EVALUATION
OF THE
CONNECTICUT
WATER
SUPPLY
PROGRAM
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SEPTEMBER 1974
-------
EVALUATION
OF THE
CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
SEPTEMBER 19 74
-------
PREFACE
This report is based on the findings of field inspec-
tions of 45 water supplies, and a review of the activities
of the Water Supplies Section of the Connecticut State
Department of Health. The work was begun after discussions
with Mr. Richard Woodhull, Chief of the Water Supplies
Section and Mr. David Wiggin, Director of the Environmental
Health Services Division, and covered the period May 19 72
to June 1973, with some, followup sampling taking place as
late as December 1973.
The purpose of the report is to evaluate the Connecti-
cut Water Supply Program and make recommendations for any
needed improvement.
We would like to thank Mr. Woodhull and his staff for
the cooperation they extended to us, and the Connecticut
State Department of Health Laboratory for doing all the
bacteriological examinations.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.
Summary 1
Recommendations 8
Introduction 10
Scope of the Evaluation 12
Water Supplies Studies 14
Evaluation Criteria 21
Bacteriological 21
Chemical 21
Facilities 22
Study Findings 24
Bacteriological Quality 24
Chemical Quality 25
Facilities 34
Fluoridation 37
Water Supply Program 40
Authority, Statutes, and Regulations 40
Policy and Organization 44
Activities - Engineering 47
Activities - Training 50
Laboratory Support 50
Water Supply Program Needs . 54
Authority, Statutes and Regulations 54
Activities - Engineering 57
Activities - Training 6 3
Laboratory Support 64
-------
Participants 68
References 69
Appendices 70
A. Adequacy of the Water Fluoridation
Control Program in Connecticut.
B. Report of Survey of Bacteriological Laboratory
C. Report of Survey of Chemical Laboratory
D. State of Connecticut Survey Forms
E. Summary of State Regulations
F. Survey Questionnaire
G. Drinking Water Policy and Practice in
Connecticut.
-------
SUMMARY
Approximately 2,494,000 people or 82% of the pop-
ulation of Connecticut are served by 329 public water
supplies both municipally and investor owned. Recognizing
the importance of safe and adequate supplies of drinking
water, Mr. David C. Wiggin, Director, Environmental Health
Services Division, Connecticut State Department of Health,
agreed to cooperate with the Water Supply Branch, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region I, in an evaluation of the
State's water supply program.
An in depth study, with particular emphasis on water
quality, was made of 45 public water supplies that serve
1.14 million persons or 45.5% of the people served by public
water systems. Samples to determine chemical and bact-
eriological quality were taken at each supply from both
source and distribution systems. The facilities were
examined and, in most cases, the questionnaire in Appendix F
was completed. In addition, the Surveillance program of the
Connecticut Health Department, Water Supplies Section,
was evaluated. The Connecticut Health Department, Division
of Laboratories was evaluated by EPA personnel from the
National Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio,
and the Connecticut fluoridation program was evaluated
separately.
The principal findings of the survey are summarized
below:
-------
I. Status of Water Supplies Studied
A. Water Quality
1. Bacteriological Quality
Of the 45 public water supplies examined, one
supply failed to meet the 1962 U. S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards, (hereafter referred to as the
Drinking Water Standards), bacteriological requirements
during at least one month during 19 72. This system serves
325 persons.
2. Chemical Quality
Twenty seven systems (60% of the 45 systems
sampled by EPA) failed to meet one or more chemical units
in the Drinking Water Standards. These systems serve
870,570 people with water that doesn't meet the Drinking
Water Standards. The recommended or aesthetic standards
were exceeded most often. Seventeen systems (38%) failed
to meet the recommended standard for manganese and nine
systems (20% failed to meet the recommended standard for
iron.
Eight (18%) systems failed to meet the recommended
(aesthetic) limit for copper and one system had a chloride
level of 550 mg/1. State samples in 1972 and 197 3 averaged
112 mg/1, a high level, but within the recommended standard
of 250 mg/1.
2
-------
During the first sampling period, which lasted from
June 1972 through March 1973, samples from 4 systems (9%),
exceeded the Drinking Water Standards mandatory (health)
limit for lead. Resamples of these supplies in March and
December 1973 were negative for lead in 3 systems and the
fourth had a trace amount less than the standard.
One system exceeded the proposed Federal Drinking
Water Standards mandatory standard for carbon chloroform
extract. A resample in December 1973 of the source showed
it to be within the acceptable limit at that time.
Three of the eight fluoridated systems that were studied
were fluoridating at less than the 0.8 to 1.2 mg/1 range
required by the State.Health Department. This underfeed-
ing could significantly reduce the dental benefits of
this treatment.
B. Facilities
From the EPA visits to 45 water systems it was
determined that:
a. Five supplies had inadequate source protect-
ion. Three of the five were cited because of the source
vulnerability to highway accidents and possible spills.
b. Seventeen (38%) systems had inadequate distri-
bution storage or no emergency power to provide water during
power failures.
3
-------
c. One system (2%) had continuous pressure problems.
d. No system had a cross connection control pro-
gram that systematically looked for cross connections.
Double check valves are inspected every 4 months.
e. Seventeen systems (38%) had no meter to deter-
mine water used or had records to indicate water demands.
f. Twenty-nine systems (64%) had inadequate or no
records.
II. Water Supply Authority
A. Statutes
The Connecticut Department of Health is given the
authority over public water supplies by the Connecticut
General Statutes and contained in the Public Health Code.
These statutes are further identified in a publication
entitled Public Health Statutes. The legal base is gen-
erally good, but there are some weaknesses. One weakness
is the lack of enabling legislation to adopt the Drinking
Water Standards as regulations. At this writing, legis-
lation has been drafted to eliminate this deficiency.
B. Regulations
The publication Public Water Supply Information
contains the regulations and policy of the Connecticut
4
-------
Health Department and the publication Private Water
Supplies gives guidance for developing individual wells and
regulations pertaining to well construction and use. The
regulations are quite comprehensive especially with regard
to well construction. No other New England state has such
regulations. Lack of enforceable water quality standards
is the weakness that needs to be eliminated, and as mentioned
under "statutes", this is being corrected.
III. Water Supply Program
A. Surveillance Activities
1. Inspections. From a review of state records
by EPA# it was determined that during 1972, 272 of the
319 (85.3%) systems were visited by personnel of the Water
Supplies Section.
Ten (3%) systems had not been visited since
1968.
2. Chemical and Bacteriological. Only thirteen
of the forty-five (29%) systems visited by EPA could meet
the Drinking Water Standards requirement for frequency of
bacteriological sampling.
The procedures and equipment used by the
Health Department's Division of Laboratories were found to
generally conform with Standard Methods and were approved by
5
-------
EPA reviewers.
Sampling frequency for both bacteriological and
chemical examination varies from quarterly to monthly
depending on the size of the system. Fluoride samples
from all fluoridating systems are checked on a monthly
basis.
Chemical and bacteriological analyses routinely include
pH, turbidity, color and taste and odor. Other chemical
analyses routinely done are chloride, iron, hardness, alka-
linity and the nitrogen series. The laboratory can run
heavy metals, pesticides, and radiochemical tests, but does
so only on special request.
Chemical and bacteriological data are handled by
computer and printouts are readily available, although the
time lag from lab data available to printout availability
should be shortened.
B. Staffing, Program and Budget
The State Water Supplies Section has done an
excellent job considering that for most of the period of this
review there were only 3 engineers and one secretary work-
ing on public water supplies. The turnover problem is
illustrated by the fact that the Chief of the Section was
the only engineer that was in the Section at both the beginning
6
-------
and at the end of this study.
Staffing has not increased in spite of the
increase in the number of public water supplies from
145 in 1960 to 329 in 1972, and the increase in surveil-
lance brought about by mandatory fluoridation in lg67.
There are now 29 systems fluoridating using approximately
109 installations (not all are active at any one time be-
cause some installations are on standby or emergency sources
of water).
The present Water Supplies Section budget (excluding
laboratory support) is approximately $60,000. There is a
need to increase both staff and budget to carry out a
surveillance program that will provide maximum public health
protection for the citizens of Connecticut. The recommend-
ations of this report are made to help bring about some needed
improvements in the Connecticut Water Supply Program.
7
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Connecticut Water Supply Program should continue
to pursue the enforcement of existing statutes pertaining
to public water supplies. To help in this matter, it is
recommended that the State:
1. Adopt cross connection control regulations,
to encourage and support enactment of local programs of back-
flow prevention and cross connection control to help get
the utilities doing more in this area. In 1972, Michigan
adopted regulations that required each water utility
"to develop a comprehensive control program for the elim-
ination and prevention of all cross connections". This
plan was to be submitted to the Michigan Department of
Public Health for review and approval by April 19, 1973.
Once approved, the utility is expected to implement the
program. The Connecticut Health Department should invest-
igate this program and determine whether or not it could be
used in Connecticut.
2. Adopt the Federal Drinking Water Standards
as regulations, once enabling legislation is passed. If
the State desires to be more stringent, they can set their
own standards.
8
-------
3. Increase the severity of penalties for vio-
lation of the standards. The fines now called for are
minimal, allowing continued violation by any utility which
can afford to pay the price.
4. Establish a bacteriological surveillance prog-
ram that will meet the Drinking Water Standards sampling
frequency requirements.
5. Increase the scope of the chemical analysis of
samples to include all constituents of the Drinking Water
Standards in order to obtain a good data base on all public
water supplies in the state. Ground water sources should be
examined once every three years and surface water sources
should be examined annually once all above mentioned con-
stituents have been determined at least twice to establish
the data base.
6. Expand the Water Supplies Section (excluding
laboratory support) in size from 3 to 7 professionals
and from 1 to 2 secretaries, and increase the budget from
the present estimated $60,000 to $175,000. The $175,000
annual budget is the minimum cost for an adequate program.
9
-------
INTRODUCTION
Most Americans are served the finest and safest
drinking water in the world. During the more than
100 years that have passed since water was first implicated
in the transmission of disease, water treatment methods and
practice have improved steadily. The dread water borne
diseases, such as typhoid and cholera, are no longer a
concern in the United States, testifying to the efficiency
of modern water treatment. The result of this decline in
water borne diseases has brought about a complacency about
drinking water safety among many citizens. People assume
their water is safe to drink. The Community Water Supply
Study indicated this complacency has spread to some util-
ities and regulatory agencies. Many states are much less
active in the regulation and surveillance of public water
supplies than they once were. Public and legislative
emphasis is being placed on the abatement of air and water
pollution, and there has been no significant Federal
Legislation related to the regulation of drinking water
since 1893. In order to meet the increasing demands for
the control of pollution, states have had to commit more
and more of their resources to pollution abatement programs.
Since funds and personnel are limited, drinking water
10
-------
programs have suffered. Contrary to popular belief,
extensive water pollution control programs do not necessarily
mean the public will receive better quality drinking water.
In Connecticut, the water pollution abatement programs will
have a minor impact on drinking water quality because the
public water supply sources are protected and free of
known pollution. However, to insure that citizens of
Connecticut will continue to receive safe and reliable
drinking water, there must be an active water supply program
at the state level.
The present evaluation was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the Connecticut Water Supply Program and
to recommend such improvements as may be needed to assure
safe, wholesome, drinking water for residents of Connecticut.
This study was undertaken by the Water Supply Branch
of the Environmental Protection Agency with the cooperation
of the Division of Environmental Health Services, Connecticut
State Department of Health.
11
-------
SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
Water Supplies in Connecticut
The first public water supply in Connecticut was
developed, in Durham in 1748. After 1850, the number of
public water supplies increased rapidly until in 1960
there were 145 systems. Since that time, a number of
water supplies have been developed, including many small
supplies serving housing development, so that, excluding
the small water supplies that serve less than 25 persons,
public water supply systems in Connecticut, both municipally
and privately owned, number 329, and supply an estimated
population of 2,494,000 or approximately 82% of the 1970
population. A "water company is defined in the General
Statutes - Sec. 25-32 as "any individual, partnership,
association, corporation, municipality or other entity,
or the lessee thereof, who or which owns, maintains, operates,
manages, controls or employs any pond, lake, reservoir, well,
stream or distributing plant or system for the purpose of
supplying water to two or more consumers."
Surface water sources are used by 75 water utilities,
drawing from 107 separate reservoirs or streams. Seventy-
nine of these sources, serving auout 1,060,000 persons,
12
-------
are unfiltered but chlorinated. The remaining 28 sources,
serving 850,000 persons, are filtered and chlorinated.
A total of 584,000 people are supplied with ground water
from 647 wells. Eighty-eight percent of the water systems
are privately owned, although these companies service
only 52 percent of the population supplied by public water
systems.
Connecticut's mandatory fluoridation law affects
approximately 2,112,000 persons presently served by public
water supplies. This comprises 69 percent of the state
papulation and 85 percent of those on public water systems.
13
-------
WATER SUPPLIES STUDIED
In order to select a representative number of water
supplies for study, all public water supplies in Conn-
ecticut were divided into groups according to population
served as shown in Table 1. Supplies selected in the
three groups serving 20,000 persons or more were interstate
carrier water supplies and were selected for that reason
alone. Those selected in the groups serving from 500 to
20,000 were selected primarily because of geographic loca-
tion, but with some emphasis on source, treatment, and
ownership. -Those supplies serving less than 500 persons
were selected by numbering all the supplies and using a
table of random numbers. The supplies actually studied
are listed in Table 2, and approximately located as shown
on Figure 1. Three originally selected were not studied.
One was connected to a municipal system during the study and
it was impossible to schedule visits to the other two.
In addition to this selection of supplies to be
evaluated, a completely independent selection of fluoridation
installations to be surveyed was made. Eight water supplies
were selected using as criteria, (1) geographic location,
(2) population served, and (3) fluoride compound used.
The 45 supplies evaluated represent 13.8% of the 314
14
-------
public water supplies listed in the 7th edition of
"Analyses of Connecticut Public Water Supplies", a pub-
lication of the Connecticut State Department of Health.
These 45 supplies serve 1.14 million (45.5%) of the 2.49
million people served by public water systems. Fifteen
of the 45 systems surveyed use primarily surface water
sources and the remaining 30 are exclusively using ground
water. Two of these 30 have surface water available but have
taken these sources out of service.
15
-------
Table 1
Connecticut Water Supply Evaluation
Population
Served
500
500 - 1000
1001 - 5000
5001 - 10,000
10,001 - 20,000
20,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
100,000
No. of No. Selected
Water Supplies* for Evaluation
186
18
40
8
39
8
15
4
12
3
13
3
5
1
4
3
% of No. Actually
Number of Supplies Evaluated
9.7%
16
20%
7
20.5%
8
26.6%
4
25%
3
23%
3
20%
1
75%
3
Totals
314
48
45
-------
2
o
c
j)
m
~U
i • ?
•>Wln*t»d
SHARON
.29
KINT
•54
^NEW MU.PDM>\
•16
45.\
.T«rnl»«
|j£.j
21*
'»
I 52* •«
OAMUffY
, CAST
i LYMK
'2 \ OIOTOM
23*
13.
riCLOl
•41
HAVCM J
NEW LONDON
>4
VtTAMFOdO
NOTE
LIST OF WATER SUPPLIES ON PAGES 17-18
LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLIES STUDIED
-------
Table 2
WATER SUPPLIES STUDIED
Water Supply Ownership* Pop. Served Source of Supply Treatment**
1.
New Haven Water Co.
I
393,905
8 Stir face, 3 well fields
Clf Cc, PI P
2.
Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.
I
338,500
3 Surface, 8 well sites
CI, Cc PI
3.
Waterbury Water Dept.
M
120,000
2 Surface (Wigwam &
Morris
CI, Cc, PI
4.
Stamford Water Co.
I
84,000
N. Stamford Reservoir,
Laurel Res.
CI, Cc, PI
5.
New London Water Dept.
M
36,000
Lake Konomoc
CI, Cc, F1
6.
Danbury Water Dept.
M
35,000
Margerie & West Lake Res
.CI, Cc, Fl, P, T
7.
Groton Water Dept.
M
29,315
Groton Reservoir
CI, Cc, Fl, F, T
8.
Rockville Water & Aqueduct Co.
I
13,280
Shenipsit Lake
CI, Cc, Fl, F, T
9.
Mystic Valley Water Co.
I
7,398
Palmer Reservoir &
CI, Cc, Fl, F, T
10.
Village Water Co., Simsbury
I
11,416
G.P. well
4 Gravel packed we11&
^reservoir onl^
11.
Putnam..Water Dept.
M
8,400
Little River
CI, Cc, F, T
12.
Winsted Water Dept.
M
8,300
Crystal Lake
CI
13.
Ridgefield Water Co.f
I
8,256
Round Pond Res., 2 well
fields
CI, Cc
14.
E. Lyme Water Commission
M
6,000
2 Gravel Packed Wells
None
15.
Terryville Water Co*
I
4,780
2 Gravel packed wells
CI, Cc
16.
New Milford Water Co.
I
4,600
2 Reservoirs, 1 G.P. Well CI Cc (Softeninc
on well)
17.
Bradley Int. Airport
S
3,000
PE 4 Gravel Packed wells
CI, Cc
18.
Stafford (Conn. Water Co.)
I
2,600
2 Reservoirs, 2 Caisson-
wells
CI
19,
The Highlands, Ledyard
I
2,590
2 Gravel Packed Wells
CI
20.
Thompson Water Co.
I
2,100
4 Wells
CI
21.
Montville Water Works
I
1,630
8 Drilled Wells
None
22.
Sharon Water & Sewer Commission
M
1,500
Beardsley Reservoir
CI
23.
Avery Heights Water Co. S. Windsor
I
1,000
Gravel Packed Well
CI, Cc
24.
Doolittle Heights, Torrington
I
1,000
1 Drilled Well used
None
25.
S. E. Conn. Water Auth., Est. Div.
M
875
2 Gravel Packed Wells
CI
26.
Indian Field Water Co. Naugatuck
T
800
2 Gravel Packed Wells
None
27.
Broadbrook Water Co., E. Windsor
I
784
3 Drilled Wells
CI
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
WATER SUPPLIES STUDIED
oo
Water Supply
Ownership*
Pop. Served
Source of SupdIv
Treatment**
28.
S. Coventry Water Supply Co.
I
600
3
Drilled Wells
None
29.
Kent Water Co.
I
500
Kent Reservoir
(2 Wells Feed Res.)
rf-»l
30.
Moosup Water Works
I
428
2
Drilled Wells
CI
31.
Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park,
I
400
2
Drilled Wells
None
Mansfield
32.
Lakeview Mobile Home Park, Danbury
I
382
1
ti n
None
33.
Coventry Hills-, Coventry
I
368
2
Drilled Wells
None
34.
Judea Water Co., Washington
I
325
3
Driven Wells
None
35.
Well Acres, Farmington
I
300
1
Drilled Well
None
36.
Lambert Drive Assoc., Norwich
I
250
2
Drilled Wells
None
37.
Tyler Lake Water Co., Goshen
I
250
2
Drilled Wells
CI of
38.
Lakewood Road Water Co., E. Hampton
I
180
2
Drilled Wells
None
39.
Sherwood Forest, Danbury
I
176
2
Drilled Wells
None
40.
Shaker Heights, Enfield
I
170
1
Drilled Well
None
41.
Soundview, Ridgefield
I
150
1
Drilled Well
None
42.
Maple Ridge Farms, Farmington
I
1255
1
Drilled Well
CI
43.
Forest Property Owners Assoc., Marlborough I
125
1
Drilled Well
Iron
44.
Oakwood, Inc., Glastonbury
I
116
I
Driven Wells
None
45.
Lillinoah Park Estates, New Milford
I
80
1
Drilled Well
None
* I = investor owned; M
= municipal ownership; S = State
owned
** CI - Chlorination; Ce a
corrosion
control;
F = filtration;
F1 '
6 Mn Removal
fluorldatioi
T a taste/odor control
^filtration at Lake Whitney
-------
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The evaluation was carried out by visiting each of
the 45 supplies, inspecting facilities, and operation,
and taking samples. An 8 page questionnaire (See
Appendix F) was filled out for the supplies serving
more than 3,000 persons. On surface water supplies,
14 day composite samples were collected at the source
and examined for trace elements, pesticides, radio-
nuclides and a routine wet chemistry analysis. A
minimum of 2 samples for chemical analysis were col-
lected from each distribution system and in most cases
bacteriological samples were collected at the same
time. The new mini-sampler developed at the National
Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio was
set up at all the surface supplies to provide carbon
chloroform extract (CCE) results. Ground waters were
not examined for organics or pesticides since it was felt
that ground water would not be as likely to be contaminated
by these constituents as surface waters. Only grab sam-
ples were taken for the other analyses since the quality
of ground water is not as variable as surface water.
There were four EPA laboratories involved in analysis;
NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio, (trace metals and CCE), Narra-
19
-------
gansett, R.I. (wet chemistry), Montgomery, Ala. (radiochem-
istry), and Dauphin Island/ Alabama (pesticides). The
State Health Department laboratory in Hartford did the
bacteriological examinations.
20
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY
Samples were taken at 44 of the 45 supplies visited
and delivered to the State Health Department laboratory
for bacteriological examination. Results were compared
with the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Stand-
ards to see if each water supply was in compliance.
Also, a review of the past bacteriological record of these
45 water supplies was made at the State Health Department.
CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY
Available chemical records of the State Department of
Health were reviewed and in addition, the chemical tests
listed in Table 3 were performed on water samples collected
during visits to the water utilities. The number of samples
analyzed for each listed parameter is also summarized in
Table 3.
Chemical results for each supply were compared with the
Drinking Water Standards and rated as either:
1. Meeting all the standards.
2. Failing to meet one or more of the
21
-------
"recommended" limits (aesthetic) but meeting all "mandatory"
limits (health).
3. Failing to meet one or more of the "mandatory"
limits.
FACILITIES EVALUATION
A facilities evaluation was conducted on each water
supply. The adequacy of sources, treatment, operation,
distribution, storage, record keeping and quality control
was judged on the basis of the Manual for Evaluating Public
Water Supplies and the Drinkinq Water Standards. A copy
of the survey form is included in Appendix F.
The source of each supply was evaluated for the adequacy
of its quality and if possible, its quantity. Actual quantity
available was not always known by those responsible for the
small well supplies.
The treatment being provided was judged on the adequacy
of the facilities, including standby equipment, as well as
operation and maintenance.
Each distribution system was rated on the basis of
available storage. Storage was considered adequate if the
elevated or non-pumped storage equalled or exceeded the
22
-------
systems' average daily demand, or emergency power was
available to run the pumps. Pressure problems were
noted and random chlorine residuals were checked.
