SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS AND INQUIRIES WITH OTHER WATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Transcription

1 Technical Memorandum SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS AND INQUIRIES WITH OTHER WATER TREATMENT PLANTS City of Folsom Water Treatment Plant Solids Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 Reviewed by: Prepared by: Larry Hentz, P.E. and Rich Stratton, P.E. Ligaya Kohagura, P.E. Introduction Background This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes the following information: Laboratory analyses performed for this project, Discussions from HDR s inquiries with other water treatment plants (WTPs) that receive raw water from Folsom Lake. Recommendations to mitigate the WTP s residual solids odor issue. The City of Folsom (City) WTP is designed to produce 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water - a site map of the WTP is shown in Figure 1. The raw water for the City s WTP is pumped from Folsom Lake, which has low turbidity water (average of 1.5 NTU). This surface water source has seasonal fluctuations in turbidity with a monthly average range of 0.5 to 2.5 NTU. The WTP uses aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) as the primary coagulant and a non-ionic polymer as a coagulant and filter aid. ACH and polymer are added to the raw water prior to the Actiflo units and Sedimentation Basin No. 5. Polymer may also be added before the filters and Basins No. 1 through 4. Residual solids originate from the Actiflo units, Sedimentation Basin No. 5, and the dual media filters. Solids from the Actiflo blowdown waste stream is concentrated in Basins No. 1 and 2. Filter backwash solids are settled and thickened in Basins No. 3 and 4. Thickened solids are discharged weekly from Sedimentation Basin No. 5 and Basins No. 1 through 4 to the existing lagoons. Filter-to-waste and water decanted from the lagoons are discharged to the Backwash Reclamation Basins prior to recirculation to the front of the WTP. Any solids that settles in the Backwash Reclamation Basins is removed as needed. City of Folsom 1 WTP Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

2 Figure 1. Folsom Water Treatment Plant Site Map Technical Memorandum Sedimentation Basin 5 Actiflo Facility Basins 1 and 2 No. 3 Basins 3 and 4 Solids Lagoons No. 2 No. 1 City of Folsom 2 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

3 Technical Memorandum Until recently, the City used a contractor (selected through a bidding process) to periodically remove, dewater, and dispose of solids from all three lagoons at the WTP. During the cleaning process, the contractor retained water in the lagoons and enclosed the dewatering equipment to minimize odorous emissions. In between cleanings, the City occasionally experienced odorous emissions from the lagoons. To control the odorous emissions, each lagoon is typically capped with a layer of water throughout the year. To minimize the residuals handling costs, the City began the implementation of its current residuals management plan in The current plan is based on Malcolm Pirnie s Residuals Management Evaluation and Plan report dated May This report recommended implementation of a nonmechanical dewatering option since it had lowest annual costs. The non-mechanical option uses the WTP s three existing lagoons and operates them as drying beds on a rotating basis. The proposed plan uses one drying bed to receive 2 percent thickened solids from Basins No. 1 through 4. The second bed would be drying the solids, and the solids would be turned-over to promote the evaporative drying process. The third drying bed would be operated in disposal or standby mode. The first phase of the plan involved disposing the existing solids from Lagoons No. 2 and 3 and converting these lagoons to drying beds. Lagoon No. 1 is currently unlined and will need to be lined prior to use as a drying bed. In early 2012, the City began using an equipment to turn over the solids in one of the converted drying beds. The City had not yet purchased the skid-steer loader with an aerator attachment, which was recommended in the May 2007 report. Within a few weeks of starting the turnover process, odorous emissions were so pungent that the WTP received odor complaints from multiple residents who live adjacent to the WTP site. To mitigate the odorous emissions, the City again capped the lagoons with a layer of water. In the meantime, the City contracted with HDR to conduct a study of the possible causes of the WTP s odorous emissions. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing for the WTP odor study was conducted in two phases: Initial laboratory testing of the odorous emissions emanating from the liquid solids and evaluation of the results Follow-up laboratory testing of the WTP s residual solids and treated water and evaluation of the results Initial Tests of Odorous Emissions Analytical Protocol Based on previous project experiences, HDR prepared an analytical protocol for sampling the odorous emissions from the residual solids. The protocol is included in Appendix A. The initial laboratory testing focused on characterizing and identifying the compounds that have odorous characteristics. The ASTM D-5504 and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) TO-15 analytical methods were used to identify the compounds potentially responsible for the foul odor. The ASTM D-5504 test is used to measure sulfurous compounds. The TO-15 test is calibrated for 50 compounds and uses a spectral library to tentatively identify other compounds that may be present in the gaseous sample. City of Folsom 3 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

