PB84-157932
Acid Precipitation and Drinking Water
Quality in the Eastern United States
New England Water Works Association, Dedham, MA
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab,
Cincinnati, OH
Peb 84
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA-600/2-84-054
February 1984
PB8«-157932
ACID PRECIPITATION AND DRINKING WATER QUALITY
IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
by
Floyd Taylor and Judith A. Taylor
Nev England Water Works Association
Dedhaa, Massachusetts 02026
George E. Symons, Consultant
Larchoont, New York 10538
John J. Collins, Consultant
Coventry, Rhode Island 02816
Michael Schock
Illinois State Water Survey
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Cooperative Agreement No. CR807808010
Project Officer
Gary S. Logsdon
Drinking Water Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY.
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruction* on the reverse be fort completing!
I. REPOHTNO.
EPA-600/2-84-054
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
•IENT-S ACCESSION NO.
P85 A 157932
I. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Acid Precipitation and Drinking Water Quality in the
Eastern United States
S. REPORT DATE
February 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODS
7, AUTHOR(S)
Floyd Taylor, J. A. Taylor* G. E. Symons, J. J. Collins,
Michael R. Schock
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
New England Water Works Association
Dedham, Massachusetts 02026
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
BNC1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR807808010
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AOORESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OP REPORT ANO PSRIOO COVERED
Final 1T/81-1/RA
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Gary S. Logsdon (SIS') 684-7345
is. ABSTRACT A researcn project was conducted to provide accurate modern ana historical
data on drinking water quality and the possible effect of acid precipitation on water
samples. Samples of source raw and finished water were collected from more than 270
surface and groundwater supplies in the New England States, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The samples were analyzed
at EPA laboratories. Historical records were obtained dating back to 1886.
Acid rain may dissolve harmful elements from soils 'and, indirectly, from water
supply distribution systems. Because soils can alter the character of acid rain through
buffering, causal relationsips^are difficult to identify* A helpful approach to this
problem is the use of indices of water supply sensitivity and corrosiveness. With these
indices, drinking water standards, and reliable chemical data, an assessment of water
supply characteristics has been accomplished.
Though solution products of acid rain in water supply sources studied do not exceed
EPA Primary Drinking Water Regulations, a large number of tests for aluminum showed
levels that could be of concern to patients using kidney dialysis. Because of the
present waiter quality conditions (low alkalinity and pH) observed at numerous water
sources, future acid deposition could be expected to have a detrimental effect on water
quality. Quantification remains a problem, however.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Croup
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS
-------
DISCLAIMER
'The information in this docuaent has been funded wholly or in part by
the-United States Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agree-
ment Kuaber CR807808010 to the New England Water Works Association, It-has
been subject to the Agency's peer and-administrative-review, and it has
beeu approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or -commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for -use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to
the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled lands are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution, and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and
manage wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from
municipal and community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that research and is a most vital communications link between the researcher
and the user community.
This study was .designed to evaluate the quality of drinking water in
the New England, Appalachian, and coastal States. Because acid rain can
directly or-indirectly dissolve harmful elements such as lead, cadmium, and
mercury, it could adversely affect drinking water quality. Extensive data
have been obtained through analyses of present water quality and study of
historical documents that provide a basis for better understanding the
problem.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A. research project was conducted to provide accurate modern and
historical data on drinking water quality and the possible effect of acid
precipitation on water samples.. Samples of source raw and finished water
were collected from more than-270_ surface and groundwater supplies in the
New England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Virginia, and North Carolina-. The samples were analyzed at EPA laboratories.
Historical records were obtained dating back to 1886.
Acid rain may dissolve harmful elements from soils and, indirectly,
from water supply distribution systems. Because soils can alter the
character of acid rain through buffering, causal relationsips are difficult
to identify. A helpful approach to this problem is the use of Indices of
water supply sensitivity and corrosiveness. With these indices, drinking
water standards, and reliable chemical data, an assessment of water supply
characteristics has been accomplished.
Though solution products of acid rain in the water supply sources
studied do not exceed EPA Primary Drinking Water Regulations, a large
number of tests for aluminum' showed levels that could be of concern to
patients using kidney dialysis. Because of the present water quality
conditions (low alkalinity and pH) observed at numerous water sources,
future- acid deposition could be expected to- have a detrimental effect on
water quality. Quantification remains' a problem, however.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement
CR807808010 by the New England Water Works Association under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers- the
period November 1, 1981, to January 31, 1984, and work was completed as of
January 31, 1984.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
Acknowledgments xi
1. Introduce ion 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 4
4. Review of literature 5
Acid Precipitation 5
Water Quality Standards 5
Quality Indices 6
5. Methods and procedures 11
Field Activities 11
Staff 11
Sampling Program 11
Sample Collection 15
Analysis of pH 18
Historical Data Collection . ; 18
Laboratory Activities and Quality Assurance . 19
Solution Preparation 19
Sample Analysis 20
Quality Control 21
6. Review of Analytical Methodology 24
Lawrence Experiment Station . 24
Comparing Old and New Data 27
7. Present Day Water Quality 32
Round 1: New England and NY. 32
Round 2: New England and NY 41
Round 3: MA., NJ, PA, WV, VA, NC 41
Tap Hater Quality, Rounds 2 and 3 56
8. Historical Records 71
Sources of Data 71
Historical Data 72
9. Discussion 83
Observed Water Quality vs. Quality Standards . 83
Quality Indices 85
References 95
-------
Appendices
Appendix I. Location of Water Supplies Surveyed in this Study . . 99
Appendix II. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data 129
Table II-l. Summary of Sample'Preservation Methods
Utilized in This Study 130
Table II-2. Summary of Types of Analytical Methods Used
For the Different Constituents Investigated
in This Study • 131
Table II-3. Summary of Original Analytical Procedure
References for Methods Used in This Study .... 132
Table II-4. Quality Control Results for Reference Standards
in Potentiometric Alkalinity Titrations to the
Carbonic Acid Equivalence Point 133
Table II-5. Frequency Distribution of Standard Deviations
of Analyzed Alkaliaities 134
Table II-6. Quality Control Results for Reference Standards
in Potentiometric Chloride Titrations 136
Table II-7. Quality Control Data for Blind Unknowns with
Reference Values for Sulfate, Fluoride, Silicon,
and Total Dissolved Solids 137
Table II-8. Quality Control Data for Blind Unknowns
Having Reference Values for N03-N,
Orthophosphate-P and Total P. . 139
Table II-9. Quality Control Data for Blind Unknowns
Having Reference Values for Trace Metals 141
Table 11-10. Quality Control Data for Blind Unknowns
Having Reference Values for Calcium,
Magnesium, Sodium and Potassium 145
Table 11-11. Quality Control Data for Blind Unknowns
Having Reference Values for a Variety of
Mineral Constituents. ... 146
Table 11-12. Field Duplicate Samples 147
Table 11-13. Calibration Limits for Analytical
Methods Used in This Study 149
Appendix III. Trends of Alkalinity (as CaC03) vs. Time for
Raw Waters in Massachusetts 150
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1 Field Results of Survey of Corrosion and Scaling
Compared with Ryznar Stability Index 8
2 Average Annual Rainfall pH, 1980 13
3 Comparison of Surface Waters - Raw and Finished
Round 1 37
4 Comparison of Ground Waters - Raw and Finished
Round 1 38
5 Comparison of Raw Waters - Round 2 50
6 Raw and Finished Surface Waters - Round 2 . 51
.7 Comparison of Coastal and Appalachian Ground Waters . . 61
8 Quabbin Reservoir, MA - Alkalinity as CaC03 ...... 74
9 Quabbin Reservoir, MA - pH . 75
10 Quabbin Reservoir, MA - Sulfate 76
11 Cobble Mountain Reservoir, MA - Alkalinity as CaC03 . . 77
12 Cobble Mountain Reservoir, MA - pH 78
13 Scituate Reservoir, RI - Average pH 80
14 Scituate Reservoir, RI - Average Methyl Orange
Alkalinity as CaCC^ 81
15 Langelier Index (LI) vs. Stability Index (SI) at
Phillipston Reservoir 91
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Formulae for Indices of Water Quality Related
to Corrosion 7
2 Calcite Saturation Index 10
3 Frequency of Distribution of Site Selection 14
4 Sampling Sites in Round 2 16
5 Massachusetts Communities for Which Historical Information
Was Available at the Lawrence Experiment Station,
Lawrence, Massachusetts .. 25
6 Data on Historical Methodology at Lawrence Experiment
Station, Lawrence, Massachusetts 31
7 Distribution of pH, Round'1, Ground &. Surf ace ......... 33
8 Distribution of Alkalinity, Round 1, Ground & Surface. . . 34
9 Distribution of Calcium, Round 1, Ground & Surface .... 35
10 Distribution of Sulfate, Round 1, Ground & Surface .... 36
11 Toxic Element Data, Round 1, Surface Supplies, Raw and
Finished Water 39
12 Toxic Element Data, Round 1, Ground Supplies, Raw and
Finished Water 40
13 Comparison of Ground and Surface Raw Water pE Values,
Round 2 42
14 Comparison of Ground and Surface Raw Water Alkalinity
Values, Round 2 ... 43
15 Comparison of Ground and Surface Raw Water Calcium
Values, Round 2 44
16 Comparison of Ground and Surface Raw Water Sulfate
Values, Round 2 45
vili
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Page
17 Distribution of pH, Round 2, Raw and Finished Surface ... 46
18 Distribution of Alkalinity, Round 2, Raw and Finished
Surface 47
19 Distribution of Calcium, Round 2, Raw and Finished
Surface 48
20 Distribution of Sulfate, Round 2, Raw and Finished
Surface 49
21 Distribution of pR, Alkalinity, Calcium and Sulfate,
Round 2, Finished Groundwater 52
22 Distribution of CSI, SI, LI and AI Values, Round 2,
Finished Groundwater 53
23 Toxic Element Data - Round 2, Raw and Finished Surface
Waters 54
24 Toxic Element Data - Round 2, Raw and Finished Ground-
waters 55
25 Distribution of pH, Round 3 - Groundwaters 57
26 Distribution of Alkalinitiea, Round 3 - Groundwaters ... 58
27 Distribution of Calcium, Round 3 - Groundwaters 59
28 Distribution of Sulfate, Round 3 - Groundwaters 60
29 Comparison of Test Results with EPA's Primary MCL's for
Heavy Metals and Nitrate 62
30 Early Morning Samples, Round 2 and 3 of NEWWA Water
Quality Study-Metals Content of Drinking Water ..... 63
31 Round 2 and 3 - NEWWA Water Quality Study, Early Morning
Samples: Samples Equal to or Exceeding MCL for Lead ... 69
32 Round 2 and 3 - NEWWA Water Quality Study, Early Morning
Samples: Samples Equal to or Exceeding SMCL for Copper. . 70
ix
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Page
33 Water Quality Data - Quabbin Reservoir, Boston
Metropolitan District, Massachusetts, 1944-1980 73
34 Alkalinity and pH Values, Scituate Reservoir,
Rhode Island, 1937-1981 79
35 Alkalinity Trends for Raw Waters in Massachusetts .... 82
36 Round 1 Raw Surface Water Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH 86
37 Round 1 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH 87
38 Round 2 Raw Surface Water Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH 88
39 Round 2 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared with
Alkalinity and pH 89
40 Round 3 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared with
Alkalinity and pH . . 90
41 Data on the Corrosive Nature of Raw Water Supplies in the
Study Area, Rounds 1 and 2 92
42 Data on the Corrosive Nature of Water Supplies in Coastal
and Appalachian States, Round 3 94
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The field work was performed by the following professionals:
Connecticut - Frederick 0. A. Almquist, P.E., Former State Sanitary
Engineer
Maine - John Porter Hennings, P.E., Fomer General Manager, Portland
Water District
Massachusetts - James J. Matera, P.E., Former Director and Chief
Engineer, Water Supply Division, Metropolitan District Commission
New Hampshire - Clarence E. Ferry, P.E., Former General Manager,
Manchester Water Department
New York- George E. Symons, Ph.D., P.E., Engineering Editor and
Consultant
Rhode Island - John J. Collins, B.S., Former Superintendent of
Filtration, Philip J. Halton Water Purification Works, Providence
Water Supply Board
Vermont - John J. Richards, P.E., Former State Sanitary Engineer
Marttia's Vineyard, Massachusetts - William E. Marks, President,
Vineyard Environmental Protection, Inc.
New Jersey - John Wilford, P.E., Former Assistant Director, Water
Supply Division, NJ State Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania - Charles A. Cole, Ph.D., P.E., Professor of Water
Resources Engineering, Pennyslvania State University
North Carolina - Ralph Buelow, P.E., Former Sanitary Engineer, U.S.
EPA
Virginia - Alfred H. Paessler, P.E., Former Director of Water Resources
West Virginia - Hugh W. Hetzer, P.E. Former Superintendent of Production,
Chester Water Authority, Chester, Pennsylvania
xi
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Page
33 Water Quality Data - Quabbin Reservoir, Boston
Metropolitan District, Massachusetts, 1944-1980 73
34 Alkalinity and pH Values, Scituate Reservoir,
Rhode Island, 1937-1981 79
35 Alkalinity Trends for Raw Waters in Massachusetts .... 82
36 Round 1 Raw Surface Water Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH 86
37 Round 1 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH . 87
38 Round 2 Raw Surface Water Aluminum Values Compared
with Alkalinity and pH 88
39 Round 2 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared with
Alkalinity and pH 89
40 Round 3 Raw Groundwater Aluminum Values Compared with
Alkalinity and pH 90
41 Data on the Corrosive Nature of Raw Water Supplies in the
Study Area, Rounds 1 and 2 92
42 Data on the Corrosive Nature of Water Supplies in Coastal
and Appalachian States, Round 3 94
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Seldom has an environmental phenomenon aroused so much interest as
acid precipitation, or as it is popularly known, acid rain. Acid pre-
cipitation, according to Cowling's historical review (1), is not a recently
discovered phenomenon. Nevertheless, concern has grown in recent years,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded research to
gain information on the ecological effects of acid precipitation on forests,
crops, and fish.
This study was undertaken to learn about the quality of drinking water
in areas receiving acid precipitation. The states included in this study
were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and North
Carolina.
This report contains information on present water quality and on the
past quality of water, as indicated by records at certain water utilities
and the Lawrence Experiment Station in Massachusetts. Historical data were
used to search for water quality changes with time. Present data were
evaluated against the EPA's standards for drinking water to learn whether
maximum contaminant levels for metals have been exceeded. Present water
quality data were also used to calculate indices that are used to evaluate
tendencies of waters to dissolve or to deposit scale. The extent to which
raw water quality may have been influenced in past years by above-normal
rainfall, drought, and stream flow was not evaluated, as this was beyond
the scope of the study.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1.. In raw waters chat were sampled, acid precipitation has not caused
lead", cadmium and mercury to be present concentrations related to health
concerns. The Environmental Protection Agency's health-related Maximum
Contaminant Levels -for lead, cadmium and mercury were exceeded very seldom
in raw waters sampled in New England and the Adirondack Mountain region of
New York in 1981 and 1982.
2. The pH of raw waters from New England and New York's Adirondack
Mountain region sampled in 1981 and 1982 was frequently outside of the
acceptable range for pH (6.5 to 8.5) as specified in the EPA's Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCL's), which may be applied at the option of
each state. Generally the pH was lower than 6.5 when the SMCL was not met.
3. The pH of drinking water can be adjusted upward as necessary to
meet the SMCL.
4. Indices of water quality based on calcium carbonate solubility
indicated that most of the waters sampled in the study would.tend to dis-
solve CaC03 rather than precipitate CaC03» Most of the waters sampled in
1981 and 1982 would be expected to be corrosive based on Ryznar's Stability
Index.
5. Many of the waters sampled had more than 0.1 mg/L aluminum, where
the maximum amount recommended by the American National Standards Institute
for dialysis water is 0.01 mg/L. (The EPA has not set a standard for
aluminum in drinking water.)
6. Ground waters from sand aquifers had some of the lowest pH and
alkalinity values observed in this study.
7. The concentration of copper in water allowed to stand in household
plumbing lines overnight before being sampled was equal to the SMCL or
exceeded the SMCL (1 mg/L) in about 40 percent of the samples. Water
standing in service lines overnight equalled or exceeded the SMCL for copper
in about 20 percent of the samples.
8. The 0.05 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level for lead in drinking water
was exceeded in 7 of 129 household water samples. The MCL violations
occurred mainly in samples that had remained overnight in household plumbing.
-------
9. Trends of alkalinity vs. time were obtained for 34 water sources
in Massachusetts. Of this number 18 had a declining slope that was statis-
tically different from a zero slope (no change with time), and 2 had a
slope with a statistically significant (0.05 level) increase. Alkalinity
and pH of Scituate Reservoir in Rhode Island have both declined over the
past forty years. Slopes of both were statistically different from zero at
the 0.05 level. With respect to Scituate Reservoir, this is consistent
with an acid precipitation cause and effect hypothesis.
10. No direct relationship was found between the occurrence of acid
precipitation and the decline in alkalinity in 19 raw water sources, nor
was any relationship found between the occurrence of acid precipitation
and the unstable and potentially corrosive nature of these sources.
Nevertheless, given the limited buffering capacity in these supplies, the
historical downward trend in alkalinity and the low pH of the rainfall in
the study area, the potentially detrimental effects of acid precipitation
should not be discounted. More study should be undertaken on this issue.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMEHDATIONS
1. The historical data obtained in this project should be studied
further. This study included only a portion of the historical data in the
archives of the Lawrence Experiment Station. Further work should be done
to evaluate the additional information available in. order to learn about
trends in water quality parameters.
2. Additional study of alkalinity is needed, from late 1940's to
early 1960's, a time when changes in alkalinity are the most noticeable.
Influences of weather and hydrology should be evaluated.
3. On the basis of the water quality indices related to CaC03 and the
copper content of household water samples, implementation of corrosion
control activities in many of the communities from which water samples were
obtained, would be appropriate.
4. More household samples should be obtained in areas surveyed having
the lower raw water pH values.
-------
SECTION 4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this section, acid precipitation is discussed briefly, and water
quality standards and indices are explained. Health effects of lead and
aluminum in water are reviewed.
ACID PRECIPITATION
The events that cause acid precipitation are complex, and they can occur
at locations far from the place where the precipitation falls. Sources of
acid precipitation include oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, resulting
from combustion of fuels (2), and gases such as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
sulfide (3) from volcanoes and other natural sources.
Acid precipitation can impact the ecosystem in a variety of ways. A
review of the effects of acid precipitation by Glass, Glass, and Rennie (4)
indicated that agricultural crops may receive direct effects of precipita-
tion on foliage surfaces or indirect effects because of changes brought
about in the soil. They also stated that the quality of surface waters can
change, with reductions in pH and alkalinity occurring. N. R. Glass et al.
(5) stated that soils and bedrock geology influence the degree to which
lakes or streams may be susceptible to acidification. Raines (6) reviewed
surface water chemistry and discussed the effects of acidification on
non-fish aquatic biota and fish populations. Driscoll et al. (7) studied
the effect of aluminum on fish in acidified waters.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
After water samples were analyzed in this study the water quality
characteristics were compared to values set as standards for drinking water
quality and to indices that have been used to obtain estimates of whether a
water might cause scaling or attack calcium carbonate films in water mains
and plumbing.
The EPA's National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR)
(8) set maximum contaminant levels for ten inorganic chemicals, including
lead (0.05 mg/L) and cadmium (0.010 mg/L). The Primary Regulations are to
be enforced throughout the USA by the States or EPA. Evidence of the need
for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead was confirmed in a study by
Craun and McCabe (9) in which they reported that when household water-lead
content in the sample during the day exceeded 100 ug/liter and the data were
controlled for proximity to traffic density, a significantly increased
frequency of blood-lead concentrations in excess of 35 ug/dL was found.
-------
Because cadmium or lead or both might appear in drinking water as a
result of corrosion, the results of lead and cadmium analyses were compared
to the maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) to learn to what extent the MCL's
were exceeded in the samples collected in this study.
The EPA published secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL's) for
pH, copper, zinc, iron, and several other water quality characteristics in
the Federal Register in 1979 (10). SMCL's are not mandatory on a national
basis, but they may be enforced by a state if it chooses to do so. The
SMCL for pH is given as a range of 6.5 to 8.5, and pH is to be within that
range. The SMCL for copper ia 1 mg/L, for zinc it is 5 mg/L, and for iron
the SMCL is 0.3 mg/L. "These levels represent reasonable goals for drink-
ing water quality," EPA stated in the Federal Register.
A substance not regulated by EPA, but which can cause health problems,
is aluminum. Relatively small amounts of aluminum can be hazardous to
persons who depend upon kidney dialysis. An outbreak of dialysis encephalo-
pathy (dialysis dementia) has been reported in Minneapolis (11) where the
aluminum content of the dialysate was 200 ug/L, and this pathology was also
observed in Great Britain (12) in cases where aluminum in the water supply
ranged from 300 to 1200 ug/L. The American National Standards Institute
(13) has established a limit of 0.01 mg/L for aluminum in dialysates. This
is not an enforceable drinking water quality standard.
QUALITY INDICES
Over the years, water chemists and researchers have attempted to develop
water quality Indices to indicate the corrosive tendency of water. According
to Singley, "the literature of the water utility industry is full of attempts
to develop a corrosion index." (14) Water quality indices based on calcium
carbonate solubility are shown in Table 1.
The Langelier Index (LI), proposed in 1936 (15), was intended to indicate
the tendency of water to dissolve or precipitate calcium carbonate on water
main walls. The index was intended to be an indication of the directional
tendency but not of capacity to precipitate or dissolve calcium carbonate.
Positive LI values indicate a tendency to precipitate calcium carbonate. A
zero value indicates saturation, with neither precipitation nor dissolution
of calcium carbonate. A negative LI value indicates a tendency to dissolve
solid calcium carbonate. Use of the LI was discussed and suggested in the
EPA's August 27, 1980 ammendments to the NIPDWR, which stated that the LI
should be calculated to determine corrosivity (16).
