SECTION 8 APPENDIX - CT Consultants

SECTION 8

APPENDIX

VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN

1

Table of Contents1. Introduction & Purpose..............................................................................................................22. Public Water System (PWS) Summary ....................................................................................3

2.1. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................32.1.1. Existing Service Area & Population &Water Demand............................................32.1.2. Raw Water Source(s) ...............................................................................................32.1.3. Raw Water Quality ..................................................................................................42.1.4. Existing Capacity and Water Demand.....................................................................42.1.5. Drinking Water Issues..............................................................................................52.1.6. Existing Treatment Process......................................................................................5

2.1.6.1. Treatment Description .................................................................................52.1.6.2. Equipment Description ...............................................................................5

2.2. Future Projections of Water Demand and Service Area.....................................................83. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................9

3.1. Alternative 1 - Finished Water Supply from Painesville Emergency Interconnection ......93.2. Alternative 2 - Improvements to PAC system..................................................................103.3. Alternative 3 - Additional Weir Capacity to Sedimentation Basins.................................123.4. Alternative 4 - Filter Media Replacements.......................................................................143.5. Alternative 5 - Short-Circuiting Improvements to the Clearwell System .......................14

4. Selected Alternative .................................................................................................................155. Schedule for Implementation...................................................................................................16

AppendicesA. HAB Treatment Optimization ProtocolB. Microcystin DataC. Proposed WTP ImprovementsD. OEPA Lake Erie Jar Test ResultsE. CT Table for microcystins removal

HAB.2


2

1. Introduction and Purpose

The Village of Fairport Water System is a public water system (PWS) administered by

the Village of Fairport Water Department. The Fairport WTP is a Class 2 Community

Water System. As raw source water is taken from Lake Erie – a surface water source –

the PWS is subject to Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) monitoring and reporting rule issued

as Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-90, effective as of June 1, 2016.

This document has been prepared for the Village of Fairport Harbor in accordance with

Ohio EPA guidance document (Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom General Plan:

Guidance for Public Water Systems, Draft Version 1.0 September 2016) to satisfy

requirements of OAC 3745-90-05. This document serves as the General Plan that is

required by OAC 3745-90-05, as the village had two raw water samples with microcystin

concentrations in exceedance of 1.6 mg/L. The samples in question were taken on

September 26 and October 3, 2017 with concentrations of 2.138 µg/L and 1.679 µg/L,

respectively at the raw water entry to the water treatment plant. No microcystin was

detected in the finished water.

Fairport Harbor submitted their Treatment Optimization Protocol Developing a Harmful

Algal Bloom Treatment Optimization Protocol (attached as appendix A) in June of 2016.

The document outlines potential optimization strategies in the event of a microcystin

detection in source water.

This General Plan documents both short and long term plans to prevent finished water

detections of total microcystins. To develop this plan, CT Consultants and the Fairport

Harbor PWS have reviewed existing and potential treatment capabilities for microcystins,

as well as source water management strategies in order to identify operational, treatment

and source water management strategies for HAB management.

HAB.3


3

The potential alternatives include:

1. Finished Water Supply from Painesville Emergency Interconnection

2. Improvements to the Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) System

3. Additional Weir Capacity to Sedimentation Basin

4. Filter Media Replacement

5. Short-Circuiting Improvements to the Clearwell System

The plan presents evaluations of these detailed alternatives, as well as an alternative

selection and an implementation schedule for said alternative.

2. Public Water System (PWS) Summary

2.1. Existing Conditions

2.1.1. Existing Service Area & Population

Fairport Harbor is located in Lake Country, Ohio along Lake Erie in an area that spans

approximately 1.03 square miles. The village has a population of approximately 3,180

people, a population it has roughly maintained for the last 25 years. The Water Treatment

Plant serves approximately 1,500 metered connections throughout the village.

2.1.2. Raw Water Sources

Fairport’s raw water source is Lake Erie. The intake crib is located approximately 1500

ft. to the northwest of the plant at an offshore location. The intake of this source is

approximately 11ft. under the surface of the lake and is conveyed to the water plant

through a 20” pipe. Lake Erie has always been the source of water for Fairport Harbor,

but the Village does have a backup raw water source, the Grand River. The River is

located just west of the plant and flows to Lake Erie. There are no plans to use the Grand

River as a source without further testing and OEPA approval.

HAB.4


4

Roughly halfway between the intake point and the WTP, there is a shed building (owned

by the village) which stores the pump that would supply water from the Grand River.

Next to this shed is a sand trap, through which water passing through the 20” intake pipe

flows. From the sand trap to the raw water well of the WTP is approximately 750’. Under

average flow conditions (0.256 MGD), the detention time is approximately 67 minutes.

While it is not a raw water source, Fairport Harbor does have an interconnection with the

City of Painesville, as a potential alternative source for water supply.

2.1.3. Raw Water Quality

Appendix B contains microcystin levels for both the village of Fairport Harbor as well as

the city of Painesville – with whom Fairport has an interconnection. Sampling for both

communities dates back to June of 2016. The microcystin levels for both communities are

quite similar, with detections occurring within the same timeframe. Fairport mostly has

non-detect samples (in which microcystin levels were below 0.30 ug/L), but did have

eight detections, two of which exceeded the HAB limit of 1.6 ug/L. These samples

occurred on 9/26/17 and 10/3/17 with microcystin levels of 1.679 and 2.138 ug/L,

respectively. Painesville had 11 detections, one of which exceeded the limit, with a value

of 2.034 ug/L detected on 9/25/17.

2.1.4. Existing Capacity & Demand

The Fairport Harbor WTP has a rated design capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day

(MGD). Actual plant production for the facility averages approximately 0.265 MGD with

a maximum daily flow of 0.356 MGD for the year 2017. The plant normally operates for

12 hours a day; from about 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. The Village has two full-time operators and

one substitute operator.

HAB.5


5

2.1.5. Existing Drinking Water Issues

There are no outstanding issues. There have been no water quality violations for the past

three years. The average Trihalomethane (THM) concentration in the finished water for

2017 was approximately 33 ppb, well below the concentration limit of 80 ppb.

2.1.6. Existing Treatment Process

2.1.6.1. Treatment Description

The WTP is a surface treatment plant, consisting of raw water pumping, chemical

addition, mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, chlorination,

disinfection and high service pumping.

Raw water is received via a 20” intake pipe from Lake Erie to the Water Treatment Plant.

Three (3) raw water pumps – located adjacent to the receiving raw water well – transport

water from the lake to the WTP into the raw well. The pumps have a firm capacity of 1.2

MGD (with the largest pump out of service). Raw water is pumped through a screen in

the well and flows through an in-line mixer – where it is dosed with polymer – before

entering the flocculation basins in series. Alum and Lime are added in the first

flocculation basin (a.k.a. the North Mixer), while Powdered Activated Carbon is added in

the second basin (a.k.a. the South Mixer). After flocculation, water flows to the

sedimentation basins to settle out solids, then to rapid sand filtration for further treatment.

Water is dosed with chlorine on top of the filters. After filtration, water is dosed with

fluoride and orthophosphate and flows to clearwells prior to distribution. High Service

pumps are used to distribute the water throughout the distribution system.

2.1.6.2. Equipment Descriptions

Plant Design Capacity

Design MDF: 1.500 MGD

Actual ADF: 0.265 MGD

Actual MDF: 0.356 MGD

HAB.6


6

Raw Water Supply

Intake Pipe Diameter: 20"

Intake velocity (@ 1.2 MGD): 0.85 ft/s

Intake velocity (@ 0.265 MGD): 0.19 ft/s

Intake Pipe Length: 1500’

Raw Water Pumps

Pump 1: 1.20 MGD

Pump 2: 0.70 MGD

Pump 3: 1.20 MGD

Firm Capacity*: 1.90 MGD

* with largest pump out of service

Raw Water Screens (2)*

Dimensions: 8' x 11' x 10’ WD

Volume (each): 6,580 gallons

Detention Time (@ ADF): 36 mins

*Only one well is equipped with a screen. This is the only well in service.

