffuser along west edge of channel.
     WS-C: midway (~750 yards) between the diffuser and channel marker 8A along west
               edge of channel.
     WS-D: at channel marker 8A, in the channel side of the marker.
     WS-E: 1000 yards from marker 8A on a course 189 degrees magnetic. This is
               approximately halfway between the windsurfer launch area and 8A.
     WS-F: 1000 yards NE of SBSA outfall (reference station)

This monitoring plan was approved by RWQCB staff in November, with input from Peter Candy,
a representative of the sailboarding community. The chlorination reduction program was
initiated in early January at the treatment plant, and receiving water monitoring began soon
after. Initial data show fecal coliform far below the receiving water objective, even with all the
storm flows into the Bay. Those who wish additional information can contact me, Kacey
Karmendy, at (415)377-4698 or e-mail to kckarmendy@aol.com.-DeleteThis

I would also like to take a moment to comment on an article from your September, 1996,
newsletter. Peter Candy wrote an informative piece on the then-proposed study plans by SBSA
and San Mateo. Some of the issues mentioned below were discussed during a meeting
between City representatives and Mr. Candy in late October.

"A reduction in chlorine means a corresponding increase in pathogenic bacteria discharged to
the Bay, an obvious health threat."
While there is the potential for an increase in pathogens, in reality we have to overdose
significantly with sodium hypochlorite to meet our stringent discharge requirements. Studies by
other treatment plants have shown that reduction of chlorination had no adverse impact on
receiving water, and, in fact, on the treated wastewater itself.

"Residual chlorine levels in the final effluent range in the order of 2 to 5 milligrams per liter."
We are required to have 0.0 mg/L chlorine residual in our effluent. The levels indicated above
are prior to dechlorination.

"If the SMWQCP...permit(s) are to be amended to allow bacterial discharges to exceed current
Basin Plan limits..."
The Basin Plan limit, as stated above, for water contact recreation is a log mean of 200
MPN/100 mL. We would only ask to meet that standard at the end of the pipe (in other words,
at the final effluent), disregarding the obvious dilution once in the receiving water.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:31:18 PST