23
-------
STUDY FINDINGS
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
Forty-four supplies were sampled and bacteriological
examinations were made by the State Health Department
Laboratory. One sample of 46 untreated wells, and five
of 145 samples from distribution systems had coliform
densities greater than 4/100 ml. using the membrane filter
technique. The Drinking Water Standards, section 3.23,
says:
"When the membrane filter technique is used, the
arithmetic mean coliform density of all standard
samples examined per month shall not exceed one
per 100 ml. Coliform colonies per .standard sam-
ple shall not exceed 3/50 ml, 4/100 ml, 8/200 ml,
or 13/500 ml in:
(a) Two consecutive samples;
(b) More than one standard sample when less
than 20 are examined per month; or
(c) More than five percent of the standard
samples when 20 or more are examined per month.
When coliform colonies in a single standard
sample exceed the above values, daily samples from
the same sampling point shall be collected promptly
and examined until the results obtained from at
least two consecutive samples show the water to be
of satisfactory quality."
Comparing the bacteriological results to the require-
ments of this section, the following is noted. In four
24
-------
cases, the resample was negative so part (a) was met and
also parts (b) and (c) were met. The average coliform
density in samples from these supplies was less than 1 per
100 ml. during the month the study samples were collected
and bacteriological records indicated satistactory water
quality the remainder of the year. The fifth case was a
small supply serving 325 persons untreated well water that
is pumped from the wells to two small, covered, reservoirs.
A sample from the pipe delivering water from two wells had
a coliform density of 58 per 100 ml. and the two distribution
system samples had coliform densities of 7 and 1 per 100 ml.
Resamples of water from the pipe showed 3 per 100 ml and a
resample of the distribution system at the point where
the 7 per 100 ml sample was taken showed 3 per 100 ml this
time. This record with other data from the system suggest
that the system wouldn't meet the Drinkincr Water Standards
and that continuous disinfection is needed. The source
of the coliforms was not determined, but the fact that the
samples from the pipes that come directly from the well were
positive for coliforms could mean that there was some ground
water contamination.
CHEMICAL QUALITY
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of chemical
25
-------
Table 3
Number of
Number of water sys-
samples Number of Number of tems which had
which were water sys- samples~~ex- one or more
analyzed tems sampled ceeding the samples ex-
for this* for this constituent ceeding con-
I. Chemical constituent constituent unit stituent limit
Mandatory Standards
Arsenic (0.05)
94
45
0
0
Barium (1.0)
241
45
0
0
Cadmium (0.01)
241
45
0
0
Lead (0.05)
241
45
4
4
Chromium (0.05)
(Hexavalent)
241
45
0
0
Selenium (0.01)
94
45
0
0
Silver (0.05)
241
45
0
0
Recommended Standards
MBAS (0.5)
94
45
0
0
Chloride (250)
94
45
1
1
Copper (1.0)
241
45
9
8
Cyanide (0.01)
94
45
0
0
Iron (0.3)
241
45
13
9
Manganese (0.05)
241
45
65
18
Nitrate (10)
94
45
0
0
Sulfate (250)
94
45
0
0
TDS (500)
94
45
0
0
Zinc (5.0)
241
45
0
0
CCE (0.7)*
27
15
1
1
Mercury (0.005)**
241
45
0
0
26
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
Number of
Number of
water sys-
tems which hac
II. Physical
Color (15) 145
Turbidity (5) 145
III. Pesticides** 28
IV. Radioactivity
Gross Alpha (1 pCi/1)** 81
Gross Beta (10 pCi/1)** 81
V. Bacteriological
(exceeding 4/100 ml)
Distribution System 145
(treated & untreated)
Wells - untreated 46
samples" Number of Number of
which were water sys- samples ex- one or more
analyzed terns sampled ceeding the samples ex-
for this for this constituent ceeding con-
constituent constituent unit
45
45
16
44
44
44
23
0
0
0
5
1
stituent limit
6
0
0
0
0
5
1
Notes
1. Numbers in parenthesis are from USPHS Drinking Water Standards - 1962,
except as indicated below.
* Proposed Federal standard with use of new mini-sampler.
** From Manual for Evaluating Public Water Supplies, EPA - 1971.
27
-------
TABLE 4
CHEMICAL STANDARDS NOT MET BY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Public Water Supply
Recommended
Mandatory
Concentration mg/1
Concentration mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mg/1
New Haven
Lake Saltonstall
Manganese
0.0572
0.05
Lake Bethany
Lake Maltby #2
Lake Gaillard
Lake Watrous
Lake Watrous
n
n
M
n
Iron
Manganese
Iron
0.054!?
0.069;
0.180
0.1902
0.502
0.0923
0.373
•t
•t
•1
M
0.3
0.05
0.3
Bridgeport Hyd. Co.
Manganese
0.1163
0.05
Stamford Water Co.
Manganese
Iron
0.202
(Laurel)
0.0683
0. 86
0.05
0.3
Rockville Water &
Aqueduct Co.
Lead
0.420.
o.ooo4
0.05
Mystic Valley Water
Co.
Manganese
Copper
0.17
1.40
(Well)
0.06
0.05
1.0
Village Water Co.
Simsbury
Lead
0.130
a.ooo4
0.05
1. Federal Drinking Water Standards
2. 14-day composite sample
3. Average of values not meeting the standard
4. Resample
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
CHEMICAL STANDARDS NOT MET BY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Public Hater Supply
Recommended
Mandatory
Concentration mg/1
Concentration mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mq/1
E. Lyme Water Comm.
Iron
Manganese
0.85
0.087
0.07
0.3
0.05
Teixyville Water Co.
Copper
4.1
1.0
Ridgefield Water
Supply Co.
Iron
Manganese
0.62
0.10
(Wells 2&3)
0.3
0.05
New Milford Water Co.
Manganese
Copper
Iron
0.0652
1.5
0.53
0.05'
1.0
0.30
Lead
0.090.
0.022
0.05
The Highlands, Ledyard
Thompson Water Co.
Montville Water Wks.
Avery Hghts. Water
S. Windsor
Manganese
Copper
Manganese
Manganese
Copper
0.313
0.13,
0.18
0.303
1.65,
o.io-3,
0.075
1.66
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.05
1.0
1. Federal Drinking Hater Standards
2. 14-day composite sample
3. Average of values not meeting the'standard
4. Resample
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
CHEMICAL STANDARDS NOT MET BY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Public Water Supply
Recommended
Mandatory
Concentration mg/1
Concentration mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS^ mq/1
SE Conn. Water Auth.
Est Div., Groton
Manganese
Iron
0.19
0.0733
0.58
0.05
0.3
Indian Field Water Co.
Naugatuck
S: Coventry Water
Supply Co.
Moosup Water Wks.
Copper
Manganese
1.19
0,06
1.0
0,05
Lead
0.34
0.000*
Rolling Hills
Mobile Home Park
Mansfield
Manganese
0.095
0.063
0.05
Coventry Hills
Iron
Manganese
1.0
0.063
0.723
0.3
0.05
Lambert Drive
Assoc., Norwich
Manganese
0.183
0.063
0.05
Tyler Lake Water
Co., Goshen
Manganese
Iron
0.11
0.87
0.05
0.3
Lakewood Road
Water Co., E. Hampton
Copper
1.23
1.60
1.0
1. Federal Dr iking Water Standards
2. 14-day co jsite sample
3. Average o/ values not meeting the standard
4. Resample
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
CHEMICAL STANDARDS NOT MET BY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Public Water Supply
Recommended
Mandatorv
Concentration mg/1
Concentration mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mg/1
Constituent
Source
Dist. Syst.
DWS1 mq/1
Sherwood Forest
Danbury
Manganese
0.16
0.05
Maple Ridge Farms,
Farmington
Iron
0.54
0.3
Forest Prop. Owners
Assoc. Marlborough
Manganese
1.52
1.683
0.05
Soundview, RidgefieId
Copper
1.27
1.0
Oakwood Inc.
Glastonbury
Chloride
550
250
1. Federal Drinking Water Standards
2. 14-day composite sample
3. Average of values not meeting the-standard
4. Resample
-------
analyses carried out on samples collected during visits
to the 45 water supplies studied.
Twenty-nine of the 45 supplies (6 4%) visited failed
to meet one or more of the chemical standards (mandatory or
recommended). No surface water supply exceeded the limit
for turbidity, but 2 3 samples from 6 supplies exceeded the
color standard of 15 units.
Manganese was the element most frequently found in
quantities exceeding a chemical standard with sixty-five
samples from 18 supplies exceeding the manganese standard
of 0.0 5 mg/1.
Iron concentrations exceeding 0.3 mg/1 in 13 samples
taken from 9 supplies.
One well supply had a chloride problem in addition
to over adjusting the pH. At the time the well was sampled,
the chloride concentration was 550 mg/1 and the pH at the
well was 12. A commercial water conditioning company
had set the rate for feeding the chemical to adjust the
pH and they were contacted to make the changes. The pH in
the distribution system was 8.9. Since it was reported
that soda ash was being used for pH adjustment, the high
chloride value wouldn't be from that source. State Health
Department records showed the following:
32
-------
Chloride (Mg/1) Sodium Mg/1)
1972
95
140
120
60
63
62
1973
96
150
Since the well is located near a major highway, the
deicing salt might be responsible for the elevated chloride
levels.
Nine samples from eight different supplies exceeded
the limit for copper. Eight results were from distribution
system samples and'one was from a well, but the sample was
taken from a sink tap in the well house. The pH range of the
water was 6.4 to 7.0, the alkalinity 10 to 46 mg/1 {carbonate
as CaCC^) and the chloride range was 6 to 29 mg/1. The
low alkalinity to chloride ratio and the pH values support
the theory of corrosive water being responsible for the
elevated copper levels. The raw waters used by these systems
have very low copper concentrations.
Only one system had two elevated copper concentrations,
and the pH was 6.7, chloride 17 mg/1 and alkalinity 10 mg/1.
This system had the lowest alkalinity to chloride ratio.
The sample with 4.1 mg/1 copper was taken from a tap
in the building where chlorine is added and the corrosiveness
of the chlorine might account for the high concentration.
33
-------
Other variables in all distribution system samples are
the amount of water used before arrival and the length
of time the water was run prior to taking the sample.
Four samples failed to meet the mandatory standard
of 0.05 mg/1 for lead. Two of the samples were from wells,
although one was taken from a sink tap in the well house.
The other two were distribution system samples. Resamples
at the same collection point were satisfactory. The only
sampling point to show trace amounts of lead in two samples
was at a lab sink in a new school which is on a dead end.
It is possible the plumbing in the laboratory combined
with the aggressive water could have produced the elevated
lead results. No explanation is available for the results
at the other three locations. One would not expect to
find lead at any of the three sampling locations.
Another supply failed to meet the proposed Federal
health standard of 0.7 mg/1 for carbon chloroform extract
(CCE). A resample was satisfactory and because surface
water quality varies, this could be expected. More samples
would be needed before any firm conclusion about the water
quality could be made.
Facilities
Sanitary surveys of the 45 public water supplies revealed
that 89% of the supplies had adequate source protection.
34
-------
There were some surface water systems that could run into
problems in the future unless land use is carefully con-
trolled. It is conceivable that in the future, developers
could exert much pressure on such private utilities with
surface water supplies as Stamford, Bridgeport, and New
Haven, and because of high taxes on the land or the need for
capital, they might sell off parts of their watersheds.
Uncontrolled development on the watersheds and the fact
that most of these surface waters are not filtered, could
result in a very undesirable situation, with a potential
threat to public health.
All sources surveyed had satisfactory raw water quality
when related to the degree of treatment provided. For
exaple, one supply had 92 standard units of color in the
raw water on the day EPA sampled (this was immediately
after heavy rains), but with complete treatment the water
in the distribution system had a maximum color of 1 standard
unit. Without treatment the raw water quality would not
be satisfactory.
Seventeen (38%) systems had inadequate distribution
storage or no emergency power available. Thirteen of
these systems served less than 500 people and the only
storage available is in the pressure tank at the well.
35
-------
During December 1973 much of Connecticut was without power
for several days following an ice storm and water supplies
without any emergency power were unable to deliver water
to their customers.
One supply that serves 250 persons reported continuous
pressure problems and stated that its efforts to correct
the problem have been hampered by a lack of funds. At least
five supplies in the group serving less than 500 people
reported pressure problems resulting from the filling of
private swimming pools or making backyard ice rinks in the
winter. This water use has been prohibited by these utilities.
No system had a cross connection control program that
systematically looked for cross connections, but one util-
ity started a program during the study. A 25 to 50 home
subdivision does not need as active a program as a utility
serving 30,000 persons and providing water to industry,
hospitals, and other users with high potential for cross
connections, but such subdivision systems should at least
have an initial plumbing inspection for cross connections.
Seventeen systems (38%) , each serving less than 1000
persons, and one system serving 1630 persons had no master
meter. Two systems (4%) had meters but kept no records.
Twenty-two systems (49%) had no full time operator and
36
-------
and there were various arrangements for maintenance of these
systems. The small systems can't economically afford or
justify a full time operator, but using a professional man-
ager to oversee a number of small systems in an area should
be considered in more cases than now exist. Those small
supplies that do have this kind of arrangement were gener-
ally the systems with the best maintenance.
Fluoridation
The State of Connecticut requires by law (enacted in
May 1965) the fluoridation of all public water supplies
serving twenty thousand or more persons. This law became
effective January 1, 1967 for water utilities serving pop-
ulations of 50,000 or more and on October 1, 1967, all
water utilities serving 20,000 or more persons were required
to fluoridate.
As part of this study 8 public systems were surveyed
out of the 29 systems that fluoridate. Since that time, all
29 systems have been surveyed by EPA and the results for-
warded to the Environmental Health Services Division of the
Connecticut State Department of Health. Criteria used to
select the original 8 utilities were described in the study
methodology section of this report and Appendix A contains
37
-------
a complete discussion of the findings.
The actual level of fluoride in the distribution
system is the single most important factor in evaluating
the adequacy of a community fluoridation effort as well
as the benefits that can be expected. Of the eight systems
sampled 5 (62%), were fluoridating within the 0.8 - 1.2
mg/1 range recommended by the State Department of Health.
The other 3 systems were underfeeding and not reaching 0.8
mg/1. When analytic procedures were checked, 6 (75%)
were within +0.1 mg/1 of the duplicate sample analysis per-
formed by EPA. One operator did not use a method conform-
ing to Standard Methods. Daily finished water fluoride
analysis, required by the state, was being conducted at
4 (50%) of the 8 installations. Analytic equipment and
facilities and care of equipment was satisfactory at all
eight systems 100%. Records of operation were acceptable
at 6 (75%) systems.
At 6 systems (75%), the feeding arrangements were
rated acceptable but 3 systems (37%), had unsatisfactory
maintenance. Fluoride chemical storage arrangements were
satisfactory at seven (80%) of the systems surveyed, but 4
(50%) did not have suitable safety equipment available and
two (29%) were permitting unsafe reuse of chemical ship-
ping containers.
38
-------
A trained operator with genuine interest in feeding
fluoride is essential to the satisfactory operation of
a fluoridation installation. One (12%) of the facilities
surveyed was operated by an individual not completely
familiar with the fluoride chemical feed equipment at his
plant. Two operators (25%) were not adequately trained
in the use of analytical equipment, and 3 (37%) did not
favor feeding fluorides to public water supply systems.
In the area of surveillance, six (75%) of the sur-
veyed systems did not submit the required number of
fluoride check samples during 19 71. Three (37%) of the
installations had not been visited in the past 12 months
by a representative of the Environmental Health Services
Division.
39
-------
WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Authority, Statutes, and Regulations
The Connecticut General Statutes give the Connecticut
Department of Health primary jurisdiction over public
water supply sources and systems. They have statutory juris-
diction "over all matters concerning the purity and adequacy
of any source of water or ice supply used by any municipality,
public institution or water or ice company for obtaining
water or ice, the safety of any distributing plant and system
for public health purposes, the adequacy of methods used
to assure water purity, and such other matters relating to
the construction and operation of such distributing plant
and system as may affect public health."
(Ch. 474, Sec. 25-32).
Section 25-33 further provides that "no system of water
supply .., shall be constructed or expanded or a new addit-
ional source of water supply utilized until the plans therefor
have been submitted to and approved" by the Health Depart-
ment.
In addition to the foregoing specific statutory grants
of regulatory authority, the Department is also directed to
prepare a public health code "for the preservation and
improvement of the public health" (Ch. 333, Sec. 19-13).
The Department is given power to investigate and issue appropriate
40
-------
orders to protect water supply sources or systems
(Sec. 25-34). Judicial review of such orders is provided
for (Sec. 25-36). Minimal fines (not to exceed $100) are
specified for violation of the relevant statutes or Depart-
mental orders (Sec. 25-37).
Special provisions prohibit polluting water supplies
by dead animal carcasses (Sec. 25-38) or by any other
means S25-39, 25-43), and restrict the location of ceme-
teries within one-half mile of any reservoir (Sec. 25-41).
Bathing or swimming in all water supply reservoirs is also
prohibited (Sec. 25-43).
Other scattered sections of the Connecticut General
Statutes deal with various aspects of drinking water quality,
e.g., required fluoridation (Sec. 19-13b). All relevant
statutes are found in a 19 70 departmental publication
entitled "Public Health Statutes - Part 3A" (0 A 137 3 A
(1M) 1970).
The Department's administrative regulations are con-
tained in two departmental publications: "The Public Health
Code of the State of Connecticut (April 19 71); and Public
Water Supply Information" (Form EHS-39 (3-71) 2M).
This latter publication is updated about every six or
seven years, and contains reference to the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards, but they have not been
41
-------
adopted as regulations. Pages 10-12 of the current (1971)
edition of Public Water Supply Information contain the
chemical and bacteriological standards of the Drinking
Water Standards, and water quality is judged according
to these standards.
Appendix E contains a summary of the various regulations
pertaining to water supplies.
Water Supply Wells
The location and construction of public and private
water supply wells are covered by detailed regulations in
the Public Health Code (Sec. 19-13-51a thru 19-13-511).
A 1969 enactment (Ch. 482, Sec. 25-126 thru 25-137) created
the Connecticut Well Drilling Board to develop a well drill-
ing code "for the preservation of public health". The Board's
regulations, which are to be developed in cooperation with
the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental
Protection, have not yet been promulgated. The duties and
powers of the Health Department are expressly preserved
(Sec. 25-137).
A comprehensive treatment of protective measures for
wells and springs is found in the Department's 1964 pamphlet
Private Water Supplies (Form S.E. 37 (5-64) 5M) .
42
-------
Coordination with The Department of Environmental Protection
Diversions of water from any river by a water supply
entity for public or domestic use may be made only after
obtaining a permit from the Department of Environmental
Protection (Ch. 473, Sec. 25-8a). The Department, in act-
ing on any such application, must "advise, consult and
cooperate" with the Department of Health and other state
agencies (Sec. 25-8c). Permits may be revoked or modified
if the Department of Environmental Protection "finds it in
the public interest to do so" (Sec. 25-8c). In 1971, enact-
ment (Sec. 26-141 a, b,c) gave the Department of Environ-
mental Protection the authority to develop regulations to
control the flow in all streams stocked with fish. Public
hearings were to have been held by July 1973, but to date
they have not been held. This has been a controversial law
and those utilities with surface water are worried that the
low flow augmentation will be needed at time they want to
keep their reservoirs as full as possible. The regulations
could have a profound effect on the adequacy of drinking
water reservoirs to meet future demands.
The Department of Environmental Protection also has
jurisdiction over the safety features of all existing and
proposed "dams, dikes, reservoirs and similar structures"
(Ch. 479, Sec. 25-110). Construction of new such structures
43
-------
and alteration of existing structures requires a permit
from the Department (Sec. 25-112). Hence, any water supply
project involving such construction requires concurrent
action by the Department and the Health Department.
A 1973 revision of the Water Pollution Control Act
(Sec. 25-26a) forbids the pollution streams tributary to
an existing or proposed water supply impoundment.
Policy
The most recent statement of the Environmental Health
Services Division's policy on drinking water was made in a
paper entitled Drinking Water Policy and Practice in
Connecticut and presented to a conference of Connecticut
water works officials and operators in Newington, Connecticut
on May 14, 1972. The paper has been printed and made avail-
able by the Health Department (Appendix F).
Organization
Figure 2 presents the organizational position of the
Water Supplies Section within the State Department of Health.
44
-------
FIGURE 2
TABLE OF ORGANIZATION
45
-------
This Section, as part of the Environmental Health Services
Division, carries out the general sanitary supervision of
public water supplies delegated to the State Department of
Health by Sections 25-32 through 25-54 of the Connecticut
General Statutes. This work is carried on in cooperation
with state, regional and local health offices and with the
water utilities who are responsible for the quality of
water furnished to their customers. The functions of the
Water Supplies Section are as follows:
(1) periodic check-ups of sources of pollution on each
public water supply drainage area; (2) regular inspections of
water treatment plants, including chlorination and fluoridation
facilities, (3) review and approval of qualifications of
treatment plant operator applicants, (4) consultations with
water supply officials concerning protective measures which
may be undertaken; (5) periodic collection of samples from dist-
ribution systems; (6) regular inspections of all approved
check valve installations existing on cross connections between
public drinking water systems and unapproved private water
supplies to see that no pollution reaches the mains; (7) promotion
of and assistance in surveys of water piping in factories and
other buildings in cooperation with local authorities to
eliminate cross connections, back-siphonage connections and
sewer connections whereby public drinking water may be
46
-------
contaminated; (8) investigations of complaints about taste,
odor, color, sediment and staining from water; (9) approval
of new sources and systems of water supply and of plans for
treatment works (including fluoridation); (10) consultation
with any municipality or private corporation or individual
having or desiring to have any public water system concerning
proposed sources of supply and methods of assuring their
purity and adequacy; and (11) reports to the General Assem-
bly on any petition to develop or introduce any system of
water supply.
In addition, arrangements are made whereby samples for
chemical, physical, and bacteriological analysis are forwarded
by water utilities to the Laboratory Division at regular
intervals. These samples supplement those analyzed by the
utilities themselves and those brought in by members of the
Environmental Health Services Division, Regional Office
Sanitarians, and local Directors of Health.
Activities - Engineering
During 1972 the Water Supplies Section was actively
engaged in carrying out the functions previously described.
Nine new systems were approved and 19 treatment systems
were reviewed and approved. Table 5 shows that 2 72 (85.3%)
of the 319 public water supplies were inspected. (It
should be stated that EPA looked at records for 319 sup-
plies although the state reports that there are now 329).
47
-------
The table also shows that 16 (5%) have not been visited in
the last three years. Table 6 gives a breakdown of those
inspected in 1972 and shows when the previous inspection
had been made. These records indicate that 1972 was a good
year for inspections and that in past years not as many
inspections were made. Appendix D contains the forms used
in making the various kinds of inspections.
Table 5
Status ot Water Supply Inspections
of 319 supplies*
Date of
Last Inspection No. %
1972 272 85.3
1971 20 6.3
1970 11 3.4
1969 6 1.9
1968 10 3.1
or
before
* 1972 records
48
-------
No.
