HomeMy WebLinkAboutCohasset Water Department Taste and Odor Study (PDF)UUPPDDAATTEEDD ––NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Cohasset Taste and Odor Study
November 2004
Submitted to:
Cohasset Water Commission
339 King Street
Cohasset, MA 02025
November 3, 2004
Norfolk Ram Job No. 651.7.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Background Sampling......................................................................................................1
Background Taste and Odor............................................................................................4
Background Water Quality..............................................................................................4
3.0 Water Quality Survey ......................................................................................................7
Taste Results....................................................................................................................7
Odor Results.....................................................................................................................8
General Water Questions.................................................................................................9
4.0 Comprehensive Sampling Event......................................................................................11
Field Testing....................................................................................................................11
Laboratory Analytical Testing.........................................................................................19
Comprehensive Taste and Odor Profiling........................................................................22
McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. (McGuire) Analysis of Results....................29
Evaluation of Flavor Profile Analysis Results.................................................................29
Musty/Mildew/Old Pipe...................................................................................................39
Earthy/Grassy/Algae/Moldy............................................................................................39
Metallic/Bitter/Drying......................................................................................................39
Chlorine............................................................................................................................39
Chemical/Plastic/Wet Paper/Rubber/Garden Hose..........................................................39
Comparison of FPA Results and Consumer Survey Results...........................................39
5.0 Potential Options for Taste and Odor Improvement........................................................42
Source Water Quality.......................................................................................................42
Common Source Water Taste and Odors.........................................................................43
Source Water Enhancement Options...............................................................................44
Treatment Plant Modifications ........................................................................................47
Distribution System Enhancements.................................................................................52
6.0 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................54
7.0 Summary of Recommendations......................................................................................58
List of Tables:
Table 1 Background Water Quality Data
Table 2 Norfolk Field Test Results
Table 3 Taste and Odor Study Test Results from R.I Analytical
Table 4 Flavor Profile Analysis Results
Table 5 Taste and Odor Evaluation Flavor Profile Analysis Results
Compared to Cohasset Survey Results
Table 6 Source Water Enhancements
Table 7 Treatment Plant Modifications
Table 8 Distribution System Enhancements
Table 9 Possible Causes of Tastes in the Cohasset Drinking Water
List of Figures:
Figure 1 Background Sample Locations
Figure 2 Background Taste Intensity
Figure 3 Comprehensive Sample Locations
Figure 4 pH Results
Figure 5 Total Chlorine (mg/l) Results
Figure 6 Free Chlorine (mg/l) Results
Figure 7 Temperature
Figure 8 Analytical Sample Locations
Figure 9 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Taste Intensity Data
Figure 10 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Taste Note Data
Figure 11 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Odor Intensity Data
Figure 12 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Odor Note Data
Figure 13 Taste Intensity and Note Characteristics Raw FPA Data
Figure 14 Odor Intensity and Note Characteristics Raw FPA Data
Figure 15 Taste Intensity and Note Characteristics Grouped by Norfolk
Figure 16 Odor Intensity and Note Characteristics Grouped by Norfolk
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A Possible Causes of Taste and Odors
APPENDIX B Taste and Odor Survey
APPENDIX C Taste and Odor Survey Maps and Pie Charts
APPENDIX D Taste and Odor Wheel
APPENDIX E Quarterly Surface Water Sampling
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Taste and odor events may be attributed to a number of different mechanisms including the source
of the water and the effectiveness of the treatment process. Additional factors related to the
distribution system, such as detention time within the pipe network or the standpipes (water age)
and pipe age or pipe materials, may also create, magnify or alter the organoliptic characteristics of
the water.
Taste and odor events can be regional, affecting distinct areas within a service area or they may be
pervasive, with similar characteristics noted throughout the entire system. They may be persistent
or intermittent, random or related to the time of day or the season.
As a part of the Cohasset Board of Water Commissions on-going efforts to improve the quality of
the Town of Cohasset’s drinking water, Norfolk Ram Group, LLC (Norfolk) was engaged to
perform a Water Supply Taste and Odor Study to evaluate the characteristics of the Town’s
drinking water as it is delivered to consumers located throughout the service area. The study was
divided into three phases: 1) initial baseline laboratory testing and taste & odor intensity
characterization; 2) a Comprehensive Water Quality Survey; and, 3) detailed laboratory analysis
and taste and odor Flavor Profile Analysis. Overall the three phases of the Project were intended
to:
(1) evaluate the chemical composition and aesthetic characteristics of the Town’s drinking
water;
(2) provide qualitative and quantitative background data necessary to assess the potential
source(s) of the tastes and odors associated with the drinking water (such as source water,
treatment processes, disinfection procedures, water age/detention time, and/or distribution
system pipe materials); and,
(3) assist water treatment plant personnel with identifying potential options for alleviating taste
and odor problems (at the source, at the plant, or within the distribution system) and for
evaluating the effectiveness of potential operation and management procedural
modifications and on-going upgrades of the water treatment and distribution system.
2.0 BASELINE SAMPLING
The first phase of the Taste and Odor Study consisted of a baseline water quality evaluation
comprised of twelve (12) water samples collected on November 17, 2003 from municipal
buildings (6), businesses (2), and residents (4) located throughout the Town of Cohasset water
service area. These baseline samples were generally collected from the kitchen sink after running
the tap water for a few minutes to empty the pipes of old water. The baseline water quality
samples were delivered to Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories Inc., for a qualitative assessment
(Taste and Odor) and for chemical analysis. The locations of the sample collection points are
depicted on Figure 1. The taste intensities reported by R.I. Analytical are shown on
Figure 2.
1
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Baseline Taste and Odor
Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories Inc., used EPA Method 140.1 for assessing the odor
characteristics and intensity and method SM 2160 C for assessing the taste characteristics and
intensity of the baseline samples. The taste of the samples was rated on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1
was deemed to be acceptable and 9 was unacceptable. The best rating recorded during the baseline
sampling event was 3, reported at two locations, the Bear Hill Water Tank and Shaw’s
Supermarket. The taste at the water treatment plant had an intensity of 5 and the average of the
twelve samples was 4.7. The worst rating was 6, reported at three locations, 53 Pond Street,
Cohasset Town Hall, and the Department of Public Works.
Rhode Island Analytical described the odor of the water as musty at eleven (11) of the twelve (12)
sample locations. The sample collected at the Scituate Hill Water tank was described as having no
odor. According to the “Distribution-System Taste – and – Odor Wheel”,Distribution Generated
Taste – and – Odor Phenomena, AWWA Research Foundation, 2002 (included as Appendix D),
musty odors are typically caused by the presence of either Geosmin or 2-Methylisoborneol (MIB),
which are typically caused by blue-green algae. Geosmin has an odor described as earthy, dirt,
corn silk or beets. The odor associated with MIB is typically described as musty, earthy or damp
basement. Both have an odor threshold around 5 ng/l, with customer complaints usually
associated with concentrations greater than 10 ng/l. Other potential causes of earthy – musty
include 2-isopropyl 3-methoxypyrazine (earthy/potato bin) and halogenated anisols
(musty/moldy/cork).
Although the concentration of Geosmin and MIB were not determined during this baseline
sampling event, they were included in the later comprehensive sampling phase of the Project
which indicated that neither were present in finished water samples.
Baseline Water Quality
Chemical analysis of the water samples was also completed to assess potential physical-chemical
changes to the characteristics of the water that may occur as the water flows from the treatment
plant through the distribution system to the consumers. Twelve (12) water samples were collected
by Norfolk personnel on November 17, 2003 between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm using two bottles at
each location. One bottle was preserved for the metals analysis and one was left unpreserved for
pH, color, taste, odor, turbidity, chloride and total residual chlorine analyses. Both samples were
chilled and were picked-up from Norfolk’s office by the laboratory courier at 5:00 pm (11/17/03),
shipped on ice and delivered to Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc., at 6:10 pm (11/17/03).
The unpreserved samples were analyzed later that same night (11/17/03) and the preserved metals
samples were analyzed on 11/19/03 and 11/25/03.
The chlorine residual and pH readings were not measured in the field but instead, were chilled and
sent to the laboratory for analysis approximately 7 to 12 hours after sample collection. These
laboratory samples contained chlorine concentrations ranging from a high of 0.3 mg/l from the
samples collected at the treatment plant and Bear Hill Water Tank to a low of less than 0.1 mg/l at
4
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
all of the consumers faucets. These results indicate that all (or most) of the chlorine residual may
be depleted after very little time (less than the 12 hour delay between Norfolk sampling and the
laboratory analysis) by constituents that are present in the finished water.
The laboratory measured pH was also found to be generally low ranging from 5.7 to 6.6 standard
units when measured at the laboratory. A low pH can contribute to a bitter, metallic taste. Sodium
was found to be present above the Office of Research Standards Guideline (20 mg/l) at eleven of
the sample locations and the water color was reported to range from 10 to 15 color units. The
metals (iron, copper, lead, magnesium and manganese) concentrations were all determined to be
acceptable. These results are included in Table 1.
5
Table 1Background Water Quality DataCohasset Taste and Odor Background Sampling EventParameter53 Pond St.Location #1WTPLocation #2Scituate Hill Water Tank Location #3Bear Hill Water Tank Location #4Town Hall Location #5399 Atlantic Ave.Location #6Deer Hill SchoolLocation #7DPWLocation #8404 Main St. Location #9ShawsLocaiton #10514 Beachwood St. Locatin #11Marylou'sNewsLocation #12MA Drinking WaterGuidelines,Standards &/or ORSGpH6.2 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.46.56.26.6 6.86.46.6 6.6 6.5-8.5Color 10 15 15 15 10 10 15 15 10 10 10 10 15 Color UnitsTurbidity 0.2 1.6 1.4 1.6 0.05 0.6 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.8Chloride 36 35 35 36 36 35 36 36 36 35 34 34 250 mg/LTotal Residual Chlorine <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 *Calcium 17 15 15 15 18 20 17 19 18 14 18 18N/A#Copper 0.13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.48 0.23 0.08 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 1.3 mg/LIron <0.05 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 0.080.3 mg/L+Lead 0.003 <0.002 0.006 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.015 mg/LMagnesium 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5Manganese0.050.03 0.03 0.030.050.040.05<0.020.060.03 0.020.050.05 mg/LSodium21 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 221821 2120 mg/LHardness as CaCO352 48 48 48 55 60 53 57 56 45 55 55 75*Taste 6 5 4 3 6 4 5 6 5 3 4 5Scale of 1-9(1 Acceptable9 Unacceptable)Odor Musty Musty No Odor Musty Musty Musty Musty Musty Musty Musty Musty MustyBold values indicate concentrations in excess of, or outside of, the applicable Guideline or Standard range.ORSG - Office of Research Standards Guideline* Desired/Required Chlorine ResidualWater below this limit is typically characterized as "soft"75-150 mg/l as Moderately Hard150-300 mg/l as Hardand 300 mg/l and up as Very Hard# Calcium and Magnesium cause by far the greatest portion of hardness occurring in natural waters.( Total Hardness - Calcium Hardness = Magnesium Hardness)+ Iron Taste Criteria = 0.04 - 0.1 mg/LC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 1 Background Sampling Results.xlsNorfolk Ram Group, LLC
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
3.0 WATER QUALITY SURVEY
Norfolk prepared a comprehensive Water Quality Survey (Survey) that was mailed on March 3,
2004 to all of the approximately 2,500 customers of the Town of Cohasset Water Department to
request objective and subjective consumer input regarding water use the aesthetic quality of
Cohasset’s water at the point of consumption. The comprehensive Survey included approximately
23 questions developed by Norfolk and completed with suggestions from the Cohasset Water
Commission and other Commission consultants. The Survey questions were divided into six
general topics:
1. Taste of the water
2. Odors associated with the water
3. Appearance of the water
4. Water service
5. Background information
6. Water use information
The Survey was intended to help identify the problem areas and to provide data that may be useful
in determining causes and to identify potential corrective actions – (for example the Survey
included questions such as do you detect problems all of the time, only during specific times of the
day or only when using hot or cold water). The Survey provided descriptive examples of the
various tastes and odors commonly associated with drinking water and requested that the
respondents describe the characteristics of the water and list times or conditions that appear to be
associated with episodes of reduced quality. A copy of the survey is in Appendix B.
Norfolk received a total of 472 Survey responses, many with multiple replies for some of the
questions, some with no responses for certain questions. The majority of the responses described
the predominant taste as either Metallic or Bitter (42%) or having No Taste (31%). The reported
odor had a wider range of results, with the two major descriptions being No Odor (26%) or an
Earthy/Musty/Moldy Odor (25%). Appendix C includes a series of pie charts for many of the
survey responses. Maps depicting the spatial breakdown of the taste and odor results from the
residents are also included in Appendix C. These results are discussed in more detail below.
Taste Results Comment/Possible Source
What is the predominant taste of the water?
Metallic/Bitter 42% 183 responses Low PH
No Taste 31% 132 responses
Sour/Acidic 12% 51 responses Temperature of hot water systems
Salty/Sweet 5% 23 responses Open reservoirs, biological activity
What time of day is the taste most noticeable?
Morning 39% 127 responses No temporal differences
Evening 31% 100 responses No temporal differences
Afternoon 30% 96 responses No temporal differences
7
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Taste Results Comment/Possible Source
What season is the taste most prevalent?
Summer 30% 124 responses Some minor relation to warmer water
Spring 24% 97 responses
Winter 23% 95 responses
Fall 23% 94 responses
Where is the taste most noticeable?
Cold water 53% 250 responses Expected, as cold water is
drinking source
Ice Cubes 24% 113 responses
Hot Water 15% 68 responses
Cooking 8% 35 responses
Do all people in household report the same?
Yes 89% 319 responses Uniform response within household
No 11% 40 responses
Odor Results Comment/Possible Source
What is the predominant odor of the water?
No Odor 25% 149 responses Possible organic
Earthy/Musty/Moldy 25% 144 responses Possible organic
Marshy/Swampy/Septic20% 116 responses Possible sulfide based
Chlorinous 17% 99 responses Chlorine residual related
Chemical/Medicinal 7% 41 responses Chlorine residual related
Fishy/Rancid 4% 23 responses Chlorine residual related
(biological activity)
What time of day is the odor most noticeable?
Morning 40% 111 responses Relation to stagnant water
Evening 32% 90 responses
Afternoon 28% 79 responses
What season is the odor most prevalent?
Summer 30% 107 responses Relation to warmer weather
Spring 24% 87 responses
Winter 22% 80 responses
Fall 23% 82 responses
Where is the odor most noticeable?
Cold water 48% 167 responses Expected, as cold water is
drinking source
Ice Cubes 22% 76 responses
8
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Odor Results Comment/Possible Source
(continued from previous page)
Hot Water 22% 76 responses Expected, as cold water is
Drinkingsource
Cooking 9% 30 responses
Do all people in household report the same?
Yes 90% 288 responses Uniform response within household
No 10% 31 responses
General Water Questions Comment/Possible Source
What is the appearance of the water?
No response 31% 152 responses
Brown 27% 132 responses Most likely indicator of need for flushing
& age of pipes. Also indicative of
organic content in source water.
Yellow 16% 76 responses See Above Comment
Milky 9% 43 responses See Above Comment
Muddy 8% 40 responses See Above Comment
Clear 10% 47 responses
Do you drink tap water?
Tap 28% 127 responses Need to compare w/ national survey
Bottled 48% 215 responses
Both 24% 110 responses
Do you use any water treatment system?
No 61% 244 responses Need to compare w/ national survey
Yes 39% 156 responses
If so what type of treatment system?
Filtration 75% 141 responses Need to compare w/ national survey
Carbon 22% 42 responses
Water Softener 3% 5 responses
On a scale of 1-5 please rate the tap water. (1=poor, 5=best)
1 25% 105 responses Surprisingly evenly distributed
2 24% 101 responses
3 23% 95 responses
4 20% 83 responses
5 9% 37 responses
9
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Describing water supply taste and odor characteristics is very subjective, with not everyone
experiencing or describing the event in the same manner. The spatial distribution of the responses
indicates that the overall water quality does not seem to be altered much throughout the
distribution system. For example, residents at the far ends of the distribution system were as likely
to complain about chlorine as were those nearest to the plant. Additionally, residents reporting no
objectionable taste or odor were widely distributed throughout the Town and were oftentimes
found to abut residents who had reported objectionable tastes or odors.
In general, the water taste and odor, as reported by the 472 customers who returned the Survey
indicate that the water characteristics tend to be widely distributed with little or no changes noted
with location, time of day or season.
10
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
4.0 COMPREHENSIVE SAMPLING EVENT
On April 27, 2004, Norfolk performed a comprehensive taste and odor sampling event, utilizing
five employees to collect samples from a total of fifty (50) locations (See Figure 3) randomly
situated throughout the Town of Cohasset. The comprehensive sampling event included three
elements: (1) In-situ field testing for pH, temperature and chlorine residual; (2) water quality
testing performed by Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories; and, (3) taste and odor Flavor Profile
Analysis completed by McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Field Testing
The water quality samples were generally collected between 8:40 am and 2:55 pm from the
kitchen sink of each dwelling after running the tap water for a few minutes to evacuate any
old/stale water remaining within the pipes. Each Norfolk employee was equipped with a Hach
DR/890 Portable Colorimeter to measure total chlorine and free chlorine and with a YSI 60
pH/Temperature meter. All of the meters were calibrated by water treatment plant personnel prior
to use. The on-site field testing results (included in Table 2) indicated that on April 27, 2004, the
water throughout the distribution system displayed a relatively low pH (5.20 to 6.35 standard units,
average 5.9 S.U.) and contained low total chlorine and free chlorine residual concentrations.