Flocculation Basins (2)

Dimensions: 12' x 12' x 13' WD


Flocculation Time (@ 1.5 MGD): 27 mins

Flow @ 30 min Detention Time: 1.34 MGD

Sedimentation Basins (2)



Sedimentation Time(@ 1.5 MGD): 2.6 hours

Cross-Sectional Area: 84 ft2

Surface Area (each): 798 ft2

Surface Area overflow: 0.65 gpm/ft2

HAB.7


7

Weir Length: 9 ft

Weir overflow: 58 gpm/ ft

Rapid Sand Filters (4)

Dimensions (each) 12' x 15'

Surface Area (each): 180 ft2

Rated Capacity (each): 0.52 MGD

Capacity w/ 1 filter out-of-service: 1.56 MGD

Gravel: 12" total

Sand: 3" torpedo

21"

Anthracite: 7"

Average Run time 75 hrs

Backwash rate (max): 15.00 gpm/ft2

Washwater Basin

Volume: 70,000 gallons

Filter wash volume: 2.15 washes

Clearwells (2)



Effective volume factor: 0.16

Hydraulic Retention Time: 2 hrs. (@ design flow)

Effective Contact Time 19 mins (@ design flow)

High Service Pumps

Pump 1: 0.50 MGD

Pump 2: 0.60 MGD

Pump 3: 1.10 MGD

Firm Capacity*: 1.10 MGD

* with largest pump out of service

HAB.8


8

Chemical Feed Systems

Chemical Weight Average Dosage (@ 0.265 MGD)

Alum (coagulant) 50 lbs/day 23 mg/L

Lime 9 lbs/day 4.00 mg/L

Carbon 4 lbs/day 2.00 mg/L

Phosphate 3 lbs/day 1.50 mg/L

Fluoride 10 lbs/day 4.50 mg/L

Chlorine Gas 10 lbs/day 4.50 mg/L

Polymer (SPD CL20N) 19 lbs/day 8.00 mg/L

2.2. Future Conditions of Water Demand and Service Area

As seen below in table 1, the population in Fairport Harbor has experienced some growth and

some loss in the past 25 years, averaging out to a population of approximately 3,100 people.

While the population has fluctuated over the past 25 years, the overall trend has been a

1.18% decline in population. In projecting future demand, it is assumed that population will

remain flat. In a 2007 report, a potential development is discussed. While the development

would increase flow demands of the WTP, work on the proposed Lakeview Bluffs

development has yet to have been started in the 10 years since the report has been published.

It remains unclear if work on the development will commence.

Year Population Change

1990 3112 -

1995 2965 -4.72%

2000 3180 7.25%

2005 3225 1.42%

2010 3109 -3.60%

2015 3075 -1.09%

2020 3075 -

2025 3075 -

2030 3075 -

2035 3075 -

2040 3075 -

Table 1: Population Trends

Fairport Harbor has no plans to extend water service, therefore the existing service area and

population should be used for planning purposes. Maximum and average water demands for

HAB.9


9

the Fairport Water Treatment Plant is not projected to increase, as the population is not

projected to do so. Should the village experience any growth, the WTP will be able to handle

the increase, as its average daily flow of 0.265 MGD is approximately 20% of the design

rated flow of 1.50 MGD.

3. Alternatives

In the following section, five (5) separate alternatives are explored to address Harmful Algal

bloom toxins. Each section provides a description of the corresponding process, as well as how it

will address HAB toxins in the source water. Economic considerations are made, as well as the

feasibility of implementing the described changes. It should be noted that all economic

considerations are based on early engineering estimates. Costs Estimates shall be updated as

preliminary engineering is performed.

3.1. Alternative 1 – Finished Water supply from Painesville Emergency Interconnection

The Village has an emergency interconnect valve that joins with the Painesville City Water

System, joining Painesville’s 8” Main to Fairport’s 12” Main along the southeast side of the

Richmond St. Bridge. The bridge crosses the Grand River, as does the 8” aerial cast iron

water main from Painesville. The connection has no apparent insulation, metering or pressure

regulation. There is no formal agreement between the two communities, just an

understanding that the connection exists for emergency purposes. The water pressure on the

Painesville side is approximately 102 psi, and the Painesville WTP has a rated max capacity

of 7.5 MGD, while producing an average of 3.0 MGD. According to the 2007 report the

connection has the capacity to supply the city with approximately 0.500 MGD. If this

alternative were to be pursued, it is recommended that this capacity be tested and verified to

ensure emergency supplies are available in sufficient quantities.

For Fairport to permanently connect to the Painesville system, significant work would be

required. The capacity of the Painesville WTP must be confirmed to reach the extra demand

that Fairport Harbor will require, under all conditions. In order to monitor this demand, a

meter must be installed at the connection point, as well as insulation for the pipe carrying

HAB.10


10

water across the Grand River. Additionally, a payment structure would need to be negotiated

with the city of Painesville to ensure that Fairport Harbor is paying for their new water.

Switching water sources would leave Fairport Harbor with a real lack of control in regards to

their water system. As seen in appendix B, raw water quality for Fairport Harbor and

Painesville are very similar. Fairport would not be getting a better-sourced or better-treated

water by switching over their finished supply. The water would be quite similar and out of

Fairport’s control, while the Village would still accept responsibility for any issues with the

finished drinking water. CT recommends that the Painesville supply remain an emergency

supply.

3.2. Alternative 2 – Improvements to PAC System

Fairport Harbor currently has two (2) Powdered Activated Carbon feed units. Both units are

located inside the WTP to the west of the filters roughly on top of the flocculation basins. A

PAC slurry is fed into the 2nd flocculation basin at a typical dosage of 3 mg/L, and can reach

a maximum dosage of about 40 mg/L. Carbon is fed into the unit through a hopper located on

the next floor, where PAC bags are emptied into the unit.

While the current PAC arrangement is adequate for current treatment, it may not be sufficient

for dealing with an extreme HAB event. In order to prepare the WTP for HAB treatment, it is

proposed that a new PAC unit is installed and a new PAC addition point is introduced into

the treatment process, while leaving the current PAC system in place as a backup and/or a

second PAC feed location.

It is proposed that PAC is introduced into the treatment process as soon as it enters the WTP

and prior to any current chemical additions, at the raw water intake well. This would allow

more detention time – roughly 150 mins at average day flow – for the Carbon to perform

treatment and eliminate toxins when compared with its current addition point at the second

flocculation basin. The PAC addition point must be evaluated to ensure that it will not

interact with any oxidants, mitigating the use of both chemicals. The existing PAC system

HAB.11


11

can be left in place and act as an additional feed point should it be required that PAC is added

to the treatment process downstream of the proposed application point.

As previously stated, the current PAC has inadequate capacity to feed 40 to 50 mg/L. As

such, it is recommended that a new PAC feed system is installed to provide the capacity for

the desired treatment level. These units shall be installed in a new explosion-proof room or

shed located adjacent to the WTP building, near the raw water intake well. The new structure

shall be sized so that it will contain the units, provide adequate room for storage and proper

ventilation for safe addition of the carbon to the feed units. PAC will be fed into the system

via peristaltic feed pumps, pumping the feed solution from slurry tanks to the influent well.

The overall cost of this system is approximately $240,000.

The challenge concentration for microcystins for Lake Erie central/eastern basin systems is

10 µg/L extracellular microcystins. The highest total concentration of microcystins

measured to date (intracellular and extracellular combined) has been 2.1 ug/L, and so the

challenge concentration of 10 ug/L is conservative. To estimate the required PAC dosage,

we used the Freundlich equation as discussed in the 2015 AWWA Ohio Section Draft White

Paper on Cyanotoxin Treatment, and we are referencing OEPA jar testing results for Lake

Erie and shown in Appendix D.

The Freundlich equation is: Q = KfCf1/n, where Kf is an empirical constant and 1/n is an

empirical constant for intensity of adsorption. Fairport Harbor currently uses a coal based

PAC. Using a typical coal based PAC from the AWWA White Paper with values presented

as 512.9 and 0.36 for Kf and 1/n, respectively, a q of 333 was calculated and converted to a

dosage with the equation, dose = {(Ci–Cf )/q} x 1000. Estimated dosage to reduce

extracellular toxins from 10 ug/L to 0.3 ug/L was 29 mg/L of PAC.