Ryznar's Stability Index (SI) was proposed in 1944 (17). Ryznar used
the pH8 as calculated in the Langelier Index, but the Stability Index scale
was related to field observations of scaling and of corrosion of water
mains (Fig. 1). Thus the SI perhaps more closely approaches the concept of
a corrosion index. Among the waters from which data were used to prepare
Ryznar's graph of SI vs. corrosion and scaling were soft, low total
dissolved solids (IDS) waters of the Mokelumne supply for the East Bay
Municipal
-------
TABLE 1. FORMULAE FOR INDICES OF WATER QUALITY
RELATED TO CORROSION
Langelier Index (LI)
LI - pH - pHg* where (1)
pH is the actual pH value of the water
pHg is the pH of the water at saturation
with calcium carbonate
Ryznar or Stability Index (SI)
SI - 2pH2 - pH (2)
pHg is the pH of the water at
saturation wdth calcium carbonate
pH is the actual pH
Aggressive Index (Al)
AI - pH + log (AH) where (3)
A is the alkalinity in mg/L as
H is the calcium hardness as
CaC03 in og/L
* See Federal Register Wednesday-August 27, 1980,
Part IV, Environmental Protection Agency, Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, P57357, for
the complete formula for pHg and a short formula
for pHg using Tables for temperature and total
filtrable residue.
-------
£
f^
i
I
I
s
si
h^=
\
\=
/
/
MOM XI
-HEAVY SCALE
^
LE Ar isa*p
AT art
HIAVY SCALE m HOT WATER
HEAVY SCALE IN HEATERS AMI
•SCALE m HEATERS
SCALE IN HEATERS
•SCALE m HEATERS
•SCALE 1H HEATtR COILS
SBUt SCALED AT 60- F
SCUCMHEA
•SUOHr SCALE
•HO amCULTI
COUftAMm
•HO SCALE 0«
•riucnuu.it
SCAUMMAM
PKAcncAars
•COMOMII
•^umcomioi
•COMOSJOM W
COffitOSKMIN
•SEVEMCOOIK
SOXt COBSCM
UMOWATEJ
cosumnit w
COOTOUOK*
fUMEXOUSCt
SEROUS CORF
2MMDWAI1
COfUiOSIVEAl
vtmrcofmosr
-COWKMJOH IN
SEYlftELYCOH
rat UNLESS PCI
-C08MSION H>
ES DPtmtKCEC
EQLKSIBIC
conitasiaN
o "to iMm t
XKOOSION AT 1
OCOHPIAIMTS
at AT ISO' P
HOT WktBt HE
COtD WATER U
mox'iEo WAI
JOHIN COLDW
t COHPtAINTS U
caio<«rcftt
COLD OATER t
»/=L«wrp OF ft
«atm a iw
ncouPtAwn
Vt AT IW F
KKM-lttDVU
«0' F
COLD WATCH 1
1C AT «• ABO
EnnsEsrsTO.
ROivero MAW
X!
•c
oc
—VEST HEAVY
GATWS
COILS
YPHOSPWTE A
CH TEMP. -POL
»un/uKrs
ATER5
•ER
irERMAnis
1 Oflt TEAR
IAINS
UJNS
ED WATB)
P
WOKE TEAR
TR
AIKS
iSO-f
13 AND INSTALL
«ttt fttwntd
anMon
SCALE
ooeo
PMOSPHATC, PI
ATOHS
«U
L
ESENT
Figure 1. Field Results of Survey of Corrosion and Scaling
Compared with Ryznar Stability Index
From: JAWWA 36:482 By Permission
8
-------
Utility District (California), the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir of San Francisco,
and the Catskill supply of New York City. The above-mentioned mountain
waters are similar in quality to many of the waters analyzed in this study,
i.e., soft, with low IDS rather than hard with moderate to high IDS.
Use of Ryznar's Stability Index to characterize waters in this study
should be helpful, within limits. First, the observations regarding corro-
sion were related to corrosion of ferrous metals, rather than lead pipes.
Second, the SI does not take into account any use of corrosion inhibitors,
because SI calculation is based only on calcium carbonate chemistry. With
these limitations taken into consideration, the SI is used in this report.
The formula for the Aggressive Index (AI) was proposed in 1975 in the
Foreword of AWWA C400-75, AWWA Standard for Asbestos-Cement Pressure Pipe,
4 in. through 24 in., for Water and Other Liquids (18). The revised
standard, C400-77 (19) using the same formula discussed criteria for trans-
porting water through asbestos-cement (A-C) pipe in terms of aggressiveness
(concerning the behavior of water, aggressive and corrosive are similar
terms). For nonaggressive water (AI >^ 12.0) either Type I or Type II A-C
pipe could be used. For moderately aggressive water (AI - 10.0 to 11.9)
use Type II A-C pipe. For highly aggressive water (AI _< 10.0) service-
ability of the pipe must be established. Later, use of the Aggressive
Index to ".... determine the corrosivity of the water ...." was discussed
by EPA on p. 57346 of the Federal Register (16) when the final rule on the
corrosion regulation was published. The Aggressive.Index is merely an
abbreviated and approximate form of the Langelier Index.
Another index based on calcium carbonate saturation is the Calcite
Saturation Index (CSI). This index.(shown in Table 2) has been developed
(20, 21) and used (22) to describe the ability of bodies of water to assimi-
late acid precipitation but it also can be useful in evaluating the condition
of watersheds. Although developed primarily for surface waters it can also
apply to groundwaters. For example, a watershed or aquifer having a raw
water with a CSI value about 4-5 would be even more susceptible to change by
acid deposition (i.e., incapable of much further buffering), whereas ones
with CSI <1 would have capacity for buffering acid precipitation for years
to come.
The indices mentioned here, as well as others related to corrosion,
should be used with caution. Singley (14) stated, "Use of any corrosion
index should be correlated with field test results in order to determine
its applicability to a given water. All of those currently available have
considerable quality specificity."
-------
TABLE 2. CALCITE SATURATION INDEX
Calcite Saturation Index
CSI - log K - log (Ca^1") - log HC03 - pH
where log K - 2.582 - 0.024T°C
and Ca and HCO"^ in moles/L
and HC03 « total alkalinity as CaCO-^ for pH <9.3
and HC03 is less than H
CSI Values CSI Classification
<1 Terrain is most stable and
not susceptible to change
1-2 Possibly susceptible to change
2-3 Probably susceptible to change
3-4 Susceptible to change
4-5 Highly susceptible to change.
10
-------
SECTION 5
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
FIELD ACTIVITIES
Staff
The first step in this study was appointment of the field staff,
one for each state. These persons were selected for their experience,
familiarity with the water supplies and terrain of their states, and who
had the respect of the water supply operators and state authorities. This
was important because the field staff would interact directly with water
utility personnel by visiting water treatment plants, collecting water
samples, and searching for historical data.
Before the sampling began, the Round 1 and Round 2 field staff members
were assembled in the offices of the New England Water Works Association,
where they were given instructions on:
1. Procedures for sampling
2. The use of the pH meter
3. Recording of data on EPA forms
4. Packing and shipping sample containers to
EPA/Cincinnati
This instruction period was conducted by Michael Schock, Chemist, EPA,
DWRD, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Following this instructional meeting, a step-by-step procedure sheet
was developed for use by the field staff members. Next, a second meeting
of the field staff was held in the EPA Laboratory in Lexington, Massachusetts,
where John J. Collins of Providence, the Rhode Island field engineer (chemist)
gave a hands-on demonstration of the proper techniques for sampling, determin-
ing pH, recording data, and packing and shipping samples.
Instruction for Round 3 field staff was conducted by Floyd Taylor.
Giving common instructions to all field staff members was done so that each
person would use the same procedures in carrying out the work.
Sampling Program
The field study was divided into three phases: Round 1 in 1981, Round
2 in 1982, and Round 3 in 1982-1983. States included in Rounds 1 and 2
were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
11
-------
and New York. (Adirondack Mountain region). States included in Round 3
sampling were Massachusetts (Martha's Vineyard), New Jersey, Pennslvanla,
West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Names and locations of Round
1, 2 and 3 communities and sources are given in Appendix I.
Figure 2 shows the geographical pattern of rainfall pH in the United
States. The states included in this study are among those having low pH
rainfall and, in some locations, bedrock geology and soil conditions that
result in poorly buffered surface waters or ground waters or both.
In the Round 1 sampling, surface waters were studied wherever possible
because .studies of aquatic effects of acid precipitation had generally been
related to surface waters. Samples were taken from well supplies only
where it was deemed desirable. Generally this occurred in areas where only
ground water was used for drinking water. Because of financial constraints,
approximately 7 percent of the total surface supplies in each of the states
were to be sampled. In New York, only the Adirondack Region was included,
because this part of the state was considered most susceptible to damage by
acid precipitation. EPA data on the number of community water supplies and
the number of sampling sites selected in the several states are shown in
Table 3.
The original proposal was to sample 7 percent of the surface water
supplies, 44 percent of the population, and an estimated 25 percent of the
miles of public water supply piping in the study area. Although the popu-
lations served by the selected supplies dwell largely in urban areas, the
supplies themselves are mainly in rural areas. New England communities
generally have protected water supply sources by forbidding recreational
use and by promoting land acquisition by water purveyors to further insure
unpolluted supplies. Few streams are used for water supply. Only four of
the surface supplies numbered above are streams. Disinfection is the only
treatment for most of these water supplies.
Following the determination of the number of sites to be sampled in
each state, the geographical distribution of the sampling sites was estab-
lished. Preliminary locations were suggested by the individual field staff
members after consultation with the respective state health departments and
other organizations.
Final decisions were made by consultation between EPA and the NEWWA.
Besides the suggestions of the field staff members, geographical distribu-
tion factors were also important in the final selection. In Maine, selec-
tion favored high elevations in the western and northwestern areas where
the precipitation is influenced more by the St. Lawrence Valley weather as
opposed to the coastal weather in the southern and eastern parts of the
state. In the Adirondack Mountain region, there is a large park of some 6
million acres; the selected sites were distributed rather equally across
the northern, central, and southern sections of the park. Not all of the
sites selected were public supplies. The number of such sites varied from
state to state.
12
-------
1980
NADP/CANSAP Data
National Atmospheric Deposition Program - IR-7
PH
Annual Average
Precipitation Weighted
Figure 2. Average Annual Rainfall pH, 1980 (Prepared by J. H. Gibson and C. V. Baker;
Reproduced by permission of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program)
-------
TABLE 3. FREQUENCE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SITE SELECTION
State Community Water Supplie8 No. Sites Selected (3)-(4)= %
Total (No.)(a) Surface (No.)(a) Total (b) Well % of Total
(1)
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
(Adirondack)
(2)
827
384
700
707
113
358
300(c)
(3)
413
192
350
353
56
179
150
(4)
23
14
25
29
7
13
12
(5)
2
2
-
4
1
-
Kd)
(6)
5.57%
7.29
7.14
8.2%
12.5
7.26
8.0
Total 3380 1693 123 10 7.26%
(a) EPA data
(b) Selected by joint action of EPA (DWRD) and NEWWA
(c) Estimated
(d) Groundwater supply for resort area
14
-------
The sampling program for Round 2 was planned after the Round 1 collec-
tion program in the summer of 1981 was completed. In the spring of 1982 a
limited number of sites, specifically those that had shown low pH values in
the 1981 tests, were resampled for Round 2. Water samples were also collected
from some households in Round 2.
In addition to the above sampling, groundwater supplies were sampled
in the general vicinity of the resampled sites. The distribution and
number of sites sampled in this second, round are listed in Table 4.
Round 3 of the sampling was designed to explore the chemical com-
position of 67 groundwater supplies, geographically distributed in the
Appalachian area of the states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia,
and North Carolina and in the Pine Barrens and Coastal area of New Jersey (a
sand aquifer). The list of these supplies is shown in the Appendix. In
addition supplies on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts were included in the
third sampling program because the water source is a sand aquifer.
Prior to the start of the field studies, the water supply official' in
each community to be visited was contacted and advised of the study and its
official purpose. The need for local cooperation was explained and requested
and a date was set for the sampling visit. Excellent cooperation was
received from the water utility personnel.
Sample Collection
The planned procedure for the field site visits called for: collect-
ing samples of both raw and treated water; determining water temperature;
determining pH by glass electrode and electronic pH meter; recording of
data; and preparing sample containers (Cubitainers and bottles) for
shipment to and analysis by EPA-DWRD, Cincinnati. In most of these site
visits, the field staff members were able to carry out the procedures at
the plant site, especially where the plants had well-equipped laboratories.
In some instances, however, it was necessary to transport the samples back
to a motel, or to the investigator's home where the equipment could be
set up properly. In some cases, obtaining samples of the raw water was
not possible, for reasons such as lack of a spigot on the raw water pump.
Other problems of similar nature were encountered.
Before the sampling survey actually began in each state, each member
of the field staff ran through the sampling and pH testing procedures and
assembled the equipment and supplies for easy transport and quick handling
at each sampling location. It was found that on-site time could be reduced
if all sample bottles, accompanying record forms, and shipping boxes were
prepared on the night before the sampling site visit.
At each sampling point, three samples were taken, two 1-quart poly-
ethylene Cubitainers were rinsed with sample water and then filled. In
the 1-quart container used to collect an acidified water sample, 1.5 mL
of concentrated nitric acid was added from an unmarked glass ampule
obtained from either Poly Research Corporation (Deer Park, New Jersey) or
G. Frederick Smith Chemical Company (Columbus, Ohio). The lot number of
the acid was noted on the EPA-9 forms. Both containers were sealed with
15
-------
TABLE 4. SAMPLING SITES IN ROUND 2
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
Total:
Re a amp led
Sites
4
5
14
10
4-
3
5
45-
New
Groundwater
Sites
3
4
17
25
11
5
74
These- sites are listed, in Appendix I and are shown
on the State maps.
16
-------
polyethylene inserts washed with sample water, and the containers were
closed with plastic screw caps with foam liners. Additional samples were
taken in 125 mL high density linear polyethylene bottles, or 125 mL PVC
bottles. In later sampling rounds, 250 mL PVC bottles were substituted.
These sample bottles were filled to overflowing and closed with Poly-Seal
screw caps, having conical polyethylene liners to eliminate an airspace in
the bottles when completely filled. All samples were then mailed First
Class to the EPA Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, for analysis.
In the first round of field visits, samples were collected from free-
flowing taps at the plants. The stepwise procedure used for sampling and
reporting analysis was as follows:
0 In order to minimize air mixture, a sample was carefully collected
for pH determination at the site or at a nearby point. A standard
EPA-9 form was completed to identify each sample.
0 The temperature in C of the sample was determined by glass thermo-
meter.
0 A series of 5 pH measurements was carefully made and recorded, and
these were averaged using the geometric mean of pH.
0 Samples of raw and finished water were taken and acidified for the
metals portion. These were sent to the EPA, DWRD, in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
0 The EPA Laboratory made determinations for 25 water quality para-
meters, recording the data on standard EPA-6 forms, which were sent
to the NEWWA office.
0 Copies of the EPA-6 forms were sent to the field staff who sent one
copy to each of the participating water purveyors.
In the second sampling round, where repeat sampling was done, the
procedure was the same but there were two additional variations.
(1) Three special samples were collected early in the morning from
selected houses on the distribution system. The purpose of this
sampling was to ascertain the effect of the low pH water on the
household piping. The first sample was collected immediately on
opening the tap; this was water stored overnight in the house
plumbing. The second was taken a minute or so later, which was
water from the service line, and the third after an additional
five minutes of continuous discharge, which was water from the
town distribution system. All three samples were acidified by
the householder for shipment to EPA-DWRD, Cincinnati. These
samples were collected from the homeowners by a representative of
the local water utility or by a representative of the district
office of the state health department. The three sample series
give information on the quality of water stored in household
17
-------
plumbing and service lines as well as on quality in the distribu-
tion system.
(2) During the second sampling round, certain precautions were taken
on groundwater samples, whereby a special tap was employed to
avoid entrapment of air in the sample bottles. In many cases the
groundwater sources were not readily accessible and in several
instances, the assistance of district health office personnel was
utilized to locate and reach these places.
In the third round of sampling (in the states of New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina), only groundwaters
were sampled following the procedures established previously.
Analysis?- of pH
Analysis of pH was performed in the field, according to the method of
Schock, Mueller and Buelow (23). Samples were analyzed in a closed 40 mL
vial. The samples were stirred with a magnetic stirrer. Sargent-Welch
Model 5000 portable pH meters were used, with combination electrodes. For
each water tested, five of the 40 mL vials were filled and capped to prevent
contact with air before the analysis began. Each pH electrode was fitted
with a rubber stopper to minimize contact of the sample with the atmosphere
during the analysis.
Two-point standardizations were used for all pH measurements. At each
site before pH analysis, the meter was first standardized with pH 6.86
buffer, then with either pH 4.01 buffer or pH 9.18 buffer, depending upon
the anticipated pH for the water sampled. If the water turned out to have
a pH on the- opposite side of pH 6.86 than the second buffer used, the pH
meter was restandardized with the appropriate second buffer, and the pH was
measured.again.
Historical Data Collection
Each of the field personnel visited the agencies in his state to
compile water quality data pertaining to the selected sites assigned to
him. These searches alone contributed a great store of information cover-
ing periods of ten to fifty years or more for nearly all of the raw water
sources, but availability of historical information was not uniform from
state to- state.
In addition to these archival data collected from state, district, and
local health departments, information was obtained from articles published
by health department and university investigators in previous years. In
Massachusetts, for example, the records of Lawrence Experiment Station
provided an abundance of information. Local historical and plant operating
data were reviewed and pertinent information extracted for comparison with
data obtained in the current study. The entire data collection effort
generated over 100,000 items of information.
18
-------
The quality of the historical data varied. The Lawrence Experiment
Station data were found to be the most useful because of the length of
coverage and the strict observance of standard methods for water quality
testing that was practiced at that laboratory.
LABORATORY ACTIVITIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The analytical support provided by the Inorganic and Particulate
Control Section, Physical and Chemical Contaminant Removal Branch, EPA,
DWRD, was in several areas. In addition to the actual chemical analysis
of all monitored constituents aside from field-measured pH, the assistance
consisted of solution preparation, supply of ultrapure-grade concentrated
nitric acid ampules for sample preservation, supply of specialized sample
containers and consultation on sampling and pH measurement problems. The
quality assurance practices associated with the different analytical and
solution preparation phases are summarized below. All quality assurance
data presented in this report, including and the results of blind unknown,
field duplicates, and quality control samples for the newly-employed
potentiometric titration methods for low-level chlorides and alkalinity
are tabulated in Appendix II.
Solution Preparation
The EPA Laboratory prepared filling solutions for the combination pH
electrodes used in the field, as well as the pH buffers used for calibra-
tion.
For the combination electrodes with Thalamid internals, a 3M KC1
solution was prepared by dissolving the appropriate amount of Analytical •
Reagent Grade X.C1 in deionized water. The solution was then filtered
through a 0.A urn Nucleopore membrane filter. Deionized water was produced
by passing distilled water through a Barnstead Nanopure 4-column
deionization system.
For the combination electrodes with Ag-AgCl internals, the filling
solution was prepared by refrigerating commercially prepared 4M KC1 satu-
rated with AgCl overnight. The supernatant liquid was poured off into
containers for use by the field engineers.
Precautions were taken in preparing the filling solution to prevent
a junction's clogging from KC1 precipitation and to stabilize electrode
response at the low sample temperatures anticipated for cold water
sampling.
Buffer solutions were also prepared at the EPA Laboratory for distribu-
tion to the field engineers. The solutions were prepared by dissolving
weighted quantities of Beckman or Altex brand salts in deaerated, C02~free
deionized water. Buffers of pH 4.00, 6.86 or 7.00, and 9.18 at 25°C were
stored in collapsable polyethylene concertina bottles sealed with poly-
ethylene inserts and plastic screw caps and were shipped upon request via
First Class mail. Before the pH buffer solutions were sent, they were
analyzed with a digital pH meter and glass electrode calibrated with buffer
19
-------
solutions prepared from U.S. National Bureau of Standards salts and stored
protected from the atmosphere in glass bottles with CC>2-absorbing tubes in
the vent lines. Any buffer solution that did not agree to within 0.02 pH of
its theoretical value was rejected and not sent. Tables of buffer pH at
different temperatures in increments of 1 C were calculated by linear
regressions of data at wider temperature intervals provided by the manufac-
turers and were sent along with the buffer solutions.
Sample Analysis
All samples were initially received by the DWRD where research chemists,
sanitary engineers, and technicians who did not participate in any of the
analyses other than pH, alkalinity, and potentiometric chlorides performed
the appropriate sample logging, splitting, addition of blind unknowns and
submission to.the analytical support group.
Computer programs and data files were set up on the EPA National
Computer Center IBM 370/168 computer to log sample receipt, and to produce
report summaries which were sent to the NEWWA principal investigator for
distribution to the field engineers for verification and reconciliation of
discrepancies.
With the exception of pH, potentiometric alkalinity to the carbonic
acid equivalence point, and potentiometric chloride determinations, all
chemical analyses were performed by the DWRD, Inorganic and Particulate
Control Section, analytical support group. A summation of the types of
sample preservation used in the study is given in Appendix Table II-l.
Table II-2 gives a broad overview of the types of analytical methods used,
and Table II-3 gives specific method references. Details of the procedures
themselves, plus documentation of the quality control and quality assurance
procedures followed by the individual analysts of the analytical support
group are given in the official Standard Operating Procedures document
(24).
During the first round of sampling, the possibility of carefully
preserving samples for pH analysis at the EPA Laboratory was investigated.
Although that procedure had been used successfully before, Schock and
Schock (25) warned of the necessity to determine the feasibility in each
water quality situation before field measurements could be supplanted by
delayed laboratory measurements.
Samples for pH analysis were collected in PVC or high-density, linear,
polyethylene bottles having Poly-seal caps and no air space. Upon receipt,
the samples were analyzed according to the method of Schock & Schock (25),
using digital meters and glass electrodes calibrated directly with buffer
solutions prepared from NBS salts. The approach to pH equilibrium was
monitored with strip chart recorders because the relatively poor buffering
ability and low ionic strength of the waters caused long equilibration
times.
20
-------
In many cases, the laboratory pH was considerably different from that
measured in the field, and the laboratory value was frequently higher. The
idea of relying on laboratory measurements was thought to be unsuitable
because depressurization during air shipment apparently could induce shifts
in carbonate equilibria that would not occur during normal surface transport.
