tm 10: water quality assessment monitoring - detroitmi.gov section discusses the existing water...

TM‐10

TM 10: Water Quality Assessment & Monitoring Thistechnicalmemorandum(TM)discussestopicsrelatedtowaterquality.Thefollowingtopicsareaddressed:

DWSDwaterqualitygoals

Waterqualitymonitoringplans

Waterqualitymonitoringequipmentandlaboratoryinfrastructure

Customercomplaintshandling

Waterqualitydatahandlinganddocumentation

Waterqualitydatainterpretation

Waterqualityrecommendations

EvaluationofpotentialfordirectfiltrationtreatmentprocessatLakeHuronWaterTreatmentPlant(WTP)

RecommendationsregardingLakeHurondirectfiltration

1.0 Background WaterqualitydatawererequestedfromDWSDandreviewedfortrendsandcurrentcompliance.Datareviewedwere:

MonthlyOperationsReports(MORs)foreachWTPFOR2011,2012andJanuarytoJune2013

TotalcoliformandE.colidataforDWSDandallwholesalesystemsthataremonitoredbyDWSDfor2011and2012

LeadandcopperdataforDWSDandallwholesalesystemsthataremonitoredbyDWSD(mostrecentdatafrom2011)

TOCdatafor2010,2011,2012andJanuarytoJune2013

Mineralanalysesfor2011and2012

TTHMandHAAcompliancedatafor2011and2012

Hexavalentchromiumstudyfrom2011

Partialchemistryfor2012and2013

UCMR1,UCMR2andfirstsetofUMCR3

BromideandBromatedataforWaterWorksParkWTPfor2011and2012

TM‐10 Water Master Plan Update

TM‐10

EDCandPPCPdataforSouthwestWTPfrom2007andfortheintakesatSouthwestandWaterWorksParkfrom2009(WaterResearchFoundationStudy3071PPCPsandEDCs–OccurrenceintheDetroitRiverandTheirRemovalbyOzonation)

Generalplantinformationquestionnairesfrom2013WaterMasterPlanUpdateproject

1.1 Water Quality Goals DWSDestablishedwaterqualitygoalsaspartoftheComprehensiveWaterMasterPlancompletedin2004.ThesegoalsareshowninTable1‐1alongwithrecommendedmodificationsornewgoals.

Table 1‐1: DWSD Water Quality Goals Current and Recommended1

Water Quality Parameter

SDWA Requirement DWSD Goal Comments

All Regulated parameters (VOCs, SOCs, IOCs, radiologicals, SWTRs, D/DBPs and others)

Comply with all applicable primary drinking water regulations

Comply with all applicable primary drinking water regulations

Consider setting higher standards of compliance

Filtered Water Turbidity (ESWTR)

<0.3 NTU in 95% of combined filter effluent samples taken monthly, measurements at 4 hours intervals

<0.1 NTU in 95% of combined filter effluent samples taken each month

Maximum 1 NTU in combined filter effluent

Maximum 1 NTU in combined filter effluent

<0.5 NTU in individual filters after 4 hours of continuous operation (based on 2 consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart)

<0.3 NTU in individual filters after 4 hours of continuous operations

<1 NTU in individual filters at any time based on 2 consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart

<1 NTU in individual filters at any time

Filtered water particle counts

Not required Minimize particles

Maintain particle counts at baseline level

Microbials (Interim and Long Term SWTR)

3‐log Giardia removal/inactivation

Zero Giardia, virus and Cryptosporidium in finished water

4‐log virus removal/inactivation

2‐log Cryptosporidium removal

1Newandmodifiedrecommendationsareshowninred


TM‐10




by filtration

0 to 0.25 log additional Cryptosporidium inactivation based on source water occurrence

Primary disinfection (SWTRs)

≥0.5 log Giardia inactivation (conventional)

≥1.5 inactivation ratio for Giardia inactivation

≥ 1.0‐log Giardia inactivation (direct filtration)

≥3.0 log virusinactivation (direct filtration)

≥2.0 log virus inactivation ≥ 1‐log additional inactivation of Cryptosporidium

Obtaining individual filters effluent of <0.15 NTU 95% of the time per month will provide 0.5 log additional credit. A goal of 1 log drives CIP to ozone and/or UV at all WTPs. Consider it this goal is reasonable.

>1.0 inactivation ratio Ratio is the achieved CT versus the required CT

Total coliform (TCR)

<5% monthly sample positive <5% monthly samples positive

No E. coli positive repeat sample or an E. coli positive routine sample followed by a total coliform positive sample

No E. coli samples positive

Chlorine residual at entry to system (Stage 1 D/DBPR)

<4.0 mg/L <4.0 mg/L

>0.2 mg/L >0.2 mg/L at ends of DWSD distribution system

Chlorine residual within distribution system (SWTR)

Detectable in 95% of monthly samples

>0.1 mg/L in 100% of monthly samples

Chlorine residual at entry points to wholesale customers

>0.5 mg/L

Disinfection Byproducts (Stage 1 & Stage 2 D/DBPR)

TTHM ≤ 80 ppb TTHM ≤40 ppb

HAA5 ≤60 ppb HAA5 ≤30 ppb

Bromate ≤10 ppb Bromate ≤10 ppb


TM‐10




Disinfection Byproducts at entry to wholesale customer systems

TTHM ≤40 ppb

HAA5 ≤30 ppb

TOC (Stage 1 D/DBPR)

<2.0 in source water to avoid enhanced coagulation

<2.0 mg/L

Color (NSDWR) <15 true color units <5 true color units Color is not currently measured

Taste and Odor (NSDWR)

<3 TON <1 TON

No objectionable odor in finished water and in distribution system

Lead (LCR) <0.0015 mg/L in 90th percentile <0.0015 mg/L in 90th percentile

Copper (LCR) <1.3 mg/L in 90th percentile <1.3 mg/L in 90th

percentile

Orthophosphate (None)

None, but must meet lead action levels at the tap

>1 mg/L as PO4 Established by MDEQ per LCR. Consider future impact on wastewater discharge quality

pH (NSDWR) 6.5 to 8.5 7.0 to 7.9 Recommend tighter control of pH, assess distribution system corrosion

Aluminum (NSDWR)

0.05 to 0.2 mg/L <0.2 mg/L in finished water

Iron (NSDWR) <0.3 mg/L <0.1 mg/L in finished water and in distribution system

Theoriginalsetofgoalsdidnotaddressspecificwaterqualityassociatedwithsomeregulations,suchastheVOC,SOCs,IOCs,radiologicals,corrosivity,andothersecondaryregulatedparameterslikeiron.ItisassumedthatDWSD’swaterqualitygoalsaretomaintain“regulatorycompliance”unlessotherwisespecifiedinTable1‐1.Inaddition,therewerenogoalsforthedistributionsystemsuchaswaterage,tankturnoverandotheroperational/waterqualitypotentialdistributionissues.Thereforethistablewasupdatedandexpandedtoincludecomprehensiveregulatorycomplianceaswellassomegoalsthatgobeyondbasiccompliance.

DWSDparticipatedinthePartnershipforSafeWaterandthewaterplantswereaccredited.Participationwasdiscontinuedin2012forunknownreasons.SomeplantsstillpreparedthePartnershipdata.AsofJanuary2014,participationinthePartnershipforSafeWaterhasbeenre‐established.Itmaybebeneficialtoconsiderparticipationinotherbenchmarkingprogramssuchas


TM‐10

QualserveandDistributionSystemOptimizationProgram.However,AWWAisnolongerfundingtheQualserveprogramandtheonlyactivityoccurringisdatacollection.Nonethelesstheremaybevalueinassessingandfollowingthebestpracticesdevelopedunderthisprogram.

2.0 Current Monitoring Plans Thissectiondiscussestheexistingwaterqualitymonitoring,waterqualitydata,andthestafforganizationinvolvedinwaterqualityassessment.Itconcludeswithrecommendationsforfuturewaterqualitytesting.

2.1 Water Quality Monitoring DWSDtestssourcewaters,finishedwatersandthedistributionsystemforawidevarietyofparameters(Table2‐1).Inaddition,specialstudiesareconductedthroughWaterResearchFoundationparticipation,consultants,theDWSDWaterQualityGroupandregulatoryrequirementssuchastheUnregulatedContaminantMonitoringRule.

InadditiontotestingDWSDsourceandfinishedwaters,DWSDteststheCityofDetroitdistributionsystem.DWSDcollectsandanalyzessamplesforretailcustomers.DWSDalsoprovidestotalcoliformsamplecollectionandtestingfor84ofthe127communities.TotalcoliformandE.coliareanalyzed.Dependingonthetypeofcomplaint,metalsanalysisissometimesperformed.Costsforthisarereportedlybuiltintothecustomerrate.DWSDprovidesanalyticalservicesforleadandcopperfor91communitiesbutthesamplingresponsibilityresideswiththecommunity.Nootheranalyticalworkisprovidedtothecommunities.DWSDcouldpotentiallyofferadditionalwaterqualityservicestotheircommunitiesanddevelopanappropriatepricingstructure.

AcompletedescriptionofthewaterqualitymonitoringprogramisshowninTable2‐1.Thistablealsoincludesrecommendationsforthefutureprogram.

TheMDEQrequiredmonitoringscheduleisattachedinAppendixA.

InJanuary2014DWSDbeganfinishwatermineralsamplingatNortheastandSpringwells.CurrentlyonlytheplanttapsatWaterWorksPark,LakeHuronandSouthwestaremonitoredforsomeofthebasicmineralparameters.Sincewatertreatmentprocessesvary,anongoingassessmentoffinishedwaterqualityshouldbemonitoredonallfinishedwaters.

Additionalrecommendationsforthefuturemonitoringinclude:

AssessthevalueofplanktonmonitoringintheplantinfluentsforNortheastandSpringwells.TheseplantssharethesamesourcewaterasWaterWorksPark,butthewaterischlorinatedandthentransportedtotheWTPs,thusprobablydestroyingmuchofthealgaepriortotreatment.Itisimportanttonotethatdestructionofcyanobacteriacanreleasemicrocystinandthatthiswillnotbeassessedusinganalgalcountonachlorinatedsource.

Considerassessingtotalchlorineonsomefrequencytocheckforpotentialreactionswithammonia(monthlyorwhenammoniadetected,inallfinishedwater).

Cyanidetestingisscheduledfor2014.DWSDwillplanforthissamplecollectionandanalysis.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.