4 Technical Memorandum The City collected the gaseous samples on November 7, 2012, from Basin No. 2 at the location noted in Figure 2. Following the analytical protocol, the City transferred gaseous emissions from the liquid solids samples into a suma canister. The City delivered the samples to the Eurofin Air Toxics laboratory in Folsom, CA, for analytical testing. Figure 2. Sampling Location for Initial Laboratory Testing Lab Results The complete results from the initial laboratory testing are included in Appendix B. Table 1 summarizes the sulfide test results. Table 2 summarizes the compounds of concern as identified by the EPA TO-15 testing. Table 1. Summary of Initial Laboratory Tests: Sulfide Testing (per ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD) Compound Report Limit (ppbv) Measured Amounts (ppbv) Sample 1 (WTP #20149) Sample 2 (WTP #20150) Carbonyl Sulfide Dimethyl Sulfide 20 1,400 Carbon Sulfide Thiophene Dimethyl Disulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Dimethyl Sulfide 19 1,100 Carbon Sulfide Thiophene Dimethyl Disulfide City of Folsom 4 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

5 Technical Memorandum Table 2. Summary of Initial Laboratory Tests: Modified TO-15/TICs (per EPA Method TO-15 GC/MS Full Scan) Compound Report Limit (ppbv) Amount (ppbv) Report Limit (ug/m 3 ) Amount (ug/m 3 ) Sample 1 (WTP #20149) Sample 2 (WTP #20150) Toluene , ,000 Toluene , ,000 HDR s Observations The measured amounts of organic sulfide compounds in Table 1 are most likely responsible for the odorous emissions that are emanating from the WTP residual solids. These compounds are typically byproducts of anaerobic organic matter degradation. The detected levels of these compounds are considered to have very high odor significance. The measured amounts of toluene in Table 2 are also considered relatively high. Toluene is an industrial solvent. It is not typically found in drinking water supplies. The source of toluene is not known. To our knowledge, Folsom Lake currently and historically does not have any chemical industries in its vicinity that may have released toluene into the surface water. Based on the detected levels of toluene, HDR requested the following information for further review: City s 2012 Annual Title 22 Report MSDS sheets of the chemicals used as part of the WTP s treatment process The City s 2012 Annual Title 22 Report provided laboratory test results on the WTP s raw water samples. The report indicated the following relevant results: Sulfate as SO4 result was 2.3 mg/l (per EPA 300.0) Toluene result was non-detect (per EPA 524.2) The levels of sulfate in the raw water samples are considered low. The Title 22 Annual Report also did not detect toluene in the raw water samples. Therefore, HDR focused on the MSDS sheets to investigate the possible source of toluene detected in the liquid solids gas emissions. The MSDS sheets for the following chemicals were provided by the City: NTU Technologies AD 212P (NSF approved acrylamide polymer; anionic water-soluble) NTU Technologies AD 101P (NSF approved acrylamide polymer; non-ionic water soluble) NTU Technologies 932 (water soluble aluminum compounds) Calcium Hydroxide (hydrated lime/hydrate) Sodium Hypochlorite Potassium Permanganate City of Folsom 5 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

6 Technical Memorandum The MSDS sheets provided by the City are included in Appendix C. The MSDS sheets did not specially note that the chemicals contained toluene. Toluene is a Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) primary contaminant (under the category of volatile organic compounds). The maximum contaminant level is 1 mg/l. Since the City was not previously aware of the high levels of toluene in the liquid solids gaseous emissions, HDR recommended that the City perform laboratory testing of its finished treated water to confirm compliance with the SDWA s drinking water limit for toluene. HDR also recommended testing the residual solids to better characterize the source of the odorous compounds. For the follow-up tests, HDR recommended laboratory tests for the following: Toluene (for both the residual solids and finished treated water) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (for residual solids only) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (for residual solids only). Follow-up Tests on Residual Solids and WTP s Treated Water Lab Results The City used BSK Associates Engineers and Laboratories to perform the follow-up tests on the residual solids and treated water samples. Eurofins Air Toxics labs only analyze air samples. The City collected the residual solids samples at the same location used to collect the gaseous samples (see Figure 2). Table 3 summarizes the results from the follow-up tests. The results from the follow-up tests are included in Appendix D. Table 3. Results from Follow-up Tests on WTP Residual Solids and Finished Treated Water Samples Compound Report Limit Amount Measured WTP Residual Solids Sample Chemical Oxygen Demand 600 mg/l 12,000 mg/l Finished Treated Water Total Suspended Solids 5 mg/l 39,000 mg/l Toluene 100 ug/kg 980 ug/kg Toluene 0.30 ug/l Non-Detect HDR s Observations In the WTP residual solids sample, the high measured amounts of COD and TSS results support the initial findings that the probable cause of odorous emissions from the residual solids are the organic sulfide compounds that are created by biological conversion of organic matter under anaerobic conditions. HDR conducted a visit of the WTP to investigate the possibility of anaerobic conditions within the WTP s residuals handling facilities. The finished treated water results indicate that the toluene levels detected in the residual solids and gaseous emissions are not carrying through to the WTP s finished treated water. This is not surprising since toluene typically partitions into the solids matrix. City of Folsom 6 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

