LAKE ERIE
LAKE WIDE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Lake Erie Lake wide Management Plan (LaMP)
Technical Report Series
Impairment Assessment of Beneficial Uses:
Drinking Water Consumption Restrictions or
Taste and Odor Problems
Lisa Thorstenberg and Serge L'ltalien
1997
Lake Erie LaMP Technical Report No. 11

-------
Technical Report 11
Drinking Water Consumption Restrictions or
Taste and Odor Problem Restrictions
Prepared for the Lake Erie LaMP
Preliminary Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment
by Serge L'ltalien and Lisa Thorstenberg
April 1998
Team Members
Todd Howell, Ontario Ministry of Environment & Energy
Bob Sweet, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Joyce Mortimer, Health Canada
NOTE TO HI! READER:
This technical report was prepared as one component of Stage 1, or "Problem Definition"
for the Lake Erie LaMP. This report provides detailed technical and background
information that provides the basis for the impairment conclusions recorded in the Lake
Erie LaMP Status Report.
This document has been extensively reviewed by the government agencies that are
partnering to produce the LaMP, outside experts, and the Lake Erie LaMP Public Forum,
a group of approximately of 80 citizen volunteers. This review was designed to answer
two questions:
•	Is the document technically sound and defensible?
•	Do the reviewers agree with the document conclusions and format?
In its present form, this report has been revised to address the comments received during
that review process, and there is majority agreement with the impairment conclusions
presented.
1

-------
11.1	Listing Criteria
According to the International Joint Commission (IJC), a drinking water consumption
restriction impairment occurs when "treated water supplies are impacted to the extent
that:
1) densities of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous/toxic
chemicals or radioactive substances exceed human health standards, objectives or
guidelines;
2)	taste and odor problems are present; or
3)	treatment needed to make raw water suitable for drinking is beyond the standard
treatment used in comparable portions of the Great Lakes which are not degraded
(i.e. coagulation, settling, disinfection) (IJC, 1989).
11.2	Scope of Assessment
The geographic scope of the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) beneficial use
impairment assessment (BUIA) includes open lake waters, nearshore areas, river mouths
and embayments, and the lake effect zone of Lake Erie tributaries. The lake effect zone is
defined as that zone where the waters of the lake and the tributary river are mixed.
The Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment Subcommittee (BUIASC) further clarified the
scope of problem definition, as follows:
a)	Assessment covers treated drinking water from public systems, (i.e., municipal
water treatment facilities) with Lake Erie as a source.
b)	Two criteria must both be met for a taste and odor problem to be considered an
impairment.
-The problem must be persistent (more than a periodic problem for
several days at a time).
-If persistent, the problem is not correctable with standard treatment. In
other words, if a taste and odor problem persists due to lack of standard
treatment implementation, it is not an impairment. The real problem is not
Lake Erie, but lack of proper treatment.
c)	Impairments due to costs for zebra mussel monitoring and control were included in
the Added Costs to Agriculture and Industry assessment to avoid confusion. The
key issue in the Drinking Water assessment is human health, whereas the key issue
in the Added Costs assessment is cost. Zebra mussels are not causing human
2