% of
Total
TABLE 6
Connecticut Water Supply Evaluation
Date of Previous Inspection of 2 72 Water Supplies
Surveyed by Water Supplies Section
in 1972
New
1971 19 70 1969 1968 or earlier Unknown Supplies
110
66
54
22
12
40.5% 24.2% 19.9%
8.1%
4.4%
2.2%
-------
The Section also began to do more in the area of cross
connection control during 1972. Surveys concentrating on
factories, commercial buildings and hospitals were carried
out in New Milford and Torrington. In addition, 97 double
check valve installations were each checked 3 times during
the year. It is hoped that both the State and the utilities
will do more in this area in the future.
Activities - Training
The Water Supplies Section attempts to provide some
training for operators and in 1972, participated in 3 training
efforts. There is no certification law in Connecticut, but
operators must be approved by the Water Supplies Section.
One filter plant operator was given an examination by the
Chief of the Water Supplies Section and approved in 1972.
One training program conducted by the Health Department is
called the "Conference of Water Works Officials and Operators."
It was at such a conference that the Department's latest
water supply policy document was presented.
Laboratory Support
Laboratory surveillance of drinking water quality in
Connecticut is carried out by a number of individuals and
agencies. Sample collection is most often done by water
utility personnel, but may be done by Water Supplies Section
personnel or sanitarians from the Regional Offices. Analyses
50
-------
may be performed by the Connecticut Health Department
Laboratory, private laboratories, or water utility lab-
oratories.
There are some 47 private laboratories approved by the
State Health Department to examine water and sewage sam-
ples. These laboratories are visited annually and evaluated
by a laboratory survey officer of the Laboratory Division.
Both the State chemical and bacteriological laboaratories
were evaluated during the study and the complete reports
are included as Appendix B and Appendix C. The laboratories
met the provisions of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater.
In the bacteriological review, there were a number of
recommendations and suggestions. These for the most part
cover laboratory procedures and methods and since the lab-
oratory director has the report, and it is included as an
appendix to this report, the recommendations and suggestions
will not be repeated here. One item that should be covered
here is sample transit time. In 4% of the records reviewed
the time from collection to examination exceeded 48 hours.
These samples should not have been examined as they far
exceeded the Standard Methods limit of 30 hours. Since the
evaluation the State laboratory has been rejecting samples
over 30 hours old. One water supplies section engineer had
51
-------
this confirmed when he inadvertently put the wrong date on
a sample he brought in.
Another aspect of bacteriological surveillance that
needs work is the number and frequency of samples. Only
13 of the 45 supplies collected samples at the frequency
required by the Drinking Water Standards. There were some
supplies serving more than 10,000 persons that rely complete-
ly on the State for surveillance. An attempt should be made
to get supplies to confirm to the Drinking Water Standards
sampling frequency, beginning with the larger supplies and
working down to the smaller supplies. Should proposed
Federal legislation be passed, this will become a requirement,
so it would be desirable to begin now. Another area that
needs attention is resampling following a sample which fails
to meet the bacteriological standard of 4 per 100 ml.
The Laboratory Division does an excellent job of follow-up,
but it was noted that some private laboratories weren't
as prompt as they should be.
The State chemical laboratory was found to be generally
well equipped and analyzing a large number of samples (1566
in 1971) . However, of the 13 chemical tests performed by
the laboratory, only seven are in the Drinking Water Standards,
and of these seven, only fluoride is health related.
52
-------
The other eighteen chemical constituents in the Drinking
Water Standards are seldom, if ever, run. Occasionally,
complete trace metal, radiochemical and pesticide analyses
are carried out, but only on special request. If trace
metals are to be run, it will be important to add acid pres-
ervative at the time of collection to prevent plating out
on the sides of the container.
The availability of data, because of the automatic
data processing system of the Health Department, is commend-
able and a very useful tool in assessing water quality
changes or trends.
53
-------
WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM NEEDS
Authority/ Statutes and Regulations
The Connecticut Department of Health has adequate stat-
utory authority to carry out its mandate to protect the
public health, but some changes would strengthen its pos-
ition. During the court case of Stamford Water Company
vs State Department of Health, in which the Court ruled
in favor of Stamford Water Co. and said they did not have
to build complete treatment facilities, the State Depart-
ment of Health learned it did not have enforceable drink-
ing water standards and the attorney general ruled it
also did not have the enabling legislation for adopting
such standards. The process for getting this enabling
legislation has begun. Once this has passed, the State
should adopt Federal drinking water standards as part of
their regulations.
The State Department of Health has authority to review
plans for new water treatment systems, but does not have
a document on minimum design criteria and standards. This
document would help the state in making not only their
plan review but also field inspections of water supplies,
and be helpful for engineering consultants involved in
water treatment plant design.
54
-------
Sections 19-13-B37 and B38 of the Public Health Code
prohibit cross-connections between water supplies and
prescribe permissible connections to water tanks and
there is further discussion in Public Water Supply
Information on pages 21 and 22, but there is a need for
more specific regulations that will encourage and support
the enactment of local programs of backflow prevention
and cross connection control. The regulations should
provide for the following:
1. The establishment and implementation of an effect-
ive cross connection control program by all public water
systems.
2. Prohibit: (a) the installation and maintenance of
water service to any premise where actual or potential
cross connections exist, (b) the installation and mainten-
ance of any connection where water from an auxilliary water
system may enter a potable water system, unless satisfactory
protection is provided.
3. Provide for the entry to any premise served by a
public water system for the purpose of making surveys
and investigations for cross-connections.
55
-------
4. Criteria for booster pump installation in public
water supply systems and on premises served by public
water supply systems.
5. Penalties and/or discontinuance of service to
anyone in violation of the cross-connection control
regulations.
The penalties for violating State Department of
Health orders or relevant State statutes are fines not
to exceed $100. These fines are minimal and allow for
continued violation by those utilities that can afford to
pay the price. They should be increased and related
to the potential hazard to public health produced by the
violation.
The State Department of Health under Section 19-13a
of the Connecticut General Statutes gives the public
health council the power to adopt regulations in the.public
health code "pertaining to the protection and location of
new water supply wells ..." Under this provision, the
State should adopt regulations that would require permits
for underground waste disposal and control other potential
sources of ground water pollution such as landfills or
underground storage tanks.
56
-------
Activities - Engineering
At the present time, the Water Supplies Section has
3 men: the Chief, one sanitary engineer, and one engineer
intern. At times during the year, another engineer intern,
a co-op student from Northeastern University in Boston, is
available for various duties.
From Tables 5 and 6 it can be seen that the year of
the survey (1972) was an above average year for inspections.
Records indicate some fluctuation in the number of inspect-
ions made and the number is related to the turnover in
personnel of the Water Supplies Section. This turnover
rate has been higher than desirable and causes some decrease
in inspections while new people are being trained. Fort-
unately, the Section Chief has occupied the position for
a number of years giving the program continuity.
The Section has been aware of the need for added
personnel and has sought more positions to assist with the
increasing workload they have experienced. Mandatory
fluoridation is just one activity that has been a develop-
ment requiring more surveillance. Many small water supplies
have been installed, and since 1960, the number of supplies
for which the Section is responsible has more than doubled,
57
-------
while the staff of the Water Supplies Section has remained
about the same.
The Section has been unable to conduct cross-connection
surveys for several years, although a few were begun in
1972. With the departure of the man who began this work,
it is uncertain as to whether they will continue.
The approval of new small supplies and the fluoridation
installations have demanded time that would otherwise have
been spent inspecting treatment facilities and watersheds,
and collecting surveillance samples.
Requests for new positions have not been granted and
the turnover in younger engineers has meant that much of the
time in recent years, the field staff has been quite in-
experienced. This lack of experience has hampered the Section's
educational efforts in terms of producing informational
articles for the general public or for trade publications,
and has also somewhat hampered personal contacts with water
plant operators and consumer groups.
The specific manpower requirements of the Water Supplies
Section are presented in Table 7. Seven professionals would
be required to do the work shown in the table, assuming
230 working days per year. A Principal sanitary Engineer pres-
ently acts as "Chief" of the Water Supplies Section. He
also serves as general assistant to the Director, Division
58
-------
of Environmental Health Services, which involves duties
in areas other than water supply. Therefore, it is
proposed that the Section be reorganized and the results
ant organization conform to that outlined in Figure 3.
59
-------
FIGURE 3
WATER SUPPLIES SECTION - ORGANIZATION CHART
This staffing proposal conforms closely with estimates
developed by EPA. They estimate that one man can maintain
effective surveillance over 56 water supplies during the
year. This means 6 men would be required for the 329 supplies
Connecticut now has. The seventh man would be the Chief
Engineer and would be responsible for administering the
program. Two secretaries would be needed in the Section.
The proposed staff is the minimum needed for an effective
water supply program. The annual cost involved would be
approximately $26,000 per man (including salary, travel, office
overhead, secretarial help, etc.), or $175,000. Laboratory
support would be an additional expense. An estimate of lab-
oratory cost involved in a bacteriological sampling program
60
-------
which meets the Drinking Water Standards specifications
can be arrived at using a figure of $5 per water sample and
assuming the State will examine 5% of the required monthly
samples or no less than 2 from each supply per month.
System Number of Samples/Sys- Total Sam-
Size Systems tem/Montn pies per Moi
35,000 315 2 630
35,000 - 100,000 10 4 40
100,000 4 10 40
Total 710
61
-------
Table 7
Water Supplies Section - Manpower Requirements
Untreated Well Systems (All Year)
Untreated Well Systems (Surrmer)
Treatment Plants Inspected Annually
Treatment Plants Inspected Send-Annual ly
Treatment Plants Inspected Quarterly
Watersheds Inspected Annually
Watersheds Inspected Every 5 Years
New Systems and Treatment Plans Approved
per Year
New Additions to Existing Systems
Special Watershed Surveys
Investigation of Complaints
Milk Farm Well Investigations
Court Cases
Special Investigations (salt, gasoline, etc.)
Report Writing
Double Check Valve Inspections
Interior Water Piping Surveys
State Park & Forest & Highway Wells
Administration & Consultations
Certification of Water Supplies For
Meat and Poultry Plants
Foster Homes
Certification of Interstate Common
Carrier Watering Sources
Certification of Interstate Common
Carrier Watering Points
Water Resources Planning
Total-ton *ESys •
J
No. No. No.
of of Days
Supplies Inspections Required
80
80
40
55
55
28
11
11
11
93
186
100
130
520
260
45
45
52
17
3
10
33
_
50
60
60
7
7
9
—
30
25
65
65
32
—
—-
8
a
D
250
128
384
77
—
—
20
70
70
20
—
—
360
57
64
16
125
130'
32
8
8
10
20
20
6
—
—
230
1712
62
-------
The above tabulation indicates that the monthly
requirement would be 710 samples. At $5 per sample the
annual cost would be $42,600.
Chemical analysis of the 647 wells and 107 reservoirs
in the state would be carried out at an estimated annual
cost of $79,600. This is based on the following assump-
tions :
Analysis
Wet chemistry
Trace metals
Pesticides
CCE
Radiochemical
Man-days/Sample
0.55
0.61
2.00
1.00
0.72
Samples
32 3
323
107
10 7
215
Total
Man-days
177.6
197.0
214.0
107.0
180.7
876.3
The man-days per sample figures are based on EPA guide-
lines, and the number of samples on a sample frequency of
annually for surface waters and tri-annually for ground
waters. The total estimated annual cost comes from using
3.98 man years (876.3 man days/220 work days 1 yr) times
$20,000 per man year.
Activities - Training
Additional manpower, beyond that mentioned in the pre-
ceding section, will be needed if any increase in training
is to be undertaken by the State Health Department. There is
no question that operators need training, some for refersher
courses and others for more basic training in water treatment.
63
-------
In the pastr EPA has provided a number of courses in
the field of water treatment, but increasing pressure to
charge prohibitive tuition fees is likely to end this
program or make it available only to the large companies
that can afford the training, not necessarily those that
need it the most.
The availability of revenue sharing funds gives the
State Department of Health the opportunity to staff its own
training program or pay another public or private agency
to carry on a training program. Since the Water Supplies
Section knows the needs, they should have input into the
development .of a training program that will meet those needs.
Laboratory - Support - Bacteriological
The importance of a strong bacteriological surveillance
program has been noted in many studies and Connecticut is
no exception. A major deficiency in the surveillance prog-
ram has been frequency of sample collection. (Only 13 of
45 supplies surveyed met Drinking Water Standards frequency
requirements). The State should examine on a monthly basis
a minimum of 5% of the number of samples required by the
Drinking Water Standards or a minimum of two samples per
month from supplies serving less than 35,000 persons.
64
-------
Some samples by the states might be used to comply with
sampling frequency requirements, but the majority of the
samples would have to be examined by a utility or other
private laboratories certified by the State.
Resampling should be done on the same day laboratory
results indicate a bacteriological sample failed the
Drinking Water Standards. Section 3.23 of the Drinking
Water Standards states that "... daily samples from the
same sampling point shall be collected promptly and ex-
amined until the results obtained from at least two con-
secutive samples show the water to be of satisfactory
quality." Every effort should be made to accomplish this
goal.
Laboratory Support - Chemical
Chemical surveillance of drinking water will probably
become increasingly important as commercial development
puts increasing pressure on watersheds. The influence of
underground storage tanks and disposal of wastes in lagoons
on ground water should be monitored. The need for in-
creased surveillance in this area is indicated by the
findings of this study. The present State policy of analysis
for 13 substances only seven of which are in the Drinking
Water Standards should be changed to include the other 18
parameters in the Standards, at least to establish a base-
line of data on each supply. Once a data base is established,
the State should concentrate its efforts on the health re-
lated constituents.
65
-------
It is recommended that drinking water samples be
collected and analyzed according to the following schedule
unless more frequent analyses are indicated by the pre-
sence of certain toxic substances:
1. Surface sources - at least once per year.
2. Ground Water and Springs - at least once every
three years.
There are 107 surface sources in Connecticut and 64 7 ground
water sources which would mean a total of 32 3 samples for
analysis per year.
To do the additional analyses, it is recommended the
State obtain another atomic absorption spectrophotometer
with arsenic and selenium analytical capability. It
might also be desirable to have a mercury analyzer to have
the most efficient operation and use of equipment. The
new carbon absorption method or mini-samplers are avail-
able and the State laboratory should be equipped to carry
out the CCE determination for organics. Once this is done
and there is increased surveillance in pesticides, radio-
chemicals and metals, two to three more chemists will be
needed.
66
-------
PARTICIPANTS
Study Director
Charles D. Larson, Chief, Operations Section,
Water Supply Branch, Air & Water Programs Division,
Region I.
Field Evaluation
Charles D. Larson, Chief, Operations Section, Water
Supply Branch, Air & Water Programs Division, Region I.
Stephen P. Lathrop, Staff Biologist, Operations
Section, Water Supply Branch, Boston, Mass.
Thomas Hushower, Fluoridation Engineer, Water Supply
Division, Washington, D. C.
Laboratory Evaluation
Earl McFarren, Research Chemist, EPA, NERC, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Edwin E. Geldreich, Consulting Bacteriologist, Water
Supply Division, NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio
Laboratory Support
Fluoride Laboratory, Water Supply Division, Washington,
D. C.
Water Supply Research Laboratory, NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio
Northeast Water Supply Research Laboratory, Narra-
gansett, Rhode Island
67
-------
Gulf Coast Water Supply Research Laboratory,
Dauphin Island, Ala. (EPA)
Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory (EPA)
Montgomery , Ala.
Laboratory Division, Connecticut State Dept. of
Health, Hartford, Connecticut
Data Processing, Water Supply Division, Cincinnati, Ohio
Mrs, G. D. Bardo, Statistical Clerk
Mr. G. C. Kent, Water Quality Register Branch
Report Preparation
Charles D. Larson, Chief, Operations Section, Water
Supply Branch, EPA, Region I
Dorothy Jacobs, Secretary
68
-------
REFERENCES
Community Water Supply Study - Analysis of National
Survey Findings, Bureau of Water Hygiene, July, 19 70,
111 pp.
Evaluation of Water Laboratories, Public Health Service
Publication No.999-EE-l, Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402,
1966, 54 pp.
Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies,
Public Health Service Publication No. 1820, Superintendent
of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402, 1969, 62 pp. (Reprinted in 1971 by the Environmental
Protection Agency).
Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems, Environmental
Protection Agency Publication No. 430-9-73-00 3, Super-
intendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 20402, 1973, 155 pp.
1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards,
Public Health Service Publication No. 956, Superintendent
of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402, 61 pp.
Recommended Standards for Water Works, Great Lakes - Upper
Mississippi River Board of Sanitary Engineers, Health
Education Service, P. 0. Box 7283, Albany, N. Y. 12224,
1968, 87 pp.
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater,
13th Edition, APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, American Public Health
Association, New York, New York, 1971, 874 pp.
Water Quality Criteria - Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
20402, April 1, 1968, 234 pp.
69
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Adequacy of The Water Fluoridation
Control Program in Connecticut
An Evaluation of Water Fluoridation
At Selected Water Supply Systems
In the State of Connecticut
FINAL draft
AUG 2 2 1973
Thomas N. Hushower, P.E.
Chief, Special Studies Section
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
A-l
-------
Connecticut Water Supply Program Evaluation
Adequacy of the Water Fluoridation Control Program in Connecticut
Introduction
The State of Connecticut requires by Law (enacted in May 1965) the
fluoridation of all public water supplies serving twenty thousand
or more persons. "Whenever the fluoride content of public water
supplies serving twenty thousand or more persons supplies less than
0.8 mg/1 of fluoride, the person, firm, corporation or municipality
having jurisdiction over the supply shall add a measured amount of
fluoride to the water so as to maintain a fluoride content of between
0.8 mg/1 and 1.2 mg/1...". The law became effective January 1, 1967,
for water utilities serving populations of 50,000 or more and on
October 1, 1967, all water utilities serving 20,000 or more persons
were required to fluoridate.
The Environmental Health Services Division in the State Department
of Health is responsible for approval and supervision of all public
water supplies in Connecticut including all fluoridation installations.
Requirements for approval and control of the fluoridation process are
included in the following State publications and documents: Public
Water Supply Information; Program For Application For Approval For
The Addition Of Fluoridation Treatment To Public Water Supply Systems;
Check List For Design And Operation Of Fluoridation Treatment Facilities;
and Section 19-13b Of the General Statutes, Fluoridation Of Public
Water Supplies.
A-2
-------
On January 1, 1972, twenty-six public water supply systems of a
reported 325 water systems serving over 25 customers, were fluoridat-
ing in the State of Connecticut. An estimated 2.25 million or
91 percent of the population using public water supplies received
fluoridated water. 1/ Six communities were reported using one or
more water sources containing natural fluorides of 0.7 mg/1 or
higher and one community, Coventry - Lakewood Heights, was using
one or more water sources containing natural fluorides as high as
2.1 mg/1 fluoride. 2/
The proven benefits derived from fluoridation in dollars to prevent
dental caries for the population in Connecticut served by fluoridated
water is estimated to be $20.5 million. The cost to the State for
implementing the recommendations of this report is $30,000 and the
cost to the local communities is estimated at $360,000 giving a
benefit cost ratio to the State of 53 to 1. To receive full value
of the benefits of fluoridation, it is essential that the fluoride
ion levels be maintained between 0.9 - 1.1 mg/1 as a reduction of
only 0.2 mg/1 below the optimum value (1.0 mg/1) will reduce the
benefits of fluoridation by 50 percent.
1/ Fluoridation Census 1969 (Revised April 1972), U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service.
2/ Natural Fluoride Content of Community Water Supplies, 1969, U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service.
A-3
-------
Evaluation Procedure
To evaluate the adequacy of the water fluoridation control program
of the Connecticut State Department of Health, eight fluoridated
water supply systems were selected for survey. The choice of the
eight systems representative of the twenty-six fluoridation installa-
tions in Connecticut was based on geographical location, population
served, source of water supply (ground or surface water), and fluoride
compound used in fluoridation. Figure 1, Fluoridated Water Supply
Systems Selected For Study, locates the eight installations visited
and Table I, summarizes pertinent information on each facility.
A-4
-------
CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM EVALUATION
Figure I
FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS SELECTED FOR STUDY
:>
Cn
i NOAPOUC
J
• CANAAN /
• COL4AKOOK; KAKTLAND
;
—-i
, , /" JIWJCMAXSTCD ;
i t fwiNCUGVTC* •
\ ; i t-
i—•—t
/
aoMtu ! jTArroi\o # union ; wood^tock. \ Thompson
A L A--r! \ J
: 7 t \ i T PUTNAM
dHAAON JCOBNW^l' OWUN '
/
/
/ j y*V >
/CANTON j'aiMABUIW/ 'j WJM°SOR-
**"* /NcvHMcrroxi* ' /
/ /wooMntLOl
| Windsor. ;
CLLIWOTOM -••••AU1LLfy6TW: AiKrOftft!
/
/ TORRJWOTCW j
1(7)
! o /
.a ^ r---*——avon
'(mAHWJN7»t * ^
JWtt/MO
<> (
J—
roJ\
i (5) r
I ®..i
urn MNBsiki vehkon
TOLLAND /
• 'fAlTrORD! POMrRtT \
! ^ i J KlU-rNOLY
-i , L-J-, r" I
'•• •• •r
wtST H\jcncy.
* WEST
j wm row>
^..^...JMWMIHOTOnN \TM0MA3T0*,'
\ ; V — —
^NrViflLTOW. j&CTWXHEJI
\
httSRV^A
NtfsJlXTOfcli '¦
I \V r.-^ • 3OUTHW0T0N7
. V. \\WDLCOTT', 1
--iCOVENrRvl MAVAriri-ft (CHATUHj H^XTTONv-^ BROOKLYN^
*«T \ KANC HLaTtR^T0WV \ j ! /
iww«j uTcnriEm ; ; © f ¦ \ .. \ ! / ¦'
( i I \ \rA*MIHOTO>}-» i (2)\ V \ V jL
\ ^-vr-vioias""*. —V— i • \ aoujmm^n^ © f i \
l !x \—\ Mhcbm*n \ ,) '••-<8) '• :
» • f • r /v. \ ^ \ I
; « ; • t" ,HU| ywARi/\ \ S traANON > "t
\ 1 ^-^5OKOU0K*, V»' /rRANK.*iPRAO'JC*"""*-
>•—1". / OtSLIM "V \ \ " \ / •"« \ (LIAMN,
\ ( \ / \ /
\ /" ( J
/ COLCHtiTtR. \ 1 .'NOH.Wlcn) ^... '
> \ \ /BOZRAM;' („y \ \
S / y i {PRr3TOM \ \
( ...A r> \ l--~
> . . *¦¦¦' ' I JALtM •¦ ./ NOHTH srojuwo:
'¦fitK-v. \ -«¦ l.—y \ / / J~—!.-
\ (61® j V \ / /<*»
/ 1 iW;./}--1 /
/ k'\ / •~v-<
¦ ¦ ¦ ' fir—"*¦
t
| j //—i <3)^1
-;/ —
» t HIODji,
, 1 mr ^
1. i r--* 'ruasricr',
"Vxn-KBUHY I ,»WXATTJCC1 j
-~x,
'CHKAWRX. 1
^LftlDEJJ i. MIUDLCTOWjT'
>ODCUt\
~ •I ICLD \
i i
/ i-
/ VALLINOrORD : DURHAM 1 HADPAM
j L.