7 Technical Memorandum Observations from Visit to City s WTP On December 13, 2013, Larry Hentz and Ligaya Kohagura visited the City s WTP to observe the following WTP s residuals handling treatment facilities: Actiflo Facility Sedimentation Basin No. 5 Basins No. 1 through 4 Lagoons No. 1, 2, and 3 During the site visit, the WTP was still responding to high turbidity conditions from Folsom Lake due to recent storm water run-off. At each facility, HDR looked for evidence of anaerobic activity including odorous emissions similar to those found in sewer systems. At the Actiflo hydrocyclones, no odorous emissions were detected from the process or the blowdown solids. There were no odorous emissions detected in the vicinity of Sedimentation Basin No. 5. Blowdown from these facilities are sent to Basins No. 1 and 2. At Basins No. 1 and 2, a mild odor was detected. Both basins contained stagnated thickened solids at the front-end of the basins. The City sends the thickened solids from these basins to the lagoons only once a week. At the front end of Basin No. 2 (where the solids and gaseous samples were collected), bubbles were observed to break the thickened residual solids surface (see Figure 3). This indicates off-gassing of the solids due to anaerobic conditions in the basin. Figure 3. Basin No. 2 with Stagnant Flow and Evidence of Off-Gassing Observed bubbles breaking the surface, which may be evidence of anaerobic conditions At the lagoons, odorous emissions were detected at Lagoon No. 2 s decant structure. During the visit, the decant structure was operating. Odorous emissions similar to those from sewers were detected where City of Folsom Sludge Odor Control Study C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx 7 February 22, 2013

8 Technical Memorandum the decanted water flowed over the weir. Solids samples were taken from Lagoons No. 1 and 2. Both samples had strong sulfide odors indicating biological activity within the lagoons. After removing the sample from Lagoon No. 2, bubbles were observed breaking through the water cap, which also indicates anaerobic conditions within the lagoon (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Lagoon No. 2 and Evidence of Off-Gassing After Removing Solids Samples Observed bubbles breaking the surface, which may be evidence of anaerobic conditions Inquiry of Other WTPs Folsom Lake provides surface water to the following WTPs: City of Folsom WTP City of Roseville Barton Road WTP San Juan Water District (SJWD) Surface WTP El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) El Dorado Hills WTP Neighboring WTPs were contacted to inquire if their operations had experienced odor issues similar to those at the City s WTP. Below summarizes the information gained from these inquiries. City of Roseville s Barton Road WTP HDR contacted Shawn Barnes ( ) on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, to learn more about the residuals handling operation at the Barton Road WTP. This WTP uses aluminum sulfate (alum) for their primary coagulant. Shawn performs periodic tests to ensure no changes in the Barton Road WTP s solids and treatment process. No VOCs (i.e., toluene) were detected in their WTP s residual solids. Their WTP s residual solids have high aluminum content. City of Folsom 8 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

9 Technical Memorandum Shawn mentioned that the City of Roseville did have odor issues previously. They investigated the issue for about 18 months before implementing the recommended solution. They determined that algae buildup was the cause of their odor issues. To mitigate odors, a water cap is maintained over the lagoons. Chlorine is added to the water cap to maintain chlorine residuals and to minimize the algae growth. From the lagoons, the City of Roseville uses a centrifuge to mechanically dewater the solids prior to final disposal. The centrifuges are operated 5 days per week. The dewatered solids are trucked to a landfill. This means the solids spend a lot less time in the lagoon than those at Folsom. Since implementing these changes, the Barton WTP has not experienced any odor issues associated with their residuals handling operations. Shawn also noted that they have not had any algae re-growth since implementing this solution. San Juan Water District s Surface WTP HDR contacted Bill Sadler ( ) on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, to learn more about the residuals handling operations at the SJWD surface water WTP. Bill noted that the SJWD WTP hasn t had any odor problems. They also haven t had any recent odor issues with their residuals handling operations. According to Bill, any odor detected at their WTP smells like the ocean. SJWD s residuals handling process includes the following: Backwash water and solids removed and pumped to thickeners (tanks). Solids remain in the sedimentation basin about 1 day. The sedimentation basins are cleaned every 2 weeks to reduce the potential for odors. Within the thickeners, the solids remains in the tanks for about 2 weeks to achieve 2% solids concentration; SJWD uses 2 to 3 thickening tanks during the winter (due to high turbidities). After achieving 2% solids concentration, the solids are sent to their belt filter press (BFP) for dewatering. Solids from BFP are sent to wind rows for further drying. A soil amendment is added to the dried solids prior to use as ground cover. These facilities and operational practices minimize the amount of time the solids stay at the WTP and minimize anaerobic conditions. El Dorado Irrigation District s El Dorado Hills WTP HDR contacted Dana Strahan ( ) on Tuesday, December 4, to learn more about the residuals handling operations at EID s El Dorado Hills WTP s (EDHWTP). The EDHWTP is fortunate to be able to dispose of their residual solids to the sewer. This solids disposal option was incorporated into the original design of the EDHWTP, which has limited available land for other solids disposal options. The EDHWTP has no residual solids odor problems since it continuously sends solids down the sewer for final disposal at EID s WWTP. City of Folsom 9 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

