EPA-600/1-77-027
May 1977
Environmental Health Effects Research Series
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF OPEN
STORAGE OF TREATED DRINKING WATER ON
QUALITY PARAMETERS
Health tnects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS RE-
SEARCH series. This series describes projects and studies relating to the toler-
ances of man for unhealthful substances or conditions. This work is generally
assessed from a medical viewpoint, including physiological or psychological
studies. In addition to toxicology and other medical specialities, study areas in-
clude biomedical instrumentation and health research techniques utilizing ani-
mals — but always with intended application to human health measures.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/1-77-027
May 1977
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF OPEN STORAGE
OF TREATED DRINKING WATER ON QUALITY PARAMETERS
by
Engineering-Science, Inc.
McLean, Virginia 22101
Grant No. R-803345-01-0
Project Officer
Edwin C. Lippy
Field Studies Division
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Health Effects Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The primary mission of the Health Effects Research Laboratory is to
provide data which is based on health-related research to support the regu-
latory activities of the Environmental Protection Agency. Research is
conducted to identify, characterize, and quantitate the harmful effects
of pollutants that may result from exposure to chemical, physical or bio-
logical agents found in the environment. Research data is used in the
Agency's standards setting procedure to insure that man and his environ-
ment are protected.
The purpose of the investigation reported herein was to measure water
quality changes that occur in open reservoirs used to store treated drinking
water. At over 700 locations in this country water is treated to assure that
it is safe for human consumption and then piped into the distribution system
where storage is provided in an open reservoir. Water stored in this manner
is subject to contamination from a number of sources and E.P.A. has recom-
mended for years that open reservoirs should be covered.
Reservoir operational procedures practiced at Baltimore and Pittsburgh
provided water to consumers which complied with the Drinking Water Standards.
Results of this investigation did show a deterioration in several water
quality parameters that were monitored over a one-year period, however,
the changes were not severe. A preferred management plan which would
improve current operational procedures and provide added protection in the
delivery of a safe and potable water was recommended. The amortization of
capital cost for a floating cover compared favorably with the annual cost
of the preferred management plan for the 130 MG Highland Reservoir at
Pittsburgh, but was not a favorable comparison for the 300 MG Druid Park
Reservoir in Baltimore.
This project was initiated and funded by the Water Supply Program,
Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and transferred to the Health
Effects Research Laboratory where a grant was awarded and the project
monitored until its conclusion.
^\WcO
R. J. GarnerjTM.A., DVSc, FRCVS, ARIC
Director
Health Effects Research Laboratory
ill
-------
PREFACE
Open finished water reservoirs have long been considered to be a
sanitary defect in public water supply systems. The potential health
hazards associated with these so-called system "weak-links" have been recog-
nized and acknowledged by experts in the water supply field. Moreover, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as most states, no longer
approves the construction of new uncovered finished water distribution
reservoirs. The widely accepted belief is that covering reservoirs will
better serve to protect public health, provide better water quality, reduce
maintenance, and provide better utilization of urban resources.
A large number of water supply systems in the United States include
open storage of finished waters. However, currently there has not been
a detailed documentation of water quality changes experienced in operating
these uncovered finished water reservoirs. This study was intended to
investigate the effects of open storage of treated drinking water on
quality parameters of two separate open storage reservoirs: Druid Lake
and Highland Reservoir No. 1. The report provides a detailed definition
of water quality and associated changes and explores possible measures
including enclosure to eliminate identified water quality deterioration.
Although a comprehensive examination of water quality was undertaken
for both reservoirs, including the definition of contaminants which were
of concern, the examination of possible routes of entry for the site-
specific contaminants, and the impacts of the contaminants on the water
supply system and the users, actual water quality deterioration as defined
by existing drinking water standards was not firmly established. Conse-
quently, the approach to the final scope of the study, which involved
exploring and costing possible measures to eliminate contamination and/
or minimize water quality effects, was altered from what was originally
envisioned at the inception of the study. The descriptions of the methods
to be considered for controlling degradation of finished waters presented
herein were primarily based on the risks of potential contamination of
the respective reservoirs rather than on measured changes in water quality.
Within the framework of potential contamination, a set of specific alter-
natives was developed for each of the storage systems under consideration
and a limited trade-off assessment was performed. Basically, the alter-
natives for each reservoir involved various means of covering and a
IV
-------
preferred management of the open reservoir. The preferred management
alternative utilized proper, rather than existing, programs for operation,
maintenance, additional treatment, monitoring, and surveillance of the
respective reservoirs in question. Again, it must be emphasized that these
alternatives were founded on the potential for contamination of the reser-
voirs as they presently exist.
The data base of this study was the water quality data collected
over a 12 month period for each reservoir. This extensive documentation
set the tone for the entire discussion of sources and pathways of contamina-
tion, as well as the evaluation of alternative solutions. This reservoir
sampling and analysis program was restricted due to the cost and capa-
bilities of the cooperating laboratories. Other parameters of recent
interest that might have been included in this study are chloro-organics
and asbestos. More efficient air pollution monitoring equipment (e.g.,
cyclone samplers) could also have been used during the study. Sludge
or bottom sediments could have been analyzed for heavy metals. Bacterial
sampling for Salmonella could have been conducted on Druid Lake because
of the existence of potential contamination by the waterfowl population
which was present 72 percent of the time the study was conducted. The
inclusion of these analyses would have effected a more comprehensive study
of the problems associated with uncovered reservoirs.
Had the results of the water quality sampling program been more
substantial in terms of identifying deterioration in the reservoir a more
in-depth development and evaluation of alternatives could have been
conducted. The following could have been considered on a case-specific
basis:
1. Is there an actual need for large reservoirs under present day
conditions? The reservoirs investigated herein were designed over
a century ago according to the design criteria prevalent at that
time. Water supply technology has significantly progressed such
that large finished water storage volumes may not now be necessary.
Moreover, the urban development which presently surrounds these
reservoirs was not as predominant, and did not play as important
a factor in their overall management. A study of present day and
future water demands and the hydraulic capabilities of the
specific water supply systems in question could prove to be a
decisive step in the detailed evaluation of alternatives.
2. Use of a bypass scheme or other emergency plans integrated into
the reservoir and available for use under emergency conditions.
These schemes may require (a) micro-straining backed up by
chlorination; (b) compartmentalization of the reservoir to
allow periodic exchange of water with fresh water plant effluent;
(c) less desirable option of "boil water order" issued when an
emergency arises.
-------
3. Covering a portion of the reservoir. This option becomes a
sophisticated design problem due to monitoring constraints,
wall design and other factors. In addition, the cost of the
cover portion could partially offset the need for additional
chlorination.
4. Utilizing air space as a revenue source. This approach initially
considers the reservoir to be completely covered. After the
covering of the reservoir the top or the air space above the
reservoir could be utilized for an office building, civic center
or other revenue producing assets.
In addition to the conclusions that were drawn concerning each par-
ticular reservoir studied in this report there are some other observations
that may be made with regard to the question of open versus covered
finished water reservoirs. The choice of the two reservoirs investigated
in this study may well have biased the outcome as to the inordinately high
costs associated with covering these reservoirs because of their relatively
large sizes (130 million and 300 million gallons). A number of cities
have experienced appreciable cost reductions by covering their reservoirs
as opposed to operating and maintaining open finished water reservoirs.
The City of Philadelphia recently covered the Oak Lane Reservoir (two basins
35 million gallons each), and has calculated that the initial cost of
floating cover installation will be offset by the potential savings in
annual chemical, operational and maintenance costs required of the open
reservoir for a 20 year period. Consequently, an important factor in
determining whether it is cost-effective to cover a reservoir is simply
size, or surface area. Had smaller-sized open finished water reservoirs
been investigated in this study the conclusions derived from a trade-off
assessment of covered versus open reservoir alternatives could likely
have favored covering.
The salient point of the above discussion is that each specific
municipal finished water reservoir situation must be studied individually
in order to arrive at the best solution in terms of costs, public health
and environmental quality. Each city water supply system which incor-
porates open storage of finished water must be evaluated on a case-
specific basis so that all the costs and benefits associated with covering
or maintaining an open system may be considered. Further study of this
nature is required of existing open finished water reservoirs in this
country before a general policy to cover all reservoirs is adopted.
In the final analysis with all costs and benefits considered, the
covering of existing open storage reservoirs is expected to be the most
cost-effective and sound approach in terms of public health. However, the
means of covering will need to be case-specifically conceptualized and
designed so as to afford additional benefits directly unrelated to public
health and water supply. An example would be the construction of a civic
center in the space over the covered area of a reservoir.
VI
-------
The fact remains that an open finished reservoir has the potential
of becoming contaminated and may be considered by many health officials
to be a "weak-link" in a city's water supply system. The case studies
documented herein of Druid Lake and Highland Reservoir No. 1 are only
the beginning of this necessary documentation.
vii
-------
ABSTRACT
Two open treated drinking water reservoirs were investigated with
primary focus upon definition of water quality and development of alter-
native water quality control measures. Water quality of each reservoir
was defined by a comprehensive water sampling/analysis program and water
quality control measures were developed to mitigate delineated water
quality problems. These control measures were evaluated on the basis of
water quality improvement and preliminary cost-benefit analysis.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R803345-01-0,
by Engineering and Science Research Foundation, 150 North Santa Anita
Avenue, Arcadia, California 91007 under sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of 22 September 1976.
Vlll
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Preface
Abstract viii
Figures
Tables
Acknowledgement xviii
CHAPTER I - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................ ........ 1
CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 1
Druid Lake, Baltimore, Md ........................ 1
Water Quality Evaluation ...................... 1
Alternative Water Quality Control Measures.... 2
Highland Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa ......... 2
Water Quality Evaluation ...................... 2
Alternative Water Quality Control Measures.... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 3
Druid Lake, Baltimore, Md ........................ 3
Highland Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa ......... 4
CHAPTER II - INTRODUCTION ........................................... 5
PERSPECTIVE ......................................... 5
PURPOSE ......................................... .... 7
SCOPE OF STUDY ...................................... 8
CHAPTER III - POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH OPEN STORAGE OF TREATED
DRINKING WATER ........................................ 10
INTRODUCTION ........................................ 10
AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS ............................... 10
CONTAMINANTS FROM SURFACE RUNOFF .................... 10
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS ............................ 11
CONTAMINATION BY VIOLATION OF RESERVOIR SECURITY ____ 11
CONTAMINATION BY RESTING BIRDS ...................... 11
AQUATIC ORGANISMS ................................... 11
EXPOSURE TO AMBIENT WEATHER CONDITIONS .............. 12
CHAPTER IV - DRUID LAKE. BALTIMORE; A CASE STUDY ................... 13
INTRODUCTION ......... ..... .......................... 13
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF DRUID LAKE ............. 13
Physical Attributes .............................. 13
Existing Water Quality Monitoring Program ........ 14
Operation and Maintenance ........................ 14
Water Quality Problems ........................... 16
IX
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM 17
Perspective of Sampling Program 17
Routine Sampling Program 17
Water Quality Parameters 17
Sampling Sites and Time Period 19
Special Sampling Program 19
Characterization Studies 22
Water Quality and Benthos Survey 22
Dustfall Sampling 22
Potential Contamination by Birds 22
Hydraulics of Druid Lake 23
EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA 23
Principles of Evaluation 23
Data Presentation and Evaluation of Routine
Sampling Program 23
Results of Data Evaluation 25
Routine Sampling Program 25
Special Sampling Program 52
Characterization Studies 59
Summary of Data Evaluation 66
Routine Sampling Program 66
Special Sampling Program 68
Characterization Studies 68
ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES 69
Introduction 69
Preventive Control Measures 71
Reservoir Covers 71
Reservoir Bottom Lining 73
Surface Runoff Diversion 74
Security Establishment and Maintenance 74
Corrective Control Measures 75
Chlorine Disinfection 75
Copper Sulfate Application 77
Shore Plant Growth Control 77
Bird Contaminant Control 77
Summary of Corrective Measures 78
Alternatives Trade-off Assessment 78
CHAPTER V - HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1. PITTSBURGH; A CASE STUDY 83
~~INTRODUCTION 83
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGHLAND RESERVOIR
NO. 1 83
Physical Attributes 83
Existing Water Quality Monitoring Program 84
Operation and Maintenance 84
Water Quality Problems 87
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM 87
Perspective of Sampling Program 87
Routine Sampling Program 87
Water Quality Parameters 87
Sampling Sites and Time Period 87
Special Sampling Program 89
Characterization Studies [',[ 89
Water Quality and Benthos Survey 89
Dustfall Sampling 92
Potential Contamination by Birds 92
Hydraulics of Highland Reservoir No. 1 92
EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA 92
Principles of Evaluation 92
Data Presentation and Evaluation of Routine
Sampling Program 92
Results of Data Evaluation 94
Routine Sampling Program 94
Special Sampling Program 123
Characterization Studies 129
Summary of Data Evaluation 134
Routine Sampling Program 134
Special Sampling Program 137
Characterization Studies 138
ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES 138
Introduction 138
Preventive Control Measures 139
Reservoir Covers 139
Reservoir Bottom Lining 141
Surface Runoff Diversion 142
Security Establishment and Maintenance 142
Corrective Control Measures 143
Chlorine Disinfection 144
Copper Sulfate and Calcium Hypochlorite
Application 145
Shore Plant Growth Control 146
Summary of Corrective Measures 146
Alternatives Trade-off Assessment 147
APPENDIX - WATER QUALITY DATA FROM ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM.. 151
XI
-------
FIGURES
Number Faee
IV-1 Location of Water Sampling Sites for Druid Lake ........ 15
IV-2 Location of Water Sampling Sites for Druid Lake
Special Water Sampling Program ......................... 21
IV-3 Monthly Median Differences (Effluent Minus Influent) :
Free Chlorine Residual for Druid Lake .................. 35
IV-4 Monthly Median Differences (Effluent Minus Influent) :
Lead for Druid Lake .................................... 39
IV-5 Monthly Median Differences (Effluent Minus Influent) :
Total Standard Plate Count for Druid Lake .............. 46
IV-6 Monthly Median Differences (Postchlorination Minus
Effluent): Total Standard Plate Count for Druid Lake.. 47
IV- 7 Monthly Median Differences (Effluent Minus Influent) :
Phytoplankton for Druid Lake ........................... 50
IV-8 Monthly Median Differences (Postchlorination Minus
Effluent) : Phytoplankton for Druid Lake ............... 51
V-l Location of Water Sampling Sites for Highland
Reservoir No . 1 ........................................ 85
V-2 Location of Water Sampling Sites for Highland
Reservoir No. 1 ........................................ 91
V-3 Monthly Median Differences (Postchlorination Minus
Influent) Free Chlorine Residual For Highland Reservoir 107
V-4 Monthly Median Differences (Prechlorination Minus
Influent) Lead for Highland Reservoir .................. Ill
V-5 Monthly Median Differences (Postchlorination Minus
Influent) Total Standard Plate Count for Highland
Reservoir ..............................................
Xll
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
V-6 Monthly Median Differences (Postchlorination Minus
Prechlorination) Total Standard Plate Count for
Highland Reservoir 121
xiii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
IV-1 Water Quality Parameters and Analytical Techniques
Used in Study of Druid Lake 18
IV-2 Special Water Quality Analyses-Druid Lake 20
IV-3 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Temperature and pH 26
IV-4 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Turbidity and Total Chlorine-
28
IV-5 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Total Solids and Dissolved Solids ............... 29
IV-6 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Suspended Solids ..................... 31
IV-7 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Total Alkalinity and Hardness ........ 32
IV-8 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Free Chlorine .......................................... 34
IV-9 Monthly Median and Range of Water Sampling Data:
Druid Lake-Nitrate and Copper .......................... 36
IV-10 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Druid Lake-Lead ........................................ 38
IV-11 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Total Phosphate and Soluble Ortho
Phosphate .............................................. ^1
IV-12 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data : Druid Lake-Total Colif orms ...................... 43
IV-13 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Druid Lake-Fecal Colif orms ...................... 44
xiv
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
IV-14 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Druid Lake-Total Standard Plate Count 45
IV-15 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Druid Lake-Phytoplankton 49
IV-16 Total Organic Carbon Sampling Results for Druid Lake,
Baltimore, Md 53
IV-17 Trace Metal Sampling Results for Druid Lake 54
IV-18 Radioactivity Sampling Results for Druid Lake,
Baltimore, Md 58
IV-19 Viral and Bacterial Analytical Results from EPA
Sampling of Druid Lake, Baltimore, Md. and Highland
Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa 60
IV-20 Temperature-Dissolved Oxygen Water Column Profiles
of Druid Lake 61
IV-21 Delineation of Benthic Microorganisms Inhabiting
Druid Lake, Baltimore, Md 63
IV-22 Dustfall Sampling Results for Druid Lake, Baltimore,
Md 64
IV-23 Patterns of Water Quality and Compliance with Water
Quality Standards: Routine Sampling Program-Druid
Lake 67
V-l Water Quality Parameters and Analytical Techniques Used
in Study of Highland Reservoir No. 1 88
xv
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number page
V-2 Special Water Quality Analyses-Highland Reservoir
No. 1 90
V-3 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Temperature 95
V-4 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-pH 96
V-5 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Turbidity 98
V-6 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Solids 99
V-7 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Dissolved Solids 100
V-8 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Alkalinity 102
V-9 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Hardness 103
V-10 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Chlorine 105
V-ll Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Highland Reservoir No. 1-Free Chlorine 106
V-12 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Copper 109
V-13 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Highland Reservoir No. 1-Lead 110
V-14 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Ammonia 113
xvi
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
V-15 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Nitrate 114
V-16 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Phosphate 115
V-17 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data: Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Coliforms 117
V-18 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Highland Reservoir No. 1-Total Standard Plate
Count 119
V-19 Monthly Median and Range of Routine Water Sampling
Data and Probability of Altered Water Quality:
Highland Reservoir No. 1-Phytoplankton 122
V-20 Total Organic Carbon Sampling Results for Highland
Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa 124
V-21 Trace Metal Sampling Results for Highland Reservoir
No. 1 125
V-22 Radioactivity Sampling Results for Highland Reservoir
No. 1 130
V-23 Temperature-Dissolved Oxygen Water Column Profiles
of Highland Reservoir No. 1 132
V-24 Delineation of Benthic Microorganisms Inhabiting
Highland Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa 133
V-25 Dustfall Sampling Results for Highland Reservoir
No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa 135
V-26 Patterns of Water Quality Change and Compliance with
Water Quality Standards, Routine Sampling Program-
Highland Reservoir No. 1 136
xvu
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance and cooperation received from the Project Officer,
Mr. Edwin C. Lippy, is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.
Specific mention must be made for the help received from the
following who provided time, information, and guidance to this project:
Mr. Jerry Valcik of the Division of Water, Department of Public Works,
Baltimore, Md.; and Messrs. John Beck and Edward Blair of the Department
of Water, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Principal staff from Engineering-Science, Inc. were Messrs. Paul E.
White, Jr., Project Manager, and Philip N. Storrs, Technical Director.
Staff technical assistance was provided by Mr. Stephen W. Bailey and
Dr. Donald M. Shilesky.
xviii
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This report investigates two open finished water reservoirs within
a perspective of: (1) identifying water quality change caused by open
reservoirs; (2) making a judgement of the desirability of the water
quality change; (3) delineating potential causes of change in water
quality; (4) developing water quality improvement measures; and
(5) evaluating the water quality improvement alternatives. One of the
two case-study reservoirs (Druid Lake) is located in Baltimore, Md. and
the other reservoir (Highland Reservoir No. 1) is located in Pittsburgh,
Pa. The following sections present the conclusions and recommendations
derived in this study from evaluated water quality data and the analyses
of alternative water quality control measures for each reservoir.
CONCLUSIONS
Druid Lake, Baltimore, Md.
Water Quality Evaluation
(1) The U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards of
1962 were complied with by all water quality parameters analyzed in
this study.
(2) Water quality parameters of temperature, ammonia, and soluble
orthophosphate did not, on occasion, meet other criteria of desirable
water quality. However, these conditions did not pose any identified
problems, and were of no significant concern to potability or long-
term health effects of the water supply.
(3) Water quality parameters of pH, total solids, copper, and
bacteria (indicated by total standard plate count) generally increased
in concentration from the reservoir inlet to the reservoir outlet.
(4) Water quality parameters of turbidity, total residual chlorine,
free residual chlorine, and nitrate generally decreased in concentration
from the reservoir inlet to the reservoir outlet.
(5) Possible sources or causes of water quality degradation are,
airborne particulates, surface runoff, groundwater, unauthorized human
contact, birds, weather, and biological processes in the water.
-------
Alternative Water Quality Control Measures
(1) Existing reservoir operations produce an acceptable, high quality
effluent water.
(2) Measures to maintain this high quality water, and, more importantly,
to reduce the potential of water quality degradation in Druid Lake can be
classified as either preventive or corrective measures.
(3) Alternatives comprised of preventive measures such as covering
the reservoir and bottom lining the reservoir, would considerably reduce the
potential for introduction of contaminants.
(4) An alternative which would utilize the existing open reservoir
in connection with proper operational and post-reservoir treatment procedures
(i.e., corrective measures) would ensure delivery of a potable water to
consumers, but the risk for potential contamination would still exist.
(5) From the standpoint of alternative costs and the associated water
quality and public health benefits derived, the installation of a cover in
lieu of proper operation of the open reservoir does not appear justified.
(6) The final decision as to whether Druid Lake should be covered will
depend on the determination of the benefits associated with the elimination
of potential water quality degradation since no absolute degradation was
discovered in this study.
Highland Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Water Quality Evaluation
(1) The U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards of 1962
were complied with by all water quality parameters analyzed.
(2) Water quality parameters of temperature and ammonia did not on
occasion meet other criteria of desirable water quality. However, these
conditions did not pose any identified problems and were of no significant
concern to potability of the water supply.
(3) Water quality parameters of lead, phytoplankton, and bacteria
(indicated by total standard plate count) generally increased in concentra-
tion from the reservoir inlet to the reservoir outlet.
(4) Water quality parameters of temperature, total residual chlorine,
and free residual chlorine generally decreased in concentration from the
reservoir inlet to the reservoir outlet.
(5) Possible sources or causes of water quality degradation are,
airborne particulates, surface runoff, groundwater, unauthorized human
contact, weather, and biological processes in the water.
-------
Alternative Water Quality Control Measures
(1) Existing reservoir operations produce an acceptable, high
quality effluent water relative to the 1962 USPHS Drinking Water Standards,
although there have been occurrences of undesirable taste and odor in
reservoir effluent as a result of phytoplankton growth during the summer
months of July and August.
(2) Existing post-reservoir chlorination during the one-year sampling
program did not appear to be contributing chlorine residual to the effluent.
(3) Measures that will alleviate these undesirable conditions,
maintain the high quality of the water, and reduce the potential of water
quality degradation in Highland Reservoir No. 1 can be classified as
either preventive or corrective measures.
(4) Alternatives comprised of preventive measures such as covering
the reservoir and bottom lining the reservoir would serve to alleviate the
undesirable conditions as well as considerably reduce the potential for
introduction of contamination.
(5) An alternative incorporating the present open reservoir and ensuring
delivery of a potable water to consumers includes proper chemical additions
for algae control, the construction of a perimeter fence to increase
reservoir security, and effective post-reservoir chlorination and chlorine
reaction time. However, this alternative still offers the potential risk of
contamination.
(6) From the standpoint of alternative costs and the associated water
quality and public health benefits derived, the installation of a floating
cover on Highland Reservoir No. 1 should be considered.
(7) The final determination as to whether the reservoir should be
covered should be based on a quantification of all the associated costs
and benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
jJruid Lake, Baltimore, Md.
(1) Reservoirs similar to Druid Lake (urban setting, capacity, etc.)
which are covered should be investigated to determine the water quality
improvements afforded by a covered reservoir. Additionally, the reduction
in annual O&M costs resulting from covering these reservoirs should be
determined so as to be able to extrapolate these reductions to an expected
annual O&M cost for a covered Druid Lake.
(2) The costs and/or benefits should be identified for the following:
-------
0 water loss due to open storage at Druid Lake;
0 potential of disease outbreak associated with deliberate or
accidental contamination of the reservoir;
0 prevention and/or control of potential waterfowl contamination;
and
0 potential of other forms of open reservoir contamination.
(3) In spite of the study reported herein an additonal, more detailed,
trade-off analysis which considers all of the associated costs and benefits
specific to the Druid Lake situation should be performed in order to
determine whether the existing open reservoir should be used with proper
management and operational procedures or whether the reservoir should be
covered.
Highland Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pa.
(1) Reservoirs similar to Highland Reservoir No. 1 (urban setting,
capacity, etc), which are covered should be investigated to determine the
water quality improvements afforded by a covered reservoir. Additionally,
the reduction in annual O&M costs resulting from covering these reservoirs
should be determined so as to be able to extrapolate these reductions to an
expected annual O&M cost for a covered Highland Reservoir No. 1.
(2) All of the costs and benefits associated with both the floating
reservoir cover alternative and the preferred management and operation of
the open reservoir alternative (with the necessary additions and changes)
should be identified including those detailed in the Recommendations
for Druid Lake, as well as the value of the open reservoir to public recreation.
(3) Once the above information is assembled, a more detailed trade-off
analysis should be performed in order to confirm the need to cover Highland
Reservoir No.lin lieu of upgrading existing operational procedures and
installing an adequate perimeter fence.
-------
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
PERSPECTIVE
Public water supplies fulfill a vital human requirement as well as
provide an essential commodity for other sectors of our modern society.
Increasing demands are being placed upon water utilities to supply water
in greater quantities and of higher quality to the public. Since 1950 the
rate of water withdrawals by public water utilities has nearly doubled from
53 million cu m/day (14 billion gallons/day) to a withdrawal rate of 102
million cu m/day (27 billion gallons/day) in 1970 (Ref. II-l). This has
caused an increase in number of water treatment facilities and more effi-
cient use of existing facilities to maintain acceptable quality of treated
water. In recent years, safe public water has become inadequate in meeting
consumer acceptance of water quality on a short term basis. Water that
the consumer considers "high quality" is now a necessity. The character of
high quality water goes beyond the realm of human senses but exists within
the public's technical knowledge of long term health. Owing to increased
concern with environmental protection and the quality of our environment,
citizens are becoming acutely aware of the effect of the physical, chemical,
biological, and radiological effects of water quality parameters on health,
economic, and to some extent, social and political aspects for our society.
The American Water Works Association has defined a functionally ideal
water as follows (Ref. II-2): "Ideally, water delivered to the consumer
should be clear, colorless, tasteless, and odorless. It should contain no
pathogenic organisms and be free from biological forms which may be harmful
to human health or aesthetically objectionable. It should not contain con-
centrations of chemicals which may be physiologically harmful, aesthetically
objectionable, or economically damaging. The water should not be corrosive
or incrusting to, or leave deposits on, water-conveying structures through
which it passes, or in which it may be retained, including pipes, tanks,
water heaters, and plumbing fixtures. The water should be adequately pro-
tected by natural processes, or by treatment processes, which insure consis-
tency in quality." Such water quality may be impossible to attain but it
addresses the goal of consistently producing water that is aesthetically
pleasing, conducive to good health, and economically beneficial. Definitive
water quality standards in terms of maintaining good health are those pro-
mulgated by the U. S. Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1962. These stan-
dards pertain to biological, chemical, physical, and radiological criteria
whose minimum allowable requirements legally apply only to waters used in
interstate commerce. Many states have, however, adopted these standards
to apply to their own public water supplies. The USPHS standards were
-------
revised and presented for general comment in December, 1975 as the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations and will become effective June
1977.
While most public water utilities can treat raw water and produce
finished water which meets USPHS standards, the treated water must also
reach the consumer in this high quality state. Effluent water from a
treatment facility may be held in a finished water reservoir to accommodate
peak flows including fire demands. The water is subsequently released as
required for immediate consumption. Because many finished water reservoirs
are uncovered and exposed to the ambient environment, the possibility exists
for the quality of the finished water to deteriorate from the previous high
quality that it possessed after treatment. New storage reservoirs are
required by most states to be covered. This provides the most complete
protection against possible contamination although other less expensive
means of protection may be utilized to insure acceptable water quality.
Even though most new finished water reservoirs are covered, many re-
servoirs, some constructed during the nineteenth century, remain uncovered.
A national poll of state governments was made in March 1974 (Ref. II-3)
concerning the existence of open finished water reservoirs within their
municipal water systems. The major results of this poll are as follows:
(1) thirty-seven of the 50 states have open finished water reservoirs;
(2) approximately 750 open reservoirs exist in the United States; (3) of the
37 states indicating one or more open reservoirs, 34 require that new
finished water reservoirs be covered (one of the 34 states indicated covers
or post chlorination and two of the states did not respond); and (4) of the
37 states with open reservoirs 19 have a program in which existing reser-
voirs will be covered or replaced with covered reservoirs (of the states,
two failed to respond and two indicated covers or post chlorination).
The results of this poll indicate that with 74 percent of the states
possessing about 750 open finished reservoirs a significant potential water
quality problem exists. Furthermore, the majority of these states recog-
nize the possibility of contamination from the ambient environment and
therefore, require that new reservoirs be covered, and have programs in
which existing open reservoirs will be covered or replaced.
Open finished water reservoirs are susceptible to water quality degra-
dation by transport of contaminants from the surrounding area. Contami-
nants may be: (1) air borne particulates, pesticide sprays or larger debris
such as leaves which directly settle on the reservoir surface; (2) water
transported solids from land surface runoff; (3) water transported solids
from groundwater sources; (4) secondary contaminants from chemical reactions
in the reservoir such as chlorinated compounds production enabled by the
presence of chlorine in influent water or from biological growths caused
by the presence of nutrients and exposure to sunlight; (5) resuspended
solids from bottom sediments; (6) contaminants directly introduced by
persons with unauthorized entry to the reservoir; and (7) contaminants
introduced by resting birds on the reservoir surface. These problems do
-------
not generally occur In the water distribution system from the water treat-
ment plant or point where the water is deemed acceptable to the consumer
because of being protected from the ambient environment. While some
problems do occur such as bacterial growths or introduction of contaminants
owing to infiltration, the presence of an uncovered reservoir may be viewed
as the weak link in the system.
Most water utilities with open distribution reservoirs take preventive
maintenance measures to insure high water quality. This insures that con-
sumers are not confronted with aesthetic or health problems. Typically, a
water utility will respond to consumer complaints concerning water quality
by developing specific remedial operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures
or constructing water quality improvement aids. Even if no particular
complaints are received, different O&M procedures or additional construction
may be introduced to reduce existing O&M costs.
Less frequently has a water utility had to implement a major water
quality improvement, such as covering, to alleviate an on-going health
problem. This did occur, however, in the City of Concord, New Hampshire,
when in October, 1975, the State Supreme Court ordered the city to cover
their reservoir because of it being a source of bacterial and viral contami-
nation (Ref. II-4). Other municipal water supplies may have instances of
health problems where the alleged source of contamination is the uncovered
finished water reservoir thus requiring additional improvement measures.
An example of this situation occurred at the town of Swickley, Pennsylvania
(Ref. II-5). In this case, a 62 percent attack rate of a gastrointestinal
illness was estimated for the outbreak. The origin of the illness was in
the municipal water system (population served - 8,000). The cause was
alleged to be contamination of one of their finished water reservoirs.
Few definitive studies have been made to show that open reservoirs dete-
riorate specific water quality parameters. In maintaining acceptable water
quality, the water utility has the option of making the open finished water
reservoir part of the closed distribution system by covering it, or pro-
viding additional treatment of water in the reservoir or effluent water of
the reservoir. Both measures create additional costs, and the decision of
which water quality maintenance method to employ on a cost-effective basis
depends upon the particular water quality problem and the availability of
funds.
PURPOSE
The previous section indicated that the presence of an open finished
water reservoir poses a potential threat to maintaining acceptable water
quality of the municipal water supply. When a water quality problem occurs,
the water utility may have difficulty in ascribing the cause to quality
degradation within the open reservoir. This is principally due to a lack
of water quality data and proven cause-effect relationships. The purpose
of this report is to furnish water utilities via two case study analyses,
with information concerning: (1) water quality change caused by open
-------
reservoirs; (2) making a judgement of the desirability of the change;
(3) delineation of potential causes of change in water quality; (4) develop-
ment of water quality improvement measures; and (5) evaluation of the water
quality improvement measures
This case study of two reservoirs may be viewed in a general manner
allowing significant extrapolation of results to similar situations. The
two case study reservoirs, Druid Lake, Baltimore, Maryland and Highland
Reservoir No. 1, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are typical of large, open
finished, water reservoirs constructed around the turn of the century,
located within large industrial cities. However, the case study approach
has the inherent problem of addressing specific characteristics of unique
situations, i.e., two reservoirs. At a detailed level of interpretation,
little extrapolation of study results is allowed owing to perceived situa-
tional differences.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Both of the reservoirs (Druid Lake and Highland Reservoir No. 1) were
treated in essentially the same manner. A one year water sampling program
from February, 1975 to February, 1976 was performed by the Baltimore
Department of Public Works, and the Pittsburgh Department of Water for
their respective reservoirs. This routine sampling program consisted of
sampling two or three times per week for approximately 20 parameters, at
the following points: the reservoir's influent, at the effluent before
post-chlorination, and at the effluent after post-chlorination. In addition
to the routine sampling program, several special water sampling programs
were completed. These programs included sampling for total organic carbon,
trace metals, radio-chemical phenomenon, viruses, and dust fallout plus
investigations of waterfowl, benthic micro-organisms, depth profiles, and
reservoir water flow.
Data analysis/interpretation dealt with the routine sampling program
with emphasis upon data defining water quality at the reservoir's influent
and effluent before post-chlorination. Changes in water quality between
influent and effluent were determined. Results of the special sampling
programs were principally utilized as background information owing to the
sporadic frequency of sampling.
No specific monitoring was performed of potential external contaminant
sources which might influence reservoir water quality, such as groundwater
infiltration or contaminants introduced by illegal entrance. This meant
that most of the developed water quality improvement measures were presented
from a state-of-art viewpoint rather than being specifically directed to
mitigate the influence of a particular external contaminant source.
Improvement measures were evaluated by consideration of feasibility,
environmental, and economic factors.
-------
CHAPTER II
REFERENCES
II-l Water Policies for the Future, Final Report to the President and to
the Congress of the United States by the National Water Commission,
Water Information Center Inc., Port Washington, N.Y., 1973.
II-2 Public Water Supply Treatment Technology, Report on Water Quality
Management for Office of Water Resources Research, U. S. Department
of Interior, American Water Works Association Research Foundation,
1973.
II-3 Health Aspects of Uncovered Reservoirs, Plutze, J.C., Water Supply
and Waste Section, Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, 1974.
II-4 "Case No. 7241 City of Concord v. Water Supply and Pollution Control",
The State of New Hampshire Supreme Court, October 21, 1975.
II-5 Gastrointestinal Illness at Swickley, Pennsylvania-Evaluation of the
Water Supply System, Lippy, E.G. and J. Erb, (to be published -
Nov. 1976, Journal American Water Works Association), Environmental
Research Center, Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio, April, 1976.
-------
CHAPTER III
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH OPEN STORAGE OF TREATED
DRINKING WATER
INTRODUCTION
Storage of treated drinking water in open reservoirs exposes the water
to possible deterioration and contamination from many sources. The extent
of these effects will vary widely depending upon physical and climatic
conditions. Of primary concern is the potential introduction of pathogens
to the water supply which would endanger consumer health. The presence
of deleterious substances'which pose a long term threat to health such as
heavy metals, chlorinated organics, and radionuclides is receiving increased
attention. In addition to effects on health, open finished reservoirs may
also cause aesthetic problems such as the presence of taste and odor within
the water supply system.
The contaminant sources which may give rise to water quality problems
are the following: (1) airborne particulates; (2) surface runoff;
(3) groundwater movement; (4) illegal entry to reservoir; (5) resting birds;
(6) aquatic organisms; and (7) exposure to ambient weather conditions.
AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
Particulate matter can be blown into the reservoir or can enter with
rainfall. The composition of this particulate matter will be influenced
by the ambient air quality. Substances from industrial sources, such as
heavy metals and hydrocarbons, can enter the reservoir via this route.
Organic debris blown into the reservoir is a potential source of bacterial
contamination. The presence of heavy automobile traffic in the vicinity
of the reservoir will result in emissions of hydrocarbons, lead, and
possibly asbestos from brakes, all of which may enter the reservoir in the
form of airborne fallout. Particulates which settle upon the surrounding
area may subsequently wash into the reservoir if no barrier exists.
CONTAMINANTS FROM SURFACE RUNOFF
Substances deposited by man, intentionally or otherwise and exposed
soils are present as erodible deposits on the surrounding area of an open
reservoir. Rain or snow runoff may transport such substances to the water
if no flow barriers exist. These contaminants include garbage, refuse,
settled industrial smoke particulates, vehicular emissions, and ambient
soils. Because of accumulating during dry periods, the first flush of
10
-------
runoff may be of high contaminant concentration. If this waste stream
enters the open reservoir near the outlet, then an immediate contamination
problem may exist.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS
While the presence of a cover on a finished water reservoir has no
effect upon groundwater infiltration, most reservoirs are evaluated from
a groundwater contamination viewpoint before the decision to cover is
made. If the water quality problem is due solely to a groundwater source
then the water supplier may elect to prevent only groundwater contamination
rather than cover. Water quality problems which may develop owing to the
presence of groundwater include high concentrations of nitrates, hardness
constituents, and alkalinity.
CONTAMINATION BY VIOLATION OF RESERVOIR SECURITY
Open reservoirs are subject to contamination from illegal entry and
vandalism. During the warmer months illegal entry for swimming is a problem,
especially for large, isolated reservoirs. Objects of every description (e.g.
drugs, telephone booth, human body) can be thrown into reservoirs for pur-
poses ranging from the clandestine disposal of the object to the intentional
contamination of the reservoir. If undetected, these security violations
could lead to contamination of large portions of the distribution system.
CONTAMINATION BY .RESTING BIRDS
The clean, calm waters in open reservoirs represent an ideal habitat
for waterfowl. Both ducks and seagulls, sometimes numbering in the
hundreds, have been known to frequent existing open reservoirs. The
excrement from these birds is a potential source of bacterial, viral, and
particulate contamination. Garbage dumps and sanitary landfills are some-
times located in the general vicinity of an open reservoir. The birds,
by feeding at the dump or landfill and returning to the reservoir, conceiv-
ably can transfer pathogens to the water of the reservoir.
AQUATIC ORGANISMS
In an open reservoir, factors including sunlight, temperature,
nutrients, pH, water detention, and basin depth and configuration can be
conducive to the growth of algae and related plankton, midge flies and other
larvae and aquatic vegetation. These growths and their decomposition products
if uncontrolled can lead to taste, odor, and debris problems in the distri-
bution system. Some algae are associated with gastrointestinal illness.
The problems of aquatic growths can be especially troublesome if the
reservoir contains stagnant areas in which there is little movement of
the water or only movement within a restricted area. The long residence
time and warmer temperatures in these areas can lead to loss of chlorine
residual which might normally restrict the aquatic growth.
11
-------
EXPOSURE TO AMBIENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
Wind induced currents within a reservoir may cause water quality
deterioration. Suspension of bottom sediments by such currents can increase
turbidity and possibly cause taste and/or odor problems. Short-circuiting
can occur, by wind induced currents, especially in large, unprotected,
basins whose major axis is oriented in the direction of prevailing winds.
Deep reservoirs may stratify seasonly, possibly altering the reservoir
flow-through time. More importantly, stratification may engender taste,
odor, or other problems when vertical mixing is reestablished by change in
wind and/or temperature.
Exposure of the reservoir to sunlight provides an energy source for
growth of phytoplankton and also acts to reduce the concentration of
residual chlorine within the reservoir. The presence of phytoplankton
allows the existence of other aquatic organisms which feed on them and may
in themselves increase turbidity and create taste and/or odor problems
as discussed in the section concerning aquatic growths. The presence of
sunlight and/or the associated heat will reduce free available chlorine
possibly resulting in the production of chlorinated compounds which may be
harmful to the health of consumers. Furthermore, the lack of a cover
allows vaporized chlorine to escape to the atmosphere thus requiring higher
initial concentrations of chlorine to maintain an adequate residual from
influent to effluent.
12
-------
CHAPTER IV
DRUID LAKE. BALTIMORE: A CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Druid Lake was selected as a case study because it is typical of old,
large, uncovered reservoirs located in an intensely developed, industrial
city. The study of Druid Lake would benefit the City of Baltimore because
the city was considering the emplacement of a cover on the reservoir. How-
ever, owing to the size and depth of the reservoir, covering would be very
expensive (Ref. IV-1). Additionally, because Druid Lake is located in a
park, a cover would be aesthetically objectionable. Baltimore is consider-
ing a cover primarily in response to a survey conducted by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency of the Baltimore water supply system, March 6-10,
1972 (Ref. IV-2) which recommended covering Druid Lake plus six other
reservoirs within the water system. While consumers of water from Druid
Lake have experienced an occurrence of taste and odor owing to an unusual
presence of biological growths, the recommendation to cover by EPA was
based more upon potential problems than existing problems.
In the interests of performing the study, a practical reason for
selecting Druid Lake was that the Water Treatment Section of the Division
of Water, Baltimore Department of Public Works was willing to provide both
personnel and equipment for a water sampling and analysis program. Further-
more, information concerning water flows, water quality monitoring, and
general operation and maintenance was also provided.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF DRUID LAKE
Physical Attributes
Druid Lake is located in northwest Baltimore in close proximity to the
downtown area. The reservoir is an integral part of Druid Hill Park, a
large public park containing a zoo, swimming pools, and other recreational
facilities. Druid Lake is a part of the Baltimore water distribution system
which includes seven open reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 2.27
million cu.m. (600 million gallons).
The lake, constructed in the late 1800's, has an earthen bottom and covers
about 20 ha. (50 acres)« The reservoir has a total normal volume of approxi-
mately 1.2 million cu.m. (300 million gallons) and an average depth of
about 6 m. (20 feet). Treated water flows by gravity to the lake from an
open reservoir at the Montebello Filter Plant No. 2 and enters Druid Lake
through a diffuser pipe in the west end. The average flow into the lake
13
-------
during 1975 was 112 million cu.m./day (42.7 million gallons per day), resul-
ting in a theoretical residence time of 7.2 days. Water leaves the lake
through a discharge manifold in the east end of the lake.
