SANITARY SURVEY
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
ON i
FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENTS
A PILOT STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
SANITARY SURVEY
OF
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
ON
FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTS
A PI LOT STUDY IN
COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND
THE STATES OF INDIANA AND OHIO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Programs
Water Hygiene Division
August 1971
-------
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 7
EVALUATION CRITERIA 11
RECOMMENDED LIMITS 12
MANDATORY LIMITS 13
DISCUSSION 15
Source of Supply 17
Drinking Water Quality 18
Facilities 20
Bacteriological Surveillance 22
PARTICIPANTS 25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 26
APPENDICES
A - Forms Used In Survey 27
B - Supplemental Study 45
TABLES
1. Summary of Water Supply Types By Reservoir 16
2. Maximum Bacteriological, Chemical and Physical Concentrations Observed 24
3. Bacteriological Results of Swimming Beach Waters (Appendix B) 49
FIGURE
1. Map of Ohio and Indiana Study Area 2
i i i
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
For many years an increasing level of attention has been given to instream water quality and to a
variety of environmental and public health factors in connection with water resources planning, de-
velopment and operation. However, little attention has been given to the drinking water supplies
provided for the use of the millions of visitors who use dams, reservoirs, and related areas for sight-
seeing and recreational purposes every year.
The purpose of this pilot study was to commence an assessment of the water quality, construction,
operation and health surveillance of the water supply systems provided for public use on Federally
operated or constructed water resources developments. The findings of the study will have immediate
relevance to a host of other Federally constructed or assisted small water supplies such as U.S. park
and forest area facilities, rest stops on interstate highways and so forth. It will also hopefully be a
start in the direction of more attention to the quality, construction, operation and health sur-
veillance for all Federally-involved public water systems.
With the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the cooperation of State Depart-
ments of Health and State Departments of Natural Resources, the Division of Water Hygiene
conducted a pilot study of water supply systems at twelve Corps of Engineers dam and reservoir
projects in Indiana and Ohio during the summer of 1970. The locations of these projects are shown
by Figure 1.
Water supply systems at five reservoirs located in Indiana and seven located in Ohio were
included in this study. Latest available visitation data indicate that approximately one million
people are visiting recreation areas at these twelve reservoir developments each year.
The survey covered a total of sixty-one water supply systems. For the purposes of this report,
they are divided into four classifications:
1. Surface systems - obtain water from surface sources
2. Well distribution systems - groundwater power-pumped to distribution points.
3. Handpumped wells.
4. Cisterns - Storage tanks for hauled water obtained (in this study) from surface sources.
-------
OHIO AND INDIANA
STUDY AREA
TOLEDO
Salamonief fHuntington
MARION
Mansfield
^INDIANAPOLIS
I Cagtes MiU
CLEVELAND
MASSILLON
Atwood
Leesville
Clendening I
^BLOOMINGTON
ij Monroe
Dams and Reservoirs
CITIES
FIGURE 1
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. The results of this pilot study lead to the following general conclusions and recommendations.
1. The study revealed sufficient health hazards and sanitary deficiencies to question the
ability of a large number of these small water supply systems to constantly produce a
safe and satisfactory water. Eighty percent of the water systems in this study produced
water which at the time of sampling did not meet constituent limits of the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards; 44 percent had system facility deficiencies that
included inadequate source protection, treatment, and control; and 88 percent were
deficient in bacteriological surveillance. The study involved a narrow geographical
area of the country and concerned itself with water facilities at only one type of Federal
installation - dam and reservoir developments. To fully assess the ability of small Federal
water supply facilities to produce and deliver a safe and satisfactory water, this study
should be extended to other Federally related small water systems in various geographical
areas of the country.
2. The study revealed deficiencies in areas which could have been avoided had the water
supply system facilities been constructed, developed and operated along lines of
established sanitary standards and practices. Well construction without regard to proper
sanitary protection, inadequate operation and control of clarification plants and
inter-connections of potable and non-potable wells and well systems were some of the
deficiencies found in the study.
There is difficulty in applying established criteria and standards for municipal systems
to small water supply systems such as those in this study. Consumer demands on
systems of this type both in quantity and quality differ markedly from the demands on
municipal systems. Quantity demands of the small systems are more instantaneous
during the week. These demands influence a variety of construction elements including
pipe size, storage facilities, distribution system layout and the number of watering points.
Quality of the source water may be essentially the same for both the large municipal
system and the small water supply system; however, the economics involved make
sophisticated facilities that enable the large system to deliver a finished water with a
high degree of health protection and good esthetic qualities impractical for the small
system. One of the problems with the small water systems in this study was the esthetic
quality of the water delivered to the consumer.
The results of this study indicate the need for development of criteria and standards
for the construction and operation of small public drinking water systems constructed
with Federal funds, or under Federal supervision.
B. The results of the study lead to the following specific recommendations:
-------
1. Every effort should be made to replace all handpumped wells by extending distribution
lines from a power-pumped well system or a treated surface supply. In areas where
this is not possible, hand-pumped wells should be constructed with good sanitary
protection, particularly with protective measures such as leak-proof well covers and
cement formation seals around the casing to prevent the entry of contaminants from
the surface. Most of the handpumped wells in this study lacked such sanitary protection.
This may account for the majority of the bacteriological water quality deficiencies found
in the study.
2. Unless they are essential to a recreational area where groundwater is not available for
development, cisterns should be replaced with potable water under pressure or with
sanitary protected handpumped wells. Until the cisterns can be taken out of service,
each shipment of water should be chlorinated as it is placed in the cistern and daily
chlorine residual determinations made. The cisterns involved in this study were filled
with treated surface water transported via truck from a distant point, a process which
presents many avenues for contamination of the water.
3. Health surveillance of small water systems at dam and reservoir developments should
include bacteriological and chemical sampling sufficient to meet the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards, and yearly sanitary surveys of each system should be
provided. Bacteriological sampling was inadequate for 88 percent of the water systems in
this study. Sanitary deficiencies and health hazards found during the study could have
been identified and corrected with a program of frequent and thorough sanitary surveys.
Water supply systems located at the dam and overlook areas and operated by the Corps
of Engineers should be included in a health surveillance program. Health surveillance
was inadequate for all water supply systems operated by the Corps.
4. Small surface water treatment plants should be replaced with groundwater supplies where
suitable quality groundwater is available unless an acceptable quality of operation and
control can be provided. This study found these plants unattended most of the time with
virtually no operational control (even daily chlorine residual determinations were not
made) and record keeping. For the most part, the operators were not trained to operate
a clarification plant. Surface water systems, by virtue of the lower quality raw water,
present a greater hazard than groundwater systems when operation and maintenance
is inadequate.
5. To increase the bacteriological safety of the water, all water supplies with pressurized
distribution systems should be chlorinated on a continuous basis regardless of the water
source. The study found sanitary deficiencies in both groundwater and surface water
systems. Unsatisfactory bacteriological samples were collected from both type of systems
during the 12 months period preceding the study. Moreover, the majority of the water
systems studied are operated on a seasonal basis with a minimum of attention given
to health surveillance, including bacteriological sampling. As stated, however, chlorination
is recommended to increase the bacteriological safety factor of the water. It is not
a substitute for correcting system deficiencies or an adequate health surveillance program.
6. A higher priority should be given to the operation and maintenance of the water
systems by reservoir personnel. There is a particular need to increase operator skills
through training programs. The study revealed that one of the more serious deficiencies
exists in the area of operation and control of the water system facilities.
-------
Regular operation and health surveillance should be maintained for all water supply
systems that are left in operation after the close of the summer recreational season.
Water systems left open to serve administrative and operation areas are also subject
to use by visitors and campers throughout the year, and should receive regular
operation and health surveillance.
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
A. Drinking Water Quality
Drinking water quality was determined by collecting both chemical and bacteriological samples
from 56 water supply systems at 10 of the 12 dams and reservoir developments. Timing
and schedule problems prevented the collection of samples from the one system at
Deer Creek Reservoir; and chemical samples collected at West Fork Reservoir were not
analyzed because of a heavy work load in the chemical section of the laboratory. An average
of 2 bacteriological and at least one chemical sample were collected from various points
in each distribution system. One bacteriological sample and one chemical sample were
collected from each handpumped well. The data were recorded from each system and the
maximum constituent concentrations found in each system were compared to bacteriological,
chemical, and physical constituent limits of the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards (DWS). On this basis:
a. Eighty percent of the water supply systems delivered water that did not meet the
constituent limits of the Drinking Water Standards.
b. Nineteen percent of the systems delivered water that did not meet the mandatory limits
of the Drinking Water Standards. All of the DWS mandatory limits exceeded in this
study were bacteriological parameters.
c. Seventy-five percent of the systems in this study exceeded one or more of the DWS
recommended limits for physical and chemical quality. The limits most frequently
exceeded were those for iron, manganese, and turbidity.