A recent study on carbon isotope equilibria in aqueous samples supports
this hypothesis (26). The pH values reported in Section 7 are the field
measurements only.
The automated, colori»atric, analytical procedure routinely used for
chloride determinations was known to have a detection limit in practice of
approximately 10 mg/L which was too high for many samples. Thus, the imple-
mentation of the potentionetric titration method was planned for samples
indicating less than 10 mg/L in the colorimetric test. Because a large
proportion of the samples had chloride concentrations of less than 10 mg/L,
and because discrepancies between the two methods were found for samples in
the range of 5 to 10 mg/L, all chloride analyses were done by potentiometric
titration starting with Round 2.
The inadequacies of an alkalinity titration to a fixed-pH end point
are well-known. In order to obtain the most accurate data reasonably
possible for this study and for future reference, an automated, micro-
processor-controlled, poteatiometric titration system (Metrohm E636 Titro-
processor and auxilliary components) was employed. The carbonic acid
equivalence points were determined with the proprietary algorithm supplied
by the manufacturer for the instrument.
Quality Control
All blind unknowns were made from standards provided by either the USEPA
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) or the U.S. Geological
Survey. There are important differences between the two types of standards,
and, therefore, their utilization.
The standards provided by EMSL are small volumes in glass ampules that
must be diluted accurately before submission. The standards have "true"
values determined by the known amounts of chemicals contained in them.
Three varieties were used; "trace metals," "minerals," and phosphate +
nitrogen ("nutrients"). All were prepared by appropriate dilution in acid-
washed, Class-A, volumetric glassware using Class-A transfer pipets and
deionized-distilled water with a resistivity in excess of 16 megohms.
The U.S.G.S. standards are provided in natural matrices (river water,
lake water, etc.) that were filtered, sterilized, acidified if necessary,
and packed in Teflon bottles. Reference values are provided, plus standard
deviations obtained by combining reports from numerous certified analytical
laboratories for each constituent. Unlike the EMSL standards, the USGS ones
do not provide "true" values against which the absolute accuracy of an
individual laboratory's analytical methods can be firmly established.
However, the analytical methods used in this study can be directly compared
to accepted procedures, and accuracy within the standard deviations (or 2
times the standard deviations for a more liberal error allowance) would
indicate good comparability with the practical state of the art.
21
-------
Because of the organization of analyses in terms of sample preservation
type, many of the EMSL or USGS standards could not provide certified values
for more than a few constitutents. For instance, trace metal standards do
not provide values for major constituents such as calcium and magnesium,
but mineral standards don't cover trace metals or chlorides (the latter
because of the aliquot from which it was taken for analysis).
A total of 33 blind unknowns prepared from either USGS or EMSL standards
were submitted for this study. In addition, field duplicates were submitted
from 5 sampling sites as a check of analytical and sampling reproducibility.
Alkalinity samples were analyzed as soon as possible after the samples
we-ce received. A total of 58 determinations were made on five different
standards, and 84 samples were analyzed in duplicate. The observed and
reference values for the determinations performed on the reference solu-
tions are reported in Table II-4. An analysis of the standard deviations
for the. duplicated samples showed that the error distribution was non-
normal, and did not fit the assumption of an approximately constant relative
standard deviation. As is shown in Table II-5, 50% of the alkalinity
duplicates had a standard deviation of less than or equal to 0.082 mg/L as
calcium carbonate, and 90% of the determinations had a standard deviation
of better than 0.33 mg/L. Whereas the standard deviations are of limited
significance as a result of the small number of replications, they indicate
that the reported alkalinities can probably be considered to be precise and
reliable to the first decimal place. The standard deviations calculated
fo.r the reference standards reinforce this interpretation. All alkalinity
concentrations are reported in mg/L as calcium carbonate because this is
usual water supply practice.
Because 2 mL of ultrapure grade HN03 were added per 100 mL of s.ample
before analysis as a part of the normal analytical procedure, the aliquots
for chloride analysis by potentiometric tltration were generally taken from
the acidified samples.. When shortages of samples occurred, chloride
analyses were done on aliquots from the unpreaerved samples, however.
After an initial linearity test (27), chloride concentrations were
determined by a linear regression procedure. The linearity test indicated
a high bias below approximately 2.5 mg/L. Cl~. Therefore, any samples
indicating less than 3 mg/L had a second aliquot analyzed after adding a 3
mg/L. Cl spike. Volume and spike corrections were performed after the linear
regression yielded the total concentration from the observed titration
values. The results of the chloride determinations done on EMSL and USGS
reference solutions are given in Table II-6.
Tables II-7 to 11-11 contain tabulations of the analyses reported for
the blind unknowns, along with the reference or true values for the standards
used. Because of the use of high-quality deionized water and Class-A volu-
metric, glassware for dilutions, the standard deviations given are those of
the original reference adjusted only for the dilution factors.
Table. 11-12 summarizes the results of analyses of field duplicates.
No spurious contamination or sampling inconsistancy is indicated for the
techniques practiced at these sites.
22
-------
A total of 12 acid and container "blanks" were also analyzed. From
the lots of Cubitainers® and caps actually delivered to the field engineers,
24 containers were sent to the EPA laboratory. These samples were split into
pairs and assigned EPA-9 sample numbers. Both containers were filled with
Nanopure deionized distilled water. One Cubitainer from each pair was
then acidified using an ampule of ultrapure HNC>3 from one of the two lots
shipped to the sample collectors, and the acid lot was noted. Aliquots of
unpreserved samples were spiked with 2 mL H2H04 before NC^-N and fluoride
analyses.
Table 11-13 gives a summary of the "calibration limits" obtained in
practice with the analytical procedures used in this study. The "calibra-
tion limit" as applied to this study indicates the lowest level of a con-
stituent that is adequately covered by an.instrumental calibration standard,
and below which no quantitation will be made. The calibration limits are
higher than limits of detection and limits of quantitation (LOQ) as
rigorously defined (28). The calibration limits as reported here are
related to limits of detection and limits of quantitation in that they are
at least at the LOQ, although many are somewhat higher, and represent
compromises between speed of analysis and concentration level necessary to
provide useful environmental information.
In only two of the blanks did any constituent have a value in excess of
the indicated calibration limit reported for it. In both cases, the con-
stituent was iron, and the reported concentrations were 0.11 and 0.15 mg/L.
These may not represent true concentrations, considering the scale of the
scatter in the values determined for the blind unknowns. The blank data
indicate that little or no detectable contamination should be expected
from either the containers or acids used in this study.
23
-------
SECTION 6
REVIEW OF ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
LAWRENCE EXPERIMENT STATION
A review of methodology for water analysis must include a study of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water (29), the
development of which was contributed to significantly by researchers at the
Lawrence Experiment Station, Lawrence, Massachusetts. During this project,
investigators found at the Station a large quantity of historical data on
water -quality. One objective of the project was to evaluate this informa-
tion to determine if raw water quality changes had occurred during the 20th
Century. As these data form the core of the review of historical data in
this report the following discussion on changes in chemical analytical
methodology will make several references to what happened at Lawrence.
The Massachusetts State Board of Health was created in 1869. The
Board obtained use of the Essex Company hydraulic laboratory in Lawrence,
which was the beginning of the Lawrence Experiment Station. Studies there
'on sewage purification by filtration led to application of the findings to
filtration of water, resulting in the use of.slow sand filtration at
Lawrence in 1893.
In 1889 the Board published The Chemical Examination of Waters (30)
which_described in detail the methods then available for water chemistry.
These procedures were followed at the laboratories at the State House and
MIT that later became the associated with the Lawrence Experiment Station.
The first edition of Standard Methods of Water Analysis was published in
1905 (31). Analysts who worked at Lawrence contributed heavily to this
first edition. From that day to the present, drinking water analyses
performed at or under the supervision of the Lawrence Experiment Station
have been performed, with few exceptions, in accordance with Standard
Methods.
Chemical analyses and biological examinations of drinking waters were
performed by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until
1896, af which time a water laboratory was set up in the State House where
procedures and personnel were under the supervision of the Lawrence Experi-
ment Station Staff. Operations were transferred to the new Station in
1953. Table 5 shows water supplies for which histrical data were obtained
at Lawrence.
Analytical procedures in water chemistry have changed through the
years. As changes occurred, they were noted in the records at Lawrence.
24
-------
TABLE 5. MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES FOR WHICH HISTORICAL
INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE AT THE LAWRENCE EXPERIMENT STATION,
LAWRENCE. MASSACHUSETTS
Community
1) Athol
2) Boston MDC
3) Cambridge
4) Dalton
5) Fall River
6) Falmouth
7) Fitchburg
8) Gardner
9) Glouster
10) Hinsdale
11) Holyoke
12) Lakeville
13) Leominster
14) Lee
15) Montague
16) Pittsfield
17) Salem-Beverly
-18) Southbridge
19) Spencer
20) Springfield
21) Westfield
22) Winchendon
23) Worcester
24) New Bedford
Water Source
Historical Records*
Available From
Phillipston Reservoir 1887
Quabbin Reservoir 1944
Wachusett Reservoir 1898
Hobbs Brooks Reservoir 1894
Egypt Brook Reservoir 1888
North Wattuppa Pond Reservoir 1887
Long Pond Reservoir 1891
Lovell Reservoir 1930
Crystal Lake Reservoir 1888
Dykes Reservoir 1887
Haskell Reservoir 1895
Belmont Reservoir 1889
Carmody Reservoir 1895
Assawompsett Reservoir 1888
Fall Brooke Reservoir 1895
Upper Codding Brook Reservoir 1887
Lake Pleasant Reservoir 1887
Farnham Reservoir 1913
Longham Reservoir 1893
Wenham Lake 1887
Hatchet Brook Reservoir 1893
Shaw Pond Reservoir 1888
Cobble Mountain Reservoir 1932
Montgomery Reservoir 1888
Winchendon Well 1888
Upper Naukeag Lake Reservoir 1888
Pine Hill Reservoir 1923
Little Quitticas Pond 1888
*See Table 6 for further data on which analysis
were begun at what date.
25
-------
According to these records, for example, in determining alkalinities methyl
orange indicator was used at Lawrence from 1936 to 1976; since then, the
potentiometric method to pH 4.5 had been used. In both cases, standard
alkalinity solutions were used to standardize the acid used for titration.
From 1935 to 1953, pH was determined colorimetrically on a 10-mL sample
treated with 0.5 mL of Bromothyntol Blue indicator; from 1953 by the glass
electrode method. Test procedures were checked against standard buffers.
From 1888 through 1952 the soap method was used for hardness; then, the
EDTAprocedure through 1972 and after that atomic absorption spectrophoto-
metry. Prior to 1972, sulfate was measured gravimetrically by precipitation
with barium chloride; after 1972 by the Hach Sulfa-Ver method. Nitrate
measurements were begun in 1887, with breaks from 1915 to 1935 and from 1949
to 1961. Dp to 1965 the phenoldisulfonic acid method was used, then the
hydrazine method.
The three most important tests made in this study are for pH, alka-
linity and calcium. Sulfate, aluminum, lead and mercury concentrations are
important also, but historical records of these constituents are scarce
compared to those for pH, alkalinity, and calcium. Records of calcium and
magnesium in the past are not as numerous as pH and alkalinity. However,
the amount of hardness furnishes a means of approximating the calcium
content, which together with pH and alkalinity provides parameters whereby
the calcite saturation index (CSI), a measure of the susceptibility to acid
loading, may be calculated. For example, historical data from Beverly-Salera,
Massachusetts shows values for calcium, magnesium and hardness as follows:
Year Ca Vg Hardness C/Hardness
mg/L mg/L mg/L Ratio
1973 13 3.6 48 0.2708
1974 12 3.2 43 0.2790
1975 12 3.2 44 0.2727
1976 12 3.1 42 0.2857
'1977 10 2.7 36 0.2777
1978 10 2.6 36 0.2777
1979 11 2.9 39 0.2820
Mean 0.2779
An equation developed by the former Chief Chemist of the Providence,
Rhode Island Water Department for calcium and magnesium and hardness of
New England water is:
Hardness - 2.479 Ca + 4.116 Mg (5)
Calcium » Hardness - 4.116 Mg.
2.497 (6)
Hardness, Ca and Mg are in mg/L
Using this formula with actual hardness values the calcium values in
column (4) were derived. Using a calcium/hardness ratio the figures in
column (5) were obtained. The latter, simpler calculations were used
through the report.
26
-------
Year
Actual
Hardness Calcium
in mg/L
Calculated Calcium
mg/L
(1)
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
(2)
48
43
44
42
36
36
39
(3)
13
12
12
12
10
10
11
(A)
13.29
11.95
12.35
11.71
9.97
10.13
10.84
(5)
13.3
11.9
12.2
11.7
10.0
10.0
10.8
In both cases there was close agreement with actual calcium determinations
for each of the seven years 1973-1979.
COMPARING OLD AND NEW DATA
Kramer and Tessier (32) give equations for correcting pH values
measured colorimetrically to what they would have been if determined by a
modern pH meter. An example of their use is the following:
Assume a New England surface water with an alkalinity of 19 ueq/L,
roughly 1 mg/L as CaC03, and a pH of 6.2. At this low alkalinity, all of
Che alkalinity may be considered to be bicarbonate (HC03~). Using Kramer
and Tessier's equation (35) in Reference 32:
[H+J
V[Alk]
+ [H+]c, where
(7)
- 0.64xlO"3 M; Vj - 5xlO"4L; [H+]c - 63xlO~8; Kr =•
KL - 10~6'35; V - 10~2 L and [Alk] - 19x10
[H+!s -
[H+]s - 223 x 10-8
pHs - negative logarithm of 223xlO"8 - 5.65
-6
( 0 . 64xlO-3 )( 5xlO~4 ) ( 6 3xlO~8 )
63x10-8+ + 7.94x10-8
(63x10-8+45x10-8
(10-2 (19xlO-6
+ 63xlO~8)
(8)
( 1 )
[H+Jc » [IT1"] determined colorimetrically (antilog pHc).
[H+Js - corrected [H+] (The true [ff*"] of the sample).
pHs - corrected pH (The true pH of the sample).
(9)
27
-------
In the above calculation, the value of K at 25°C (10-6.35),
or 45xlO~8, was used and unit activity was assumed. The corrected pH of
5.7 is to be compared with a present day pH as determined by the glass
electrode method.
Calcium concentrations may be approximated based upon hardness data.
By .using the ratio of calcium to hardness as determined by analyses for
the period from 1973 to the present,..hardness concentrations may be used to
estimated mg/L of calcium for the years prior to 1973. For example, the
average calcium and hardness for Wenham Lake, Salem, Massachusetts for
1973-1980 were 11.A mg/L and 41 mg/L, as CaCOs, respectivately. The ratio
of calcium to hardness would.be 0.28. For Cobble Mountain Reservoir,
.Springfield, Massachusetts, the ratio is 0.25 and for Middle Reservoir,
Northampton, Massachusetts, the ratio is 0.30. Assuming that calcium to
hardness ratios in the past were relatively the same as for 1973-1980,
which is reasonable for undisturbed watersheds, the following calcium
concentrations may be estimated for Wenham Lake:
1888 5.3 mg/L 1931-1940 8.1 mg/L
1890 7.0 mg/L 1941-150 8.1 mg/L
1891-1900 7.0 mg/L 1951-1960 9.2 mg/L
1901-1910 6.2 mg/L 1961-1970 13.2 mg/L
1911-1920 7.3 mg/L 1971-1972 13.0 mg/L
1921-1930 7.6.mg/L 1973-1980 11.A mg/L*
*The last value was the actual concentration determined by atomic
adsorption for 1973-1980.
'It may be argued that because the soap method for hardness measures
the..soap consuming capacity of a water whereas the EDTA procedure complexes
all calcium and magnesium, hardness values determined by these two methods
would not be comparable. However, the Wenham hardness data of 32 mg/L as
CaC03. for 1949 and 35 mg/L for 1952 (data not available for 1950 and 1951),
the last years using the soap method, compare favorably with the average of
33.5 for the years 1953-1956, inclusive, i.e., no change in hardness when
averaging the results of the first four years using the EDTA method.
Correspondingly, for 1971 and 1972, the last years using the EDTA method,
the average hardness was 46.5 compared to 45.5 for the first two years,
1973 and 1974, when atomic absorption technique was adopted. Changes in
procedures did not seem to affect the accuracy of the hardness measurements
at Wenham Lake as determined by the Lawrence Experiment Station.
Even if considerable error resulted from estimating calcium by multiply-
ing the hardness by the appropriate calcium to hardness ratio as previously
described, a negligible difference in- the CSI would result. For example,
assume a correct value of 4 mg/L for calcium and an estimated one of 3 mg/L
(33 percent error). The negative logarithm of moles/L of calcium would be
4 and 4.123, respectively ... the difference of 0.12 would amount to only
three percent for a water having a CSI of 4.
28
-------
Another water quality characteristic, measured from 1887 to 1941,
inclusive, was residue on evaporation. Because of the small amount of
suspended matter and low turbidity of the samples, residue on evaporation
may be considered to be an approximate measure of the total dissolved
solids. No data exist for the years 1942-1982, inclusive. Specific con-
ductance determined during the years 1972 to the present affords a means of
arriving at a crude estimate of the total dissolved solids (IDS) for 1972
and later. The average specific conductance for 1972-1980, .the latest year
for which data are available, amounted to 169 umho/cm. Using Langelier's
approximation (15), the ionic strength, u, may be calculated from the
equation u » 2.5xlO~5xTDS. Russell (33) derived the following expression
equating u to specific conductance; u « 1.6x10"^ x specific conductance.
Combining these two equations mg/L TDS - 0.64 x specific conductance. Use
of data provided by Lind (34) gives an equation similar to that of Russell.
An examination of the records covering Wenham Lake show an average
residue on evaporation (TDS) of 66 mg/L for 1887-1941, inclusive. The
average specific conductance being 170 umho/cm for 1972 through 1980, gives
a rough estimate of 170x0.64, or 110 mg/L TDS. This is an increase of
about 64 percent over the 1887-1941 average. A breakdown of the data
shows: for 1887 through 1890, an average of 45 mg/L TDS; for 1891-1900, 57
mg/L; 1901-1910 (two years of data not available), 57 mg/L; 1911-1920, 74
mg/L; 1921-1930, 75 mg/L; 1931-1941, 72 mg/L.
Changes in the methodology for residue on evaporation were made through-
out the years by Standard Methods (29). They apply mostly to the temperature
of drying the residue. In 1890 the drying temperature following evaporation
of a known volume of water in a weighed platinum dish was specified as
100°C.
In 1905 the drying temperature required was 103°C, together with the
provision that the dish be surrounded by boiling glycerin solution or
toluene in the oven. In 1917 came the option of using a drying temperature
of 103 C or 180 C. Drying time was increased from one-half to one hour.
The necessity for glycerin or toluene was dropped in 1920. Drying tempera-
ture in 1923 was 180 C; in 1933 it was decreased to 103°C. The 1980 edition
of Standard Methods states: "The methods described are gravimetric and
permit a choice of drying temperature. Residues dried at 103 C to 105 C
may retain not only water of crystallization but also some mechanically
occluded water. Loss of C02 will result in coversion of bicarbonate to
carbonate. Loss of organic matter by volatilization usually will be very
slight at this temperature. Because removal of occluded water is marginal
at 105 C, attainment of constant weight is very slow."
Residues dried at 18CJ+2 C will lose almost all mechanically occluded
water. Some water of crystallization may remain, especially if sulfates are
present. Organic matter is lost by volatilization, but is not completely
destroyed. Bicarbonates are converted to carbonates and carbonates may be
decomposed partially to oxides or basic salts. Some chloride and nitrate
salts may be lost. In general, evaporation and drying water samples at
180 C yields values for total residue closer to those obtained through
summation of individually determined mineral species than the values for
total residue secured through drying at a lower temperature.
29
-------
IDS values are used In computation of the Langelier Index. A review
of the data obtained in this study indicates that with regard to calculation
of the LI, the IDS data do not include a range .broad enough to influence LI
values.
Characteristics in addition to those mentioned were measured, such as
color (1887-1982), chlorides (1887 through 1953 and 1962 through 1982),
Iron (1893, 1923 through 1949 and 1965 through 1982), Manganese (1935
through 1939 and 1965 through 1982), turbidity (1969 through 1982, magnesium
(1973 through 1979), sodium (1972 through 1982), potassium (1972 through
1982), silicon (1972 through 1982), copper (1973 through 1982). Although
important, these are not as vital in assessing the impact of acid precipita-
tion as alkalinity, pH and calcium, together with sulfate and nitrate.
Table 6 summarizes various analyses that have been used at the Lawrence
Experiment Station throughout the past century of activity.
30
-------
TABLE 6. DATA ON HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY AT LAWRENCE EXPERIMENT STATION,
LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS
Standard Method
Determinating
Alkalinity
pH
Hardness
Sulfate
Nitrate
Manganese
Chloride
Color _
Iron
Conducted
1936-1976
1976-1983
1935-1953
1953-1983
1888-1952
1952-1972
1972-1983
1972-1972
1972-1983
1887-1965
1965-1983
1935-1965
1965-1971
1971-1983
1887-1912
1912-1946
1946-1955
1955-1975
1975-1980
1980-1983
1887-1905
1905-1975
1975-1983
1905-1912
1912-1946
1946-1971
1971-1983
Methodology Edition*
Methyl Orange 8 to 14
Potentiometric to pH 4.5 14,15
Colorimetric; bromthymol blue 7 to 9
Glass Electrode 9 to 15
Soap method 1 to 9
EDTA method 9 to 13
Atomic absorption 13 to 15
Gravimetric with BaCl2 13
Hach Sulfa-Ver (Not a Standard Method)
Phenoldisulfonic acid method 1 to 12
Hydrazine method 12 to 15
Periodate & persulfate methods 7 to 11
Orthotolidine method 12
Atomic Absorbance 13 to 15
Concentration by evaporation; 1,2
precipitation as HgCl.
Same but gravimetric when 3 to 8
Cl->1000. ppm. . .
