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
------- |