A PILOT STUDY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION

-------
        A PILOT STUDY
              OF
   DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
      ON AND ALONG THE
NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE
    AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
      Water Supply Division
 Office of Air and Water Programs
 Environmental Protection Agency
                     Prepared By:
                     Special Studies Section

-------
                                                       EPA-4230/9-73-018
                                                        DECEMBER 1973
                       TABLE  OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION	I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	5
    Water Quality	7
    Facilities and Operation 	tt
    Surveillance	55
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED 	  I
EVALUATION CRITERIA	
    Water Quality Criteria	
    Facilities and Operation Criteria 	
    Surveillance Criteria 	
PROCEDURES   	19
    Field Survey  	21
    Sampling Program	,	21
    Laboratory Procedures 	'2.1
FINDINGS  	23
    Drinking Water Quality	25
    Facilities and Operation 	2tt
    Surveillance	29
DISCUSSION   	3i
    General   	33
    Water Quality	33
    Facilities and Operation	33
    Surveillance  	33
PARTICIPANTS   	37
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  	41
APPENDICES   	45
    A.  Sanitary Survey Forms Used in the Study	47
    B.  Calculation of Annual Surveillance Cost	53
    C.  Calculation of Number of Systems	57
    D.  Results of Laboratory Analysis	59
                               in
                   546-289

-------
                                  TABLES
   F     Summary of the Categories of Water Systems Surveyed	13
  II     Summary of Types of Water Systems Surveyed	14
  III     Summary of Water Treatment Practices at Systems Surveyed	14
  IV     Criteria for Evaluating Bacteriological, Chemical,
           and Physical Quality of Water Systems Studied		18
  V     Maximum Concentration Found in Physical and Chemical
           Constituents Failing to Meet Standards 	27
  VI     Systems Failing to Meet  U.S. Public Health Service
         Drinking Water Standards Limits	   27
 VII     Percent by Category of Systems Surveyed
           Failing to Meet Bacteriological Limit	28
VIII     Summary of Chlorination Practices at Water
           Systems  Surveyed  	29
  IX     Bacteriological Sampling  Practices By State	30
                                 FIGURES
  1.     Number of Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet
           Standards   	25
  2.     Percent of Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet
           a Constituent Limit	26
                                     IV
                                 546-289

-------
                       TABLH  OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION   	
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    Water Quality	
    Facilities and Operation	
    Surveillance	
SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED 	
EVALUATION CRITERIA	
    Water Quality  Criteria	
    Facilities and Operation Criteria	
    Surveillance Criteria	
PROCEDURES  	
    Field Survey 	
    Sampling Program	
    Laboratory Procedures 	
FINDINGS   	
    Drinking Water Quality	
    Facilities and Operation	
    Surveillance	
DISCUSSION	
    General   	
    Water Quality	
    Facilities and Operation	
    Surveillance 	
PARTICIPANTS   	
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	
APPENDICES   	
    A.  Sanitary Survey Forms Used in the Study	
    B.  Calculation of Annual Surveillance Cost	
    C.  Calculation of Number of Systems .,	
    D.  Results of Laboratory Analysis	
                               111

-------
                                   TABLES
   I     Summary of the Categories of Water Systems Surveyed	
  II     Summary of Types of Water Systems Surveyed	•.
  Ill     Summary of Water Treatment Practices at Systems Surveyed	
  IV     Criteria for Evaluating Bacteriological, Chemical,
           and Physical Quality of Water Systems Studied ,	
  V     Maximum Concentration Found in Physical and Chemical
           Constituents Failing to Meet Standards	
  VI     Systems Failing to Meet U.S. Public Health Service
         Drinking Water Standards Limits	
 VII     Percent by Category of Systems Surveyed
           Failing to Meet Bacteriological Limit	
VIII     Summary of Chlorination Practices at Water
           Systems Surveyed 	r	
  IX     Bacteriological Sampling Practices By State	
                                 FIGURES
  1.     Number of Systems Surveyed Failing, to Meet
           Standards	
  2,     Percent of Systems Surveyed Failing to Meet
           a Constituent Limit	
                                    iv

-------

-------
                              INTRODUCTION

   The safety and adequacy of water delivered to  the public in cities  and towns
has received an increasing level of attention in recent years, however, little attention
has been given to the drinking water systems provided for the use of the traveling
public along Interstate Highways. Although the attention given to these systems
has been small,  their significance cannot be overlooked.  It is estimated that there
are approximately 9100 water supply systems serving the traveling public on and
along Interstate Highways and it is estimated from Federal Highway Administration
sources that over one million travelers use these facilities daily. The importance of
maintaining high standards of reliability for these facilities cannot  be overempha-
sized if the interstate spread of communicable disease, which  may be contracted at
inadequately constructed,  operated and/or maintained installations, is  to be pre-
vented.
   In the Spring  of  1972  the State and Local health departments and the State
highway departments  in  Virginia,  Oregon,  and  Kansas   cooperated  with the
Water Supply Division of  the Environmental 'Protection Agency (EPA)  to conduct
a pilot study of 119 water supply systems along Interstate Highways in those three
States. The purpose of the pilot study was to assess  the water quality,  construction,
operation and health surveillance  of  the water supply systems provided  for the
traveling public at safety rest  areas, motels, restaurants and  service stations along
Interstate Highways.

-------

-------
                      SUMMARY OF  FINDINGS  AND RECOMMENDATIONS
   The findings of the pilot study indicate that of 119
 water supply systems along Interstate Highways in
 Virginia, Oregon and Kansas 75 (63 percent) of the
 water systems surveyed delivered water which failed
 to meet one or more constituent limits of the Drink-
 ing Water Standards; 22  (19 percent) systems  failed
 to meet at least one mandatory limit;  and 18 (15
 percent)  systems were contaminated with coliform
 bacteria. The contaminated systems were  either not
 disinfected  or the  disinfection  equipment  available
 was not operated properly. Only  14  (12 percent)  of
 the systems had a bacteriological surveillance  pro-
 gram which met the criteria in the 1962  U. S. Public
 Health Service Drinking Water  Standards, Although
 these figures  represent all of the systems  studied it
 should be pointed out that the safety rest area water
 systems were distinctly superior to the commercial
 service facilities.
   In order to rectify the problems highlighted by this
 study,  the  following general recommendations are
 offered:
   1.   The  State and County governmental agencies
 are primarily responsible  for the surveillance of the
 water systems. These agencies need to set a higher
 priority to initiating  and  maintaining an acceptable
 program of bacteriological and chemical surveillance
 and to providing regular sanitary surveys of the water
 systems. The cost of an  adequate surveillance  pro-
 gram, -which would typically include a complete  che-
 mical  analysis of the water every third year,  two
 bacteriological samples per month, and one sanitary
 survey each year, approaches $300 per system.  This
 is the recommended minimum amount that State and
 County agencies should be spending annually to pro-
 vide the needed surveillance. It is estimated that, on
 the average1, less than $50 per system  is being spent
 yearly.  This is primarily  for bacteriological  surveil-
 lance.
   2.   It is  estimated that there are 8,500 commer-
 cial service facilities (service stations,  motels, restau-
 rants,  etc.)  and over 600 safety  rest areas  serving
 drinking water to the traveling public along Interstate
 Highways throughout the  United States. Their large
 numbers present a burden to State and County  per-
 sonnel who must provide  a program  for their regu-
 lation and control.  Many  (about 70 percent) of the
 commercial  service facilities surveyed were  located
 at an  interchange directly adjacent or  opposite to
 others serving drinking water to  the traveling public.
An effort by the appropriate State agency responsible
for the surveillance of these systems should be made
 to reduce the number of systems requiring health sur-
 veillance by requiring or encouraging consolidation
 measures, where possible and economically feasible.
   3.  Where a direct interconnection between sys-
 tems is not feasible, an effort should be made by the
 State or County to concentrate surveillance activities
 on facilities which present the greatest potential pub-
 lic health  risk. Observations during the  field survey
 indicate that the traveling public seldom drinks water
 at service  stations.  Priority should be given to main-
 taining surveillance over systems serving restaurants,
 motels and safety rest areas where people normally
 drink water.
   4.  Many of the physical, operational,  and  sur-
 veillance deficiencies revealed by this study would
 have been eliminated if proper and uniform sanitary
 standards had been employed. The State  and County
 surveillance agencies should establish and implement
 a  permit  program  for  water systems  serving  the
 traveling public  to ensure  compliance  with State
 standards for public water supplies, A permit should
 be required before any private or public entity would
 be allowed to provide drinking water to the traveling
 public. The permit program would apply to both
 commercial service  facilities as  well as safety  rest
 areas and would require that State> standards be met.
   5.  The Federal Highway Administration requires
 that water systems  at safety rest areas be designed,
 constructed,  and maintained so that State  health
 regulations are met. In addition, surveillance of drink-
 ing water supplies is the maintenance responsibility
 of the State Highway department  and  such main-
 tenance  should be  in accordance with State  health
 standards  for  public  water  supplies.  Surveillance
 should be  an integral part, of the Federal Highway
 Administration's annual review of the State highway
 department's maintenance program to assure that ap-
 propriate standards are being met. The Federal High-
 way Administration should require, as a condition to
receiving any Federal highway'financial assistance,
 that an adequate maintenance program is being car-
 ried out.
   The specific findings and  recommendations of the
 study are:

Water Quality

  .1.   Seventy-five  (63 percent) of the water supply
systems delivered water which failed to  meet some
constituent limit of  the Drinking Water Standards.
Sixty-seven (56  percent) systems failed  to meet at

-------
 least one recommended limit, and 7 (6 percent) failed
 to meet at least one mandatory chemical limit. Sys-
 tems jailing to meet mandatory chemical limits should
 be provided with proper treatment equipment to pro-
 duce a water meeting the Drinking Water Standards
 and/or another  raw  water source  meeting these
 Standards should be found. Systems failing to meet
 recommended limits should also employ proper treat-
 ment or seek another  raw water source where eco-
 nomically feasible.
   2.  Bacteriological analysis of the distribution sys-
 tem  water showed that 18 (15 percent) of the systems
 contained coliform bacteria, an indicator of pollution.
 To  prevent  bacteriological  contamination  of  the
 source, improved source protection is necessary. Dis-
 infection  plus additional  treatment   should  be  a
 mandatory requirement for all systems using surface
 water.  The treatment required should be determined
 to ensure that the turbidity level  meets  the limit
 established in the Drinking Water Standards. Disin-
 fection should be  a mandatory  requirement for  all
 drinking water systems using ground  water  unless a
 history of satisfactory bacteriological  sampling and
 sanitary surveys has consistently been demonstrated.

 Facilities and Operation

  3.   Sixteen (14 percent) systems  were chlorinated
 to disinfect the water. Five (31 percent) of these sys-
 tems did not have a chlorine residual in the distribu-
 tion  system or storage  tank. Where  chlorination was
 practiced, at the commercial service  facilities, daily
 chlorine residuals were not taken and in some cases
 the chlorination equipment was not operative at the
 time of the  survey. All of the safety  rest areas that
 practiced chlorination kept daily records of residuals
 and  the chlorination equipment  was inspected on a
 daily basis.  Daily inspection of the  chlorine  feed
 equipment  and daily records of chlorine residuals
should be maintained.  Chlorine residuals should  be
present at the ends of the distribution systems. Unless
bacteriological  or  other  tests indicate a need  for
maintaining a higher than minimum concentration of
 residual chlorine a minimum of 0.4  milligrams  per
liter  of free chlorine  should be maintained for  a
 contact period of at least 30 minutes.
  4.   Many of the individuals  responsible for the
operation of the water systems studied were not fully
aware  of their responsibilities or the  reasoning be-
hind these duties. The State and County surveillance
agencies should assure that all  persons responsible
 for the operation of a  water system along Interstate
Highways are knowledgeable of the water system and
its operation. This could be achieved  during routine
periodic visits by State or County personnel through
informal instruction and discussion with the respon-
sible operator.