Volhard method; Mohr method. 9
Same; Hg(N03)2 method introduced 10 to. 13
Same; potentiometric method. 14,15
Same; Automated .ferric cyanide method 15
Description. 1
Cobalt chloride standards 1 to 13
Spectrophotometer method using 14,15
Tristimulus light filters.
Evaporation, ignition, 1
acidification, add KMn04 and
potassium thiocyanate.
Color comparisons.
Same but concentrated HC1 used 2 to 8
in standards»
Bioglpyridine & Phenanthroline 9 to 12
method
Phenanthroline and 13 to 15
atomic, absorption methods.
*Not necessarily the first issue in which the method appeared.
After Standard Methods were published the methodology cited above
was in accordance with those Methods except for sulfate (1972-1983).
-------
SECTION 7
PRESENT DAY WATER QUALITY
This section of the report presents results of analyses of water
samples collected during this study. Data are given for pH, alkalinity,
calcium, sulfate and the four indices previously described (Langelier
Index, Ryznar's Stability Index, Aggressive Index, and Calcite Saturation
Index). Data are also presented for constituents for which EPA has estab-
lished HCL's (arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, and nitrate)
and SMCL's (pH, copper, iron, and zinc). In addition, data are shown for
aluminum. Results are given for Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3, after which
data on tap water quality are tabulated. Interested readers also will find
these data plus data not published in this report in Volume II, Appendix
(35).
ROUND 1: NEW ENGLAND AND NY
Tables 7-10 show data from Round 1 of the project, namely the results
of analyses, of samples collected from surface sources in New England and the
Adirondack-area of New York State. Data are for pH, alkalinity (Alk),
calcium (Ca), and sulfate (804). The pH of raw water was seldom below 5.0
for raw waters, but almost half of the raw surface water alkalinities were
below 5 mg/L as CaCQ^, and well over half of the raw surface waters had
calcium 'concentrations below 5 mg/L. The raw ground waters were higher in
alkalinity and calcium than the surface waters. One fifth or more of the
finished waters from both ground and surface sources fell outside the pH
range in the SMCL.
Figures 3 and 4 contain data from Round 1 surface and groundwater
supplies calculated in terms of Calcite Saturation Index (CSI), Stability
Index (SI), Langelier Index (LI) and Aggressive Index (AI). Three fourths
of the raw waters had Stability Index values of 11 or higher. None of the
waters in Round 1 had SI values in the range for which scaling was reported
by Ryznar (17). Less than 10 percent of the LI values indicated a possi-
bility of deposition. Changes in the quality indices of raw vs. finished
waters were more pronounced for ground water supplies than for surface
water supplies.
Data for aluminum and for inorganic substances for which EPA has estab-
lished health-related MCL's are shown in Tables 11 and 12. Only three
constituents met or exceeded the MCL. This happened one time for arsenic,
once for lead, and once for mercury, all in surface waters (Table 11). No
MCL violations were observed in the smaller number of ground waters analyzed
(Table 12).
32
-------
pH Ranee
Interval
TABLE 7. DISTRIBUTION OF pH
ROUND 1 - GROUND & SURFACE
Percent of Samples In Ranee Interval
Surface Surface Ground Ground
Raw Finished Raw Finished
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
9.0-9.9
Geometric Mean
Median
Standard Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
4
18
62
14
2
0
5.79
6.56
0.711
4.3-8.45
118
8
11
47
17
12
5
5.57
6.66
1.14
4.25-S.77
98
0
42
33
25
0
0
5.72
6.07
0.838
5.15-7.8
12
0
20
30
50
0
0
6.28
6.97
0.77
5.72-7.81
10
All values for ground and surface water are expressed
in. percent of occurrences in each category.
33
-------
TABLE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF ALKALINITY
ROUND 1 - GROUND & SURFACE
Alkalinity
Range Interval
me/L as CaCOi
0-4
5-9
10-19
20-39
40-79
80-119
120-159
160-199-
Mean
Median
Standard Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Percent
Surface
Raw
twin
41
28
10
13
6
1
1
1
15.02
6.1
24.2
0-167.3
120
of S-anjples
Surface
Finished
29
26
22
16
5
0
2
0
16.24
7.5
22.43
0-141
102
In Ranee
Ground
Raw
8
8
25
25
8
8
8
8
47.5
23.4
53.5
3-161.6
12
Interval
Ground
Finished
10
30
20
20
10
10
67.2
50.6
53.1
2.7-167
10
(mean, median, SD and range are in mg/L)
34
-------
TABLE 9. DISTRIBUTION OF CALCIUM
ROUND 1 - GROUND & SURFACE
Calcium
Ranee Jnterval
mi£/L
0-4
5-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
Mean
Median
Standard Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Percenf
Surface
Raw
58
14
12
3
2
1
0
0
6.07
3.35
6.96
0.9-41.1
120
of Samples
Surface
Finished
58
20
17
5
1
0
0
0
7.14
4.05
6.86
<0.5-31.4
102
In Range
Ground
Raw
17
33
25
0
8
8
8
0
17.5
9.95
17.8
3.4-58.
12
Interval
Ground
Finished
10
10
40
10
10
10
0
10
21.9
14.3
18.4
6 1.8-60.6
10
(mean, median, SD and range are in mg/L)
35
-------
TABLE;10. DISTRIBUTION OF SULFATE
ROUND 1 - GROUND'S'SURFACE
Sulfate
Rang e -Int erva 1
me/L
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
Mean
Median.
Standard Dev..
Range
No., of Samples
Percent
Surface
Raw
78
19
2
1
0
0
0
0
8.13
7
-4.72
3-37'
119
of Samples
Surface
Finished
62
18
11
5
2
0
1
1
12.83
7.5'
12.07.
3-73
102
In Ranee
Ground
Raw
42
50
0
0
8
0
0
0
11.58
10.5
10.1
1-40
12
Interval
Ground
Finished
50
40
0
0
10
0
0
0
12.9'
10
10.28
4-40
10
(mean, median, SD and range are in mg/L)
36
-------
CSI
50
25
LU
O
z
UJ
oc
cc
2
o
o
o
LL
O
< 1 1-2 2-3 3-1 4-5 > 5
LI
-25
>0 Olo-2 -210-4 -oto-6 <•
SI
50
25
7-9 9 11 U-U 13-15 15-U > 17
AI
75
>I2 '0-12 8-10 8-8 <6
FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF SURFACE WATERS -RAW AND
FINISHED ROUND 1
RAW
FINISHED
37
-------
CSI
SI
CO
LU
o
MIL
UJ < 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5
> 0 010-2 -210-4 -410-8
50-
25--
7-9 9-11 11-13 13-15 )5-17
AI
75-
50-
25.
>12 10-12 8-10 6-8 < 6
FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF GROUND WATERS -RAW AND
FINISHED ROUND 1
n
RAW
FINISHED
38
-------
TABLE 11. TOXIC ELEMENT DATA
ROUND 1 SURFACE SUPPLIES
RAW AND FINISHED WATER
at
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Aluminum
Nitrate
as N
ffi&/ii Surface Surface Surface
Raw Finished Raw
0.05
1
.0.010
0.05
0.002
0.01
NONE
10
118
118
120
119
120
117
120
118
101
101
101
101
101
101
100
100
<0. 005-0.012
<0.2-0.53
<0. 002-0. 006
<0. 005-0.018
<0. 0005-0 .0049
<0. 00 5-0 .007
<0.1-0.3
<0.3-0.6
Surface Surface Surface
Finished Raw Finished
<0.005-0.053
<0.2-0.41
<0.002
<0.005-0.202
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.1-0.5
<0.3-1.3
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
39
-------
TABLE 12. TOXIC ELEMENT DATA
ROUND 1 GROUND SUPPLIES.
•RAW AND FINISHED WATER
flX
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Ca'dmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Aluminum
Nitrate
as N
»**•». ••»- m
mg/L
0.05
1
0.010
0.05.
0.002
0.01
NONE
10
Ground Groun4 Ground
Raw Finishe^ Raw
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
<0. 005-0 .006
<0.2-0.42
<0.002
<0. 005-0 .009
<0.0005
<0.005
-------
ROUND 2: NEW ENGLAND AND NY
Round 2 results are given in terms of comparisons of raw water
characteristics for ground and surface supplies and also comparisons of raw
and finished water quality of surface water. Tables 13 through 16 compare
data distributions, in terms of percent, for pH, alkalinity, calcium and
sulfate of raw water from ground and surface water supplies covered in
Round 2 of the survey. The contrast in the quality of raw ground and
surface water was more pronounced in Round 2 although about half of the raw
waters from both sources had pH values below 6.5, the SMCL lower level.
A smaller proportion of treated water pH values fell outside of the SMCL
range. Surface water pH values tended to be somewhat lower, but calcium,
alkalinity and sulfate were markedly lower in surface waters. The great
majority of surface water alkalinities were less than 5 mg/L as CaC03, and
over 90 percent of the calcium concentrations were under 5 mg/L.
A similar comparison is made for raw and finished surface waters as
detailed in Tables 17 through 20. The quality changes observed for finished
water could result from contact of the water with pipes and structures in
which it is conveyed, treated, and stored, or the changes could be caused
by deliberate additions of chemicals to modify water quality. Data obtained
in Round 2 were used to calculate the quality indices of concern: LI, SI,
AI, and CSI. Data comparing Round 2 ground and surface raw water supplies
in terms of these indices are given in Figure 5. In similar manner the
CSI, SI, LI and AI values for Round 2 raw and finished surface water are
presented in Figure 6. The data for pH, alkalinity, calcium and sulfate in
finished ground waters are given in Table 21. Corresponding index values
are in Table 22.
All raw surface waters and nearly all raw ground waters had qualities
that favored dissolution of calcium carbonate (Fig. 5). The tendency to
dissolved calcium carbonate was decreased slightly in the finished surface
waters as compared to raw surface waters (Fig. 6).
Data for aluminum and for inorganic substances for which EPA has set
MCL's are present in Tables 23 (surface water) and 24 (ground water). The
MCL's for arsenic, cadmium, lead and selenium were exceeded once in the
finished surface waters. Mercury exceeded the MCL once in a raw water
sample. In raw ground waters, MCL's were exceeded once for lead, once for
nitrate, and twice for selenium. The MCL for lead was exceeded one time in
finished ground water.
ROUND 3: MA, NJ, PA, WV, VA, NC
The. third round of sampling was from groundwaters in the states of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and the
Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard. In the tables and histograms
which follow test results information has been separated on the basis of
Coastal (New Jersey and Martha's Vineyard) and Appalachian (Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina sources. All water tests
reported upon in this section were samples from untreated supplies. Differ-
ences were found in water quality in the Appalachian chain and the Coastal
region.
41
-------
TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF GROUND AND SURFACE
RAW WATER pH VALUES
ROUND 2
Range Interval
PH
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
G. Mean
Median
Stand.. Dev.
Range
No* of Samples.
Percent of Tests in
Ground
4
41
44
6
5
5.57
6.04
0.81
4.1-8.53
84
Ranee Interval
Surface
16
36
43
5
0
5.06
5.83
0.81
4.0-7.2
42
42
-------
TABLE 14. COMPARISON OF GROUND AND SURFACE
SAW WATER ALKALINITY VALUES
ROUND 2
Range Interval
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCOjj^
0-4
5-9
10-19
20-39
41-80
81-120
121-160
161-200
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Percent of Tests
Ground
3
22
34
17
13
5
0
5
32.04
17
39.50
2-200
87
in Range Interval
Surface
86
7
2
2
2
0
0
0
*5.63
2.16
*8.84
0-44.9
42
*These values determined with 30 samples - 12=<0.1 or <1 or 0
Note; Mean, median, standard deviation and range are in mg/L.
-------
TABLE 15. -COMPARISON OF GROUND AMD SURFACE
RAW WATER CALCIUM VALUES
ROUND 2
Ranee Interval -Percent of Teats in -Ranee Int-erval
Calcium (mg/L)
0-4
5-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-69
-Mean
Median
Stand. Dev,.
Range
Mo. of Samples
Ground
19
41
26
7
1
5
1 .
12.23
8.9
11.79
1.0-68.6
83
Surface
93
2
2
2
0
0
0
3.71.
2.4
4.5-5
1.1-25.9
42
Hate.: Mean, median, standard deviation and range are in mg/L.
44
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF GROUND AND SURFACE
RAW WATER SULFATE VALUES
ROUND 2
Ranee Interval Percent of Tests in Ranee Interval
Sulfate (me/L)
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Ground
47
41
9
1
1
1
12.39
10
8.53
2-56
83
86
10
2
0
0
2
8.5
7
7.64
3-50
42
Note; Mean, median, standard deviation and range are in mg/L.
45
-------
TABLE 17. DISTRIBUTION OF pH
ROUND 2 - RAW AND FINISHED
SURFACE
Ranee Interval Percent of Teats in Range Interval
r>H Raw Surface Finished Surface
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9^
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
9.0-10.9
G. Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
16
36
43
5
0
0
5.06
5.83
0.81
4.0-7.2
42
18
12
37
15
9
9
5.35
6.46
1.54
4.42-10.41
33
46
-------
TABLE 18. DISTRIBUTION OF ALKALINITY
ROBOT 2 - RAW AND FINISHED
SURFACE
Range Interval
Alkalinity
(mg/L ap CaC03J_
0-2.4
2.5-4.9
5.0-9
10-19
20-39
40-49
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Percent of Tests
Raw Surface
60
26
7
2.
2
2
*5.63.
2;16
*8.84
0-44.9
42
in Ranee Interval
Finished Surface
39
15
24
15
6
**7.25
3.5
**6.84
<0. 1-3 1.4
33
Note; Mean, median, standard deviation and range are in mg/L.
* 12% raw alk=0 or <0.1 so couldn't be included in these
computations.
** 7 of finished alk values=<0.1 so couldn't be included in
these computations.
47
-------
TABLE 19. DISTRIBUTION OF CALCIUM
ROUND;2 - RAW AND FINISHED
SURFACE
Rpnge Interval
Calcium (mp/L)
0-4.9
5-9.9'
10.0-14.9 .
15..0-19.9
20.0-24.9.
25.0-29.9
Mean
Median,
Stand. Dev..
Range
No. of Samples-
Percent of Tests
Ray Surface
94
2
0
2
0
2
3.. 71
2.4-
4;. 55
1.1-25.9
42
in Range Interval
Finished Surface
85
15
0
0
0
0
3.32
2.6-
2.22
0.5-9.5
33.
Mean, median, standard deviation and. range are in mg/L.
48
-------
TABLE 20. DISTRIBUTION OF SULFATE
ROUND 2 - RAW AND FINISHED
SURFACE
Ranee Interval
Sulfate (m£/L)
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
Percent of Tests
Raw Surface
86
10
2
0
0
2
8,5
7
7.64
3-50
42
in Range Interval
Finished Surface
72
22
3
3
0
0
9.31
7
6.51
4-3 L
32.
Hats.: Mean, median, standard deviation and range are in mg/L.
49
-------
CSI
o
O
O
1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5
LI
75.
SO'
IL
si
75.
50-
25<
7-9 9-\\ 11-13 \J3-I5. 15-17 >I7
AI
25'
n
^0 Oto-1 -ilo-4 -4IOr8 <^6 > IZ 10-12 8-10 6-8 "C 6
FIGURE 5. COMPARISON OF RAW WATERS — ROUND TWO
n
GROUND
I SURFACE
50
-------
CSI
SI
25'
7-9 8-n 11-13 13-15 15-17 "M7
AI
U-
O
25-
75
25'
I
I
Oto-2 -210-4 -410-6 <-« >12 I0rl2 8r10 6-8 "^ 6
FIGURE 6. RAW AND FINISHED SURFACE WATERS-ROUND 2
D
RAW
FINISHED
51
-------
TABLE 21. DISTRIBUTION OF pH. ALKALINITY. CALCIUM AND SULFATE
ROUND 2 - FINISHED GROUNDWATER
PH
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
Mean
Median
Stand.
Dev.
Range 4 .
No. of
Samples
% Of
Tests
9
9
55
18
9
5.76
6.32
0.85
98-8.01
11
Alk Z of
(mg/L Tests
as CaC03J_
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Mean
Median
Stand.
Dev.
Range
No., of
Samples
27
27
28
0
9
9
21.15
19
14.91
1.5-51
1L
(mg/L) Testa
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
Mean
Median
Stand.
Dev.
Range <0
Ho. of
Samples
33
25
33
0
9
9.36
8.6
5.92
.5-23.1
12
_SQ4_ 2_si
f-mg/Ll Tests
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-69
Mean
Median
Stand.
Dev.
Range
No., of
Samples
42
42
0
8
0
8
-16.25
11.5
16.43
5-63
12
Hale.: Means, medians, standard deviations and ranges are in mg/L,. except
for pH.
52
-------
TABLE 22. DISTRIBUTION OF CSI, SI. LI AND AI VALUES
ROUND 2 - FINISHED GROUNDWATER
CSI
<1
1.0-1.9
2.0-2.9
3.0-3.9
4.0-4.9
±5
No . of -
samples
Tests
0
10
40
20
20
10
10
_2I_
7-8.9
9-10.9
11-12.9
13-14.9
15-16.9
-17
No. of
samples
Z of
Tests
0
0
70
20
10
0
10
LI Tests
>0 0
0 to -1.9 10
-2 to -3.9 60
-4 to -5.9 30
<-6 0
No. of
samples 10
AI Tests
±12
10-11.9
8-9.9
6-7.9
<6
No. of
samples
0
20
50
30
0
10
53
-------
TABLE 23. TOXIC ELEMENT DATA - ROUND 2
RAW AND FINISHED SURFACE WATERS
Compound
as.
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Aluminum
Nitrate
as N
MCL Number of Tests(N) Analytical Ranze me/L No
in Surface Surface Surface
mg/L Raw Finished Raw
0.05
1
0.010
0.05
0.002
0.01
NONE
10
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
all=<0.005
<0.2-0.22
<0.002-0.006
<0.005-0.016
<0.0005-0.0036
all=<0.005
<0.1-0.35
<0. 3-3.0
. of Tests >MCL
Surface Surface Surface
Finished Raw Finished
<0.005-0.059
all=<0.2
<0. 002-0. 018
<0 .005-0. 116
all=<0.0005
<0.005-0.017
<0. 1-0.4
<0.3-3.4
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
-
0
54
-------
TABLE 24. TOXIC ELEMENT DATA - ROUND 2
RAW AND FINISHED GROUNDWATERS
Compound
Si
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury-
Selenium
Aluminum
Nitrate
as N
M£l Number of Tests!
in. Ground Ground
ag/It Raw Finishei
0.05
1
0.010
0.05
0.002
0.01
NONE
10
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
[N) Analytical Ri
Ground
L Raw
all=<0.005
<0.2-0.23
<0. 002-0. 006
<0.005-0.120
0.0005-0.0011
<0.005-0.026
<0.1-0.4
<0.3-11.9
inge mg/L N.O, of Tests >MCL
Ground Ground Ground
Finished Raw Finished
<0. 005-0. 030
all=<0.2
<0. 002-0 .010
<0.005-0.08
<0. 0005-0 .0008
all=<0.005
<0.1-0.3
<0.3-2.8
0
0
0
1
0
2
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
55
-------
Data on pH, alkalinity, calcium, and sulfate are given in Tables 25-28.
The coastal aquifers, which were sand, had lower pH values and lower concen-
trations of calcium, sulfate, and alkalinity.. The indices of water quality
for coastal vs. Appalachian waters are shown in Figure 7. The two groupings
appear to differ substantially for each index.
Table 29 gives data on number of tests, analytical ranges and number
of tests exceeding EPA MCL's for the heavy metals and nitrate, plus aluminum.
The-only MCL exceeded was for lead, with-one sample well above the 0.05
mg/L level.
•TAP1-WATER QUALITY, ROUNDS 2 AND 3
As part- of the work of Rounds 2 and 3 of the project, samples .of water
were collected from selected premises in some of the water supplies. This
was. done utilizing a system developed by EPA to simulate by a series of
three early morning samples what the quality of the water would have been
during an all day--use by members of the family, .i.e., what quality-of water
was being ingested. This work-was done in the six New England States and
NeW York, Pennsylvania,. North Carolina and New Jersey.
Data from the analysis of early morning samples are shown in Table 30.
The-water that was standing overnight in plumbing had the highest concentra-
tion of metals about two-thirds of the time. One fifth of the time the
highest metal concentration was found in water that had been at rest
overnight -in the service line.
A summary of the percentage of samples exceeding the MCL for lead is
shown in Table 31. The percentage of samples exceeding the SMCL for copper
is shown in Table 32. No samples of water freshly drawn from the distribu-
tion system exceeded the MCL for'lead, and only one service line sample
••exceeded the 0.05 mg/L MCL. The SMCL of 1 tng'/L for copper wag met or
exceeded often (42 percent) in household .water samples, and 21 percent of
•the £ime in service line samples. Copper met or exceeded 1 mg/L in only 5
percent of the distribution system samples, however.
56
-------
TABLE 25. DISTRIBUTION OF pH
ROUND 3 - GROUNDWATERS
Ranee Interval Percent of Tests in Ranee Interval
Coastal Appalachian
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
Geometric Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples
43
36
14
7
0
4.64
5.44
0.94
4.15-7.03
14
5
14
46
33
2
5.78
6.58
0.83
4.67-8.02
57
57
-------
TABLE 26. DISTRIBUTION OF ALKALINITIES
ROUND 3 - GROTTNDWATERS
Ranee Interval Percent of Tests in Ranee Interval
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaC03J_
0-4.9
5.0-9.9
10.0-29
30-49
50-99
100-149
150-199
200-249
250-299
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of samples
Coastal
50
36
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
*10.17
4.82
*11.02.
<0. 1-36.8
14
Appalachian
4
7
14
12
19
16
1&
3
7
100.14
86.1
79.05
<0. 1-284
57
Calculation from 10 samples 4 = <0.1
58
-------
TABLE 27. DISTRIBUTION OF CALCIUM
ROUND 3 - GROUNDWATERS
Range Interval Percent of Tests in Range Interval
Calcium Coastal Appalachian
(mg/L)
0-4
5-9
10-24
25-49
50-74
75-99
100-124
Mean
Median
Stand. Dev.
Range
No. of Samples.
79
14
7
0
o.
0
0
3.09
1.85
3.01.
