COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY STUDY
CINCINNATI, OHIO
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
..;. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Ih-alth Service
I'.nv i ronrn<'>nt,'< , Service
oau of Wr-i; ; il.YC'Lr-rii.-, i-^'i^ion V
'/-'-I-'
-------
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY STUDY
CINCINNATI, OHIO
.Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service -
Environmental Health Service
Bureau of Water Hygiene, Region V
7-31-70
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Recommendations, Conclusions, and Findings 1
General Conclusions and Findings ' 5
Introduction 11
Scope 12
Systems Studied 12
Study Area 12
Evaluation Criteria 15
Methods 19
Results 23
Discussion 38
General 38
Evaluation of Systems 39
Bacteriological Evaluations ^1
Chemical, Physical and Radiochemical Analyses k2
Waterborne Disease ^2
State Water Supply Programs ^3
Fluoridation ^5
Fluoridation Law ^7
Cross-connection Control '+7
Reported Complaints , ^9
Appendices
A. Tables of Results by Systems 51
B.. Forms Used ^+
TABLES
Table Number .
1 Evaluation of Systems ^
2 Pop. Served by Community Water Supply Systems 6
3 Sources of Water Utilized : 8
k Summary Data on Community Water Supply Systems ... 2h-
5 Water Treatment' Practices by Source ' 28
6 Water Treatment Practices by Community Size ...............29
7 Facilities Evaluation by Source . .30
8 Facilities Evaluation by Community Size ........ .31
9 Operation and Surveillance. Evaluation by Source ............33
10 Operation and Surveillance Eval. by Community Size 3^
11 Water Quality Evaluation by Source :- ...36
12 Water Qual:ity Evaluation by Community Si/,e 37
Natural Fluoride-; in Wator Supplies .. k(>
Primary Customer Complaint::,: Vl
.1 ' l')v;i.l.uat Lon of . Syctorn;?, 5'1
11 Facilit Lea Appraisal' '. , 59
111 Operation and Surveillance 63
IV Bacteriological Evaluation of Finished Water .66
V Mandatory & Physical Limits .-. .... '. '70
VI Recommended Limits ".. 7^
-------
FIGURES ...
Figure 1 Area Served by Community Water Supply Systems 7
Figure 2 Cost to thie Consumer Versus Consumer Use 10
Figure 3 Location of Community Water Supply Systems in the
Cincinnati SMSA '. ... .Ik
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Community Water Supply Study was made possible by the joint
participation of all personnel in the Bureau of Water Hygiene. The
cooperation of the state and local health departments involved and the
utilities studied is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, special thanks
is given to the state representatives for their review and comments on
this study and report. These individuals included:
George G. Fassnacht, Indiana
A. L. Fishback, Ohio
N. G. Johnson, Kentucky
PARTICIPANTS
The following persons made major contribution to the successful
completion of this project:
PROJECT DIRECTION
Donald W. Marshall - Regional Program Representative
FIELD EVALUATION TEAM
T. L. Campbell W. R. Keating
J. H. Cook - T. L. Lothrop
G. F. Craun 0. T. Love, Jr.
W. Davis F. D. Maddox
E. Dickason . F. L.. Nelson
E. K. Erristrom F. W. Norris, Jr.
J. F. Harrison .W. S. Rynearson
II. M. Uolrnari . H. F. Smith, Jr.
T. N. Hur-:;howor W. J. Whitsell
R. N. Jungclau:-:, ' , , G. A. Wright
'REPORT PREPARATION
F. Donald Maddox
Gale A. Wright .
Diane I.. Rosen
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND FINDINGS
To investigate public water supply systems in the United States, ;
the Bureau of Water Hygiene of the II. S. Public Health Service, with
the cooperation of State and local health departments, and water
utilities, conducted a nationwide Community Water Supply Study (CWSS)
during 19&9 in eight geographically distributed Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA) and the State of Vermont. The study included
the Cincinnati SMSA with 6k public water supply systems.
Each numbered paragraph of this section includes a recommendation
supported by lettered conclusions and findings derived from the facts
collected in the study. Figures quoted are to the nearest one percent
or the nearest 1,000 persons. Conclusions and findings which do not
directly support specific recommendations are listed under the heading
"General Conclusions." Summary data are found in Table *t on page 24.
I. More emphasis should be placed upon the public health surveillance
of public water supply systems. This should be accomplished by in-
creasing Water Supply Program staffs of State and local health departments.
Increased State surveillance should be directed to:
a. Adequate quality surveillance in accordance with State and
local policies.
b. Annual visitation and sanitary survey of public water supply
.systems by th'e appropriate regulatory agency. Present visits
often do not include a complete sanitary survey of the systems
visited.
c. Planning for future development.
A. Health surveillance needs.to be improved over the community water '
supply systems of the Cincinnati SMSA. With 11 parameters considered
for each system, the Kentucky systems had six systems with no un-
satisfactory parameters, eight with one to three unsatisfactory
parameters, and one with more than three unsatisfactory parameters
(Wilder was not rated). The Indiana systems had three with no un-
satisfactory parameters and four with from one to three unsatisfactory
parameters. The Ohio systems had 11 with no unsatisfactory parameters,
17 with from one to three unsatisfactory parameters, and five with
more than three unsatisfactory parameters. Recent sanitary surveys
(within tho last three years) were reported for
-------
defects. The eight systems in this group had six with from one to
three unsatisfactory parameters and two with more than three unsat-
isfactory parameters. Trailer parks and institutions by State policy
are not subject to the same requirements on sampling, surveillance,
and operator certification as community water supply systems.
II. Operator' training should be expanded and water works operators
should be made aware of the importance of participating in available
training courses.
A. Adequate technical training is lacking. With the exception of
the larger systems, such as Cincinnati, Ohio and Newport, Covington,
and Kenton County Water District #1 , Kentucky, the majority of the
operating personnel of the systems surveyed had little short course
or technical training, other than on-the-job training, in the opera-
tion and management of community water supply systems. Most operator
experience and capability has been obtained through' on-the-job
experience. Such experience does not necessarily adequately prepare
the operator to meet the changing conditions which may be faced by any
system.
III. Effective cross-connection control programs should be developed
for the elimination of sanitary defects in community water supply
A. In general, effective programs for the elimination of hazardous
cross-connections are not provided by the water works industry in the
Cincinnati SMSA. One community water supply system reported a positive
policy arid program for the detection and elimination of hazardous
cross-connections. Most community water supply systems rely upon
building inspections which are conducted on new construction and major
remodeling only, with no periodic routine inspections of potentially
hazardous users.
IV. Laboratory capabilities should be increased for both State and
local facilities.
A. Adequate chemical analysis is not done for most systems. Chemical
analyses for the constituents limited by the Drinking Water Standards
had not been obtained for 37 community systems (66%) as judged by the
surveying engineer. Actually, probably no system has periodic analyses
done for all of the constituents listed in the Standards. This is
primarily due to a lack of laboratory resources.
V. Major shortcomings in water supply operating practices should be
corrected. ' ' .
A. Adequate safety provisions for the handling, of chlorine gas were
generally lacking. Twenty-one of the 31 system;-; u.sing .gas chlorina-
tiori did not have adequate provision for protection against the hazards
ol'-ur.o of chlorine gar..
-------
B. The bacteriological sampling programs for many community water
supply systems were inadequate in numbers of samples taken and in
representation of the distribution system. Thirty-four system;? did
not have records of adequate numbers of samples taken. Many of the
small supplies took samples from fixed locations not representative
of the distribution system (usually taken in the middle of town or
at the treatment plant).
C. The maintenance of adequate (0.1 ppm or greater) chlorine residuals
in distribution systems was not practiced by many systems. However,
by corrrparing the results by State portions of the SMSA, the following
variations in this practice by State can be noted:
a. The Indiana systems (four ground water supplies serving seven
distribution systems) averaged a chlorine residual of 0.9 ppm
with no samples falling below 0.1 ppm.
b. In Kentucky, which requires chlorination of all community water
supply systems, one ground water and four surface systems served
16 distribution systems. Three systems, including Silver Grove
which did not chlorinate, did not carry chlorine residuals of 0.1
ppm or greater throughout the distribution system. These systems
served 95000 people. Adequate chlorine residuals were found for
13 systems serving 213,000 people or over l)6 percent of those
served by community water supply systems in the Kentucky area.
c. In Ohio four surface and 2^ ground water sources served 33
distribution systems. Three systems serving ^1,000 people did not
provide chlorination. Chlorine residuals were not taken for four
systems which served ^1,000 people. Chlorine residuals taken on
the remaining 26 systems demonstrated that only six systems were
maintaining a residual of 0.1 ppm or greater throughout their
distribution systems. These systems served about ^5,000 people
or less than 5% of the population served. The 19 systems which
were not found to maintain adequate chlorine residuals throughout
their distribution systems served 99^,000 people. Therefore, over
91 percent of the people served by community water supply systems
in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati SMSA were being served by
systems which did not maintain adequate chlorine residuals through-
out 'their distribution systems. The Ohio State Health Department
recommends that community water supply systems provide 0.2 to O.'t
ppm of chlorine throughout the distribution system.
d. For the entire Cincinnati. SMSA not more than /?';> percent of
the population was being served by system:'; providing adequate
(jh].orination throughout their distribution systorn:1;.
I). Check sample;1; for chlorine re:; i.dual r. are not tnken ol.'ten enough by
:';rna] 1 system operators. The minimum of a daily sample was not practiced
by 2'j systems. . . . '
VI. More adequate funding for management, operation, and improvement
of water supply facilities should be provided.
"- 3 -
-------
A. The sanitary surveys noted various equipment and structural defects
which could be corrected by capital improvement. Those defects
considered serious enough to downgrade a system were of the following
general description:
a. Inadequate source protection (22 systems)
b. Inadequate treatment capability (8 systems)
c. Low pressure areas (6 systems)
d. Poor maintenance (12 systems)
VII. Where practical, all community water supply systems should provide
fluoridation.
A. Few of the residents of the Cincinnati SMSA receive the benefits of
fluoridation. Despite mandatory fluoridation in the State of Kentucky
for cities serving more than 3)000 people, Newport and Covington
still do not fluoridate. Only 10 of the SMSA systems serving 96,000
people (less than 10%) fluoridate. This is likely to change, however,
after State action against Covington and Newport and implementation of
the new Ohio fluoridation law.
VIII. The proliferation of small systems should be discouraged.
Where possible existing small systems should be merged with large
systems and new service areas should be served by the larger systems.
A. Small community water supply systems (those serving less than
10,000 people) present more risk to the consumer than those serving
more than 10,000 people. Table 1 shows there are kk such systems
serving 13'+, 000 people or 10 percent of the people served by community
water supply systems in the Cincinnati SMSA.
Table 1 - Evaluation of Systems
More than 3 unsatis-
Population factory parameters**
Served Systems Population
> 10,OOO
5,000-10,000 1 6,500
.1 ,000-9,000 3 5,680
<'l ,OOO* 2 2'iO
Tol..":.l (> 12,'i20
1 to 3 unsatis-
factory parameters**
Systems Population
'i
6
15
'.i
29
101 , 900
35,200
'iO,030
3,260
].80,390
No unsatisfactory
Parameters**
Systems .Population
o
U
"'',
7
2
20
I,0'i8,000
21,500
' 19,870
1,290
1,090,660
* Mulder (650 people) was not .'purveyed
** Eleven parameters considered .
Twelve serving ;i3,000 people (32% of those served-by small systems)
had no unsatisfactory parameters. Twenty-five serving 78,000 or 59^ o.f
-------
those served by small systems had from one to three unsatisfactory
parameters'and present intermediate risks to the consumer. Six serving
12,000 (9%) present high risks to the consumer and had more than three
unsatisfactory parameters.
B. Systems serving less than 10,000 people are more likely to be
poorly maintained and operated than those serving more than 10,000
people. Eleven of the '+*t systems serving less than 10,000 people were
poorly maintained. Only one of the 12 systems serving more than 10,000
people was poorly maintained.
C. Large community water supply systems (those serving more than
10,000 people) normally present ,low or acceptable risk to the consumer.
Eight of the 12 systems in this population group had no unsatisfactory
parameters serving 1,0^8,000 people. Four systems serving 102,000
people had from one to three unsatisfactory parameters.
D. People served by small systems usually pay more per 1,000 gallons
than people served by larger systems. The data shows 850,000 people
pay 35 cents per 1,000 gallons (Cincinnati), 21^,000 PaY &9 cen"ts
per 1,000 gallons (20,000 to 100,000 populations), 95,900 pay 85 cents
per 1,000 gallons (10,000 to 20,000 populations), 58,200 pay 77 cents
per 1,000 gallons (5,000 to 10,000 populations), and 65,100 pay $1.16
per 1,000 gallons (less than 5iOOO populations). The increased costs
1'or smaller systems reflect the..costs for source development, treatment,
maintenance, operation, and billing which must be. shared among fewer
users.
IX. General Conclusions and Findings
A. Considerable growth of the area served by community water
supply systems can be expected for the Cincinnati SMSA. Ninety-one
percent (Table 2.) of the population of the Cincinnati SMSA is served by
community water supply systems. The areas that, at present, are .not
served by a community water supply system are fringe areas (70 percent
of the SMSA, Figure l) that are rural in nature and sparsely populated
to the extent that it would not be economically feasible for such a
system to serve them at this time. The development of these rural
sparsely-populated areas will encourage the creation of new community
water supply systems and/or the expansion of existing systems to serve
these areas.
B. Most of the people served by community water supply systems receive
water from systems with no unsatisfactory parameters. Twenty systems
serving 1,091,000 people (85$ of those served), had no unsatisfactory
parameters. Twenty-nine serving 180,000 (1*1/6 of those served) had
.from ono to three unsatisfactory parameter:-,. Six serving 1,'-',000 people
("!//) o I.' those served) had more than three unsatisfactory parameter;:;.
-------
Table ? - Populations Served by
Community Water Supply Systems
County in
Cincinnati SMSA
Total
Population
Total
Served
Community
System?
Percent
Served^
Dearborn
Total in Indiana
Boone
Campbell
Kenton
Total in Kentucky
Clermorit
Hamilton
Warren
Total in Ohio
Total in SMSA
29,0003
29,000
Lฑ
p Q L. (")(")
86,700^
123,400^
238,500
105, 600 f
950, 000 '
86,600ih
i , ]4i ^oo
1,408,700
20,040
2.0, 040
21,600
85,800
115,340
222,740
5'-i, 870
940,710
45,760
1,041,340
1,284,120
7
7
3
6
7
16
10
11
12
33
56
69
69 .
76
99
94
93 .
52
99
53
91 -
91
1. As determined by evaluation of study data
2. To the nearest 1%
3- Based on 1966 estimate (Rand McNally Road Atlas)
4. Based on 1968 estimate Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Planning Authority
- 6
-------
of County Areas Served
Cls'rmont 15 IBoorie 10.
Hamilton .90 " Campbell < 35
Warren 20 Kenton 35
Dearborn" ~. 20 '-- _-._-..
^ 'of .Total- Area; Served .--.. 30
FIGURE I - ARKA.SERVED 3Y' COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
-------
C. Most of the large systems use surface water streams as a source,
while small systems (those serving less than 10,000 people) use ground
water. This is predictable since ground water normally is less costly
to develop for drinking water use and where available is used until
the volumes required no longer make the use of ground water economical.