Surveillance

   5.   Records of the bacteriological surveillance for
the twelve months preceding the study were investi-
gated for  each  water system. The results of  this
investigation show that 105 (88 percent) of the water
systems surveyed were not sampled with a frequency
meeting the bacteriological surveillance criteria of the
Drinking  Water  Standards.  Records could not be
found for any bacteriological testing within the  pre-
ceding twelve months at 38 (32 percent) of the water
systems studied. Fourteen (12 percent) water systems
had bacteriological samples which were contaminated
with coliform bacteria during at least one month in
the past year, and 8 (7 percent) systems  showed con-
tamination in  two months or more. The results of
the study showed that  surveillance is  not provided
for some systems during the  winter months  even
though  the systems  are operational  during these
months. A bacteriological sampling program  which
will meet the minimum requirements of the  Drink-
ing Water Standards should be required at each sys-
tem. This program should be continued at all times
the system is operational.
   6.   Chemical  surveillance was not  practiced at
any of the systems  surveyed.  The  water from all
drinking water systems should be tested for all chem-
ical constituents listed in the Drinking Water Stand-
ards before the water is made available to the travel-
ing public. Complete chemical analysis is recom-
mended for systems supplied by groundwater every
third year  or  more  often when  there is reason to
believe the chemical  quality is deteriorating.  Water
systems supplied by  surface water should receive
chemical analysis on a yearly basis.
   7.   None of the  systems surveyed  were subject
to  regular sanitary  surveys although  maintenance
personnel at the  safety rest areas make daily visits
and are generally aware of sanitary conditions.  The
sanitary deficiencies found by this study could have
been identified and corrected with a program of fre-
quent and  thorough  sanitary surveys by the  appro-
priate State or County governmental agency.  Yearly
sanitary surveys of each water system should be pro-
vided.  For water systems which  are not operated
during the winter months, the sanitary surveys would
ideally be performed prior to placing the system  into
operation in the Spring. No water system should be
placed into operation until at least two satisfactory
bacteriological samples have been obtained.
   The preceding  recommendations address problems
that can be best solved by the Federal Highway  Ad-

-------
ministration and  the  State and local governments.
The  following recommendations relate to problems
that  should be considered by  appropriate Federal
agencies  and others having broad water supply "re-
sponsibilities and interests.
   1;  The  problems  inherent  in  the operation  of
small water systems are unique. One example is the
extreme variations in  weekly and seasonal usage as
peak  demands normally  occur on  weekends  and
during the summer months. Criteria and standards
should be developed for the construction, operation
and  health surveillance of small  public drinking
water systems serving the traveling public along In-
terstate Highways. There is a need to evaluate the
bacteriological sampling frequency based upon usage.
  2.   Chlorination as a  means of disinfection for
small,  isolated water systems is associated with sev-
eral  problems. The feed system can easily become
inoperable, the  chlorine  residual  dissipates  during
periods of low usage and needed  maintenance and
daily inspections are not always performed. In order
to help rectify some of the problems in disinfection
by  chlorination,  alternative  means of disinfection
should be reviewed.

-------

-------
                                 SCOPE OF SYSTEMS STUDIED
  Water supply  systems along Interstate  Highways
in Virginia,  Oregon, and Kansas  were included  in
this pilot study to obtain a geographical cross-section
of the water supply systems serving  the  traveling
public. The pilot study covered a total of 119 water
supply systems. A water supply system as denned by
this  study includes the collection,  treatment,  and
distribution facilities from the source of  supply  to
the free-flowing outlets of the distribution  system.
  Two main categories of water supply systems were
studied; safety rest areas owned and operated by the
respective State Highway Departments and commer-
cial  service  facilities  (restaurants, service stations
and  motels).  Table I summarizes by category' the
number of water systems surveyed. The greatest per-
centage of water systems studied were service sta-
tions although they were  not specifically chosen for
this  pilot study.  Rather, all  systems along a desig-
nated segment of highway were included.
  The water systems to be surveyed were determined
several months  in  advance  of field visits. To  be
included in this study the systems had to be located
on rural sections of Interstate Highway and be within
one-half mile of an Interstate Highway interchange.
An effort was made to select as many systems  as
possible within a given geographical area so that the
time required to transport the bacteriological samples
would be minimized. Most of the water systems sur-
veyed used groundwater as a raw water source. The
exceptions  were systems that purchased finished
water from a nearby public water system and either
piped or hauled the water by truck to the distribution
system. The source and treatment of this water is
beyond the scope of this study and no investigation
was attempted; however, samples were collected and
analyzed to determine water quality. A summary of
the water system types studied is presented in Table
II.
  All six of the hand-pumped  wells identified  in
Table II were located in Kansas and were serving
safety rest areas. Of  the  four  commercial service
facilities  in Kansas which purchased finished water,
three  piped their water and one hauled water by
truck  from a nearby municipal system and pumped
the water into an on-site storage tank. The system in
Virginia  that purchased  finished  water was a safety
rest area that piped water from a nearby sanitary
district water system.
  The water treatment practices  of the systems sur-
veyed are listed in Table III. Ninety {79 percent) of
the water systems provided no treatment for the water.
Sixteen  (14 percent)  of the water systems studied
disinfected their water and  9  (8 percent) of the sys-
tems softened their water. In every case,  the method
of disinfection used was chlorination, with a hypo-
chlorite  solution  added  by  an automatic feeder.
One water system serving  a safety rest area in Vir-
ginia  depended on manual chlorination to maintain
a chlorine residual.  All of the systems that softened
their water used an ion-exchange resin.
                             DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                                    INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                             TABLE 1
             SUMMARY OF THE CATEGORIES OF WATER SYSTEMS SURVEYED
System Category
Safety Rest Area
•| Service Station
'1 fe Restaurant
| «
1 '1 Motel
.9 5
U oo
Total
Virginia
9
20
3
7
39
Oregon
10
18
6
6
40
Kansas
10
22
8
0
40
Total
Number
29
60
17
13
119

Percent
24
50
14
12
100
                                                 13

-------
                     DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                          INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                TABLE II

             SUMMARY OF TYPES OF WATER SYSTEMS SURVEYED
System Type
Well Distribution
Hand-pumped Well
Spring
Purchased Finished
Water
Total
Virginia
36
0
2
1
39
Oregon
40
0
0
0
40
Kansas
30
6
0
4
40
Total
106
6
2
5
119
                     DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                          INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                TABLE III

              SUMMARY OF WATER TREATMENT* PRACTICES AT
                           SYSTEMS SURVEYED
Treatment
None
Disinfection Only
Softening Only
Disinfection
& Softening
Total
Virginia
32 '
5
1
0
38
Oregon
29
9
1
1
40
Kansas

29
1
6
0
36
Total
Number
90
15
8
1
114

Percent
79
13
7
1
100
* Excludes those systems that purchased wholesale finished water.
                                   14

-------

-------
                                      EVALUATION CRITERIA
   Each water  supply  system was  investigated  on
 three bases:
   1.  Drinking water  quality was  determined  by
       sampling the finished and  distributed water.
       These samples were sent to the EPA Labora-
       tories  for bacteriological, chemical, physical,
       and trace metal analyses.
   2.  The adequacy of the water supply system faci-
       lities and their operation was determined  by
       a field survey of the system. (Samples of the
       survey forms appear in Appendix  A).
   3.  The adequacy of the surveillance program for
       the  water supply system  was  evaluated  by
       reviewing the  bacteriological  and  chemical
       quality data available  for  the previous  12
       months of record from State and Local Health
       Department files or State Highway Department
       files. The date of the last  sanitary survey  of
       the system was also noted.

Water Quality Criteria

   Based on samples collected during the field survey,
water quality was judged as follows:
   1.  Meets the constituent limits  of the  1962 PHS
      Drinking Water Standards*
   2.  Failed  to meet at least one "recommended"
      constituent limit,  but did not fail  any "man-
      datory" constituent limit.
   3.  Failed  to meet at least one "mandatory" con-
      stituent limit. The Drinking Water Standards
      constituent limits  utilized in  this  study are
      summarized  in  Table  IV.
  * 1962 USPHS Drinking Water Standards. PHS Publica-
tion No. 956, Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 61 pp.
  "See "Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water
Supplies," EPA,  1971, for basis of judgment.
 Facilities and Operation Criteria

   Source, treatment, operation, and distribution faci-
 lities were judged** either:
   1.  To be essentially free from major deficiencies,
      or
   2.  To be deficient if one or more of the following
      were inadequate:
      (a) Source protection
      (b) Control of disinfection
      (c)  Pressure  (20 psi minimum) in  all areas
          of the distribution system.
      (d) Operation

 Surveillance Criteria

   The surveillance program over the  water supply
 system was judged to be adequate if it met the fol-
 lowing criteria:

   1.  Collection  of  the  required number***  of
 bacteriological samples during the period of the year
 the water system is in operation. The required num-
ber of samples is based on the population using the
water system. A  minimum of two samples per month
is  recommended for systems serving less than 2500
people.  For  the water systems  in this study the
required number of samples is two per month.

   2.  Collection and complete  chemical analysis  of
a sample of  the  water every three years.

   3.  At least  one  sanitary survey of the water
system each  year by the appropriate State or County
agency.
  *** See pages 3-6 of the Drinking Water Standards
                                                 17

-------
              DRINKING WATER  SYSTEMS ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                         TABLE IV

              CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING BACTERIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL,
                 AND PHYSICAL QUALITY OF WATER SYSTEMS STUDIED
            Recommended Limits*
If the concentration of any of these constituents are
exceeded, a more suitable supply should be sought..
                             Mandatory Limits*
               The presence of the following substances in excess
               of the concentrations listed shall constitute  grounds
               for the rejection of the supply; therefore, their con-
               tinued  presence should be  carefully measured and
               evaluated by health authorities and a decision made
               regarding corrective measures  or discontinuing use
               of the supply.
      Constituent
Limit
Constituent
Limit
Arsenic
Chloride
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Temp. (Ann.
or more)
50.0-53.7
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8
63.9-70J6
70.7-79.2
79.3-90.5
Iron
M.B.A.S.
Manganese
Nitrate
Sulfate
Total Dissolved
Turbidity
Zinc





0.01
250
15
1.0

Avg. Max. Day, 5

1.7
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.05
45
250
Solids 500
5
5.0





mg/1
mg/1
s.u.
mg/1

years

mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg-yi
mg/1
mg/1
s.u.
mg/1





Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Coliform Organisms
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
.05 mg/1






Fails standards in any one month if:




a. Arithmetic average of
collected greater than 1
ml;
b. Two or more samples
samples
per 100

(5% or
more if more than 20 examined)
contain densities more than

Fluoride
Temp. (Ann. Avg.
or more)
50.0-53.7
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8
63.9-70.6
70.7-79.2
79.3-90.5
Lead
Mercury**
Selenium
Silver
4/100 ml.

Max. Day, 5 years

2.4 mg/1
2.2 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
1.8 < mg/1
1.6 mg/1
1.4 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1














 *1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards
* *Proposed for inclusion in the Drinking Water Standards
                                             18

-------

-------
                                            PROCEDURES
  Field Survey

    Several months in advance  of the field activities,
  planning sessions  were  held with State Health and
  Highway Department officials,  Federal Highway Ad-
  ministration officials, and regional office staff of the
  Environmental  Protection Agency. The purpose of
  the planning sessions was  to  determine the water
  systems to  be studied and make the necessary local
  arrangements. An effort was made to select as many
  systems as possible within a given geographical area
  so that the time required to  collect and transport the
  bacteriological samples  to the  laboratory would be
  within the 30 hour requirement.
   The field surveys were  performed by  engineers
 from  the regional and  headquarters offices  of the
 Water Supply Division  of  EPA. State and  Local
 Health Department officials were invited to accom-
 pany the field team and in most cases did participate.
 The field inspection included  a  sanitary  survey of
 the source,  treatment plant, and distribution system
 of the water supply as well as an examination of the
 bacteriological records available  on  the supply for
 the year prior to the survey. In addition, field deter-
 minations of pH, pressure, temperature, and chlorine
 residual (where applicable) were made at each point
 a water sample was collected.