Systems exceeding Systems exceeding
DWS recommended DWS mandatory limits
limits for chemi- for bacteriological
System
Type
Surface
Well Distribution
Handpumped Well
Cisterns
Systems
Sampled
Number
10(11)*
23
22
1
cal and physical
quality
Number
4
18
20
0
Percent
40
78
91
0
quality
Number
2
1
7
1
Percent
19
4
32
100
* Bacteriological Samples were Collected from 11 Surface Systems
2. Four of the 10 surface water systems and 38 of the 45 well supplies (84%) sampled
exceeded DWS recommended limits for chemical and physical quality for one or more of
the following parameters: iron, magnanese, total dissolved solids, zinc, chloride, color and
turbidity. Recorrmended limits for all these parameters, including turbidity if the turbidity
is associated with iron, are based on aesthetic considerations.
-------
3. Eleven water systems exceeded the coliform density limit of the Drinking Water Standards.
Seven of these were handpumped wells.
4. Four cisterns were inspected in this study. Only one cistern was sampled since the pumps
on three were not operating at the time of the survey. Bacteriological results of samples
collected and analyzed during the 1969 recreational season, however, indicate frequent
contamination in all four cisterns. During the 1969 summer season, 59 percent of the samples
collected from the four cisterns were contaminated.
B. Water Supply System Facilities
1. The status of the facilities used to treat, distribute and store drinking water at the 11 surface
supply systems and 23 of the 24 well distribution systems were determined by site surveys,
sampling and interviews with reservoir operations personnel. Based on the information
obtained, 45 percent of the surface supply systems and 52 percent of the well systems were
deficient in one or more of the following: source protection, disinfection and/or control of
disinfection, clarification (removal of suspended matter) and/or control of clarification. Two
of the 11 surface supply systems that will be discussed in this study are actually distribution
and storage systems that are supplied with a finished water from two nearby municipal water
systems. These two systems were evaluated only on the quality of the water delivered at the
reservoir watering points and the status of the distribution and storage facilities on reservoir
lands.
2. A chlorine residual was not detected in the distribution system of 6 of the 11 surface supply
systems that chlorinate. A chlorine residual was not detected in the distribution system
of 8 of the 10 well systems that chlorinate.
3. Operation and control of chlorination facilities was generally poor, particularly at the 10
well systems. Chlorine residual determinations are not made on a daily basis at any of these
systems. Similar deficiencies existed at the 9 surface supply systems that were visited.
4. Three of the 11 surface supply systems sampled delivered a water judged to have inadequate
clarification based on excessive turbidity in samples collected from the distribution systems.
5. Samples collected from twenty-seven of the 55 groundwater systems exceeded the turbidity
limits of the DWS. Fifteen of the same 27 also exceeded the reconmended limit for iron
indicating that the turbidity at least in part may have been caused by precipitated iron.
Samples collected from the other 12 systems, however, contained low concentrations of
iron indicating that the turbidity was from other sources.
6. Areas of low pressure were not detected in any of the well or surface supply systems.
C. Bacteriological Surveillance
1. To determine the status of the bacteriological program for each water supply system
investigated, records made available by State and other agencies responsible for the operation,
maintenance and surveillance of the systems were examined for the number of bac-
teriological samples taken during the previous 12 months of records. Based on this infor-
mation:
-------
(a) Five of the 11 surface supply systems did not meet the bacteriological surveillance
criteria. Collection of bacteriological samples at three of these supplies was not
practiced.
(b) None of the 24 well distribution systems met the bacteriological surveillance criteria
for the collection of the required number of bacteriological samples. Each system
was sampled on an average of once per month during the summer season.
(c) Water supply systems yielding unsatisfactory bacteriological samples received
inadequate re-sampling and health surveillance. This was particularly true for the
handpumped wells and cisterns.
-------
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Each water supply system was investigated on three bases: 1) drinking water quality was
determined by sampling the finished and distributed water and returning these samples to
the laboratories of the Division of Water Hygiene for bacteriological, chemical, and trace metal
analyses (radiochemical samples were not collected in the study); 2) the status of the water
supply system facilities were determined by a field survey of the system and the recording of
data on three standard forms with respect to a) source (s), b) treatment, if any, c) distribution
system pressures, and d) operation; 3) the status for the surveillance program over the water
supply system was determined by obtaining bacteriological water quality data for the previous
12 months of record from State and County health department files.
To prevent health hazards from developing in a water supply system, someone not associated
with the supply should review operation procedures and the adequacy of physical facilities on
a regular basis. These sanitary surveys should be at least as detailed as the reviews made during
the pilot study, and may be more time-consuming depending on the complexity of treatment
and the capabilities of the operators. Section 2.2 of the Public Health Drinking Water Standards
1962, provides that "Frequent sanitary surveys shall be made of the water supply system to locate
and identify health hazards which might exist in the system."
The "number of systems exceeding the DWS" and "the percent of systems exceeding the
DWS" will be referred to several times in this report. It should be understood, however, that the
frequency and adequacy of the sanitary survey was not one of the criteria used in making these
determinations. For some of the water systems it was difficult to obtain information reliable
enough to include in an accurate statistical summary for this report. Although not included in
the statistical summaries, the adequacy of the sanitary survey for water supply systems in this
study is discussed in the body of this report.
Water Quality Criteria
Water quality was judged as follows:
(1) Not to exceed the constituent limits of the PHS Drinking Water Standards.
(2) To exceed at least one "recommended" constituent limit (some are aesthetic parameters),
but does not exceed any "mandatory" constituent limit.
(3) To exceed at least one "mandatory" constituent limit.
In this report when a water supply system is referred to as exceeding the constituent limits
of the DWS, the determination is based on the maximum concentration of a constituent measured
in one or more samples collected from the system.
11
-------
The Drinking Water Standards constituent limits measured in this study are summarized as follows:
Partial List of Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Constituent Concentration Limits
Taken from the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
RECOMMENDED LIMITS
(If the concentration of any of these constituents are exceeded, a more suitable supply or
treatment should be sought).
Constituent
Alkyl Benzene Sulfonate (Measured as
methylene-blue-active substances)
Arsenic
Chloride
Color
Copper
Carbon-Chloroform Extract (CCE)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Temp. (Ann. Avg. Max. Day, 5 yrs. or more)
50.0-53.7
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8
63.9-70.6
70.7-79.2
79.3-90.5
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Turbidity
Untreated
Treated by more than disinfection
Zinc
Limit
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
250 mg/1
15 Units
1.0 mg/1
0.200 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
1.7 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
1.3 mg/1
1.2 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
45 mg/1
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5 Units
1 Unit
5 mg/1
12
-------
MANDATORY LIMITS
(The presence of the followng substances in excess of the concentrations listed shall
constitute grounds for rejection of the supply; therefore, their continued presence should be
carefully measured and evaluated by health authorities and a decision made regarding corrective
measures or discontinuing use of the supply.)
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadnium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Coliform organisms (Measured by membrane
filter technique)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Temp. (Ann. Avg. Max. Day - 5 yrs. or more)
50.0-53.7
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8
63.9-70.6
70.7-79.2
79.3-90.5
Lead
Mercury *
Selenium
Silver
Limit
0.05 mg/1
l.Omg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Fails std. if:
a) Arithmetic average
of samples collected
greater than 1 per 100 ml
b) Two or more samples
(5% or more if more than
20 examined) contain
densities more than
4/100 ml
0.2 mg/1
2.4 mg/1
2.2 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
1.8 mg/1
1.6 mg/1
1.4 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
5 Mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Proposed for inclusion in the Drinking Water Standards
13
-------
Facilities Criteria
Source, treatment, operation, and distribution facilities were judged' either:
1) To be essentially free from major deficiencies, or
2) To be deficient in one or more of the following (where applicable):
a) Source protection (in absence of disinfection or buying chlorinated water)
b) Control of disinfection (if practiced or if purchasing chlorinated water)
c) Control of clarification (if clarification practiced)
d) Pressure (20 psi) in some or all areas of the distribution system
Bacteriological Surveillance Program Criteria
The bacteriological surveillance program over the water supply system was judged on the
following criteria:
1) Collection of the required number** of bacteriological samples during the period of the
year the water system is in operation.
* See "Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies, PHS Publication No. 1820,
1969" for basis of judgement.
**See pages 3-6 of the Drinking Water Standards.
14
-------
DISCUSSION
General
Sixty-one water supply systems were surveyed at 12 dam and reservoir developments con-
structed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Indiana and Ohio. Table 1 lists the water systems
surveyed at each reservoir according to the four classifications discussed in the introductory
section of this report. With the exception of a .3MGD water treatment plant located at Bun-
Oak Reservoir in Ohio and two distribution system extensions from nearby municipal water
plants, all water supply systems are relatively small with a limited number of watering points
confined to a specific recreational or operational area. The Burr Oak treatment plant supplies
8 small towns near the dam as well as the major recreational areas surrounding the reservoir.
