-O16
A PILOT STUDY OF
WATER SYSTEM
NATIONAL PARK
SYSTE
RINKING
IN THE
ERVICE
m
WATER SUPPLY DIVISION
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
November 27, 1974
Mr. Ronald H. Walker
Director, National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Walker:
We have completed our pilot study of drinking water supplies in the
National Park Service System and are pleased to submit a report of
our findings and recommendations.
The recommendations are based in part on the 1962 Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards, which are currently being revised
by the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed revisions
dealing with bacteriological and chemical monitoring, and summarized
in Appendix D of this report, could significantly reduce the amount of
analyses now required by the current standards. After the new
standards are issued, we would be pleased to meet with you to revise
the cost estimates for surveillance contained in this report.
We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by the Park
Service during this study and offer our assistance, where possible,
to implement the recommendations.
. —\
Siiicerely yours,
James H. McDermott, P. E.
Director
^ Water Supply Division (WH-450)
Enclosure
-------
A PILOT STUDY
OF
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
IN THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SYSTEM
WATER SUPPLY DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DECEMBER 1974
-------
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
Water Quality 7
Surveillance 7
Operation, Control, and Protection 8
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED 11
EVALUATION CRITERIA 19
Water Quality Criteria 19
Facilities and Operation Criteria 19
Surveillance Criteria 19
PROCEDURES 23
Office Review 23
Field Survey 23
Sampling Program 23
Laboratory Procedures 24
FINDINGS 27
Water Quality 27
Bacteriological Surveillance ".:... 27
Chemical Surveillance 30
Sanitary Surveys 32
Operation, Control, and Protection 32
DISCUSSION 37
General 37
Water Quality 37
Bacteriological Surveillance 38
Chemical Surveillance 38
Sanitary Surveys 39
Operation, Control, and Protection 39
Surveillance Program Resource Requirements 40
PARTICIPANTS 45
APPENDICES 47
A. Sanitary Survey Forms Used in the Study 49
B. Sanitary Survey Results 57
C. National Park Service Water Supply 81
Classification System
D. Proposed Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling Criteria 89
Hi
-------
TABLES
Page
11 1Q
1. Summary of Parks Included in the Study
2. Summary of Water Treatment at Systems Surveyed
3. Criteria for Evaluating Bacteriological, Chemical, and
Physical Quality of Water Systems Studied ^
4. Drinking Water Standards Limits Not Met
5. Water Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet Drinking Water
Standards, By Source '
6. Maximum Concentration of Physical and Chemical Constituents
Failing to Meet Limits for Systems Surveyed 30
7. Frequency Distribution of Various Chemicals that Failed to Meet
the Drinking Water Standards 30
8. Chlorination Practices and Their Effectiveness at
Water Systems Surveyed 34
9. Estimated Water Supply Program Manpower Needs and Costs 41
FIGURES
1. Parks Studied in the East 13
2. Parks Studied in the West 14
3. Types of Water Systems Studied 15
4. Number of Systems Failing to Meet Standards 28
5. Systems failing to Meet a Constituent Limit
of the Drinking Water Standards 29
Summary of Bacteriological Monitoring at Water Systems Studied 31
Summary of Sanitary Conditions at Water Systems Studied 33
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of the National Park Service in planning this project was
provided from the beginning. The help of the agency is acknowledged witli
appreciation for its efforts. Special thanks must go to the Park Service person-
nel who cooperated fully with the project, joined the field surveys, and gave
freely of their time.
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
The quality of water served to Americans by municipalities has received
increasing attention in recent years. However, little notice has been given to
the quality of drinking water available to the public at recreational areas.
Generally, these are very small water supplies which receive little surveillance
or maintenance. As such, these supplies have great potential for spreading
waterborne diseases since they serve large numbers of people. This is well
illustrated by the fact that during 1966-1970, the size of waterborne disease out-
breaks in non municipal water systems more than doubled due to the number of
large outbreaks in recreational areas.1 The significance of this becomes readily
apparent when it is realized that more than 215 million people per year visit
the facilities of the National Park Service.
In view of these important public health considerations, the National
Park Service cooperated with the Water Supply Division of the Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct-a pilot study of 42 water systems in two geograph-
ical areas. These parks experience more than 21.3 million visits per year.
The purpose of this study was to assess the construction, water quality,
operation, maintenance and surveillance of water supplies on National Park
Service lands and to propose any recommendations necessary for the National
Park Service to maintain an effective water supply program; thus assuring the
visitors to national parks safe drinking water.
1Craun, G. F. and L. J. McCabe. "Review of the Causes of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks.'
Journal American Water Works Association, 65 (January 1973), 74-84.
3
-------
SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study included 42 drinking water supply
systems at 18 national parks. The field work,
completed in May and June of 1973, was divided
between the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia in the East and Arizona and Cali-
fornia in the West. At each water system, a sani-
tary survey was conducted; water samples from
the distribution system were collected for bac-
teriological, chemical, and physical analyses;
chlorine residuals were measured; and the dis-
tribution system pressure was determined.
The specific findings and recommendations of
the study are:
Water Quality
1. Twenty (48 percent) of the 42 drinking
water systems did not comply with one or more of
the constituent limits of the 1962 U.S. Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards. Eleven systems
(26 percent) failed at least one mandatory chemical
or bacteriological limit and 11 (26 percent) did
not comply with at least one recommended limit.
The mandatory chemical limits failed included
fluoride, mercury and lead. The presence of
substances failing a mandatory limit constitutes
grounds for rejection of the supply; therefore,
their continued presence should be carefully
monitored and evaluated by the appropriate
health authorities and a decision made regard-
ing corrective measures or discontinuing use of
the supply.
2. Bacteriological analysis of samples collected
from the distribution system during this survey
showed that 2 (6 percent) of the systems using
ground water and two (33 percent) of the systems
using surface water were contaminated. Where con-
tamination was found, the appropriate authorities
were notified immediately. To prevent bacteriolog-
ical contamination of the source, improved source
protection and attention to the sanitary conditions
of the water systems arc necessary. Disinfection
should be a mandatory requirement for all systems
using surface water. Since high turbidity can im-
pede the disinfection process, other treatment
should be employed as necessary to ensure that
the turbidity level meets the limit established in
the Drinking Water Standards. Disinfection
should be a mandatory requirement for all
drinking water systems using ground water un-
less a history of satisfactory bacteriological quality
and sanitary surveys is developed.
Surveillance
3. Records of the bacteriological surveillance
for the 12 months preceding the study were in-
vestigated for each water system. The results of
this investigation show that only 23 (55 per-
cent) of the water systems surveyed had an ac-
ceptable bacteriological surveillance program.
No samples were taken during three or more
months of operation at six (14 percent) water
systems. An examination of the bacteriological
quality for the 12 months prior to the field
visit revealed that 10 (24 percent) of the sys-
tems failed the Drinking Water Standards for
one or more months. A bacteriological sampling
program that will meet the minimum require-
ments of the Drinking Water Standards should
be required at each system. This program should
be continued at all times the system is opera-
tional. All samples should be analyzed at a labora-
tory certified by a State or an EPA approved
certifying officer.
4. There was no chemical analysis on record
for 19 (45 percent) of the water systems stud-
ied. Only nine systems (21 percent) had a chem-
ical analysis within the past five years. None of
the chemical analyses performed included all of
the constituents in the Drinking Water Stand-
ards. The water from all drinking water systems
should be tested for all chemical constitu-
ents listed in the Drinking Water Standards be-
fore the ii'ater is made available to the public.
Additional chemical analyses should be made
at a minimum of once every three years for
systems supplied by ground water or more often
wlien there is reason to believe the chemical
quality may be deteriorating. Water systems sup-
plied by surface water should receive a chemical
analysis on a yearly basis. The results of all
-------
chemical sampling should be forwarded to one
office so that trends in chemical quality and fre-
quency of surveillance may be reviewed on a
continuing basis.
5. Sanitary surveys are necessary to identify
and correct sanitary deficiencies in water sys-
tems. Nine (21 percent) systems in this study
were found not to have had a sanitary survey
in the year preceding the study. Yearly sani-
tary surveys of and continuing attention to
each water system should be provided. For
water systems that are not operated during the
winter months, the sanitary surveys should be
performed when the system is placed in opera-
tion in the spring. No water system should be
placed in operation until satisfactory bacteriolog-
ical quality has been demonstrated.
Operation, Control, and Protection
6. Nine (21 percent) of the water systems
studied did not have adequate source protec-
tion. The source protection of a water system is
vital to the maintenance of a safe water supply.
More attention should be given to proper source
protection in well and spring construction and
surface water intakes.
1. The adequacy of the operation and con-
trol was determined at all water systems. Four-
teen (33 percent) of the water systems were
judged to have inadequate operation and con-
trol. Treatment equipment and/or chlorine re-
siduals were not checked daily at these systems.
The study shows that while personnel are avail-
able for water system maintenance, many of the
individuals responsible for the water systems do
not have a full knowledge of what they should
be doing and the reasoning behind these duties.
The National Park Service should assure that
all persons responsible for the operation of a
water system in the national parks are ade-
quately trained.
8. An adequate level of chlorine was not
found in all parts of the distribution system at
12 (63 percent) of the systems where chlorina-
tion equipment was operated. This includes
seven (37 percent) systems where no chlorine
residual was detected. Daily inspection of the
chlorine feed -equipment and daily records of
the chlorine residuals should be maintained.
Chlorine residuals should be present at the ends
of the distribution system.
9. The ability of each water system to deliver
a continuous supply of safe drinking water was
investigated. Fifteen (36 percent) of the sys-
tems needed improvements such as a change in
source, treatment equipment, distribution sys-
tem, and/or storage facilities. Improvements
should be made where necessary to help assure
safe water at all times.
10. The National Park Service has long fol-
lowed the recommended procedure of having a
single group responsible for the surveillance of
its water systems, and this has resulted in a sub-
stantially better class of water systems than have
been found in other recreational areas. How-
ever, the results of this study show the need for
improving the surveillance procedures.
The National Park Service (NFS) should de-
vote a higher priority to initiating and main-
taining an acceptable program of bacteriologi-
cal and chemical surveillance and to providing
regular sanitary surveys of the water systems.
The cost of an adequate surveillance program,
which would typically include a chemical analy-
sis of the water from systems using surface water
every year and from systems using ground water
on ce every three years, two bacteriological
samples per month for each month of operation,
and one sanitary survey each year, is approximately
$360 per system. This is the estimated amount that
the National Park Service should be spending in
professional time, expenses, and laboratory costs
to provide the needed surveillance.
-------
SCOPE
-------
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED
The National Park System is comprised of 298
units, "ranging from tiny historic properties to
vast natural areas of over 2,000,000 acres in size.
These parks are found from northern climates,
with short seasons of active visitation, to the
tropics, where use can occur year-round." 1
Since I960, 94 areas have been added to the
National Park System to bring the total acreage
to 30.5 million acres. Public use of the national
parks increased to 215,540,400 visits in FY 1973,
including 169,159,900 recreational visits; over-
night stays totaled 14,766,200.
This study covered 42 drinking water systems
at 18 National Park Service areas. A water sup-
ply system as defined by this study included
the collection, treatment, and distribution facili-
ties from the sources of supply to the free-
flowing outlets of the distribution system.
The pilot study was centered in two geo-
graphical areas. The eastern area included
parks in the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia while the western area covered parks
in Arizona and California.
Table 1 lists those parks that were visited in
each area and gives information on the visita-
tion in each park in FY 1973. The eastern area
included six parks with a total annual visitation
'"Public Use of the National Park System," National Park
Service, GPO 1973 870-095, p. I.
of 15.5 million visitors, with 0.6 million of these
slaying overnight in the parks. In the western
area, water systems at 12 parks were evaluated.
These 12 parks contributed 5.8 million visitors
and included 1.8 million overnight stays. To-
gether, those parks where evaluations were made
represent 21.3 million visits per year, approxi-
mately 13% of the total for the Park Service.
The total of 2.4 million overnight stays represent
approximately 17% of the total for the Park
Service. The location of each park where evalu-
ations were made is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 3 summarizes the types of water sys-
tems that were studied. Thirty-six water sys-
tems (86 percent) in the study were supplied
by ground water. Five systems, all located in Cali-
fornia, were supplied by surface water, and one
water system, the El Portal system in Yosemite,
used a combined source of a stream with a well to
augment ihe supply when the stream flow dropped
too low for demand.
As expected, springs played a large role in
supplying water in the eastern parks. Ten (48
percent) of the twenty-one water systems studied in
the East used springs as a water source. These
springs ranged greatly in capacity and degree of
protection. Six of the ten springs served systems
where the water (low was augmented by wells.
Some drinking water supplied in the national
National Park Service Study
Table 1.—Summary of Parks Included in the Study.