0.8-11
14
7
14
28
23
18
7
3
34.75
25
28.71
1.2-124
57
59
-------
TABLE 28. DISTRIBUTION OF SDLFATE
ROUND 3 - GROUNDWATERS
Range Interval Percent of Tests in Ranee Interval
Sulfate Coaatal Appalachian
(mg/L)
0-39 100 72
40-79 0 12
80-119 0 11
120-159 0 3
160-199 Q 2
Mean 5.71 32.98
Median 4 14
Stand. Dev. 4.12 42.33
Range 1-16 <1-194
No. of Samples 14 57
60
-------
CSI
SI
50-
03
HI
o
Z
01
o
o
o
u.
O
I hi
<. I 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5
LI
Mi
Ik
7-9 9-11 11-13 13-15 "5-17 > 17
AI
75-
i
.>0 Oto-2 -2IO--4 -4lo"6 ^"S
50-
25<
1
I
>12 10-12 B-10 8-8 <6
FIGURE 7. COMPARISON OF COASTAL AND APPALACHIAN
GROUND WATERS
a
COASTAL
APPALACHIAN
61
-------
TABLE 29. COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS
WITH EPA PRIMARY MCL'S FOR HEAVY METALS AND NITRATE
Compound MCI Number of
or ia Tests (N)
Element mg/L Coastal App
Analytical Range (m%/L) _ No. of Tests >MCL
Coastal Appalachian Coastal App
Arsenic 0.05 14
Barium 1 14
Cadmium 0.010 14
Lead 0.05 14
Mercury 0.002. 14
Selenium 0.01 14
Aluminum NONE 14
Nitrate 10 14-
as N
57 <0.005(No Range) <0.005 (N.R.) 0 0
57 <0.2 (No Range) <0.2-0.98 0 0
57 <0.002-0.002 <0.002 (N.R.) 0 0
57 <0.005-0.033(2.75)*<0.005-0.46 0 1
57 <0.0005 (N.R.) <0.005-0.001 0 0
57 <0.005 (N.R.) <0.005-0.007 0 0
57 <0.1-0.39 <0.1-0.2
57 <0.3-3.1 <0.3-5.1 0 0
*This value (2.75) due to a faulty procedure in collecting sample from
Martha's Vineyard.
62
-------
Community
TABLE 30. EARLY MORNING SAMPLES
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEVWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
Metals In Tap Water mg/L
£ifi£
, UMliM*
Source
Source Cu**
PJ2*
Fe**
Cd*
2n*±
Al***
Connecticut
Bristol
Bristol
Bristol
Norwich
Norwich
Norwich
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Portland
Portland
Portland
Stoningtoa-
Hancock
Stoning ton-
Hancock
Stonington-
Hancock
No.Windham-
C umber land
No.Windham-
Cumberland
No.Windham-
C umber land
Bath
Bath
Bath
Rangely-
Franklin
Rangely-
Franklin
Rangely-
Franklin
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
G.F
G.F
G.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
<0.02
<.02
<.02
.33
.24
.06
.19
.15
.15
.46
.05
.06
Maine
2.11
0.05
<0.02
1.63
0.39
0.19
0.03
<0.02
<0.02,
2.20
0.51
0.34
<0.005
<.005
-.006
.007
<.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
.007
«.005
.005
0.104
.005
.006
.010
<.005
<.005
.011
<.005
<.005
.007
<.005
.006
<0.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
.29
.39
.42
0.43
.92
.47
<.l
<.l
<.l
.31
.29
.21
.13
.11
.17
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<0.002
<.00'2
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.02
<.02
<.02
.11
.05
.05
<.02
<.02
<.02
, .03
<.02
.02
0.20
.03
<.02
.83
.50
.44
.09
.06
<.02
.11
.02
.03
0.1
.1 -3.02
.1
<.l
<.l -4.00
<.l
<.l
<.l -3.05
<.l
<.l
.1 -3.06
.1
<0.1
<.l -3.28
<.l
<.l
<.l -2.88
<.l
<.l
-------
TABLE 30. EARLY MORNING SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
CoimnMifcy Type of Wa^er Sample
Metals^In_
Pipe Source Source Cu** Pb*
Tap Water tne/L
Fe** Qd*
LI
Zn** Al***
Massachusetts
Plymouth Copper
Plymouth Service-Cast
Plymouth Iron Main
Attaol*- Copper
Worcester Service-
Athol- Cast Iron
Worcester Main
Athol-Worcester
Pittsfield- Copper
Berkshire Service-
Pittsfield- Cast
Berkshire Iron
Pittsfield- Main
Berkshire
W. Boylston- Cement
Worcester Lined
W. Boylston- Iron
Worcester Service-
W. Boylston- Asbestos
S.
S.
s.
S.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
G.
G,
G.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.86
.82
.39
.20
.11
.12
.59
.49
.51
.64
.31
.14
0.016
<.005
<.005
.052
.010
.008
.009
.006
.005
.014
.010
.008
<0.1 <0.002
<.l <.002
-------
TABLE 30. EARLY MORNING SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
• »i ji • i • •
Pipe
Source
••-•^•^.•i^a
Source
Cu**
Massachusetts
Lancaster-
Worcester
Lancaster-
Worcester
Lancaster-
Worcester
Winchendon-
Worcester
Winchendon-
Worcester
Winchendon-
Worcester
Leominster-
Worcester
Leominster-
Horcester
Leominster-
Worcester
Copper
Service
Pipe
Ductile
Iron
Main
3/4" Cu.
Service-
ID"
Cast
Iron
Main
3/4"
Copper
Service
Cast
Iron
Main
G
G
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
,F
,F
,F
.F
,F
.F
.F
,F
.F
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
.0-5-
.20
.24
.95
.62
.40
.30
.34
.42
Pb* Fe**
(Continued)
0.082 <0.1
.026 <.l
.011 <.l
.018 .19
.008 .12
.012 .22
.025 <.l
.018 <.l
.006 .25
Cd* Zn** Al**
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
.004
0
0
0
<0
0
<0
0
0
0
.48 <
.10
.04
.02
.04
.02
.05
.05
.02
=0.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
.1
.1
<.l
.1
New Hamoshire
Rochester-
Statford
Rochester-
Stafford
Rochester-
Statford
Hud so n-
Billsboro
Hudson-
Hillsboro
Hudson-
Hillsboro
C.I..
150'
Franklin-
Merrimack
Franklin
Merrimack
1st use
S
S
S
G
.F
,F
.F
.F
1
2
3
1
3
3
2
1
.18
.51
.48
.02
0.024 0.24
<.005 .21
.007 .26
.016 <.l
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0
0
0
0
.36 <
.07
.03
.49
=0.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
of service
pipe
100 of
1" Galv.
G
G
,F
.F
2
3
0
0
.21
.07
<.005 .12
<.005 .11
<.002
<.002
0
0
.24
.14
<.l
.1
from old
Pipe on
service
50' Cu
ACME
Well
No. 1
Fraaklin-Merrimack
Lovell
Rd.
overall.
G
G
G
.F
.F
.F
1
2
3
3
0
0
.06
.67
.19
1.23 <.l
.023 .29
.017 <.l
<.002
<.002
<.002
0
0
<0
.84
.11
.02
<.l
<.l
<.l
-3.01
-5.27
-0.53
-7.65
-3.49
-4.33
65
-------
TABLE 30. EARLY MORNING SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
CpffliRun.ij:y Type of Water Sample Metalp In Tap Water mg/L LI
Pipft Source
Source
Cu**
New Haranshire -
Keene- Old 4"
Cheshire District
Keene- Main
Cheshire
Keene- Cheshire
Wolf.ebo.ro- Service
Carroll Used for
Wolfeboro- Sprinkling,
Carroll Testing,
Wolfeboro- Pressure.
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
Carroll Etc.- 15" of Cu.
Georges Mills- Srvc.
Sollivan 40' of
Georges Mills- 3/4 Cu.
S.F
S.F
1
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
3 <0
.10-
.03-
.04
.05
.25
.02
£fc*
F_s
.**
Ill*
Cd*
2n**
» .. ^im
Al***
(Continued)
0.022
.010
<.005
.025
.054
<.005
5
0
0
<
0
<
.14
.36
.12
0.1
.99
0.1
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
.003
.004
1
.04
0.05
0
0
<0
<0
.02
.12
.02
.02
0.1
.1 -8.43
<.l
<.l
.3 -4.44
<.l
Service.
1
2
0
1
.65
.40
.006
<.005
0
0
.53
.53
.003
<.002
0
<0
.17
.02
.1
<.l -5.72
Sullivan Dist.Main
Georges Mills- 6**
•Sullivan 1950 PL
Sunapee- 2,0 * of
Sullivan Cu. Srvc.
Sunapee- Pipe- 6."
Sullivan C.I... Diet.
Sunapee- Main
Sullivan Laid in 1950
Hookset- Distr.
Monicak Main
Hookset- Transits
Monicak (CA.)
Hookset- Service-
Monicak 75' Cu.
Lincoln-Grafton
Lincoln-Graf ton
Linco In-Gr af ton
Littleton- 10"
Grafton Distr.
Littleton- Main
Grafton
Littleton-Graf ton
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
•
G.F
G.F
G.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
.16
.47
.07
.05
.06
.05
.03
.50
.09
.06
.45
.66
.05
.006
.066
.019
.006
<.005
<.005
<.005
.018
<.005
.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
0
0
1
0
<
-
-------
Community
TABLE 30. EARLY MORNING SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
Metals In Tap Water mg/L
Pipe Source Source Cu**
Pb* Fe**
Cd*
2fl*± I
il***
Rhode Island
Scituate
Scituate
Scituate
S.F
S.F
S.F
1
2
3
0.21
.04
<.02
<0.005 <0.1
<.005 <.l
<.005 .11
<0.002
<.002
<.002
0.05 «
<.02
<.02
:0.1
.1 0.19
.1
Vermont
Cavendish
Cavendish
Cavendish
Bakersfield Galv.
Bakersfield Iron &
Bakersfield Copper
Supply Pipe
G.F
G.F
G.F
G.F
G.F
G.F
1
2
3
1
2
3
1.68
0.99
0.16
0.44
0.16
0.04
<0.005 0.10
.009 <.l
.005 .13
<.005 <.l
<.005 <.l
.030 <.l
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.55 <
.07
<.02
.24
<.02
<.02
:0.1
<.l -2.42
<.l
<.l
<.l -.544
<.l
New York
Saranac
Saranac
Saranac
Tupper Lk-
Franklin
Tupper Lk-
Franklin
Tupper Lk-
Franklin
Long Lk-
Bamilton
Long Lk-
Hamilton
Long Lk-
Hamilton
Old Forge-
He rkimer
Old Forge-
Herkimer
Old Forge-
Herkimer
Covevood Lodge
Covevood Lodge
Covevood Lodge
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F-
G.R
G.R
G.R
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1.61
0.48
0.19
0.47
0.07
0.05
0.95
0.64
0.13
2.71
3.04
0.49
0.22
<0.02
0.05
0.022 <0.1
.006 <.l
.006 <.l
.006 .27
<.005 .21
.005 .23
.006 <.l
.007 .11
<.005 <.l
.015 <.l
<.005 <.l
<.005 <.l
.016 .16
<.005 .10
<.005 .13
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
.003
.006
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.26 <
.07
.08
.44
.39
.40
.04
.02
<.02
.13
.03
<.02
.10
<.02
<.02
=0.1
.1 -4.48
<.l
.2
.2 -7.42
.2
.1
.1 -4.32
<.l
<.l
.1 -6.22
.1
<»1 *
<.l -2.81
<.l
*These LI are taken from Round 1 because none were available on Round 2.
67
-------
TABLE 30. EARLY WORKING SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
ROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
METALS CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER
Conftiiunity Type of
Metals In Tap Water mg/L
Pipe Source Source Cu**
Pb*
££**
Cd*
Zn** Al***
Pennsylvania
Millers burg
Mill«rsburg
Millersburg
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Barnegat
Barnegat
Barnega
Marble Comm Distr.
Marble Comm-. Sys.
Marble Comm. .A.C.
Newland Copper
Newland Plumbing
Newland Chlorination.
West
Jefferson Copper
West Plumbing
Jefferson Chlorin.
West Jefferson
Water Source Key: S
G
F
R
P
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
O.G
O.G
O.G
F.G
F.G
F.G
P.G
P.G
P.G
Surface
Ground
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
0
NfiW
0
<
<
<
<
North
<0
<0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.25
.07
.03
.22
.2
.04
0.012 •
.01
.005
.009
.006
<.005
(0.1
.29
.5
.11
<.l
<.l
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
4
0
0
0
0
<0
.16
.05
.04
.82
.04
.02
<0.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
-2.53
-2.14
Jersev
.04
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
0.037
.007
.006
<.005
<.005
<.005
0.19
.19
.37
.2
.11
.15
<0.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<0
<
<
<
<
<
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
0.1
.1
.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
-6.51
-9.31
Carolina
.02
.02
.02
.12
.06
.02
.67
.07
.05
<0.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
<.005
.006
<.005
<.005
0.36
.46
.15
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
Sample Source
Finished
Raw
Partial
<0.002
<.OOZ
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
Key:
0
<
<
<
.07
.05
.31
.02
.02
.02
.67
.55
.47
1. Standing overnight
2. Service
Line
<0.1
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
<.l
-5.88
-4.49
-2.82
in plumbing
3. Hater Main
*EPA Primary MCL's Pb 0.05 mg/L
Cd 0.010 mg/L
**EPA Secondary MCL's Cu 1 mg/L
Fe 0.03 mg/L
Zn 5 mg/L
***ANSI Standard for Kidney dialysis water Al 0.010 mg/L
68
-------
TABLE 31. ROUND 2 AND 3 - NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
EARLY MORNING SAMPLES
SAMPLES EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING MCL FOR LEAD**
State
(1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
North Carolina
All
Ko. of
Samples
'8.2'8.3's)*
4
4
10
10
5
1
2
2
2
3
43
Percent Equal To
JEjtceedine MCL for
l's
0
25
30
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
'ilS.
0
0
0
10
0
0
0.
0
0
0
2
3ts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or
Lead
Ail
0
8
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
*Sample Source Key:
**0.05 mg/L
1. Standing Overnight in Plumbing
2_ Service Line
3. Water Main
69
-------
TABLE 32. ROUND 2 AND 3 - NEWWA WATER QUALITY STUDY
EARLY MORNING SAMPLES
SAMPLES EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING SMCL FOR COPPER**
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
North Carolina
All
No. of
Samples
(l'a.2«s.3's)*
4
4
10
10
5
1
2
2
2
a 3
43
Percent Equal To or
Ejcceedine SMCL for Conner
ila
0
75
50.
60
40
0
50
0
0
33
42
0
0
30
50
20
0
0
0
0
0
2r
H&
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Ail
0
25
30
40
20
0
17
0
0
11
23.
*Sample Source Key:
1.. Standing Overnight in .Plumbing
2. Service Line
3. Water Main
**1 mg/L Secondary MCL (EPA)
70
-------
SECTION 8
HISTORICAL RECORDS
SOURCES OF DATA
Historical records were obtained by several of the field Investigators
and by the NEWWA staff. These varied in completeness and in duration of
compilation from a few tests over a period of a few years to extensive
analyses for nearly 100 years. The latter were the records of the Lawrence
Experiment Station (LES) described in Section 6.
The records of the Lawrence Experimentation Station are considered by
the authors to be the best available for New England water. The emphasis
on documentation of quality control and quality assurance procedures has
increased in recent years, so few, if any, historical records would have
the level of QC/QA documentation that is considered necessary today. Evi-
dence was found, however, that indicates that a concern existed for QC/QA
throughout the years at the Lawrence Experiment Station. Additional in-
direct evidence for the high quality of work done at Lawrence was the strong
influence of the LES on the first edition of Standard Methods (31). After
the first edition of Standard Methods, scientists at LES continued to be
involved in revising existing methods and developing new ones. This back-
ground information provides strong, although indirect, evidence of the high
standards of the Lawrence Experiment Station. Additional evidence of
interest in quality control at Lawrence is the Experiment Station's partici-
pation in the Analytical Reference Service (ARS) testing program. The U.S.
Public Heath Service conducted this program of analysis of unknown solutions.
Test solutions were mailed to laboratories where they were analyzed. The
results were mailed back to the ARS, which published reports of the results.
The LES participated in a 1971 study that included measurement of pH and
alkalinity (36).
Another factor that helped to improve the quality of the LES data was
the sample collection procedure. According to two present-day staff members
(one with 37 years of experience and the other with 25 years), samples were
carefull collected, and a sampling protocol was followed. In addition,
over the years samples were collected at the same location when possible
(in absence of new construction, etc.) and by the same sample collectors
for extended periods of time.
The quality of data available at the Providence, Rhode Island, Water
Supply Board was also a known factor. In this case, the chemist of the
Water Supply Board, who retired after a career of 38 years, was the Rhode
71
-------
Island field representative for this research project. For this study, Mr.
Collins-was able to draw upon his years of experience and provide informa-
tion about analytical work conducted during his tenure.
HISTORICAL DATA
The largest water source for which data were obtained in this study is
Quabbin Reservoir, which serves about two million people in the Greater
Boston area.. It holds 412 billion gallons. Another large reservoir for
which data were available is the Cobble Mountain Reservoir, a part of the
water system at Springfield, Massachusetts. The capacity of Cobble Mountain
Reservoir is 65 billion gallons. Data for a time span of over four decades
were also found for Scituate Reservoir, which serves Providence, Rhode
Island. Available data for pH, alkalinity, calcium and sulfate are pre-
sented in figures and tables in this portion of the report.
Values for alkalinity, pH, and calculated or measured calcium for
Quabbin Reservoir as sampled and measured at the entrance to the Quabbin
Aquaduct are given in Table 33. Figure 8 shows the trend of alkalinity
concentrations from the early 1940's to 1980. The slope of the line of the
least squares fit is different from zero, with statistical significance at
the 0.0005 level. The trend of pH vs. time is shown in Figure 9. The
hypothesis that the slope of the line of the least squares fit is statis-
tically not different from zero can not be rejected at the 0.05 level.
Sulfate concentration vs. time is plotted in Figure 10. Kb analysis for
statistical significance was performed on the sulfate data.
Figures. 11 and 12 show the variation of alkalinity and pH with time at
Cobble Mountain Reservoir. Maximum depth of. this Impoundment is about 220
feet. The intake serving the"filtration plant is 135 feet deep. Thus
local surface conditions would not be reflected in these water quality data.
Over the past 40 years, alkalinity declined slightly, whereas pH increased.
Both slopes are significant at the 0.05 level.
Scituate Reservoir data for pH and alkalinity are shown in Table 34
and Figures 13 and 14. This reservoir, holding 22 billion gallons, was
sampled at the surface near the dam spillway. Both pH and alkalinity
declined over the past four decades. The scatter in the pH data is less
than in the alkalinity data. The least squares fit of the pH data had a
slope statistically different from zero at the 0.0001 level. The fit for
alkalinity was statistically different from zero at the 0.05 level.
Alkalinity trends for 32 other water sources in Massachusetts are
presented in Appendix III. The summary of statistical testing is shown in
Table 35. Of the 34 sources, including Cobble Mountain Reservoir and
Quabbin Reservoir, 20 had slopes statistically significant at the 0.05
level. Of the 20, 18 had declining trends in alkalinity, and two had
increasing trends.
Volume II, Appendix, will contain additional historical water quality
data, information on watersheds and aquifers, and analysis of trends.
72
-------
TABLE 33. WATER QUALITY DATA - QDABBIN RESERVOIR
BOSTON METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, MASSACHUSETTS
1944 - 1980
Corrected
Year Alkalinity j£ pH Hardness
(nut/ 1,
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1952
1953
1955
1956
1957
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1979
1980
Alkal
y =
slope =
r =
as Ca(
11
10
13
10
9
9
7
6
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
2
4
4
9
3
8
7
6
4
2
2
6
inity
8.92
-0.16
-0.61
6.6 6.5
6.3 6.2
6.8 6.7
6.8 6.7
6.7 6.5
6.7 6.5
6.5 6.3
6.8
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.3
6.4
6.8
6.5
6.4
6.6
6.1
6.6
6.8
6.4
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.8
6.0
7.0
(mg/L)
12
•9
19
14
14
10
9
13
11
10
10
11
19
35
11
12
19
16
10
13
18
14
9
10
9
8
9
9
8
Calculated
Calcium CSI LI
(my/L)
3.5 3.48
2.6
5.5
4.1
4.1
2.9
2.6
3.8
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.2
5.5
10.1
3.2
3.5
5.5
4.6
2.9
3.8
5.2
4.1
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.3
pH Hardness
y =6.47
slope = 0,006
r = 0.25
CSI
y = 3.31
slope = 0.008
r = 0.224
y =
slope =
r =
LI
y =
slope =
r =
14.14
-0.07
-0.14
~3.31
-0.008
-0.224
3.95
3.00
3.25
3.49
3.64
4.00
3.40
4.05
3.80
3.82
3.98
4.04
3.55
3.65
3.82
3.84
3.99
4.40
3.78
Actual3 .08
£fl* 4.07
2.6 3.04
2.9 3.25
2.7 3.45
2.3 4.00
2.8 4.01
2.6 4.85
2.4 3.40
Calcium
y = 4
slope = -0
r = -0
-3.25
-3.71
-2.78
-3.02
-3.27
-3.41
-3.77
-3.18
-3.83
-3.57
-3.59
-3.75
-3.81
-3.32
-3.43
-3.59
-3.62
-3.75
-4.17
-3.55
-2.86
-2.85
-2.81
-3.02
-3.22
-3.77
-3.78
-3.62
-3.17
.09
.02
.13
*Hote! Years 1971 through 1980 given to show agreement
between calculated and actual calcium values.