 Sampling Program

   The following samples were  collected from each
 water system and dispatched to various  EPA  Labo-
 ratories for analyses.
 1.  Raw Water
      Where possible, one  bacteriological  sample
   was taken of the water before treatment unless
   treatment was not provided. In many systems, a
   raw water sample could not  be collected because
   of the physical arrangement of the piping system.
2. Finished Water
   a.  A one  gallon sample  was taken and sent to
       the Northeast Water Research Laboratory in
       Narragansett, Rhode  Island, to be analyzed
       for the following chemical and physical para-
       meters:
       Boron
       Chloride,         Sulfate
       Color             Total Dissolved Solids
       pH               Turbidity
       Fluoride          Specific Conductance
   b. »A one quart sample was  taken and preserved
         by the addition of 1 ml. of a 20,000  ppm
         solution of mercury (2.71  g HgCU per 100
         ml.) in the field. The sample was sent to the
         Narragansett  Laboratory and  analyzed for
         nitrates and MBAS.
     c.   A one quart sample was  taken and  pre-
         served by the addition of VA ml. of  con-
         centrated nitric acid in the field. The sample
         was  sent to  the EPA Laboratory in Cincin-
         nati, Ohio to be  analyzed  for the following
         constituents:
         Arsenic
         Barium
         Cadmium
         Chromium
         Cobalt
         Copper
         Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
     d.  Two bacteriological  samples  were collected
        from the distribution system at each water
        supply except at those supplies served by a
        hand-pumped  well in which  case  only  one
        sample was taken.
   The bacteriological samples were collected at dif-
 ferent points in the distribution system, one close to
 the  treatment plant and one near the end of  a  dis-
 tribution line. Sampling points were hose bibs, rest-
 room  lavatory taps, and drinking fountains. Bacte-
 riological samples were collected after drawing water
 for at least 30 seconds; the  chemical  samples were
 taken  after the bacteriological samples.
   Bacteriological samples were collected in 8-ounce
 sterile, plastic,  wide-mouth,  screw-capped bottles
 which contained 0.2 ml of a 10%  solution of sodium
 thiosulfate as a dechlorinating agent. These samples
 were iced after collection and during transportation
 to the  laboratory according  to  Standard Methods.
 Maximum  time between collection and analysis  did
 not exceed 30 hours.

 Laboratory Procedures

  The bacteriological and chemical procedures were
 those of Standard Methods*. The  membrane filter
 (MF) procedure was used to examine water samples
for total coliforms. All finished and raw water sam-
ples were examined for total coliforms using M-Endo
  * Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
 Wastewater,  13th Edition, APHA, AWWA, and WPCF.
American Public .Health Association, New York,  N.Y.
874 pp.  (1971).
                                                21

-------
MF broth, incubated at 35°C for 20-24 hours. Any    EC medium at 44.5 °C for detection of fecal  coli-
coHform colonies detected in the examination of a    forms.  This procedure further confirmed the stand-
sample  were further verified by transfer  to  phenol    ard total coliform MF test and supplied additional
red lactose for 24-and  48-hour periods  at  35°C    information on  the potentially hazardous occurrence
incubation.  All positive phenol  red lactose  broth    of fecal coliforms in the potable water supplies sur-
tubes then were confirmed in brilliant green lactose    veyed,
at 35 °C for verification of  total coliforms and in
                                                 22

-------

-------
                                              FINDINGS
Drinking Water Quality
  Seventy-five  (63 percent) of the water supply sys-
tems delivered  water that did not meet all the con-
stituent limits  of the  Drinking  Water  Standards.
Sixty-seven (56 percent) of the water systems  deliv-
ered water which failed to meet at least one recom-
mended limit for chemical and physical quality and
22  (19 percent)  systems distributed  water  which
failed to meet  at least one mandatory chemical  or
bacteriological  limit. Figure 1 displays these findings
in graphic form. Figure 2 shows the relative numbers
of each constituent limit exceeded. The limits most
frequently exceeded in this study were those for total
dissolved solids, iron, and  manganese.
  Examination  of laboratory results indicates  the
water systems surveyed in Kansas had the poorest
water quality. Twenty-nine (73 percent) of the water
systems in Kansas failed to meet the limit for total
dissolved solids and a significant percentage had high
concentrations of iron, manganese, sulfate and tur-
bidity. In addition,  four wells in Kansas  delivered
water which failed to  meet the mandatory limit for
lead and nine systems  supplied water failing to meet
the mandatory limit for coliform organisms.
  The  maximum  concentration of  physical and
chemical constituents  found  in  the  survey is pre-
sented in Table V.
                                  DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                                     INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                          FIGURE 1
                              NUMBER OF SYSTEMS SURVEYED FAILING
                                     TO MEET STANDARDS
                   1OO
                    76
                    SO
                    20
                          TOTAL NUMBER OF
                          SYSTEMS SURVEYED

                               119
                                      FAILED TO MEET ONE OR MORE OF THE:
                                       CONSTITUENT LIMITS
                                            75
                                                    RECOMMENDED LIMITS
                                                          67
            MANDATORY LIMITS

                 22
                                                  25

-------
                                             DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG


                                                 INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS





                                                       FIGURE 2





                                 PERCENT OF SYSTEMS SURVEYED FAILING TO MEET A CONSTITUENT LIMIT
O\
                      33
                           29
                                 25
                       Ui
                       o
                                       15
2     i    E

ill
O     -J    CC
Z     O    3
«c     «    £
                                       1 _ 1
                                                                             RECOMMENDED LIMIT
                                                                             MANDATORY LIMIT
                                                                                     1     1     1
                                                                    5     <

-------
                          DRINKING  WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                                INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                        TABLE V

                   MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION FOUND IN PHYSICAL
            AND CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS FAILING TO MEET STANDARDS
  Arsenic
  Chloride
  Color
  Fluoride
  Iron
  Lead
  Manganese
  Nitrate
  Selenium
  Sulfate
  Total Dissolved Solids
  Turbidity
  Zinc
  (  )  PHS Drinking Water Standard
   *    Mandatory Limit

  A summary of Drinking Water Standards limits
that were not met in each of the States surveyed is
presented in Table VI. Again, this Table shows that
jron, manganese and TDS were the most frequently
failed limits in all three States. The most frequently
failed  mandatory limit was that for coliform orga-
0.020 rog/1
370.0 mg/1
65.0 s.u.
3.0 mg/1
8.20 mg/1
0.120 mg/1
2.2 mg/1
58.6 mg/1
0.015 mg/1
820,0 mg/1
2841.7 mg/1
33.0 s.u.
8.0 mg/1
(0.05)*
(250)
(15)
(see Table IV)*
(0.3)
(0.05)*
(0.05)
(45)
(0.01)*
(250)
(500)
(15)
(5)
                nisms where 18 (15 percent) systems had samples
                which contained an average of more than one coli-
                form organism per 100 ml.
                  Table VII compares bacteriological water quality
                and the categories of systems surveyed (i.e. service
                station, restaurant, motel or safety rest area).
                          DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                                INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                        TABLE VI

                              SYSTEMS FAILING TO MEET
                             U.S.  PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
                             DRINKING WATER STANDARDS

                                         LIMITS

                               Failed to Meet Recommended Limits
                                Virginia (39)             Oregon (40)
                              No.        %           No.        %
                                               Kansas (40)

                                              No.        %
Arsenic
Chloride
Color
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate
Sulfate
TDS
Turbidity
Zinc
0
0
0
3
5
1
0
1
1
1
 0
 0
 0
 8
13
 3
 0
 3
 3
'3
 1
 3
 0
16
15
 0
 0
 9
 3
 1
 3
 8
 0
40
38
 0
 0
23
 8
 3
 1
 1
 1
15
10
 2
 8
29
 4
 0
 3
 3
 3
38
25
 5
20
73
10
 0
                                           27

-------
                                    Failed to Meet Mandatory Limits
                                    Virginia (39)               Oregon (40)

                                  No.         %            No.          %
Coliform Organisms
Fluoride
Lead
Selenium
7
0
1
0
18
 0
 3
 0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
                                                    Kansas (40)

                                                   No.         %
9
1
4
1
23
 3
10
 3
                             DRINKING  WATER SYSTEMS  ALONG
                                    INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                           TABLE VII

              PERCENT BY CATEGORY OF SYSTEMS SURVEYED FAILING  TO
                               MEET  BACTERIOLOGICAL LIMIT
System Category
Service Stations
Restaurants
Motels
Safety Rest Areas
Virginia .
15
33
29
11
Oregon
6
0
17
0
Kansas
27
25
—
10
Total
17
18
23
7
Facilities and Operation

  The adequacy of the physical water system facili-
ties used to treat, distribute and store drinking water
was determined by site surveys and interviews  with
operating personnel.  Site surveys  of the source in-
cluded an investigation as to the type and quality of
source protection. Generally this involved an inspec-
tion of the well for sanitary well seals, formation
seals, pit drains, etc. Also included in the site surveys
were  a visual inspection of the storage tanks and
chlorinators if such»were provided and the taking of
distribution system pressure readings at each  sam-
pling point. No investigation of the source was made
at those systems  that purchased finished water, how-
ever,  the quality of the water delivered and the dis-
tribution system  pressure was evaluated.
   Source protection  throughout the study was  gen-
erally good. Ninety-two percent of the systems  were
judged to have adequate source protection.  The re-
maining 8%  were judged inadequate with respect to
                  source protection because of a flooded well pit or
                  the lack of a sanitary well seal.
                    Eight percent of the  water  supply systems had
                  pressures less than  20 psi in the distribution system
                  at the time of the survey. This condition was usually
                  caused by high volume instantaneous water demands
                  on the  system.  Generally, pressure was maintained
                  by the use of a steel, glass-lined pressure tank.
                    Operation and control of the water systems studied
                  were generally poor, this was particularly true at the
                  commercial service  facilities  where daily surveillance
                  of  the  system was not  usually conducted. Where
                  chlorination was practiced, at the commercial service
                  facilities, daily chlorine residuals were not taken and
                  in some  cases the  chlorination equipment was not
                  operative at the time of the  survey. All of the safety
                  rest  areas  that practiced   chlorination  kept  daily
                  records of residuals and  the chlorination equipment
                  was inspected on a daily basis. Table VIII summa-
                  rizes the  chlorination practices at the water  systems
                  surveyed.
                                                28

-------
                              DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
                                    INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                                             TABLE VIII

                         SUMMARY OF CHLORINATION PRACTICES  AT
                                   WATER SYSTEMS SURVEYED
   System Category
 Percent of systems
 that chlorinate or
buy chlorinated water
 Percent of systems
 where no chlorine
residual was detected
Percent of systems
that check chlorine
  residuals daily
Safety
Rest Areas
Commercial
Rest Areas

33

10

0

55

100

0
Surveillance

A.   Bacteriological
  To determine the adequacy of the bacteriological
surveillance program for each  water supply  system
studied, records of bacteriological examinations for
the previous 12 months were sought from the State
and  other  agencies responsible for the  operation,
maintenance and  surveillance  of  the  systems.  Al-
though the primary concern with respect to bacterio-
logical surveillance was the number  of samples col-
lected per month,  the bacteriological quality deter-
minations were also recorded. The degree of bacte-
riological surveillance varied widely throughout the
study sample, and generally did not  meet the bacte-
r -logical surveillance criteria set forth in the  Drink-
ing Water Standards. Only  14  (12 percent) systems
collected the required number  of  samples. Records
could not be  found of any bacteriological  testing
within the preceding twelve months  for 38 (32 per-
cent)  of the water systems studied. Fourteen  (12
percent) water systems had bacteriological samples
which were contaminated with coliform bacteria dur-
ing at least  one month in the  past  year, and 8  (7
percent) systems  showed  contamination in  two
months or more.  .
  All  the  water   supply  systems  that  purchased
wholesale finished water and the safety rest areas in
Orgeon  were  sampled at the  required frequency.
Most of the other water supply systems surveyed had
been sampled periodically during the past year and
                         some were sampled regularly once per month. There
                         was no record of bacteriological examination for the
                         commercial service facilities in Kansas  that did not
                         purchase finished water.
                           In the States of Oregon and Kansas, the safety rest
                         areas were sampled by  the State Highway Depart-
                         ments while in Virginia the sampling was done by
                         the State Health Department. In all cases, the labo-
                         ratory work was performed by the respective State
                         Health Departments. In nearly all cases, the safety
                         rest areas were re-sampled when an unsatisfactory
                         sample was obtained. In Kansas, the safety rest areas
                         were sampled once- per  month, however,  samples
                         were not collected  during the Winter months. Table
                         IX compares,  by State, the bacteriological sampling
                         practices of the safety  rest areas and  commercial
                         service facilities.