-------
health problems.
The BUIASC evaluated drinking water standards, objectives, or guidelines established by
both the IJC and individual Lake Erie jurisdictions to determine if there were any
documented exceedances of human health standards. Taste and odor problems, where
reported, were evaluated with respect to IJC criteria and individual jurisdictional criteria,
where they exist.
11.3 Background
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
For drinking water, microbiological contamination is the major concern for human health.
As recently as the early 1900s, people died of typhoid fever after drinking communal
water contaminated by the bacterium Salmonella typhi. However, bacterial contamination
is generally no longer a problem in municipal water supplies due to chlorination at
drinking water treatment plants. (Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Health and
Environment: A Handbook for Health Professionals, Draft, 1995.)
Some protozoan parasites, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, may, however, form
cysts, which are resistant to chlorination. These cysts may persist for long periods of time
in natural waters. Giardia can cause an intestinal illness called giardiosis, and
Crytosporidium can cause a similar illness called crytosporidiosis. Municipal treatment of
drinking water includes filtration along with disinfection to reduce the risk of
contamination of treated drinking water. Giardia and Cryptosporidium are beginning to
be looked at more closely to determine the extent, if any, of contamination of drinking
water supplies.
In most cases, drinking water accounts for very little of our exposure to toxic or persistent
chemicals in the environment. However, in recent years, there has been a growing
awareness and concern over the presence of a wide range of chemical contaminants in
drinking water. Levels are extremely low (in the parts per trillion or parts per quadrillion
range), and at such low levels, their mere presence in drinking water does not necessarily
mean that there is any risk to health.
Chemical contaminants in drinking water may include naturally occurring chemicals (such
as arsenic and asbestos), radioactive materials (such as radon), and synthetic chemicals
from industrial effluents and emissions. Trihalomethanes may be formed during the
process of water chlorination or other treatment processes. Substances such as lead and
copper may come from the materials used in the water distribution system itself.
Drinking water guidelines and objectives have been developed to insure contaminants
remain far below the levels at which adverse health effects have been observed. This
assessment takes a look at contaminant levels and whether there are exceedances of the
3

-------
guidelines and objectives.
Taste and Odor Standards
Researchers have been studying taste and odor problems in drinking water supplies since
the beginning of this century. The results of these studies have identified various
organisms (including the phytoplankton genera Aphanizomenon, Anabaena. Microcystis.
and Dinobryon} which have either been responsible for or contributed to taste and odor
problems by producing methyl-iso-borneol (MIB), geosmin, and trichloroanisole . Several
treatment methods designed to mitigate taste and odors have also been investigated,
including the addition of copper sulfate and various chemical oxidants, as well as the
introduction of bacteria capable of metabolizing oil-like organic compounds.
11.4 Summary of Drinking Water Standards by Jurisdiction
11.4.1 U.S. Federal Standards
Drinking water protection standards in the U.S. are addressed by both the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The SDWA addresses both
protection of drinking water at the source and protection of human health through the
drinking water treatment process. Among other things, the Clean Water Act establishes
"designated uses" of surface waters, including use as drinking water sources.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments require that source water assessments be
performed on all sources of public drinking water supplies. The intent behind the
amendments is to build a system of prevention barriers to drinking water contamination.
Under these amendments, states are required to develop comprehensive Source Water
Assessment Programs (SWAPs) that will:
•	Identify the areas that supply public tap water;
•	Inventory contaminants and assess water system susceptibility to
contamination;
•	Inform the public of the results (USEPA, 1997).
These assessments on sources that have intakes in the Great Lakes present a unique
challenge. Some of these intakes extend far into a lake and receive no effects from
shoreline events, while other receive impacts from near land events. As of February
1998, the Great Lakes States were reviewing a preliminary draft proposed protocol for
performing these assessments (USEPA, 1998).
In addition to the 1996 SDWA amendments for drinking water source protection, at a
minimum, all States must follow USEPA drinking water treatment regulations designed to
protect human health. The three key standards are: a) 3.0 log removal or inactivation of
Giardia; b) filtration down to 0.5 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) in 95 percent of
4