It was noted that on the morning of the testing, the water treatment plant had experienced a lime
feed system problem that may have contributed to the low pH readings recorded throughout the
distribution system. This lime feed system problem was later corrected and the pH of the finished
water at the plant was increased from the 5.45 S.U initially recorded to 6.23 standard units.
The finished water at the treatment plant displayed a total chlorine residual of 1.69 mg/l. This
residual was quickly exhausted within the distribution system and the consumer water samples
generally contained very low levels of chlorine, with the total chlorine residual ranging from 0.0 to
0.80 mg/l (0.117 mg/l average) and the free chlorine residual ranging from 0.0 to 0.56 mg/l (0.07
mg/l average). The samples collected from along major roadways (King Street, Beachwood Street
and Jerusalem Road) and the sample collected near the Bear Hill Water Tank generally displayed
chlorine residuals that were greater than, or equal to, 0.1 mg/l. The samples collected from side
roads tended to have lower concentrations, many with measured concentrations of 0.0 mg/l. This
trend could be attributed to the age of the water within the distribution system.
The temperature of the raw water was 19.3ºC and the temperature of the finished water was
18.5ºC. The water temperature within the distribution system ranged from 11.8ºC to 21.2ºC with
an average temperature of 16.8ºC. Maps depicting chlorine residual, pH and temperature follow.
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 that follow illustrate the distribution of pH, Total Chlorine, Free Chlorine and
Temperature respectively.
11
Table 2Norfolk Field Test ResultsSampleLocationStreet#Street Time pHTemp.(oc)Free Chlorine(mg/L)Total Chlorine(mg/L)3 16 Bates Lane 12:25 AM 5.88 19.5 0.01 0.054 60 Wheelwright Farm 9:20 AM 6.01 21.2 0.01 0.1122 103 North Main Street 9:17 AM 5.69 16.7 0.03 0.1324 58 Gammons Road 9:39 AM 6.30 12.3 0.00 0.0025 9 Little Harbor Road 10:23 AM 6.26 17.5 0.08 0.0927 292 Jerusalem Road 9:55 AM 6.35 18.2 0.56 0.5730 91 Cedar Street 11:30 AM 5.65 16.6 0.00 0.0031 206 Sohier Street 2:10 PM 6.18 21.0 0.00 0.0032 143 Pond Street - H.S. 12:46 PM 5.98 18.5 0.02 0.0635 60 Aaron River Road 12:50 AM 5.90 19.1 0.01 0.1137 40 Atlantic Avenue 11:07 AM 6.10 11.8 0.02 0.0638 177 Atlantic Avenue 10:33 AM 6.09 12.7 0.02 0.0939 30 Beach Street 10:00 AM 6.20 12.2 0.02 0.0640 105 Border Street 11:51 AM 6.13 13.0 0.00 0.0441 56 Deep Run 10:55 AM 6.12 15.9 0.04 0.1042 32 Fairoaks Lane 2:55 PM 5.88 18.9 0.00 0.0043 12 Hugh Strain Road 11:20 AM 5.65 19.3 0.01 0.0944 1 Jerusalem Road 11:31 AM 5.65 20.4 0.02 0.0245 250 King Street 10:20 AM 5.59 19.4 0.53 0.8046 4 Ledgewood Drive 12:32 PM 5.81 17.4 0.06 0.1247 166 Linden Drive 1:30 PM 5.92 14.9 0.00 0.0448 31 Nichols Road 11:55 AM 6.10 16.0 0.01 0.0349 47 Norfolk Road 12:02 PM 5.79 17.9 0.16 0.3550 8 Norman Todd Road 9:36 AM 5.61 18.6 0.01 0.2651 245 North Main Street 12:20 PM 5.60 14.8 0.00 0.0052 60 Old Pasture Road 10:18 AM 5.73 16.2 0.02 0.1153 53 Pond Street 12:58 PM 5.79 17.0 0.09 0.1954 33 Red Gate Lane 12:45 PM 6.21 12.2 0.00 0.0055 3 Ripley Road 11:09 AM 5.73 17.4 0.25 0.1456 10 River Road 10:06 AM 5.63 19.5 0.39 0.0957 2 Sheldon Road 9:27 AM 6.47 12.5 0.01 0.0858 141 South Main Street 12:10 PM 5.86 19.6 0.11 0.2260 31 Mill Lane 9:45 AM 5.86 19.4 0.01 0.0961 14 Stockbridge Street 11:29 AM 6.21 15.5 0.10 0.1162 52 Summer Street 11:24 AM 6.11 17.6 0.01 0.0363 3 Todd Lane 9:15 AM 6.03 17.7 0.44 0.1764 18 Virginia Lane 10:59 AM 5.86 20.6 0.04 0.0565 348 North Main Street 11:11 AM 5.97 15.4 0.00 0.0366 87 Pleasant Street 10:43 AM 5.20 21.9 0.08 0.22C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 2 Cohasset Sampling Results.xlsPrinted on 11/16/2004
Table 2Norfolk Field Test ResultsSampleLocationStreet#Street Time pHTemp.(oc)Free Chlorine(mg/L)Total Chlorine(mg/L)68 87 Elm Street 12:26 PM 6.19 13.1 0.01 0.0069 20 Hammond Avenue 11:49 AM 5.81 17.8 0.00 0.0070 27 Highland Avenue 1:05 PM 5.95 12.7 0.02 0.1171 40 Cedar Acres Lane 12:30 PM 5.86 12.1 0.01 0.0475 31 Bow Street 9:35 AM 6.05 17.2 0.00 0.0077 130 C J Cushing Highway 1:51 PM 5.76 19.2 0.05 0.2578 223 C J Cushing Highway 1:18 PM 5.71 15.3 0.07 0.3179 790 C J Cushing Highway 12:00 AM 5.84 16.1 0.00 0.0380 79 Forest Avenue 1:00 PM 5.85 14.4 0.02 0.1533 Raw 339 King Street 1:35 PM 6.21 19.3 0.07 0.0533 Pre-CL 339 King Street 1:45 PM 5.17 15.8 0.00 0.1033 Effluent 339 King Street 8:40 AM 6.23 18.5 1.43 1.69C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 2 Cohasset Sampling Results.xlsPrinted on 11/16/2004
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Laboratory Analytical Testing
Water quality samples were collected from ten (10) of the locations (See Figure 8) distributed
throughout the water service area and delivered to Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc. for
manganese, zinc, copper, total dissolved solids, sulfate, sulfide, sodium chloride, total sulfide, total
organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon analyses. Algae, Geosmin, MIB and volatile organic
chemical concentrations were also measured at five (5) of these sites. The results of the laboratory
testing program are included in Table 3.
Generally, it was determined that the finished water sample locations contained metals
concentrations that were at, or near, secondary contaminant levels at concentrations that would be
expected to contribute to taste and odor complaints. Although copper values were generally low,
(0.05 mg/l to 0.12 mg/l), Sample #35 collected from 60 Aaron River Road had a slightly elevated
copper concentration (0.68 mg/l). Sodium concentrations were above the standard within the raw
water and throughout the distribution system, with 22 mg/l present within the raw water and 24 to
28 mg/l (26 mg/l average) detected within the finished water samples. The addition of alum as
part of the treatment process results in the sulfate concentration rising from <10 mg/l in the raw
water to 26 to 38 mg/l (average 33 mg/l) within the distribution system. A similar increase was
noted for total dissolved solids which increased from 110 mg/l in the raw water to 150 to 170 mg/l
(average 160 mg/l) at the consumer sample points.
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations were reduced by
the water treatment plant, with 8.5 mg/l and 8.9 mg/l present in the raw water and an average DOC
concentration of 2.4 mg/l (2.0 to 3.0 mg/l range) and an average TOC concentration of 2.7 mg/l
(2.3 to 4.2 mg/l range) reported within the distribution system. These TOC/DOC concentrations
will need to be reduced further to enhance the taste and odor qualities and to minimize the
formation of disinfection by-products.
Iron and manganese do not appear to be effectively removed at the treatment plant, with
distribution system concentrations remaining relatively unchanged from raw water samples.
Although iron was not included in the comprehensive sampling event, the initial baseline testing
indicates that it is present in sufficient concentrations (at or near secondary contaminant levels)
throughout the service area to contribute to taste and odor complaints. The comprehensive testing
program detected manganese in the raw water at a concentration of 0.06 mg/l. This is above the
drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l. Manganese concentrations within the distribution system
ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 mg/l indicating that these dissolved metals have not been effectively
precipitated and removed at the plant. Although aluminum was also not included in the analytical
testing regime, elevated concentrations are anticipated due to the relatively low pH of the finished
water (which also contributes a bitter, metallic taste) and the use of alum as a coagulant.
Five samples were also analyzed for volatile organic chemicals (none detected) and algae. The
five water samples displayed relatively low total algae concentrations (1,200 cells/ml in the raw
water and 0 to 23 cells/ml in the finished water samples). Additionally, none of the samples,
including the raw water sample, had detectable levels of trans-dimethyl-trans-9-decalol (geosmin),
2-methylisoborneol (MIB), 2-isobutly-3-methoxy pyrazine (IBMP), isopropyl methoxy pyrazine
(IPMP) or 2,4,6-Trichloroanisol (2,4,6-TCA). These five compounds, which are the cause of most
19
Table 3Cohasset WaterTaste and Odor StudyTest Results from RI Analytical Laboratories, Inc.9:35 13:25 14:55 13:05 12:50 9:45 12:10 13:35 8:40 11:0775 47 42 70 35 60 58 33 RAW 33 EFF 37Parameter / Sample No. unitsMA Drinking WaterGuidelines &/orStandardsChloridemg/L 250.0 43 43 43 44 42 40 45 36 44 44Sulfatemg/L 250 35 27 38 36 26 36 33 <10 35 33Sulfidemg/L NS <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25Total Dissolved Solidsmg/L 500 170 170 160 150 170 150 160 110 160 150Dissolved Organic Carbonmg/L NS 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.4 8.5 3.0 2.0Total Organic Carbonmg/L NS 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 8.9 4.2 2.4Coppermg/L 1 0.08 <0.05 0.12 0.08 0.68 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.08Manganesemg/L 0.05 0.04 0.030.070.040.050.040.06 0.06 0.07 0.05Sodiummg/L 2026 27 25 26 26 24 26 22 27 28Zincmg/L 5 0.04 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02Geosminng/L NS <5.0 NT NT NT NT NT <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0IBMP*ng/L NS <5.0 NT NT NT NT NT <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0IPMP*ng/L NS <5.0 NT NT NT NT NT <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0MIB*ng/L NS <5.0 NT NT NT NT NT <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.02,4,6-TCA*ng/L NS <5.0 NT NT NT NT NT <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0ChlorophytaUnicellular Chlorophyta cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT6.5 x 1004.3 x 1027.0 x 1007.3 x 100Closterium sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None2.0 x 101None NoneTetraedron sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None2.0 x 101None NoneAnkistrodesmus sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None9.8 x 100None NoneScenedesmus sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None9.8 x 100None NoneChrysophytaDinobryon sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT9.8 x 1002.1 x 102None4.9 x 100Pennate Diatoms cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None6.8 x 101None NoneMallomonas sp. cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None9.8 x 100None NoneCyanophytaUnicellular Cyanophyta cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT6.5 x 1004.0 x 102None NoneColonial Cyanophyta cells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT None9.8 x 100None NoneTotal Algaecells/mL NS None NT NT NT NT NT2.3 x 1011.2 x 1037.0 x 1001.2 x 101Bold values indicate concentrations in excess of, or out of, the applicable Guideline or Standard range.Field Testing18.5226.235.45Free Chlorine mg/L NS 0 0 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.07 1.43 0.02Total Chlorine mg/L NS 0 0.04 0 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.22 0.05 1.69 0.06McGuire Environmental ResultsOdor NSMusty/Old Pipe 0.5Notes: chlorine, rubber, mildewMusty Old Pipe 1.0Notes: algae, mildewMusty/Old Pipe 1.0Mildew 1.5Note: chemical/plasticMildew 1.0Notes: wet paper, sweet metallic pipeMusty 0.5 Sweet 0.5 Notes: Garden House, ChlorineChlorine 1.0Musty 1.5Notes: garden hoseMusty/Old Pipe 0.5 Earthy 2.0Chlorine 1.5Note: old pipeMildew/Musty 1.0Note: sweet metallic pipeTaste NSMusty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: bitter, rubbery, algae, dryingMildew/Musty/ Old Pipe 1.5Note: plasticOld Pipe 2.0Notes: earthy/musty, algae/mildew, dryingBitter 0.5Notes: metallic, wet paperMusty 0.5 Garden Hose 1.0Notes: Bitter, DryingMusty 1.5Notes: chlorine, garden hose, old pipe, bitterMusty/Old Pipe 0.5Notes: dry, bitterN/AChlorine 1.5Note: mustyMusty Old Pipe 0.5Mildew 1.0Metallic 0.519.3 11.812.7 19.1 19.4 19.614.9 18.9Sample LocationSample IDTemperature oC NS 17.231 Bow Street 166 Linden Drive5.9 5.86*Five water samples were tested for Volatile Organic Chemicals and Algae. IBMP=2-Isobutyl-3-methoxy pyrazine, IPMP=Isopropyl methoxy pyrazine, MIB=2-Methylisoborneol,TCA=TrichloroanisoleSample Time on 4-26-20045.86 6.21 6.1pH 6.5-8.540 Atlantic Avenue339 King Street339 King Street141 South Main Street31 Mill Lane60 Aaron River Road27 Highland Avenue32 Fairoaks Lane6.05 5.92 5.88 5.95C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 3 Algae-Geosmin Results.xlsPrinted on 11/16/2004
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
earthy-musty odor complaints, are produced as metabolic by-products by living, dead or decaying
bacteria or algae. Shallow and deep water samples collected on June 9, 2004 from Lily Pond (as
part of the Quarterly Surface Water Sampling Program) exhibited higher algae concentrations,
2,000 cells/ml and 5,600 cells/ml, respectively, than detected during the taste and odor
comprehensive sampling event.
Comprehensive Taste and Odor Flavor Profile Analysis
The fifty (50) samples collected for taste and odor analysis were packed in coolers, preserved with
ice and shipped overnight to McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. (McGuire) in Santa
Monica, California. Between April 27 and 30, 2004, McGuire used ten panels of four people each
to conduct a Flavor Profile Analysis on the 50 water samples. All samples were tested for taste
except for non-potable raw water and pre-chlorine samples.
The panel test results are included in Table 4. The number reported after the characteristic
description is the intensity number ranging from 1 (low) to 12 (high). The “note” characteristics
describe a flavor or odor that was present, but was not strong enough for the panel to assign an
intensity rating. McGuire indicates that consumer complaints generally occur when the odor or
flavor intensities are 4 or greater.
McGuire indicated that the distribution system odor and flavor characteristics were unusual and
they described many of these samples as displaying musty, old pipe, metallic or damp paper odors
and flavors. They further indicated that none of the distribution system samples had a Geosmin
characteristic (this was confirmed by the water quality analysis). Regarding the unusual taste and
odor detected in the distribution system samples (musty old pipe), although it was only identified
in the distribution system samples, it may have been present in the finished water sample but
masked by the higher chlorine concentration (1.69 mg/l) displayed by the treatment plant effluent.
McGuire also noted that, although many of the odors and flavors were not aesthetically pleasing,
the reported intensities were all in the very weak range (odor or flavor intensity of 2 or less).
McGuire further indicated that the odors and flavors within the distribution system were “unusual”
and that the panelists quickly became “fatigued” by the “musty old pipe” characteristics and they
were then unable to notice the musty old pipe flavor after the second or third sample.
A copy of the McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. Cohasset Flavor Profile Analysis Report,
dated May 3, 2004 follows.
22
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Martha McMahon
Norfolk Ram Group, LLC
FROM: James Leserman and Michael J. McGuire
DATE: May 3, 2004
SUBJECT: Cohasset Flavor Profile Analysis
McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. (MEC) conducted a flavor profile analysis from April 27-
30, 2004 on samples taken from the Cohasset, Massachusetts water treatment plant and distribution
system on April 26, 2004. A total of 50 locations were sampled, including raw water to the treatment
plant, clearwell prior to the effluent booster pumps, finished water, and 47 distribution samples. The
results are attached.
The raw source water had a distinctly earthy odor, suggesting the presence of geosmin. The
chlorinated finished water had distinct a chlorinous odor and flavors with notes of mustiness and “old-
pipe.”
We found the odor and flavor characteristics of the distribution system samples to be very unusual.
Many of the distribution samples had odors and flavors of musty, old pipe, metallic, damp paper, etc.,
that were of higher intensities as compared to the finished water. None of the distribution water
samples had a geosmin characteristic. Chlorine could have masked the unusual odors in the finished
water. It is also possible that biofilms or iron deposits in the distribution system or at the service
connections (i.e. within the customers’ plumbing systems) have contributed to the problem.
Although many of the flavor and odor observations were not aesthetically pleasing, the reported
intensities were all in the very weak range (odor or flavor intensity of 2 or less). Our experience has
been that consumer complaints generally occur when the intensities are 4 or greater than 4 (on a 1-12
point scale).