The major recreational areas at West Fork Reservoir in Ohio and Monroe Reservoir in Indiana
are supplied with distribution system extensions from the nearby cities of Cincinnati and
Bloomington respectively.
All but one of the 11 surface supply systems obtain their raw water from the reservoirs.
The source of the Cincinnati water supply system that serves West Fork is the Ohio River.
The 12 dam and reservoir projects were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for the primary purpose of flood control. Eight of the projects, constructed during the period
1953-1969, were authorized as multiple-purpose water resource developments for recreation and
fish and wildlife development.
Two of the eight, Monroe and Burr Oak, also included municipal water supply storage as a
purpose. The other four single-purpose projects were constructed in the period 1940-1953 and
recreational development was later added.
The twelve reservoirs provide a broad spectrum of recreational activity. Recreational areas
include, beaches, camp and picnic grounds, marinas, lodges and rental cottages. Although the
major recreational areas at the reservoirs are operated and maintained by either the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources or the Muskingum
Water Conservancy District, other groups are also involved.
The U.S. Forest Service operates a large recreational area at Monroe Reservoir in Indiana as
a part of the Hoosier National Forest. Local chapters of the Boy Scouts of America operate
camps at several reservoirs and concessionaires contracted by the responsible State agency
operate a number of marinas. All of these areas have some type of small water system. In
addition to these, the Corps of Engineers operates water supply systems at most of the damsite
areas. These supplies serve the dam operations and overlook areas. The latter areas generally
include picnic and rest stop facilities.
Recreational facilities at several of the newer reservoirs, particularly Deer Creek and Huntington,
were in an early stage of development during the sunnier of 1969. Water supply systems at these
15
-------
reservoirs were limited and a number were under construction. As can be seen from Table 1
however, a large number of people visited these areas despite the fact they were not officially
open. For this reason as well as for a desire to obtain a broad representation of reservoir
situations, a decision was made to include these reservoir developments in the study.
o
Z
o.
o
Z
O
o
O O O
o o
* 5-
^ ^3 JH
•5 8 &
ssi
> o
" -H OS 00
o o o o o
o o o o o
^ O oo^
"
o
t--
>•
^O
ti C* Oi OA &
Z Z Z Z Z
QQ Q QQ
Q Q oH Q Q
U U 2 O U
>£o££
SSOSS
B:
o
o
S
II
•8
D.
O
Q
£
"31
m o fS -H t~
Tt •* fl VO T)-
~ ~ ~ ~> os
III •§
,se3 •§
In I!
if
C t»
o o
-3 I 2 1
S bo u 2
g . S s
e1
-
g §
J O «
16
-------
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
Surface Water
Ten of the eleven surface water systems studied, used water from the reservoirs. With one
exception, samples collected at each intake exhibited good bacteriological quality. High total
coliform (30,000/100 ml) and fecal coliform (1450/100 ml) levels were found in the Lieber
State Park water supply intake located near a public marina at Cagles Mill Reservoir. This was
in contrast to 650/100 ml and 2/100 ml total and fecal coliform levels respectively from the water
intake at the dam less than two miles away. Further sampling should be undertaken in the area
of the Lieber State Park Water Supply intake. If pollution presents a threat to the water supply
source, measures should be undertaken to protect the intake by locating and eliminating the
source of pollution or by moving the intake.
Groundwater
Seventy-five percent of the water supply systems in the study obtained water from ground-
water sources. Forty-eight percent of the ground water systems used handpurrps and 52
percent power-punped to some type of a distribution system. Seven of the 11 positive samples
(64%) exceeding the coliform density limit were collected from handpump wells. Only one of
the positive samples was collected from wells with a distribution system. This cannot altogether
be credited to chlorination since 14 of the 23 do not chlorinate and of the 9 that do, only 2
showed any evidence of a chlorine residual in the system at the time of sampling. Moreover,
both the handpumped and power pumped wells are similarly constructed except for the well
cover and protection from surface drainage. In general, the handpumped wells were poorly
protected from surface drainage with concrete platforms providing easy access to the well for
drainage, rodents, etc. The majority of platform covers for the handpumped wells serve little
more than to prevent muddy conditions around the wells. Although in many cases difficult
to determine, a review of well logs and interviews with reservoir officials revealed that very
few of the wells were constructed with a formation seal between the casing and earth. This
together with the lack of a good watertight cover provides the wells with poor protection against
surface contamination. In addition, a good nunber of the handpumps showed evidence of worn
packing in the stuffing box creating still another avenue for contaminants to enter the well.
Due to their unique location near the shorelines of flood control reservoirs with highly fluctuat-
ing levels, it was difficult to determine just how many of the wells were subject to flooding.
A determination of each well site elevation in relation to maximum flood levels and spillway
crest elevations was not made although several well sites were suspect. For instance, reservoir
personnel reported sorre of the wells at Dillon have been flooded as many as four times
in the past five years. The handpump wells in this area are not protected with watertight covers and
formation seals. Wells should not be located in floodplain areas if at all possible. In instances
where this cannot be avoided, watertight, sanitary well construction is particularly important.
Groundwater samples obtained from wells at the ten reservoir sites in Ohio and Indiana
exhibited highly undesirable aesthetic qualities. Excessive iron, manganese, color, and turbidity
imparted objectionable qualities to the water that offend the senses of sight, taste, and smell.
Cisterns
Four cisterns were included in this study. Three were located at West Fork and were not
operative at the time of the survey and one cistern was located at Monroe. All four cisterns
17
-------
are storage tanks for treated surface water hauled to the site in trucks. Water used to fill the
three cisterns at West Fork is obtained from the Cincinnati, Ohio municipal water system and
the Monroe cistern is supplied by water from the Bloomington, Indiana municipal water system.
The protection provided by a closed sanitary water system is lost when the water is taken
from the system and transported to another system via an intermediate carrier. The water is
exposed to many avenues of contamination and should be retreated and tested after it is placed
in the second system.
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
Overall Quality
Bacteriological samples were collected and analyzed from 57 of the 61 water systems
studied and chemical samples were collected and analyzed from 56 of the 61 water systems.
Three inoperable cisterns and one well system were not sampled. The concentrations of the
individual constituents were then compared to the constituent limits of the Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards to determine whether or not they exceeded the limits. The percent
of water supply systems exceeding each limit is presented in the following table. The percentages
are listed by State since this reflects some of the variation in groundwater quality in each area.
Twenty-three of the 56 systems were located in Indiana and 33 in Ohio. The other system sampled
for bacteriological quality only was located in Ohio.
For Recommended
List
Systems
Exceeding Limit
.'Indiana" (2 3)
No. %
Iron
Manganese
Total Dissolved
Solids
Zinc
Chloride
Turbidity
Color
13
0
4
4
0
5
2
57
0
17
17
0
22
9
From
Mandatory Systems
List Exceeding Limit
Ohio (33) Indiana (23) Ohio (34)
No. % No. % No. %
13
14
3
1
1
24
4
40 Coliform 4 17 7 21
42 Organisms
9
3
3
73
12
. The percent of each type of water supply system that exceeded each recommended limit is
also shown as follows.
Percent of Systems Exceeding Constituent Limit
Constituent
List
Iron
Manganese
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc
Chloride
Turbidity
Color
Surface
Systems (10)
10
0
0
0
0
30
0
Well Distri-
bution System (23)
48
35
13
9
0
39
13
Handpumped
Wells (22)
64
32
18
14
4
82
18
Cisterns (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eighty percent of the water supply systems sampled did not meet the Drinking Water Standards.
The majority of these systems, however, violated recommended limits for chemical and physical
quality. All violations of mandatory limits were biological in nature. Nineteen percent of the
total number of systems sampled exceeded the mandatory Drinking Water Standards for bac-
18
-------
teriological quality as measured by the coliform parameter. Although none of the water systems
exceeded the mandatory limits for chemical quality, 75 percent exceeded the recommended limits
for chemical and physical quality.
60.
50
40
30
20
10
Number
of
Systems
Sampled
Number of Systems
exceeding
mandatory
DWS Limits
Number
of sys-
tems ex-
ceeding
recomm-
ended
DWS Limits
Bacteriological Quality
At least one or more systems in each of the four types of water supply systems exceeded the
DWS mandatory limit for coliform organisms. The water supply types showing the greatest
deficiency in this area were the handpumped wells and cisterns. Seventy-three percent of the
positive samples were collected from these 2 types of systems. Eighteen percent of the positive
samples were collected from the surface supply systems and nine percent came from the well
distribution systems.
Bacteriological data was also obtained fromthe Ohio and Indiana State Health Departments
and the Muskingum Water Conservancy District. The results of bacteriological samples were
obtained for the last 11 months of record. This information was made available for 44 of the
61 water supply systems at 10 of the 12 reservoirs included in this study. A bacteriological
surveillance program had not been instituted at Deer Creek and Huntington Reservoirs at the
time the study began. Bacteriological samples were collected from each of the 44 water supply
systems on an average of once per month over a 4 or 5 month period from May through September.