The Freundlich equation does not account for organic and other chemical interference with

regard to PACs ability to adsorb cyantoxins. Therefore, we requested that OEPA furnished

additional data, including jar test data on Lake Erie, to use as reference. Selected slides from

Heather Raymond’s 3/7/2018 HAB Update presentation are shown in Appendix E. Heather

Raymond’s paper indicated that Fruendlich Equation isotherm estimates are lower than jar

HAB.12


12

test results. Raymond’s jar testing was for extracellular microcystins much greater than 10

ug/L challenge value for the central/eastern basin and the duration was 1 and 2 hours, which

is also much less than the detention time at current maximum flows (<0.4 MGD Vs 1.5 MGD

plant design flow). But, the tests can be used as a guide to set PAC dosage.

Neighboring water utilities using Lake Erie perform jar test, and Fairport Harbor will

routinely consult with them during a HAB event to help determine PAC dosage. As Fairport

has Jar Testing capabilities, it is also recommended that the WTP perform testing on raw

water to determine the best PAC type and exact dosage requirements. It is also

recommended that under HAB conditions, a settled water sample be analyzed for

microcystins to determine the effectiveness of the PAC feed and help develop a basis for

future dosages.

Based on the Freundlich Equation estimate and OEPA jar test data and as a guideline for

PAC dosage, it is recommended Fairport Harbor use PAC dosages in the following table and

update it as more data becomes available:

Microcystin, ug/L PAC Dosage, mg/L *

2 10

4 20

6 30

8 40

10 50

* Note that the current feed limit is about 20 mg/L, but this will be increased to 40 to 50

mg/L when the PAC upgrade project is completed.

3.3. Alternative 3 – Additional Weir Capacity to Sedimentation Basins

The settled water turbidity averages about 2 NTUs. Prior experience with enhanced

coagulation (higher coagulant dosages) has, in some cases, resulted in higher settled water

turbidities. Fairport Harbor plans to do some full scale testing with varying dosage of an

existing polymer chemical used in the plant to determine if settled water turbidities could be

improved. The goal will be to reduce the average settled water turbidity to 1.0 NTUs. Also,

HAB.13


13

during a HAB event, Fairport Harbor will reduce the filter run length time to ensure optimum

turbidity (and algal cell) removal.

As settled material in the sedimentation basins ages and algal cells die, they can release their

toxins. Fairport Harbor’s sludge removal is a manual process involving taking one of the two

sedimentation basins out of service for cleaning. One sedimentation basin has adequate

capacity to meet current maximum day demand. If there are microcystin toxins detected in

the raw water for two weeks in in row, the sedimentations basins will be taken out of service

one at a time to be cleaned.

Settling can be improved by increasing the weir capacity. Fairport Harbor’s sedimentation

basins are equipped with weirs that are undersized. According to Ten States Standards (TSS),

“The rate of flow over the outlet weirs… shall not exceed 20,000 gallons per day per foot.”

At the design rated flow of 1.5 MGD, the sedimentation basins would require at least 75’ of

total weir length or 37.5’ per basin. Each basin current only has 9’ of weir length. This

indicates that floc may carry over from the sedimentation basins and perhaps carries algal

cells with it, adding load to the filters.

It is proposed that additional weirs are added to the sedimentation basins to prevent this carry

over. Three (3) flumes should be attached to the end of the existing weir, with weirs on both

sides of the middle flume. This would provide an additional 29’ of weir length (4 length of 8’

weir – 3’ of existing weir lost in the attachment) for a total of 38’ of weir per basin. This

exceeds the amount of weir length called for by TSS. The cost of these weir additions is

approximately $60,000. Since a hole will have to be cut into the roofs of the two

sedimentation basins to install the weirs, the planned roof repair should be performed in

conjunction with the weir project.

HAB.14

VIL L A GE O F FA IRP O RT H A RB O R H A B GENERA L P L A N

1 4

3.4. Alternative 4 – Filter Media Replacements

The filter media in filters #2 and #4 was replaced in 2017, while media in filters #1 and #3

has been in used since about 1990. It is proposed that the media in the 1990 filters shall be

upgraded in kind, to increase the effectiveness of Fairport Harbor’s filtration capabilities.

Based on the work done in 2017, it is anticipated that such a replacement would cost

$60,000.

3.5. Alternative 5 – Clearwell Short-Circuiting Improvements

As currently constructed, treated and filtered water drains straight from the filters into two

(2) clearwells. Filters #1 and #2 drain directly into the North Clearwell while #3 and #4 drain

into the South Clearwell. The South Clearwell is connected to the North Clearwell via a 24”

pipe opening between the north and south shared wall. High Service pumps are located

adjacent to the North Clearwell and pump from a sump located in this clearwell. Due to the

positioning of the pumps, the clearwells have a low effective volume factor of 0.16. This

indicates that short-circuiting is an issue within the clearwells, with water from filters #1 and

#2 having less retention time in the clearwell due to its location near the pumps.

It is proposed that this short-circuiting is addressed by re-piping the filter effluents. The re-

piping would require approximately 25’ of new pipe and coring through a wall in order to

connect the effluent line from filters #1 and #2 to the line from filters #3 and #4 so that all

filtered water goes into the South Clearwell. In order to further address the short-circuiting,

baffling could be added within both the North and South Clearwells. An improved effective

volume factor would increase the effectiveness of the chlorine as a last barrier to

microcystins. It is recommended that a tracer study be performed, to confirm the short-

circuiting is eliminated and an adequate effective volume factor is achieved. The costs of the

system as previously described is $70,000.

Chlorine is currently fed ahead of the filters, which could lead to intact algal cells being lysed

and liberating toxins. As part of the clearwell project, a new primary chlorine feed point will

HAB.15

VIL L A GE O F FA IRP O RT H A RB O R H A B GENERA L P L A N

1 5

be added at the effluent point at the north clearwell. The filter influent feed point will be

maintained as an alternate. A CT table for microcystins removal is included in Appendix E.

4. Selected Alternative

The recommended selected alternative is for Fairport Harbor to implement alternatives 2 through

5, as described in the previous sections. These alternatives can be incorporated into the WTP

one-by-one, steadily adding and strengthening barriers to address microcystins in the raw water.

The Schedule for Implementation can be seen in the following section. The proposed order of

alternative implementation is; Filter Media Replacements, Clearwell Short-Circuiting

Improvements, Additional Weir Capacity to Sedimentation Basins, and Improvements to the

PAC Feed System. A Site Plan and schematic of these proposed changes can be found in

Appendix C. None of these improvements will require a change in the capacity of the WTP, as

they can be classified as either modifications to existing processes or implementation of new

chemical feed capabilities. The modifications to existing processes were modified and sized

based on a design flow of 1.5 MGD, while the chemical feed was also sized based on this design

flow. The average flow is approximately .256 MGD, so these facilities will suited for future

growth.

The current treatment process consists of raw water pumping, chemical addition, mixing,

flocculation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, chlorination, disinfection and high service

pumping. The first implementation will be to enhance rapid sand filtration by replacing the filter

media in filters #1 and #3. This media is over 25 years old and the filtration capabilities can be

improved, therefore strengthening an existing barrier for microcystins. Media in filters #2 and #4

was replaced in 2017. The next implementation will be to improve the short-circuiting in the

clearwells, in order to improve chlorine disinfection CT. Re-piping of the filter effluents, as well

as the addition of baffle walls in the clearwells will reduce potential short-circuiting through the

clearwell and increase the contact time with chlorine to strengthen this existing final barrier to

microcystins. The third implementation is to add weir capacity to the sedimentation basins.

Additional capacity will improve the ability of the basins to settle floc from the water. Additional

floc removal ensures better algal removal as well, strengthening this existing barrier.

HAB.16


16

The last implementation is to add a new PAC feed system at the raw water intake. This feed

location and the feed capacity of the new system ensure that Powdered Activated Carbon can be

fed at high dosages and ensure maximum detention time for the chemical to interact with and

eliminate toxins from the water. This system shall be taken as an additional barrier, as the

existing PAC system will also be kept in place. The proposed PAC feed point will be at the raw

water well and will therefore have detention time before other treatment chemicals are added,

resulting in a more effective barrier to address microcystins.