The odors and flavors in the distribution system samples were also unusual in that the panelists
became fatigued very quickly to their presence and their intensities. In other words, even if all the
samples had the “musty old pipe” characteristic, the panelists would not notice it after the second or
third sample tested in a group of 5 samples investigated per panel session.
Since we do not know anything about the Cohasset system, we cannot be of much further help. I
would like to refer you to a website that contains a decision tree on how to control taste and odor
problems that occur in water systems. You can access the beta version of the software at:
http://www.mcguireinc.com/wip/tando/
The final version is on a CD for sale by AWWA.
Table 4Flavor Profile Analysis ResultsCohasset, MASample ID Address pHTemp.(oc)FreeChlorine(mg/L)TotalChlorine(mg/L)Odor Characteristics and IntensitiesFlavor Characteristics and Intensities33 Raw 339 King Street 6.21 19.3 0.07 0.05 Earthy 2.0 N/A33 Pre-CL 339 King Street 5.17 15.8 0.00 0.10Earthy/Grassy 1.5 Damp Paper 1.0 Note: sweetN/A33 Effluent 339 King Street 6.23 18.5 1.43 1.69Chlorine 1.5 Note:old pipeChlorine 1.5Note: musty3 16 Bates Lane 5.88 19.5 0.01 0.05Musty 0.5 Note: old pipeMusty Old Pipe 1.0Notes: plastic, bitter, drying4 60 Wheelwright Farm 6.01 21.2 0.01 0.11Musty 1.5 Notes: chlorine, garden hose, algaeMusty 1.5 Notes: bitter, astringent, old pipe, algae22 103 North Main Street 5.69 16.7 0.03 0.13Musty/Mildew 1.0 Note: algaeMusty Old Pipe 1.0Notes: mildew, plastic, drying, astringent, bitter24 58 Gammons Road 6.30 12.3 0.00 0.00Old Pipe 1.0 Note: old book mildewOld Pipe 1.0Metallic Garden Hose Fitting 1.5Notes: drying, mildew, bitter25 9 Little Harbor Road 6.26 17.5 0.08 0.09Plastic 0.5 Notes: mildew, old pipeOld Pipe 0.5 Plastic 0.5 Note: drying27 292 Jerusalem Road 6.35 18.2 0.56 0.57Old Pipe 0.5 Notes: plastic, mustyOld Pipe 0.5 Notes: plastic, drying, bitter30 91 Cedar Street 5.65 16.6 0.00 0.00Chlorine 0.5Earthy/Musty 1.0 Notes: old pipe, mildewMildew 1.0 Old Pipe 1.5 Notes: bitter, metallic, drying31 206 Sohier Street 6.18 21.0 0.00 0.00Mildew 1.5 Notes: chlorine, sweet metallic pipe, wet paperMildewy Cement 2.5Notes: plastic, bitter, fishy, metallicNorfolk Field Analysis McGuire Environmental FPAC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 4 cohasset fpa results.xls
Table 4Flavor Profile Analysis ResultsCohasset, MASample ID Address pHTemp.(oc)FreeChlorine(mg/L)TotalChlorine(mg/L)Odor Characteristics and IntensitiesFlavor Characteristics and IntensitiesNorfolk Field Analysis McGuire Environmental FPA32 143 Pond Street - H.S. 5.98 18.5 0.02 0.06Mildewy Cement 1.0Note: sweet metallic pipeMetallic 1.5 Bitter 0.5 Note: astringent35 60 Aaron River Road 5.90 19.1 0.01 0.11Musty 0.5 Sweet 0.5Notes: Garden House, ChlorineMusty 0.5 Garden Hose 1.0 Notes: Bitter, Drying37 40 Atlantic Avenue 6.10 11.8 0.02 0.06Mildew/Musty 1.0 Note: sweet metallic pipeMusty Old Pipe 0.5Mildew 1.0Metallic 0.538 177Atlantic Avenue 6.09 12.7 0.02 0.09Musty/Stale 1.0 Notes: Garden Hose, plasticStale/Musty 1.5 Bitter 1.0 Notes: drying39 30 Beach Street 6.20 12.2 0.02 0.06Musty 1.0 Note: chlorineMusty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: metallic, astringent, drying40 105 Border Street 6.13 13.0 0.00 0.04Stale/Musty 1.0 Notes: Earthy, Garden HoseStale/Musty 1.0Garden Hose 1.5 Note: drying41 56 Deep Run 6.12 15.9 0.04 0.10Old Pipe 1.0Musty/Mildew 1.0Old Pipe 1.0Notes: bitter, stale42 32 Fairoaks Lane 5.88 18.9 0.00 0.00Musty/Old Pipe 1.0Mildew 1.5 Note: chemical/plasticOld Pipe 2.0Notes: earthy/musty, algae/mildew, drying43 12 Hugh Strain Road 5.65 19.3 0.01 0.09Musty 1.5 Notes: garden hose, algae, chlorineMusty 1.0 Notes: bitter, old pipe, garden hose44 1 Jerusalem Road 5.65 20.4 0.02 0.02Musty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: algae, plastic, chlorineMusty 1.0 Old Pipe 2.0 Notes: astringent, metallic45 250 King Street 5.59 19.4 0.53 0.80Chlorine 1.0 Notes: old pipe, staleChlorine 1.0Musty/Stale 0.5Notes: garden hose, old pipe46 4 Ledgewood Drive 5.81 17.4 0.06 0.12Musty Basement/ Old Pipe 1.5Stale/Pipe 1.0 Notes: bitter, drying47 166 Linden Drive 5.92 14.9 0.00 0.04Musty Old Pipe 1.0Notes: algae, mildewMildew/Musty/ Old Pipe 1.5 Note: plasticC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 4 cohasset fpa results.xls
Table 4Flavor Profile Analysis ResultsCohasset, MASample ID Address pHTemp.(oc)FreeChlorine(mg/L)TotalChlorine(mg/L)Odor Characteristics and IntensitiesFlavor Characteristics and IntensitiesNorfolk Field Analysis McGuire Environmental FPA48 31 Nichols Road 6.10 16.0 0.01 0.03Musty/Mildew 0.5 Notes: plastic, old pipeOld Pipe 1.5Notes: bitter, dry, slick/oily, mildew, metallic49 47 Norfolk Road 5.79 17.9 0.16 0.35Musty 1.0 Note: garden hoseStale/Musty 1.0Metallic 1.0Notes: bitter, drying, garden hose50 8 Norman Todd Road 5.61 18.6 0.01 0.26Musty 1.0 Old Pipe 1.5 Notes: mildew, chlorineOld Pipe/Musty 1.5Notes: bitter, plastic, mildew51 245 North Main Street 5.60 14.8 0.00 0.00Earthy/Musty 1.5 Notes: mildew, chlorineMildew/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: bitter, drying, algae52 60 Old Pasture Road 5.73 16.2 0.02 0.11Moldy/Mildew 1.0 Notes: garden hose, chemical/plasticStale 1.0 Plastic 1.0 Notes: bitter, garden hose, drying53 53 Pond Street 5.79 17.0 0.09 0.19 Mildew/Pipe 1.0Mildew/Musty 1.0Bitter 1.5 Note: musty pipe54 33 Red Gate Lane 6.21 12.2 0.00 0.00Mildew Pipe 1.0 Wet Paper 0.5Wet Paper 1.0Mildew Pipe 0.5Notes: drying, metallic55 3 Ripley Road 5.73 17.4 0.25 0.14Musty 1.0 Note: garden hoseBitter 1.0 Metallic 1.0 Notes: stale, moldy, drying56 10 River Road 5.63 19.5 0.39 0.09Musty 1.0 Notes: old pipe, chlorineMusty/Mildew 2.0 Notes: bitter, plastic, old pipe58 141 South Main Street 5.86 19.6 0.11 0.22 Musty/Old Pipe 0.5Musty/Old Pipe 0.5Notes: dry, bitterC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 4 cohasset fpa results.xls
Table 4Flavor Profile Analysis ResultsCohasset, MASample ID Address pHTemp.(oc)FreeChlorine(mg/L)TotalChlorine(mg/L)Odor Characteristics and IntensitiesFlavor Characteristics and IntensitiesNorfolk Field Analysis McGuire Environmental FPA60 31 Mill Lane 5.86 19.4 0.01 0.09Chlorine 1.0 Musty 1.5 Notes: garden hoseMusty 1.5 Notes: chlorine, garden hose, old pipe, bitter61 14 Stockbridge Street 6.21 15.5 0.10 0.11Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes: chlorine, resinMusty 1.5 Note: chlorine62 52 Summer Street 6.11 17.6 0.01 0.03Musty 0.5 Notes: old pipe, sweetMetallic pipe 1.5Stale/Musty 1.0Bitter 0.563 3 Todd Lane 6.03 17.7 0.44 0.17Chlorine-like 1.0 Notes: wet paper, sweet metallic pipe, musty/mildewMetallic 1.0 Bitter 0.5 Notes: drying, wet paper64 18 Virginia Lane 5.86 20.6 0.04 0.05Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes: stale, garden hosePlastic 1.5 Notes: bitter, moldy, stale, garden hose, metallic65 348 North Main Street 5.97 15.4 0.00 0.03Musty Metal Pipe 1.0Note: chlorineMildew Old Pipe 1.0Note: drying, bitter66 87 Pleasant Street 5.20 21.9 0.08 0.22Chlorine 1.0Musty/Stale 1.0 Note: plasticStale/Earthy 1.0 Notes: Chlorine, Old pipe68 87 Elm Street 6.19 13.1 0.01 0.00Musty/Mildew/Old Pipe 1.5Notes: chlorine, resinAlgae/Mildew/Old Pipe 1.0 Metallic 1.0 Notes: chemical/resin69 20 Hammond Avenue 5.81 17.8 0.00 0.00Musty 0.5 Notes: plastic, chlorineMusty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: stale/bitter, plastic, drying70 27 Highland Avenue 5.95 12.7 0.02 0.11Mildew 1.0 Notes: wet paper, sweet metallic pipeBitter 0.5 Notes: metallic, wet paper71 40 Cedar Acres Lane 5.86 12.1 0.01 0.04Musty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: mildew, chlorine, rubberOld Pipe 0.5 Notes: mildew, algae, rubbery, drying75 31 Bow Street 6.05 17.2 0.00 0.00Musty/Old Pipe 0.5Notes: chlorine, rubber, mildewMusty/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: bitter, rubbery, algae, dryingC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 4 cohasset fpa results.xls
Table 4Flavor Profile Analysis ResultsCohasset, MASample ID Address pHTemp.(oc)FreeChlorine(mg/L)TotalChlorine(mg/L)Odor Characteristics and IntensitiesFlavor Characteristics and IntensitiesNorfolk Field Analysis McGuire Environmental FPA77 130 C J Cushing Highway 5.76 19.2 0.05 0.25Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes: algae, chlorine, plasticMildew/Old Pipe 1.0Notes: plastic, bitter, chlorine, drying78 223 C J Cushing Highway 5.71 15.3 0.07 0.31Sweet metallic wet cement pipe 1.5 Notes: chlorine, mildewBitter metallic 1.0Notes: wet paper, drying79 790 C J Cushing Highway 5.84 16.1 0.00 0.03Musty/Mildew 1.5 Note: staleBitter 1.0 Notes: metallic, stale, chlorine, chemical/plastic80 79 Forest Avenue 5.85 14.4 0.02 0.15Musty 0.5 Note: algae, mildewOld Pipe 1.0Notes: drying, mildew, bitterNotes:NA--Not Analyzed: Only finished water or otherwise potable water samples are by flavor by mouthC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 4 cohasset fpa results.xls
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. (McGuire) Analysis of Results
McGuire conducts the Flavor Profile Analysis (FPA) by allowing the panels to provide full
descriptions of the water characteristic without restricting them to the use of the categories and
descriptors contained within the AWWA taste and odor wheel. The descriptors used by the panels
indicate the complexity of the water characteristics. When asked to redefine some of the
characteristics, McGuire indicated that the complex blends of flavors present in the water preclude
them from characterizing the water in the simplistic terms of the AWWA Taste and Odor Wheel.
Additionally, even when pressed, McGuire was not able to better describe or characterize the “old
pipe” flavor nor could they identify whether that was caused by metallic compounds, biofilms,
organic matter or just stale water.
On Monday July 26, 2004, Michael McGuire left a voice message in which he indicated that the
“Cohasset water is very unusual” and that they “are scratching their heads about the cause”.
Furthermore, he indicated that if the flavor characteristics were simple, such as earth-musty, fishy
or grassy, they would be able to pinpoint the causes and identify corrective actions. Because the
water is so “unique”, Mr. McGuire feels that the cause cannot be identified solely through use of
the FPA and that McGuire will need to provide personnel on-site to more fully evaluate the source
water and the treatment processes.
On July 26 and 27, 2004, Norfolk personnel also spoke to Jim Leserman at McGuire seeking
additional explanations that would enable some of the McGuire descriptions to be converted to the
characteristics listed on the AWWA Taste and Odor Wheel. Many of the McGuire descriptors,
such as “old pipe”, were not included on the wheel. Mr. Leserman indicated that the sample panel
were not given a set of characteristics to use, but rather were instructed to fully describe the way
the water tasted and smelled. Mr. Leserman said McGuire is unable to refine the data from the
panel because they are unable to classify the “old pipe” flavor and are unsure about which other
descriptors could be combined or alternately characterized. Norfolk also requested that McGuire
provide possible causes of the tastes and odors and suggest potential remedies. Mr. Leserman
again reiterated that the Cohasset water was very unusual, with the raw water having a distinct
earthy odor and the distribution system water samples displaying a wide range of characteristics,
most notably that of “old pipe”. Mr. Leserman further indicated that McGuire would not be able
to provide any additional information without first completing additional system research and on-
site testing.
Evaluation of Flavor Profile Analysis Results
The McGuire FPA results have been tabulated and charted, both using pie charts and column
charts to better present the results. The first sets of pie charts depict the raw tastes and odors
identified by the panels exactly as they were described and without any manipulation, grouping or
refinement. These four charts depict the variety of complex tastes and odors identified by the
panels via an intensity rating (charts 9 and 10) or via a note (charts 11 and 12). Although these pie
charts are useful for graphically identifying the wide range of descriptors used, because most of the
samples displayed more than one flavor, the pie charts cannot accurately identify the percentage of
the 50 samples that contained a certain taste or odor characteristic.
29
Figure 9 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Taste Intensity DataMusty, 18, 20%Musty Old Pipe, 4, 4%Old Pipe, 21, 23%Mildew, 11, 12%Bitter, 8, 9%Drying, 0, 0%Astringent, 0, 0%Metallic, 7, 8%Metallic Pipe, 1, 1%Metallic Garden Hose Fitting, 1, 1%Chemical, 0, 0%Plastic, 3, 3%Wet Paper, 1, 1%Rubbery, 0, 0%Stale, 8, 9%N/A, 2, 2%Chlorine, 2, 2%Garden Hose, 2, 2%Earthy, 1, 1%Moldy, 0, 0%Algae, 1, 1%Cement, 1, 1%Fishy, 0, 0%Slick/Oily, 0, 0%Resin, 0, 0%
Figure 10 Flavor Porfile Analysis Raw Odor Intensity DataMusty, 34, 38%Mildew, 14, 16%Old Pipe, 15, 17%Basement, 1, 1%Old Book, 1, 1%Chlorine, 6, 7%Earthy, 4, 4%Grassy, 1, 1%Algae, 0, 0%Moldy, 1, 1%Chemical, 0, 0%Plastic, 1, 1%Wet Paper, 2, 2%Rubber, 0, 0%Sweet, 1, 1%Sweet Metallic Pipe, 1, 1%Resin, 0, 0%Stale, 3, 3%Garden hose, 3, 3%Cement, 2, 2%
Figure 11Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Taste Note DataMildew, 7, 6%Bitter, 25, 20%Drying, 27, 21%Astringent, 5, 4%Metallic, 9, 7%Metallic Pipe, 0, 0%Metallic Garden Hose Fitting, 0, 0%Chemical, 2, 2%Plastic, 10, 8%Wet Paper, 3, 2%Rubbery, 2, 2%Stale, 5, 4%N/A, 0, 0%Chlorine, 5, 4%Garden Hose, 6, 5%Earthy, 1, 1%Moldy, 2, 2%Algae, 5, 4%Cement, 0, 0%Fishy, 1, 1%Slick/Oily, 1, 1%Old Pipe, 7, 6%Musty Old Pipe, 0, 0%Musty, 3, 2%Resin, 1, 1%
Figure 12 Flavor Profile Analysis Raw Odor Note DataMusty, 3, 3%Mildew, 12, 14%Old Pipe, 8, 9%Basement, 0, 0%Old Book, 1, 1%Chlorine, 17, 20%Earthy, 1, 1%Grassy, 0, 0%Algae, 7, 8%Moldy, 0, 0%Chemical, 2, 2%Plastic, 9, 10%Wet Paper, 3, 3%Rubber, 2, 2%Sweet, 2, 2%Sweet Metallic Pipe, 5, 6%Stale, 3, 3%Garden hose, 10, 11%Cement, 0, 0%Resin, 2, 2%
UUPPDDAATTEEDD NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
34
Tastes and odors of drinking water can be caused by many different factors, with many different
individual tastes and odors combining to create an overall water flavor. Because of the complex
mixture of flavors identified in each sample, with many samples displaying more than one flavor,
the results are better presented using column charts. Column charts 13 and 14 depict the raw data
from McGuire, using all of their descriptions for taste and odor respectively. Because of the large
amount of descriptions used by McGuire, it is extremely difficult to define the main characteristics
present within Cohasset’s drinking water. In an effort to better understand the data, Norfolk has
grouped the McGuire FPA results into categories that have similar characteristics. These
categories are separated into intensity and notes to reflect whether the characteristic represents the
major flavor of the sample or if it is just a less prominent flavor that is also present within the
sample.