From this data it was determined that one or more unsatisfactory bacteriological samples were
collected from 32 percent of the 44 water systems during this period of record. The data is
summarized for each type of system as follows:
System Type
Surface
Well Distribution
Handpumped Well
Cisterns
No. of Systems
for which data
was made
available
3
16
22
4
Percent of
systems with
one or more
unsatisfactory
sample
67
19
23
100
Percent of systems
with two or more
unsatisfactory
samples
33
13
18
80
19
-------
It is significant that one-half of the systems from which unsatisfactory samples were collected,
had unsatisfactory samples 50 percent of the time. This is particularly true of the handpumped
wells and cisterns. The data revealed that once an unsatisfactory sample was collected from these
two system types, 2 out of every 3 samples collected would be unsatisfactory. Water supply
systems of this nature that show a history of contamination should be reconstructed with proper
sanitary protection or should be taken out of service and replaced with a safer and more reliable
system.
Bacteriological results for the period of record indicates a higher incidence of unsatisfactory
samples from well distribution systems than did the spot samples collected during the survey.
Chemical and Physical Quality
Because of the high content of inorganics in ground water, well sources in this study had the
highest percentage of systems exceeding recommended limits for chemical and physical quality.
Eighty-four percent of the systems using groundwater exceeded DWS recommended limits for
chemical and physical quality compared to 40 percent for the surface water systems.
Pesticides
Pesticide samples were collected from seven surface water supply systems at the five
reservoirs used as a source of drinking water supply: Monroe, Cagles Mill, Mansfield, Dillon and
Burr Oak. Two surface water systems were sampled at Monroe and Cagles Mill and one system
each at Mansfield, Dillon and Burr Oak. Each sample collected was analyzed at the Division of
Water Hygiene's Gulfport Laboratory, Dauphin Island, Alabama, for ten pesticides: aldrin,
endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, lindane, DDT, toxaphene, methoxychlor, heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide.
Pesticides were detected in two of the samples and were present only in trace amounts.
Aldrin and DDT were detected in concentrations of less than 1 part per billion in a sample
collected from the Corps of Engineer's water supply system at Monroe Reservoir. DDT was
detected in a concentration of less than 1 part per billion in a sample collected from the Corps
of Engineers water supply system at Cagles Mill Reservoir. The maximum permissible concentrations
for Aldrin and DDT which will be recommended for inclusion in the next revision of the Drinking
Water Standards are 10 parts per billion and 100 parts per billion respectively.
FACILITIES
General
The water supply systems in this study have equipment and facilities that provide only a
minimal degree of treatment for surface and groundwaters. The water delivered by all 11
surface supply systems receives clarification and disinfection. Two of the 11 systems are actually
extensions of nearby municipal water supply systems. The other 9 treat water from their
respective reservoirs. Only 3 of the 9 practice coagulation prior to filtration.
Ten of the 24 well distribution systems practice controlled chlorination. Despite the poor
physical and chemical quality of groundwater in the study area, only 6 of the 24 provided any
20
-------
additional type of treatment. Four of these employed water softening devices and 2 practiced
iron removal. The majority of the systems with treatment devices serve private homes of
reservoir personnel.
The following summary illustrates the inadequate operation and control of chlorination at
the water systems in this study.
System
Type
Surface
Well
Distribution
No. systems with
controlled
chlorination
11
10
No. systems
where chlorine
residual was
not detected at
one or more points
7
8
No. systems
where chlor-
ine residual
not detected
at any point
6
8
No. systems
that make
daily chlorine
residual
determinations
4
0
The above data confirms a general impression obtained at the time of the survey. Chlorine
solution pumps were not operating properly and chlorine solution crocks were left empty.
Chlorine solutions were made up and pumps set without any knowledge of concentrations
and pump rates. The inspection of these water systems also revealed that little thought had
been given to chlorine contact time when the equipment was installed. At several of the supplies
the chlorine was applied after the finished water left a large storage tank.
Two of the distribution systems without a detectable chlorine residual were extensions of
nearby municipal water supply systems. One system serves the large Fairfax recreational area
at Monroe reservoir and is a part of the Bloomington, Indiana system. The other serves the
Winton Woods Park at West Fork Reservoir and is an extension of the Cincinnati water supply
system.
Clarification
Three of the 9 surface supply systems with clarification facilities were judged to have inadequate
clarification due to excessive turbidity in samples collected from the distribution systems. At one
of these, the dam area system at Cagles Mill, sand in the pressure filter apparently had not
been replaced since the equipment was installed some 18 years ago. Samples collected from
this system were turbid, colored and bacteriologically unsatisfactory. This system as well as
the dam supply at Mansfield contained a filter by-pass line which should be eliminated.
Inter-Connected Water Systems
A great deal of care should be exercised in consolidating individual wells and well systems into
common distribution systems, since each well system may present a possible source of
contamination to other wells and their distribution systems. One example of an interconnected
water supply system is that serving Atwood Lake Park. This system using 10 well sources
consists of four separate systems interconnected with gate valves. These four systems serve a
lodge, the park, the marina and utilities at the lodge. The lodge system has four well sources and
is softened and chlorinated. The park system is not treated and uses four wells, two of which also
provide supplementary water to the lodge system for treatment and use.
The marina system is not treated and uses one well. The utilities system consists of one well,
located in the lodge and provides water for the swimming pool, boilers, and air conditioning
system. The utilities system is not used for drinking, although it is interconnected to the lodge
21
-------
system. Samples taken at the time of this study showed positive bacteriological results for
the lodge system and the utilities system and showed a level of lead exceeding the Drinking
Water Standards (0.09 mg/1 versus 0.05 tng/1). The July 1969-July 1970 period of record for
the park system was poor, with four of seven bacteriological samples showing positive results.
These data indicate the need for considering separation of such systems, or bringing
the raw water to a common location for treatment before distribution.
Distribution System Pressure
All of the water systems in this study maintained adequate distribution pressures. Storage
and pressure is achieved in the majority of the cases through the use of hydro-pneumatic tanks.
The larger systems employ elevated storage tanks.
BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE
Bacteriological samples are collected from water supply systems in State operated areas on
an average of once per month during the summer recreational season that lasts from May through
September. In dam and overlook areas operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers samples
are not collected with any uniform frequency. Some of these systems are sampled monthly
during the summer season, and some semi-annually or not at all.
Five of the 11 surface supply systems did not collect a sufficient number of bacteriological
samples to meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Standards.
None of the 24 well distribution systems met DWS limits for bacteriological sampling
frequency. Bacteriological samples were collected from all 22 handpumped wells on an
average of once per month during the recreational season including those wells with a history
of bacteriological contamination. Bacteriological sample results of handpump well sampling
for the latest 12-month period of record indicates that when an unsatisfactory sample is collected
for a handpump well, two or more unsatisfactory samples will be collected from that same
well 80% of the time. Health surveillance of these particular wells should be increased and include
collection of bacteriological samples more than once per month. If unsatisfactory samples
continue, the wells should be reconstructed or taken out of service.
Clearly, a need exists for a follow-up program for re-sampling, sanitary investigations and
corrective action when positive bacteriological samples are collected from a water supply system.
The study revealed that very little effort was made toward prompt follow-up action when positive
bacteriological results were obtained. In most cases the water supply systems were not re-
sampled. Frequently, a cup of bleach was poured into a well or cistern and presumed to correct
the problem until the water supply could be resampled the following month.
Cisterns located at Monroe Reservoir are generally sampled monthly while those at West
Fork are sampled on average of twice per month. All cisterns showed a high incidence of
contaminated samples. Twnety-five to 50 percent of the samples collected from these four during
the last 12-month period of record was unsatisfactory. Five other cisterns located at Monroe
Reservoir were not included in this.study; however, samples from 4 out of 5 were unsatisfactory
for 33 to 100 percent of the time in the 12-month period.
The water supply systems maintained by the Corps of Engineers at the dam and overlook
areas had the weakest record of bacteriological surveillance. The dam area supply at Cagles
22
-------
Mill, a surface supply system, was not sampled at all. Other water supply systems in these areas
were sampled anywhere from twice yearly to once per month. Since these supplies are accessible
to and are used by the public, the Corps of Engineers should make arrangements for a regular and
uniform program of bacteriological collection and health surveillance for all Corps operated
water supply systems that will enable the systems to meet the PHS Drinking Water Standards.
Bacteriological surveillance should be maintained throughout the year on all water supply
systems that are not closed to the public after the close of the summer season. Several of these
systems, left open for the use of reservoir personnel and their families, are also accessible to
campers, fishermen and visitors throughout the year and should be protected.