The addition and strengthening of the aforementioned barriers at the Fairport Harbor WTP will

greatly improve the capabilities of the plant to address and eliminate microcystins, therefore

preventing a HAB event. While the plant has had detections in their raw source water, Fairport

Harbor has never had a detection in the finished water.

5. Schedule for Implementation

Begin Complete

*Filter Media Replacement

Design Phase 9/1/2018 10/31/2018Bid Phase 11/14/2018 12/14/2018

Construction Phase 2/12/2019 4/13/2019Clearwell Improvements

Design Phase 12/1/2019 1/30/2020OEPA Review Phase 1/31/2020 3/31/2020

Bid Phase 4/14/2020 5/14/2020**Construction Phase 6/13/2020 8/12/2020

Sedimentation Weirs


Bid Phase 4/14/2020 5/14/2020**Construction Phase 6/13/2020 8/12/2020

PAC feed


Bid Phase 1/14/2021 2/13/2021Construction Phase 4/14/2021 6/13/2021

*Due to funding requirements, first project is scheduled for 2019 construction.**Construction of these projects to be performed during warm weather months, as clearwell 2 will be out

of service and WTP needs to maintain adequate disinfection CT.

HAB.17


APPENDIX AHAB TREATMENT OPTIMIZATION PROTOCOL

HAB.18

Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol Guidance for Public Water Systems

Division of Drinking and Ground Waters DRAFT–Version 1.0 May 2016

HAB.19

Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 1 of 23

Page intentionally left blank.

HAB.20



Introduction

In accordance with Ohio Administrative Code 3745-90-05, when a public water system (PWS) is called upon to

submit a treatment optimization protocol, the PWS must look at its source and treatment processes to

formulate a plan on how to implement optimization strategies during a HAB event. The protocol must include

treatment adjustments that will be made under various raw and finished water conditions. In developing the

protocol, the public water system must review and optimize existing treatment for microcystins.

The public water system must consider effective strategies for cyanotoxin treatment such as:

• Avoiding lysing cyanobacterial cells;

• Optimizing removal of intact cells;

• Optimizing barriers for extracellular cyanotoxin removal or destruction;

• Optimizing sludge removal; and,

• Discontinuing or minimizing backwash recycling.

Source strategies, if available, must also be included, such as:

• Avoidance strategies (alternate intake, alternate source, temporarily suspending pumping);

• Reservoir management/treatment;and/or,

• Nutrient management.

Source and treatment plant options considered must include at least those strategies that are available to a

public water system as part of their current processes.Treatment additions that can be implemented

immediately and may not require significant investment (for instance, powdered activated carbon (PAC) feed

system) can be considered but must have Ohio EPA approval before installation.

Within the treatment train, aside from avoidance, the most efficient and cost-effective method for cyanotoxin

removal includes optimization of current treatment processes for cell removal.Intracellular cyanotoxins are

those still encased within the intact cyanobacteria cells.A multi-barrier approach which couples optimization of

physical removal of intact cells with an oxidation/destruction and/or adsorption step(s) to remove extracellular

toxins is the best defense.A treatment optimization protocol should optimize removal of intracellular toxins

through coagulation/flocculation/filtration and any extracellular toxins present while avoiding further cell lysis.

Once cyanotoxins are released from the cells, or extracellular, they are more difficult to remove.As the

cyanobacteria cell cycles through its normal life cycle, or when it dies and lyses (cell walls rupture), it can

release toxins.The coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation processes are effective at removing

cyanobacteria cells and thus intracellular toxins, but are ineffective at removing extracellular toxins.Optimizing

conventional treatment for turbidity removal (or other relevant indicator such as natural organic matter

(NOM) removal or zeta potential which gauges effective coagulation) can also assist in cell removal.Additional

physical or chemical processes are needed to remove extracellular toxins.Processes that target extracellular

toxins can include the addition of PAC or GAC for adsorption, a strong oxidant (permanganate, chlorine or

ozone) for destruction of toxins, or molecular rejection through membranes.

HAB.21



How to Use this Document

The following guidance describes considerations forraw water monitoring and operational triggers and

associated optimization of the source water and treatment processes.The guidance is divided into five parts to

facilitate drafting of an optimization protocol, as follows:

• Part I — PWS Summary Information

• Part II — Establishing Triggers for Optimization Based on Raw andFinished Water Quality

• Part III —Source Water Management Strategies

• Part IV — Treatment Plant Optimization Strategies

• Part V — Response Based on Raw and Finished Water Detections of Microcystins

Completing the sections contained in all five parts of this guidance will assist a public water system in meeting

the rule criteria established for submission of the treatment optimization protocol.Additional references and

resources have been provided at the endof this guidance document for further investigation by public water

systems.

HAB.22



PWS Information

PWS Name: Village of Fairport Water Plant

PWS ID#: OH4300411

Date of Submission: 6/24/16

Designated Operator(s) in Charge: Patrick Bush, Robert Yurchick

PWS Representatives Completing Protocol

Name: Patrick Bush Title: Operator of Record, Operator 3

Phone: ( 440 ) 417 - 4923 Ext. 440-352-0154

Email: [email protected]

Signature:

I.Existing processes

A. Schematic

Provide schematic of existing processes (sources, treatment plant components and chemical addition

points).Schematic can be attached separately.

HAB.23



HAB.24



B. Raw Water Sources

• River/Stream –Indicate location of intake (shoreline, feet offshore).

• Lake/Reservoir(s) – List capacities,intake location(s) and depth(s). Ifmultiple reservoirs exist, can any

be isolated?Explain normal operations.

• Ground Water wells – List how many and pumping capacities. Specify operations.

Main Raw Source is Lake Erie. Intake crib is approx. 1500 ft., offshore, North West of Water Treatment Plant. Intake is approximately 11 feet under surface of water.

Secondary, or Back up, raw water source, Grand River.

C.Finished Water Sources

List consecutive purchases and/or emergency interconnections that can be used asalternate sources of

finished water during a HAB event, if needed.

The Village of Fairport water distribution system , has an emergency interconnect valve that joins Painesville City Water System. The valve joins Painesville City 8” Main to Fairport’s 12” Main. This valve is available in case Fairport Village needs an alternate source of potable water, and sufficient psi for infrastructure.

HAB.25



II.Establishing Triggers for Treatment Optimization Based on Raw and Finished Water

Quality

Rule 3745-90-05 requires the treatment optimization protocol include treatment adjustments that will be

made under various raw and finished water conditions.

Part A — Raw water based screening tools

Aside from raw and finished water monitoring of microcystins, other raw water monitoring parameters can be

used to indicate that a bloom is imminent or occurring.In general, these parameters can be used to establish

baseline water quality conditions.Once baseline conditions are established, the water system can observe

changes and identify trends that are present when a bloom is developing or occurring.Raw water quality

parameters which have shown promise in correlating with or predicting bloom occurrence are:

• pH;

• phycocyanin levels;

• phytoplankton ID/cyanobacteria cell counts;

• cyanotoxin-production genes (qPCR);and

• remote sensing satellite or hyperspectral imagery data.

A number of PWSs have incorporated data sondes and probes into their source water monitoring to collect

some of this information.Ohio EPA strongly recommends water systems acquire continuous monitoring

equipment to collect and transmit relevant source water information.Water systems can also collaborate with

each other or other entities that are conducting monitoring on their source water to collect this

information.An analysis of this data should be conducted to identify trends that can be used as bloom

indicators.Trends and usefulness of the data will be site-specific and may differ from water system to water

system.Including those listed above, the following parameters may be useful as indicators.

pH

A small uptick (a few tenths) in pH values from baseline numbers may indicate bloom development.During

severe blooms, pH values can exceed 9.Diurnalcycles or variations in pH may be indicative of cyanobacteria as

a result of their photosynthesis and respiration.

Cyanobacteria Cell Counts

Cyanobacteria cell densities greater than 10,000 cells/mL could be indicative of detectable cyanotoxin

concentration in the raw water source.Microcystis cell counts as low as 6,000 cells/mL can result in elevated

microcystinsconcentrations.Cyanobacteria cell counts are not often performed by water system personnel due

to the cumbersome nature of this method, however, water systems can compare changes in number of

colonies per slide over time.Increasing cyanobacteria cell counts can indicate the beginning of bloom

formation.An upward trend over time can be an indicator of the bloom increasing in severity and becoming a

problem.