73
-------
15
10
a
E
QUABBIN RESERVOIR: MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
H- -.605
S- - .163
A A
A A
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
Figure 8. Quabbin Reservoir, MA - Alkalinity as CaCO-
-------
6.0
7.0 •
6.0
QUABBIN RESERVOIR' MASSACHUSETTS
pH
R- .245
S- .006
1940
1950
I960
1970
I960
YEAR
Figure 9. Quabbin Reservoir, MA - pH
-------
10
o>
QUABBIN RESERVOIR' MASSACHUSETTS
SULFATE
R - .796
S- .25
1970
1975
YEAR
1980
Figure 10. Quabbin Reservoir, MA - Sulfate
-------
10
z
-I
<
_]
< 5
COBBLE MOUNTAIN REsd RVOIR ' SPRINGFIE LD , MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R- - .53
S-- .097
A A A A
1040
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
I960
Figure 11. Cobble Mountain Reservoir, MA - Alkalinity as CaCO
-------
TABLE 34. ALKALINITY AND pH VALUES
SCITUATK RESERVOIR, RHODE ISLAND
1937 - 1981
Year
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
_BS_
6.89
6.86
6.88
6.92
6.94
7.18
6.44
6.79
6.41
6.48
6.58
6.48
6.43
6.55
6.57
6.32
6.32
6.44
6.33
6.29
6.71
6.57
Alkalinity
(tng/L as CaCOQ*
4.03
3.00
3.19
2.48
3.15
2.44
3.65
3.40
2.81
2.78
2.51
3.28
3.82
3.86
3.57
3.98
3.84
3.33
3.04
2.97
2.99
2.72
Year
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
_BH_
6.59
6.70
6.71
6.55
6.61
6.50
6.43
6.41
6.22
6.29
6.30
6.10
6.20
6.13
6.12
6.40
6.29
6.31
6.38
6.32
6.27
6.44
6.60
Alkalinity
fmg/L as CaCCO*
3.13
3.64
3.51
3.55
4.04
2.68
2.80
2.47
2.03
2.16
2.07
1.98
2.16
2.14
2.14
3.66
3.64
3.19
3.09
2.92
2.22
2.41
3.42
*Corrected according to Kramer (1981)
79
-------
oo
o
70
6.5
6.0
SCITUATE RESERVOIR' SCITUATE. ft. I.
AVERAGE pH' 1937- 1982
R--0.658
1940 1950 1960 1970
YEAR
Figure 13. Scituate Reservoir, RI - Average pH
1980
-------
j:
>-
t~
z
<
< 3
q
s
SCITUATE RESERVOIR- SURFACE- SCITUATE, R. I.
AVERAGE M.O. ALKALINITY 1937-1981
R-~0.323
1940
1950
1970
1980
1960
YEAR
Figure 14. Scituate Reservoir, RI - Average Methyl Orange Alkalinity as CaC03
-------
TABLE 35. ALKALINITY TRENDS OF RAW WATERS IN MASSACHUSETTS
Community and
Water Source
Springfield-Cobble Mt. Res.
Athol-Phillipston. Reservoir
Hinsdale-Belmont Reservoir
Leominster-Fall Brook Res.
Htolyoke-Carmody -Reservoir-
Montagoe-Lake Pleasant Res.
Lee-Up per Codding Brook
Lakeville-Assawompsett Pond
Glouceatet-Dikes Brook
Gloucester-Haskell Res.
Falmout-h-Long Pond Res.
Fall River-North Watuppa Pond
Dalton-Egypt Brook
Spencer-Shaw Pond
Fitchburg-Lovell Reservoir
Fitchburg-Falulah Brook
Fitchburg-Mare Meadow
Westfield-Montgomery
Winchendon-Old Well
Winchendon-New Well
Winchendon-Upper Naukeag Pond
Southbridge-Hatchett Brook
Gardner-Crystal Lake
Worcester-Pine Hill Reservoir
Salem Beverly-Wenham Lake
Salem Beverly-Longham Res..
Plymouth-Great South Pond
Northampton-Roberts Meadow Br..
Pittsfield-Farmham Reservoir
New Bedford-Uttle Quittacas Pd
Wachusset Res. at surface
Wachosset Res. below surface*
Cambridge-Up per Hoffs Res.
Boston-Quabbin Reservoir
Data
Available
1935--1980
1935-1981
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980.
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1978
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1952-1980
1955-1980
1935-1973
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1934-1979
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1980
1935-1981
1935-1980
1944-1980
Slope Statistically
Different From
Zero (0.05 level)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Trend in
Alkalinity
Down
Up
—
— .
Down
Down
—
—
Down
—
—
—
Down
Down
Down
Up
—
Down
—
— .
Down
Down
Down
Down
—
—
Down
Down
Down
Down
— .
Down
—
Down
*Sampled at 55 ft depth or 90 ft depth
82
-------
SECTION 9
DISCUSSION
The possible effect of acid rain on community water supplies should be
assessed from the perspective of the water supply industry. One key con-
sideration is whether acidic deposition has brought the quality of the raw
water out of compliance with drinking water regulations for certain metals
that cannot be removed easily. Another is whether the raw water quality is
of corrosive nature or capable of depositing calcium carbonate on the
inside of the distribution system. The results of this study therefore
will be discussed in terms of the EPA Drinking Water Regulations, and in
terms of indices which are useful in evaluating the aggressive nature of
water and the ability of watersheds or aquifers to handle acidic depostion.
OBSERVED WATER QUALITY VS. QUALITY STANDARDS
Quality standards for public drinking water have been established by
EPA. The Primary Drinking Water Regulations (8) defined a "community
water system" as ".... a public water system which serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at
least 25 year-round residents." The regulations apply to community water
systems, and portions of the regulations are applied to public water
systems not meeting the definition of a community water system. "Appendix
A, Background Used in Developing the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations" is contained in the regulations document (8). This
appendix sets forth the basis for the drinking water quality standards that
were established. Because these health-based standards have already been
established through the regulatory process, they are used as the bench mark
against which drinking water quality is compared in this report.
Two other quality standards are also used as references. The Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Levels were established by EPA through the regulatory
process (10), but these are not mandatory nationally. The standard for
aluminum set forth by the American National Standards Institute is for
dialysis water, not for drinking water. Aluminum in water has been impli-
cated in health problems of some kidney dialysis patients, but this is a
small group of more suspectible persons, and the level of aluminum harmful
to this group may or may not harm the general public. Although the applic-
ability of the 0.01 mg/L limit for aluminum in water is limited to a small
group, data on aluminum are evaluated in the context of this limit.
Quality of raw waters can be evaluated based upon Tables 11, 12, 23,
24 and 29. Cadmium concentration was always below the 0.010 mg/L MCL in
162 raw surface water samples and in 166 raw ground water supplies. The
83
-------
0.05 mg/L MCL for lead was never equalled or exceeded In 161 raw surface
water samples. It was equalled or exceeded twice in 166 raw ground water
supplies. The 0.002 mg/L MCL for mercury was equalled or exceeded two
times 'in 162 raw surface water supplies tut no times in 166 raw ground
waters. On the basis of the samples collected and analyzed, very few
potential health problems were found in raw waters.
In a similar fashion, quality of treated waters can be evaluated,
using tables 11, 12, 23 and 24. Treated surface waters equalled or exceeded
the caJdmium MCL one time in 134 samples. In these, waters the MCL for lead
was equalled .or exceeded two times in 134 samples, whereas the mercury
concentration .was always below'the MCL in 134 samples. Twenty-two samples
.of treated -ground water were analyzed. Ho sample exceeded the MCL for
cadmium'or --mercury. Only one sample of 22 exceeded the 0.05 mg/L MCL.for
lead. As--with .untreated waters, very few potential health problems were
found.
Detailed information on the quality of tap waters was presented in
Table 30, with data for lead and copper summarized in Tables 31 and 32. In
the tap water samples, the cadmium MCL of 0.010-mg/L was never exceeded in
129 samples. The zinc SMCL of 5 mg/L was never exceeded.
The 0.05 mg/L for lead was equalled or exceeded 7 times in 129 samples.
This occurred primarily in water that had been standing in household plumb-
ing overnight. Sources of lead in tap water could include lead service
lines, lead household piping, and lead used to solder copper pipes and
fittings.
The .1'TBg/L SMCL for copper was equalled or exceeded (Table 32) by 42
percent of household plumbing samples and 21 percent of service line
samples. Likely sources for copper would be copper service lines and
copper piping in households.
The results of the tap water sampling program strongly suggest that
corros'ion was occurring in service lines or household plumbing or both. In
a study of the Seattle Water Department's Tolt River supply, EPA (37)
concluded that increases of iron, copper, zinc, lead, and cadmium in stand-
ing water vs. raw water confirmed the corrosiveness of the Tolt water.
The Seattle Water Department sponsored an investigation of corrosion
caused by the Cedar River supply and the Tolt River supply. Corrosion
rates were measured for copper piping and galvanized steel piping (38) under
existing water quality conditions. Corrosion rates were also measured
for various corrosion control strategies involving modification of water
quality. Ryder (39) summarized the economic aspects of this study, and
showed that the savings associated with longer plumbing life that would be
expected as a result of corrosion control would exceed the coats of a
corrosion control program by about 5:1.
The capability of water quality modification to reduce corrosion and
decrease concentrations of lead in drinking water was shown by Karalekas,
Ryan, and Taylor (40) for the water supply of metropolitan Boston and by
Schock and Gardels (41) in laboratory research. On the basis of the above
results, properly designed corrosion control strategies would be expected
to reduce the copper and lead concentrations in the household water samples
in this study. 84
-------
At the end of 1983, EPA had not set an MCL for aluminum. This
element had not been implicated in waterborne illness through ingestion,
but data showed that aluminum may be hazardous to patients using kidney
dialysis. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) established a
limit of 0.01 mg/L for aluminum content of dialysates (13). One outbreak
of dialysis encephalopathy has been documented in which the dialysate con-
tained 200 ug/L of aluminum (11). Fifty-five of 162 Round 1 and 2 raw
surface water samples contained aluminum equal to or in excess of 0.1 mg/L
and 20 showed aluminum equal to or greater than 0.2 mg/L. In Rounds 1, 2
and 3 twenty-four of 166 samples of raw groundwater equalled or exceeded
0.1 mg/L.
Miller et al. (42) published results of a survey of the aluminum
content of raw water and treated drinking water in the United States.
About half of all raw water samples analyzed exceeded 0.014 mg/L aluminum.
This occurred in about 60 percent of the raw surface waters but in about 15
percent of the raw groundwater samples. Aluminum thus is found in raw
water sources throughout the United States, and in many cases exceeds
0.01 mg/L.
Data showing concentrations of aluminum and alkalinity as well as pH
in water samples from Rounds 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 36-40. Although
the solubility of aluminum is a function of pH, no strong relationship of
this sort was seen in these data. This could be due to a number of factors
not evaluated, including bedrock geology, soil type, and human activity in
the watersheds, and presence of suspended aluminum in the water.
QUALITY INDICES
The Langelier Index (LI) and Ryznar's stability index (SI) have been
used by persons attempting to estimate the tendency of waters to be corro-
sive. Ryznar's index was related to actual field observations. Both are
based upon calcium carbonate stability, and the indices are similar, as
noted by EPA in the Federal Register (16) when the corrosion regulation was
published. The similarity of results of these two indices is shown in a
plot of LI values vs. SI values for Phillipston Reservoir (Fig. 15).
Data on indices related to corrosion tendencies and on the Calcite
Staturation Index were presented in Figures 3-7 and Table 22. The data on
quality indices for raw water supplies in Rounds 1 and 2 are summarized in
Table 40.
The interpretation of CSI values suggested by those who proposed the
index, Conroy et al. (20) and Kramer (21), is that surface waters having a
CSI of <3 are generally stable to acid precipitation and those with CSI
values 4 to 6 are unstable. The data presented above show that a high
proportion of New England and northeastern New York surface and groundwaters
were in borderline or unstable condition.
The tendency of the raw waters sampled to dissolve calcium carbonate
and to have corrosive effects on water mains and metallic plumbing materials
is shown in Table 41. Of the raw waters sampled in Rounds 1 and 2, 97
85
-------
TABLE 36.
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts.
ROUND 1 - RAW SURFACE WATER ALUMINUM VALUES
COMPARED WITH ALKALINITY AND pH
New Hampshire-
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
Aluminum
fmy/L)
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O-.l
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3.
O.I
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Alkalinitv
(mf/L as CaCO
1.8
167.3
11
7.5
1.2
3.4
1.25
7.53
4.3
<0.2
1.0
8.6
1.0
5.2
2.9
6.3
6.42
3.4
0.4
11.7
28.4.
0.8.
0.0
2.2
<0.2
1
20.9
23.9
8.2
6
20
5
<0.2
Aluminum vs. Alkalinity:
Aluminum vs.. pH:
y = 0.127
Slope i- 0.0011
r = 0.483
y = 0.089
Slope = 0.008
r = Q.106
_RH_
5.46
7.97
7.00
6.61
4.82
.28
.62
.81
.83
.30
.24
.56
5.35
7.64
6.01
6.93
6.92
6.78
5.79
7.05
6.72
5.78
5.37
6.35
5.49
5.80
7.13
6.76
6.77
6.28
6.37
5.90
4.88
86
-------
TABLE 37. ROUND 1 - RAW GROUKDWATER ALUMINUM VALUBS
COMPARES WITH ALKALINITY AND pH
State
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
Aluminum
dng/I.)
0.3
0.3
0.1
Alkalinity
(me/L as CaCOit
5.36
3
43.6
-JZfl-
5.46
5.15
5.97
Aluminum vs. Alkalinity:
Aluminum vs. pH:
y
Slope
r
y
Slope
r
=
=
0.321
-0.005
-0.999
1.66
-0.26
-0.93
Note; Alkalinity Values of <0.2 counted as 0
for above calculations.
87
-------
TABLE 38. ROUND 2 - RAW SURFACE WATER ALUMINUM VALUES
COMPARED WITH ALKALINITY AND pH
State
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Hew Hampshire
Sew York
Rhode Island
Aluminum vs
y =
Slope =
r =
Aluminum
(my/L)
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.35
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
Q.Z
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2.
0.1
. Alkalinity
0.175
-0.004
-0.229
Alkalinitv
(mg/L as CaCO^
22
3.8
<0.1
1.3
2.4
6.5
0.5
1.2
*2.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<1
1.0
1.0
2.4
<0.1
<0.1 (0)
1.5
0
1.3
Aluminum vs. pH
y = 0.544
Slope = -0.065
r = -0.628
pH
7.2
6.0
4.57
4.16
5.01
7.18
6.20
-
6.38
5.58
5.6
5.75
5.58
5.39
6.43
5.70
6.4J
5.35
4.65
6.36
4.88
6.27
Alkalinity values <0.1 counted as 0
for above calculations..
88
-------
TABLE 39. ROUND 2 - RAW GROUNDWATER ALUMINUM VALUES
COMPARED WITH ALKALINITY AND pH
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Aluminum
fme/L)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Alkalinitv
Cme/L as CaCO'
18.7
53.5
8.4
10.0
17
5
20
11
5.5
9.0
11
2
58
6.4
17
9
72.1
6.80
5.99
6.04
5.64
5.37
6.10
5.77
5.97
5.99
6.19
4.93
5.0
5.76
5.98
5.84
8.51
Aluminum vs. Alkalinity
y = 0.150
Slope = -0.0005
r = -0.112
Aluminum vs. pH
y = 0.283
Slope = -0.023
r = -0.210
89
-------
TABLE 40. SOUND 3 - RAW GROOTNDWATER ALUMINUM VALUES
COMPARED WITH ALKALINITY AND pH
State
V.ineyard,
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Aluminum
(mg/L)
Alkalinity
(rn/'L as
Coastal
0,39
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
«M
0.71
3.82
4.31
4.52
4.45
4.15
4.16
Appalachian
Pennsylvania
0.1
0.2
0.2
0,1
35.7
10.8
1.94
6.57
5.57
4.74
4.67
Coastal
Al vs. ATkalinitv .Al vs. pH
Appalachian
Al vs. Alkalinity
Al vs. pH
y = 0.290
.Slope = -0.0569
r = -0.718
y = 2.85
Slope = -0.606
r = -0.771
y = 0.167
Slope = -0.0014
r = -0.404
y - 0.256
Slope = -0.020
r = 0.302
Hfl_t£S Alkalinity values <0.1 counted as 0
for above calculations.
90
-------
I I vs. SI
PHILUPSTON RESERVOIR: ATHOL, MA.
-3
-2
1935-1981
12
14
S I
16
l
-3 79
-3 86
-4.23
-4.71
-4.41
-1.89
-2.55
-3.79
-3.46
S I
13. 78
13.82
14.36
15.02
15.02
I 1.18
1 1.70
1 3.98
12.92
Figure 15. Langelier Index (LI) vs. Stability Index (SI) at Phillipston Reservoir
-------
TABLE 41. DATA ON THE CORROSIVE NATURE OF RAW WATER SUPPLIES
IN THE ST0DY AREA
ROUNDS 1 AND 2
Index Value Category of T Supplies
Interretat ion Tn
Rnd.l Rnd.2 Rfld.2
(G&S) £G&Sl LSI
CSI >3 Susceptible or highly
susceptible to change 63 79 72
LI <-2 85 97 91
AI <10.0 Highly aggressive 85 91 88
SI >8 97 9& 96
92
-------
percent were ia the range on Ryznar's Stability Index where corrosion and
red water (rusty water) problems were observed. The low calcium and pH
values observed in many of the water supplies could also be detrimental to
asbestos-cement pipe, unless checked by natural or synthetic inhibitors.
Table 30 showed results of analyzing household water samples. Table
30 also has data on the Langelier Index values for the waters tested. When
lead exceeded 0.05 mg/L or copper exceeded 1 mg/L or when both of these
concentrations were exceeded, the highest Langelier Index value was -0.53,
the median was -4.44, and the lowest value was -7.65. When neither copper
nor lead exceeded the concentrations stated above, the highest L.I value
was +0.19, the median was between 4.00 and 4.32 and the lowest value was
-9.31. This range of values exceeded the range of the L.I. values for
which lead or copper limits were exceeded.
The inability of the Langelier Index to serve as a predictor of corro-
sion is consistent with the observations of Singley (14). Absence of high
levels of corrosion products (lead or copper) in tap water could be a
results of the absence of copper piping or lead piping or of lead-tin
solder in the system. Another factor that could result in low levels of
lead or copper in water is use of corrosion inhibitors not related to
calcium carbonate chemistry, e.g. silicates or phosphates. These inhibitors
do little to change the Langelier Index.
A different perspective for considering the data in Table 30 is to
state that of the 42 water samples with negative LI values, half exceeded
copper or lead limits or both in one or more of the household samples.
This observation, together with Ryznar's failure to observe corrosion and
scaling conditions simultaneously, suggests that negative LI values are
not desirable unless certain corrosion inhlbitorsor specific control
strategies are used.
The raw groundwater data obtained in Round 3 showed the contrast
between sand aquifers (New Jersey Pine Barrens area and Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts) and aquifers in the Appalachian Mountain region from
Pennsylvania to North Carolina. Results are summarized in Table 42.
Waters from sand aquifers had low alkalinities and pH values, which resulted
in corrosion index values showing very strong tendencies to dissolve calcium
carbonate. The buffering capacity of the sand aquifers was very small. In
contrast, water samples from the Appalachian area were much less likely to
have very strong tendencies to dissolve calcium carbonate and buffering
capacity was high. These results suggest that sand aquifers have the
potential to contain waters that are highly corrosive.
93
-------
TABLE 42. DATA ON THE CORROSIVE NATURE OF WATER SUPPLIES
IN COASTAL AND APPALACHIAN STATES
ROUND 3
Index
CSI
LI
AI
SI
>3
<-2
<10.0
>8
Category of
Interpretation
Susceptible or highly
susceptible to change
Highly aggressive
2 Supplies
In Category
Coastal
86
100
100
100
Appalachian
23
42
36
68
94
-------
REFERENCES
1. Cowling, E. G. Acid Precipitation in Historical Perspective.
Environmental Science & Technology. 16 (2): 110A-121A, 1982.
2. Acid Rain. EPA-600/9-79-036, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, July, 1980.
3. likens, G. E., Wright, R. F., Galloway, N. N. and Butler, T. B.
Acid Rain. Scientific American, 241(4):43-51, 1979.
4. Glass, N. R., Glass, G. E. and Rennie, P. J. Effects of Acid
Precipitation. Environmental Science & Technology, 13(11):
1350-1355, 1979.
5. Glass, N. R., Arnold, D. E., Galloway, N. N., Hendry, G. R., Lee,
J. L., McFee, W. W., Norton, S. A., Powers, C. F., Rambo, D. L.,
and Schofield, C. L. Effects of Acid Preciptiation. Environmental
Science & Technology, 16(3):162A-16f9A, 1982.
6. Haines, T. A. Acid Precipitation and Its Consequences for Aquatic
Ecosystems: A Review. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, 110(6):669-707, 1981.
7. Driscoll, C. T., Jr., Baker, J. P., Bisogni, J. J., Jr., and
Schofield, C. L. Aluminum Speciation and Its Effect on Fish in
-Dilute Acidified Waters, Nature, 284(5752): 161-163, 1980.
8. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA-570/9-
76-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Supply, 1976.
9. Craun, G. F. and McCabe, L. J. Problems Associated with Metals
in Drinking Water. Journal American Water Works Association,
67(11):593-599, 1975.
10, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, Final Rule. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, 44(140):42195-
42202, July 19, 1979.
11. Berkseth, R. 0. and Shapiro, F. L.. An Epidemic of Dialysis
Encephalopathy and Exposure to High Aluminum Dialysate, In:
Controversies in Nephrology, Edited by G. C. Schreiner, Georgetown
University, Washington, DC, 1982.
95
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
12.. Parkinson, I. S., Ward, M. K., Feest, T. G., Fawcett, R. W. P., and
Kecr, D. N.. S. Fracturing Dialysis Osteodystrophy and Dialysis
Encephalopathy. The Lancet, 1(8113):406-409, February 24, 1979.
13'.. American National Standard for Hemodialysis Systems. American National
Standards Institute, New York, NY, May 14, 1982.
14. Singley, J. E. The Search for a Corrosion Index. Journal American
Water Works Association. 73(11):579-582 , 1981.
15. Langelier, W. F. The Analytical Control of Anti-Corrosion Water
Treatment. Journal American Water Works Association, 28(10):1500-1521,
1936.
16. Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Amendments, Final Rule,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, 45(168):
59332-57348, August 27, 1980.