-------
samples taken; and c) disinfection CT (concentration x time) value required is achieved.
The CT value is based on a table that takes into account pH, residual chlorine at the
sampling point, and water temperature.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act outlines requirements for making drinking water
use support determinations. The primary focus of 305(b) drinking water regulations is
the "no treatment plant shutdowns" requirement. 305 (b) regulations also address
whether any drinking water "advisories" went into effect and how long these were in
effect; treatment necessary beyond "reasonable levels"; adverse effects on treatment cost;
and the quality of polished water (such as taste and odor problems, color, excessive
turbidity, high dissolved solids, pollutants requiring activated charcoal filters, etc.) in
determining whether a waterbody is fully supporting, partially supporting, or not
supporting drinking water use.
11.4.2	Michigan
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) monitors the quality of its
community water supplies according to requirements under Part 7 of the Administrative
Rules for Supplying Water to the Public D-227 8/93 Authority: Act 399, P.A. 1976,
Michigan Department of Public Health.
Taste and Odor Standards
Michigan currently has no state-wide standards in place, which could be used to assess
taste and odor problems in drinking water supplies. However, each water treatment plant
does have some individual standards in place, some of which are more developed than
others. For example, in Saginaw Bay, where taste and odor problems have been
experienced in the past, drinking water supply taste and odor standards are fairly well-
developed.
11.4.3	New York
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
New York's water quality standards for drinking water are contained in sections 702.2
(standards and guidance values for protection of human health and sources of potable
water supplies) and 703.2 (narrative water quality standards) of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's Water Quality Regulations, Surface Water
and Groundwater Classifications and Standards, New York State, Codes, Rules and
Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X.
Taste and Odor Standards
5

-------
Section 702.1 of New York's Water Quality Regulations provides that the control of taste-
, color- and odor-producing, toxic or other deleterious substances is implemented through
the use of standards and guidance values. Section 702.12 also states that the procedures
used to derive standards and guidance values should be based on "aesthetic considerations,
including but not limited to taste, odor and discoloration."
11.4.4 Ohio
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
The State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground
Waters, monitors the quality of Ohio s public water systems according to the rules and
regulations stipulated in the Ohio Administrative Code, Chapter 3745-81 Primary
Drinking Water Rules effective 12/1/93.
Taste and Odor Standards
With the exception of fluoride, secondary drinking water standards are in place to address
aesthetics problems with water, such as taste, odor and color. Rule 3745-82-02 of the
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) has established secondary maximum contaminant levels for
public water systems as follows:
Contaminant
Level
Aluminum*
Chloride
Color
Corrosivity
Fluoride
Foaming Agents
Iron
Manganese
Odor
pH
Silver
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Zinc
0.05 to 0.2 mg/L
250 mg/L
15 color units
non-corrosive
2.0 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
0.3 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
3 threshold odor number
7.0-1.5
0.1 mg/L
250 mg/L
500 mg/L
5 mg/L
* The secondary maximum contaminant level for aluminum is a range, with the precise
level applicable to each public water system to be determined by the Director of Ohio
EPA.
6

-------
In particular, iron and manganese standards are designed to address taste problems.
11.4.5 Ontario
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
Water production and quality in Ontario is governed by the Ontario Water Resources Act.
Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWOs) are the guidelines by which water quality
is assessed (Ontario MOEE, 1994). They include health, aesthetics and operational
guidelines. Certificates of Approval outline the monitoring requirements by
treatment facility operators. Minimum sampling requirements have been issued to all
treatment facilities for 1996. The sewage and water inspection program (SWIP) audits all
treatment facilities once every two to four years.
On a Province-wide basis, water quality is judged by comparing data collected at water
treatment plants under the Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP) to the
Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO) (Ontario MOEE, 1994). The ODWSP looks
at raw, treated and distributed water. Treated water will be the focus of this discussion, as
mentioned above.
Taste and Odor Standards
Ontario has aesthetic objectives, which apply to certain substances or characteristics of
drinking water that can affect its acceptance by consumers or interfere with practices for
supplying good quality water. For certain parameters, both aesthetic objectives and
health-related guidelines (i.e., maximum acceptable concentrations) have been derived.
Where only aesthetic objectives are specified, these values are below those considered to
constitute a health hazard. However, if a concentration in drinking water is well above an
aesthetic objective, there is a possibility of a health hazard. (Guidelines for Canadian
Drinking Water Quality (Fifth Edition, Health and Welfare Canada))
11.4.6 Pennsylvania
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) monitors the quality
of its Community Water Systems according to the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, 40 CFRPart 141.
Taste and Odor Standards
Fourteen taste and odor parameters are included in Pennsylvania's water quality criteria
(Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 16, Section 16.51) as follows:
7