Phytoplankton ID

Can be used to determine if the bloom contains cyanobacteria and what species dominate the

bloom.Knowledge of species can help focus treatment optimization strategies.

HAB.26



Chlorophyll-a and Phycocyanin Concentrations

Source waters with high levels of chlorophyll-a may have vulnerabilities to cyanotoxin occurrence.

Cyanobacteria contain chlorophyll-a to allow cells to produce energy.If your phytoplankton community is

dominated by cyanobacteria then chlorophyll-a concentrations can also be a good estimate of

cyanobacteria.Chlorophyll-a concentrations should be evaluated in conjunction with phycocyanin levels, as

non-toxin producing algae also contain chlorophyll-a.

If phycocyanin levels are detectable, this is an indicator that the bloom contains cyanobacteria.The

phycocyanin pigment is only present in cyanobacteria and not other types of algae.An increase in levels can

indicate increased cyanobacteria and potentially an increase in levels of cyanotoxins.

Both chlorophyll-a and phycocyanin can be measured in situ with sondes/probes, in the laboratory or through

satellite and hyperspectral imagery. Satellite andhyperspectral imagery from aircraft use the optical properties

of these pigments to estimate cyanobacterial concentration (cells/mL).Lake Erie has historical and ongoing

satellite data.PWSs using Lake Erie as a source for their drinking water are encouraged to use this data.

Satellite information is also expected to be available for large inland lakes beginning in late summer

2016.Satellite data is available from NOAA at:

www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/waterQuality/?targetTab=habs#hab

Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)

As a bloom intensifies, ORP may decrease as oxygen is consumed.ORP may be a useful indicator in some

source waters.A PWS will need to verify how well ORP correlates with the occurrence of cyanotoxins.

Turbidity

Turbidity may be a useful indicator in some water systems.A system will need to verify how well turbidity

correlates with occurrence of cyanotoxins.Turbidity from storm events may interfere with the correlation of

turbidity and occurrence of cyanotoxins.

Visual Inspection

It may be necessary to make an initial assessment based on visual evidence, which can then be refined as

additional information is collected. Guidance on the visual appearance of cyanobacteria blooms versus other

green algae blooms, including a picture gallery of blooms, is available on Ohio EPA’s PWS HAB

websiteat:epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/HAB.aspx.Since a severe cyanobacteria bloom may not form a surface scum,

in the absence of any additional data, a visible bloom should be regarded as severe until additional data is

collected.

In some situations, a severe bloom may be present but not visually evident.This can be the case with

cyanotoxin-producing Planktothrix rubescens blooms that can occur at significant depth in the water column

and not be visible at the water surface and with Cylindrospermopsis blooms that can resemble turbid

brownish-green water. These blooms do not appear like the more typical blue or green colored scum-forming

cyanobacteria blooms and can pose a monitoring challenge.Benthic species of cyanobacteria that are not

visibly apparent at the water surface can also be sources of cyanotoxins.A water system should not rely on

visual inspection alone.

Cyanotoxin Production Genes (qPCR)

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) can be used to quantify the presence of cyanotoxin-production

genes in a water sample and provide anestimate of cyanobacteria in a sample (expressed in terms of gene

copies/mL).This tool can be used to determine what percentage of the cyanobacteria population is capable of

HAB.27

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/waterQuality/?targetTab=habs#hab

http://epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/HAB.aspx



cyanotoxin production, and which cyanotoxins are likely to be produced.Ohio EPA will use this as a screening

tool for the rulerequirement.

Taste and Odor

The taste and odor compounds Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) are most often produced by

cyanobacteria.These compounds may signal that cyanotoxins could also be produced.Some cyanobacteria that

produce cyanotoxins are not capable of producing Geosmine and MIB, so an absence of taste and odor

compounds does not mean an absence of cyanotoxins.

Trend Analysis of Raw Water Conditions

Based on trend analysis, changes in raw water conditions may trigger increased sampling and possibly

treatment or operational adjustments.

List raw water quality indicators that the PWS monitors or intends to monitor, including any of those identified

above, that will be used to trigger optimization or avoidance actions.Identify monitoring locations,and the

criteria set for each trigger:

PH spikes

Sudden Temp. Changes

Raw Cyanotoxin tests, ie. >.3

Sudden increase in L.O.H. at filters

Sudden increase in coagulant demand

Sudden increase in chlorine demand

Part B.Changes in required treatment

Higher than normal chemical demands (for instance, coagulants, PAC, chlorine), shorter filter run times and/or

increased solids loading may be an indication of an algal bloom.Such changes should be monitored and source

water conditions investigated to determine cause.Specify action to be taken:

HAB.28



Monitor Raw PH, Temperature of Raw Water, Filter L.O.H., filter N.T.U., If these characteristics, become irregular. We will begin to feed optimized dose of carbon, so that we can absorb the algae. The coagulant dosage will be increased as well, to allow increased settling of the absorbed algae. More frequent backwashing of filters may become necessary. Slowing the production rate of water in the plant may also have to incur.

III. Source Water Management Strategies

The following are general recommendations for source water management strategies to improve the ability of

the treatment plant to address cyanotoxins.These adjustments should be considered along with the feasibility

of existing infrastructure and other treatment objectives of the PWS.A significant change of source or source

treatment will require prior approval by Ohio EPA.

Avoidance Strategies

If the PWShas more than one source available, use the alternate, non-impacted source for raw water.Consider

opportunities to switch sources or to blend sources (for instance, different reservoir, interconnections with

other systems, ground water) to minimize intake of toxins.

Consider using alternate intake depths.Cyanobacteria that regulate buoyancy (Microcystis, Anabaena, etc.) can

change their position in the water column, typically on a diurnal cycle.If this cycle is predictable through

sampling in the source water, pump water when the bloom is present on the surface and less concentrated at

intake depths.This strategy would not work for most Planktothrix or Cylindrospermopsis blooms that are

typically distributed throughout the water column and do not vary their position.

For systems that do not pump 24-7, consider timing the pumping of water into the plant when cyanotoxin

concentrations are lowest at intake depth, as indicated by sampling.Some systems may be able to run on

storage temporarily or may be able to avoid a short-term HAB event (if a river source or shifting bloom on a

large lake allows the HAB to move away from the intake).

Source Water/Reservoir Management

A common practice to control cyanobacteria is the application of algaecide.Diatoms and other types of non-

toxin producing algae (green) can be beneficial and do not always require the use of algaecides.Conducting

phytoplankton identification and/or enumeration prior to algaecide application will allow you to target

algaecide application to when cyanobacteria start to pose a concern (shift in dominance from diatoms or green

algae to cyanobacteria).The use of algaecides should be on a targeted basis, as overuse of algaecides can have

long-term source water quality and environmental impacts, including developing copper-resistant

cyanobacteria strains.Hydrogen peroxide based algaecides may have less short-term impact on non-target

organisms and less long-term environmental impacts (build-up of copper compounds) as compared to copper-

based algaecides.Overall, when algaecides are applied to a drinking water source under controlled conditions,

HAB.29



they can effectively control the growth of cyanobacteria.Application to the early stages of a cyanobacteria

bloom is the preferred approach to minimize release of high concentrations of intercellular cyanotoxins that

could negatively impact treatment.

If a moderate to severecyanobacteria bloom is present and producing intracellular toxins, algaecides should

not be applied, unless that source of water can be taken out of service.Algaecides should only be applied at

the early stages of a bloom when cyanobacteria cell counts are low (<10,000 cells/mL) or if measured toxin

concentrations in the source water (bloom) are not detected, because:1) this is when the potential for

cyanotoxin release is low;and 2) if the treatment is applied at the early stages of a bloomand toxins are

released into the water, the toxins may be removed effectively during the treatment processes.

If multiple raw water reservoirs are available, and one or more that are not in use are impacted by a HAB event

and can be isolated, a PWS can consider algaecide treatment of these reservoirs.By treating impacted

reservoirs prior to their need, toxins that exist may degrade over time and minimize the additional treatment

required.The isolated reservoir(s) that have been treated with an algaecideshould be sampled prior to being

placed back online.

Consider physically removing scums or mats (manually or with vacuum trucks, etc.), especially scums located in

close proximity to intake structures.