Table 3 - Sources of Water Utilized
Population Served
* 1,000
1,000-5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
>20,000
Total
Ground
6 (4**)
16 (3**)
9
5
0
36 (?**)
Surface***
3*
9 (5*)
1*
1*
6 (2*)
20 (12*)
*System purchases water from a system serving > 20,000 people
**System purchases water
***Includes Wilder
D. In general the ground water and surface water resources in the area
comprising the Cincinnati SMSA appear to be adequate in quantity for
present and expected future demands. The majority of the smaller
community water systems utilize ground water as a source of supply. Of
the systems using ground water (36) three did not report an adequate
quantity of ground water. The construction of additional wells would
in all probability satisfy the needs of these three systems.
E. The raw water quality for surface water has changed little over the
past five years in the opinion of water treatment plant officials. No
changes in raw water quality were reported at Batavia, Covington,
Newport, Walton, and Williamsburg. Increased turbidity was reported.
at Bethel. The construction of a new dam above raw water intakes
reportedly slowed the Ohio River, reducing chlorine demand and taste
and odor problems for Cincinnati. Improved water quality was also.
reported by the Kenton County Water District //I. Ono surface water
source: serving 8 system;.--, had excessive' manga ne, :;<: content.
I1'. Tho chemical quality o'f the- ground water iii not uniformly acceptable
l''or nine of t.he 29 ground water- sources manganese, iron, nitrate or
total dissolved solids concentrar. Lons exceeded recommendations of the
Standards. Bac'teriologically t.he grc'
'excellent quality. Of the tc'c,-iL :v.;r,':b;
water appeared, to be of
of raw. ground water sample
collected during the survey
examined bacteriologically , only those
from wells whose construction provide
presence of colii'or-ins.
G. The cost of water apy:
Families appear to be ri::..
inadequate protection showed the
;t 'the use of water (Figure 2).
more than $1.0.00 a month
-------
for the water they use. Costs ranged from $2.50 to $12.70 per four
person family per month with ^2 systems providing water to four
person families at costs ranging from $^ to $10 per month. The six
systems which supply water at costs greater than $10 are generally
the newer systems or recently improved systems which have high
amortization costs to meet. The six systems which supply water at
costs less than $^+ can be characterized as those systems which
amortized their capitalization debt long ago, which purchase water at
low cost from another system and which do little more than bill
customers.
H. Finished water quality has not been shown to be hazardous
to health by any of the analyses done for the study (no samples
exceeded the Bacteriological or Mandatory Standards). Bacteriological
histories, however, for one year preceding the study showed coliform
levels exceeding the Standards for 11 systems serving j6,000 people.
Analyses for the study showed 13 systems serving 108,000 people had
only fair waber quality (samples exceeded the Recommended Standards).
In addition, taste and odor qualities arc known to be less than good
I'or five systems using surface water to serve 1,0'49,000 people.
-------
140
120
o .'00
en
2
3
Id
CO
60
20
O
O
O O
O O
O
o o
FIGURE 2 COST TO THE CONSUMER VERSUS CONSUMER USE
o - Complete water supply systems
ฎ - Distribution systems only
O O
O
o
8
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
COST 'DOLLARS PEr 1000 GALLO"S FOR FOUR "ERSON FAM1L )
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Community Water Supply Study (CWSS) was to
determine if the American consumer's drinking water met the Drinking
Water Standards.* To obtain nationwide coverage, the Bureau of Water
Hygiene of the U. S. Public Health Service initiated the CWSS in
February of 19&9 i-n nine areas across the country. The field work for
the CWSS was conducted by the Bureau of Water Hygiene, in cooperation
with the State and local health departments and the water utilities.
This study was designed to give an assessment of drinking water quality,
water supply systems, and surveillance programs in urban and suburban
areas in each of the nine regions of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. These areas were selected to give examples of the
several types of water supplies. in the country. A whole Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) was the basis of each study,
except in Region I where the entire State of Vermont was included,
with evaluations made on all public water supply systems, as defined
herein, in each study area. This coverage allowed an assessment of the
drinking water quality of the large central city, the suburbs, and the
smaller communities located in the counties in the SMSA, and the
interaction between them.
Specifically, the objectives of this study were accomplished by determin-
ing whether or not:
1. The quality of the urban and suburban American consumer's
drinking water in the selected study areas exceeded. the Constituent
Limits of the Drinking Water .Standards (DWS);*
2. The water supply systems supplying this drinking water to the
consumers were essentially free from major deficiencies;
3- The bacteriological surveillance programs over these water
supply systems meet the established criteria (see page 15).
The authority for the Community Water Supply Study is found in Title
111, Part A, Section //XL, Public Health Service-. Act, amended, ('t?
"Sec. 301 - The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service,
and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other
appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and
scientists in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of,
research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and
studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control,
and prevention of physical ana mental diseases and impairments
of man, including water pur:, -'i cat ion. . ."
*1962 U. S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards; PHS Publ.
No. 956, Superintendent o*' '> urnerrcs, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 20402,, 6: rrp,.
-------
SCOPE
Public water systems in the United States numbered over 19,000 serving
some 150,000,000 when last inventoried in 1963.* The remaining
50,000,000 people had private water supplies. Most of the public
water systems were small, about 85 percent serving 5,000 or less people.
About half of the public was served by about l8,800 systems that each
served 100,000 or less persons and the other half (77,000,000) were
served by about ^00 larger systems. About 75 percent of the public
water systems have ground water, as a source, while 18 percent use
surface water. The remaining 7 percent use a mixture of ground and
surface water.
Systems Studied
This study covered 969 public water supply systems, including 885
community water supply systems (91-3% of the total) and 8^ special
water supply systems (8.7% of the total). For this study the following
definitions of the systems were used.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - A water supply system includes the
works and auxiliaries for collection, treatment, storage, and
distribution of water from the sources of supply to the free-
flowing outlet of the ultimate consumer. Water supply systems were
included in this study, if they had 15 or more service connections
and/or served 25 or more consumers.
Special Water Supply Systems - are those systems aerving trailer
and mobile home parks, and institutions with resident popula-
tions.
Community Water Supply Systems - are all other systems studied .
in an SMSA.
Study Area,
The details of the study area and the definition of Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) are given below.
STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA - The; boundaries and titles
of standard metropolitan statistical areas are established by the
Bureau of the Budget with the advice of tho Federal Committee, on
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Aroci::;. An SMSA is a county or
/';roup of cont'i guon:; count, i.e.?,, wh:.ch oonta.i n;; at lea;'.;t one city
oi' '/),OOO inhabits h t:; ;;r rnor.-- or "twin c:i t L> /;" with n combined
population of at l(.-a:;i. L.jO,000. in addition to the county; or
*Statir,tical Summary.of Municipal Water Facilities in the United
States, January 1, 1963: PHS Publ. No. 1039, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 19&5, 66 pp.
-------
counties, containing such a city or cities, contiguous counties
are included in an SMSA if, according to certain criteria, they
are essentially metropolitan in character and are socially and
economically integrated with the central city.
The Cincinnati, Ohio SMSA was selected to represent those portions of
mid-America using surface water receiving a considerable amount of
industrial discharge in addition to municipal wastes and' agricultural
runoff.
This SMSA includes Dearborn County in Indiana; Boone, Campbell, and
Kenton Counties in Kentucky, and Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties
in Ohio. Figure 3 shows the approximate location of each of the
community water supply systems studied. Table 2 (page 6) shows the
population for each county of the SMSA, the population of each county
served by community water supply systems, and the percent of the
population of each county served by community water supply systems.
Summary data on the systems studied are tabulated in Table k on page 2k .
As to location and population served Table k shows:
12 supplies serve more than 10,000 people (total of 1,150,000)
7 in Ohio serving 952,000
5 in Kentucky serving 198,000
10 supplies serve 5,000 to 10,000 people (botal of 63,000)
7 in Ohio serving ^6,000
2 in Indiana, serving 11,000
1 in Kentucky serving 6,000
25 supplies serve 1,000 to 5,000 people (total of 66,000)
15 in Ohio serving ^2,000
3 in Indiana serving 7,000
7 in Kentucky serving 17,000
9 supplies serve less than 1,000 people (total of 5,000)
k in Ohio serving 2,000
2 in Indiana serving 1,000
3 in Kentucky serving 2,000
8 special supplies serve trailer parks and institutions
5 in Ohio
3 in Kentucky
-------
'Figure 3 - Location of Community Wafer Supply Systems in the Cincinnati SMSA
Numbers are keyed to Table
mi**"
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Each water supply system was investigated on three bases: 1) drinking '
water quality was determined by sampling the finished and distributed
water and returning these samples to the laboratories of the Bureau
of Water Hygiene for bacteriological, chemical, and trace metal
analyses, 2) the status of the water supply system facilities was
determined by a field survey of the system and the gathering of data
on three standard forms, four items were chosen to represent major
problems; a) source(s), b) treatment, if any, c) distribution, and
d) operation; 3) the status of the surveillance program over the water
supply system was evaluated by obtaining bacteriological water quality
data for the previous 12 months of record from State and county health
department files.
Water Quality Criteria
Water quality was judged either:
(l) Not to exceed the Constituent Limits of the DWS (hereafter called
met Drinking Water Standards) or,
(2) To exceed at least one "recommended" Constituent Limit (some
are aesthetic parameters), but did not exceed any "mandatory"
Constituent Limit (hereafter called Exceeded recommended, but not
mandatory limits) or,
(3) To exceed at least one "mandatory" Constituent Limit (hereafter
called Exceeded mandatory limits).
The limits for the constituents measured in this study are summarized
below.
Physical Constituent Concentration Limits taken from the 1962 U. S.
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards for constituents measured:
RECOMMENDED LIMITS
(If the concentration of any of these constituents are exceeded, a
more suitable supply or treatment should be sought.)
Constituent Limit
Alky]. Benzene Sulfonate
(Meri.sured as rnethylene-blue-
fict.Lvc-; subBtancea) 0.[)
- 15 -
-------
Constituent
Limit
Arsenic
Boron
Chloride
Color
Copper
Carbon-Chloroform Extract (CCE)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Temp. (Ann.Avg.Max.Day, 5 years
or more)
50.0-53.7 ' .
53.8-58.3
58.^-63.8
63.9-70.6
70.7-79-2
79.3-90.5
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate
Radium-226
Strontium-90
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Turbidity
Untreated
Treated by more than disinfection
Zinc
0.01 mg/1*
1.0 mg/1**
250 mg/1
15 units
1.0 mg/1
0.200 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
1.7 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
1.3 mg/1
1.2 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.8 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
^5 mg/1
3 uuc/1 (pc/1)***
10 uuc/1 (pc/1)***
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5 Units
1 Unit
5 mg/1
*Although the recommended .arsor.'' '. concentration is'.0.01 mg/1,, .because;
of interferences in some water-;.,, the concentration .of arsenic'-'was.'.'
only determined to be less -than; O.Cri rng/1. '-For the purposes ,of thi's" .
study,- these waters were considers-;-", not to exceed- the recommended
standard. , ' : . . ",,'-. .','
**Proposed, for inclusion in the Drinking Water Standards. '
***If these limits are e'xooedeo.:," i-ef'er to Section 6.2 of-t
-------
MANDATORY LIMITS
(If.the concentration.of any of these constituents are exceeded, the
further use of this water for drinking and culinary purposes should
be evaluated by the appropriate health authority because water of
this quality represents a potential hazard to the health of consumers.)
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium .
Chromium (hexavalent)
Coliform organisms (Measured
by membrane filter technique)
Cyanide
Fluoride . -. '
Temp. (Ann.Avg.Max.Day - 5 years
or more)
50.0-53-7
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8
63.9-70.6
70.7-79-2 -
79.3-90.5 . .
Gross Beta activity (in the
absence of a or Sr-90)
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Limit
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
5.0 mg/1**
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Fails std. if:
a) Arithmetic average
of samples collected
greater than 1 per 100 ml
b) Two or more samples
(5% .or more if more than
20 examined) contain
densities more than
4/100 ml
0.2 mg/1
2.4 mg/1
2.2 mg/1
2.0 mg/1-
1.8 mg/1
1.6 mg/1
1..4 mg/1
1,000 uuc/1 (pc/1)***
0.05 mg/1
.0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 .
*Although the. recommended arsenic concentration is :0.01 mg/1,' because
of interferences in some waters,, the concentration of arsenic was
only determined to be less than 0.03 mg/1. For the purposes of this
study, these waters were considered not to exceed the recommended .
standard. ' . .
**Proposed for inclusion in the Drinking Water Standards..
***If 'these limits are exceeded, refer to Section 6.2 of the DWS.
- 17 -
-------
Facilities Criteria
Source, treatment, operation, and distribution facilities were judged
either:
l) To be essentially free from major deficiencies, or ' . .. ;;-
2) To have one or more of the following major de,ficienci:es. :(:whe;'re
applicable) . :--
a) Inadequate source protection - (in absence of disinfection,,,
treatment, or buying chlorinated water or if .treatment plant'
bypasses exist)
b) Inadequate disinfection (if disinfection practiced)
c) Inadequate control of disinfection (if practiced or if
purchasing 'chlorinated water) '
d) Inadequate clarification capabilities (if clarification
practiced) ! ;
e) Inadequate control of clarifification (if clarification
practiced) - .
f) Inadequate pressure (<20 psi) in some or-; all areas of the
distribution system
g) Inadequate maintenance ' . '. " -.'
Bacteriological Surveillance Program Criteria
The bacteriological surveillance program "over the water supply system
was judged, either: ...
l) To meet the following criteria or,
2) Not to meet one or more of the following,
a) Collection of 70 percent or more of the required number*
of bacteriological samples during the previous'12 months of-
record. . .
b) Collection of samples for .no less than nine months ."
c) Passing the bacteriological quality standard* during the
previous 12 months of record. :
"See. pages 3-6 .of.the Drinking Water Standards
- 18 - ..
-------
METHODS
Field..Survey
The', regional office staff, in cooperation with the State and local
health/department officials prepared a listing of all known public
water supply systems meeting the definition adopted for this study.
The list1 contained the system name, address, name of the superin-
tendent or person in charge, indication of size and the1 telephone
number." The list was cross-checked with community and subdivision
names to eliminate duplication and establish those areas for which
the water supply facilities were apparently unknown.- 'A Form PHS-682,
Report of Water Supply Used on Interstate Carriers, was prepared for
each system from State and local health department records. The
completed list became the basis for work schedules for the field
engineers.
Actual field surveys were made by one of the l8 PHS engineers from
headquarters and the regi.onal offices that made up the field staff.
At the option of State and local health department staff members, they
made surveys with the PHS engineers. (The staff of the field office
made appointments by telephone, for the surveys, one to seven days in
advance.)
During the field survey, the engineer completed Forms ECA-19 Municipal
Water .Supply Sanitary Survey, to provide information on source; treat-
ment; operation; laboratory control; personnel; distribution;
surveillance practices; planning for improvements; and water rates.
Examples of the standard forms are in the Appendix.
Sampling Program
The following samples were collected and dispatched to various Bureau
of Water Hygiene laboratories: . .
1) Raw water
One sample for bacteriological analysis.
2) Finished water ready for distribution
Four or five samples for chenrical analyccjs as follows:
a) 21/vgallon r;amp.!.o to thr- Korthoast Waler Hygiene Laboratory.
This wa,'-; n grab samp] <_ Cor rnc::;t ground water and small
r.iirCaco water t:r<;alr.'-u.-nt p];mt:;, hut who.r<; po:.;r>ib!l e ,M 1'i-da.y
composite war> Lakcn. Th<-: i'o". lowing; analy.;<::;, wo.re made on
thi.K sample:
Arsenic Oyw^iue Sulfate
-Boron KRAS -TDS
Chloride titrate Turbidity
Color 'elenium
-------
b) 8-oz. aliquot sample for trace metals analysis was taken
out of sample 2)a) above and sent to the Cincinnati Laboratory.