Similar characteristics were grouped together when they appeared many times in the McGuire
results. For instance Musty and Old pipe were grouped together because the McGuire raw data
contained many sample locations with a description of Musty/Old Pipe. Norfolk assumes that
these were describing similar tastes and odors. Next, Norfolk used “Advances in Taste and Odor
Cooperative Research Report”, prepared by the American Water Works Research Foundation, as
another guide to aid in the grouping of characteristics. From this book and McGuire’s
descriptions, we were able to narrow the number of characteristics and identify the major groups of
tastes and odors present in the Cohasset drinking water. Column charts 13 and 14 depict the raw
data from McGuire, using all of their descriptions for taste and odor respectively. Column charts
15 and 16 depict the taste and odor characteristics as grouped by Norfolk. These charts identify
the total number of times (and percentage of samples) that each descriptor (charts 13 and 14) or
characteristic group (charts 15 and 16) were applied.
The taste characteristic group (intensity results) that was present in the highest percentage of
samples was Old Pipe/ Musty Old Pipe/ Musty/ Mildew. This taste grouping was present in 38 of
the 48 taste samples. Bitter/ Drying/ Astringent/ Metallic/ Metallic Pipe/ Metallic Garden Hose
Fitting was present in the next highest percentage (12 samples) followed by stale (8 samples) and
Chemical/ Plastic/ Wet Paper/ Rubbery/ Garden Hose (6 samples). The categories of N/A,
Chlorine, and Earthy/ Moldy/ Algae were each identified in 2 of the samples with a cement taste
characteristic present in 1 sample.
Musty/ Mildew/ Old Pipe/ Basement/ Old Book was the odor characteristic group (intensity
results) that was identified in 42 of the 50 odor samples. Chlorine had the next highest occurrence
rate (16 samples), followed by Earthy/ Grassy/ Algae/ Moldy identified in (5 samples). The
Chemical/ Plastic/ Wet Paper/ Rubber and Stale characteristic group was detected in 3 of the
samples with the Sweet/ Sweet Metallic Pipe and Cement characteristics present in only 2 of the
samples.
McGuire noted that the raw source water (sample 33-raw) displayed a distinctly earthy odor,
suggesting the presence of Geosimin, with an intensity rating of 2.0. The sample collected after
sedimentation but before chlorination (33 pre-Cl) also displayed earthy/grassy (intensity 1.5) and
damp paper (intensity 1.0) odor characteristics. The chlorinated finished water at the plant had
distinct chlorinous odor and flavors (intensity 1.5, 1.69 mg/l concentration) with notes indicating
“mustiness” and “old-pipe”.
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Figure 13.xlsFigure 13 Taste Intensity and Note CharacteristicsRaw FPA Data051015202530MustyMusty Old PipeOld PipeMildewBitterDryingAstringentMetallicMetallic PipeMetallic Garden Hose FittingChemicalPlasticWet PaperRubberyStaleN/AChlorineGarden HoseEarthyMoldyAlgaeCementFishySlick/OilyResin# of OccurencesIntensityNote
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Figure 14.xlsFigure 14 Odor Intensity and Note CharacteristicsRaw FPA Data0510152025303540MustyMildewOld PipeBasementOld BookChlorineEarthyGrassyAlgaeMoldyChemicalPlasticWet PaperRubberSweetSweet Metallic PipeStaleGarden hoseCementResin# of OccurencesIntensityNote
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Figure 15.xlsFigure 15Taste Intensity and Note Characteristics Grouped by Norfolk051015202530354045Old Pipe/Musty Old Pipe/Musty/MildewBitter/Drying/Astringent/Metallic/MetallicPipe/Metallic Garden Hose FittingChemical/Plastic/WetPaper/Rubbery/Garden HoseStaleN/AChlorineEarthy/Moldy/AlgaeCementFishySlick/OilyResin# of OccurencesIntensityNote
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Figure 16.xlsFigure 16Odor Intensity and Note CharacteristicsGrouped by Norfolk051015202530354045Musty/Mildew/OldPipe/Basement/Old BookChlorineEarthy/Grassy/Algae/MoldyChemical/Plastic/WetPaper/Rubber/GardenHoseSweet/Sweet Metallic PipeStaleCementResin# of OccurencesIntensityNote
UUPPDDAATTEEDD NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Taste and Odor Groups
Norfolk has grouped the earthy/ musty and old pipe descriptions together. Based both on chemical
testing and on McGuire’s descriptions, this taste grouping does not appear to be attributable to
geosmin or MIB, but rather is probably related either to organic and inorganic compounds
contained within the source water that are inadequately removed by the treatment process or to
residuals from coagulation and incomplete coagulation and filtration.
Musty/Mildew/Old Pipe: Musty or old pipe odors and flavors were reported in almost all of the
samples, with intensities ranging from 0.5 to 2.0. Additionally, McGuire indicated that it is
possible that biofilms or iron deposits within the distribution system or at the service connections
may have contributed to the musty old-pipe odors and flavors. An old pipe/ musty/ mildew taste
intensity was reported in 38 taste samples and noted in 15 additional taste samples. A
musty/mildew/ old pipe/ basement or old book odor intensity was recorded in 42 of the samples
and noted in 19 of the odor samples.
Earthy/Grassy/Algae/Moldy: An earthy odor was detected in the raw water (intensity 2.0) and
an earth/grassy odor was detected in the pre-chlorine sample (intensity 1.5). This flavor group had
a taste intensity reported in a total of two (2) samples and noted in seven (7) additional taste
samples. An odor intensity was recorded in a total of five (5) of the samples and noted in eight (8)
odor samples.
Metallic/Bitter/Drying: The bitter metallic group accounted for a taste intensity in 12 samples
with 39 contributing a metallic group taste note. This flavor was less prevalent as an odor, with
only two (2) samples displaying a sweet or sweet metallic pipe odor intensity and six (6) having a
similar odor note. Low pH water has a bitter, metallic taste that also contributes to accelerated
corrosion.
Chlorine: A chlorine odor with an intensity of 0.5 or greater (maximum intensity of 1.5 in the
treatment plant effluent) was recorded in six (6) of the samples and noted in fifteen (15) additional
odor samples. A chlorine taste intensity was reported in two (2) samples (maximum intensity 1.5
in the treatment plant effluent) and noted in five (5) additional taste samples.
Chemical/Plastic/Wet Paper/Rubber/Garden Hose: The chemical/ plastic group had 6 samples
that displayed a taste intensity and 22 with a taste note. This group also had three (3) samples with
an odor intensity and 22 samples with an odor note.
Comparison of FPA Results and Consumer Survey Results
Table 5 has been prepared to compare the McGuire FPA characteristics with the tastes and odors
identified during the consumer Survey at each of the sample sites. For the most part, this Table
indicates that there is very little correlation between the consumers identified tastes and odors and
the flavor descriptions used by McGuire. This may be due to the low intensity of the flavors, the
complex blending and individual variations in perception. While the majority of intensities
identified by the FPA ranged from 0.5 to 2.0, McGuire indicates that consumer complaints
generally occur when the odor or flavor intensities are 4 or greater.
39
Table 5
Taste and Odor Evaluation
Flavor Profile Analysis Results Compared to
Cohasset Survey Results
Sample ID Address
Odor Characteristics and
Intensities
Flavor Characteristics
and Intensities Odor Characteristic Taste Characteristic
33 Raw 339 King Street Earthy 2.0 Not Analyzed No Response No Response
33 Pre-CL 339 King Street
Earthy/Grassy 1.5 Damp
Paper 1.0 Note: sweet Not Analyzed No Response No Response
33 Effluent 339 King Street
Chlorine 1.5 Note:
old pipe
Chlorine 1.5
Note: musty No Response No Response
3 16 Bates Lane
Musty 0.5 Note:
old pipe
Musty Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: plastic, bitter,
drying No Response No Response
4 60 Wheelwright Farm
Musty 1.5 Notes:
chlorine, garden hose,
algae
Musty 1.5
Notes: bitter, astringent,
old pipe, algae
No Complaint No Complaint
22 103 North Main Street
Musty/Mildew 1.0 Note:
algae
Musty Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: mildew, plastic,
drying, astringent, bitter Musty/Chlorinous No Complaint
24 58 Gammons Road
Old Pipe 1.0 Note: old
book mildew
Old Pipe 1.0
Metallic Garden Hose
Fitting 1.5
Notes: drying, mildew,
bitter Grassy/Swampy/Chlorinous Metallic/Swampy
25 9 Little Harbor Road
Plastic 0.5 Notes:
mildew, old pipe
Old Pipe 0.5
Plastic 0.5 Note:
drying No Complaint No Complaint
27 292 Jerusalem Road
Old Pipe 0.5 Notes:
plastic, musty
Old Pipe 0.5
Notes: plastic, drying,
bitter No Complaint No Complaint
30 91 Cedar Street
Chlorine 0.5
Earthy/Musty 1.0 Notes:
old pipe, mildew
Mildew 1.0 Old
Pipe 1.5 Notes:
bitter, metallic, drying No Complaint No Complaint
31 206 Sohier Street
Mildew 1.5 Notes:
chlorine, sweet metallic
pipe, wet paper
Mildewy Cement 2.5
Notes: plastic, bitter,
fishy, metallic No Complaint No Complaint
32 143 Pond Street - H.S.
Mildewy Cement 1.0
Note: sweet metallic pipe
Metallic 1.5 Bitter
0.5 Note:
astringent No Complaint No Complaint
35 60 Aaron River Road
Musty 0.5 Sweet 0.5
Notes: Garden House,
Chlorine
Musty 0.5 Garden
Hose 1.0 Notes:
Bitter, Drying Musty Sour
37 40 Atlantic Avenue
Mildew/Musty 1.0 Note:
sweet metallic pipe
Musty Old Pipe 0.5
Mildew 1.0
Metallic 0.5 Rotten Egg Metallic
38 177Atlantic Avenue
Musty/Stale 1.0 Notes:
Garden Hose, plastic
Stale/Musty 1.5 Bitter
1.0 Notes: drying Swampy Vaguly like seawater
39 30 Beach Street
Musty 1.0 Note:
chlorine
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: metallic,
astringent, drying No Complaint No Complaint
40 105 Border Street
Stale/Musty 1.0 Notes:
Earthy, Garden Hose
Stale/Musty 1.0
Garden Hose 1.5 Note:
drying No Complaint No Complaint
41 56 Deep Run
Old Pipe 1.0
Musty/Mildew 1.0
Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: bitter, stale No Response Metallic
42 32 Fairoaks Lane
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Mildew 1.5 Note:
chemical/plastic
Old Pipe 2.0
Notes: earthy/musty,
algae/mildew, drying No Response No Response
43 12 Hugh Strain Road
Musty 1.5 Notes:
garden hose, algae,
chlorine
Musty 1.0
Notes: bitter, old pipe,
garden hose No Complaint No Complaint
44 1 Jerusalem Road
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: algae, plastic,
chlorine
Musty 1.0 Old
Pipe 2.0 Notes:
astringent, metallic No Response No Response
45 250 King Street
Chlorine 1.0 Notes:
old pipe, stale
Chlorine 1.0
Musty/Stale 0.5
Notes: garden hose, old
pipe No Complaint No Complaint
46 4 Ledgewood Drive
Musty Basement/ Old Pipe
1.5
Stale/Pipe 1.0
Notes: bitter, drying No Response No Response
47 166 Linden Drive
Musty Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: algae, mildew
Mildew/Musty/ Old Pipe
1.5 Note: plastic No Complaint Salty
48 31 Nichols Road
Musty/Mildew 0.5 Notes:
plastic, old pipe
Old Pipe 1.5
Notes: bitter, dry,
slick/oily, mildew, metallic No Complaint Metallic
49 47 Norfolk Road
Musty 1.0 Note:
garden hose
Stale/Musty 1.0
Metallic 1.0
Notes: bitter, drying,
garden hose No Complaint No Complaint
50 8 Norman Todd Road
Musty 1.0 Old Pipe
1.5 Notes: mildew,
chlorine
Old Pipe/Musty 1.5
Notes: bitter, plastic,
mildew Swampy Chemically/Earthy
McGuire Environmental FPA Cohasset Survery Results
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 5 McGuire's and Survey.xls Page 1 of 2
Table 5
Taste and Odor Evaluation
Flavor Profile Analysis Results Compared to
Cohasset Survey Results
Sample ID Address
Odor Characteristics and
Intensities
Flavor Characteristics
and Intensities Odor Characteristic Taste Characteristic
McGuire Environmental FPA Cohasset Survery Results
51 245 North Main Street
Earthy/Musty 1.5 Notes:
mildew, chlorine
Mildew/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: bitter, drying,
algae Swampy/Musty/Chlorinous Musty
52 60 Old Pasture Road
Moldy/Mildew 1.0 Notes:
garden hose,
chemical/plastic
Stale 1.0 Plastic
1.0 Notes: bitter,
garden hose, drying Swimming
Pool/Chlorinous/Chemical Metallic/Chlorine
53 53 Pond Street Mildew/Pipe 1.0
Mildew/Musty 1.0
Bitter 1.5
Note: musty pipe No Response No Response
54 33 Red Gate Lane
Mildew Pipe 1.0 Wet
Paper 0.5
Wet Paper 1.0
Mildew Pipe 0.5
Notes: drying, metallic No Complaint No Complaint
55 3 Ripley Road
Musty 1.0 Note:
garden hose
Bitter 1.0
Metallic 1.0
Notes: stale, moldy,
drying Chemical No Complaint
56 10 River Road
Musty 1.0 Notes:
old pipe, chlorine
Musty/Mildew 2.0
Notes: bitter, plastic, old
pipe Chlorinous Bitter/Metallic
58 141 South Main Street Musty/Old Pipe 0.5
Musty/Old Pipe 0.5
Notes: dry, bitter No Complaint No Complaint
60 31 Mill Lane
Chlorine 1.0 Musty
1.5 Notes: garden
hose
Musty 1.5
Notes: chlorine, garden
hose, old pipe, bitter Swimming Pool No Response
61 14 Stockbridge Street
Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes:
chlorine, resin
Musty 1.5 Note:
chlorine No Complaint No Complaint
62 52 Summer Street
Musty 0.5 Notes:
old pipe, sweet
Metallic pipe 1.5
Stale/Musty 1.0
Bitter 0.5 No Complaint No Complaint
63 3 Todd Lane
Chlorine-like 1.0 Notes:
wet paper, sweet metallic
pipe, musty/mildew
Metallic 1.0 Bitter
0.5 Notes:
drying, wet paper No Complaint No Complaint
64 18 Virginia Lane
Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes:
stale, garden hose
Plastic 1.5 Notes:
bitter, moldy, stale,
garden hose, metallic No Complaint No Complaint
65 348 North Main Street
Musty Metal Pipe 1.0
Note: chlorine
Mildew Old Pipe 1.0
Note: drying, bitter Bleachy/Musty No Complaint
66 87 Pleasant Street
Chlorine 1.0
Musty/Stale 1.0 Note:
plastic
Stale/Earthy 1.0 Notes:
Chlorine, Old pipe Chlorinous No Complaint
68 87 Elm Street
Musty/Mildew/Old Pipe 1.5
Notes: chlorine, resin
Algae/Mildew/Old Pipe
1.0 Metallic 1.0
Notes: chemical/resin No Complaint Bitter
69 20 Hammond Avenue
Musty 0.5 Notes:
plastic, chlorine
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: stale/bitter,
plastic, drying Swampy Swamp like
27 Highland Avenue
Mildew 1.0 Notes:
wet paper, sweet metallic
pipe
Bitter 0.5
Notes: metallic, wet
paper No Complaint No Complaint
71 40 Cedar Acres Lane
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: mildew, chlorine,
rubber
Old Pipe 0.5
Notes: mildew, algae,
rubbery, drying No Complaint No Complaint
75 31 Bow Street
Musty/Old Pipe 0.5
Notes: chlorine, rubber,
mildew
Musty/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: bitter, rubbery,
algae, drying
Swampy/Decaying
Vegetation/Fishy/Moldy/Musty Sour/Bitter/Metallic/Dirty
77 130 C J Cushing Highway
Musty/Mildew 1.0 Notes:
algae, chlorine, plastic
Mildew/Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: plastic, bitter,
chlorine, drying No Complaint No Complaint
78 223 C J Cushing Highway
Sweet metallic wet cement
pipe 1.5
Notes: chlorine, mildew
Bitter metallic 1.0
Notes: wet paper, drying Decaying Vegetataion/Septic Sour/Metallic
79 790 C J Cushing Highway
Musty/Mildew 1.5 Note:
stale
Bitter 1.0 Notes:
metallic, stale, chlorine,
chemical/plastic Earthy/Fishy/Musty/Septic Metallic
80 79 Forest Avenue
Musty 0.5 Note:
algae, mildew
Old Pipe 1.0
Notes: drying, mildew,
bitter Rotten Egg No Complaint
Notes:
Not Analyzed: Only finished water or otherwise potable water samples are
by flavor by mouth
C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 5 McGuire's and Survey.xls Page 2 of 2
5.0 POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR TASTE AND ODOR IMPROVEMENT:
The following sections investigate source water quality and include descriptions of potential
source water enhancements, treatment plant modifications, and distribution system management
options.