                         B.  Chemical
                           None  of the  systems  surveyed were subject  to
                         routine  chemical surveillance. Some of the systems
                         had been sampled  for chemical constituents prior to
                         placing the system  into operation, however, no sam-
                         ples had been collected afterwards.

                         C.  Sanitary Surveys
                           Regular sanitary surveys (one per year) were not
                         performed for  any of the systems surveyed. However,
                         operating personnel at the safety  rest areas  made
                         daily visits and were generally aware of sanitary con:
                         ditions.
                                                29

-------
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
                     TABLE IX
   BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING PRACTICES BY STATE
                            Safety Rest Areas
Number of Systems Percent of Systems
Virginia Oregon Kansas Total Virginia Oregon Kansas
Collected the required
number of samples
annually according to the 1 10 0 11 11 100 0
Drinking Water Standards
Collected less than half
the required number 8 0 10 18 89 0 100
Collected at least half but
less than the required 00000 0 0
number
No samples collected hi
the 12 months preceding 00000 0 0
the study
All
Systems
38
62
0
0
Commercial Service Facilities
Number of Systems Percent of Systems
Virginia Oregon Kansas Total Virginia Oregon Kansas
Collected the required
number of samples
annually according to the 0 0 3 30 0 10
Drinking Water Standards
Collected less than half
the required number 26 20 0 46 86 67 0
Collected at least half but
less than the required 2002700
number
No samples collected hi
the 12 months preceding 2 10 27 39 7 33 90
the study
All
Systems
3
51
2
44
                        30

-------

-------
                                             DISCUSSION
 General
   Millions of people travel  the Nation's interstate
 highways every day and the  effort of the State and
 Federal agencies to  provide comfort  facilities  at
 safety  rest areas  for  these travelers must be com-
 mended. The traveling public  assumes that the drink-
 ing  water  provided  at these facilities, as well as  at
 commercial service facilities, is of a safe and sanitary
 quality and will  be  esthetically pleasing. Since it is
 estimated  that there  are over 9100 water  supply
 systems serving  over one million people per day
 along interstate highways (Appendix C) the signifi-
 cance of these systems, as a possible source of water-
 borne disease, cannot be overlooked. This report sum-
 marizes the results of field studies and makes recom-
 mendations for needed improvements in surveillance,
 facilities, and operation.

 Water Quality

   The study revealed that 67  (56 percent) of the
 water supply systems delivered water which failed  to
 meet one or more recommended limits in the Drink-
 ing  Water  Standards. The  constituents most fre-
 quently not met were those for TDS, iron and man-
 ganese. While these  are  not considered to be  health
 related they contribute to an esthetically  unaccept-
 able  water. When any  recommended  limit is not
 met  an effort should be  made to provide adequate
 treatment,  or another water source which meets the
 Standards should be sought if economically feasible.
   Twenty-two (19 percent) of the water supply sys-
 tems failed to meet the  Drinking Water Standards
 mandatory limits for chemical  or bacteriological con-
 tamination. Where  mandatory  limits are not met
 another raw water source which meets the Standards
 should be sought and/or an effective treatment  proc-
 ess employed.
   The water systems which purchased finished water
 from a municipal  water  system met the constituent
 limits of the Drinking  Water Standards. This gener-
 ally  confirms  the  findings of other  similar studies
 which show that  municipal water systems  are  more
 reliable and are more effective in producing a better
 quality water. Where possible  and  economically
 feasible, the small systems should interconnect with
 a nearby municipal system.

Facilities and Operation

   The  most obvious operational  deficiencies  'were
 disinfection practices at the commercial service faci-
 lities. No chlorine residuals were detected at 55 per-
 cent of these facilities  which practiced chlorination.
 Chlorine residuals were not checked on a daily basis
 nor were the chlorinators inspected for proper opera-
 tion. The chlorinators at several commercial  service
 facilities were not operating at the time of the field
 visit and the owners were unaware of it. Chlorina-
 tion as a means of disinfection for small, isolated
 water  systems,  such as those studied, is relatively
 complicated  from the  standpoint  of  the personnel
 usually available for the operation. The feed  system
 can easily  become inoperable, the chlorine residual
 dissipates during periods of low usage, and the main-
 tenance required calls for a degree of skill frequently
 not available. In order  to help rectify  some of these
 problems  in  disinfection by  chlorination, simplified,
 alternative means, such  as  iodination,  should be
 evaluated by appropriate Federal agencies and others
 having broad water supply interests and responsibili-
 ties.
   Source protection at  nine (8 percent) of the water
 systems was  judged inadequate. The source protec-
 tion deficiencies usually consisted of a flooded well
 pit or the lack of a sanitary well seal. Twenty-four
 (8  percent) of  the water  supply systems had low
 pressure areas (< 20 psi) in some part  of the dis-
 tribution system. The low pressure condition, caused
 by placing an instantaneous  high volume water de-
 mand on the system, could have been the result of
 inadequate pipe  sizes in the plumbing network. This
 observation reinforces the  need  for acceptable cri-
 teria and standards for the  construction of small
 water systems of this type  to assure adequate pres-
 sures at all times.

 Surveillance

     Bacteriological:
   Bacteriological surveillance throughout the study
 sample  was inadequate. An  adequate program of
bacteriological surveillance  was considered to be the
 collection of  a minimum of two samples  per month
during the entire period  the system is operational and
serving water to  the traveling public.  On this basis
only 14 (12  percent) of the  water supply systems
surveyed were judged to have an adequate bacterio-
logical surveillance program.
   There is a great need  to expand the existing bacte-
riological sampling practices by the responsible State
agencies so that  a regular program of surveillance is
                                                  33

-------
 implemented  which would comply  with  Drinking
 Water Standards requirements. This regular program
 should be continued during the entire period the
 system is operational and serving drinking water to
 the traveling public and should include the provision
 for follow-up  or check  samples  when unsatisfactory
 results are obtained.
     Chemical:
   None of die systems studied were subject  to  a
 regular program of chemical surveillance,  although
 some of the systems had been  tested for  chemical
 quality prior  to being  placed  into  operation. The
 water  from all drinking water systems should be
 tested  for all chemical constituents listed  in the
 Drinking Water Standards before the water is made
 available to the traveling public. In addition, com-
 plete chemical analysis,  which would include at least
 all those constituents listed in Table IV, is recom-
 mended for systems supplied by wells every three
 years,  or more often when there is reason to believe
 the chemical quality is  deteriorating. Signs of dete-
 riorating  water quality might  include unpleasant
 taste and/or odor  or the occurrence of water-borne
 disease. In the latter case a complete investigation of
 the situation,  including a complete chemical and
 bacteriological analysis  as well as a sanitary survey
 of the system, would be indicated.  Frequent public
 or operating personnel complaints could also be indi-
 cative of this condition.
     Sanitary Surveys:
   None of the systems surveyed were  subject to  a
 regular program of frequent and thorough sanitary
 surveys. Although  operating personnel at the safety
 rest areas generally make daily visits  and seemed to
be aware of sanitary conditions, more thorough in-
vestigations of the  condition of the water systems is
needed. Yearly sanitary surveys of each water system
should be conducted. Sanitary surveys should include
checks  on the system's physical facilities  used to
treat, distribute and store the water and the adequacy
and condition  of source protection. Any deficiencies
noted in the sanitary surveys should be corrected.
Many of the deficiencies noted by this study would
have been corrected with a regular program of sani-
tary surveys by the appropriate State  agency.
     State and County Responsibilities:
  To ensure  compliance with  State standards for
public  water supplies the State and County surveil-
lance agencies  should establish and implement a per-
mit program for water systems serving the traveling
 public. A permit should be required before any pri-
 vate or public entity would be  allowed to provide
 drinking water to  the traveling  public.  This permit
 program would apply to both commercial  facilities
 as well as safety rest areas and would require that
 State standards for public water supplies be met.

   The State and County governmental agencies are
 primarily  responsible  for the surveillance  of  the
 water systems and surveillance practices were found
 to vary between  the States that were studied. Gen-
 erally, as stated in the. Findings, surveillance prac-
 tices  were not adequate to meet the criteria in the
 Drinking Water  Standards. The  State  and County
 governmental agencies need to set a higher priority
 to initiate and maintain an acceptable program of
 bacteriological and chemical surveillance and to pro-
 vide  regular sanitary surveys  of the water systems.
 The cost of an adequate surveillance program, which
 would typically include a complete chemical analysis
 of the water every  third year, two bacteriological
 samples  per month, and one sanitary  survey each
 year, approaches $300  per system.  (The derivation
 of this cost is presented in Appendix B.)
   One of the problems  observed during this study,
 that contribute to the surveillance problem, was the
 large  numbers   of  commercially  - owned  water
 systems   along  Interstate Highways.  It  is  esti-
 mated that there are approximately  8,600 commer-
 cially owned water  systems along  Interstate  High-
 ways in  the United States and the cost of  an ade-
 quate surveillance program for these systems might
 approach 8,600  X $300 = $2,580,000 per year on
 a  national  basis, assuming an annual surveillance
 cost of approximately $300 per system. Where pos-
 sible  and economically feasible,  consolidation  of
 these water systems should be  sought and promoted.
 The field  visits performed during this study revealed
 a number of situations that would theoretically lend
 themselves to a  consolidation  effort. Most (70 per-
 cent) of the water systems were located at an inter-
 state  highway interchange directly  adjacent and/or
 opposite to another water system. By interconnecting
 these systems at an interchange thereby resulting in
 only one  system, the total number of water systems
 could be  greatly reduced. Unfortunately, this conr
 solidation is impractical in the case of most existing
 systems;  however, as new commercial facilities  are
 added serious consideration should be given to  the
 establishment of a common water supply system.

  Another approach aimed at making the best possi-
ble use of available resources  is to  concentrate sur-
veillance  efforts  on those systems  that pose  the
greatest public health risk. For instance, one-half of
the systems surveyed were service  stations where
customers are not served  drinking water on a regular
basis and observation has shown that only a relatively
few  travelers  stop  at  a  service  station  to  obtain
drinking  water. It is therefore recommended that a
                                                 34

-------
higher priority be given to the surveillance of res-
taurants and motels along Interstate Highways where
travelers normally drink water.

     The  Federal Role:
  The Federal  Government,  through the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), assists the States
in the construction of Interstate Highways by pro-
viding approximately 90 percent of the cost for facil-
ities and  rights-of-way. This  financial assistance is
not limited to actual highway construction  but also
includes  provisions for safety rest areas and their
water and sewerage systems.  A FHWA Policy and
Procedure Memorandum  dated April  10,  1973,1
states  that:

  "All water supply and sewage treatment facilities
  in conjunction with safety rest area projects shall
  be  designed, constructed, and maintained so that
  '"Policy and Procedure Memorandum  90-3",  U.S. De-
partment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, April 10, 1973, 10 pp.
  the water supply and the sewage effluent will meet
  the standards established by the responsible State
  agency or agencies.

  There may  be Federal-aid participation in  the
  cost  of constructing,  expanding,  or  improving
  facilities required for adequate water supply  or
  sewage treatment. Participation in costs to modify
  public facilities shall be fully  justified  and docu-
  mented."