Sanitary Surveys
The sanitary survey program for water supply systems varied from area to area but was
generally handled by the local county health departments. Most systems were visited by the local
sanitarians as part of the regualr sanitation program. The complexity and detailed nature of the
water supply system inspections was not determined. The study, however, uncovered enough
deficiencies in water system facilities to indicate the need for a stronger sanitary survey program
that will locate problems and health hazards and result in corrective action.
In the majority of cases water supply systems operated by the Corps of Engineers receive
inadequate sanitary surveillance or no surveillance at all. As pointed out in the preceding section,
the Corps of Engineers should make arrangements for their systems to be included in regular
surveillance programs.
23
-------
OOiS\OOO OOr*-O^O O O O (N| O OOOlftOc^oO OOO 'OLAOOO |o OOO OOO OOOOOO OO
__ _ _ m m — _ _ _ ,vi _ ___^_N__ _ — _ — .— ___ — |_ ,-_._..- ~ _ _- _-_.___- __
3 p O O OO p p p p p O O O
30000 ooooo oc
(£)
(Z) *>
OOOOOOOOO
i oooooooo ooo ooooo jo ooooo
— O O O
(z> "loo 25352.;«
•H
u) s IA | — — — — —- <*\ oj -J- CO| J- -3-
oooo o o p p o o o p o o p I o p o o p o p p p ap o o o o o
SO OOOOOOOO OOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OO O O
p oooooooo oop ooooo o p o o o o o oo o o
oooooooo ooc
^oootsio ODMO f*\c
3 O O O O
o — •— oooo oo
oooooo ooooo ppoo oooooooo poo ooopp popooop oo o o
OOOOOO
O 00 O
_1 _l _) -J _l _1 _J_I.J -J -l-l -I —
OOOOO o O o O O O O ^^ °, °.
j. _ _ —- CO j-O«»ir--(tJiCO BI— r-. —
o
o o
9OOOO OOO
oooo oooo oooooooo ooo ooooo o'o'o IDOC
o o o o
d d o* o
o o o o o o c
P4 — OAOm — -J-
(2) 'PUOO -d$ lAr-m^OO P40 L
r-.CO-J'OO-T l~"r^'"3m
oooooo ooooo
oooooo ooooo
o'ddooo ooooo
oooo oooooooo ooo ooooo ooooooo oo o
—I —I -* -J -t
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
OOOOOC
OO^OfNirv OOOO — ^(NOA-* Oir-.o CSr^ufiOiOO OvD(JOnM»<*\00
o o o o o oooooooo oop ooppo ppooppo oooooo
ooooo oooooooo 'ooo ooooo oocoooo oooooo
ooooo ooooooooo oo— ooooo ooooooo ooSooo
ooooo oooooooo ooo ooooo ,0000000 0*30000
ooooo oooooooo ooo ooooo ooooooo oooooo
ss
o o
d o*
oooooooo
ooooj-— ooooo
oooooo ooooo
Si^j-ovuoocg ol oooooi
r~~\f> in M a\ Oi r-Jco & a> r^ o
•— OOOOf^O —Jtr\cnrJ — OO
ooooo oooooo
ooooo oooooo
OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOO OOOCO lO
ooo ooooo ,00—0000 oooooo
ooo ooooo pooppop p p p p o o
3O OOOOOO OO
:>|olr-coU)- i 1 ol
~. r^U-3[fsi p-i o i-rJ
M (vfo o o o i^J —1
3)olo olo o o| o
3 O O O O O
p..-, ggggg
|—jo o "~jo o —JM|M|O|C«NJ oop cs o p c o p p p p o p p p p o p o p
slo o d|d o dlolololol ooo oooco ooooooo oooooo
--3000 I p p p p o p p p O p p o o
oo •"
o o 0(0 o ololo ol
r^ m uu* <*« aja* "^
UOJ I d d —|d d dldld ol
•ddo3 o<52oooooo
3 g g g g g 8 5 g
3* OOOOOOOO
s-sfcslsl sl-js^s1
^ o_ ujlo - U-J rJ o - o w
O o|o J'jr'J — |o O O —
O OIO O O o-*r^
, N r^k^ — ^ \O r-. r^i
o olo o o o a o olr^lo o —
O mp 00"
(Z)
(!)
C^COOOO—
OOOO
\D O — —
— —
OOO —
— — « —
gggggg 88S.S8
oooooo ooooo
- __ .-CTi J-r^«*\LnO-*-*
p p CD O 0 p O O O O O O
ooooo o
ooooo o
3M"S5%K 3SSzi3*'i^o
p^ O O O_ O i O_ O O O O O
5«
.1°.
IS
30 oooooo oo
§OOO -3--».~ iy\OiACit^i |f>f\-tfOOu-\u-\ O5
oop ooo ooooo o o o p p o o oc
o ooooo 'ooooooo o<:
ooooooo
300000000 oo
300000000 oo
gggg
ISSSi
3OOO OOOOOOOO OOO OOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOO
3000 oooooooo ooo ooooo ooooooo oooooo
•-CO — CO —»Ou^Cf(vOC^'DLn CO >*i\& OO^vDvJ)!--. UJ -* tlj OJ p — OJ u\ sO \O
o o
og
3000 o -*]o ooo o co o
ssss
***
tti tSS:
5,3,- 3,*,--
fSSiSSSS
»IOA»3S3a I OOOIUV
illli
o Q-
5
D o
EE>J- i sslss
a Q — a- m CQ m ai oo eo
:» "
o« . ' '
= uS?^
t1s5"
li ! ? 5
,55 ?
II
c
"C I 5 ' *-< ***"o]«oia:^*jj _ — *j j o ' • — i
£« o » c c -o c ' « t- x X J: O -oi-i-uj»±Za-
t-k.« t-QOci»,tDC«BO>*- c ao oo £ 1.1
£ «JS " 88^-= j ••S^ttt S I "-~£1 S <« i
"- laatillatssss \s22is I [ II
NOll
Q13IJSNVM I 30SNOH
24
-------
PARTICIPANTS
The following persons and/or agencies made a major contribution to the successful completion
of this study.
Study Coordinators
J. E. Warren - Water Resources Engineer
F. D. Maddox - Regional Water Hygiene Representative
Study Advisor
F. A. Bell, Jr. - Chief, Water Resources Branch
Study Consultants
J. A. Cofrancesco - Director, Divison of Technical Operations;
R. D. Lee - Chief, Community Water Supply Branch
R. E. Hyde - Administrative Officer, Water Hygiene, Cincinnati
Field Evaluation
J. J. Healey - Water Resources Engineer
J. F. Harrison - Water Supply Consultant
F. D. Maddox - Regional Water Hygiene Representative
F. A. Bell, Jr. - Chief, Water Resources Branch
J. E. Warren - Water Resources Engineer
Laboratory Support
Cincinnati Water Hygiene Laboratory, Division of Water Hygiene
Gulf Coast Laboratory, Division of Water Hygiene
Bacteriological Evaluation
D. Van Donsel - Bacteriologist
Data Processing
G. C. Kent - Chief, Water Quality Register Branch
Mrs. G. D. Bardo - Statistical Clerk
Report Preparation
J. E. Warren - Water Resources Engineer
F. D. Maddox - Regional Water Hygiene Representative
Leslie Baukin - Secretary, Division of Water Hygiene
25
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the approval and assistance provided by the Ohio River Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this study could not have been done. The same must also be said of the
Departments of Natural Resources and the Departments of Health in the States of Indiana
and Ohio; and the Muskingum Water Conservancy District in Ohio. The assistance provided by
these agencies is acknowledged with great appreciation.
Will Rusk and George Johnson, Chief and Assistant • Chief respectively, of the Ohio River
Divisions Reservoir Management Branch, COE, are due particular recognition for their
assistance during the study.
And finally, there are the COE District area reservoir rangers and reservoir operations personnel
who accompanied the survey team on their visits to each reservoir. They not only gave freely
of their time, but in most cases assisted with the various aspects of the survey.
26
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD EVALUATION AND
WATER SAMPLE FORMS
USED IN SURVEY
27
-------
-------
1.
I
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SANITARY SURVEY
(for office use only')
2/18/69
SURVEY DATE
mfe
12. (oaf. ON EVERY CARD)
'mo
2. Name of supply.
3. Location
A. Demands,
MOD
1
post office
PRESENT
common name, if different
10-YR. ESTIMATE UNKNOWN
A. Avg. day
B. Max. day
C. Max. month
5. Water use has been restricted
any one year of the past 5 years.***
6. LABORATORY CONTROL
J£
times for a total of
57
days during
A. Bacteriological (Distribution system only) F"BOM »!&• J> "" U'WiSi
(1) Min. number samples recommended per month by PHS DWS " ' ' ' ' UNKNOWN
f(2) Avg. number/month for last 12 months MAY D^
(3) Range from
6,8
70
'to
7S
(4) Number of months the Drinking Water Standards were
not met during the last 12 months for: Mfl
t-io
g Oi (a) Quality—
X. VJ map OF dis4-jei8oTi*>n
I (6) Are check samples collected as provided for in the
V
Drinking Water Standards?