Park
Maryland:
Catoclin Mountain Park
Pennsylvania:
Ft Necessity National Battlefield
Gettysburg National Military Park . .
Virginia:
Colonial National Historical Park
Total Eastern States
Recreational
1 836 3
241 7
2706
1 641 8
6.234.9
9 1 60 5
12 385 8
Visits
(In Thousands)
Non-
Recreational
27
132.0
82 8
2,672.1
265 0
3 156 4
Total
1 839.0
374.6
270.6
1.72-1.6
8,907.0
24?64
15 542 2
Overnight
Slavs
(FY 1973)
(In Thousands)
83.2
58.0
5.9
7.1
4900
644 9
11
-------
National Park Service Study
Table 1.—Summary of Parks Included in the Study.—Continued
Park
Arizona:
Walnut Canyon National Memorial
California:
Pinnacles National Monument
Point Reyes National Seashore ...
Yosemite National Park
Total Western Sites
GRAND TOTAL
Recreational
66.6
55.8
367.7
95.0
1 147.5
384.0
58 5
75.9
64.2
163.4
1 257.6
I 941.1
5 677.3
18 063.1
Visits
(In Thousands)
Non-
Recreational
2.3
1.4
2.0
5.5
0.5
25.8
82.5
120.0
3,276 4
Total
66.6
58.2
369.1
97.0
1,153.0
384.0
58.5
75.9
64.7
163.4
1,283.3
2,023.6
5,727.3
21,339.5
Overnight
Stays
(FY 1973)
(In Thousands)
8.3
—
64.9
0.1
1.9
44.8
30.0
1,682.5
1,832.5
2,476.7
parks is water that has been collected and
treated by others (usually a municipality) and
sold to the Park Service. In these cases, the Park
Service does not exercise direct control over the
quality of water that is supplied to it, although
it should receive some guarantee that ihe water
meets the Drinking Water Standards. Since
much information has already been gathered on
the status of municipal water systems, this
study was limited to those water systems in
which the entire system is under Park Service
control.
A summary of the water treatment practices
at the water systems that were surveyed is pre-
sented in Table 2. There was no water treat-
ment at twenty (48 percent) of the systems
studied. Disinfection was provided at twenty (48
percent) other water systems. This includes all
six surface water systems, four ground water sys-
tems in the East, and 10 ground water systems
in the West. The form of disinfection was chlori-
nation in nil cases except one. The chlorination
equipment consisted of an automatic feeder with
either chlorine gas or a hypochlorite solution.
One water system used ultraviolet light to dis-
infect the water.
Treatment other than disinfection was prac-
ticed at six (14 percent) of the water systems.
This included one system in the East (Ft. Neces-
sity) that had an activated carbon filter and
National Park Service Study
Table 2.—Summary of Water Treatment at
Systems Surveyed.
Treatment
None
Disinfection Onh
nisinfedion iviih
Other Treatment
1 rcalinciit with-
run Disinfection
Type of System
(Number)
Ground
Walr-r (36)
East
16
-1
0
1
West
4
8
2
1
Surface
Water* (6)
East
0
0
0
0
West
0
\
2
0
System
Totals (42)
Num-
ber
20
16
4
2
Per-
cent
48
38
9
5
*The combined source system has been placed in this
category for analytical purposes.
sedimentation in the system. The ground water
system at Tonto National Monument utilized a
softening process. Another ground water system
at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument had
a small dcfUioridalion unit. However, this unit
provided water for only one hosebib and one
drinking water fountain at the small building
housing the unit. The defltioridated water is
meant only for the use of the children of per-
manent employees. Containers of water must be
hand-carried to individual residences for use.
Three water systems at Yosemite National
12
-------
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 1
Parks Studied in the East
PARKS STUDIED
HARRISBURG
m Gettysburg
f MARYLAND
Catoctin
Assateague
Island
13
-------
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 2
Parks Studied in the West
PARKS STUDIED
ARIZONA
FLAGSTAFF*
Montezuma •
Castle
• Ton to
PHOENIX
Petrified
Forest
Organ Pipe Cactus"^^ * BSuguaro
Tumacacori • "Chiricahua
|Coronado|
14
-------
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 3
Types of Water Systems Studied
Source of Water
All Systems
2% Combined
Springs W Wells and
Only Y, Springs
Source of Water
Systems in East
Source of Water
Systems in West
5% Springs Only
5% Surface and
Wells
15
-------
Park also employed some form of treatment vey was being made. The water supply for Yo-
other than chlorination. Hodgton had a sand Semite Valley has an open sedimentation basin
filter box at the stream intake, and a sand filter which gives some clarification at times of non-
was being installed at Arch Rock when the sur- peak water flow through the plant.
16
-------
I
,**.
' *.. f • **•
' . -i. - i
**
- '»t- „
'.^'^^I'M
.». —* - * -3T
^JT.tr
v:
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The water systems evaluated by this study
were assessed from three different but related
approaches:
1. Drinking water quality was determined by
sampling the finished and distributed
water. These samples were sent to the
Environmental Protection Agency Laborator-
ies for bacteriological, chemical, and phys-
ical analyses.
2. The general condition of the water sys-
tems was determined by a field survey of
each system. (Samples of the survey forms
appear in Appendix A).
3. The adequacy of the surveillance program
was evaluated by reviewing the bacterio-
logical sampling records for the previous
12 months, chemical sampling records,
and the past sanitary surveys.
Water Quality Criteria
Based on water samples collected during the
field survey, water quality was compared with
the Drinking Water Standards1 (see Table 3)
and rated as either:
1. Meeting the Standards for all limits.
2. Failing to meet one or more of the "recom-
mended" limits, but meeting all the "man-
datory" limits.
3. Failing to meet one or more of the ''man-
datory" limits.
Facilities and Operation Criteria
Source, treatment, operation, and distribution
facilities were judged 2 either:
1. To be essentially free from majc deficien-
cies, or
2. To be deficient if one or more of the fol-
lowing were inadequate:
a. Source protection
b. Treatment, if needed
c. Pressure (20 psi minimum) in all areas
of the distribution system.
d. Operation and control
e. Storage
f. Distribution system
Surveillance Criteria
The surveillance of a water supply system was
judged to be adequate if it met the foil swini:
criteria:
I. Collection of the required number" of bac-
teriological samples during the period of
the year the water system is in operation.
2. A complete chemical analysis of a sample
of the water from each groundwatet system
every three years and a complete chemical
analysis of a sample from each surface water
supply on an annual basis.
3. At least one sanitary survey ol the water
system each year.
'"U.S. Public Health Service, Drinking Water Standards,
1962" PHS Publication No. 9.56, Superintendent of Docu-
ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 61 pp.
•For basis of judge-men! see "Manual For 1 .dilating Pub-
lic Drinking Watei Supplies" EPA Publitui ion, Reprinted
1071. Previously published in 1009 as U.S. Public Health
Sen ice Pub. 1820.
•''See pages 3-fi ol ihe U.S. Public Health Seixiie Drinking
Water Standards, 1001!.
19
-------
National Park Service Study
Table 3.-Criteria for Evaluating Bacteriological,
Chemical, and Physical Quality of Water Systems
Studied.
Recommended Physical Limits 1
Drinking water should contain no impurity which would
cause offense to the sight, taste, or smell. Under general use,
the following limits should not be exceeded:
Constituent Limit
Turbidity 5 s.u.
Color 15 s.u.
Recommended Chemical Limits1
Arsenic 0.01 mg/1
Chloride 250. mg/1
Copper 1. mg/1
Fluoride 0.8 to 1.7 mg/1
Iron 0.3 mg/1
M.B.A.S (Foaming Agents) 0.5 mg/1
Manganese 0.05 mg/1
Nitrate 45. mg/1
Sulfate 250. mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids 500. mg/1
Zinc 5.0 mg/1
Mandatory Chemical Limits '
The presence of the following substances in excess of
the concentrations listed shall constitute grounds for the re-
jection of the supply: therefore, their continued presence
should be carefully measured and evaluated by health
authorities and a decision made regarding corrective meas-
ures or discontinuing use of the supply.
Mandatory Bacteriological Limits1
Constituent
Arsenic ...
Barium . .
Cadium ..
Chromium
Limit
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
.05 mg/1
Fluoride 1.4 to 2.4 mg/I
Lead 0.05 mg/1
Mercury * 0.002 mg/1
Selenium 0.01 mg/1
Silver 0.05 mg/1
Coliform Organisms:
Membrane Filter
Method
Multiple Tube
Method
Fails standards in any one month 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.
When 10 ml standard portions are
examined, the Standards are failed
in any one month if more than 10%
are positive. The presence of the
coliform group in three or more
portions of a standard sample is not
allowed if this occurs:
a. In more than one sample per
month or when less than 20 are
examined per month;
b. In more than 5% of the samples
when 20 or more are examined
per month.
When 100 ml standard portions are
examined, the standards are failed
in any one month if more than 60%
are positive. The presence of the
coliform group in all five of the
portions is not allowed if this
occurs:
,i. In more than one sample per
month when less than five are
examined per month; or
b. In more than 20 percent of the
samples when five or more are
examined per month.
1 In "U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Stancl-
.irds, 1902."
- Proposed for inclusion in the Revised Drinking Water
Standards.
20
-------
PROCEDURES
-------
PROCEDURES
Office Review
The water systems to be studied were selected
in meetings with representatives of the National
Park Service and the Public Health Service. An
effort was made to select geographical areas or
regions where diverse water systems would prob-
ably be found. The determination of which sys-
tems would be studied in a geographical area
was influenced by the time necessary to trans-
port the water samples to the laboratories.
Before the field work was initiated, records
for the water systems to be studied were re-
viewed. This review took place at the headquar-
ters and regional offices of the Park Service and
Public Health Service. Available information
was collected in the following areas:
1. Bacteriological test results for the past
year.
2. Water quality as shown by the most re-
cently conducted chemical analysis and the
frequency of past chemical surveillance.
3. Information contained in the most re-
cently conducted sanitary survey and the
frequency of past surveys.
4. Water system design and construction.
5. Guidelines and policies for construction,
operation, and surveillance of water sys-
tems.
At the time of the office review, the National
Park Service was in the process of establishing a
new system of reporting, record-keeping, and
follow-up maintenance of the water supplies op-
erated by the Park Service. This new system was
reviewed after the field evaluations were com-
pleted.
Field Survey
National Park Service officials in the regional
offices and in the individual parks were given
advance notice and an explanation of the survey
by the Park Service's headquarters office. Ap-
pointments for the field survey were made two
to six weeks in advance of the visit.
The field surveys were performed by en-
gineers from the headquarters office of the Wa-
ter Supply Division of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. A National Park Service repre-
sentative accompanied the EPA engineers dur-
ing the sanitary survey of each water system
except for those systems in Shenandoah National
Park. A representative from the Public Health
Service, also participated in the evaluation of sev-
eral water systems. This evaluation included a
sanitary survey * of the source, treatment plant,
storage, and distribution facilities of the water sys-
tem as well as a review of any records available at
the park for past surveillance. These records were
combined with the records obtained in the office
review.
The results of the study were recorded on
PHS and EPA standard forms and other forms
developed especially for use in this study. Field
determinations of the pH, pressure, air and
water temperature, and chlorine residual at
chlorinated systems (using the orthotolidine
method) were made at each point where a water
sample was taken.
The summary of findings for each water sys-
tem is shown in Appendix B. The individual
sheets were forwarded when completed to those
responsible for each water system and other
interested National Park Service personnel.
Sampling Program
During the field study, the following samples
were taken at each water system:
1. Raw Water
Where possible, one bacteriological sample
was taken of the raw water before treat-
ment. This sample was omitted if the wa-
ter in the system did not undergo any
treatment. In many systems, a raw water
sample could not be obtained because of
the physical arrangement of the piping
system.
2. Finished Water.
a. A 1-gallon grab sample was taken and
sent to the National Environmental Re-
1 For the definition of a sanitary survey see "Manual for
Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies", EPA publica-
tion, reprinted 1971. Previously published as U.S. Public
Health Service Publication 1820.
23
-------
search Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, to
be analyzed for the following:
Chloride
Color
Fluoride
PH
Selenium
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Turbidity
b. A 1-quart sample was taken and pre-
served in the field by the addition of
11/4 ml of concentrated nitric acid. The
sample was sent to the National En-
vironmental Research Center in Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, to be analyzed for the
presence of the following trace metals:
Arsenic Lead
Barium Manganese
Cadmium Mercury
Chromium Silver
Copper Zinc
Iron
c. A 1-quart grab sample was taken and
preserved in the field by the addition of
1 ml of a 20,000 ppm solution of mer-
cury (2.71 grams HgCl2 per 100 ml).