The reservoir is surrounded by a fence bearing "No Trespassing -
Filtered Water" signs. This fence is about 1.8 m. (6 feet) high and set
back from the water about 15.2 m. (50 feet). The fence is built on a para-
pet wall about 0.6 m. (2 feet) high, eliminating most of the surface
drainage into the lake. A roadway used by both automobiles and pedistrians
circumscribes the reservoir outside the fence.
Numerous ducks and seagulls frequent the lake throughout the year. No
attempts have been made to prevent their use of the basin. In the shallow
portions of the lake, there is scattered plant growth, principally aquatic
grass.
Existing Water Quality Monitoring Program
Routine monitoring of water quality in Druid Lake consists of taking
grab samples from the east and west ends of the reservoir (Figure IV-1) once
each week. These samples are analyzed for total coliform bacteria, micro-
organisms, pH, turbidity, color, and temperature. If the presence of total
coliform bacteria is detected, then the reservoir is immediately tested for
the presence of fecal coliform bacteria. Typically, a 24 hour lag exists
between water sampling and bacteria analytical results. Residual chlorine
is monitored 6 days per week. The quality of influent water to Druid Lake
is determined by monitoring the influent to the holding reservoir, which
follows the Montebello water treatment plant, for, at minimum, the parameters
necessary to meet 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Standards. Additional
water quality sampling and analysis is performed after post-chlorination of
Druid Lake effluent. The parameters monitored at this point are total
coliform bacteria, temperature, residual chlorine, pH, fluoride, and micro-
organisms .
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance procedures at Druid Lake are implemented to
insure continuous high water quality of effluent water and throughout the
reservoir. Quality of water delivered to consumers must meet USPHS, 1962,
water quality standards. Water to Druid Lake from the Montebello water
treatment plant has undergone prechlorination, chemical coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, fluoridation, and possible postchlorination
(Ref. IV-3). Chlorination after filtration/fluoridation is designed to
maintain a residual chlorine concentration of 1.0 ppm at the influent to
the holding tank. The residual concentrations at the effluent end of the
holding tank are typically between 0.1 - 0.2 ppm.
Holding tank effluent with the above residual chlorine concentrations
then flows to the influent diffuser at the west end of Druid Lake (Figure
IV-1). Before reaching the diffuser, additional chlorine is added
(pre-reservoir chlorination) on a basis designed to provide a chlorine
14
-------
FIGURE iv-i LOCATION OF WATER SAMPLING SITES FOR DRUID LAKE
CJl
Chlorination —-
LEGEND
— Influent Pipeline
— Effluent Pipeline
O Water Sampling Site
,D-3
Note: Site Location Numbers are Referred in Text
Scale: 1"-410 ft.
-------
concentration of 3 - 5 ppm during summer and 1-3 ppm during winter.
Effluent water from Druid Lake leaves through a multiple outlet structure,
receives additional chlorine and then enters the distribution system by
gravity flow or pumping. Post-reservoir chlorination insures that 1-2
ppm chlorine residual is maintained in effluent water. The in-line contact
time in the distribution system is unknown.
Both prechlorination and postchlorination required a total of 113,000
kilograms (250 tons) during 1975 at a cost of $0.23/kg ($210/ton), January
to June, and $0.28/kg ($250/ton), June to December, for a total cost of
$58,300 per year (1975).
Operational maintenance of the reservoir itself is simple and direct.
In order to control growth of algae, copper sulfate is applied by hand from
a row boat to the water's surface or by dragging burlap bags filled with CuS04
behind the boat, particularly near the shore line. During 1975, six applica-
tions of copper sulfate were made of 544 kg (1200 Ib) each on 9 April, 19 May,
20 June, 21 July, 12 August, and 15 October. The cost of copper sulfate
alone was a total of $2,520/year at $0.77/kg ($700/ton).
Control of weeds growing among the rock rip-rap along the banks of
Druid Lake is accomplished by two deweeding operations per year during
summer-fall as needed. For each operation, deweeding entails two crews of
six men each working for one week (8 hr/day, 5 day/wk) at a cost of $2,100,
or a total cost of $4,200 per year (1975).
Surveillance of Druid Lake in maintaining security is accomplished by
routine periodic checks by police who patrol the perimeter in vehicles.
This arrangement is convenient to the police because, regardless of Druid
Lake, they must patrol the park in which the reservoir is situated. In
addition to police surveillance, employees of the Water Department provide
security six days per week as they go to and from the chlorination station,
and on a sporadic basis (other Department employees during daily travel
and investigations).
Water Quality Problems
Historically, the public water supply of Baltimore has provided a very
high quality water to its consumers (Ref. IV-2). There has only been a single
occurrence of unpleasant taste and odors in the water from Druid Lake. The
cause of such taste and odors was generally associated with the presence of
biological growths. Apparently, a blue-green algae bloom occurred in the raw
water reservoir which precedes the water treatment plant. The cellular
decomposition products of the algae were not removed at the treatment plant
and were subsequently passed on to Druid Lake. This resulted in an "earthiness,
or swampiness" characteristic in the water which was offered to consumers.
Another source of water supply system problems that is now under control
has been traced to an aquatic grass, Vallisneria americana, which is found
growing in the fringe areas of Druid Lake. This species of plant becomes
troublesome in the late summer when dead pieces of the plant become free-
floating and enter the distribution system. Solids in the water supply tended
to cause laundry water strainers to become clogged.
16
-------
Growth of the grass has been controlled by the application of copper sul-
fate directly to the areas of plant growth when the reservoir was lowered
to a level below these areas.
An example of a particular water quality problem is one which
developed in the summer of 1966, caused by a massive algae growth
(Chlorella) in Druid Lake. Counts of Chlorella between two and five
thousand organisms per milliter were recorded Treatment of the reservoir
with 35,400 kg (78,000 pounds) of chlorine and 820 kg (1800 pounds) of
copper sulfate did not control the bloom. A routine check of nutrients in
the lake indicated phosphate concentrations of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/1 as PO,. This
was unexpected since the raw water usually contained around five parts per
billion phosphate. The source of phosphate was traced to hydrofluosilicic
acid added during fluoridation. This acid had been obtained from a new
supplier and was found to contain from two to six percent phosphate. The
use of the high-phosphate acid was discontinued and the counts of Chlorella
fell from 4000 per ml to 100 per ml in two weeks.
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM
Perspective of Sampling Program
Three programs were established to collect baseline characterization
information of Druid Lake. The programs are: (1) routine sampling;
(2) special sampling; and (3) characterization studies. The purpose of
the routine sampling program was to provide information with which to
compare influent and effluent water quality. This comparison determined
if water quality is altered in Druid Lake and if the alteration is signif-
icant. Biological parameters are monitored before and after reservoir
post chlorination in order to determine the disinfection effect of
chlorination upon reservoir effluent. The routine sampling program for
21 physical, chemical, and biological parameters is supported by much less
intensive sampling in the special sampling program. This program monitors
change of parameters specifically identified as health detriments, e.g.,
radiochemical isotopes but which are not likely to occur as health problems
in municipal water supplies.
Characterization studies provide background information and spot
checks upon conditions which indirectly affect or reflect water quality of
the reservoir, such as monitoring dustfall and identifying resident benthic
organisms.
Routine Sampling Program
Water Quality Parameters
The routine sampling program required water sampling and analysis by
the Baltimore Water Department for physical, chemical, and biological
parameters necessary to evaluate water quality within a context of meeting
health and aesthetic criteria. The analyzed water quality parameters and
analytical techniques are shown in Table IV-1. Laboratory analysis is
17
-------
TABLE IV-1
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL
TECHNIQUES USED IN STUDY OF DRUID LAKE
'arameter
Analytical Technique (Ref. IV-5)
Chemical-Physical
Temperature
PH
Color, Apparent
Turbidity
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Alkalinity, Total
Hardness, Total
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Free Residual
Copper
Lead
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphate, Total
Phosphate, Ortho, Soluble
Biological
Coliforms, Total
Coliforms, Fecal
Plate Count, Total Standard
Phytoplankton
Mercury Filled Thermometer
Glass Electrode Method
Platinium-Cobalt Standard
Nephelometric Method
Dissolved Solids plus Suspended Solids
Specific Conductance
Filterable Residue
Standard Acid Titration
EDTA Titrimetric Method
Orthotolidine Method
Orthotolidine Method (OTA Modification)
Atomic Absorption, Spectrophotometric
Atomic Absorption, Spectrophotometric
Nesslerization Method
Brucine Method
Stannous Chloride Method
Stannous Chloride Method
Total Coliform MPN Test; Membrane Filter Test
Fecal Coliform MPN Test
Standard Plate Count
Sedgwick-Rafter Procedure
18
-------
performed according to the procedures in "Standard Methods" (Ref. IV-5).
Sampling Sites and Time Period
Water samples are collected by the Water Department at the following
locations (shown in Figure IV-1 as D-l, D-2, and D-3).
(D-l) Influent water after pre-reservoir chlorination,
(D-2) Effluent water before post-reservoir chlorination, and
(D-3) Effluent water after post-reservoir chlorination.
All parameters listed in Table IV-1 are sampled from locations D-l
and D-2. Only biological parameters are sampled at location D-3.
The sampling and analysis program began 1 February 1975, and ended
on 31 January 1976. From 1 February 1975 to 30 April 1975, samples were
collected from each sample site twice each week. Since the most signif-
icant water quality changes were expected to occur during the summer
months, samples were collected from each location three times per week from
1 May 1975 to 31 October 1975. During the remainder of the study period,
from 1 November to 31 January 1976, samples were collected at each location,
twice each week.
As a check on existing conditions at the time of sampling, an "environ-
mental check list" was completed at the time of sampling for each sample
date. The list included a estimation of: (1) air temperature;
(2) presence and type of precipitation; (3) wind velocity; (4) presence of
clouds; (5) numbers of birds on lake surface; (6) presence of waves; and
(7) unusual activities on or around Druid Lake.
Special Sampling Program
In parallel with the routine sampling program (February, 1975-
January, 1976), samples were collected for special analyses by EPA labora-
tories. The parameters, frequency of measurement, and laboratory perform-
ing the analysis are listed in Table IV-2. Except for the microbe sampling,^
water samples were collected by the Baltimore Water Department and forwarded'
to the appropriate EPA laboratory. Microbe sampling was performed by EPA
personnel. Sampling stations were located at the same influent and
effluent-before post chlorination stations, D-l and D-2, (Figure IV-2) as
in the routine sampling program.
Analytical techniques for total organic carbon, trace metals, and
radiochemical isotopes follow the procedures found in Standard Methods
(Ref. IV-5). A modified form of the microporous filter technique
originally described by Metcalf (Ref. IV-6) was used for analysis of
cytopathic viruses. Analysis for coliform bacteria was performed using a
modified MPN procedure (Ref. IV-7).
19
-------
TABLE IV-2
SPECIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSES-
DRUID LAKE
Parameter
Frequency
EPA
Laboratory
Total Organic Carbon
Trace Metals
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Zinc
Radiochemical Isotopes
Gross Beta
Gross Alpha
Sr-90
Ra-226
Specific gamma
Microbes
Cytopathic Viruses
Coliform bacteria
Weekly
Monthly
Quarter Yearly
Annapolis, Md.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Birmingham, Ala.
Quarter Yearly
Cincinnati, Ohio
20
-------
FIGURE IV-2
LOCATION OF WATER SAMPLING SITES FOR DRUID LAKE
SPECIAL WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM
^DD-1
Inlet Header
Chlorinatlon
Influent Pipeline
Effluent Pipeline
O Water Sample Site
a Dustfall Sample Site
• Benthic Sample Site
D-2 ^--.'
Note: Site Location Labels are Referred in Text
Scale: 1"-410 ft.
-------
Characterization Studies
Water Quality and Benthos Survey
During late summer, when reservoir stratification was most likely to
occur, a survey of water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) at various
depths was performed to observe any existing stratification. The survey
was conducted by Engineering-Science, Inc., McLean, Virginia with aid from
the Baltimore Water Department. Measurements were made directly using a
portable temperature and DO meter, and probe. Water was sampled at 1.5 m
(5 ft.) intervals from surface to bottom at three locations (Figure IV-2),
D-A, D-B, and D-C. These locations are at the deeper areas of the
reservoir.
A qualitative survey of benthic organisms was made at the same three
sites as temperature and DO plus two additional sites (D-D and D-E) making
a transect toward shore from the center site, D-B (Figure IV-2). Bottom
sediment samples were collected using an Eckman dredge. Samples were
preserved in 10 percent formalin solution. Microorganisms were identified
by the Water Department of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania using the Sedgewick-
Rafter method (Ref. IV-5) (Samples were sent to Pittsburgh).
Dustfall Sampling
The amount of airborne particulates settling upon Druid Lake was
measured from April, 1975 to January, 1976. Two floating dustfall samplers
were anchored in Druid Lake (Figure IV-2), one at each end. Sample
collection was performed by the Baltimore Water Department on a monthly
basis, and sample analyses was performed by the Baltimore Department of Air
Pollution.
Potential Contamination by Birds
Chesapeake Bay provides an excellent habitat for birds such as sea-
gulls and waterfowl. While seagulls are continual inhabitants, waterfowl
are found in greatest abundance during the winter due to seasonal migration.
Owing to the close proximity of Druid Lake to the Chesapeake Bay (approxi-
mately 4.8 Km (3 miles) to the nearest tributary) a need existed to explore
the potential of contamination by resting birds on Druid Lake. The Baltimore
Water Department, as part of the aforementioned "environmental check list"
that was completed on each sampling date, noted the numbers of birds on the
lake surface for this purpose. Because seagulls may carry pathogenic
organisms such as fecal streptococci and salmonella after foraging in local
garbage dumps or sanitary landfills, several of these facilities were also
surveyed for the presence of seagulls. In addition, the proximity of all
such facilities to Druid Lake was determined.
22
-------
Hydraulics of Druid Lake
A computation of average water detention time in Druid Lake and flow
through the reservoir, was made for the time period March, 1975-January,
1976. Existing information concerning reservoir volume was obtained. At
monthly intervals, daily influent flow to Druid Lake was provided by the
Water Department along with reservoir water elevations. Using a volume/
elevation chart, the daily change in volume of water was determined. Change
in water volume per time was used to adjust the influent flow resulting in a
computed effluent flow from the reservoir.
Residence time was calculated using the annual average daily flow and
the average reservoir volume.
EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA
Principles of Evaluation
Data were collected to characterize water quality of Druid Lake and
circumstances affecting water quality. In this study, the absence of a
cover on the reservoir was deemed as an omnipresent factor which potentially
changes the high water quality of influent water. Most of the data were
collected and evaluated to observe any change in quality between influent
and effluent water. The remainder of the data were collected to evaluate
the effectiveness of postchlorination.
While the most important principle of evaluation was to observe any
relative water quality change from influent to effluent and effluent before
and after postchlorination, water quality data were also evaluated with
respect to water quality standards. The standards used were those of the
U. S. Public Health Service (1962). The forthcoming Federal water quality
standards presently published as the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (Ref. IV-8), were strictly adhered to in this study because
the final regulations will not be adopted until spring of 1977.
Data Presentation and Evaluation of Routine Sampling Program
Results of the routine sampling program (Table IV-1) are presented in
several levels of detail. A detailed listing of analytical results for
all parameters at all sampling stations is located in the Appendix of
this report (Table A-l). Information is shown by sample collection, date,
parameter, sampling site, and lower limit of analytical detection for the
particular parameter. Data are presented for different sample dates in
Table A-l to account for reservoir detention time lag. This facilitates
comparison of water quality between influent and effluent. The time lag
between sample sites, before and after postchlorination is insignificant.
The time lag between influent and effluent data approximates the theoretical
detention time of 7.2 days. Between February, 1975 to May, 1975 the lag
in Table A-l is 7 days; May, 1975 to November, 1975 - 5 days; and November,
1975 to January, 1976 - 7 days.
23
-------
Routine sampling results in Table A-l are summarized by presenting
the monthly median and range for almost every parameter in tabular fashion.
For each parameter, the range and median are given for each sample site.
The parameters of ammonia and apparent color were not treated in this
manner owing to their uniform values of measurement.
Of the parameters selected to present as monthly medians and ranges,
four parameters were chosen as warranting additional analysis. This
additional analysis is designed to evaluate the difference in parameter
values between sample sites. To indicate the change in water quality
visually, monthly median difference plots are presented. In order to
evaluate the significance of the difference in water quality, a statistical
analysis, Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test (Ref. IV-9) , was performed with data of
the four parameters. Because some of the data are not normally distributed,
the Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was selected as one of the most powerful non-
parametric tests. The 'U' test will indicate the similarity of two
independent groups of data drawn from the same population, and as such,
is an alternative to the more commonly used parametric Students 't1 Test.
Specifically, data from the two sample sites to be compared were drawn from
Table A-l of one parameter for a given month. The values are ranked from
lowest to highest and the following equation is used to compute the 'U1
statistic:
U = nx n2 + - 2 -- Rl
where:
n- = the number of values in the smaller of the sample site groups;
T\2 ~ the number of values in the larger; and
R! = the sum of the ranks assigned to the group whos.e sample size
is n-, .
Significance tests of difference between the two groups are made using the
computed 'U1 statistic, U0. The test criteria is "two-tailed" because
the test is for a difference regardless of direction, i.e., higher or
lower values. The null hypothesis, Ho, states that water quality is the
same at two different sample stations. The alternative hypothetis, Ha,
states that water quality at the two sample stations is different.
Hypothesis Ho is tested within four ranges of significance levels
(a):
(a) a < 0.01;
(b) 0.01 < a j< 0.05
(c) 0.05 < a < 0.10; and
(d) a >. 0.10.
The critical region for rejecting H0 exists when U0 > Ha: where Ua is
determined by using tables (Ref. IV-9) listing critical values of "U" for
24
-------
a selected a. . When U0 > Ua, H0 can be rejected at a confidence level
of [(1 - a) 100] %. In a few cases, where n2 < 9 (i.e., fewer than 9 sample
dates during a month), a different set of critical value tables were used,
resulting in direct determination of an "a ". This "a" falls within one
of the four ranges of significance levels from which a confidence pro-
bability or range of confidence probabilities can be calculated. For each
parameter analyzed, the confidence probability of dissimilar water quality
between sample sites is presented in tabular fashion by month. In addition,
the range of significance levels (a) along with both Uo and Ua are given.
Where "a" was directly determined, this value is given in lieu of Uo and
Ua.
Results of Data Evaluation
Routine Sampling Program
Temperature - On a seasonal basis, the temperature of both influent
and effluent water follows ambient temperature changes with warmer water
in summer and cooler water in winter. This trend is indicated by the
monthly medians of both sample stations shown in Table IV-3.
The impact of exposure to sunlight and changing air temperature is
reflected by the effluent medians being lower than influent medians during
winter and higher during summer.
Tap water with a temperature of 10°C (50°F) is generally satisfactory
while temperatures above 15°C (59°F) are usually objectionable with possible
consumer complaints above 19°C (66°F) (Ref. IV-10). When these criteria
are applied to Druid Lake influent median temperatures equal or exceed 15°C
for six months while effluent median values exceed 15°C for five months.
However, the effluent medians greater than 15°C are about 1.1°C (2°F)
higher than influent values. Thus, exposure of the reservoir to sunlight
and ambient temperatures leads to a less aesthetic pleasing water during
summer. This less aesthetic water condition is shorter in duration during
autumn owing to cooler temperatures.
£H - The yearly pattern (i.e., temporal increases and decreases) of
effluent pH values closely follows that of the influent. The effluent has
higher median values (Table IV-3). The reservoir has a buffering effect,
with an effluent, yearly, median change of 0.2 units while influent pH
changes 1.1 units.
Values of pH generally increase slightly from influent to effluent,
usually 0.2 units. However, during fall and early winter, pH increases
by approximately 0.5 units.
The USPHS standards of 1962 set no limits on pH, however, effluent
values of pH in Druid Lake are within an acceptable range.
Color, apparent - Measurements of color vary little either yearly
during the sampling period or spatially (see Appendix, Table A-l). An
25
-------
TABLE IV-3
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TEMPERATURE AND pH
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Temperature (°F)^
Influent
Range
38-44
40-45
42-47
45-60
58-69
66-71
62-75
60-72
61-66
55-61
42-50
36-48
Median
39
41
44
54
62
68
70
62
62
59
48
40
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
39-42
40-43
43-53
50-65
62-70
70-74
65-75
63-67
61-66
54-60
41-52
36-40
Median
39
41
45
56
66
72
73
64
63
56
45
38
pH ( units) (2)
Influent
Range
7.1-7.6
7.3-7.6
6.9-7.6
6.9-7.5
7.0-7.8
6.9-8.0
7.1-7.9
6.3-7.7
6.0-6.8
6.5-7.1
6.6-7.1
6.3-7.5
Median
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.1
6.4
6.8
6.9
6.9
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
7.2-7.6
7.3-7.6
7.2-7.7
7.0-7.5
7.2-7.8
7.3-7.9
7.3-8.3
7.1-7.9
7.0-7.5
7.2-7.7
7.0-7.7
7.2-7.6
Median
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
to
OJ
Note: (1) 32°F = lower limit of detection for temperature (one Centigrade deg.
(2) 0.01 unit - lower limit for detection of pH.
1.8 Fahrenheit deg.)
-------
isolated, slight increase of color in influent water (from <1.0 unit to
7.0 units) is noted during the last week of September. The higher level
of color is eliminated during residence in the reservoir to a level less
than or equal to 1.0 unit. This increase of apparent color in the influent
is supported by higher values of turbidity, suspended solids, and to a
lesser extent, dissolved solids and total solids (Appendix, Table A-l).
All color measurements are less than the USPHS standard (1962) of
15 units.
Turbidity - Little yearly variation of turbidity exists in Druid Lake,
as indicated by monthly median values in Table IV-4. The maximum difference
between influent medians is 0.27 FTU and between effluent medians, 0.17
FTU. Effluent measurements follow the same trend as influent with
generally higher values in early spring (February and March) and early
fall (September and October).
Turbidity decreases from influent to effluent during most of the year
with the exception of fall when a slight increase is observed from
October through December.
All turbidity measurements are much less than the USPHS standard of
5 FTU.
Total solids - Effluent concentrations of total solids follow, for the
most part, the same yearly trends as influent values (see median values
in Table IV-5). Generally higher values occur during June, August, and
September.
The difference between influent and effluent concentrations is
typically small, usually about a 6 mg/1 increase in effluent. During the
months of February, March, and July, the reservoir experiences a decrease
in total solids from influent to effluent.
The USPHS standards do not limit total solids. However, the USPHS
does set a limit on a component of total solids, dissolved solids, of
500 mg/1 which is much higher than the usual value of about 115 mg/1 total
solids found in Druid Lake.
Dissolved solids - Concentrations of dissolved solids, as shown by
monthly median values in Table IV-5, are the same as those of total solids,
except effluent medians from April through June. This indicates that
most components of total solids are contributed by dissolved solids. The
effluent values from April through June differ by 5 to 19 mg/1 and are
probably insignificant.
All concentrations of dissolved solids meet the USPHS Water Quality
recommended standard of 500 mg/1.
27
-------
TABLE IV-4
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TURBIDITY AND TOTAL CHLORINE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Turbidity (FTU) (1)
Influent
Range
0.30-0.87
0.32-0.67
0.23-0.61
0.14-0.43
0.16-0.61
0.17-0.80
0.21-0.70
0.16-1.60
0.15-5.30
0.11-0.27
D. 12-0. 60
D. 14-0. 75
Median
0.40
0.41
0.31
0.18
0.27
0.30
0.27
0.32
0.31
0.16
0.14
0.25
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.20-0.41
0.18-0.54
0.22-0.44
0.16-0.29
3.17-0.36
). 20-0. 60
3.16-0.28
). 16-0. 51
). 12-0. 58
). 18-0. 26
). 14-0. 50
). 11-0. 35
Median
0.30
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.21
0.27
0.37
0.24
0.20
0.24
Total Chlorine (mg/l)(2)
Influent
Range
1.20-1.60
0.65-7.60
1.00-4.50
1.70-6.00
0.90-5.20
0.05-5.60
0.15-5.25
1.00-5.00
1.80-6.00
4.00-5.50
4.00-8.00
5.40-6.00
Median
1.40
1.50
2.10
3.75
3.30
4.00
3.50
3.25
4.50
4.30
5.00
5.40
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.15-0.30
0.01-0.35
0.01-0.01
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.35
0.01-0.25
0.01-0.90
0.01-0.70
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.25
0.01-0.10
-
Median
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.01
-
to
oo
Note: (1) 0.05 FTU = lower limit of detection for turbidity.
(2) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total chlorine.
-------
TABLE IV-5
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TOTAL SOLIDS AND DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Solids (mg/1) ^
Influent
Range
116-126
70-120
81-148
98-125
105-138
90-130
112-141
86-138
91-139
105-122
103-135
91-110
Median
123
101
104
112
131
103
126
121
107
111
107
106
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
81-124
51-113
42-148
97-130
87-145
93-124
117-138
79-138
94-127
108-136
95-114
88-116
Median
117
64
130
116
135
96
131
122
109
113
110
107
(2)
Dissolved Solids (mg/1) v }
Influent
Range
115-125
70-120
81-148
98-125
105-138
89-129
112-141
86-138
91-134
105-116
103-135
91-110
Median
123
101
104
112
131
103
126
121
107
111
107
106
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
81-124
51-113
42-148
97-130
87-145
93-124
117-138
86-138
94-127
108-136
95-114
87-116
Median
117
64
114
135
130
96
131
122
109
113
110
107
to
CO
Note: (1) 1 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total solids.
(2) 1 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for dissolved solids.
-------
Suspended Solids - Yearly concentrations of suspended solids show a
slight trend of higher values during late summer and early fall (see
monthly medians in Table IV-6). Very little difference exists between
influent and effluent values.
No limit upon suspended solids has been set by the USPHS. A typical
maximum concentration for domestic water supplies is approximately 5 mg/1
(Ref. IV-11) which is greater than any value in Table IV-6.
Total alkalinity - Monthly median concentrations shown in Table IV-7,
indicate slightly higher values during late winter (February and March)
and summer (August and September) for both influent and effluent.
Alkalinity concentrations vary little between influent and effluent
with a typical difference of about 1 mg/1.
The USPHS has set no limit for alkalinity. Considering the low
values of dissolved solids and nearly neutral pH of Druid Lake (about 7.4
units), all concentrations of alkalinity are within an acceptable range.
Hardness - Influent concentrations of hardness (as CaCC^) follow a
slight yearly trend of values peaking in September, November, and December
as indicated by the medians shown in Table IV-7. Effluent values only
peak in September.
Concentrations at influent and effluent sample stations usually differ
by about 2 mg/1. Effluent values are less than influent values during
six months of the sampling period.
No limit on hardness has been set by the USPHS. High quality drinking
water usually has a concentration of hardness less than 100 mg/1 (Ref.
IV-10). All monthly median values for hardness in Druid Lake are less
than 100 mg/1).
Total chlorine - An increase in total chlorine concentrations (from
1.40 to 5.40 mg/1) occurs in influent flow during most of the sampling
period (see median values in Table IV-4). Effluent concentrations do
not follow the trend of influent values but are fairly stable (from 0.01 -
0.20 mg/1) with slightly higher concentrations during summer, from June
through September.
A great difference exists between influent and effluent concentrations
of total chlorine. When compared to influent values, effluent concentra-
tions decrease by 1.25 - 4.99 mg/1 during the year. Total chlorine is a
measurement of both free and combined chlorine residuals. The loss of total
chlorine from reservoir influent to effluent may be attributed to many
factors. Chlorine in water is a very active chemical agent; it reacts with
the many substances dissolved or suspended in water. Reducing compounds
(e.g., manganese, iron, nitrites, etc.) and organic matter that are con-
tinually being transported into the reservoir via groundwater, precipitation,
wind, photosynthesis, etc. exert a chlorine demand. The large reservoir
30
-------
TABLE IV-6
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - SUSPENDED SOLIDS'
CO
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Suspended Solids (mg/1) (1)
Influent
Range
0.1-1.0
0.1-1.9
0.1-1.4
0.1-0.5
0.1-1.3
0.1-1.2
0.1-1.5
0.1-2.0
0.2-5.0
0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.5
Median
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.1-0.4
0.1-0.4
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-1.3
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.6
0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.6
Median
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
Note: (1) 0.1 = lower limit of detection of suspended solids.
-------
TABLE IV-7
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TOTAL ALKALINITY AND HARDNESS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Alkalinity (mg/1) U;
Influent
Range
45-54
42-54
42-48
35-42
37-40
33-47
40-54
46-60
32-55
40-50
40-46
20-40
Median
47
46
44
38
38
41
45
51
39
42
42
39
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
45-58
41-45
38-47
35-42
37-42
40-45
43-54
48-56
35-50
40-44
39-46
36-42
Median
47
43
44
38
39
42
46
50
42
42
42
38
Hardness (as CaC03) (mg/1) (2)
Influent
Range
69-75
68-75
61-73
61-73
52-74
54-76
60-80
68-93
62-92
72-84
70-82
60-76
Median
71
73
68
68
71
64
72
81
68
75
77
68
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
67-74
68-74
66-75
63-74
66-76
54-68
65-80
72-100
67-86
68-80
62-87
67-74
Median
70
71
69
70
73
62
72
84
74
74
72
70
co
to
Note: (1) 1 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total alkalinity.
(2) 1 mg/1
lower limit of detection for hardness (as CaCO-).
-------
volume affords the opportunity and time for these substances to react with
chlorine. Consequently various amounts of available chlorine are being
removed, depending on the amount of chlorine demanding substances that are
present. Additionally, sunlight dissipates chlorine in large open reservoirs.
The increase in the total chlorine concentrations that occurs in the in-
fluent over the course of the study period, and the corresponding constant
values of total chlorine in the effluent during the entire period indicates
that a concomitant increase in the chlorine demand present in the reservoir
is occurring. The incidence of sunlight over the course of the study period
may also be partially responsible for varying degrees of chlorine dissi-
pation.
The USPHS has set no limits upon total chlorine concentration. However,
the threshold of taste in redistilled water is about 5 mg/1 (Ref. IV-10).
Because chlorine is added as a disinfectant, the loss of chlorine is of
primary concern.
Free chlorine - The temporal and spatial trends of free residual
chlorine follow those of total chlorine (see Table IV-8). Apparently, most
of total chlorine exists as free chlorine which is shown by sampling data in
Table A-l (Appendix). The difference between residual chlorine and total
chlorine concentrations is usually small (Table A-l) indicating the presence
of only small amounts of combined chlorine. The fact that only a small
portion of the effluent total chlorine exists in the combined form (i.e.,
chloramine compounds) indicates a correspondingly negligible amount of
ammonia is present in the reservoir as a result of the many possible con-
taminant transport processes. Figure IV-3 shows the yearly trend in the
loss of free chlorine through the reservoir.
Because free chlorine is extremely important to disinfection of the
water supply and because of the additional cost incurred by applying chlorine,
the Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was used to evaluate the difference of concen-
trations between influent and effluent. While differences in parameter
values between influent and effluent have previously been observed, no
attempt was made to identify the significance of the difference. Results
from the statistical analysis of free chlorine residual (Table IV-8) indi-
cate that the probability of different concentrations between influent and
effluent is greater than the 99 percent confidence level. In Table IV-8,
the typical large difference between U and U shows that the confidence pro-
bability is much greater than the 99 percent probability indicated.
No limits for free chlorine residual have been set by the USPHS.
Copper - Both influent and effluent concentrations of copper show ap-
proximately the same yearly trends of higher values in late spring (May) and
during fall (October) as indicated by the monthly medians in Table IV-9.
Periods of higher copper concentrations do not correspond to applications
of copper sulfate (an algicide) made on the following dates: 4/09/75; 5/19/75;
6/20/75; 7/21/75; 8/12/75; and 10/15/75 (see Appendix, Table A-l).
Except for a couple of months, copper concentrations usually increase by
about 0.005 mg/1 from influent to effluent. The large influent median value
of December (0.048 mg/1) may not be indicative of copper concentrations exis-
ting in December owing to the small number of samples taken (see Table A-l).
33
-------
CO
TABLE IV-8
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
DRUID LAKE - FREE CHLORINE
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
Hay
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Free Chlorine Residual <»g/l)(1)
Sample
Influent
Range
1.00-1.60
0.65-1.90
1.00-4.50
1.70-6.00
0.80-5.20
0.05-5.40
0.10-5.00
1.00-5.00
1.80-5.50
4.00-5.50
4.0O-7.00
5.00-5.50
Median
1.40
1.40
2.10
3.75
3.30
4.00
3.60
3.00
3.90
4.30
5.00
5.00
Sites
Effluent-
No Chlorlnatlon
Range
0.10-0.30
0.01-0.35
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.35
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.90
0.01-0.40
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.10
-
Median
0.15
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
O.20
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
-
Mann-Whitney '0' Test*2'
«o
0.0
0.0
Influent-Effluent, No Cl2
"a
31
7
0.000
0.0
0.0
7.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
23
26
26
26
32
00
8
-
a
99*
>99*
>99*
>99»
>99*
>99»
>99»
>99»
>99*
>99»
>99*
-
Hote: (1) 0.01 mg/1 - lower limit of detection for residual chlorine.
(2) Non directional test for equal concentrations of residual chlorine at sampling sites: influent and effluent-no chlorination.
The significance level is set at 'a'. The statistic Uo is computed and compared to U_ which is selected at 'a' or the larger •„• if
stated as a range. U mist be less than Ua to state with some confidence probability greater than 901 at the concentrations at th-
two sample points di»«r. Where a single number is listed beneath columns Uo and Ua. a probability was computed to compare ulrectlv
with a to determine the confidence probability.
Denotes value greater than 90Z
-------
co
en
CsL
O
o
_l
-------
TABLE IV-9
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - NITRATE AND COPPER
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Nitrate (as N) (mg/1) (1)
Influent
Range
0.9-1.1
0.7-1.2
0.9-1.2
0.8-1.0
0.8-1.3
0.7-1.0
0.7-0.9
0.5-0.9
0.8-1.4
0.9-1.4
0.9-1.9
1.2-1.8
Median
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.4
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.7-0.9
0.9-1.1
0.9-1.2
0.7-0.9
0.7-1.2
0.7-0.9
0.7-0.9
0.5-1.0
0.6-1.1
0.5-1.5
1.5-1.9
0.9-1.7
Median
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.4
1.6
1.2
Copper (mg/l)( ^
Influent
Range
0.002-0.016
0.001-0.010
0.003-0.010
0.004-0.061
0.004-0.040
0.010-0.022
0.002-0.020
0.001-0.015
0.010-0.140
0.001-0.005
0.010-0.070
0.010-0.020
Median
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.035
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.006
0.020
0.003
0.048
0.010
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.001-0.010
0.003-0.010
0.002-0.007
0.024-0.060
0.002-0.060
0.010-0.022
0.002-0.015
0.001-0.060
0.002-0.030
0.002-0.010
0.010-0.070
0.010-0.020
Median
0.002
0.006
0.004
0.040
0.023
0.015
0.005
0.007
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.010
CO
OS
Note: (1) 0.01 mg/1 - lower limit of detection for nitrate (as N).
(2) 0.001 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for copper.
-------
The USPHS has recommended a limit on copper of 1.0 mg/1 for domestic
water supplies. This limit is primarily based on threshold concentrations
of taste which are in the range of 1.0 - 2.0 mg/1. All reported copper
concentrations in Druid Lake are much less than 1.0 mg/1.
Lead - The yearly trends of influent and effluent lead concentrations,
indicated by the medians shown in Table IV-10, are similar to the higher
lead values during spring and early winter.
A possible explanation for these high lead values can be found by
evaluating monthly composite air analyses performed by the Baltimore Health
Department at a station about 4 Km (2.5 miles) from Druid Lake. The
uncovered holding reservoir (receiving water, immediately after treatment)
from which water flows to Druid Lake is located in the immediate vicinity
of this station. Therefore, the results of the air analyses may be
indicative of ambient air quality near both reservoirs. Results of lead
analyses at this location are the following (Ref. IV-12).
January, 1975 - 1.103 micrograms/cu m. lead
February - 0.881
March - 0.761
April - 0.618
May - 0.806
June - 0.429
July - 0.723
August - 0.559
September - 0.796
October - 1.005
November - 1.627
December - 1.125
January, 1976 - 0.977
These results indicate generally higher values during early spring, fall,
and winter which affect lead concentrations in Druid Lake by rain or
wind deposition. Figure IV-4 shows that except for the month of January;
small differences of 0.003 mg/1 of lead or less exists between influent
and effluent monthly data medians. The reason for the relatively large
increase of effluent lead concentration during January is unknown.
Evaluation of differences between influent and effluent concenrations
was performed by testing for significance using the Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test.
Results indicate that the probability of dissimilar concentrations during
all months is less than 90 percent (see Table IV-10). Thus, even the
difference in lead values during January has less than a 90 percent
probability of occurring.
The USPHS has set a limit of 0.05 mg/1 lead concentration for drink-
ing water. All lead values in Druid Lake are less than 0.05 mg/1.
37
-------
TABLE IV-10
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
DRUID LAKE - LEAD
CO
oo
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Lead
Sample
Influent
Range
0.006-0.015
0.010-0. 015
0.005-0.020
0.008-0.020
0.007-0.020
0.005-0.017
0.001-0.015
0.001-0.010
0.005-0.035
0.005-0.008
0.005-0.025
0.007-0.025
Median
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.015
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.010
0.007
0.015
0.013
Sites
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.006-0.014
0.006-0.020
0.005-0.020
0.005-0.020
0.008-0.020
0.005-0.020
0.003-0.010
0.001-0.020
0.005-0.032
0.003-0.010
0.005-0.020
0.013-0.025
Median
0.008
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.015
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.005
0.013
0.025
Mann-Whitney 'U' Test^2^
Influent-Effluent, No Cl2
«o
0.5
33.0
"a
31
21
0.380
57.5
75.5
66.5
67.0
65.0
82.0
42
47
51
51
51
56
0.191
44.5
0.1
24
30
a
>0.10
>0.10
>0.10
>0.10
=0.10
'O.IO
>0.10
XJ.10
>0.10
>0.10
>0.10
>0.10
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (I)
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
•=90
Note (1) 0.001 Kg/1 - lower limit of detection for lead.
(2) Don directional test for equal concentrations of lead at sampling sites: Influent and effluent-no chlorlnatlon. The significance
level Is set at 'a*. The statistic Uo is computed and compared to Ua which is selected at 'a* or the larger 'a1 if stated as a range.
U0 must be less than Ua to state with some confidence probability greater than 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample points
differ. Where a single number is listed beneath columns U0 and Ua, a probability was computed to compare directly with 'a' to deter-
mine the confidence probability
-------
FIGURE IV-4
co
CD
S
O
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (EFFLUENT MINUS INFLUENT)
LEAD FOR DRUID LAKE
Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1975 1976
-------
Ammonia - Measurements of ammonia vary little either seasonally or
spatially with most values near or below the analytical limit of detection,
0.02 mg/1 (see Appendix, Table A-l). Slightly higher concentrations were
observed during the month of October, but the significance of this differ-
ence is doubtful.
While the USPHS has set no limits on ammonia concentration, a generally
accepted limit indicating sanitary conditions is approximately 0.04 - 0.08
mg/1 ammonia as N (Ref. IV-10). Concentrations of both influent and
effluent sporadically exceed this limit.
Nitrate - Both influent and effluent concentrations of nitrate show a
slight yearly trend of smaller values during summer and larger values
during early winter, indicated by the medians shown in Table IV-9. While
a tendency exists for concentrations to remain the same or decrease from
influent to effluent, the difference in values is small, typically about
0.1 mg/1.
The USPHS has recommended a limit of 10 mg/1 nitrate as N. All
concentrations of nitrate in Druid Lake are much less than 10 mg/1.
Total phosphate - A slight seasonal trend exists, where influent and
effluent concentrations of total phosphate (as PO^) increase during late
spring and late summer (Table IV-11). Influent and effluent concentrations
are similar with monthly median values typically exhibiting either no
difference between sample stations or a slight decrease of effluent median
concentrations. Spatial decreases of median concentration are only 0.01
mg/1. Isolated, high concentrations occur in September and October.
No limits upon total phosphate have been set by the USPHS. The
presence of phosphate in Druid Lake is of primary importance as a bio-
nutrient. Threshold phosphate requirements for biological growth depend
upon climate and the chemical and physical character of the water.
Dissolved (soluble) inorganic phosphate (usually orthophosphate) is the
most readily assimulated form of phosphate. Comparison of total phosphate
with soluble orthophosphate concentrations indicate that most of total
phosphate is composed of soluble orthophosphate. Concentrations of in-
organic phosphate may occasionally be in excess of threshold nutrient
requirements, as discussed in the following section.
Soluble orthophosphate - Both influent and effluent concentrations of
soluble orthophosphate show an increase in monthly median values (Table
IV-11) during late spring and late summer. Only a few monthly data medians
show any change between influent and effluent values and these differences
are only about 0.1 mg/1.
The USPHS has set no limits on concentration of soluble orthosposphate.
This inorganic form of phosphate is a more specific plant nutrient than
total phosphate. Comparison of total phosphate median concentrations
with soluble orthophosphate medians indicates that most of total phosphate
is composed of soluble orthophosphate. A suggested maximum concentration
40
-------
TABLE IV-11
MONTHLY MEDIAN AMD RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TOTAL PHOSPHATE AND SOLUBLE ORTHO PHOSPHATE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Phosphate (as PO^) (mg/1) (1)
Influent
Range
0.02-0.05
0.01-0.06
0.03-0.08
0.01-0. 1C
0.01-0.09
0.01-0.06
0.03-0.05
0.01-0.07
0.01-0.25
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.06
0.01-0.10
Median
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.01-0.03
0.01-0.03
0.02-0.08
0.02-0.10
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.05
0.03-0.05
0.01-0.42
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.08
0.01-0.06
0.01-0.03
Median
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
Soluble Ortho Phosphate (as P04) (mg/1) (2]
Influent
Range
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.06
0.02-0.08
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.07
0.01-0.06
0.03-0.05
0.01-0.07
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.06
Median
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.01-0.02
0.01-0.04
0.02-0.06
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.06
0.01-0.05
0.03-0.05
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.02
Median
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Note: (1) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total phosphate (as PO )
(2) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for soluble ortho phosphate (as PO,)
-------
of inorganic phosphorus is 0.01 mg/1 which can be permitted without encour-
aging plant growth (Ref. IV-10). If this limit of phosphorus is expressed
in terms of phosphate then the maximum concentration is about 0.03 mg/1 (as
PO.). The median concentrations of orthophosphate shown in Table IV-11
indicate that the suggested limit of 0.03 mg/1 is equaled or exceeded by
influent values of five months and by effluent values for six months.