17. Ryznar, J. W. A New Index for Determining Amount of Calcium Carbonate
Scale Formed by a Water. Journal American Water Works Association,
36(4):472-486, 1944.
18.. AWWA Standard for Asbestos-Cement Pressure Pipe, 4 in through 24 in.,
for Water and' Other Liquids,. AWWA C400-75, American Water, Works Associa-
tion, Denver, Colorado, 1975»
19. AWWA Standard for Asbestos-Cement Distribution Pipe, 4 in. through 16
in. (100 mm through 400 mm) NFS, for Water and Other Liquids, AWWA
C400-80, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado, 1980.
20. Conroy, N.,. Jeffries, D. S.. and Kramer, J. R. Acid Shield Lakes in
the Sudbury, Ontario Region. In: Proceedings 9th Canadian Symposium
on Water Pollution Research, pp.. 15-61, Ottawa, Ontario, 1974.
21. Kramer, J. R. Geochemical and Lithological Factors in Acid Precipita-
tion. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Acid
Precipitation and the Forest Ecosystem, L. S. Douchinger and T. A.
Seliga, Editors, pp 611-618. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report NE-23, Washington, DC, 1976.
22. Glass, E. E. and Loucks, 0. L. Impacts of Airborne Pollutants on
Wilderness Areas Along the Minnesota-Ontario Border. EPA-600/3-80-
044. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Duluth, Minnesota, 1980.
96
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
23. Schock, Mr R., Mueller, W., and Buelow, R. W. Laboratory Technique
for Measurement of pH in Corrosion Control Studies and Water Not in
Equilibrium with the Atmosphere. Journal American Water Works
Association, 72(5):304-306, 1980=
24. Standard Operating Procedures for Analysis and Quality Assurance,
Inorganic & Particulate Control Section, Physical & Chemical
Contaminant Control Branch, Drinking Water Research Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH (Unpublished) 1981.
25. Schock, M. R., and Schock, S. C. Effects of Container Type on pH and
Alkalinity Stability. Water Research, 16(10):1455-1464, 1982.
26. Hassan, A. A. Methodologies for Extraction of Dissolved Inorganic
Carbon for Stable Carbon Isotope Studies: Evaluation and Alternatives.
Water Resources Investigation 82-6, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia, 1982 (NTIS PB82-257288) .
27. Midgley, D. and Torrance, K. Potentiometric Water Analysis, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1978.
28. Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in
Environmental Chemistry. Analytical Chemistry, 52 (14) 2242-2249,
1980.
29. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Various Editions through
Fifteenth Edition, 1980.
30. Examination by the State Board of Health of the Water Supplies of
Massachusetts 1887-1890, Part I of Report of Water Supply and Sewerage.
Wright and Potter Printing Co., State Printers, 18 P.O. Square,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1890.
31. Report of Committee on Standard Methods of Water Analysis to the
Laboratory Section of the American Public Health Association. Presented
at the Havana Meeting, January 9, 1905. Reprinted from Journal of
Infectious Diseases, Supplement No. 1, May, 1905, Chicago, Illinois.
32. Kramer, J. and Tessier, A. Acidification of Aquatic Systems: A
Critique of Chemical Approaches. Environmental Science & Technology
16(11):606A-614A, 1982.
97
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
33. Russell, L. L. Chemical Aspects of Groundwater Recharge with Waste-
wateTs. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), University of California, Berkeley,
California, 1976.
34. Lind, C. J. Specific Conductance As A Means of Estimating Ionic
Strength. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700D, pp. D272-
D280, Menlo Park, California, 1970.
35. Taylor, F. and Taylor, J. A. Acid Precipitation and Drinking Water
Quality in the Eastern United'States, Volume II, Appendix, In
preparation.
36. Lishka, R. J. and McFarren, E. F. Water Physics No. 1. Analytical
Reference Service Report Number 39, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
37. Dangel, R. A. Study of Corrosion Products in the Seattle Water
Department Tolt Distribution System. EPA-670/2-75-036, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1975.
38. Internal-Corrosion Study, City of Seattle Water Department, Phases
1, 2, and 3 and Summary. Kennedy Engineers, Tacoma, Washington
(unpublished), 1976 and 1978.
39. Ryder, R. A. the Costs of Internal Corrislon In Water Systems.
Jo'arnal American Water Works Association, 72(5):267-279, 1980.
40. Karalekas, P. C. Jr., Ryan, C. R. and Taylor, F. B. Control of
Lead, Copper, and Iron Pipe Corrosion in Boston. Journal American
Water Works Association, 75(2):92-95, 1983.
41. Schock, M. R. and Gardels, M. C. Plumbosolvency Reduction by High
pH and Low Carbonate-Solubility Relationships. Journal American
Water Works Association, 75(2):87-91, 1983.
42. Miller, R. G., Kopfler, 1. C., Kelty, K. C., Stober, J. A. and
Ulmer, N. S. The Occurrence of Aluminum in Drinking Water. Journal
American Water Works Association, 76(1):84-91, 1984.
98
-------
APPENDIX I
LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED IN THIS STUDY
(Community numbers shown on state maps)
99
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
Esu
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
**
Bridgeport
New Haven
Hartford
Wallingford
Groton
Putnam
Middle town
Greenwich
Portland
Norwich
Meriden
Meriden
Torrington
Danbury
Danbury
Daniel son
Willimantic
Clinton
CT. Water Co,
Waterbury
CONNECTICUT
ROUND 1 & 2
Supply Name
Easton Reservoir
Lake Whitney
Nepoug Reservoir
Pine River Reservoir
Poguonnack Reservoir
Little River
River Rd. Wells
Putnam Lake Reservoir
•*Portland" Reservoir
*Deep River Reservoir
Broad Brook Reservoir
Elmer e Reservoir
Reuben Hart Reservoir
West Lake
Margerie Reservoir
Hygrea Reservoir
Natchaug Reservoir
Killingworth Reservoir
Stafford Springs
Wigwam Reservoir
Source
Ground or Surface
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
S
^Supplies that were retested
100
-------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Sharon
Sharon
Bristol
Newton
Rockville
New Britian
Plainville
Ct. Water Co
Norwalk
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
CONNECTICUT - RODND 1 & 2 - (CONTINUED)
Beardsley Reservoir S
Caulkinaton Reservoir S
*Reservoir No. 1 S
Taunton Pond S
Shenipsit Lake S
Shiffle Mead Reservoir S
Woodford Wells G
Kelseytown Reservoir S
Plant Effluent - Norwalk S
1st Taxing District
^Supplies that were retested
101
-------
CONNECTICUT
o
NJ
A'GROUND WATER
A'SURFACE WATER
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
So.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Town
Portland
Augusta
Waterville
Camden- Rock land
Miilinocket
Greenville
Jackman
Phillips
Rang ley
Rang ley
Bath
Stonington
Stonington
Mars Hill
North Windham
Clinton
MAINE
ROUHB 1 & 2
Source
Supply Name Ground or Surface
Sebage Lake
Carltoa Pond
China Lake
Mirror Lake
Ferguson Pond
Big Squaw Pond
Bigwood Pond
Mount Blue Fond
*Rangley Lake
Mingo Spring
*Nequaeset Lake
*Burntland Pond
2 Private Wells
Young Lake
*N» Windham Municipal Supply
Clinton Municipal Supply
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
S
S
G
S
G
G
^Supplies that were retested
103
-------
A=GROUND WATER
A'SURFACE WATER
104
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
au
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Town
Athol
Athol
Athol
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Cambridge
Dalton
Fall River
Falmouth
Fitchburg
Gardner
Gloucester
Hinsdale
Holyoke
Lakeville
Leominster
Leominster
Leominster
Lee
Montague
Northampton
MASSACHUSETTS
ROUND 1 & 2
Source
Supply Same Ground or Surface
*Phillipston Reservoir
Newton Reservoir
South Street Well
^Intake Wachusett Tunnel
*Upper Wachusett Reservoir
*Quabbin Reservoir-Lower End
*puabbin Reservoir-Outlet
Upper Hobbs Brook Reservoir
Egypt Brook Reservoir
*North Watuppa Pond
Long Pond Reservoir
*Lovell Reservoir
Crystal Lake
Dikes Meadow Reservoir
*Belmont Reservoir
Carmody Reservoir
Elders Pond
*Fall Brook Reservoir
No. Town Reservoir at Dam
Well No. 120
tf.eab.ey Reservoir
Lake Pleasant
Mountain Sto Reservoir
S
S
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
s
S
*Supplies that were retested
105
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
MASSACHUSETTS - ROUND 1 & 2 - (CONTINUED)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34-
35
36
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Pittsfield
Salem- Beverly
Southbridge
Spencer
Springfield
Westfield
Winchendon
Worcester
Worcester
New Bedford
Grot on
Lanesboro
Lanesboro
Bourne
Brews ter
Hudson
Hudson
Duxbury
South Wellfleet
Sterling
Sterling
West Boylston
West Boylston
Little South Pond
Lout Pond
Federal- Furnace Well
Horth Plymouth Well
*Farnham Reservoir
Wenham Lake
Hatchett Brook Reservoir No. 3
Shaw Pond Reservoir
Cobble Mountain Reservoir
Upper Granville Reservoir
*Upper Naukeag Lake
Pine Hill Reservoir Upper End
Pine Hill Reservoir at Dam
Litte Quittacas Reservoir
Grot on Reservoir
Well No. 1
Well No. 2
Well No. 3 (USGS No. BHW-199)
Well No. 1 (USGS No. BMW-37)
Cranberry Bog Well
Rimkus Street Well
Milbrook Well No.. 2
B-Well (USGS No. WNW-41)
Well No. 2
Well No. 3
Lee Street Well No. 4
Oakdale Well
S
S
G
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
*Supplies that were retested
106
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No. Town
1 West Tisbury
2 Edgartown
3 Oak Bluffs
4 Vineyard Haven
5 Chilmark
6 Gay Bead
M4HTHA* S V^SEYARB
ROUND 3
Supply Kame
Greenlands
Edgartown Water Co.
Oak Bluffs Water Dept.
Tisbury Water Dept.
Town Hall Well
Gay Head Town Hall
Soureq
Ground or Surface
G
G
G
G
G
G
108
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
428
A IS
637
6.16
AI7
A12
4.25
4.9 AB
A 26
a 36
A 28
A^GROUND WATER
L'SURFACE WATER
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
So.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lOWB
Andover
Ashland
Boscawen
Canaan
Claremont
Concord
North Conway
Durham
Georges Mills
Georges. Mills
Go r ham
Hampton
Billsboro.
Hooksett
Booksett
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROUND 1 & 2
Source
Supply Name Ground or Surfac^
Bradley Lake
Impoundment Reservoir
Walker Pond
Canaan St. Lake
Dole Reservoir
Penacook Lake
Kearsarge Reservoir
Oyster River Imp,
*Ledge Pond'
2 Private Shallow Wella
Perkins Brook Imp. Reservoir
Cr en shaw Well No. 10
Loon Pond.
*Well No. 2
2 Private Shallow Wells
*Small Tarnic Well
Weinstein Well (Litchfield)
W & E Well (Windham)
High Plains P.S. (Litchfield)
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
S
G
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
15 Jaffrey Bullet Pond
*Supplies that were retested
110
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
A'GROUND WATER
^'SURFACE WATER
112
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No. Town
1 Lakehurst
2 Brick Township
3 Beachwood
4 Winslow
5 Atlantic City
6 Barnegat
7 Manchester
HEW JERSEY
ROUND 3
Supply Name
Well No. 1
Well No. 5
Well No. 4
Well No. 3
Well No. 4
Well No. 4
Crestwoo'd' Vill.Water: Co.
Well No. 7
Source
Ground or Surface
6
G
G
G
G
G
G
L13
-------
NEW JERSEY
A: GROUND
WATER
114
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Town
Plattsburg
Plattsburg
Plattsburg
Plattsburg
Lake Placid
Saranac Village
Tupper Lake Vill.
Tupper Lake Vill.
Tupper Lake Vill.
Star Lake
Long Lake
Long Lake
Long Lake
Old Forge
Old Forge
Speculator
Glens Falls
Saratoga Springs
Gloversville
Covewood Lodge
Adirondack Ed.Ctr
Ray Brook
Tamarac Inn
SEW YORK
ROUND 1 & 2
Source
Supply Name Ground or Surface
Municipal Water Dept.
Meade Reservoir
West Brook
Patkinson Reservoir
*Lake Placid
*Mackenzie Pond
*Simon Lake
Lumberjack Spring
Dug Well at Mt. Morris Motel
Star Lake
*Big Sand Reservoir
Drilled Well-Adirondack Mt.Sch.
Spring-Private Dwelling
^Independence Lake
Ground Water Supply No.- 1
Lake Pleasant'
Glens- Falls Municipal Supply
Saragtoga Springs Mun. Supply
Gloversville Mun. Supply
*Private Supply (spring)
. Deep Well-Supply for State Fac.
R.B. Mun. Supply. -Shallow Well
Private Supply-Drilled Well
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
S
S
G
G
S
G
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
^Supplies that were retested
115
-------
NEW YORK
A15
A3
A9
All
A10
A'GROUND WATER
A-SURFACE WATER
116
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No. Town
1 Robbinsville
2 Cherokee
3 Waterville
4 Marshall
5 Bakersville
6 Sparta
T Marble
8 Newland
9 West Jefferson
NORTH 'CAROLINA
ROUND 3
Source
Ground or Surface
Supply Name
Thunderbird Mt. Resort G
Soco Valley Well G
1-40 Rest Stop(10 mi.from Tenn.) G
Well No. 6 G.
Well No. 1 G
Well No. 9 G
1968 Well G
Well No. 2 G
Well-West Jefferson Lumberyard G
117
-------
NORTH CAROUNA
A= GROUND WATER
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Town
Plymouth
Tredyffrin
Millersburg
Newport Rd 2
Belief onte
Black Mashaunan
Dallas
Towanda
Matamoras
PENNSYLVANIA
ROUND 3
Supply Name
Well No. 1
Tredyffrin Well
Well No. 5
Well No. 3
Big Spring
Main Well
Country Club Well No.
Well No. 1
Well No. 3
Promised Land State Park
Jim Thorpe
Middletown
Grove City
Ford City
Johnsonburg
Berlin
Berlin
Well No. 1
Well No. 1
Well No. 3
Well No. 3
Well No. 2
Boost Spring
Well No. 7
Source
Ground or Surface
G
G
G
G
G
G
10 G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
119
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
A13
(o
O
AID
A12
A^GROUND WATER
-------
WATEH SUPPLIES SURVEYED
RHODE ISLAND
ROUND 1 & 2
Source
HflU.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
icr
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Town
Burriville
Richmond
Pawtucket
Scituate
Scituate
Warren
Block Island
Block Island
Coventry
E, Greenwich
Harrisville
Kingston
Manville
N. Kingston
West Kingston
Slatersville
Wakefield
Westerly
Supply Same Ground
*Wallum Lake
*Alton Dug Well
Pawtucket Reservoir
*Scituate Reservoir
*Ponaganset Reservoir
Kickemuit Reservoir
*Sand Pond
Finished Sample from Supply
Todd's Reservoir
Mishnock Well No. 1
E'. Greenwich Well No. 1
Harrisville Well No. 2
Univ. of R.I. Well No. 4
Manville Well No. 10
Well No. 4
Private Dug Well
Slatersville Dug Well
Well. No. 6
White Rock Wells
or Surface
S
G
S
S
S
S
S
G;
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
•^Supplies that were retested
121
-------
RHODE ISLAND
A'GROUND WATER
A-'SURFACE WATER
122
-------
WAXES SUPPLIES SURVEYED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
10
11
12
13
14
Towq
Barton
Bakersf ield
Bakersf ield
Bakersf ield
Bakersf ield
Bellows Falls
Derby Line
Dorset
Fairhaven
Island Pond
Montpelier
Proctorsville
Readsboro
Rutland
Swanton
St. Johnsbury
Cavendish
Cavendish
VERMONT
ROUND 1 & 2
Supplv Name
May Pond
*Bakersfield Vill.Sply.
Hale Drilled Well
Lawyer Drilled Well
Teacher's Drilled Well
Mimard Pond
Holland Pond
Spring
Inaan Pond
Source
Ground or Surface
S
(Springs) G
G
G
G
S
S
G
S
2 Brooks on Bluff Mountain. S
Berlin Pond
Hew Village Well
Home's Pond.
Mendon Brook
Fairfield Pond
Stiles Pond
Cavendish Village Well
Van Shaik Well
S
G
S
S
S
S
G
G
*Supplies that vere retested
123
-------
VE R MONT
£.9 A'4
A:GROUND WATER
3*1 A:SURFACE WATER
124
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Town
Waynes bo ro
McGayesville
Buena Vista
Bayse
Roanoke County
Roanoke County
Monterey
HontvaLe
Vinton
Independence
CleveLand
VIRGINIA
ROUND 3
Source
Supply Name Ground or Surface
Waynes bo ro Municipal Well
McGayesville Water Co.
Buena Vista Municipal Supply
Bryce Mt. Well No. 3
Moose Lodge 384
Mitchell Distributing Co.
Monterey Municipal Supply
Colonial Pipeline Co.
Vinton Municipal Supply
Parsons Well
Cleveland Municipal Supply
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
125
-------
V I KG IN IA
A'GROUND WATER
-------
WATER SUPPLIES SURVEYED
No..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10"
11
12
13
14
15
Town
Moundsville
Wellsburg
New Martinsville
Fairview
Berkeley Springs
(Bath)
Wardensville
Terra Alta
Mineral County
Rainelle
Norton
Eleanor
Point Pleasant
Ravenswood
Parkersburg
Bunker Hill
WEST VIRGINIA
ROUND 3
Source
Supply Name Ground or Surface
Well No. 13
Wellsburg Water Works
Leap Street Well
Fairview Water Kept.
Berkeley Springs Water Dept.
Wardensville Water Dept.
Terra Alta- Water Works
Wells-Allegheny Ballistics Lab
Well No. 5
Norton Water Dept.
Well No. 4-Coralynn Co.. Inc.
Ranney Well
Well No. 3
Parkersburg Water Dept.
Berkeley County Public Service
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Distributor (Spring)
127
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
N>
CO
A GROUND WATER
-------
APPENDIX II
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL DATA
129
-------
TABLE II-l. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE PRESERVATION METHODS UTILIZED IN
THIS STUDY
SAMPLE PRESERVATION METHODS
Color
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate-N
Barium
Arsenic
Selenium
Fluoride
Titration Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
Copper
Manganese
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Zinc
Mercury
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
P04-p
Total-P
Reactive SiO£
e
o
•H
u
a)
tu u
tj a)
(U OS
oo
•H M
M 01
U-4 4-)
OJ MH
s <
xa
X
X
X
e TJ
O T3 ft -U
•H >J w c
•H u e i-t o
O fl O 3 O.
< 3 O W 3
X
X
c
0
-H
jj
ID
>
M
» 4) 1 Of!
0) S. 00 -H >J
O 4-1 C C
| 4) -H O CJ c
cbJ n 5
•H O 3 .C ^-l
a eu u >,
W -H <;
p M (0 •>%
O C u O. •-!
> ft O CO o
o< ,J ca o a,
X
Hojt£: a. Samples that were analyzed by the
automated colorimetric method.
130
-------
TABLE II-2. SUMMARY OF TYPES OF ANALYTICAL METHODS USED FOR THE
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS INVESTIGATED IN THIS STUDY
c
o
*H
u
U D-
GJ *H i-J
e E o
Constituent ^ ° *
Color
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate -N~
Barium x
Arsenic
Selenium
Fluoride
Titration Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
pH (field)
Copper x
Manganese x
Lead
Iron x
Cadmium
Zinc x
Mercury
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium x
Magnesium x
P04 -P
Total -P
Reactive Si02
c
o
1-1
Ql 1J
O O O.
flj -r< VJ
C B 0
MOO)
3 U JD
(u < <
X
X
X
X
c
o
1-1
(1) 0
S a>
fe W
X
X
^ c
o o
O. '^
CQ ^
> o o.
•0 E 0
i-l O 0)
O u .O
X
u
P
(J
-------
TABLE II-3. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE REFERENCES FOR
METHODS USED IN THIS STUDY
Constituent
Standard Methods* USEPA*>
USGSC
Other
Color 204A
Total Dissolved Solids A.
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate -N
Barium
Arsenic
Selenium
Fluoride. 413E
Titration.Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
pH (field)
Copper
Manganese
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Zinc
Mercury
Sodium 320A
Potassium 317A
Calcium
Magnesium
Aluminum
Phosphorus - PO^
Phosphorous - Total
Silica (reactive) 425E
325.2
375.4
353.2d
206.2
270.2
120.1.
220.. l:
243.1
239.2.
236.1
213.2*
289.1
245.If
1-1152-78
242.18
202.2
365.1 1-2601-78
365.1
1-2700-78
C
D
132
-------
TABLE II-4. QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS FOR REFERENCE STANDARDS
IN POTENTIOMETRIC ALKALINITY TITRATIONS
TO THE CARBONIC ACID EQUIVALENCE POINT
STANDARDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED BY THE SAME METHOD
CONCENTRATIONS ARE mg/L as
USGS 62
70.1
5.7
NA
8
71.28
0.089
0.12
USGS 70
22.3
1.9
NA
6
20.9
0.43
2.1
EMSL
478-1
NA
NA
21.7
2
21.3
0.28
1.3
EMSL
478-3
16.1
1.5
16.0
23
16.0
0.34
2.1
EMSL
478-4
73.6
1.9
73.7
19
73.4
0.22
0.30
Reference Value
Standard Deviation
True Value
Number of Analyses
Mean Analysis Valu(
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
Percent Bias - - -1.9 0 -0.4
133
-------
TABLE II-5. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STANDARD
DEVIATIONS OF ANALYZED ALKALINITIES
Standar4 Deviation
(me/L CaC03^ PREQDEHCY CUM FREO PERCENT Cm PERCENT
0.0002 1
0.0027 1
0.0066 1
0.01 2
0.012 1
0.013 1
0.014 1
0.02 2
0.022 1
0.024 1
0.026 1
0.028 1
0,03 1
0.031 1
0.033 1
0.04 2
0.041 1
0.042 1
0.043 1
0.045 1
0.049 2
0.05 1
0.052 1
0.054 1
0.057 1
0.06 1
0.064 1
0.065 1
0.066 1
0.068 1
0.07 1
0.073 2
0.074 1
0.076 1
0.08 1
0.081 1
0.082 1
0.085 1
0.087 1
0.09 1
0.099 1
134
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31.