  In order to assure compliance with these policies
and procedures, the Federal Highway Administration
should periodically review and monitor the State pro-
gram  for regulation and control of  safety rest area
water systems.  Since surveillance of safety rest area
water systems  is the maintenance responsibility  of
the State highway department, the Federal Highway
Administration should assure that such maintenance
complies with  State health standards.  It is recom-
mended that this be an integral  part of the annual
review of the  State highway department's mainte-
nance program for interstate highways.
                                                  35

-------

-------
          DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG FEDERAL
                     INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

                          PARTICIPANTS

  The following persons and/or organizations contributed to the successful com-
pletion  of this pilot study:

ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
    Director, Water Supply Division     James H. McDermott
    Deputy Director                  William N. Long
      Project Director                Keith A. Boyd
      Project Consultant               John A. Cofrancesco
      Project Advisors                Frank A. Bell, Jr.
                                   Thomas N. Hushower
      Field Evaluation Team           Frank A. Bell, Jr.
                                   Keith A. Boyd
                                   Curtis F. Fehn
                                   Peter Karalekas
                                   James F. Manwaring
                                   William A. Mullen
                                   Otmar O. Olson
      Laboratory Support              NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio
                                   Northwest Water Research Lab.
                                   Northeast Water Research Lab.
      Data Processing                Gebrge C. Kent
                                   Grace Bardo
      Report Preparation              Keith A. Boyd
                                   Linda Sullivan
                                   Laurie Young

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
    Robert H. Baumgardner, Frank Johnson, D.W. Loutzenheiser

VIRGINIA STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
    M.W. Burnett, Eugene T. Goode, Bernerd B. Shutt, Joseph Tolley

OREGON STATE HEALTH  DEPARTMENT
    GuyBeachler

KANSAS STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
    N. Jack Burns, Gerald Grant, Thomas Reeves, L. Dean Strowig

KANSAS STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
    Lloyd Copenhafer, Harlan Hunter
                                39

-------

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  The complete cooperation and assistance of the Federal Highway Administration
and the  State and Local Health Departments, and State Highway Departments in
Virginia, Oregon, and Kansas were provided at every step during the project. The
work  of  these agencies  is gratefully acknowledged  and appreciated  and special
thanks must go to all those who accompanied the field engineers during the  field
surveys and gave so freely of their time.
                                   43

-------

-------
     APPENDIX A

SANITARY SURVEY FORMS
       USED IN
        STUDY

-------
                       ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION .AGENCY

                          Office  of Water  Programs
                         Division of  Water Hygiene


                INDIVIDUAL WATER  SUPPLY  SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

                                                                	Card

      NAME	                    S&MPI F NO, '
      ADDRESS	;	,      	            YEAR  GD

Col.         	__	__	,	,	

      I.  THE SOURCE

  9       AT  Spring LJ;  VlellLJ;  Surface Source Lj ;  Cistern LJ


 10       B.  On-premiseLJ ;  Off-premise O (distance:	
 11       C.  Ground Water from:   Sand/Gravel D ;  Limestone LJ ; SandstoneQ;
                                              D*              1           l—I 3
                                    Specify		; Unknown LJ
                                  l»        ^^                            5

 12       D.  Construction;   By  Contractor LJ ; Owner/Occupant LJ; Other L-Jl

                 Unknown LJ


     II.  A.  SPRING

 13           1.   FlowingQ;  Non-Flowing D ;  Intermittent D


 14           2.   Encasement:   Brick,  Block,  or  Stone D; Reinforced

                     Concreted!;  Other Q

 15               General  Condition:   Good LJ; FairLJ;  Poor LJ
                                           l         2         I

 16           3.   Surface  Drainage Controlled?   Yes LJ;  No LJ
                                                    I       a

 17           4.   Adequate Fencing around spring?   Yes D;  No L]


 18           5.   Water withdrawn  with: Power PumpD;  Hand  Pump [II;

                     Bucket Q;  Gravity FlowD; Other D
                            I                 k  .        »

19-20         6.   Estimated  Minimum Capacity:  1  I  I    GPI-j

                                              Numeric

          B.  WELL

 21           1.   OugD;  DMvenD;  OettedD;  Bored D ; Drilled D
                      1          2          S          I.            $

              2.   Dug Well:

 22               Acceptable lining to.10' or  more?  YesQ ;  No O

 23               Acceptable cover?  Yes D;  No D        *      *

 24               Masonry  or ether jointe  lining,  sealed:   YesLD; No LJ ;
                                                                Di       *
                                                      •  •

 25               Reconstructed,  sealed and  filled:  YesO ;  No LJ

 26               General  condition:   GoodLJ; FairD;  Poor LJ
                                           1         2         I

              3.   Other Types  of  Walls;

27-28             a.  Casing:   Diameter: III     inches, I.D.
                                        Numeric
                                       49

-------
Col.
 29                  Steel  or Block IronO; Galvanized Iron pr Steel Q ;
                        Plastic d; Masonry or  Ceramic d;  Other CD
 30                  Joints Screwed Couplingd; Joints Ueldedd;  Unknown D ,.
 31                  Wall  thickness, Std. or better?  YesD ;  No D
                                                          1       2
                  b. Depths:                            	
32-34                Ground surface to bottom of well:  I I. I .1   Ft.
35-37                Ground surface to bottom of casing: J I  I  I   Ft.
                                                        Numeric
                  c. Formation Seal:
 38                  Cement grout seal from depth of 5  to 10'  up to  surface D;
                     10 to  20' up to surface D; Fine sand  (natural) seal  10
                     to 20' up to surface D; Puddled clay seal  5 to 20'  up to
                     surfaced;  No apparent formation  seal  between  casing and
                     earth d ; Concealed (buried) formation  grout seal
                              n          r"~i
                     reported LJ ; Unknown LJ
                  d. Sanitary Well Seal:
 39                  Water  tight  cover?  Yes d ; Nod
 40                  Well  exposed to flooding by surface  water?   Yes d ;  Nod
                  e. Well  Pit
 41                  Pit around well?  Yesd ; Ho d
 42                  Pit has  acceptable cover?  YesQ; No D
 43                  Pit drains to open air?  Yes D ;' No D *
 44                  Pit drains to drain line or sewer?  Yes D; No  D
 45                  Possible to  flood pit  1n any way?  Yes Lp 5  Nod
 46                  PUless  adapter?  Yes D ; No Q
 47                  Pitless  adapter with top of well burled  or  below  grdund
                        level:  YesD ; Ho Q
                                    1      2
 48               f. Well  "Filter" or Screen*
                     Open  holed; Perforated or slotted  piped; Gravel
                        PackLjJ;  Sand (well) point or screen  of  horizontal,
                        endless slot typed,/, Other type  of  screen d
 49               g. Age of Hell: <2 yrs.d ; 2-5 yrs. d ; 6-10  yrs.d i
                        11-20 yrs.d ; >2Q1yrs. d      '*              '
 50       C.  PUMP AT SOURCE:  Yes£h Nod; Bucket d
 51           1.  Hand pump d;  "Shallow well" '(Low-lift) Jet or Centrifugal
                  punpd;  "Deep Well "(Hi-LIft) Jet Pumpd; Submersible
                    pumpd;  Piston Pumpd; Honed

 *Not to.be confused with "filter" or strainer attached to suction  Inlet™
   of pump.
                                       50

-------
Col.
          I.  PHYSICAL QUALITY OF WATER
  9           1.  ColoredQ; Turbid Lp ;  Clear C^ ;  Contains  sand
 10           2.  Taste:  Good   ; FairQ; Poor*
 11           3.  Evidence of iron or manganese problem:   Yes LJ;  No Lj
 12           4.  Water Softener in regular operation:   Yes LjJ ;  No P
 13           5.  Other water conditioner devices used:   Yes D ;  No Q
          0.  PUBLIC AGENCY INTERESTS**
 14           1.  Has any public agency inspected this  supply  at any  time
                    within the last two years?  YesO**.
                                                        J No Q ;  Unknown LJ
 15           2.  Has bacteriological analysis ever been made on the water?
                    YesCJ; Date	,**      	
                  	_jNoO; Unknown D
 16               a.  If "yes", was the water found "safe"?  Yes D ;  No
 17               b.  If "no" (under 2a), were corrections recommended?
                        YesL^; No Q
 18.              c.  Were corrections made?  Yes Q ; NoD
 19               d.  After corrections .were made,.was water retested?
                               **
 20           3.  Did the owner, before attempting any construction at the
                    source or before using the source, consult any agency
                    about its suitability?  YesD **	.	
                                                                     NoQ
 21           4.  Have any chemical analyses ever been made on the water?
                    Yes D Date__	_, **	      '	
                                                                 Unknown
          K.  USER'S PREFERENCE
 22           1.  User prefers:  Present supply {^\ ; Another or improved
       ^^^        individual supply O ; A public supply D
23-25  I.. I I  I  2.  Reason(s) for Preference:  Lower cost D; Better tasting
                    water D; Softer water O ; Independence 113 ;  More
                    reliable source D; Safer Q; More convenient Q ;
                    Other D
          L.  PRESENT CONSUMPTION
 26           1.  Number of dwelling units using system D                ^^
27-30         2.  Number of persons using system. . Adults I  I I ;  Children I.J j
 31           3.  Is water shortage ever experienced:-  Yes LJ **_	
                                                                   No
 80  CARD NUMBER 2
  *  Identify 1f possible
 **  Identify agency
                                         51

-------
Col .
 52            2.  Pump never breaks suction LP ; Sonatinas breaks suction
 53            3.  With existing putrp, source delivers: <3 GPM CD ; 3-5 GPM O;
                    5-10 GPM O; 10-20 GPM Q j >20 GPf-iD
          D.  SURFACE SOURCE (Strecm; Leke)
 54            1.  Perennial Q: Intermittent Q
                            12                        _     ._
 55            2.  Upstream: Hurcar, activity currently on watershed? Yes LJ ; No LJ
 56            3.  Delivery:  Flow by pumping LJ; 8y gravityLJ
          E.  CISTERN
 57            1.  Catchment Area: Rooftops LJ; Ground surface paved or cov-
                    ered with impermeable material LJ
 58            2.  Ground Area Only: FencedD; Signs postedO; Unprotected LJ
 59            3.  Cistern Construction: Above ground LJ; Below ground CD  ;
 60                Brick or Stone D ; Concrete O; WoodD; Steel D
                                 1         l	1 2     f—I *     I—I  "»
 61                General Condition:  Good LJ; FalrLJ; Poor LJ
                                            J         2     i—I   '  I—I
 62            4.  Device for discarding first water?  Yes LJ ; No LJ
                                                          12.
 63            5.  Cistern Protection: Screened against rodents, birds?
                    Yes D; NoD
                         1       2
 64            6.  Cleaning:  Does cistern have drain which permits  cleaning
                    and flushing to waste?  YesD; NoD
 65                  Does cistern need cleaning now?  YesD;  NoD
                                             *            12
          F.  WATER TREATMENT
 66            1.  Sedimentation:  YesD; fio D
 67            2.  Filtration Through: Slan<5 [^11 Other tfedium D
 68.           3.  Chlorination:    Automatic D; Manual D
 69            4.  Softening:  Yes L^J* ; No C^
 70            5.  Other:  Yes D (Describe)	; No  D
                               1           I-T     r-i                       *
 71        G.  STORAGE (All .Sources):  Yes LjJ; No LJ
 72            1,  Pressure tank D
 73            2.  Other storage: Elevated or Ground Level D; Below ground
                    level C^l
 74            3.  Construction:  Steel D ; Brick, block or stoneO;
                    ConcreteO; WoodQ; PlasticCU; OtherO   *
 75            4.  General Condition:  Good (13; Fairl^; Poor D
 76        H.  DELIVERY
 76           l.  Water flows to point of use by hand pumping D; Power
                    pumping D; Gravity D; Hand carry D
 80   CARD  NUMBER 1; CARD 2 - Du|>. 1-8
                                          52

-------
         APPENDIX B

Calculation of Annual Surveillance
             Cost

-------
Surveillance

  Assume 1 man-day will be required per supply for
the following activities:
  —Field surveys
  —Construction surveillance
  —Informal  on-the-job-training

  Average annual  estimated personnel costs  for
surveillance
  $12,000
     2,500
     2,000
salary
fringe benefits
travel
                                         500
                                         500
                                       2.500
                                     $20,000
              office supplies
              office space
              Vs secretary
                                     Assuming 225 man-days equals 1 man-year, one
                                   person can provide surveillance over
                                       225 man-days per year
                              225 systems
  1 man-day per system           year

The average cost per system will then be:

        $20,000   =   $89  per year
          225
Chemical Surveillance
Wet Chemistry
Trace Metals
Radiochemical
Total-
                Man-Days
               Per Sample
                  .65
                  .65
                 1.2
                            .84 man-days ($20,000/year)
                                           225 man-days
                                               year
    Frequency of
     Analysis
     Triennial
     Triennial
     Triennial
                                              $75/year
Bacteriological Surveillance

  Assuming the cost per bacteriological analysis, including postal

  cost   "•»   $5 per sample, then
          2  samples/months   X   12 months/year  X  $5/sample

                               =   $120/year

                 $89   +  $75   +  $120  -   $284/year
 Man-Days
Per Annum
   .22
   .22
   .40

-------
                                      APPENDIX C

                           CALCULATION  OF  NUMBER
                                      OF  SYSTEMS
  During the field and planning stages of this study
it was estimated that there was approximately 1 com-
mercial service facility  for every 5 miles  of Inter-
state  Highway.  Federal  Highway Administration
sources1 report that  there are approximately 42,481
miles  of Interstate Highway in the United States.
Other FHWA-sources2 report a total of 1044 safety
rest areas along rural and urban Interstate Highways.
However, the same source indicates that only 59%
of the safety rest areas have drinking water facilities.
Therefore, the number of water systems serving the
traveling public  along Interstate Highways  is esti-
mated as follows:
42,481 miles  + 1044 systems (0.59)  = 9115 water systems
  5 miles
  systems
In the study2 just mentioned, a total of 69 safety rest
areas were surveyed  for a 32 hour study-period dur-
ing the  summer of  1969. During the study period
a total of 70,536 individuals made use  of drinking
water facilities at the 60 rest areas, therefore, it is
estimated that
70,536 people X  24 hour x 1044 (0.59) system^ = 540,000
             32 hour       60 systems

people per day use the drinking water  facilities at
safety rest areas in the United  States. Therefore,
it is expected that well  over one million people per
day use  the drinking water facilities at both com-
mercial  service facilities and safety rest areas.

1 Title  23, U.S. Code, Highways—Section 104 (b) 5—Inter-
state System Estimate of Cost to Complete the System for
Apportioning Funds for Fiscal  Year  1972.
z "Summary of the 1969 National Rest Area  Usage Study
and the  1970 Update  of the Rest Area Inventory", U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, May 1971, 75 pp.

-------
     APPENDIX D
     RESULTS OF
LABORATORY ANALYSES

-------
                                                                                                                          PACE-
                                                          SBECIAL HATER SUPPLY STUDY
VA. INTERSTATE
                  LABORATORY ANALYSES
STRIAL TURBIDITY COLOR DOOR   TOTAL
     A	:—*•	:	D4S£QL-V
                             SOLIDS
CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE H.B.A.S. SELENIUM BORON FLUORIDE CYANIDE URANYL ION   PH
11502
1150''
1150* •
T i Cn5
11506
llrO~"
11515
1151L
11517
11 51 8
11519
..... 11 J\~**l .... .
lli/l
l 1 -'"'
lliSO
11531
11532
HS^j
11534
H5"rl
11^42
1 15-V3^
11347
11*49
„. , tn-;5o... ..
H*Sl
	 -Hl.S»i 	
U«559
1 1 fh1
115*1
	 -liiioZ- —
11563
11572
	 Ili73 —
11574
j- 11575
11576
.10
20
5.50*
i n
.20
TO
.10
IQ
.10
	
.20
• f\
.40
Til
.10
.. .10
.10
IT
.30
j. 10
2.00
•»o
.80
20
.10
19
.10
• 10
?1
.10
— — »1O—
.10
11
.10
.10
7O
.10
2
2
7
-»
Z
2
-» •-
2
->
2
2
2
1
2
i
2
1
2*
2 - -
2
1
2
1
2
•»
3
•b
1
|
1
"l
I
i
3
333.0 :
177 0
297.0
4 ilf O
201.0
""35 O
39*. or
3Q£ 0
263.0
1 'i \ 0
191.0
7rt "> n
330.0.
"*-~n n
23B.O
,. _ 	 _a 4,7.0- -.
315.0
IAA n
370.0
103 0
237.0
	 '116 0
180.0
31 1 D
353.0
'iQ'f 0
165.0
329.0
*?T1 ft
194.0
-, 303 0 T ••
331.0
ft 1 ft rt
477,0
S3 2.0*
?iti n
' 3*6.0
84. O
9 3
23.0.
9.9
17 *i
31.5
7 0
9.9
IQ ^
10.*
*> r\ _ _
9.9
"^1 n
9.9
• < 21,0
60.0
1 i
9.9
1*" 0
11.0
15 n
14*0
n t
9.9
TA n
9.9
9.9
72.0
97
27.5
150.0
70.0
12 S
9.9
24.9
"*\ «j
24.9
"* ft f%
24.9
3^ n -
24.9
"*\ 1
24.9
""t *3
24.9
"*fi O
46.0 .
-»* »
24.9
->A n
24.9
T n
24.9
"*5 0
33.0
90 0
27.0
24 9
50.0
t^ 5
24.9
24.9
2« Q
115.0
"*1 7
24,9
24.9
35.0
ir *j
50.0
3.7
•> 4
19.2
3.8
•* f
11.0.
T n
14.0
t t
1.4
*/. _ 	
4.2
A T
9.0
B. 8
6.0

.12
m
.09
On
.09
i n
.14
11 1
.93
17.1 -
.10.
1 1
1. 50 .
•• 1
.20
.70
.14
.17
.47
.37
**4
.40
7 7
7.5
7.8
?_ » 	 .
7.7
7 7
7.7
• 0
7.6
7.6
T T
7.6
7.8
7*6

** / 	 	
7-9
f»O 	 ' 	
7.0
7.S
7,8 	
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
 * DSNGtcS THOSE ELEMENTS EXCEEDING THE MANCATORY LIMITS.

-------
                                                                                                                           PA6C-
                                                          SPECIAL WATER SUPPLY STUDY
 VA. INTERSTATE
                                                        LABORATORY ANALYSES
SERIAL TURBIDITY COLOR ODOR   TOTAL   CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE M.B.A.S. SELENIUM  BORON  FLUORIDE  CYANIDE URANYL  ION   PH
                            DISSOLVED - - :
                             SOLIDS
-HJUUSUM - 5.50
HINIHUH
A VEfl AGE
.10
                             S32.0 - L5JW)
108.0
303*1
9.9
24.9
                                                         .9
                                                                 .00*
                                                                         .004
.000:
,000
.09    .000.
                                                                                                            000
                                                                                                                      7,5
 t OcNQTES THOSt ELEMENTS EXCEcCING THE MANDATORY LIMITS.

-------
»J-J-A»-irf 	 — 	 ' 	 — — 	 -' H"«- 	 =»—
SPECIAL KATER SUPPLY STUDY '
KS. INTERSTATE
SERIAL TURBIDITY
«>flUC£C9
COLOR ODOR TOTAL CHLORIDE SULFATE
niccm t»er»
LABORATORY ANALYSES .
NITRATE M.B.A.S. SELENIUH BORON FLUORIDE CYANIDE URANYL ION PH
SOLIDS I
• - -
11833
11835
11S37
Ild44
11846
11S48"
i-i a »v
11850
11654
11862
UB64
1_ _L 1 1 P/l *1
11366
118-68
1 1 f T *?
11873
— H.W9—
11390
11862
11S84
— 11685—
13222
— £3«t23 —
13224'
— £3225 —
13226
laccT—
13228

.22
.15
.47
6.30*'
1C
3.20
.90
JJiiK)»
14. CO*
» t
.50
.39
.22
"*T
.26
.32
.83
.14
.33
» it- —
.23
.22
	 rid 	
.16
	 r26 	
.42
->. t»U "-•
.17

4
4
4
A
4
V.
4
4-
4
' *
4
4
4
A
4
4 " -
I
t,
t.
i*
f
V • ..
*
4
f
•4V ...
4
4
4
4
4

1112.0*
.404.5
340. 0*
902.0*
* *. A /. *.
609.5*
e*L1 ft*
497.0
1095.0*
i •'fl'i n
262^
7^r it-
580.5*
918.3*
?^fi.T n*
1461.0*
^ 1 1 5
732.6*
^r * -^ «;*
622.0*
2762.5*
2841.7*
539.0*
, .,...,, t *>n i~ ,
743.0*
s2Oj V* •
266. 5
^~ •"• 90V. I>*
2024.0*
•'— -J.O^f»O» "
165.0

22.0
4.9
33.0.
25.0
n. t\
11.0
^ A
4.9
4i 'J
7.8
C =
4.9
•"T n
12.5
33.0
•"TA. n*
124. 0
'• 0
13.0
19.0
11 e
25; o .
30.0
	 26.O 	
33.5
26.0
227.0
58.0.
40.0
106.0 '
* ift ft
53.5
37.5
1 4JU*U*
385.0*
1 i
6.9
Til ft
133.0
71 0
188. O.
i n ft
174.0
"*5 Q
155.0
i nc e
67. O
Wf|
650*0*
700.0*
67.5
158.0.
.0 ~" — -}
-------
                                                             SPECIAL WATER-SUPPLY STUDY
  KS. INTERSTATE
                           LABORATORY ANALYSES
  SEKIAL TURBIDITY COLOR  DOOR    TOTAL    CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE M.B.A.S. SELENIUM BORON FLUORIDE  CYANIDE  URANYL  ION   PH
                                SCLIOS
—HAXU4UM—33.00-
  HINIWJM    »l«
  •AVfeRAC&-	3.13-
        -234^0	820wO-r-
165.0
879. ft
36.2-
   6.9     .0
• 173.6	tO^-2-
                                           >OO-
.001     .004     .099    .05    .000    .000
                                            .^i 90-.
                                                                               7.1
   $ qcNOTtS THOSE ELtMENTS  EXCEEDING  THE MANDATORY LIMITS.

-------
. . SPECIAL HATER SUPPLY
OR. INTERSTATE
SERIAL TURBIDITY COLOR OOOR TOTAL



SQLIOS
STUDY '


LABORATORY ANALYSES
CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE



M.B.A.S.

> SELENIUM BORON FLUORIDE CYANIDE URANYL IQtt PH




/ - *

11743
11751
11753
117r '
11755
11757
11 763
11770
1 1 771
I 11772
1 11773
11774
1 1 7H1
11784
1.17ES
117e6
1 1 7ft*5
11797
11799
11605
11807
11813
1 1 M 1 i-
11315
- 11526
t i r t> 7 .«

• 18
.20
? "*
.23
.45
5.70*
.18
.32
.18
2'. 20
"• flQ
.23
.24
i •>
.15
.36
.75
..22
.80
5. 10*
1.10
33..-I...
.16
1.40

,4
1 •,
,-.*
" *
*
. :' 4
» ^
: 8


• V
8
4
f
4
f.
4
~ .. .4 •....'
Jt_ _ _
4
4
4
8
4
4 .... ... .
4

65.5
38.5
1 flrt 1
173.0-
317.0
1423.0*
. 1354.5*
luu. J
147.5
371.0
220.5
"*6t 5
286.5 •
303.0
5Q£ Of
13*44.5*
432.5
i fl*3_i n
520.5*
20 d. 0
441.5
79,5
, 317.5
147.5
47.0

4.9
4.0
12.0
49.0
]>n n
220.0
325.0*
9.0
23. 0
9.0
7 "*
28.0.
42.4
250.0.
63.0
__ | t- r> _ _
13.2
7.5
8.9
5.5
16.0
. J
8.0
4.9-
1 U.U '
.9
.9
1.3
.9
.9
.9
3.0.
9.3
.9
i i
4.9
36.0
5 fi
8.9
M, f\ ,,
20.5
5 3
110.0
.9.
44.0

19.0
4.2
1.6
• /'
.3
.8
2.3
.0.
1.1
.2
. 0
4,7
.0.
.3
3,.
.4
1.6
.8
-1.6
3,u 1 ., ,
1.5

1.8
.9
3.9
30.2
2.0
ZJ. 1
.001
.001
.001
.001
.003
z
.002
.001'
.001
.002<
.003
fin "i
.003
.002
.002
.002
.003
.003
.004
.002
.002
.003
.002
«OOZ
.004
. .004
.004
.004
.004
. 004
. . OO4
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
. .004
.004
.004

.004
.004
.004
-
.099
.099
. 099
.099
• i JO
.144
.099
.099
.099
.099
» 1 Jc
.126
i n~r
.242
.695
1.442*
.695
.126
.099
.143
• 099
ao ••"
.099
'.- .099
.099
r',100
I
.13
.05
.07
.22
a
.08
.09
.13
-
.11
L.
.15
.13
.17
.34
.33
.22
.10
.04
.24

• IV
.75
• iB
.67
!»
.09
.09- 	 •
'6.8
, 6.4
7.6
7^
.7.6
5.7
• J
7.8
.5
7.3
.D
7.9
« J
7.2
7.6
«u
7.8
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.3
/.Ci
7.3
6.9
7.4
• 8 T
7.3
7.4
-, 4
7.2
r * npjjr-TPC Twi«:r F-I FII-THTC rvprrntuf: THE flrrnuurunrn i TUTTC.. .