TM‐10 Page 6

Table 2‐1: Current Water Quality Monitoring Program and Recommendations for Future

Current Practice Recommended Practice

Parameter Source2 Finished3 Distribution Special Study Source Finished4 Distribution Special Study Comments

Frequency Frequency

Aluminum MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants Yes at SP

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

At other plants if needed

Aluminum precipitation issues and dosing control

Ammonia MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Bi‐Carbonate Alkalinity MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Calcium MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Carbonate Alkalinity MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Chloride MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Chlorine (total) Per TCR Online or grab

All plants

MDEQ requires only free chlorine, not total

Good idea to check total on some frequency

Chlorine (free) DA all plants at multiple treatment points

Online

All plants

DA or online at all plants at multiple treatment points

Online

All plants

Per RTCR

Online at storage

Samples also at pre‐CL2, post CL2, applied, filtered, tap

COD MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

Conductivity MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Copper MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

50/3 yr

Per LCR

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

50/3 yr

Per LCR Reduced monitoring – consecutive system

Cyanide With phase V Study in distribution system if detected in finished water

Waiver is being rescinded by MDEQ

Dissolved Oxygen MO FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Study in distribution system

Fluoride MO & DA

FI, DR, LHI

MO All plants

DA all plants Weekly

DA

All sources

DA

All plants Weekly

MDEQ recommends some routine testing in distribution system

Free CO2 MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

Iron MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Magnesium MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

2Fi–FightingIsland,DR=DetroitRiveratBelleIsle,LHI–LakeHuronIntake3MostparametersmeasuredatWWP(WaterWorksPark),LH(LakeHuron)andSW(Southwest)only,notatSP(Springwells)orNE(northeast),whendoneonamonthlyfrequency4Recommendationsareforallplantsinservice


TM‐10 Page 7




Frequency Frequency

Manganese MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Nitrate MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Nitrite MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

DMO

All sources

MO

All plants

Non‐Carbonate Hardness MO & DA

FI, DR, LHI

MO All plants

DA all plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Ozone residual DA in contactors

WWP Assume done online

Total Organic Nitrogen MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants No No Delete this analysis

pH MO FI, DR, LHI

DA all influent

MO All plants

DA SW, LH, SP, NE

2/yr.

LCR

DA

All sources

DA

All plants

10 at 2/yr

LCR

Phosphorus MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO All plants

DA all plants applied & tap

DA at NE in distribution

10 at 2/yr

LCR

MO

All sources

DA

All plants

10 at 2/yr

LCR

Potassium MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

YR

All plants

Silica MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

YR

All sources

YR

All plants

Sodium MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

YR

All sources

YR

All plants

Sulfate MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Temperature DA

All sources

DA

All plants

DA

All sources

DA

All plants

Total Alkalinity MO & DA

FI, DR, LHI

MO All plants

DA all plants

DA

All sources

DA

All plants

Total Dissolved Solids MO FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Total Hardness MO & MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO All plants

DA all plants

DA

All sources

DA

All plants

Total Solids MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

All plants No No Delete this analysis

Turbidity See separate table (2‐1a)

UV254 (SUVA calc) MO

All sources

MO

All plants

UV transmittance Study if UV treatment 12 months prior to UV installation


TM‐10 Page 8




Frequency Frequency

planned

Zinc MO

FI, DR, LHI

MO

WWP, SW, LH

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Bromide MO

WWP

MO

WWP

MO

WWP

Important to monitor is ozone planned at any additional WTPS

Bromate MO

WWP

MO

WWP

Important to monitor is ozone planned at any additional WTPS

VOCs 2 per yr

FI, DR, LHI

Quart

All plants

Online for spill detection

All plants

Quart

All plants Delete VOC on sources

SOCs 2 per 36 mo, done in 2nd and 3rd quarters

All plants

2 per 36 mo, done in 2nd

and 3rd quarters

All plants

Partial Chem YR

All plants

YR

All plants

Radiologicals 9 yrs

All plants

9 yrs

All plants

Metals 9 yrs

All plants

9 yrs

All plants

TOC Quart

All sources

Quart

All plants

MO

All sources

MO

All plants

Fractionation study at WWP

DOC MO

All sources

MO

All plants

TTHM & HAA 2 per yr TTHM

FI, DR, LHI

3 per quart + customers

Quart

All plants 3 per quart + customers

Reduced monitoring for compliance, consecutive system

Delete source water TTHM

WQP (LCR)

10 at 2/yr in Detroit; 70 per year in suburban communities

10 at 2/yr in Detroit; 70 per year in suburban communities

Reduced monitoring

Lead 50 per 3 yr 1 per 3 yrs

All sources

1 per 3 yrs

All plants 50 per 3 yrs Reduced monitoring, consecutive system

Total coliform See separate table (2‐1b)

Chromium hexavalent 2011

All plants

UCMR3

All plants Will monitor in UCMR3

EDCs & PPCPs WaterRF Future

Algae (plankton)

2/wk

FI, DR, LHI

& influent to SP & NE

2/wk

FI, DR, LH All plants, could decrease freq in winter


TM‐10 Page 9




Frequency Frequency

Asbestos Waived

Chlorophyll WK in summer

All sources

Color DA

All sources

DA

All plants

Cryptosporidium LT2 Round 1

All sources

LT2 round 2

All sources Future routine monitoring

Giardia ICR Repeat at some frequency (3 years?)

HPC DA FI, DR, LHI

DA

WWP, SP, LH

Low Cl2<0.1 ppm

DA

All sources

DA

all plants With TCR samples

MTBE 2 per yr

FI, DR, LHI

Quart

All plants All ND Monitor if regulated

Nitrosamines All ND Monitor if regulated

Perchlorate All ND Monitor if regulated

Strontium With UCMR3

Radon Rule has been withdrawn

Odor DA

FI, DR, LHI

DA

SP, LH, SW As needed

DA

All sources

DA

All plants As needed Water Works Park discontinued

ATP Evaluate for security/contamination events/regrowth

Microtox DA

DR

DA

WWP

DA

1 per system Evaluate alternatives

Use TCR sites

Used to do on chemical deliveries

WWP uses

Deltatox DA

FI, LHI

DA

NE, SW

DA

1 per system Evaluate alternatives

WWP = Water Works Park WTP

NE = Northeast WTP

SW = Southwest WTP

SP = Springwells WTP

LH = Lake Huron WTP

FI – Fighting Island intake for Southwest plan

LHI = Lake Huron Intake

DR = Detroit River or Belle Isle intake for Water Works Park, Springwells & Northeast plants

DA=daily

MO=monthly

YR=yearly

Note: For Water Quality Parameters (WQP) (Lead & Copper Rule ‐ LCR) SOCWA, Flint and Genesee County do their own monitoring


TM‐10 Page 10

Table 2‐1a: Turbidity Measurements Reported in Monthly Operation Reports from DWSD Treatment Plants

Sample Location Lake Huron WTP Northeast WTP Springwells WTP Water Works Park WTP Southwest WTP Regulatory Requirements Master Plan Recommendations

Raw water 8 hrs 2 hrs hourly 4 hrs hourly Recommended Online

All plants

Settled water none none None 15 min none Recommended Daily

All plants

Applied (filter influent) Daily 30 min hourly Not reported hourly Set consistent frequency for all plants, online

Individual filters 10 min hourly Not reported Not reported Nor reported 15 min 15 min report, online

All filters all plants

Filter confluence 4 hrs 4 hrs Not reported 4 hrs Not reported 4 hrs 4 hrs report, online

All plants

Plant tap Daily Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported recommended Daily report, online

All plants

Table 2‐1b: Total Coliform Sampling Performed by DWSD Treatment Plants and Associated Water Sources and Distribution Systems*

Sample Location Lake Huron WTP Northeast WTP Springwells WTP Water Works Park WTP Southwest WTP Regulatory Requirements Master Plan Recommendations

Raw water 8 hrs none none Daily Daily Daily Daily

All plants

Plant tap 8 hrs 2 hrs 2 hrs 8 hrs 4 hrs Per MDEQ Per MDEQ

Distribution System 56 per month + customers Consecutive system per MDEQ

56 per month + customers

* Total coliform and E. coli are run simultaneously


TM‐10 Page 11

TotalOrganicNitrogenisseldomusedindrinkingwaterandistypicallylowornot‐detectable.Thisanalysiscouldbeeliminated.

Totalsolidsanalysiscouldbeeliminated.

VOCanalysisonsourcewatersshouldbelimitedtospillsassessment.Routinetesting(quarterly)isessentialtomaintaininglabcertificationandanalyticalcapabilityduringaspillevent.

Frequencyofalgaemonitoringcouldbedecreasedinthewinter(asneeded).Samplesareusuallyreportedaszeroandthereforetheanalysisprovideslimitedbenefit.

Odoranalysisisrecommendedonallfinishedwatersdaily.

Colorshouldbetrackedforrawandfinishedwater,especiallyfortheLakeHuronWTPifdirectfiltrationistobeconsidered.

2.1.1 Online analyzers

DWSDusesavarietyofonlinewaterqualityanalyzersforprocesscontrolandregulatorycompliance.Theseonlinemonitorsandtheirplantlocationswerereportedas:

Turbidity(allWTPs)

Freechlorine(allWTPs,noteNortheastneedsforfilters,combinedfiltereffluent(CFE)andsettledwater,Springwellsneedsonrawandsettledwaters)

Particlecounters(SpringwellsandWaterWorksParkhaveonindividualfilters;Springwells,WaterWorksParkandSouthwesthaveonraw,settledandCFE;Northeasthasintheirbudgetforraw,settledandCFE)

Phosphate(WaterWorksPark,Southwest,Northeast)

Fluoride(WaterWorksPark)

Streamingcurrent(Southwest,WaterWorksPark,Northeast)

UV254(WaterWorksPark–justpurchased,notyetinuse)

Theonlineanalyzersrecommendationswillbedevelopedfurtherinphase2ofthisproject.TM‐13WaterTreatmentPlantNeedsAssessmentprovidesestimatedcostsfortheonlinechlorineanalyzersatNortheastandthereplacementofturbidimetersandparticlecountersatWaterWorksPark.

OnlinewaterqualitymonitoringontheDetroitRiverandLakeSt.ClairisdiscussedinTM‐8WatershedManagementandProtection.

2.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment

TheWaterMasterPlanNeedsAssessmentSiteSurvey(seeTM‐13WaterTreatmentPlantNeedsAssessmentAppendices)includedaquestiononthetypesoflaboratoryequipmentpresentateachwaterplantandatthewaterqualitygrouplab.TheresultsofthatsurveyareshowninTable2‐2.Thistableincudesonlybenchequipmentandnotonlineinstrumentation.Itisexpectedthatadditionalequipmentexistsatdifferentlocationsbutwasnotreportedinthesurveyasthequestionwasopenendedratherthanlistbased.


TM‐10 Page 12

Mostrespondentsdidnotincludelaboratoryequipmentreplacementneeds.Laboratoryequipmentisusuallypurchasedundertheoperationsandmaintenancebudget.Thereforeitwasnotassessedforthemasterplancapitalprojects.However,itisimportanttoplanforreplacementaslabequipmentlifetimeistypicallyinthe5to20yearrange.Inaddition,itwassuggestedthatinvestingindedicateddistributionsystemsamplingstationsmaybevaluable.Thedifficultyinestablishingsatisfactorymanualsamplepointsinthedistributionsystemisanongoingchallengeformanyutilities.Asanalternative,samplingstationsmaybeinstalledinthedistributionsystem.However,suchinstallationshouldnotproceeduntilanychangestothedistributionsystemthatcouldimpactwateragehavebeencompleted.Thesesamplingstationscanalsobeachallengetooperateandmaintainduringwinterandthereforearerecommendedwhereacceptableindoorsitescannotbeidentified.