10 Technical Memorandum Prior to Dana s arrival as EDHWTP s operations supervisor, the EDHWTP used to be behind in their residuals solids handling. Therefore, the EDHWTP would buildup solids volume within their facility. Now, the EDHWTP tries to better balance their residual solids handing operations. The EDHWTP recently connected to a gravity sewer line that allows them to avoid sending solids to a sewer lift station. The direct gravity sewer connection further reduces EID s solids handling within the sewer collection system. Summary from Inquiries Based on discussions with the other WTP operators, the City of Folsom s odor issue appears to be unique and possibly due to: Extended detention time of the residual solids within Basins No. 1 through 4 and Lagoons No. 1 through 3. Anaerobic conditions within these basins and lagoons. Recommendations As a result of the WTP odor study, it appears the odorous emissions at the WTP are due to anaerobic conversion of organic matter to gaseous organic sulfides. This is occurring primarily in Basins No. 1 and 2 and in Lagoons No. 1 through 3. The WTP s current residuals handling process includes long solids detention times within Basins No. 1 through 4 and Lagoons No. 1 through 3. These long detention times appear to create anaerobic conditions within the settled solids. Although very high levels of toluene were detected in the residual solids, the study could not identify the source of toluene. In HDR s opinion, there appears to be no evidence linking toluene to the residual solids odor. The odors detected during the December 13, 2012, site visit are more similar to sewer odors (organic sulfide base) than chemicals. The following are HDR s recommendations to mitigate the existing residual solids odor issue: Similar to SJWD s residuals handling operations, consider cleaning Basins No. 1 through 4 to remove the existing anaerobic conditions in the settled solids. The basins may continue to be used for solids thickening. To minimize the potential for odorous emissions, consider cleaning the basins on a regular cycle (e.g., every 2 weeks). The cleaning cycle would depend on the required solids loading rate and time needed to achieve the desired thickened solids concentration. Reduce the solids detention time within the WTP s Basins No. 1 through 4 and Lagoons No. 1 through 3. There is evidence of biological activity within these basins and the lagoons. The breakdown of these organic compounds within the WTP s residual solids appear to be a slow process since there are few energy sources in the WTP s solids. The optimal detention time within the basins and lagoons would require full-scale testing, since the degradation process is too long for bench-scale testing. City of Folsom 10 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

11 Technical Memorandum There are existing solids deposits in the front ends of sedimentation basins 1 through 4 where the sludge scrapers do not travel. These solids will need to be removed manually. To minimize the reoccurrence of these deposits, the feed point to each basin should be moved to where the beginning of where scrapers are located. Similar to the City of Roseville s Barton Road WTP operations, consider the addition of chlorine, to delay the biological activity of the odor causing compounds. The City of Roseville used chlorine to reduce the growth of algae. For the City of Folsom s WTP, we recommend the addition of chlorine directly into the solids stream to delay the degradation of the organic carbon and sulfate compounds. Enough chlorine should be added to maintain a residual within the lagoons. In addition to delaying the biological activity, the chlorine will also disinfect the solids and oxidize the odorous compounds. The addition of dosing chlorine into the residuals solids will increase the City s residuals handling costs. Consider connecting chlorine feed pipe to each residual solids pipe that leaves Basins No. 1 through 4. Consider long-term alternative operations that provide better residuals management. Similar to the City of Roseville and SJWD, re-evaluate the use of mechanical dewatering options as an alternative to non-mechanical dewatering. In addition to the BFP option considered in the Malcolm Pirnie 2007 report, evaluate the feasibility of using a centrifuge, which would result in higher through-puts and drier dewatered solids. Convert the existing lagoons to temporary storage ponds to provide operational flexibility to mechanical dewatering operations; or use beds to further dry dewatered solids to reduce water content and to reduce hauling and disposal costs. City of Folsom 11 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

12 Technical Memorandum Appendix A Sampling and Analytical Protocol City of Folsom 12 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 C:\pwworking\sac\d \WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

13 City of Folsom WTP Sludge Odor Control Study Analytical Protocol - Sampling and Analyzing Odorous Sludge Emissions Equipment needed: A 5-gallon bucket with a lid. o The lid needs a valve and nipple installed on the top of the cover for connecting a piece of PCE tubing. o Attached is a sketch of the equipment. Suma canisters with Silco lining o Obtain these from Air Toxics o They will be under vacuum About a 4 ft piece of PCE tubing to connect the bucket nipple to the Suma canister nipple. o Air Toxics to confirm diameter of tubing Air sample collection procedure: 1. Fill the 5 gallon bucket up half full with the liquid sludge sample. a. Cover the bucket and vigorously shake the bucket for a couple minutes. b. Make sure the valve on the bucket is closed. 2. Let the bucket set for a minute after shaking 3. Connect the PCE tubing to the Suma canister 4. Open the valve on the bucket nipple 5. Connect the PCE tubing to the bucket nipple 6. Slowly open the Suma canister valve to allow the vacuum in the Suma canister to pull in the air from the headspace of the bucket 7. When the vacuum is nearly exhausted, or if the vacuum begins to collapse the bucket, close the valve on the Suma canister. 8. Disconnect the tubing on both the Suma Canister and bucket 9. The Suma canister is ready to go to the lab for analysis 10. Clean the bucket and repeat the above on the next sample Other Sampling Notes 1. Prior to connecting to the suma canister, measure the vacuum pressure in the cannister o Before sample is transferred, confirm canister has 25 to 30 inhg o After the sample is transferred, confirm canister vacuum pressure is below 10 inhg; most likely will be 0 inhg (ambient) o Lab will provide vacuum gauge to help with measurements 2. Suma canister with silco lining o Each canister will include a chain-of-custody form that the City needs to complete. The custody form is linked to a bar code on the canister. o Canister has a ¼ OD tubing that the lab will provide with the canister (connect this tubing to the City s 5-gallon bucket s outlet nipple). o Canister also has a 2 micron filter; even with the filter, it may take about 2 minutes to fill a 1.4L canister.