-------
                                                             SPEC1AL HATER SUPPLY STUDY
   D*. INTERSTATE                         -                 LABORATORY ANALYSES
   SERIAL TURBIDITY COLOR OOOR   TOTAL   CHLDftlOE SULFATE NITRATE H.8.A.S. SELENIUM BORON FLUORIDE CYANIDE  URANYL  ION   PH
- NUKfcER - «5*OL-V*fl - : - .
                                SOLIDS
.UM.M*.. .MAXIMUM —
HINIMUK
f. \tr.t. * re

11-00 15
.08 4

•2yl01j.O *"*" **- 11 ««
33.5

4.0 , .9
ft •»• - 01

.
30 2
.0.

004
.001

00^
• 004

1 44**
,099

75
• Ot

. nnn • , . nnn T t
.000 .000 5*7
nnn , nnn , *
* * •
                                     C THS RECOMMENDED LIHITS..
    A DENOTES THOSE ELtMtNTS fXCEEDING THE MANDATORY LIMITS*

-------
                                                                    KATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                          LABORATORY ANALYSES
 SERIAL TURBIDITY COLOR ODOR   TOTAL    CHLORIDE  SULFATE NITRATE N.B.A.S. SELENIUM BORON  FLUORIDE CYANIDE URANYL ION   PH
                              SOLIDS
-MAXIMUM—£&rOd	1>5	—2B-41.7	370.0  	020*0 .  .50.6	^033	:—rOt5	It 490 .	3r&5—:—KKH) .   »000-	&r2-
 MINIMUM    .08    1           38.5      4.0        *9     .0.    .001     .004  '    .000    .0V    .000.   .000        5.7
 AVEftAOE	WW	4	541.7	«™-9	Ti»-9	&»«	rfO4	*004   —r*&3	r43	.000:	H>Q&»tGTeS-r-HGSfc-cL£HE^TS-fe-XC6fcIHNU  TllC  IU£-OMMeNbCD LIMITS* .
    ft.\OTES THOSe fcLEKEKTS tXCfctDINS THc MANDATORY LIMITS.

-------
3-2-V-.72
                                                          SPECIAL HATER SUPPLY STUDY
VA.~ INTERSTATE
LABORATORY ANALYSES
SERIAL SPECIFIC
NUMBER CONDUCTANCE BARIUM
ARSENIC CHROMIUM SILVER COPPER MANGANESE LEAD IRON COBALT CADMIUM
ZINC
NICKEL
CULIFORM
MERCURY TOTAL FECAL
' ' ... ' •
11502
11508
11503
11509
11504
11510
11514
11505
11511
11506
11512
11507
"13749 	
11515
Hi! 522
11516
"11523"
11517
11524
11518
11525
11519
11526
11520
.11527
11521
11528
11529
11535
J1530
11536
11531
11537
11532
11538
11533
11534
11540
11541
1 1 544
11542
11545
.* DENOTES
603
374
567
741
395
504
689
530
464
618
367
296
541
556
435
494
587
278
685
190
328
THOSE
.160
.070
.060
.060
.049
.160
.120
.120
.070
.130
.050
•050
.140
. .... .060
	 .049
.049
.049
.140
.300
.049
.090
ELEMENTS
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
_ .004 	
.004*
.004_L__
	 .004 	
.004
.004
.008 •
.004,
.004-
	 ' t _
.004;

EXCEEDING.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
•.ooo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 __
.000
.000 	 [_
.000 	 	
.000
.000 	
.000
.000
.000
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 	
.j>pq 	
.000
.000 	
.000
.000 "
.008
.000

THE. RECOMMENDED
.025
.025
.025
.054
.034
.054 .
.025
.016
.082
.025
.370
.140
.016
.034 	 	 .
.016 	 .
.054
.025 	 .
.016
.016
.074 .
.042

LlMIISju.
000.
000
008
000
000
000
008
000
008
000
000
000
008
004.
000 _
004
1
004_
270*
044
000
130*


.012
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
	 ..000
.000
.000
	 .000
.000
.000 2
.000
.000 1


.029 .000
.014 .008
1
.180 .000
.072 .000
.058 .000
.014 .000
.020 .013
.021 .008
.230 .000
.022 .000
.022 .000
.022 .000
.043 .000
.029 	 .000
.036"- ...OOO
.022 .000
.029 	 .000
.065 .000
.420* .000
.200 .000
.000* .006
/

.000
.000
.000
.000
'.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
	 .000
.000
	 .000
.000
.000
.000
.000


.690
1.500
1.000
1.010
.920
1.750
3.400
2.000
1.090
3.700
.770
.025
.720
.950
.920
1.200
1.900
1.010
.460
.009
.087

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
" .000
.000
.000
__.ooo
.000
.. «.ooo .
	 .ooo_
.000
.000
.000
"".ooo""
.000
.000

.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004

0
0
0
0
0
0
99999$
2S
0
0
0
3S
0
0
0
0
0
0
3$
0
0
0
0
0
0
7*
3*
21*
42 1
5$
8*
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
6$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
1$
1$
. 0
0
0
0
0
0 "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

S DENOTES THOSE ELEMENTS EXCEEDING THE MANDATORY  LIMITS.

-------
                                                        SPEC IA k_W*_T E R_. SI J PPL Y_$ TUP Y.	
._..V*.. INTER
SERIAL S
NUMBER CO
STATE
PEC IF 1C
NDUCTAN


ICE BARIUM


ARSENIC


LAB

ORATO
RY ANALYSES

-

CHROMIUM SILVER COPPER MANGANESE LEAD IRON COBALT CADMIUM




ZINC NICKEL MERCURY
-
C.1L.FURM
TOTAL FECAL

11543
11546
11547
1 1 157
11548
1 1 SS^
11557
11949
11554
11550
11555
11551
11556
11 55 8
11564
11559
* 11565
"11560
11566
11561
11567
	 11562
11568
11570 .
11563
11569
11571
. . 11577
11572
11578
11573
'1579
11574
115BO
U*>7S
U5B1
11576
11582
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
* DEKOT
671
300
598
624
769
338'
640
_. 609.
447
936
_ 546
588
738
880
634
1248
530
. 676
1248
190
275
ES THOS
.090
.170
.060
.090
.004
.004
.004
.004
.050 .004
.049 .OO4
.080
.049
.049
.150
_ 	 .100.
.050
.230
.100
.170
.170
.090
.140
.300
.049
.048
E ELEMENTS
.004
.004
.004
.004
	 tP.04_
.004
.004
.004
~ .004
.004
.004
.004
.008
.004
.002
EXCEEOI
.000
.000
.000
.OOO
.OOO
.000
.000
.000 .084
.000 .031
.000 .042
.000 -0?1
.000 .o?&
.000 .021
.OOO .021
.160*
.280*
,078*
.000
^OQQ-
.000
_.QQO
	 *QO.Q 	 ,.000 .0.21 	 *OJ>0_.
;000 .000 .011 .000
.000
	 ,000.
.000
.000
.000
.000
..000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
NG THE
.OOO .021
	 , 000 	 .042 	
.000 .031
.000 .140
.000 .063
TOOO .026
.000 .011
.000 .042
" ~000 .031
.008 .370
.000 .011
	 .000. . .023 	
RECOMMENDED LIMITS,
.OOO
.000.
.000
.000
.000
.Oil
.006
.006
.009
.280
.000
..012

.000 .250
.000 , .730*
.000 .200
.000 .034
.ono .mo
	 .000 	 .013 	
.000 .020
	 .OQffl 	 ,073 	
.000 .013
.000 .034
.000 .000
.006 .000
.000 .000
.00 A .000
-.006 	 .OOJQ 	
.000 .000
.000 .000
-*OQP 	 ,00.0 	
.000 .000
.000 .000
	 , 0,00 	 .0 50 __*00 6 	 .00 1 	
.000 .042
.000 .020
,065* .027
".000 .024
.014 .027
.OOO .034
.000 .053
.065 2.420
.000 .013
.001 .079
.',

.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.013 .003
.000 .000
.000 .000

.120 .000
.330 .000
7.400* .000
1 .400 .000
1.900 	 .000.
.250 .000
1.050 .000
.540 .000
.660 .000
.910 .000
2,950 	 .000
.190 .000
.200 .000
.150 .000
.370 .000
.200 .000
.510 .000
.200 .000
7.400 .000
.009 .000
.555 .000

.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
	 .0004
.0004
.0004
... ..0004
•.0004
.0004
... _»0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.OOO4
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0001

0 0
0 C
0 0
n C
0 0
0 0
I f
0 0
.... 33 S. ... C
41$ 0
0 C
0 0
0 C
0 0
0 (
0 I
	 0__ .___..__<
0 t
0 (
0 f
2* (
1 f
.... - o- ... c
. o " c
-0 C
0 C
0 	 C
0 C
1 • 	 C
0 C
o q
71$ (
525 ...(
0 (
0 (
1 (
0 • C
99999 f
' 0 C
1253 (

DENOTES THOSE ELEMENTS  EXCEEDING THE MANDATORY LIMITS.

-------
08-2*-72
SPFCIAL WATER SUPPLY STUDY
                                                                                                                           PAtic
KS. INTERSTATE
SERIAL SPECIFIC
NUMB E R~t"ONDUCTA'Ni
LABORATORY ANALYSES







i¥TrBARlTjlM~ARSENIC CHROMIUM SILVER COPPER MANGANESE LEAD



IRON "COBALT CADMIUM ZINC

NICKEL

COL I FORM
MERCURY TOTAL FECAL

11875
13222
13230 	
13223
13231
13224
13232
13225
13233
13226
13234
13227
13235
13228
i3236
13229
13237
11833
11838
11834
11839
U835
11840
11836
11841
11837
11842
11843
11844
11845
11S46
11847
11848
11849
11851
UfiriO -
11852
11 353
11R55
11854
11856
	 U861
1100
797
375
1425
2760
2525 '
224
274
1218
911
610
940
820
3700
1118
SB7
722
852
700
1300
395
- 373
1076
* PENOTES THOSE
.049
.600 "
.049
.049
' .049
.049
.100
.200
.120
.240
,130_
.'049
.320
.120
.220
.140
.200
.150
.150
. 1 50
.150
•1°°..
ELEMENTS
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.015*
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004^
.004 _
.004
,. «004 _
.004
EXCEEDING
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
.000
.006
.000
.006
.000
.006
.006
.000
.000
THE
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-.000
.003
.003
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
	 .000 .
	 .000
.000
	 ..003 	 .
	 ..pop .
RECOMMENDED
040
570
057
032
024
Oil
170
120
104
029
017
013
000
064
080 '
025
033
160
041
009 ._ 2
017 _ 	
009
f
056 	
075 	
LIMITS.
.000
.000
.080*
.000
.480*
.220*
.000
.000
.000
.300*
.015
/
.011
.740*
.110*
.040
.013
.024
.032
.022
.200*
. 650*
.003
• 032 _.
•POP....