Table 2‐2: Laboratory Equipment Reported in Survey

Equipment Water Works Park

Lake Huron

Southwest Springwells Northeast Water Quality Group

Atomic adsorption spectrometer

x

Autoclave x x x

Balance X x x x x

Conductivity meter x x X x x

Digestion unit x

Dissolved oxygen meter x

Drying oven x x x

Fluoride (ISE) meter X x X x

Freezer x

Glass still/distillation/DI water

x x x

IDEXX sealer x x x

Incubator X x x X x

Microscope x X

Moisture analyzer X

Muffle furnace x

pH meter X X x X x x

Refrigerator x x x

Spectrophotometer x x X X x x

Titration assembly x X

Turbidimeter X X X X x x

Water bath x x

2.2 Lab infrastructure TheneedforlaboratoryinfrastructureupgradeswasdiscussedinameetingwithWTPstaffonOctober8,2013.Staffrecommendedthefollowing:

LakeHuronlabimprovementsin20yearCIP

NElabimprovementsin5yearCIP

Springwellslabimprovementsin5yearCIP


TM‐10 Page 13

WaterWorksParkimprovementsnotneeded

SWpartialupdate(cabinets,hoods)in5yearCIP

Waterqualitylabimprovementsnotneeded

2.3 Customer Complaints Handling Inaddition,DWSDtrackscustomercomplaints.SeeAppendixBfortheDetroitCustomerComplaintform.Theformdocumentscomplaintsofrusty/discolored,odor,taste,cloudy/milky,sick/ill/itchyskin,particle/sandanddirty.Arangeof20differenttasteandodordescriptorsareincluded.Historically,DWSDhasexperiencedmusty–MIBtypeodorsmorethanearthy‐Geosmin.Intheeventofatasteandodoreventateitherthewatertreatmentplantorthedistributionsystem,DWSDwilluseFlavorProfileAnalysis.TheFPApanelwilldeterminethetypeandleveloftasteandodor,andPACfeedatthewaterplantinitiated.DWSDprovidessamplecollectionandanalysisforabasicsuiteofparameters.Analysesprovidedaretotalcoliform,phenolphthaleinalkalinity,totalalkalinity,totalhardness,color,odor,chlorineresidual,fluorideandturbidity.DWSD,similartomostutilities,doesnotchargecustomersforwaterqualitycomplaintinvestigations.EitherDWSDorthecustomermaycollectthesample.Onsiteinvestigationisconductedasneededbywaterqualitypersonnel.

DWSDreceivescustomerinquiriesontopicssuchasrustywater,lead,odor,andothers.DWSDcollectssamplesfortheirretailcustomers.Wholesalecustomerscollectsamplesfortheirretailcustomers.TotalcoliformandE.coliareanalyzed.Dependingonthetypeofcomplaint,metalsanalysisissometimesperformed.Inthepast,odorhasbeenafrequencycomplaintrelatedtoalgalbloomsandzebramussels,butthefrequencyhasdeclinedinrecentyears.Rustywatercomplaintsoccurinareaswithhighwaterageandoldunlinedcastironpipe.Othercomplaintsareinfrequent.Alldataarecapturedinadatabase.Complaintssuchachlorinearetrackedbylocation.

Hydrantflushingistheprimaryapproachemployedtoimprovecustomerconcerns.Onsiteinvestigationandsamplingareconductedwhendeemedappropriate.

2.4 Water Quality Data Handling and Documentation WaterqualitydocumentationconsistsprimarilyofSOPs(StandardOperatingProcedures)andsamplingplans.TheWaterQualityGroupreportedthatSOPsexistedforallanalyses,buttheywerenotreviewedaspartofthisproject.WrittensamplingplanswereprovidedforTCRandDBPrequirements(seeAppendixC).TheTCRandDBPsampleplanswereupdatedinJuly,2013.BothplansfollowtheMDEQtemplate.Sampleplansaredocumented,reviewed,andupdateifrequiredonacontinualbasis.Thedatechangesweremadeshouldbeincorporatedinallplans.OnlytheDBPsamplesiteplanwasreviewedaspartofthisproject.TheWTPandWaterQualitylabsarecertifiedbytheMDEQforavarietyofparameters.

TheWaterQualityGrouphasawebbasedsystemforcapturingdata.Thissystemhasbeeninplacesince1998andthusprovidesanopportunityforhistoricalwaterqualityinvestigations.ThissystemcouldbeusedtosharedatamorewidelysuchaswiththeWTPsandwholesalesystems.DWSDgeneratesanextensiveandcompletesetofwaterqualitydata.Itisrecommendedthatadditionaltimebeallocatedtotrendingandinterpretingthesedata.Investigationofanyissuesidentifiedthroughthisevaluationshouldbeconducted.

2.4.1 LIMS

In2013,DWSDdevelopedashortlistofvendorstoprovideaLIMS(LaboratoryInformationManagementSystem).DWSDdevelopedalistofrequirementsforLIMSperformanceandaprocess


TM‐10 Page 14

diagram.Thesedocuments(AppendixD)weresenttoChemWater,PerkinElmerandStarLims.Oneofthesevendors,ChemWare,providedtheirquotation(AppendixD)whichofferedapriceof$572,652inMarch,2013.

GiventhecomplexityoftheDWSDmonitoringperformedatboththewatertreatmentplantsandinthedistributionsystemcommunities,aLIMSisrecommended.GiventhatDWSDhasalreadydevelopedthespecificationandacquiredcostinformation,proceedingtopurchaseaLIMSshouldbepursued.ThemainconsiderationisthatimplementationofaLIMSrequiresstafftimefortrainingandsetup.RegularutilizationofaLIMSrequiresdedicatedstafftimethatwillneedtobeincorporatedintooverallstaffinglevels(0.5to1FTE).

3.0 Data Interpretation WaterqualitydatawerereviewedandassessedtodeterminewhichparameterswereofpotentialinterestandfuturechallengeforDWSDregulatorycomplianceandcustomeraestheticsatisfaction.

3.1 Current Water Quality Assessment RegulatorycomplianceisassessedinTM‐9:DrinkingWaterRegulationsPresentandFuture.Additionalanalysisisincludedhereinaswellasanalysisofsomenon‐regulatedparameters.Specificallythissectionaddresses:

Microbialoccurrence

Distributionsystemchlorineresiduals

DBPs&TOC

pH

Alkalinity

Hardness

Corrosionindices

Planktonandalgae

Aluminum,ironandmanganese

Tasteandodor

3.1.2 Microbial Occurrence

Heterotrophicplatecount(HPC)isacommonmethodusedtoassessdistributionsystembacterialregrowth.DWSDmeasuresHPCdailyonthefinishedwatersfromWaterWorksPark,SouthwestandLakeHuronusingR2Aagarmethod.HPCinthedistributionsystemisreportedtobemeasuredonlywhenthechlorineresidualislessthan0.1mg/L.HPCdatawerenotreviewed.ItisrecommendedthatDWSDdevelopadistributionsystemHPCroutinemonitoringplantotrackregrowth,atleastinareasofhighwaterage.Othermethods,suchasATP,existforassessingregrowthbutthesearemorecomplicatedandtimeintensivebutmaybeconsideredinthefuture.

ReviewoftheCCRdataintandemwithDWSDrecordeddatafortotalcoliformsindicateddiscrepanciesbetweenthedatasets.AreviewofallbacterialanalysisdatagatheredbyDWSDwasconductedfordatessampledinthedistributionsystemfor2011and2012.UponreviewoftheDWSD


TM‐10 Page 15

data,Table3‐1,Figure3‐1,andFigure3‐2werecompiledtoshowthepositivetotalcoliformcountsthatwerereportedalongwiththecorrespondingchlorineresidualforthedistributionsystemdataandWTPeffluentdata.NopositiveE.colireadingswerereported.

Table 3‐1: Summary of Positive Total Coliform Counts

Township/City Date Corresponding Chlorine Residual (mg/L)

Positive for E. coli

Bloomfield Twp 6/8/2012

7/23/2011

1.03

0.66

NO

NR1

Dearborn Heights 12/7/2012 0.62 NO

Farmington 8/27/2012 0.75 NO

Garden City 6/20/2012

1/13/2011

0.11

0.60

NO

NR

Lake Orion 6/28/2012 0.71 NO

Oak Park 10/2/2012 0.37 NO

West Bloomfield Twp 4/19/2012 0.93 NO

Brownstown Twp

1/14/2011

8/11/2011

9/28/2011

1.19

1.08

1.11

NR

NR

NR

Dearborn 7/8/2011 0.89 NR

Hamtramck 6/7/2011 0.40 NR

Livonia 12/6/2011 0.73 NR

Pittsfield Twp 11/28/2011 0.25 NR

Riverview 8/29/2011 1.01 NR

Taylor 1/7/2011

1/24/2011

0.93

0.86

NR

NR

Westland 11/9/2011 0.88 NR

Detroit

1/7/2011

6/14/2011

8/16/2011

8/18/2011

0.36

0.80

0.77

0.86

NR

NR

NR

NR

Water Works Park WTP 7/8/2011

3/31/2012

0.99

1.15

NR

NR 1NR: Not Reported

For2011,allpositivetotalcoliformcountswerere‐testedasnegativeindicatingtherewasnoneedforfurtheraction;thesere‐checkdatawerenotprovidedfor2012.

3.1.3 Distribution System Chlorine Residuals

Furtherinvestigationintothepotentialrelationshipbetweenfreechlorineresidualandtotalcoliformoccurrencewasconducted.During2011and2012somecommunitiesreportedverylowannualaveragechlorineresiduals(<0.3mg/L)whicharelistedinTable3‐2.


TM‐10 Page 16

Table 3‐2: Summary of Low Average Chlorine Residual Communities

Township/City 2011 Average Free Chlorine

# Positive Total Coliform Samples in 2011

2012 Average Free Chlorine

# Positive Total Coliform Samples in 2012

mg/L #/100 mL mg/L #/100 mL

Flat Rock 0.16 0 0.23 0

Grosse Ile 0.26 0 0.29 0

Grosse Point Shores

0.22 0 0.26 0

Forthedistributionsystemdata,thefreechlorineresidualforalltotalcoliformpositivesampleeventsin2011and2012rangedfrom0.1to1.2mg/L.Figure3‐1showstheaveragefreechlorineresidualversusthenumberofpositivetotalcoliformsamplesforeachcommunity.Figure3‐2showstheindividualsampleresultsforfreechlorineresidualwithpositivetotalcoliformsamplesforcommunitieswheretotalcoliformweredetected.Despitesomepositivecountsthathadchlorineresidualsbelowtheminimumrecommendedresidualof0.20mg/L,ingeneraltherewasminimalcorrelationbetweenchlorineresidualandpositivetotalcoliformcountsasshownfromthedataintheabovetablesandattachedfigures.