The following analyses were made on this sample:
Barium Copper Manganese
Cadmium Fluoride Nickel
Chromium . Iron Silver
Cobalt Lead Specific Conductance
Zinc
c) 1-gallon sample for radioactivity analyses was sent to
one of the three Bureau of Radiological Health laboratories.
It was collected in the same manner as sample 2)a) above. The
following analyses were made on this sample:
Specific gamrna emitting radionuclides
(1131, Csl37, Bal^O)
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium-226, if gross alpha exceeded 3 pc/1
Strontium-90, if gross beta exceeded 1C) pc/1
Tritium - (run on 10% of samples)
d) 1-gallori sample for pesticide analysis to the Gulf Coast
Water Hygiene Laboratory from surface water supplies plus
those ground water supplies where sampling was specifically
requested by the State or county health officials. It was
collected in the same manner as sample 2)a) above. The
following analyses were made on this sample:
Aldrin Dieldrin Heptacalor Epoxide
Chlordane Endrin Lindane
DDT Heptachlor Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
e) 1 activated carbon monitor sample to the Cincinnati
Laboratory from 110 selected water supplies, 9'+ of which
were from surface sources. Carbon chloroform extract (CCE)
and carbon alcohol extract (CAE) concentrations were determined
from this monitor.
J.) D.i .'.itribution System
;'.arrip'l (;:-. for bactc-.'rioj ojiir.o'l and trace: metal yria.'l .ysor; nt the r-.ito
of .10 percent of the number1 reqii.i. red by Fi./>;uro ], of the DWS,
with a ruin'i muin o I' two i.-fjcii I'rom n.ny system.
I ;,M bor-i tory Procedures
Bacteriological
All samples were collected in b-oa. sterile, plastic, wide-mouth,
screw-capped bottles which r;c:v:,ained 0.2 ml of a 10% solution of
-------
sodium thiosulfate as a dechlorinating agent. This concentration of
thiosulfate was sufficient to neutralize a sample containing about
15 mg/1 residual chlorine, an amount above any residual that was
present. Refrigeration of all samples was required during transporta-
tion back to the laboratory. Maximum time between collection and
analysis did not exceed JO hours. The bacteriological procedures were
those of Standard Methods.*
The membrane filter (MF) procedure was used for total coliform detection
in this study for three reasons. One, larger volumes (100-ml portions)
of distributed water could be examined than with the MPN technique;
two, the MF procedure yields more precise results; and three, less
processing time would be involved per sample, so reexamination of many
of the samples could have been made within the 30-hour time limit
if required. All potable and source water samples were examined
for total coliforms using M-Endo MF broth, incubated at 35ฐC for 20-2;+
hours. Because raw water quality varied with its source, three decimal
sample portions were filtered, the volume being determined by the
estimated water quality.
Any coliform colonies detected in the examination of a sample were
further verified by transfer to phenol red lactose for 2^- and ^8-hour
periods at 35 C incubation. All positive phenol red lactose broth
tubes then were confirmed in brilliant green lactose at 35 C for
verification of total coliforms and in EC medium at Mf.5 C for detec-
tion of fecal coliforms. This procedure further confirmed the standard
total coliform MF test and supplied additional information on the
potentially hazardous indication of the presence of fecal coliform in
those public water supply systems.
Basic knowledge was also needed on the general bacterial population
of potable water. Therefore, the general population of bacterial
count (plate count) was also made on all distribution system samples.
Sample portions of 1 ml and 0.1 ml in plate count agar (Tryptone-
Glucose-Yeast Agar), incubated ^8 hours at 35 C were sufficient to
yield the desired data.
Chemical
The five samples, as noted above, taken to determine the chemical
quality of the finished and/or distributed water were analyzed as
follows:
Sample 2)a), General Chemistry.
These constituents were generally determined by Standard Mothodr.,
except as listed on tho i'ollowinp; r>a|v;e.
*.SI;,Mn
-------
Barium
No standard method existed at the time this study was undertaken.
An atomic absorption procedure, which will appear in the next
edition of Standard Methods, was used and was found acceptable.
The analysis was made only on those samples that had less than
2 mg/1 sulfate because above that concentration the barium precipitates
out of solution.
Chloride
A variation of the potentiometric titration procedure was used, which
is a tentative method in Standard Methods, page 372. Rather than
titrate with silver nitrate to a specified endpoint in millivolts,
using a glass electrode and a silver-silver chloride electrode, a
standard curve was prepared that related millivolts to chloride
concentration. The concentration of an unknown is then determined
from the standard curve. The procedure was just as accurate as the
titration method and was simpler to carry out.
Fluoride
A fluoride electrode method, which will appear in the next edition of
Standard Methods, was used. Precision and accuracy was generally
better than any other method and the method was simpler to carry out.
Sample 2)b), Trace Metals - The atomic absorption spectrophotometer
method was used for all heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, silver, zinc, nickel, and cobalt) because its
sensitivity, specificity, simplicity and speed of analysis far exceeded
the usual wet chemical methods. An atomic adsorption method for these
metals will appear in the next edition of Standard Methods.
Sample 2)c), Radioactivity - These radiological constituents were
determined using standard radiological counting techniques.
Sample 2)d), Pesticides - No standard procedure for pesticide determina-
tions existed at the time the CWSS was undertaken. Gas chromatography
is generally the accepted method of analysis and will appear in the
next edition of Standard Methods. Therefore, this technique was used.
Sample 2)e), Organics (CCE and CAE).- These organic constituents were
determined using standard extraction techniques.
-------
RESULTS
For the purpose of summarising results, the water supply systems were
divided into four categories; l) those using surface water or a mixture
of surface and ground water as a source; 2) those using wells as a
source; 3) those purchasing finished water as a source; and k) special
water supply systems. In the Cincinnati SMSA 56 community water supply
systems (see note on Table 5) serving about 1,28^,000 people, were
studied. These systems included 29 using wells, seven using surface
water, one using both surface and ground water, and 19 using purchased
finished water. The eight special water supply systems included in
this report use ground water.
Table 4 gives data on population, unsatisfactory parameters found,
source, average daily demand, and per capita use for the systems
included in this study. Table 5 shows the number of systems in each
source category by the treatment practiced, no treatment, disinfection,
disinfection and clarification or clarification. Table 6 shows
treatment practice by community size.
The tables of results showing the findings of the sarvitary survey,
the surveillance survey, and the water quality analyses tabulated by
water supply system are shown in Tables I, II, III, IV, V, and VI of
Appendix A and are summarized by Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
These tables show the following data:
Facilities Evaluation: Tables 7 and 8 (see Appendix A, Table II)
Thirty-seven of the V+ community systems serving a population of less
than 10,000 had adequate treatment. Eleven of the 12 systems serving
more than 10,000 persons had adequate treatment.
Generally, chlorination was provided to the community water systems
and was of adequate capacity. Adequate auxiliary chlorination equip-
ment, however, was not provided by 23 of the 37 source systems. Of
the eight systems serving trailer parks and institutions, four
provided chlorination.
Six of the eight surveyed systems serving a population of under 1,000
had satisfactory pressure and storage. Fourteen of the 25 systems
serving a population of more than ],000 and less than 5iOOO had
sati.sfactory pressure and storage:. Six of the ten system:; serving
tions from 5,000 to 10,000 had sal.i stactory distribution system:.;.
Tin: distribution systems o !' 10 sys .. ;ns o I' the ~.\? serving over .1.0,000
were sa I.is I'ac to ry . The spec ; -i i : :yst'-rris liad four :.;a t'i.::.fact,ory distribu-
tion systems and four unsatisfactory distribution systems.
-------
Table 4 - Summary Data on Community Water Supplies
SYSTEM
POPULATION
SERVED
UNSATISFACTORY
PARAMETERS
SOURCE
AVERAGE
DAILY DEMAND
WATER USE
(GPCD)
(see notes)
Population >10,000
Ohio
1 Cincinnati
2 Frank!i n
3 Indian Hill
4 MoG.S., Clermont Co.
5 Norwood
6 P.U.B. Clermont Co.
7 Reading
Kentucky
8 Campbell Cc -nty W.D. #1:
9 Coving-ton
10 Florence
.11 Kentpn County W.p.- #1
12 Newport
Population 5000 to 10000
Ohio
y'..Drfd-Hm1tn W^Dc Warren -Co.
H5 Lebanon
.16 lock land
\J Loyel and
1 8' ^a'son;
1/9 Wypm'i hg
850000
11000
15000
11900
31000
18000
15000
951900
M+000
64000
15000
.40000
35000
198000
1149900
5140
5050
6500
5300
7500
6200
10000
45690
b
a,e
a,d,h
a,g
a,f,h
a,d,e,f
a,b>f
Ohio River
Ground
Ground
Ground
See Cincinnati
Ground
Ground
See Newport
Ohio River
See.Kenton Co.
Licki;ng River
Ohio River
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
'Ground
112.60
1.
1.
0,
4.
1.
50
80
78
00
10
1.85
2.43
5.46
0.75
4.01
3.39
0.302
0,.360
1,050
1.020
0.570
0.250
0.900
132
136
120
66
129
61
123
55
85
50
100
97
59
71
160
190
76
40
90
-------
Table k (Cont'd)
SYSTEM
POPULATION
SERVED
UNSATISFACTORY
PARAMETERS
(see notes)
SOURCE
AVERAGE
DAILY DEMAND
WATER USE
CGPC-D)
Pop. .5000-10000 cont'd
Indi ana
20 Aurora
21 .Lawrenceburg
6300
5200
11500
f
f,g,h
Ground
Ground
0.517
0.250
82
k8
Kentucky
22 Ludlow
See Covington
Population 1000-5000
Ohi Q-
vn 23 Addyston
1 2k fi.-rtav.ia
25 Bethel
26 Cleves
27 Felicity
28 Franklin W.D. Warren, Co.
29 Glendale
30.Lbn-F;rk1n W.D. Warren .Co.
31 Milfo'rd
32 Morrow
33 New Richmond
3k South Lebanon
35 Spri.ngboro
36 Waynesville
,37 Wil 1 i.amsburg
1300
2200
3^00
5000
1^*60
2100
3000
4070
4530
1600
3500
2720
3000
1800
2200
+TS56"
a,e,g
b,g
a,b,c,f,h
a,e
a,d,f
a,e,g
die
a,b,c,g
a*eป9
9
d
Ground
E. Fork Little
Miami River
Reservoir
Ground
Ground
See Franklin
Ground
See Lebanon
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
E. Fork Little
Miami River
O.Oi+0
0.185
0.180
0.330
0.050
0.065
0.300
0.203
O.M+0
0.207
0.2^0
0.320
0.1.79
0.200
0.100
30
8k
53
66
3^
31
100
50
97
130
68
118
60
110
k6
-------
Table 'k '(Cont'd)
SYSTEM.
POPULATION
SERVED
UNSATISFACTORY
PARAMETERS
(see notes)
SOURCE
AVERAGE
DAILY DEMAND
WATER USE
(GPCD)
Pop. 1000-5000 cont'd
Indiana
38 Greendale
39 North Dearborn
*tO Tri-Township
Kentucky
Boone County
Bromley
Cold Spi ings
Highland Heights
SiIver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton.
Population <1000
Ohiฃ
k8 Epwpr th He i ght s
k9 Pennyryl W.D. Warren Co.
50vRoachstr W.D. Warren Co.
:51 Twig'htwee
Indiana
52 D-i 11 sboro
53 E't'rdd
180
990
60
T570
950
520
Ground
See Greendale
Ground
h
d,h
d,f,h
b,c,e,g
d,h
f
See Covington
See Ludlow
See Covington
See Campbel1
Ground
See Covington
Two Lakes
a,c,d,e,f,h
e,f
Ground
See Springboro
See Morrow
Ground
See Aurora
See Dillsboro
0.360
0.055
0.052
0.220
0.070
0.120
0.13P
0.060
0.060
0.100
0.005
6.026
0.033
0.058
0.022
109
28
29
62
63
32
kO
ko
56
27
26
52
61
42
-------
SYSTEM
POPULATION
SERVED
Table k (Cont'd)
UNSATISFACTORY
PARAMETERS
SOURCE
AVERAGE
DAILY DEMAND
WATER USE
(GPCD)
Pop._< 1000 cont'd
Kentucky
5^ Mentor W.D.
55 Wilder
56 Winston Park
Special Supplies
Ohio
Loiiton Trailer Park
Maple Leaf Mobile "Park
Mobile Manor Trailer Park
Otterbeih Home
Shadow Lake Trailer Park
Kentucky
Craig Trailer Park
River Ridge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
(see notes)
See Campbell Co. 0.030
No sanitary survey made - Source is Covington
d,f,h See Covington 0.0^+0
a,b,f
e,f
a,c,d,e,f,h
50
200
200
100
260
600
b,f
b,f,h
a,c,d,e,f,h
b,c
a,b,c,f
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
& Reservoi r
Ground
Ground
Ground
0.025
1+2
Notes: a. Inadequate source protection
b. Inadequate treatment capability
c. Low pressure areas
d. Poor maintenance
e. No daily chlorine residuals taken
f. Inadequate frequency of bacteriological sampling
. g. Poor bacteriological results
he Exceed recommended limits
-------
TABLE 5
WATER TREATMENT PRACTICES BY SOURCE
Treatment Practice
Do not disinfect,
clarify, or buy,
chlorinated water
Disinfection only or buy
chlorinated water
Clarifies! i on* and
di si nf ection
Cl ari fi cat ion*
without disinfection
System Total s -
Number
Type of System (Number of Systems each)
Surface
Water &
Mi xed
Source
0
0
8
0
8
Wei 1 s
3
8
17
1
29**
Wholesale
Fini shed
Water
Source
0
19
0
0
19
Special
Systems
k
2
2
0
8
Overall
Tot
Number
7
29
27
1
6k
System
:a1s
Percent
11
45
k2
2
100
"-''Clarification is the removal of suspended material by coagulation, sedimentation .and/or filtration.
**National CWSS report shows this number to be 31 due to reporting of the Springboro. system as two
.separate systems and the inclusion of Petersburg Coal Company as a community water supply.
Petersburg Coal Company was dropped from the data included in this report as were the other water
haulers.
-------
TABLE 6
WATER TREATMENT PRACTICES BY COMMUNITY SIZE
Treatment Practice
Do not disinfect,
cl ari f y, or buy
chlorinated water
Disinfection only or
buy chlorinated water
Cl ari f i cat ion* and
di sinf ectione
C 'l ari f i cat ion*
without d'i ".infection
System Total s -
Number
Population Served in Thousands
(Number of Systems of Each)
C.5
*5
3
2
0
1 o**
o5-5
2
17
12
1
32**
5-10
0
k
6
0
10
10-25
0
3
3
0
6
25-50 50-100
0
2
2
0
i+
0
0
1
0
1
>100
0
0
1
0
1
Overal 1 System
Totals
Number
7
29
27
1
6k
Percent
11
*ป5
U2
2
100
* Clarification is the removal of suspended material by coagulation, sedimentation and/or filtration.
--''These numbers were shown in The National CWSS report as 11 and 33 due to reporting of the Springboro
system as two separate systems and the inclusion of Petersburg Coal Company as a community water
supply. Petersburg Coal Company was dropped from the data included in this report as were the other
water haulers.
-------
TABLE 7
FACILITIES EVALUATION BY SOURCE
Essentially Free of
Major Deficiencies'1'
Major Deficiencies
Inadequate source protection
(Lacking disinfection or
buying inadequately disinfected
water )
Inadequate treatment (Lacking
disinfection for wells or lack-
ing adequate clarification and/
or disinfection for surface
suppl ies)
Low Pressure Areas
System Total - Number
' Type of System (All data are
percent of System Totals)
Sur'Face
Water &
Mixed
Source
75
25
0
13
0
8
Wells
45
55
45
21
17
29
Wholesale
Finished
Water
Source**
50
50
11
N.A.