Other reservoir management strategies that can potentially minimize HABs include:

• Nutrient reduction strategies for inputs into reservoir;

• Source water protection strategies;

• Dilution and flushing of reservoir system with higher quality water;

• Sonication;

• Phosphorus inactivation treatment; or,

• Hypolimnetic aeration (oxygenation)and reservoir mixing/circulation.

The success of a particular approach will be site-dependent and should be thoroughly reviewed and

investigated before significant investment is made.

Describe anticipated optimization strategies for your raw water sources and triggers for implementing a source

treatment optimization strategy. Example:If raw water monitoring indicatescyanotoxins are present, will utilize

a secondary, non-impacted reservoir, also confirmed by sampling, as the raw water source to the treatment

plant.

If the plant begins to bring raw water of > .3 cyanotoxin, we will begin to optimize treatment process as described in previous section (part B).

As a Contingency Plan, if needed, we can also proceed to make arrangements to switch our Raw water source to the Grand River. The Grand River flows West of Plant, into Lake Erie Water Source.

HAB.30



IV.Treatment Plant Strategies

The following are general recommendations for treatment adjustments to improve the ability of the treatment

plant to address cyanotoxins.These adjustments should be considered along with feasibility of existing

infrastructure and other treatment objectives of the PWS.A significant change to the treatment plant process

will require prior approval by Ohio EPA.

In addition to these optimization strategies, ensure all treatment and monitoring equipment is fully functional,

regular maintenance is conducted, and critical spare parts are available on-site before a HAB event occurs.If

equipment is in need of maintenance that could impact optimization, please list and provide expected time

frame for resolution under the optimization strategy.

A.Pretreatment Chemicals

Permanganate

Do not apply an oxidant ahead of filtration, if possible.If an oxidant is necessary prior to filtration,

permanganate is preferred over chlorine, chloramines or chlorine dioxide. To minimize cell lysis, keep

permanganate dosing to 1 mg/L or less, if possible.Any oxidant use for pre-treatment should be followed

byPACto offset release of toxins from lysed cyanobacteria cells.

Permanganate’s ability to both lyse cells while also destroying toxins may depend on the species of

cyanobacteria and may be influenced by pH, in addition to the applied dose and contact time and other

competing demands.Proceed with caution in its use in this manner.Permanganate should be used in

combinationwith PAC to address any toxins released and not destroyed.

The only exception would be if testing established that:

1) A significant majority of cyanotoxins are extracellular; and

2) A significant majority of the cyanobacteria cells have already been lysed coming into the treatment

plant.

In this scenario, higher doses of permanganate could be used to destroy toxins from the start of the treatment

process and maximize contact time with permanganate.Follow-up with PAC to adsorb toxins not destroyed by

permanganate.Consider the impact of the presence of natural organic matter (NOM) in establishing doses.

Chlorine

If possible, do not apply chlorine ahead of filtration,because any dose of chlorine is expected to lyse cells.Use

permanganate instead, if it meets treatment needs, and at doses less than 1 mg/L, to minimize cell lysis.(See

permanganate discussion, above.)If either oxidant is used, follow-up with PAC.

The only exception would be if testing established that:

1) A significant majority ofcyanotoxins are extracellular; and

2) A significant majority of the cyanobacteria cells have already been lysed coming into the treatment

plant.

In this scenario, dosing which results in a free chlorine residual could be usedto destroy cyanotoxins earlier on

in the treatment process andmaximize contact time.Consider the impact of the presence of natural organic

matter (NOM) in establishing a dose and disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation.Strongly consider the use of

PAC to assist in cyanotoxin and NOM/DBP reduction.

HAB.31



Chlorine dioxide or chloramines

Chlorine dioxide and chloramines can lyse cells, which release toxins, but are not effective at destroying

microcystins.

The use of chlorine dioxide should be avoided during a HAB event.If it must be used in pre-treatment, follow

up with PAC, if possible, to assist in cyanotoxin reduction.

Practicing chloramination as part of a secondary disinfection strategy to maintain a disinfectant residual in the

distribution system can continue, however, efforts should be made to optimize contact time with free chlorine

post-filtration to destroy cyanotoxins prior to the point of ammonia addition.

HAB.32



PAC

The type of PAC is important.The iodine number is not a good indicator of performance for microcystins

removal.For microcystins, a wood-based PAC that has a higher mesopore volume, is most effective.Consider

how wood-based PAC can be introduced into the treatment process (for instance, fed as a slurry or dry).Also,

consider how to make a switch if a different type of PAC is used for another treatment objective (such as taste

and odor).

Capacity of feeders to dose up to 40 mg/L to 50 mg/L of PAC is strongly recommended.Adequate, safe storage

facilities must be provided and a supply of PAC must be available to feed at these rates at expected flow

demands.Consider how quickly additional PAC can be delivered to replenish supply if a prolonged HAB event

occurs.

Multiple feed point locations should be considered to optimize contact time with the toxins, and overcome

competing demands or interferences.Adequate mixing must also be provided.Consider feed points at the:

1) raw water intake;

2) rapid mix;and

3) before settling.

Feed points for permanganate, or other oxidants, and PAC should be at least 20 minutes apart to avoid

interference.

PAC should be used downstream if any of the pretreatment oxidants listed aboveare applied.

PAC use can increase solids loading on processes and in residual handling, which needs to be considered.

Describe anticipated optimization strategies for pretreatment chemicals and triggers for initiating change in

treatment:

At this time we have (2) Carbon Feeders, with the capacity to feed Carbon at an approximate rate of 40 mg/l. into Rapid Mixer, when needed.

Since we do not feed Kmno4, we don’t have to be concerned with danger of pre-treatment oxidation.

B.Flocculation/Sedimentation

Consider jar testing to optimize particulate/cell removal.Consider optimizing coagulant dosing, contact time

and filter aids (for instance, polymers, if applicable). Be aware that pH changes may occur because of HABs

which can elevate raw water pH.This change may impact the effectiveness of coagulants.Coagulant addition

should be adjusted with changing raw water conditions based on jar testing.The public water system should

develop a reference sheet with chemical addition and dosing requirements for specific raw water quality.

HAB.33



The PWS should plan for and increase frequency of sludge removal to dispose of accumulated cells before they

can lyse.Recirculation of sludge during a HAB event should be discontinued, if possible.Recycling of sludge

supernatant should also cease during a HAB event.

Please describe anticipated optimization strategies for flocculation/sedimentation and triggers for initiating

change in treatment:

Since we do not recycle backwash water, or sludge, we don’t have a plan available. The wash water goes to a separate holding tank, which gets pumped out once a year, during normal demand. The sludge then goes to a certified landfill, via. truck.

C.Filtration

Shorten filter runs, if possible, and backwash more frequently to remove cells captured in the filter bed to

avoid lysing.The frequency of backwash can be more finely established through monitoring of the filter influent

and effluent to determine if cells within the filter are lysing and contributing to extracellular toxin

concentration.

Cease filter backwash recycle during the HAB event to avoid reintroducing cells and toxins from lysed cells.

For residuals handling, consider how increased loads from sludge removal and filter backwash waste will be

accommodated with current residual handling processes (on-site lagoons, equalization basins, NPDES

permitted discharge or discharge to POTW).

Please describe anticipated optimization strategies for filters and triggers for initiating change in treatment:

Filter runs would be shortened, Flow through velocities through filters would be decreased, during a HAB event, entering the Raw water source.

HAB.34



D.Clearwell(s)

Chlorine

A free chlorine residual paired with maximized contact time will optimize the destruction of

microcystins.Consider the following:

1) Maintain a chlorine residual that targets microcystins destruction.Consider increasing free chlorine

residual by 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L higherthan normal operation.

2) Maximize contact time with chlorine in the clearwell.

During an extracellular cyanotoxin event, the free chlorine dose can be increased further to provide more

effective destruction of the cyanotoxins.An increase in CT can increase DBP formation.However, if PAC is used,

DBP formation may be mitigated.Also, total chlorine residuals entering the distribution system should not

exceed the maximum disinfectant residual level (MRDL) of 4.0 mg/L, on a running annual average.Elevated

levels of free chlorine should only be used in the short-term to avoid an acute advisory.

pH

If pH adjustment is an option, consider adjusting pH to a level at or below 8, if not already at this level.The

effectiveness of chlorine on microcystins destruction is greater at pH less than 8 and above a pH of 6.Corrosion

control must be considered when adjusting pH and pH adjustment must not undermine this treatment

objective or any approved corrosion control plan.