Figure3‐1:DistributionSystemTotalColiformPositive,SamplesandAverageChlorineResidual,2011‐2012


TM‐10 Page 17

Figure3‐2:RelationshipofIndividualSamplesforChlorineResidualandPositiveTotalColiformResults

3.1.4 DBPs & TOC

CurrentregulatorycomplianceisdiscussedinTM‐9DrinkingWaterRegulationPresentandFuture.AdditionalanalysisisofferedinthisTM.Figure3‐3andFigure3‐4showthelocationalrunningannualaverage(LRAA)forthe1stquarter2012(May,SeptemberandDecemberof2011andFebruaryof2012)forselectlocationswheretheLRAAcouldbecalculatedforTTHMandHAA,respectively.Duetosamplesitechangesimplementedbetween2011and2012,onlyalimitedsetoflocationshadsufficientdataforthiscalculation.LRAAsforTTHMsandHAAsarewellbelowtheregulatorylimitsof80µg/Land60µg/L,respectively.TheLRAAlevelswerecalculatedtopredictfuturecompliancewiththeStage2D/DBPrule.DWSDisexpectedtocomplywiththisnewregulationasDBPsarebelowtheMCLs.

ThespeciationofbothTTHMsandHAAswasassessed(Figures3‐1,3‐2,3‐3and3‐4).TheprincipalTHMspeciesacrossalllocationsischloroform(CCl4)followedbydichlorobromomethane(CHBrCl2)anddibromochloromethane(CHBr2Cl).Noincidencesofbromoform(CBr4)wererecordedin2011or2012.Inboth2011and2012,theHAAspeciationismostlyanevensplitbetweentrichloroaceticacid(Cl3AA)anddichloroaceticacid(Cl2AA).NootherHAAspecieswererecorded.

TheformationofTTHMsandHAAswithinthetreatmentplantsandthedistributionsystemwasexaminedanddemonstratedthatbothlocationscreateDBPs.Ingeneral,TTHMconcentrationsincreasebetweentheeffluentofthewatertreatmentplantandthedistributionsystemlocations.Toillustratethiseffect,thegreatestincreasecanbeseenattheMeijer’sGassamplinglocationinPittsfieldTownshipwhichrecordedaTTHMannualaverageof44.2µg/Land20.7µg/Lfor2011and2012,

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 1/26/2013

Free Chlorine Residual (mg/L)

Date

Individual Chlorine Residuals for Positive Total Coliform Readings

Bloomfield Twp Dearborn Heights Farmington Garden City Oak Park

West Bloomfield Twp Brownstown Twp Dearborn Hamtramck Livonia

Pittsfield Twp Riverview Taylor Westland Detroit


TM‐10 Page 18

respectively(Figures3‐5and3‐6).ItisimportanttonotethatthevaluesintheseFiguresaretheannualaveragesateachlocationandthatnotalllocationshavefoursamplestakeninagivenyear.PittsfieldTownshipislocatedontheperipheryofDWSDssystemandreceiveswaterfromSpringwellsandSouthwest.TheWTPeffluentaveragesofthetwoWTPsthatprovidewatertothislocationwasapproximately15µg/Lin2011andapproximately12µg/Lin2012.TheincreaseinTTHMlevelsobservedin2011andtoalesserextentin2012islikelyaresultofthelongwateragestotraverseDWSDssystembetweentheeffluentoftheSpringwellsandSouthwestplants.Thisincreaseislikelyexacerbatedifwaterissuppliedonlyfromtheplantwiththelongerwaterage.However,astheLRAAiswellbelowtheMCL,DWSDanditswholesalesystemsarecurrentlyincompliance.ThespatialvariationinHAAlevelscannotbecompletelyascertainedastherearenodataavailablefortheWTPeffluents.However,someofthelocationswhichrecordedhighannualaveragesforTTHMsalsorecordedhighannualaveragesforHAAssuchastheMeijerGassamplinglocationinPittsfieldTownshipindicatingthepotentialforaspatialincreaseinHAAswithinthedistributionsystemattributabletolongerwaterages.Figures3‐7and3‐8showsthecombinedrunningannualaverageforeachHAAspeciesforthedistributionlocations.

Figure3‐3:TTHMLRAAforFirstQuarter2012


TM‐10 Page 19

Figure3‐4:HAALRAAforFirstQuarter2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1765 Telegraph Ave City Airport, Lynch and WoodDepartment of Public Works @31800 Meijer's Gas CVS Drugstore

Haloacetic Acid Concentration (ug/L)

1st Quarter 2012 LRAA ‐ HAAs

Cl3 AA Cl AA Br AA Cl2 AA Br2 AA


TM‐10 Page 20

Figure3‐5:YearlyAverageTTHMsatDistributionSystemLocationsin2011


TM‐10 Page 21

Figure3‐6:YearlyAverageTTHMsatDistributionSystemLocationsin2012


TM‐10 Page 22

Figure3‐7:YearlyAverageHAAsatDistributionSystemLocationsin2011


TM‐10 Page 23

Figure3‐8:YearlyAverageHAAsatDistributionSystemLocationsin2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Total H

aloacetic Acid Concentration (ug/L)

2012 Avg ‐ HAAs

Cl3 AA Cl AA Br AA Cl2 AA Br2 AA


TM‐10 Page 24

BromideandbromatelevelswereanalyzedfortheWaterWorksParkWTPfor2012.AsWaterWorksParkusesozonethepotentialforbromateformationexistsduetoreactionsbetweentherawwaterbromideandozone.AsshowninFigure3‐9,formationofbromateisbelowtheMCLof10g/L.Formationofbromateappearstobehighlytemperaturedependentasbromatelevelsincreaseduringthewarmerwatersummermonths.DuringcoldwatermonthsbetweenOctoberandApril,non‐detectvalueswererecorded.

Figure3‐9:MonthlyBromideandBromateatWaterWorksParkFinishedWaterin2012

3.1.5 DBP Precursors

TotalorganiccarbonDBPprecursorsarelowinDWSDssourcewater.Figures3‐10and3‐11depictthemonthlyTOCvaluesintherawwaterandtreatedwaterofeachofDWSDsplantsfor2010‐2013.TherawwaterTOCvaluesfortheBelleIsle(servesWaterWorksPark,Springwells,andNortheast)onafour‐yearaveragebasisis1.82mg/L.FortheFightingIslandintake(servesSouthwest),thefour‐yearaverageTOCvaluebetween2010and2013is1.95mg/LandfortheLakeHuronintakethefour‐yearaverageis1.55mg/L.Onafour‐yearaveragebasisthefiveWTPsremoved24%,22%,23%,22%,and11%ofinfluentTOCfortheWaterWorksPark,Springwells,Northeast,Southwest,andLakeHuronWTPs,respectively.TheFightingIslandintakehadTOCgreaterthan2mg/LasamonthlyaverageinFebruarywithamaximumvalueof3.2mg/L.

TheStage1DisinfectantsandDisinfectionBy‐ProductsRule(Stage1Rule)doesnotrequireaTOCremovalintreatmentprocessesifthesourcewaterrunningannualaverageTOCisbelow2.0mg/L.Despitethesingle2013highreadingattheSouthwestWTP,DWSDisnotrequiredtoremoveTOCduringtheirtreatmentprocesses.ContinuedmonitoringofTOCisrecommendedtotrackifTOClevelsinthesourcewaterarechangingovertimeasthiswillsignificantlyimpactthetreatmentrequirements.UndertheStage1Rule25%TOCremovalisrequiredforplantswithrawwaterTOCbetween2.0and4.0mg/Landarawwateralkalinitybetween60and120mg/LasCaCO3,therangeforDWSDssourcewateralkalinity.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bromate ug/L

Bromide ug/L

Bromide and Bromate at WWP 2012

Bromide (ug/L)

Bromate (ug/L)[ND = (< 1 ug/L)]


TM‐10 Page 25

Figure3‐10:MonthlyTOCConcentrationsinDWSDSourceWaters,Averageof2010to2013withMaximumandMinimumValues

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

TOC (mg/L as C)

Monthly TOC Readings in Source Waters (2010 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron Fighting Island Belle Isle


TM‐10 Page 26

Figure3‐11:MonthlyTOCConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters,Averageof2010to2013withMaximumandMinimumValues3.1.6 pH

pHdataarecollectedmonthlyonsourceandsomefinishedwatersaspartofthemineralsuiteofanalyses(Figures3‐12and3‐12).AdditionaldataaregenerateddailyateachwatertreatmentplantandreportedintheMonthlyOperationsReport(MOR)totheMDEQ.ThehighpHvalueobservedinthemonthlydatafromApril2011dataatLakeHuronisnotconfirmedbythedailydata.TheMORindicatesapHrangeof8.1to8.2forthatmonth.ThelowpHvalueobservedinthemonthlydatafromAugust2012atBelleIsleisalsonotconfirmedbythedailydata.Perthatdataset,thepHisreportedasrangingfrom8.0to8.5.Therefore,thesevaluesfromeitherthemonthlyordailydataaresuspect.

Inthefinishedwater,onlythreeofthefivewatertreatmentplantsarecurrentlyanalyzedforpHperthemonthlydataset.Themonthlydatarangefrom7.2to8.2.ThisvariabilityisobservedtoalesserextentinthedailydatafromtheMORswherepHismonitoredinthefinishedwater.ImprovingtheconsistencyofthefinishedwaterqualityintermsofpHhasthepotentialtoimprovedistributionsystemcorrosion,chlorinespeciationandresidualstability,DBPformationandotherfactors.FurtherevaluationofpHvariabilityandstabilizationoffinishedwaterqualityisrecommended.

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2


TOC (mg/L as C)

Average Monthly TOC Readings in Finished Waters (2010 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron Southwest Northeast Springwells Water Works Park


TM‐10 Page 27

Figure3‐12:MonthlypHinDWSDSourceWaters

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50pH

pH for DWSD Source Waters 2011‐2012



TM‐10 Page 28

Figure3‐13:MonthlypHConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters

3.1.7 Alkalinity

Alkalinityismeasuredmonthlyaspartofthesetofmineralanalyzesinboththesourceandsomefinishedwaters(Figures3‐14and3‐15).ItisalsomeasuredaspartoftheLCRwaterqualityparametermonitoring,whenTOCiscollectedandsometimesduringcustomercomplaintinvestigations.Alkalinityinthesourcewatervariesfrom80to100mg/L.SimilartopH,thehighvalueofover120mg/LalkalinityobservedinJanuary,2012isnotconfirmedbythedailydata.Inthefinishedwaters,alkalinityvariesfrom70to105mg/L.ThemineralanalysissetsareonlymonitoredatthreeoftheWTPS.Alkalinityisalsomeasureddailyattheindividualtreatmentplants.