WONTVILLE.
) \
.'tZTHlC
V r
\ \
\ '
V-"*'*KUODIMO **
V
X J® ...---f
' '' * ' T "HOXTti !
^J-r'^cartu
>0»A«1DOI)'
^•'HONKCK. t \..wXu"!SiJ,
''^ILLlNCWOUHt^ ^
•awSir^oicuiuciui'.KAmdcrf'
si ! I !
JTCRL
pLMwntLo;
CR [AVOID rvOUNTO^
\
i »x«r\^ATCnr0M,J -! 3T0HIN0TC«>
\l$ML\ ^ CROTON '
OLD LYVtr. \
A3 TOM \tKyMauu."\
' •,WE3T0N,«
W WJI.TOH \
-,»^UNTON\
*%0m
V
\
-
-------
CONNECTICUT HATES. SUPPLY PROGRAM EVALUATION
TABLE I
FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS SELECTED FOR STUDY
Water Supply Svston
Location Dace of Population
(County) Fluoridation Served
Avg. Plow
Source of Supply (MOD)
Fluoride
Compound
Typo of
Feeder
Analysis
Method
Test
Equlpnont
u.inpurv
Ncrgerle
Westlako
Hartford
W. Hartford
Reservoir,Six
Mlddlctovn
River Road
Ml. iilgby
Laurel Brook
Key London
Rockvllle
Southbury
Torrlnccn
lljrcbrook
Allen
Fairfield
Hartford
New London
Tolland
New Haven
Litchfield
9/68
1/60
¦Middlesex 10/60
6/68
5/70
4/45
3/58
35,000
389,000
32,000
36,000
13,280
3,000
24,000
tlargerlo Res.
Vestlake Res.
Nepaug Res. 6
Barkhanstead Res.
2-Kella
Mt. Hlgby Res.
Laurel Brook Res.
Lake Konomoc
Lako ShoQipalt
2-Wella
Rcubln Hart Bos.
Allen Dam Res.
3.50
3.50
55.0
3.20
4.75
3.50
0.26
3.90
VS
vs
VS
VA
VA
VA
VA
VS
VA
VT
VT
VT
V-l
V-l
C-l
P-l
P-2
f-3
P-2
V-2
P-4
P-5
V-4
V-4
B
(a)
E
(b)
(c)
S
S
ML
S
T-3
T-4
Tr4
T-2
T-2
I-i
T-2
WllUn.mtlc
Windham
9/58
17,300
Natchaug R,
3.3
VS
V-3
T-2
Fluoride Compound
VA - b'luoslllclc Add
VS - Sodium Slllcofluorlde
VT - Sodium Fluorldo
Analysis Method
£ - Electrode
ML-- Modified Lamar
S - Spadns
Test Eoulummt
T-l Color Comparator - Taylor Hater Analyzer
T-2 Photometer - llach DR
T-3 Specific Ion Meter - Orion 6407, Orion Electrodas
T-4 Specific Ion Meter - Orion (401, Orion Electrodes
(a) Monitored with Hach CR 1120 Continuous Fluoride Analysor
(b) Monitored with Foxboro Fluoride Analyzor
(c) Monitored tilth F6P Anafluor Continuous Fluoride Analyzer
Type of Fecdor
V-l Volimctric - BIF 25-04 Helix Type
V-2 Volumetric - BIF 25-01 Helix Typo
V-3 Volumetric - BIF 50-A Rotating Disk
V-4 Volumetric - W&T A-635 Screw Type
0-1 Gravimetric - 11IF #48 Lous-Ir.-WeiGht (3)
P-l Dlaphram Pump - Milton Roy Model A (2)
P-2 Dlaphram Pump - W&T A-747 lister lug Puup
P-3 Dlaphram Pump - W&T A-748 Metcrinc Pump
P-4 Dlaphraa Pump - BIF 1203 Cham-O-Foedar (2)
P-5 Piston Pump - BIF
-------
The survey of the eight representative fluoridation installations
included a field inspection visit to the facility (the State notified
the operators of the visit in advance), completion of a survey form 3/,
and collection of water samples for fluoride ion analysis. Each
installation was examined with respect to: fluoride ion content in the
distribution system; analytical control of the fluoride ion level;
fluoride chemical feed equipment and facilities: fluoride chemical
compound storage and handling; operator training and interest; and,
surveillance.
The actual level of fluoride ion in the distribution system is the
single most important factor in evaluating the adequacy of a community
water fluoridation effort and hence in evaluation of the State program
responsible for approval and surveillance of the installation. However,
as distribution samples collected on one particular day may not give a
true picture of day-to-day operating conditions, the installations were
also evaluated with respect to the following:
I. Analytical Control of the Fluoride Ion Level
A. Were the fluoride ion analyses conducted at the water
plant accurate within +0.1 mg/1 of the value determined
by the Environmental Protection Agency?
3/ A copy of the questionnaire used in the Connecticut Fluoridation
Survey is appended.
A-7
-------
B. Were finished water samples analyzed daily or more
frequently for fluoride ion content?
C. Were raw water samples analyzed regularly for fluoride
ion content?
D. Were laboratory equipment and facilities at the water
plant adequate to conduct fluoride ion analysis according
to one of the three standard methods?
E. Was laboratory equipment clean and given responsible care?
F. Were complete records kept of the fluoridation operation?
Fluoride Chemical Feed Equipment and Facilities
A. Were the fluoride feed equipment and facilities adequate
to control the fluoride ion level in the finished water?
B. Was positive protection provided against overfeeding?
Was backflow protection provided? Was equipment location
and point of fluoride chemical application at the best
practical site? Was the feed equipment site uncluttered?
C. Was the fluoride chemical feed installation operated
continuously for the past twelve months without an interrup-
tion of more than one day?
D. Were the fluoride chemical feed equipment and facilities
maintained satisfactorily?
A-8
-------
III. Fluoride Chemical Compound " Storage and Handling
A. Was the fluoride chemical compound stored in a safe,
protected and orderly manner?
B. Was safety equipment available and were safe procedures
followed in handling the fluoride chemical compound?
C. Were fluoride chemical shipping containers disposed
of satisfactorily or re-used only for fluoride chemical
storage?
IV. Operator Training and Interest
A. Were plant operating personnel well-trained to operate
the fluoride chemical feed equipment and facilities?
B. Were personnel conducting the fluoride ion analyses
knowledgeable of their test equipment and standard pro-
cedures for analysis?
C. Was the water plant official interviewed in favor of
fluoridation and was he Interested in adding fluorides
to public water supply systems?
V. Surveillance
A. Were check samples for fluoride ion analysis submitted
to the state as required?
B. Had the water fluoridation installation surveyed been
inspected in the past twelve months by a representative
of the state water supply program surveillance agency?
A-9
-------
Summary of Findings
Data collected on the water supply systems fluoridating in the State
of Connecticut indicated five (63 percent) of the eight installations
selected for investigation evidenced a fluoride ion content in the
distribution system at the time of the survey within the 0.8 - 1.2
mg/1 range recommended by the State Department of Health. Three (37
percent) of the facilities were underfeeding, i.e. the fluoride ion
levels in the samples collected from the distribution system were less
than 0.8 mg/1. None of the eight installations were overfeeding.
Table II, Analysis of Samples From Selected Fluoridated Water Supply Systems,
tabulates the fluoride ion ainalysis of the water samples collected
at each facility surveyed 4_/.
The operating conditions observed during the time of the survey of
the eight fluoridation installations inspected are summarized as
follows:
I. Analytical Control of the Fluoride Ion Level
Practices to analytically test and control the fluoride ion
level in the distribution systems varied considerably. Six
(75 percent) of the plant operators or laboratory personnel
testing water samples for fluoride ion content conducted the
k] Water samples were analyzed for fluoride ion content by the Water
Supply Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
using the Electrode Method.
A-10
-------
CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM EVALUATION
TABLE II
ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM SELECTED FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Fluoride, mg/1
Water Supply System
Date of
Sample
Raw
Water
Check Sample
(Operator) (EPA)
Distribution System
#!l 97.
Danbury
5/23
1.95 2.00
0.43
0.45
Margerie
0.05
0.75
Westlake
0.03
Hartford
9/13
0.11
0.97 0.98
1.00
1.01
W. Hartford
0.09
0.99
1.02
Reservoir Six
0.09
1.00
1.00
1.00
Middletown
5/24
0.96 0.87
0.92
0.88
River Road
0.08
0.90
Mt. Higby
0.04
Laurel Brook
0.05
New London
5/24
0.03
1.05 0.96
0.80
0.84
0.80
Rockville
9/12
0.10
0.80 0.67
0.79
0.68
Southbury
5/23
1.0 0.96
0.91
0.90
Well H
0.09
Well #2
0.10
Torrington
5/22
0.95 0.89
0.54
0.90
Hartbrook
0.04
0.89
Allen
0.04
Willimantic
9/12
0.08
0.98 0.80
0.96
0.89
A-ll
-------
analysis within + 0.1 mg/1 of the duplicate sample analysis
performed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The operator
at one installation (Southbury) did not conduct fluoride ion
analysis by one of the three Standard Methods. Daily finished
water fluoride ion analysis, required by the State, was conducted
at .four (50 percent) of the installations and regular raw water
fluoride ion analysis was being conducted at only two (25 percent).
Analytical equipment and facilities were judged adequate at seven
(88 percent) of the facilities and care of equipment was satis-
factory at seven (88 percent) of the plants conducting fluoride
ion analyses. Records of the fluoridation operation were acceptable
at six (75 percent) of the installations surveyed.
. Fluoride Chemical Feed Equipment and Facilities
Fluoride chemical feed equipment and facilities to control the
distribution system fluoride ion level to within the required
range were found deficient at two (25 percent) of the eight
installations surveyed. Six (75 percent) of the feeding
arrangements were rated acceptable, i.e. protected against over-
feeding, protected against backflow, preferred point of chemical
application, and good housekeeping in the feeder area. One
(12 percent) of the operators reported one or more interruptions
in fluoridation of one or more days duration in the past twelve
months. Maintenance was unsatisfactory at three (37 percent) of
the facilities surveyed, even though the plant operators had been
alerted to the inspection visit.
A-12
-------
III. Fluoride Chemical Compound - Storage and Handling
Storage arrangements for the fluoride chemical compound fed were
satisfactory at seven (88 percent) of the eight installations
surveyed; however, four (50 percent) of the operators interviewed
did not have available suitable safety equipment to handle the
fluoride chemical compounds. Two (29 percent) of the operators
were permitting unsafe reuse of the chemical shipping containers
or were not disposing of the empty containers satisfactorily.
IV. Operator Training and Interest
A trained operator with a genuine interest in feeding fluorides
is essential to the satisfactory operation of a fluoridation
installation. One (12 percent) of the facilities surveyed was
operated by an individual not completely familar with the fluoride
chemical feed equipment at his plant. Two (25 percent) of the
operators questioned were not adequately trained in the use of
the fluoride ion test equipment provided and the procedures to
follow in conducting fluoride ion analyses. The operators at
three (37 percent) of the plants visited did not favor feeding
fluorides to public water supply systems.
A-13
-------
V. Surveillance
Frequent check samples of fluoride ion levels in the distribution
system and regular inspection visits to the water fluoridation
installation by State water supply surveillance personnel must be
conducted to assure the facility is operating satisfactorily. The
State Department of Health requires four water samples per month
to be collected from the distribution system of fluoridated water
supplies and submitted to the State Laboratory for fluoride ion
analysis. A review of State records for 1971 revealed the required
number of check samples from six (75 percent) of the installations
selected for survey had not been tested for fluoride ion content.
Three '(37 percent) of the eight plants had not been visited in the
past twelve months by a representative of the State water supply
surveillance agency. Inspection visits to the water supply
systems surveyed averaged one visit in twelve months.
Figure 2, Operating Conditions At Selected Fluoridated Water Supply
Systems, summarizes the operating conditions observed at the installa-
tions inspected during the time of the survey. Conditions varied
at each facility and Table III, Adequacy Of Fluoridation At Selected
Fluoridated Water Supply Systems, summarizes the adequacy of the
operating conditions at each facility during the time of the survey.
A-14
-------
CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM EVALUATION
FIGURE 2
OPERATING CONDITIONS AT SELECTED FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
PARAMETER EVALUATED
% OF FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS SURVEYED
20
I
40
i
60
i
80
_1
100
I
I
U1
Fluoride Ion Content In The Distribution System
Fluoride Ion Level 0.8 - 1.2 mg/1
Fluoride Ion Level <0.8 mg/1
Fluoride Ion Level >1.2 mg/1
Analytical Control Of The Fluoride Ion Level
Operator Analysis +0.1 mg/1 EPA Value
Daily Finished Water Fluoride Ion Analysis
Regular Raw Water Fluoride Ion Analysis
Adequate Analytical Equipment & Facilities
Adequate Care For Laboratory Equipment
Adequate Records
Fluoride Chemical Feed Equipment And Facilities
Adequate Feeding Equipment and Facilities
Adequate Feeding Arrangements
Feed Interrupted <1-Day In Past 12-Months
Adequate Maintenance
Fluoride Chemical Compound - Storage And Handling
Adequate Storage Arrangements
Acceptable Safe Handling Provisions
Satisfactory Disposal Of Shipping Containers
Operator Training And Interest
Adequately Trained To Operate Feed Equipment
Knowledgeable Of Test Equipment & Procedures
Accepts And Interested In Fluoridation
Surveillance
Check Samples To Statfc As Required 1/
Installation Inspected By State In Past 12-Months
•(63%)
(0%)
.(37%)
-(75%)
.(50%)
.(25%)
.(88%)
.(88%)
(75%)
(75%)
.(75%)
.(88%)
.(63%)
.(88%)
.(50%)
(71%)
.(88%)
.(75%)
.(63%)
.(25%)
(63%)
17 Per 1971 State Department Of Health Records - 4 Per Month
-------
CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM EVALUATION
TABLE III
ADEQUACY OF FLUORIDATION AT SELECTED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
PARAMETER EVALUATED
o
p
c
c
-H
3
o
a)
o
4-J
T3
O
iH
•U
c
t>^
M
w
e
iH
3
to
O
0)
o
•H
£i
c
e
IH
1—1
~J
>
x:
•H
•H
XI
4.)
•o
¦U
>-l
e
U
T3
s
V
3
rH
cO
nJ
•H
at
O
o
o
•H
Q
32
s
52
Pi
C/3
H
3
Fluoride Ion Level 0.8 - 1.2 mg/1
X
X
X
X
X
Fluoride Ion Level <0.8 mg/1
X
X
X
Fluoride Ion Level >1.2 mg/1
Analytical Control Of The Fluoride Ion Level
Operator Analysis +0.1 mg/1 EPA Value
X
X
X
X
X
X
Daily Finished Water Fluoride Ion Analysis
X
X
X
X
Regular Raw Water Fluoride Ion Analysis
X
X
Adequate Analytical Equipment & Facilities
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Adequate Care For Laboratory Equipment
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Adequate Records
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fluoride Chemical Feed Equipment And Facilities
Adequate Feeding Equipment and Facilities
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adequate Feeding Arrangements
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feed Interrupted <1-Day In Past 12-Months
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Adequate Maintenance
X
X
X
X
X
Fluoride Chemical Compound - Storage And Handling
Adequate Storage Arrangements
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Acceptable Safe Handling Provisions
X
X
X
X
Satisfactory Disposal Of Shipping Containers
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
Operator Training And Interest
Adequately Trained To Operate Feed Equipment
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Knowledgeable Of Test Equipment & Procedures
X
X
X
X
X X
Accepts And Interested In Fluoridation
X
X
X
x ¦
X
Surveillance
Check Samples To State As Required 1/
X
X
Installation Inspected By State In Past 12-Months
X
X
X
X
X
1/ Per 1971 State Department Of Health Records - 4 Per Month
X Satisfactory or Applicable for System Surveyed
N/A Not Applicable
A-16
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Twenty-six of the reported 325 public water supply systems in the
State of Connecticut were fluoridating January 1, 1972, serving an
estimated population of 2.25 million. By law the State requires
the fluoridation of all water utilities serving 20,000 or more persons.
Recommendation
The State Department of Health should more actively promote the
fluoridation of the smaller public water supplies in Connecticut
to provide the benefits of fluoridated water to the population
served by the estimated 300 public supplies not under the State
Fluoridation Law.
2. Five (63 percent) of the eight fluoridated water supply systems
surveyed evidenced a fluoride ion content in the distribution
system within the limits required by the State Department of
Health. Six (75 percent) of the plant operators or laboratory
personnel testing water samples for fluoride ion content conducted
the analysis within +0.1 mg/1 of the sample results analyzed by
the Environmental Protection Agency. Daily finished water fluoride
ion analysis was conducted at four (50 percent) of the installations
and the source of raw water was analyzed on a regular basis at only
two (25 percent) of the facilities surveyed. Records of the fluorida-
tion operation were acceptable at six (75 percent) of the plants.
A-17
-------
Recommenda t ion
The State Department of Health should require the operators at
all fluoridation installations to conduct fluoride ion analysis
according to Standard Methods to within + 0.1 mg/1 of the value
reported on the State check sample. Daily finished water fluoride
ion analysis, regular raw water fluoride ion analysis, adequate
laboratory equipment and care of equipment, and complete records
on the fluoridation operation should be enforced at all fluorida-
tion installations.
3. Fluoride chemical feed equipment and facilities were satisfactory
at six (75 percent) of the installations surveyed and feeding
arrangements were judged adequate at six (75 percent). One
(12 percent) of the installations had one or more interruptions
in the past twelve months and maintenance was less than satis-
factory at three (37 percent) of the facilities visited even
though each operator had been alterted to the inspection visit.
Recommendation
The State Department of Health should provide design assistance
to all communities installing fluoridation equipment, thoroughly
review all proposed installations before the operation is approved,
and assist the operator as needed during the "start-up" period.
A-18
-------
All interruptions in the fluoridation operations should be required
to be reported to the Environmental Health Services Division of
the State Department of Health. A preventative maintenance program
should be established for each facility and closely followed for
the installation to receive continued approval for operation.
4. Fluoride chemical storage arrangements were judged satisfactory
at seven (88 percent) of the installations surveyed. Four (50
percent) of the operators did not have available suitable safety
equipment to handle the fluoride chemical compounds used and two
(29 percent) of the operators were not disposing of the empty
chemical shipping containers in a satisfactory manner.
Recommendation
The State Department of Health should instruct all water plant
operators feeding fluorides on safe storage and handling practices
for fluoride chemical compounds and promulgate regulations for
storage and handling fluoride chemical compounds used in water
fluoridation in the State of Connecticut.
A-19
-------
5. A trained operator with a genuine interest in feeding fluorides is
essential to the satisfactory operation of a fluoridation installation-
Training deficiencies were noted in the operators knowledge of his
fluoride feed equipment (Danbury) and acquaintance with the equip-
ment and procedures used in conducting fluoride ion analysis
(Middletown and Southbury). Three (37 percent) of the operators
interviewed did not favor feeding fluorides to public water supply
systems.
Recommendation
The State Department of Health should provide training in fluoride
feed equipment operation and maintenance and fluoride determinations
in water for the operators of all fluoridated water supply systems.
The benefits of water fluoridation and the importance of maintaining
an optimum level of fluoride ion in the distribution system at all
times should be stressed. Satisfactory completion of the course
should be a mandatory requirement of the plant operator for approval
of his installation to feed fluorides.
A-20
-------
6. Surveillance of each water fluoridation installation must be on a
regular, continual basis to assure the facility is operating satis-
factory. The operators of six (75 percent) of the plants surveyed
were not submitting the required number of check samples to the
State laboratory for fluoride ion analysis. Three (37 percent) of
the installations had not been visited by a representative of the
State water supply surveillance agency in the past twelve months.
Recommendation
The State Department of Health should enforce their policy
requiring four monthly check samples to be collected from the
distribution systems of fluoridated water supplies and sent
to the State Laboratory for fluoride ion analysis. All inter-
ruptions in the fluoridation operations should be investigated by
the Environmental Health Services Division and all plants employing
new operating personnel placed in charge of the fluoridation
operation should be visited immediately to assure the new operator
has been adequately trained. Six man-months per year of engineering
services with the necessary travel funds and laboratory support
are estimated to be needed for an adequate fluoridation surveillance
program in the State of Connecticut.
A-21
-------
CONNECTICUT FLUORIDATION SURVEY
ii'ater System:
Population Served:
Date Fluoridation Started:
Source of Supply:
Treatment:
Fluoride Analysis:
Raw Water:
Fluoridation Equipment -
Manufacturer:
Type:
Model:
Location:
noint of application:
Condition of equipment:
Operational problems:
Overfeeding safeguards:
Planned Improvements:
Remarks:
A-22
Average Flow:
Finished iV'ater
-------
Fluoride Compound -
Chemical:
Source:
Cost:
Porn of shipment
Storage facilities:
Quantity used:
Safety provisions:
Remarks:
Control of Fluoridation -
Frequency of sampling:
Raw water: Finished wat
Sampling point:
Test method:
Test instrument:
Records:
Interruptions:
Remarks:
A-23
-------
Operator Qualifications -
Experience: Classification:
Training:
Interest:
Remarks:
Surveillance -
Check samples:
Last visit by State:
Availability of technical assistance:
Remarks:
Comments -
A-24
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
Survey Report on the
Bacteriological Examination of Water
at the
Connecticut Department of Health Laboratory
10 Clinton Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06114
August 22 - 23, 1972
by
Edwin E. Geldreich, Consulting Bacteriologist
Water Supply Division
Water Program Operations
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
The equipment and procedures employed in the bacteriological
analysis of water by the laboratory conformed with the provisions of
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" (13th
edition, 1971) and with the provisions of the Interstate Quarantine Drinking
Water Standards, except for items marked with a cross "X" on the
accompanying form EPA-103 (Rev 3-71). Items marked "O" do not apply
to the procedures programmed in the laboratory. Specific deviations are
described with appropriate remedial action for compliance in the following
recommendations:
Recommendations
28. Dilution Bottle Closures
Dilution bottles that employ rubber stoppers (Escher type) must
be covered before sterilization with a metal foil, rubberized cloth, or
impermeable paper cap. This requirement is necessary to minimize
contamination of the lip of the bottle while in storage and during hand
manipulation of the closures during use. Because screw cap closures
form a protective shield over bottle openings negating the necessity for
any additional cover, it is recommended that these types of dilution bottles,
with the appropriate 99 ml gradation mark, be gradually added to the supply
as needed to cover normal replacement.