Total coliforms - Measurements of total coliform bacteria (Table IV-12)
indicate that at all sampling stations during the entire sampling period,
total coliforms are practically nonexistent.
The USPHS limits the presence of coliform organisms in a potable water
to one coliform organism per 100 ml if the membrane filter technique is
used; if the multiple tube fermentation technique (MPN) is used, not more
than 10 percent of the standard 10 ml samples examined in any single month
shall show the presence of the coliform group. In this study, coliform
bacteria were measured by the MPN Test during the first half (February 1 to
June 20) of the sampling period, and then for the remainder of the period
the membrane filter technique was used. The MPN data collected indicated
the absence of coliform bacteria except during the month of April at sample
point D-2. Less than three percent of the samples examined showed positive
for coliforms. In either case, the MPN of these results is shown as
<2/100 ml. Data collected using the membrane filter technique consistently
had values of 0.05 coliform colonies per 100 ml. Analytical results indi-
cate, therefore, that the Druid Lake water meets USPHS standards. All of
the total coliform data listed in Appendix Table A-l shows values less than
2 MPN/100 ml because this is the nominal minimum MPN per 100 ml sample that
can be reported from the negative tube results (e.g. all negative tubes is
still considered <2 MPN/100 ml).
Fecal coliforms - Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria (Table
IV-13) indicate that these coliforms exist at densities less than the limit
of analytical detection during the sampling period.
No USPHS limit exists for fecal coliforms. As with the total coliform
analyses, the fecal coliform analyses over the course of the study period
were done by two procedures: the multiple tube fermentation test for fecal
coliforms and the membrane filter test for fecal coliforms. The results of
the multiple tube fermentation tests are shown as MPN per 100 ml. Since
these were all negative, the results are shown nominally as <2 MPN per 100
ml. Analytical results using the membrane filter technique (after 20 June
1975) were also negative and these are shown as <0.05 fecal colonies per
100 ml. Although both methods produced negative results concerning the
presence of fecal coliform bacteria, the data are shown differently due to
the inherent detection limits of each technique.
Total standard plate count - Monthly median concentrations of bacteria
at the influent sampling station (Table IV-14) show no yearly change with
values less than or equal to the minimum analytical detection limit (1
colony/ml). Effluent medians during the sampling period indicate an increase
in numbers of bacteria during late spring and mid-autumn. This increase
coincides with the decrease of free residual chlorine found during the same
periods (Table IV-8) in the effluent of Druid Lake. Compared to influent
42
-------
TABLE IV-12
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - TOTAL COLIFORMS
Month
February
(1)
March V '
April (1)
May <»
(1)
T ^ '
June
July <2)
(2)
August
(2)
September
(2)
October
(2)
November
(2)
December
(2)
January
Total Coliforms (colonies per 100 ml)
Influent
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
«2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
CO
Notes: (1) MPN of colonies, per 100 ml. in multiple tube fermentation tests.
(2) Coliform colonies counter per 100 ml. in membrane filter tests.
-------
TABLE IV-13
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
DRUID LAKE - FECAL COLIFORMS
Month
02/75-01/76
February ^ '
March
April (1)
May
June
July (2)
(2)
August
September
n u (2)
October
November (2)
December (2)
(2)
January
Fecal Coliforms (colonies per 100 ml)
Influent
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Median
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Notes: (1) MPN of fecal colonies per 100 ml. in multiple tube fermentation (Fecal Coli.) test.
(2) Fecal coliform colonies counted per 100 ml. in membrane filter (Fecal Coli.) test.
-------
TABLE IV-14
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
DRUID LAKE - TOTAL STANDARD PLATE COUNT
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
Hay
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Standard Plate Count (colonies/ml) (1)
Samnle Sitpn
Influent
Range
1
1-42
1-4
1
1
1-2
1-140
1-11
60
1
1
1-39
Median
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent-
No Chlorlnatlon
Range
1-2
1-3
1-17
1-300
1-800
1-800
1-400
1-500 .
1-1600
1-1300
1-15
1
Median
1
1
2
300
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
Effluent-
Post Chlorlnatlon
Range
1-8
1-10
1
1-140
1
1
1-8
1-2
1-180
1-400
1-6
1-4
Median
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
Mann-Whitney 'U' Test*2^
Influent-Effluent, No C12
Uo
o.:
30.5
U
a
50
21
0.086
6.0
36.0
65.0
50.0
36.0
7.8
20
41
42
42
24
56
0.117
0.0
27
n.221
a
>0.1
0.1
0.05-0.1
0.002
0.002-0.05
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (X)
<90
<90
90-95
>99
95-99
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
Effluent, No Clz-Ef fluent, Post C12
U
o
0.
U
a
500
38.5 21
0.023
14.5
39.0
65.0
56.0
33.0
80.5
20
41
47
51
27
56
0.399
48.0
27
0.116
a
>0.1
>0.1
0.002-0.05
<0.002
0.002-0.05
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
<90
95-99*
>99 *
95-99*
<90
<90
<90
<90
<9D
<90
<90
C7I
Note: (1) 1 colony/ml - lower limit of detection for total standard plate count.
(2) Don directional test for equal concentrations of bacteria (total standard plate count) at sampling sites: influent and effluent-
no chlorinatlon; and effluent-no chlorinatlon and effluent-post chlorlnation. The significance level is set at a. The statistic Uo
nust be less than Ua to state with some confidence probability greater than 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample points differ
Where a single number is listed beneath columns U0 and {]„, a probability was computed to compare directly with 'a' to determine the
confidence probability.
*Denotes value greater than 90Z.
-------
V
ta
o
Oi
O
a:
2
to
-------
FIGURE IV-6
MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (POSTCHLORINATION MINUS EFFLUENT)
TOTAL STANDARD PLATE COUNT FOR DRUID LAKE
-500 |-
1,000
Feb. March April
-------
concentrations, the increase of effluent values is occasionally dramatic
with peaks of up to 1600 colonies/ml (Appendix, Table A-l). The difference
between influent and effluent medians is generally small except for the month
of May (Figure IV-5). After postchlorination, bacterial concentrations
usually decrease from their prechlorination values (Figure IV-6) to low con-
centrations less than or equal to the minimum limit of detection. However,
concentrations during the months of October and November increase above this
limit.
The Mann-Whitney 'Uf Test was used to determine the significance of the
difference in concentrations between influent and prechlorination effluent,
and effluent before and after postchlorination. Results from the statis-
tical analysis of influent/prechlorination effluent data (Table IV-14) show
that only during late spring is the probability of different bacteria con-
centrations at the two stations greater than 90 percent. However, comparison
of U and U indicate that during other months, the probability of unequal
concentrations is not substantially less than 90 percent. Results of the
'U1 test for differences between concentrations at points of effluent before
and after postchlorination indicate probabilities greater than 90 percent
of unequal concentrations occurring during spring. As in the previous test
of significance the probability of dissimilar concentrations at influent
and effluent sampling stations during the remainder of the year is not sub-
stantially less than 90 percent.
Increases in the concentrations of bacteria are probably a function of
decreases in free residual chlorine concentrations. Postchlorination
decreases bacteria concentration. However, a slight net gain over influent
bacteria density appears to exist.
The USPHS has not set limits upon bacteria density as indicated by the
total standard plate count procedure.
Phytoplankton - All measurements of phytoplankton concentrations prove
to be considerably less (Appendix, Table A-l) than the generally accepted
amount which ordinarily defines the existence of an algae bloom: 500 organisms/
ml. (Ref. IV-13). Influent concentrations of phytoplankton (Table IV-15) are
highest from late winter through the summer. Effluent concentrations before
postchlorination are higher during early spring and late fall with lowest
values during summer. Phytoplankton densities generally increase from in-
fluent to effluent. However, the period of greatest increase only shows a
median change of from 3 to 13 organisms/ml occurring in late fall and early
winter (Figure IV-7). Monthly median concentrations of phytoplankton in
reservoir effluent after postchlorination show increases during the year
similar to prechlorination effluent. Densities are higher during early
spring and late fall. Phytoplankton effluent median densities generally show
a slight increase after postchlorination (Figure IV-8) of between 1 to 14
organisms/ml. These measurements may include organisms which have been
killed by chlorine.
The Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was also used to determine the significance
of the difference in concentrations between influent and prechlorination
effluent, and effluent before and after postchlorination. Results from
testing influent/prechlorination effluent (Table IV-15) show that during
48
-------
TABLE IV-15
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
DRUID LAKE - FHYTOFLANKTON
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Phytoplankton (organisms/ml)
Influent
Range
1-92
1-160
0-3
0-13
0-14
0-6
0-37
0-22
0-8
0-3
0-6
0-8
Median
4
12
0
0
1
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
Effluent-
No Chlorinatlon
Range
0-23
0-22
1-14
0-7
0-12
0-8
0-2
0-7
0-13
0-156
2-25
0-7
Median
3
5
4
1
1
0
0
1
2
5
13
3
Effluent-
Post Chlorinatlon
Range
0-6
0-63
0-13
0-12
0-18
0-21
0-1
0-10
0-18
10-136
5-36
1-14
Median
2
19
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
10
10
8
Mann-Whitney 'U' Test(2)
Influent-Effluent, No Cl2
"o
o.;
20.5
0.(
39.5
63.5
59.0
76.5
70.0
91.5
0
3.0
0
U
a
68
21
01
42
47
51
51
51
61
001
10
501
a
>0.1
>0.1
0.05-0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
<0.002
<0.002
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
<90
90-95
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
>99
>99
<90
Effluent, No Cl2-Effluent, Post Cl2
U
o
0.
37.0
0.(
18.0
69.0
61.5
57.5
78.0
62.0
0.
33.0
0.
U
a
i09
21
380
20
51
51
51
51
56
267
24
323
a
>0.1
>0.1
0.05-0.1
<0.002
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
<90
90-95*
>99 *
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<£>
Note: (1) 0 organisms/ml - lower limit of detection for
(2) Non directional test for equal concentrations
no chlorination; and effluent-no chlorination
is computed and compared to Ua which is selec
some confidence probability greater than 90%
beneath columns Uo and Ua, a probability was
* Denotes value greater than 90Z.
phytoplankton.
of phytoplankton at sampling sites: influent and effluent-no chlorination; and effluent-
and effluent-post Chlorinatlon. The significance level Is set at a . The statistic Uo
ted at 'a1 or the larger 'a' of stated as a range. Uo must be less than Ua to state with
that the concentrations at the two sample points differ. Where a single number is listed
computed to compare directly with 'a1 to determine the confidence probability.
-------
FIGURE IV-7
MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (EFFLUENT MINUS INFLUENT)
PHYTOPLANKTON FOR DRUID LAKE
Ol
o
Feb. March April May
June
-------
FIGURE IV-8
MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (POSTCHLORINATION MINUS EFFLUENT)
PHYTOPLANKTON FOR DRUID LAKE
Feb. March April May
Jan.
1976
-------
the months of April, November, and December, the probability of unequal
phytoplankton densities is greater than 90 percent. The difference in con-
centration is most significant during late fall. Results from analysis of
concentration differences between points of effluent before and after post-
chlorination indicate probabilities greater than 90 percent of unequal con-
centrations occurring during April and May. However, these differences are
conflicting with an observed decrease in April and an increase during May.
A relatively large median difference exists during March but the overall
thrust of the data is similar at both stations. Postchlorination does not
appear to greatly influence phytoplankton densities.
The USPHS has no limits upon algae density. Algae principally degrade
water quality by causing taste and odor problems, or increased turbidity if
present in high numbers. The algae most commonly believed to cause taste
and odor problems are green algae (Chlorophyceae) and blue-green algae
(Cyanophyceae). The principal algae found in Druid Lake during the sampling
period are the following: Chlorophyceae-Closterium and Cosmarium; Cyano-
phyceae-Anabaena, Coelospherium, and Oscillatoria; and Diatomaceae (diatoms)-
Asterionella, Amphora, Fragilaria, Navicula, Melosira, and Stauroneis. Under
proper growth conditions, taste and odor problems could occur.
Special Sampling Program
Total organic carbon - Both influent and effluent measurements of total
organic carbon (TOC) generally follow the same yearly trend (see Table IV-16).
Increases of concentration primarily occur during July and August with
smaller increases during January, March, and early April. Decreases of con-
centration occur during June and December.
Even though both influent and effluent values exhibit similar yearly
trends, effluent concentrations are almost always lower than influent values.
Effluent concentrations show the greatest decrease (about 25 percent) during
May, July, August, and September.
No limits have been set for TOC by the USPHS. Total organic carbon is
a gross measure of organic carbon present in the water and usually reflects
specific organic parameters such as phytoplankton, and various forms of
organic solids.
Trace Metals - Analysis for trace metals was basically performed on
metals which have proven to be deleterious to health. Measurements of trace
metals are listed in Table IV-17. In Table IV-17, minimum limits of detec-
tion, denoted by an asterisk, may change for a given parameter because of
using different minimum concentration standards in the atomic absorption
analytical technique used.
All measurements of barium are less than or equal to the lower limit of
analytical detection. Virtually no difference in concentration occurs at
either the influent or effluent sampling station during the sampling period.
The USPHS has set a maximum limit of 1.0 mg/1 with which all measurements comply.
Chromium concentrations are the same at both sample stations during
the year. All measurements are less than or equal to the minimum limit of
52
-------
TABLE IV-16
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SAMPLING RESULTS FOR
DRUID LAKE. BALTIMORE. MD.
Date
Sample
Collected
3/31/75
4/03/75
4/10/75
4/17/75
4/24/75
5/01/75
5/09/75
5/14/75
5/23/75
5/28/75
6/06/75
6/13/75
6/20/75
7/04/75
7/11/75
7/18/75
7/25/75
8/01/75
8/08/75
8/15/75
8/22/75
Total Organic Carbon
(mg/1)
Influent
1.29
1.27
1.56
1.26
1.05
0.95
1.08
1.10
1.43
1.22
0.91
0.70
0.81
1.68
-
1.55
1.40
1.68
1.96
1.50
1.68
Effluent
1.23
1.24
1.25
0.81
1.00
0.94
0.83
0.70
0.97
0.91
0.94
0.64
0.78
1.60
-
1.31
1.22
1.20
1.44
1.07
1.52
Date
Sample
Collected
8/29/75
9/05/75
9/12/75
9/19/75
10/03/75
10/17/75
10/24/75
10/31/75
11/07/75
11/13/75
11/20/75
11/26/75
12/04/75
12/11/75
12/18/75
12/26/75
12/31/75
1/08/76
1/16/76
1/22/76
1/29/76
Total Organic Carbon
(mg/1)
Influent
1.31
2.13
1.16
1.58
1.17
1.16
1.19
1.23
0.88
1.38
0.91
0.92
0.85
0.66
0.80
0.97
1.26
1.30
1.67
1.26
1.21
Effluent
1.08
1.81
0.95
0.95
1.05
0.97
0.92
1.05
0.87
1.52
1.73
0.91
0.87
0.66
0.81
0.97
1.13
0.93
1.13
1.39
1.19
Note: (1) See Figure IV-2 for location of sampling sites,
53
-------
Ol
TABLE IV-17
TRACE METAL SAMPLING RESULTS
FOR DRUID LAKE
Date of
Sample
Collection
2/03/75
3/03/75
4/03/75
5/- /75
6/02/75
7/04/75
8/01/75
9/03/75
10/01/75
11/03/75
12/04/75
01/08/75
Trace Metals
Bar!
Influent
* 0.05
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
un
Effluent
* 0.05
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
-
-
Chronlun
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
-
-
Silver
Influent
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.06
« 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
_]
1
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
t
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.06
* 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
* Concentration la less than the indicated value
"°te (1> See Figure IV-2 for location of sampling sites.
V* 7
'D
lent
)1
U
)1
)1
11
)6
6
3
3
3
Coppc
Influent
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.18
* 0.06
0.08
0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
r
Effluent
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.03
0.03
0.10
* 0.06
* 0.05
* 0.02
* 0.02
-
-
Manganese
Influent
0.01
0.004
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.020
* 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
Effluent
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
* 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
0.03
-
-
-------
Ol
Ol
TABLE IV-17 fcontinuMn
TRACE METAL SAMPLING RESULTS
FOR DRUID LAKE
" '
Date of
Sample
Collection
2/03/75
3/03/75
4/03/75
5/- /75
6/02/75
7/04/75
8/01/75
9/03/75
10/01/75
11/03/75
12/04/75
01/08/75
— ,
Lead
* 0.014
* 0.043
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.008
* 0.033
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.012
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
—
"
Iron
0.070
0.060
0.09
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.23
* 0.10
* 0.10
0.20
* 0.10
* 0.10
ertluent
0.030
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.08
* 0.10
0.13
* 0.10
-
-
Trace Metals (ng/1)
Cadiiun
Influent
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
Effluent
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
-
(1)
Zinc
Influent
0.010
0.010
0.007
0.02
0.01
0.02
* 1.28
* 0.04
* 0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
Effluent
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.030
0.01
0.03
* 0.06
* 0.02
* 0.02
0.02
_
-
Influent
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
uijr
iffTSST
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* O.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
0 . 0009
* 0.0005
* Concentration Is less than the Indicated value
Note: (1)
See Figure IV-2 for location of sampling sites.
-------
analytical detection. A maximum limit of 0.05 mg/1 for hexavalent chromium
was set by the USPHS. The atomic absorption analytical technique used in
this study measures total chromium. The USPHS limit is met because all
values of total chromium are less than 0.05 mg/1.
Every measurement of silver is less than or equal to the lower limit
of analytical detection. Even though the concentrations in Table IV-17
change during the year at both influent and effluent sample stations,
all silver values may actually be the same as the lowest value (0.01 mg/1).
This possibility is irresolvable owing to limitations of the analytical
technique. Silver concentrations do not change from influent to effluent
for a particular sample date. USPHS Drinking Water Standards limit silver
concentration to 0.05 mg/1. All silver measurements in Druid Lake are
less than this limit except those during the months of July and August
whose compliance with the standard is not known owing to the large magni-
tude of the lower limit of detection.
Both influent and effluent concentrations of copper are fairly
erratic during the sampling period. No particular trend of concentration
change between influent and effluent sample stations is discernible.
Comparison of the copper analytical results in Table IV-17 and results
from the routine sampling program in Table A-l (Appendix) indicate differ-
ent concentrations for both influent and effluent on almost every sample
date. The greatest difference occurs at the influent station (o.!68 mg/1)
on 4 July 1975 and at the effluent station (0.238 mg/1) on 4 March 1975.
The USPHS has recommended the limit on copper to be 1.0 mg/1 which is not
violated by any of the analytical results.
A slight yearly trend of manganese concentrations exists where
larger values occur during spring at both influent and effluent stations.
Differences between influent and effluent values are small or non-
existent. The USPHS has recommended a limit of 0.05 mg/1 for manganese.
All reported concentrations are less than this standard except during
the month of August. The concentration during August cannot be distin-
guished from values less than 0.06 mg/1.
All concentrations of lead are less than or equal to the minimum
limit of analytical detection. Most of the concentrations for both
influent and effluent show little change during the year or between
sampling stations. Comparison of the lead analytical results in Table
IV-17 and results from the routine sampling program in Table A-l (Appendix)
indicate approximately equal results on the same sample date for influent
dates - 2/03/75, 7/04/75, 8/01/75, and 9/03/75, and effluent dates -
7/04/75, 9/03/75, and 11/03/75. The other results show large differences.
The USPHS has set a limit on lead concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 which is
not exceeded by any measurement of lead in Druid Lake.
Measurements of iron for both influent and effluent are generally
erratic during the sampling period. However, effluent concentrations
usually follow the same change in magnitude that influent concentrations
56
-------
display even though effluent values tend to be slightly less than influent
values. The Drinking Water Standards of the USPHS recommend a limit of
0.3 mg/1 for iron. All measurements of iron in Druid Lake are less than
this limit.
All measurements of cadmium at both influent and effluent sampling
stations are less than or equal to the lower limit of detection, 0.002
mg/1. Every concentration is equal to 0.002 mg/1, thus showing no temporal
or spatial change. The USPHS has set a limit of 0.01 mg/1 on cadmium
concentration. No measurement of cadmium in Druid Lake exceeds this limit.
Concentrations of zinc follow no discernible yearly trend at either
influent or effluent sampling stations. Values greater than the limit
of detection increase from influent to effluent or do not change at all.
The USPHS limits the concentration of zinc in drinking water to 5 mg/1.
Measurements of zinc comply with this mandatory limit.
Every concentration of mercury at both influent and effluent sampling
stations is less than or equal to the minimum limit of detection (0.0005
mg/1) except for an effluent concentration (0.0009 mg/1) on 10/01/75.
No limit upon mercury has been set by the USPHS. The National Interim Pri-
mary Drinking Water Standards define the maximum level of mercury as
0.002 mg/1 (Ref. IV-8).
Radiochemical isotopes - Radiation from radioactive substances in
domestic water supplies is harmful to human health. The principal criteria
by which radioactivity of domestic water is judged are: (1) alpha
emitters, specifically, radium isotope 226 (Ra-226); and (2) beta emitters,
both gross beta emitters and, specifically, strontium isotope 90 (Sr-90).
Alpha particles have low body penetration but are highly dangerous when
ingested and deposited within the body. Beta particles have moderate
body penetration and are moderately harmful. Occasionally gamma radiation
is monitored in water supplies but even though gamma rays are deeply
penetrating, they are relatively less damaging than alpha or beta particles.
Radioactivity sampling results for Druid Lake are presented in Table
IV-18. Total solids were measured along with radioactivity to indicate
the amount of solids in the water which may in part be responsible for
measured radioactivity. The total solids results are about 50 mg/1 (26
percent) greater than the results of the routine sampling program (see
Appendix, Table A-l).
The USPHS Drinking Water Standards set the following maximum limits
on radioactivity:
(1) gross beta - 1,000 picoCurie/1 (pCi/1);
(2) Sr-90 - 10 pCl/1; and
(3) Ra-226 - 3 pCi/1.
57
-------
TABLE IV-18
en
oo
RADIOACTIVITY SAMPLING
Date
Sample
Collected
2/03/75
2/11/75
5/01/75
5/05/75
8/01/75
8/01/75
11/03/75
11/03/75
Sample^
Site
Location
Influent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Date
Sample
Counted
-
-
5/17/75
5/15/75
8/08/75
8/15/75
11/20/75
11/20/75
Total
Solids
mg/1
184.0
202.0
110.0
256.0
168.0
215.4
150.0
120.0
RESULTS FOR DRUID LAKE. BALTIMORE. Mn.
Activity (picoCurie/ml) (D
Gross (2)
Beta
1.9 + 55%
2.9 + 43%
1.5 + 64%
2.2 + 47%
2.9 + 33%
1.7 + 71%
1.9 + 50%
2.2 + 45%
ATP"/3'
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
1 Sr-90 Ra-226 Specific
Gamma
Not Detectable
<0.5 0.10 + 12% Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
- - Not Detectable
Note: (1) The error expressed is the percentage relative to 2-Sigma counting error.
(2) The minimum detectable limit of gross Beta is 1.0 pCi/1.
(3) The minimum detectable limit of gross Alpha is 2.0 pCi/1.
(4) See Figure IV-2 for location of sample sites.
-------
All measurements of gross beta radiation are much less than the
l,OOOpCi/l USPHS limit and no trend of change between influent and effluent
is apparent. The only measurements of Sr-90 and Ra-226 occur at the
influent sampling station on 2/11/75, and are both less than the USPHS
limits of 10 pCi/1 and 3 pCi/1, respectively. All measurements of gross
alpha radioactivity are less than the minimum limit of detection and are
less then the USPHS limit of 3 pCi/1 for the more specific alpha emitter,
Ra-226, indicating acceptable levels. Measurements of specific gamma
radiation are all below the minimum limit of detection.
Microbe sampling - Results of water analysis for cytopathic (i.e..
harmful to body cells) viruses and coliform bacteria are presented in
Table IV-19. Microscopic examinations of cell cultures for cytophatic
effects from concentrate of Druid Lake water samples are negative.
Measurements of total and fecal coliform bacteria indicate that these
bacteria are essentially nondetectable.
Characterization Studies
Water quality and benthos survey - A survey of water temperature and
dissolved oxygen (DO) at various depths was performed on 21 August 1975
to observe any existing thermal stratification. Thermal stratification is
caused by the occurrence of different densities of surficial waters and
deeper waters. Once stratification is initiated, mixing of deeper and
surface waters becomes difficult and the density interface (thermocline)
becomes stable. A state of stable stratification is characterized by
stagnant water below the thermocline having low levels of DO and temperature,
as well mixed water above the thermocline having dramatically higher levels
of DO and temperature.
Druid Lake is a dammed natural depression and has depths of up to about
15 m. (50 feet). Under natural conditions, such a lake would probably
become well stratified by late summer. However, this reservoir has an
annual average flow of 112 cum/d (42.7 mgd) through it which provides a
strong mixing influence.
Sampling stations of the water quality survey were located in the
center of Druid Lake (labled as benthic sampling stations in Figure IV-2),
at the deepest areas. Measurements of temperature and DO for each of the
sampling stations is presented in Table IV-20. Water temperatures at all
three sampling stations show little temperature change from surface to
bottom waters. Stations D-A, D-B, and D-C have total changes of 1.5°C,
1.6°C, and 2.2°C, respectively. Measurements were made during morning,
starting at D-A and finishing at D-C with a breeze starting in late morn-
ing. The time of sampling and breeze may explain the increased surface
temperature and DO at station D-C. No abrupt change of temperature occurs
with depth which indicates the absence of a thermocline. Concentrations
of dissolved oxygen typically diminish gradually from surface to bottom
59
-------
TABLE IV-19
VIRAL AND BACTERIAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM EPA
SAMPLING OF DRUID LAKE, BALTIMORE, MD.
AND HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1.
PITTSBURGH. PA.
DRUID LAKE
(1)
Date
Sample
Collected
8/19/75
10/01/75
12/03/75
8/20/75
10/02/75
12/04/75
Virus
Results
(PFU) (2)
Negative
Negative
Negative
Coliform Bacteria
(colonies/100 ml)
Total
-
<0. 00059
<0. 00059
(3)
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. lv '
-
Negative
Negative
-
<0. 00059
<0. 00059
Fecal
-
<0. 00059
<0. 00059
<0. 00059
<0. 00059
Note: (1) See Figure IV-2 for location of sampling site (D-2).
(2) See Figure V-2 for location of sampling site (H-4).
(3) PFU - Plaque Forming Unit
60
-------
TABLE IV-20
TEMPERATURE-DISSOLVED OXYGEN WATER COLUMN
PROFILES OF DRUID LAKE
Reservoir
Depth
(ft.)"'
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sample Sites ^ ^ ^
D-A
Temper-
ature
<°C)
17.4
17.0
16.6
16.3
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.0
15.9
-
-
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
6.7
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.9
-
-
D-B
Temper-
ature
(°C)
17.6
17.2
16.7
16.3
16.5
16.5
16.3
16.2
16.1
16.1
16.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
6.3
5.9
5.4
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.8
D-C
Temper-
ature
(°C)
18.2
17.8
17.0
16.7
•16.4
16.3
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.0
16.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
7.5
6.3
5.4
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
Note: (1) All of these measurements were made during the morning of 21 August 1975.
(2) See Figure IV-2 for location of sample sites (which are included with the benthic sampling
sites).
(3) One foot = 0.305 m.
-------
with the exception of the top 1.5 m. (5 feet) at station D-C which shows
a change of 1.2 ppm. Stations D-A, D-B, and D-C have total changes of
1.8 ppm, 1.5 ppm, and 2.6 ppm, respectively. No dramatic change of DO
concentration occurs which indicates the absence of a thermocline.
Neither measurements of temperature nor dissolved oxygen provide
evidence indicating that stratification existed in Druid Lake on 21
August 1975.
Part of the water quality and benthos survey included a qualitative
survey of benthic organisms at the five sampling stations shown in Figure
IV-2. Results of the benthos survey are presented in Table IV-21. Sample
stations, D-A, D-B, and D-C are at the same locations as the stations of
DO and temperature measurement discussed above. Two additional benthic
sampling stations located at increasingly shallow depths provide informa-
tion concerning the types of microorganisms of reservoir bottoms of
different depths. All of the organisms listed in Table IV-22 except the
Rotifera are algae which have settled to the bottom. Of the algae found
on the reservoirs'bottom, all are diatoms except for two green algae,
Ulothrix sp. and Zygnema sp., and a flagellated alga, Stephanodiscus sp.
Only three of the algae (Phytoplankton) identified in the routine sampl-
ing program are also among the algae identified by the benthos survey.
These three algae genera are the diatoms; Asterionella. Fragilaria. and
Nayicula.
The spatial location of the various forms of algae is probably not
significant owing to variable water currents and floating properties of
the algae which disperse them.
Dustfall sampling - The amount of airborne particulates settling on
Druid Lake was measured from April, 1975 to January, 1976. Results of
this sampling program are presented by sampling location on a unit basis
in Table IV-22. Sampling stations are at opposite ends of the reservoir
(Figure IV-2). Most of the measurements were invalid and are therefore
not shown in the Table because of sampling problems. A typical dustfall
value is about 2.5 g/sq.m. (22 Ib/acre) per standard 30 day month. If
this amount of solids is suspended in the entire volume of the reservoir
(1.16 million cu.m. (306 million gal) during a seven day period
(theoretical reservoir detention time) the result is a suspended solids
concentration of 0.1 micrograms/liter. This concentration is an insigni-
ficant 0.1 percent of the typical influent or effluent suspended solids
concentration of 100 micrograms/liter indicated by the routine sampling
program (Table IV-6). Thus, by removing one source of potential suspended
solids the dustfall sampling program supports the previously developed
contention that most of the suspended solids in the reservoir are present
owing to influent concentrations.
62
-------
TABLE IV-21
DELINEATION
OF BENTHIC
DRUID LAKE,
Name of Organism
Diatoma sp.
Pinnularia nobilis
Rhopolodia gibba
Surlrella sp.
Synedra ulna
Cocconeis sp.
Cymbella sp.
Navicula sp.
Fragilarla sp.
Nitzchia sigmoidra
Ulothrix sp.
Cymatopleura solea
Tabellaria fenestra
Stephanodiscus sp.
Asterionella sp.
Zygnema sp.
Cocconeis flex
Eunotia sp.
Rotifera
D-A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MICRO-ORGANISMS INHABITING
BALTIMORE, MD.
Benthic Sample Sites
D-B D-C D-D
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
D-E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: (1) See Figure IV-2 for location of sample sites.
63
-------
TABLE IV-22
DUSTFALL SAMPLING RESULTS FOR
DRUID LAKE, BALTIMORE. MD.
Month of
Collection
April, 1975
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January, 1976
Dustfall Data (Ib/acre) ^^
Site DD-1
-
-
15
23
23
-
-
-
-
-
Site DD-2
-
-
-
5
22
20
20
-
-
-
Note: (1)See Figure IV-2 for location of sampling
sites.
(2) 1 Ib/acre = 112 mg/sq.m.
64
-------
Examination of potential contamination by birds - Druid Lake is about
5 km (3 miles) from tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay, a prime habitat of
seagulls. Moreover, several solid waste disposal landfills exist in the
Baltimore Metropolitan area which are used as foraging sites and serve as
a source of food for seagulls. The birds can contaminate Druid Lake by
defecation or deposition of contaminants including pathogens, by trans-
porting the contaminants on their bodies from landfills used as feeding
areas.
The results of the waterfowl siting program conducted by the Division
of Water during the course of the overall water sampling program indicated
that waterfowl (seagulls and ducks) were present on the lake 72 percent of
the time. They were spotted during winter, as well as during the summer.
The sighting breakdown was as follows:
Numbers of Waterfowl Sighted Percent of Time
None 28%
1-10 33%
10-100 33%
Above 100 6%
In addition to the above mentioned program, a spot check was made by
Engineering-Science, Inc. and the Baltimore Division of Water on 4
December 1975 as to the presence of seagulls on the lake and at selected
landfills within the proximity of Druid Lake. Several seagulls were seen
on the reservoir. No seagulls were sighted at the Monument Landfill which
receives 25-35 metric tons (30-40 short tons) of dirt and bulk refuse per
day. Thousands of seagulls were sighted at the Reedbird Landfill which
receives about 140 metric tons (150 short tons) of bulk material per day
and about 590 metric tons (650 short tons) of municipal waste per day.
Most of the wastes presently received by landfills in Baltimore City
will be disposed of using a pyrolysis plant scheduled to go on-line in the
immediate future. This plant will process wastes currently received by
Reedbird Landfill and other landfills near Druid Lake. However, some solid
waste facilities will still be operating within the range of Druid Lake.
Consequently the potential of reservoir contamination by foraging seagulls
will still exist.
The following is a list of number and proximity of solid wastes facili-
ties to Druid Lake (as of approximately 1970)(Ref. IV-14):
65
-------
Distance from Druid Lake
miles (I mile -1.6 km)
Number of Solid Waste Facilities
(cumulative)
1
2
3
4
5
10
0
0
1
2
4
11
Hydraulics of Druid Lake - The average volume of water stored in
Druid Lake is approximately 1.16 million cu.m. (306 million gallons). The
maximum storage capacity is 1.34 cu.m. (355 million gallons). At the
average annual flow calculated during the study period (February 1975 -
January 1976) of 112.3 cu.m./min. (42.7 mgd), the theoretical average
hydraulic residence time becomes 7.2 days. The similarity in influent and
effluent flows to and from the reservoir indicates that any additional
water inputs or outputs (i.e., groundwater, evaporation, percolation, etc.)
are either negligible, or tend to cancel out in the overall water budget
for the reservoir. It should be noted that the actual residence times are
probably less than the theoretical time even though the influent diffuser
and effluent, multiple-port withdrawal structure are appropriately designed.
The existing channel in the basin and the lack of baffling are responsible
for some flow short-circuiting and a subsequent decrease in hydraulic
residence times.
Summary of Data Evaluation
Routine Sampling Program
Most of the water quality parameters in the routine sampling program
(Table IV-23) indicate some pattern of change during the sampling period;
exceptions are apparent color, total hardness, ammonia, total coliforms,
and fecal coliforms.
The following parameters showed general increases or decreases in
concentration between the influent and effluent sampling locations:
General Increase
PH
Total Solids
Copper
Total Standard Plate Count
General Decrease
Turbidity
Total Chlorine Residual
Free Chlorine Residual
Nitrate
Temperature, dissolved solids, total hardness and phytoplankton showed
both increases and decreases at different times during the study.
66
-------
TABLE IV-23
PATTERNS OF WATER QUALITY CHANGE AND COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ROUTINE SAMPLING PROGRAM -- DRUID LAKE
Water Quality
Parameters
Temperature
PH
Apparent Color
Turbidity
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Chlorine
Residual Chlorine
Copper
Lead
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphate
Soluble Ortho-
phosphate
Total Coliforms
Fecal Coliforms
Total Standard
Plate Count
Phytoplankton
Changes in Concentration
Time-related
Changes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes/^
Yes'1'
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes<2>
Yes
Change Between Sampling Stations
Increased
In Effluent
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Decreased
In Effluent
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mixed Patterns
of Change
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Compliance w/Standards
U.S. Public Health
Service Drinking
Water Standards (1962)
Required
___
Yes
Yes
___
— — —
— — —
Yes
— —
Yes
— —
Recommended
»_
— —
— ——
— — —
Yes
—
___
— —
Yes
— — —
Yes
— — —
— — —
Note: (1) Influent only.
(2) Effluent only.
-------
The 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards were met
in all cases. However, levels of three parameters (temperature, ammonia,
and soluble orthophosphate) do not meet other criteria (see previous dis-
cussion of sampling results) of desirable water quality on occasion; the
levels observed do not appear to be of concern.
Special Sampling Program
Total organic carbon (TOG) - Both influent and effluent concentrations
of TOC generally follow the same yearly trend although effluent values are
typically lower than influent values.
No limit of TOC has been set by the USPHS, however, all concentrations
of TOC are generally low.
Trace metals - All of the metals analyzed were within the limits of
the 1962 USPHS standards. Most of the data could not be analyzed because
most of the observed concentrations were equal to or below the analytical
limit of detection. Mercury is not included in the USPHS standards, but
observed concentrations were less than generally accepted safe concentra-
tions.
Of the ten trace metals measured only manganese concentrations show
a pattern of change during the sampling time period. None of the trace
metals except iron change in concentration between sampling stations. Iron
values show a slight decrease from influent to effluent.
Radiochemical isotopes - The following parameters were measured at
influent and effluent locations of Druid Lake as indicators of radioactive
contaminants; gross beta particles, gross alpha particles, stronium-90
(Sr-90), radium-226 (Ra-226), and specific gamma radiation.
None of the results from analysis of the parameters indicate patterns
of change during the sampling period or change in value between sampling
stations.
The USPHS has set drinking water standards for gross beta particles,
Sr-90, and Ra-226. All measurements of these three parameters are less
than the USPHS standards. Measurements of gross alpha particles and
specific gamma radiation are less than generally accepted criteria.
Microbe sampling - Results of Druid Lake analysis for cytopathic
viruses were negative. Water analysis for total and fecal coliform
bacteria indicated that these bacteria were essentially nondetectable.
Characterization Studies
Water quality and benthos survey - on 21 August 1975 measurements of
temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were performed at regular intervals
of depth, at three locations in Druid Lake. Results of this sampling
indicate little change in temperature or DO from surface to bottom. The
68
-------
slight amount of change that does occur shows a typical rapid decrease in
temperature and DO values near the surface with a much slower decrease
near the bottom. Neither measurements of temperature nor DO provide
evidence indicating that stratification existed in Druid Lake.
A qualitative survey of benthic microorganisms was performed on 25
August at five locations in Druid Lake. The 19 organisms identified were
rotifers and 18 species of algae. The algae included 15 species of diatoms,
two species of green algae, and one flagellated algal species. Most of these
algae had probably settled to the bottom from upper depths.
Dustfall sampling - Results from measuring dustfall at two locations
on Druid Lake indicate a typical value of about 2.5 g/sq.m. (22 Ib/acre)
per month. If dustfall were to account for the suspended solids concentra-
tion in the reservoir then the concentration would be about 0.10 micrograms/
liter instead of the typical suspended solids concentration of 100 micro-
grams/liter indicated by results of the routine sampling program.
Examination of potential contamination by birds - A spot check on the
presence of seagulls at Druid Lake and two nearby landfills which could be
used by foraging seagulls as a feeding area resulted in the observation of
several seagulls on Druid Lake, no seagulls at one landfill which only
receives dirt and bulk refuse, and thousands of seagulls at a landfill
which received a great amount of municipal wastes. There are four solid
wastes facilities within 8 km (5 mi) of Druid Lake and 11 facilities
within a 16 km (10 mi) range of the reservoir. Landfills which presently
exist near Druid Lake will be phased out as a new pyrolysis plant comes on-
line. The existence of other solid wastes facilities makes the reservoir
susceptible to contamination by foraging seagulls. Foraging has been
reported at distances up to 30 km.
Hydraulics of Druid Lake - The calculated annual average flow of water
through Druid Lake was 112.3 cu.m./min. (42.7 mgd) for both influent and
effluent during the study period (Feb. 1975-Jan. 1976). The theoretical
detention time was 7.2 days.
ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL MMSURES
Introduction
A clearly desirable objective of water system operations is the main-
tenance of water quality throughout the system from the treatment plant to
the consumer's tap. However, storage of water to meet peak consumer demands
is usually necessary, and this portion of the system is usually where the
greatest potential for water quality degradation occurs.
Previously discussed possible sources of causes of water quality
degradation in Druid Lake include:
69
-------
° airborne particulates
° surface runoff
0 groundwater
0 unauthorized human contact
0 birds
0 weather
0 biological process in the reservoir
The measures which may be taken to minimize or eliminate the potential
degradation in reservoir water quality may be put into one of two basic
categories:
(1) Preventive - measures to prevent contamination or develop-
ment of an undesirable condition, and
(2) Corrective - measures to correct such conditions after they
have occurred.
Both types of control measures may involve construction of facilities or
the use of operation and maintenance procedures. In general however,
the majority of the possible preventive measures will make use of some
large capital investment, whereas most corrective measures may be
classified as operational changes and/or modified maintenance procedures.
Preventive measures are to be preferred in most cases. Hazardous
and other undesirable conditions may occur at any time, and once such a
condition has occurred water quality remedial procedures depend on the
continuous integrity of the corrective system. For example, if protec-
tion of the system from bacterial contamination is to be accomplished
with chlorination, there must be standby chlorinators maintained in an
operable condition, adequate supplies of chlorine, failure alarms,
monitoring devices, acceptable contact time, etc. A system which prevents
bacterial contamination of the reservoir in the first place would usually
be considered preferable.
Prevention of contamination is also desirable from the standpoint of
protection against presently unidentified contaminants. In almost all
cases experience and increasing analytical capability has added to the
lists of hazardous and undesirable conditions or constituents in potable
water. Presumably this trend will continue. Control measures designed
to mitigate specific conditions may not affect yet-to-be-identified adverse
conditions. However, measures designed to prevent the entry of most
contaminants into the water system have a better chance of meeting future
system requirements.
70
-------
Preventive Control Measures
There are several preventive control measures which can protect the
Druid Lake water quality to some degree from one or more of the above
mentioned sources of water quality degradation. Moreover, some of
these preventive measures may be combined to form additional alternatives
which can afford increased protection to the finished waters. These
measures include covering the reservoir, bottom lining of the reservoir,
proper grading and design of the reservoir site to prevent the entry of
surface runoff, and establishment of proper security measures such as
physical barriers and patrols.
Reservoir Covers
A reservoir cover would essentially eliminate airborne particulates
and birds from contact with the water. It would reduce the possibility
of contact by unauthorized people as well as the effects of weather.