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50pH

pH for DWSD Finished Waters 2011‐2012

Lake Huron Southwest Water Works Park


TM‐10 Page 29

Figure3‐14:MonthlyAlkalinityConcentrationsinDWSDSourceWaters

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130Alkalinity (m

g/L as CaCO3)

Alkalinity for DWSD Source Waters 2011‐2012



TM‐10 Page 30

Figure3‐15:MonthlyAlkalinityConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters3.1.8 Hardness

Totalhardnessismeasuredmonthlyaspartofthesetofmineralanalyzesinboththesourceandsomefinishedwaters(Figures3‐16and3‐17).Hardness,bothtotalandnon‐carbonate,isalsomeasureddailyattheindividualtreatmentplants.Hardnessinthesourcewatervariesfrom100to120mg/L.SimilartopHandalkalinity,thehighvalueofover130mg/LhardnessobservedinJanuary,2012isnotconfirmedbythedailydata.However,itisnotedthattheseparameterswereallhighinthesamesamplesuggestingthateitherthissamplecapturedauniquesetofwaterqualityorthatthesampleprocedurewascompromised.Inthefinishedwaters,hardnessvariesfrom100to115mg/L.TheSouthwestwatertreatmentplantshowshighexcursionsof130toover160mg/L.Thesehighvaluesdonotreflectthesourcewaterdata.Eitherthereisanadditionalsourceofhardnessbeingcontributedbythetreatmentprocessorthedataaresuspect.

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110Alkalinity (m

g/L as CaCO3)

Alkalinity for DWSD Finished Waters



TM‐10 Page 31

Figure3‐16:MonthlyHardnessConcentrationsinDWSDSourceWaters

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140Hardness (m

g/L as CaCO3)

Hardness for DWSD Source Waters 2011‐2012



TM‐10 Page 32

Figure3‐17:MonthlyHardnessConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters3.1.9 Corrosion Indices

LeadandCopperRuledataandcomplianceisdiscussedinTM‐9DrinkingWaterRegulationsPresentandFuture.Detroithashadchallengeswithleadlevelsinthepast.BecausetheexactnatureofthepipingmaterialsinthevariousDWSDcustomercommunitiesisnotknown,acompletepictureoftheoriginsoftheleadreadingsisdifficulttoascertain.However,alimitedassessmentcanbemadebasedonthenatureofthefinishedwaterqualityreceivedbyeachcommunity.Thirty‐ninetotalcommunitiesreportedleaddataotherthanzero.Ofthose39communities15receivedwaterfromSouthwest,6fromSpringwells,7fromNortheast,6fromLakeHuron,2frombothLakeHuronandNortheast,2frombothSpringwellsandSouthwest,and1fromWaterWorksPark,Springwells,andNortheast(Detroit).

AnanalysisofwatercorrosivitywasconductedusingtheWTPs’finishedwaterqualitiesfor2011and2012usingthemonthlymineralanalyzes.AveragedataforbothyearsfortheLakeHuron,Southwest,andWaterWorksParkWTPswascalculated.NomineraldataarereportedfortheNortheastandSpringwellsWTPs.Acommercialsoftwarepackage,WaterPRO,wasutilizedtocalculateseveralindustryacceptedstandardsforanalysisofwatercorrosivity.WaterPROusestotaldissolvedsolids(TDS,mg/L),calcium(mg/L),totalalkalinity(mg/LasCaCO3),pH,watertemperature,chloride(mg/L),sulfate(mg/L),andmagnesium(mg/L)asinputs.WiththeseinputsWaterPROcancalculatethefollowingcorrosionindices:

LangelierSaturationIndex(LSI):Recommendedvaluesbetween0.2and0.3,valuesabovethismaycauseexcessprecipitationofcalciumcarbonateandvaluesbelowarepotentiallycorrosive.

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Hardness (mg/L as CaC

O3)

Hardness for DWSD Finished Waters 2011‐2012



TM‐10 Page 33

CalciumCarbonatePrecipitationPotential(CCPP):Recommendedvaluesbetween4and10mg/LasCaCO3.Thisparameterindicatesthedegreetowhichcalciumcarbonatewillprecipitate,valuesbelowzerowilltendtodissolvecalciumcarbonateandcanbeconsideredcorrosive,whilevaluesabovezerowilldepositvaryingdegreesofcalciumcarbonatefilm,generallyconsideredtoyieldresistancetocorrosion.

Larson’sRatio:TheLarson’sRatioistheratioofalkalinitytothesumofthechlorideandsulfateconcentrations.TheLarsonRatioisusedwhenassessingthecorrosivenessofwatertoironandpotentiallylead.Dependingonthesource,aLarson’sRatioofabove2.0istargetedasanoptimalrange(Imranetal.,2005).Valuesbelow2.0areconsideredcorrosivewhereasabove2.0thewatersareconsiderednon‐corrosiveintheabsenceofotherparameterswhichmayrenderthewatercorrosive.

Tables3‐3,3‐4and3‐5showtheinputdataenteredintoWaterPROtoassessthecorrosivityoftheDWSDfinishedwater.

Table 3‐3: Summary of Input Data for WaterPRO for Water Works Park WTP

Parameter Units Spring Summer Fall Winter

TDS mg/L 144 157 139 134

Calcium mg/L 28 26 26 26

Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 82 79 85 87

pH ‐‐ 7.52 7.46 7.45 7.28

Temperature oC 11.5 23.2 17.8 9.5

Chloride mg/L 8.5 9.1 9.1 10.2

Sulfate mg/L 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2

Magnesium mg/L 8.2 7.7 7.6 8.1

Table 3‐4: Summary of Input Data for WaterPRO for Lake Huron WTP


TDS mg/L 123 140 123 118



pH ‐‐ 7.65 7.64 7.51 7.51

Temperature oC 13.6 22.4 19.9 13.7

Chloride mg/L 6.7 8.8 8.7 8.7

Sulfate mg/L 25.4 21.8 32.6 44.5



TM‐10 Page 34

Table 3‐5: Summary of Input Data for WaterPRO for Southwest WTP


TDS mg/L 152 146 136 133



pH ‐‐ 7.59 7.66 7.36 7.44

Temperature oC 9.4 22.9 16.4 4.70

Chloride mg/L 9.8 9.8 10.4 11.0

Sulfate mg/L 39.1 26.7 32.8 36.6


BasedonthecorrosionindicescalculatedfortheinputdatalistedinTables3‐3,3‐4and3‐5,theoutputresultsinTables3‐6,3‐7and3‐8showthattheeffluentfortheDWSDwaterplantsisintherangeofindicesthatcouldbeconsideredcorrosiveastheyarebelow0.2forLSIandbelow4.0mg/LasCaCO3forCCPP.TheLarson’sRatiofortheLakeHuronWTPisacceptableduringthespringandsummer;theSouthwestWTPalsoshowsacceptableLarson’sRatiovaluesduringthesummer.However,fortherestoftheyearfortheSouthwestandLakeHuronandforallseasonsinvestigatedatWaterWorksPark,theLarson’sRatioisbelowtheoptimumvalueof2.0.Theseresultsareconsistentwithintermittentreportsofrustywaterinthedistributionsystem.Unlinedcastironpipeandareasofhighwateragearethemostpronetorustywater.Inaddition,highwateragecanalterthewaterqualityandthusimpactthecorrosionindices.Distributionsystemwaterqualitywasnotavailabletoperformcorrosionanalysesandtocomparetofinishedwater.Forallplantstheindicesdecreasesubstantiallyundercolderwaterconditions.

DespitethegreaterincidenceofleadreadingsattheSouthwestplantbasedonthe90thpercentiledata,waterfromtheSouthwestWTPisnotmorecorrosivethantheotherWTPfinishedwater,basedonanalysisofthecorrosionindicesalone.Asaresult,theremaynotbecorrelationbetweentheleadlevelsandfinishedwaterqualitywhenonlyanalyzingthosetwoparametersalone.Otherfactorsmayplayagreaterrole.Itisrecommendedthattheuseofphosphateasacorrosioninhibitortocontrolleadisappropriate.

Table 3‐6 Summary of Output Data for WaterPRO for Water Works Park WTP

Parameter Units Reference Value

Spring Summer Fall Winter

pH ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.52 7.46 7.45 7.28

LSI ‐‐ 0.2 – 0.3 ‐0.63 ‐0.58 ‐0.62 ‐0.91

CCPP mg/L as CaCO3

4.0 – 10.0 ‐9.42 ‐8.12 ‐9.93 ‐19.7

Larson’s Ratio

NA > 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.9


TM‐10 Page 35

Table 3‐7: Summary of Output Data for WaterPRO for Lake Huron WTP



pH ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.65 7.64 7.51 7.51

LSI ‐‐ 0.2 – 0.3 ‐0.49 ‐0.36 ‐0.54 ‐0.64

CCPP mg/L as CaCO3

4.0 – 10.0 ‐6.14 ‐4.46 ‐7.97 ‐9.56

Larson’s Ratio

NA > 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.4

Table 3‐8: Summary of Output Data for WaterPRO for Southwest WTP



pH ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.59 7.66 7.36 7.44

LSI ‐‐ 0.2 – 0.3 ‐0.54 ‐0.34 ‐0.71 ‐0.77

CCPP mg/L as CaCO3

4.0 – 10.0 ‐8.34 ‐4.23 ‐13.5 ‐16

Larson’s Ratio

NA > 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.8

ExaminationofthefiguresinSection3illustratesthevariabilityinsomeofthewaterqualityparametersthatimpactcorrosionindices.AssumingallotherwaterqualityparametersremainthesameanincreaseinhardnessresultsinanincreaseintheLSIandCCPPwithnoeffectontheLarson’sRatio.IncreasingalkalinitycausestheLSItoincrease,theCCPPtodecrease,andtheLarson’sRatiotoincrease.IncreasingpHleadstoanincreaseinboththeLSIandCCPPwithnochangeintheLarson’sRatio.Thefluctuationsobservedthroughouttheyearinthefinishedandrawwatermaythusimpactthecorrosivityofthewater,howeveradditionaldataoncorrosionobservationsisrequiredtoconfirmordisprovethisobservation.

WhilemonthlymineraldatawerenotavailableforSpringwellsandNortheast,thefinishedwaterforthoseplantshasaslightlyloweralkalinitythanWaterWorksPark.Asdiscussedpreviously,foradecreaseinalkalinityandassumingallotherwaterqualityparametersarethesameasWaterWorksPark,theLSIisslightlylowered,howevertheCCPPincreasesslightly.

3.1.10 Plankton and Algae

DWSDhasindicatedtheirconcernwithCyanobacteria(blue‐greenalgae)intherawwateroftheirWTPs,specificallyatFightingIslandintaketotheSouthwestWTP.Planktondata,includingblue‐greenalgaecounts,isanalyzedonatwiceperweekbasisintheWTPs’rawwaters.SincetwooftheseWTPsreceivewaterwithasignificantchlorinecontacttime(NortheastandSpringwells),thoseresultswouldbeexpectedtobelowduetodegradationofthealgalcells.Figure3‐17andFigure3‐18showthemonthlyaverageCyanobacteriaconcentrationsfortheLakeHuron,BelleIsle(WaterWorksPark)andFightingIsland(Southwest).Datarecordedbetween2005and2013wereanalyzed.LakeHurondataarediscussedinSection6.