46. Multiple Tube Procedure
All water samples must receive a vigorous shaking immediately
prior to either the inoculation of a series of presumptive tubes in the MPN
procedure or to measuring appropriate volumes in the membrane filter test.
This vigorous shaking requirement is needed to obtain a homogeneous
distribution of suspended bacteria and is of particular concern with those
waters laden with turbidity. Turbidity in water will rapidly settle, pulling
suspended bacteria into the bottom sediment and thereby creating an uneven
distribution of the bacterial population in measured aliquots.
B-l
-------
48. Completed MPN Tests
Since requests for MPN data on samples submitted by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Portection, the Water Compliance Division,
and the State Shellfish Program will possibly be used in enforcement actions,
it is essential that approximately 20 of the confirmed tests each three months
be carried to the Completed Test to substantiate the validity of data being
collected on confirmed test examinations. False positive results do occa-
sionally occur in the Confirmed Test and if the interpretation of results from
the Confirmed Test do substantially differ from the Completed Test, it will
be necessary to increase this minimum requirement.
Remarks
1. Laboratory Evaluation Program
The laboratory evaluation service within Connecticut is administered
by Dr. William F. Vincent, Assistant Director Laboratory Division, Labor-
atory Standards Section. Water laboratories covered in this State program
include city health departments, water treatment plants, hospitals, clinics,
dairy, university and commercial facilities., A Connecticut law has established
a mandatory laboratory certification requirement with a $500 penalty for oper-
ation without a valid permit. A review of this program activity prepared from
summary tables supplied during our visit indicate that 47 laboratories currently
hold a valid permit to examine water and sewage samples (see accompanying
table). Approval is reviewed each year with renewal of the certification being
based on the annual laboratory survey and satisfactory bacteriological results
from analyses of three split samples. In addition to these qualifications, all
laboratories must have MPN test capability even though they are using the
MF test for the bacteriological examination of water.
Mr. Earl Thompson Jr. is the designated State laboratory survey
officer for both water and milk laboratories. Since Mr. Thompson was on
vacation during our visit and no copies of water laboratory evaluations have
been forwarded to our office, it was not possible to study this program in
detail, as to adequacy of the evaluation report, time spent in each laboratory,
characteristic problems encountered, the bacteriological procedures used or
the magnitude of testing done by these laboratories. Since official water
samples may be analyzed by health departments, water treatment plants,
hospital and commercial laboratories, the importance of the laboratory
evaluation service for water laboratories and the need for sufficient staff
time to accomplish this mission responsibility can not be over-emphasized.
The basic purpose of a laboratory evaluation, regardless of the reason
for the requested service, is to extend technical consultation that will lead to
improvements in overall service and reliability of data. The survey officer
should examine in detail each procedure or item ox critical equipment for
compliance with "Standard Methods" procedures or other acceptable laboratory
practices. It is important to illustrate any deficiencies observed in the records
with specific case histories, such as: insufficient samples from the municipal
supply per month, inadequate sampling of the distribution network, sample
transit time delays, and response to unsatisfactory results. When technical
•B-2
-------
Table 1.
Registration Status as of July 1972 for Approved Water Laboratories in Connecticut
j , . Survey Survey Bacteriological
j-iaooratory Date officer Methods Used
City - County Health Dept.
Bridgeport Health Dept.
Greenwich Dept. of Health
Hartford Health Dept.
Milford Health Dept.
New Britain Dept. of Health
New Haven Dept. of Health
Norwalk Dept. of Health
Stamford Health Dept.
Waterbury Health Dept.
City Labs and Water and Waste Treatment Plants
Greenwich Water Co.
Mianus Filter Plant (Greenwich)
New Haven Water Co.
Norwalk Water Laboratory
Willimantic Water Dept.
Groton Water Filtration Plant
Waterbury Water and Waste Treatment
Metropolitan Dist. Water Analysis
(West Hartford)
Groton City Lab, Pollution Abatement Facility
Margerie Reservoir Laboratory (Danbury)
Town of Enfield Laboratory
Hospital and Ciinics
Connecticut Medical Lab'(Bristol)
Doctor's Medical Lab (Greenwich)
Cyto Medical Lab (New London)
Clinical Lab of Norwalk
Middlesex Memorial Hospital
Stamford Medical Lab
Earl
Unknown Thompson
Jr.
MPN
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
Commercial and Industrial Laboratories
Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.
Bridgeport Testing Lab
Fairfield Lab (Bridgeport)
Farris Water Lab (Danbury)
Ellis A. Tarlton Lab (Danbury)
James S. Minges Sanitary Eng. Lab
(Farmington)
Ecoteck Lab (Fairfield)
MF
B-3
-------
Table 1. (Contd)
Registration Status as of July 1972 for Approved Water Laboratories in Connecticut
Laboratory
Survey
Date
Survey
Officer
Bacteriological
Methods Used
Commercial and Industrial Laboratories (Contd)
Marine Science Lab (General Dynamics)
Continental Testing Labs (Hartford)
Continental Testing Labs (Wethersfield)
Water Systems Analysis (New Fairfield)
SEBA Labs Inc (New London)
Newlands Sanitary Lab (Hartford)
New Haven Area Lab
Lunt Soil & Water Lab (Northford)
Ecological Lab (Norwich)
Water Quality Analysis Lab (Simsbury)
Pollution Control Industries (Stamford)
Coe Lab (Storrs)
Kulp Private (Storrs)
Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell
(Melville, N.Y.)
Unknown
II
Earl
Thompson Jr
MF
procedures are questioned, the laboratory survey officer should explain the
reasons for concern and demonstrate proper technique. Approved or dis-
approved economies that relate to available bench space, adequate utilities,
commercially prepared media, presterilized and disposable plastic items,
and instrumentation aids should also be reviewed for compliance to the intent
of the Standard Methods concepts.
As stated in our letter May 14, 1971 to Dr. Ullmann concerning this
State activity:
"We would like to request that copies of your laboratory
surveys be sent to Floyd B. Taylor, Chief, Water Supply
Branch, E.P.A., Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, in accordance
to our organizational structure. The regional office will
in turn forward these reports to our attention. These
reports are carefully reviewed and are not only of value
in planning intensive in-depth studies of specific state
programs but are an essentail information source on all
laboratories involved in monitoring potable water quality."
Dr. Ullmann has assured us during a review of the survey findings,
that this oversight will be promptly corrected with a channelling of these
reports to our organization.
B-4
-------
2. Sample Transit Time Limits
It is essential that all water samples regardless of source be examined
as soon as possible after collection. The transit time factor is especially
critical for special stream and marine pollution investigations or in monitoring
these waters as part of a water quality surveillance program. Maximum
transport time for these samples must not exceed 6 hours and upon receipt
in the laboratory they must be processed within 2 hours to insure valid data.
During this sample storage period, the temperature of all such stream and
marine pollution samples must be maintained between 4 - 10° C.
Storage temperature requirements for potable water samples, partic-
ularly for those sent through the mail service continues to be a problem for
central laboratories that must analyze samples from public supplies some
distance away. Transit time for potable water samples should preferably be
within 30 hours and under no circumstances should the laboratory process
any samples older than 48 hours.
Although the frequency of receiving samples beyond a 48 hour time
limit was only approximately 4 percent for all records examined, these old
samples should have been rejected without analysis as not being a valid
measurement of the bacteriological quality of the city water supply (Torrington
and Southbury; samples 3-4 days old by August 21, 1972 initial analysis).
The effect of storage time on the possible presence of a coliform population
is unpredictable. These effects may vary with any one or any combination of
factors including chemical composition, hydrogen-ion concentration, electrolyte
concentration, protein nitrogen, types of bacterial flora present, and perhaps
other unknown factors in individual water samples. Complete compliance
with the sample transit time limit can be met when samples are collected the
first part of the week, promptly mailed or delivered by car that day and
processed upon arrival day in the laboratory. Delay processing by storage
over Saturday and Sunday in the laboratory refrigerator should not be permitted
since significant bacterial density changes can occur during this time period
even at 5° C. In difficult mail transport locations, a study of trucking and
bus shipments may reyeal faster alternate methods of similar costs.
3. Lactose vs. Lauryl Tryptose Broth
This laboratory selectivity uses lactose broth in the presumptive MPN
procedure for samples of sewage treatment processes, shellfish and marine
waters while employing lauryl tryptose broth on stream pollution samples.
Lauryl tryptose broth gives equivalent results on coliform detection with lactose
broth and has the additional benefit of suppressing aerobic spore forming
bacteria that can produce false positive results in the presumptive test portion
of the MPN test. Therefore, it is recommended that lauryl tryptose broth be
used in the presumptive test portion of the multiple tube test as applied to all
water samples and to application in the MF verification of sheen colonies.
The net result would be to reduce the water media inventory and possibly
reduce some of the unusual positive tube results-occasionally being observed
in chlorinated sewage effluent examinations.
B-5
-------
4. U. V. Sterilization of Funnels
Although not a mandatory requirement, the use of a UV sterilization
chamber to decontaminate MF funnels would add an additional measure of
protection from some cross-contamination that might accidentally occur
when examining large numbers of water samples of varying water quality.
An appropriate cabinet to hold several funnels in a 60 second irradiation
exposure (Jour. AWWA 57; 500-504; 1965) could be fabricated by a metal
shop for approximately f5l) or purchased through commercial sources
(Millipore XX63-700-00 or of equivalent manufacture).
Application of UV sterilization does not replace the adequate rinse
procedure now being used to insure complete transport of all bacteria in a
sample to the membrane surface. Irradiation will prevent transport of
leakage contamination of funnel assemblies from one sample to another.
Funnels should be carefully cleaned after daily use with a mild detergent,
avoiding the use of caustic solutions and abrasive materials including steel
wool. The required cleaning procedure will prevent grease build-up and
chemical deposits from accumulating and becoming protective
areas for bacterial habitation that resist removal by rinsing or exposure
to UV irradiation.
5. Culture Tube Closures
Although non-absorbent cotton plugs may be used as culture closures,
more time is needed to prepare satisfactory plugs that reach 20 - 30 mm
into the tube with approximately 30 mm extending from the tube opening for
proper handling during sample pipetting or culture transfer. When using
cotton plugs, culture tube capacity should be large enough to adequately
contain the desired medium and sample volume additions without wetting
the plug during sterilization or sample processing. Once a cotton plug is
wet, it loses its effectiveness as a barrier. Cotton plug thickness should
not be so tight fitting that reinserting is difficult nor so loose that the plug
falls into the culture broth or to a position that makes retrieval impossible.
Since cotton plugs do not protect the upper edges of the tube opening, flaming
of this area is essential to reduce the risk of contamination.
Snug fitting stainless steel and plastic caps or loose fitting aluminum
caps are the recommended closures for culture tubes used in the multiple
tube procedure. Since these closures cover the lip and upper inch of the culture tu
flaming of the tube opening is not necessary during pipetting or culture transfer
by inoculation loop. Although their initial cost may be higher than per unit cost
of plastic plugs or material and labor costs to make cotton plugs, metal caps
are indefinitely reusable under normal laboratory conditions.
6. Plastic Sample Bottles
The rising cost of shipping samples by mail has stimulated replacement
of glass sample bottles with plastic containers that can withstand the sterilization
temperature - time exposure (121° C for 15 min) in the autoclave. These plastic
B-6
-------
sample bottles are available with wide mouth openings and screw cap closures.
Some difficulty with autoclavable plastic bottles may be related to the purchase
of polyethylene bottles that are not as rigid a plastic as is the polypropylene
type. In either case, plastic bottles should not have the screw caps tightly
closed during sterilization, less changes in air pressure and elevated tempera-
ture will cause some of these products to exhibit a partial collapse of the side
walls. Sample bottles made of linear polyethylene plastic with a polypropylene
screw closure should not be used because leakage can occur when samples are
held at refrigeration temperatures. Apparently the difference in the coefficient
of expansion rate for these two different plastic materials is the source of this
problem. Resistance to distortion is dependent not only on the type of plastic,
differences in plastic material used in cap and bottle, but also is markedly
affected by the method of molding. Polypropylene (Nalgene bottle, 4 or 8 oz,
Catalog No. 2105; Nalge Co., Rochester, N.Y. 14602; or equivalent product)
has been found to be satisfactory when both the cap and bottle are specified
of the same material. These types of plastic bottles have been used successfully
in many state water laboratories and in various federal stream pollution inves-
tigations during the past ten years. While plastic sample bottles do offer
advantages of cost, weight and resistance to breakage, they must be tested
bacteriologically for freedom from toxic substances or" organic matter that
might have evolved from the plasticizer or mold release agents.
The following staff members are approved for application of (1) total
coliform membrane filter test for the examination of potable waters; (2) total
coliform confirmed MPN, fecal coliform MPN or MF tests on stream and
marine waters and; (3) standard plate count for swimming pool water quality
measurements:
Mr. Donald LeBlanc, Senior Microbiologist
Mr. Richard Heffernan, Microbiologist Trainee
Miss Zelda Geye, Laboratory Technician
Miss Maureen Daly, Laboratory technician
The procedures and equipment in use at the time of the survey complied
in general with the provisions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater (13th edition, 1971) and the Interstate Quarantine Drinking
Water Standards and with corrections of deviations listed, it is recommended
that the results be accepted for the bacteriological examination of potable waters
under interstate regulations.
Personnel Approved
Conclusions
B-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Water Quality Office
Water Hygiene Division
Bacteriological Survey for
Water Laboratories
Indicating conformity with the 13th
edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Waste-
water (1971).
Survey By
UvtoB* OtMwIrt
X = Deviation U = Undetermined
O = Not Used
Laboratory
Dept. of
Date
Sampling and Monitoring Response
1. Location and Frequency
Representative points on system
Frequency of sampling adequate
2. Collection Procedure
Faucets with aerators should not be used
Flush tap 1 min. prior to sampling
Pump well 1 min. to waste prior to sampling
River, stream, lake, or reservoir sampled at least
6 inches below surface and toward current
Minimum sample not less than 100 ml
Ample air space in bottle for mixing
Promptly identify sample legibly and indelibly
3. Sample Bottles
Wide mouth, gilaae or plastic bottles of §40 wlcapacity
Sample bottles capable of sterilization and rinse
Closure:
rubberized cloth or kraft type paper
b. Metal or plastic screw cap with leakproof liner
Sodium thiosulfate added for dechlorination
Concentration 100 mg/1 added before sterilization
Chelation agent for stream samples (optional)
Concentration 372 mg/1 added before sterilization
4. Transportation and Storage
Complete and accurate data accompanies sample
Transit time for potable water samples should not exceed
48 hrs, preferably within 30 hrs
Transit time for source waters, reservoirs, and natural
bathing waters should not exceed 6 hrs
All samples examined within 2 hours of arrival
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-8
-------
Laboratory
Location
10 Clinton St.
Date
Connecticut State Dept. at Health
Hartford,
Conn* 00116
O/tt-tt/1
4. Transportation and Storage (Continued)
Sample refrigeration mandatory on stream samples,
optional on potable water samples
5. Record of Laboratory Examination
Results assembled and available for inspection
Number of Tests per year
MPN Test - Type of sample Streams. recreational waters, shellfish waters
Confirmed (+) (-) (Total) 0, 800
Completed (+) .(-) (Total)
MF Test - Type of sample Potable waters, sonrce waters, swimming pools
Direct Count (+) (-) (Total) gr 4Qfl
Verified Count (+) (-) (Total)
Data processed rapidly through laboratory and engineering sections . .
Unsatisfactory sample defined as 3 or more positive tubes per
MPN test or 5 or more colonies per 100 ml iri MF test
High priority placed on alerting operator to unsatisfactory
potable water results
Prompt resampling for unsatisfactory samples
(on* . .
6. Laboratory Evaluation Service
State program to evaluate all laboratories which examine
potable water supplies
Frequency of surveys on a 1 year basis
State survey officer (Name) Karl Jr» . . . .
Status of laboratory evaluation service
Total 47 labs known to examine water
47 approved laboratories
0 provisional laboratories
Laboratory Apparatus
7. Incubator
Manufacture r "** Model
Sufficient size for daily work load .
Maintain uniform temperature in all parts (± 0. 5°C)
Accurate thermometer with bulb immersed in liquid on
top and bottom shelves. . .
Daily record of temperature or use of recording thermometer
sensitive to 0. 5°C change
Incubator not subject to excessive room temperature variations
beyond a range of 50 - 80° F
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-9
-------
Laboratory
CoMwctteot Stole «f8MHb
Location S0 CIlBtOtl 81*
ftortfefti, CiKii Q8M|
Date
tttibto/n
8. Incubator Room (Optional) Manufacturer
Well insulated, equipped with properly distributed heating
and humidifying units for optimum environmental control.
Shelf areas used for incubation must conform to 35° C ± 0.5°
temperature requirement
Accurate thermometers with bulb immersed in liquid. . . .
Daily record of temperature at selected areas or use
recording thermometer sensitive to 0. 5°C changes . . .
9. Water Bath
Manufacturer PfMltlttl Model MM?
Sufficient size for fecal coliform tests
Maintain uniform temperature 44. 5°C ±0. 2°C. ,
Accurate thermometer immersed in water bath ,
Daily record of temperature or use of recording
thermometer sensitive to 0. 2°C changes . . ,
10. Hot Air Sterilizing Oven
Manufacturer Model dfttmlBld
Size sufficient to prevent crowding of interior ....
Constructed to insure a stable sterilizing temperature
Equipped with accurate thermometer in range of .l.SQ-J80°C
• •••••••
or with
11. Autoclave
Manufacturer Model
Size sufficient to prevent crowding of interior
Constructed to provide uniform temperature up to and
including 121° C
Equipped with accurate thermometer with bulb properly located
to register minimal temperature within chamber
Pressure gage and operational safety valve
Steam source from or from gas or
electrically heated steam generator
Reach sterilization temperature in 30 min
Pressure cooker may be used only if provided with a pressure
gage and thermometer with bulb 1 in. above water level . .
12. Thermometers
Accuracy checked with thermometer certified by National
Bureau of Standards or one of equivalent accuracy. . . .
Liquid column free of discontinuous sections and graduation
marks legible
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-10
-------
Laboratory Location Clinton St* Date
Coxmeetunt State Dept* of Health Hartford, Conn. 09118 8/82-88/1
13. pH Meter
Manufacture r Beckman Model Zeromatlc
Electronic pH meter accurate to 0.1 pH units
14. Balance
Balance with 2 g sensitivity at 150 g load used for general
media preparations, Type Mettlor P8000
Analytical balance with 1 mg sensitivity at 10 g load used
ft weighing quantities less than 2 g, Type . . .
Appropriate weights of good quality for each balance
15. Microscope and Lamp
Preferably binocular wide field, HLto 15 diameters magnifi-
cation for MF colony counts, Type AO Forty"
Fluorescent light source for sheen discernment
16. Colony Count
Quebec colony counter, dark-field model preferred for
standard plate counts . .
17. Inoculating Equipment
Wire loop of 22 or 24 gauge chromel, nichrome, or platinum
iridium, sterilized by flame
Single-service transfer loops of aluminum or stainless steel, pre-
sterilized by dry heat or steam . . . .
ni-opAeoK1a ainglo appl^a+r^o pre-
sterilized by dry heat only
18. Membrane Filtration Units
Manufacturer Milllpore Type fyisAit Malta
Leak proof during filtration
Metal plating not worn to expose base metal
19. Membrane filters
Manufacturer Milllpore Type SA 04T "SO"
Full bacterial retention, satisfactory filtration speed
Stable in use, glycerin free
Grid marked with non-toxic ink
PweatawilaaaA or autoclaved 121° C for 10 min
20. Absorbent Pads
Manufacturer
MlUlpore Type
Filter paper free from growth inhibitory substances
Thickness uniform to permit 1.8 - 2.2 ml medium absorption . . . .
T?—,•—i or autoclaved with membrane filters
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-ll
-------
Laboratory
Location 10 CltatOB SI*
Date
CooMttoot Statt Dtp*. flfBtlWi
Hartford, CMb Will
l/l»*t9/7t
21. Forceps (Minigow typ«)
Preferably round tip without corrugations
Forceps are alcohol flamed for use in MF procedure.
Glassware, Metal Utensils and Plastic Items
22. Media Preparation Utensils
Borosilicate glass
filffllnlffflfl filififil •
Utensils clean and free from foreign residues or
dried medium
23. Pipets
Brand Win Type Ttp4>Umy
Calibration error not exceeding 2.5%.
Tips unbroken, graduation distinctly marked
Deliver accurately and quickly
Mouth end plugged with cotton (optional)
24. Pipet Containers
or stainless steel
Paper wrapping of good quality sulfite paper (optional) 4 . . .
25. Petri Dishes
Brand FfclgO Type
Use 100 mm x 15 mm dishes for pour plates >
-------
Laboratory
Location 10 Clinton St*
Date
Ccmneeticot State Dept, of Health
Hartford* Conn* Mill
8/88-23/1
Materials and Media Preparation
29. Cleaning Glassware
Dishwasher Manufacturer Better Bum Model Tarbomatic
Thoroughly washed in detergent at 160°F, cycle time 3 mttt» . .
Rinse in clean water at 180°F# cycle time i 1/10 mim . . . . .
Final rinse in distilled water, cycle time 10 second*
Detergent brand whirl (Dlvergey Corp. Chicago)
Washing procedure leaves no toxic residue
Glassware free from acidity or alkalinity
30. Sterilization of Materials g
Dry heat sterilization (Shr at 170°C)
Glassware not in metal containers
Dry heat sterilization (2 hrs at 170°C)
Glassware in metal containers
Glass sample bottles
Autoclaving at 121° C for 15 min
Plastic sample bottles
31. Laboratory Water Quality
Still manufacturergtoi»tll«aConstruction Mate rial StaJldeMjteal
Demineralizer with recharge frequency
Protected storage tank
Supply adequate for all laboratory needs
Free from traces of dissolved metals or chlorine
Free from bactericidal compounds as measured
by bacteriological suitability test
Bacteriological quality of water measured once each year
by suitability test or sooner if necessary^ I I I T~
32. Buffered Dilution Water
Stock phosphate buffer solution pH 7.2 T* \
Prepare fresh stock buffer when turbidity appears
Stock buffer autoclaved and stored at 5 - 10° C
1.25 ml stock buffer per 1 liter distilled water
Dispense to give 99 ± 2 ml or 9 ± 0.2 ml after autoclaving
33. pH Measurements
Calibrate pH meter against appropriate standard buffer prior to use . .
Standard buffer brand pH 0»8>
Check the pH of each sterile medium batch or at least one batch
from each new medium lot number. . T
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-13
-------
Laboratory
Location IQCUflfeMSI.