Algal growths are minimized because of the elimination of sunlight (new
algae growth would be eliminated and regrowth would be prevented).
There are two types of covers to be considered for Druid Lake: a rigid
cover and a floating cover.
Rigid cover - The relatively large size of the reservoir (20 ha.,
or 50 acres) precludes consideration of all but a plywood roof and a
precast concrete roof.
The plywood roof would be constructed of plywood sheets supported on
glue-laminated purlins and girders which would be supported on precast
columns and a peripheral wall. Because of the moist environment, all
wood components of the cover would have to be treated with a wood preserva-
tive such as pentachlorophenyl or creosote. There is no satisfactory
way to prevent condensate from the underside of the roof and supporting
members from dripping into the water. Thus the wood preservative chemicals
will enter the water and may cause taste and odor problems and may provide
a nutrient source for bacterial growth. For these reasons the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency will not approve the use of creosote as a preserva-
tive for wood reservoir covers (Ref. IV-16). The loss of wood preservative
results in additional periodic maintenance costs over the 25 to 50-year
expected life of the cover. Because of the taste and odor problem and
additional costs, the plywood roof was eliminated from further considera-
tion as a viable preventive alternative.
A concrete cover could consist of precast reinforced concrete slabs
supported by integral concrete beams which rest upon interior reinforced
concrete columns and a perimeter shear wall. Such a cover provides a
roof and side walls which minimize contact with the ambient environment
and is effective in excluding contaminants from the reservoir when properly
maintained and operated.
71
-------
Several common operation and maintenance procedures include:
(1) ventilation openings in the cover must be periodically cleaned of
debris; (2) manholes must be free of obstructions; (3) water tight seals
of the roof must be maintained; and (4) water which might collect on the
roof must be drained. A concrete cover is rigid which means that the
cover will remain in place if the reservoir must be drained for inspection
and/or repair work on the bottom.
The environmental impact of a concrete cover over Druid Lake is
principally concerned with detracting from the visual and aesthetic
nature of the nearby Druid Park area. The open water of the reservoir
is probably more attractive than an expanse of concrete. However, the
cover could be designed to provide a suitable surface for uses such as
tennis courts, automobile parking, or it may even be landscaped to fit
into the park.
The estimated construction cost of a concrete cover for Druid Lake
is about $17 million based on a preliminary design that would support
uses such as automobile parking and tennis courts. This figure should be
added to other costs (legal, administrative and engineering, etc. about
25%) and an allowance for contingencies (15%) for a preliminary estimate
of around $24 million total cost.
This cost is considered conservative (within the assumptions made)
and it might be reduced somewhat by careful analysis of design alternatives.
On the other hand, other desired uses such as extensive landscaping with
soil or sod might result in some increase in cost.
Flexible floating cover - A flexible floating cover consists of an
elastomeric sheet stretched over the reservoir's water, supported by
foam floats, attached to a peripheral concrete foundation. The cover
rises and falls with the water level and is sloped from the center to
the perimeter causing rain water to drain and collect near the outside
where it is pumped out. When properly maintained and operated, the
cover protects reservoir water quality as does the concrete cover.
While operation of Druid Lake with a floating cover would be similar
to operation under a rigid cover, the costs of operation and maintenance
would probably be less owing to the simplicity of the floating cover
system. However, inspection and repair of the bottom including sediment
removal would be more difficult with a floating cover. Work must be
performed underwater because the roof would fall to the bottom if the
reservoir were drained.
The principal components of a floating cover for Druid Lake are:
(1) an elastomeric material and foam floats; (2) anchorage foundation
around the reservoir perimeter; and (3) a pump/siphon system to remove
surface water. While several types of elastomeric materials are avail-
able for use as covers, the material considered best for Druid Lake is
72
-------
composed of chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon, DuPont), a synthetic
rubber, reinforced with nylon. The useful life of a cover made of this
material is 20 to 40 years.
Estimated construction costs (1976) for installation of the floating
cover system on Druid Lake ranges from about $2.2 million to $3.8 million,
with the higher cost probably being more realistic. The total cost
(including other costs and contingency allowance) would be about $5 million.
The principal environmental effect of installing a floating cover on
Druid Lake is that the reservoir would be visually unattractive as in the
case of a concrete cover. Unlike a concrete cover, however, a floating
cover provides no other use than protecting the water of Druid Lake.
Reservoir Bottom Lining
An impermeable lining on the bottom of a finished water reservoir
will prevent water leakage from the basin and will also prevent the
infiltration of groundwater and associated dissolved solids into the
reservoir. Several distinct types of liners exist (Ref. IV-17):
concrete, pneumatically applied mortar, e.g., gunite, hydraulic asphalt
concrete, prefabricated asphalt panels, plastic sheeting, and synthetic
rubber.
Only linings made of plastic or synthetic rubber are considered to
be feasible for Druid Lake because of the high cost of the other types
of liners and the large surface area of the reservoir to be lined.
Installation of plastic or synthetic rubber linings essentially consists
of preparing the bottom, laying the lining material, and anchoring
the material. Of the materials considered for Druid Lake, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) is more susceptible to deterioration by ozone and ultra-
voilet exposure than other membranes (Ref. IV-18) which means that
this material must be covered above the lowest normal water level.
Maintenance of an installed lining is minimal. Periodic removal of
accumulated sediments may be required.
The types of plastic and synthetic rubber linings considered for
Druid Lake are the following: plastic-polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ethylene
propylenediene monmer (EPDM), and chlorinated polyethylene (CPE),
synthetic rubber-butyl rubber, and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon,
DuPont). Manufacturers' minimum projections of life expectancy are about
40 years for all of these liners when properly installed and maintained.
Actual use of these materials has been met with varying amounts of
success and no particular one will be recommended.
A survey of installation costs for lining Druid Lake indicates the
following prices:
73
-------
Hypalon (nylon reinforced) = $ 976,000 - $1,627,000
EPDM (nylon reinforced) = $1,367,000 - $2,169,000
Butyl rubber = $ 976,000
CPE (nylon reinforced) = $ 976,000 - $1,085,000
PVC (nylon reinforced) = $ 759,000
The presence of a membrane liner in Druid Lake may make the reservoir
less attractive because of a synthetic shoreline being exposed rather
than a natural appearing shoreline.
Surface Runoff Diversion
Erosion products from surrounding paved and unpaved apreas of a
finished water reservoir have the potential of being carried by rain or
snowmelt surface runoff into the reservoir. Accumulation of contaminants
on paved areas between rainstorms causes the first flush of rain runoff
from a storm to possess high concentrations of pollutants. Surface runoff
may increase reservoir concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, organics,
suspended solids, zinc, and lead. During winter, surface runoff of deicing
compounds may increase concentrations of dissolved solids from the presence
of sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride.
Surface runoff of erosion products does not present a significant
source of contaminants to Druid Lake. The reservoir is surrounded by a
0.6 m (2 ft) high parapet wall. This wall plus the adequate storm
drainage system of the area practically eliminates the possibility of sur-
face runoff contamination.
Security Establishment and Maintenance
To preserve the high quality of water in a finished water reservoir,
people must not be allowed to swim or otherwise have contact with the
water or to throw objects into the water. The preclusion of these acts
will help prevent introduction of pathogenic organisms by swimmers and a
variety of thrown items including dead animals, drugs, and toxic sub-
stances (Ref. IV-19). Reservoir security may be established and maintained
by the presence of a physical barrier such as a perimeter fence and
existence of a security patrol.
Druid Lake is protected from public access by a 1.8 m (6 ft) high
fence, setback approximately 15 m (50 ft) from the water's edge. Security
surveillance of the reservoir is accomplished by routine periodic checks
by police who patrol the perimeter in vehicles. In addition to police
surveillance, employees of the Water Department provide regular surveil-
lance during their general daily travel, especially those employees who
travel to and from the chlorination station during the course of the week.
Security violations have occurred only occasionally.
74
-------
This present security program is believed adequate, and consequently
no further improvements and their associated costs will not be considered
for Druid Lake for the purposes of this report.
Possible security improvements include the following: (1) increase
the height of the perimeter fence and/or the distance of fence setback
(it has been recommended (Ref. IV-20) that the product of fence height and
setback should be at least 600 feet); (2) initiate a more intense,
structural surveillance system; and (3) establish a formal emergency plan
for quick isolation of the reservoir from the distribution system if the
water is thought to be dangerous.
Corrective Control Measures
The various measures available to correct and/or improve water quality
conditions in Druid Lake that occur as a result of one or more of the
previously discussed sources of degradation primarily involve post-reservoir
treatment, operational changes, modified maintenance, and a proper monitoring
program. The nature and extent of these corrective measures for Druid Lake
will be based on the results of the extensive sampling and characterization
programs that were discussed earlier in this chapter. That is, only the
measures that correct identified problems will be evaluated.
The sampling results suggest that effluent residual chlorine concentra-
tions and the associated contact times to assure adequate disinfection and
pathogen deactivation need to be considered in terms of post-reservoir
treatment. Also, regular addition of copper sulfate is necessary to
prevent the growth of algae and other microorganisms which are among the
most frequent causes of taste and odor. Programs to control growth of
shore plants and to reduce the potential of contamination by waterfowl
should be taken into consideration. The existing water quality monitoring
program as currently practiced at Druid Lake appears to be adequate
relative to insuring that the water will meet the 1962 USPHS Standards.
Additional monitoring may be warranted, but will not be pursued further in
this report.
The following discussion will summarize the necessary corrective
measures required at Druid Lake to maintain the quality of the water
delivered to the consumer. Specific water quality parameters affected
include; bacteria (e.g., coliforms), viruses, phytoplankton, organic
compounds (including constituents-carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus com-
pounds) copper, chlorine/chlorine compounds, turbidity, color, solids,
taste and odor. The measures will involve continuation of existing
adequate operational procedures, as well as the implementation of necessary
improvements to achieve the desired water quality.
Chlorine Disinfection
Chlorine disinfection is presently used in operation of Druid Lake
to control pathogenic organisms. Both influent and effluent water undergo
75
-------
chlorination . Influent chlorination is about three times greater than
effluent chlorination. A concentration of 3-5 ppm during summer and 1-3
ppm during winter is maintained in influent water. Post-reservoir chlorina-
tion insures that 1 ppm chlorine residual is maintained in effluent water.
To assure that there is effective post-reservoir disinfection an additional
two-hour reaction time is proposed to accompany the existing post-chlorina-
tion facilities. This reaction time will assure effective disinfection
without water reaching the consumer with an undesirable concentration of
residual chlorine which may be objectionable due to the presence of tastes
and odors.
A contact basin volume of four million gallons is required to effect
a two hour reaction time for postchlorinated Druid Lake effluent. The
proposed volume will consist of a rectangular earthen basin which will
be lined with an impermeable, butyl neoprene bottom liner and covered with
a floating nylon-reinforced, synthetic rubber cover. In this manner,
the chlorine contact basin will be effectively isolated from potential
sources of contamination while it is being used for disinfection purposes.
A basin with an average depth of ten feet will need an area of approxi-
mately 1.2 acres. It could be located adjacent to the effluent end of
the Lake so as to minimize the need to rearrange existing piping. Water
will flow by gravity from Druid Lake to the contact basin. Existing
reservoir prechlorination and postchlorination facilities will be continued
to be used. Postchlorination facilities will be rearranged so as to inject
chlorine prior to the two-hour contact basin for proper mixing. The same
amounts of chlorine will be applied in this proposed scheme as are being
applied now.
Chlorination facilities for Druid Lake are presently centralized
at one station. Influent water is chlorinated by one 2.7 metric ton (3
ton) chlorination unit with one additional identical unit on standby.
Chlorine feed rate is set manually based on the previous 24 hour flow
and results from the system water quality monitoring program (see Chapter
II). A total of ten 910 kg (1 ton) cylinders are at the station, four
of which are standby cylinders.
The capital costs for the construction of the chlorine contact basin
including bottom lining, floating cover, additional piping, other mis-
cellaneous costs, and contingencies are approximately $300,000.
Prechlorination and postchlorination required a total (during 1975)
of about 84,000 kg (187 tons) and 29,000 kg (63 tons) of chlorine,
respectively. Based on chlorine prices (1975) of $0.23 kg ($210/ton),
January to June, and $0.28/kg ($250/ton), June to December, total annual
costs of chlorine were:
(1) prechlorination - $43,600; and
(2) postchlorination - $14,700
76
-------
Total labor requirements for chlorination of Druid Lake water were
the following (1975-76):
(1) general servicing - 6 hr/wk;
(2) maintenance - 4 hr/wk; and
(3) chlorine cylinder transport - 3 hr/wk
Total annual labor costs are about $3,200/yr.
Total annual labor costs of chlorination for Druid Lake are approxi-
mately $61,500/yr.
Results from the routine sampling program of this study indicate
that residual chlorine concentration drops to near zero values in the
reservoir effluent (before postchlorination) which allows increased
levels of bacteria. Sufficient chlorine residual should exist in the
reservoir (1-2 ppm) to prevent bacterial growth. Closer synchronization
of chlorination with the water quality monitoring program may help
facilitate maintenance of adequate chlorine residual in the reservoir.
Copper Sulfate Application
Effective control of algae growth exists with the present program
of periodic copper sulfate addition at Druid Lake. Periodic applications
of copper sulfate are accomplished by dragging bags of copper sulfate
crystals behind a boat and by hand application from a row boat to the
water's surface, particularly near the shoreline. During 1975, six
applications of copper sulfate were made of 544 kg (1,200 Ib) each on
9 April, 19 May, 20 June, 21 July, 12 August, and 15 October. The cost
of copper sulfate alone was a total of $2,500/yr at $0.77/kg ($700/ton).
Total annual labor costs are about $2,000/yr. Total annual chemical and
labor costs for Druid Lake are about $4,500/yr.
Results from the routine sampling program of this study indicate that
algae populations in Druid Lake are insignificant. Copper concentrations
are also insignificant.
Shore Plant Growth Control
The present program being practiced at Druid Lake effectively controls
weeds growing among the rock rip-rap along the banks of Druid Lake by
two deweeding operations per year during summer-fall as needed. For each
operation, deweeding entails two crews of six men each working for one
week at a total cost of $4,200/yr (1975).
Bird Contaminant Control
The potential of introducing contaminants to the water of Druid Lake
by resting birds has been discussed earlier in this chapter. In operation
77
-------
of Druid Lake, no particular effort is made to discourage the presence
of birds on the reservoir. Installation of deterents such as water sprays,
wires, ultrasonic devices, and others should be considered (Ref. IV-21).
The costs for such control systems is not readily available and will not
be included in the foregoing analysis. If, however, the comparison of
preventive alternatives versus corrective alternatives reveals costs that
are relatively competitive, the costs of bird control programs should be
included to complete the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Summary of Corrective Measures
In order to maintain a high quality potable water to be delivered to
the consumers the following costs will be incurred by continued operation
of an open reservoir:
Control Measure O&M ($/yr) Capital Cost ($)
Chlorination/Disinfection $61,500 $300,000
Copper Sulfate Addition 4,500
Shore Plant Control 4,200
Bird Contaminant Control
Totals $70,200/yr $300,000
Alternatives Trade-off Assessment
The various alternatives available for the maintenance of a high
quality potable water supply for the City of Baltimore vis-a-vis Druid
Lake involve measures to prevent contamination or development of an
undesirable condition in the reservoir, and measures to correct such
conditions after they have occurred. In particular, the results of
the water sampling program detailed in this report were used as a. basis
to develop a preferred open reservoir management alternative comprised of
corrective measures which would mitigate specific water quality problems.
It was assumed that alternatives comprised of preventive control measures
would protect Druid Lake from the possible sources or causes of the water
quality degradation that were identified. As was previously discussed,
water quality problems and degradation were defined by comparing the
results of the sampling program with the 1962 USPHS Drinking Water Stand-
ards and other recognized water quality standards. The 1962 USPHS Stand-
ards, as well as other recommended drinking water standards, however,
were not violated during the sampling period. Consequently, the evalua-
tion of alternatives will focus on either the prevention or correction
of potential water quality problems that could occur in the present
system.
78
-------
The inherent risk in encountering water quality problems in the open
Druid Lake reservoir has been translated into a set of general control
criteria for the overall management of an open reservoir system. Examples
are preferred post-reservoir disinfection reaction times, recommended
chlorine residual concentrations in the distribution system, and control
of roosting waterfowl which may be diseas.e carriers. The total costs
associated with the adoption of the preferred open reservoir management
alternative and the corresponding degree of mitigation of potential water
quality problems and undesirable water quality conditions must be weighed
against the various costs associated with covering Druid Lake and its
corresponding impacts on water quality.
Total costs are defined as both the capital and the annual operation
and maintenance costs associated with an alternative. Total costs may
be expressed as the average annual equivalent cost over a 30 year period
so as to represent all costs on an equivalent basis. In doing so, capital
costs are amortized at a discount rate of six percent for the purposes
of this analysis. Additionally, annual O&M costs are inflated at a six
percent rate over the designated 30 year period, and then averaged.
The total costs of the aforementioned preferred open reservoir
management alternative amount to an annual average equivalent cost of
$207,000 per year. This is the sum of costs incurred by corrective
measures. This comprised of an amortized capital cost of $22,000/yr
and an average O&M cost of $185,000/yr considering inflation. Based
on the water quality sampling program results, the control measures
associated with this alternative will provide for the attainment of the
1962 USPHS Drinking Water Standard, as well as a proper postchlorination
reaction time and other preferred operational procedures that will lessen
the risk of potential water quality contamination. An unquantified addi-
tional expense would be incurred to ensure that the potential transmission
of disease carried by roosting waterfowl was eliminated. This expense
is not believed to be large relative to the stated total cost. Potential
unidentified contaminants (e.g., asbestos and chloroform) may not be .
removed or reduced below harmful levels, however. In many cases, the
long-term harmful levels of some of these contaminants have not been
defined, and consequently it is difficult to judge the associated impacts.
Moreover, although contaminants resulting from airborne entry, violation
of reservoir security, and the loss of chlorine residual in the reserovir
and the resultant growth of aquatic organisms with the potential for
buildup of toxic organic compounds may be introduced, they were not
specifically identified in this study. The costs (or, negative benefits)
can not, therefore, be quantified for a complete trade-off assessment.
An alternative incorporating the emplacement of a concrete cover
on Druid Lake would incur an amortized capital cost of $1,744,000 per
year. The average annual O&M costs cannot be estimated; however, they
are expected to be less than the existing O&M costs experienced by the
open system. A cover would considerably reduce the risks of encountering
79
-------
potential water quality problems below those that exist for an open
reservoir. Experience has been that these contamination risks have not
manifested in an instance of water quality degradation or impotable
condition. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the
reduction of these risks will result in a benefit, and whether this
benefit will offset the added costs of installing a reservoir cover in
place of maintaining a properly managed open reservoir.
The emplacement of a floating cover over Druid Lake would result in
an amortized capital cost of $363,000 per year. If, in addition, the
reservoir was to be lined with a bottom, impermeable liner, amortized
capital costs would increase to approximately $454,000 per year. Again
O&M costs are not detailed, but if a cover (and liner) was to be installed,
then the O&M costs of algae and shore plant control associated with an
open reservoir would be eliminated and chlorination costs would be reduced.
However, it is important to note that covered reservoir O&M costs would
not be insignificant to the economic analysis of this alternative; hence
total annual costs are expected to be greater than the amortized costs.
Chlorination would still be required. In fact, the O&M costs of a
floating covered reservoir would probably be greater than those of a
concrete (rigid) cover reservoir due to additional maintenance costs.
Also, the benefits afforded by a floating cover would not include the
potential of using the cover for secondary functions such as automobile
parking, tennis courts, additional park land, etc. (i.e., the added
benefits of a rigid concrete cover). As with the concrete cover alter-
native, the confidence to maintain a continuous high quality, potable
water is greater with the floating cover than with the preferred manage-
ment and operation of an open reservoir. However, within the perspective
of the prevention of potential, undetected water quality problems the
difference in costs between a floating cover alternative and the open
reservoir alternative does not appear to be balanced by a commensurate
increase in benefits attributed to the former. Ultimately, these
benefits need to be quantified before the final decision is made.
80
-------
CHAPTER IV
REFERENCES
IV-1 "Letter to Mr. Daniel Synder, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, from City of Balti-
more Mayor William Schaeffer - EPA Survey of the Baltimore Water
System," 23 July 1973.
IV-2 "Letter to City of Baltimore Mayor William Schaeffer from Mr. Edward
Furia, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III," Findings and Recommendations of EPA, Survey
or the Baltimore Water System, 11 July 1972.
IV-3 The Story of Baltimore's Water Supply. City of Baltimore, Depart-
ment of Public Works, Bureau of Consumer Services, 1970.
IV-4 Personal communication, Jerry A. Valcik, Chief, Water Quality
Section, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Utility Operations,
City of Baltimore, Md.
IV-5 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th
edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1971.
IV-6 "Use of Membrane Filters to Facilitate the Recovery of Virus
from Aqueous Suspensions," Metcalf, T.G., Applied Microbiol.
9:376.
IV-7 The Large-Volume-Sampler (LVS) for Bacteriological Examination
of Water, Ericksen, T.H., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
IV-8 "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations," Federal
Register, Part IV: Environmental Protection Agency, 24 December
1975.
IV-9 Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavorial Sciences, Seigel,
Sidney, McGraw Hill, New York, 1956.
IV-10 Water Quality Criteria. California State Water Resources Control
Board, 2nd edition, 1963.
IV-11 Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land. Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, 1972.
81
-------
IV-12 Monthly Composite Atmospheric Analyses, File Records, Baltimore
Health Department, Air Pollution, 1976.
IV-13 Algae Control in Water Supply Reservoirs, Illinois Institute for
Environmental Quality, 1973.
IV-14 Baltimore City Solid Waste Management Plan, Review Draft for the
Baltimore Regional Planning Council, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
IV-15 "Covering Open Distribution Reservoirs," Chin, A.G., Journal
American Water Works Association, Vol. 63, No. 12,(December 1971).
IV-16 "The Floating Cover: Best Way to Cover a Finished-Water Reservoir?",
Dallaire, Gene, Journal, Civil Engineering-American Society of
Civil Engineers, June 1975.
IV-17 "Reservoir Linings," Harem, F.E., Beilman, K.D., and J.E. Worth,
Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 68, No. 5, May 1976.
IV-18 "Selecting Membrane Pond Liners," Lee, Jack, Pollution Engineering,
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1974.
IV-19 Health Aspects of Uncovered Reservoirs, Pluntze, James C., Water
Supply and Waste Section, Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services, unpublished report.
IV-20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Proposed Amendments
to State Board of Health Rules and Regulations Regarding Public
Water Supplies - WAC 248-54 - The Amendments Relate to Potable
Water Distribution Reservoirs, Office of Environmental Health
Programs, Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, April 1975.
IV-21 Protection of Open Reservoirs Against Birds, Emigh, Frank D.,
Paper presented at the Pacific Northwest Section Meeting, Seattle,
Washingon, May 1962.
82
-------
CHAPTER V
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1. PITTSBURGH; A CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Highland Reservoir No. 1 was selected as a case study because, like
Druid Lake (Chapter IV of this report) Highland is also typical of old,
large, uncovered reservoirs located in an intensely developed, industrial
city. For several years the City of Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) has consid-
ered the emplacement of a cover on Highland Reservoir but the costs were
considered too high to act without demonstrated need. Furthermore, Highland
Reservoir is located within a park where certain types of covers could be
be considered aesthetically objectionable.
Consumers have experienced sporadic taste and odor problems because
of the occasional presence of biological growths and organic debris in
water from Highland Reservoir No. 1. However, consideration of cover
installation on the reservoir is primarily based upon potential problems
rather than existing problems.
As in the selection of Druid Lake, a practical reason for selecting
Highland Reservoir was that the Pittsburgh Department of Water was willing
to provide both personnel and equipment for a water sampling and analysis
program. In addition, information concerning water quality monitoring,
water flows, and general operation and maintenance were also provided.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Physical Attributes
Highland Reservoir No. 1 is located in the northeast portion of
metropolitan Pittsburgh. The reservoir is a part of Highland Park, a
large public park containing a zoo, swimming pool, and other recreational
facilities. The reservoir serves a residential population of 180,000 peo-
ple and provides water required by mecantile and manufacturing interests.
Highland Reservoir is an entirely artificial water body constructed
in 1879 as two distinct basins. The partition separating the two basins
was subsequently demolished so that the total surface area of the reservoir
is about 8 ha. (21 acres). An average depth of about 6 m. (20 feet)
to the earthen bottom is present in the reservoir. The capacity of the
reservoir is approximately 500,000 cu.m. (130 million gallons). Treated water
is pumped to the reservoir from a 50 million gallon clear well at the
83
-------
Pittsburgh water treatment plant. The water enters Highland Reservoir
through a chamber which disperses the flow into two individual streams
(one into each of the two formerly separate basins (Figure V-l). The
average daily flow through the reservoir during 1975 was about 110 thousand
cu.m./day (20 million gallons per day), resulting in theoretical residence
time of 4.5 days. Water is withdrawn from four effluent vaults located in
widely separated areas (Figure V-l).
Highland Reservoir is surrounded by a fence about 1.2 m. (4 feet) high
which prevents people from falling into the water. The lower portion of
the fence is a low parapet wall designed to minimize surface drainage
into the reservoir. Signs describing the use of the water and warnings
against contamination are posted around the perimeter of the reservoir.
A limited access, paved road also exists around the perimeter which is
extensively used by walkers and joggers.
During warmer periods of the year thick algae mats grow in the shallow
portions of the basin. When an algacide is applied or when colder weather
occurs in autumn, the algae dies. Consequently, the mat of dead algae
breaks away from these areas and becomes suspended in the body of the
reservoir where it may be withdrawn in effluent water.
Birds proliferate the trees in the park surrounding the reservoir, but
do not use the reservoir itself as a roosting area.
Existing Water Quality Monitoring Program
Routine monitoring of water quality in Highland Reservoir No. 1
consists of taking grab samples from three of the four effluent pipelines.
Sampling is performed once each day from withdrawal lines located at
opposite sides of the reservoir (Figure V-l): effluent lines with water
sampling sites; H-2, and either H-6 or H-7). Water from the third
effluent line is sampled once every two days (Figure V-l): effluent line
with water sampling site H-4). Water samples collected from these loca-
tions are analyzed for total coliforms, total bacteria (total standard
plate count), color, odor, turbidity, hardness, chlorides, iron, manganese,
residual chlorine, pH, and alkalinity. If the count of the total coliform
bacteria is high, then the reservoir is immediately tested for the presence
of fecal coliform bacteria. A 24-hour time lag usually exists between
water sampling and bacteria analytical results. Chlorine residual is
also monitored at several other locations throughout the distribution
system, five days per week. The quality of influent water to Highland
Reservoir is monitored twoce per day by sampling the discharge from a large
closed clear well which precedes the reservoir and which follows the Pitts-
burgh Water Treatment Plant. The parameters measured are those necessary
to comply with the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards of 1962.
An approximate 10 - 12 hr. lag exists from the time water leaves the treat-
ment plant until it reaches Highland Reservoir.
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance procedures at Highland Reservoir No. 1 are
implemented to insure continuous high water quality of effluent water and
84
-------
FIGURE v-i LOCATION OF WATER SAMPLING SITES FOR HIGHLAND
RESERVOIR NO, 1 ,
/ /
/ / Chlorination-
/ /
f;.; "-1
Chlorination-J
H-4 ,
.0
Chlorination
Note: Site Location Numbers^*-
are Referred in Text
' LEGEND
'
f / D Withdrawal Point
t Influent Pipeline
-—-Effluent Pipeline
Water Sampling
Site
Scale: 1"=245 ft.
85
-------
water throughout the reservoir. Quality of water delivered to consumers
must meet USPHS, 1962, Drinking Water Standards. Influent water to
Highland Reservoir has been treated at the Pittsburgh Water Treatment
Plant receiving: prechlorination; flash mixing of water, alum, lime,
permanganate, coagulant aid, and carbon; coagulation; sedimentation;
filtration; pH control with soda ash; fluoridation; and postchlorination.
Prechlorination is designed to maintain a concentration of 1-2 ppm residual
chlorine through the plant. Postchlorination is used to maintain a
concentration of 1-2 ppm residual chlorine in treatment plant effluent.
Treated water is stored in a clear well before being pumped directly to
Highland Reservoir No. 1 receiving no additional treatment. Water is
discharged through the influent chamber into the reservoir. Water in
the reservoir is withdrawn from four effluent vaults located in different
portions of the reservoir. Water in each effluent pipeline receives post-
reservoir chlorination with the intention to insure that water received by
consumers in the most distant portions of the distribution system has a
residual chlorine concentration of 0.3-0.5 ppm. Additionally, first consumers
are assured of adequate in-line contact time after postchlorination (50 min.-
1970 flows).
Chlorination at the Pittsburgh Treatment Plant requires approximately
50 metric tons (55 short tons) of chlorine, per year (1975). This amount
of chlorine is usually split evenly between chlorination of plant influent
and effluent. The total annual cost at $0.17/kg ($151/ton) is $8,300/yr.
Chlorination of effluent from Highland Reservoir requires about 17 metric
tons (18 short tons) chlorine. During 1975, the total annual cost, at
$0.36/kg ($325/ton), was $5,900/yr. Different unit costs of chlorine are
attributed to the different forms and quantities used.
Water quality maintenance in the reservoir principally involves
control of algal growth, shore plant growth, and prevention of contamina-
tion by illegal entry to the reservoir. Growth of algae is controlled
by application of copper sulfate from a small boat to the water's surface,
especially near the shore. During 1975, 39 applications were performed
during summer and fall on the following basis: May - 2 applications, I/
week for 2 weeks; June - 4 applications, I/week; July - 12 applications,
2/week; August - 12 applications, 3/week; September - 6 applications, 2/
week; and October - 3 applications, I/week for three weeks. The cost of
copper sulfate alone was a total of $15,800/yr at $0.60/kg ($540/ton).
Floating clumps of algae are removed by hand as necessary. During each
application of copper sulfate, calcium hypochlorite (HTH) is also applied
to control the growth of algae and prevent bacterial growths. Each of
the 39 applications of HTH required about 500 kg (1,100 Ib). The total
cost of HTH during 1975 at $0.76/kg ($34.30/100 Ib) was $14,800/yr.
Shore plant growth is controlled as required by intermittent cutting
and removing of weeds.
Prevention of contaminant deposition by illegal entry to the reservoir
is accomplished by periodic surveillance. Surveillance is provided by the
Pittsburgh Police Department once every hour (24-hr day), the Pittsburgh
86
-------
wafers wh sP°radic*Hy> and a civilian patrol consisting of volunteer
walkers who will report security violations to police. Employees of
the Water Department also provide security during their activities con-
cerning operation of the reservoir. activities con-
Water Quality Problems
The public water supply of Pittsburgh has a long standing reputation
of providing a very high quality water to its consumers. However consumers
?££ t . y Cria±n ?f thelr WSter havln* ^pleasant tastes Ind'odo"
These taste
t . ases noo
These taste and odors have been associated with free floating algae in
o«J?8err? i8f ^ alS° CaUSe turbidity P«*le»s of which consumers
occasionally complain. As previously discussed, algal growths on the
reservoir bottom will dislodge and enter the distribution system?
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM
Perspective of Sampling Program
Baseline information of Highland Reservoir No. 1 was collected in
a complete discussion of the items common to both reservoirs
Routine Sampling Program
Water Quality Parameters
Water sampling and analysis of physical, chemical and biological
parameters (Table V-l) in Highland Reservoir was performed by thfpitts-
(Ref ?!«! Department' Cording to the procedures in "Standard Methods"
Sampling Sites and Time Period
the f^iri8*1'11'168 T C°llected ^ the Pittsburgh Water Department at
the following seven locations (shown in Figure V-l).
(H-l) Influent water chlorinated at treatment plant,
(H-2) Effluent water before post-reservoir chlorination,
(H-4) Effluent water before post-reservoir chlorination,
(H-5) Same effluent water as (H-4) but after post-reservoir
chlorination,
(H-3) Same effluent water as (H-2) but after post-reservoir
chlorination,
87
-------
TABLE V-l
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL
TECHNIQUES USED IN STUDY OF HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Parameter
Analytical Technique (Ref. IV-5)
Chemical-Phvsical
Temperature
PH
Color, Apparent
Turbidity
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity, Total
Hardness, Total
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Free Residual
Copper
Lead
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphate, Total
Phosphate, Ortho, Soluble
Phosphate, Ortho, Total
biological
Coliforms, Total
Coliforms, Fecal
Plate Count, Total Standard
Phytoplankton
Mercury Filled Thermometer
Glass Electrode Method
Platinium-Cobalt Standard
Nephelometric Method
Filterable and Nonfilterable Solids
Nonfilterable Solids
Standard Acid Titration
EDTA Titrimetric Method
Amperometric
Amperometric
Atomic Absorption, Spectrophotometric
Atomic Absorption, Spectrophotometric
Nesslerization Method
Brucine Method
Stannous Chloride Method
Stannous Chloride Method
Stannous Chloride Method
Membrane Filter Technique
Membrane Filter Technique
Standard Plate Count
Sedgwick-Rafter Procedure
88
-------
(H-6) Effluent water after post-reservoir chlorination, and
(H-7) Effluent water after post-reservoir chlorination.
All parameters listed in Table V-l are sampled from locations, H-l,
H-2, H-4, H-6, and H-7. Only biological parameters are sampled at locations
H-3 and H-5.
The sampling and analysis program began 1 February 1975, and ended
on 31 January 1976. From 1 February 1975 to 31 May 1975, samples were
collected from each sample site twice each week. Since the most signif-
icant water quality changes were expected to occur during the summer months,
samples were collected from each location three times per week from 1 June
1975 to 30 September 1975. During the remainder of the study period,
from 1 October to 31 January 1976, samples were collected at each location,
twice each week.
As a check on existing conditions at the time of sampling, an
"environmental check list" was completed at the time of sampling for each
sample data. The list included an estimation of: (1) air temperature;
(2) presence and type of precipitation; (3) wind velocity; (4) presence of
clouds; (5) numbers of birds on lake surface; (6) presence of waves; and
(7) unusual activities on or around Highland Reservoir.
Special Sampling Program
The special sampling program for Highland Reservoir No. 1 is identical
to that of Druid Lake, Baltimore, (discussed in Chapter IV) except for
different sampling locations. The parameters, frequency of measurement,
and EPA laboratory performing the analyses are listed in Table V-2. Water
samples except those for microbial analysis were obtained at two stations
located at sites H-l and H-2 (shown in Figure V-2). Microbial sampling
was performed at stations H-l and H-4.
Characterization Studies
Water Quality and Benthos Survey
Temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements were made on water
sampled at 1.5 m. (5 ft.) intervals from surface to bottom at four
locations (Figure V-2), H-A, H-B, H-C, and H-D. Bottom depth is about
the same at all four locations.
A qualitative survey of benthic organisms was made at the same three
sites in conjunction with temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements.
Two additional benthic survey locations (H-E and H-F) were included,
thereby making a transect toward shore from location, H-D (Figure V-2).
Microorganisms were identified by the Pittsburgh Water Department.
89
-------
TABLE V-2
SPECIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSES-
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Parameter
Frequency
EPA
Laboratory
Total Organic Carbon
Trace Metals
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Zinc
Radiochemical Isotopes
Gross beta
Gross alpha
Sr-90
Ra-226
Specific gamma
Microbes
Cytopathic viruses
Coliform bacteria
Weekly
Monthly
Annapolis, Md.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Quarter Yearly
Birmingham, Ala.
Quarter Yearly
Cincinnati, Ohio
90
-------
FIGURE v-2 LOCATION OF WATER SAMPLING SITES FOR HIGHLAND
RESERVOIR NO, 1 SPECIAL WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM
* ^* * _
/ •••.
' •• ^
RESERVOIR NO. 1
•H-C
H-4 ,
0
Chlori nation-^*
Note: Site Location Labels are
Referred in Text
H'F / / LEGEND
D Withdrawl Point
/' — Influent Pipeline
/ — Effluent Pipeline
O Water Sample Site
a Dustfall Sample Site
• Benthic Sample Site
Scale: 1"=245 ft.
91
-------
Pustfall Sampling
The amount of airborne particulates settling upon Highland Reservoir
was measured from March, 1975 to January, 1976. Two floating dustfall
samplers were anchored in the reservoir, both in one area of the basin
(see Figure V-2: stations DH-1 and DH-2). Sample collection was performed
by the Pittsburgh Water Department on a monthly basis, and sample analysis
was performed by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Air Pollution Control.
Potential Contamination by Birds
The surface of Highland Reservoir has no history of being used as a
resting area by birds. No special sampling and analysis related to contamina-
tion by birds was performed.
Hydraulics of Highland Reservoir No. 1
A computation of average water detention time in Highland Reservoir
No. 1 and flow through the reservoir was made for the year 1975. Exist-
ing information concerning reservoir volume was obtained from the Water
Department. Effluent flows were also obtained from which the total
effluent flow as well as effluent flows at each sampling station were
derived.
Reservoir detention time was calculated using the annual average
daily flow and the average reservoir volume.
EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA
Principles of Evaluation
Data were collected to characterize water quality of Highland Reser-
voir No. 1 and circumstances affecting water quality. The most important
evaluation was to observe any relative water quality change from influent
to effluent and effluent before and after postchlorination. Water quality
data were also evaluated with respect to water quality standards;
primarily those promulgated by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1962.
Data Presentation and Evaluation of Routine Sampling Program
Results of the routine sampling program (Table V-l) are presented in
several levels of detail. A detailed listing of analytical results for
all parameters at all sampling stations is located in the Appendix of
this report (Table B-l). Information is shown by sample collection date,
parameter, sampling site, and lower limit of analytical detection for the
particular parameter. Data are presented for different sample dates in
Table B-l to account for reservoir detention time lag. This facilitates
comparison of water quality between influent and effluent. The time lag
between sample sites, before and after postchlorination is insignificant.
92
-------
Between February, 1975 to May, 1975 the lag in Table B-l is about 3.5 days;
May, 1975 to November, 1975 - 2.5 days; and November, 1975 to January,
1976 - 3.5 days.
Data of the routine sampling program from the two prechlorination
sampling stations (H-2 and H-4) were averaged together, to produce one
value for one sampling date. Data from the four postchlorination sampling
stations H-3, H-5, H-6, and H-7, were also averaged to produce one value
for one sampling date. Influent samples were only collected at one station;
therefore, no averaging procedure was necessary.
A weighted averaging procedure was required to manipulate the raw
data because of unequal flows from the four effluent points in the reser-
voir. The flow at each sampling station was as follows:
Water Flow
Sample Stations (cu.m./min.) (mgd)
H-l (influent) 76.5 29.1
H-2 and H-3 (effluent) 26.3 10.0
H-4 and H-5 (effluent) 33.1 12.6
H-6 (effluent) 9.2 3.5
H-7 (effluent 9.2 3.5
The sum of the four effluent flows does not equal the influent flow
owing to inaccurate effluent flow metering. However, the effluent flows
are used only relative to one another in calculating proportionate factors
in the following equations.
The equation used to calculate the weighted average for prechlorina-
tion data is the following:
average value = (0.558) *4 + (0.442) X2
Where X2 and x^ are analytical results from sampling stations H-2
and H-4, respectively.
The two equations used to calculate the weighted average for post-
chlorination data is the following:
All parameters except biological parameters -
average value = (0.500) xg + (0.500) xy
All parameters including biological parameters -
average value = (0.338) x3 + (0.426) x5 + (0.118) xy + (0.118) xe
Where x3, x5, X6, and xy are analytical values from sampling stations
H-3, H-5, H-6, and H-7, respectively.
93
-------
Routine sampling results in Table B-l are summarized by presenting
the monthly median and range for almost every parameter in tabular fashion.
For each parameter, the range and median are given for each sample site.
The parameters of ammonia and apparent color were not treated in this
manner owning to their uniform values of measurement.
Of the parameters selected to present as monthly medians and ranges,
four parameters were chosen as warranting additional analysis. This
additional analysis is designed to evaluate the difference in parameter
values between sample sites. To indicate the change in water quality
visually, monthly median difference plots are presented. In order to
evaluate the significance of the difference in water quality, a statistical
analysis, Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was performed with data of the four
parameters. Use of the Mann-Whitney 'U' Test is discussed in Chapter IV
of this report.
Results of Data Evaluation
Routine Sampling Program
Temperature - Water temperature at the sampling locations of influent,
effluent before postchlorination (here after known as prechlorinated
effluent), and postchlorinated effluent display a seasonal trend following
ambient temperature changes. Warmer water occurs during summer and
cooler water during winter. This trend is shown by the monthly medians at
all three sampling stations (see Table V-3).
Influent water temperatures are usually higher than or equal to pre-
chlorination and postchlorination water temperature. Influent temperature
measurements are higher during six months of the sampling period. Pre-
chlorination and postchlorination temperatures are similar throughout the
year.
Tap water with a temperature of 10°C (50°F) is generally satisfactory
while temperatures above 15°C (59°F) are usually objectionable with possible
consumer complaints above 19°C (66°F) (Ref. V-2). Water temperatures in
Highland Reservoir exceed the limit of 15°C (59°F) during five months of
summer at all three sampling locations. Most effluent temperatures
are about 0.6-1.1°C (1-2°F) less than influent temperatures indicating that
water cools within the reservoir, even during summer.
£H - On a yearly basis, pH measurements at the three sampling loca-
tions change little. Values of pH vary by about 0.4 units (see the data
monthly medians in Table V-4). However, the pH measurement in February
at the three sampling locations differs by about 1.0 unit from the pH
values that occur during the remainder of the sampling period. This
unusually high pH value is presumably caused by a change in treatment or
transmission of water to Highland Reservoir during February.
Values of pH show little change (about 0.1 unit) from influent to
the prechlorination location or from the prechlorination location to the
94
-------
TABLE V-3
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TEMPERATURE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Temperature (°F)^
Influent
Range
35-38
32-46
40-52
54-72
62-74
73-79
75-80
61-72
53-61
48-55
33-44
35-37
Median
36
40
44
62
70
78
77
65
59
52
40
36
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
39-38
32-46
40-52
57-71
64-75
75-78
74-80
60-72
53-61
44-56
34-43
35-36
Median
36
40
44
66
70
77
76
65
58
50
38
36
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
35-38
32-46
40-52
58-71
64-74
75-78
74-80
60-72
53-60
44-56
34-44
36-37
Median
35
40
44
65
70
77
76
66
58
50
38
36
CO
Note: (1) 32°F = lower limit of detection for temperature (one Centigrade deg. =1.8 Fahrenheit
deg.)