6
18
Special
Systems
0
100
50
63
50
8
Overal 1 System
Totals
Number
28
35
19
12
10
63
Percent
kk
56
30
19
16
100
*See page 18.
N.A. Not Applicable.
*<'--*Wi Ider not surveyed.
-------
TABLE 8
FACILITIES EVALUATION BY COMMUNITY SIZE
Essential 1 y Free of
Major Oef iciencies*
Major Deficiencies'1'
Inadequate Source
Protection
Inadequate treatment
Low Pressure Areas
System Total s -
Number
Population Served in Thousands
(All data are percent of Size Totals
< .5
0
100
55
55
55
9
.5-5
Ul
59
25
16
13
32**
i>-10
60
i*0
ifO
10
0
10
10-25
33
67
33
17
17
6
:?5-30
100
0
0
0
0
k
50-100
100
0
0
0
0
1
)
>100
100
0
0
0
0
1
Overall System
Totals
Number
28
35
19
12
10
63
Percent
i+4
56
30
19
16
100
See page 13
''""'Wilder not surveyed.
-------
Operation and Surveillance Evaluation: Tables 9 and 10 (See Appendix A,
Table III)'
The data show that about 1/3 of the systems serving less than 5,000
people have inadequate operation (probably due to the small operating
funds available). Only two of the 22 systems serving more than 5,000
people were poorly maintained.
The surveillance of 29 community systems was rated satisfactory with
25 rated unsatisfactory, and two unknown. Daily chlorine residuals
were taken by l6 of the 22 systems serving more"than 5,000 people and
by 11 of the 3^ systems serving less than 5,000 people.
Public health surveillance of the water systems was inadequate.
Eleven of the 37 source systems had not been recently surveyed. To
improve surveillance, increases in the number and depth of regulatory
sanitary surveys, improved operator training, and an increase in the
number of full-time and certified operators are needed. To achieve
the goal of an increased number of sanitary surveys, each of the States
need increased fund-ing and numbers of positions within the public water
supply programs of the State and local regulatory agencies.
Bacteriological Surveillance: Tables 9 and 10 (See Appendix A, Table IV)
No system serving fewer than 1,000 persons collected adequate bacteriological
samples. Seven such systems collected samples less than nine months.
Twelve of the 25 systems serving populations between 1,000 and 5,000 persons. .
were not collecting a satisfactory number of samples. Six systems
either had collected samples in less than nine of the past 12 months
o,r had no records. Seven of these systems were not maintaining an
adequate chlorine residual in the distribution system as determined by
the averages of the samples taken during the survey.
Seven of the ten systems serving a population between 5,000 and 10,000
did not collect a sufficient number of bacteriological samples from the
distribution system during the past twelve months. One collected
.-.amples IOIDT, than nine months out oi' the last 12 months. Six were not
maintaining an adequate ch'.l.orino residual as determined by the average
o.l' the samples taken during the; survey.
Four of the 12 large systems (over 10,000 population) did not collect
an adequate number of samples during the past 12 months. Three of the
operator's contacted did not know how many months samples had been
collected from their distribution systems during the last twelve
because they depended upon the sampling program of the system from which
they purchased finished water.
A marked lack of attention and effort is directed by the water system
operators toward obtaining adequate bacteriological surveillance. This
was true for 21 of the systems. None of the systems serving trailer
parks and institutions had a satisfactory number of samples collected
-------
Table 9
Operation and Surveillance Evaluation by Source
Meet bacteriological
surveillance and
operation criteria
Do not meet bacteriolog-
ical surveillance and
operation criteria
Take less than 70% of
recommended # of samples
or samples less than 10
months/year
Unsatisfactory sample
results for one or more
months
Residual chlorine found
to be less than 0.1 ppm
Inadequate control of
disinfection
Poor maintenance
System totals - Number
Type of System (All data are percent of system totals)
Surface Water
& Mixed Source
75
25
13
13
13
0
13
8
Wells
2k
76
J>k
28
38
2k
21
29
Wholesale
Finished
Water' Source
21
79
60
11
21
28*
22*
19
Special
Systems
0
100
88
0
25
37
25
8
Overall System Totals
Number
17
k?
29
11
18
15
13
6k
Percent
27
73
^3
17
29
2k
21
100
*Wilder not surveyed
-------
Table 10
Operation and Surveillance Evaluation by Community Size
Meet bacteriological
surveillance and operatior
criteria
Do not meet bacteriolog-
ical surveillance and
operation criteria
Take less than ?0ฃ of
recommended number of
samples or sarrfl.s less
than 10 months per year
UnsH tisfactory sample
results for one or no re
months
Residual chlorine found
to be less than 0.1 ppin
Inadequate control of
disinfection
Poor maintenance
System totals' - Number
Population Served in Thousands (All data
are-& of Size Totals)
<-5
0
100
100
0
11
kk
kk
9
.5-5
21
79
kk
25
28
28*
22*
33
5-10
10
90
50
30
60
10
10
10
10-25
67
33
0
0
33
17
17
6
25-50
75
25
25
0
0
0
0
. k
50-100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
>100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
1
System
Overall/Totals
Number
17
. ^7
27
11
18
!5 J
13
6k
Percent
^3
17
29
2k
21
100
* Wilder not surveyed
-------
for the 12-month period and only one system had collected samples
more than six months out of the 12. All of the others had either
collected too few or had no records.
Water Quality Evaluation: Tables 11 and 12 (See Appendix A, Tables V, VI)
None of the 6^ systems sampled had unsatisfactory quality based on the
mandatory limits.
Three of the nine systems serving populations less than 1,000 had
finished water quality which exceeded the recommended limits. Five
of the 25 systems serving populations between 1,000 and 5ป000 had
unsatisfactory quality based on recommended limits. The ten systems
that each serve populations from 5,000 to 10,000 had three systems for
which some constituent exceeded a recommended limit. Ten of the large
systems (over 10,000 population) had satisfactory quality based on
recommended limits and two had unsatisfactory quality.
Thirteen systems had manganese contents exceeding the limits. Eight
of these resulted from one source system which has reportedly corrected
this defect through its treatment processes since the survey. The iron
limit was exceeded by two systems and the total dissolved solids limit
was exceeded by five systems. None of the excessive total dissolved
solids exceeded 600 parts per million.
The eight systems serving trailer parks and institutions had satisfactory
quality based on mandatory limits. Five had unsatisfactory quality
based on recommended limits.
-------
Table 11
Water Quality Evaluation by Source
Type of System (All data are percent
of System Totals)
Surface
Water &
Mixed
Source
Essentially *meet Constituent
Standards
Do not essentially meet
Constituent Standards
Exceeds one or more
recommended Constituent
Standard (some. are
aesthetic parameters)
Exceeds one or more
mandatory Constituent
Standard
System Totals - Number
83
12
12
0
8
Wells
76
2k
2k
0
29
Wholesale
Finished
Water
Source
63
37
37
0
19
Special
Systems
63
37
37
0
8
Overall
System Totals
Number
k6
18
18
0
6k
Percent
72
28
28
0 .
100
Note: 89 percent of the study population was served drinking water that essentially met the
. Constituent Standards.
*Average of sample results exceeds-Constituent Standards
-------
Table. 12
Water Quality Evaluation by Community Size
Essentially meet Constituent
Standards
Do not essentially meet
Constituent Standards
Exceeds one or more
recommended Constituent
Standard (some are
aesthetic parameters)
Exceeds one or is ore
niandatory Constituents
Standard
System Totals - Number
Population Served in Thousands (all data are %
of Size Totals
ฃ5
55
^5
^5
0
9
-5-5
76
2k
2k
0
33
5-10
60
^0
ko
0
10
10-25
83
17
17 ,
0
6
25-50
100
0
0
0
it
50-100
0
100
100
0
1
>100
100
0
" 0
0
1
System
Overall/Totals
Number
k6
18
18
0
6k
Percent
72
28
28
0
100
Note: 89 percent of the study population was served drinking water that essentially met the Constituent Standards.
-------
DISCUSSION
General - The 6k water supply systems surveyed .for the community
water supply study included 56 community water supply systems and
eight special water supply systems. The 56 community water supply
systems serve a total of about 1,284,000 people or 91 percent of
the total Cincinnati SMSA's population. The service of these systems
ranges from the 850,000 people served by the Cincinnati system to
the 60 people served by the Twightwee system.
A total of 1,110,000 people (79 percent of the SMSA population and
86 percent of those served by community water supply systems) are
served by 20 systems utilizing surface water. Three of the largest
systems are using the Ohio River as a source of raw water. The table
below shows the number of people served from this source.
Use of the Ohio River
Source System Retail Service Wholesale Service Total
Cincinnati, Ohio 850,000 31,000 (l) 88l ,000
Covington, Kentucky 64,000 16,790 (?)*. 80,790
Newport, Kentucky 35,000 48,650 (3) 83,650
Total 9^9,000 96,440 (ll) 1,045,440
* Includes Wilder
Wholesale service refers to people served by systems purchasing water
from the source system. The number of systems are shown in parentheses.
The three source systems serve a total of about 1,045,000 people or
?4 percent of the SMSA population and 8l percent of those served by
community water supply systems. The two other river sub-basins which
drain the Cincinnati SMSA are the Little Miami-Great Miami and the
Licking - Kentucky - Salt basins. Batavia, Bethel, and Williamsburg
draw water from the Little Miami River Basin to serve 7>800 people.
Kenton County Water District #1 and Walton draw water from the Licking -
Kentucky - Salt system to serve 56,800 people (Florence purchases
water from the Kenton system).
Ground water is abundant in the flood plain areas of the SMSA and is,
therefore, used by mo;st of the systems serving up to 20,000 people due
to the quality and ease of development. Twenty-nine of the 33 systems
having a raw water source and nerving le.su than ,".'0,000 people use ground
water. About IV 4 ,000 people or 14 percent of those served by community
water pimply systems u.r;e ground water supplied by 36- systems.
During periods of low flow both the Ohio and many of its' tributaries
carry significant pollution concentrations. With the exception of
taste and odor causing contaminants, the Ohio River is apparently
large enough to provide adequate dilution during periods of normal flow.
- 38 -
-------
With proper flow regulation and secondary sewage treatment of pollution
sources, the Ohio River is expected to remain an adequate and relatively
good source. The taste and odor so often associated with use of the
Ohio River is probably the greatest deterrent to expansion of the
Cincinnati service area into areas now served by small systems which
utilize ground water. The people served by these small systems seem
to be generally well satisfied and proud of their water quality despite
the fact that their water cost is higher, maintenance of the systems is
poorer, and hazards associated with their use are generally higher.
Of course these disadvantages are generally unknown to the public.
In reviewing the data three water haulers and one system serving a
light industry were dropped from the data tabulations included in
the text of this report as not being appropriate for the definition of
public water supply system. The data also showed the Springboro Mill
Street Supply to have a per capita use of 29 gallons per day and the
Springboro Chautaugua supply to have a per capita use of 118 gallons
per day. Since it is highly unlikely that two systems operated in the
same area under the same management with no difference in water cost
would have such widely different use and since the two systems are
known to be separated only by a valve, it has been assumed that the
two systems operate as one system. Both systems are, therefore,
tabulated as one system. Wilder is not included in the tabulations for
sanitary survey data because no sanitary survey was-made.
The average water usages per capita per day varied from 26 to 190
gallons and are listed in Table ^, page 2^f, for each system. Where
possible the data was adjusted for industrial use. Lockland and
Lebanon show uses of 190 and 160 gallons per capita per day which are
considered excessive and probably reflect our inability to deduct
industrial use. "Population served" data were checked against
estimates available from the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Planning
Authority. From this comparison estimates of populations served for
Covington, Kenton County, and Newport were revised to 6^,000,^0,000,
and 35,000 respectively. All estimated usages are high to varying
degrees because figures for leakage and commercial and public use'
were not available for most of the systems.
Evaluation of Systems - Each system was evaluated with regard to
source, treatment, distribution system, operation and operators,
surveillance, bacteriological quality, and chemical, physical and
radiological quality. These determinations are assembled by. public
water supply systems in Tables II, III, IV, V and VI and are sum-
marized in Table I, Appendix A.
Source - Adequacy of the quantity of raw water available was .determined
where possible by the maxirmim dependable draft for ground water supplies
and by the safe yield impounded for surface supplies. For most supplies
these values were unknown to water supply officials and determination,
of the adequacy of developed quantity available often depended on the
past experience of the operator. Quantity available from the Ohio
River was considered unlimited. Table II of Appendix A shows there
-------
appears to be an adequate quantity of both surface and ground water
available to the area.
Evaluation of the protection provided to the sources of supply
included consideration, of administrative control of the watersheds,
of impounded waters, discharge of wastes directly into the surface
waters near raw water intakes, the location of wells relative to
possible pollution sources, and construction details of wells.
In many cases records regarding well construction details did not
exist or were not readily available and water supply officials knew
very little about the wells in question. For instances where records
were not available and water supply officials could not supply any
information protection was considered inadequate. Source protection
was considered to be a relatively important parameter where the supply
did not provide adequate treatment or where plant bypasses were present.
Treatment - Conventional treatment consisting of coagulation, sedimenta-
tion, filtration and disinfection is normally considered necessary for
the treatment of surface water sources. Treatment for ground water
sources normally includes disinfection often coupled with iron removal
or hardness removal processes. Because of its importance disinfection
was separated from the other treatment processes in Table II.
Chlorination was the only means of disinfection employed by the systems
surveyed.
Nineteen systems maintain distribution systems and purchase finished
water from another system. For example, Dillsboro Water Works, Indiana
purchases piped finished water from Aurora Utilities,- Indiana. The
treatment capacity of such systems was judged to be adequate if the .
treatment facilities of the source system were adequate. For Dillsboro,
the system was judged to have adequate disinfection capacity except
for standby equipment. The auxiliary chlorination capabilities were
shown to be inadequate because neither Dillsboro nor Aurora, the source,
have adequate auxiliary chlorination equipment.
The adequacy of other treatment processes was determined by evaluation
of capacities of chemical feeders, detention times, and available
volumes versus the average and maximum demands for the supply. This
determination was made by the engineer doing the sanitary survey.
Surface water supply treatment was judged to be unsatisfactory where
inadequate treatment processes or inadequate auxiliary chlorination
capacity was provided. Ground water treatment was considered un-
satisfactory if the chlorination capacity was inadequate.
Distribution and Finished Water Storage - In the evaluation of the . '.
adequacy of the distribution system, finished water storage and
pressure were considered. Storage was evaluated on the basis of:'
a. A minimum of one (iay'r, (Jornand of finisho.-d water capable of
-------
flowing into the system by gravity or by use of standby power
was deemed necessary in case of an emergency.
b. The storage reservoir should be properly covered, vents
screened, and sufficiently inaccessible to protect it from
vandalism to reduce the probability of contamination to a minimum'.
A minimum pressure of 20 psi in all parts of the distributing system
was considered necessary for the pressure to be adequate. Adequate
pressure in the distribution pipes reduces chances of contamination
by cross-connections and leaks in pipes. The maintenance of adequate
pressure in the system was considered the most important parameter for
distribution.
Operation and Surveillance - Adequate operation and surveillance is
necessary for all water systems to insure the production of potable
water and safe delivery to the consumer at all times.
Three items from the sanitary survey were considered to be of primary
importance in the evaluation of adequate operation: certification of
tho operator, presence of a full-time operator, and plant maintenance.
Since programs to eliminate cross-connections and obtain complete
chemical analyses are rare for community water supply systems these two
factors were given the least weight in judging adequacy of operation and
surveillance respectively. Under operation, maintenance as judged
by the surveying engineer was considered the most important parameter.