Source Water Quality
The complex nature of the tastes and odors present in Cohasset’s water indicates that there is not
one cause or related solution or treatment technique that will solve all of the problems. The
problems are most likely contributed in part by the chemistry and biology of the source of the
water, the treatment processes currently used at the plant and the age and operating characteristics
of the distribution system. While it may be possible to modify, alter or enhance the source water
quality (such as through dredging Lily Pond, reducing nutrient inflow, aerating Lily Pond,
blending source waters using either the Aaron River Reservoir or groundwater sources or spplying
algaecides such as copper sulfate to reduce growth), the extensive wetlands system that comprises
both the Lily Pond and the Aaron River Reservoir watersheds will always result in a nutrient rich
source water that promotes biological growth and contains high concentrations of suspended and
dissolved organic and inorganic compounds. Modifications to the surface water system are
therefore considered more as potential long-term enhancements that may be used to reduce
treatment plant operating costs than as a means of eliminating the pervasive taste and odor
characteristics of the water delivered to consumers.
Cohasset receives its surface water from an extensive wetlands intensive watershed that
contributes relatively high concentrations of organic compounds, minerals and nutrients to the
surface water impoundments. These features, further aggrevated by impacts from the developed
areas with urban/residential characteristics, have resulted in extensive eutrophication of Lily Pond.
Quarterly Surface Water Quality testing indicates that the surface waters have historically
remained fairly acidic, with Brass Kettle Brook exhibiting a pH less than 5 standard units and the
majority of the remaining sampling locations having pH’s ranging from 5.5 to 6.5 standard units.
The surface waters can be rather turbid and are typically highly colored (100 to 250 color units).
During the most recent Quarterly Surface Water Sampling event, completed on June 9, 2004,
(Refer to Appendix E) total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations varied from a high of 23 mg/l
measured in Brass Kettle Brook to a range of 6.4 to 13 mg/l (10.5 mg/l average) measured at the
remainder of the sample locations. The dissolved fraction of the organic carbon (DOC) ranged
from a low of approximately 60 percent, to a high of almost 100 percent of the total, with the
normal distribution indicating that approximately 90 to 95 percent of the organic carbon is
dissolved.
While algae is present in both Lily Pond and the Aaron River Reservoir, the most recent quarterly
sampling data indicates that concentrations are roughly an order of magnitude higher in the
shallow and deep samples collected from the Pond (2,000 and 5,600 cells/ml) than in the shallow
and deep samples collected from the Reservoir (690 and 190 cells/ml). The dissolved oxygen
concentrations within the tributary waters, the Pond and the Reservoir all appear to be sufficient
42
with almost all samples exceeding 5 mg/l and some approaching, or exceeding, 100 percent
saturation. Deep water samples collected from Lily Pond typically display lower dissolved oxygen
concentrations (approximately 6 to 9.7 mg/l) than measured in the shallow water samples
(approximately 7 to 12 mg/l) indicative of the oxygen demand imparted by biological matter,
accumulated sediment and settled organic matter present along the Pond bottom. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations measured on deep and shallow water samples collected at the Aaron River
Reservoir were fairly consistent, indicating that there is less accumulation of sediment within the
Reservoir.
The relative water quality of the Pond and Reservoir indicates that switching to Reservoir water
may enhance the aesthetic quality of the drinking water while also decreasing the seasonal
variability caused by water level fluctuations, water demand, temperature and biological growth.
Since the amount of water quality testing within the Aaron River Reservoir is limited, additional
source water testing is warranted.
Common Source Water Tastes and Odors
Source water tastes and odors may be anthropogenic or biological (usually earthy, musty, fishy and
grassy) in origin with variables including natural and derived organic compounds, inorganic
compounds, metals and biological contaminants including living and dead algae or bacteria and
their decomposition by-products.
¾Biological related taste and odors are usually episodic, not continuous, with occurrence or
intensity related in part to the following conditions:
1. The species and concentration of Algae and Bacteria
2. Reservoir nutrient levels. Increased levels of phosphorus and nitrogen enhance algae
growth, particularly when turnover is experienced
3. Water temperature – bacterial growth and algal blooms are more common with warmer
temperatures that increase growth rate and cause stratification leading to phosphorus
release upon turnover
4. Weather patterns – hot dry summers promote growth of algae
Appendix A contains a more complete description of the sources of tastes and odors in surface
waters and includes a partial listing of many of the bacteria and algae that have been shown to
form the following five compounds that have been most often associated with taste and odor
complaints:
x Geosmin (trans-dimethyl-trans-9-decalol) earth-musty taste and odor
x 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) earthy-musty, camphor-like T & O
x 2-isopropyl-3-methoxy/pryazine similar to MIB
x 2-isobutyl-3-methoxy/pryazine earthy-musty T & O similar to bell peppers
x 2,3,6-trichloroanisol musty
43
Although earthy/musty taste and odors were identified, geosmin and MIB were not detected in any
of the water samples and McGuire indicated that geomsin and MIB characteristics were not
present.
¾Organic matter in water has its origin in plant and animal matter and includes nitrogenous
and carbonaceous compounds; suspended, filterable and settleable organic matter;
putrescible organic matter; and, living organic matter. Suspended and dissolved organic
matter contributes to water color and exerts an oxygen demand leading to reduced
dissolved oxygen concentrations within natural waters. Earthy/musty tastes and odors are
often associated with organic content. Additionally, residual organic compounds
contribute to disinfection by-product formation and interfere with filtration and adsorption
of bacteria and algae.
¾Total dissolved solids (inorganic minerals) contribute hardness, deposits, colored water,
staining and a salty taste to water.
¾Dissolved metals including iron, manganese, aluminum, copper and zinc contribute to
water color and turbidity and the staining of plumbing fixtures. Additionally, dissolved
metals in finished water contribute to bitter metallic tastes and odors. This is enhanced by
low pH values that increase metal solubility and interfere with filtration.
Source Water Enhancement Options
The very limited water quality sampling conducted to date indicates that the overall quality of the
water within the Aaron River Reservoir may be better (DOC, TOC, DO and algae) than within
Lily Pond. This quality difference is probably due less to the composition of the watershed than it
is to the relative age and depth of the surface water impoundments. The water within the
Reservoir appears to have better overall water quality, with an order of magnitude less algae
(based on only one sample) and dissolved oxygen and chemical oxygen demand measurements
that remain consistent with depth indicating that the Reservoir is less stratified and contains less
bottom sediment than is present within Lily Pond. Additionally, since the Reservoir is deeper and
has a greater volume than Lily Pond, it is less prone to drastic quality changes due to
environmental effects (rain, drought, temperature) and therefore it should also be less prone to
algae blooms.
Norfolk recommends that additional investigations will need to be completed to more fully
document the quality and characteristics of the water contained within the Reservoir. Additionally,
jar testing should be initiated to investigate blended water properties, to determine treatment
modifications required for use of blended water and, to identify impacts (positive and potentially
negative) to the aesthetic characteristics and overall quality of the drinking water. If the jar testing
proves favorable, the Water Commission should consider constructing a direct pipeline from the
Aaron River Reservoir to the treatment plant intake. In addition to improving water quality, this
pipeline will provide an emergency backup source to Lily Pond that will offer system operators
greater flexibility.
44
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Norfolk also recommends that additional testing be completed related to reactivating one or both
of the existing well fields. Testing, similar to that required for blending water from the Reservoir,
should be completed to investigate blended groundwater water quality and to determine potential
treatment and distribution system modifications that may become necessary. Blending surface and
groundwater sources will alter the aesthetic quality of the supply, possibly diluting the offensive
characteristics, making them less noticeable.
Improvements can be made to enhance the existing Lily Pond source water quality. Dredging Lily
Pond will remove sediment (organic, inorganic and nutrients) and provide more volume within the
Pond. This increased volume should lead to less dramatic temperature impacts and may help to
minimize stratification and reduce the water quality changes that have been noted with depth.
Additionally, removal of sediments will also help to control algae growth.
Algae growth within Lily Pond can be further limited by controlling the introduction of nutrients
to the water body. This is currently being pursued through construction of best management
practice stormwater treatment systems and elimination of septic systems wherever possible within
the watershed. Additional means of controlling algae growth includes the application of
algaecides (copper sulfate or copper sulfate and chlorine) as necessary to prevent bloom, artificial
destratification (aeration or mixing to raise dissolved oxygen levels and prevent stratification) and
food web management to promote predation or prevent algae growth. The use of potassium
permanganate or calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, addition to coagulate algae or precipitate
phosphorus has also been attempted within water bodies and at treatment plants. It is Norfolk’s
opinion that, in order to minimize stirring and mixing of bottom sediments, aeration of Lily Pond
should not be considered or attempted until after dredging is completed. Additionally, after the
dredging project is complete, dissolved oxygen profiling should be completed to determine if
additional aeration is actually required or may be beneficial.
As long as algae growth remains a problem within Lily Pond, water monitoring and MIB
concentration testing should be expanded to help identify or predict taste and odor episodes. For
example, a possible operational plan for responding to various levels of MIB might specify that
sampling frequency is increased at a concentration of 5 ng/l, algaecide application is initiated at 10
ng/l, and that an alternate source is used whenever the concentration reaches 15 ng/l. Finally, use
of floating filter screens and/or partially submerged intake structures may help to reduce the intake
of upper layer algal growths.
45
Table 6 SOURCE WATER ENHANCEMENTS Action Process Modification Effect Taste and Odor Improvements Alternative Source xAaron River ReservoirxDirect Pipe from the Reservoir xBetter overall water quality xMore consistent with greater depth and larger volume xOrder of magnitude less algae xLimited sediment xEnhanced treatability xReduce surface water related tastes and odorsxReduce earthy/musty/old pipe xReduce re-growth of bacteria and algae xGroundwaterxReactivate Groundwater SourcesxBlended water will reduce surface water related tastes and odors xWill help to dilute surface water tastes and odorsImprove Lily Pond Source Water Quality xRemove Sediments xDredge Lily Pond xRemoves organic and inorganic sediments xProvides more useable volume xEliminates stratification and quality changes xReduce earthy/musty/old pipe xReduce bitter/metallic xReduce Pollutant LoadingxStormwater Treatment on-going as part of 319 Stormwater Grant and SRF Loan xElimination of Septic Systems xBetter control of access to pond xReduce nutrients, suspended solids and non-point source pollutants xReduce total petroleum hydrocarbons and salt from roadway runoff xPossibly reduce bacterial loading xReduce earthy/musty/old pipe xControl Algae Growth as necessary within Pond and reservoir xCopper Sulfate or Copper Sulfate and Chlorine xPotassium permanganate xExpand monitoring for algae, MIB and geosmin xAlter biological regime within Lily Pond xReduce algae in source water and reduce impacts from algae and related decomposition xReduce earthy/musty xReduce moldy xReduce mildewy xProvide aeration within Lily Pond for mixing, algae control and destratification xShould only be considered afterLily Pond dredging is complete xAs needed, based on dissolved oxygen content xControl algae growth xPrevent anoxic conditions xReduce variation of pond quality with depth xReduce earthy/musty/old pipe xReduce moldy xModify inlet control structurexInlet floating screen xSubmerged inlet that reduces floatables and sediments xImprove quality of raw water entering plant xLower TSS xLower TOC
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Treatment Plant Modifications
Given the limited short-term opportunities available to drastically modify the source water quality,
efforts to enhance the aesthetic characteristics of the drinking water will need to be concentrated at
the water treatment plant. The treatment plant currently removes suspended solids using an alum
coagulation and sand filtration process. Chlorine is added at the filters, which also allows it to
react with pre-filtered water and to oxidize some of the remaining dissolved and suspended
constituents (both organic and inorganic) that are present in the water. Halogenation (chlorination)
reactions that occur at the filter, and more importantly continue within the distribution system,
contribute to the formation of disinfection by-products and may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the disinfection process.
Many competing factors need to be assessed before treatment plant modifications should be
undertaken. Examples of some of these competing factors include providing effective disinfection,
minimizing the formation of disinfection by-products, elimination of tastes and odors, corrosion
control, and stabilizing the water to prevent corrosion or regrowth within the distribution system
that may lead to the accelerated formation of disinfection by-product (DBP’s) or to the creation of
new tastes and odors.
Treatment plant pH is a prime example of a process control issue that has many competing
interests. Lower pH enhances the removal of total organic carbon (TOC), a key factor for
preventing DBP formation and for eliminating taste and odor problems. But lower pH values also
reduce the precipitation of metals and negatively impact filtration efficiency causing early turbidity
breakthrough. Additionally, the taste threshold concentration for free chlorine becomes lower (i.e.
more noticeable) at lower pH values. Similarly, although maintaining higher pH values within the
distribution system (7.0 standard units or greater) decreases corrosion rates and decreases
biological regrowth within pipes, Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) are formed much faster as the
pH of the water is increased.
While some jar testing has been performed relative to improving filtration and minimizing DBP
formation, additional jar and pilot level testing (i.e. plant level trials of changes recommended by
jar testing) is warranted to investigate the impacts that the potential treatment plant modifications
may have on the aesthetic qualities of the water and on the rate of continuing reactions that occur
within the distribution system. Norfolk recommends that this additional testing include personnel
adept at performing flavor profile analysis to document and quantify water quality sensory changes
at various times and locations.
The treatment plant modifications currently considered for reducing DBP formation should also
enhance taste and odor removal. High dissolved solids concentrations have been shown to cause
taste problems that can only be minimized by removing the responsible organic compounds and
minerals from the water. The treatment plant needs to oxidize the natural dissolved organic matter
(potassium permanganate), oxidize and precipitate dissolved inorganic metals (potassium
permanganate or chlorine with pH adjustment needed), enhance the filtration of suspended solids
(alkalinity adjustment, enhanced coagulation or switch to polyaluminum chloride), and initiate the
use of activated carbon (either powdered or granular) to adsorb the remaining organic matter. In
order to reduce DBP formation, all of these treatment processes need to be completed, and all of
47
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
these constituents need to be removed, before the chlorine disinfection process is initiated.
Therefore, baffles will need to be added to the chlorine contact chamber to increase contact time
and enable the chlorine injection point to be relocated. Some prechlorination (or alternate
oxidation and disinfection method) may still be necessary, both to aid with the precipitation of
metals and to prevent biological growth within the filter media.
Effective treatments for biological constituents (both algae and bacteria) and related taste and odor
problems (earthy/musty) have primarily relied on oxidation and activated carbon adsorption.
These treatment techniques have been shown to be effective, but only after the concentration of
other organic compounds have been minimized. Possible oxidants include potassium
permanganate, chlorine, potassium permanganate with chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone,
chloramines, and chlorine dioxide. All of these oxidants will also enhance the removal of
dissolved metals (iron and manganese) and oxidize organic matter, enhancing filterability. The
use of ozone or hydrogen peroxide and ozone (peroxone) is expensive, but has also oftentimes
proven to be more effective than oxidation using chlorine, chlorine dioxide or potassium
permanganate.
Adsorption using activated carbon in either granular (GAC) or powdered (PAC) form provides a
necessary polishing step for removing the remaining dissolved organic matter. PAC can be added
to the flocculation tank either as a separate process, or enmeshed within the alum. Retrofitting the
plant to include GAC will either require that some of the sand depth within the filter be consumed
by GAC or that pumping is provided to separate GAC filters.
The Quarterly Surface Water Quality testing also indicates that less than 10 mg/l of alkalinity is
present in the source waters. Since each 1 mg/l alum requires 0.5 mg/l alkalinity as Ca(CO3), and
the historic alum dose has been 30 mg/l, there is currently insufficient natural alkalinity to support
alum coagulation and flocculation. This condition could result in incomplete flocculant
formation, inefficient filtration and wasted alum (and aluminum) that may pass through plant
contributing to old pipe and metallic tastes and odors. It could also result in insufficient residual
alkalinity and buffering capacity remaining within the distribution system. Additional lime or soda
ash addition prior to flocculation, or switching to polyaluminum chloride as a coagulant in lieu of
alum, should be considered, both to increase the alkalinity and to raise the pH to levels sufficient
for the precipitation of metals. Cohasset has currently increased their alum dose to between 60
mg/l and 70 mg/l.
Testing indicates that Iron and Manganese are not effectively removed at the plant. Iron and
manganese (old pipe and metallic tastes and odors) removal first requires oxidation (potassium
permanganate or chlorine) to promote filtration and then requires that the pH be raised to the
minimum solubility to promote filtration (the pH should be raised above 7.0). Switching to the use
of enhanced alum coagulation (60 mg/l alum) will require that the plant further increase alkalinity
dose rates or risk increasing the concentration of soluble aluminum remaining within the filtered
water and lowering the iron and manganese removal efficiency by further reducing the in-plant
pH.
It is anticipated that many of the currently planned treatment facility modifications should help to
eliminate much of the earthy/musty tastes and odors that are typically caused by the organic
48
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
matter, bacteria and algae naturally present within Cohasset’s source waters. Additionally, by
eliminating the compounds that contribute to the chlorine demand within the filters (through
oxidation, filtration and activated carbon adsorption) chlorine disinfection dose requirements (both
initial and that required to maintain residual) should be lowered. This should enable more of the
chlorine to remain available for disinfection within the distribution system while minimizing the
production of chlorinated organic and inorganic compounds that contribute to the taste and odor
problems.
A final treatment facility modification that can be considered is the use of membrane filtration
processes. The bottled water produced by the Water Commission received ultrafiltration and
ozonation and was determined to be much more palatable than the finished water produced by the
treatment plant. Due to high capital and operating costs, ultrafiltration should be considered as a
last option.