-------
TABLE V-4
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - pH
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
PR ( units) (1)
Influent
Range
8.00-8.90
7.70-8.40
7.70-8.10
7.70-8.00
7.50-8.10
7.80-8.50
7.80-8.50
7.80-8.70
7.70-8.10
7.40-8.10
7.80-8.50
7.90-8.20
Median
8.80
7.90
7.90
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.10
8.00
7.80
7.90
7.90
8.10
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
8.82-8.90
7.70-8.20
7.60-8.00
7.74-8.04
7.70-8.10
7.48-8.31
7.80-8.46
7.56-8.24
7.70-8.00
7.90-8.24
7.74-8.00
8.36-8.37
Median
8.80
7.90
7.84
7.90
7.94
8.00
8.04
7.96
7.86
8.00
7.80
8.36
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
8.25-8.90
7.70-8.20
7.70-8.00
7.65-7.90
7.80-8.10
7.75-8.40
7.80-8.15
7.75-8.20
7.70-7.90
7.85-8.00
7.70-8.00
7.80-8.30
Median
8.70
7.90
7.80
7.80
7.90
7.85
8.00
7.85
7.80
7.90
7.80
8.15
co
Ci
Note: (1) 0.01 unit = lower limit of detection for pH.
-------
post chlorination location.
The USPHS Drinking Water Standards do not limit pH; however, values
of pH in Highland Reservoir are within an acceptable range.
Color, apparent - Measurements of color do not change during the
sampling period (see Appendix, Table B-l). All measurements of color are
equal to or less than the lower limit of analytical detection; 1 unit.
Every measurement of color is less than the USPHS standard (1962) of 15
units.
Turbidity - Influent concentrations of turbidity show a slight yearly
trend of higher values during late spring and late summer-fall (see monthly
median values in Table V-5). This trend of concentration change is carried
through the reservoir, showing to a lesser extent at both effluent sampling
locations.
Monthly median turbidity measurements (Table V-5) show about an equal
number of concentration increases and decreases from influent to the
prechlorination sampling location. However, values at the postchlorination
sampling location show a general increase over prechlorination values.
All turbidity measurements are much less than the USPHS standard of 5
JTU, however, the National Interim Drinking Water Standards maximum turbidity
level of 1.0 TU is violated occasionally by both influent and effluent waters.
Turbidity measurements during January are abnormally low at the pre-
chlorination location. Measurements of other parameters, total solids,
dissolved solids, total alkalinity, and total hardness at the prechlorina-
tion location during January are also abnormally low. While the parameters
of turbidity, total solids dissolved solids, and possibly alkalinity are
susceptible to contaminant sources outside the reservoir, total hardness is
fairly independent of usual contaminant sources. Thus, measurements of the
above parameters during January maybe subject to inaccurate laboratory
analysis or reporting of results.
Total solids - Measurements of total solids (see monthly median
values in Table V-6) show a distinct increase during summer at all three
sampling locations. The trend of influent values throughout the sampling
period is to a lesser extent, the same as the trend of both prechlorination
and postchlorination values.
Total solids concentrations typically show little difference at the
three sampling locations. Differences generally average about 7 mg/1.
The USPHS standards do not limit total solids. However the USPHS
does set a limit on a component of total solids, dissolved solids, of
500 mg/1 which is much higher than the usual value of about 190 mg/1
found in Highland Reservoir No. 1.
Dissolved solids - Concentrations of dissolved solids, shown by
monthly median values in Table V-7, are almost equal to those of total
solids. Median values of dissolved and total solids usually differ by
97
-------
TABLE V-5
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TURBIDITY
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Turbidity (JTU) ^
Influent
Range
0.05-0.10
0.12-1.40
0.18-0.96
0.75-1.50
0.12-4.70
0.08-0.85
0.06-1.20
0.34-1.30
0.48-1.30
0.70-2.60
0.12-0.60
0.35-0.61
Median
0.05
0.50
0.35
0.92
0.73
0.26
0.15
1.00
0.82
0.99
0.50
0.48
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.03-0.09
0.11-0.78
0.12-0.73
0.50-0.92
0.40-5.00
0.25-0.88
0.16-0.96
0.50-4.58
0.23-1.20
0.53-0.96
0.24-0.88
0.20-0.54
Median
0.05
0.52
0.26
0.68
0.50
0.45
0.30
0.96
0.63
0.72
0.53
0.30
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.05-0.20
0.11-0.77
0.15-1.20
0.67-1.40
0.27-4.80
0.48-1.20
0.20-1.10
0.53-1.80
0.32-1.10
0.65-1.01
0.34-0.77
0.18-0.72
Median
0.09
0.58
0.25
0.97
0.84
0.65
0.38
0.97
0.60
0.90
0.56
0.60
CD
oo
Note: 0.05 JTU = lower limit of detection for turbidity.
-------
TABLE V-6
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL SOLIDS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Solids (mg/1)'1'
Influent
Range
156-220
145-186
152-189
173-217
152-248
187-340
289-341
195-257
160-217
168-206
122-195
135-202
Median
175
170
160
195
168
289
322
221
185
179
162
172
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
94-202
156-187
145-177
178-234
152-236
196-331
306-336
202-286
180-216
171-198
136-196
76-198
Median
186
179
158
204
170
273
321
229
186
174
157
97
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
159-201
153-185
148-180
180-235
158-235
196-335
302-338
203-285
177-221
171-200
128-197
136-199
Median
182
179
157
207
164
274
320
232
190
175
156
170
CO
(0
Note: (1) 1
= lower limit of detection for total solids.
-------
TABLE V-7
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Dissolved Solids (mg/1) ^
Influent
Range
156-204
144-184
147-184
172-215
147-247
185-340
288-326
193-300
159-216
167-205
121-195
134-200
Median
171
170
159
194
164
288
322
220
184
178
161
171
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
89-183
155-185
140-173
175-232
151-234
193-330
305-335
201-281
179-207
170-197
135-195
75-197
Median
179
177
148
202
167
272
321
226
184
172
155
96
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
154-187
152-183
145-176
178-233
156-234
193-333
300-337
202-283
176-219
169-198
126-195
135-197
Median
178
178
153
203
160
273
319
229
188
173
154
169
o
o
Note: (1) 1 mg/1 = lower .limit of detection for dissolved solids.
-------
about 2-4 mg/1. This relationship indicates that most components of total
solids are contributed by dissolved solids.
All concentrations of dissolved solids meet the USPHS recommended
drinking water standard of 500 mg/1.
Total alkalinity - Monthly median concentrations of alkalinity, shown
in Table V-8, indicate that values at both effluent sampling locations
follow the influent yearly trend of slightly higher concentrations during
late summer and during fall. However, with the exception of concentrations
during January at the prechlorination sampling location which show unusu-
ally low values, all other measurements differ by a maximum of 12 mg/1
during the year.
Spatial differences in alkalinity values show little difference between
sampling locations (except for the values during January at the pre-
chlorination location). Concentrations change by about 1-2 mg/1 between
stations.
The USPHS has set no limit on alkalinity. Considering the low values
of dissolved solids and small deviation of pH from neutrality (typical
pH of 8.0 units) in Highland Reservoir, all concentrations of alkalinity
are within an acceptable range.
Hardness - Concentrations of hardness at both effluent stations follow
the same yearly trend as indicated by influent monthly median concentra-
tions shown in Table V-9. This trend indicates high values during summer
and decreasing values during fall.
Hardness measurements change only slightly between sampling locations.
The data monthly median values displayed in Table V-9 show differences of
only 1-2 mg/1 between prechlorination and postchlorination locations.
Concentrations at the prechlorination location during January are lower
than the majority of hardness values.
No limit on hardness has been set by the USPHS. High quality drink-
ing water usually has a concentration of hardness less than 100 mg/1.
However, water may have acceptable concentrations of hardness up to 270
mg/1 (Ref. V-2). All of the concentrations in Highland Reservoir No. 1
during July, August, and September exceed 100 mg/1 hardness. Values
during the remainder of the year fluctuate near 100 mg/1. However, all
hardness concentrations are much less than 270 mg/1. From the standpoint
of hardness, the water of Highland Reservoir is of good quality.
Total chlorine - Interpretation of total residual chlorine sampling
results (as well as free residual chlorine results) must be performed with
the realization that post-reservoir chlorination was only performed from
1 June to 1 October 1975.
Influent concentrations of total chlorine tend to show higher values
during summer and fall in Highland Reservoir No. 1 (see median values
101
-------
TABLE V-8
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL ALKALINITY
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December.
January
Total Alkalinity (mg/1) ^
Influent
Range
30-37
23-29
24-30
22-30
23-38
25-42
30-40
33-47
26-35
28-38
28-36
28-33
Median
37
26
26
26
31
29
38
35
30
32
34
29
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
18-38
23-29
24-28
23-28
26-35
26-35
31-42
33-37
28-33
32-34
29-34
16-31
Median
35
26
26
27
30
28
37
34
30
33
31
17
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
30-38
23-29
24-28
23-28
26-33
25-35
31-42
32-39
28-33
30-34
29-33
27-32
Median
35
26
26
27
29
27
37
34
30
33
31
29
o
to
Note: (1) 1 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total alkalinity.
-------
TABLE V-9
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - HARDNESS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Hardness (as CaC03) (mg/1) (!)
Influent
Range
90-108
80- 92
84-110
86-112
82-118
100-166
150-164
108-136
92-116
88-104
88-114
90-102
Median
98
88
88
98
98
140
160
118
108
102
96
98
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
50-101
85- 91
84-103
91-111
90-112
113-159
151-168
110-143
93-112
97-105
84-112
49-112
Median
97
88
89
100
99
139
162
120
108
104
97
57
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
88-100
84- 91
84-100
89-110
93-112
112-161
152-168
109-143
94-114
97-107
84-110
90-112
Median
98
87
88
100
97
139
162
120
109
107
97
97
o
CO
Note: (1) 1 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for hardness (as CaCO-)
-------
in Table V-10). Both effluent prechlorination and postchlorination sampling
locations show this yearly trend but to a more limited extent.
All measurements of total chlorine at the postchlorination location
(indicated by monthly median values) are less than influent values by
0.15 to 0.85 mg/1 during the year. Total chlorine is a expression of both
free and combined chlorine residuals. The loss of total chlorine from
reservoir influent to effluent may be atrributed to many factors. Chlorine
in water is a very active chemical agent; it reacts with the many substances
dissolved or suspended in water. Reducing compounds (e.g., manganese, iron,
nitrites, etc) and organic matter that are continually being transported into
the reservoir via groundwater, precipitation, wind photosynthesis, etc. exert
a chlorine demand. The large reservoir volume affords the opportunity and
time for these substances to react with chlorine. Consequently, various
amounts of available chlorine are being removed, depending on the amount of
chlorine demanding substances that are present. Additionally, sunlight
dissipates chlorine in large, open reservoirs.
During the course of the sampling period there was consistently little
difference in total chlorine residual concentrations in the effluent before
chlorination and after chlorination. Moreover, postchlorinated effluent was
not consistently maintained at the total residual chlorine concentrations
intended by the Water Department (0.3 - 0.5 ppm). Evidently, the post-
chlorination of reservoir effluent, as practiced that year, was either
insufficient to maintain these residuals, or non-existent.
The USPHS has set no limits upon total chlorine concentration. However,
the threshold of taste in redistilled water is about 5 mg/1 (Ref. V-2). All
measurements of total chlorine in Highland Reservoir No. 1 are less than
this limit. Because of chlorine is added as a disinfectant, the loss of
chlorine is of primary concern.
Free chlorine - On a yearly basis, concentrations of free residual
chlorine (indicated by the monthly medians of Table V-ll) follow similar
trends at all three sampling locations. Higher values occur during late
summer and late fall-winter. This trend is generally the same as the yearly
trend of total chlorine concentrations. However, concentrations of residual
chlorine are not consistently proportional to concentrations of total chlorine
indicating the presence of varying amounts of combined chlorine residuals
during the course of the year. For example, differences in concentrations of
total and residual chlorine at the prechlorination sampling location range
from 0.02 mg/1 in April to 0.69 mg/1 in November.
As in the case of total chlorine, all concentrations of residual chlorine
at the effluent prechlorination sampling location are less than influent
concentrations. The difference in effluent total chlorine residuals and free
chlorine residuals may be attributed to the formation of chloramines in the
reservoir due to traces of ammonia in the water. These chloramines have less
disinfecting capability than chlorine in the free form, however they tend to
last longer and therefore afford bactericidal protection to drinking water in
the outmost portions of the distribution system. Free chlorine concentrations
at the effluent postchlorination location are the same or slightly less than
effluent prechlorination values (typically 0.02 mg/1 less). This slight
difference again shows that the postchlorination operation has little effect
104
-------
TABLE V-10
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL CHLORINE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Chlorine (mg/1) ^
Influent
Range
0.15-0.75
0.26-1.37
0.08-1.00
0.45-1.16
0.15-1.30
0.01-4.00
0.23-1.90
0.12-1.84
0.42-1.97
0.21-1.49
0.42-2.00
0.20-1.24
Median
0.28
0.55
0.48
0.80
0.58
0.82
0.84
*0.66
0.73
1.12
1.20
0.59
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.06-0.27
0.11-0.52
0.01-0.22
0.06-0.74
0.01-0.39
0.07-0.87
0.10-0.86
0.01-0.75
0.05-0.92
0.50-1.30
0.17-0.64
0.06-0.37
Median
0.13
0.28
0.05
0.46
0.07
0.54
0.31
0.50
0.13
0.79
0.35
0.17
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.10-0.25
0.10-0.46
0.01-0.23
0.04-0.87
0.01-0.50
0.04-0.93
0.05-0.88
0.07-2.15
0.05-0.71
0.14-1.98
0.15-0.71
0.09-0.38
Median
0.10
0.26
0.05
0.38
0.08
0.51
0.30
0.61
0.09
0.58
0.27
0.18
o
01
Note: (1) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total chlorine.
-------
TABLE V-ll
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED HATER QUALITY
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - FREE CHLORINE
O
01
Month
02/75
01/76
February
Hatch
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Free Chlorine Residual (mg/l)99 *
>99 *
>99 *
95-99 *
>99 *
90-95 *
95-99 *
>99 *
>99 *
95-99 *
>99 *
>99 *
(2) Hondirectional test for equal concentrations of residual chlorine at sampling sites: influent and effluent-no chlorination.
The significance level Is set at 'a1. The statistic Oo Is computed and compared to Ua which Is selected at 'a' if stated as a range.
U0 must be less than Ua to state with some confidence probability greater than 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample points
differ. Where a single number is listed beneath columns Uo and Ua, a probability was computed to compare directly with 'a' to deter-
mine the confidence probability.
* Denotes value greater than 901.
-------
FIGURE v-3 MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (PRECHLORINATION MINUS INFLUENT)
FREE CHLORINE RESIDUAL FOR DRUID LAKE
OL
O
_l
O
a
CO
cn
Aug. Sept. Oct.
Feb. March April May
-------
upon chlorine concentration in effluent water.
Because free residual chlorine is important to disinfection of the water
supply and because of the additional cost incurred by applying chlorine, the
Mann Whitney 'U' Test was used to statistically evaluate the difference
of concentrations between influent and prechlorination effluent. While
differences in water quality data between influent and effluent have pre-
viously been observed, no attempt was made to identify the significance of
the difference. Results from the statistical analysis of residual chlorine
(Table V-ll) indicate that for all months of the sampling period the prob-
ability of different concentrations between influent and prechlorinated
effluent is greater than the 90 percent confidence level with most months
showing a probability greater than 99 percent.
The USPHS has set no limits upon concentrations of residual chlorine.
Copper - Concentrations of copper, indicated by the monthly median
values in Table V-12, show no yearly or spatial change in any of the three
sampling locations. Most values are less than or equal to the lower limit
of detection (0.010 mg/1) used in analysis. However, during August, measure-
ments of copper greater than 0.010 mg/1 occur sporadically (Appendix, Table
B-l) at the influent, prechlorination, and postchlorination sampling locations.
These periods of increased copper in the effluent are most likely a result
of the manual applications of copper sulfate (algacide) that are not
uniformly distributed.
The USPHS has recommended a limit on copper of 1.0 mg/1 for domestic
water supplies. This limit is primarily based on threshold concentrations
of taste which are in the range of 1.0-2.0 mg/1. All reported copper
concentrations in Highland Reservoir No. 1 are much less than 1.0 mg/1.
Lead - The monthly median concentrations of lead at all sampling
stations (Table V-13) show a yearly trend of highest concentrations occurring
in late spring-early summer and lowest concentrations during winter. The pre-
chlorination and postchlorination sampling locations show an additional peak
during November. A moderate change of concentration exists at each sampling
location where the maximum difference at the influent sampling station is
0.017 mg/1; prechlorination location - 0.022 mg/1; and postchlorination
location - 0.028 mg/1.
Measurements of lead generally increase from influent to the post-
chlorination sampling location. During seven months of the sampling period
(see monthly medians of Table V-13), lead values at the prechlorination
location exceed influent concentrations by 0.001 to 0.013 mg/1 (Figure
V-4). Prechlorination lead values exceed postchlorination lead values
during seven months of the year (not necessarily the same seven months
as above) by 0.002 to 0.006 mg/1.
The increase in lead concentration through Highland Reservoir No. 1
might be due to contamination by settled lead particulates from the air
Unfortunately no lead particulate monitoring is performed in Pittsburgh
which could confirm this possibility.
108
-------
TABLE V-12
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - COPPER
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
•Vf___
May
T
June
T "1
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Copper (mg/1)^1-'
Influent
Range
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010-0.200
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Median
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010-0.150
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010-0.006
Median
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010-0.080
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Median
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o
CO
Note: (1) 0.001 mg/1 = lower ,Limit of detection for copper, however the lower analytical detection
limit generally utilized is 0.010.
-------
TABLE V-13
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - LEAD
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Sample Sites
Influent
Range
0.001(1>
0.001
0.001-0.030
0.010-0.030
0.009-0.030
0.006-0.022
0.002-0.020
0.005-0.030
0.003-0.016
0.007-0.022
0.005-0.010
0.003-0.008
Median
0.001
0.001
0.013
0.018
0.016
0.010
0.013
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.005
No Chlorlnatlon
Range
0.001
0.001
0.001-0.042
0.013-0.037
0.006-0.036
0.009-0.025
0.001-0.026
0.008-0.025
0.005-0.018
0.014-0.032
0.007-0.013
0.004-0.008
Median
0.001
0.001
0.011
0.021
0.023
0.015
0.013
0.013
0.011
0.023
0.011
0.006
Effluent-
Post Chlorlnatlon
Range
0.001
0.001
0.000-0.020
0.013-0.035
0.006-0.037
0.013-0.030
0.001-0.040
0.010-0.027
0.006-0.027
0.018-0.033
0.005-0.016
0.004-0.010
Median
0.001
0.001
0.009
0.026
0.021
0.017
0.015
0.017
0.015
0.029
0.011
0.008
Mann-Whitney 'U' Test(2)
Influent-Effluent. No cli
"o
1 : 1
0.0]
"a
13
40.5 21
0.439
24.0
61.0
28.0
58.0
29.0
30.0
0.0
21
42
37
42
33
27
48
0.461
0.4
59
1
a
>0.01
>0.1
'•O.I
>0.1
>0.1
0.05-0.002
>0.1
0.05-0.002
>0.1
0.05-0.01
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90 *
•^90
<90
<90
<90
95-99*
<90
95-99*
<90
95-99*
<90
<90
Note: (1)
(2)
0.001 mg/1 - lower limit of detection for lead.
Non directional test for equal concentrations of lead at sampling sites: influent and effluent-no chlorination. The significance
level is set at o . The statistic U0 is computed and compared to Ua which is selected at 'a1 or larger 'a' IE stated as a range
U0 must be less than Ua to state with some confidence probability greater than 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample points
differ. Where a single number Is listed beneath columns Uo and Ua, a probability was computed to compare directly with 'a' to deter-
mine the confidence probability.
Denotes value greater than 90Z.
-------
FIGURE v-4 MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (PRECHLORIMATION MINUS INFLUENT)
LEAD FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR
Q
«=c
July Aug. Sept.
-------
Evaluation of differences between influent and prechlorination lead
concentrations was performed by testing for significance using the Mann-
Whitney 'U1 Test. Results indicate that the probability of dissimilar
concentrations is 95-99 percent during the months of July, September,
and November. The probability is less than 90 percent during the remainder
of the year. Therefore a significant difference in lead concentration only
occurred intermittently during the sampling period.
The USPHS has set a limit of 0.05 mg/1 lead concentration for drink-
ing water. All lead values in Highland Reservoir are less than 0.05 mg/1.
Ammonia - Measurements of ammonia at the prechlorination and post-
chlorination sampling locations follow the same yearly trend as that of
the influent sampling station where ammonia concentrations peak in July
and August (see monthly median values in Table V-14). However, most
ammonia measurements are equal to the lower limit of detection, 0.02 mg/1
(Appendix, Table B-l).
The difference in concentration of ammonia between sampling locations
is negligible.
While the USPHS has set no limits on ammonia concentration, a generally
accepted limit indicating sanitary condition is approximately 0.04-0.08
mg/1 ammonia as N (Ref. V-2). Concentrations at all three sampling loca-
tions sporadically exceed this limit during July and August.
Nitrate - No yearly trend of nitrate concentrations at any of the
three sampling locations is apparent from the monthly median values of
Table V-15. Measurements of nitrate differ during the sampling period
at the influent sampling location by a maximum of 0.40 mg/1; prechlorina-
tion location - 0.50 mg/1.
Spatially, nitrate concentrations differ little between sampling
locations. Prechlorination concentrations exceed influent values by 0.04
to 0.11 mg/1, while the difference in concentration between prechlorination
and postchlorination locations is negligible.
The USPHS has recommended a limit of 10 mg/1 nitrate as N. All
concentrations of nitrate in Highland Reservoir are much less than 10
mg/1.
Total phosphate - The monthly median concentrations of total phosphate
(as P04>, shown in Table V-16, are all equal to or less than the lower limit
of analytical detection (0.01 mg/1) at the three sampling locations. No
changes in concentration occur either temporally or spatially. However,
intermittent increases in concentration exist at the three sampling loca-
tions during the sampling period (Appendix, Table B-l). The period
of highest total phosphate concentrations occurs during July and August.
112
-------
TABLE V-14
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - AMMONIA
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Ammonia (as N) (mg/1)
Influent
Range
0.02
0.02-0.06
0.02
0.02-0.04
0.02-0.05
0.02-0.22
0.02-0.13
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Median
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.01-0.02
0.02-0.04
0.02
0.02-0.05
0.02-0.04
0.02-0.18
0.02-0.14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01-0.02
Median
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.02
0.02-0.04
0.02
0.02-0.04
0.02-0.04
0.02-0.21
0.02-0.14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Median
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
CS
Note: (1) 0.02 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for ammonia (as N)
-------
TABLE V-15
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - NITRATE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Nitrate Cas N) (me/1^1^
Influent
Range
0.60-0.90
0.40-0.70
0.60-1.00
0.20-0.90
0.40-1.00
0.10-0.80
0.20-1.20
0.50-1.10
0.40-0.90
0.50-0.90
0.50-0.90
0.60-1.00
Median
0.60
0.60
0.80
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.90
0.60
0.70
0.50
0.70
0.80
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.34-0.86
0.60-0.70
0.80-1.00
0 . 30-0 . 80
0.40-1.00
0.30-0.60
0.36-1.10
0.56-0.80
0.50-0.90
0.50-0.70
0.56-0.90
0.34-0.94
Median
0.71
0.60
0.90
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.90
0.70
0.80
0.56
0.70
0.84
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.60-0.90
0.55-0.75
0.70-1.05
0.25-0.55
0.45-0.80
0.35-0.70
0.30-1.10
0.65-0.80
0.55-0.90
0.45-0.75
0.60-0.90
0.70-1.00
Median
0.70
0.75
0.90
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.90
0.65
0.75
0.55
0.70
0.85
Note: (1) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for nitrate (as N)
-------
TABLE V-16
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL PHOSPHATE
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Phosphate (as P04) (mg/1) (1)
Influent
Range
0.01-0.15
0.01
0.01-0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.20
0.01
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.10
0.01
Median
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0.01-0.12
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.13
0.01-0.12
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.10
0.01
Median
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Effluent-
Post Chlorination
Range
0.01-0.10
0.01-0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Median
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Note: (1) 0.01 mg/1 = lower limit of detection for total phosphate (as PO,).
-------
No limits upon total phosphate have been set by the USPHS. The
presence of phosphate in Highland Reservoir is of primary importance as a
bionutrient. Threshold phosphate requirements for biological growth depend
upon climate and the chemical and physical character of the water. Dissolved
(soluble) inorganic phosphate (usually orthophosphate) is the most readily
assimulated form of phosphate. Insoluble orthophosphate is also a used form.
Comparison of total phosphate concentrations with concentrations of soluble
orthophosphate and total orthophosphate (soluble plus insoluble phosphate)
indicate that during most of the sampling period, concentrations of all forms
of phosphate are less than or equal to the lower limit of analytical detec-
tion (Appendix, Table B-l). Increased concentrations of total phosphate
are not accompanied by increased concentrations of total and/or soluble
orthophosphate indicating that the increase in total phosphate is probably
due to the presence of higher levels of organic phosphate.
Soluble orthophosphate - All but a few measurements of soluble ortho-
phosphate are less than or equal to the lower limit of analytical detection,
0.01 mg/1 (Appendix, Table B-l) at the three sampling locations.
The USPHS has set no limits on soluble orthophosphate concentration.
This inorganic form of phosphate is a more specific plant nutrient than
total phosphate. A suggested maximum concentration of inorganic phosphorus
is 0.01 mg/1 which can be permitted without encouraging plant growth (Ref.
V-2). If this limit of phosphorus is expressed in terms of phosphate then
the maximum concentration is about 0.03 mg/1 (as P04). The number of
measurements of soluble orthophosphate in Highland Reservoir No. 1 that
exceed 0.03 mg/1 are negligible.
Total orthophosphate - As in the case of soluble orthophosphate, all
but a few measurements of total orthophosphate are less than or equal to
the lower limit of analytical detection, 0.01 mg/1 (Appendix, Table B-l)
at the three sampling locations.
No concentration limits have been set for total orthophosphate by the
USPHS. Total orthophosphate is a more comprehensive measure of inorganic
phosphate than soluble orthophosphate. The criterion on inorganic phosphate
(0.03 mg/1) developed in the section evaluating results of soluble ortho-
phosphate analyses is valid for limiting total orthophosphate. The number
of measurements of total orthophosphate in Highland Reservoir that exceed
0.03 mg/1 are negligible.
Total coliforms - Measurements of total coliform bacteria (Table V-17)
indicate that at all sampling locations during the entire sampling period,
total coliforms are practically nonexistant.
The USPHS limits the average monthly coliform content of drinking
water to a limit of one per 100 ml. All total coliform measurements are
less than or equal to this limit except for a negligible three measurements
at the postchlorination location.
116
-------
TABLE V-17
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING DATA
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL COLIFORMS
Month
02/75-01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) '
Influent
Range
<1
-------
Total standard plate count - Measurements of bacteria (indicated by
total standard plate count) at the three sampling locations show a yearly
trend of increasing concentrations during summer and early fall (see
monthly median values in Table V-18). Higher bacterial concentrations tend
to occur sooner during the sampling period at sampling locations more distant
from the influent location. Concentrations start increasing at the influent
location in August, the effluent prechlorination location in July; and the
postchlorination location in July (Appendix, Table B-l). This earlier
growth initiation is probably caused by more favorable growth conditions
in the reservoir.
Measurements of bacteria during the summer period of higher concentra-
tions show slight increases from the influent location through the reservoir
to the postchlorination location (see Figures V-5 and V-6). This spatial
trend indicates that the chlorination operations were ineffective in elimina-
ting bacterial growth. During the remainder of the sampling period, bacteria
concentrations generally decrease from the influent location to the effluent
prechlorination location and remain about the same from the prechlorination
location to the postchlorination location.
The Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was used to determine the significance of
the difference in bacterial concentrations between influent and prechlorina-
ted effluent, and effluent before and after postchlorination. Results from
the statistical analysis of influent/prechlorinated effluent data (Table
V-18) show that the probability of dissimilar concentrations is greater than
95 percent during most of the sampling period other than during summer. The
significant differences (above a 90 percent confidence level) between
concentrations at the two locations are decreases from influent to pre-
chlorinated effluent in all cases. Most increases are insignificant. Results
from the statistical analysis of prechlorination and postchlorination effluent
data (Table V-18) show that the probability of dissimilar concentrations
is generally less than 90 percent except during July and September. Thus,
differences between bacterial concentrations at the effluent prechlorination
and postchlorination locations are small.
Influent residual chlorine concentrations to Highland Reservoir No.l
appear sufficient to maintain low bacteria concentrations during late fall,
winter, and spring. Residual chlorine concentrations are not, however,
sufficient to prevent the growth of bacteria during the summer and early
fall. Moreover, chlorination of reservoir effluent does not appreciably
kill bacteria that have grown in the reservoir.
The USPHS has not set limits upon bacteria density as indicated by the
total standard plate count procedure.
Phytoplankton - The monthly median concentrations of phytoplankton
shown in Table V-19, indicate that during at least half of every month, no
phytoplankton were detected in Highland Reservoir No. 1 at the three sampling
locations. Phytoplankton concentrations shown in Table B-l (Appendix)
118
-------
TABLE V-18
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE HATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - TOTAL STANDARD PLATE COUNT
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
Total Standard Plate Count (colonies/ml) ' '
Influent
Range
2-5
2-31
1-10
1-8
1-25
1-22
1-26
2-150
4-60
1-24
1-6
1-60
Median
2
6
6
6
4
1
6
30
8
3
3
8
Effluent-
No Chlorinatlon
Range
1-13
1-6
1-6
1-4
1-17
1-41
1-188
1-126
1-37
1-3
1-6
1-9
Median
4
1
1
1
2
2
8
23
1
1
2
1
Effluent-
Post Chlorinatlon
Range
1-12
1-6
1-5
1-6
1-21
2-78
1-500
1-278
1-59
1-2
1-9
1-9
Median
4
1
1
1
5
10
24
91
3
2
2
4
Mann-Whitney 'U' Test(2)
Influent-Effluent, No C12
Uo
0..
9.5
0.(
14.5
62.5
51.0
72.5
65.0
17.0
O.C
\
158
7
17
17
42
42
51
42
23
162
I
0.178
O.C
57
a
>0.1
<0.002
0.05-0.01
0.05-0.002
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
0.05-0.002
0.10-0.05
0.1
0.10-0.05
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
>99
95-99
95-99
<90
<90
<90
<90
95-99
90-95
<90
90-95
Effluent, No Cl2-Effluent, Post C12
Uo
0.
40.4
0.
39.1
51.0
34.5
55.0
37.0
29.0
0.
u
a
18!
21
«75
21
42
37
51
37
27
74
0.323
1
o.:
55
a
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
0.05-0.002
>0.1
0.05
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
95-99*
<90
95 *
<90
<90
<90
<90
Note: (1) 1 colony/Hi - lower limit of detection for total standard plate count.
(2) Non directional test for equal concentrations of bacteria (total standard plate count) at sampling sites: Influent and effluent-
no chlorination; and effluent-no Chlorinatlon and effluent-post Chlorinatlon. The significance level is set at 'a'. The statistic
U0 is computed and compared to Ud which is selected at 'a* or the larger 'a* if stated as a range. Uo must be less than Ua to state
with some confidence probability greater than 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample differ. Where a single number is listed
beneath columns Uo and Ua, a probability was computed directly with 'a* to determine the confidence probability.
* Denotes value greater than 90Z.
-------
FIGURE v-5 MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (PRECHLORINATION MINUS INFLUENT)
TOTAL STANDARD PLATE COUNT FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR
-------
FIGURE v-6 MONTHLY MEDIAN DIFFERENCES (POSTCHLORINATION MINUS PRECHLORINATION)
TOTAL STANDARD PLATE COUNT FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR
50 r-
10
5
CJ>
O>
a
u
to
o. ,_!
Q E
oc ,-.
S
1
0.5
-0.5
-1
-5
-10
-50
o= Zero (0)
j
Feb. March April May
June
July Aug. Sept. Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1975
Jan.
1976
-------
TABLE V-19
MONTHLY MEDIAN AND RANGE OF ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING
DATA AND PROBABILITY OF ALTERED WATER QUALITY
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 - PHYTOPLANKTON
Month
02/75-
01/76
February
March
April
May
June
July '
August
September
October
November
December
January
Phytoplankton (organisms/ml)
Influent
Range
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-45
0
0
0
0
0
Median
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effluent-
No Chlorination
Range
0
0
0
0
0-4
0-60
0-50
0
0
0
0
0
Median
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
Effluent-
Post Chlorlnatlon
Range
0
0
0
0
0-4
0-58
0-106
0
0
0
0
0
Median
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test*2*
Influent-Effluent, No Cl2
Uo
o.:
U
a
20
40.5 21
oJ
40.5
60.0
52.0
70.5
72.0
50.0
20
21
42
42
51
42
27
0.540
0.520
1
0.
531
a
>0.1
>O.I
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (X)
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
Effluent, No Cl2-Ef fluent, Post C12
Uo
0.
40.5
0.
40.5
66.5
66.5
78.5
72.0
50.0
0.
U
o
i20
21
520
21
42
42
51
42
27
540
0.520
0.531
a
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
>0.1
Probability
of Unequal
Cone. (Z)
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
<90
to
to
Note: (1) 0 organisms/nl - lower limit of detection for phytoplankton.
(2) Non directional test for equal concentrations of phytoplankton at sampling sites: influent and effluent-no chlorination; and effluent-
no chlorination and effluent-post chlorination. The significance level is set at 'a*. The statistic Uo is computed and compared to
Ua which is selected at 'a1 or the larger 'a' if stated as a range. U0 must be less than Ua to state with some conflcence probability
greater that 90Z that the concentrations at the two sample points differ. Where a single number is listed beneath columns U0 and lia
a probability was computed to compare directly with "a" to determine the confidence probability.
-------
Indicate that during the sampling period, concentrations greater than 0 orga-
nisms/ml were almost nonexistent at the influent sampling location. However,
phytoplankton densities at the prechlorination and postchlorination sampling
locations show a distinct growth period from 7/21/76 to 8/08/76 (Table B-l).
The Mann-Whitney 'U1 Test was used to determine the significance of
the difference in phytoplankton densities between influent and prechlorina-
ted effluent sampling locations, and effluent before and after postchlorina-
tion. Concentration differences in both cases have less than a 90 percent
probability of occurring. Furthermore, in comparing values of Uo and Ua,
it is evident that confidence probabilities are substantially less than 90
percent in all cases.
The USPHS has set no limits upon algae density. Algae principally
degrade water quality by causing taste and odor problems, or increased
turbidity if present in large numbers. Several complaints of discolored
water and unpleasant odors were received by the Pittsburgh Water Department
during late July and early August.
Special Sampling Program
Total organic carbon - Both influent and effluent measurements of
total organic carbon (TOG) generally follow the same yearly trend of higher
concentrations in late August and during September (Table V-20).
Concentrations of TOC usually decrease from influent to effluent.
Approximately 67 percent of the TOC measurements indicate lower concentra-
tions at the effluent location than occur at the influent station. Both
increases and decreases in concentration average about 14 percent during
the sampling period.
No limits have been set for TOC by the USPHS. Total organic carbon
is a gross measure of organic carbon present in the water and usually
reflects specific organic parameters such as phytoplankton, and various
forms of organic solids.
Trace metals - Analysis for trace metals was basically performed
on metals which have proven to be deleterious to health. Measurements
of trace metals are listed in Table V-21. In Table V-21, minimum limits
of detection, denoted by an asterisk, may change for a given parameter
because of using different minimum concentration standards in the atomic
absorption analytical technique used.
All measurements of barium are less than or equal to the lower limit
of analytical detection except for one effluent measurement on 3/03/75.
Virtually no difference in concentration occurs at either the influent
or effluent sampling station during the sampling period. The USPHS has
set a maximum limit of 1.0 mg/1 with which all measurements comply.
123
-------
TABLE V-20
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SAMPLING RESULTS FOR
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1 , PITTSBURGH, PA.
Date
Sample
Collected
3/21/75
3/31/75
4/8/75
4/11/75
4/18/75
4/25/75
5/02/75
5/11/75
5/20/75
5/23/75
5/30/75
6/06/75
6/20/75
6/26/75
7/11/75
8/01/75
8/08/75
8/15/75
8/22/75
8/29/75
Total Organic Carbon
(mg/1)
Influent
1.87
1.34
1.53
1.53
1.01
1.31
1.28
1.31
1.17
1.27
1.24
1.19
1.65
1.70
1.76
1.55
1.35
1.62
1.73
1.81
Effluent
1.29
1.35
1.37
1.39
0.86
0.92
1.25
1.23
1.34
0.99
0.97
1.10
1.34
1.85
1.40
1.53
1.44
1.53
1.78
1.53
Date
Sample
Collected
9/05/75
9/12/75
9/19/75
9/26/75
10/03/75
10/10/75
10/17/75
10/24/75
10/31/75
11/07/75
11/14/75
11/21/75
11/28/75
12/05/75
12/12/75
12/19/75
12/26/75
1/16/76
1/23/76
1/30/76
Total Organic Carbon
(mg/1)
Influent
2.55
2.65
1.76
1.76
1.21
1.04
1.02
1.90
1.37
0.79
0.76
1.63
1.25
1.06
1.87
1.40
1.41
0.98
1.87
1.85
Effluent
1.86
2.26
1.77
1.51
1.23
1.58
1.03
1.74
1.41
1.18
0.74
1.33
1.08
1.38
1.75
1.39
1.48
1.13
1.58
1.40
Note: (1) See Figure V-2 for location of sampling sites.
124
-------
to
en
TABLE V-21
TRACE METAL SAMPLING RESULTS
FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Dace of
Sample
Collection
2/17/75
3/03/75
4/01/75
5/01/75
6/02/75
7/01/75
8/01/75
9/01/75
10/01/75
11/01/75
12/01/75
1/05/76
(1)
Trace Metals (mg/1)
Bar
Influent
* 0.05
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
UM | Chromium
Effluent
* 0.05
0.10
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
* 0.20
-
Influent
* O.O05
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
Affluent
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
-
Silver
Influent
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.06
* 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
Effluent
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.01
* 0.06
* 0.06
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
-
Copper
Influent
0.006
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.04
0.15
* 0.06
* 0.05
* 0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
Effluent
0.013
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.040
0.02
0.42
* 0.05
0.02
* 0.02
* 0.02
-
Manganese
Influent
* 0.006
* 0.070
0.010
0.030
0.30
* 0.060
* 0.06
0.068
0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
Effluent
* 0.006
0.010
0.050
0.030
0.010
* 0.060
* 0.060
0.045
* 0.03
* 0.03
* 0.03
"
* Concentration is less than the Indicated value
Note: (1) See FlgureV_2 for iocation Of sanpling sites.
-------
to
05
TABLE V-21 (Cont)
TRACE METAL SAMPLING RESULTS
FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Date of
Sample
Collection
2/17/75
3/03/75
4/01/75
5/01/75
6/02/75
7/01/75
8/01/75
9/01/75
10/01/75
11/01/75
12/01/75
1/05/76
- (1) --
Trace Metals (mg/1)
Le
Influent
0.013
0.012
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
ad
Effluent
0.028
0.026
* 0.005
0.070
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
* 0.005
-
Iron
Influent
0.005
0.080
0.020
0.040
0.200
0.020
* 0.060
* 0.100
* 0.100
* 0.100
* 0.100
* 0.100
Effluent
0.005
0.040
0.010
0.040
0.080
0.150
* 0.060
* 0.100
0.140
* 0.100
* 0.100
-
Cadmium
Influent
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
Effluent
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
* 0.002
-
Zinc
Influent
0.11
0.04
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.200
* 0.060
* 0.020
* 0.020
* 0.020
* 0.020
* 0.020
Effluent
0.013
0.100
0.01
0.030
0.010
0.009
* 0.060
* 0.020
* 0.020
* 0.020
* 0.020
-
Mercurv
Influent
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
Effluent
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
* 0.0005
-
Concentration Is less than or equal to the Indicated value.
Note (1)
See Figure V-2 for location of sampling sites.
-------
Chromium concentrations are the same at both sample stations during
the year. All measurements are less than or equal to the minimum limit
of analytical detection. A maximum limit of 0.05 mg/1 for hexavalent
chromium was set by the USPHS. The atomic absorption analytical technique
used in this study measures total chromium. The USPHS limit is met be-
cause all values of total chromium are less than 0.05 mg/1.
Every measurement of silver is less than or equal to the lower limit
of analytical detection. Even though the concentrations in Table V-21
change during the year at both influent and effluent sample stations,
all silver values may actually be the same as the lowest value (0.01 mg/1).
This is possibility is irresolvable owing to limitations of the analytical
technique. Silver concentrations do not change from influent to effluent
for a particular sample date. USPHS Drinking Water Standards limit silver
concentration to 0.05 mg/1. All silver measurements in Highland Reservoir
are less than this limit except those during the months of July and August
whose compliance with the standard is not known owing to the large magni-
tude of the lower limit of detection.
Influent and effluent concentrations of copper generally increase
from winter to summer during the sampling period. No trend can be discerned
from measurements after summer because most concentrations are equal to or
less than the minimum limit of analytical detection. Spatial change
between influent and effluent is negligible.
Comparison of the copper analytical results in Table V-21 and results
from the routine sampling program in Table B-l (Appendix) indicate differ-
ent concentrations for both influent and effluent on almost every sample
date. The greatest difference (of values greater than the limit of detec-
tion) occurs at the influent station (0.14 mg/1) on 1 July 1975 and at
the effluent station (0.410 mg/1) on 1 August 1975. The USPHS has
recommended the limit on copper to be 1.0 mg/1 which is not violated by
any of the analytical results.