Operation was also considered unsatisfactory if a part-time uncertified
operator was responsible for running the system.
Surveillance adequacy was judged by frequency of the measurement of
chlorine residuals (minimum of daily), chemical analyses performed, and
completion of a sanitary survey by the State at least three years
prior to the study date.
Under surveillance the most important factor with regard to evaluating
the system was the recording of daily chlorine residuals. The taking
of daily chlorine residuals is not practiced by many plant operators.
This practice was not considered as important if tho system purchased
water from another system whose operator did record at least daily
ch'l orinc rerdduals.
Bacteriological Evaluations - The three parameters utilized for the
bacteriological evaluations were the number of samples collected in
the twelve month period preceding the survey, the regularity of sampling
and the results of analyses for the aforementioned twelve month period,
and results of samples (along with chlorine residuals, if applicable)
collected during the sanitary survey.
The minimum number of bacteriological samples to be collected on the
distribution system each month is the number recommended as the minimum
by the U. S. Public Health Service "Drinking Water Standards." If the
total number of bacteriological samples collected during the twelve
months preceding the survey was not greater than 69 percent of the
-------
recommended annual minimum, sampling was considered unsatisfactory.
If the system had not collected samples more than eight of the past
twelve months or if the results were unsatisfactory one or more of
these months the bacteriological evaluation was considered un-
satisfactory.
Finally the results of the bacteriological samples collected from the
distribution systems and the chlorine residuals, where applicable,
were evaluated. None of the samples taken'from the distribution system
during the study exceeded the Standards. Where inadequate chlorine
residual was found for a chlorinated system, the survey results were
considered unsatisfactory. A 0.1 mg/1 residual for the average of
the distribution samples taken was considered the minimum for
satisfactory survey results.
Chemical, Physical, and Radiological Analyses - Table V and Table VI
list the results of the chemical analyses performed on the samples
collected during the survey. All of those constituents for which the
"Drinking Water Standards" had either a "recommended limit" or a
"mandatory limit" with the exception of phenols, barium, and taste and
odor are listed. Boron and certain pesticide (see page 20) analyses
were also made. If more than one sample was analyzed for a particular
constituent the value listed is the mean value. A dash mark means the
result was zero and an X means no analysis was made. The recommended
and mandatory limits, as set forth in the "Drinking Water Standards,"
are shown on the tables.
Only the systems having surface water as a'raw water source had samples
which were analyzed for either pesticides or by the carbon adsorption
method. In some instances, systems purchasing finished water from
another system had no radiochemical or wet chemistry analyses performed
because it was felt that there would be no change in these constituents
once the water was in the distribution system.
Water quality was evaluated using the recommended limits (Tables V
and VI) and the mandatory limits (Table VI). If any one constituent
exceeded a limit by an amount greater than the degree of accuracy for
the analysis, then the quality was considered unsatisfactory.
Watorho.rnc Disease - Individuals contacted in the Status of Indiana,
Kentucky, arid Ohio indicated that they-had no records or knowledge of
any waterborne disease outbreaks in the Cincinnati SMSA in the past
twenty years.
Review of information collected casually by Public Health Service
personne'J. on the subject of waterborne outbreaks occurring in the
United States revealed that at least two probable waterborne outbreaks
had occurred within the past ten years.
-------
An outbreak of infectious hepatitus occurred in a new federal housing
project in Cincinnati in late 1963- Epidemiological data indicated
that the outbreak was waterborne.
In early 196^ an elementary school using cisterns for drinking water
was closed due to an epidemic of enteric virus. Public health
officials believing that the outbreak was caused by contaminated
drinking water required reconstruction of the system.
The lack of knowledge within State water supply programs regarding
disease outbreaks potentially attributable to water supply systems
indicates that mechanisms for bringing such data to the attention
of these authorities and for systematically recording such instances
are limited.
State Water Supply Programs - The Cincinnati SMSA includes portions
of three states, all of which have slightly different water supply
programs. '
Indiana - Responsibility for the surveillance of public water supply
systems is delegated to the Water Supply Section in the Bureau of
Environmental Sanitation of the Indiana State Board of Health.
The legal basis for the authority of the Water Supply Section is
contained in the Indiana Public Health Code (Acts of 19^9? Chapter
157, as amended), the Indiana Conservancy District Act (Acts of 1957*
Chapter 308, as amended and supplemented), and the Acts of 1963i
Chapter 91ป as amended.
The Water Supply Section executes its program from the central office
in Indianapolis. There are three men, including the Chief of the
Section, who work in the central office. In addition the Section'
is assisted in field inspections of water by "three part-time and one
full-time personnel. The three part-time men are professionally
trained and handle various activities, such as sewage works inspections
and swimming pool inspections and other State environmental health
work, in addition to their public water supply inspections. Two of
these three men work from their home::; and only report, in to the central
oJ'.l.'iee occasionally. The l.'ull-tj.rne man was a small water work;;
r,upervi:-,or for several years, arid works from his home reporting regularly
to the cent ral o f fice.
Laboratory services are provided by the Water and Sewage Laboratory in
the Division of Laboratories. State officials indicated that the
Laboratory, although limited in capability, worked very closely with
the Water Supply Section.
Activities of the State include in-service training, certification of
water works operators, plans review for new construction and improvements
to water systems, and providing information for and review and comments
on comprehensive basin surveys. Also provided are assessment of damage
-------
and supervision of emergency operation and rehabilitation during
periods of disaster.
Certification of water supply operators is voluntary, but is encouraged
by the Indiana State Board of Health.
Kentucky - Responsibility for the surveillance of public water supply
systems is delegated to the Sanitary Engineering Program in the
Division of Environmental Health of the Kentucky Department of Health.
The Sanitary Engineering Program is responsible for the proper design,
operation, maintenance and promotion of all municipal water supply
systems, including water districts, fluoridation installations, inter-
state carrier watering points, and public swimming pools. The engineers
in the program review plans and specifications on public water supplies
and swimming pools; conduct periodic field inspections of these
facilities; interpret biological and chemical results of water samples;
and evaluate monthly water plant operational reports. The functions
of the program are authorized in IRS 211.180 and are delineated in the
regulations on Kentucky Public Water Supplies and Fluoridation, and
Kentucky Public Swimming Pools.
At the present time the Sanitary Engineering Program is administered
through the central office and one district office. Other district
offices will be established as soon as funds and manpower are available.
The Sanitary Engineering Program presently includes a director, four
engineers, and one assistant. Three of the engineers, the director
and the assistant work in and from the central office, while the fourth
engineer mans the Western District Office.
All laboratory services are provided by the Division of Laboratories.
Certification of water supply operators and fluoridation of systems
serving more than 3,000 people is mandatory in the State of Kentucky.
At the present time the program averages 1.2 inspections per system per
year. Present program objectives are to provide a minimum of four
inspections per system per year. It is felt that such a program will
assure proper operation and maintenance of the State's community water
supply systems.,
Training programs for the water plant operators are sponsored annually
by the Sanitary Engineering Program. Regional training schools organized
by the Water and Sewage Plant Operators Association are assisted and
guided by the engineering staff.
The program is continually upgrading and revising its public water
supply and fluoridation regulations, and formulating new policies and
procedure,1;; consistent with modern trends.
fi
-------
Ohio - Primary responsibility for the surveillance of public water
supply systems is delegated to the Water Supply Unit in the Division
of Engineering of the Ohio Department of Health.
The Water Supply Unit enforces Sections 3701, Sections 6lll, and other
related Sections of the Ohio Revised Code pertaining to plans approval,
prevention of pollution, and general supervision of ?80 community
water supply systems. Sixty of these are distribution systems. The
Water Supply Unit is responsible for the community water supply system
and consults with the General Engineering Unit on semi-public systems.
The Unit also consults with the Division of Sanitation on technical
aspects of domestic private water supply programs.
Semi-public water supply systems (trailer parks and institutions) fall
under the surveillance of county health departments which are certified
by the Division of Sanitation. Plans for such systems are reviewed and
approved by the General Engineering Unit of the Division of Engineering.
The central office of the Waber Supply Unit has one engineer-in-charge,
one engineer responsible for operation and maintenance of all supplies,
one engineer responsible for all design and plan approvals, and one
engineer technician on data processing and special problems. It is
estimated that the equivalent of four (4) full-time engineers are
available for inspections in the four district offices. State officials
estimate this is 50% of the personnel needed to do a fair job of
surveillance and promotion. In addition to their own staff the Water
Supply Unit utilizes the assistance of county agencies, where qualified
personnel are available. Two particular areas where county personnel
are used are sample collection and surveillance of large institutions
and small community water supply systems.
To provide adequate surveillance of the community water supply systems,
State officials believe each system should be inspected at least once
per year and more often where problems exist. Approximately 50 percent
of the public water supply systems have been inspected each year by
State personnel for the last several years, due to a lack of adequate
number;:, of trained personnel to do the job. This percentage increased
to about 80 percent during 1968.
Tra:i niri|_'; ol.' water supply operator:; at the State level is accomplished
through the Operators Training Committee of Ohio and the Certification
Advisory Board. Certification of water supply operators is mandatory.
Laboratory services for the Water Supply Unit are provided by the
Bureau of Laboratories of the Ohio Department of Health.
Fluoridation - Six systems in the Cincinnati Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area were found to be fluoridating at the time of the
field survey. Three of these six systems were selling water to other
systems so a total of ten systems were providing fluoridated water
to their consumers.
-------
SYSTEM ESTIMATED POPULATION
Aurora Utilities, Indiana 6,300
*Dillsboro Water Works, Indiana 950
*Elrod Water Corporation, Indiana 520
**Florence Water {'< Sewer Commission, Ky. 15,000
Glendale Water Works, Ohio , 3,000
Greendale Utilities, Indiana 3i300
Indian Hill Water Works, Ohio 15,000
Kenton County Water District #1, Ky. ^0,000
***North Dearborn Water District, Indiana 2,000
Wyoming Water Works Ohio 10,000
Total Population \ 96,070
*Aurora Utilities water
**Kenton County Water District #1 water
***Greendale Utilities, water
The population receiving fluoridated water represents approximately
7% of the population of the SMSA or 8% of the population served by
community water supply systems.
The Public Health Service "Drinking Water Standards," (1962 revision)
recommend a fluoride content range from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/1, based on a
mean maximum daily temperature of 66.1 F. The recommended fluoride
concentration varies with temperature because the average person's
water intake varies with the temperature.
Only three of the 20 samples collected from the ten systems providing
fluoridated water, were not within the recommended limits (all three
were low).
An additional six systems indicated their water contained a certain
amount of natural fluorides. Two of these six systems sell water
to other systems, therefore, eight systems were aware that the water
they were providing to their consumers contained small amounts of
natural fluoride.
Table 13 - Natural Fluoride in Water Supplies
SYSTEM MEASURED INDICATED F ESTIMATED
F LEVEL LEVEL POPULATION
H;\l;ov ia 0.17 pprn 0.2 pprn 2,200
0:i.nc:.i.im.Mt i . ' O.20 ppm ().,"' ppm 8r;O,OOO
liHlMMOII O. ','| ppfM (>.("> pplll ("i, '.()('>
* l,,.|i;iMMli-!'Y:iliU'l ill W.'il.i-r Hi ;:l. ri .:!. O..'(, |>plil O.I. p|>ill 'l,O','<>
' * N.n-win M| o., i,,1:11 V| ,(>OO
.''.iiiil.li I .I'li.'iin HI o.i1. |i|iin O.'.i ppni .',V'-'O
W.-iyin ..".v i I I ! o.l'/ jipin i)..1 jipin 'I,Sou
W i I I i.: i in;: I ii i rj.r o.l'i ppm o.,1 ppm .'',;'()(.)
'I'ol.Ml . ')00, V;)(")
* I'll ri.:ll,-.i;:i- I' i II i ; :||i ( I W.'ll.cf rrnill I ,.-I in 11( i II
* * I'll iv.lii'i: :i: I' i.ll i i ;l-i -i I w.'il.rr I'l'iiiii (', i in : i lltl.'i I. i
. hi. .
-------
The total population served by the above listed systems represents
6k% of the SMSA or 70% of those served by community water supply
systems. The fluoride concentration found in the samples collected
during the survey approximated that indicated by the water supply
officials except for Lebanon and South Lebanon, Ohio. The fluoride
concentration found in the samples collected during the survey was
considerably lower than the concentration indicated in each case.
The results from the chemical analysis performed on the samples,
collected during the survey (Table VI) indicated that every system
surveyed produced water containing a small amount of fluoride
(0.09 - 0.31 ppm)
None of the sources for the systems surveyed in the Cincinnati SMSA
have a natural fluoride content in excess of O.k ppm. There is,
therefore, no need for any of the systems to practice defluoridation.
On the other hand no supply had natural fluoride present in the
optimum range. The addition of small amounts of fluoride is, therefore,
desirable to raise the fluoride levels to this optimum range.
Fluoridation Law - The State of Ohio has enacted a fluoridation law
titled, "Ohio Statewide Fluoridation Act." This fluoridation law
became effective November 19, 1969- The law states that the fluoride
content of the water shall not be less than 0.8 ppm or greater than
1.3 ppm. The plan for implementation is that systems serving 20,000
or more persons and having a natural fluoride content less than 0.8
ppm shall commence fluoridation not later than January 1, 1971.
Systems serving 5,000 but less than 20,000 people and having a natural
fluoride content of less than 0.8 ppm shall be practicing fluoridation
not later than January 1, 1972. Though fluoridation is not mandatory
for systems serving fewer than 5,000 people, it is encouraged.
The Indiana State Board of Health has gone on record as favoring i
fluoridation of public water supply systems. Their regulations are
set forth in a document entitled, "Policy and Standards for Fluoridation
of Public Water Supplies." They recommend a fluoride concentration
of 1.0 ppm.
The Kentucky Department of Health has a law which makes fluoridation
mandatory for public water supply systems serving more than 3^000
people. This law became effective July 22, 1966 and recommends an
optimum fluoride content of 1.2 ppm, with limits of 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm.
Two of the; systemn surveyed during the study, Covington Municipal
Water Supply ;:;orvin/j; 6'i,000 peop.l <-*. arid Newport Munir::ipnl Wntcvr Supply
: :< rv i u/j; '>'),OOO people, were riot1, in eornp] inriee with thi;: I'.l uori.dn t i on
I . i w.
i l.y WMl.iT :iu|jpl.y .".y,-.; 1.1 MM WM:'; judged
n ixuil.rol proj.'ii'.'im :i. I':
-------
l) The community had a plumbing code or other regulations
prohibiting Connections or arrangements by which liquids, streams,
waters, gases, or chemicals of unsafe, unknown or questionable
quality may be discharged or drawn into the public water supply.
2) There is!a continuous cross-connection survey program,
providing for periodic reinspection of potentially hazardous
places, to detect health hazards and sanitary defects within the
water distribution system.
Only one of the 56 community water supply systems surveyed during the
study was found to have a continuous cross-connection control program.
The other 55 community water supply systems had a partial cross-
connection control program. That is, they had proper regulations and
someone, usually i\ building inspector, performed a plumbing inspection
on new construction or major remodeling. However, there were no
periodic reinspections.
In connection with the study a special cross-connection investigation
was conducted in iSach system serving more than 100,000 people or one
in each of the nine study areas. In the Cincinnati SMSA such investiga-
tions were conducted in the Cincinnati, Ohio system and the Covington,
Kentucky system. --It was later learned that Covington did not serve
over 100,000 people. The results of the two investigations were as
follows: ;
Cincinnati, Ohio -;- A continuous program to detect health hazards and
sanitary aeiecrs within this distribution system does not exist.
Inspection by city building department authorities was on new
construction only! The plumbing inspection department was under-staffed.