Finally, the treatment facility must be operated to ensure that proper pH is maintained throughout
the distribution system. There are many competing interests that will ultimately affect the decision
regarding the optimum finished water pH. Examples include DBP formation, corrosion control,
and biological regrowth. A pH of 7 standard units or higher maintained throughout the distribution
system is usually considered to be optimum for abatement of taste and odor issues such as
corrosion, bitter taste, and algae and bacteria regrowth. Unfortunately, TTHM formation rates also
increase as the pH is raised. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to balance quality and
aesthetic concerns.
49
Table 7 TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS Unit Operation Process Modification Effect Taste and Odor Improvements Alkalinity and pH Adjustment xAdd additional lime or soda ash prior to flocculation xpH adjustment to aid precipitation of metals x0.5 mg/l alkalinity (as CaCO3) used for every 1 mg/l alum xneeded for complete flocculation xwill help buffer water pH xAttain optimum pH for iron, manganese and aluminum precipitation xReduce old pipe and metallic tastes and odorsOxidationxPotassium permanganate xOther options for oxidation include: hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and ozonexoxidation of organics and inorganics xpromote precipitation of metals to remove iron and manganese xoverdosing of permanganate may cause dirty water complaints in system xhydrogen peroxide may act as a dechlorinating agent, therefore not used extensively xReduce earthy musty tastes and odors from organicsxReduce old pipe and metallic tastes and odors from metals xReduce chlorine, salty and chemical Enhanced Coagulation And Improved FiltrationxNeed sufficient alkalinity for alum coagulation. xNatural alkalinity is insufficient. Quarterly Surface Water Quality testing indicates that less than 10 mg/l of alkalinity is present in the source waters. xLime or soda ash can be added prior to flocculation. xEnhanced Alum addition xInvestigate switch to polyaluminum chloride as a coagulant in lieu of alum xEach 1 mg/l alum requires 0.5 mg/l alkalinity as Ca(CO3) xHistorical alum dose 30 mg/l. Enhanced coagulation alum dose 60 mg/l xInsufficient alkalinity results in incomplete flocculant formation, inefficient filtration and wasted alum that may pass through. xMay also result in insufficient residual alkalinity and buffering capacity within the distribution system xBetter capture of suspended solids and alum xEnhanced alum addition may increase the soluble aluminum, reduce particulate removal efficiency due to loss of pre-oxidant, and provide less efficient iron and manganese removal by lowering the pH xReduce old pipe and metallic tastes and odorsxReduce earth/musty xReduce chemical and chlorine from chlorination of remaining organic compounds metals xReduce old pipe, metallic xLow pH contributes to bitter metallic tastes
Unit Operation Process Modification Effect Taste and Odor Improvements AdsorptionxGranular Activated Carbon either within exiting filters or using new separate filters xPowdered Activated Carbon xAlum floc enmeshed with PAC xTOC removal xCapture of odor causing organics xRemoval of dissolved solids xReduce earthy/musty Relocate Chlorine xAfter Oxidation, Filtration and Adsorption is complete xReduce DBP formation xLess organic halogens xLess inorganic halogens xImproved disinfection xReduce distribution system growth xReduce earthy/musty xReduce chlorine, chemical xReduce metallic, old pipe xReduce earthy/musty, chlorine xReduce earthy/musty, old pipe Raise and maintain pH at 7.0 minimum xInvestigate alkalinity and buffering requirements to maintain pH in plant and within distribution system xReduces corrosion xReduces biological regrowth xLower pH enhances the removal of TOC which is key for preventing DBP formation xLower pH negatively impacts filtration efficiency causing early turbidity breakthrough xTTHMs form faster at higher pH xReduce earthy/musty xReduce old pipe xBitter/metallic taste w/ low pH Add inhibitors to water xBiological inhibitors xPipe coatings xPrevent regrowth of algae and bacteria xReduce DBP formation xPrevent release of scale xReduce earthy/musty xReduce chlorine, chemical xReduce metallic, old pipe Operation & MaintenancexClean filters xMaintain pH greater than 7.0 xInitiate a jar test Taste and Odor studies to refine treatment plant control strategies and document impacts xRemove alum from filters xpH above 7.0 will help eliminate biological regrowth within distribution system xReduce earthy/musty xReduce old pipe xBitter/metallic taste w/ low pH Possible Future Considerations Membrane Filtration xUltrafiltrationxMembrane filtration xExpensivexShould be considered as a last option after all other alternatives have been explored xThe bottled water produced by the Water Commission received additional treatment including ultrafiltration and ozonation and was considered to be much more palatable
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
Distribution System Management Options
Proper distribution system management is essential to preventing the formation of new taste and
odor characteristics. The primary considerations include pipe materials and condition, water age
and water chemistry.
The water department needs to provide mixing at the storage tanks to eliminate the stagnant zones
within which the disinfectant residual disappears and bacteria can regrow producing tastes and
odors that may be released when the tank level drops. The water department also needs to
continue the distribution system flushing program and continue to replace old mains and install
loops to lower water age. Biofilms in pipes and on other surfaces typically results in sulfur, rotten
egg, sewer and septic odor complaints. Corrosion of steel pipes and disruption of the corroded
layer also results in complaints, (a possible source of the metallic taste).
Regrowth within pipes (and storage tanks) can be minimized by reducing biogedradable organic
matter concentrations, maintaining sufficient pH (pH greater than 7.0 standard units) to retard
regrowth (but this may also accelerate TTHM formation), maintaining sufficient disinfectant
residual, minimizing free ammonia concentrations or applying phosphate corrosion inhibitors.
Regrowth rates can also be affected by distribution system hydraulics, pipe materials and
temperature. If bacterial regrowth becomes a problem within the distribution system, flushing and
chlorination are usually prescribed with pigging and super-chlorination needed if scale or biofilms
are present.
Water age can be greatly impacted by the operation of the treatment plant and the water tanks.
The tanks need to be well mixed to turn over the contents and they need to be cleaned and
disinfected regularly. Water Department personnel should also consider varying the plant
operating hours either to reduce nighttime drawdown or alternately, to promote more drawdown to
reduce the volume of stagnant water remaining within the tank that has chance to become
extremely old.
A final consideration that needs further investigation is the age, condition and materials of
construction of the consumer service connections. A testing protocol needs to be developed to
enable the potential service connection impacts to be fully evaluated and ultimately addressed.
52
Table 8 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT OPTIONSUnit Operation Process Modification Effect Taste and Odor ImprovementsRelocate ChlorinexAfter Oxidation, Filtration andAdsorption is completexReduce DBP formationxLess organic halogens xLess inorganic halogens xImproved disinfectionxReduce biological growth in the distributionsystemxReduce earthy/mustyxReduce chlorine, chemicalxReduce metallic, old pipexReduce earthy/musty, chlorine xReduce earthy/musty, old pipeRaise and maintain pH at 7.0 minimumxRelocated chlorine will enable pH to be raised without interferencexInvestigate alkalinity and buffering requirements to maintain pH xReduce biological growth in the distributionsystemxLow pH contributes a bitter metallic tastexLow pH accelerates corrosionxWill help eliminate biological regrowth within distribution systemxReduce earthy/mustyxReduce old pipexBitter/metallic taste w/ low pH Biological inhibitorsxAdd inhibitors to water xPrevent regrowth of algae and bacteria xReduce DBP formationxReduce earthy/mustyxReduce chlorine, chemicalxReduce metallic, old pipexReduce earthy/musty, old pipePipe coatings xAdd inhibitors to water xPrevent release of scale xReduce metallic, old pipeImproved mixingxAdd mixers to tanks xIncrease plant operational hoursxEliminate sludge build-upxReduce DBP formationxReduce amount of very old water xEliminate times that old water is releasedfrom tanks xMake water age more consistent xWill help to eliminate sludge & biologicalregrowth and reduce water age within tanks xReduce chlorine, chemicalxReduce earthy/mustyxReduce metallic, old pipeIncreased Flushing xIncrease flushing xDisinfect distribution lines xRemove growth and scalexReduce earthy/mustyxReduce metallic, old pipeReplace and LoopDistribution Pipes xRemove old scale xLoop and improve hydraulicsxPrevent regrowth of algae and bacteria xLower water agexMake water age more consistent xReduce earthy/mustyxReduce metallic, old pipeInvestigate Service ConnectionsxInvestigate and replace as necessaryxEliminate improper or insufficient service connectionxReduce metallic, old pipexReduce earthy/mustyC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 8.doc
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
6.0 CONCLUSIONS:
Norfolk has compiled a substantial amount of information from the baseline sampling event, the
Water Quality Survey, and the comprehensive taste and odor sampling event. The baseline
sampling event was an important first step that enabled Norfolk and the Water Commissioners to
gain a general understanding of the baseline quality and the taste and odor characteristics of
Cohasset’s drinking water. The next step Norfolk undertook was the preparation and distribution
of the Taste and Odor Survey that was mailed to every Cohasset water customer. This Survey
provided residents with an opportunity to assist in the process and enabled their thoughts regarding
the overall quality and aesthetic characteristics of the drinking water to be conveyed. The Survey
results were very informative and displayed a wide diversity in the replies, ranging from
consumers who think that the water is great to those who replied that the water is horrible and that
they cannot drink it. The comprehensive sampling event built on the preceding two phases of the
Project and provided more detailed water quality and flavor profiling analyses from a large
collection of samples collected throughout the Town of Cohasset. The flavor profile analysis,
performed by the taste and odor specialist, McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc., indicates
that the predominant flavor and odor characteristic is that of “musty old pipe”. While this is not
necessarily caused by the pipe materials (the musty flavor was detected within the source water)
the musty old pipe flavor was detected throughout the distribution system. Field testing performed
as part of the comprehensive sampling event also determined that the finished water displayed a
low pH and contained little chlorine residual.
The quality of a drinking water is only as good as the public perceives it to be, with the taste and
odor being the principal criteria by which the public judges water quality. The sources of water
supply tastes and odors (refer to Appendix A for more detail on possible causes of tastes and
odors) are usually associated with the presence of the following:
1. decaying organic matter;
2. living algae, bacteria and other microscopic organisms that contain essential oils and other
odorous compounds;
3. iron, manganese and metallic products of corrosion;
4. industrial wastes, particularly phenolic substances (not currently considered to be a major
problem in Cohasset); and,
5. by-products of disinfection.
Cohasset’s water displays complex, layered taste and odor characteristics that do not have one
cause or a single solution. More evaluation is needed to define sources of these flavors, to identify
control techniques and to develop a comprehensive step-wise solution that allows the effectiveness
of any modifications to be evaluated and that enables any potential adverse impacts that these
modifications may have to be quickly identified and rectified.
The Water Department needs to balance multiple water quality objectives including, the overall
quality (safety) of the water produced by the plant; the aesthetic characteristics of the water (taste,
odor, color); and the propensity for the water to display continuing reactions that affect the water
quality at point of use (chlorine residual, DBP formation, pH, corrosivity, regrowth). The Water
Department needs to more fully investigate water quality changes that may occur throughout the
54
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
distribution system as related to water age, corrosion, regrowth and flushing frequency and they
need to investigate water quality impacts that may be attributable to service connection age or
materials.
This Report provides a starting point for identifying Cohasset’s water supply taste and odor
characteristics and for assessing potential causes and corrective actions for consideration. The
following Summery of Recommendations section of this Report contains a listing of some of the
potential remedial steps that may be considered. The Water Commission and their water treatment
plant personnel and consultants should all continue to work closely together to identify and
evaluate potential remedies. Norfolk recommends that while the Water Department is considering
the recommendations contained within this report, they also consider hiring a taste and odor
expert, such as McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc., who could be available, as needed, to
further assist with identifying potential sources of the tastes and odors present in Cohasset’s
drinking water, to provide treatment recommendations, to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of
any remedial actions and to assess the affects that each modification has on the aesthetic
characteristics of the water.
55
Table 9Possible Causes of Tastes in the Cohasset Drinking WaterTaste CharacteristicsMcGuire % ReportedExpectedOccurrence Potential Causes(s)RecommendedTestsPotential Solution(s)ƔBiological activityƔOpen reservoirsƔStagnant water (dead ends or low-flow sections of the system)ƔStoreage facilityƔLoss in chlorine residual and unmasking of background tastesƔBiotransformation of organics such as chlorophenolsƔBiomethylation of halogenated phenolsƔActinomycetes, blue green algaeƔCross-connectionsƔLow pHƔHigh manganeseƔHigh ZincƔGalvanized or copper pipeƔCorrosionƔWater coolersƔCO2 contaminationƔMain breakƔRust or sedimentƔIron bacteriaƔCross-connectionƔCross-connectionƔNew linings in storage facilities or mainsƔDistribution materialsƔPermeation through pipe or pipe fittingsƔNew plastic service or pipeƔChlorine dioxide re-formationƔIndoor air pollutionƔChlorination,ƔCorrosion control,ƔMain rehabilitation,ƔValve inspection,ƔFlushing,ƔStorage Tank Mixing,ƔFacility operation,ƔConfiguration change,ƔTreatment changeƔFlushing,ƔCross-connection control,ƔRaise pH,ƔLower manganese,ƔLower zincƔFlushing,ƔTreatment change,ƔCross-connection control,ƔDistribution materials,ƔStorage tank operationsB,M,SCl2, pHChemical/Plastic/Wetpaper/Rubber/Garden Hose12% B,MCl2, Turbidity, Bacterial Plate CountB,MCl2, pH, MetalsOld Pipe/Musty Old Pipe/Musty/Mildew76%Bitter/Drying/Astringent/Metallic/Metallic Pipe/Metallic Garden Hose Fitting24%C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 9 Possible Causes of Taste.xlsPage 1 of 2
Table 9Possible Causes of Tastes in the Cohasset Drinking WaterTaste CharacteristicsMcGuire % ReportedExpectedOccurrence Potential Causes(s)RecommendedTestsPotential Solution(s)Stale 16%N/A 4%ƔDisintectant useƔNew main disinfectionƔResidual boostingƔBlendingƔContinuing reactionsƔDBP formationƔBiological activityƔStagnant waterƔStorage facilityƔLoss in disinfectant residualƔBiotransformation of organics such as chlorophenolsCement 2%Fishy 0%SAlgae bloom in reservoirAlgae countƔFlushing, Chlorination,ƔStorage tank operation,ƔReservoir coveringSlick/Oily 0%Resin 0%B = Building; M = Local Main; S = Local Section of Distribution; Sp = Sporadic Throuhout DistributionCl2 = Chlorine Residual; NH3-N = Ammonia NitrogenMcGuire % is based on Intensity CharacteristicsƔChlorination,ƔCorrosion control,ƔMain rehabilitation,ƔValve inspection,ƔFlushing, StorageƔFacility operation,ƔReservoir covering,ƔConfiguration change,ƔTreatment changeƔFlushing,ƔTreatment change,Ɣ Blending controlChlorine 4%Cl2, pH, NH3-N,dichloraminesM,SEarthy/Moldy/Algae 4% B,M,SCl2, Turbidity, Bacterial Plate CountC:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Table 9 Possible Causes of Taste.xlsPage 2 of 2
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
7.0 SUMMARY of RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following provides a summary of the recommendations described in greater detail in the
preceding sections of this Report. Although the proposed recommendations are divided into three
distinct areas: 1) potential source water enhancements, 2) potential treatment plant modifications
and 3). distribution system management options, it must be noted that the modifications are
interrelated such that enhancements to the source water will impact the treatment plant and
distribution system, and that modifications to the treatment plant will affect distribution system
performance. Additionally, although these recommendations are aimed primarily at improving the
aesthetic quality of the drinking water, for the most part, these enhancements will also improve
drinking water quality and reduce disinfection by-product formation. In cases where there may be
competing interests, such as distribution system pH and chlorine residual, careful monitoring will
be essential to balance the process to ensure that a high quality, safe and aesthetically pleasing
drinking water is produced.