3« IS"— D«CO>S.
(7) Are samples requiring check samples reported b^.ueiephone?
>^frtV
&
(a) Within the
(9)
whom was it certified.
samples received by lab within 30 hours?
no
EGA-19
29
-------
B.
V
Chemical (finished water only)
(1) Samples of finished water are analyzed each
-0
(2) Type of analysis:
2 years, LJ 3 years,
—
34>
on
month,
infrequently and/or
complete (DWS1
D
41
year,
never.
partial.
(3) Date of last chemical analysis
srao.
«
•4
(4) Analyzed by
utility, | |state,
day
PHS,
university
.D
other.
(5) Tests run for operational control and their frequency are:
Tests
Frequency
Continuous Each shift
AlkftHnUy I , J
Q
Aluminum L n. — i . ..
Chloride LJ 1 1
Chlorine residual L_J 1 1
Color *° LjJ 1 1
Fluoride LgJ 1 1
Hardnpp? 1 1
Iron 1 1
Jar tests L^J 1 1
1 4
Maneanes? ._... I. AT
8 33 jy*
x <*S
Tast^ & Odor a, . ^SP ' '
Turbidity
Z«t* potential 1 1 1
1 1
4,3
C. Radioactivity
(1) Samples are analyzed each __ month,
1 1 infrequently and/or 1 1 never.
(2' Dace of lest radiological analysis
(3) Analyzed by utility. 1 1 state. _
&
fpr
>
ye
70 '
\
ICO.
_ PHS
Weekly Infrequently
a>t>
0
D
n
D
2 years, | ] 3 years,
it
3) IS
so
] m
day
university
.D
other.
EGA-19
30
-------
7. SANITARY SURVEY
A. Date of most recent survey
B. Survey made by:
I I
31
utility, and/or
Sf*
C. Facilities surveyed:
storage.
local health department,
state,
distribution.
8. FACILITIES & OPERATION (describe deficiencies on reverse side)
A. Are there common walls between finished and lesser quality water?
\\
B. Are there inter-connections to other systems<
(1) of known acceptable quality\f\
(2) of unknown quality
(a) with protection
(b) without protection
C. Is there a cross-connection control program
(1) on new construction only
(2) for continuous re-inspection
D. Are finished water reservoirs properly covered?
E. Is there detectable chlorine residual in distant parts of the
distribution system?
F. Can the treatment plant be by-passed?
G. Are there satisfactory procedures to:
(1) prevent personal accidents
(2) prevent chlorine accidents
(3) disinfect all new and/or repaired distribution system mains,
valves, fittings, including check samples before being
placed in service?
H. Are there areas of low pressure ( < 20 psi) in the distribution
system under maximum water use?
I. Operating problems most often encountered are:
n
phenols, I I corrosive water,
t>9 70
67
taste & odor
short filter runs,
YES
NO
D
D
S3
sa
0
D
P
D
6t
other.
ECA-19
31
-------
8. FACILITIES & OPERATION, continued
J. Chlorination process was interrupted
in the last 12 months.
-7Z 73
tines
(1) Interruptions were due to: I I chlorinator failure,
feedwater punp,
7fo
„ a
74
I changing cylinders,
power failure,
—I other. „
76 (END CARO 4) |4J
80
K. Percent cf land area within service area where water is
available (nearest whole percent) I 1 1 1 X.
L. Were plans and specs, for treatment plant approved by the state?
YES NO
D
-f
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION{(describe deficiencies on reverse side)||\J
A. Are the following adequate:
(1) Source, with respect to the following:
(a) quantity
(b) bacteriological quality
(c) chemical quality
(d) physical quality _ ,
(e) adequate protection
(2) Transmission of raw water
(3) Is the raw water sampled for:
(a) Bacteriological contamination
(b) Chemical contamination
(4) Treatment, with respect to the folowing:
(a) aeration
(b) chemical feed , capacity
(c) chemical feed, stand-by equipment
(d) chemical mixing
(e) flocculation
EGA-19
D
32
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
A. Are the following adequate (continued):
(4) Treatment, continued:
(f) settling
(g) recarbonation
(h) filtration
(i) disinfection, capacity
(j) disinfection, stand-by equipment
(k) taste & odor control
(1) fluoridation
(5) Distribution, with respect to the following:
(a) storage
(b) booster chlorination
(c) high service pumping
(d) booster pumping
(e) pressure
(6) Maintenance
(7) Records for:
(a) disinfection
(b) filter runs
(c) chemical consumption
(d) operational control tests
(e) bacteriological examinations
(8) Cross-connection control
(a) ordinance
(b) program implementation
(c) progress
EGA-19
«>e <>?
n /e
33
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
B. During the past 3 years, raw water quality has I_J improved,
deteriorated, or I I stayed the same.
20 Zl
10. PERSONNEL
A. Water Purification Operator
(1) Highest level of formal education
THIS I* TH-E.
<3P
Dn
high school, I I technical
23 Z*
12) Level of training
iB
- Mo 7" ^ U
8th grade or less,
'trai
iol,
trade s
^n
zs
college course,
university.
-4«f^
'short school,
Z9
on the job,
\J*~ S'^VJV gA
(3) Length og^fce on th^^Sb:
years,
months.
(4) Number of orevffcus positions as water treatment operator
(5) Total years of water purification experience
(6) Level of study in sanitary microbiology:
I technical or trade school,
other.
31
SB a?
college course,
short school,
on the job,
_
44
none,
(7) Level of study in water chemistry: I I college course,
technical
or trade school, I I short school,! Ion the job,
I I other.
none,
51
(8) Is the operator a full-time employee?
(9) Salary range (per year) of operator:
$2,000-5,000,
yes
no
<$1,000,
$5,000-7,500,
ss
$1,000-2,000,
$7,500-10,000,
I > $10,000.
ECA-19
34
-------
10. PERSONNEL, continued
A. continued
(10) Is your present staff adequate in:
r~i
(a) number LJ yes
(b) quality
yes
toi
no
no
B. Operator's biggest complaint:
n
C. Most frequent customer's complaint :
: IJS^fLi U^D 0(
D. Management's most frequent complaint:_
EGA-19
35
-------
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
A. Bonded indebtedness:
(1) General obligation bonds
(a) statutory limit
(2) Revenue bonds
(a) statutory limit
B. Capital stock, par value
bonds, par value
C. Water funds are
£5-
END
« B
go
sz
kept separate or mingled with other funds.
53
D. Is there an annual payment to the general fund?
mayor-counci1,
yes
no
£. Operation is controlled by:
..D
ss
I | independent water board,! I other
F. Is there active planning for expansior
c
(1) Value of planned improvement y
(2) Planning by utility I_J yes
(3) Planning by consultants L_J yes
i or improvement?
J i
&5 A
no U"
<£/
yes .„. no
n.
A 70
riuiry onuy
£WD CA&O 7 LZJ
eo
I
G. If expansion is planned, it will be carried out within:
1 YR. 5 YRS. 10 YRS.
tent
bution
/3
/t.
/9
D
(1) Source
(2) Treati
(3) Distr
(A) Other
H. Costs of production:
(1) Chemicals
(2) Labor, power, etc.
(3) Depreciation
(4) Other, including office, administration,
meter reading, collection, etc.
(5) Total
Q
^/
CENTS/1,000 GALLONS
•
LI
3S
ECA-19
36
-------
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION, continued
I. Tariff
(1) Connection fee $ l^J-
(2) Sales unit isLJper 1,000 gallons orLJper 100 cu. ft.
—• i ri
I units
units
units
cents for the first
cents for the next
cents for the next
±
(d) etc. as needed to cover steps.
fLft-T BATE.
u
EGA-19
37
-------
-------
NAME
ADDRESS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
Public Health Service BUOSET BUREAU NO. 95-370015
Environmental Health Service EXP.RES 11-30-70
Environmental Control Administration
INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Card 1
SAMPLE NO.
YEAR
Col.
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18-19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26-27
I. THE SOURCE
A. Spring! |; Well! I; Surface Source! I; Cistern I I.
B. Ground Water from: Sand/Gravel
I I; Limestone I I ;
Sandstone
Q
Other
i
Formation!—I ; Specify
; Not Known
D.
C. Construction: By Contractor! I ; Owner/Occupantl I ; Other! I.
1 2 3
A. SPRING
1. Flowing! I; Non-Flowing I—I: Intermittent
1 2 3
2. Encasement:
Brick, Block, or Stone! I ; Reinforced Concrete
j __
General Condition: Good! I; Fau | |; Poor!
I I; Other I I.
? YesL
3. Surface Drainage Controlled?
4. Adequate Fencing around spring? Yes
r NO
D;
D.