14

15 ' ( ) * ( +, -. * / ) 2 / 3 * * : ; < = > : ; < < A > B C ; D E F G E: 8 CH 9 > I 8 : J : J 9 K G L ; > F G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 =? > : ; < < > < M < N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G 9 ; 9 > : ; < < Q > R 9 K G D E9 ; 9 F G E: 8 CH > < M < N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 > P CS N < M = N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G 9 ; 9 > F G E: 8 : T : 8 J > < M < M < N U 8 CP G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 > F L 8 V : ; U 9 K 8 L P G E: 8 CH 9 > I 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > < M = N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 > U 8 CP G E: 8 : 9 K G 9 ; 9 > < M = N O CP G E: 8 : X 8 : X L ; 9 > P CS N < M Q N O CP G E: 8 : X 8 : X 9 ; 9 > U : E Y 9 ; 9 > K 8 L ; S N < M Q N O CP G E: 8 : X 8 : X 9 ; 9 > < M < M = N U 8 CP G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 > U 9 K 8 L P G E: 8 : 9 K G 9 ; 9 > < M = N O C V 8 : J : 9 K G L ; 9 Z [ O I \ > F G E: 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > [ K G D E I 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > J M X N ] D E9 ; 9 > : N ] D E9 ; 9 > ^ K D 8 9 ; 9 > < M < M = M = N U 9 K 8 L P G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 > < M Q N U 8 C J 9 K G D E V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > < M = M A N U 8 C J 9 K G D E V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > < M Q N O CP G E: 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > < M A N O CP G E: 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > L E X G L N F G E: 8 : K : E Y 9 ; 9 > < M = N O CP G E: 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > < M Q N I Y K L H C9 ; 9 > _ 9 ` L ; 9 > F D P E: G 9 ` L ; 9 > _ 9 X K L ; 9 > I 8 : J : H CP G E: 8 : J 9 K G L ; 9 > O C V 8 : J : P G E: 8 : J 9 K G L ; 9 > F Y J 9 ; 9 > a 8 : X D E V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 > F G E: 8 : J 9 K G L ; > < M = M A N U 8 CP G E: 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 =? > _ 9 ` L P G E: 8 : V Y K L H C9 ; 9 =? > b P 9 K : ; > F L 8 V : ; O CS Y ET CH 9 =? > = N a 8 : X L ; : E =? > K 8 L ; S N < M = N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G 9 ; 9 > = N I Y K L ; : ; 9 Z R 9 K G D E [ K G D E c 9 K : ; 9 \ =? >!! " # " $ "! $! $ " $ % " &

16 U 9 K 8 L G D H 8 : T Y 8 L ; > < M A N O C: ` L ; 9 =? > A N R 9 K G D EN = N X 9 ; K L ; : ; 9 > = N _ 9 ` L ; : ; 9 =? > I 8 : J : T : 8 J > A N [ K G D EK : E Y 9 ; 9 > [ K G L ; : E =? > R 9 K G D E K 9 8 K N V Y K D E 9 K G 9 8 > = M = M A N U 8 C J 9 K G D E X 9 ; K L ; 9 > Q N F G E: 8 : X 8 : X 9 ; 9 =? > d e, / f / 2 5 e g h i - e, / 2 j 2 e - ' ( ) * ( +, - k l d ( * m n. e * ( o / e - p + o o ( q f / e r e / s ( ) 2 / k U : E Y 9 ; 9 N H t u > N < Q > < M = N O CP G E: 8 : 9 K G L ; 9 N H A u > N < Q > A N I 8 : J : T E Y : 8 : V 9 ; W 9 ; 9 u > N < Q >!! " # " $ "! $! $ " $ % " &

17 v w x y ' ( ) * ( +, -. * / ) 2 / 3 * * _ D H 8 : z 9 ; ^ Y ET CH 9 A? > F L 8 V : ; D E ^ Y ET CH 9 A? > R 9 K G D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > [ K G D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > O C J 9 K G D E ^ Y ET CH 9 A? > F L 8 V : ; O CS Y ET CH > { S : X 8 : X D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > K 9 8 K N I Y K D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > ; N a 8 : X D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > [ K G D E R 9 K G D E ^ Y ET CH 9 A? > U G C: X G 9 ; 9 A? > { S : V Y K D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > O C9 K G D E ^ Y ET CH 9 A? > ; N I Y K D E R 9 8 P L X K L ; A? > O C J 9 K G D E O CS Y ET CH 9 A? > Q N R 9 K G D EK G C: X G 9 ; 9 A? > U 9 K 8 L G D H 8 : K G C: X G 9 ; 9 A? > = N [ K G D EK G C: X G 9 ; 9 A? > = N O C J 9 K G D EK G C: X G 9 ; 9 A? > O C9 K G D E O CS Y ET CH 9 A? >!! " # " $ "! $! $ " $ % " &