-------
copper
phenolics (total phenols)
2,4-dichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
phenol
anenaphthene
napthalene
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
chlorobenzene
hexachl or ocy cl op entadi ene
nitrobenzene
11.5 Status
11.5.1	Michigan
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
Based on Michigan's Administrative Rules for Supplying Water to the Public, no
restrictions on drinking water consumption due to violations of standards designed to
protect human health have been identified for water supplies with Lake Erie or lake effect
intakes in recent years.
Taste and Odor Standards
Taste and odor problems were documented in the Detroit River in July and August, 1990,
but these problems were determined to be associated with water plants with a Detroit
River source rather than a Lake Erie source. There is no evidence that these problems are
affecting Lake Erie waters. Therefore, this situation is outside the scope of the BUIA for
Lake Erie as defined in section 11.2.
11.5.2	New York
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
Based on data provided by the State of New York, no exceedances of drinking water
standards have been reported.
Taste and Odor Standards
The Erie County Water Authority operates a distribution system that includes 1,661 miles
of pipeline, 118,365 service connections, a storage capacity of 48 million gallons, 25
8

-------
storage tanks, and 18 pumping stations that serves a population of nearly 500,000
customers. Two conventional water treatment facilities provide the system with a total
average daily production of 70 to 80 MGD during the summer months (June through
September). The Sturgeon Point water treatment plant on the eastern shore of Lake Erie
pumps approximately 55 MGD, or the majority of the production demand for this system.
From 1989 to 1996, increased complaints about drinking water taste and odor problems
were registered with the ECWA in New York (1993 Taste and Odor/Flavor Profile
Panel). In 1991, when the ECWA experienced a dramatic increase in taste and odor
complaints from June through September, an analysis of the raw and delivered water
identified the major chemical contributors to be MIB and geosmin.
In 1992, the Customer Contact System was instituted in order to document the public's
perception regarding the recurrence and impact of taste and odor compounds on drinking
water quality. Since that time, chemical and sensory methodologies have been used to
monitor the presence of these compounds in the water.
In response to a marked increase in customer complaints in 1993, and elevated levels of
the taste and odor compounds MIB and geosmin in eastern Lake Erie, the ECWA began
to investigate the impact of these two compounds on water quality, assess various means
of effective removal, and identify potential sources.
MIB and geosmin are present in high concentrations in source waters during the time
when complaints were most common. Certain species of phytoplankton produce MIB and
geosmin as metabolic byproducts and have been implicated in episodes characterized by
certain tastes and odors. Lake Erie is the source water for Sturgeon Point, one of two
treatment facilities evaluated (Van de Water, which has the Niagara River as its source
water, will not be discussed here).
The Sturgeon Point water treatment plant's efficiency was determined by calculating the
average percent removal of MIB and geosmin from Lake Erie. From July 27, 1993, to
September 29, 1993, concentrations of geosmin in raw water increased dramatically to
13.6 ppt, or seven times the human detection level of 2.0 ppt. Delivered water
concentration levels of geosmin during this same time period, however, remained within
the range of 2.0 - 3.0 ppt. Thus, the average removal of geosmin at Sturgeon Point was
55 percent.
MIB concentration levels began moving upwards for both raw and delivered water on
June 29, 1993. These levels peaked at 178 ppt and 43.2 ppt, respectively, on July 21,
1993. These levels were 89 (raw) and 22 times (delivered) the human detection level of 4
ppt. Following that date, MIB concentrations at Sturgeon Point steadily decreased,
leveling off on October 4, 1993. During this time, the average removal of MIB was 61
percent.
9