Source Water Enhancements
¾Install direct pipeline to use the Aaron River Reservoir as an alternate source
¾Investigate groundwater blending from existing wellfields
¾Dredge Lily Pond to remove sediment
¾Reduce pollutant loading to Pond
¾Install a floating silt or weed curtain
¾Investigate algae control within Pond on an as needed basis
Treatment Plant Modifications
¾Alkalinity adjustment (soda ash or additional lime) to support coagulation of alum
¾Oxidation (potassium permanganate) to oxidize organic and inorganic compounds
¾pH adjustment (additional lime or hydroxide) to maximize precipitation of metals
¾Use enhanced coagulation or polymer to improve filtration
¾Initiate the use of activated carbon adsorption to remove residual organic compounds
¾Relocate chlorine disinfection point and install chlorine contact chamber baffles to reduce
the chlorination of unfiltered organic and inorganic compounds
¾pH adjustment to maintain neutral pH (7.0 S.U. minimum) throughout distribution system
Distribution System Management Options
¾Expand distribution system flushing and disinfection
¾Replace and loop water mains to improve hydraulics and decrease water age
¾Install mixers within tanks to improve turn-over and reduce water age
¾Periodically clean and disinfect storage tanks
¾Maintain pH and chlorine residual throughout the system to reduce regrowth
¾Investigate service connection impacts
¾Investigate use of growth and scale inhibiters and pipe coatings
Investigate treatment plant operating hour adjustments to minimize water age fluctuations due to
the nightly release of water from the storage tank
58
APPENDIX A
Possible Causes of Taste and Odors
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
APPENDIX A
Possible Causes of Tastes and Odors
x Taste and odor problems are mostly anecdotal with impairment of the organoleptic
characteristics of the water resulting in consumer complaints.
x If the taste is not good, consumers question safety.
x Maintaining a central database of complaints is necessary to establish a record and to
document the outcome of any modification.
x Control of taste and odor problems at the source is FAR CHEAPER than control at the
treatment plant.
x Most major advances have been directed at changing the quality of the water in the source
or during the treatment process.
x 65% of water utilities report the distribution system as the primary cause of their taste and
odor problems.
x Most taste and odor complaints can be attributed to chemical and microbiological causes.
x Five categories of taste and odor causation or association
1. biological activity
2. disinfectants
3. disinfection by-products (DBPs) and continuing reactions
4. leaching of distribution materials
5. blending factors
Tastes and Odors Associated with Biological Activity
x In the absence of disinfectants, an increase in the intensity of earthy-musty flavors may be
observed with increasing detention time.
x There is no linear correlation between microbial counts (fungi and actinomycetes) and the
earthy-musty flavor threshold number (FTN).
x Disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines) can induce a delay in observation of earthy-musty
flavors and a reduction in FTN.
x Control of earthy-musty flavors by disinfectants is based on a chemical reaction or sensory
masking action as well as a biostatic effect with resulting lower microbial activity.
x Bacteria and algae may be periodic and seasonal
x Bacteria and algae responsible for five odor causing compounds:
1. Geosmin (trans-dimethyl-trans-9-decalol) earth-musty taste and odor
2. 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) earthy-musty, camphor-like T & O
3. 2-isopropyl-3-methoxy/pryazine similar to MIB
4. 2-isobutyl-3-methoxy/pryazine earthy-musty T & O similar to bell peppers
5. 2,3,6-trichloroanisol musty
x Geosmin and MIB have Earthy – Musty flavors, are usually involved in most difficult odor
episodes. Odor threshold around 5 ng/l and customer complaints at >10 ng/l
x Bacteria: Actinomycetes – a group of nine different bacteria. Metabolic activities produce
the five compounds most commonly associated with earthy–musty–moldy tastes and odors.
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
x Bacteria treatment options depend on the source:
treatment plant and source water
o oxidants (chlorine, chlorine dioxide, Potassium permanganate) generally not very
effective.
o Ozone and hydrogen peroxide and ozone (peroxone) have been effective but are
expensive
o Activated carbon has been effective but need to minimize other organic compounds
first.
distribution system
o flushing
o chlorination
o pigging and superchlorination is required if biofilms are present
x Algae – T & O caused by release of certain compounds by both living and dead and
decomposing algae
o Chlorophyta (Green Algae)
o Cyanophyta (Blue-Green Algae, also called cyanobacteria)
Many species produce earthy – musty compounds geosmin and MIB
Some also release odorous organic sulfur compounds
o Chrysophyta (Yellow-Green or Golden-Brown Algae)
Most abundant in spring or autumn when water is cool
Fishy or cod-liver T & O
o Pyrrhophyta (Dinoflagellates)
Fishy odors and septic odors
x Algae Control Strategies include:
x Copper Sulfate
x Chlorination
x Artificial destratification
x Control of nutrient input
x Food web management
x Ca(OH)2 addition to coagulate algae or precipitate phosphorus
x Dissolved air floatation has worked in treatment plants.
Tastes and Odors Caused by Disinfectants
x Chlorine can induce unpleasant flavors, even at very low concentrations. No significant
increase in FTN has been noted with use of monochloramine.
x Flavor threshold concentrations (FTCs) of 0.025 mg/l for chlorine as Cl2 and 0.28 mg/l for
monochloramine as Cl2.
x Except for chlorine decay, the distribution system has no specific effect on the chlorinous
flavor induced by disinfectants.
UUPPDDAATTEEDD TTHHRROOUUGGHH NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 33,,22000044
x Chlorine flavors are unnoticeable at concentrations below 0.07 mg/l for chlorine as Cl2 and
0.55 mg/l for monochloramine as Cl2. Replaced by earthy-musty flavors.
x Sensory masking effects of disinfectants – longer detention times and subsequent chlorine
decay support appearance of other taste-and odor characteristics.
x Original characteristics of water are determinant factor in sensory characteristics of water
received at consumers tap, especially in more remote areas of the distribution system.
x Shelf life of water with respect to tastes and odors is largely related to the persistence of
total chlorine residual.
Tastes and Odors Caused by Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) and Continuing Reactions
x DBP formation is likely to continue in the distribution system in the presence of a
disinfectant residual.
x Iodinated trihalomethanes (ITHMs) exhibit medicinal characteristics – related to chlorine-
to-nitrogen ratio.
x Increased concentrations associated with longer detention times.
Tastes and Odors Caused By Leaching of Distribution System Materials
x Leaching of distribution system materials may cause appearance of tastes and odors
x Directly from the compounds leached or through reactions of the disinfectant residual with
these leached chemicals.
Tastes and Odors Associated with Blending Factors
x When blending two chlorinated waters from different origins and different water quality,
differences in odors appear before differences in flavors. This is even more pronounced at
higher temperatures.
APPENDIX B
Taste and Odor Survey
Tap Water Taste and Odor Survey
Dear Resident:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this water quality survey. Cohasset Water Department tap water complies with all
applicable state and federal regulatory requirements for protecting public health. However, customers have periodically expressed
concerns regarding the taste, odor or appearance of their tap water. This survey will help the Water Department to identify the
sources of these taste & odor issues and to take action to improve the quality of your tap water. Please circle the answer or provide
written information where appropriate and return this survey within two weeks to the Lily Pond Water Treatment Plant at 339 King
Street.
Thank you;
Cohasset Board of Water Commissioners
Background Information
Name: «Owner1Name» Telephone Number:
«Owner2Name»
Address: «Address1» Email Address:
«Town», «State» 0«Zip»«Next Record»
Taste of the Water
1. How would you describe the taste of your tap water? If you don't normally drink the tap water, please sample some so
you can answer the following questions.
No Taste Salty Sour Sweet
Acidic Bitter Metallic Other:
a. Describe the intensity and duration of any taste problems:
b. Are the taste problem(s):Intermittent Persistent
c. When is it most noticeable?Morning Afternoon Evening Winter Spring Summer Fall
d. Do you notice any changes in water temperature?Yes No
e. Have you noticed any correlation between taste and temperature?Yes No
f. Where is the taste most noticeable?Hot Water Cooking Cold Water Ice Cubes Other:
2. Do all members of your household notice and describe the taste in the same manner?Yes No
Please explain any differences:
Odors Associated with the Water
3. How would you describe the smell of the water?
No Odor Earthy Potato Bin Grassy Swampy Decaying Vegetation
Fruity Fishy Bleachy Medicinal Moldy Swimming Pool
Musty Chlorinous Rotten Egg Chemical Septic Other:
a. Describe the intensity and duration of any odor problems:
b. Are the odor problem(s):Intermittent Persistent
c. When is it most noticeable?Morning Afternoon Evening Winter Spring Summer Fall
d. Have you noticed any correlation between water odor and temperature?Yes No
e. Is the odor most noticeable in:Hot Water Cooking Cold Water Ice Cubes Other:
4. Do all members of your household notice and describe the odors in the same manner?Yes No
Please explain any differences:
Appearance of the Water
5. Describe any unnatural water color or appearance: Muddy Milky Brown Yellow Other:
a. Are the color problem(s):Intermittent Persistent
6. Have you experienced any floating, suspended or settled particles in the water? Yes No
a. If so, what color were they?
b. If so, how often?
c. If so, when?
7. Have you experienced any corrosion of pipes or plumbing fixtures?Yes No
a. If so, how often?
8. Have you experienced any discoloration or staining of fixtures? Yes No
a. If so, what color? Rust Blue/Green Brown Other:
b. If so, how often?
9. Have you experienced spotty dishes or glassware? Yes No
10. Have you experienced any discoloration of laundry? Yes No
a. If so, what color?
b. If so, how often?
Water Service
11. Has your water quality or pressure changed recently? Yes No
a. If so, at what time of day? Morning Evening Afternoon
b. Does it change seasonally? Yes No
c. What season(s) is it the worst? What season(s) is it the best?______________________
12. Do you do extensive lawn watering during the summer?Yes No
a.Number of days/week, hours/day:
13. Do any of the taste or odors described above appear to be related to changes in water pressure? Yes No
Background Information
14. How many people are living (working) at this residence? Adults: Children:
15. What is the age of the building? How old is the plumbing within the building?
16. How long have you lived (worked) here?
17. What is the approximate distance from the building to the street?
18. Would you be willing to have a representative of the Cohasset Water Department collect periodic water samples from
your kitchen faucet for analysis as a part of this survey?Yes No
a. If so, would it be possible to collect samples during the workday?Yes No
b.What would be the best time of day? Morning Evening Afternoon
19. On a scale of 1-5 please rate the tap water: Poor Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
20. Over the past five years, has the quality of your tap water:Improved Become Worse Stayed the Same
Water Use Information
21. Do you drink tap water or bottled water? Tap Bottled Both
22. Do you use any water treatment systems? Yes No
a. If so, what kind of treatment? Filtration Carbon Water Softener Other:
b. Does the treatment system serve the entire building or is it faucet mounted? Entire Building Faucet
c. How long have you been using this treatment system?
23. Do you have any other comments about the taste, odor, appearance, or quality of your tap water?
APPENDIX C
Taste and Odor Survey Maps and Pie Charts
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsRating of Tap Water02040608010012012345Rating Scale (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)Number of Responses
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Taste Characteristics(based on 472 replies)No Taste, 132, 31%Bitter, 38, 9%Salty, 20, 5%Sweet, 3, 1%Sour/ Acidic, 51, 12%Metallic, 183, 42%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of When theTaste Noticeable(based on 472 replies)Morning, 127, 39%Afternoon, 96, 30%Evening, 100, 31%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Seasonal Influences(based on 472 replies)Winter, 95, 23%Spring, 97, 24%Summer, 124, 30%Fall, 94, 23%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Where the Taste Most Noticeable(based on 472 replies)Hot Water, 68, 15%Cooking, 35, 8%Cold Water, 250, 53%Ice Cubes, 113, 24%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Odor Characteristics(based on 472 replies)No Odor, 149, 26%Chemical/ Hydrocarbon Misc., 37, 6%Medicinal/ Phenolic, 5, 1%Fishy/ Rancid, 23, 4%Fragrant Vegetable/ Fruity/ Flowery, 2, 0%Marshy/ Swampy/ Septic/ Sulfurous, 117, 20%Grassy/ Hay/ Straw/ Woody, 6, 1%Chlorinous/ Ozonous, 100, 17%Earthy/ Musty/ Moldy, 144, 25%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Water Treatment System Use(based on 472 replies)Yes, 156, 39%No, 244, 61%
Cohasset Water Department Customer Survey - 2004 Preliminary Draft - Printed 11/16/2004N:\Projects\651 Cohasset Board of Water Comm\651.07-5 Taste & Odor Survey\FPA Results\Question Results.xlsSummary of Water Appearance(based on 472 replies)No Response, 152, 30%Muddy, 40, 8%Milky, 43, 9%Brown, 132, 27%Yellow, 76, 16%Clear, 47, 10%
APPENDIX D
Taste and Odor Wheel
APPENDIX E
Quarterly Surface Water Sampling
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERDissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/25/2001 1.86 7.10 - 7.42 2.78 7.91 8.76 - - - 7.59 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 10.40 10.37 9.64 10.84 10.60 12.86 11.46 11.58 12.11 10.30 11.02 - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 10.45 12.58 12.53 11.47 11.59 12.45 12.89 12.16 12.57 12.70 12.86 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 7.06 10.73 9.67 10.59 7.60 9.78 11.17 10.02 10.63 11.90 12.29 14.68 8.66 - - - - -NS4/24/2003 6.95 10.65 9.73 11.07 9.97 11.47 11.88 10.60 10.46 11.85 12.02 11.42 7.92 - - - - -NS6/24/2003 7.71 9.53 6.47 9.90 6.17 9.61 8.45 5.73 6.50 9.13 9.50 9.21 6.20 - - - - -NS9/5/2003 4.93 7.78 5.98 4.40 4.55 7.92 6.66 6.02 5.36 8.40 3.38 6.56 5.36 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 11.36 - 13.35 - - - - - 12.60 8.45 13.26 - - - -NS6/9/2004 3.41 9.45 6.22 9.54 7.46 8.52 9.00 8.99 8.55 9.00 9.35 9.06 4.28 8.22 - 6.98 9.26 8.88NS10/12/2004 6.16 4.35 2.01 5.33 6.89 6.49 6.15 5.89 6.01 6.78 6.36 6.34 5.58 5.31 5.74 6.32 5.65 7.04NSpH (field, s.u.)1/7/19993.875.47-5.89--5.48-----------6.5 - 8.5*4/7/19995.596.60 -6.49- - 6.69 - ----------6.5 - 8.5*5/13/19995.456.39-6.08--6.46-----------6.5 - 8.5*6/16/19995.025.25-5.68--5.94-----------6.5 - 8.5*7/27/1999 - 6.52 -6.28--6.44-----------6.5 - 8.5*6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------6.5 - 8.5*9/25/2001 7.65 7.23 - 6.906.487.30 7.29 - - -6.40-------6.5 - 8.5*12/6/2001 7.31 7.33 7.40 7.47 7.60 8.06 7.31 7.21 7.11 7.12 8.07 - - - - - - -6.5 - 8.5*3/7/2002 7.30 6.85 6.866.346.87 6.706.395.246.456.386.58 - - - - - - -6.5 - 8.5*10/24/2002 6.786.446.56 6.536.235.006.015.975.605.285.805.243.80-----6.5 - 8.5*4/24/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------6.5 - 8.5*6/24/20034.826.405.966.506.175.865.865.865.446.785.155.814.82-----6.5 - 8.5*9/5/2003 7.60 6.82 6.70 6.696.396.246.196.086.176.205.866.135.28-----6.5 - 8.5*12/10/2003 - - -6.23- 6.87 - - - - - 7.344.316.53 - - - -6.5 - 8.5*6/9/20045.336.546.316.556.076.566.045.965.916.235.916.244.547.88 - 6.68 6.626.456.5 - 8.5*10/12/2004 7.29 6.756.706.416.786.326.356.336.146.006.186.384.706.275.966.286.316.756.5 - 8.5*Conductivity (microS/cm)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/25/2001 108 128 - 127 110 111 107 - - - 124 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 153.2 151.3 148 147.7 141.6 105.6 109.3 111.5 111.0 114.7 104.8 - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 48 110 109 286 80 96 75 75 71 144 74 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 70 97 97 115 86 92 92 90 84 94 81 165 145 - - - - -NS4/24/2003 40 148 150 148 119 54 80 80 76 148 82 81 36 - - - - -NS6/24/2003 46 111 100 118 93 198 91 82 89 135 88 104 39 - - - - -NS9/5/2003 122 128 128 135 100 112 108 106 108 139 100 109 49 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 279 - 67 - - - - - 64 39 84 - - - -NS6/9/2004 71 131 136 