CT

To determine a specific benchmark for CT, see AWWA’s CT calculator for destruction of microcystins by

chlorine, as a starting point:www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-knowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx.Once you

log in or register (free), click on the “Cyanotoxin Oxidation Calculator” link.AWWA’scalculator can be used for

estimating oxidant dose (including chlorine and other oxidants) for destruction of toxins (including

microcystins and other cyanotoxins).The AWWA calculator allows for inputs of pH, temperature, chlorine dose

and contact time, as well as initial and targeted final microcystins concentrations. The calculator does specify

limitations and assumptions of the tool within the first tab of the spreadsheet.Chlorine dose and contact time

estimates generated from a CT calculator may underestimate required CT because of the limitations and

assumptions of the model.An increased safety factor should be used.Water quality-specific chlorine demands

(such as NOM) will also impact chlorine dose.

Describe anticipated optimization strategies for clearwells:

Strategy for clear wells, during a raw detection limit, will include operating the clear well at a raised depth, and maintaining that raised depth, as well as maintaining a raised chlorine residual, of up to 1.0 mg/l. above normal operating residual. This may include slowing plant production, to raise chlorine contact time.

HAB.35

http://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-knowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx



E.Other Treatment Processes

Membranes [Microfiltration (MF)/Ultrafiltration (UF) and Nanofiltration (NF)/Reverse Osmosis (RO)]

Ensure adequate pretreatment and cleaning cycles to prevent fouling.Evaluate ability of membrane to

removecells (MF/UF) and to removeextracellular toxins (NF/RO).For toxin removal, consider increasingthe

percentage processed through the membrane (NF/RO).Consider how other optimization strategies can impact

performance ofthe membrane.

Ozone

Ozone is highly effective for complete toxin destruction of microcystins concentrations, however residual dose

and contact time must be sufficient for cyanotoxin destruction as well as other demands.

The application of ozone can create disinfection byproducts, specifically bromate, that must be considered for

the specific water quality and can be a limiting factor when using ozone.

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

GAC used as an adsorption process can remove toxins.Assess the capacity for toxin removal available.Consider

the presence of competing contaminants such as Natural Organic Matter (NOM).Reactivated or fresh media

should be placed in contactors ahead of an anticipated HAB season.Consider conducting rapid small scale

column tests(RSSCT) with specific GAC mediain the contactor using the plant’s water and microcystins

challenge concentration to determine the life of GAC media to remove microcystins.

Biologically Active Filtration (BAF)

Assess functionality and ability to degrade toxins through sampling and studies.

UV Radiation Alone or Advanced Oxidation Process

UV radiation, if used alone for disinfection,is minimally effective in microcystins destruction in water treatment

plant applications and should not be considered as anacceptable optimization option.Dosing of UV ahead of

filtration must beavoided to prevent lysing of cells.

An advanced oxidation process used in association with UV, where UV is paired with hydrogen peroxide, has

been shown to be effective for microcystins destruction.However, the power requirements for advanced

oxidation are many times greater than what is required for UV disinfection.

Cartridge Filters

See filtration section. Consider increasing frequency of element replacement.

Slow Sand Filters

Assess functionality and ability to degrade toxins. Do not pre-chlorinate or treat with any oxidant.

pH Adjustment

For plants currently adjusting pH after softening, consider lowering pH to 8, or slightly less, into clearwell (but

above pH 6).This willhelp optimize destruction of toxin in the presence offree chlorine.Lowering pHmust not

interfere with optimal corrosion control strategy.

HAB.36



Other Technologies (not noted above)

Explain and support optimization strategies associated with the process.

Please describe the other treatment process and how it can be optimized for toxin removal and indicate

triggers for optimization:

If we have situation where we need to use a filter aid, we will need to consider the possibility of decreased filter runs, due to premature increase of LOH, when feeding filter aid. This will depend on the duration of time the filter aid is used, during such an event. Filter aid chemicals make the filter media sticky, which in turn, gives the advantage of increased filter performance. However, filter aid chemicals have some drawbacks of shortening filter runs.

F.Rate of Water Production

Reduce water production during a HAB event that is producing cyanotoxins.Decreasing the flowrate to hold a

constant flowrate through the treatment plant is recommended to reduce loading on processes and increase

contact times while not leading to stagnation.Consider extending operating time to decrease flowrate by going

to a 24-hour operation if the plant normally runs less than 24 hours.

Please list anticipated optimization strategies for general operation and maintenance:

We will be prepared to include a 24 hour schedule to our protocol, if a situation cited such an adjustment. This would reduce the changing flow change, and start up liability, during a HAB event.

HAB.37



V. Response Based on Raw and/or Finished Water Detections of Microcystins

According to OAC Rule 3745-90, PWS are required to conduct raw and finished water monitoring for

microcystins.When detections occur, a system should also consider additional sampling to identify whether

intracellular and extracellular toxins are present and conduct treatment train sampling to determine how

processes are performing and where additional optimization is needed.In order to avoid an exceedance of the

advisory levels for microcystins, a PWS must implement optimization strategies identified for their source and

treatment.

Outline source, treatment and operations adjustments that will be made based on optimization strategies

identified in Part III or IV, for each:

1. Detection in raw but not finished water detection.Response may vary based on raw water

concentration.Specify below:

Strategy for taking samples at various points of treatment process. This will include samples taken flocculation and after flocculation, in addition to default sampling techniques that are in place presently, ie. Raw, Settled, Filter, and Tap.

2. Detections in raw and finished, but less than 0.35 µg/L.Conduct treatment train analysis of total,

intracellular and extracellular microcystins to target optimization. Specify below:

If the plant begins to bring raw water of > .3 cyanotoxin, we will begin to optimize treatment process as described in previous section (part B). As a Contingency Plan, if needed, we can also proceed to make arrangements to shift to the Grand River source for our raw water source. The Grand River flows West of Plant, into Lake Erie Water Source.

HAB.38



3. Detections in raw and finished, greater than or equal to 0.35 µg/L.Maximize optimization and

treatment options.Conduct treatment train analysis of total, intracellular and extracellular

microcystins to target optimization, as well as distribution sampling.Look at alternate sources of

finished water, if available. Specify below:

Consideration of protocol sampling of distribution system, as well as treatment optimization.

Submit a completed HAB optimization protocol to your appropriate district office, to the attention of the Drinking Water Manager:

Ohio EPA — Northeast District Office 2110 E. Aurora Road Twinsburg, OH 44087 (330) 963-1200 Ohio EPA — Southeast District Office 2195 Front Street Logan, OH 43138 (740) 385-8501 Ohio EPA — Central District Office P.O. Box 1049 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 (614) 728-3778

Ohio EPA — Northwest District Office 347 N. Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, OH 43402 (419) 352-8461 Ohio EPA — Southwest District Office 401 East 5th Street Dayton, OH 45402 (937) 285-6357

HAB.39



Additional Resources:

The Public Water System HAB Response Strategy is also a good resource for implementation of a response by

the public water system in the event of cyanotoxin detection in raw and/or finished water.For

moreinformation about treatment strategies for microcystins, as well as other cyanotoxins, please see Ohio

AWWA/Ohio EPA’s joint effort, AWWA White Paper on Algal Toxin Treatment.Both can be found on Ohio EPA’s

HAB website:epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/HAB.aspx.