18 Technical Memorandum Appendix B Results from Initial Tests on Gaseous Samples City of Folsom 13 Sludge Odor Control Study February 22, 2013 P:\00125\new project\wtp Sludge Odor Control Study Technical Memo - final.docx

19 11/13/2012 Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom CA Project Name: Project #: Workorder #: B Dear Ms. Ligaya Kohagura The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 11/7/2012 at Air Toxics Ltd. The data and associated QC analyzed by ASTM D-5504 are compliant with the project requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the attached case narrative. Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact the Project Manager: Kelly Buettner at if you have any questions regarding the data in this report. Regards, Kelly Buettner Project Manager Page 1 of 9

20 WORK ORDER #: B Work Order Summary CLIENT: PHONE: FAX: Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom, CA DATE RECEIVED: 11/07/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 11/13/2012 BILL TO: P.O. # PROJECT # CONTACT: Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom, CA Kelly Buettner RECEIPT FRACTION # NAME TEST VAC./PRES. FINAL PRESSURE 01A Water Treatment Plant (20149) ASTM D "Hg 15 psi 02A Water Treatment Plant (20150) ASTM D "Hg 15 psi 03A Lab Blank ASTM D-5504 NA NA 04A LCS ASTM D-5504 NA NA 04AA LCSD ASTM D-5504 NA NA CERTIFIED BY: DATE: 11/13/12 Technical Director Certfication numbers: AZ Licensure AZ0775, CA NELAP CA, NY NELAP , TX NELAP - T , UT NELAP CA , WA NELAP - C935 Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/ORELAP (Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program) Accreditation number: CA300005, Effective date: 10/18/2011, Expiration date: 10/17/2012. Eurofins Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc. 180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA (916) (800) FAX (916) Page 2 of 9

21 LABORATORY NARRATIVE ASTM D-5504 HDR, Inc. Workorder# B Two 1.4 Liter Canister samples were received on November 07, The laboratory performed the analysis of sulfur compounds via ASTM D-5504 using GC/SCD. The method involves direct injection of the air sample into the GC via a fixed 2.0 ml sampling loop. See the data sheets for the reporting limits for each compound. Receiving Notes Sample identifications on the Chain of Custody (COC) were not unique. The canister numbers were added to each of the sample identifications to ensure uniqueness. Analytical Notes Samples were collected in Silonite canisters. Please note that Air Toxics does not periodically verify stability of sulfur compounds in passivated/lines canisters as recommended by ASTM D5504. Definition of Data Qualifying Flags Seven qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicate as follows: B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit. J - Estimated value. E - Exceeds instrument calibration range. S - Saturated peak. Q - Exceeds quality control limits. U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit. M - Reported value may be biased due to apparent matrix interferences. File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: a-file was requantified b-file was quantified by a second column and detector r1-file was requantified for the purpose of reissue Page 3 of 9

22 Summary of Detected Compounds SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20149) Lab ID#: B-01A Compound Carbonyl Sulfide Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Thiophene Dimethyl Disulfide Rpt. Limit Amount (ppbv) (ppbv) Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20150) Lab ID#: B-02A Compound Carbonyl Sulfide Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Thiophene Dimethyl Disulfide Rpt. Limit Amount (ppbv) (ppbv) Page 4 of 9

23 Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20149) Lab ID#: B-01A SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD File Name: k Dil. Factor: 4.94 Compound Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Methyl Mercaptan Ethyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Isopropyl Mercaptan tert-butyl Mercaptan n-propyl Mercaptan Ethyl Methyl Sulfide Thiophene Isobutyl Mercaptan Diethyl Sulfide n-butyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Disulfide 3-Methylthiophene Tetrahydrothiophene 2-Ethylthiophene 2,5-Dimethylthiophene Diethyl Disulfide Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 1:43:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/9/12 02:22 PM Amount (ppbv) 20 Not Detected Not Detected 20 Not Detected Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected 20 Not Detected Container Type: 1.4 Liter Canister Page 5 of 9

24 Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20150) Lab ID#: B-02A SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD File Name: k Dil. Factor: 4.66 Compound Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Methyl Mercaptan Ethyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Isopropyl Mercaptan tert-butyl Mercaptan n-propyl Mercaptan Ethyl Methyl Sulfide Thiophene Isobutyl Mercaptan Diethyl Sulfide n-butyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Disulfide 3-Methylthiophene Tetrahydrothiophene 2-Ethylthiophene 2,5-Dimethylthiophene Diethyl Disulfide Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 2:15:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/9/12 02:45 PM Amount (ppbv) 19 Not Detected Not Detected 19 Not Detected Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected 19 Not Detected Container Type: 1.4 Liter Canister Page 6 of 9