Both influent and effluent concentration of manganese are fairly
erratic during the sampling period. No particular trend of concentration
change between influent and effluent sampling stations is discernible.
The USPHS has recommended a limit of 0.05 mg/1 for manganese. All reported
concentrations are less than this standard except during April (0.05 mg/1)
at the influent station.
Most concentrations of lead are less than or equal to the minimum
limit of analytical detection. This low resolution in concentration
definition prevents temporal or spatial evaluation of concentration
change. Comparison of the lead analytical results in Table V-21 (greater
than the limit of detection and results from the routine sampling program
in Table B-l (Appendix) indicate that results of the routine program are
all less than the special trace metal program by 0.011 to 0.049 mg/1.
127
-------
The USPHS has set a limit on lead concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 which
is exceeded by one effluent measurement of 0.070 mg/1 on 5/01/75. The
effluent lead concentration measured in the routine sampling program on
5/01/75 (Table B-l) is 0.037 mg/1. The concentration of 0.037 mg/1 is
a measurement consistent with other lead concentrations of the routine
sampling program measured during May and June. The value of 0.037 mg/1
(which is less than the USPHS limit) is probably more representative of
effluent lead concentration on 5/01/75 than the value of 0.070 mg/1.
Measurements of iron for both influent and effluent are generally
erratic during the sampling period. However, effluent concentrations
usually follow the same change in magnitude that influent concentrations
display even though effluent values tend to be slightly less than influent
values. The Drinking Water Standards of the USPHS recommend a limit of
0.3 mg/1 for iron. All measurements of iron in Highland Reservoir are
less than this limit.
All measurements of cadmium at both influent and effluent sampling
stations are less than or equal to the lower limit of detection, 0.002
mg/1, thus showing no temporal or spatial change. The USPHS has set a
limit of 0.01 mg/1 on cadmium concentration. No measurement of cadmium
in Highland Reservoir exceeds this limit.
Of the zinc concentrations greater than the limit of detection
(Table V-21), a slight yearly trend of decreasing influent values is dis-
cernible from February to June. Effluent values follow no discernible
yearly trend. No spatial trend of concentration change is apparent from
influent to effluent sampling stations. The USPHS limits the concentra-
tion of zinc in drinking water to 5 mg/1. All measurements of zinc comply
with this mandatory limit.
Every concentration of mercury at both influent and effluent sampling
stations is less than or equal to the minimum limit of detection (0.0005
mg/1). No limit upon mercury has been set by the USPHS. A general
maximum criterion is approximately 0.005 mg/1 with which all mercury
concentrations in Highland Reservoir comply.
Radiochemical isotopes - Radiation from radioactive substances in
domestic water supplies is harmful to human health. The principal criteria
by which radioactivity of domestic water is judged are: (1) alpha emitters,
specifically, radium isotope 226 (Ra-226); and (2) beta emitters, both gross
beta emitters and, specifically, strontium isotope 90 (Sr-90). Alpha
particles have low body penetration but are highly dangerous when ingested
and deposited within the body. Beta particles have moderate body penetra-
tion and are moderately harmful. Occasionally gamma radiation is monitored
in water supplies but even though gamma rays are deeply penetrating, they
are relatively less damaging than alpha or beta particles.
128
-------
Radioactivity sampling results for Highland Reservoir No. 1 are
presented in Table V-22. Total solids were measured along with radio-
activity to indicate the amount of solids in the water which may in part
be responsible for measured radioactivity. The total solids results are
about 32 mg/1 (16 percent) greater than the results of the routine sampling
program (see Appendix, Table B-l).
The USPHS Drinking Water Standards set the following maximum limits
on radioactivity:
(1) gross beta - 1,000 picoCurie/1 (pCi/1);
(2) Sr-90 - 10 pCi/1; and
(3) Ra-226 - 3 pCi/1.
All measurements of gross beta radiation are much less than the
1,000 pCi/1 USPHS limit and no trend of change between influent and
effluent is apparent. The only measurements of Sr-90 and Ra-226 were
made at the influent sampling station on 2/17/75 and 3/04/75. Measure-
ments of Sr-90 and Ra-226 are less than the USPHS limits of 10 pCi/1
and 3 pCi/1, respectively. All measurements of gross alpha radioactivity
are less than the minimum limit of detection and are less than the USPHS
limit of 3 pCi/1 for the more specific alpha emitter, Ra-226, indicating
acceptable levels. Measurements of specific gamma radiation are all
below the minimum limit of detection.
Microbe sampling - Results of water analysis for cytopathic (i.e.,
harmful to body cells) viruses and coliform bacteria for Highland
Reservoir No. 1 are presented in Table IV-19 of Chapter IV. Microscopic
examinations of cell cultures for cytopathic effects from concentrate of
Highland Reservoir water samples are negative.
Measurements of total and fecal coliform bacteria indicate that these
bacteria are essentially absent.
Characterization Studies
Water quality and benthos survey - A survey of water temperature and
dissolved oxygen (DO) at various depths was performed on 25 August 1975
to observe any existing thermal stratification. Thermal stratification is
caused by the occurrence of different densities of surficial waters and
deeper waters. Once stratification is initiated, mixing of deeper and
surface waters becomes difficult and the density interface (thermocline)
becomes stable. A state of stable stratification is characterized by
stagnant water below the thermocline having low levels of DO and temperature,
as well mixed water above the thermocline having dramatically higher levels
of DO and temperature.
Highland Reservoir No. 1 is an artificial basin with a generally
uniform depth of about 6 m. (20 ft). Under natural conditions, this
lake could become stratified by late summer. However, a depth of 6 m.
129
-------
TABLE V-22
CO
o
RADIOACTIVITY SAMPLING RESULTS FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1. PITTSBURGH. PA.
Date
Sample
Collected
2/17/75
3/04/75
5/01/75
5/01/75
8/01/75
8/01/75
11/01/75
11/01/75
Sample™' Date
Site
Location
Influent
Influent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Sample
Counted
—
-
5/15/75
5/15/75
8/08/75
8/08/75
11/20/75
11/20/75
Total
Solids
mg/1
246.0
266.0
252.0
200.0
307.4
288.0
180.0
166.0
Activity (picoCurie/ml)^1)
Gross W)
Beta
3.2 + 40%
2.4 + 47%
2.1 + 48%
3.5 + 34%
4.3 + 28%
3.7 + 31%
1.5 + 76%
2.4 + 42%
Gross (3)
Alpha
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
Sr 90 R 226 Specific
Gamma
<0.5 0.11 + 14% Not Detectable
<0.5 0.11 + 14% Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Not Detectable
Note: (1) The error expressed is the percentage relative to 2-Sigma counting error.
(2) The minimum detectable limit of gross Beta is 1.0 pCi/1.
(3) The minimum detectable limit of gross Alpha is 2.0 pCi/1.
(4) See FigureV-2 for location of sample sites.
-------
(20 ft) is sufficiently shallow to allow water mixing by wind. Further-
more, Highland Reserovir has an annual average flow of 110,000 cu.m./d
(29.1 million gallons per day) which provides a strong mixing influence.
The water quality survey used for sampling stations located in widely
separated areas of Highland Reservoir (labeled as benthic sampling stations
H-A, H-B, H-C, and H-D in Figure V-2). Measurements of temperature and
DO for each of the sampling stations are presented in Table V-23. Water
temperature at all four sampling stations show only slight temperature
changes from surface to bottom. The following total temperature changes
occur at each station: H-A, 0.5°C; H-B, 0.7°C, H-C, 0.6°C; and H-D, 0.2°C.
Measurements were made during late morning, with a moderate breeze present.
Sampling started at H-D and finished (in reverse alphabetical order) at H-A.
The shallow water depth, wind, and flow patterns probably caused water mixing
from surface to bottom which may explain the uniform water temperatures in
the reservoir. The absence of a thermocline is indicated by the lack of
abrupt changes in temperature with depth. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen
typically increase slightly from surface to bottom. This trend of DO concen-
trations is probably due to the phytosynthetic production of oxygen by the
algal mat that grows on the reservoir bottom. The water column is hyper-
saturated with oxygen. Greatest hypersaturation occurs near the bottom
where oxygen may be produced by algae and less hypersaturation near the
surface where oxygen may reach equilibrium most readily.
The following DO changes occur at each station: H-A, 0.3 mg/1; H-B,
0.3 mg/1; H-C, 0.2 mg/1; and H-D 0.1 mg/1. No dramatic change of DO concen-
trations occur which further substantiates the absence of a thermocline.
Neither measurements of temperature nor dissolved oxygen provide
evidence indicating that stratification existed in Highland Reservoir No.
1 on 25 August 1975.
Part of the water quality and benthos survey included a qualitative
survey of benthic organisms at the six sampling stations shown in Figure
V-2. Results of the benthos survey are presented in Table V-24. Sample
stations H-A, H-B, H-C, and H-D are at the same locations as the stations
of DO and temperature measurement discussed previously. Two additional
benthic sampling stations located at increasingly shallow depths provide
information concerning the types of microorganisms of reservoir bottoms
with respect to different depths. All of the organisms listed in Table
V-24 are algae which have settled to the bottom. All of these algae
are diatoms.
The spatial location of the various forms of algae is probably not
significant owing to variable water currents and floating properties of
the algae which disperse them.
131
-------
TABLE V-23
TEMPERATURE-DISSOLVED OXYGEN WATER COLUMN
PROFILES OF HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Reservoir
Depth
(ft.)(3)
0
5
10
15
20
H-A
Temper-
ature
(°C)
24.5
24.4
24.2
24.0
24.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.0
Sample Sites (1) <2)
H-B
Temper-
ature
(°C)
24.8
24.5
24.2
24.1
24.1
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
8.8
8.8
8.7
9.0
9.0
H-C
Temper-
ature
(°C)
24.6
24.2
24.0
24.0
24.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
8.9
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.1
H-D
Temper-
ature
(°C)
24.3
24.1
24.1
24.2
24.1
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ppm)
8.8
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.9
co
to
Note:
(1) All of these measurements were made during late morning of 25 August 1975.
(2) See Figure V-2 for location of sample sites (which are included with the benthic sampling sites)
(3) One foot = 0.305 m.
-------
TABLE V-24
DELINEATION OF BENTHIC MICRO-ORGANISMS INHABITING
HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1, PITTSBURGH, PA.
Benthic Sample Sites ^
Name of Organism H-A H-B H-C H-D
Diatoma sp.
Pinnularia nobilis X X X X
Rhopolodia gibba X X X X
Surirella sp. X X X X
jjynedra ulna XX X
Cocconeis sp. X x
Cymbella sp. X X X X
Naricula sp. XX X
Fragilaria sp.
Nitzchia sigmoidra
Ulothrix sp.
Cymatopleura solea
Tabellaria fenestra
Stephanodiscus sp.
Asterionella sp.
Ulothrix sp.
Zvgnema sp.
Enococconeis flex
jfonotia sp.
Rotifer sp.
H-E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: (1) See Figure V-2 for location of sample sites.
133
-------
Dustfall sampling - The amount of airborne particulates settling on
Highland Reservoir No. 1 was measured from March, 1975 to January, 1976.
Results of this sampling program are presented by sampling location on a
unit basis in Table V-25. The two sampling stations are near one another
in the larger of the two reservoir basins (stations DH-1 and DH-2; Figure
V-2). A typical dustfall value is about 7.8 g/sq.m. (70 Ib/acre) per
standard 30 day month. If this amount of solids is suspended in the entire
volume of the reservoir, 500,000 cu.m. (131 million gallons), during a 4.5
day time period (theoretical reservoir detention time) the result is a
suspended solids concentration of 0.2 micrograms/liter. A typical
influent or effluent suspended solids concentration (total solids minus
dissolved solids) is about 3 mg/1 indicated by the routine sampling
program. The hypothetical dustfall suspended solids concentration of the
reservoir (0.2 yg/1) is an negligible 0.007 percent of the existing
reservoir suspended solids concentration (3 mg/1). Thus, by removing
one source of potential suspended solids, the dustfall sampling program
suggests that most of the suspended solids which are present in the
reservoir are due to influent concentrations.
Hydraulics of Highland Reservoir No. 1 - The annual, average flow
through Highland Reservoir No. 1 is 110,000 cu.m./d (29.1 mgd) during the
study period (February, 1975 - January, 1976). For lack of reliable
metered effluent flow data, the gain or loss of water (other than system
flows) from the reservoir can not be calculated with reasonable accuracy.
Highland Reservoir has a total capacity of approximately 500,000
cu.m. (130 million gallons). The theoretical detention time is 4.5 days.
The actual detention time is probably less than the theoretical detention
time due to the lack of baffles and subsequent flow short-circuiting between
inlet and outlet.
Summary of Data Evaluation
Routine Sampling Program
Most of the water quality parameters in the routine sampling program
(Table V-26) indicate some pattern of change during the sampling period;
exceptions are pH, apparent color, copper, nitrate, total phosphate,
soluble orthophosphate, total orthophosphate, and total coliforms.
The following parameters showed general increases or decreases in
concentration between influent and effluent sampling locations:
General Increase General Decrease
Lead Temperature
Total Standard Plate Count Total Chlorine Residual
Phytoplankton Free Chlorine Residual
134
-------
TABLE V-25
DUSTFALL SAILING RESULTS FOR HIGHLAND
RESERVOIR NO. 1, PITTSBURGH. PA.
Month of
Collection
March, 1975
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January, 1976
Dustfall Data (Ib/acre) (D
Site DH-1
44
91
75
72
63
78
266
69
69
175
-
Site DH-2
-
103
38
63
56
-
-
59
78
-
-
Note: (1) See Figure V-2 for location of sampling
station.
(2) 1 Ib/acre - 112 mg/sq.m.
135
-------
TABLE V-26
PATTERNS OF WATER QUALITY CHANGE AND COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ROUTINE SAMPLING PROGRAM-HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
Water Quality
Parameters
Temperature
PH
Apparent Color
Turbidity
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Chlorine
Residual Chlorine
Copper
Lead
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphate
Soluble Ortho-
phosphate
Total Ortho-
phosphate
Total Coliforms
Total Standard
Plate Count
Phytoplankton
Time-related
Changes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes -
Changes in Concentration
Change Between Sampling Stations
Increased
In Effluent
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Decreased
In Effluent
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mixed Patterns
of Change
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Compliance w/Standards
U.S. Public Health
Service Drinking
Water Standards HQfi?1)
Required
r[>
Yes
Yes
„ I_L
mm^^
_^«^
— ^ —
Yes
.__
__ .
Yes
Recommended
__—
__.
CO
OS
-------
Turbidity showed both increases and decreases at different times
during the study.
The 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards were met
in all cases. However, levels of two parameters, temperature and ammonia,
do not meet on occasion other criteria (see previous discussion in this
Chapter under Results of Data Evaluation) of desirable water quality.
The concentrations observed do not appear to be of concern.
Special Sampling Program
Total organic carbon (TOG) - Both influent and effluent concentrations
of TOG generally follow the same yearly trend although effluent values
are typically lower than influent values.
No limit of TOG has been set by the USPHS, however, all concentrations
of TOG are generally low.
Trace metals - All of the metals analyzed were within the limits of
the 1962 USPHS standards except for one measurement of lead. Most of the
data could not be analyzed because most of the observed concentrations
were equal to or below the analytical limit detection. Mercury is not
included in the USPHS standards, but observed concentrations were less
than generally accepted safe concentrations.
Of the ten trace metals measured, only copper and zinc show a yearly
pattern of change. None of the trace metals except iron change in
concentration between sampling stations. Iron values show a slight
decrease from influent to effluent.
Radiochemical isotopes - The following parameters were measured at
influent and effluent locations of Highland Reserovir as indicators of
radioactive contaminants; gross beta particles, gross alpha particles,
stronium-90 (Sr-90), radium-226 (Ra-226), and specific gamma radiation.
None of the results from analysis of the parameters indicate patterns
of change during the sampling period or change in value between sampling
stations.
The USPHS has set drinking water standards for gross beta particles,
Sr-90, and Ra-226. All measurements of these three parameters are less
than the USPHS standards. Measurements of gross alpha particles and
specific gamma radiation are less than generally accepted criteria.
Microbe sampling - Results of Highland Reserovir analysis for cyto-
pathic viruses were negative. Water analysis for total and fecal coliform
bacteria indicated that these bacteria were essentially nondetectable.
137
-------
Characterization Studies
Water quality and benthos - On 25 August 1975, measurements of
temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were performed at regular intervals
of depth, at four locations in Highland Reservoir No. 1. Results of this
sampling indicate only slight changes in temperature and DO from surface
to bottom. The small change that does occur shows a typical rapid decrease
in temperature near the surface with a much slower decrease near the bottom.
Concentrations of DO increase slightly from surface to bottom. Neither
measurements of temperature nor DO provide evidence of stratification
existing in Highland Reservoir.
A qualitative survey of benthic microorganisms was performed on 25
August at six locations in Highland Reservoir No. 1. All of the eight
organisms identified were species of diatoms (algae). Most of these
diatoms had probably settled to the bottom from upper depths.
Dustfall sampling - Results from measuring dustfall at two locations
at Highland Reservoir No. 1 indicate a typical value of about 7.8 g/sq.m.
(70 Ib/acre) per month. If dustfall were to account for the suspended
solids concentration in the reservoir then the concentration would be
about 0.2 mg/1 instead of the typical suspended solids concentration of
3 mg/1 indicated by results of the routine sampling program. Consequently,
dustfall was not a significant contributing factor to the suspended solids
concentration in the reservoir.
Hydraulics of Highland Reservoir No. 1 - The annual average flow of
water through Highland Reservoir No. 1 was about 110,000 cu.m./d. (29.1
mgd) during the study period (February, 1975 - January, 1976). The
theoretical detention time was 4.5 days.
ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
Introduction
A clearly desirable objective of water system operation is the mainten-
ance of water quality throughout the system from the treatment plant to the
consumer's tap. However, storage of water to meet peak consumer demands
is usually necessary, and this portion of the system is usually where the
greatest potential for water quality degradation occurs.
Previously discussed possible sources or causes of water quality
degradation in Highland Reservoir No. 1 include:
0 airborne particulates
0 surface runoff
° groundwater
138
-------
0 unauthorized human contact
o weather
0 biological processes in the reservoir
Water quality control measures for treated water reservoirs may be
categorized as (1) measures to prevent contamination or the development
of undesirable condition, and (2) measures to correct such conditions
after they have occurred. Both types of control measures may involve
construction of facilities or the use of operation and maintenance
procedures. Ultimately, these measures will be used to develop alter-
natives for controlling degradation of the finished water in Highland
Reservoir No. 1.
Preventive Control Measures
The potential control measures which can prevent the water quality
of Highland Reservoir No. 1 from being degraded to some degree by one
or more of the above mentioned sources include covering the reservoir,
bottom lining of the reservoir, proper grading and design of the reservoir
site to prevent entry of surface runoff, and establishment of proper
security measures such as physical barriers and patrols. The reader is
referred to Chapter IV for an explantion of the reasons why preventive
measures are preferable in many cases to corrective measures for control
of reservoir water quality.
Reservoir Covers
Two types of reservoir covers to be considered for Highland Reservoir
No. 1 are rigid covers and floating covers.
Rigid cover - Because of the fairly large size of Highland Reservoir
No. 1, 8 ha. (21 acres), only two types of rigid covers were considered -
a plywood roof and a precast concrete roof.
The plywood roof would be constructed of plywood sheets supported on
glue-laminated purlins and griders which would be supported on precast
columns and a peripheral wall. This cover was eliminated from consideration
for an alternative because of wood preservative loss by condensate from
the underside of the roof dripping into the water. The wood preservative
chemicals may cause taste and odor problems and may provide a nutrient
source for bacterial growth (see subsection-Rigid Reservoir Cover of
Chapter IV). Furthermore, the loss of wood preservative results in
additional periodic maintenance costs during the 25-30 year expected
life of the cover.
139
-------
A concrete cover would consist of precast reinforced concrete slabs
supported by integral concrete beams which rest upon interior reinforced
concrete columns and a perimeter shear wall. Such a cover provides a
roof and side walls which minimize contact with the ambient environment
and is effective in excluding contaminants from the reservoir when properly
maintained and operated.
Several common operation and maintenance procedures include:
(1) ventilation openings in the cover must be periodically cleaned of
debris; (2) manholes must be free of obstructions; (3) water tight seals
of the roof must be maintained; and (4) water which might collect on the
roof must be drained. A concrete cover is rigid which means that the
cover will remain in place if the reservoir must be drained for inspection
and/or repair work on the bottom.
The environmental impact of a concrete cover over Highland Reservoir
is principally concerned with detracting from the visual aesthetic nature
of the surrounding Highland Park area. The open water of the reservoir is
probably more attractive than an expanse of concrete. Citizens of
Pittsburgh that frequent the park have demonstrated their concern for
maintaining the attractiveness and accessibility of the reservoir as it
currently exists. In 1972, the reservoir was to be protected from public
access by construction of a fence. Because of public protest, including the
petitioning of the Pittsburgh City Council, construction of the proposed
fence was never initiated. However, a concrete cover could be designed to
provide a suitable surface for uses such as tennis courts, automobile parking,
or it may even be landscaped to fit into the park or roof as an artificial lake.
The estimated construction cost (1976) of a concrete cover for
Highland Reservoir is about $7 million based on a preliminary design
that would support uses such as automobile parking and tennis courts.
This figure should be added to other costs (legal, administrative and
engineering; about 25 percent) and an allowance for contingencies (15
percent) for a preliminary estimate of around $10 million total cost.
This cost is considered conservative (within the assumptions made)
and it might be reduced somewhat by careful analysis of design alternatives.
On the other hand, other desired uses such as extensive landscaping with
soil or sod might result in some increase in cost.
Flexible floating cover - A flexible floating cover consists of an
elastomeric sheet stretched over the reservoir's water, support by foam
floats, and attached to a peripheral concrete foundations. The cover
rises and falls with the water level and is sloped from the center to
the perimeter causing rain water to drain and collect near the outside
where it is pumped out. When properly maintained and operated, the cover
protects reservoir water quality as does the concrete cover.
140
-------
While operation of Highland Reservoir No. 1 with a floating cover
would be similar to operation under a rigid cover, the costs of operation
and maintenance would probably be less owing to the simplicity of the
floating cover system. However, inspection and repair of the bottom
including sediment removal would be more difficult with a floating cover.
Work must be performed underwater because the cover would fall to the
bottom if the reservoir were drained.
The principal components of a floating cover for Highland Reservoir
No. 1 are: (1) elastomeric material and foam floats; (2) anchorage
foundation around the reservoir perimeter; and (3) a pump/siphon system
to remove surface water. While several types of elastomeric materials
are available for use as covers, the material considered best for High-
land Reservoir is composed of chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon,
DuPont), a synthetic rubber, reinforced with nylon. The useful life of
a cover made of this material is 20 to 40 years.
Estimated construction costs (1976) for installation of the floating
cover system on Highland Reservoir ranges from about $0.9 million to $1.6
million, with the higher cost probably being more realistic. The total
cost (including other costs and contingency allowance) would be about
$2.2 million.
The principal environmental effect of installing a floating cover
on Highland Reservoir No. 1 is that the reservoir would be visually
unattractive as in the case of a concrete cover. Unlike a concrete cover,
however, a floating cover provides no other use than protecting the water
of Highland Reservoir No. 1.
Reservoir Bottom Lining
An impermeable lining on the bottom of a finished water reservoir
will prevent water leakage from the basin and will also prevent the
infiltration of groundwater and associated dissolved solids into the
reservoir. Refer to the subsection concerning Reservoir Bottom Lining
in Chapter IV for a description of types of linings available.
Only linings made of plastic or synthetic rubber are considered to be
feasible for Highland Reservoir No. 1 because of the high cost of the
other types of liners and the large surface area of the reservoir to be
lined. The types of plastic and synthetic rubber linings considered for
Highland Reservoir are the following: plastic-polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
ethylene propylenediene monomer (EPDM), and chlorinated polyethylene (CPE),
synthetic rubber-butyl rubber, and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon,
DuPont). Manufacturers' minimum projections of life expectancy are about
40 years for all of these liners when properly installed and maintained.
Actual use of these materials has been met with varying amounts of
success and no particular one will be recommended.
141
-------
A survey of installation costs for lining Highland Reservoir No. 1
indicates the following prices:
Hypalon (nylon reinforced) - $419,000 - $699,000
EPDM (nylon reinforced) = $587,000 - $932,000
Butyl rubber • $419,000
CPE (nylon reinforced) - $419,000 - $466,000
PVC (nylon reinforced) = $326,000
The presence of a membrane liner in Highland Reservoir No. 1 may make
the reservoir less attractive because of a synthetic shoreline being
exposed rather than a natural appearing shoreline.
Surface Runoff Diversion
Erosion products from surrounding paved and unpaved areas of a finished
water reservoir have the potential of being carried by rain or snowmelt
surface runoff into the reservoir. Accumulation of contaminants on paved
areas between rainstorms causes the first flush of rain runoff from a
storm to possess high concentrations of pollutants. Surface runoff may
increase reservoir concentrations of phorphorus, nitrogen, organics,
suspended solids, zinc, and lead. During winter, surface runoff of de-
icing compounds may increase concentrations of dissolved solids from the
presence of sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride.
Surface runoff of erosion products does not present a significant
source of contaminants to Highland Reservoir No. 1. The reservoir is
surrounded by a 0.3 m. (1 ft) high parapet wall. This wall plus the high
sloping banks which drain away from the reservoir practically eliminates
the possibility of surface runoff contamination.
Security Establishment and Maintenance
To preserve the high quality of water in a finished water reservoir,
people must not be allowed to swim or otherwise have contact with the water
or to throw objects into the water. Reservoir security may be established
and maintained by the presence of a physical barrier such as a perimeter
fence and existence of a security patrol.
Highland Reservoir No. 1 is not protected from public access. People
that walk near the water's edge are constrained from falling into the
water by a rail fence about 1.2 m. (4 ft.) high that surrounds the
reservoir. Signs describing the use of the water and warnings against
contamination are posted around the perimeter. In 1972, the reservoir
was to be protected from public access by construction of a fence.
Because of public protest, including the petitioning of the Pittsburgh
City Council, construction of the proposed fence was never initiated.
142
-------
Prevention of contaminant deposition by illegal entry to the reservoir
is accomplished by periodic surveillance. Surveillance is provided by
the Pittsburgh Police Department once every hour (24 hr. day) the Pitts-
burgh Park Police sporadically, and a civilian patrol consisting of
volunteer walkers who will report security violations to police.
Employees of the Water Department also provide security during their
activities concerning operation of the reservoir.
To ensure for more effective reservoir security it is recommended
that a fence be constructed to protect the existing open reservoir from
public access. The proposed fence should have the product of fence
height and reservoir setback (expressed in feet) of at least 600
(Ref. V-3). This could be accomplished by building a six foot fence 100
feet from the perimeter of the reservoir. The estimated construction
cost for installation of this fence (approximately 4,770 lineal feet) is
$70,000 for Highland Reservoir No. 1.
Other possible security improvements the costs of which will not be
considered in the following analysis of alternatives are that a more
intense, formal surveillance system should be initiated, and that a formal
emergency plan should be established for immediate isolation of the
reservoir from the distribution system if the water is believed to be
contaminated.
Corrective Control Measures
The various measures available to correct or improve water quality
conditions in Highland Reservoir No. 1 that occur as a result of one
or more of the previously discussed sources of degradation primarily
involve post-reservoir treatment, operational changes, modified mainte-
nance, and a proper monitoring program. The nature and extent of these
corrective measures for Highland Reservoir No. 1 will be based on the
results of the extensive sampling and characterization programs. Only
the measures (both the existing measures being implemented and any
additional measures) to correct identified problems will be evaluated.
In order to assure adequate post-reservoir disinfection and pathogen
deactivation additional chlorine contact time should be provided directly
following chlorination of the reservoir effluent. Also, regular addition
of copper sulfate and calcium hypochlorite (HTH) to control algae growth
and other microorganisms that cause taste and odor should be practiced.
Programs to control growth of shore plants should be continued. The
existing water quality monitoring program at Highland Reservoir No. 1
appears to be adequate relative to insuring that the water will meet the
1962 USPHS Standards. Additional monitoring may be warranted, but will
not be pursued further in this report.
The following discussion will summarize the necessary corrective
measures required at Highland Reservoir No. 1 to maintain the quality of
143
-------
the water delivered to the consumer. Specific water quality parameters
affected Include: bacteria (e.g., coliforms), viruses, phytoplankton,
organic compounds (including constituents-carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus
compounds) copper, chlorine/chlorine compounds, turbidity, color, solids,
taste and odor.
Chlorine Disinfection
Chlorine disinfection is presently used in operation of Highland
Reservoir No. 1 to control pathogenic organisms. Reservoir influent
only receives chlorination at the Pittsburgh Water Treatment Plant.
Chlorination at the treatment plant is designed to maintain a concentration
of 1-2 mg/1 residual chlorine in plant effluent water. Effluent water
from Highland Reservoir receives chlorination at each of the four with-
drawal pipelines. Post-reservoir chlorination is intended to insure that
water received by consumers in the most distant portions of the distribu-
tion system has a residual chlorine concentration of 0.3-0.5 mg/1.
A two-hour reaction time to assure effective post-reservoir
disinfection is proposed as an improvement to the existing post-reservoir
chlorination facilities. This reaction time will assure effective dis-
infection without water reaching the consumer with an undesirable
concentration of residual chlorine which may be objectionable due to the
presence of taste and odors.
A contact basin volume of almost 2.5 million gallons is required.
This proposed volume will consist of a rectangular earthen basin which
will be lined with an impermeable, butyl neoprene bottom liner and covered
with a floating nylon-reinforced, synthetic rubber cover. In this manner,
the chlorine contact basin will be effectively isolated from potential
sources of contamination while it is being used for disinfection purposes.
A basin with an average depth of ten feet will need an area of approxi-
mately 0.8 acres. The basin could be located adjacent to the south end
of the reservoir where most of the effluent piping is located. This
would minimize the need to rearrange existing piping. Also, the existing
reservoir postchlorination facilities could be relocated appropriately
and continue to be used. The same amounts of chlorine that are presently
being applied will be injected into the effluent prior to the contact
basin for proper mixing.
Post-reservoir chlorination facilities are now centralized at one
station. Part of the facilities present in the station is a chlorine
control manifold which regulates the flow of chlorine from four, 68 kg
(150 Ib) cylinders to two chlorinators. One of the two chlorinators
is a 180 kg (400 Ib) machine that feeds two effluent water pipelines
(the two effluent lines with sampling stations H-6 and H-7; Figure V-l)
via two chlorine lines. Equal amounts of chlorine go to each chlorination
point. The remaining chlorinator in the chlorination station is a
144
-------
900 kg (200 Ib) machine that feeds the two remaining effluent water
pipelines (located in Figure V-l by sampling stations H-2 and H-4) via
two chlorine lines. Equal amounts of chlorine go to each chlorination
point. Chlorine feed rate is set manually for each machine based on
results from the system water quality monitoring program (see Chapter II).
The capital costs for the construction of the chlorine contact basin
including bottom lining, floating cover, additional piping, other
miscellaneous costs, and contingencies are approximately $200,000.
Chlorination of effluent from Highland Reservoir No. 1 requires
about 17 metric tons (18 short tons). During 1975, the total annual
cost, at $0.36/kg ($325/ton), was $5,900 per year.
Total labor requirements for chlorination of Highland Reservoir
were the following (1975-76):
(1) general servicing and maintenance - 4 hr/wk; and
(2) chlorine cylinder transport - 10 hr/wk.
Total annual labor costs are about $4,600 per year. Total annual
operating costs of chlorination for Highland Reservoir No. 1 are approxi-
mately $10,500 per year.
Results from the routine sampling program of this study suggest that
post-reservoir chlorination servicing the two effluent lines with sample
stations H-6 and H-7, are inoperative. The change in concentrations of
both total chlorine and residual chlorine before and after postchlorination
is negligible. This chlorination operation should be made operative if,
in fact, it is not working. In addition, greater pre-reservoir chlorina-
tion should be implemented to insure a residual chlorine concentration
of 1-2 mg/1 in the reservoir to prevent bacterial growth. Even with
the periodic application of calcium hypochlorite, used as an algacide, .
all effluent measurements to residual chlorine were less than 0.85 mg/1.
Copper Sulfate and Calcium Hypochlorite Application
The present seasonal program of addition of copper sulfate and
calcium hypochlorite does not completely and effectively control the
growth of algae in Highland Reservoir No. 1. The periodic applications
by hand of copper sulfate and calcium hypochlorite from a small boat to
the waters surface should be increased so as to effect a reduction in
taste and odor problems that occur, especially in July and August.
During 1975, 39 applications of copper sulfate were made of 680 kg
(1,500 Ib) each. These applications were performed during summer and fall
on the following basis: May - 2 applications, once/week for 2 weeks;
June - 4 applications, once/week; July - 12 applications, 2/week; August -
12 applications, 3/week; September - 6 applications, 2/week; and October -
145
-------
3 applications, once/week for 3 weeks. The cost of copper sulfate alone
was a total of $15,800/year at $0.60/kg ($540/ton).
During each application of copper sulfate, calcium hypochlorite
(HTH) is also applied to control the growth of algae and prevent bacterial
growths. Each of the 39 applications of HTH required about 500 kg
(1,000 Ib). The total cost of HTH during 1975 at $0.76/kg ($34.30/100
lb) was $14,800/yr.
It is recommended that approximately a 27 percent increase in chemical
dosages be instituted in association with the necessary increase in
labor costs in order to achieve the desired control of algae in Highland
Reservoir. The revised total annual operating costs for this program would
be as follows:
Copper sulfate costs = $20,000/yr
Calcium hypochlorite = 18,800/yr
Labor = 10,000/yr
Total $48,800/yr
These added costs should result in closer synchronization of chemical
applications to the potential situation for increased concentrations of
algae that occur during the summer.
Shore Plant Growth Control
Shore plant growth is effectively controlled at Highland Reservoir
No. 1 as required by intermittent cutting and removing of weeks. This
operation is performed by a team of three men usually once per year working
for about a two week period. Total annual cost is approximately $800
per year.
Summary of Corrective Measures
In order to maintain a high quality potable water to be delivered
to the consumers the following costs will be incurred by contained
operation of an open reservoir at Highland Park. Not included among
these corrective measure costs is the cost of construction of a perimeter
fence which is considered a preventive measure. The following discussion
of alternatives trade-off assessment will bring all these various costs
into perspective.
146
-------
Control Measure
Chlorination/Disinj ection
Copper Sulfate/HTH Addition
Shore Plant Control
Totals
Alternatives Trade-off Assessment
O&M ($/yr)
$10,000
48,800
800
Capital Cost
$200,000
$59,600/yr
$200,000
The various alternatives available for the maintenance of a high
quality potable water supply for the City of Pittsburgh vis-a-vis Highland
Reservoir No. 1 involve measures to prevent contamination or development
of an undesirable condition in the reservoir, and measures to correct
such conditions after they have occurred. In particular, the results of
the water sampling program detailed in this report, were used as a basis
to develop a set of alternatives comprised of the aforementioned control
measures (preventive and/or corrective). These alternatives will serve
to mitigate water quality problems and protect Highland Reservoir from
sources or causes of this deterioration. The results of the sampling
program at the reservoir, however, did not indicate any general deteriora-
tion in the potability of the water supply as defined by the 1962 USPHS
Drinking Water Standards and other recognized water quality standards.
These standards were simply not violated during the study period.
Therefore, the evaluation of alternatives will be based on the
relative potential for water quality deterioration that could occur in
the reservoir. An important consideration in the development and analysis
of alternatives is the possibility that unmeasured water quality para-
meters could have deteriorated in the open reservoir system even though
measured ones did not. This inherent risk in encountering water quality
problems in the open Highland Reservoir No. 1 has been translated into
a set of general control criteria for the overall preferred management
of an open reservoir alternative. The costs and potential benefits
associated with alternatives which involve covering the reservoir must
then be weighed against the costs associated with the adoption of the
preferred open reservoir management alternative and its corresponding
degree of mitigation of potential water quality problems and undesirable
conditions.
Total costs of an alternative are defined as both the capital and
the annual operation and maintenance costs. For the purposes of this
analysis, total costs may be expressed as the average annual equivalent
cost over a 30 year period so as to represent all of these costs on an
equivalent basis. In doing so, capital costs are amortized at a discount
rate of six percent. Additionally, annual O&M costs are inflated at a
147
-------
six percent rate over the designated 30 year period, and then averaged.
The alternative, which assumes the preferred management of an open
Highland Reservoir No. l.must incorporate the perimeter fence control
measure, as well as all of the previously discussed corrective measures:
additional post-reservoir disinfection reaction time, upgraded copper
sulfate and calcium hypochlorite addition programs, etc. The total costs
of this alternative amount to $176,000 average annual equivalent cost.
This cost is comprised of an amortized capital cost (chlorine contact basin
plus perimeter fence) of $19,600 per year and an average O&M cost of
$157,000 per year considering inflation. The control measures associated
with this alternative will provide for the attainment of the 1962 USPHS
Drinking Water Standards, as well as preferred operational procedures,
that will lessen the risk of potential water quality contamination.
However, potential unidentified contaminants (e.g., asbestos and chloroform)
may not be removed or reduced below harmful levels. Also, potential
contamination from airborne entry and the loss of residual chlorine in
the reservoir with the resultant growth of aquatic microorganisms with
the risk of production of toxic compounds could occur.
An alternative incorporating the emplacement of a concrete cover on
Highland Reservoir No. 1 would incur an amortized capital cost of $726,500
per year. The average annual O&M costs cannot be estimated; however
they are expected to be less than the existing O&M costs experienced for
the reservoir. Costs for addition of algae control chemicals would be
eliminated and chlorination costs most likely would be reduced. Moreover,
a cover would eliminate the risks of encountering potential water quality
problems associated with an uncovered reservoir.
The emplacement of a floating cover over Highland Reservoir No. 1
would result in an alternative utilizing a preventive control measure
at a reduced cost from a rigid cover alternative. The amortized capital
cost of covering Highland Reservoir in this manner is approximately
$160,000 per year. The inclusion of a reservoir bottom liner would
increase amortized capital costs to approximately $198,000 per year.
As with the concrete cover alternative, O&M costs cannot be quantified
for the floating cover alternative. No annual costs will be attributed
to chemical addition for the control of algae. Annual chlorination costs
should be less then presently experienced. There will be some annual costs
associated with the maintenance of a floating cover that should also be
considered.
The installation of a floating cover appears to be comparable to the
open reservoir alternative based on preliminary costs. However, the
addition of the annual O&M costs to the amortized capital costs of the
floating cover alternative will undoubtedly increase the total costs
above those attributable to the open reservoir alternative. Yet, the total
costs of a floating cover for Highland Reservoir No. 1 are still in the
economic range of consideration. More important is the question of whether
the increased cost of a floating cover will be offset by the benefits
148
-------
afforded to the water quality of a covered reservoir. The confidence to
maintain a continuous high quality, potable water is greater with the
floating cover than with the open reservoir alternative. For example,
even though the loss of chlorine residual in the open Highland Reservoir
has not resulted in colifortn bacteria concentrations which exceed USPHS
standards, the covering of the reservoir would prevent the loss of chlorine
residual from occurring as rapidly and would insure the prevention of
pathogen contamination of the system. However, local residents would
probably express a negative reaction towards the covering of the reservoir
due to the aesthetic benefits they derive from maintaining the reservoir
in its existing open state. Ultimately, all of the costs and benefits,
both potential and realized must be detailed before the decision to cover
is made.
149
-------
CHAPTER V
REFERENCES
V'1 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
thirteenth edition, American Public Health Association, Washington
D.C., 1971. 8 '
V~2 Water Quality Criteria. California State Water Quality Control
Board, second edition, 1963.
V~3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Proposed Amendments to
State Board of Health Rules and Regulations Regarding Public
Water Supplies - WAG 248-54 - The Amendments Relate to Potable
Water Distribution Reservoirs. Office of Environmental Health
Programs, Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, April 1975.
150
-------
APPENDIX
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM ROUTINE WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM
151
-------
TJELE A-l
UATER CLALITY SAfFUNG DATA FCF CRUIC LAKE
KEY: SAMPLE PCHTS- INFLUENT"!