-------
Based on the above, removal through treatment was not effective at all times, and both
taste and odor compounds were detected during the entire season. Geosmin remained
below the human threshold for delivered water, but MIB did not. Flavor Profile Panel
results showing MIB as the predominant compound detected in delivered water
corroborated analytical results. Geosmin was detected, but was not reported to be as
frequent or intense. Both MIB and geosmin, however, were detected in the raw water
sources frequently.
Results from 1993 seem to indicate that treatments used in reducing MIB and geosmin
(i.e., increasing activated carbon dosages at the anticipated onset of a naturally occurring
increase) would be beneficial in regulating taste and odor problems before entering the
distribution system. By utilizing the Flavor Profile Panel in conjunction with analytical
results, the human senses, which are more sensitive than current analytical instruments,
provide some measure by which to modify the treatment process.
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) has been the treatment of choice at ECWA
(Wittmeyer et. al., in press). The use of PAC is in addition to mixed media filter beds for
the removal of MIB and geosmin. The primary advantage of using PAC is that it can be
applied on an as-needed basis and is not as expensive as other approaches, such as major
system redesign. These benefits have made PAC the most widely used method of taste
and odor removal in the United States.
Potassium permanganate (KMn04), also reportedly effective in the removal of taste and
odor compounds, is injected through chemical feed lines at the ECWA intakes. Recent
studies at other facilities have shown that treatment measures in addition to potassium
permanganate must be used to control taste and odor compounds. Other means of
removal, such as coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and chemical oxidation, result in
insufficient removals of many undesirable compounds, thereby requiring the use of PAC
absorption processes in order to effectively control taste and odor. As a result of the
methods undertaken by ECWA, the taste and odor problems identified above have been
remediated.
Increased complaints of taste and odor problems also corresponded with the first
occurrence of heavy zebra mussel infestations. Zebra mussels are thought by some
scientists to indirectly affect taste and odors by causing changes in the phytoplankton
community. Tests undertaken in 1995 at ECWA's laboratory also explored the hypothesis
that zebra mussels directly contribute to the occurrence of taste and odor problems
through faeces and pseudofaeces production (Lange and Wittmeyer, in press). Faeces and
pseudofaeces production concentrates phytoplankton and hastens their degradation,
which, in turn, would increase the production of MIB and geosmin.
From May through October, live zebra mussels were collected every three weeks from the
USACOE Black Rock Lock, located midway between the ECWA's two water treatment
facilities (Sturgeon Point and Van de Water). Tests were conducted on: 1) raw Black
Rock Lock river water; 2) concentrated sediment, detritus, faeces, and pseudofaeces
10

-------
washed from the interstices of the zebra mussel colony; and 3) concentrated faeces and
pseudofaeces from the washed zebra mussel after they were held in spring water for three
days.
The results of these tests showed that both MIB and geosmin were detected in the
concentrated wash sample (raw sample) and the same from the mussels held for three days
(aquaria sample). The concentration of MIB and geosmin (adjusted to concentration per
50 ml of concentrate) was higher than in the water sample each time. While the geosmin
concentration was higher in the aquaria samples than in the raw sample on a consistent
basis, MIB concentrations did not display a constant trend. Phytoplankton analyses were
performed on both the raw water sample and faeces/pseudofaeces samples and included:
diatom frustules; intact blue-green algae; and many filamentous bacteria that are known to
contribute to occurrences of taste and odor problems.
11.5.3 Ohio
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
Based on Ohio's primary drinking water standards for the protection of human health
(Ohio EPA, 1993), no restrictions on drinking water consumption have been identified for
all Ohio water treatment plants falling within the Lake Erie basin. Following is the list of
Ohio Water Treatment Plants using Lake Erie drinking water as a source for human
consumption, as provided by the Ohio EPA Division of Drinking and Ground Waters:
City of Avon Lake*
Camp Patmos, Kelley's Island
City of Cleveland (Baldwin)*
City of Cleveland (Crown)*
City of Cleveland (Morgan)*
City of Cleveland (Nottingham)*
City of Conneaut*
Consumer's Ohio Water Company, Mentor*
East Harbor State Park
City of Elyria
Erie Industrial Park
Village of Fairport Harbor
Gem Beach Marina, Inc., Catawba Island
Harbor Island Association, Catawba Island
City of Huron
Village of Kelley's Island
Lake County East*
Lake County West*
Lake Erie Utilities Company, Middle Bass Island
Lakeside Association, Danbury Twp., Ottawa County*
City of Lorain*
11