25 Client Sample ID: Lab Blank Lab ID#: B-03A SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD File Name: k Dil. Factor: 1.00 Compound Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Methyl Mercaptan Ethyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Isopropyl Mercaptan tert-butyl Mercaptan n-propyl Mercaptan Ethyl Methyl Sulfide Thiophene Isobutyl Mercaptan Diethyl Sulfide n-butyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Disulfide 3-Methylthiophene Tetrahydrothiophene 2-Ethylthiophene 2,5-Dimethylthiophene Diethyl Disulfide Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 11/9/12 08:01 AM Amount (ppbv) 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 5.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Page 7 of 9

26 Client Sample ID: LCS Lab ID#: B-04A SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD File Name: k Dil. Factor: 1.00 Compound Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Methyl Mercaptan Ethyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Isopropyl Mercaptan tert-butyl Mercaptan n-propyl Mercaptan Ethyl Methyl Sulfide Thiophene Isobutyl Mercaptan Diethyl Sulfide n-butyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Disulfide 3-Methylthiophene Tetrahydrothiophene 2-Ethylthiophene 2,5-Dimethylthiophene Diethyl Disulfide Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 11/9/12 07:38 AM %Recovery Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Page 8 of 9

27 Client Sample ID: LCSD Lab ID#: B-04AA SULFUR GASES BY ASTM D-5504 GC/SCD File Name: k Dil. Factor: 1.00 Compound Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide Methyl Mercaptan Ethyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Sulfide Carbon Disulfide Isopropyl Mercaptan tert-butyl Mercaptan n-propyl Mercaptan Ethyl Methyl Sulfide Thiophene Isobutyl Mercaptan Diethyl Sulfide n-butyl Mercaptan Dimethyl Disulfide 3-Methylthiophene Tetrahydrothiophene 2-Ethylthiophene 2,5-Dimethylthiophene Diethyl Disulfide Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 11/9/12 04:51 PM %Recovery Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Page 9 of 9

28 11/26/2012 Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom CA Project Name: Project #: Workorder #: A Dear Ms. Ligaya Kohagura The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 11/7/2012 at Air Toxics Ltd. The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-15/TICs are compliant with the project requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the attached case narrative. Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact the Project Manager: Kelly Buettner at if you have any questions regarding the data in this report. Regards, Kelly Buettner Project Manager Page 1 of 24

29 WORK ORDER #: A Work Order Summary CLIENT: PHONE: FAX: Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom, CA DATE RECEIVED: 11/07/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 11/26/2012 BILL TO: P.O. # PROJECT # CONTACT: Ms. Ligaya Kohagura HDR, Inc Iron Point Road Suite 300 Folsom, CA Kelly Buettner RECEIPT FRACTION # NAME TEST VAC./PRES. FINAL PRESSURE 01A Water Treatment Plant (20149) Modified TO-15/TICs 5.5 "Hg 15 psi 02A Water Treatment Plant (20150) Modified TO-15/TICs 4.0 "Hg 15 psi 03A Lab Blank Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 03B Lab Blank Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 04A CCV Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 04B CCV Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 05A LCS Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 05AA LCSD Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 05B LCS Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA 05BB LCSD Modified TO-15/TICs NA NA CERTIFIED BY: DATE: 11/26/12 Technical Director Certfication numbers: AZ Licensure AZ0775, CA NELAP CA, NY NELAP , TX NELAP - T , UT NELAP CA , WA NELAP - C935 Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/ORELAP (Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program) Accreditation number: CA300005, Effective date: 10/18/2011, Expiration date: 10/17/2012. Eurofins Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc. 180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA (916) (800) FAX (916) Page 2 of 24

30 LABORATORY NARRATIVE EPA Method TO-15 HDR, Inc. Workorder# A Two 1.4 Liter Canister samples were received on November 07, The laboratory performed analysis via EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode. This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines' as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven, independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts. Receiving Notes Sample identifications on the Chain of Custody (COC) were not unique. The canister numbers were added to each of the sample identifications to ensure uniqueness. Analytical Notes All Quality Control Limit exceedances and affected sample results are noted by flags. Each flag is defined at the bottom of this Case Narrative and on each Sample Result Summary page. Dilution was performed on samples Water Treatment Plant (20149) and Water Treatment Plant (20150) due to the presence of high level target species. Definition of Data Qualifying Flags Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not performed). J - Estimated value. E - Exceeds instrument calibration range. S - Saturated peak. Q - Exceeds quality control limits. U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit. UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV and/or LCS. N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence. File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: a-file was requantified b-file was quantified by a second column and detector r1-file was requantified for the purpose of reissue Page 3 of 24

31 Summary of Detected Compounds EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20149) Lab ID#: A-01A Rpt. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit Amount Compound (ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) Toluene Compound Unknown Octane Dodecane, 5-methyl- Undecane, 4,7-dimethyl- Undecane, 5,7-dimethyl- TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS Amount CAS Number Match Quality (ppbv) NA NA 2800 J % 1900 NJ % 2300 NJ % 1500 NJ % 1700 NJ Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20150) Lab ID#: A-02A Rpt. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit Amount Compound (ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) Toluene Compound Silane, difluorodimethyl- Pentane, 2-methyl- Heptane, 2,4-dimethyl- Nonane, 4,5-dimethyl- TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS Amount CAS Number Match Quality (ppbv) % 2300 NJ % 2200 NJ % 1300 NJ % 900 NJ Page 4 of 24