LIMIT CF CETECTICN*LC; YE
, EFFLUENT=
/P*Yr MCNTh
TCTAL CCLIFORMS FECAL CCLIFCPfS
LD*2PFN/100CL LC=2MPN/1COH
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
E
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
e
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
c.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TCTAL
PLATE
E, AFTEP FCST-CHLCRINATICN
*l*, C/Y = C; ELAM
-------
A-l
InATEP CLALITV SAMPLING DAT* FCR CRUIC LAKE
TCTAL CCLIFCFMS FECAL CCLIFCP^J TCTAL STANDARD
PLATE CCUNT
LD=1CCLONY/ML
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
I
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
140
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
11
I
1
I
I
1
800
30
350
1
70
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
300
I
^
1
400
1
1
1
90
50
1
12
I
I
10
1
1
I
500
1
1
25
1
90
15
1
19
125
27
1600
5
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
g
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1C
25
3
1
I
I
SAMPLE SAMPLE
DATE DATE
CF I OF EEC
V M 0 Y H D
750613 750623
750620 750625
750623 750627
750625 750630
750627 75Q7Q2
750630 7507C4
750702 750707
75070*. 750709
750707 7507U
750709 750714
750711 750716
750714 750713
750716 750721
750718 750723
750721 750725
750723 7507Z3
750725 750730
750728 750601
750730 75080*
750801 750906
750804 750909
750306 750S11
750303 750813
750BU 750915
750313 750913
750815 750920
750313 750822
750320 750925
750322 750827
750325 750329
750327
750329
750901
7S0903
750501
750903
750905
750SC8
750905 750910
750903 750912
750910 750915
'50912 750917
750915 750919
750917 750922
750919 750924
750922 75C529
750924 751001
75C929 751003
751001 7510C!>
751003 751003
751006 751Q10
751009 751013
CCNT IHUF.D
153
-------
T/ELE A-l
V.4TEP CLALITY SAMPLING DATA FCR CRUID L«KE
TCTAL CCLIFOSMS FECAL CCLIFCRI^
LD*2f FN/lOOfL LC»2MPN/1CCM
t E C I E C
TCTAL STANCARC
PLATE COUNT
SAMPLE SAMPLE
DATE DATE
CF I OF EEC
Y M D Y M D
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1C
I
6C
I
2
1
12
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
13
39
7
2
1
1
3
3
120
10
1
1300
120C
1
1
1
I
10
1
13
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
-------
TABLE A-l ICU.MTIMUEC)
V«ATER QUALITY SAMPLING OATA FOK ORUIO LAKE
TEMPEKATURE APPARENT TURBIDITY FREE TOTAL
COLOR CHLJklNE CHLCRINe
LD»320tG.F L0«l UNIT LO-0.05FTL LJ-0. 01,«G/L LOO.OIMG/L
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPLE SAMPLE
JATc DATE
CF I OF 6
Y M 0 Y M 0
39
-rO
39
38
44
38
41
tt
39
40
40
41
41
44
45
44
42
44
44
4j
45
2
6c
66
66
67
68
08
70
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
L.J
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
l.C
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
i.O
1.0
2.0
l.C
0.40
0.40
J.3u
0.60
0.37
0.43
0.51
0.41
0.67
0.48
0.67
0.32
0.35
0.32
0.2 d
0.32
0.24
0.36
J.23
0.31
0.23
J.34
0.61
0.43
0.2b
0.25
0.19
0.43
0.27
0.14
0.15
0.15
O.U
o. ia
0.14
0.19
0.16
J.19
0.24
0.21
0.27
0.30
0.60
0.13
0.28
0.4d
0.20
0.30
J.41
0.3o
O.id
0 .40
0.54
0.43
0.3d
0.28
0.42
0.32
0.24
0.29
0. 18
0.24
0.39
0.26
0.31
0.44
o.;a
J.28
0.22
0.24
0.23
0.29
0.34
0.24
0.24
O.U
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.37
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.21
C.21
0.22
0.24
0.21
J.ld
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.33
1.60
1.30
l.OJ
1.40
1. 40
1.60
1.60
0.65
i.ao
1.40
1.40
1.90
I. 5J
1.4J
1.20
1.00
l.oO
3.60
4. 50
i.70
2. 10
2. 10
2.40
1.70
4.20
3.20
4.JJ
3.00
3.00
2.40
2.25
4.00
3.75
5. 40
4.00
0. du
3.70
3.50
3.30
4.25
5.20
3.25
3.25
5.20
4. dO
2.30
U.iO
0.25
J.JO
0. 15
0.20
J.15
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.35
0.01
J.iO
0. 15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. Jl
O.J1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
3. 01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
o.2J
0.20
0.05
O.33
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
l.oO
U30
1.20
1.40
1.40
1.60
1.60
0.65
1.80
1.40
1.40
1.90
1. 50
7.60
1.20
1.00
1.60
3.oO
4.50
2.70
2.10
2.10
2.40
1.70
4.20
3.20
4.00
6.00
3.10
2.43
2.25
t. 00
3.75
5.40
4.00
0.90
3.70
3.60
3.30
4.30
5.20
3.25
3.25
5.20
4.80
2.oO
0.15
0.25
0. 30
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.35
0.01
0.15
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.Ol
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
j. lw
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0. 10
o. 01
0.10
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.15
0. j5
0.05
0. 10
0.01
0.05
O.'Jl
O.U
750^03
750206
75J210
750213
750213
750i20
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
7S0313
750317
75Jo20
750325
730327
750331
750403
750407
75U410
750414
750417
750421
750424
7504«:a
750501
7505J5
750507
750509
750512
750514
750316
750519
750521
750523
750526
750523
75 Oo J2
750o04
750606
750609
T50611
750613
750616
750613
750620
750023
CO
750210
750213
75J218
750220
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
750313
7i0317
750320
750325
750327
750331
75J403
750407
750410
750414
750417
750421
750424
750428
750501
750505
750507
750509
750512
750514
750516
750519
750521
750523
750526
750528
750602
750604
750606
750609
750611
750613
750616
75J616
7i0620
750623
750625
7sOo27
iMTt.-IUEO
155
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED)
«4T6R QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FOR DRUID LAKE
TEMPERATURE APPARENT TUR3IOITY FREE
COLOR CHLORINE
: L0*l UNIT LD=0.05FTU LO=O.OlrtG/L
I
TOTAL SAMPLt SAMPLE
CHLCRINc DATE OATE
.0*0.01Mti/L OF I OF e
I
I
I
I
Y M D Y M 0
69
00
67
06
70
67
67
70
69
63
66
70
7 I
c8
6V
69
71
70
75
7 I
73
75
74
68
62
65
66
65
72
65
60
62
6<»
61
67
62
62
o3
61
62
64
05
66
63
04
69
70
72
71
70
71
71
70
72
73
7i
74
73
7i
74
75
74
73
75
73
73
o9
60
t>5
67
67
o9
65
65
03
6fc
63
o7
o4
64
64
63
64
64
66
o5
64
O6
o4
o4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.J
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
l.J
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1.0
1.0
l.J
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
l.C
I .0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
0.61
0.80
0. 30
0.24
J.29
0,29
0.17
0.55
0.37
0.23
0.43
0.41
0.22
0.34
0.25
0.24
0.28
0.21
0.27
3.70
o.29
0.54
0.24
0.25
0.23
0.43
0.34
0.36
0.21
0.20
0.16
J.30
0.32
0.51
0.51
0.34
0.33
0.24
0.63
1.60
5.30
0.20
0.15
0.31
J.40
0.24
0.25
0.30
0.32
0.6C
J.23
0.36
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.29
0.2i
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.23
J.21
0.24
0.13
0.17
0. lo
J .21
C.21
0.21
0.26
C.17
0. 13
0.19
u.16
0.21
0.26
0.23
u.37
0.51
C.27
0.27
C.30
0.31
0.2t
0.25
j.ia
0.12
0.33
0.53
0.4C
0.3o
0.25
2.90
2.20
3.oO
5.00
0.05
5.40
-». 00
4. CO
5.00
3.00
4.50
3.20
2.4J
4. 00
4.40
4. oo
5.00
5.00
0.20
3.50
3. JO
2.50
0. 10
0.2J
3.60
3.40
2.80
3. 00
3.50
5.00
1.30
3.25
2.6-3
l.OU
2.60
4. 30
3.2J
j.60
2. 30
4.00
4. 30
5.10
5.50
1.80
3.60
4.00
0.01
0.10
O.Oi
J.Ol
o.oi
0.10
0.20
O.Jl
0.10
0.01
O.Oi
0. 10
J.2J
0.20
0.20
J.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.40
0.40
J.fO
0.3o
0.10
0.01
0.90
0.20
0. 15
0.15
0.40
0.01
0.10
O.U1
0.01
0.20
J.20
0.01
0. JO
0.20
0.01
O.Jl
0.01
0.01
O.Jl
0.10
3.00
2.50
5.60
5.00
J.J5
5.50
4.00
4. JO
5.00
3.00
-------
TABU: A-l (CONTINUED)
rfATER CUALITY SAMPLING OATA FOR CKUIO LAKE
TE.IPfcrtATURE APPAftfcNT TURBIJITY FREE TOTAL
CO&OR CHLUKlNfc CHLCRINt
Lu»32UEG.F LOl UNIT LO»0.05FTU LU-o. OlrtG/L LO-O.OIWG/L
i E i E i E i e i e
6i
63
62
61
61
o2
62
62
61
5V
60
59
59
55
57
50
52
46
44
47
<»8
46
44
42
42
48
40
40
39
40
3B
3o
&3
61
o3
S4
o3
ol
ol
61
60
oO
59
60
56
56
5-,
34
3i.
30
45
4ti
46
46
44
41
42
42
40
40
37
36
16
37
38
39
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.J
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.J
l.C
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
l.C
l.C
0.26
0.33
0.67
0.29
0.75
0.51
0.24
0.33
0.26
0.17
0.11
0.15
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.27
0.14
0.25
0. 14
0.20
0.14
0. 16
0.14
0.12
0.60
0.30
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.14
0.29
0.30
0.75
0.23
0.34
0.40
0.40
0.44
0.37
0.30
0.29
0.24
0.19
0.18
0.21
0.26
0.23
C.26
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.27
O.ld
0.20
0.17
0. 14
0.20
0.50
0.34
J.24
0.2*
0.11
0.19
0.35
0.28
0.30
O.lo
4.30
2.40
3.00
J.40
3.50
4.0 j
4. 30
3.90
4.00
4. 10
5.50
4.50
4.30
4. JO
5.43
H. 60
3.20
4.50
4.00
4.80
5.00
5.00
3. 00
7.00
7.00
5.30
5.00
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
o.Ol
0.20
0.10
0.01
0.01
J.10
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
5.40
3.00
3.SC
4.20
3.50
4.50
5.30
5.20
4.00
4. 10
5.30
4.50
4.30
4. uC
5.40
4.60
5.20
4.50
4.00
4.30
5.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
8.00
6.00
5.4Q
0.01
0.13
0. Cl
0.01
C.U1
0.10
0.20
J. 10
0.01
0.05
0. 13
0.15
0.01
0.25
0.01
0. 01
0.01,
0.01
C. 01
0.10
0.31
0.01
0.01
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
SAMPLE
OATE
OF I
Y M 0
751010
751013
751013
751017
751020
751022
751024
751J27
751030
751031
731103
751100
751110
751n3
751117
751120
751124
751126
751201
751204
751203
751211
751215
751218
7512*2
751226
751229
751231
760105
760108
760112
760llt>
760119
760122
SAMPLE
OATE
OF E
Y » U
751015
751017
751020
751022
751024
751027
751030
751031
751103
751100
751110
751U3
751117
75112U
751124
751126
751201
751204
75120B
751211
751215
75U18
751222
75U2o
751229
751231
76010S
760108
760112
760116
760119
760122
760126
760129
157
-------
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUEC)
VATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FCP DRUID L
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUEC)
I.ATER CLALITY SACKING DATA FCR ORUIO LAKE
Ph
TOTAL
ALKALIN
HARDNESS
ITV AS CACC3
LD*O.CIUNIT LD»IMC/L LC*1PG/L
I
7.1
6.9
7.3
7.6
7.1
S.O
7.8
7.6
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.S
7.5
7.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.S
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.3
7.3
6.5
7.5
6.3
7.3
7.1
7.7
6.8
6.4
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.4
b.2
6.5
6.2
E
7.8
7.4
7.7
7.9
7.S
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
9.3
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.9
7.5
7.1
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
I
42
4C
42
44
40
47
40
38
33
37
41
41
44
45
48
44
44
42
45
46
40
41
45
48
54
50
50
50
46
54
54
46
52
5C
56
56
51
48
55
35
37
39
41
40
32
43
44
c
43
43
40
45
41
42
40
40
41
41
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
46
43
43
45
53
54
54
J2
50
52
SO
£6
49
50
50
50
50
50
49
50
49
45
46
43
44
29
39
43
50
44
I
7t
69
64
S3
6G
63
60
66
68
54
62
68
65
66
71
6C
64
69
7C
65
6t
72
73
SC
73
7S
73
76
It
93
37
92
33
31
33
66
9C
91
92
84
78
72
66
66
6E
64
62
E
66
62
63
id
56
63
66
54
68
62
62
61
66
67
65
65
69
i7
72
72
77
71
73
75
80
75
76
100
88
72
98
84
84
33
fifl
79
89
69
96
ei
80
79
75
77
74
7C
72
TCTAL
SOLIDS
LO1PG/L
I
130
129
101
103
93
95
104
108
94
90
94
103
115
113
112
117
115
117
119
127
126
131
131
141
135
130
135
135
138
122
103
123
121
122
115
36
38
96
139
120
106
109
119
108
1C6
101
111
E
94
94
96
105
93
94
96
101
9b
94
124
117
120
119
117
124
120
120
122
139
131
135
135
133
135
135
138
122
122
122
121
115
122
96
79
94
134
123
127
120
119
114
105
103
115
1C6
94
CISSCLVED
SCLIDS
LO1MG/L
I
129
129
1C1
IC3
53
55
IC3
US
54
69
54
1C3
115
113
112
117
115
117
115
127
126
131
131
141
135
130
135
135
138
122
1C8
122
121
122
115
8S
it
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED)
INATEP CUALITY SAMPLING DATA FCR ORUID
PH TOTAL
ALKALINITY
LO«O.C1UNIT LDMHG/L
IE I =
6.3
6. 1
6.1
5.0
6.4
6.9
6.3
6.3
6. 3
6. 7
6.5
5.7
71
. 1
71
. 1
6.7
7.0
6.6
7. I
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.3
6.9
6.6
7.2
b. 3
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.0
7.2
7. I
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
7. 5
7.3
7. 7
7. 7
7.5
7.0
7. 1
7.4
7. 3
7. 1
7.7
7.4
7.2
7. 3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.4
45
37
39
39
40
42
42
40
40
45
41
42
50
44
39
43
41
46
45
39
40
42
40
39
28
40
20
39
37
40
38
40
35
*2
42
43
40
42
42
40
42
43
44
41
43
42
43
42
39
41
46
42
41
36
42
36
38
33
33
39
36
KARCNEJS
AS CACC3
I E
73
67
68
59
6S
75
7 =
74
7i
34
8C
72
78
70
73
72
SC
77
32
92
81
66
6 =
6C
76
66
70
66
68
72
57
72
76
72
71
72
66
SC
74
77
79
76
71
71
72
87
82
S2
82
31
67
67
62
7C
70
7C
67
70
74
69
72
TOTAL
SOLIDS
L01PG/L
I E
107
91
107
95
IOC
lib
109
103
105
122
113
111
116
135
107
103
11C
107
107
113
107
IC7
uc
106
I0i
•91
104
1C3
104
106
115
107
107
105
105
loe
109
113
113
113
118
115
136
107
110
uc
107
107
113
95
uc
114
110
107
33
102
108
104
1C9
114
116
CISSCLVEC
SCLICS
I 6
1C6
SI
1C7
99
ICC
lli
109
1C8
IC5
122
113
111
116
135
1C7
1C3
110
1C7
1C7
113
1C7
107
UC
1C6
ICS
SI
1C4
IC5
1C4
106
114
107
107
105
109
103
109
113
113
113
118
116
136
107
110
110
107
107
113
95
110
114
110
107
37
102
108
104
108
114
116
SAMPLE
CATE
CF I
Y M D
751017
751020
751022
751024
751027
751030
751031
751103
751106
75U10
75U13
75U17
751120
751124
751126
751201
751204
751203
751211
751215
751213
751222
751226
751229
751231
760105
760108
760112
760116
760119
760122
SAMPLE
DATE
CF E
Y M D
731022
751024
751C27
751030
751031
751103
7511C6
751110
751113
751117
751120
751124
751126
751201
7512C4
751208
751211
751215
751218
751222
751226
751229
751231
76C1C5
7501C8
760112
76C116
760119
760122
7i012b
760129
160
-------
TABLE A-l (CCNTUUEC)
fcATEP CLALITY SAffLIKG DAT* FCR CPUID LAKE
APMCMA
AS N
LD»0.
I
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.02
O.CS
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
O.C2
O.C2
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
MTRATE TCTAL FKS- SOLUBLE CRTHC CCPFER
AS N PHATE AS FC4 PHOSPHATE
AS PC4
C2MG/L LO»0.01HG/L
E
C.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
C.02
0.02
O.C2
O.C2
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
I
0.9
l.C
l.l
0.9
0. 9
0.9
C.7
0.9
l.l
C.8
1.0
0.9
l.C
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
l.l
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
l.C
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
o.e
l.l
1.0
1.3
1.3
l.C
0.9
0.9
0.9
E
C.9
C.3
C.7
1.0
1.0
C.9
C.9
C.9
1.1
C.9
l.C
C.9
.1
.1
.1
.2
.0
C.9
l.l
C.9
1.1
1.0
C.9
C.9
C.8
C.3
c.a
C.3
C.9
C.7
C.3
C.8
C.3
C.3
C.8
C.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
C.9
C.7
C.9
C.9
C.9
C.S
C.9
LO»O.C
I
0.03
0.02
O.C2
C.CS
0.05
O.C2
0.01
O.C6
0.04
O.C3
O.C2
0.01
C.02
O.C2
0.04
C.03
0.04
O.C4
O.CS
C.CS
C.CS
O.C4
c.os
C.05
C.04
C.Ol
C.C6
0.09
0.10
O.C9
0.08
0.1C
0.10
0.1C
0.1C
O.C9
C.C9
O.Cl
0.02
C.C2
0.05
0.05
C.C7
0.05
O.C3
IfG/L
E
C.Ol
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.C3
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.03
C.C3
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.C2
C.02
C.C3
C.C2
C.C4
C.C3
C.C2
C.CS
C.CS
C.OS
C.C6
C.C4
C.04
C.C2
C.CS
C.CS
C.CS
C.CS
C.1C
C.1C
c.ca
C.C5
C.10
C.C9
C.CS
C.Cl
C.C3
C.C2
C.C5
C.CS
C.C6
C.C3
C.C3
C.12
C.CS
C.CS
LD=0.01PG/L LC-O.CC1MG/L
I
O.C2
0.01
0.03
O.C4
O.CS
O.C2
0.01
O.C6
0.04
0.03
O.Cl
O.Cl
O.C2
O.C2
0.03
0.03
0.03
O.C4
O.CS
O.C2
O.C8
O.C2
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.01
O.C4
0.09
0.10
O.CS
0.08
0. 1C
0.10
0.10
0.1C
0.03
O.C6
O.Cl
0.02
0.02
O.CS
0.03
O.C7
0.05
O.C3
c
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
O.C2
0.01
C.Cl
0.03
0.03
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.02
0.03
C.C2
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
C.02
0.03
C.06
C.C4
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.03
C.OS
0.03
C.10
C.10
C.07
0.05
0.06
0.01
C.C2
0.01
C.OS
0.01
C.04
0.03
C.06
C.03
C.03
C.04
O.CS
C.04
I
c.cce
0.016
C.Cll
O.OC6
C.OC3
C.CC2
C.OCl
C.OC5
C.CC9
C.OC8
C.CC5
C.CC8
C.OC6
C.OIO
O.OC4
O.OC3
C.OC4
C.OC3
C.CIC
O.OC7
C.OC3
C.CC8
o.ocs
C.CC4
C.CC4
0.055
C.C61
0.034
C.C44
0.035
C.C22
C.C3S
c.ctc
C.C5C
C.C4C
C.C4C
C.04C
C.03C
C.C4C
C.CC9
C.OC4
C.017
C.CC6
0.012
C.CC4
6
C.C04
0.010
C.C02
C.002
C.001
C.005
C.009
C.009
C.005
0.003
C.C06
C.OIO
0.003
0.003
C.002
C.002
C.C08
C.007
C.C03
C.004
0.001
C.005
C.C05
C.049
C.C41
0.041
C.C29
0.041
C.035
O.C24
C.C60
C.C60
C.C40
C.040
C.C40
C.040
C.060
C.043
C.029
C.023
C.C23
0.026
c.ooa
0.008
c.ooa
C.015
SAMPLE
DATE
CF I
Y M D
750203
750206
750210
750213
75021S
750220
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
750313
75031?
750320
750325
750327
750331
750403
750407
750410
750414
750417
750421
750424
750428
750501
750505
750507
750509
750512
750514
75C516
750519
750521
750523
750526
750523
750602
750bC4
750606
7506C9
750611
750613
750616
750619
75062C
SAPPLE
GATE
CF 6
Y M 0
75C210
750213
750213
750220
750224
750227
75C303
750306
750310
750313
750317
750320
75C325
750327
750331
750403
7504C7
750410
750414
750417
750421
75C424
750423
750501
75C5Q5
750507
750509
750512
750514
75C516
75C519
750521
75C523
750526
750529
750602
75C6C4
75C6C6
75CS09
750611
75C613
750616
750619
750620
750623
75C625
CONTINUED
161
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED!
WATER CUALITY SAMPLING DATA FCR CRUID LAKE
AMMCMA
AS N
LD»0.
I
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.02
O.C5
C.C5
C2MG/L
E
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
MTRATE TCTAL
AS N PHATE
LD-0.
I
0.9
l.C
l.C
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
C.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.3
C.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
o.e
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
C.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.8
C.9
1.4
C.9
0.8
0.6
C1PG/L
E
C.8
C.9
C.S
C.9
C.S
C.9
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.S
C.9
C.9
C.3
C.7
C.8
C.7
C.S
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.7
C.S
C.7
C.7
C.6
C.S
C.6
C.S
C.9
C.S
C.S
C.7
C.7
C.3
1.0
C.9
C.9
C.S
C.6
C.9
C.8
L0»0.
I
0.05
C.C2
0.02
0.06
O.C1
O.C2
O.C4
O.C2
0.02
0.05
C.C3
0.05
O.C3
O.C3
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.03
o.o;
0.05
o.o;
O.C3
0.05
C.05
0.05
0.03
O.C3
0.04
C.03
0.05
C.C5
C.C5
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
C.C5
0.05
C.05
0.05
0.07
O.C5
C.25
C.15
C.Ol
0.01
FNC£- SOLUBLE CRTHC CCFFER
AS FC4 PHCSPHATE
ClfC/L
E
C.C2
C.C3
C.C1
C.Ol
C.C3
C.C2
C.C1
C.C2
C.03
C.OS
C.C3
C.OS
C.C2
C.C3
C.03
C.C3
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.C5
C.04
C.C3
C.C5
C.C5
C.C6
C.OS
C.C3
C.03
C.Ol
C.C5
C.03
C.C4
C.C5
C.C6
C.C5
C.42
C.2C
C.Cl
C.C1
C.Cl
C.C2
AS
LD=0.
I
O.C5
O.C2
O.C2
0.06
O.C1
O.C2
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
O.C1
0.02
0.03
O.C5
0.03
O.C5
0.05
O.C5
0.03
O.C5
0.05
O.C5
O.C3
O.C3
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.C5
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.C5
0.07
O.C2
0.12
0.12
O.C1
O.C1
PC4
01PG/L LC=0.
E
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
C.OS
0.05
C.OS
0.05
C.OS
C.OS
C.OS
0.04
C.03
0.05
C.OS
0.05
0.05
C.03
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.05
C.04
C.OS
0.06
C.02
0.12
C.12
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.02
I
c.cce
C.016
C.CC4
O.OC3
C.01C
O.C12
C.022
C.CIC
C.01C
0.01C
C.C15
C.01C
C.01C
C.CIC
C.02C
C.C12
C.C15
C.01C
C.C15
0.012
C.CC3
C.OC3
C.C2C
C.OC3
c.oct
C.OC2
C.C12
O.OC3
C.OC1
O.C1C
c.ci;
C.OC3
O.OC5
C.CC3
o.oce
C.CIC
C.CC3
C.C12
0.002
c.cce
C.OCi
C.140
C.OIC
C.01C
C.C2C
0.-C2C
C01MG/L
E
C.008
0.002
C.010
C.012
C.010
C.C22
C.C12
C.022
C.017
0.015
C.C15
C.010
C.020
C.015
C.020
C.015
C.C15
0.012
C.C02
0.002
O.C07
C.015
O.C03
0.003
C.005
0.004
C.C03
0.005
0.007
C.002
C.C03
C.003
C.012
0.030
C.005
0.020
C.001
C.006
C.010
C.060
C.020
C.020
C.CIO
C.020
C.020
C.C20
SAMPLE
OATH
OF I
Y H D
750623
750625
750627
75063C
750 702
750704
7507C7
750709
750711
750714
750716
750713
750721
750723
750725
750729
750730
750301
750304
750306
750308
750811
750313
750315
750318
750320
750322
750325
'50927
750829
750901
750903
750905
750903
75091C
750912
750915
750917
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
751001
751003
751006
SAMPLE
DAT?
CF E
Y M 0
75C627
750630
^50702
7507C4
750707
7507C9
750711
750714
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
75C728
750730
750901
75C8C4
750906
750803
750811
750813
750815
750318
750920
75C822
750825
75C827
750829
750901
750903
7509C5
750908
750910
750912
750S15
750917
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
751001
751CC3
7510CS
751008
751010
CONTINUED
162
-------
TABLE A-l (CCNTIMUEC)
VtATER CLALITY SAMPLING DATA FCR DRLID L4KE
AMMCMA
AS N
NITRATE TCTAU FhCS- SOLUBLE CRTHC
AS N PHATE AS FC4 PHOSPHATE
AS PC*
LO=O.C2MG/L LD»0.01*0/L LO»O.C IfG/L LD»C.C1MG/L
I
0.03
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
O.C2
O.C2
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
C.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
E
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.05
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.C2
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
O.C2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
I
l.C
0.9
C.S
1.1
L.C
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.9
3.1
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
E
C.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
C.9
1.0
l.l
c.e
C.6
C.S
C.7
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
C.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.2
I
C.01
0.02
0.04
C.C2
0.03
0.01
C.02
C.03
C.C2
C.05
0.12
C.C2
0.01
0.04
C.C2
0.01
G.C2
0.02
C.C1
0.01
C.C2
C.01
0.01
C.C1
C.C1
C.06
C.1C
0.06
0.01
C.C6
0.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
E
C.C3
C.C2
C.C-2
C.C1
C.C3
C.C3
C.C2
C.05
C.IC
C.C2
C .01
C.C5
C.02
0.05
C.C8
r ,05
C.C2
C.Cl
C.05
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.01
C.C5
C.C6
C.C6
C.Cl
C.02
C.02
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.C3
C.C2
C.02
I
0,C1
0.02
0.02
O.C1
0.02
0.01
O.C2
0.02
O.C2
O.C5
0.12
O.C2
0.01
0.04
O.C3
O.Cl
0.02
0.02
O.Cl
0.01
O.C2
O.Cl
0.01
O.Cl
O.Cl
0.05
O.Cl
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.01
O.C2
O.Cl
0.01
c
C.02
C.01
0.01
C.01
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.05
C.10
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
C.Cl
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Cl
0.01
C.01
0.02
0.04
C.Ol
C.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.01
C.C2
0.02
CCPFER
SAMPLE
DATE
CF I
SANPLE
DATE
OF E
LO»O.C01MG/L
I
0.020
C.C1C
C.C1C
C.C2C
C.01C
0.01C
C.C3C
C.03C
C.020
C.CC3
0.003
C.OC3
O.CC3
C.CC3
C.OC5
C.CC1
O.OC3
C.OK
O.C7C
C.C46
C.07C
C.C1C
C.OIC
C.01C
C.010
C.C1C
C.020
C.OIC
C.02C
0.010
c
C.010
C.020
C.020
0.020
C.030
C.020
C.020
C.002
0.003
C.010
O.C05
C.005
O.C02
0.005
C.C05
0.005
0.006
0.070
C.068
C.059
0.010
C.010
C.010
0.010
C.C10
0.020
C.CIO
C.010
C.010
C.010
C.010
Y M 0
751003
751010
751013
751015
751017
751020
751022
751024
751027
751030
751031
75U03
751106
751110
751113
751117
751120
751124
75ll2b
T51201
751204
751203
751211
751215
751213
751222
751226
751229
751231
760105
760103
7SOU2
760116
760119
750122
Y M 0
751013
751015
751017
751020
751022
751024
751C27
751030
751031
75UC3
7511C6
751110
751113
751117
751120
751124
751126
7512C1
7512C4
751203
751211
751215
751213
751222
751226
751229
751231
760105
7601C8
760112
760116
760113
760122
760126
7SC129
163
-------
TABLE A-l (CCNTINUECI
fcATEP CLALITV SAMPLING DATA PCS CSLID LAKE
LEtt SUSF6NCEC PM1C-
SCLICS FIAM
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUED)
WATER CCALITY SLUING DATA FCR HRL'IO LAKE
LEAC
LD-O.CC1MG/L
I E
C.C15 C.CC8
0.008 0.005
O.C17 C.005
0.005 C.005
0.005 C.005
O.C05 C.005
O.CC5 C.015
C.005 0.005
O.C05 O.C05
0.005 0.010
0.005 C.C2C
0.010 C.02C
O.CIO C.OIC
0.005 C.OIC
C.C05 C.C1C
C.010 C.005
C.CC5 C.C1C
0.010 C.003
C.015 C.OC4
0.006 C.004
0.003 0.005
C.COl C.004
O.C05 C.C05
0.003 C.OOS
0.005 C.CC3
0.005 C.CC5
0.01C C.003
C.C05 C.C03
0.003 C.OC3
C.CC5 0.003
C.OC3 C.OOS
0.003 C.003
O.C01 C.02C
0.003 0.005
C.C10 0.006
0.003
0.001 C.005
C.GC3 C.CIC
O.C03 C.OIC
0.010 C.010
O.CIO C.OIC
C.010 C.02C
C.010 C.OIC
0.005 C.C05
C.02C
0.007 C.C05
O.CIO C.CC5
SUSPENCEC FMTC-
SOLICS FUNKTCN
LO=O.IMG/L LC*O CPOAMSMS/ML
IE I E C
c.a
1.0
C.2
C.I
C.2
0.2
C.I
1.2
C.3
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
C.I
0.2
C.I
C.2
1.5
C.2
l.C
C.I
0.1
C.I
0.5
0.2
C.2
C.I
0.1
0.1
0.2
C.2
C.3
0.2
0.2
C.2
C.I
1.5
2.0
5.C
0.4
0.2
C.3
C.9
C.5
C.5
C.I
C.2
C.2
1.3
C.I
C.3
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.2
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.2
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.I
C.2
C.3
C.2
C.I
C.I
C.2
C.2
C.I
C.5
C.2
C.2
C.4
C.6
C.4
C.5
C.5
C.4
14
2
0
6
C
3
2
4
C
2
C
1
1
3
i
a
c
c
2
C
C
5
37
0
C
C
I
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
22
4
C
2
1
1
4
C
5
6
7
C
c
e
2
0
6
8
I
0
0
0
c
0
i
c
c
c
0
1
c
c
2
1
C
c
0
1
c
2
C
C
0
c
0
7
2
1
2
1
C
7
5
C
6
2
2
2
0
13
12
2
0
3
21
I
1
1
0
C
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
1
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
I
1C
8
1
1
c
c
4
4
•}
2
0
ie
5
C
SAMPLE
CATE
CF I
Y K D
750625
750627
75053C
750702
7507C4
750707
750709
750711
750714
750716
750713
750721
750723
750725
750723
750730
750301
750304
75030S
750803
750811
750313
750315
750818
750320
750322
750325
75032 t
750829
750901
750903
750905
750908
750910
750912
750915
750917
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
751001
751003
751006
751003
751010
SAMPLE
DATE
CF E6C
Y H C
75C630
750702
75C7C4
750707
75C7C9
75C7X1
750714
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
750728
750730
750301
75C8C4
750306
750808
750911
750313
750615
750813
750320
750822
750825
750327
750829
750901
75C9C3
750905
750908
750910
750912
750515
750517
750519
75C522
750924
75C926
750529
751C01
751003
751CC6
7510C8
751C10
751013
751015
CONTINUED
165
-------
TABLE A-l (CONTINUES)
UATEP CLALITY SACKING DATA FCR CPUIC LiKE
L6AC
SUSPENCEC FH>TC-
SOLICS FIAM
-------
TABLE 3-1
v«T-? CUiLITY SAfPLUG CATA Fi" HGHANC StS^
,\C . 1
KrY: S.SfFU OCJMS- INFLL.;NT«I, cPFLUcNT»C,
TCTit. CCLIFC'i1
U«ICCICM/1CC
t .-
1 i
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 i
1 1
1 1
i 1
I 1
1 1
I I
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
i 1
1 1
1 I
I 1
i 1
I
I 1
1 1
i 1
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 1
I 1
1 I
1 1
I 1
1 I
1 i
1 I
-S TCT.U STAIVC4RC
PLAT? CCLNT
>L
C
,
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i.
*
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
LC'ICCLCNY/
i
.
.\T<*
FhYTC-
LC=C CSGANISHS/ML
I
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
0
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
r.
C
C
C
c
0
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
*
0
c
c
1
c
u
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
c
c
0
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
4
c
0
c
0
0
c
c
c
c
•* *• u ^ *
SAMPU
CAT:
•-r I
Y M C
7502C2
7502Ci
75021C
75C212
750218
75022C
15022*
750227
750jC2
7503C6
750.} 1C
750312
750217
75032C
75022*
750327
750231
750*C2
750*07
75C*1C
750*1*
730*i7
75C*2i
750*2*
730*2S
7505C1
750505
75C5C8
750512
750515
750515
750522
750527
750525
7506C2
750&C*
750606
7506C1;
750611
750616
7506U
75062C
750623
750o2:
SAfPLi:
CATS
CF 1£C
Y K C
75C2C6
75C21C
75C213
75C218
75C22C
75C22*
75C227
75C3C3
75C3C6
75C21C
75C313
75C317
75C220
75032*
75C327
75C321
750*C3
75C*C7
75C* 10
75C*!*
75C*17
750*21
75C*2*
750*23
750501
75C5C5
75C5C3
75C512
75C515
750519
75C522
75C527
75C529
15C6C2
7506 C*
75C6C6
75C6C9
75C611
75C616
750613
75C62C
75C623
75C625
75C627
167
-------
a-i
.lT:^ JUiLITY Si>P
.DATA FCK UGHLA.NC F.;SCF\.CIF Nu. 1
TrTil CCUI?::fi>S TuTil STaNCARC
PLAT: CCWJT
l-C»lC.:LCrt>/iOC,-«L 10*1CLLOY/ML
i : c I : - c
1 1 1 1
i i I i
1111
'- 1 1 22
1111
1 1 i 16
1113
1 I I 1
1111
-'• ill
1113
It • r-
I 1 5
1111
1112
^112
1114
1 I 1 20
1 ' 1 2
1111
1 I 1 3
1 1 I 2C
1 1 1 26
1128
Ills
1 i i 1J
1 i 1 1C
1115
1 i. 1 fcO
1 I 1 oC
1 I 1 110
1 1 I 122
1 1 1 15C
I 1 1 110
1 1 1 4
1112
1 1 2 30
1 1 1 It
1 1 1 18
1 t 1 12
1 1 1 4
i i i r
1 1 1 10
1 1 1 o
1 1 1 60
1116
1 I 1 29
1 I 1 2C
1 1 1 ^
41
27
C
1
4
2
i
38
1
4
2
2
1C
166
2
;3
1C
1
*
1
14
(•
c
5
4C
15
6
It
22
126
3?
84
8C
1
ol
6
— 4.
e
12
1
1
2
i
37
2
U
i
i
i
1
11
11
1C
2
i?
6
6
7b
2
4
34
U
2C
50C
35
94
20
i
1
25
18
24
39
23
15
18
82
6:
54
271
163
91
i
278
ISC
136
8
1C
1
3
2
9
52
4
16
5
2
3
FH>TC-
PUNKTCN
LC»C CSC-.SN
I 2
C
0
C
1
c
0
a
c
c
c
c
0
c
0
c
c
5
45
C
C
C
c
0
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
0
0
c
c
58
2C
33
6C
44
50
41
15
0
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
c
c
c
c
o
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ISfS/M.
c
c
0
c
c
J
c
0
0
2 e
53
4?
3 ^
3o
42
63
106
£9
0
0
C
0
w
0
0
c
c
c
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
/^
0
0
c
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
SAA-PLJ
0*T =
:F i
Y M C
750627
75063C
7507C2
7507C7
7507CS
750711
750714
75J716
75C71e
750721
750723
750725
750728
75073C
7503C1
7508C4
750SC6
750606
7508U
750al3
750815
750316
75082C
750622
75C825
750827
750829
7509C3
7509C5
7505CI: •
750S1C
750912
750915
750917
750919
750922
750924
750S2e
75CS2S
75iOCl
i510C3
7510C7
751009
751014
75101o
731021
751023
75102d
SJfPLH
OATC
CP :£C
If f C
75C63C
75C7C2
75C707
75C7C9
75C7H
75C714
75C716
75C718
75C721
75C723
75C725
75C728
75C720
75C8C1
75C3C4
75G3C6
75C8C8
75C8U
75C813
75Cel5
75C31S
75C820
75C822
75C825
75C827
75C829
7509C3
75C9C5
75C9C8
75C91C
75C912
75C915
75C917
750919
750922
75CS24
75C926
75 C 9 29
751CC1
7510C3
751CC7
751CC9
751014
751C16
751J21
751C23
751C23
751030
CCNTIN'UcO
168
-------
CU/H.ITY
TA8LE 6-1
G CAT* FCR HGH.ANC 32S£IUCIfi *C . I
TCTiL CCLlFCiSfS
lC«lCCLC,NY/100i"l.
I !?
1 L
1 i
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 \
1 L
1 1
1 L
I 1
1 I
1 I
I 1
1 I
1 I
I I
1 I
1 1
1 I
C
I
i
1
fc
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TCTAl STANCARC
PLATE CCUNT
LC-1CCUCNY/ML
I
24
1
3
7
3
4
6
3
2
5
6
3
1
8
60
6
22
a
I
5
i
1
3
1
I
5
6
2
1
2
1
1
5
i
I
1
2
2
<;
c
2
1
2
2
I
8
2
1
4
4
2
1
9
2
1
7
?
4
6
FhYTC-
FUM
-------
TiBLt 6-1 (CCNTIMJtCJ
WATtR WUALITY SAMPLING CATA FJS HIGHLAMU KtSEKVOIK ML). I
I
36
-1 .j
-> O
36
7 ^
^
-j _
J J
•3 -y
3 C.
•\ )
J *-
33
f. 1
" O
. ' 1
+ U
A 5
^ i-
**o
*"*
T <£
4 '.1
'. .^
•t U
"*?
4 H
-
."> 0
52
c ^
57
-. f
O *
6 J
o 6
6 '3
7 •»
* 4*
7 1
f i
71
i.)
£.A
V
62
62
, •%
O i
od
70
73
f -i
7 j
73
7r
1>
TEMPt
LU = 32
c
39
•1 *
36
19
j5
35
36
T c
J 7
•J ^
32
32
40
41
£.
4w
•+4
*2
•* 1
40
44
A /.
H**
47
43
52
-* 7
J i
59
• 3
O.T
63
oO
06
o3
70
71
7 C
39
o4
64
68
68
7C
73
75
73
74
76
7o
MATURE
OEG.F
C
38
35
'3''
35
36
J-
•**
32
33
40
= 1 UNIT
E C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
i
1
I
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
TUR610 ITY
LC=u.05FTU
I t C
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.Oo
C. 1C
O.Ou
0.05
0.24
0.13
0. li
0.5C
0.45
0.83
1.4C
1.30
L.OC
0.48
C.96
0.65
0.35
0.55
0.23
o.ie
0.35
0.92
0.76
1.0*,
0.76
0. 7S
1.50
1.5C
1.00
0.75
1.1C
0..1C
0.5C
0.27
0.6C
0.3C
0.72
0.73
0.3C
1.58
0.12
4.7C
0.5H
C.35
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0. 15
0.11
0.49
0.5o
0.04
0. 78
0.52
0. 57
0.23
0.7j
0.27
0.20
0.26
0.12
0. 13
0.23
0. 36
0.62
0. 63
0.57
0.50
I. 00
C. 79
0.-/2
0.33
0.57
O.So
0.-.0
0.33
1.04
U. 72
J.47
0.87
1.6o
0. 19
5.00
0.41
0. ->6
'0.25
0.20
0.05
0.09
0.1 1
0.09
0. J5
O.lo
0. 13
0.11
0.53
0.51
0.61
0.77
u.60
0.60
0.41
1.20
0.25
0.26
o.ia
0. 16
0.15
0.17
0.67
0.70
0.85
J.63
1.05
1.13
O.o7
0.91
1.40
0.97
0.65
0.72
0.75
0.67
1.20
0.79
0.65
1.15
O.S4
0.27
t.30
1.16
J.oO
0.43
SAMPLE
DATE
CF I
Y v o
75C203
750200
750210
750213
750218
75C220
730224
750227
75C303
750300
75C310
7503U
750317
750320
750324
75C327
750331
750*04
750407
750410
75C«>i4
75C417
75 042 I
750424
750423
750501
73C505
750508
75C512
750515
750519
750522
75C527
750529
75Co02
750004
75C606
7bCo09
75C611
750616
750618
75C620
75C62j
750o25
75C627
750630
750702
SAXPLfc
DATE
OF etc
Y M 0
75020o
750210
750213
750218
750220
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
750313
750317
750320
750324
750327
7503J1
750404
750<*07
750410
750414
750417
75042t
750428
750501
750=03
730508
750512
750515
750519
7505^2
750527
750o02
750604
750oOo
750o09
750616
750613
750t>20
750623
750625
7DOc27
750o3 j
750702
750707
CDNTINUfci)
170
-------
TABLE 6-1 (CCNTINJCC)
DUALITY SAMPLING CAT A F3R hIGHLA.NU RESEIvni* NO. I
TE -IPcRATOfil:
LD=320hG.F
I fc C
7 7
7d
73
77
76
73
78
79
79
79
00
30
7d
77
75
77
75
7o
7'3
7o
73
77
7 7
72
70
70
o V
6 J
u •»
03
-. 2
o2
6 1
61
5J
5 -J
CO
5 ^
53
K J
*>t
5 3
52
77
77
75
77
77
73
70
78
78
dO
80
78
76
75
76
74
74
74
7o
77
76
77
72
71
70
oC
64
o5
62
o2
ol
oO
ol
5k
57
60
60
39
J6
56
oO
33
3*1
32
77
77
75
77
77
7ft
70
77
7a
78
30
80
7d
75
75
74
75
74
It-
11
76
77
72
72
70
cc
ofa
•So
CO
=2
o2
ol
60
60
5ci
57
60
oO
59
56
56
60
33
36
it.