The resources used to develop these guidance documentscan provide more detailed information about

important water quality considerations and source and treatment optimization strategies for HABs. They are as

follows:

• Water Research Foundation.List of cyanotoxin-related applied research reports:

www.waterrf.org/resources/StateOfTheScienceReports/Cyanotoxins_StateOfTheScience.pdf

o Algae: Source to Treatment (M57), 2010

o Removal of Algal Toxins From Drinking Water Using Ozone and GAC, 2002

o Reservoir Management Strategies for Control and Degradation of Algal Toxins, 2009

o Early Warning and Management of Surface Water Taste & Odor Events, AWWA RF 2006

o Identification of Algae in Water Supplies (CD-ROM), AWWA 2001

• World Health Organization (WHO), 1999. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to their Public Health

Consequences, Monitoring and Management

www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resources/toxicyanbact/en/

• Water Quality Research Australia (WQRA) www.wqra.com.au/publications/document-search/

• Newcombe G., House J., Ho L., Baker P. and Burch M., 2010. Management Strategies for Cyanobacteria

(Blue-Green Algae) and their Toxins: A Guide for Water Utilities. WQRA research report 74. WATERRA

[Online].Available at: www.waterra.com.au/publications/document-search/?download=106

• Newcombe G., Dreyfus, J., Monrolin, Y., Pestana, C., Reeve, P., Sawade, E., Ho, L., Chow, C., Krasner,

S.W., Yates, R.S. 2015.Optimizing Conventional Treatment for the Removal of Cyanobacteria and

Toxins.Water Research Foundation.Order Number 4315.

• WQRA International Guidance Manual for the Management of Toxic Cyanobacteria, 2009, edited by

Dr. Gayle Newcombe, Global Water Research Coalition and Water Quality Research

Australia.WATERRA [Online].Available at: www.waterra.com.au/cyanobacteria-

manual/PDF/GWRCGuidanceManualLevel1.pdf

• 2008 International Symposium on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (ISOC-

HAB)www.epa.gov/cyano_habs_symposium/monograph.html

• ISOC-HAB Chapter 13: Cyanobacterial toxin removal in drinking water treatment processes and

recreational waters. Westrick, Judy A.

• U.S. Geological Survey Algal Toxins Research Team

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/studies/qw/cyanobacteria/

• Graham, J, Loftin, K., Meyer, M., Ziegler, A., 2010. Cyanotoxin Mixtures and Taste-and-Odor

Compounds in Cyanobacterial Blooms from the Midwestern United States, Environmental Science and

Technology http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1008938

• Acero, J. L., Rodriquez, E., Meriluoto, J., 2005.“Kinetics of reactions between chlorine and the

cyanobacterial toxins microcystins,” Water Res., 39, 1628-1638.

HAB.40

http://epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/HAB.aspx

http://www.waterrf.org/resources/StateOfTheScienceReports/Cyanotoxins_StateOfTheScience.pdf

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resources/toxicyanbact/en/

http://www.wqra.com.au/publications/document-search/

http://www.waterra.com.au/publications/document-search/?download=106

http://www.waterra.com.au/cyanobacteria-manual/PDF/GWRCGuidanceManualLevel1.pdf

http://www.waterra.com.au/cyanobacteria-manual/PDF/GWRCGuidanceManualLevel1.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/cyano_habs_symposium/monograph.html

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/studies/qw/cyanobacteria/

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1008938



• Mohamed, Z. A., Carmichael, W. W., An, J., El-Sharouny, H. M., 1999. “Activated Carbon Removal

Efficiency of Microcystins in an Aqueous Cell Extract of Microcystis aeruginosa and Oscillatoria tenuis

Strains Isolated from Egyptian Freshwaters”, Env. Toxicol., 14(5), 197-201.

• U.S. EPA.(May 26, 2015) Webinar on Current Water Treatment and Distribution System Optimization

for Cyanotoxins. [PowerPoint slides]. Obtained from webinar organizer, Cadmus Group:

[email protected].

• “Treatment Strategies to Remove Algal Toxins from Drinking Water”. Lili Wang, P.E.,U.S. EPA’s Office of

Water.

• “Removal of Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins Through Drinking Water Treatment”. Nicholas Dugan,

P.E., U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

• Walker, Harold W. “Cyanobacterial Cell and Toxin Removal Options for Drinking Water Treatment

Plants”, [Powerpoint Slides]. Taken from materials presented at The Ohio State University’s Stone Lab

Algal Toxins Workshop, August 2010.

• Walker, Harold W. Harmful Algal Blooms in Drinking Water: Removal of Cyanobacterial Cells and

Toxins.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015.

• Lionel Ho, Paul Tanis-Plant, Nawal Kayal, Najwa Slyman and Gayle Newcombe. 2009.“Optimising water

treatment practices for the removal of Anabaena circinalis and its associated metabolites”, Journal of

Water and Health. 7(4), 544-556.

• AWWA Cyanotoxins resource site:www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-

knowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx

• Drikas, M., Chow, C.W.K, House, J., Burch, M.D., 2001. “Using Coagulation, Flocculation, and Settling to

Remove Toxic Cyanobacteria”, Journal AWWA. February 2001, 100-111.

HAB.41

mailto:[email protected]




APPENDIX BMICROCYSTIN DATA

HAB.42

HAB.43

Fairport Harbor Microcystin LevelsLevel (ug/L) Date Level (ug/L) Date

ND 10/31/2017 ND 12/27/2016ND 10/24/2017 ND 12/13/2016ND 10/17/2017 ND 11/29/2016

0.621 10/10/2017 ND 11/15/20161.679 10/3/2017 ND 11/1/20162.138 9/26/2017 ND 10/25/20161.377 9/19/2017 ND 10/18/2016ND 9/11/2017 ND 10/11/2016

0.707 9/8/2017 1.359 10/4/2016ND 8/29/2017 0.553 9/27/2016ND 8/14/2017 0.622 9/20/2016ND 8/1/2017 ND 9/13/2016ND 7/18/2017 ND 9/6/2016ND 7/3/2017 ND 8/30/2016ND 6/20/2017 ND 8/23/2016ND 6/6/2017 ND 8/16/2016ND 5/23/2017 ND 8/9/2016ND 5/9/2017 ND 8/2/2016ND 4/18/2017 ND 7/26/2016ND 4/4/2017 ND 7/19/2016ND 3/21/2017 ND 7/12/2016ND 3/7/2017 ND 7/5/2016ND 2/21/2017 ND 6/28/2016ND 2/7/2017 ND 6/21/2016ND 1/24/2017 ND 6/14/2016ND 1/10/2017 ND 6/7/2016

ND = not detect (level under 0.30 ug/L)

HAB.44

Painesville Microcystin LevelsLevel (ug/L) Date Level (ug/L) Date

ND 1/8/2018 ND 1/10/2017ND 11/30/2017 ND 12/27/2016ND 10/23/2017 ND 12/13/2016ND 10/17/2017 ND 11/29/2016

0.676 10/9/2017 ND 11/15/20161.6 10/3/2017 ND 11/1/2016

2.034 9/25/2017 ND 10/24/20160.926 9/19/2017 ND 10/18/20160.489 9/11/2017 ND 10/10/20160.734 9/5/2017 0.948 10/4/20160.51 8/28/2017 0.477 9/26/2016

0.312 8/22/2017 0.437 9/20/2016ND 8/15/2017 ND 9/12/2016ND 8/8/2017 ND 9/6/2016ND 8/1/2017 ND 8/29/2016ND 7/18/2017 ND 8/23/2016ND 7/5/2017 ND 8/15/2016ND 6/20/2017 ND 8/9/2016ND 6/6/2017 ND 8/1/2016ND 5/23/2017 ND 8/1/2016ND 5/9/2017 ND 7/26/2016ND 4/18/2017 ND 7/18/2016ND 4/4/2017 ND 7/12/2016ND 3/21/2017 ND 7/5/2016ND 3/7/2017 ND 6/28/2016ND 2/21/2017 ND 6/20/2016ND 2/7/2017 ND 6/14/2016ND 1/24/2017 ND 6/6/2016

ND = not detect (level under 0.30 ug/L)

HAB.45

HAB.46

HAB.47

HAB.48

HAB.49

HAB.50

HAB.51

HAB.52

HAB.53

HAB.54

HAB.55

HAB.56


APPENDIX CPROPOSED WTP IMPROVEMENTS

HAB.57

HAB.58

HAB.59


APPENDIX DOEPA LAKE ERIE JAR TESTING RESULTS

HAB.60

HAB.61

HAB.62

HAB.63


APPENDIX ECT TABLE FOR MICROCYSTIN REMOVAL

HAB.64

HAB.65

SECTION 8 APPENDIX - CT Consultants

Documents

Transcript of SECTION 8 APPENDIX - CT Consultants