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.020
.000
	 .000 	
.000
.000
.050
.030
.000
.000
.120$
.000
.000
	 .000
.000
	 .060$
.000

.012
'.036
.012
.140
.500*
1.700*
.030
.018
.014
3.000*
.020 	
.025
5.800*
2.000*
3.900*
1.200*
1.800*
2.200*
1.500*
3.500*
r>.200* 	
.082
.590*,
.030

.000
.000
.000
.000
.012
.006
.000
.000
.000
.008
.008 	
.000
.000
.016
.012
.012
.008
.008
.000
.016 _
.016
.000
.000
.000 _

.000 .016
.000 .180
.000 ,540
.000 .054
.002 .015
.000 .440
.000 .043
.000 ..050
.000 .067
.000 .220
.000 .033
.000 .005
.000 .320
.001 1,100
.000 .940
.000 2.850
.000 1.700
,000 .770
.000- .540
.000 .057
.000 .260
.000 1.200
.000 .4.700
.000 .120

.000
.000
.000
.000
.004
.000
.000
.000
.011
.006
	 .000
.000
.011
.011
.011
.011
.006
.008
.006
.017
•017
.000
. -ooo
.000

.0004
.000.4
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
. 0.004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0005
.0004
.0004
.000.4

0
13$
0
0
0
0
0
230$
150$
0
0
0
1
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
1
0
V70$
950$
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
12$
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
0
0
1$
li
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. o
0
0
0*
0

 t OfNOTcS THOSE ELEMENTS EXCEEDING  THE  MANDATORY  LIMITS.

-------
08-24-72
	SPECIAL^ATER.SUPPLY.STUD.Y.
..KS. INTERSTATE
SERIAL SPECIFIC
LABORATORY ANALYSES

NllMBER CONDUCTANCE BARIUM



ARSENIC CHROMIUM SILVER



COPPER MANGANESE LEAD



IRON COBALT CADMIUM

ZINC

NICKEL

MERCURY
*
COLIFURM
TOTAL FECAL

11669
11862
11870
11863
11871
11864
11872
11865
11873
11866
11H74
11867
11 868
_li876
11B77
11886
11S78
11837
11R79
11888
11880
.... 11B89
118H1
11*90
Ilft82
: 1IS91
1 1 SS3
11893
11884
11893
' 11885
	 - UH94
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE

737
523
1425
3840
2430
577 •
1008
•736
1010
883
2710
" 442
285Q
765
800
600
3840
224
643

* DENOTES THOSE
.049
.049
.049
.049
,049
.300
.200
.100
.200
.200
.049
.100
.049
.049
.050
.200
.600
.049
.074

ELEMENTS
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004 '
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004 ~
.004
.004
".004 "
.015 .
.004
.002 ..

EXCEEDING
.000
_i_000
.000
.000
tooo_
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.012
.000
.028
.000
.000
.000
.028
.000
.000

THE..
.000
.000
.000
.000
	 »0_00_
."000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.005
.000
	 .005 "
.000
.000
Tooo
_.005
.000
.000

• -• - -
.130
.009
.5.60
.02-5
	 .040 	
.011
.093
.032
.025
.032
.011
.004
"".102
.093
.004
~ i.004 "
/ .570 ..
.000
.039 _.


.000
.003
.000
.008
.150*
.000
.000
.008
.000
.000
.028
.020
".028
.000
.000
"'."720*
2.200
.000
.080


.000
.000
•POO
.000
.000—
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.070$
.000
.090$
.000
.000
.000
.120
.000
.005


.063
J^.08.2 	
.008
.250
__»2.3Q 	
.210
.150
.042
.008
.036
.030
.430*
.620*
.210
.210
.300 	
8.200
.008
.529 .

• ;
.000
_._0.oo.
.000
.000
.000
	 i.OQp_
.000
.000
j.0.00 	 j.000 	
.000 .000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.012
.000
.012
.000
.000
".000
.016
.000
.001


.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.. .002
.000
.000


.076
1.200
.050
.410
_«P54.
.360
.040
.120
.034
.240
.360
.019
4.200
.054
.099
~ .054
4.700
.005
.318


.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.004
.004
.000
.000
.021
.000
""".025
.000
".000
".000
.. .025
.000
.002

.
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0005
.0004
.0002
•
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
320$ 0
0 0
2$ 0
1 1$
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
\ IS
,>$ 0
0 0
0 .0
0 0
0 0
12$ 0
n$ _ o _
0 0
0 0
0 0 •
6 o
0 0
o o
16001 295
2500$ 25$
0 0
0 0
. 2 bOO 29 „
O 0
91 .0. .
- • 	
RECOMMENDED LIMITS.
  I  DENOTES THOSE ELEMENTS EXCEEDING THE MANDATORY  LIMITS.

-------
08-24-Y2
                                                          SPECIAL HATER SUPPLY STUDY
OR. INTERSTATE
LABORATORY
ANALYSES
SERIAL SPECIFIC
NUMBER CONDUCTANCE BARIUM ARSENIC CHROMIUM
SILVER COPPER MANGANESE
LEAD
IKON COBALT CADMIUM
ZINC
COL :FI,RM
NICKEL MERCURY TOTAL t-ECAL

11744
11747
11745
11748
• 1 1 746
11749
11750
11758
"11751 	
11759
11753
11761
11754
11762
11755
11763
11756 ^
11757
11765
11766
11752
11 760
11767
11775
11768
11776
11769
11777
11770
13778
U771
33779 ~
11772
11780
11773
11781
1177.4
11 782
11783
11790
11784
. «
29
56
250
276
542
749™
1925
2760
2500
269
250
175
1 75
526
""" 30O
305
389
445
1020
519
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.049
.200
.200
.049
.049
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
^004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.020*
.004
. 004
.004

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
. 000 	
.000

.000
.000
.000
.006
.666
.012
.018
.006
.006
.000
,006
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
• poo
.000

.023
.140
.031
.031
.008
.008
.008
.110
.016
.016
.008
.008
.120
.008
.110
.031
.023
.016
.023
.190
.023

.000
.008
.008
.008
.004
.058*
.320*
.012
.110*
.000
.065*
.000
• .000
.000
.016
.360*
.320*
	 .650*
.170*
	 .020
.069*

.000
.000
.000
.000
.OOO
.000
.000
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
_.ooo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-...•000
.000
.092
2.' 100*
.092
.030
.012
.470*
.790*
1.540*
1.610*
.066
.520*
.041
.060
.024
.024
1.310*
2.310*
3.000*
.420*
,.036
.054
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.01*
.012
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
_.ooo
.000
.044
.100
.087
.260
.290
.430
.240
.420
.620
.016
.120
.024
.390
.170
.069
.180
2.000
.026
.100
.110
.099
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.007
.007
.000
.000
.000_
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0010
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004-
.0004
.0004
".0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
0
0
33*
33*
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
1
• 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0 . '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0 '""
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 * nfNOTts THOSE  ELEMENTS  EXCEEDING THE RECOMMENDED LIMITS.
 $ DENOTES THOSE  ELEMENTS  EXCEEDING THE MANDATORY LIMITS.

-------
_Cl«t. INTERSTATE
SERIAL
NUMBER
SPECIFIC
CONDUCTANC

;e BARIUM



LABORATORY ANALYSES



ARSENIC CHROMIUM SILVER COPPER MANGANESE LEAD

.RON


COBALT CADMIUM



co.iroRM
ZINC NICKEL MERCURY TOTAL FECAL

11791
	 1L785
11792
] 1 7Rt>
11793
11787
1179*
	 11788
11795
.11709
11796
._ 11797.
11 BOO
11798
11R01
11B03
11799,
11*02
11804
11808
11805
_ .11809
11806
_ 11810
"11S07
11811
11H12
. 11817
11822
. 11813
11818
__11814.
11819
11823
11815
11820
11824
11816
11821
. 11*25
11826
11828
1O9Q
19?5
32 8O
875
.318
805 '
405

334
50O
688
855
80
299
520
38O
214
2O 2
44
.049
.049
.100
.049

.200
.600

.049
.049
.100
' .200
.049
.049
.400.
.049
.049
.049

.049
.OQ4
.004
.004
.OQ4

.004
.004

.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
-_.004
.004
.004
.004
I !
.004

.OOO
.nno
.000
.000

»D00
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
	 ,000
.000
.000
.000

.000

.000
.no6
.006
.000

.000
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
	 _.ooo
.000
.000
.000

.000

.nAl
.031
.053
.016

.046
.046

.031
.031
.160
.038
.038
.016
	 .031 	
.038
.076 ~
.017

.170

.077
.070
.027
.oso

.082*
.090*

.000
.020
.200*
.070*
.012
.020
_ ...031 	 	
.q61*
.000
.120*
*
.008

.000
-000
,000
jiflOJ)

,000
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.O4O
.000
,000-
.000
.000
jj?.00_
.000
, ,013
'.l?0
-7OO*
j,380*

1.900*
.042

.130
.100
.600*
.150
.110
.190
.. .600*
.030
.036
.640*
".076
.000
.007
.016
.007

,016
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
._.ooo 	
.000
".000 "
.000

.000
.non
,00?
.004
.004

%003
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
_«-OjO_Q_
.000
.1?0
..... 100 .
	 .2L8.Q 	
.160

.870
.110

.170
.560
.091
.094
8.000*
.058
_.210 .....
.120
.860
.0 ' 5
"" .160"
,000
,016_
i02_L
.016

.016
.000

.000
.000
.026
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
jOOO
.000
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004

.0004
.0004

.0004
. 0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004 .
.0004
.0004
.OO04

.0004
.. , • -
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 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5S
0 0
1 0
o • _ .0.
0 0
o o
0 0
0 _ 0 . .
0 0
0 	 .0.
0 0
0 O
0 0
0 	 0
0 0
0 0..
211 0
0 - 0
0 0
• 0 . 0
0 0
0 0
* DENOTES THOSE ELEMENTS EXCEFOING THE RECOMMENDED LIMITS.
S DENOTES THOSE EfcCMENTS- CXCEFDJNG THE MANDATORY LIMITS*

-------
C8-24-T72

OR. INTERSTATE


SESIAL  SPECIFIC
                                                         _ SPEC IAL WATER SUPPLY .STUDY

                                                          BOTnRY
                                            __ ___  _
                                            SILVER CUPPER MANGANESE LEAD   PTOT]   CTJBALT CATWITJM  ZINC   NICKEL  MERCURY
                                                                                                                         COL I FORM
                                                                                                                              VTCKC

11830
11827
11829
MAXIMUM
MINI HUM
AVERAGE
206

3280
29
304
.049

.600
.049
.040
.004

.020
.004
.001
.000

.000
.000
.000
.000

.018
.000
.000
.017

.190
.008
.021
.000

.650
.000
.034
.000

.040
.000
.000
.013
1
3.000
.012
.234
.000

.016
.000
.000
.000

.004
.000
.000
1.300

8.000
.016
.219
.000

.026
.000
.001
.0004

.0010
.0004
.0001
29$
0
0
33
0
1
7$
0
0
7
0
0
* DEMOTES THOSE ELEMENTS  EXCEEDING THE  RECOMMENDED LIMITS.
$ DENOTES THOSE ELEHENTS  EXCEEDING THE  MANDATORY LIMITS. "

-------
.Ofi-2<--72
	WATER-SUPPLY. _SIUDY.	
                                                                                                                                   J».AJSfc. ._..
                                                            _LABQRATnRY_ANA.t_YSK.
_SfRTAL	SPEC If 1C
                                                             COL IF-ORM
 NUMBER COHDUCTANCE BARIUM ARSENIC CHROMIUM SILVER COPPER MANGANESE  LEAD   ItON    COBALT CADMIUM ZINC   NICKEL MERCURY  TOTAL  HECAL
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE

3840
29
. 35»5

.600
.049
.053

.026
.004
.002

.028
.000
.000

.018
.000
.000

.570
.000
.027

2.200
.000
.041

.120 8.200 .016
.000 .008 .000
.002 '.273 .001

.004
.000
.000

8.000
.005
.361

.026
.000
.001

.0010
. 0004
.000*1

99999
0
444

29
0
0

  *  D6MJTES THIJSE  ELEMENTS EXCEPTING  THE P.FCOMMHNDED  LIMITS.
  S  DENOTES THOSE  ELEMENTS EXCEEDING  THE MANDATORY  LIMITS.
                                                                                                      fiU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974  546-316/253  1-3

-------