-------
Village of Marblehead*
Camp Perry, Ottawa County
Ohio-American, Ashtabula County*
City of Oregon*
City of Painesville*
City of Port Clinton
Village of Put-In-Bay
City of Sandusky
City of Toledo*
City of Vermilion*
Water treatment plants identified with an asterisk (*) have implemented zebra mussel
monitoring and/or control mechanisms. The cost of these activities will be addressed as a
potential impairment in the Added Costs to Agriculture and Industry impairment
assessment.
Taste and Odor Standards
There are currently no taste/odor problems reported for finished (treated) public water
supplies with Lake Erie/lake effect zone intakes from the same water treatment plants
listed in the previous discussion on drinking water.
11.5.4 Ontario
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP) provides reliable and
current information on drinking water quality. The ODWSP officially began in 1986 and
was designed to include all municipal supplies in Ontario. A total of 180 parameters
(bacteriology, inorganic and physical chemistry, organic chemistry and radiology) are
analyzed in the raw water and in the distribution system.
Restrictions on drinking water consumption were assessed from the information provided
in the annual reports from the ODWSP for 11 water treatment plants with source water
from Lake Erie. No known health related guidelines were exceeded for these facilities in
1991 and 1992.
Port Rowan Water Treatment Plant (1992 only)
Port Stanley Water Treatment Plant
St. Thomas (Elgin) Water Supply System
Fort Erie (Rosehill) Water Treatment Plant
Union (Essex County) Water Supply System
Chatham Water Treatment Plant
Port Dover Water Supply System
12

-------
Port Colborne Water Treatment Plant
Harrow-Colchester Water Supply System
Haldimand-Norfolk Water Supply System
Dunnville Water Treatment Plant
Wheatley Harbour Treatment Plant
Fort Erie (Rosehill), Port Dover, Port Colborne, Harrow-Colchester, Haldimand-Norfolk,
and Dunnville water treatment systems/plants add chlorine at the mouths of the intake
structures for each of these facilities to control zebra mussels when the raw water
temperature is above 12°C. This may result in added cost to treatment of water for
drinking purposes.
Taste and Odor Standards
Several water treatment plants have taken measures to address taste and odor problems
for their respective facilities. The St. Thomas (Elgin), Fort Erie (Rosehill), and Union
(Essex County) water supply/treatment systems add powder activated carbon for taste and
odor control. The Chatham Water Treatment Plant chlorinates raw water at the lowlift
pumping station before being pumped nine kilometers to the plant itself. Granular
activated carbon contactors are used in addition to filters during the summer months at the
Port Rowan Water Treatment Plant. Dunnville Water Treatment Plant adds potassium
permanganate for taste and odor control, when needed. The Harrow-Colchester Water
Supply System also controls taste and odor problems at the plant, but did not specify
which mechanisms or compounds are used.
11.5.5 Pennsylvania
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) monitors the quality
of its Community Water Systems according to the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, 40 CFR Part 141. The PADEP determines the frequency of the sampling
under 25 P. A. code chapter 109. Using Pennsylvania's National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, 1995), no
restrictions on drinking water consumption have been identified by the Erie City Water
Authority in recent years.
The City of Erie has two (2) filtration plants that utilize Lake Erie as a source of water.
The Chestnut Street plant was built around 1900 and has a design capacity of 30 MGD.
The Sommerheim plant was built around 1930 and has a design capacity of 56 MGD. The
average water usage for the entire system varies from 40 to 50 MGD throughout the year.
The water allocation permit for the Authority allows them to withdraw 62 MGD. That
permit expires on March 31, 2020.
13