138 118 110 102 95 98 136 98 110 39 138 - 385 139 139NS10/12/2004 82 98 99 101 98 98 94 94 88 116 90 94 40 95 86 328 103 99NSLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aFOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.FOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 1 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aTemperature (C)1/7/1999 6.9 6.8 - 4.4 - - 5.0 - ----------NS4/7/1999 17.6 13.1 - 13.1 - - 12.5 - ----------NS5/13/1999 17.5 18.6 - 13.6 - - 16.3 - ----------NS6/16/1999 23.1 23.0 - 15.5 - - 23.0 - ----------NS7/27/1999 NSF 28.1 - 18.9 - - 28.7 - ----------NS6/1/2000 20.5 22.1 - 16.3 - - 21.7 - ----------NS9/25/2001 19.48 19.88 - 20.96 19.70 22.69 22.25 - - - 20.82 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 13.9 12.4 15.1 12.2 13.08 18.09 15.50 16.71 20.47 16.26 17.13 - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 4.11 5.50 5.44 6.71 4.78 6.09 5.27 5.24 5.98 4.60 5.81 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 6.00 9.25 9.39 8.64 7.29 10.32 11.76 11.12 10.03 10.00 8.97 6.38 6.36 - - - - -NS6/24/2003 15.80 9.70 17.83 20.93 18.80 21.96 19.46 19.46 14.67 17.30 17.59 21.00 14.30 - - - - -NS9/5/2003 19.94 20.57 20.40 20.74 19.40 21.38 21.60 20.4 22.55 19.73 19.10 21.41 17.09 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 2.4 - 1.43 - - - - - 1.21 0.09 0.99 - - - -NS6/9/2004 17.90 20.62 16.70 22.50 18.74 23.05 20.81 17.30 20.21 25.14 19.63 23.89 10.09 22.20 - 20.84 22.68 22.44NS10/12/2004 12.79 14.01 14.11 13.84 113.44 14.56 15.1 15.10 14.41 12.94 14 14.99 11.33 13.83 10.84 12.44 13.59 13.81NSTurbidity (NTU's)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------1 - 5 NTU's**6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------1 - 5 NTU's**9/25/20017.61.7 - 4.0 1.913.67.2-- -14.6-------1 - 5 NTU's**12/6/200151.042.535.034.543.857.752.257.756.840.051.3-------1 - 5 NTU's**3/7/2002 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 3.7 0.87.02.2 0.9100.7-------1 - 5 NTU's**10/24/2002 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.326.81.8 0.0 0.0 - - - - -1 - 5 NTU's**6/24/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------1 - 5 NTU's**9/5/2003 1.7 - - - - 3.7 1.7 - -5.255.21.6------1 - 5 NTU's**12/10/2003 - - - 0.0 -20.2- - - - - 1.0 0.0 0.2 - - - -1 - 5 NTU's**6/9/2004 3.8 1.1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.1 -0.5 -0.4 -0.1 -0.5 0.7 -0.4 -0.8 0.8 - 1.1 1.2 1.21 - 5 NTU's**10/12/200410.3211.320.918.65.47.58.88.911.37.67.28.84.420.98.99.011.712.31 - 5 NTU's**Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCo3)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/25/2001 5.8 5.8 - 6.8 5.8 - 3.9 - - 3.9 2.9 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 8 7 5 8 12 - 2 1 - 4 ND - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 <2.0 5 6 20 <2.0 - 3 <2 - 3 <2 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 2.4 9.6 9.6 12.0 6.3 - 3.9 1.9 - 1.9 3.9 - <1.0 - - - - -NS4/24/2003 ND ND ND ND 3.5 - ND ND - ND ND - ND - - - - -NS6/24/2003 ND ND ND ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND - - - - -NS9/5/2003 ND ND ND 6.9 ND - ND ND - ND ND - 17 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 15 - - - - ----------NS6/9/2004 6.9 6.9 5.9 5.0 5.0 - <1.0 <1.0 - 2.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - - - - -NS10/12/2004 5.8 8.7 8.7 8.7 7.7 9.6 6.8 5.8 - 7.7 4.8 - <1.0 - - - - -NSFOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 2 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aCOD(mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/25/2001 29 32 - 34 38 34 27 - 14 20 57 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 24 19 33 28 17 29 ND 31 24 16 65 - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 32 32 - 22 36 32 32 27 29 39 35 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 31 27 1,400 24 28 23 24 45 32 53 29 42 14 - - - - -NS4/24/2003 43 34 570 29 36 34 43 190 53 53 50 48 62 - - - - -NS6/24/2003 80 45 49 52 59 42 42 40 42 47 80 47 100 - - - - -NS9/5/2003 66 61 470 57 63 59 59 640 59 61 91 59 140 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 33 - 44 - - - - - 49 53 - - - - -NS6/9/2004 35 32 41 28 38 32 30 63 26 36 27 32 84 31 - - - -NS10/12/2004 43 36 35 31 32 38 30 29 26 46 35 29 72 36 - - - -NSTOC (mg/L)3/7/2002 - 9.7 9.2 - - - - - ----------NS10/24/2002 - 13 20 - - - - - ----------NS4/24/2003 - 8.0 10.9 - - - - - ----------NS6/24/2003 - 15.9 18.9 - - - - - ----------NS9/5/2003 - 15 15 - - - - - ----------NS12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/9/2004 9.7 8.4 8.7 8.1 10 10 10 11 6.4 9.8 9.0 13 23 - - - - -NS10/12/2004 - 13 13 - - - 13 13 -----12----NSDOC (mg/L)6/9/2004 9.5 8.4 6.8 8 9.8 9.7 9.1 9.8 6 9.7 8.9 10 17 - - - - -NS10/12/2004 - 11 12 - - - 12 12 -----11----NSColor (ADMI)3/7/2002 -5050-- -120120----------15 color units*10/24/2002 -6060-- -150150----------15 color units*4/24/2003 -120140-- -160140----------15 color units*6/24/2003 -200250-- -200200----------15 color units*9/5/2003 -180180-- -220240----------15 color units*12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------15 color units*6/9/2004150100100100150100100100100100100100500100----15 color units*10/12/2004 -100100-- -100100-----75----15 color units*Chlorides (mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------250 mg/L*6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------250 mg/L*9/25/2001 26 32 - 33 - - 28 - - 29 33 - - - - - - -250 mg/L*12/6/2001 29 33 30 33 - - 28 27 - 28 36 - - - - - - -250 mg/L*3/7/2002 12 39 38 110 - - 30 30 - 62 28 - - - - - - -250 mg/L*10/24/2002 20 35 31 37 - 35 37 35 - 35 35 - 12 - - - - -250 mg/L*4/24/2003 9.6 54 53 56 3.5 26 27 27 - 63 30 - 7.7 - - - - -250 mg/L*6/24/2003 8 28 25 29 - 24 25 25 - 25 23 - 5.8 - - - - -250 mg/L*9/5/2003 29 30 30 32 - 26 26 26 - 27 21 - 8.6 - - - - -250 mg/L*12/10/2003 - - - 120 - 26 - - - - - - 11 - - - - -250 mg/L*6/9/004 41 39 38 39 - 32 32 32 - 32 30 - 13 - - - - -250 mg/L*10/12/2004 30 33 36 36 - 33 32 34 32 41 34 - 13 - - - - -250 mg/L*FOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 3 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aFecal Coliform (# per 100 ml)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------0 per 100 ml**6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------0 per 100 ml**9/25/2001 - - - ND -10-- -10270-------0 per 100 ml**12/6/2001 - -2020-ND-ND-NDND-------0 per 100 ml**3/7/2002 - -<1020-<10-<10-10<10-------0 per 100 ml**10/24/2002 - -8<2-13-4-5088------0 per 100 ml**4/24/2003 - -2828-11-<1-12303------0 per 100 ml**6/24/2003 - -160100-48-22-201193------0 per 100 ml**9/5/2003 - -45ND -81-NDND -1509------0 per 100 ml**12/10/2003 - - -2-1-- - - -1------0 per 100 ml**2/12/2004<10--10-<10-- -<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<100 per 100 ml**6/9/20044124620202266286<116-846340 per 100 ml**10/12/2004<2239<2<2239<2446023432342404602390 per 100 ml**Orthophosphate (mg/L) 7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/25/2001 - ND - - - - - - ----------NS12/6/2001 - ND 0.02 - - - - - ----------NS3/7/2002 - - - - - - - - ----------NS10/24/2002 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/24/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------NS9/5/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------NS12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/9/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------NS10/12/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------NS7/2/1998 - 0.11 - - - - - - ----------NS7/14/1998 0.22 0.12 - - - - 0.22 - ----------NS1/7/1999 0.26 0.2 - 0.23 - - 0.15 - ----------NS3/3/1999 0.15 0.12 - 0.14 - - 0.09 - ----------NS4/7/1999 0.69 < 0.05 - 0.11 - - 0.13 - ----------NS5/13/1999 0.44 0.08 - 0.19 - - 0.09 - ----------NS6/16/1999 0.93 0.1 - 0.32 - - 0.07 - ----------NS7/27/1999 nsf 0.09 - 0.26 - - 0.17 - ----------NS6/1/2000 0.3 0.06 - 0.26 - - 0.08 - ----------NS9/25/2001 - 0.01 - - - - - - - 0.03 0.03 - - - - - - -NS12/6/2001 - ND ND - - - - ND - ND 0.01 - - - - - - -NS3/7/2002 - - 0.29 - - - - <.05 - 0.056 <.05 - - - - - - -NS10/24/2002 0.1 - 0.1 0.07 - - - 0.23 - 0.12 0.1 0.06 0.07 - - - - -NS4/24/2003 ND - 1.4 ND - - - 0.9 - ND ND ND ND - - - - -NS6/24/2003 0.05 - 0.049 0.037 - - - 0.056 - 0.033 0.021 0.019 ND - - - - -NS9/5/2003 0.033 - 2.8 0.033 - - - 3.4 - 0.042 0.11 0.052 0.092 - - - - -NS12/10/2003 - - - 0.05 - - - - - - - 0.036 0.019 - - - - -NS6/9/2004 0.13 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 0.34 0.07 <0.05 0.20 0.05 0.11 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 - - - -NS10/12/2004 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 <0.05 0.12 0.08 0.11 <0.05 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.07 - - - -NSTotal Phosphorus as P (mg/L)FOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 4 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aNitrate as N (mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**9/25/2001 - 0.18 - 0.18 - 0.21 0.17 - - ND 0.19 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**12/6/2001 - ND ND ND - 0.1 0.08 0.06 - 0.07 ND - - - - - - -10 mg/L**3/7/2002 - <.03 0.22 0.96 0.25 - 0.088 - - 0.091 <.03 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**10/24/2002 - 0.1 0.12 0.04 - 0.12 0.09 0.08 - <0.01 0.09 0.02 0.04 - - - - -10 mg/L**4/24/2003 - 0.21 0.18 0.21 - 0.03 0.049 0.056 - 0.039 ND 0.034 ND - - - - -10 mg/L**6/24/2003 - 0.032 0.051 ND - 0.033 ND 0.024 - ND ND ND ND - - - - -10 mg/L**9/5/2003 - ND ND ND - 0.054 ND ND - ND ND ND 0.025 - - - - -10 mg/L**12/10/2003 - - - 0.72 - 0.12 - - - - - 0.1 0.04 - - - - -10 mg/L**6/9/2004 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.98 0.98 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.0 - - - -10 mg/L**10/12/2004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.84 <0.01 <0.01 0.91 <0.01 0.81 <0.01 - <0.01 - - - -10 mg/L**Total Nitrogen (mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - 0.6 - - - 2.0 - - - - - - - -10 mg/L**6/1/2000 - - - - - 0.8 - - - 1.1 - - - - - - - -10 mg/L**9/25/2001 - 0.11 - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**12/6/2001 - 0.4 ND - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**3/7/2002 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**10/24/2002 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**6/24/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**9/5/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**6/9/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**10/12/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**TKN (mg/L)7/2/1998 - 0.9 - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**7/14/1998 1.2 1.0 - - - - 0.8 - ----------10 mg/L**1/7/1999 < 0.5 < 0.5 - 1 - - 0.7 - ----------10 mg/L**3/3/1999 < 0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 - - <0.5 - ----------10 mg/L**4/7/1999 2.6 < 0.5 - 0.6 - - <0.5 - ----------10 mg/L**5/13/1999 3.8 0.7 - 0.7 - - <0.5 - ----------10 mg/L**6/16/1999 5.6 0.6 - 0.6 - - 0.5 - ----------10 mg/L**7/27/1999 NSF 1.1 - 0.8 - - 0.6 - ----------10 mg/L**6/1/2000 3 1.1 - - - - 0.8 - ----------10 mg/L**9/25/2001 - 0.28 - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**12/6/2001 - ND ND - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**3/7/2002 - - 0.16 - - - - - - 0.18 0.13 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**10/24/2002 - - 18 - - - - - - 1.5 2.3 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**4/24/2003 - - 12 - - - - - - ND 1.1 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**6/24/2003 - - ND - - - - - - 1.1 1.4 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**9/5/2003 - - 21 - - - - - - ND 1.1 - - - - - - -10 mg/L**12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------10 mg/L**6/9/2004 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 <0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.6 1.1 0.7 - - - -10 mg/L**10/12/2004 <0.50 0.52 0.76 0.71 <0.50 0.95 0.7 0.75 0.73 0.78 0.75 0.82 0.96 0.69 - - - -10 mg/L**FOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 5 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aVOC's (µg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ----------6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ----------9/25/2001 ND - - - - - ND - ----------12/6/2001 ND - ND - - - - ND - - - - - - - - - -3/7/2002 - - ND - - - - ND ----------10/24/2002 - - ND - - - - ND ----------4/24/2003 - - ND - - - - ND - - - - ND - - - - -6/24/2003 - - ND - - - - ND - - - - ND - - - - -9/5/2003 - - ND - - - - ND - - - - ND - - - - -12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - ND - - - - -6/9/2004 - ND ND - - - ND ND - - - - ND - - - - -10/12/2004 - ND ND - - - ND ND - - - - ND - - - - -SDWA-13 Metals (mg/L)7/27/1999 - - - - - - - - ------6/1/2000 - - - - - - - - ------9/25/2001 - - - ND - - - - ND ND - - - -12/6/2001 - -Cr-0.00345Zn-0.00610 ND - - - Zn-0.0166 ND ND - - - - - - - -3/7/2002 ND (5) - ND ND (5) - - - ND ND (5) ND (5) - - - - - - - -10/24/2002 ND (5) - ND (13) ND (5) - - - ND (13) ND (5) ND (5) - - Zn-0.04 - - - - -4/24/2003 - - Zn-0.011 - - - -Zn-0.045Cr-0.00487Pb-0.040Hg-0.00012As-0.0019 - - - - Zn-0.013 - - - - -6/24/2003 Hg-0.00012 NDZn-0.013Hg-0.00017 ND - - -Zn-0.010Sb-0.0073Hg-0.00011 ND ND - -Zn-0.013Sb-0.0058Hg-0.0001Pb-0.0024 - - - - -9/5/2003 ND - Sb-0.0052 ND - - - ND ND ND - -Sb-0.0071Pb-0.0022Zn-0.012 - - - - -12/10/2003 - - -Cd-0.00030Cr-0.0026 - - - - - - - -Be-0.00023Cu-0.0087 - - - - -6/9/2004 ND ND ND Pb-0.003 - - NDPb-0.058Zn-0.08 ND ND - - Pb-0.004 - - - - -10/12/2004 ND ND NDND--NDNDND ND - -ND-----Sodium (mg/L)10/24/2002 13 19 1923-181818-1817-15-----20 mg/L*4/24/2003 6.2282729-151515 143015 - 5.2 - - - - -20 mg/L*6/24/2003 5.8 18 16 19 - 16 16 15 15 16 15 - 4.9 - - - - -20 mg/L*9/5/2003 18 19 1920-171616161614-6.5-----20 mg/L*12/10/2003 - - -73-16------6.9-----20 mg/L*6/9/200420212121- 16 16 16 - 16 16 - 5.4 - - - - -20 mg/L*10/12/2004 16 19 1920-181818 -2318 - 6.6 - - - - -20 mg/L* As Specified If ApplicableCr 0.1 mg/L**Zn 5 mg/L*Sb 0.006 mg/LAs 0.01 mg/LPb 0.015 mg/LHg 0.002 mg/LCd 0.005 mg/LBe 0.000 4mg/lCu 1.3 mg/LFOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 6 of 7
QUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGTABLE 1 - LILY POND/AARON RIVER RESERVOIROCTOBER 2004PARAMETERLily Pond Inlet to Water Treatment PlantLocation #12MA Drinking Water Guidelines&/or Standards Aaron RiverBehind Riverview DriveLocation #13Peppermint Brook NearBayberry Lane Location #14North Side of Lily Pond Location #15Eastern Side ofLily Pond Location #16Aaron River Reservoir-Westside near Hingham AnnexLocation #7Aaron River Reservoir- Deep SamplesLocation #6bOutlet of Brass Kettle Brook at Lily PondLocation #1Lily Pond - ShallowSamplesLocation #2aLily Pond - Deep SamplesLocation #2bPeppermintBrook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #3Outlet of Aaron River into Reservoir in HinghamLocation #9East Side of Aaron River ReservoirLocation #10Herring Brook Outlet at Lily PondLocation #4Brass Kettle Brook Near Howes RoadLocation #11Outlet of Stream from South Swamp in ScituateLocation #8Aaron River nearDoane Street CrossingLocation #5Aaron River Reservoir-Shallow SamplesLocation #6aPCB (ug/L)10/24/2002 - - - - - <1 - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**6/24/2003 - - - - - ND - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**9/5/2003 - - - - - ND - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**12/10/2003 - - - - - ND - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**6/9/2004 - - - - - ND - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**10/12/2004 - - - - - ND - - ----------0.0005 mg/L**Algae (cells/mL)10/24/2002 -9.6x1032.7x101---------------NS4/24/2003 -8.0X1039.0X103---------------NS6/24/2003 - 7500 20000 - - - - - ----------NS9/5/2003 - 12500 37500 - - - - - ----------NS12/10/2003 - - - - - - - - ----------NS6/9/2004 -2.0X1035.6X103-- -6.9X1021.9X102----------NS10/12/2004 -3.7x1026.9x102-- -6.8x1022.0x102----------NSE. coli (CFU/ 100ml)9/9/2003 -<10-<10--------------0 per 100 ml12/10/2003 - - -2---------2----0 per 100 ml2/12/2004<10--<10-<10-- -<10<10<10<10<10<10<1030<100 per 100 ml6/9/2004PresentND ND NDPresentND NDPresentND ND ND ND ND ND -PresentPresentPresent0 per 100 ml10/12/2004 NDPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentPresentAbsent0 per 100 mlE-erococci (CFU/100ml)2/12/2004 10--120-<10-- -10<10<10<10<102050170100 per 100 ml6/9/2004<1246323<1841117<15-962660 per 100 ml10/12/2004113<143212126654<11156028140 per 100 mlPerchlorate (ug/l)6/9/2004 - ND - - - - - - - - - - ND - - - - - 0.001 mg/L10/12/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------0.001 mg/LSpecific Conductance (umho/cm)6/9/2004 - 156 - - - - - - - - - - 52 - - - - - NS10/12/2004 - - - - - - - - ----------NSFOOT NOTES:ND = Not Detected- = Not Tested COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand * = MA Drinking Water Guideline (Spring 2001)NS = No Standard Established TOC = Total Organic Carbon ** = MA Drinking Water StandardBold underlined values indicate concentrations in excess of or out of the applicable Guideline or Standard range.C:\Documents and Settings\martha\Desktop\report\Excel of Tables\October 04 data.xls 7 of 7