•jj
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
APPARENT
CCLOR
L0=l UNIT
e c
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
TUMIDITY
LO0.05FTU
I E C
C.26
0.35
0.42
0.62
o.od
0.21
0.17
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.03
1.2C
0.60
O.C6
0.15
C.15
C.12
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.20
0.2C
0.1C
0.36
C.5C
I. 00
l.OC
1. 3C
l.OC
l.CC
1. 1C
l.CC
1.3C
0.34
0.35
1.3C
1 .»0
O.dC
0.62
0.48
G.54
0.32
0.33
C.9C
0.92
l.CC
2. CL
o.9r
0.47
0.38
0.29
0.37
4.75
0.30
0.55
0.5o
0. 45
0.33
0.96
0. 30
0.22
0.-»8
0. 19
0.31
0.16
0.24
o. :i
0. 16
0.37
0.32
O.o3
1.0. T
<«. 58
0. ^6
1.36
1.37
0.3(3
l.oO
I. 31
0.37
0. 78
0.50
O.o9
I. Jo
0.72
0. t7
0.23
0. jO
0. 71
0.32
0 . 0 J
0.79
1.20
C.92
O.ot
C. 72
0.77
0.61
0.65
0.92
0.64
O.oO
1.20
0.75
C.77
l.uO
1.10
0.54
0.33
0.78
0.20
0.35
0.19
J. 3d
0.37
0.23
0.33
0.3d
0.75
1.05
0. 72
1. 10
1.45
1.90
o.87
1.30
1.50
0.90
0.97
0.53
0.89
1.1J
0. 73
0.56
J.32
0.47
0. d2
O.id
0.60
0. 34
1.05
0.'-y<:
0.90
0.37
SAMPLE SAWPLc
OATE DATE
OF I OF EtC
Y V D Y M D
75C707
750709
750711
750714
75C716
750713
75C721
750723
750725
75C728
750730
75C801
750304
750306
75C308
750311
75C813
750815
75C313
75C320
75C322
750325
75C327
730829
75C903
75CS05
75C908
750910
75C912
750913
7sC9l7
750919
750922
750924
75092o
7iC929
75 1001
751003
751307
75 1009
731014
751Jlt>
751021
751023
751028
751030
T5110C
7S 1113
750709
750711
750714
75071o
750718
750721
750723
750725
750723
750730
750301
750304
75 JdOo
750808
750611
75061J
750315
750313
750820
750822
750d
-------
TAcLE 8-1 (CUriNUEJ)
K DUALITY SAILING 04Ti FOK HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
TEMPEfUTuKt
APPARENT
COLOR
UO=320tG.F L!) = l
I
50
•»d
44
41
tO
41
38
4 J
33
3:
36
3S
3o
36
37
j;i
E
43
44
4<:
4 J
-.3
33
40
37
34
37
36
35
36
36
3
-------
TABLE 6-1 (CQNTtMEC)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING CAT A FOR HC-hLANU RESE^VOU NU. I
FREE
CHLORINE
LD«0.01MG/L
i E c
0. 15
0.15
0.3d
0.70
0.10
0.20
0.60
0.45
O.oO
0.15
J.IO
0.10
O.LO
0.25
0.50
0. 55
0.72
o.ao
0.08
0.75
0.35
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.22
0.35
0.40
0.12
0.05
0.20
0.10
0.20
C.12
0.12
O.U
0.02
0.18
O.C4
O.C6
0.12
0.50
0.20
0.57
0.40
0.01
0.15
0.30
C. 13
0.20
C. 03
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.03
C. 11
C.1C
0.07
C. U
0.10
0.10
0. C7
0.07
C.05
0.09
O.Ob
0. 13
0.01
C.01
C.C1
0.04
C.03
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.05
C.23
0.05
C.07
0.05
C. 07
0.03
0.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
0.10
0.04
C.05
0.01
C. C4
0.01
0.01
C.07
0.03
C. 1C
0.20
0. 15
O.C5
0.05
O.CJ
O.C1
0.10
0.10
0.10
O.C5
O.Cb
0. C5
O.C5
0.05
C.C2
O.Cb
0.05
O.C5
O.C1
O.C1
O.C1
0.03
O.C2
O.C2
0.05
O.C1
0.03
C.C3
O.C3
O.Cb
0.42
C.C3
O.C1
O.C2
O.C2
O.C2
O.C2
O.C9
0.30
O.C3
O.C1
O.C5
O.C1
0.01
O.C2
O.C3
TOTAL
CHLORINE
LO0.01PG/L
I E C
0.15
0.15
0.5C
0.75
0.15
0.28
0.7C
0.55
1.37
0.58
0.4C
0.35
0.31
0.26
0.93
1.05
0.95
1.00
O.C3
0.8C
l.CG
0.48
0.30
0.3C
0.46
0.45
0.36
0.80
0.60
C.8<5
1.16
1.00
0.75
0.72
0.27
0.12
0.23
0.25
0. 15
0.58
0.64
0.83
0.73
1.3C
0.01
0.2C
1.52
0.16
0.27
C. 06
0. 13
0.13
0.15
0.12
0.52
0.34
0.42
C.27
0.23
0.26
0.28
0.39
0.11
0.14
0.05
0.20
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.07
C.22
O.Oc
0.46
0.37
0.38
0 .66
0.74
0.74
0.58
0.42
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.07
C.23
0.20
C.39
0.17
0.13
0.01
0.07
0.32
C.27
C.IO
0.25
C. L J
C.IC
C.13
C.13
C. 10
C.46
C.31
0.32
C.2A
C.22
Q. 15
C.26
C.33
C.1J
C.13
0.05
C.09
C.Ol
C.J5
C.Ol
C.05
C.23
C.04
0.35
C.33
C.36
C.34
C.63
C.41
C.37
0.35
C.02
C.o2
C.OJ
0.02
0.07
C.21
C.5J
C.48
C. 31
C.l-t
C.Ol
0.04
C.J4
C.47
LC =
I
8.0C
8.80
3.90
8.70
3.90
4.60
8.30
3.20
a.4C
d.40
a. ic
7. SO
7.80
7.7C
7.90
7.80
7.SC
7.<30
7.70
3.00
7.30
7.60
8.10
7.90
3.0C
7.70
a.oc
8.00
7.90
7.7G
7.7C
7.80
7. SO
7.30
7.30
7.90
8.00
8.10
7.5C
7.<3C
3. CO
8.CC
3.10
i. 1C
3.50
3. 1C
7.5C
PH
•C.01UNIT
E C
8.80
d.Bt
8.82
a.*o
o.o J
a. 74
8.20
3.20
6.20
3.16
7.90
7. do
7.7j
7.90
7.80
7.3-.
7.u4
7.7J
7.90
7.8u
7.60
7.94
a. oo
7.90
7.80
o.u4
d.OO
7.90
7.76
7.60
7. 74
7.90
7.90
7.90
7.90
e.OO
a. 10
7.70
K.GO
7.S'»
7.94
7.9 t
6.00
7.83
e.oo
7.9o
3.00
3.70
3.30
d .60
3.90
9 .aO
d.70
8.25
3 .15
o.20
8.15
7.90
7.90
7.70
7.85
7.70
7 .30
7.75
7.70
7.BO
7.60
7.oO
7.90
a.oc
7.90
7.60
7.90
7.90
7.90
7.70
7.30
7.03
7.30
7. 35
7.a5
7 .03
7.95
a. 10
7.60
7.90
7.95
7.30
7.35
7.*5
7.90
7.90
7.90
7.65
SAMPLE
GATE
OF 1
Y f C
75C203
75C20o
7 5 w £ fcU
7=0213
75y.21o
750220
75C224
750227
7=0303
7:0206
75«ilC
75C313
750217
750J20
75C224
7502^7
750331
750^)04
750<.C7
7=0^.10
75C-41H
750417
75CA21
750424
75042S
750501
750505
750:03
750512
750315
750519
75C522
75C:^7
750329
7506:2
750604
75CiCo
75CaC9
750ull
75v.elo
7507L8
750c20
7=0t23
750o^3
750c3C
75C6JO
75C702
CO
SAMPLE
UATE
UF b(.C
Y M 0
7502Jo
750210
750<1 L-i
750216
75-
-------
TABLE 6-1 IC3MIM.CC)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING CAT A FOK HCKA.MO RESERVOIR NO. 1
FREE
CH.ORINE
LO-O.OIMG/L
t
0.12.
1 . 10
0.42
0.16
o!ci
1.10
1.50
1.40
0.60
o.ao
0.50
0.13
0.24
O.C8
0.90
1.05
0.55
0.38
0.60
0.37
0.12
0.27
0.18
0.10
0.40
0. 15
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.18
0. 38
0.50
0.50
C.50
0.55
0.75
0. 55
0.95
0.34
0.03
0.56
0 . 60
0.70
U.oU
0. ca
LJ « VO
0.92
0.60
£
C.24
0.37
C. U
0.09
0.07
0.14
C. 18
0.33
C.12
0. 12
0.11
C. 16
C.04
C.19
0.35
0.72
C.42
0.29
C. 21
C.22
0.03
C.03
0.04
0. 10
0. 12
0.12
0. 10
0. 10
0.02
0. 10
0.05
0. 05
C. C8
0. 12
C. 12
0.22
0. 11
C. 13
0.03
C.C2
0.03
0.06
0. 12
0.08
C.06
0.20
0.09
0,11
C
C.16
0.33
0. 12
0.23
0. C7
C. 14
0. 14
0.34
0. 11
0. 10
0. 10
O.C6
O.C6
0.21
0.31
0.53
0.39
0.24
C.19
0.2C
O.C3
O.C4
O.C2
0.10
0. 1C
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.02
1.C5
O.C5
0.04
O.C4
0.10
0. 10
0.48
0.07
o.ce
0.02
O.C2
O.C2
0.02
O.C6
O.C4
C. C7
0. 12
0.07
O.i.7
TOTAL
CW.ORINE
LO»O.OIPG/L
I
0.67
2.26
C.82
0.68
0.92
O.C1
2.0G
4.00
2. 7C
1.30
1.90
0.86
0.25
0.36
0.23
1.15
1.2C
0.95
0.84
1.00
0.58
0.28
0.35
0.24
0.26
0.55
0.37
0.72
0.66
C.12
1.5C
1.17
0.87
1.00
1.84
1.34
l.CO
1.97
1.00
0.42
o.oe
0.68
0.72
0.78
0.73
0.21
1.40
1.49
6
0.61
0.71
0.43
O.B7
0.14
0.56
0.76
0.79
0.54
0.47
0.14
0.22
0.15
0.31
0.45
0.86
0.69
0.57
0.61
0.6C
0.11
0.12
0.1C
0.50
0.01
0.50
0.75
0.46
0.08
0.72
C.52
0.10
0.65
0.68
0.75
C.26
0.92
0.19
0.09
C.05
0.11
0.10
0.16
0.13
0.24
0.5C
0.79
1.30
C
C.8C
C.70
C.52
C.50
C.ll
C.51
C.93
C.78
C.52
C.10
C.13
C.17
C.30
C.43
C.88
C.79
C.52
C.45
C.5-5
0.10
C.14
C.05
C.51
C.74
0.63
C.56
C.54
C.07
2.15
C.61
0.17
C.d7
C.64
C.64
C.37
C.71
C.12
0.05
C.05
C.06
C.05
C.09
C.10
0.19
C.58
I.fa4
C.50
PH
LC»C.OIUN1T
I
a. cc
7.90
3.10
8.0C
7.90
8.30
8.5C
3.20
8. CO
3.30
3.50
3.10
8.30
3.30
d.2C
9. 1C
8. 1C
3.CC
d.OO
8.20
7.90
7.80
7.3C
7.60
8.00
8.00
8.00
8. CO
3.20
3.20
8.00
8. Co
7.90
8.70
8.&0
7. 80
7.8J
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.13
7.80
7.90
7.90
d.OO
7.90
7.-.0
3.10
6
7.90
7.9-*
d.OO
7.eO
7.43
3.14
b.OO
8.00
750702
75072J
75072H
750730
750801
7S0304
750806
T50BO&
750811
75«6 13
750615
750818
7iJ<32o
750822
750825
730627
750«>29
75O903
750903
750908
750910
750912
75o915
750917
750919
75092*
750924
750926
750929
751001
7J1J03
751007
751009
75x014
751016
751021
75 10 1.*
751023
751U30
75UO<»
751113
751i.U
T.WT ^illilli
174
-------
TABLE B-l (CCNTIMjEC)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING CATA FOR htGHLANU abSE*VCIR NC. 1
FREE
CHLORINE
LO-0.01MG/L
I
0.40
0.13
0.50
o.as
0.97
0.32
1.31
1.12
1.20
1.22
0.68
J.55
0.62
0.15
0.53
0.38
E
0.10
O.C8
0.13
0.25
0.60
0.21
C.29
0.12
0.29
c.ai
0.10
C.33
0.03
0.07
C. 19
0.18
C
C.C8
O.C7
0.11
0.12
0.18
0.23
0. 19
O.C6
0.22
0. 12
0.19
0.33
C.C6
0.13
0.13
0.17
TOTAL
CHLORINE
LD»O.OlfG/L
I
0.90
1.12
2.00
1.C5
1.06
0.42
1.38
1.20
1.8C
1.28
1.24
U 18
0.7C
0.2C
0.56
0.59
E
1.02
O.cC
0.17
0.39
0.7C
0.31
0.4U20
7J1U5
75UU2
75U04
751209
751211
7J12i6
751il3
751223
751«3J
7cC10o
76Jlij
74C115
760120
76CU7
SAMPLE
OATh
UF etc
Y M 0
75U20
751U5
75U02
75l20A
75 UO^
751211
75l21o
75U16
75122.5
751230
7oOi:«>
76011J
760U3
7tJl2J
760U7
700U9
175
-------
TABU- 3-1
KATHS QUALITY SftMPLUG OA7A fCR HGHUNC
NC. I
TCT4L
AIKALIMTY
1 6 C
C
37
37
37
37
3 6
23
26
2?
25
26
26
26
23
25
26
25
30
24
29
30
29
26
30
26
26
2 4
22
25
29
28
27
3C
36
29
23
32
3 1
SB
32
43
32
25
30
35
Id
33
37
36
35
29
28
26
25
26
26
25
23
24
25
28
2£
24
26
27
28
27
2a
26
25
2 3
23
27
27
2B
29
3C
26
29
31
30
32
31
25
33
30
27
30
32
32
38
37
36
29
29
26
25
26
26
25
23
24
25
28
28
24
26
27
2?
26
21
27
27
24
24
23
28
27
27
27
29
30
26
29
31
33
32
33
3C
30
26
1
90
-------
TABLE 8-1 (CCMIMJtC)
UATP9 CUALITY SAMPLING DATA FCP UGHLAMC "HSC ^Vl,IR NO. 1
TCTAL
ALKALINITY
LC=1MG/L
I E C
28
28
27
27
29
32
36
31
24
42
4C
34
tO
28
38
4C
AC
<»0
28
37
3C
33
31
31
47
37
22
32
35
2 c
35
35
32
38
27
3C
27
26
30
30
35
2H
•a e
2b
34
22
28
38
26
26
28
26
27
29
29
28
33
35
34
35
3a
37
38
37
39
42
41
33
32
32
21
35
37
27
24
23
34
23
34
33
33
34
34
31
28
28
23
32
3C
? 3
2C
28
30
22
24
33
25
26
27
25
27
28
29
29
33
35
35
37
39
36
3d
38
40
42
39
34
31
31
31
35
39
36
34
34
33
32
35
33
32
35
34
30
23
28
26
i2
30
33
30
3C
30
3C
34
34
I
12C
142
132
14C
140
153
158
166
160
162
16C
16C
164
170
170
158
156
162
160
164
162
150
150
150
136
124
lie
112
118
122
124
llo
lOfi
108
108
116
108
104
110
110
112
112
ioa
96
92
88
102
106
hARCNSSS
AS CAC03
LD-1MG/L
c C
124
132
139
138
142
150
156
159
157
159
159
160
16t
166
167
160
162
165
165
163
151
156
152
143
127
128
120
US
123
120
u<;
117
111
110
112
112
108
110
108
112
112
11C
104
96
93
97
104
105
124
131
138
139
141
150
156
161
156
156
160
157
166
168
166
162
162
i6e
167
162
15S
155
I5i
142
13 S
122
121
119
122
123
120
117
112
10S
111
111
109
108
109
112
114
lie
106
96
94
97
102
107
I
259
2C1
289
289
260
316
225
240
218
2C2
222
213
214
341
241
289
312
227
224
322
220
212
2CO
2C1
257
246
221
215
224
218
228
227
1S5
ISfc
201
2C2
196
179
1£5
198
2C4
217
176
itc
176
179
166
2C6
TOTAL
SCLICS
LC=IPG/L
6 C
265
272
265
273
298
222
221
218
316
229
308
3C6
212
327
221
327
316
222
329
226
227
314
313
261
236
254
229
221
219
232
228
2C8
210
2C5
202
2C9
2CC
180
185
199
216
19C
180
13e
165
171
198
174
263
274
24fc
272
291
223
234
32C
317
235
218
313
227
331
220
317
30B
225
227
228
225
313
2C2
26i
235
248
223
232
220
235
24C
209
212
2Ct
203
212
219
177
lac
201
221
190
131
19C
184
171
2CC
172
SAMPLE
04Tt
JF I
Y M D
750707
750709
750711
750714
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
750728
75073C
750601
1508C4
750806
750808
750811
750813
750815
750816
750820
750822
750825
750o27
750329
750903
7509C5
7509C6
75091C
75C912
750915
750V17
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
7510C1
751003
751JC7
7510C9
731014
751016
751021
751023
751026
75103C
751iOo
751113
SAfPLI
GATE
CF :ec
Y M 0
75C7C9
750711
75C714
75C716
75C718
75C721
750723
75C725
75C728
75C730
75C8C1
750804
75C8C6
7508C8
750311
75C813
750815
750818
75C82C
750322
75C825
750327
75C329
75C9C3
75C9C5
75C9C8
75C91C
750912
75C915
750917
750919
75C922
75C924
75C926
75C929
751001
751CC3
7510C7
751009
751C14
75101o
751021
751C23
751028
751C3C
75UC6
751113
751116
Cl.NTIN'JF.D
177
-------
WAT
iLITY S
Tf!TAL
HK/SLIMTY
i
34
22
36
36
34
31
34
35
36
2fi
33
28
2?
28
32
t
34
32
32
31
34
32
32
29
2C
Ib
27
16
17
3C
21
C
33
32
31
31
31
33
32
32
29
3C
29
27
28
31
3C
32
I
104
102
110
114
112
100
96
86
92
83
52
90
98
102
98
9d
TAEl
.£ a-i
( CCNTINU:-:CJ
FCR UGHLANC RSSFSVriP |\C. i
MAROM2SS
4S CAC03
COMf'G/L
t
102
101
112
109
1C2
SS
97
S3
39
84
45
96
54
57
101
112
c
104
103
110
lie
102
99
97
52
90
84
9C
96
97
101
101
112
I
ite
169
1S5
172
U2
161
176
152
146
122
166
125
166
154
172
2C2
TCT
SOL
e
172
190
171
166
1S6
1S2
149
141
13t
157
76
172
92
57
194
158
AL
ICS
C
175
191
175
167
197
156
laO
142
12d
15o
136
17C
170
165
199
156
SAMPLE
CAT;
•jr I
Y M 0
751116
75U2C
751125
7512C2
75120-,
7512C9
751211
751216
751218
751223
75I23C
7601Cc
7o0113
76J115
760120
760127
DATI
OF 1 K
Y f 0
751120
751125
751202
7312C4
7512C9
751211
75121o
751218
751223
751230
760106
76C113
76CU5
76C120
76CU7
760129
178
-------
TABLE 6-I (CONTINUED!
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. I
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
LD-IMG/L
I
164
156
157
176
171
204
184
156
158
178
184
170
180
180
157
144
148
147
159
150
168
184
180
173
172
199
194
180
175
215
207
210
247
236
215
218
164
-147
174
156
156
152
151
191
185
208
E
149
158
89
181
180
183
179
185
183
177
168
ISO
178
173
155
140
144
148
147
156
166
171
173
175
205
202
132
179
201
207
203
232
234
222
222
179
165
167
166
157
151
156
170
173
193
246
C
156
154
166
178
ISO
187
178
183
183
178
174
179
179
173
152
147
145
153
153
154
168
175
176
178
204
203
182
178
203
205
205
233
234
226
224
184
162
160
160
159
156
158
160
179
193
247
AMMONIA
AS N
LO=0.02MG/L
I
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
E
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
C
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
O.C3
C.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.04
NITRATE
AS N
LO-0.
I
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.90
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
.0.70
0.50
0.60
0.70
1.00
0.90
0.70
0.90
0.60
1.00
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.40
0.30
0.40
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.90
1.00
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.70
0.70
0.80
.01MG/L
E
C.71
0.60
0.34
0.86
0.60
0.80
0.70
0.66
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.64
0.60
0.60
0.70
1.00
0.90
0.70
0.90
0.80
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.50
0.56
0.36
0.30
0.30
0.46
0.30
0.40
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.74
I. 00
0.40
0.50
0.54
0.56
C.60
0.60
0.70
0.70
J.60
C
0.60
0.70
0.60
0.90
0.60
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.60
0.60
0.70
0.65
0.55
0.70
1.00
0.90
0.70
0.85
0.80
1.05
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.50
0.55
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.25
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.85
0.45
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.80
0.65
0.70
0.60
SAMPLE
DATE
OF I
Y M 0
750203
750206
750210
750213
750218
750220
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
750313
750317
750320
750324
750327
750331
750404
750407
750410
750414
750417
750421
750424
750428
750501
750505
750508
750512
750515
750519
750522
750527
750529
750602
750604
750606
750609
750611
750616
750618
750620
750623
750625
750627
750630
750702
SAMPLE
DATE
OF EtC
Y M 0
750206
750210
750213
750218
750220
750224
750227
750303
750306
750310
750313
750317
750320
750324
750327
750331
750404
750407
750410
750414
750417
750421
750424
750428
750501
750505
750508
750512
750515
750519
750522
750527
750529
750602
750604
750606
750609
750611
750616
750618
750620
750623
750625
750627
750630
750702
750707
CONTINUED
179
-------
TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. 1
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
LO=IMG/L
I E C
258
300
236
288
280
316
32*
340
318
302
322
312
312
341
341
288
312
326
324
322
330
312
300
300
256
245
220
213
223
217
227
22 6
193
195
200
201
195
178
184
197
203
216
177
159
175
178
186
205
264
272
265
272
293
321
330
316
315
328
306
305
312
326
319
326
315
321
328
335
326
313
311
279
281
252
226
228
218
229
236
206
208
203
201
207
199
179
183
198
215
189
179
184
184
170
197
172
262
273
245
270
290
322
332
318
315
333
317
315
326
329
319
316
307
324
326
337
324
311
300
279
283
247
230
229
218
232
238
207
211
205
202
211
217
176
179
199
219
188
179
189
182
169
198
172
AMMONIA
AS N
LD*0. 02MG/L
I E C
0.02
0.15
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.11
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.18
0.11
0. 10
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.14
O.Q8
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.06
C.02
0.05
C.06
0.12
0.12
0.21
0.12
C.10
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.13
C.14
0.08
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.04
C.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
NITRATE
AS N
LO-C.OIMG/L
I £. C
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.80
1.10
0.90
0.90
0.70
0.60
0.90
1.10
1.20
1.10
1.10
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.50
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.60
0.40
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.36
0.50
C.70
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.64
0.60
0.74
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.04
0.60
0.56
0.60
0.80
0.80
C.70
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.66
0.70
0.66
0.30
0.66
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.76
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.50
0.56
0.60
0.65
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.60
0.70
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.65
0.55
0.70
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.00
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.75
0.70
0.55
0.75
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.60
0.45
0.55
SAMPLE
DATE
OF I
Y M D
750707
750709
750711
750714
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
750728
750730
750801
750804
750806
750808
750811
750813
750815
750818
750820
750822
750825
750827
750829
750903
750905
750S08
750910
750912
750S15
750917
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
751001
751003
751007
751009
751014
751016
751021
751023
751028
751030
751106
751113
SAMPLE
DATE
OF ECC
Y M 0
750709
750711
750714
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
750728
750730
750801
750804
750806
750808
750811
750813
750815
750818
750820
750822
750825
750827
750829
750903
750905
750908
750910
750912
750915
7.50917
750919
750922
750924
750926
750929
751001
751003
751007
751009
751014
751016
751021
751023
751028
751030
751106
751113
751U8
CONTINUED
180
-------
TABLE B-l (CONTINUED)
HATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR NO. I
DISSOLVED
SCLIDS
LO*1MG/L
I
167
168
195
171
161
ISO
175
151
145
121
167
134
185
193
171
200
E
170
188
170
165
195
190
147
140
135
155
75
171
91
96
193
197
C
173
189
173
165
195
194
148
141
126
154
135
169
169
167
197
194
AMMONIA
AS N
LD-0.02MG/L
I
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
E
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
C
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
Q.02
C.02
0.02
C.02
0.02
0.02
C.02
NITRATE
AS N
LD-0.
I
0.60
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.60
0.60
0.80
0.80
1.00
0.90
.01MG/L
. E
0.50
0.70
0.60
0.56
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.66
0.34
0.90
0.45
0.96
0.94
0.84
C
0.50
0.75
0.60
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.80
1.00
0.90
0.85
SAMPLE SAMPLE
DATE DATE
OF I OF EtC
Y M 0 Y M 0
751118
751120
751125
751202
751204
751209
751211
751216
751218
751223
751230
760106
760113
760115
760120
760127
751120
751125
751202
751204
751209
751211
751216
751218
751223
751230
760106
760113
760115
760120
760127
760129
181
-------
TABLE 8-1 ( COCJT INUtO)
QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FUR HIGHLAND RESESVUIR NO. I
TOTAL PHOS-
PHATE AS P04
LD'O.OIMG/L
I E C
SOLUBLE CRTHC
PHOSPHATE
AS P04
LC=0.01MG/L
I E C
TOTAL CRTHO
PHOSPHATE
AS PC*
LO*0.01MG/L
I t C
SAMPLE
DATt
OF I
Y M 0
SAMPLE
DATE
OF EdC
Y M 0
0.15 C.12 O.C1 0.01 O.oi c.Ol
S'fl ^ n'M °'°l °'01 C-01
0*S 0*0- n*r n'01 °'°l °-Jl
U.Oi C.Oi O.C1 O.C1 0.01 C.Ol
0.01
°'°l
°'01
0.01
0c on n
j*^ ?'«, £'Cl °'l°
0*01 2*0 n ! °'0i
0.01 0.0! O.tl 0.01
0.0 0 01 O.C1 0.01
0.0 O.J1 0.01 0.01
' 'l 'C1 °'
0.01 C.Ol 0.01
0.01 C.Ol 0.01
u.oi 0.01 j.Jl
:
:
j'u
:
m n '
0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
' l °*01 °-°l C'°
ooi
0.0
0.01
0*01
0.0
o'oi
'
c
? n
n'm
0.01
0.01
or,"
0.0
on
0*01
n"m
0*1
°'^,1
Q'O\
'
fll
,"^
J.Jl
0.01
1 ,,
0.01
0.01
a. 01 0.01
0.01 0.0
a-dl O'OI
0.01 0.01
«-Ui 0 01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.0
O.Ji 00
C'°l J'01
0.01 0.01
°'0i 0.01
0.01 0.01
--01 J-^
:?
:
•'
:3}
0.01
01
01
01
01
C'01
Ol
.Ji
SJ
01
01
C.Ol 0.01
-0:S{ !:SJ
°-1 0*^
°'0i 0-°1
0.01 0.01
j.Ol 0.01
O.
°-0i °-°l
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 J.Ol 0.01
c-Gl
no
0.01
0.01
O.G1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
O.JI
0.01
o.oi o.oi
d'01 -'°
O'OI 0.01
°'°l °'0i
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
j.oi 0.01
J.Ol 0.01
750203
750206
75C210
750213
75C218
750220
750224
75C227
750303
750306
750310
75U313
750317
750320
750 J24
7 50 327
750206
750210
/50213
75021d
750220
750224
750227
750303
75030o
750310
750313
750317
75J320
750324
750327
750331
750404
750-.07
750410
750414
75Gti7
7bU421
75o424
750426
730501
750505
750508
75C512
750515
750519
750522
750527
75C52S
7sCft02
750t04
73G606
75060^
75Ctll
7506lc
750018
750407
750410
750414
750417
750-V21
750424
750428
750501
750 505
750508
750=12
750515
75051V
750522
750527
7505
-------
TABLE fi-l (CONTINUED)
hATER QUALITY SAMPLING OAT A FOR HIGHLAMJ SESE*VJIR NJ. 1
I
0.
0.
0.
0.
u.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
J.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
J.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL PHOS-
PHATE AS PO*
LO=0.01MG/L
E C
01
10
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
31
01
01
01
20
15
01
01
01
01
01
Cl
01
01
01
01
01
01
O.J1
0.
0.
u.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
10
20
01
01
01
01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
C.01
0.06
0. 13
C.09
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.U1
0.01
0.12
C. 01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. Gl
0.01
0.01
C.OL
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
0. C6
0.01
0.01
0. Cl
O.C1
0.2C
C.Ol
0.01
0. Cl
O.C1
0. 01
C. Cl
0.15
0. 01
0.01
C.Ol
0. Cl
C.Ol
0.01
O.C1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. Cl
0. Cl
0.01
0.01
O.C1
0.01
0. Cl
C.C1
O.C1
O.C1
0.01
O.C1
O.G1
0.01
C.C1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Cl
O.C1
0.01
0.01
SCLUBLE OPT1-C
PHOSPHATE
AS PO*
LD=0.01PG/L
I E C
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.J1
C.Ol
0.01
0.01
C.Cl
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Cl
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0;
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0 1
0.0 I
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Jl
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 .01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
0,01
0.01
O.U1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
C.G1
O.J1
G.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
O.J1
C.Ol
O.Ji
0. J 1
C.Cl
O.Jl
C.Ol
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
O.Ol
C.Ol
C.Ol
TOTAL ORTHG
PHOSPHATE
AS P3t
LCO.OLMG/L
I b C
0.01
0.01
O.C1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.C1
0.01
0.01
0.20
O.li
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.Jl
O.Jl
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.C1
O.Jl
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Jl
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.01
o.ai
O.Gl
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OL
C.Cl
0.01
0.1*
0.1J
O.Oi
0.01
J.OL
O.Gl
O.OL
J.01
0.01
C.OL
0.01
O.Cl
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.ol
O.Oi
0.01
J.01
O.ol
O.Gl
O.OL
C.OL
O.Jl
O.Cl
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.OL
O.OL
0.01
O.Cl
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OL
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Ol
0.01
O.Od
O.OL
0.01
0.01
J .01
O.Gl
0.01
0.01
O.OL
0.01
O.OL
O.OL
J .01
O.OL
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.GL
0.01
O.Jl
J.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Gl
0.01
J.J1
0 .01
0.01
O.Gl
0.01
SAMPLE
OATt
OF I
Y M 0
750702
750707
750709
75J711
7507lt
750716
750718
750721
750723
750725
750728
750730
75GBOI
75060^
750306
750806
75C311
750313
750615
750ol8
750d20
75C822
750325
750S27
75Jc29
750403
750S05
750903
750SIO
750S12
75G915
750517
750919
750922
75092*
75C92o
750S29
75UOI
751003
751C07
75x009
7510U
751C16
751021
751C23
751028
751030
SA.iPl_t
GATE
UF ttC
Y M D
750707
750709
750711
750714
7so71o
750713
7507<:i
750723
750723
750728
750730
750301
75080<>
750306
750306
750all
750313
750815
750818
750320
750822
750325
75C62?
750329
75J9J3
75G905
750908
750910
75C9U
750*15
750917
750919
750922
75092^
75092o
750929
751001
75luG3
/51007
751009
75101*
75101o
7bi'J21
751023
751028
751030
751lOo
183
-------
TABLE 6-1 (CONTINLtU)
WATER GUAL1TY SAMPLING CATA FOR HGHLA-40 RESiEKVCIK NU. i
TOTAL PHOS-
PHATE AS PCK
LD*0. 01MG/L
1
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. Jl
O.C1
O.J1
Ci. Jl
0.01
0. 10
0.01
0.01
0. Jl
J.01
0.01
O.Oi
E
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.01
0.01
O.C1
0. 10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
c
0.01
0. Cl
O.Ul
0.01
0. Cl
C.C1
O.Cl
O.Cl
0.01
0. 01
0.01
O.wll
G.C1
0.01
O.Cl
0.01
0.01
O.Cl
SCLUBLE ORTHC
PHOSPHATE
AS P04
LO*0.01M(i/L
I
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Oi
o.Oi
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0 1
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
£
O.U1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Cl
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.ul
0.01
O.J1
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.Oi
0.01
C.J1
C.Ol
0.01
0.01
C.Ol
C.Jl
C.Ol
0.01
C.Ol
C.Ol
C.G1
C. Jl
TOOL OPTHG
PHCSPHATt
AS PO*
SAMPLE
oAIC
OF I
LC«O.Oi«G/L
I
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.J1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.Jl
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.U1
0.01
0.01
b
0.01
0.01
O.Oi
O.Ul
0.01
0.01
O.ul
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.O 1
0.01
0.01
O.Ul
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.Oi
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
J .0 1
0.01
Y M 0
751106
751113
7M11C
7511^0
75112-.
751202
75!20
-------
TABLE E-l (CONTIMItt;)
XATtR QUALITY SAMPLING UATA FOK HIGHLAND RfcbEHVClR NO. 1
LcAC
LL>=O.OOIMG/L
I E C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.001
.001
.001
. OJl
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.CJl
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.016
.013
.005
.004
.030
.030
.020
.010
.030
.018
.ulC
.012
.020
.025
.020
.015
.020
.022
.017
.Glo
.008
.015
.030
. C20
.018
.015
. >j09
.009
.G2<.
.010
0.001
0.001
J.001
C.001
0.001
J.001
0.001
0.001
C.001
0.001
0.001
C.001
0.001
0.001
C.001
0.001
C.038
C.011
0.004
C.001
0.042
C.019
C.02C
0.005
C.037
C.02C
0.018
u. u!3
0.028
0.015
C.028
0.021
C. C27
0.036
0.024
C.023
0.008
C.015
0.023
0.020
C.020
C.OOfc
0.011
i. 008
0.036
0.009
C.015
O.CC1
e.cci
0.001
C. GUI
0.001
0.001
C. OC 1
O.OC1
C.UC1
C.OC1
0.001
0. OC1
0.001
0.001
•o.cci
C.001
0. C13
O.OC9
0.007
O.OC1
0.015
0.020
0.02C
O.ODl
0.035
C.02C
0.017
0.017
0.035
0.013
0.027
0.026
C. J29
0.037
0.034
0.031
0.006
0.015
0.021
0.021
0.023
0.011
0 .008
J. JC8
0.037
0.013
O.C17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
COPPER
LO=O.OC1PG/L
I E C
CIC
CIC
010
01C
CIC
010
CIC
QIC
CIC
CIC
010
QIC
QIC
010
CIC
CIC
QIC
CIC
010
CIC
C1U
010
CIC
CIC
CIC
CIO
010
CIO
CIC
010
CIC
CIC
010
CIC
010
01 C
CIC
010
CIC
01C
010
01C
010
QIC
CIC
01 J
CIC
O.J10
O.C1C
0.006
0.010
O.CIC
0.010
0.01C
O.C1C
0.01C
0.01C
0.010
0.010
O.CIC
o;oio
0.010
O.CIO
0.01C
0.01C
0.010
0. J10
C.OIC
0.010
C.C10
0.01C
0.01C
0.01C
0.010
0.010
C.OIC
0.010
0.010
0.01C
0.010
C.C1C
0.010
0.010
O.CIC
O.OLO
O.CIC
0.01C
0.010
O.CIC
0.010
0.010
C.OIC
0.010
0.010
C
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
G
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
0
C
0
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
C
C
C
C
0
J
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
C
C
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.on
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.JU
.010
.010
.010
.910
.ou
.010
.010
.010
.010
.01)
.010
.010
.ou
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.01 )
.010
.010
.010
.010
.ou
.JU
.010
.010
.ou
.010
.JU
.ou
SAMPLE
OATE
CF I
Y M U
75CiC3
750206
75C210
750213
750218
750220
750224
750227
75C3C3
750306
750310
750315
750317
750320
750324
750327
750331
750404
7504C7
7bO<*10
750tl4
750417
75C421
750424
75J428
750501
750505
750508
750512
75J515
750319
750522
750S27
750329
750602
750o04
75C606
750609
750611
7EJcl6
750618
750620
75t6
-------
TABLE E-i (CONTINUED)
HATEfr QUALITY SAMPLING CAT 4 FOR HIGHLAND RESERVOIR MO. I
LEAD CCPPER
LO=O.OOIMG/L LO=O.OOIMG/L
1 E C I £ C
C.CiU C.015 O.C15 O.CIO O.OIC C.OIO
0.012 0.010 O.OU O.OIC 0.010 C.OIO
0.010 0.009 0.014 O.OIC 0.010 O.OU
o.ooo c.ou o.oia o.cic o.oio c.oio
O.G06 0.018 0.019 0.010 0.010 O.OU
O.OIC C.018 0.022 0.010 0.010 C.OU
0.008 0.011 0.019 O.CIO O.CIC C.OIO
0.010 0.015 0.317 0.010 0.010 O.OU
0.010 0.021 0.023 O.OIC 0.010 C.OIO
0.014 0.025 0.030 O.CIC 0.010 0.010
0.013 C.OIO 0.013 0.010 0.010 C.OU
0.020 0.012 0.012 O.OIC C.150 C.08J
O.OU 0.014 0.016 0.200 0.100 O.OU
O.C16 C.021 0.022 0. 15C C.C10 C.OIO
O.Olb 0.001 0.001 O.CIO O.OIC C.OIO
0.002 0.001 O.OC1 0.010 0.010 O.JlJ
C.001 O.OC1 O.OIC 0.010 C.OIO
0.013 0.015 0.010 0.010 0.013
0.006 0.013 0.01S 0.010 0.010 O.OU
0.006 C.OU 0.019 U.C10 O.CIC C.OIO
0.012 0.026 J.040 0.010 0.010 0.013
O.C20 J.J14 O.C16 0.010 C.01C C.OIO
0.015 J.001 0.001 O.OIC O.CIO C.OIO
3.025 0.025 O.CIC 0.010 O.vUO
O.OjO 0.022 0.017 C.C1C 0.010 C.OIO
0.010 0.015 0.019 0.010 0.010 0.010
0.010 0.022 0.021 0.010 0.010 0.313
0.022 O.U20 0.027 O.CIO 0.010 C.OIO
0.006 0.011 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.010
O.OJ5 C.013 O.Olo O.CIO O.OIC C.OIO
0.008 0.010 0.013 O.OIC O.OIC C.OU
0.006 C.009 O.J1C 0.010 0.010 O.OU
0.005 C.C08 O.OIC O.CIC 0.01C C.OiO
0.008 3.010 O.U15 0.010 0.010 C.OIO
O.Jw7 0.017 U.C2C u.Olii 0.010 0.010
O.OU 0.009 O.J1S O.CIO O.OIC C.OU
0.035 0.016 0.021 0.010 0.010 0.013
0.013 0.018 0,027 O.OIC O.OIC C.OIO
0.015 O.OOfc O.OC6 O.OIC O.OIC C.OU
0.005 O.OU 0.014 U.CIO 0.010 0.010
O.uOf C.007 O.CC8 O.CIC 0.010 C.OIO
0.008 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.013
0.003 C.OU 0.012 0.010 0.010 O.OU
O.OlU 0.022 O.C25 O.OIC 0.010 C.OU
O.Olo C.015 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.010
0.008 0.014 0.018 O.OIC 0.010 C.OU
0.010 0.016 O.Olb O.OIC O.CIC C.01J
0.1.07 C.C26 0.033 0.010 0.010 0.013
SAMPLE SAMPLE
DATE OATc
CF I OH EtC
Y M 0 Y M 0
750707 750709
750709 750711
75C711 7507lt
750714 75071o
750716 750718
750718 750721
75C721 750723
750723 750725
750725 750728
750728 750730
750730 750001
750301 750804
750604 750806
750806 750808
750808 750811
750eil 750813
750313 750815
750615 750R18
750S18 750820
750020 750822
750322 750825
750825 750827
75CS27 750829
75CS29 750903
750903 750905
750S05 750908
750S08 750910
750910 750912
750*12 750915
750915 750917
750U7 750919
750S19 750922
750922 75092*
750*524 75092fc
7aG92h 750929
750929 751001
751001 751003
751003 751007
751007 751009
751009 751014
751014 751016
751016 751021
75i02l 75102J
751023 751028
751028 751U30
751030 75110o
751106 751113
751113 75U18
CONT INUtD
186
-------
TABLE E-l (CONTINUtC)
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING OA\\ FOR HIGHLANO RESERVOIR NO. 1
LEAD
LD=0.001MG/L
I
3.020
0.022
O.OJO
0.008
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.008
J.OJ5
0.005
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
0
E
.023
.032
.013
.011
.007
.013
.006
.00^
.006
.006
.00V
.006
.008
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
J.
c
U29
031
Oil
015
005
016
01C
010
JC4
010
008
006
J10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
LD»0.
I
.QIC
.QIC
.010
.010
.010
.010
. UC
.QIC
.010
.QIC
.010
.010
.010
.010
.QIC
.CIO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
COPPER
001MG/L
E
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
.01C
.010
.010
.006
.010
.006
.006
.010
.010
C
0.010
C.010
0.0 10
c.ou
C.OIO
0.0 10
C.OIO
C.OIO
0.010
c.ou
0.01 )
0.010
C.OIO
C .0 1J
C.OIO
c.ou
SANFLt
OA re
OF I
Y M D
751118
751UO
751125
751202
75120<»
7512C9
751211
751216
751218
751223
751230
760106
760113
760113
7o0120
7o0127
SAMPLE
UATt
Oh EEC
Y M 0
751120
751125
751202
7512!K
751209
7t>1211
751210
751*1.8
751223
751230
760106
760113
760115
76U12J
760127
760129
187
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(riease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-600/1-77-027
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
An Investigation of the Effect of Open Storage of
Treated Drinking Water on Quality Parameters
5. REPORT DATE
May 1977 (Issuing datel
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering Science, Inc.
7903 WestPark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803345-01
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Health Effects Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 9/74 to 10/76
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/10
16. ABSTRACT
Two open reservoirs storing treated drinking water were investigated with
primary focus upon definition of water quality and development I? alternative water
*uated on the basis o£
KEYWORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS Ic. COSATI Field/Group
Reservoirs
Water Supply
Water Quality
13B
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UnclasslfipH
21. NO. OF PAGES
206
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
188 ..A. u s GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/61(56 Region Mo. 5-1 I
------- |