-------
The treatment for the two (2) plants is essentially the same. The raw water is
pre-chlorinated for zebra mussel control and coagulants are added prior to it's pumping
into the sedimentation basins. Following the sedimentation, the water is filtered through
rapid sand filters and enters the clearwell after the addition of post chlorination and
corrosion control treatment. In the past, the Authority used activated carbon for taste and
odor control, but has now stopped. Following the recent invasion of zebra mussels (circa
1988-89), the overall turbidity of the lake has been reduced (pers. comm. Matt
Postlewaite, Water Supply and Community Health, PADEP).
Taste and Odor Standards
Of the 14 parameters for which Pennsylvania has established water quality standards,
"odor" is periodically reported; however, there is no criterion for this parameter.
Five "odor" values exist in the STORET database for the 1985-1990 period of record. No
standard exists for this taste and odor parameter, and the measurement units are given as
"severity." All odor results were zero.
11.6 Impairment Conclusions
Human Health Standards for Treated Drinking Water
There is no evidence of restrictions on drinking water consumption for the States of
Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the Province of Ontario.
Some Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio drinking water treatment plants have had to
support additional costs due to implementation of zebra mussels control practices. Per
IJC listing criteria, the fact that additional treatment is necessary at drinking water plants
to control zebra mussels is an impairment regardless of whether or not an actual
restriction on consumption results. This issue will be dealt with in detail in the "Added
Costs to Agriculture and Industry" BUI A.
Taste and Odor Standards
Although several water treatment plants have taken measures to address taste and odor
concerns, such measures, in and of themselves, do not necessarily indicate that taste and
odor problems currently exist. Taste and odor standards, where they exist, are secondary
and, because they do not deal with the human health aspects of drinking water, are not
enforceable.
Therefore, it is at the discretion of the individual waste water treatment plant
administrators to decide whether taste and odor control equipment is installed. In the
case of larger facilities where the tax base is large enough to support taste and odor
control equipment at a reasonable cost, taste and odor control equipment is often
14

-------
installed and used constantly as a preventative measure. It does not necessarily mean that
there would be a significant taste and odor problem if the taste and odor control
equipment were not used; it is simply designed to eliminate all complaints. This seems to
be the case with most of those facilities located in the Province of Ontario. In other
cases, taste and odor control are used periodically and only when needed.
Specific areas or plants where problems have occurred in the past include: Michigan -
Detroit River Area of Concern (1990); and New York - Sturgeon Point (1989-present).
Michigan s problems are due to a Detroit River source and are, therefore, outside of the
scope of the Lake Erie LaMP. Problems experienced in New York have been remediated
by the measures instituted by the ECWA. Ohio, Ontario and Pennsylvania are currently
not experiencing any taste or odor problems with their public water supplies which use
Lake Erie as a source.
Consequently, there are currently no taste and odor impairments to drinking water in the
Lake Erie basin.
11.7 References
1.	Clancy, Jennifer, and Frederick Luckey. 1993 Taste and Odor Flavor Profile Analysis
Report. 1993.
2.	Crooks, Jennifer. Drinking Water Section, U.S. EPA. Personal Communication.
October 30, 1995.
3.	Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan, "Stage 1 Report, Impairments of Beneficial Uses
and Sources and Causes in the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern," Cuyahoga River
Remedial Action Plan, June 1992.
4.	Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Health and Environment: A Handbook for Health
Professionals, Draft, 1995.
5.	Hartig, J.H. and N.L. Law, 1994. "Progress in Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans.
Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes Areas of Concern", Wayne State
University, Dept. of Civil and Environ. Eng., and Dept. of Chem. Eng., Grant #X995291
from U.S. EPA and Environ. Canada, EPA 905-R-24-020, Sept. 1994.
6.	Health Canada. "Issues: Drinking Water Guidance," 1994.
7.	Health and Welfare Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Fifth
Edition).
8.	IJC. 1989. "Proposed Li sting/Deli sting Criteria for Great Lakes Areas of Concern."
Focus on International Joint Commission Activities. Volume 14, Issue 1, insert.
15