32 File Name: p Dil. Factor: 494 Compound Freon 12 Freon 114 Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane Chloroethane Freon 11 1,1-Dichloroethene Freon 113 Methylene Chloride 1,1-Dichloroethane cis-1,2-dichloroethene Chloroform 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Benzene 1,2-Dichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane cis-1,3-dichloropropene Toluene trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethene 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) Chlorobenzene Ethyl Benzene m,p-xylene o-xylene Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene alpha-chlorotoluene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Butadiene Hexane Cyclohexane Heptane Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20149) Lab ID#: A-01A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Amount (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 1:43:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/14/12 07:30 AM Rpt. Limit (ug/m3) Amount (ug/m3) 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1700 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 630 Not Detected 2500 Not Detected 9600 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 2600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1400 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 980 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1900 Not Detected 2500 Not Detected 8600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 980 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 790 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1700 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1900 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1700 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1500 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1500 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1500 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 550 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 870 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 850 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 2100 Not Detected Page 5 of 24

33 File Name: p Dil. Factor: 494 Compound Cumene Propylbenzene Chloromethane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Acetone Carbon Disulfide 2-Propanol trans-1,2-dichloroethene 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) Tetrahydrofuran 1,4-Dioxane 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Bromoform 4-Ethyltoluene Ethanol Methyl tert-butyl ether 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 3-Chloropropene Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20149) Lab ID#: A-01A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Amount (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 1:43:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/14/12 07:30 AM Rpt. Limit (ug/m3) Amount (ug/m3) 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 2500 Not Detected 5100 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 7300 Not Detected 990 Not Detected Not Detected 2500 Not Detected 5900 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 3100 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 2400 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 980 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 2900 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 730 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 3600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 4000 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 2600 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 1900 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 890 Not Detected 250 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 990 Not Detected 3100 Not Detected Compound Unknown Octane Dodecane, 5-methyl- Undecane, 4,7-dimethyl- Undecane, 5,7-dimethyl- TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS Amount CAS Number Match Quality ((ppbv)) NA NA 2800 J % 1900 NJ % 2300 NJ % 1500 NJ % 1700 NJ NJ =The identification is based on presumptive evidence; estimated value. Container Type: 1.4 Liter Canister Method Surrogates %Recovery Limits Toluene-d ,2-Dichloroethane-d Bromofluorobenzene Page 6 of 24

34 File Name: p Dil. Factor: 350 Compound Freon 12 Freon 114 Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane Chloroethane Freon 11 1,1-Dichloroethene Freon 113 Methylene Chloride 1,1-Dichloroethane cis-1,2-dichloroethene Chloroform 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Benzene 1,2-Dichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane cis-1,3-dichloropropene Toluene trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethene 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) Chlorobenzene Ethyl Benzene m,p-xylene o-xylene Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene alpha-chlorotoluene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Butadiene Hexane Cyclohexane Heptane Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20150) Lab ID#: A-02A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Amount (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 2:15:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/15/12 09:45 AM Rpt. Limit (ug/m3) Amount (ug/m3) 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 450 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 6800 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 980 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 690 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 6100 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 710 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 690 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 850 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 950 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1100 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 560 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 710 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 940 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 810 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 790 Not Detected Not Detected 790 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 950 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 800 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 760 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 760 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 760 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 740 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 900 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1000 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 390 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 620 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 600 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 720 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1200 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1500 Not Detected Page 7 of 24

35 File Name: p Dil. Factor: 350 Compound Cumene Propylbenzene Chloromethane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Acetone Carbon Disulfide 2-Propanol trans-1,2-dichloroethene 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) Tetrahydrofuran 1,4-Dioxane 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Bromoform 4-Ethyltoluene Ethanol Methyl tert-butyl ether 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 3-Chloropropene Client Sample ID: Water Treatment Plant (20150) Lab ID#: A-02A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN Rpt. Limit (ppbv) Amount (ppbv) Date of Collection: 11/7/12 2:15:00 PM Date of Analysis: 11/15/12 09:45 AM Rpt. Limit (ug/m3) Amount (ug/m3) 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 3600 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 5200 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 7500 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 4200 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 2200 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 1700 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 690 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 2100 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 520 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 2500 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 720 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 2900 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 1800 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 860 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 1300 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 630 Not Detected 180 Not Detected 820 Not Detected 700 Not Detected 2200 Not Detected Compound Silane, difluorodimethyl- Pentane, 2-methyl- Heptane, 2,4-dimethyl- Nonane, 4,5-dimethyl- TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS Amount CAS Number Match Quality ((ppbv)) % 2300 NJ % 2200 NJ % 1300 NJ % 900 NJ NJ =The identification is based on presumptive evidence; estimated value. Container Type: 1.4 Liter Canister Method Surrogates %Recovery Limits Toluene-d ,2-Dichloroethane-d Bromofluorobenzene Page 8 of 24