The sample was sent to the National
Environmental Research Center in
Cincinnati, Ohio, to be analyzed for
nitrates and MBAS (methylene-blue ac-
tive substances).
d. Bacteriological samples were taken from
the distribution system at a rate of at
least 10 percent of the number re-
quired by the Drinking Water Standards
(based on the resident population served
by the system) or a minimum of two from
any water supply.
These samples were taken at different
points in the distribution system, one
close to the treatment plant and one
near the end of the distribution line.
They were taken from outlets such as
hosebibs in camping areas, restrooms,
or drinking fountains. A bacteriological
sample was taken only after satisfac-
torily flushing the line; the chemical
samples were taken after the bacterio-
logical samples.
Bacteriological samples were collected in
8-ounce sterile, plastic, wide-mouth,
screw-capped bottles that contained 0.2
ml of a 10-percent sodium thiosulfate
solution. These samples were iced after
collection and during transportation to
the National Environmental Research
Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. An exception
were those samples collected in Arizona.
These samples were transported to a
certified mobile EPA laboratory temporarily
located in Tucson, Arizona, for the
study. The time between collection and
the start of the analysis of the samples
did not exceed 30 hours.
Laboratory Procedures
The bacteriological quality examination pro-
cedures used in this study were those listed in
Standard Methods.1 The membrane filter pro-
cedure was used to examine water samples for
total coliforms. The procedure involved using
M-Endo ME broth and incubating at 35° C for
20-24 hours. Coliform colonies detected were
verified further by transfer to lactose broth for
24- and 48-hour periods at 35°C incubation. All
positive phenol red lactose broth tubes were
then transferred to brilliant green lactose broth
at 35° C for verification of total coliforms and
to EC medium at 44.5° C for detection of fecal
coliforms.
The laboratory procedures for the chemical
and physical analyses of the water samples were
those of Standard Methods," except for the use
of a variation of the colorimetric titration pro-
cedure for the chloride analysis.
'"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
U'asteuatcr", 13th ed., (APHA, AWWA, WPCF) American
Public Health Association. New York, N.Y., 769 pp. (1971).
2 Ibid.
24
-------
•" • *, *
FINDINGS
-------
FINDINGS
Water Quality
Twenty (48 percent) of the 42 drinking wa-
ter systems studied delivered water that failed
to meet some constituent limit of the Drinking
Water Standards. Eleven systems (26 percent)
failed at least one mandatory chemical or bac-
teriological limit and 11 (26 percent) failed at
least one recommended limit. These figures are
shown in graphic form in Figure 4. Figure 5 il-
lustrates the number of systems failing to meet
specific constituent limits. As can be seen, the
fluoride standard and the coliform standard
were most frequently failed. Table 4 shows the
general location where constituent limits were
not met.
Table 5 compares distributed water quality by
the source of the raw water. The surface water
showed a high level of dissolved solids in one in-
stance and more color than allowed by the Drink-
ing Water Standards in another. There were also
two (33 percent) surface water systems showing
coliform contamination. All other water that failed
a constituent limit of the Drinking Water Stand-
ards came from the ground.
The maximum concentrations of various phys-
National Park Service Study
Table 4.—Drinking Water Standards Limits Not
Met.
Constituent
Color
Iron .
Manganese . . .
TDS .
Zinc
Coliform
Organisms
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Parks in the East (21)
Number
Percent
Parks in the West (21)
Number Percent
Recommended Limits Not Met
0
2
1
0
2
0
10
5
6
10
1
0
1
4
0
5
0
5
17
0
Mandatory Limits Not Met
1
3
1
2
5
14
5
10
3
2
0
0
14
10
0
0
ical and chemical constituents in excess of the
Drinking Water Standards are listed in Table 6.
As can be seen, the maximum levels of zinc,
iron, and total dissolved solids were very high.
The frequency distributions in Table 7 provide
a more descriptive picture of the levels found.
On the basis of samples collected on the field
visit, four systems showed bacteriological contami-
nation. There was no disinfection being practiced
at one of these systems. The other three systems had
chlorination equipment, but no chlorine resid-
ual could be detected in the distribution sys-
tem water at the time of the survey.
Bacteriological Surveillance
Since bacteriological samples collected at the
time of the field survey can only give an indica-
tion of the quality of water at a given time and
not a complete picture of water quality over a
period of time, an effort was made to gather
the records of bacteriological examinations made
in the last 12 months before the field survey.
Records of tests made by the State health de-
partments and the National Park Service were
National Park Service Study
Table 5.—Water Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet
Drinking Water Standards, By Source.
Constituent
Color
Iron
Manganese . . . .
TDS
Zinc
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Ground water (36)
Number
Percent
Surface Water (6)*
Number
Percent
Recommended Limits
0
2
2
3
2
0
6
6
8
6
1
0
0
1
0
17
0
0
17
0
Mandatory Limits
2
5
1
2
6
14
3
6
2
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
•Combined source system considered as surface source for
analytical purposes.
27
-------
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 4
Number of Systems Failing to Meet Standards
50 —
42
40 —
£
fc
| 20
S Total -
: Number-
^Systems ^
10 —
0 —
Systems
Failing
to meet
at Least One
Mandatory
DWS Limit
11
Systems
Failing
to Meet
at Least One
Recommended
DWS Limit
11
oo
CM
-------
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
5-1
0>
o
o
0)
05
4-
3 -
2-
1/9
CO
•s
I
3
1 -
5
(12%)
Figure 5
Systems Failing to Meet a Constituent Limit
of the Drinking Water Standards
4
(10%)
4
(10%)
2
(5%)
2
(5%)
2
(5%)
2
(5%)
[ I Recommended Limit
Mandatory Limit
Proposed Limit
l
(2%)
1
(2%)
* &
/ ^
4? *
0°
-------
National Park Service Study
Table 6.—Maximum Concentration of Physical and
Chemical Constituents Failing to Meet Limits for
Systems Surveyed.
Constituent
Color (15) ....
Fluoride (1 4 to 2 4) '
Iron (03) .
Lead (0 05) 1
Manganese (0.05)
Mercury (0.002) 2 ....
Total Dissolved Solids (500)
Zinc (5)
Concentration
25 s.u.
3.00 mg/1
1.80 mg/1
.110 mg/1
.076 mg/1
.0075 mg/1
1138 mg/1
29 mg/1
( ) PHS Drinking Water Standard.
1 Mandatory Limit.
2 Proposed for inclusion in the Drinking Water Standards
as a mandatory limit.
examined, and the bacteriological quality and
number of bacteriological samples collected
each month from the distribution system were
recorded.
The number of bacteriological samples taken
in the last year varied widely, depending in
part on the length of the operating season of
the system. Twenty three systems (55 percent)
had records of an acceptable bacteriological sur-
veillance program.3 Of the 19 (45 percent) sys-
tems that did not have an acceptable bacterio-
logical surveillance program, 13 were in the
East and 6 were in the West. No samples were
taken during three or more months at 6 (14
percent) water systems. One water system at
Gettysburg National Military Park had not been
sampled in the past year, and systems at Ft.
Necessity National Battlefield, Catoctin Moun-
tain Park, and Assateague Island National Sea-
shore received poor sampling.
An examination of the bacteriological qual-
ity for the 12 months prior to the field visit re-
vealed that 10 (24 percent) of the systems
failed the Drinking Water Standards for one or
more months. Seven of these ten systems were in
the East and 3 were in the West. Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument had the most serious
problems in not meeting the bacteriological quality
standards in 8 of the prior 12 months. Figure 6
summarizes the bacteriological monitoring at the
water systems studied.
National Park Service Study
Table 7.—Frequency Distribution of Various
Chemicals That Failed to Meet the Drinking Water
Standards.
(Line indicates Drinking Water Standards limit)
Range
Fluoride
0 to .09
.10 to .39
.40 to .69
.70 to .99
1.00 to 1.29
1.30 to 1.59
1.60 to 1.89
1.90 to 2.19
2.20 to 2.49
2.50 to 2.79
2.80 to 3.09
Lead
0 to 0.005
0.006 to 0.01
0.01 1 to 0.02
0.021 to 0.03
0.031 to 0.04
0.041 to 0.05
0.051 to 0.07
0.071 to 0.10
0.101 to 0.15
Mercury
0 to .00049
.0005 to .00099
.0010 to .0019
.0020 to .0049
.005 to .0099
Zinc
0 to 0.10
0.11 to 0.20
0.21 to 0.50
0.51 to 1.00
1.01 to 1.50
1.51 to 2.10
2.11 to 3.00
3.01 to 4.00
4.01 to 5.00
>5.00
Number
20
12
2
1
I
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
38
0
o
2
1
0
0
0
1
37
2
1
0
2
15
9
7
5
3
0
1
0
0
1
Range Number
Iron
0 to 0.05
0.06 to 0.1
0.11 to 0.2
0.21 to 0.3
0.31 to 0.6
0.61 to 1.0
1.01 to 3.0
Manganese
0 to 0.005
0.006 to 0.01
0.011 to 0.02
0.021 to 0.03
0.031 to 0.04
0.041 to 0.05
0.051 to 0.07
0.071 to 0.10
TDS
0 to 99
100 to 199
200 to 299
300 to 399
400 to 499
500 to 599
600 to 699
700 to 799
800 to 899
900 to 999
1000 to 1099
1100 to 1199
Color
1 to 2
3 to 4
5 to 6
7 to 9
10 to 12
13 to 15
>15
26
6
2
3
3
0
2
32
3
1
3
0
1
1
1
18
3
7
6
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
25
12
3
1
0
0
1
'This means that the sampling frequency as stated in the
Drinking Water Standards (a minimum of two samples per
month) was met at least every month of operation except
one.
Chemical Surveillance
There was no chemical analysis on record at
19 (45 percent) of the water systems studied.
Fifteen of these systems were in the East. Only
nine systems (21 percent) had a chemical analy-
sis within the past five years. For the remainder
of those systems that have records of chemical
surveillance, the last chemical sample was an-
30
-------
Bacteriological Sampling
Frequency
Failed the Standards for
Two or More Months
2 55% SSL
•?-^rr?C Met the Standards in
the Preceding Year
Failed the Standards
One Month or More
i^: Met the Standards in
; the Preceding Year
C^^i^^^^^^ccc^
Bacteriological
Quality
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 6
Summary of Bacteriological Monitoring
at Water Systems Studied
31
-------
alyzed seven years ago. None of the chemical
analyses performed included all of the constitu-
ents in the Drinking Water Standards.
Sanitary Surveys
Surveillance of the Park Service water systems
has been the responsibility of the U.S. Public
Health Service for many years under a reim-
bursable agreement. This group of nine per-
sons has been responsible for sanitary surveys
of the water systems, technical assistance, and
monitoring the results of bacteriological and
chemical sampling. They travel to each park on
a periodic basis (once every one to three years)
and inspect solid waste facilities, sewage treat-
ment facilities, and food service establishments
as well as the drinking water systems. The group
has now been detailed to the National Park
Service and has issued a classification system for
Park Service water systems. The memo explain-
ing this system is in Appendix C.
Many of the water systems included in this
study had been visited by the Public Health
Service just prior to the field evaluation. Nine
(43 percent) of the systems in the West and 2
(10 percent) of the systems in the East, had
been surveyed in the spring of 1973. Twenty-
two (52 percent) were surveyed in 1972. Nine
(21 percent) systems in this study did not have
a sanitary survey in the past year.
Operation, Control, and Protection
A sanitary survey was made of each of the
42 water systems. On the basis of this survey,
judgements were made as to the adequacy of
the source protection, adequacy of operation
and control, and the need for major improve-
ments. The results are summarized in Figure 7.
Nine (21 percent) of the water systems stud-
ied did not .have adequate source protection.
Fourteen (33%) of the systems had inadequate
operation and control. Ten of these fourteen
systems were in the West and the remainder
were in the East.
There were also fifteen (36 percent) systems
that were judged not capable of delivering a
continuous supply of safe drinking water with-
out major improvements. Major improvements
as used here means a change in source, treat-
ment equipment, distribution system, and/or
storage facilities to help assure safe water at all
times.
The source of water for each system was eval-
uated as to its ability to provide adequate
quantities of water during the entire period of
operation. All water systems in the East had an
adequate supply of water, but three systems in
the West had a source that was not sufficient for
demands. These included the headquarters sys-
tem at Point Reyes National Seashore and two
systems in Yosemite National Park: Crane Flat
and El Portal. The water shortage problem at
El Portal is particularly acute because of the
large number of permanent employees and their
families who depend on the water and the plans
for future expansion in this area.
The water pressure was recorded in two places
at all water systems having a pressure distribu-
tion system. The pressure was judged to be ade-
quate if it exceeded 20 p.s.i. at all points in the
32
-------
Inadequate Operation
and Control
Adequate Operation ^-~-
and Control
21%
Inadequate
Source
Protection
Adequate Source Protection
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
Figure 7
Summary of Sanitary Conditions at
Water Systems Studied
36%
Major Improvements
Needed
System Acceptable Without
Major Improvements
33
-------
distribution system. This criterion was not met
at two water systems: the Lewis Mountain sys-
tem at Shenandoah National Park and the Yo-
semite Valley system in Yosemite National Park.