Cyanobacteriacountsaretypicallylow.AttheFightingIslandintake,cyanobacteriaaverageinsingledigitswithpeakvaluesofupto100/mL.However,verbalreportsfromstaffatSouthwestindicatedthatupto60%ofthetotalalgaeareCyanobacteriaduringthesummermonths.Actinomyceteshas


TM‐10 Page 36

alsobeenreportedtobepresentandtocausetasteandodor,butnodatawereavailable.AttheBelleIsleintake,cyanobacteriaarenotusuallyinsevenmonthsoftheyearonaverage.TheyaredetectedinFebruary,March,April,MayandSeptemberwithaveragecountsbelow20permL.Thepeakresultreportedwas300permLinMarch.

ThereisnoEPAprimaryorsecondarystandardforCyanobacteria,howevertominimizetheimpactonwaterqualityCyanobacteriacountsarerecommendedtobebelow1,000counts/mL(Kawamura,2000).Overtheeightyearsofinvestigation,DWSDisconsistentlybelowthisrecommendation.BloomsofthisalgaehavebeenreportedontheCanadiansideoftheDetroitRiverbuthavenotyetreachedtheDWSDintakesaccordingtoDWSD’sdata.Vigilanceinmonitoringthisorganismisrecommended.

DWSDhasalsoreportedlargeclumpsoffilamentousalgaeontheflocculationpaddlesatSpringwellsinthepast.Thesealgaewerebleachedindicatingthattheyhadbeendamagedbythechlorinecontacttime.ThealgaewereidentifiedasCladaphora,SpirogyraandLynbia.

Figure3‐17:MonthlyCyanobacteriaConcentrationsinBelleIsleIntakeWater

0

16 18

2 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Cyanobacteria # per 1 m

L

Belle Isle Average Cyanobacteria Counts (2010 ‐ 2013)


TM‐10 Page 37

Figure3‐18:MonthlyCyanobacteriaConcentrationsinFightingIslandIntakeWater

3.1.11 Aluminum

AluminumisregulatedundertheEPAsecondarystandards(seeTM‐9DrinkingWaterRegulationsPresentandFuture).AluminumismonitoredmonthlyinboththesourcewatersandthefinishedwatersatthreeoftheWTPsaspartofthe“mineral”setofanalyses.AluminumisalsoimportanttoevaluateasDWSDusesalumforcoagulation.ExcessaluminumfromeitherthesourcewaterorcoagulationcancreateprecipitationissuessuchasobservedinthepastatSpringwellsWTP.Thesourcewateraluminumconcentrationsvaryovertimeandcanbesignificant(Figure3‐19).Aluminuminthefinishedwatersislowerbutdoessometimesexceedthesecondarystandardof0.2mg/L(Figure3‐20).

2 5

3 2 3 6

1 2 2

1 4 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Cyanobacteris # per mL

Fighting Island Average Cyanobacteria Counts (2008‐2009, 2011 ‐ 2013)


TM‐10 Page 38

Figure3‐19:MonthlyAluminumConcentrationsinSourceWaters

Figure3‐20:MonthlyaluminumConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters

3.1.12 Iron

Ironsamplesarecollectedmonthlyfromthesourcewatersandthreeofthewatertreatmentplantsaspartofthemineralanalysisset.IronisregulatedundertheEPAsecondarystandards(seeTM‐9DrinkingWaterRegulationsPresentandFuture).Ironisimportantasanaestheticissueascustomerswillnoticediscoloredwateriftheconcentrationisabovetherecommendedlimitof0.2mg/L.InDWSD’ssourcewaters,ironvariesupto1.1mg/L(Figure3‐21).Inthefinishedwaters,ironisoftenbelow0.2mg/LbutdoeshavesomehigherexcursionsatbothLakeHuronandWaterWorksPark(Figure3‐22).

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Aluminum m

g/L

Monthly Averages 2012

Aluminum in DWSD Raw Water Sources 2012

Lake Huron

Fighting Island

Belle Isle

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Aluminum m

g/L


Aluminum in DWSD Finished Waters 2012

Lake Huron

Southwest

Water Works Park


TM‐10 Page 39

Figure3‐21:MonthlyIronConcentrationsinSourceWaters

Figure3‐22:MonthlyIronConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters

3.1.13 Manganese

Manganesesamplesarecollectedmonthlyfromthesourcewatersandthreeofthewatertreatmentplantsaspartofthemineralanalysisset.ManganeseisregulatedundertheEPAsecondarystandards(seeTM‐9DrinkingWaterRegulationsPresentandFuture).Manganeseisimportantasanaestheticissueascustomerswillnoticediscoloredwateriftheconcentrationisabovetherecommendedlimitof0.05mg/L.InDWSD’ssourcewaters,manganesevariesupto0.012mg/L(Figure3‐23).Inthefinishedwaters,manganeseislessthan0.003mg/L(Figure3‐24).ManganesedoesnotappeartobeissueforDWSD’ssourceandfinishedwaters.

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Iron m

g/L


Iron in DWSD Raw Water Sources 2012

Lake Huron

Fighting Island

Belle Isle

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Iron m

g/L


Iron in DWSD Finished Waters 2012

Lake Huron

Southwest

Water Works Park


TM‐10 Page 40

Figure3‐23:MonthlyManganeseConcentrationsinSourceWaters

Figure3‐24:MonthlyManganeseConcentrationsinDWSDFinishedWaters

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Man

ganese m

g/L


Manganese in DWSD Raw Water Sources 2012

Lake Huron

Fighting Island

Belle Isle

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Man

ganese m

g/L


Manganese in DWSD Finished Waters 2012

Lake Huron

Southwest

Water Works Park


TM‐10 Page 41

3.1.14 Taste and Odor

In1990,DWSDreceivedover400customercallsoftasteandodorinoneday.Theodorwasdeterminedtoberelatedtotheinvasionofzebramusselsandtheirresultingimpactonalgalpopulations.BothgeosminandMIB(2‐methylisoborneol)weredetectedinthedrinkingwater.TheseodorsaretypicallyassociatedwithActinomycetesandCyanobacteriablooms.Whilethisodorissueresolveditselfafteracoupleofyears,thepotentialforareoccurrenceremainsaconcern.Tasteandodorarenotacurrentissue,butitisrecommendedthatcontinuedassessmentandvigilancebeconducted.

4.0 Staff Organization WaterqualitymonitoringisperformedbythewaterqualitygroupandbystaffateachWTP.TheWaterMasterPlansNeedsAssessmentSurvey(2013)requestedadescriptionofstaffateachfacility.Pertheresultsofthissurvey,thefollowingpositionswereidentifiedasperformingwaterqualityanalysesandtheirapproximatepercentoftimeperformingwaterqualityislisted:

WaterQualityDivisionManagerII(one–100%)

PrincipalAnalyticalChemist(one–100%)

SeniorAnalyticalChemist(one–100%)

Microbiologist(one–100%)

SeniorWaterDistributionSystemInvestigator(one–100%)

WaterSystemInvestigator(two_100%)

AssistantWaterSystemInvestigator(one–100%)

SeniorChemist(fourpereachwaterplant,80%atLakeHuronWTPand65%atotherWTPs)

Thisorganizationcreatesatotalstaffof21.6FTE(fulltimeequivalent)waterqualitypersonnelwhenadjustedforpercentoftimespentonwaterquality.Remainingtimeisspentonplantoperationsandmaintenance.

InastudyconductedbyCDMSmithin2012,acomparisonofpopulationservedversusnumberofwaterqualitystaffwasevaluated.Asignificantcorrelationwasobservedbetweentheseparametersbasedonthesevenutilitiessurveyed(Figure4‐1).Thiscorrelationisbasedonthesizeofthepopulationserved.DWSDservesapproximately3.6millionpeople.DWSDperformsallwaterqualityanalysesfortheWTPsbutonlyforaportionofthedistributionsystem.Therefore,thepopulationwasadjusteddownwardsto80to90percentofthetotalpopulationservedtoallowfortheportionsofthedistributionsystemwhicharemonitoredbythewholesalecommunitiesratherthanDWSD.Usingthiscorrelation,itisestimatedthat30to34FTE’swouldbeanappropriatestaffinglevelforDWSDwaterqualitypersonnel.Thissurveydidnotethattwooftheutilitieswereplanningonastaffincreaseinthenearfuture.ComparingthecurrentFTE’stothepredictedFTE’s,itisobservedthatDWSDstaffmaybelowby8to12FTE’s.

ItisalsorecommendedthatateamofwaterqualitypersonnelformthewaterqualitygroupandallWTPsbeestablishedtofacilitatediscussionandcoordinationofactivities.Wholesalecommunityrepresentativescouldalsobeincludedwhenrelevanttopicsareaddressed.


TM‐10 Page 42

Figure4‐1:FTEversusPopulationforSurveyedUtilities

5.0 Recommendations on Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Thefollowingrecommendationsandprojectsareofferedrelatingtowaterqualitymonitoringandassessment.Theserecommendationsarenotnecessarilyinorderofpriority.CapitalprojectsarelistedinTable5‐1.ItisrecommendedthatDWSD:

Reviewwaterqualitygoalsandupdatetobemorecomprehensiveofregulationsandaesthetics.Considermoreglobalapproachthatincludeswholesalesystemsorwaterqualityatthepointsofentry.

ImplementthemonitoringrecommendationsprovidedinTable2‐1.

Developandimplementaplantoreviewandtrenddataroutinely.Establishandutilizecontrollimitsforkeyparameters.

Documentallsamplingplansandupdateannually

Reviewcurrentsamplingplansperrecommendations.

Completespecialstudieson

o Zebramusselimpactonwaterquality

o Aluminumoccurrenceandminimization

o Occurrenceofmicrocystin

o UV254absorbanceandUVtransmittancepriortoanyUVdisinfectioninstallation

Developacoordinatedteamthatincludesrepresentativesfromeachplantandthewaterqualitygroup.Considerrepresentativesfromwholesalecommunities.


TM‐10 Page 43

Developaprogramandcostsforprovidinglabservicestowholesalecustomers.

ConsiderparticipationinQualserveandintheDistributionSystemOptimizationprogramsofferedbyAWWA.

RehabthelabsatSpringwells,NortheastandSouthwest.ThisassumesthatthelabrehabatSpringwellsiscurrentlyinprocess.LongertermimprovementsmayberequiredatLakeHuron.

AcquireandimplementaLIMSorotherelectronicmeansofroutinelycapturingalldataandfacilitatingdatasharingamongDWSDfacilitiesandwholesalecommunities.

Addonlineinstrumentstoplantsasneeded(thiswillbefurtherdevelopedinphase2oftheproject).