No
5. Water withdrawn with:
Power Pump I I; Hand Pump
I—I; Bucket! I ; Other! I .
6. Estimated Minimum Capacity:! I I I GPM.
NUMI III C
B. WELL
1. Dug! I ; Driven! I ; Jetted! I ; Bored I I ; Drilled!—I.
• 1 2 3 4 9
2. Dug Well: .—. .—.
Acceptable lining to 10' or more? Yes! I ; No! I .
—— _ ' 2
Acceptable cover? Yes! I ; No I I.
1 2 ^__^ ^_^
Masonry or other jointed lining, sealed: Yes I I; No I I.
_ I 2
Reconstructed, sealed and filled: Yes! I; Not I.
i—i _ ' 2
General condition: Good I_J ; Fair! I; Poor! I.
3. Other Types of Wells: '
a. Casing: Diameter: I 11 I inches, I.D.
NUMERIC
ECA-62 (CIN)
(REV. 6-70)
39
-------
Page 2
Cplt n n
28 Steel or Black Iron L—I • Galvanized Iron or Steel I I-
' .—. 2
29 Joints Screwed Coupling! I: Joints Welded I I-
I 2
30 Nail thickness, Std. or better? Yesl—I; Not I.
b. Depths: nnn *
31-33 Ground surface to bottom of well:! II II—I Ft.
34-36 Ground surface to bottom of casing: I II II I Ft.
c. Formation Seal: NUMERIC —
37 Cement grout seal from depth of 5 to 10* up to surface I I.
i
Cement grout seal from depth of 10 to 20* up to surface! I .
^__^ 2
Fine sand (natural) seal 10 to 20' up to surface! I.
^__^ 3
Puddled clay seal 5 to 20; up to surface! I .
No apparent formation seal between casing and earth I I .
5
Concealed (buried) formation grout seal reported | | .
d. Sanitary Nell Seal ,—, ,—• e
38 Water tijht cover? Yesl I; Not—I.
i i ^_^
39 Well exposed to flooding? Yesl I ; No I I.
1 2
e. Well Pit -—| |—|
40 Pit around tell? Yesl—I ; No I I.
1 2 ^_^
41 Pit has acceptable cover? Yesl I ; No I—I.
I 2
42 Pit drains to open air? Yesl I ; No I—I .
I 2
43 Pit drains to drain line or sewer? Yesl I ; No) I.
1 9
44 Possible to flood pit in anyway? Yesl—I; No
n.
45 Pitless adapter? Yesl I ; No
1 2
48 Pitless adapter with top of well buried or below ground level Yesl
47 f. Well "Filter" or Screen*
Open hole! I ; Perforated or slotted pipe! I ;
Sand (well) point or screen of horizontal, endless slot type! I ;Other type of screen! I
g. Age of Well: < 2 yrs.l—I ; 2-5 yrs.l—I ; 6-10 yrs.l I ;11-20 yrs.LJ ; > 20 yrs.l I .
48
C. PUMP AT WELL OJLSPRING
49 1. Hand pumpl—I ; "Shallow well" (low-lift) Jet or centrifugal pump
i ^__^ ^_^
"Deep well" (hi-lift) jet pumpl—I ; Submersible pumpl I .
3 4
•Not to be confuted with ''filter" or strainer attached to suction inlet of pump.
40
-------
3
CoL n n
50 2. Pump never breaks suction! I ; Pump sometimes breaks suction! I .
51 3. With existing pump, well delivers: Less than 3 GPnl I ; 3-5 GPM! I; 5-10 GPMI I ;
I 2 3
10-20 GPM I I ; More than 20 GPM| I.
4 5
D. SURFACE SOURCEjStream; Lake)
52 1. Perennial! I ; Intermittent! I.
1 2 ^_^
53 2. Upstream: Human activity currently on watershed? Yesl I ; No! I.
54 3. Delivery: Flow by pumping!—I; By gravity I—I.
1 2
E. CISTERN
55 1. Catchment Area: Rooftops! _ I ; Ground surface paved or covered with impermeable material! _ I
1 2
56 2. Ground Area Only: Fenced! _ I; Signs posted I _ I; Unprotected! _ I.
I _ 2 ^_^ 3
57 3. Cistern Construction: Above ground! _ I ; Below ground L_l;
1 _ _ 2
Brick or stonel _ I ; Concrete! _ I ; Wood I — I ; Steel I _ ! .
56
^_^ _ ^__^
59 General Condition: Good! _ I ; Fair! — I ; Poor! _ I .
1 2 3 _
60 4. Cistern Protection: Screened against rodents, birds? Yesl _ I; No I _ I.
1 2
61 5. Cleaning: Does cistern have drain which permits cleaning and flushing to waste?
YesLJ ; NoLj.
I 2 _ ^__^
62 Does cistern need cleaning now? Yesl — I ; Not _ I .
1 2
F. WATER TREATMENT (Surface Source; Cistern)
63 1. Sedimentation: Yes
; No
D.
64 2. Filtration Through: Sand| _ I ; Other Medium)
I ^__^
65 3. Chlorination: Automatipl _ I ; Manual] — I .
66 4. Softening: Yesl — I ; No! — I .
— —
l _ I Mol — I .
67 5. Other* Yesl
( EXPl AIM)
G. STORAGE (AM Sources) .—. ,—,
68 1. Pressure tank| | ; Elevated storage! I ; Below ground storage!—I .
69 2. Construction: Steell I ; Brick, block or stonel—I ; Concrete!) ; Wood!—I .
70 3. General Condition: Good! I ; Fair!—I ; Poorl—I .
1 2 3
H. DELIVERY i—i I—II—I
71 1. Water flows to point of use by hand pumpingl—J ; Power pumping L_J ; Gravity!—J ;
Hand carry
•Describe
i to p
41
-------
Col.
I. PHYSICAL QUALITY OF HATER
"
. . _ . , — ,
72 1. Colored[_J ; TurbidF"]; Clear] _ | ; Contains sandl _ I .
73 2. Taste: Good! _ I ; FairLJ ; Poor*! _ I .
74 3. Evidence of iron or manganese problem: Yes| ] ; No ,
75 4. Hater Softener in regular operation: Yes| | ; No| j .
78 5. Other water conditioner devices used: Yesl] '• No I. ~l •
80 CARD NUMBER 1
CARD 2 - Dup 1-8
J. PUBLIC AGENCY INTERESTS**
9 1. Has any public agency inspected this supply at any time within the last two years?
•D:
Yes| I ; No I |. -H-.
I 2
10 2. Has bacteriological analysis ever been made on the water? Yesl I ;
; No LJ ; Unknown I I .
Date ; No I I; Unknown! I. ++
11
a. If "yes" was the water found "safe?" Yesl I ; No I I.
12 b. If "no" (under 2a) were corrections recommended? Yes) |; No!—I .
13 c. Here corrections made: Yesl I ; No
2
14 d. After corrections were made, was water retested? Yesl _ 1 ; No
15 3. Did the owner-before attempting any construction at the source or before using the source-
consult any agency about its suitability? Yesl—I ; Not I. -H-
* I—I
16 4. Have any chemical analyses ever been made on the water? Yesl J ; Date .
No I—1 ; Unknown! I ; ++
2
K. USER'S PREFERENCE ,—, ,—,
17 1. User prefers: Present supply! I; Another or improved individual supply! I;
A pub Iic supply
2
3
IB 2. Reason(s) for Preference: Lower cost! I ; Better tasting water
Independence) | ; More reliable source! |; Safer! | .
n 4 5
Other! I
; Softer water
D-.
19-22
23
-
80
7
L. PRESENT CONSUMPTION
1. Number of persons
2. Is water shortage
Specify
CARD NUMBER 2
using system. Adults
ever experienced: Yes| |;
i
Chi Idren
N.Q
•Identify il pottible.
•H-ldentify agency.
42
-------
ECA-9 (CIN)
(1-69)
1. LOCATION OF WATE
2. WATER SUPPLY NAM
3. DATE OF SAMPLING
4. SAMPLE FROM
f
5. SAMPLING POINT
LOCATION AND /OR
DESCRIPTION
6. TYPE OF P
WATER SAMPLED L
f
7. SOURCE OF
WATER
£
8. SAMPLING ["•
METHOD L
f
9. ANALYSIS ~
REQUIRED
1
10 WATER
SUPPLY
P ATFPflDV
UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE - 82 -
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE PUNCH ,„ „„.
IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SAMPLE
R SUPPLY NAMEOFlisE2Ud>jl2.,C!0urtTV. f
FOR OFFICE
USE ONLY |
. NAMF
BEGINNING DATE
OF COMPOSITE
"TREATMENT ( —
PLANT 1
I 4
t.c.kifcl
-[FINISHED 1 —
4
SURFACE
4
"| COMPOS lit "
4
'" ORGANIC ['
1 4
rnuutiM t TV
WATER
SERIAL NO.