Table 8 summarizes the chlorination prac-
tices and their effectiveness at the water sys-
tems surveyed. Where chlorination was prac-
ticed, the chlorine residual was determined at
two separate places in the distribution system.
No chlorine residual was detected in the water
at seven (37 percent) of the systems where chlori-
nation equipment was operated. A chlorine re-
sidual was found in at least one place in 12
(63 percent) of the systems and at two points
in 7 (37 percent) of the water systems. Twelve
systems (63 percent) did not have an adequate
level of chlorine (a residual at all points in the
distribution system).
National Park Service Study
Table 8.—Chlorination Practices and Their Effectiveness at Water
Systems Surveyed.
Source or Area
Ground Water ....
Total
Supplies in East
Supplies in West
Total ...
Number of
Supplies That
Chlorinate
6
13
19
3
16
19
Systems With
Chlorine Residual Found
in One or Both Points in
the Distribution System
Number
3
9
12
2
10
12
Percent of Those
That Chlorinate
50
69
63
67
63
63
Systems With
Chlorine Residual Found in Both
Points in
the Distribution System
Number
2
5
7
2
5
7
Percent of Those
That Chlorinate
33
38
37
67
31
37
34
-------
DISCUSSION
-------
DISCUSSION
General
The National Park Service has made great
efforts to provide facilities for the convenience
of the public. The fact that there were over 215
million visits to the national parks last year is
evidence that the quality of water consumed is of
considerable public health importance. The
public assumes and rightly expects that the
drinking water made available to them is safe
for consumption and will be esthetically pleas-
ing. The recommendations included in this re-
port are presented with these objectives in mind.
The National Park Service (NFS) has for
some time been using a system of surveillance
under which one group (in this case personnel of
the U.S. Public Health Service now on detail
to the NFS) has specific responsibility for over-
seeing the sanitary conditions of the drinking
water systems at the parks. Although this dis-
cussion includes areas where improvements are
recommended, the effectiveness of the surveil-
lance system is apparent. These water systems
as a whole are much better than similar systems
found in other EPA studies. The National Park
Service is to be commended for their efforts and
interest in this area. The NFS is also fortunate
to have many employees who are interested in
their water systems and work to keep them in
good condition.
One of the problems facing all agencies is in
the application of established criteria and stand-
ards for municipal systems to the small water
systems found in this study. These small systems
have water demands that vary to a large degree
during the week. Also, due to economic consid-
erations, small systems have a difficult time pro-
viding the full water treatment that large water
systems routinely employ.
Water Quality
The Drinking Water Standards have been pro-
mulgated to provide specific limits for substances
which are toxic or cause adverse health effects
in man. These substances are usually naturally
occurring in the earth, and can be dissolved into
water by the passage of water through certain
formations in1 the earth's surface or by the
addition of these substances to water by man
(i.e., through pollution). Because of these proc-
esses, substances may be found in drinking water
in concentrations that are potentially hazardous
to health.
Since 48 percent of the water systems did not
comply with some constituent limit of the Drink-
ing Water Standards, there is a general need for
improvement in water quality for the supplies
studied. This need for improvement is not as
critical for those supplies which did not com-
ply with only the recommended standards as it is
for those which failed to meet the mandatory
limits, but improvement is important for all
these systems.
Three mandatory chemical limits were not
met for water systems in this study: fluoride,
mercury, and lead. High levels of fluoride may
cause dental fluorosis and bone changes, espe-
cially for children. Chronic exposure to high
levels of mercury are characterized by central
nervous system toxicity. The symptoms of lead
intoxication are gastrointestinal disturbances,
loss of appetite, fatigue, anemia, motor nerve
paralysis, and encephalopathy. Those systems
producing water that failed a mandatory chemi-
cal standard were generally grouped in the
same geographical area. The source of the prob-
lems should be further investigated and the
water resampled for another chemical analysis.
If the results of this study are confirmed, a new
water source should be found or treatment insti-
tuted to ensure that the water is safe to drink.
The results of this study also show that 26
percent of the systems produced water that did
not meet at least one recommended limit of the
Drinking Water Standards. These recommended
limits are primarily esthetic in nature and are
divided into chemical and physical characteris-
tics. They relate to materials that impart objec-
tionable taste, appearance, or odor to the water,
and are important because a consumer may re-
ject a safe water supply if its taste or appearance
is unsatisfactory to him. Therefore, these limits
37
-------
should not be exceeded when a more suitable
water source can be made available.
The recommended standards that were not
met were those for color, iron, manganese, to-
tal dissolved solids, and zinc. In almost all cases,
these standards and the mandatory chemical
standards were not met for ground water with
the surface water being of better chemical qual-
ity. The surface sources found in this study were
in relatively remote areas and generally not sub-
ject to pollution by man.
The coliform group of bacteria are used as
indicator organisms in testing the sanitary qual-
ity of drinking water. This bacteria group pro-
liferate in the intestines of man; and when
found in drinking water, indicate the potential
presence of pathogenic or disease-producing or-
ganisms. The Drinking Water Standards pre-
scribe specific criteria for the maximum con-
centration of coliform bacteria and require that
immediate corrective action be taken if this con-
centration is exceeded.
At the time of the field survey, two (6 per-
cent) of the well water systems and two (33
percent) of the systems using surface water as
a raw water source were contaminated with coli-
form bacteria. The meaning of these statistics in
relation to the facilities and operation of. each
system and the surveillance of each system will
be discussed later. Immediate steps should be
taken to rectify the problem. More samples
should be taken until the water supply can be
shown to be safe.
Bacteriological Surveillance
The standard used to judge the acceptability
of the bacteriological surveillance program is
the one used to certify the use of a water supply
for an interstate carrier1, the legislatively man-
dated duty of the Federal Government. Forty-
five percent of the water supplies would not be
classified as approved under this system. There
was found to be a significantly better record of
bacteriological surveillance in the West than in
the East.
There is a great need to expand the existing
bacteriological sampling practices so that a regu-
lar program of surveillance is implemented
which would comply with Drinking Water
1 "A Guide to the Interstate Carrier Water Supply Cer-
tification Program," Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C. April 1973.
Standards requirements. This regular program
should be continued during the entire period
the system is operational and serving drinking
water to the traveling public and should include
the provision for follow-up or check samples
when unsatisfactory results are obtained. All
samples should be sent to a laboratory certified
by a State or an EPA approved certifying officer.
While there is an advantage in sending the
samples to a central laboratory within 30 hours of
collection, there are instances where this may be
impossible. In such cases, bacteriological analyses
made in a certified field laboratory are satisfactory.
The bacteriological quality, as revealed by the
review of the results of the bacteriological sam-
pling for the past twelve months, was not satis-
factory. Twenty-four percent of the systems
failed the Drinking Water Standards for one or
more months. With this background, there can
be no surprise that 10 percent of the bacteriological
samples collected for the field evaluations of this
study were contaminated.
Chemical Surveillance
None of the water systems studied were sub-
ject to a regular program of chemical surveil-
lance. There was no chemical analysis on record
at 45 percent of the water systems studied. None
of the water systems that had a chemical analy-
sis on record had a complete analysis for all
constituents in the Drinking Water Standards.
Another problem was that records of chemical
analyses were not kept in any one location. Some
were found at the NFS headquarters, some at
the NFS regional offices, and the remainder were
found at the parks. There is no way to deter-
mine, without much time and effort, the status
of the chemical sampling program.
The water from all drinking water systems
should be tested for all chemical constituents
listed in the Drinking Water Standards before
the water is made available to the traveling
public. In addition, a complete chemical analysis
is recommended for systems supplied by ground
water every three years and surface water every
year, or more often when there is reason to be-
lieve the chemical quality is deteriorating. Signs of
deteriorating water quality might include un-
pleasant taste and/or odor or the occurrence of
frequent public or operating personnel complaints.
The results of all chemical testing should be
forwarded to one office of the National Park
38
-------
Service so that trends in chemical quality and
frequency of surveillance may be reviewed on
a continuing basis.
Sanitary Surveys
Twenty-one percent of the water systems did
not have a sanitary survey in the past year. Al-
though operating personnel at the parks gener-
ally made regular visits to the water systems and
seemed to be aware of sanitary conditions, more
thorough investigations by trained investigators
of the condition of the water systms are needed.
Yearly sanitary surveys of each water system
should be conducted. Sanitary surveys should in-
clude checks on the system's physical facilities
used to treat, distribute and store the water and
the adequacy and condition of source protec-
tion. Any deficiencies noted in the sanitary sur-
veys should be corrected.
The classification system for drinking water
supplies issued by the NFS during this study is
patterned after the "Guide to the Interstate Car-
rier Water Supply Certification Program"2 pre-
pared by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The NFS system prescribes criteria to classify drink-
ing water systems as "Satisfactory," "Provisionally
Satisfactory," or "Use Prohibited," on the basis of
water quality, sampling frequency, and proper op-
eration and maintenance. While the system is gen-
erally very good, there should be a time frame
(such as 12 months) factored into it. For ex-
ample, if bacteriological limits are exceeded for
one of the months sampled in the past 12 months,
the system will be classified "Provisionally Satis-
factory" (Section A. 1).
Operation, Control, and Protection
The adequacy of the source protection, ade-
quacy of the operation and control, and the
need for major improvements for each water
system were determined by a sanitary survey of
each water system. The adequacy of the source
protection was based on the existence of a for-
mation seal in wells, sanitary seal in wells, properly
installed vents, adequately protected and drained
spring and well pits, protection for springs, etc.
Twenty-one percent of the systems did not meet
this criteria for adequate source protection.
The adequacy of the operation and control
was based on whether or not chlorine residuals
'Ibid
in the distribution systems were checked daily
and recorded and, if other treatment was em-
ployed, whether or not the treatment facilities
were checked daily for optimum operation. Op-
eration and control was also deemed to be in-
adequate if no chlorine residual was found in
the distribution system on the day of the field
evaluation. Thirty-three percent of the water
systems did not have adequate operation and
control.
One of the major deficiencies noted in this
study was the improper operation of disinfec-
tion equipment. For those four systems contam-
inated with coliform bacteria, one did not dis-
infect in any way. Chlorinators were installed at
the other three systems showing coliform con-
tamination. However, none of these three sys-
tems carried a detectable chlorine residual on
the day of the field evaluation. Of those sys-
tems which chlorinated, seven (37 percent) had
no chlorine residual on the day of the survey.
Chlorination of a water system involves several
operating problems. Quite often the chlorine
feed system becomes clogged or the chlorinator
is inadvertently turned off, some consumers com-
plain about the taste and odor of chlorinated
water and during the periods of low water use,
the chlorine residual disappears in the distribu-
tion system and sometimes in the storage tank.
The fact that a chlorinator has been placed in
the water system does not guarantee a safe sup-
ply. If chlorinators are to be effectively used for
disinfection, daily inspections of the feed equip-
ment and determinations of the chlorine residu-
als must be conducted. Booster chlorination of
the water as it flows to the system from storage
tanks may be necessary.
The foregoing operational problems emphasize
the necessity for some type of operator training..
Some of the individuals responsible for the water
systems do not have a full knowledge of what they
should be doing and the reasoning behind these
duties.
Low pressure in drinking water systems is a
problem because it reduces the protection of the
system from the backflow of contaminated water.
Unsafe water may be siphoned into a water
system through any kind of temporary or per-
manent cross connection. Low pressure (<20
p.s.i.) was found at two water systems. The pres-
sure problems were due to undersized pipe in
the distribution system, i.e., the pipes were not
39
-------
able to handle the high demand. More atten-
tion should be given to this problem in future
design work.
For each drinking water system, a determina-
tion was made for the capability of the system
to deliver a continuous supply of safe drinking
water without improvements in the system. Con-
sideration was given to the availability of suffi-
cient raw water to prevent water shortages, exist-
ence of cross connections, proximity to sources
of pollution, use of disinfection, capacities of the
pumps, adequate pressure in all parts of the
system, detention time for maximum benefit
from treatment, properly covered and vented
storage tanks, etc. There were fifteen (36 per-
cent) water systems in need of improvements to
help assure safe water at all times.
In particular, water shortages were found to
have occurred at three water systems in the West.
At a minimum, periods of no water are a great
inconvenience to families living at the parks
full-time and the park visitors. But there is a
temptation to pump water from other sources
which may be less safe or transport water by
truck to the water system. This extra handling
through temporary connections decreases the
margin of safety in any water system. For these
reasons, new water sources should be developed
and treatment instituted as necessary to assure an
adequate quantity of water.