Date
CmeotlMt fitatt Efept* of Health
Bftitford* cmm* OilU
•/is-ai/ia
33. pH Measurements (Continued)
Maintain a pH record of each sterile medium batch,
the date and lot number
34. Sterilization of Media |A
Carbohydrate medium sterilized 121° C for ttmin
All other media autoclaved 121° C for 15 min
Tubes packed loosely in baskets for uniform heating and cooling
Timing starts when autoclave reaches 121°C . . . . 9fi . . .
Total exposure of carbohydrate media to heat not over <3 min.
Media removed and cooled as soon as possible after sterilization
35. Storage
Dehydrated media bottles kept tightly closed and stored
at less than 30° C.
Dehydrated media not used if discolored or caked
Sterile culture media stored in clean area free from
contamination and excessive evaporation . . . .
Sterile batches used in less than 1 week
All media protected from sunlight
If media is stored at low temperatures, it must be incubated
overnight and any tubes with air bubbles discarded
Culture Media - Specifications
36. Lactose Broth
Manufacturer WML Lot No.
Single strength composition 13 g per liter distilled water .
Single strength pH 6. 9 ± 0.1, double strength pH
Not less than 10 ml medium per tube
Composition of medium after 10 ml sample is added must
contain 0.013 g per ml dry ingredients
37. Lauryl Tryptose Broth
Manufacturer ©ttW Lot ttfil
Single strength composition 35. 6 g per liter distilled water
Single strength pH 6. 8 ± 0.1, double strength pH
Not less than 10 ml medium per tube
Composition of medium after 10 ml sample is added must
contain 0. 0356 g per ml of dry ingredients
38. Brilliant Green Lactose Bile^roth
Manufacturer Lot No.
EPA-103 (Citi)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-14
-------
Laboratory
1 Location 10 CHilton St*
Date
Connecticut State Dept. of Health
1 Hartford* Comu 06118
8/38-28/72
38. Brilliant Green Lactose Bile Broth (Continued)
Correct composition, sterility and pH WK. .** ?•?)
Not less than 10 ml medium per tube
39. Eosin Methylene Blue Agar
Manufacturer Djfco t Lot No. H8898
Medium contains no sucrose, Cat. No. Lwtoe (0008)
Correct composition, sterility and pH 7.1
40. Plate Count Agar (Tryptose Glucose Yeast Agar)
Manufacturer Djfco Lot No. 008094
Correct composition, sterility and pH 7. 0 ± 0.1
Free from precipitate.
Sterile medium not remelted a second time after sterilization.
41. EC Medium
Manufacturer Difeo Lot No. 887418
Correct composition, sterility and pH 6. 9. *.7..0
Not less than 10 ml medium per tube
42. M-Endo Medium
Manufacturer BBL Lot No. 103080
Correct composition and pH 7.1 - 7. 3
Reconstituted in distilled water containing 2% ethanol
Heat to boiling point, promptly remove and cool
Store in dark at 2 - 10° C • • • fj
Unused medium discarded after SKhrs
43. M-FC Broth
Manufacture r Djfco Lot No. 888040
Correct composition and pH 7.4
Reconstituted in 100 ml distilled water containing 1 ml of
a 1% rosolic acid reagent. . 9?
Stock solution of rosolic acid discarded after 2 weeks or
when red color changes to muddy brown
Heat to boiling point, promptly remove and cool
Store in dark at 2 - 10° C
Unused medium discarded after 96 hrs
44. Broth
Manufacturer Lot No.
Correct composition and pH
45. Agar
Manufacturer Lot No.
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-15
-------
Laboratory
Location 10 Ctl
ston eft*
Date
CiiiMMtliyl State pjjtfr flfBiiUfc
Hutfflfd* Con
ft. SftUft
s/n-n/n
45. Agar (Continued)
Correct composition and pH,
Multiple Tube Coliform Test
46. Presumptive Procedure
Lactose broth atwaf 4 mffai lauryl tryptose broth gtflttl p^qKoa
Shake sample vigorously 31
Potable water: 5 standard portions, either 10 or 100 ml
Stream monitoring: multiple dilutions
Incubate tubes at 35° ± 0. 5°C for 24 ± 2 hr
Examine for gas anY Ifflfrfrlfi nnfll'tilYfi'V
Return negative tubes to incubator
Examine for gas at 48 ± 3 hr from original incubation
47. Confirmed Test
Promptly submit all presumptive tubes showing gas production
before or at 24 hr and 48 hr periods to Confirmed Test
Gently shake presumptive tube or mix by rotating
Transfer one loopful of positive broth or one dip of applicator
from presumptive tube to brilliant green lactose broth
Incubate at 35° ± 0. 5°C and check at 24 hrs for gas production. . .
Reincubate negative tubes for additional 24 hrs
. and check for gas production
Calculate MPN or report positive tube results
b. Endo or eosin methylene blue agar plates adequate streaking
to obtain discrete colonies separated by 0. 5 cm
Incubate at 35° ± 0. 5°C for 24 ± 2 hr
Typical nucleated colonies with or without sheen are coliforms . .
If atypical unnucleated pink colonies develop, result is
doubtful and completed test must be applied
If no colonies or only colorless colonies appear, the
confirmed test is negative.
48. Completed Test
Applied to all potable water samples or a proportion each three
months to establish the validity of tHajBg|firmed test in g
determining their sanitary quality
Applied to positive confirmed tubes or to doubtful colonies
on differential medium
Streak positive confirmed tubes on Endo or EMB plates for
colony isolation
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-16
-------
Laboratory
Location 10 Clinton St*
Date
Caaneetleut State Dept* of Health
Hartford. Cons* 06 US
8/22*28/1
48. Completed Test (Continued)
Choice of selected isolated colony for verification should be one
typical or two atypical to lactose or lauryl tryptose broth and
to agar slant for Gram stain
Incubate at 35° C ± 0. 5°C for 24 hrs or 48 hrs
Gram negative rods without spores and gas in lactose tube
with 48 hrs in positive Completed Test
Membrane Filter Coliform Test
49. Application as Standard Test
Use as a standard test for determining potability of water after
demonstration by parallel testing that it yields information
equal to that from the multiple-tube fermentation procedure ....
50. MF Procedure
Filter funnel and receptacle sterile at start of series
Rapid funnel re sterilization by UV, flowing steam or boiling water
acceptable
Membrane filter cultures and technician eyes should not be
subject to UV radiation leaks
Filtration volume not less than ttml for potable water; multiple
dilutions for stream pollution
Rinse funnel by flushing several 20 - 30 ml portions of sterile buffered
water through MF
Remove filter with sterile forceps
Roll filter over M-ENDO medium pad or agar so air bubbles
will not form
51. Incubation
In high humidity or in tight fitting culture dishes
At 35° C ± 0. 5° C for 22 - 24 hrs . . . .
52. Counting
All colonies with a metallic yellowish green surface sheen
If coliforms are found in potable samples, verify by transfers
to lactose broth, then to BGB broth for evidence of gas
production at 35° C within 48 hr limit
Calculate direct count in coliform density per 100 ml
53. Standard, MF test with Enrichment
Incubate MF after filtration on pad saturated with lauryl tryptose
broth for 1 1/2 - 2 hr at 35°C ± 0. 5°C Q
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-17
-------
Laboratory
C omcoHsqI State Dep«, of HctHh
Location 10 CUfilM St*
Hartford, Cms. 06til
Date
8/S3-SS/TS
53. Standard MF test with Enrichment (Continued)
Transfer MF culture to M-Endo medium for a final
20 - 22 hr incubation at 35°C ± 0. 5°C
Count sheen colonies, verify if necessary, and calculate
direct count in coliform density per 100 ml
54.
55.
56.
Supplementary Bacteriological Methods
Standard Plate Count Swimming pool* <300 SPC/1 ml Umtt)
Plate not more than 1 or less than 0.1 ml (sample or dilution)
Add 10 ml or more liquefied agar medium at a temperature
between 43 - 45° C .
Melted medium stored for no more than 3 hr at 43 - 45° C
Liquid agar and sample portion thoroughly mixed by gently
rotating to spread mixture evenly
Count only plates with between 30 and 300 colonies, exception
being 1 ml sample with less than 30 colonies
Record only two significant figures and calculate as "standard
plate count at 35°C per 1 ml of sample"
Fecal Coliform Test
a. Multiple Tube Procedure ******* •trflllllB
Applied as an EC broth confirmation of all positive
presumptive tubes
Place EC tubes in water bath within 30 min of transfers
Incubate at 44. 5°C ± 0. 2°C for 24 hrs
Gas production is positive test for fecal coliforms .
Calculate MPN based on combination of positive EC tubes
b. Membrane Filter Procedure
Following filtration place MF over pad saturated with
M-FC broth
Place MF cultures in water-proof plastic bag and submerge
in water bath within 30 min
Incubate at 44. 5°C ± 0. 2°C for 24 hrs
All blue colonies are fecal coliforms
Calculate direct count in density per 100 ml
Delayed-Incubation Coliform Test
After filtration, place MF over pad of lyi-Endo containing 3. 2 ml q
of a 12% sodium benzoate solution per 100 ml of medium
Addition of 50 mg cycloheximide per 100 ml of preservative
medium for fungus suppression is optional
Transport culture by mail service to laboratory within 72 hours ....
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-18,
-------
Laboratory
Connecticut State Dept* of Health
Location 10 Clinton St*
Hartford, Conn. 06119
Date
8/22*23/78
56.
Delayed-Incubation Coliform Test (Oontinued)
Transfer MF cultures to standard M-Endo medium
at laboratory
Incubate at 35° C ± 0. 5°C for 20 - 22 hr
If at time of transfer, growth is visible, hold in refrigerator
till end of work day then incubate at 35° overnight
(16 - 18 hr period)
Count sheen colonies, verify if necessary, and calculate
direct count in coliform density per 100 ml
57.
Additional Test Capabilities
Fecal streptococci
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Staphylococcus
Salmonellae
Biochemical tests
Serological tests
Other
SL
Method
Method
Method
Method
Purpose
Purpose
Purpose
M-Bnterococcua
Vogal-Johnsop broth
mp ag&rs
Laboratory Staff and Facilities
58. Personnel
Adequately trained or supervised for bacteriological
examination of water (
Laboratory staff » + 2 (Total) Prep room staff 2 ~ 2 (Total)
* tv/t * i tBummerf (Summer)
59. Reference Material
Copy of the current edition of Standard Methods available
in the laboratory
State or federal manuals on bacteriological procedures for
water available for staff use.
60. Physical Facilities
Bench-top area adequate for periods of peak work in
processing samples
Sufficient cabinet space for media and chemical storage
Office space and equipment available for processing water
examination reports and mailing sample bottles
Facilities clean, with adequate lighting, ventilation and
reasonably free from dust and drafts
61. Laboratory Safety
Proper receptacles for contaminated glassware and pipettes
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-19
-------
Laboratory
Location 10 Clinton St*
Date
Connecticut State Dept. of Health
Hartford* Conn. 06118
8/22*23/71
61. Laboratory Safety (Continued)
Adequately functioning autoclaves with periodic inspection
and maintenance
Accessible facilities for hand washing
Proper maintenance of electrical equipment to prevent fire
and electrical shock
Convenient gas and electric outlets
First aid supplies available and not out-dated
62. Remarks
EPA-103 (Cin)
(Rev. 3-71)
B-20
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Report of a Survey of the
Connecticut State Department of Health
Laboratory Division
10 Clinton Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
by
Earl F. McFarren, Chief
Water Supply Program Support Activities
Water Supply Research Laboratory
The Laboratory Division of the Connecticut State Department
of Health was visited on August 22 and 23. The equipment and
procedures employed in the chemical analysis of water by these
laboratories conform with the provisions of Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater (13th Edition) and with
the provisions of the Public Health Drinking Water Standards,
except for the items marked with a cross "x" (deviation from
standard) or an "o" (not being used at present). Items marked
with a "u" could not be determined at the time of the survey
(see attached survey form).
Substances Determined
The laboratory routinely analyzed potable waters for color,
odor, pH, turbidity, chlorides, iron, nitrates, fluorides,
alkalinity, hardness, nitrites, ammonia and albuminoids. Of
these thirteen substances only seven are in the 1962 drinking
water standards and eighteen substances in the standards which
are directly related to health effects are seldom, if ever, done.
These are: cyanide, CCE, sulfates, surfactants, total dissolved
solids, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
selenium, silver, mercury, zinc, gross alpha and gross beta.
The metals, radioactivity and also pesticides are routinely run
on a few surface waters (15 or 20 reservoirs and four wells
last year) but not routinely on any finished waters.
Laboratory Apparatus
In general, the laboratories are well equipped. It is
recommended, however, that they purchase,a Hach Model 2100 A
turbidimeter (item 11 on the survey form), and another atomic
absorption spectrophotometer in order to be better able to carry
out the recommended metal analysis. This should include the
purchase of an attachment for the determination of arsenic and
selenium by the new high sensitivity method using an argon-
hydrogen flame In order to make maximum use of all instruments
and not have to be continually changing the set-up for each
instrument, it may also be desirable to purchase a Coleman
Mercury Analyzer just for mercury analysis. This would free
c-i
-------
one atomic absorption spectrophotometer for other analyses and
some of the high cost of another A.A. Although three atomic
absorption spectrophotometers are at present available in the
laboratory they are being used by so many people in so many
different programs,- that all three are not available for water
analysis, and these instruments could be used by the water program
alone.
As soon as the new mini-sampler becomes available, the equipment
for the determination of organics (CCE and CAE) should also be
purchased (item 19).
Sampli ng
It is recommended that samples for metal analysis be preserved
at the time of collection with acid as mercury, in particular,
quickly absorbs on the walls of containers if not acidified (in
a matter of minutes),. Silver, iron and manganese absorb to some
extent, and cadmium and lead to a lesser extent (item 32a). If
samples collected for nitrate and surfactant analysis cannot be
refrigerated until analyzed, they also should be preserved with
mercuric chloride.
Records
A summary of the results of "Analysis of Connecticut Public
Water Supplies" exists, and according to the Seventh Edition (Five
Year Average 1966-1970), there are about 328 municipal supplies
in the state serving over fifty persons. Water for these supplies
are obtained from 102 surface sources (reservoirs, lakes and
streams) and from 669 ground sources (springs or wells). Thus,
if each of the ground voters ( wells) were analyzed just once every
three years (669 - 3 = 223) and each of the surface waters were
analyzed twice a ^ear (102 x 2 = 204), only 4Z-7 (223 + 204)
analyses per year would be required. Actually, according to
laboratory records, 1566 municipal water samples were analyzed
last year, which would seem to indicate that a more than adequate
job of surveillance was being done.
Laboratory
In addition to the analysis of potable waters, the sanitary
chemistry laboratory is responsible for the analysis of wastewaters,"
sewage, solid wastes, milk and food samples and shellfish. All of
this is done in a laboratory about 25 by 60 ft which contains 7
rows of laboratory benches (one of which is used entirely for
radiochemistry perparation). In general, the laboratory is
overloaded. There is inadequate bench top area (all cluttered
with instruments and equipment), insufficient cabinet storage
space for chemicals and glassware, inadequate hood space, and
inadequate desk and office space. Fortunately, the radiation
counting and pesticde analyses are done in two smaller (but at
present adequate) separate rooms. The laboratory is to be commended
C-2
-------
for its efforts to develop and improve on methods for detecting
hydrocarbons (from gasoline and oils) in water.
Quality Control
The laboratory does routinely check the quality of their
distilled water and claims to use control samples routinely to
check their analyses, although control charts are not used.
They also make use of reference samples supplied by the Analytical
Quality Control Laboratory of EPA. However, if this laboratory
desired to be certified for the analysis of those chemistries
which they are now running, it will be necessary for them to
establish their proficiency by either analyzing a reference
sample, which we can supply or by providing us with copies of the
results obtained (which presumably were acceptable) on analysis
of the AQC samples.
The State of Connecticut has a 1aboratoryimprovement or
certification program. There are at present about 61 certified
laboratories in the state. The operation of these laboratories
are checked annually by requiring them to analyze reference
samples supplied to the state by the Analytical Quality Control
Program of NERC, Cincinnati. These laboratories may be municipal,
private or treatment plant laboratories. They are certified to
analyze, for a fee, private water supplies (which the state does
not do except in case of a suspected infectious disease), and to
do the chemistries required in connection with water treatment.
Thus, it does not appear that they are duplicating, except for a
few chemistries, such as chloride, sulfates and T.D.S.), the kind
of water chemistries that the state either is now doing or should
be doing.
Staff
Since no one person or group of persons is concerned with
just water analysis, but rather all must be involved in the analysis
of many different kinds of, samples, it is difficult to determine the
exact number of additional persons needed to carry out the
additional recommended water chemistries. However, there are at
present two vacancies, both of which should be filled, if the
additional metal analyses are to be undertaken. If at a later
date, the analysis of organic contaminants (CCE) in potable waters
is undertaken, it is anticipated that another chemist will be
needed for this work, and perhaps to assist with the recommended
increase in pesticide analysis.
C-3
-------
Conclusi ons
The chemistry laboratory routinely analyzes potable water
for thirteen substances, but only seven of these are required
by the drinking water standards, and eighteen substances which
are in the standards are seldom, if ever, run. Some pesticide
and radiochemical analyses are done, but mostly it has been
limited to a few suspected sources of supply. Some sort of a
routine surveillance program needs to be established, to include
not only the latter two groups of substances, but also metals
(particularly in distribution systems).
The laboratory analyzed 1566 public water supply samples last
year, and it would appear that this represents a more than
adequate sampling program since there are only about 102 surface
sources and 669 ground water (wells) sources in the state.
Samples for metal analysis should be preserved at the time
of collection with acid, and those for nitrate and surfactant
analysis should either be refrigerated or preserved with mercuric
chlori de.
It is recommended that a Hach Model 2100 A Turbidimeter be
purchased as the Model 1860 is very unstable and inaccurate at
low turbidities. In order to undertake the additional metal
analyses, another atomic absorption spectrophotometer is also
needed.
Two to three additional chemists are.needed to undertake the
recommended metal analyses, organics contaminants analysis and
expanded radiochemical and pesticide analysis.
Earl F. McFarren
Water Supply Program Support Activities
Water Supply Research Laboratory
c-4
-------
SURVEY OF WATER CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Indicating conformity with the 13th
Office of Water Programs edition of Standard Methods for the
Water Hygiene Division Examination of Water and Waste-
water (1971).
Survey by Earl McFarren
Date September 6, 1972
X = Deviation U = Undetermined
O = Not Used
Laboratory Conn. State Dept. of Heal thDirector Dr. William
Ullmann
Street Clinton Street Chief Chemist Kav Glvnn
City Hartford State Conn. 0601 Water Supply Chief
Hi CM ARB LOOHu«-l
Substances Determined
1. Physical determinations Method
a. color nessler tubes - ch 1 orop I atl nate
b.
odor sniff-standard size bottle
c.
turbidity Hack Model 1860
X
2. Miscellaneous anions, organics and solids
a.
chlorides Auto-analyzer
b.
cyanide
0
c.
carbon chloroform extract i last year
0
d.
fluorides auto-analyzer - SPADNS
e.
nitrates auto-analyzer-cadmium reducation
f.
sulfates turbi dimetri c
0
g.
surfactants methylene blue
0
h.
total dissolved solids gravimetric
0
i.
other alkalinitv (auto-analvzer M.O.} hardness
(EDT A)
nitrite (auto-analyzer) ammonia and albuminoids
3. Metals
a. arsenic silver diet.hvl di t.hinrarhamate
n
b.
barium not done at" all
0
c.
cadmium atomic absorption
0
d.
chromium atomic absorption
u
e.
copper atomic absorDtion
0
f.
iron auto-analyzer
g.
lead dithizone
0
h.
manganese atomic absorption -
0
i.
selenium done at all
0
j.
silver surface water bv atomic absorDtion
0
k.
mercury surface water by atomic absorption
0
1.
zinc surface water by atomic absorption
0
m.
other
C-5
-------
4. Radioactivity
a. gross beta on 17 reservoirs and 4 wells
b. radium 22 G
c. strontium 00
d. other gross alpha on 17 reservoirs and 4 wells
Pesticides
V-
a. aldrin
b. chlordanc
c. dieldrin
d. DDT ~
e. endrin
f. heptachlor
g. heptachlor epoxide
h. methoxychlor
i. lindane
X,
r
rtt-n-on a few surface waters
j. toxaphene_
a. visual nessler tubes
b. filter photometer
Spectrophotometer
a. visible
b. flame Beekman MnH»i r
c. other Coleman Model ?1
8. Atomic absorption spectrophotometer
a. air-acetylene burner Perkin-Elmer 303 + 305
b. nitrous-oxide burner Varian AA120
c. argon-hydrogen flame are obtaining
d. cold-vapor (flameless) Have
9. Gas chromatographic equipment
a. electron capture Varian 200 and Tracor MT-220
b. flame photometric
c. microcoulometric
d. other Thermionic Perkin-Elmer oon ,
and flame T nni
_CL_..
0
0
"0
"0
J0_
0
ir
-fl-
ic. total organic phosphates plus carbamates not done ®
1. chlorinated phenoxy alkyl pesticides very seldom 0
m. other
Laboratory Apparatus
Make Model
6. Color comparators
C-6
-------
Laboratory
Location
Date
Make Model
10. Other chromatographic equipment
a. thin-layer
b. Kuderna-Danish evaporator Have
c. other
11. Turbidimeter Hach 1860
12. Amperometer Have
13. Titrimeter Wallace and Tiernan
14. pH meter Beckman Zeromati c
15. Fluoride electrode Orion
16. Arsine generator Guitzit
17. Cyanide still Have
18. Fluoride still
19. Carbon-chloroform extraction equipment
a. high or low flow columns
b. carbon drying oven
c. extraction apparatus 1 set up
d. manifold for solvent evaporation
20. Drying oven Hot point
21. Steam bath Have
22. Hot water bath Have
23. Muffle furnace Thermolyne
24. Distilled water still 30 qal/hr American Sterilizer Co.
25. Water deionizer Barnstead
26. Conductivity meter YSI Model 31
27. Balance, sensitive to 0. 1 mg Mettler H20
28. Automatic analyzer for
a. nitrates plus nitrites cadmium rprfucHnn PSM-fi
b. nitrites naphthylamine hydrochloride
C-7
-------
Make Model
28. Automatic analyzer for (Continued)
c. chloride mercury thi oc.vani de
d. sulfate
e. cyanide
f. fluoride SPADNS with d i s t i 11 a t i on
g. othe r Hardeess - EDTA, a 1V a 1 i n i ty methyl orange i ro n -1 h i o g 1 y c o
a c i
29. Radiation Counting Equipment
a. internal proportional counter _Tracer Lab
b. alpha-scintillation counter Johnson Labs LLR2
c. other Hide beta II (Beckman) and Packard Tricorb (liquid
30. Other Instruments or Equipment scintillation counter)
a .
b.
c .
d .