-------
9.
Lambert, Lauren E. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water.
Personal Communication, November 17, 1995.
10.	Lange, Cameron L., and Sabrina Wittmeyer. "The Contribution of Zebra Mussel
(Dreissena spp.) Faeces and Pseudofaeces Production to Taste and Odor Episodes in the
Niagara River and Lake Erie." Accepted for presentation at the Sixth International Zebra
Mussel and Other Nuisance Organisms Conference, Dearborn, MI. 1996.
11.	LTtalien, Serge. Environment Canada. Personal Communication. December 6, 1995.
12.	Luckey, Frederick, Sabrina Wittmeyer, Robert Cap, Cameron Lange, Shannon Carder
and David W. Frederickson. "Investigations Into the Sources and Removal of Taste and
Odor Causing Compounds at Two Water Treatment Facilities on Eastern Lake Erie and
the Niagara River." In Press.
13.	Michigan Department of Public Health. Administrative Rules for Supplying Water to the
Public D-227 8/93 Authority: Act 399, P.A. 1976.
14.	Mortimer, Joyce, Health Canada. Personal Communication. March 23, 1996.
15.	Murphy, Thomas, Drinking Water Section, U.S. EPA. Personal Communication.
November 7, 1995.
16.	New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Water Quality Regulations:
Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards. New York State Codes,
Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-705.
17.	Northeast Ohio Coordinating Agency, "Stage 1 Update, Semi-annual Progress Report,
January to June, 1995", Cleveland, Ohio, September 1995.
18.	Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, "Rules and Regulations, Public Water Systems",
Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-81. Primary Drinking Water Rules, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, Rules
3745-81-01 through 3745-81-89, in effect December 1, 1993.
19.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP),
Treatment Plant, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry
Energy, ISSN 0843-8315.
20.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP),
Treatment Plant, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry
Energy, ISSN 1192-1196.
"Chatham Water
of Environment and
"Dunnville Water
of Environment and
16

-------
21.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Fort Erie (Rosehill) Water
Treatment Plant, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy, ISSN 0840-5182.
22.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Haldimand-Norfolk Water
Supply System, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
ISSN 1180-2162.
23.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Harrow-Colchester Water
Supply System, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
ISSN 0840-5239.
24.	Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Ontario Drinking Water Objectives,"
revised 1994. Queens printers for Ontario. ISBN0-7743-8985-0, 68 p.
25.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Port Colborne Water
Treatment Plant, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy, ISSN 1183-6180.
26.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Port Dover Water Supply
System, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, ISSN
0840-5328.
27.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Port Rowan Water
Treatment Plant, Report for 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, ISSN
1195-1222.
28.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Port Stanley Water
Treatment Plant, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy, ISSN 0839-8958.
29.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "St. Thomas (Elgin) Water
Supply System, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
ISSN 0840-5255.
30.	The Ontario Drinking Water Surveillance Program (ODWSP), "Union (Essex County)
Water Supply System, Report for 1991 and 1992," Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy, ISSN 0840-5115.
31.	Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of the Great Lakes. Kelly
Burch, Personal Communication, November 29, 1995.
32. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, "Water Quality Standards for
Tainting."
17

-------
33.	Postlewaite, Matt. Water Supply and Community Health, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. Personal Communication. 1995.
34.	Quantifying "How clean is clean?" for Degraded Areas in the Great Lakes, Water
Environment Federation, Publication # AC943905, 1994.
35.	Spaulding, William. Drinking Water Section, U.S. EPA. Personal Communication.
November 29, 1995.
36.	Taillon, M.L. Cleveland Division of Water. Personal Communication, 1995.
37.	USEPA. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance Fact Sheet.
August 1997.
38.	USEPA. Memo, Great Lakes Drinking Water System Source Water Assessment
Protocol. 1998.
39.	Wheatley Harbour Remedial Action Plan. 1995. "Stage 1/Stage 2 Report (Draft)."
Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition, Delisting Strategy, Zaranko
Environmental Assessment Services, in consultation with the Citizens of Wheatley
Harbour, April 1995.
18

-------