Surveillance Program Resource Requirements
The staffing and cost of an adequate surveil-
lance program for a water system operated 12
months per year is approximately 3.2 man days and
$360 per system. This is calculated according to
the following assumptions:
1. The average annual estimated personnel
cost for surveillance is $20,000 per man-
year.
2. Program administration is 25% of surveil-
lance.
3. The time required for sanitary surveys and
related technical assistance (including
training) for a water system is 1.0 man-days
per system. Assuming 220 man days per
year, the cost of this surveillance is $90
per system per year.
4. One chemical analysis will be performed
for each system using surface water every
year and for each system using ground wa-
ter once every three years. The manpower
required to perform the laboratory analy-
ses averages .88 man-days per system per
year and the cost averages $80 per system
per year.
5. The manpower required to perform the
analysis of two bacteriological samples per
month is .66 man-days per system per year.
The total cost including sample bottles,
mailing containers, labels and postage is
$120 per system per year for 12 months of
operation.
The total estimated water supply program
manpower needs and costs are summarized
in Table 9.
Since the National Park Service has 1,000 wa-
ter systems under its complete control, the NPS
should be allocating at least $362,000 to its sur-
veillance program. The total manpower needs
are 3,170 man-days per year or 14.4 man years
per year. Until the NPS has the laboratory capabil-
ity to analyze the required samples, some of this
work must be done on a contract basis.
The manpower and costs required for just
the sanitary surveys and technical assist-
ance and the administration of this part of
the program is calculated as follows:
Manpower
[1.0 + .25 (1.0)] 1000 NPS water systems
= 1250 man-days per year or 5.68 man-
years per year
Costs
[90 + .25 (90)] 1,000 NPS water systems
= $112,500
There are currently nine full time people
in the PHS unit of the Park Service per-
forming sanitary surveys and providing
technical assistance for the water systems.
Since they are also responsible for sew-
age treatment, solid waste, and food service
consultation in the parks, and this study
has found a number of areas where im-
provement is needed, the number of people
having these responsibilities should be in-
creased so that they can better perform
their responsibilities.
40
-------
National Park Service Study
Table 9.—Estimated Water Supply Program Man-
power Needs and Costs.
(Per System Per Year)
Program Activity
Surveillance:
Sanitary Surveys, Tech. Assistance . . .
Chemical Surveillance
Bacteriological Surveillance
Subtotal:
Program Administration @ 25%
of Surveillance
TOTAL . . . .
Man-Days
1.0
.88
.66
2.54
.63
3.17
Cost
5 90
80
120
S290
72
$362
41
-------
PARTICIPANTS
-------
PARTICIPANTS
The following persons and organizations contributed to the successful com-
pletion of the pilot study:
Environmental Protection Agency:
Director, Water Supply Division
Deputy Director
Project Director
Project Consultant
Project Advisors
Field Evaluation Team
Data Processing
Laboratory Support
Report Preparation
National Park Service:
Headquarters
Regions
James H. McDermott
William N. Long
Curtis F. Fehn
John A. Cofrancesco
Thomas N. Hushower
James E. Warren
Keith A. Boyd
Curtis F. Fehn
Thomas N. Hushower
George C. Kent
National Environmental
Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Laboratory Support Branch
EPA Region IX
Alameda, California
Curtis F. Fehn
Linda Gottfried
Linda Sullivan
John H. Fritz
Manuel Morris
Joseph P. Schock
W. A. Kingsbury
Ronald R. Speedy
45
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
SANITARY SURVEY FORMS USED IN STUDY
49
-------
[REV. 6-72] UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS DIVISION PUNCH
IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SAMPLE
1. LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY
SERIAL NO.
16741
IN COLS.
6
CITY, COUNTY, STATE
FOR OFFICE
USE ONLY
7
2. WATER SUPPLY NAME
MO.
3. DATE OF SAMPLING BEGINNING DAIE
OF COMPOSITE
19
4. SAMPLE FROM "gj"1 WELL
B 4
5. SAMPLING POINT
LOCATION AND/OR
DESCRIPTION
|
18
DAY ENDING DATE HO. DAY YR
Uh COMPOS 1 Ib
OR n»TF (IF
22 GRAB SAMPLE 23
— (RESERVOIR | (DISTRIBUTION ~
1 1 SYSTEM
2 1 0
6. TYPE OF 1 [FINISHED | (PARTIALLY | 1 RAW r~
WATER SAMPLED I | TREATED | |
8 4
7. SOURCE OF SURFACE GROUND
WATER
8 4
8. SAMPLING | — [COMPOSITE | [GRAB
METHOD
8 4
9. ANALYSIS ORGANIC IKACE
REQUIRED ELEMEN
8 4
10. WATER .COMMUNITY , Mpw.
SUPPLY WATER 'lWi
PATFPODV 1 1 riinni v
UAItbUKT "— — ' SUPPLY ~T^
8 4
11 APPEARANCE OF SAMPLE
12. ADDITIONAL REMARKS
ia nniiFr.TFn RY
2 0
COMBINED
Send Sample Results to
2 0
Tech. Op. , DWS. , EPA
Wf,sb., D.C. 20460 o
Wbl RADIO-
fS CHEMICAL
2 1 0
FEDERAL SPECIAL
INSTALLATION STUDY
2 1 0
USPHS
STAFF
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
I4R SJUPIF MO. MATF DFr.FIVFf)
DO NOT
WRITE BELOW
THIS LINE
28
~ OTHER |
29
in 17
~ OTHER j j
33
OTHER
34
OTHER
35
OTHER
36
UlHbK
37 39
OTHER
1
LABORATORY REMARKS
OVER FOR INSTRUCTIONS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -AGENCY
Office of Water Programs
Division of Water Hygiene
INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Card 1
NAME SAMPLE NO. ^ I I I I d
, YEAR (HD
ADDRESS
Col.
I. THE SOURCE
9 A. Spring D; Well d ; Surface Source d ; Cistern CD
10 B. On-premise CD ; Off-premise LJ (distance:_ _)
11 C. Ground Water from: Sand/GravelM; Limestone LJ; Sandstone LJ;
D z -—| j
Specify ; Unknown LJ
I. 5
12 D. Construction: By ContractorCD; Owner/Occupant CD; OtherCD;
Dl 23
II. A. SPRING
13 1. FlowingCD; Non-Flowing CD ; Intermi ttent CD
12 3
14 2. Encasement: Brick, Block, or Stone D; Reinforced
Concrete CD; OtherCD
15 General Condition: GoodCD; FairCD; Poor CD
1 2 3
16 3. Surface Drainage Controlled? Yes CD; Nod
i 2
17 4. Adequate Fencing around spring? Yes d ; Nod
18 5. Water withdrawn with: Pow.er Pump d ; Hand Pump.d;
Bucket LD ; Gravity Flowd; Other d
3 U 5
19-20 6. Estimated Minimum Capacity: [ ) ] GPM
Numeric
B. WELL
21 1- Dugd; Drivend; Jetted d ; Bored d ; Drilledd
1231, S
2. Dug Well :
22 Acceptable lining to 10' or more? Yesd ; Nod
23 Acceptable cover? Yes d ; No d * *
24 Masonry or ether jointe lining, sealed: Yes d; Nod;
Dl 2
25 Reconstructed, sealed and filled: Yesd ; Nod
26 General condition: Good d ; Faird; Poor d
i 2 3
3. Other Types of Walls:
27-23 a. Casing: Diameter: LJJ inches, I.D.
Numeri c
-------
Col .
29 Steel or Black Iron d ; Galvanized Iron or Steel D;
Plastic d; Masonry or Ceramic d; Other d
30 Joints Screwed CouplingO; Joints Welded Q; Unknown d ..
31 Wall thickness, Std. or better? Yes d ; Hod
i 2
b. Depths:
32-34 Ground surface to bottom of well: I 1 1 1 Ft.
35-37 Ground surface to bottom of casing: I I ! I Ft.
Numeric
c. Formation Seal:
38 Cement grout seal from depth of 5 to 10' up to surface D;
10 to 20' up to surfaced; Fine sand (natural) seal 10
to 20' up to surfaced; Puddled clay seal 5 to 20' up to
surfaced; No apparent formation seal between casing and
earthLJ ; Concealed (buried) formation grout seal
reported d ; Unknown d
d. Sanitary Well Seal:
39 Water tight cover? Yes d ; Nod
40 Well exposed to flooding by surface water? Yes d ; Nod
e. Well Pit
41 Pit around well? Yes d ; Nod
42 Pit has acceptable cover? Yes d i Nod
43 Pit drains to open air? Yes d ; Nod
44 Pit drains to drain line or sewer? Yes d ; Nod
45 Possible to flood pit in any way? Yes d ; Nod
46 Pitless adapter? Yes d ; Nod
47 Pitless adapter with top of well buried or below graund
level: Yes d; Mo d
1 2
48 f. Well "Filter" or Screen*
Open holed; Perforated or slotted oiped; Gravel
i—i l ' 2
Pack LjJ ; Sand (well) point or screen of horizontal,
endless slot typed,,; Other type of screen d
49 g. Age of Well: <2 yrs . d ; 2-5 yrs. d ; 6-10 yrs.d i
11-20 yrs.d ; >20 Vs. d
50 c. PUMP AT SOURCE: Yes Lp; Mod; Bucket d
51 i. Hand pump d; "Shallow well" (Low-Lift) Jet or Centrifugal
pumpd; "Deep well "(Hi-Lift) Jet Pumpd; Submersible
pumpd; Piston Pumpd; Honed
*Not to be confused with "filter" or strainer attached to suction inlet
of pump.
-------
Col .
52 2. Pump never breaks suction L^J; Somatiinas breaks suction LJ
53 3. Uith existing puirp, source delivers: <3 GPM CH ; 3-5 GPKL-J;
5-10 GPM D; 10-20 6PM D ; >20 GPM D
3 * 5
D. SURFACE SOURCE (Stream; Leke)
54 1. Perennial D: Interim' ttent D
55 2. Upstream: Human activity currently on watershed? YesLl ; No LJ
56 3. Delivery: Flow by pumping U; 8y gravity!—!
E. CISTERN
57 1. Catchment Area: Rooftops LJ'; Ground surface paved or cov-
ered with impermeable material L_j
58 2. Ground Area Only: FencedLJ; Signs postedLJ; Unprotected LJ
59 3. Cistern Construction: Above cround LJ; Below groundLJ;
60 Brick or Stone LJ ; Concrete LJ ; Wood LJ ; Steel LJ
61 General Condition: Good O ; FairO; Poor D
1 2 I 1 3 I 1
62 4. Device for discarding first water? Yes I I; No I I
i 2
63 5. Cistern Protection: Screened against rodents, birds?
Yes D ; NoD
1 2
64 6. Cleaning: Does cistern have drain which permits cleaning
and flushing to waste? Yes D ; NoD
65 Does cistern nesd cleaning now? Yes LJ; No O
i 2
F. WATER TREATMENT
66 1. Sedimentation: Yes Q ; NoD
67 2. Filtration Through: San>' ! I; Other Xedi uni LJ
68 3. Chlorination: Automatic D; Manual D
69 4. Softening: Yes L^j ; No Q
70 5. Other: Yes D (Describe) ; No LU
1 2
71 G. STORAGE (All Sources): Yes D ; NoD
72 1 . Pressure tank D
73 2. Other storage: Elevated or Ground Level D; Below ground
level D
74 3. Construction: Steel D ; Brick, block or stone D;
ConcreteD; WoodQ; Plastic CH: OtherO
3 "* I—1 s i—i 61—i
75 4. General Condition: Good I I; Fair! I; Poor"
' 2 3
7o H. DELIVERY
75 1. Water flows to point of use by hand pumping D; Power
pun-pi ngD; Gravity D; Hand carry D
30 CARD NUMBER 1; CARD 2 Du|i. 1-8
-------
Col,
I. PHYSICAL QUALITY OF V.'ATER
9 1. Colored^; TurbidL^j; Clear Lp; Contains sand
1° 2. Taste: Good L^l ; FairQ; Poor *""'
3. Evidence of iron or manganese problem: Yes LJ; No LJ
12 4. Water Softener in regular operation: Yes P ; No Q
13 5. Other water conditioner devices used: Yes Q ; No D
J. PUBLIC AGENCY INTERESTS**
14 1- Mas any public agency inspected this supply at any time
within the last two years? YesCD**_
No LJ ; Unknown LJ
2 3
15 2. Has bacteriological analysis ever been made on the water?
Yes LJ; Date.
J No LJ ; Unknown LJ
16 a. If "yes", was the water found "safe"? Y*es D ; No'Cj
17 b. If "no" (under 2a), were corrections recommended?
Yes D ; No D
18. c. Were corrections made? Yes Q ; No Q
19 d. After corrections .were made, was water retested?