Sampling
31. Containers 2"1/2 liter thow-away
a. Non-reusable plastic containers preferred for the
collection of samples for general inorganic analysis
b. Glass bottles with teflon lines caps preferred for
collection of pesticide samples
c. Other kind
glass for phenols, pesticides, cyanides and heavy metals
32. Preservatives
a. Samples for metal analysis preserved by the addition
of nitric acid to a pl-l of about '2.0 0
b. Nitrates and methylene blue active substances preserved
by addition of mercuric chloride Q
c. Cyanide preserved by the addition of sodium
hydroxide to a pTI of 11
d. No known or required preservative for turbidity, color,
pH, chloride, sulfate, fluoride, specific conductance
and total dissolved solids
e. If no preservative is used, in general samples are
analyzed within 72 hrs .
C-8
-------
Laboratory
Location
Date
33. Identification
a. Every bottle should be identified by attaching an
appropriately inscribed tag, a label or a number
corresponding to a sample identification sheet. .
b. The minimum information required on the tag or
correspondingly numbered sheet includes; name
of the water supply sampled, location of sampling
site, exact date and time of collection, type of
sample (raw, finished, grab or composite) by
whom collected, and kind of preservative if added
34. Collection
a. Samples from wells collected after pumping for
a sufficient time to assure that the sample is
representative of the ground water which feeds
the well u
b. Finished (treated) water sampled at the plant by
use of a pipeline drip device or the collecting
and compositing of hourly (or other interval) samples
c. Distribution samples obtained at several different
points in the system; usually grab samples obtained
without first flushing the line, although both kinds of
samples may at times be desirable
Records
35. Availability
a. Assay results assembled and available for-inspection . . .
b. Notation made of those water supplies which did not
comply with one or more standards, and some sort
of follow-up program instigated
36. Number analyzed annually
a. private supplies 385 samples analyzed last year
b. semi-public 1425 samples analyzed last year
c. municipal 1516 samples analyzed last year
(1) sources
(2) finished
(3) distribution
-------
37. Frequency
a. Physical characteristics measured at Icost once a week
and preferably every day at the treatment plant. ........
b. Chemical characteristics determined at least once every
three years on ground water supplies and semi-annually
on surface water supplies unless previous data has indicated
a potential problem which needs to be monitored more frequently
Laboratory
38. Physical facilities
a. Bench top area adequate ¦
b. Sufficient cabinet space for chemicals and glassware
c. Adequate hood space
d. Office space available for record keeping and
processing reports . . .
e. Space for storage and handling of bottles
39. Glassware
a. Thoroughly washed with suitable detergent and warm water . . .
b. Rinsed immediately in clean tap water to remove detergent . . .
c. Final rinse with distilled water
d. Dichromate cleaning solution used for difficult to
clean glassware
e. Glassware used for pesticide anatysis should receive a
final rinse with A. R. grade acetone or ethyl acetate
40. Organization
a. Total number of laboratories examining water . . . .
b. Water laboratory is a separate unit, and not part of a
food, drug, or toxicological laboratory
c. Each of the other regional laboratories have the same
capabilities
d. Radiation chemistry is a part of the water laboratory
Quality Control
41. Laboratory water quality
a. Conductivity of water checked at regular intervals . *
b. Use of deionized water for metal analysis
C-10
-------
Laboratory
Location
Date
42. Control Samples
a. A control sample of known coni posit ion (in addition to
any necessary standards) is analyzed every time one or
more unknown samples are analyzed
b„ A control sample is available and used fox- each
substance specified in the drinking water standards
c, A control chart has been constructed for each substance,
and the precision of each determination has been
calculated
43. Reference Samples
a. Accuracy and ability of laboratory to perform each
analysis checked by requiring them to analyze an
unknown reference sample(s) supplied by the surveying
office or laboratory at least once a year
Staff
44. Personnel
a. Total number of staff ] 5
b. Number with degrees in chemistry g. 6 o't-fter, *2'non-degrees
c. Does state operate under a merit system
d'. Are job descriptions written
e. Does state encourage attendance at professional
meetings, short courses, etc
45. Salaries
a. Chief chemist 16,00 to 18,Q0Q
,b. Assistant chemist 8,000 to 12,000
c. Aids 6 ,300 . . . .
C-ll
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
79 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Name: Date:
Address: Town:
Utility:
For your information.
Please note special recatnendations.
Resampling requested.
For necessary action.
Remarks
Richard S. Wbodhull, Chief
Water Supplies Section
Environmental Health Services Division
Copy Sent To:
D-l
-------
INSPECTION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
SUBJECT:
TO: FROM:
INSPECTED: DATE OF INSPECTION:
WATERSHED SURVEY
Refer to detailed survey report appended. Location numbers correspond to
numbers on U.S. Geological Survey map kept by this department. An unsatis-
factory condition is indicated by underlining and starring the location number.
Underlining only indicates the existence of a condition of questionable hazard.
The following locations were found unsatisfactory or questionable:
PROTECTION AGAINST CHANCE CONTAMINATION:
Posting:
Fencing:
Patrol: Fishing:
Appearance of reservoirs:
AD3AE CONTROL:
Microscopic analysis:
Copper sulfate treatment:
Ranarks:
WELLS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SUB-
PUMP SURFACE SEWAGE SYSTEM
NAME TOPE DIAM. DEPTH CAPACITY OR SEWER
REMARKS: (
(for additional space use reverse side)
D-2
-------
TREATMENT
(Attach appropriate treatment inspection forms)
DISTRIBUTION
ESTIMATED POPULATION SUPPLIED:
YEARLY AVERAGE DAILY CONSUMPTION: PER CAPITA:
ESTIMATED SAFE YIELD OF PRESENT SOURCES:
MAXIMUM HOUR DEMAND:
GALS. AVAILABLE MAXIMUM HOUR:
NO. OF SERVICES: NO. OF METERS: % METERED:
SYSTEMATIC FLUSING:
DISINFECTION PROCEDURE:
DOUBLE CHECK VALVE INSTALLATIONS:
BLOW-OFFS TO SEWERS OR SUBMERGED IN STREAMS:
STORAGE TANKS:
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
REMARKS:
CONCLUSIONS AND REXXMMENDATIONS
(for additional space use reverse side)
D-3
-------
Town: WATERSHED INSPECTION FORM Date:
Name of Utility: Inspectors):
Name of Watershed: ——
0
1
-E>
Loca-
tion
No.
a)
Town
(2)
Tzr
Pro-
perty
(3)
Name
(4)
No.
of
Per-
sons
(5)
Farm
Ani-
mals
(6)
Sewage Disposal System
(indicate feet to nearest
watercourse, low area, etc.)
Nearest
Watercourse,
low area,
etc.
(13)
Remarks
(14)
Septic
Tank
a)
Cess-
pool
(8)
Tile
Field
f9)
Sepa-
rate
Waste
Drain
(10)
Privy
(11)
Sur-
face
Dis-
charge-
(12)
EXPLANATORY NOTES (according to Column Number)
(1) Designate by (*), if condition warrant! correction; Underline (—), if condition
warrants surveillance.
(2) Town where the property inspected is located.
(3) Designate whether Residence (R); Hospital (Hosp.); Business (Bus.); Factory (Fac.);
Farm and type (F-Dalry); etc.
(4) Indicate whether Owner (O) or Tenant (T).
(5) Average number of persons using facility.
(6) List number and kind.
&B. l
(7)-(ll) Indicate number of units, if more than one; e.g., Col. (8): "3 (§> IOCK".
(12) Indicates if raw sewage is intended to discharge directly on the ground and/or to
wiitercourse.
(13) Denote name (if any) or type of watercourse; e.g. brook, swale, road ditch, culvert,
etc.
(14) Conclude whether system "Appeared OK": Specify what type of bad condition
exists; e.g., "Overflow of (9)", "Exposed cover of (7 f, "refuse or debris exposed on
ground", "evidence of swimming in brook", etc. Include here also description of
Swimming Pool drainage and backwash; Industrial Wastes; Dairy Wastes; etc.
(/>
sr
8
-------
INSPECTION OF UATI2 FILTRATION PLANT
SUBJECT:
TO:
INSPECTED WITH:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY:
TREATMENT FACILITIES:
FROM:-
DATE OF INSPECTION:
RATE OF FILTRATION (cpm/sf. ): HOURS OPERATING/DAY:
DESIGNED PLANT CAPACITY (MC-D): RATE OF FLOW (MGD):
CHEMICAL DOSAGE: Alum:
SODA ASH: METAPHOSPHATE: ACTIVATED CARBON:
OTHER:
APPEARANCE OF FLOC:
Test
Color
pH Value
Odor
Alkalinity (mc/l)
C02 (mg/l)
Turbidity
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO^)
Residual Chlorine (mc/l)
CONDITION OF TESTING EQUIPMENT: RECORDS:
LENGTH OP FILTER RUNS (hrs<) RATE OF WASH (CPM/sq.ft.):
MESTHOD OF WASHING FILTERS:
FLOW CONTROLLERS: LOSS OF HEAD GAUGES:
DATE SEDIMENTATION BASIN LAST CLEAIHD:
DISPOSAL OF WASH WATER AI1D SLUDCE:
SETTLING TIME (Hrs.):
Influent Settled Effluent
D-5
-------
INSPECTION OF WATER FILTRATION PLANT
SUBJECT:
TO:
INSPECTED WITH:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY:
TREATMENT FACILITIES:
_FRCM:
KATE OF INSPECTION:
RATE OF FILTRATION (cpm/sf.):
HOURS OPERATING/DAY:_
DESIGNED PLANT CAPACITY (MGD):
CHEMICAL DOSAGE: Alum:
SODA ASH:
OTHER:
RATE OF FLOW (HJD):
Lime:
METAPHOSPHATE:
ACTIVATED CARBON:
APPEARANCE OF FLOC:_
Test
Color
Influent
J5ETTIING TIME (Hra.):_
Settled
Effluent
pH Value_
Odor
Alkalinity (mg/l)_
Ctfe (ng/1)
Turbidity
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO^)
Residual Chlorine (mg/l)
CONDITION OF TESTING EQJIPMENT:_
LBKJTH OF FILTER RUNS (hrs.)
METHOD OF HASHING FILTERS:
FLOW CONTROLLERS:
RECORDS:
RATE OF HASH (GPlVB
-------
CHLQRINATION: (Attach appropriate chloiinator inspection form).
SAMPLES COLLECTED:
Source Color Alkalinity
Apparent True fatt/l)
COKCUJSICNS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS?
(Collform
organ!8ms/lOO ml)
2-65
D-7
-------
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF FHJORIDATOR
TO: FROM:
INSPECTED WITH: DATE OF INSPECTION:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY:
RATE OF WATER FLOW: SETTING OF FEEDER:
TYPE OF FEEDER:
POINT OF FLUORIDE INJECTION:
TYPE OF CHEMICAL USED:
RATE OF CHEMICAL FEED: FLUORIDE DOSAGE RATE (rag/l as F):
FREQUENCY OF TESTING: TESTING PROCEDURE USED:
CONDITION OF TESTING EQUIPMENT:
FLUORIDE TEST (rag/l): RECORDS:
SAMPLES COLLECTED FLUORIDE (mg/l)
(1 )
(2 )
(3 ) ;
REMARKS:
2-65
D-8
-------
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF HYPOCHDORINATOR
TO:
INSPECTED WITH:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY:
1YPE OF CHLORINATOR:
FFCM:
DATE OF INSPECTION:
ALTERNATE CHLORINATOR:
SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE:
STANDBY POWER: CONDITION:
STROKE SETTING OF CHLORINATOR: RATE OF WATER FLCW:
STROKES/MINUTE: APPROX. RATE OF CHLORINE DOSAGE,lbs./to.g.:
POINT OF HYPOCHLORITE INJECTION:
MAINE PRESSURE (AT POINT OF INJECTION) :
SAMPLING POINT FOR RESIDUAL CHLORINE:
P.P.M. Chlorine Residual (after 10 min. contact) Flash: Total:
INTERFERENCE USING SODIUM ARSENITE:
mg/1. Chlorine Residual, After Change (after 10 min. contact)
Flash: Total:
RECORDS IN GOOD ORDER: FREQUENCY OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE TESTING:
AMOUNT AND KIND OF CHLORINE ON HAND:
TYPE & CONDITION OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE TEST KIT:
SAMPLES COLLECTED:
Lab. No. Pt. of Collection Chlor. Res (mg/1) Coliform/100 ml
REMARKS AND RECOMMENEATIONS:
D-9
-------
INSPECTION OF GAS CHLORINATOR
SUBJECT:
TO: FRCM:
INSPECTED WITH DATE OF INSPECTION:
TYPE OF CHLORINATOR:
ALTERNATE CHLORINATOR:
STANDBY POWER: CONDITION:
INJECTOR PRESSURE (#/sq.in.) MAIN PRESSURE (#/sq.in.)
CHLORINE TANK PRESSURE (#/sq.in.) RATE OF WATER FLOW:
RATE OF CHLORINE DOSAGE, (lbs./24 hours)
DOSAGE RATE, (lbs./m.g.)
TESTING POINT FOR RESIDUAL CHLORINE:
P.P.M. Chlorine Residual (after 10 min. contact) Flash: Total:
INTERFERENCE USING SODIUM ARSENITE: mg/]
CHANGE IN CHLORINE DOSAGE:
Mg/1 Chlorine Residual, after Change (after 10 min. contact) Flash: Total:
RECORDS IN GOCD ORDER: FREQUENCY OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE TESTING
PLATPOFM SCALES:
PAST 24 HRS., AVERAGE CHLORINE DOSAGE RATE (#/m.g.)
ARRANGEMENT OF CHLORINE CYLINDERS:
GAS MASK: DATE OF CANISTER:
SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE FOR CHLORINATOR:
RESIDUAL CHLORINE TESTING EQUIPMENT, CONDITION:
SAMPLES COLLECTED:
Lab. No. Pt. of Collection Chlor. Res, (mg/1) Coliform/100 ml
REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
D-10
-------
INSPECTION OF PUBLIC KATHI? SUPPLY
SUBJECT:
TO: FROM:
INSPECTED KITH: DATE OK INSPECTION:
SOURCES OF SIJPPLY
SURFACE WATER:
SOURCE SAFE YIELD PUMPING CAPACITY
WATERSHED SURVEY: Refer to detailed survey report appended. Location numbere correspond
to numbers on U.S. Geological Survey map kept by this' department. An unsatisfactory
condition is indicated by underlining and starring the location number. Underlining
only indicates the existence of a condition of questionable hazard. The following
locations were found unsatisfactory or questionable:
PROTECTION AGAINST CIJANCE CONTAMINATION:
Posting: ___________________________
Fencing:
Patrol: __________________________ Fishing:
Appearance of Reservoirs: __________________
ALGAE CONTROL:
Microscopic Analysin:
Copper Sulfate Treatment: ________________
REMARKS:
GROUND WATER:
PUMP DISTANCE TO NEAREST SUBSURFACE
NAME TYPE PI AH. DEPTH CAPACITY SEWACE SYSTFj-I 0!i SEWER
D-ll
-------
REMARKS:
TREATMENT
(Attach appropriate treatment inspection forms)
DISTRIBUTION
ESTIMATED POPULATION SUPPLIED:
YEARLY AVERAGE DAILY CONSUMPTION: PER CAPITA:
ESTIMATED SAtTS YIELD CP PRESENT SOURCES:
MAXIMUM HOUR DEMAND:
GALS. AVAILABLE MAXIMUM HOUR:
NO. OP SERVICES: NO. OF METERS: % METERED:
SYSTEMATIC FLUSHING:
DISINFECTION PROCEDURE:
DOUBLE CHECK VALVE INSTALLATIONS:
BLOW-OFFS TO SEWERS OR SUBMERGED IN STREAMS:
STORAGE TANKS:
TRANSKKR PUMPS:
BOOSTER STATIONS J
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
REMARKS*
WATER QUALITY
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOCT«LM)ATIGNS
(for additional space use reverse cidc)
4/72
D-12
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
APPENDIX E
Summary of Connecticut Water Supply
Laws and Regulations
Code: CGS - Connecticut General Statute
CPHC - Connecticut Public Health Code (1971)
PWS - Private Water Supplies (Conn. Health Dept. 196 4)
PWSI - Public Water Supply Information
(Conn. Health Dept. 1971)
1. Basic regulatory authority - CGS 25-32
2. "Water Supply" defined - CGS 25-32
3. Drinking water quality standards - PWSI, pp. 9-12
4. Project plan review and approval - CGS 25-33; PWSL, pp. 22-24
5. Water system permit
6. Laboratory services - CGS 25-40; CPHC 19-13-A28 thru 35;
PWS, pp. 4-6; PWSI, pp. 8-9.
7. Sampling requirements
8. State surveillance
(a) Frequency - CGS 25-34
(b) Remedies - CGS 25-37
9. Water rights - CGS 25-8A
10. Operator certification and training - CGS 25-32, 25-37
11. Treatment
(a) General - PWSI, pp. 13-19
(b) Flouridation - CGS 19-13b; PWSI, p. 20
12. Individual water supplies - PWS (passim)
13. Wells
(a) Driller licensing - CGS, ch. 482, esp. 25-129
E-l
-------
(b) Construction standards - CPHC 19-13-B51f-k;
PWSI, pp. 4-8
14. Cross connection control - PWSI, pp. 21-22
PHASE I - STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATUTES
Chapter 333 - State Department of Health
Sec. 19-13a - regulation of water supply wells and
springs - public health council may adopt needed regulations (4)
Sec. 19-13b - flouridation of public water supplies -
any town of 20,000 or more shall add necessary flouride (4).
Sec. 19-13c - protection of wells (4).
Sec. 19-64 - common drinking cups (7).
Sec. 19-83 - jurisdiction of local director of health
over streams is complete.
Chapter 16 - General Assembly
Sec. 2-20a - bills seeking incorporation and franchise
of water companies (9).
Chapter 102 - Municipal Waterworks Systems.
Sec. 7-234 can raise necessary money by obligation bonds.
Title 16 - Public Service Companies
Sec. 16-1 includes regulations and supervision of water
supply.
Chapter 280 - Operation of Railroads
Sec. 16-168 provides for drinking water.
Chapter 283 - Water Companies
Sec. 16-260 - water meters may be required.
Chapter 473 - Water Resource Commission
Sec. 25-7a - sale of water by public water systems.
Sec. 25-8a - diversion of river waters for public or
domestic use.
-------
Part III - Water and Ice Supplies
Sec. 25-32 - state health department has jurisdiction.
Sec. 25-34 - investigation of water or ice supply will
be had on complaint.
Sec. 25-38 - prohibits carcass of animal near drinking
water supply.
Sec. 25-39 - anyone polluting drinking water will be
fined not more than $500.
Sec. 25-40 - analysis of water - anytime directors of
health feel health might be menaced, samples will be sent to
state for testing.
Sec. 25-41 - cemetary not to be within one half mile of
reservoir.
Sec. 25-43 - no bathing or polluting of water supply
reservoirs or of two miles of streams that lead to it.
Sec. 25-45 - local ordinance concerning reservoirs shall
be upheld.
Sec. 25-46 - interstate waters used for drinking water
supply will be protected.
Sec. 25-51 - injunction can be had against injury to
ice or water supply.
Chapter 4 75 - Interstate Sanitation Commission (55)
Chapter 476 - New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission (6 7)
Chapter 482 - Well Drilling
Sec.25-137 sets out in detail requirements for drilling
wells, its code, certificate of registration, permits, records
and clearly states that purity, potability and safe-guarding
well water is in the province of the health department.
Chapter 943 - Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety
Sec. 53-214 - forbids pollution of drinking utensils.
E-3,
-------
PHASE II - STATE OF CONNECTICUT RULES AND REGULATIONS
Chapter II of Public Health Code is Environmental Health -
the April, 1971, 272-page Connecticut State Department of
Health Code for the State of Connecticut is attached.
Sec. 19-13-B20b - subsection (a) and (e) spells out details
of how close septic tanks will be to water supply.
Sec. 19-13-B20e - water pipes shall be in different
trenches from sewer lines where practicable.
Sec. 19-13-B2 7 - Youth Camp Water Supply.
Sec. 19-13-B28(c) - mobile homes - water supply.
Sec. 19-13-B29 - motels and overnight cabins water supply
and drinking facilities.
Sec. 19-13-B35 - swimming pools-drinking cups and
drinking fountains.
Sec. 19-13-B36 - pool - cross connection between water
supplies prohibited.
Sec. 19-13-B38 - permissible arrangements for connections
to water tanks or pools.
Sec. 19-13-B39 - water supplies for public and employees.
Sec. 19-13-B41 - sanitation of public fairgrounds (a)
water supply.
Sec. 19-13-B42 - sanitation of places dispensing foods
or beverages (f) is water supply - also note (1).
Sec. 19-13-B43 - artificial ice plants.
Sec. 19-13-B45 - minimum requirements for drainage and
toilet systems - purpose is to avoid contamination of drinking
water.
Sec. 19-13-B47 - disinfection of water mains and valves -
construction or repairs should avoid harm to water supply.
Sec. 19-13-B49 - catering food service (f) - water supply
will be from approved source.
Approved Sanitizing Process (Page 77) - Sections 1, m
and n deal with food and drink and how it will be stored.
Water Supply Wells - Sec. 19-13B51a to 19-13B1L - these
detail specifications for wells in the state.
E-4
-------
Sec. 19-13-1360 - water supply for workers' quarters -
Note: (1) says no pipe connection will be made between
potable and any other kind of water supply.
Sec. 19-13-B78 - slaughterhouses - (c) pertains to water
supply requirements.
Sec. 19-13-B80 - no chemical substance shall be added
to public water supply other than that already approved.
Chapter 6 - Land and air conveyance of common carriers.
Sec. 19-13-F2 - sources of water for air and land
transportation will meet U. S. Public Health Service Standards.
Sec. 19-13-F3 - details of delivery of water and ice to
land and air transports (c) says no dumping of waste over
public water supply watershed.
Sec. 19-13-F6 outlines specification for coolers, filters,
etc.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY INFORMATION FOR CONNECTICUT
Outlines at length problems related to public water supply
such as back-siphonage and sewer connections, chemical sub-
stance in water supplies analysis of water. This is in a
26-page booklet that is attached.
PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES (8th Edition)
2 3-page book on the problems like odor, taste and color,
water piping, etc. as they relate to private water supplies.
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SANITARY SURVEY
BOB I85-S69004
Exp. March 1970
SURVEY DATE
I.
(for office use only) j, 1 I 1 1 1
'2. (oup. ow every card) ®°* day ""
yr.
2. Name of supply.
3. Location
4. Demands, HDD:
A. Avg. day
B. Max. day
C. Max. month
post office
PRESENT
common name. If different
I0-YR. ESTIMATE
UNKNOWN
19
2?