None of the present inspectors have received any specialized training
in the detection or prevention of cross-connections. From the number
of hazards observed during this brief investigation, the lack of a
cross-connection control program must be judged a deficiency. Much
more emphasis is needed.
Covington, Kentucky - The contact in this survey was the county health
officer. IMO specific cross-connection control program existed within
the water department or the local health department. The health
officer contacted;had many varied responsibilities, including all
aspects of plumbing. The Kentucky State Plumbing Law, Regulations
and Code liar; boon; adopted by I; he hea] th department, huh available r.haJT
eqna I.e ho I'iromoI.e .'i r,r\ h i ,'" IVic ho r.y program. 'I'lio 11 r/..:i nI; dirhec.h'-iJ
i n; :pi'c.l. i i in wen: i in I i c.-i I. i v < ill' I,lie need li'ir ,'i <: roi;; i-comicc I1, i I'MI
-------
Reported Complaints - Table 1^ shows the consumer's complaints that
were cited by the system operators as most often occurring.
Table 1^ - Primary Customer Complaints
Complaints Systems
Chlorine (5) and other taste and odor 15
High water rates 13
Colored water due to iron 7
Incorrect billing 5
Main breaks 2
Hardness 2
Turbidity 2
Low pressure 1
Excluding the five systems citing taste and odor complaints related
to the use of chlorine, the taste and odor complaint was the primary
complaint for 10 systems, more than any other water quality related
complaint. This was to be expected since the reason for choosing the
Cincinnati SMSA .as a study area was its past history of organics and
odor problems. It is interesting to note that five of the systems
naming taste and odor complaints used surface sources and five used
ground water sources. Every system (3) using the Ohio River cited
taste and odor as the primary complaint. Use of the East Fork of the
Little Miami River produced most complaints for one system. A system
served by two small.lakes also cited taste and odor complaints. Two
of the five ground water systems citing taste and odor complaints, had
a mineral content which exceeded recommended limits, iron for one and
manganese for the other. It is probable that the taste and odor
problems in the ground water were caused by minerals, though this was
not substantiated. Tastes and odors, though sometimes quite troublesome,
can usually be decreased or eliminated by proper treatment. The
primary consideration about tastes and odors from a health standpoint
is that consumers may reject a safe, yet undesirable water, for one
that is unsafe but less objectionable aesthetically.
Seven systems cited complaints about the quantity of iron in the
water as being most prevalent. None of the systems citing consumer
complaints about iron had excessive (greater than 0.3rng/l) iron in the
samples collected during the survey. This indicates the complaints
resulted from lack of corrosion control. Iron often imparts an
objectionable taste to the water and can stain both laundry and
fixtures. The amount of iron in water likely to cause objectionable
taste or laundry staining (as much as 0.3 mg/l) constitutes only a
small fraction of the amount normally consumed and isn't likely to
have a toxicological effect. Methods of treatment for iron removal
and corrosion control are available.
Other water quality related complaints cited as most prevalent were
about hardness (2) and turbidity (2). The total number of systems
citing water quality complaints as being most prevalent was 26.
-------
Sysbemc citing complaints, about high water rater, totaled thirteen (13).
There seemed to be no correlation between the actual rates and such
complaints because some of the systems having very low rates cited
such complaints as being most prevalent. Of course, the manner in
which data on most prevalent complaints were collected (asking the
operator what the most prevalent 'complaint by the consumers was)
gives the data* no statistical significance. In genora.1 , however, the
data regarding the status of the water works facilities in the Cincinnati
SMSA indicate that more funds should be made available to public water
supply systems for improvement.
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLES OF RESULTS BY SYSTEMS
_ '",1 -
-------
Table I - Evaluation of Systems
Water Systeir.s
Population > 10,000
-
Ohio
Cincinnati
Franklin
Indian Hill
Miami! -Goshen-Stonelick
Norwood
Pierce- Union- Batavia
Reading
Kentucky
Campbell Co. W. D. ฃl
Covington
Florence
Kenton Co. W. D. #1
Newport
Table II
i)
U
JH
JI3
O
C7
q
s
s
u
s
s
TT
s
g
u
u
s
-p
c
X'
e
f^
a)
0)
J-l
t~
3
U
S
s
c;
S
S
s
3
S
S
s
c
o
H
-P
3
,^0
^H
JH
-P
m
H
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
u
s
s
Table II
c
o
H
-P
05
(U
o^
o
S
S
s
s
-
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
a;
o
c
as
H
r-!
H
4)
^
j^
b
CO
S
S
s
u
u
s
s
u
s
u
s
s
Table IV-
12 mo. record
H
'O H
U I W
^ -p 1 -p
0) 0 1 ^H
,O OJ 1 ฃ3
e -<
3 >H
zz o
o
S
S
- S
S
-
s
s
u
s
s
s
s
to
(U
0^
s
s
s
s
-
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
>3 W
0) .p
M ฃ3
3 to
w u
OH
S
u
s
s
-
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
Table V & Table VI
>3 tO
Cr-l
O 0)
-P 0
05 *H
'O E
C QJ
S O
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
0)
C a)
0) PC
fc *
O r-4
O O
0) C
CC -H
3
S
S
S
s
s
u
s
u
s
s
s
rH
0)
o
H
CO
S
S
s
s
Q
3'
I s
S
S
s
s
s
-------
Table I - Evaluation of Systems
Water Systems
5000 < population
^ 10000 "
Ohio
ite-srfleld- Hamilton "'ฃ
iiarrison
Lebanon
Lockland
Love land
Mason
Wyoming
Indiana
Aurora
Lawrenceburg
Kentucky
Lud low
Table II
0)
CJ
JH
1
u
u
u
s
U
u
u
s
s
s
-p
c
o
e
-p
05
0)
Er*1
s
s
s
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
c
o
H
p
H
fa
p
(0
H
Q
R
s
s
b
s
s
s
s
s
s
Table III
c
o
H
p
Q]
0) -P
,0 O
1= o>
& i-H
0
u
S
U
U
S
U
S
S
u
u
s
(0
-p
^
tc
0)
cc
U
S
S
S
S
u
s
s
u
s
U)
(U rH
r" 3
^ u
3 0)
CO K
U
u
u
s
u
S
U
S
S
U
Table V & Table VI
>, w
0 o5
-P o
0) -H
-0 E
C 0)
ปs!! o
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Q; .
c a
0) (X
O H
O O
0) C
K -H
S
u
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
U
Q}
u
H
to
J?
p-1
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
-------
Table I - Evaluation of Systems
Water Systems
100Q<
population & 5000
Ohio
Addyston
Batavia
Bethel
Cleves
Felicity
Franklin W.D.
Glendale
Lebanon Franklin W.D.
l-'ilford
Morrow
New Richmond
South Lebanon
Springboro
Waynesville
Williamsburg
Indiana
Greendale
North Dearborn
Tri Township
Kentucky
Boone Co. W.D.
Bromley
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill .
Walton '
Table II
(U
CJ
JH
ฃ3
o
CO
U
S
S
S
u
s
u
u
s
s
s
u
u
s
s
u
u
u
s
s
.s
s
s
s.
''- S
p
c
0)
E
-P
0)
Qj
Q
u
s
s
s
u
s
u
s
s
s
u
s
s
s
u
s
s
u
s
u
u
s
u
-u
Sv
0)
CJ
c
f 1
H
Q_)
>
JH
3
CO
U
s
s
s
u
u
s
u
s
s
u
s
u
s
s
s
u
s
u
u
U ;
u
s
, u
g
Table IV
12mo. record
T3
t-i V
0) -P
f 0
E o
3 r-!
^ H
0
O
S
S
S
s
u
s
u
s
^s>
s
s
s
s
s .
s
s
s
s
u
s
U :
U
S
U
.u
w
-p
tH
ฃ3
w
IX
u
s
u
s
s
s
s
u
s
s
s
u
u
u
s
s
u
s
s
s :
;
-
u
f*
o
s
>>ia
i CO
^ 1 1
0 rt
P 0
n5 -H
rCJ E
C OJ
M ^r;
2, C_)
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
.s '
s
s
s
T3
T3 T3
C 0)
0) K
E
O i !
o o
0) C
CC -H
s
S
S
S
u
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
u
u
u .
s ;
s
u
s
^
05
o
H
in
r\
pM
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
s .
-------
Table 1 - ^valuation of Systems
Water Systems
Population < 1000
. -.:.'---. Heights
/-...-.-.-royal W.D.
>>?,. .c-i-ter V.'.D.
I riiiana
T~ - - -
El re i
. _ , ;..
wins ten Park
a
Source
U
U
S
s
s
s
s
'able n
Treatment
U
S
S
s
S
s
s
c
0
rH
-P
"H
w
H
Q
U
S
S
u
s
s
s
s
Table
c
o
CJ
d?
S
S
s
s
s
n
III
Surveillance
S
U
U
TT
U
u
U
u
U
Ti
Number
Collected
U
S
u
u
s
u
u
u
ible I\
Results
S
S
s
S
-
/
w
0) rH
3
-------
Table I - evaluation of
r
Snecial
-ป
c "" 3 ^ s :i:S
*"
on 10
Ictton
-"JGi _' .1. ~ ~CX
Mcb :;:.-;- Xancr
^y~ "L ; JT' C' '3 ^L - i i~~ O IT; ^?
s:-:adc-,.- I*:-;-
- ~.'f\~ uckv
rr-a-i - 7-s-:-, a-r FB v-fc
River P.idge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
Table II
0
O
ฃ_(
pj
O
CO
S
S
u
s
T T
I!
S
u
-p
fl
0
s
-p
CD
0
t.
ฃ-i
U
u
s
u
s
u
s
u
o
H
-<
o
H
ฃ_,
-p
H
o
s
s
u
u
u
s
s
u
Table lil
a
o
-p
cS
H
0
O|
Q
U
u
u
u
u
u
s
u
u
c
CO
. |
H
O
>
5_^
^
C.Q
S
S
U
s
s
s
u
u
Table IV
r&
O
ฃH _O
0 CJ
JD 0
E rH
3 , i
Z O
U
U
TT
S
u
U
. u
u
in
-P
r 1
^
M
0
rv*
_
-
S
-
s
s
CO
>} -p
0 rH
> 3
SH W
3 0
CO PS
S
s
u
s
u
s
s
s
Table V & Table VI
>: '.0
S- r-i
O CCS
-P O
OS -H
"O t:
C 0
Oj -C
!?" ' "*
S
S
- -
S
s
s
s
s
o
"3 TJ
S ctf
O PH
C
E
O rH
O O
0 C
CH i t
S
U
u
s
s
s
s
1J
, i
03
o
-H
^r.
^
c~{
0-i
S
S
_
(t
b
S
s
g
u
-------
Table II Facilities Appraisal
Population ป 10000
Ohio'
Cincinnati
Franklin
Indian Hill
Mlami-Goshen -Stone lick
Pierce- Union- Batavia
Reading
Kentucky
Campbell Co. W.D. ฃl
Covington
Florence
Ken ton Co. W.D. j;l
Newport
Source
Quant .
A
A
A
A
("MnrH
A
I
TTewpo
A
Kento
A
A
Protect.
A
A
A
T
A
I
.+
A
i County
I
A
Rating
S
S
S
U
S
U
S
Jater Diฃ
U
S
Treatment
Processes
A
None
A
None
A
I
A
trict #1 -
A
A
CThlorination
Cap.
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Auxil.
A
None
None
None
A
None
A
A
A
Rating
S
U
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Distribution
Storage
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
Pressure
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
Rating
S
S
S
S
q
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
-------
Table II Facilities Appraisal
1000 >
Population < 5000
Ohio
Addyston
Batavia
Bethel
Cleves
Felicity
Gl end ale
Mil ford
''or.OOV.'
Nov.- Richmond
South Lebanon
Springboro
-''ft.ynesvi.r
V/illi amsbnrg
Indiana
Greendale
Tri-Township
Kentucky .
3oone Coป WปD
Brorri~i ey
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton
Source
'c/U 3J1T
A
A
A
A
A
ri
A
A
L,
A
A
A
A
~ - - -; "i ,-,
Covir
'_/3-iT;Tj C
_i-i
Covir
-^
Frctect .
i
ri
A
A4
T
1
A
A
A
I
I
A
A
t-i.
I
~c=1 a
I
PJ^W-II
ell Count
A
n.
A
Rating
U
s
s
s
U
U
s
s
s
U
U
s
s
U
U
Y W.D. #1
S
s
Processes
None
A
I
A
None
I
A
A
I
None
I
None
A
A
A
I
A
Treatment
Chlorination
Cap.
A
A
A
A
None
A
A
A
A
None
A
A
A
A
A
None
A
Auxil.
None
A
None
A
None
None
None
A
None
None
A
A
A
A
None
None
A
Rating
S
S
U
S
U
s
s
s
s
U
s
s
s
s
s
U
s
Distribution
Storage
A
I
I
I
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
. A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
p
I
A
A
U
A
Pressure
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
a
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
Rating
g
S
S
S
U
c
s
c
S
c
k_i
S
U
s
s
s
s
c
s
s
s
s
s
U
s
s
-------
Appendix A
Table II - Facilities Appraisal
Popu"1 ation <. " COO
Ohio
Epworth Heights
Pennyroyal vv'.I.
Roachester W.D.
Twightwee
Indiar.a
Dillsboro
El rod
Kentucky
Merjtor V;. U.
''i '1 ri r~ -
SPECIAL SYฃTฃ.'.ฃ
Ohio
Lot ton
Maple Leaf
Mobile Manor
Otterbein Home
Shadow Lake
Kentucky
Craig Trailer Park
River Ridge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
Source
Quant .
Sprin
Morro
A
Auror
n-i 1 1 =
Campb
Covin
Covin
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
Protect.
I
I
3oro & Mil
A
A
I
A
I
I
A
I
Rating
U
U
W.D. #1
S
S
U
s
U
U
s
U
Treatment
Processes
None
None
None
None
A
None
I
None
None
None
Chlori
Cap.
None
A
None
None
A
None
A
None
A -
I
nation
Auxil.
None
A
None
None
None
None
A
None
None
None
Rating
U
S
U
U
s
U
s
U
s
U
Distribution
Storage
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
No Si
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Pressure
I
A
A
I
A
A
A
rvey
A
A
A
I
I
I
A
A
I
Rating
U
S
s
U
s
s
s
s
s
s
Tj
U
U
s
s
U
-------
Table III - 'Operation and Surveillance
Water System
Population > 10000
Ohio
Cincinnati
Franklin
Indian Hill
Miarrii-Goshen-Stonelick
Norwood
Pier ce-Un ion- Batavia
Reading
Kentucky
Canvpbell Co. W.D. -^1
Covington
Floreroe
Kenton ";v, W.r. ^'l
Kew-por4:
5000rt
X
m
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
ngton
Cross-Connecr-
tion Control
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
No -
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Maintenance
Adequate
X
X
X
X
-
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rating
S
3
S
s
_
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Daily C12
Residual
X
X
X
No
No
X
X
No
X
No
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Chemical
Analysis
X
No
X
X
X
No
No
No
X
X
X
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
No
X
Sanitary
Survey
X
X
No
X
_
X
No
-
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
No
X
No
X
No
No
-
Rating
S
S
S
u
u
s
s
u
s
u
s
s
s
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
s
u
-------
Table III - Oneration and Surveillance
Water System. 1000<
Population^ 50-00
Ohio
Addyston
Batavia
Bethel
Cleves
Felicity
Franklin W.D.
Glendale
Lebanon- Franklin V; . D.
Mil ford
Morrow
Nev Richmond
South Lebanon
Springboro
Waynesville
Will:larnsburg
Indiana
Greendale
North Dearborn
Tri Township
Kentucky
Boone Co. W.D.