Monitormicrocystin,MIBandgeosminwhenalgaeblooms

Re‐evaluatethepotentialforusinginstalleddistributionsystemsamplingstationsatselectlocationsinthedistributionsystem

Table 5‐1: Potential Water Quality Capital Projects

Project Study Cost Capital Cost FTEs Schedule Short or Long Term

Rehab lab at Southwest (partial)

$0 $300,000 Short

Rehab lab at Lake Huron $0 $500,000 Long

Rehab lab at Springwells $0 $400,000 Short

Rehab lab at Northeast $0 $500,000 Short

Install distribution system dedicated sampling stations

$0 $500,000 Long

Implement LIMS $0 $500,000 1 FTE Long

Implement monitoring and study recommendations

$0 $0 1 FTE Short

Add online instrumentation as recommended

$0 TBD phase 2 0.25 FTE Short

6.0 Evaluation of Potential for Direct Filtration at Lake Huron WTP InordertomoreefficientlyoperatetheLakeHuronWTPandcreatepotentialcostsavings,DWSDisinterestedinconvertingthistreatmentplantfrommodifieddirectfiltrationtodirectfiltration.Directfiltrationisdefinedby10‐StatesStandardsandadoptedbytheMDEQas“aseriesofprocesses,includingcoagulationandfiltration,butexcludingsedimentation,resultinginsubstantialparticulateremoval”.TheLakeHuronWTPcurrentlyoperatesasa“modified”directfiltrationfacility.TheWTPfeedsalumcoagulantandacoagulantaidpolymerupstreamofsettlingbasins.However,thesesettlingbasinsdonotprovidesufficientdetentiontimeorroutinesludgeremoval.Filteraidpolymeristhenaddedimmediatelyupstreamofthefiltersasneeded.Whilenotatruedirectfiltrationprocess,


TM‐10 Page 44

theWTPdoesnotoperateasatruepre‐treatmentfacilityeither.FurtherdiscussionoftheexistingLakeHurontreatmentprocessisprovidedinTM‐13WaterTreatmentPlantNeedsAssessment.

6.1 Introduction ThismemorandumsummarizesareviewofwaterqualitydatafromtheLakeHuronWTPasafirststepinassessingthefeasibilityofdirectfiltration.Datawhichimpactdirectfiltration,andwhichwerereviewedwherefeasible,include:

Turbidity

Planktoncounts(algae)

Totalorganiccarbon(TOC)

Microbials(Totalcoliform,E.coliandHPC)

Temperature

TotalSolids

Color

Chemicaldosages:alum,coagulantaidpolymer,andfilteraidpolymer

TheseparametersarebasedonMDEQand10‐StatesStandardsrecommendeddata.ColordatawerenotavailableforreviewasDWSDdoesnotmonitorcoloratanyoftheirWTPsorsources.TheabovedatawerecompiledfortheLakeHuronsourcewaterandtheWTPtreatedwatertocomparewithindustrybenchmarksforwaterqualityrequirementsfordirectfiltration.AdditionalwaterqualitydataarepresentedinSection3.

ThismemorandumdoesnotincludeareviewofLakeHuronWTPoperatingparametersforassessmentofdirectfiltrationfeasibility.Thememorandumconcludeswithrecommendationsandnextstepsrequiredtopursuedirectfiltrationfurther.

6.2 Review of Water Quality Data Directfiltrationisgenerallyfeasibleforsourcewaterswithminimalrawwaterturbiditiessuchthattheadditionalsolidsloadingonthefilterswillnotimpactfilteroperations.OtherWTPsusingLakeHuronsourcewatercurrentlyoperateasdirectfiltrationfacilitiessuchastheLakeHuronWTPfortheCityofLondon,Ontario.AtthatWTP,diatomswerereportedasaparameterimpactingthedirectfiltrationprocessesatthatplant(Foley,1981).ThefollowingillustraterelevantdatafortheLakeHuronWTP:

Figure6‐1showsthemaximumdailyturbidityvaluesfortheLakeHuronsourcewateronamonthlybasisfortheperiodof2005and2013.

Figure6‐2showsthedailyturbidityreadingsfortheLakeHuronsourcewateraveragedonamonthlybasisbetween2005and2013

Figure6‐3showsafrequencyplotofallmaximumdailyturbidityreadingsfortheLakeHuronsourcewaterbetween2005and2013.

Figure6‐4presentsallmonthlyTOCdataforLakeHuronsourcewaterandtreatedwaterbetween2010and2013


TM‐10 Page 45

Figure6‐5showsafrequencyplotofallmonthlyTOCdatafortheLakeHuronsourcewaterandtreatedwater

Figure6‐6illustratesthemonthlyaverageblue‐greenalgaeanddiatomcountsfortheLakeHuronsourcewaterfortheperiodof2005to2013.Maximumvaluesarealsoshownonthechart.

Figure6‐7presentsafrequencyplotofallblue‐greenalgaecountsanddiatomcountsfortheperiodof2005through2013.

Figure6‐8presentsthetotalcoliformdata

Figure6‐9presentstheHPCdata

Figure6‐10andFigure6‐11showalumandcoagulantaidpolymerdosages,respectively.

TheresultsofFigures6‐1to6‐11plussomeadditionaldataaresummarizedinTable6‐1.

Figure6‐1:MaximumDailyTurbidityValues‐LakeHuronSourceWater2005to2013

8.6

18.0

19.4

15.0

19.5

11.6

17.0

6.4

5.6

20.0

21.8

20.0

5.4

12.0

8.9

3.5

1.9

2.8

1.3

2.1

1.11.5

5.3

3.8

2.9

4.6

2.8

1.81.3

1.6 1.4

0.70.5

2.0

3.1

20.0

14.0

19.4

13.0

3.8

1.7

2.83.1

4.9

9.8

16.0

11.0

5.8 5.9 5.9

12.2

4.5

1.6 1.61.3

1.0 1.1

0.40.9

9.4

13.0

15.0

3.6

2.01.7

1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1

6.6

20.020.0

14.4

19.0

8.2

19.5

11.6

17.0

6.4

5.6

14.0

4.34.7

5.6

7.8

4.4

11

7.4

4

1.11.6

20

21.8

18

6.5

18

19

13.8

8.6

5.4

0

5

10

15

20

25


Turbidity (NTU

)

Lake Huron WTP Max Daily Turbidity Readings (2005 ‐ 2013)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


TM‐10 Page 46

Figure6‐2:DailyTurbidityReadingsfortheLakeHuronSourceWater,AveragedonaMonthlyBasisbetween2005and2013

1.451.59 1.53

1.33

0.900.73

0.55 0.51 0.60

1.071.20

1.45

0.35 0.44 0.440.65

0.31 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.310.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00


Turbidity (NTU

)Lake Huron WTP Avg Daily Turbidity Readings (2005 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron Water Applied Water (to Filters) Filtered Water

JANMAX: 14.70

FEBMAX: 14.76

MARMAX: 13.32

APRMAX: 11.00

OCTMAX: 17.71

DECMAX: 18.88

NOVMAX: 11.58

MAYMAX: 6.70

JUNMAX: 3.98

JULMAX: 2.26

AUGMAX: 1.89

SEPMAX: 3.56


TM‐10 Page 47

Figure6‐3:FrequencyPlotofallMaximumDailyTurbidityReadings‐LakeHuronSourceWater,2005to2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25

% of Tim

e Exceed

ed

Turbidity (NTU)

Lake Huron WTP Max Daily Turbidity (2005 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron Water Turbidity

Applied Water Turbidity

Filtered Water Turbidity

MAX: 0.2 NTU MAX: 5.0 NTU MAX: 21.8 NTU

99th %'ile (NTU):Lake: 18 Settled: 2.1Filtered: 0.12

95th %'ile (NTU):Lake: 6.8 Settled: 0.95Filtered: 0.10



1st %'ile (NTU):Lake: 0.25 Settled: 0.15Filtered: 0.05


TM‐10 Page 48

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

% of Tim

e Exceed

ed

TOC (mg/L)

Lake Huron WTP TOC (2010 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron TOC(mg/L)

Treated Water TOC(mg/L)

Max (mg/L):Lake: 2.28 Treated: 1.95

Min (mg/L):Lake: 1.32Treated: 1.14

50th %'ile (mg/L):Lake: 1.49 Treated: 1.31

Figure6‐4:MonthlyTOCData‐LakeHuronSourceWaterandTreatedWater2010to2013

Figure6‐5:FrequencyPlotofallMonthlyTOCData‐LakeHuronSourceWaterandTreatedWater,2010to2013

1.581.56

1.461.48

1.51

1.351.32

1.49

1.44

1.51

1.47

1.43 1.44

1.56 1.57

1.51

1.581.55

2.28

1.36

1.46

1.70

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.15

1.27

1.37

1.26

1.22

1.38

1.311.34

1.21

1.31

1.14

1.30

1.26

1.64

1.42

1.31

1.95

1.37 1.36

1.50

1.30

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4TO

C (mg/L as C)

Lake Huron WTP Monthly TOC (2010 ‐ 2013)

Lake Huron Treated Water


TM‐10 Page 49

Figure6‐6:MonthlyAverageCyanobacteria(blue‐greenalgae)andDiatomCounts‐LakeHuronSourceWater,2005to2013(MaximumValuesarealsoShownontheChart)

137 13

219 12 17 15 11 8 10 11

2 0 2 9 7 513 10 5 4 2 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


# per m

LLake Huron WTP Avg Algae Concentrations (2005 ‐ 2013)

Diatoms Blue‐Green Algae

JANMAX: 140 (Diatoms)MAX: 60 (Blue Green)

FEBMAX: 0 (Diatoms)MAX: 90 (Blue Green)

MARMAX: 170 (Diatoms)MAX: 80 (Blue Green)

APRMAX: 220 (Diatoms)MAX: 330 (Blue Green)

MAYMAX: 140 (Diatoms)MAX: 410 (Blue Green)

JUNMAX: 160 (Diatoms)MAX: 500 (Blue Green)

JULMAX: 240 (Diatoms)MAX: 344 (Blue Green)

AUGMAX: 130 (Diatoms)MAX: 242 (Blue Green)

SEPMAX: 120 (Diatoms)MAX: 150 (Blue Green)

OCTMAX: 160 (Diatoms)MAX: 360 (Blue Green)

NOVMAX: 150 (Diatoms)MAX: 130 (Blue Green)

DECMAX: 120 (Diatoms)MAX: 100 (Blue Green)


TM‐10 Page 50

Figure6‐7:FrequencyPlotofallCyanobacteria(blue‐greenalgae)CountsandDiatomCountsLakeHuronSourceWater,2005to2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

% of Tim

e Exceeded

Count

Lake Huron Algae (2005 ‐ 2013)

Diatoms

Blue‐Green

99th %'ile:Diatoms: 160 Blue‐Green: 240



5th %'ile :Diatoms: 0 Blue‐Green: 0

1st %'ile:Diatoms: 0Blue‐Green: 0


TM‐10 Page 51

Figure6‐8presentsthemicrobialdatafortotalcoliformandFigure6‐9presentsfrequencydataforHPC.TotalcoliformandHPCsamplesareanalyzeddailyonthesourcewater.Thetotalcoliformresultsarelowandoftennon‐detectableduringthewinterandearlyspring.ThetotalcoliformconcentrationspeakduringAugustthroughOctoberreachingadailymaximumof345cfu/100mL.E.coliisnotmonitoredandsocouldnotbeassessed.HPCdatareachamaximumvalueofapproximately300permLwithasingleoutlierof785permL.AsdiscussedinTM‐8,DWSDhasnotdetectedGiardiaorCryptosporidiumintheLakeHuronwatersource.Thesourcewaterisofhighqualityintermsofmicrobialcontaminants.