L5i
i
5
ie
^5
47
\ 2A
36 '
* AO
4A
7
\
5. Water use has been restricted
any one year of the past 5 years.
6. LABORATORY CONTROL
A. Bacteriological (Distribution system only)
(1) Min. number samples recommended per month by PHS DWS
(2) Avg. number/month for last 12 months
from
times for a total of
57
59
days during
70
to
£2.
ii
ECA-19
(3) Range of least and most monthly
samples
(4) Number of months the Drinking Water Standards were
not met during the last 12 months for:
(a) Quality
(b) Number of samples
(c) NONE collected
(5) Are samples representative of distribution system?
(6) Are check samples collected as provided for in the
Drinking Water Standards?
(7) Are samples requiring check samples reported by telephone?
(8) Is the laboratory certified?
(a) Within the past 3 years?
(b) If ••yes" tp one or both, by whom was it certified.
(9) Are samples received by lab within 30 hours?
F-l
05.
73
UNKNOWN
~
0
7S
BtJO CA*0 0we£P
UNKNOWN
Sir
1 Cm 17
(A
-------
B. Chealcal (finished water only)
I ~ month, I J
year,
(1) Samples of finished water are analyzed eachL_Jnonth
1 .1 2 year8, 1 13 years, I I Infrequently I 1 never.
38 39 1 40 41
(2) Type of analysis:
~
42
complete (DWS)
(3) Date of last chemical analysis
~:
45 mo.
~
partial.
day
yxfi°
(4) Analyzed by I 1 utility. I 1 state. 1 1 PHS. | I university, d] other.
51 52. S3 S4 ss
51 52. S3 S4
(5) Teats run for operational control and their frequency are:
Tests
oo
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Chloride
Chlorine residual
(EfSD CAJZ& 7i*>o) \Z\
Color
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Jar tests
Manganese
PH
Taste & Odor
Turbidity
Zeta potential
Other
bZ
67
Frequency
]
Weekly
~
Each shift
~
Daily
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
c
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Less frequently
han weekly
D
66
0,1
Radioactivity
(1) Samples are analyzed each I (month, 1 I year, 1 1 2 years, I 1 3 years,
<=>9 70 7/ 72
~
13
infrequently
0
never.
(ewo 3)
eo
(2) Date of last radiological analysis
73
mo.
day
yr/e
(3) Analyzed
by ~ utility
/9
, 1 1 state, 1 1 PHS, ~ university,1 1 other.
23 (specify)
ECA-19
20 Z/
F-2
Z2.
-------
7. SANITARY SURVEY
~
A, Date of most recent survey
or I I none
i?mo. day yr.29 so
B. Survey made by: L ! state, 1^ 1 PHS, 1 local health department,
~ utility, consultant.
34
C. Facilities surveyed: I I source, I—I transmission, I I treatment,
3
-------
8. FACILITIES & OPERATION, continued
J, Chlorination process was Interrupted I I I times
in the last 12 months.
,= ~
(I) Interruptions were due to: l_l chlorinator failure,
I——I I L ___
I | feedwater pump, I I changing cylinders, I I power failure,
Q7fe "77
other, explain.
76 (end card 4-) [4J
8o
K. Percent of land area within service area where water is
available (nearest whole percent)
L. Were plans and specs, for treatment plant approved by the state?
1. YES NO
~ ~
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION (describe deficiencies on reverse side)
A. Are the following adequate:
(1) Source, with respect to the following: yES N0
(a) quantity
(b) bacteriological quality
(c) chemical quality
(d) physical quality
(e) adequate protection
(2) Transmission of raw water
(3) Is the raw water sampled for:
(a) Bacteriological contamination
(b) Chemical contamination
(4) Treatment, with respect to the folowing:
(a) aeration
(b) chemical feed , capacity
(c) chemical feed, stand-by equipment
(d) chemical mixing
(e) flocculatlon
S3
LCA-19
F-4
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
A. Are the following adequate (continued):
(4) Treatment, continued:
(f) settling
(g) recarbonation
(h) filtration
(1) disinfection, capacity
(j) disinfection, stand-by equipment
(k) taste & odor control
(1) fluoridation
(5) Distribution, with respect to the following:
(a) storage
(b) booster chlorinatioa
(c) high service pumping
(d) booster pumping
(e) pressure
(6) Maintenance
(7) Records for:
(a) disinfection
(b) filter runs
(c) chemical consumption
(d) operational control tests
(e) bacteriological examinations
(8) Cross-connection control
(a) ordinance
(b) program implementation
(c) progress
YfcS NO
51
fee fe?
~
7e> T9
END CAZO S S
~ 0
/7 /a
F-5
e.CA-19
-------
9. SOURCE, TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION, continued
B. During the past 3 years, raw water quality has EZ] improved,
I I deteriorated, or 1 1 stayed the same.
ZO 21
10. PERSONNEL
A. Water Purification Operator
(1) Highest level of formal education: ~ 8th grade or less,
1 1 high school, 1 1 technical or trade school, EZ) university.
*3 24 ___ zs
(2) Level of training in water treatment: I 1 college course,
technical or trade school, I I short school, 1 Ion the Job,
none, 1 I other, spocilfc.
3o 31
(3) Length of time on this job: I I I years, I I 1 months.
SI 33 1A 55 j 1 1
(4) Number of previous positions as water treatment operator I I I
m 349 37
(5) Total years of water purification experience 1 1 1
(6) Level of study in sanitary microbiology: LJ college course,
technical or trade school, ~ short school, ~ on the job,
I none,1 I other » specify.
44 45
(7) Level of study in water chemistry: J college course,technical
or trade school, I I short school,E_J on the job.I InoneT
48 ¦*" —
other* specify.
|——j 4a 49 so
51
(8) Is the operator a full-time employee? I yes I 1 no
(9) Salary range (per year) of operator: 1 l<$lf999 1 1 $2,000-4,999
I '$5,000-7,499 I—I $7,500-9,999 I I $10,000
54, ST sa
ECA-19
F-6
-------
10. PERSONNEL, continued
A. continued
(10) Is your present sta£f adequate in:
(a) number L_J yes I I no
(b) quality I—lyes I—I no
B. Operator's major coopl&lnt
C. Most frequent customer's cooplaint:
D. Management's oost frequent complaint;
CA-19
F-7
-------
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
A. Bonded indebtedness: (water supply)
(1) General obligation bonds $
Z£
¦yr
22
ZK
(a) statutory limit
(2) Revenue bonds
(a) statutory limit
B. Capital stock, par value
bonds, par value
C. Hater funds are 1 I kept separate or I (mingled with other fund
n n
D. Is there an annual payment to the general fund? I J yes I I
5E
35
i9
.Vt
1 1
TT |
£NC> CA«D 6
0
Bo
no
£. Operation is controlled by:
1ZZ1 independent water board,
mayor-council, L_J mayor-commission,
othei;
-------
11. FINANCIAL INFORMATION, continued
1. Tariff (Residential)
(1) Connection fee $
W
(2) Sales unit IsL^jper 1,000 gallons orl^Jper 100 cu. ft.
(a)
(b)
(c)
47
S7
87
cents for the first
cents for the next
cent8 for the next
60
b!
units
units
unit 8
(d) etc. as needed to cover steps.
CAJto b IE]
so
Ik-19
F-9
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
Drinking Water Policy and
Practice In Connecticut
Richard S. Woodhull, M.S., P.E.
Chief, Water Supplies Section
It is useful to periodically assess Connecticut's position with regard to
its practices in the past and what it hopes to make them in the future,
particularly in the light of new information as it becomes available to us.
We are now well into the '70's which were heralded as the era of the great
society. How has this "great society" affected water works in Connecti-
cut?
Development on Reservoir Watersheds
Most of us have noticed the increasing development of our reservoir wat-
ersheds. Homes, shopping centers, business, industry and recreational
activities have combined in applying pressure against the water utilities
in their struggle to maintain clean, pure streams and reservoirs. Connec-
ticut now averages 1 resident for each of her 3 million acres as contrast-
ed to only 2/3 this population density just 20 years ago. Perhaps more
telling than the number of people is their way of life. Our affluent so-
ciety drives 1.76 million motor vehicles which comes to 2.4 vehicles per
family. The exhaust emissions, which include such pollutants as lead,
hydrocarbons, sulphur, nitrogen, oil and gasoline are discharged to the
environment. Air pollutants settle out and are washed out by rain which
carries them to our waterways and reservoirs. Lead is known to be espe-
cially bad because this heavy metal accumulates in the bones and other
parts of the body where it does its damage so slowly that we are not
aware of the poisoning taking place. It is because of this threat that the
state health department has warned that interstate highways carrying
large numbers of vehicles should not be constructed near drinking water
reservoirs. The state public health council feels it best to maintain a
minimum protective distance of at least 1/4 mile between the roadway
and any reservoir.
Housing developments are detrimental to watersheds in many ways. We
usually think first of the danger of bacterial contamination from possible
•From a paper presented at Conference of Connecticut Water Works Officials and
Operators, Cedarcrest Hospital, Newington, Connecticut, May 19, 1972.
G- 1
-------
overflows from subsurface sewage disposal systems. Where housing is
well spaced, land drainage is good, and disposal systems are installed
in accordance with the public health code, this is not a great problem.
The difficulty comes when house lots are too small, drainage is margin-
al or poor, and code enforcement is lax. Other forms of pollution accom-
pany the householder. He is anxious to establish and maintain a green
lawn, usually over the entire area of his lot. This means the application
of quantities of fertilizer and water. The trouble here is that much of the
nitrogen applied is not held or used by the soil and is leached into the
underlying ground water and into surface streams. Gravel wells in such
areas are particularly susceptible to this kind of pollution and several
public wells have in fact exceeded the critical nitrate level and have had
to be removed from service. Nitrate nitrogen above 10 mg/1 is likely to
interfere in infants with the capacity of the blood to carry oxygen result-
ing in strangling and "blue babies". There has been evidence presented
recently to indicate that nursery school children are also adversely af-
fected by high nitrates.
Development spawns paved roads, driveways, parking lots, roofs and
ground and surface water drains, all of which reduces ground water infil-
tration and hastens runoff of water to streams and reservoirs. This run-
off carries salt from de-icing operations; detergents from auto washing;
oil, antifreeze and gasoline from draining radiators and crankcases and
from spillage; various insecticides, herbicides and rodenticides; also a
load of silt, sediment and other leavings washed from pavement and bared
earth. Chloride levels in reservoirs generally have risen from 3—5 mg/1
in the era prior to road salting to current levels of 12—15 ppm, and our
studies show this trend is still rising. A major concern in this is the at-
tendant rise in sodium which accompanies the chlorides. The desirable
limit for sodium in drinking water is 20 mg/1, because of its involvement
in heart disease, toxemia in pregnancy, and pre-menstrual swelling among
other problems. Persons on low salt diets are limited to 20 mg/1 of sod-
ium in their drinking water and should be warned if this limit is regularly
exceeded. Where chlorides are from sodium chloride, which is the mate-
rial usually applied for de-icing roads, the sodium fraction will amount to
approximately 2/3 the chloride content; that is, a chloride content of 30
mg/1 will mean the sodium limit of 20 mg has been reached. Water util-
ities generally should request state and local highway departments op-
erating on their watersheds or near their wells to refrain from the use of
sodium chloride. Where de-icing is necessary, the use of calcium chlor-
ide rather than sodium chloride would be preferable.
Use of Pesticides and Herbicides
The widespread use of pesticides on watersheds is to be discouraged.
G-2
-------
Some varieties such as the.chlorinated hydrocarbons, examples of which
are DDT, chlordane, lindane and dieldrin are long-lived and do not break
down quickly to simple chemical components upon exposure to air and
water as some other types do. They are non-specific and destroy non-
target, desirable soil organisms and plankton as well as the objection-
able insect. Their concentration magnifies as they climb the biological
ladder from insect or plant to animal to man. Certain herbicides such as
2,4,5—T have been implicated in causing birth defects, and others con-
taining arsenic are known, long-lived cumulative poisons. Wherever it is
deemed necessary to use spray or fertilizers care should be taken to pre-
vent their getting in the water. Spray material should be applied with
ground equipment directly to the areas to be treated and nowhere else.
For use around reservoirs and close to feeder streams the department ap-
proves only special ammate without chromium or bromocil, which are
short-lived herbicides which break down quickly to simple constituent
chemical elements, copper sulphate is approved for algae control in doses
up to 4#/mg. Diquat can be used for killing emergent water weeds only
where the reservoir can be withdrawn from use for at least 7 days, or in
treating upstream ponds where a flow time of 7 days or more is assured
before reaching the distributing reservoir. Total dosage is limited to 1
mg/1 and a special permit is required. The same is true of sodium or po-
tassium endothol, except that its permissible dosage is limited to 0.5
mg/1. In rural areas, unplowed, uncultivated strips of land should be left
between fertilized and sprayed fields and watercourses that drain the
area. These will act as buffers that will protect the streams from runoff
of manure and chemical fertilizers, from soil erosion and from sprayed
wind drift and surface runoff.
Public Sewers to be Avoided on Watersheds
The installation of sanitary sewers should be avoided in watershed areas.
They lead to dense development by multiple housing units, business and
industry with all their attendant pollutional hazards including motor traf-
fic. Sewers, by necessity, tend to follow the brooks and thus bring large
quantities of sewage into close proximity to the water. There is leakage
at sewer joints and overflow may occur from manholes or from relief over-
flow points in case of overloading or blockage of the sewer. Sewage
pumping stations are particularly hazardous, and require that special
precautions be taken when they are located on water supply watersheds.
Watershed zoning may be one tool that could be employed to a much
greater extent to protect water supplies.
Protection Against Water-Bome Diseases
That water supply sources need better protection is becoming ever more
evident. Long have we been cognizant of the danger of spreading dis-
ease thru our public water supplies. The water-borne scourge, typhoid
fever, was beaten by the use of chlorine to treat our drinking water, and
G-3
-------
many assumed that by defeating the bacteria the battle was won - there
would be no more water-borne disease. Now, many years later, we are
learning that bacterial control is only a part of our problem. Research
reinforced by case history has shown that virus particles are also car-
ried by drinking water. This was demonstrated by wide spread dissem-
ination of infectious hepatitis in New Delhi in 1955 and among members
of the Holy Cross football team in Worcester more recently. Viruses have
been implicated in certain forms of conjunctivitis, meningitis and can-
cer, and some feel they may be involved in some cases of appendicitis,
heart disease and spontaneous abortion. The types of viruses involved
include reo, adeno, coxsackie and echo. In 1970 the Federal Environmen-
tal Protection Agency released a report which stated: "... we ate not sure
today whether or not current water treatment processes are definitely cap-
able of eliminating all harmful viral pollutants from all water supplies.
Also we wonder whether or not the treatment will provide the public with
sufficient margin of safety to cope with the occasional occurrence of the
very unfavorable conditions. These conditions, for instance, may include
severe epidemics of human enteric virus disease, unfavorable hydrograph-
ical conditions, drought, cold weatherand many others. ... there is high-
ly circumstantial evidence to suggest that the high annual incidence of
infectious hepatitis may be partially attributable to a widespread and
chronic water pollution with low levels of this virus."
In March of 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency reported at a
Washington hearing before the Senate Subcommittee oh the Environment
that disease producing viruses had been found in the tap water at Biller-
ica and at Lawrence in Massachusetts. Both cities use polluted water
sources, Billerica drawing from the Concord River and Lawrence taking
its water from the Merrimack River. Both cities have complete water
treatment facilities, including filtration and chlorination. Of 32 samples
of drinking water tested from each system, viruses were present in two
of Lawrence's and four of Billerica's. James McDermott, Director of the
Water Supply Programs Division of the Environmental Protection Agency
said the scientists making these tests at the Northeastern Water Supply
Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island made a breakthrough by dis-
covering the following:
• "Echo virus, whicl] occurs in 34 sub-types and can cause nonbacterial
meningitis, muscular paralysis, respiratory diseases, hepatitis, inflam-
ation of the lining of the heart, diarrhea, vomiting and flu.
• "Polio virus, which is significant mainly as an indicator that other
viruses may be present; most Americans are innoculated against polio-
myelitis.
• "Reo virus, the disease potential of which is obscure, but which is
also associated with such flu symptoms as diarrhea and vomiting."
G-fc
-------
McDermott also pointed out that a single virus particle may infect a per-
son, although out of each 100 to 1,000 persons infected, only one may
show disease symptoms. But, an infected person may become ill later,
be a carrier, or, in the case of a pregnant woman, imperil the fetus.
There is, as yet, no practical, reliable method for detecting a single
virus particle in, say, 20 gallons of water. The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency set out 2 years ago to try to develop such a method, on the
theory that it viruses were present in drinking water and could be detec-
ted, the elimination of virus-induced diseases - possibly including cer-
tain forms of cancer — could become a realistic goal.
At the same hearing Dan Okun, Chief of Environmental Sciences at the
University of North Carolina, warned that conventional treatment fails to
eliminate pesticides that cause cancer and birth deformities in animals,
and plastics that may cause genetic damage.
Maintaining Clean Water Sources
All of this news reinforces the conviction that we must use sources of
water supply that are as remote as possible from sources of pollution
and that are kept just as clean as possible. We should permit the dis-
charge of neither sewage nor industrial wastes to reservoirs or to water-
courses tributary to them. This is no time to relax the surveillance of
watersheds, but rather a time to work harder than ever to preserve their
purity. We should be encouraging zoning which will restrict watershed
use and we should hold and maintain control over crucial lands around
reservoirs and along the main tributary streams.
Providing Filtration on all Surface Water Supplies
Going beyond watershed control, we need to strengthen our water treat-
ment procedures. Par too many utilities are depending on simple chlor-
ination as the only treatment of reservoir water. Important as chlorination
is, it cannot, by itself, assure the purity of drinking water. In order for
chlorine to be fully effective against bacteria and viruses it is necessary
that the water be clear—free from algaej Crustacea, worms, larvae, sedi-
ment and suspended impurities that interfere with the disinfection pro-
cess. The common Crustacea such as daphnia or Cyclops, for instance,
can habor bacteria and viruses within their bodies where they are shield-
ed from chlorine, and will be released into the water perhaps only by de-
caying in the distribution system or upon the shattering impact of strik-
ing a glass being filled for a drink. Of course, the same effect will be
had by the customer if he drinks the infected organisms whole, viruses
and all.
Even true color can interfere in a material way with providing safe drink-
ing water to the public. Color indicates the presence of excessive
amounts of lignans tannins, and organic matter which exert a chlorine
demand and reduces the amount available for disinfection, especially as
G-5
-------
Even true color can interfere in a material way with providing safe drink-
ing water to the public. Color indicates the presence of excessive
amounts of lignans tannins, and organic matter which exert a chlorine
demand and reduces the amount available for disinfection, especially as
the water travels into the distribution system. This reduces the all-
important chlorine contact time and leads plant operators to raise the
chlorine dosage to compensate. The combination of the resultant chlor-
ine compound odors with the remaining color is enough to turn many
consumers off, and cause them to seek other sources of drinking water
which look and taste better, but which may not be safe.
Filtration plants not only produce clear water, they provide contact
time for disinfection in the final clear water tank and in settling tanks
prior to filtration where pre-chlorination can be used; and viruses take
more chlorine for longer contact to kill than do bacteria. This also gives
the added advantage of duplicate points of chlorination so that interrup-
tions due to equipment failure or maintenance are avoided. Tastes and
odors can be eliminated by the use of activated carbon when filters are
available to subsequently remove the carbon; and the things people ob-
ject to most in addition to bad taste and odor, that is what they can see,
such as fly larvae, worms, sediment and color, do not get thru a modern
complete treatment plant.
Every water utility that uses a pond or reservoir for its water source and
does not now filter, should be planning on doing so — the sooner the
better. When seeking new water sources we should develop ground water
and seek cleaner upland surface waters. We should not plan on using
waters known to receive sewage or industrial waste effluents.
Protection of Distribution System
Good water can be turned bad by poor management of the distribution sys-
tem. Degradation of quality can be allayed by treating the water to pre-
vent it from corroding iron and copper pipe. The adjustment of the pH
value to between 7.2 and 7.6 with lime or caustic soda together with the
addition of sodium hexametaphosphate in the amount of about 2 mg/1 will
correct most corrosion problems. The treatment is simple and inexpen-
sive and should be used. This, together with coagulation and filtration
to remove organic food, will prevent the growth of slimes and iron and
manganese bacteria in the distribution system which are the cause of
many dirty water complaints.
Incredibly, some water systems still store treated water in open tanks
or basins. Such tanks, of course, accumulate bird droppings, drowned
rats and cats, and sediments and air pollutants of all sorts. Algae and
bacteria proliferate in such tanks and bad water quality is the inevit-
able result. Any water system still using such storage facilities should
G-6
-------
most certainly have a program laid out for correcting such a basic fail-
ing.
It is well known how dangerous cross connections can be and yet too
many water utilities do little, if anything, to prevent them. One of the
most important safeguards is to provide adequate and uninterrupted wat-
er pressure in all parts of the system. Back-siphonage connections and
other types of cross connections become active only when pressure is
reduced below normal or when a vacuum is produced. Therefore, it is
rudimentary to see to it that pipe sizes are large enough and that storage
tanks and booster pumping stations are installed where needed. It is help-
ful if chlorine residuals can be maintained throughout the system, and
a representative bacteriological sampling program is a must. This is the
final proof that safe drinking water is being served.
Each water utility should perform at least annually an inspection of pip-
ing on premises which may be hazardous. Such premises will include any
property known to have a second water source. It will include places
known to use toxic substances, such as factories that do plating or lab-
oratories in schools and hospitals that may handle not only dangerous
chemical solutions but also bacteria and viral suspensions. Premises
that operate high pressure recycled systems with fresh water makeup
such as car washes, factories with cooling towers or treated boiler wat-
er systems should be on the list. In order to determine the hazardous
spots rating regular inspection, a complete survey will be needed; after
that only changes and additions will need particular attention. Utility
rules should include right of entry for inspection and the right to use
the ultimate weapon — shut-off of water in case a hazardous condition
is not corrected. This approach will be backed up by the health depart-
ment. Water works utilities surveys will show the customer how to better
protect himself by installing back-flow prevention devices at points in
his own piping which will isolate drinking fountains from high hazard
plant areas. Water works utilities rules should require a vacuum breaker
on a service to an underground sprinkling system and no drinking use
beyond that point. These rules could even include an annual charge to
the owner of hazardous premises for making the necessary inspection of
his interior water piping. When inspections are made regularly, and the
customer knows they are to be made, the amount of either purposeful or
unintended formation of cross connections and by-passing of protective
devices such as air gaps will be cut to a minimum.
Conclusion
That the water works man must watch out for a long list of perils is pre-
cisely what his duty is -- to produce safe, palatable drinking water in
adequate quantity for all despite the mounting environmental hazards
and the growing demands.
G-7
------- |