Bromley
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton
Operator
Certified
No
X
X
\
No
Frank
X
Lebam
X
X
X
No
X
Wo
X
No
Greendj
No
Coving
Ludlo-
Coving-
Cainpbe]
No
Coving-
X
Operator
Full- Time
No
X
X
X
No
.in
X
in
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
tie
No
;on
r
,on
1 Co.
X
;on
X
CraฃS':Gsnnec-
tiiซnJ6oซtrDl
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Xaintenance
Adequate
X
X
X
y
X
X
No
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
No '
No
X
No
No
X
Rating
U
S
S
S
U
S
U
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
U
S
S
U
S
U
U
S
U
U
S
Daily C12
Residual
No
X
X
X
No Cl
No ^
"X
No
X
X
No
No C12
No
X
X
X
No
X
No
No
No
No
No C12
No
X
Chemical
Analvsis
No
No
A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
X
X
No
No
-X
No
Sanitary
Survey
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
_
X
X
X
No
No
X
X
X
_
X
_
-
_
_
X
-
No
Rating
U
s
S
s
U
U
s
U
s
s
U
s
U
s
s
s
U
s
U
U
U
U
s
U
s
-------
Table III - Operation and Surveillance
For-ulat ion < 1000
r>>, - c
E-ov.-orth Heights
Koac:ies~er .'. . D.
Tv;igh^v/ee
Indiana
DT "! ~ =:"..- ^-r-,
Elroa
Ken tor V/.JT. .
V,; ins tor. P;;rk
SPECIAL .:T.:72:L"-3
Oh i o
Lot ton
Kaple Leaf
Mobile Kanor
Outerbeir; Horie
Shadov; Lake
Kent-ucky
Craig Trailer Park
River Ridge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
Operator
Certified
No
Spri
Morn
No
Auro
Dill;
Camp'
No su.
Covi]
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Operator
Full-Ti.ne
No
igboro
IW
No
a
iboro
ell Co.
vey made
igton
No
No
No
No
No
No
X
X
Cross-Connec-
tion Control
Mo
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mo
No
No
No
Maintenance
Adequate
No
X
X
No
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
No
Rating
U
s
s
u
s
s
s
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
s
u
Daily Cl,,
Residual"
No Cl,,
No
No
No
No
No
No
No Cl
No Cl^
No ^
No Cl
X-
No Cl_
No ^
No
Chemical
Analysis
No
No
No
No
X
X
No
X
No
Mo
No
No
No
No
No
No
Sanitary
Survey
X
-
No
-
No
No
No
X
X
. X
X
X
Rating
S
U
"u
u
u
u
u
u
s
s
u
s
s
s
u
u
-------
Table IV Bacteriological Evaluation of Finished Water
Water System
Population > 1000C
Ohio
Cincinnati
Franklin
Indian Hill
Miami- C-oshen- Stone lick
Norwood
Pierce- Union- Ea tavia
Read ing
Kentucky
Campbell Co. W.D. -1
Covington
Florence
Kenton Co. V/.D. #1
Newport
12 months of record
Recommended
Samples Taker
j.
10-.
i- ^J1-'
lUa
330
33
Cincir
100
36
Uo
177
70
195
2kQ
Months
Samples
Collected
12
12
12
11
nati
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
Rating
S
S
S
S
-
S
S
u
S
S
S
S
Months
Samples
Un s at i s f ac torv
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rating
S
S
s
s
-
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Survey Results
Samples
Unsatisfactory
$ taken
0 (30)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
_
0 (2)
0 (2)
o (M
0 (2)
0 (2)
o (6)
o (6)
Residual
Chlorine
O.U
Trace
0.3
0.3
-
0.2
<.l
1.1
0.8
2.0
1.6
1.2
Rating
s
U
S
. s.
-
s
u
s
s
s
s
s
-------
Bacteriological Evaluation of Finished Water
Water System
^000 < population < 10000
Ohio
Deerfield-Hanilton W.D.
Harrison
Lebanon
Lockland
Loveland
Mason
Wyoming
Indiana
Aurora
lavrenceburg
Kentucky
Ludlow
12 months of record
Re c om.~e n d e a
Sam-pies Taken
"4
on.
57
^
^
1lia
35
96
170
52
69
1M
Months
Samples
Collected
12
12
3
11
12
10
12
12
12
12
Rating
S
U
U
S
U
S
S
TJ
U
S
Months
Samples
Unsatisfactory
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Rating
U
S
S
S
S
U
S
g
TT
\j
S
Survey Results
Samples
Unsatisfactory
$ taken
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
Residual
Chlorine
Trace
< 0.1
0
_'
0
0.1
0
1.1
0.8
0
Rating
U
U
U
S
U
S
U
S
S
U
-------
Fable TV
Bacteriological Evaluation of Finished Water
Water System
10CO < population ฃ 5000
Ohio
Addyston
Batavia
Bethel
Cleves
Felicity
Franklin W.D.
Glendale
Lebanon-Franklin W.D.
Mil ford
Morrow
':ew Richmond
-outh Lebanon.
'oringboro
.yiT'-'Dvllj. e
""' Ifamsburg
- " Indiana
Greeodale
North De?.rborn
Tri- Towns hip
Kentucky/
Bonne Co. VI. Dซ
Bromley - - '
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton
12 months of record
Recommended
3arnt>les Taken
"<ฃ
91
229
260
99
29
79
U2
100
*90z
200
90
236 -
100
100
2%)
135
10U
212
150
71
0
0
71
292
6^
Months
Samples
Collected
12
12
12
12
?
9
9
10
=3-/i
12
12
12
12
12
12'
12
10
12
5
12
0
0
10
6
9
Plating
S
s
c
kJ
s
u
s
u
s
-&s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
u
s -
u
u
s
u
u
Months
Samples
Unsatisfactory
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
- -
-
1
0
0
Rating
U
S
U
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
s
u
u
u
s
s
u
s
s
s
-
-
u
s
s
Survey Results
Samples
Unsatisfactory
# taken
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2) .
0 (2)
0,(2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (3)
0 (U)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
-
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
Residual
Chlorine
-
0.3
0.3
0.1
_
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
Trace
-
-
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
1.1
-
-
0.2
-0
Rating
s
s
S
s
2
U
U
U
u
u
TJ
s
s
s
s
s
s
,-ซ
o
s
s
s
-
s
s
rj
-------
Appendix A
acteriological Evaluation of finished Water
Water System
Population <, lOO-
Ohio
Epworth Heights
Pennyroyal W.D.
Roachester V.'.D.
Twightv.'ee
Indiana
Dillsboro
El rod
Ksntuckv
Mentor W.D.
Wilder
Winston Park
SPECIAL SYSTEMS
Ohio
Lot ton
Maple Leaf
Mobile Manor
Otterbein Home
Shadow Lake
Kentucky
Craig Trailer Park
River Ridge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
ii
Recommended
Camples Taken
rf
'/o
0
79
50
0
16
75
0
0
Q
0
o.
0
71
0
o
^2
17
2 months of
Months
Samples
Collected
0
12
12
0
L
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
k
k
recorc
Rating
TT
^J
s
U
u
U
&Z
u
u
u
u
U '
u
s
u
u
u
u
Months
Samples
Unsatisfactory
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
Rating
-
S
S
-
s
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
s
-
-
s
s
Survey I
Samples
Unsatisfactory
# taken
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)
. 0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
0 (2)
0 (2)
Results
Residual
Chlorine
-
0.2
Trace
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.3
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
-
Rating
S
S
U
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
\]
s
u
s
s
s
-------
Ba not done
Threshold Odor not done
- means results = 0, X .7.ear:5 ss.rr.cle3 n:
Table V Mandatory & Physical Limits
No sample exceeded the mandatory
limit .of 1.8 for F.
iv'ater System
Population >1000C
Ohio
Cincinnati
Franklin
Indian Hills
Miami-C-oshen-Stonelick
Norwood
Pierce-Union-Batavia
Reading
Kentucky
Campbell Co. W.D. #1
Cov ington
Florence
Ker.ton Co. W.D. #1
Newport
5000*Populat ion 410000
Ohio
Deerfield Hamilton U.D.
Harrison
Lebanon
Lockland
Love land
Mason
Wyoming
Indiana
Aurora
Lawrenceburg
Kentucky
Ludlow
Cr
0.05
.009
.020
.025
_
.009
.023
-
.ook
-
.015
.012
.005
-
-
.013
-
.012
-
.012
.013
-
-
r\ฃ.
0.05
-
'.001
.001
-
-
.002
.001
.003
-
.001
.001
-
-
-
-
-
.001
-
-
-
-
-
Se
0.01
.OOU
.00?
.002
.002
.OOU
.002
.002
.007
.007
.005
.005
.005
.002
.002
.002
.002
.003
.002
.003
.OOU
.002
.007
As
0.05
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
Pb
0.05
.012
.011
.025
.022
.012
.019
.009
.006
.008
.012
.009
.005
.OlU
.023
.023
.011
.021
.011
.OlU
.008
.003
.007
On
0.2
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
.OOU
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
Cd -
.01
.001
.001
.OOU
_
.001
.0-02
-
.001
-
-
-
-
.001
.001
.003
.001
.002
.001
-
.001
-
-
B
5.0
-
23
.10
-
.22
.15
-
-
-
-
-
.23
-
-
.11
-
-
.10
-
.15
-
Rating
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Color
15
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
- -
-
-
Turb
c;
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.5
.1
1.3
.U
.1
.1
.5
.3
1.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.U
Rating
S
S
S
S
. S
S
.S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
g
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-------
Table V Mandatory & Physical Limits
Water cv- >_e~"
1000* Populations 5000
Ohio
Addyston
Batavia
Bethe 1
Cle ves
Felicity
Franklin W.D.
Glendale
Lebanon Franklin W.D.
Mi I ford
Morrow
NLW Richmond
South Lebanon
Spr iiieborc.
Wayne r-v i 1 ie
Wi 1 1 iamsburg
Indiana
Greendale
North Dearborn
Tri-Townshi p
Kentucky
Boone County W.D,
Bromley
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton
Cr
0.05
,021
-
-
-
.022
_
.009
-
-
-
-
o013
.026
.013
.016
-
-
-
.022
-
-
-
-
-
-
AS
0.05
-
,002
.002
-
-
_
-
.001
.002
.002
.001
-
.002
.002
.001
-
.001
.001
-
-
.002
-
-
.001
Se
0.01
,002
.004
.009
.002
.003
.003
.003
.002
.003
.002
.002
.002
.002
.003
.006
.002
.002
.002
.003
.007
.007
.005
.001
.007
.005
As
0.05
-
Pb
0.05
.004
.001
-
.015
.019
.007
.024
J
,005
.024
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.009
.026
.005
.021
.009
.012
.012
.004
-
.009
.011
.007
.007
.012
-
-
.020
Cn
0.2
-
-
.003
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
.007
-
-
-
.003
.003
-
-
-
-
-
.008
-
-
Cd
.01
-
.001
.002
.001
.002
.001
.002
.002
.001
.003
.001
.002
.002
.001
.002
-
-
.002
.001
-
.001
-
.001
-
.001
B
5.0
-
-
.14
-
.23
-
.13
-
.14
.09
-
.1
-
-
-
.12
-
Rating
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Color
15
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
Turb
5
.2
.1
.9
1.0
1.0
.1
.2
.1
.2
.3
.2
.3
1.2
.1
.9
.2
.2
.1
.3
.4
.4
.5
.8
.4
.3
Rating
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-------
Table V Mandatory ฃc Fhvsical Limits
Population
-------
Phenols net done
r.ecornrnended Limits
Note: As & Cn recommended limits of .01
and the B recommended limit of 1 were
not exceeded by any sample. (See Table V)
Water System
Fc-r:ulaticr.>LjOCC
Ohio
Cincinnat i
Frankl in
Indian Hills
Miatni-Goshen-Stone 1 ick
Norwood
Pierce-Union-Ba tavia
Reading
Kentuckv
Campbell Co. W.D.^1
Coving ton
F 1 ore nee
Ken Ten Cc . W . i"' . "--
New per t
5 C H")0 Po pu i 3 c i e n <1 0000
Ohio
Deerf i e Id-Ham i 1 ton W.D,
Harrison
Lebanon
Lock land
Love land
Mason
Wyoming
Indiana
Aurora
Lawrence burg
Kentucky
Ludlow
MABS
0.5
.03
.07
.04
.04
.03
.02
.03
.04
.16
.04
.04
.18
.03
.03
.04
.02
-
.01
.03
.08
.10
.16
Cl
250
40
18
49
44
40
42
10
25
23
14
14
26
31
22
52
25
16
34
68
11
56
23
Cu
1.0
.04
.01
. 12
.04
.04
.12
.02
<.oi
ฃ.01
4.01
.01
4.01
.02
.03
.06
Coi
,08
.06
.01
.08
<.01
4.01
CCE
0.2
.14
X
X
X
.14
X
X
.05
. 11
.10
.10
.05
X
X
X
X
X
X
.01
.012
X
X
F
1.2
.19
.26
1.00
.10
.19
,14
,12
.17
.31
.70
.7^
.20
= 21
.20
.28
.10
.15
.26
.98
.94
.20
.20
Fe
0.3
.04
.02
.01
.08
.04
.03
..01
.01
<.01
.02
<.01
.04
.02
.10
.12
.01
.02
.13
.01
.02
.01
4.01
Mn
0.05
,001
,009
.004
.004
.001
.003
-
.001
.183
.002
.001
.004
.003
.131
.005
.001
.002
.024
.002
.005
.002
.242
NO 3
45
6
10
6
9
6
5
4
6
2
2
2
8
5
3
< i
-
6
3
2
24
6
2
SO u
250
87
44
54
50
87
94
216
86
79
42
42
86
69
63
85
93
50
40
95
56
93
79
TDS
500
241
324
400
356
241
409
581
206
230
194
194
258
504
333
431
186
357
351
306
442
539
230
Zn
5,0
.01
.03
= 04
.36
.01
.01
4.01
<,01
,01
.01
.02
.02
4.01
.01
.03
4-01
.02
4.01
<.01
.39
.17
.01
DDT
ppb
<.. 1
X
X
X
C. 1
X
X
C-1
< ^
< l
< 1
<!
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gross Beta
1000 pCi/1
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
2
2
1
1
-
_
1
2
-
-
-
X
Ratine
S
S
S
S
S
S
u
S
u
S
S
S
1-1
o
u
S
S
S
S
S
S
u
u
-------
Table VI- Recommended Limits
Water Sv=L=::.
100O4Populaticn45000
Ohio
Addys ton
Batavia
Bethel
Cleves
Fe 1 ici ty
Franklin W.D.
Glendale
Lebanon-Franklin W.D.
Milford
Morrow
New Richmond
South Lebanon
Spr i ngboro
Waynesvi lie
Wi 1 1 iamsburc
Indiana
Greenda le
North Dearborn
Tri-Township
Kentuckv
Boone Co. W.D.