9441
1 6
;kw
CITY, COUNTY, STATE ' V
I I
0C.,?
1 1
EceeATi
1 I 1
OK) A&E&SEBUE
MO. DAY ENDING DATE MO. DAY YR.
I
l)h UUMPUSIIk 1
nn DATF RE 1 1 1
19 22 GRAB SAMPLE 23 28
iWELL 1 — (RESERVOIR ( (DISTRIBUTION 1 (OTHER
1 1 SYSTEM 1 1
2 1 0
i
-------
INSTRUCTIONS: EVERY ITEM OF INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM THE SAMPLER IS
NUMBERED (1 THROUGH 13). THESE ARE THE ONLY RESPONSES
THE SAMPLER SHOULD MAKE. NOTE AREAS MARKED "DO NOT
WRITE BELOW THIS LINE" AND "FOR OFFICE USE ONLY."
ITEM 1 SHOULD BE THE LOCATION OF THE HATER SUPPLY FA-
CILITY WHICH PRODUCED THE WATER FOR THE SAMPLE.
(EXAMPLE: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON. OHIO.)
ITEM 2 SHOULD BE THE FULL NAME OF THE WATER SUPPLY
FACILITY. (EXAMPLE: CINCINNATI MUNICIPAL WATER
WORKS)
ITEMS 4, 6, 7, AND 8 - CHECK THE BOX WHICH APPLIES
ITEMS 9 AND 10 - CHECK ONE OR MORE BOXES AS NECESSARY
ITEMS 3, 5, 11. 12, AND 13 SHOULD BE SELF-EXPLANATORY
ANY RESPONSE OF "OTHER" OR "SPECIAL STUDY" SHOULD BE EXPLAINED UNDER
ITEM 12 - ADDITIONAL REMARKS..
IF NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE IDENTIFICATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO USE THE BACK OF THE ORIGINAL (WHITE) COPY OR ATTACH AN ADDITIONAL PAGE
OF LIKE SIZE.
DISTRIBUTION:
MAIL ORIGINAL (WHITE COPY) TO:
WATER QUALITY REGISTER BRANCH
BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE
222 E. CENTRAL PARKWAY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202
BLUE ENCLOSED WITH ORGANIC SAMPLE
PINK ENCLOSED WITH TRACE METAL SAMPLE
YELLOW ENCLOSED WITH WET CHEMISTRY SAMPLE
GREEN ENCLOSED WJTH RADIOCHEMICAL SAMPLE
TAN RETAINED BY REGIONAL OFFICE OR SAMPLER
44
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY
45
-------
-------
A SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY OF THE ADEQUACY AND MAINTENANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SAFEGUARDS IN RECREATIONAL AREAS INVOLVED IN THE WATER SUPPLY STUDY
In many instances the planning, provision, and maintenance of facilities in recreation areas
have not kept pace with the rapidly increasing visitor load. Available recreation facilities will
need to be at least tripled by the year 2000 to meet the needs of the Nation's exploding population
and increased leisure time. Estimates are that adequate environmental health safeguards
comprise approximately 30 percent of development costs of new recreation areas. Since these
safeguards represent such an appreciable investment, care should be taken in properly planning,
constructing, and maintaining adequate facilities.
As a corollary to the central study of drinking water facilities a general survey of recreational
and sanitary facilities was made in the recational areas involved in this study. The facilities
were examined for adequacy and maintenance of environmental health safeguards. In addition,
bacteriological samples were collected at 3 and 6 foot levels from bathing waters at each beach
and analyzed for total coliform, fecal coliform and fecal streptococci, The Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior on Water Quality Criteria, April
1968, recommends that fecal coliforms be used as the indicator organism for evaluating the
suitability of water for primary contact recreation. The 200 per 100 ml fecal coliform limit
recommended in the report is the criteria used to evaluate the suitability of bathing water at
beaches sampled in this study. The general findings of the supplemental study are as follows:
Bathing Beaches
Water Quality
The only sample exceeding the fecal coliform limit of 200 per 100 ml was collected from the
Raccoon State Park Beach at Mansfield Reservoir. This beach had fecal coliform levels of
120 and 310 per 100 ml. At Cagles Mill, half of the samples were 2 fecal coliforms or less
per 100 ml. At Monroe Reservoir the values ranged from62 to 84 per 100 ml. At Atwood,
the highest value was 18 per 100 ml. All other beaches exhibited very high quality bathing
water based on the fecal coliform standard.
The effect of high water temperatures (generally in the 79° to 83° F range) and of nutrients
in the reservoirs is shown by the very high total coliform levels in Cagles Mill and Atwood
waters. Many of these samples had over 1000 total coliforms per 100 ml, with one over
5,000 per 100 ml at Cagles Mill. Because of the correspondingly low fecal coliform levels
of these samples, the total coliform values appear to be of little sanitary significance, and it
illustrates why the use of total coliforms as bathing beach indicators should be discouraged.
Beach Hazards
The location, construction and operation of beaches should be better controlled for the
sake of safety and sanitation. Specific problems noted were:
47
-------
1. Several beaches had a concrete apron along the shore that extended well out into the
water. Erosion of the bottom had left a rough cutting edge at the point where the concrete
terminated under water, presenting a hazard to the feet.
2. Other beaches accumulated natural and man-made debris and pollution by virtue of their
location with respect to influent stream or waste sources.
3. Several beaches were too steep, presenting a hazard, particularly to the child who is
a poor swimmer.
4. Most beaches were inadequately roped or marked to separate the shallow water from deep
water or to exclude boating activities from the bathing area.
Recreational Area Sanitation
Facilities
Sanitation facilities were generally adequate in most areas. A notable exception was the
quality and maintenance of privies. Several areas contained pit privies that should be replaced
with sanitary constructed vault privies, or better. Fly and odor problems were obnoxious
around most vault privies not receiving adequate daily care. Vault privies already installed
should receive daily care in order to present an acceptable aesthetic and sanitary condition.
Grounds Maintenance
Recreational grounds should be maintained in a clean and well-cut fashion. Grounds maintenance
in fee areas was generally good. This was not true, however, for free access areas. The weeds,
high grass and debris noted in these recreational areas not only detracted from the areas
esthetically but also promoted insect, poison ivy and rodent problems. Operational and health
authorities should give more attention to the problems summarized above as well as other
related aesthetic and sanitary problems in recreational areas.
48
-------
TABLE 3
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
OF SWIMMING BEACH WATERS
ATWOOD
BURR
OAK
CLENDEN-
ING
DILLON
LEESVILLE
MANSFIELD
MONROE
HUNTING-
TON
SALA-
MONIE
CAGLES
MILL
Name of Beach
Northshore Beach #1
Northshore Beach #2
Northshore Beach #3
Atwood Glens Beach # 1
Atwood Glens Beach #2
Atwood Glens Beach #3
Atwood Village Beach
Lodge Beach
Atwood Park Beach
Main Public Beach
Long Beach
Clendening Beach
Dillon Beach
Leesville Beach
Raccoon State Park Beach
Fairfax Beach
Paynetown Beach
Sycamore Flats Beach
Buehler (Boy Scout) Beach
Huntington Beach
Lost Bridge West Beach
Hulman Beach
Cataract Yachr Club Beach .
Croy Crest Beach
Lakeshore Hills Beach
Forest Cave Beach
Depth I/
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
Total
Coliform.2/
800
650
350
800
650
1600
950
1050
1250
1050
1200
1900
1350
1600
1450
1500
1400
1100
110
145
15
20
940
1050
800
1400
350
1100
860
180
300
500
660
560
300
280
340
80
•2
4
4
14
5300
550
700
110
2300
2100
2500
950
1900
Fecal
ColifonnJ/
8
6
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
6
18
8
38
46
0
0
4
2
4
0
12
8
310
120
6
2
84
56
20
22
12
14
1
0
1
5
44
6
0
o •
10
4
2
0
10
Fecal
Strep I/
27
39
27
18
12
39
3
9
2
66
27
12
190
27
18
120
72
33
240
310
116
104
48
42
4
18
0
0
240
140
98
30
520
280
210
50
224
96
0
0
2
2
16
4
0
0
20
8
8
12
36
(continued)
49
-------
CAGLES MILL (cont'd)
TABLES
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
OF SVIMMING BEACH WATERS
Name of Beach
Allmeyer Highland Lake Beach
Hidden Hollow Beach
Indiana Gear Works Beach
Shrine Club Beach
Hawks Lake Beach
Depth I/
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
Total
Coliform 2/
400
800
4100
2900
550
20
10
2250
Fecal
Coliform_2/
0
6
28
24
20
0
2
2
Fecal
Strep 21
0
4
124
280
44
24
20
52
[_1 Depth in feet at which sampled was collected
[2_ Number of organisms per 100 ml of sample-membrane filter test
50
-------
-------
------- |