section 8 appendix - ct consultants
TRANSCRIPT
SECTION 8
APPENDIX
HAB.1
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
Volume (each): 14,000 gallons
Flocculation Time (@ 1.5 MGD): 27 mins
Flow @ 30 min Detention Time: 1.34 MGD
Sedimentation Basins (2)
Dimensions: 19' x 47' x 12' WD
Volume (each): 80,160 gallons
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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)
Dimensions: 25' x 37' x 9' WD
Volume (each): 60,500 gallons
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
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
PAC feed
Design Phase 9/1/2020 10/31/2020OEPA Review Phase 11/1/2020 12/31/2020
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 4 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 5 of 23
HAB.24
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 6 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 7 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 8 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 9 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 10 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 11 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 12 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 13 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 14 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 15 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 16 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 17 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 18 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 19 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 20 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 23
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
Developing a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Treatment Optimization Protocol — Guidance for Public Water Systems
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 of 23
• 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:
• “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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
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
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
APPENDIX CPROPOSED WTP IMPROVEMENTS
HAB.57
HAB.58
HAB.59
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
APPENDIX DOEPA LAKE ERIE JAR TESTING RESULTS
HAB.60
HAB.61
HAB.62
HAB.63
VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT HARBOR HAB GENERAL PLAN
APPENDIX ECT TABLE FOR MICROCYSTIN REMOVAL
HAB.64
HAB.65