Figure6‐8:MonthlyMaximumTotalColiform‐LakeHuron,2011to2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Max of Daily Values

#/100 m

L

Monthly MaximumTotal Coliform Lake Huron

2011

2012


TM‐10 Page 52

Figure6‐9:MonthlyMaximumTotalColiform‐LakeHuron,2011to2012

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

% of Tim

e Exceeded

Count

Lake Huron HPC (2005 ‐ 2013)

Raw Water HPC


TM‐10 Page 53

Figure6‐10showsthetemperaturefrequencyplot.Asistypicalinanorthernclimatethereisvariationintemperaturefrom0.5to26degreesC.

Figure6‐10:FrequencyPlotofTemperature‐LakeHuron,2005to2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

% of Time Exceed

ed

Temp (deg C)

Lake Huron Water Temperature (2005 ‐ 2013)

Water Temperature (deg C)


TM‐10 Page 54

Figures6‐11andFigure6‐12showalumandcoagulantaidpolymerdosages,respectively.Alumuseishigherinthewinter.Coagulantaiddosagesarerelativelyconstant.AfrequencyplotisshowninFigure6‐13.

Figure6‐11:MonthlyAverageAlumDosages‐LakeHuron,2005to2013(DataInclude2StandardDeviations)

1.051.10

1.02

0.88

0.770.71 0.68

0.73 0.75 0.74 0.73

0.84

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00


Alum (mg/L)

Lake Huron WTP Alum Dosage (2005 ‐ 2013)

Alum (mg/L)


TM‐10 Page 55

Figure6‐12:MonthlyAverageCoagulantAidDosages ‐ LakeHuron,2005to2013(Datainclude2StandardDeviations)

0.070.06

0.07

0.060.06

0.05

0.04 0.040.05

0.06 0.060.07

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30


Coagulant Aid (mh/L)

Lake Huron WTP Avg Daily Coagulant Aid Dosage (2005 ‐ 2013)


TM‐10 Page 56

Figure6‐13:FrequencyPlotofAlumandCoagulantDosages‐LakeHuron,2005to2013

Intermsofdiatomandcyanobacteria(blue‐greenalgae)counts,maximumvaluesarealsoimportant.Themaximumvaluefordiatomcountsof240permLoccursinJulyandthemaximumblue‐greenalgaecountof500permLoccursinJune.

Table6‐1showsthebenchmarkvaluesforeachparameterbasedonKawamura,2000.Basedonthebenchmarks,therawwaterqualityofLakeHuronissuitablefordirectfiltrationyear‐roundbasedonanassessmentofwaterqualityonly.Additionalparameterssuchascolorandalgalbiomassarealsocitedaskeyparametersfordirectfiltrationanalysis.FurtherstudyisrecommendedtoconfirmthevaluesoftheseparametersinLakeHuronWTPwater.

Table 6‐1: Summary of Relevant Water Quality Data and Direct Filtration Recommended Benchmarks

Parameter 50th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile

Kawamura (2000)

Benchmark Value

Lake Huron Turbidity (NTU)

0.85 6.8 18.0 Maximum

< 20.0

Lake Huron TOC

(mg/L as C) 1.49 1.70 2.28 (max) Maximum < 2.50

Diatom Counts (#/mL) 0 50 140 Maximum

< 1,000

Cyanobacteria (Blue‐Green Algae) Counts (#/mL)

0 40 260 Maximum

< 1,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

% of Time Exceeded

Dosage (mg/L)

Lake Huron WTP Coagulant Chemicals (2005 ‐ 2013)

Alum (mg/L)

Coagulant Aid (mg/L)


TM‐10 Page 57

6.3 Water Quality Correlations FromFigure6‐14,alumdosagetrendswithrawwaterturbiditiestoproducerelativelyconsistentsettledwaterturbidity.Thecoagulationandsettlingprocessremovedapproximately60‐75%ofrawwaterturbiditypriortofiltration.ThisislowcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentprocessesandislikelyduetothelackofadequatesettlingtimeandsludgeremovalatLakeHuron.However,duringthemonthofApril,thereisaslightupsetinthesettledwaterturbidity.Duringthesespringevents,DWSDusesafilteraidpolymertoimprovefiltrationperformance.

Diatomsareknowntobeparticularlydifficulttosettle,evenaftercoagulationoroxidation.However,despitetheperceivedminimaleffectofcoagulationondiatomremoval,coagulationandflocculationarestillrequiredtoproduceafilterableflocfordiatomandalgaeremovalbythefiltersinadirectfiltrationmode.Further,filteraidpolymeriscurrentlynotfedyear‐round;currentlyitisonlyfedfromNovemberthroughMay.Filteraidpolymersaretypicallyusedatdirectfiltrationfacilitiesandconversionofthefilterstodirectfiltrationmayrequirethischangeinoperations.AdditionoffilteraidpolymerduringthemonthsofJunethroughOctobershouldbeinvestigated.Further,alternativecoagulantssuchaspoly‐aluminumchloride,ferricsulfate,orferricchlorideshouldbeevaluatedinjartestsandatfull‐scaletoproduceafilterableflocbyDFatlowerdosagestoextendfilterrunsandlowerfilteredwaterturbidity.

Figure6‐14:ComparisonofSourceWaterTurbiditywithChemicalDosages‐LakeHuron,2005to2013

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00


Alum Dosage / Coagulant Aid Dosage (mg/L) / Turbidity (NTU

)

Lake Huron WTP Average Chemical Dosages with Average of Max Turbidity Readings (2005 ‐ 2013)

Alum (mg/L) Coagulant Polymer (mg/L) Lake Huron Water Turbidity

Settled Water Turbidity Filtered Water Turbidity


TM‐10 Page 58

Figure6‐15showstherelationshipbetweenchemicaladditionandTOCremoval.Thecoagulationandsettlingprocessremovedonly5‐20%ofrawTOClikelyduetothelackofadequatesettlingtimeandsludgeremovalexperiencedinatypicalconventionaltreatmentplant.BecauseDWSDsrawwaterTOCislessthan2.0mg/L,noremovalofTOCisrequiredbycoagulation.Fordirectfiltration,itmaybepossibletoremove10‐15%ofrawTOC,plusalgal‐derivedtasteandodorremovalbyoperatingfiltersinbiologicalmode.

Figure6‐15:ComparisonofTOCandChemicalDosages‐LakeHuron,2005to2013

6.4 Plant Capacity TheLakeHuronWaterTreatmentPlantiscurrentlyallowedanoperatingcapacityof400MGD.However,theMDEQhasindicatedthatthisisbasedonperformanceandnotonthetraditionaldefinitionofratedcapacity.Iftheplantcapacityweretoberatedastypicallydone,thecapacitywouldbelimitedto300MGD.HigherplantproductionrateswouldrequiredailyCTcalculations.MDEQwilllikelyre‐ratetheplantatthelowercapacityifDWSDdecidestopursueconvertingtheplanttodirectfiltration(personalcommunication,December2013).ThereforeanyfutureexpansionoftheLakeHuronWTPwouldneedtoincorporatetherevisedcapacityandanyincreasewouldneedtoincludethe100MGDreduction.PotentiallyademonstrationstudytoestablishplantfunctionallyatahighertreatmentratecouldbeconductedifMDEQconcurredwiththatpotentialapproach.


TM‐10 Page 59

7.0 Recommendations on Direct Filtration ThismemorandumhasrevieweddirectfiltrationfeasibilityattheLakeHuronWTPbasedonwaterqualityalone.Waterqualityappearstobecurrentlyacceptableforuseinadirectfiltrationtreatmentprocess.Thenextstepstopursuethisoptionaretoreviewthefollowingparameters:

1. MeetwiththeMDEQtoreviewanypilotordemonstrationworkrequirementsandcollectanyadditionaldatarequired.Whilenewwatertreatmentplantsarerequiredtoconductpilotstudiesper10‐States,convertinganexistingtreatmentplanttodirectfiltrationmayonlyrequirein‐plantdemonstrationstudies.

2. Reviewexistingtreatmentprocessesrelativetotypicaldirectfiltrationdesignparameters.Theseinclude:

a. Filterdesignparameters:mediatype,mediaconfiguration,filterloadingrate,maximumavailablefilteringheadandhistoricalfiltertreatmentperformancewhenoperatedinconventionalanddirectfiltrationmodesincludingfilterloadingrate,filterruntime,unitfilterrunvolumes,backwashfrequency,andheadlossaccumulationrates.Reviewoftheseparameterswillbeimportanttodeterminewhatupgradeswillberequired,ifany,toconverttoyear‐rounddirectfiltration..

b. Designandoperationalinformationasmentionedabovecanbecomparedagainstindustrybestpracticesfordirectfiltration.Forexample,experiencehasshownthatadeep‐bedcoarsemonomediafiltershouldhavegreatercapacitytocopewithalgalanddiatombloomswithreasonablefilterrunsthantraditionaldual‐mediabedswith1.0mmeffectivesizeanthracite.

c. Conductpilotand/orfull‐scaleevaluationsifrequiredtovalidateyear‐rounddirectfiltrationprocessatLakeHuron.Bench‐scaletestsshouldalsobeperformedtoscreenalternativecoagulantsandpolymersforcoldwatercoagulationtoproduceafilterablefloc.Polyaluminumchloride(PACL)maybeapromisingcoagulantforcoldwaterdirectfiltrationapplication.Filteraidsshouldalsobeconsideredforyear‐roundapplicationatlowdoses.

d. CompletesurveyofotherdirectfiltrationplantstreatingLakeHuronwatersuchastheLakeHuronplantreferencedinFoley,1981.

e. Basedontheoutcomesoftheabovesteps,prepareprocessdesigncriteriaandcostestimatesfordirectfiltrationupgradesforLakeHuronWTP.

8.0 References Foley,P.D.1981,ExperiencewithDirectFiltrationatOntario’sLakeHuronTreatmentPlant,JournalAWWA.

Kawamura,Susumu.IntegratedDesignofWaterTreatmentFacilities.JohnWileyandSons,NewYork;2ndEd,2000.

RecommendedStandardsforWaterWorks(10‐States),2012.

WaterPRO,Copyright1996–2011SchottSoftware.PublishedbyChemSW,Inc.

TM‐10 Page 60

Appendix A

DWSD Monitoring Schedule


TM‐10 Page 61


TM‐10 Page 62

TM‐10 Page 63

Appendix B

Detroit Customer Complaint Form

TM‐10 Page 64

Appendix C

Sample Siting Plan


TM‐10 Page 65


TM‐10 Page 66


TM‐10 Page 67


TM‐10 Page 68


TM‐10 Page 69


TM‐10 Page 70


TM‐10 Page 71


TM‐10 Page 72


TM‐10 Page 73

TM‐10 Page 74

Appendix D

DWSD LIMS General Requirements


TM‐10 Page 75


TM‐10 Page 76

tm 10: water quality assessment monitoring - detroitmi.gov section discusses the existing water...

Documents