Bromley
Cold Springs
Highland Heights
Silver Grove
Taylor Mill
Walton
MABS
0.5
.06
.03
,09
.04
.10
.07
.02
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.07
.07
.04
.08
.08
.06
Cl
250
15
23
17
26
29
18
23
52
41
36
25
76
19
21
18
23
23
21
.05 j 13
.16
.16
.18
.21
.16
.04
23
23
26
143
23
13
Cu
1.0
4.01
4.01
.02
.03
.05
.02
4.01
.02
.03
.04
4.01
.05
.03
.03
4.01
CCE
0.2
X
.07
.07
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.04 X
.14
.03
.06
4.01
.02
4.01
4.01
4.01
.02
X
X
.11
.11
ell
.05
X
oil
.19
F
1.2
.26
.10
.17
.13
.15
.27
1.06
.26
.24
.20
.13
.15
.21
.10
. 19
.45
1.16
.11
.19
.20
.18
.18
.14
.21
.25
Fe
0.3
.02
.07
.01
.01
.08
.02
.01
.12
4.01
.06
.02
.03
.10
.02
.02
4.01
.03
4.01
.02
4-01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.17
Mn
0.05
.014
.002
.005
.002
.271
.007
.001
.005
-
.004
.009
.021
.003
-
.002
-
-
.239
.232
.230
-
.009
.240
.008
NO-}
45
3
4
2
7
6
10
-
41
20
4J
9
25
4l
9
3
12
12
4
9
2
2
8
41
2
2
SOA
250
94
65
74
77
48
44
21
85
57
45
93
75
42
55
78
53
53
55
70
79
79
86
73
79
59
TDS
500
314
161
241
277
359
324
129
431
184
403
277
507
331
344
277
372
372
366
221
230
230
258
383
230
216
Zn
5.0
.01
.02
.01
4.01
.01
.03
.03
.01
.02
.02
4.01
4-01
.32
.02
ซ.01
.25
.06
.05
.02
4.01
.02
.01
4,01
.01
.02
DDT
ppb
X
<. 1
4.1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<-1
X
X
X
4.1
<ฃ..!
4. 1
4.1
X
<ซ1
<-l
Gross Beta
1000 pCl/1
1
3
3
1
2
X
-
X
2
-
2
7 ฑ4
-
2
3
X
1
2
2
2
1
-
-
3
Ratine
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
U
U
S
S
U
S
-------
Table VI - Recommended Limits
Water Sy = terr.
Po r.u 1 a t i o n <. 1 OOC
Ohio
Epv/orth 'H e i ght =
Pennyroyal W.D.
Roachester W.D.
Twigntwee
Indiana.
Dillsboro
El rod
Kentuckv
Mentor V:.D.
Wilder
Winston Park
SPECIAL 3I3Tiy,5
Ohio
Lotton
Maple Leaf
Mobile Manor
Otterbein Home
Shadov.' Lake
Kentucky
Craig Trailer Park
River Ridge Park
Skyline Trailer Park
MA3S
Q.5
.18
.Ok
.05
.Ok
.11
.08
.0^
.16
.16
.Ok
.03
X
.Ok
.06
.Ok
.03
.02
Cl
250
16
7
36
29
8
11
3^
<-s
23
23
25
56
X
30
29
-
21
6?
Cu
1.0
.03
.03
.03
<.01
.02
.10
.01
.02
4.01
.06
<.01
<-01
.02
.02
.01
.02
.Ok
CCE
0.2
X
X
X
X
X
X
-05
.11
X
X
X
X
X
.Ok
X
X
X
F
1.2
.09
.25
.21
.16
1.00
.95
.16
.15
.22
.18
.19
.21
.19
.15
.17
.08
..Ik
^e
0.3
.01
.03
.29
.06
.02
.06
.Ok
.11
.01
.01
.25
3.10
.01
.Ik
.Ik
.01
6.00
Mn
0.05
.002
.006
.013
.001
-
.005
.002
.236
.2^6
.002
.181
.Ok5
.001
.007
.003
.012
.307
NO
^5
8
2
1
jr6_
22
2k
r
o
2
2
12
-
X
9
3
23
8
1
%
^9
10
^5
ko
61
56
86
79
79
57
60
X
kj>
kk
10
86
88
TDS
500
389
25*f
koj,
Z&
k2?
kk2
206
230
230
308
358
X
^32
30^
265
^79
^98
Zn
5.0
.01
.Ok
.01
.06
.kl
.05
.05
.01
.01
.03
.25
.2k
.01
1.06
.38
.21
.Ok
DDT
ppb
X
X
X
X
y.
X
.1
i
j_
.1
X
X
X
X
.1
X
X
X
Gross Beta
1000 pC/1
-
X
X
-
-
X
1
-
-
X
X
X
-
2
X
X
X
Rating
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
U
U
S
U
U
S
S
S
S
U
-------
APPENDIX B
FORMS USED TO GATHER DATA
-------
OF MUNICIPAL 9ATER FACILITIES
U.S.. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND HELFARE
Pud ic Haa I Ih Set v i ce
Consuiner Protection 'and Environmental Health Seivice
Enyiionmen | a I Contra) Administration
Bureau of Vatec Hygiene
i. S T I ".< ซ ; L 3
0 r ฃ ป .
S7APTEC
'PC SCN1
7?r ปr-
COMMUNITr 00 FaLILIT1!
LOCiTION
( 1 ) il
ID
VLซ 1 I OP.
( 2 ) .1
C >. R R I N I
C^T|Mป1Lu
" o "-.'.ป' i c :
5 E s v t i;
c. * i' L Y I CL :
I MT 0'. :.u '. ^
vo
! 5)
CL ปS5I r I
yA ปlV,M
11 r: . r.. c P ปf i
I N?L5TC
ฐ'-BLIC
NiUBCrl
OF
s E s.. 11 c :-
SLMBtR
OF
(5)
S a F E > I r. L C
I WPO'.'NC EC
vo ( ' a
3 (.71 t
i: I 5 T P I
'i:~ I 0>
; r c P ปi- -:
i 3;
( 5! J
1ST. STORAGE
*C Vil-iS
( 10 ) a
:-='. I Tr
TO MtI S S
s E L L- C -
( I 'i
-------
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SANITAKY SURVEY
Exp. March 1970
SURVEY DATE
(for office use one*?
A. v,',v. day
3. -tax. >).'if-
C, Max. aruth
common name, if different
10-YR. ESTIMATE UNKNOWN
~ i.);; >
f.".y f>iie 3
LAB'"-:f.;>TCF.';
as been
n restricted i
24
34,
f
f
\
ป
\
4ซKt 5 years.
5-7
59
days during
(Distribution system only)
(1) Min. number samples recommended per month by PHS
(2) Avg. number/month for last 12 months
and most monthly
of
aamplea
UNKNOWN
7S
Number of months the Drinking Water Standards were
'not met during the last 12 months for:
UNKNOWN
Quality
ซ&
a ft
~ซ(b) Number of samples
**(c) NONE collected
5) Are samples representative of distribution system?
(6) Are check samples collected as provided for in the
Drinking Water Standards? ^~
ZT-
Z3
(7) Are samples requiring check samples reported
(8) Is the laboratory certified?
(a) Within the pAs
~t*
(b) ^^y^^tp one or both, by whom was it certified.
\**
(9) Are samples received by lab within 30 hours?
one?
24
Z(n
ZH
3o
3 j
yes
yes
yus
yes
State
yes
Z.S
z~>
zv
31
te
no
no
no
no
no
PHS
ECA-19
76
-------
viinianea water only;
Samples of finished water are analyzed each
infrequently
oonth.
2 years.
3 years,
year,
Type of analysis:
never.
partial.
Date of last chemical analysis ,
Analyzed by
utility,
s mo.
state,
day
PHS,
university,
(S)
51 52. S3 S4
Tests run for operational control and their frequency are:
other.
Bo
Tests
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Chloride
Chlorine residual
I EfJv CAK.O Tlvo) [z]
* ' L^J
Color
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Jar tests
Manganese
pH
Taste & Odor
Turbidity
Zeta potential
Other
Frequency
Continuous Each shift Daily
/fl
33
211
SB
Less frequent.! y
Weekly than weekly.
D
? D
7/
Radioactivity
(1) Samples are analyzed each
infrequently
13
month,
70
year,
2 years,
3 years.
never.
cป,c^ 3) S
0ฐ
< ^) Date of last radiological analysis
(3) Analyzed by
utility,
state,
mo. oay
PHS,
university,
other.
" (specify)
EGA-19
-------
7.'
SAWITARY SURVEY
A. Date of most recent survey
B. Survey made by:
31
state,
54
utility,
local health department,
ปs
ftp* n
C. Facilities surveyed:
storage,
3
ฑ>Z
ฃ4
Sfc
I. Operating problems most often encountered are:
phenols,
fee
corrosive water.
70
short filter runs,
taste & odor
other, specify.
EGA-19
-------
8. FACILITIES ฃ. CITATION, conlinuod
J. Chlorlnation process was interrupted
in the last 12.months.
times
(1) Interruptions were due to:
feedwater pump,
chlorinator failure,
power failure.
changing cylinders.
other, explain.
76 (END CACO 4.) |4j
80
K. Percent of land area within service area where water is
available (nearest whole percent)
L. Were plans and specs, for treatment plant approved by the state?
YES NO
9. SOUHCt, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION (describe deficiencies on reverse aide)
A. Are the following adequate:
(1) Source, with respect to the following:
(a) quantity
(b) bacteriological quality
(c) chemical quality
(d) physical quality
(e) adequate protection
(2) Transmission of raw water
(3) Is the raw water sampled for:
(a) Bacteriological contamination
(b) Chemical contamination
(4) Treatment, with respect to the folowing:
(a) aeration
(b) chemical feed , capacity
(c) chemical feed, stand-by equipment
(d) cheoical mixing
(e) flocculation
YES
ia
ie
ss.
NO
2S
3x
LCA-19
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
A. Are the following adequate (continued):
(4) Treatment, continued:
(ฃ) settling
(g) recarbonation
(h) filtration
(i) disinfection, capacity
(j) disinfection, stand-by equipment
(k) taste & odor control
(1) fluoridation
(5) Distribution, with respect to the following:
(a) storage
(b) booster chlorin&t&oo
(c) high service pumping
(d) booster pumping
(e) pressure
(6) Maintenance
(7) Records for:
(a) disinfection
(b) filter runs
(c) chemical consumption
(d) operational control tests
(e) bacteriological examinations
(8) Cross-connection control
(a) ordinance
(b) program implementation
(c) progress
~ 80 -
YES
NO
IS
Sfe
SB
ฃ0
fei?_
64
6ifr
%<9
fa'
& 54
fe^i
(th
70
"*?
14
7^
71
Tl
IS
IT
RCA-10
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
B. During the past 3 years, raw water quality has
deteriorated, or
Zi
stayed the ease.
improved.
10. PERSONNEL
A. Water Purification Operator
(1) Highest level of formal education:
high school,
8th grade or less,
technical or trad
^3
(2) Level of training in water t
technitato^^rade school,
other,
"""30 ' si
ft &
(3)
s job:
(4) Number of previous"^oSiYlons as water treatment operator
(5) Total ^>esSlrs of water purification experience
(6) Level of study in sanitary microbiology:
technical or trade school,
other, specify*
university.
on the job,
3fc 37
10
short school,
college course,
on the job,
44
none,
(7) Level of study in water chemistry:
or trade school,
college course,
51
4S
other, specify.
short school,
on the Job,
41
none.
technical
(8) Is the operator a full-time employee?
(9) Salary range (per year) of operator:
yes
no
$5,000-7,499 i I $7,500,9.999
51
_ 81 _
<*1,999
$10,000
55
$2,000-4,999
EGA-19
-------
10. PtKSONNfciL, continuf-d
A. continued
(10) Is your present staff adequate in: \*s
(a) number
(b) quality
feO
yes
yes
-tal
no
no
B. Operator's major complaint
s
C. Most frequent customer's complaint:
iliJty
U. Management's most frequent complaint:_
_ ฃ2-
ECA-19
-------
B.
C.
D.
Capital stock, par value
bonds, par value
.
1%
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
A. Bonded indebtedness: (water supply)
j --ฅ 1 T ' 1 T 1 1
J I I I I L L. J.
4>cr* * i 5,
(a) statutory limit
(2) Rป venue bonds
(a) statutory limit
/_i'
ฃ/
s'J
2
-------
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION, continued
1. Tariff (Residential)
( 1) Connection fee $
(2) Sales unit is
1
per l.OOO gallons or
(a)
(b)
(c) I
47
sz
57
cents for the first
cents for the next
cents for the next
a
II
(d) etc. as needed to cover steps.
here
So
ECA-19
-------
cnnnunncniHL ounixui fiuniNiilHAI IUN
BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE
IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SAMPLE
PUNCH IN COLS.
!M 1 I
1. LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY ^ CL^le.. # S On / O v/e.^1 ro r V
CITY. COUNTY. STATE J . :^
FOR OFFICE ~|
USE ONLY | 00 NOT
7 18 WRITE BELOW'
2. WATER SUPPLY NAME Sa.i,
" IKEAIMENI ' ' WELL ' RESERVOIR " ' UISIHIBUI ION "~ UIHER
PLANT SYSTEM
] 4 2.1 0 29
i :
ie.. kif^he^ I^.o4- Maป^i 30 3,
HNISHtU '"" PAHIIALLY '""HAW UIHER
TREATED
142 0 33 ,
SURFACE GROUND ' COMBINED OTHER " "
4 2 0 34 ".
COHPOSITE "' GRAB OIHER
4 0 35
ORGANIC IRACE " WEI ' RADIO" ' OTHER :
ELEMENTS CHEMICAL ;
42 1 0 36
PHMMIIM 1 TV
UUMHUNIII )cws . i-tUERAL SPECIAL UIHER
WAJ INSTALLATION STUDY
CATEGORY fl ,urm 4 j , 0 37 39,
11 APPFARANf.E OF SAMPIE CO O*~ ; 4a *Jrฃ- ndor
12. ADDITIONAL REMARKS D r~\ C-. -T-e.*^Dfcr^.Vr(ฐ . , DreiStซ^e_
13. COLLECTED BY
LAB. SAMPLE NO.
1 ) / ' ^ '
USPHS UIHER
STAFF , ' .
1 fin
00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ( ou
GATE RFHFIVFR :
LABORATORY REMARKS
OVEH FOR INSTRUCTIONS
-------
INSTRUCTIONS: EVERY ITEM OF INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM THE SAMPLER IS
NUMBERED (I THROUGH 13). THESE ARE THE ONLY RESPONSES
THE SAMPLER SHOULD MAKE. NOTE AREAS MARKED "DO NOT
WRITE BELOW THIS LINE" AND "FOR OFFICE USE ONLY."
ITEM I SHOULD BE THE LOCATION OF THE HATER SUPPLY FA-
CILITY WHICH PRODUCED THE WATER FOR THE SAMPLE.
(EXAMPLE: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON, OHIO.)
ITEM 2 SHOULD BE THE FULL NABE OF THE WATER SUPPLY
FACILITY. (EXAMPLE: CINCINNATI MUNICIPAL WATER
WORKS)
ITEMS 4, 6, 7, AND 8 - CHECK THE BOX WHICH APPLIES
ITEMS 9 AND 10 - CHEpK ONE OR MORE BOXES AS NECESSARY
ITEMS 3, 5, II, 12, AND 13 SHOULD BE SELF-EXPLANATORY
ANY RESPONSE OF "OTHER" OR ''SPECIAL STUDY" SHOULD BE EXPLAINED UNDER
ITEM 12 - ADDITIONAL REMARKS.
IF NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE IDENTIFICATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO USE THE BACK OF THE ORIGINAL (WHITE) COPY OR ATTACH AN ADDITIONAL PAGE
OF LIKE SIZE.
DISTRIBUTION:
MAIL ORIGINAL (WHITE COPY) TO:
WATER QUALITY REGISTER BRANCH
BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE
222 E. CENTRAL PARKWAY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45202
BLUE ENCLOSED WITH ORQANIC SAMPLE
PINK ENCLOSED WITH TRACE METAL SAMPLE
YELLOW ENCLOSED WITH WET CHEMISTRY SAMPLE
GREEN ENCLOSED WJTH RADIOCHEHICAL SAMPLE
TAN RETAINED BY REGIONAL OFFICE OR SAMPLER
------- |