Yes
20 3. Did the owner, before attempting any construction at the
source or before using the source, consult any agency
about its suitability? Yes Q **____ _
No
g
21 4. Have any chemical analyses ever been made on the water?
Yes LJ Date , **
."> No LJ ; Unknown LJ
K. USER'S PREFERENCE
22 1. User prefers: Present supply LJ ; Another or improved
individual supply LJ; A public supply LJ
23-25 lit I 2. Reason(s) for Preference: Lov/er costLJ; Better tasting
water LJ; Softer water LJ; Independence LJ ; More
2 | 1 1 i 1 S | 1
reliable source! !; Safer I I; More convenient! I;
Dlb 32 St
L". PRESENT CONSUMPTION
26 1. Number of dwelling units using system LJ
27-30 2. Number of persons using system. Adults IM ; Children M |
31 3. Is water shortage ever experienced: Yes 1 I **
No
80 CARD NUMBER 2
* Identify if possible
** Identify agency
-------
APPENDIX B
SANITARY SURVEY RESULTS
57
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK - Gettysbury Nat'l Military Park DATE OF SURVEY 5/16/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Electric Map Museum STORAGE 200 gal pressure tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 12
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Mercury
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
Well should have a sanitary seal.
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Pump capacity not large enough.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* < .005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 6.7
(0.05)** 2.4) ** .10 SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05 IRON (0.3)* .018 SILVER (0.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 28
CHLORIDE (250)* 71 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)* 333
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3 MERCURY .0075 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.2
COPPER (1 0)* .120 NITRATE (45)* 25.0 ZINC (5.0)* .085
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
• RECOWIEN3EP LIMIT ••HAHI>«TCBV UNIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PEH LITER UNLESS OTHEftllSE NOTED.
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
RAW-WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Gettysburg Nat'l Military Park DATE OF SURVEY 5/16/73
NAME OF SUPPLY South End Station STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMENT UV disinfection SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 11
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Mercury
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
Well vent should have a screen.
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
UV not checked daily; tubes changed yearly.
YES
NO x
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Storage not properly vented.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* 11
FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 7.5
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* .096 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <,250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 232.0
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3 MERCURY .0075TUR8IDITY (5 s.u.)*.l
COPPER (1.0)* -150 NITRATE (45)* 5.0 ZINC (5.0)* .190
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•KECGUIE^OEO LIMIT ••HASuiTORY LIMIT
ALL VAL'jES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAM HATER
DISTRIBUTION *1
DISTRIBUTION n
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Catoctln Mountain Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Ike Smith
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
STORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE springs
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE HAS TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
Chlorine residuals never checked. No chlorine residual in
distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)**--005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-°5
CADMIUM (0.01)** ;000
CHLORIDE (250)* '°-
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.".)*2ian
COPPER (1.0)* -140
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 6.4
2.4) **•*.!() SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
IRON (0.3)* .330 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** -000 SULFATE (250)* ^- 25.
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 57.0
MANGANESE (0.05)* -010 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY ^-0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* -3
NITRATE (45)* 4.0 ZINC (5.0)* .057
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RtCOMSSOEO LIMIT
ALL. VALUES WE MILLI
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLI FORM/100 ml
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Ft. Necessity Nat'l Battlefield DATE OF SURVEY 5/15/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters System STORAGE underground concrete tai
TREATMENT sedimentation and activated SOURCE well
carbon filter.
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 7
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES *
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* < .005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* ^10.
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* .048
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **
IRON (0.3)*
LEAD (0.05)**
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* •
MANGANESE (0.05)*
MERCURY
NITRATE (45)* <
.15 pH 7.6
SELENIUM (0.01)**<.Q05
.012 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.023 SULFATE (250)* < 25
.205 TOTAL DISSOLVED
.054 SOLIDS (500)* 136.0
.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*l
1 ZINC (5.0)* .070
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•SECOSHENDEO LIMIT "KWOHORY LIKIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Catoctin Mountain Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Jim Brown
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
STORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN .__7__
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorine residual not checked daily.
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01 **
CHLORIDE (250 *
CHROMIUM (.05 **
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
^.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 6.4
2.4) **<.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
^.05 IRON (0.3)* -018 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .023 SULFATE (250)* ^-25
• 000 H.B.A.S. (0.5)* -1.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 34.0
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
2 MERCURY <.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
•420 NITRATE (45)* •<• 1 ZINC (5.0)* -051
• BECOIWENJIED LIMIT "HANOSTOHY LIMIT
ALL VALUES A«E HILL1GBABS PER LITE! UNLESS OTKEIUISE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION $2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Catoctin Mountain Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Misty Mount
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
STORAGE concrete & steel tanks
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
'NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Manganese
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO *
Should have vent pipe facing down and screened.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES * NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES NO x
Well has hole in side of casing .
The vent pipe is only 2 inches above ground.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
< .005
<.05
.000
•^10.
.000
2
.470
FLUI
IROi
LEAI
M.B
MANI
MERl
NITI
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 68
2.4) **<.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** ^ Q05
3)* .047 SILVER (0.05)** '.B00
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
(0.5)* .25 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (0.05)* .066 SOLIDS (500)* 43 Q
' ^.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1
(45)* 1 ZINC (5.0)* .260
•aECOOTENDED LISiT "VANOATORV LIMIT
ALL VAL'JES AHE MILLIGRAMS PER LlIEfl UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAH WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION £2
COLIFORH/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/IOC ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Colonial Nat'l Historical Park DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Glasshouse System STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES * NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** A .05 IRON (0.3)
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
.012 FLUORIDE (1.4 to 2.90 pH 7.8
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.01)** ^..005
.330 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* z 25
32 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 405.0
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
3 MERCURY ^.0005 TURBIDITY (5 S.u.)* .5
.039 NITRATE (45)* <- 1 ZINC (5.0)* -200
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY UHIT
«LL VALUES ABE HIUlGRAKS PEH LITER UNLESS OTHERUSE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
REPORT OH INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STDW
NAME OF PARK Colonial Nat'l Historical Park DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Jamestown. Visitors Center STORAGE underground pressure tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS,
is THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
.010 FLUORIDE (1.4 to 3.00 pH 7.8
2.4)** SELENIUM (0.01)**^ .005
-C.05 IRON (0.3)* .072 SILVER (0.05)** .000
• 000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* ^ 25
18 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^-250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* -000 SOLIDS (500)* 347.0
3 MERCURY ^ -0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.3
•250 NITRATE (45)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Assateague Island Nat'l Seashore DATE OF SURVEY 5/22/73
NAME OF SUPPLY North Beach STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMEKT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(D.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
.012
/..05
.000
20
.000
5
.059
FLU(
IROi
LEAI
M.B
MANl
MERI
NITI
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2 4) **.20
,3)* .240
LEAD (0.05)** -000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^.250
MANGANESE (0.05)*-000
<.0005
NITRATE (45)* 2.0
pH 8.2
SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 330.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* -4
ZINC (5.0)* -200
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS.
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Colonial Nat's Historical Park DATE OF SURVEY 5/17/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Jamestown Maintenance STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. Q
DWS limit not met on day of survey.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride,
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
~'IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES NO *
Cross connection in system firehose used to fill pumper.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
.012 FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 7.8
2.4) ** 2.90 SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
^.05 IRON (0.3)* .220 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.000 LEAD (0.05)** -000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
45 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* -i.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 450
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* -000 SOLIDS (500)*
3 MERCURY ^.0005TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* -3
•077 NITRATE (45)* ^ 1 ZINC (5.0)* -°95
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL VALUES IS HILLISBAJiS PER LITfS UNLESS DTNEMISE »DTEO.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
130
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters
TREATMENT chlorlnation
DATE OF SURVEY 5/21/73
STORAGE underground steel tank
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 5
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES
Chlorine residual not checked daily and recorded.
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Insects and snakes have free access into storage tank around
the cover.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 7.4
(0.05)** ^-.005 2.4) **.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
BARIUM (1.0)** ^-05 IRON (0.3)* .015 SILVER (0.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* <-25.
CHLORIDE (250)* ^.10 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 112.0
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000 MANGANESE (0.05)*.000 SOLIDS (500)*
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
MERCURY
<. .0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .6
COPPER (1-0)* -027 NITRATE (45)* 5.0 ZINC (5.0)*
.220
•aEC:»»ESBcO LIMIT ••MANDlTOay LIMIT
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLI FORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Assateague Island Nat'l SeashoreDATE OF SURVEY 5/22/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters system STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. __0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 8
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
.010 FLUORIDE (1.4 to .10 pH 7.7
2.4) ** SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
<.05 IRON (0.3)* 1.200 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* ^ 25
16 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 262.0
.000 MANGANESE '(0.05)* .029 SOLIDS (500)*
3 MERCURY < .0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 1-0
.050 NITRATE (45)* < 1 ZINC (5.0)* -095
•RECOHNENOED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT _
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL V1ATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Skyland
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/21/73
STORAGE multiple tanks
SOURCE spring and well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0_
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)** £-005
BARIUM (1.0)** -05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* 10
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -450
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **^.10
IRON (0.3)* .056
LEAD (0.05)** ^.250
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* .000
MANGANESE (0.05)* -000
MERCURY .C.0005
NITRATE (45)* 2.0
pH 6.4
SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 27.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.2
ZINC (5.0)* .69^
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL VII'IES ASE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHESIISE NOTED.
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Matthew's Arm
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/21/73
STORAGE concrete tank
SOURCE spring and well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
<.005 2.4) **£.10
^.05 IRON (0.3)* .015
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .000
^10 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^.250
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
3 MERCURY -C.0005
•014 NITRATE (45)* 2.0
pH 6.7
SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 25.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.l
ZINC (5.0)* .100
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS FEU LITER UNLESS OTHERIISE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLlFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Big Meadows
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/23/73
STORAGE.3 underground reservoirs
SOURCE spring and well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 6
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Overflow from weir room storage and pump room not screened.
Cover of reservior has large enough opening to allow a snake to
enter.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)** £.005
BARIUM (1.0)** ^-°5
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* ^10
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -220
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **^.10
IRON (0.3)* .031
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* i-250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY ^.0005
NITRATE (45)* 2.0
pH 6.4
SELENIUM (0.01)** £.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* ^25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 23.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
ZINC (5.0)* -029
•SECCVIEMOEO LIMIT "SANOATOSY LIMIT
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Byrd's Nest #2
TREATMENT n°ne
DATE OF SURVEY 5/23/73
STORAGE underground steel tank
SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
?NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01)**
CHLORIDE (250)*
CHROMIUM (.05)**
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
£.005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **£.10
£.05 IRON (0.3)* .280
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .000
£10 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .022
2 MERCURY £.0005
.027 NITRATE (45)* cl
PH
6.7
£.005
.000
SELENIUM (0.01)**
SILVER (0.05)**
SULFATE (250)*
TOTAL DISSOLVED 29 0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .3
ZINC (5.0)* 29
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT ._
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Panorama
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/22/73
STORAGE concrete tanks
SOURCE spring and well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. A
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE"PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO x
No diversion of surface water around one spring.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES NO x
Surface drainage not controlled at collection box. Part
of system infested with mice.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)**
CADMIUM (0.01 **
CHLORIDE (250 *
CHROMIUM (.05 **
COLOR (15 s.u.)*
COPPER (1.0)*
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 6.9
<-.OQ$ 2.4)**<.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** * .005
< .05 IRON (0.3)* .025 SILVER (0.05)** .000
.000 LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
< 10 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 22.0
.000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)
2 MERCURY < .0005TURBIDITY (5 s.u. )* .2
.270 NITRATE (45)*
3.0 ZINC (5.0)*
.095
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT ''MANDATORY LIMIT
*LL. VftL'jES **E MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHE3»ISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
2
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
1
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Pass Mt. Parking Overlook
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/21/73
STORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE OWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
" NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <-005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)*^10
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) *<.10
IRON (0.3)* .050
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY <: .0005
NITRATE (45)* <1
pH 6.0
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 16.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.2
ZINC (5.0)* .058
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED UIIIT "MWIDHORY LfMIt
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UHLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Camp Hoover
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 5/23/73
STORAGE concrete underground tank
SOURCE springs
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN ._0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Zinc
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
New lids needed on spring boxes.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
YES x
NO
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*<.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* <™
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -100
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **<.10
IRON (0.3)* .009
LEAD (0.05)** .040
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* COZ5
MANGANESE (0.05)* -000
MERCURY < 0005
NITRATE (45)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Montezuma Castle Nat'l Monument DATE OF SURVEY 6/4/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Well Area STORAGE pressure tank
TREATMENT chlorinatlon SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT. MET. • 0 ,'
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Total Dissolved Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? , YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 7.8
(0.05)** -030 2.4)** .20 SELENIUM (0.01 )**< .005
BARIUM (1.0)** -38 IRON (0.3)* .020 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 722.0
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005TURBIDITY (5s.u.)*.4
•OH NITRATE (45)* 2.0 ZINC (5.0)* 2.200
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* 45
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)*
•BcCOWENOED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
BACTERIOLOGICAL
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
RESULTS
COLI FORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Montezuma Castle Nat'l Monument DATE OF SURVEY 6/4/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Castle STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT chlorinatlon SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? - - YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*^.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** -17
CADMIUM (0.01)**-000
CHLORIDE (250)* 19
CHROMIUM (.05)**-000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) ** .10
IRON (0.3)* .003
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0,5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* 1.0
pH
7.7
< .005
.000
SELENIUM (0.01)**
SILVER (0.05)**
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 417.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
ZINC (5.0)* .190
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT _
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PES LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Petrified Forest Nat'l Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Park System
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/5/73
STORAGE-5 underground tanks
SOURCE Well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT MO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Manganese, Total Dissolved Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO x
No chlorine residual in the distribution system on the day
of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <-005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** -09
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* 9°
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* \Kn
COPPER (1.0)* -580
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 8.2
2.4) ** 1.40'SELENIUM (0.01)** <-005
IRON (0.3)* -035 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** -000 SULFATE (250)* 195
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250 TOTAL DISSOLVED .1138
MANGANESE (0.05)* -076 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <-0005TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.6
NITRATE (45)*
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK -Tumacacori National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Park System
TREATMENT chlorlnation
DATE OF SURVEY 6/7/73
STORAGE underground concrete tank
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS .FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
' IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO .
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**<-005
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)**-000
CHLORIDE (250)* 14
CHROMIUM (.05)**-°°°
COLOR (15 s.u.)*3
COPPER (1.0)* -000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) ** 1.00
IRON (0.3)* .003
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250
MANGANESE (0.05)* -000
MERCURY <.0005
filTRATE (45)* 4.0
pH
7.8
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 34
TOTAL DISSOLVED 325.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*i2
ZINC (5.0)* -350
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
• RECOWNOEO LCKir —MNOATORr LIMIT
»LL VM.UES »SE »ILLIGBA»S tit LITER UNLESS OTHEMISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
1
0
c
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
n
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Tonto National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Park System
TREATMENT chorination and softening
DATE OF SURVEY 6/5/73
STORAGE concrete and steel tanks
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 2
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Total Dissolved Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS 'THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES * NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <-005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01 ** -000
CHLORIDE (250 * 38
CHROMIUM (.05 ** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -140
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **.35
IRON (0.3)* .150
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* ^.250
MANGANESE '(0.05)*.016
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* 3.0
SELENIUM (0.01)**
SILVER (0.05)**
SULFATE (250)*
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (500)
7.9
s 005
'.000
25
650 0
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 2
ZINC (5.0)* .170
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•»ECO»HENDEO LIMIT "II«NI]«TO»Y L(HIT - .
ILL VALUES IRE mLLIGRUS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL VIATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Coronado National Memorial.
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters well
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 6/7/73
STORAGE steel tanks
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _£
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. °
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Total Dissolved Solids
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x MO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)** <-005
BARIUM (1.0)** -19
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)*<10
CHROMIUM (.05)** -°00
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -000
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) ** .25
IRON (0.3)* .005
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* <1
PH 7.4
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* 94
TOTAL DISSOLVED 520.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*.l
ZINC (5.0)* .038
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•BECOMMENDED LIMIT "»4NDATO»Y LIMIT
ALL VALUES ASE HULIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NQTEO.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Chiricahua National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters well
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/6/73
STORAGE underground concrete tanks
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*<-005
(0.05)** _ nc
BARIUM (1 .0)** <0^
CADMIUM (0.01)** n-°°°
CHLORIDE (250)*<10
CHROMIUM (.OS)**-000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*5m_
COPPER (1.0)* -uou
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 7.3
2.4) ** 2.6 SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* T04~6 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** -000 SULFATE (250)* 32
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 207.0
MANGANESE (0.05)* -000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <-0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .2
NITRATE (45)* <1 ZINC (5.0)* .270
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RtcoimtNOEO mn "mmmoBV LIMIT
ALL. VALUES «KE HILLISRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERIISE HOTEO.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Saguaro National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters system
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 6/7/73
STORAGE concrete underground tank
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS HERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* H
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -076
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 7.7
2.4) ** .75 SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
IRON (0.3)* .025 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250J* < 25
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 228.0
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <.0005TUR3IDITY (5 s.u.)*.l
tilTRATE (45)* 6.0 ZINC (5.0)* .220
-RECS'JYENGEO LIMIT ••NANOATORY LIMIT
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
RAN WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION £2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK -Organ Pipe Cactus Nat'l MonumentDATE OF SURVEY 6/6/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Park System STORAGE two steel reservoirs
TREATMENT defluoridation for part of system SOURCE two wells
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 8
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Fluoride
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
The defluoridation
equipment for one tap
provides water at a
fluoride level of .11 mg/1.
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES * NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)** <.QQ5
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* 81
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 2
COPPER (1.0)* -01*
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 79
2.4) ** 2.50 SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* .015 SILVER (0.05)** .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* 53
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 493.0
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 -SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY <•0005 TORSIDITV (5 s.u.)*.3
NITRATE (45)* 18.0 ZINC (5.0)* .130
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT ••MANDATORY LIHIT
JILL ML1JES ME »ULIE«»»S PER LITER UNLESS DTHERIISE NOTED.
RAVI WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
ItAME OF PARK Yosemite National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Wawona
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/12/73
STORAGE steel and wt>od tanks
SOURCE South Fork, Merced River
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. °
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
DWS limit not met on day of survey
CHEMICAL QUALITY * iurveJ'-
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
Chlorine residuals are only checked weekly and only at the
treatment plant. No chlorine residual at time of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO JJ_
There is no screen on the storage tank vents. Chlorine residual
never gets past storage tank. Chlorinator needs maintenance,
and gas mask and ventilator fan are needed.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*<.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <05
CADMIUM (0.01)**-000
CHLORIDE (250)*<10
CHROMIUM (.05)**-000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*5
COPPER (1.0)* -OOO
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **OO
IRON (0.3)* .040
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY ^.0005
NITRATE (45)* /I
PH 5.8
SELENIUM (0.01)** < 005
SILVER (0.05)** 000
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 9 3
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .3
ZINC (5.0)* .320
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
JLL VALUES ABE MILLIGRAMS PER LIIEH UNLESS OTHERHISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
10
60
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
r
o
o
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Saguaro National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Tucson Mountain District
TREATMENT none
DATE OF SURVEY 6/7/73
STORAGE underground tank
SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
Well should be vented.
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** .09
CADMIUM (0.01)**.000
CHLORIDE (250)* 29
CHROMIUM (.05)**.000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*1
COPPER (1.0)* -050
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) ** .40
PH
7.9
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
IRON (0.3)* .020 SILVER (0.05)**
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)*
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250 TOTAL DISSOLVED
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY < .0005 TURBIDITY (5 S.u.
NITRATE (45)* 6.0 ZINC (5.0)*
.000
32
296.0
)*.!
.061
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "HANtUTOBY LIMIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Yosemite National Park DATE OF SURVEY 6/14/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Hodgton STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT chlorlnation and sand filtration SOURCE Hazel Green Creek
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
•' NUMBER OF MONTH'S I'M PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT MO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN .__0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0_
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTIOM ADEQUATE?
YES *
NO
IS OPERATION AMD CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorine residuals not checked daily
YES
NO x
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES MO x
Filter box becomes silted and must be shoveled.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <05
CADMIUM (0.01)**-000
CHLORIDE (250)*^10
CHROMIUM (.05)**-°°0
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -015
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **<.10
IRON (0.3)* .000
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <-250
MANGANESE (0.05)* -000
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* < 1
pH 7.5
SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 95.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
ZINC (5.0)* -150
•RECOMMENDED UNIT ••3JNOATOHY UNIT
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
COLIFORM/100 ml
RAW WATER 5
DISTRIBUTION #1 0
DISTRIBUTION #2 0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Yosemite National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Crane Flat
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/14/73
STORAGE steel tank
SOURCE surface
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Color
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
Chlorine residual only checked weekly.
YES
NO x
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Occasional water shortage.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)** •'•005
BARIUM (1.0)** ^.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)*^10
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*_25_
COPPER (1.0)* -019
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **<.10
IRON (0.3)* .050
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .006
MERCURY <.0005
NITRATE (45)* <1
PH 6.8
SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
SILVER (0.05)**
SULFATE (250)*
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.
ZINC (5.0)*
.000
< 25
38.0
* .2
1.100
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT ••MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL VALUES ftRE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Yosemite National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Arch Rock
TREATMENT sand filtration, chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/13/73
STORAGE steel tank
SOURCE spring
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO *
Gravel pack should be protected from surface drainage and the stream.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
No chlorine residual at time of survey. Chlorine feed rate should
be boosted and checked daily.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES NO x
Lid on storage tank should be more completely bolted.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*
(0.05)**<.005
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)*<10
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*3
COPPER (1.0)* .019
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 6.8
2.4) *%.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** < .005
IRON (0.3)* .050 SILVER (0.05)** .00o
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.25 TOTAL DISSOLVED 33
MANGANESE (0.05)*.006 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE "STUDY
NAME OF PARK Pinnacles National Monument
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters
TREATMENT chlorlnation
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
DATE OF SURVEY 6/13/73
STORAGE two steel tanks
SOURCE, well
_OU
MON
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SA_NITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES x
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES NO *
[o chlorine residual
Chlorine residuals should be checked daily.
in distribution system on day of survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)**.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)**-000
CHLORIDE (250)* 41
CHROMIUM (.05)**-000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*5
COPPER (1.0)* -010
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) ** .40
IRON (0.3)* .045
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <*250
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000
MERCURY .0007
NITRATE (45)* 4.0
PH
7.6
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* < 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 265.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .4
ZINC (5.0)* .600
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•RECOMMENDED LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL, VALUES ARE HILLIGBANS PER LITER UNLESS OTn£R»ISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/TOO ml
0
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Yosemite National Part
NAME OF SUPPLY El Portal
TREATMENT chlorination
DATE OF SURVEY 6/13/73
STORAGE three steel tanks
SOURCE Moss Creek and well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
DWS limit not met on day of survey.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE? YES NO x
Well should have a sanitary seal.
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO*
No chlorine residual in distribution system on the day of the survey.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES NO x
Booster chlorlnator should be installed on line up from the well.
Water shortages occur.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* 4.005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <.05
CADMIUM (0.01)** .000
CHLORIDE (250)* ^10
CHROMIUM (.05)** .000
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3
COPPER (1.0)* -019
FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 69
2.4) **<.10 SELENIUM (0.01)*% 005
IRON (0.3)* .056 SILVER (0.05)** QOO
LEAD (0.05)** .000 SULFATE (250)* < 25
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* .250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 24 0
MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
MERCURY < .0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)*i.o
NITRATE (45)* < 1 ZINC (5.0)* .079
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•SECOH1ENDED LIMIT "MANDATOSY LIMIT
ALL VALUES ARE MILLIGRAMS PER LITER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
5.2
U
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
6-
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK - Point Reyes National Seashore DATE OF SURVEY 6/14/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Headquarters STORAGE concrete tank
TREATMENT chlorination SOURCE surface
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _3
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 2
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 1
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
Facilities very old; major repairs needed.
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE? YES NO x
No chlorine residual in distribution system. Chlorine residual
test should be made on water in the distribution system.
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO x
Water shortages occur.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)*- -005
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)**-°00
CHLORIDE (250)* 24
CHROMIUM (.05)**-000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -003
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **.10
IRON (0.3)* .003
LEAD (0.05)** .000
M.B.A.S. (0.5)* <.250
MANGANESE (0.05)*.000
MERCURY -0008
NITRATE (45)* 1.0
PH
7.6
.
SELENIUM (0.01)** <.005
SILVER (0.05)** .000
SULFATE (250)* t 25
TOTAL DISSOLVED 189.0
SOLIDS (500)*
TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* .1
ZINC (5.0)* .160
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•8ECOU1ENOEO LIMIT "MANDATORY LIMIT
ALL V1LUES ARE KILLIGRAKS PEB LITEB UNLESS OTHESIISE NOTED.