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
1.190
1.190
L.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
2.381
3.571
5.952
7.143
8.333
9.524
11.905
13.095
14.286
15.476
16.667
17.857
19.048
20.238
22.619
23.810
25.000
26.190
27.381
29.762
30.952
32.143
33.333
34.524
35.714
36.905
38.095
39.286
40.476
41.667
44.048
45.238
46.429
47.619
48.810
50.000
51.190
52.381
53.571
54.762
-------
TABLE II-5. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STANDARD
DEVIATIONS OF ANALYZED ALKALINITIES - (CONTINUED)
Standard Deviation
(1P8/L CaCQ3l FREQUENCY CUM FREQ PERCENT CUM PERCENT
0.1 3
0.11 5
0.12 2
0.131 1
0.14 2
0.16 3
0.17 2
0.2 1
0.204 1
0.22 3
0.25 2
0.27 1
0.28 1
0.3 1
0.33 1
0.34 1
0.38 1
0.41 1
0.44 1.
0.52 1
0.58 1
0.64 1
0.71 1
1.2 1
49
54
56
57
59
62
64
65
66
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
3.571
5.952
2.381
1.190
2.381
3.571
2.381
1.190
1.190
3.571
2.381
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
1.190
58.333
64.286
66.667
67.857
70.238
73.810
76.190
77.381
78.571
82.143
84.524
85.714
86.905
88.095
89.286
90.476
91.667
92.857
94.048
95.238
96.429
97.619
98.810
100.000
135
-------
TABLE II-6. QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS FOR REFERENCE
STANDARDS IN POTENTIOMETRIC CHLORIDE TITRATIONS
USGS 70
2.71
0.84
NA-
2
2.6
0.12
4.6
DSGS 74
1.40
0.79
HA
1
1.4
-
—
EMS1
478-3
20.8
0.11
20.5
21.
20.4
0.17
0.83
EMSL
478-4
(xO.l)
7.06
0.44
7..02
2?
7.00
0.033
0.47
tJSGS 64
(xO.Ol)
2.45
0.08
NA
3
2.54
0.015
0.59
Reference Value
tStandard Deviation
True Value
Number of Analyses
Mean Analysis Value
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
Percent Bias - - -0.5 -0.3
136
-------
TABLE II-7. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS WITH
REFERENCE VALUES FOR SOLFATE, FLUORIDE, SILICON AND
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Constituent
804
F
TDS
Si
Constituent
804
F
TDS
Si
Constituent
S04
F
TDS
SPC
S£
Constituent
804
F
TDS
SPC
Si
S04
F
TDS
804
F
TDS
SPC
804
F
TDS
31
0
69
0
31
0
69
0
14
0
70
103
3
14
0
70
103
3
Reference
Value
.1 ± 1.2
.050 ± 0.004
.8 • ±1.6
.39 ± 0.077
Reference
Value
.1 ± 1.2
.050 + 0.004
.8 ±1.6
.39 ±0.077
Reference
Value
.3 ± 2.2
.36 ± 0.07
.6 ± 5.6
.4 ±7.1
.09 ± 0.224
Reference
Value
.3 ± 2.2
.36 ± 0.07
.6 ± 5.6
.4 ±7.1
.09 ± 0.224
True Value
18.8
0.43
69.2
True Value
75.
1.7
277.
479.
True Value
11.7
0.163
42.25
4250
30.
<0.1
73.
0.2
5Ji8JL
30.
<0.1
71.
0.5
5580
18.
0.4
74.
133.
<0.5
5408
14.
0.3
69.
104.
2.7
5562
17.
0.4
75.
5561
73.
1.5
334.
486-
4410
11.
<0.1
46.
4998
Jl.
<0.1
68.
<0.5
5685
31.
0.1
70.
0.5
55J1
15.
0.4
75.
110.
3.2
5389
14.
0.2
74.
105.
3.0
5578
18.
0.4
76.
4412
11.
<0.1
47.
5461
31.
<0.1
74.
<0.5
4250
30.
<0.1
73.
0.2
5689
14.
0.4
65..
104_
3.1
5460
31.
<0.1
70.
<0.5
4998
31.
<0.1
68.
<0.5
5552
14.
0.4
67.
102.
3.0
5559 5579 5554
31. 31. 31.
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
75. 77. 78.
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5
4_23JL 4_2S1
32. 30.
<0.1 0.1
77. 72.
0.3 0.3
5479 5409
14. 14.
0.4 0.3
70. 69.
105. 105.
3.2 2.7
5580
18
0
74
9
.4
-
137
-------
TABLE II-7. QUALITY CONTROL. DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS WITH
REFERENCE VALUES FOR StJLFATE, FLUORIDE, SILICON AND
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - (CONTINUED)
Constituent
804
F
TDS
SPC
Constituent
804
F
TDS
SPC
Constituent
JS04
F
TDS
Si
Constituent
804
F
TDS
Si
True Value
7.2
0.43
54.
113.
True Vfllue
75.
1.7
277.
479.
Reference
Value
62U . + 2'.4
0.100 ±0.008.
139.5 i 3.1
0.78 ±. 0.051
Reference
Value
15.5 ± 0.60
0.03 ±0.002
34.9 ±0.77
0.194 ± 0.028
4256
7.
0.3
74.
117.
4999
73.
1.5
325.
489.
435; 4405 4352 4J33
63. 63. 63. 61..
-------
TABLE II-8. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS HAVING
REFERENCE VALUES FOR N03-N, ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P AND TOTAL-P
Constituent Reference Valuq 5460 5461
N03-N 3.29 ± 0.52 3.4 3.4
P04-P (<0.474 ± 0.034)* 0.5 0.5
Tot-P 0.474 ± 0.034 0.29 0.29
N03~N
P04-p
Tot-P
N03-N
P04-P
Tot-P
N03-N
P04-p
Tot-P
N03-N
P04-p
Tot-P
N03-N
P04-P
Tot-P
2
(10
0
.43
.876
.876
True
0
0
(>o
(£0
0
0
0
(iO
1
0
(>o
± 0.79
± 0.037)*
± 0.037
Value
.62
.062
.062)*
-
.14)*
.14
.31
.031
.031)*
.59
.154
.154)*
5389
2.8
0.88
0.60
5.222.
0.8
0.1
<0.03
55J1
<0.3
0.2
0.07
4256
0.5
<0.05
0.10
4J1L
1.4
0.10
0.15
5408
2.8
1.0
0.56
5559
0.7
0.1
0.04
5554
<0.3
0.2
0.14
4405
0.5
<0.05
<0.03
4352
1.5
0.10
0.13
5409
2.8
1.0
0.60
5689
0.7
0.1
0.06
5685
<0.3
0.1
0.13
4251
0.5
0.09
0.10
4133
1.2
0.18
0.09
5479
2.3
1.0
0.55
5579 5Jj£2
0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1
0.03 <0.03
5688
<0.3
0.2
0.14
4407
1.3
0.2
<0.03
5578
0.5
0.1
<0.03
*Presumed to be this value
139
-------
TABLE II-8. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS HATING REFERENCE VALUES
FOR N03-N, ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P AND TOTAL-P
Constituent True Value 4250 4410 4412
N03-N - <0.3 <0,3 4.0
P04-P (<0.93)* 0.25 0.8 0.6
Tot-P 0.93 0.93 <0.03 <0.03
4998 4399,
N°3-N 1.55 1.5 1.5
PC-4-p 0.155 0.15 0.13
Tot-P (iO.155)* ND SD
Reference Value 4235
N03-N 3.29 ± 0.52 2.6
P04-P (iO.47 ±0.034)* 0.50
Tot-P 0.47 ± 0.034- 0.50
*Presumed to be ttiis value.
140
-------
TABLE II-9. QUALITT CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS
HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR TRACE METALS
Constituent Reference
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
Pb
Cd
As
Se
Al
Ba
Hg
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
Pb
Cd
As
Se
Al
*Ba
0.110
0.0225
0.035
0.0188
0.0107
0.0038
0.0025
0.0046
0.490
0.092
0.00034
0.372
0.238
0.527
0.102
0.0165
0.0079
0.0053
0.0070
0.236
0.030
+
±
+
±
±
i
t
±
+
±.
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
Value Cmy/L)
0.015
0.004
0.005
0.0030
0.0053
0.0007
0.001
0.0014
0.117
0.033
0.00012
0.026
0.012
0.020
0.009
0.0072:
0.0012
0.0018
0.0021
0.053
0.027
4133
0.21
<0.02
0.04
0.04
0.009
<0.002
<0.005
<0.005
0.4
<0.2
<0.0005
5688
0.4*
0.22
0.56
O.lfr
0.018
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
0.2
<0.2
4J98
<0.1
0.04
0.04
<0.02
0.009
0.004
<0.005
<0.005
0.4
<0.2
0.0006
5479
0.41
0.22
0.54
0.09
0.014
0.007
0.009
<0.005
0.2
<0.2
4999
0.18
0.02
0.04
<0.02
0.008
0.004
<0.005
<0.005
0.3
<0.2
<0.0005
5552
0.40
0.22
0.58
0.11
0.015
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.2
<0.2
5689
0.24
<0.02
0.04
<0.02
0.005
0.004
<0.005
<0.005
0.3
<0.2
<0.0005
5553
0.42
0.23
0.56
0.10
0.015
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
0.2
<0.2
1409
0.23
0.04
<0.03
0.03
0.010
0.003
<0.005
<0.005
0.3
<0.2
<0.0005
Hg 0.0156 ± 0.0025 0.0052 0.0078 0.0072 0.0152
141
-------
TABLE II-9. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKBOWNS
HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR TRACE METALS - (CONTINUED)
Constituent Reference
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
Pb
Cd
As
Se
AL
Ba
Hg
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu.
Pb
Cd
As.
Se
Al
Ba
Hg
0.766
0.0134
0.563
0.025
0.003
0.0101
0.0177
0.0124
0.023
0.233
0.00196
0.134
0.252:
0.341
0.0626
0.0165
0.0159
0.0342
0.0057
0.235
0.203
0.00345
jh
+
±
+
±
+
±
±
±
t
t
±-
±
+
±.
±
+•
•±
±
+
±
±
Valuefipg/L)
0.035
0.0047
0.039
0.0042
0.0013
0.0027
0.0027
0.0014
0.017
0.040
0.00040
0.015
0.019
0.022
0.0065
0.0164
0.0032
0.0088
0.0022
0.201
0.084
0.00024
5554
0.81
<0.02
0.62
0.06
0.005
0.008
<0.005
0.009
<0.1
<0.2
0.0032
4235
0.12
0.24
0.36.
0.07
<0.005
0.014
0.038
0.005
0.2
<0.2
0.0042
55?9
0.86
<0.02
0.56.
0.03
0.008
0.008
0.017
<0.005
<0.1
0.20
<0.0005
4351
0.20
0.23
0.38
0.06
0.005
0.009
0.036
<0.005
0.2
0.26
0.008
5M5.
0.77
<0.02
0.61
0.02
<0.005
0.003
0.015
0.009
<0.1
0.21
0.0016
5-152,
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.08'
0.005
0.009
0.036
<0.005
0.3
0.8
0.0185
5389
0.82
0.02
0.58
0.03
<0.005
0.008
0.013
0.010
<0.1
<0.2
0.0035
4405
0.14
0.25
0.52
0.06
0.006
0.011
0,047
<0.005
0.2
0.2
0.005
142
-------
TABLE II-9. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS
HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR TRACE METALS - (CONTINUED)
Constituent True Valuefmg/L)
425Q
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
Pb
Cd
As
Se
Al
Hg
0.006 (tot)
5460 5461 5578
Fe
Zn
Mh
Cu
Pb
Cd
As
Se
Al
Hg 0.00344 <0.0005 0.0023 0.0032
0.398
0.239
0.239
0.187
0.192
0.030
0.091
0.024
0.426
0.0038
0.39
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.205
0.018
0.095
0.024
0.3
0.0035 (inors)
.078
0.026
.047
.037
.113
.027.
.061
0.0160
.435
<0.1
<0.2
0.04
0.03
.116
0.018
0.059
0.017
0.4
<0.1
<0.2
0.05
0.04
.124
0.018
0.060
0.018
0.4
<0.1
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.120
0.014
0.053
0.015
0.3
143
-------
TABLE II-9. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR BLIND UNKNOWNS
HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR TRACE METALS - (CONTINUED)
Constituent True Value(ipg/L)
5562 5579
Fe 0.016 <0.1 <0.1
Zn 0.006 <0.02 <0.02
Ma 0.0079 <0.03 <0.03
Cu 0.0087 <0.02 0.03
Pb 0.030 0.031 0.028
Cd 0.0065 0.007 0.008
As 0.024 0.022 <0.005
Se 0.0087 <0.005 0.008
Al 0.061 0.1 0.1
Hg 0.0004 <0.0005 <0.0005
144
-------
TABLE 11-10. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR
BLIND UNKNOWNS HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR
CALCIUM, MAGNESIUM, SODIUM AND POTASSIUM
Constituent True
Ca
Mg
Na
K
4412
Ca 5.08 4.8 4.9
Mg 1.05 1.07 0.99
Na 5.83 6.6 6.8
K 1.23 1.2 1.2
5.3
1.8
8.2
2.1
5.08
1.05
5.83
1.23
Reference ^
4.15
1.615
4.00
0.207
8.3
3.23
8.00
0.41
falu
i
±.
i
+
^
I
*
±
4256
4.8
1.67
8.4
2.0
4410
4.8
1.07
6.6
1.2
fidne/U
0.15
0.040
0.100
0.025
0.30
0.22
0.20
0.050
4407
Ca. 4.15 i 0.15 4.1
Mg 1.615 ±. 0.040 1.6
Na 4.00 i 0.100 4.0
K 0.207 ± 0.025 0.2
4251
Ca 8.3 + 0.30 8.0
Mg 3.23 ± 0.22 2.93
Na 8.00 £ 0.20 8.4
K 0.41 ± 0.050 0.4
145
-------
TABLE 11-11. QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR
BLIND UNKNOWNS HAVING REFERENCE VALUES FOR
A VARIETY OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS
Constituent True Value
TDS
Ca
Mg
Na
K
ci-
F-
S04
69.3
8.0
1.78
10.0
1.8
17.6
0.4-
18.8
74.
7.6
1.69
9.9
1.8
17.7
0.4
18.
146
-------
TABLE 11-12. FIELD DUPLICATE SAMPLES
64240
64236
53475
53467
53476
53468
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Alk (CAEP)
S04
Cl
F
N03-N
P04-P
Tot-P
Si
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cd
Cu
Pb
Se
As
Al
Ba
Hg
SPC
IDS
Color
20.4
1.57
12.1
1.4
16.0
32.
20
0.5
<0.3
<0.05
<0.03
1.6
0.11
<0.02
<0.03
<0.002
0.32
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.1
<0.2
<0.0005
220.
132.
2.
22.6
1.59
12.2
1.4
15.7
35.
20.
0.5
<0.3'
<0.05
<0.03
1.5
-------
TABLE 11-12. FIELD DUPLICATE SAMPLES - (CONTINUED)
63953
63968
63504
_63521
63503
63520
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Alk (CAEP)
S04
Cl
F
N03-N
PC-4-P
"Tot-P
Si
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cd
Cu
Pb
Se
As
Al
Ba
Hg
SPC
TDS
Color
2.4
1.08
5.0
0.7
0.11
<0.02
0.04
<0.002
<0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.1
<0.2
<0.0005
2.6
1.09
5.2
0.7
<
0.11
<0.02
0.04-
<0.002
<0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.1
<0.2
<0.0005
3.4
0.79
10.4
0.7
13.2
5.
10*. 12.1 <1
1.0
<0.3
<0.05
<0.03
1.2
<0.1
<0.02
<0.03
<0.002
<0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
-------
TABLE 11-13. CALIBRATION LIMITS FOR ANALYTICAL METHODS
USED IN THIS STUDY
Constituent/Method
Alkalinity (CAEP), as
Cl (potentiometric)
Cl (colorimetric)
304
N03-u
Na
Ba
As
Se
F
Si
Al
K
P04-p
Total-P
Ca
Mg
Cu
Mn
Pb
Fe
Cd
Zn
Hg
Calibration Limit
my/L
0.1
10.
1.
0.3
1.0
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.5
0.1
0.02
0.03
0.005
0.1
0.002
0.02
0.0005
149
-------
APPENDIX III
TRENDS OF ALKALINITY (as CaCQ$) VS. TIME FOR RAW WATERS
IN MASSACHUSETTS
(Figures presented in alphabetical order, by source name)
150
-------
ASSAWOMPSETT POND- LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R --.207
S--.038 a
10
t-
Z
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
I960
-------
BELMONT RESERVOIR: HINSDAIE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.3O2
S-'.O5
10
O
E
•2 5
194O
195O
I960
YEAR
19 7O
198O
-------
CARMODY RESERVOIR: HOLyOKE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R«".59
S=~. 106
o 15
>-
Z
< 10
-J
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
o> 20
G -
*• i
10
CRYSTAL LAKE1 GARDNER. MASSACHUSETTS
AlKAUNITY
R" .660
S-~.169
1940
1950
I960
1870
1980
YEAR
-------
10
O>
z
,_, -I
01 <
_j
<
DIKES BROOK RESERVOIR' GlOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKAUNI TY
S'-.051
• 9
ee «»
_»•
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
EGYPT (BOOK RESERVOIR: DALTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY B--.477 S-MO8
1O •
x
»
a
I94O
I95O
I960
YEAR
197O
1980
-------
FALL BROOK RESERVOIR: LEOMINSTER, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R-- 27
S--.04
10
j;
>-
t-~
2
• •• •
• a • •
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
FALULAH BROOK
R-.655
S-.122
RESERVOIR: FITCHBURG,
ALKALINITV
MASSACHUSETTS
10
>-
t-
z
—I
<
_*
<
1950
1960
197O
198O
YEAR
-------
FARNHAM RESERVOIR- PITTSHEID. MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.4 71
S--.09I
z
_l
<
I94O
195O
I960
YEAR
I97O
I98O
-------
~ 10
^-
CB
ji
>-
i_
z
_j
<
GREAT SOUTH POND' PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKAIINIT Y
343
S--.056
• •
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
HASKELL RESERVOIR: GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--. 101
S- " 016
1O
< 5
• 660
• •• ••
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
HATCHETT BROOK RESERVOIR #4: SOUTHBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R-".612
10
o>
cr. t-
NJ —
Z
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
LAKE PLEASAN T= . MONT AGUE. MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.551 S--.I33
10
• •
o>
£
CT-
OJ
< 5
« » *
194O
I95O
1960
YEAR
I97O
198O
-------
LITTLE QUITTACAS POND' NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
10
J^
>-
I—
z
mt
<
H- <
ALKAL IN I T Y
R--.32 7
S--.063
f t
* •
* •
* • •
19-40
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
2O-
^
X-
H-
z
_J
<
LONGHAM RESERVOIR^ S ALE M-BE VE RL Y, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKAUNI TY
R-.293
S-.O89
IO
• •
1940
I95O
I960
YEAR
I97O
198O
-------
LONG POND= FALMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R-.213
S-.022
a
>-
f—
5
_j
<
_*
<
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
1O
LOVELL
R--.33O
S-".O5O
RESERVOIR^ FITCHBURG,
ALKALINI TY
MASSACHUSETTS
o
E
z
<
\ 5
I9-4O
I95O
I960
YEAR
197O
198O
-------
MARE MEADOW
R-.396
S- 078
RESERVOIR: FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS
AlKALINITY
10
>-
I—
z
_J
<
1950
1960
1970
YEAR
1980
-------
MON TGOMERY
R--.573
S-M23
RESERVOIR^ WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
AlKALINITV
10
9 «
o
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
NEW WELL: WINCHENDON, MASSACHUSETTS
9 ALKALINITY
R=~. 185
S--.025
IO
>-
f-
z
I-1 _1
s ^
*J
<
I95O
I960
I97O
I98O
Y E AR
-------
NORTH WATUPPA POND: FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.O94
S--.O18
10
1940
I95O
I960
YEAR
1970
I98O
-------
OLD WELL:
R--.132
S-'.03
WINCHENDON, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
o»
>-
>-
Z
_J
<
201
10
194O
195O
I960
I97O
I98O
YEAR
-------
40
^ >. 30|-
H-
2
r-
<
< 20
10
1940
PHIUIPSTON RESERVOIR: ATHOL , MASSACHUSETTS
AlKAUNITY
R = .421
S-.243
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
o
E
PINE HIIL RESERVOIR' WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
R--.439
S-~.087
ALKALINITY
\t
«J
<
15
10
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
ROBERTS MEADOW , BROOK' NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.529
S--. 14 1
20
a
z
—I
<
10
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
SHAW POND' SPINCER, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
B--.546
S—. IO7
1O
N
*
I-
z
_l
<
I94O
I95O
I960
YEAR
I97O
I98O
-------
4O •
—I
f
£ 3°
z
—I
< 20
10
UPPER CODDING BROOK RESERVOIR: LEE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
.' -".209
S «" .112
194O
195O
I960
YEAR
19 7O
198O
-------
- 4O
01
E
t 30
Z
20 •
IO
UPPER HOBBS BROOK RESERVOIR' CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R-.O77
$-.027
194O
I95O
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
UPPER NAUKEAG POND: WINCHENDON, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.384
S--.081
o>
V
t-
2
<
10
t f
1 ••
1940
19SO
1960
YEAR
197O
1980
-------
~ 20
_i
^~
E"
10
WACHUSETT RESERVOIR-DEPTH' MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R' -.67
S = -.I35
• •
. • • .* •
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
I960
-------
15
WACHUSETT RESERVOIR- SURFACE' MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R- -.305
S- -.049
A A
10
co J;
H
1940
1950
I960
YEAR
1970
1980
-------
E
20
10
WENHAM IAKE- SALEM-BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
ALKALINITY
R--.08I
S-~.OI9
I94O
J950
I960
YE AR
1970
1980
------- |