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION #1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLI FORM/100 nil
0
0
0
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
NAME OF PARK Pinnacles National Monument DATE OF SURVEY 6/13/73
NAME OF SUPPLY Chaparral Ranger Station STORAGE steel tank
TREATMENT none SOURCE well
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. 0_
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 1
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
? NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER? YES x NO
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* -015
(0.05)**
BARIUM (1.0)** <-05
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000
CHLORIDE (250)* 23
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000
COLOR (15 s.u.)*2
COPPER (1.0)* -010
FLUORIDE (1.4 to
2.4) **
IRON (0.3)*
LEAD (0.05)**
M.B.A.S. (0.5)*
MANGANESE (0.05)*
MERCURY <
NITRATE (45)*
.10
pH 7.8
SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
.015 SILVER (0.05)** .000
-000 SULFATE (250)* <- 25
-250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 315.0
-006 SOLIDS (500)*
•• 0005 TURBIDITY (5s.u.)*.l
1 ZINC (5.0)* .290
BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
•aECCUIESOEO LIUIT "MANDATORY LIHIT
RAW WATER
DISTRIBUTION ?1
DISTRIBUTION #2
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
FECAL
COLIFORM/100 ml
0
0
0
-------
REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL HATER SUPPLIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY
DATE OF SURVEY 5/24/73
NAME OF PARK Shenandoah National Park
NAME OF SUPPLY Lewis Mountain
TREATMENT none
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT NO BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN. _0
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN PAST YEAR OF OPERATION THAT ONE BACTERIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. 0
NUMBER OF MONTHS WHEN THE BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMITS OF THE DWS WERE
NOT MET. 0
CHEMICAL QUALITY
DWS MANDATORY LIMITS FAILED Lead
DWS RECOMMENDED LIMITS FAILED Iron
SANITARY CONDITIONS
IS THE SOURCE PROTECTION ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS OPERATION AND CONTROL ADEQUATE?
YES
NO
IS THE WATER SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF
SAFE WATER ? YES NO X
Low water pressure found in distribution system.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESULTS
ARSENIC (0.01)* <-005 FLUORIDE (1.4 to pH 8.4
(0.05)** 2.4) **<.10 SELENIUM (0.01)** ^.005
BARIUM (1.0)** .08 IRON (0.3)* .370 SILVER (0.05)** .000
CADMIUM (0.01)** -000 LEAD (0.05)** JIQ. SULFATE (250)* ^25
CHLORIDE (250)* A10 M.B.A.S. (0.5)* .250 TOTAL DISSOLVED 48.0
CHROMIUM (.05)** -000 MANGANESE (0.05)* .000 SOLIDS (500)*
COLOR (15 s.u.)* 3 MERCURY C.0005 TURBIDITY (5 s.u.)* 2.7
COPPER (1.0)* -039 NITRATE (45)*
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WATER SUPPLY
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
81
-------
United States Department of the Interior
'
NATIONAL PARK. SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.G. 202-10
m REPLY REFER. TO:
P32-ME
DLC 11 1973
Memorandum
To: Regional Directors and Director, National Capital Parks
From: Associate Director, Park System Management
Subject: Classification of NPS Water Supply Systems
In insuring that water supplied to visitors, employees, and residents in
National Park Service areas is safe for drinking and domestic purposes, we
must do everything possible and necessary to neat the highest public health
standards. A recent preliminary evaluation by the Pub-lie Health Service-
National Park Service Environmental Sanitation Program of water quality,
monitoring and sanitary construction and operation of approximately 888 water
supply systems shows:
8% constitute health hazards due to significant construction deficiencies
or lack adequate treatment;
73% were not sampled adequately to determine bacteriological safety;
20% of those sampled for bacteriological quality exceeded the limits i». the
PHS 1962 Drinking Water Standards (DWS)
A limited study by the General Accounting Office indicated similar findings.
A procedure is being established to classify the. sanitary status of each water
supply system to identify those which are or have the potential for not pro-
viding safe water. Systems will be classified as satisfactory, provisionally
satisfactory, or use prohibited based upon:
1. Quality using the Drinking Water Standards,
2. Monitoring the results of bacteriological and chemical analysis, labora-
tory reliability and the frequency of sampling, and
3. Reliability based on an evaluation of the facility by the PHS to contin-
uously produce safe water.
-------
CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS
1. Sntisfictorv; indicates that the quality of water meets the DWS and the
system is judged to have a high degree of reliability for continuously
producing safe water
2. Provisionally Satisfactory indicates that the system is capable of pro-
ducing safe water but:
a. water of less than the highest quality is being produced and/or
b. there is inadequate bacteriological or chemical monitoring and/or
c. the bacteriological or chemical analysis provided the PHS Program
are not up-to-date and/or
d. deficiencies in facilities or operation of the system exist which
compromise its reliability in consistently producing safe water.
A provisionally satisfactory classification may be assigned to a system for
an indefinite period. When a system is classified provisionally satisfactory
the deficiency such as "quality," "bacteriological monitoring," "operation,"
"no current information," etc. will be noted.
3. Use Prohibited indicates that the system is incapable of consistently pro-
ducing safe water and water from this .sys.teni should not be .usad until
deficiencies are corrected.
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
Systems will be classified using the criteria in the attached Table A.
nirLjff.EXTATT.ON
Implementation of these criteria will be as indicated below. All systems will
irritiilly be classified i-.fi /^^/^j^—cry;, ar Jiril!i:l-^5II?-l^L-2£i::
-
known deficiencies constitute a cricical healtii hazard in T..Tirich case the urc
prohibited classification will apply. FKS consultants in cooperation with park
personnel will establish the tine by vhich corrections are to be made. Failure
to nake the necessary correction v?i]l ro-nu.lt in rp.claKsification to a use. pre-
hihit:od status. '
Quality - Systems havlrj; a bacteriological quality which would result in
a -HrJLJLrlZlL'Jlli.'iiA classification will, except in extreme ccsor;,
initially be c.lascificd jrovi^igj;_-:_l ly r: a t i s f a c t or y for a period
up to one year. Adequate, treatment rust be provided or the
system will be re-classified UPC prohibited.
-------
Monitor inc:
Reliability
- Systems with inadequate bacteriological or chemical sampling
frequencies which would result in a u.-^c prohibited classifi-
cation will initially be classified provisionally satisfactory
for a period up to one year.
- Systems with construction defects of public health significance,
other than treatment, may depending upon the deficiency, ini-
tially be classified provisionally satisfactory-for a period up
to 3 years.
This classification system should be great assistance in fulfilling our respon-
sibilities toward those who drink our water. This system is consistent with
EPA's standards for public .water supplies. We would like this classification
system to reflect your comments and suggestions when it is put into effect.
Cur tentative time schedule is to make it effective January 1, 1974 and have
the initial listing of classifications of all .systems by April 1, 1974.
John E. Cook
Enclosure
-------
'I'Al-.I.K A.
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION
OF NFS WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
December 1, 1973
CRITERIA
SATISFACTORY
PROVISIONALLY SATISFACTORY
USE PROHIBITED
A. QUALITY
(as compared with PHS
Drinking Water Standards)
1. Bacteriological
Comply with limits in Sect. 3.2
for each month sampled
Exceed limits in Sect. 3.2
for one of the months
sampled
Exceed limits in
Sect. 3.2 for two
or more of the months
sampled
2. Chemical
Comply with limits in Sect. 4.2,
5.21, 5.22, 5.23 and 6.2 except
the supply may be satisfactory
when the limits for not more
than 3 of these substances are
not being met - color, odor,
chloride, iron, manganese,
sulfate, or total dissolved
solids
Fails to meet limits for any
of these substances -
turbidity, ABS, arsenic,
copper, CCE, Cyanide,
fluoride, nitrate, phenol
or zinc. (Limits for
arsenic, cyanide and
fluoride are those in
Sect. 5.21);
or fails to meet the limits
for 4 or more of these sub-
stances - color, odor, chlo-
ride, iron, manganeese, sul-
fate or total dissolved
solids;
or exceeds limits in Sec.
5.23 but PHS guidelines for
use being followed;
or chemical analysis incom-
plete
Exceeds limits in
Sect. 5.23 and PHS
guidelines for use
not bein
-------
SATISFACTORY
PROVISIONALLY SATISFACTORY
USF. PROHIBITED
B. MONITORING
1. Bacteriological
Public supply -
A r.inimuiu of 2 samples/
r.onth should be collected
and analyzr-d while the
system is in use. Addi-
tional samples may be re-
quired in high use areas
as recor.mcnded by the PUS
KPS areas located in cit-
ies t served by the city
system should be in-
cluded in the city
bacteriological sampling
program wherever possible
Single family system -
one sample/month unless
results show closer sur-
veillance is necessary
Complies with sampling
rates at least 11 months
for year round systems
Not more than one sample
omitted for seasonal
operating systems
Failure to comply with sam-
pling rate for 2 or more
months for year round systems
Not more than 2 samples
omitted for seasonal oper-
ating systems
Failure to obtain at
least 50% of required
samples for any 3 months
of operation
2. Cher.-.ical
A complete chemical analy-
sis is required every 3
years unless levels of
chemicals hazardous to
health indicates more
frequent sampling is
necessary. Systems using
river or other surface wa-
ter where chemical charac-
teristics are likely to
change should be analyzed
annually.
Complete analysis
within last 3 years
Complete analysis not within
last 3 years but water quali-
ty not suspected to be hazard-
ous to health
Complete analysis not
within last 3 years and
water quality suspected
to be hazardous to health
-------
CRITERIA
SATISFACTORY
PROVISIONALLY SATISFACTORY
C. RELIABILITY
A water supply may be considered reli-
ble and have minimum risk of failure
to continously provide water that is
fit; has an adequate well-protected
good quality source; treatment facil-
ities adequate for the quality of
raw water and for the quantities
required by maximum demands; trained
operators and maintenance personnel
who do their work properly; and a
good distribution system free from
hazards such as cross-connections,
areas of low pressure and unproperly
protected distribution reservoirs
Water supply having inade-
quate, antiquated, or
overloaded facilities; or
whose operations may
result in intermediate
or high risk as judged
by the PHS
Failure to main-
tain a safe water
supply as speci-
fied in Section
2 of the K,'S
-------
APPENDIX D
PROPOSED CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING CRITERIA
89
-------
APPENDIX D
PROPOSED CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING CRITERIA
The chemical and bacteriological monitoring
criteria recommended in this Report are based
on the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Wa-
ter Standards and EPA, Water Supply Division
(WSD) guidance. A change in current WSD
guidance on recommended frequency of chemi-
cal and bacteriological sampling is under con-
sideration. This proposed change, summarized
in the following paragraphs, is based on a con-
cept of routinely monitoring for only those con-
stituents in the standards where the potential for
failing a limit is the greatest.
Chemical Monitoring
This proposed change is based on the concept
of routinely monitoring only those constituents
in the DWS where the potential for failing a
limit is the greatest. This selection is based in
part on an initial record of the water quality.
To establish an initial record of water quality,
a complete analysis of all chemical and physical
constituents for which a limit is established
would be required for all systems. This require-
ment would be considered fulfilled if a reliable
analysis has been performed for each constituent
in the past and there is no reason to suspect that
a significant change in water quality has oc-
curred. The requirement may be waived for an
initial record for pesticides and/or organics-
carbon adsorable for specific ground water
sources, if there is evidence to indicate that these
constituents will not be found at significant lev-
els. A single complete analysis combined with a
review of watershed and aquifer characteristics,
possible avenues of contamination, potential pol-
lution sources, and available environmental
monitoring data will provide an acceptable ini-
tial record to establish a routine analytical pro-
gram.
A routine monitoring program would be es-
tablished for "selected" constituents where the
potential for failing a limit is the greatest. A
"selected" analysis would include all constituents
which, in an initial record, or subsequent sam-
pling analysis, were present at levels in excess of
50% of the limit, plus any other determination
of potential "problem" contaminants. A selec-
tive analysis would be required at least annually
for surface supplies and triennially for ground
water supplies. A more complete analysis would
be required whenever there is reason to believe
there may be a significant change in water qual-
ity. After this analysis, an appreciable adjust-
ment to the routine sampling schedule would
be made.
In summary, a periodic analysis of "selected"
parameters, coupled with information gained
through other means such as periodic sanitary
surveys and environmental monitoring, will be
a cost effective way to determine compliance
with the physical and chemical constituents of
the DWS. The proposed alternative monitoring
requirements should result in a substantial re-
duction of cost over those contained in this re-
port, which are based on the 1962 Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards.
Bacteriological Monitoring
The 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drink-
ing Water Standards are designed for interstate
carrier water supply systems. It is proposed that
separate guidance be issued for water systems
having less than ten service connections or serv-
ing less than 40 individuals on a continuous
basis. The frequency of bacteriological sampling
could be established by taking into considera-
tion the water supply source, method of treat-
ment and storage, past bacteriological record,
and the protection of the delivered water. The
minimum number of samples collected and ex-
amined each month for these systems would be
one. The time interval between samples would
be approximately 30 calendar days.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975— 582—417:207
91
------- |