3
Water Quality in the Region

Surface water and groundwater in southwestern Pennsylvania often contain many different pollutants from a variety of sources. This chapter provides an overview of the types of water quality problems in the region. Specifically, it provides an introduction to water quality standards, an overview of aquatic pollutants by broad classes, and a summary of current water quality conditions in the Pittsburgh region. In doing so, it provides the background needed to understand the causes of water quality impairment discussed in Chapter 4.

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The health of waterbodies across the United States is determined by comparing certain measured physical, chemical, and biological parameters within those waters to water quality standards. In this regard, water quality standards are currently the foundation of the water quality-based control program mandated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).1 These standards are set individually by states2 in accordance with the CWA. Each water quality standard consists of two primary and distinct parts: (1) designated beneficial use(s) of the waterbody and (2) narrative and numeric water quality criteria for biological, chemical, and physical parameters that measure attainment of designated use(s). For example, a water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in surface waters would list the various oxygen concentrations required for waterbodies meeting different uses. New or revised water quality standards are subject to review and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA also authorizes the EPA to promulgate superseding federal water quality standards. Designated uses represent not only scientific understanding but also value judgments about what a waterbody can and should be used for, whereas criteria reflect only scientific information.

Designated Uses

The CWA requires states to designate a use for each waterbody in their jurisdiction. The primary goal of the CWA, and the minimum that should be attained in all states, is that surface

1  

See Box 1-1 and http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/ for further information.

2  

The term “state” collectively includes territories, American Indian tribes, the District of Columbia, and U.S. interstate commissions.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania 3 Water Quality in the Region Surface water and groundwater in southwestern Pennsylvania often contain many different pollutants from a variety of sources. This chapter provides an overview of the types of water quality problems in the region. Specifically, it provides an introduction to water quality standards, an overview of aquatic pollutants by broad classes, and a summary of current water quality conditions in the Pittsburgh region. In doing so, it provides the background needed to understand the causes of water quality impairment discussed in Chapter 4. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The health of waterbodies across the United States is determined by comparing certain measured physical, chemical, and biological parameters within those waters to water quality standards. In this regard, water quality standards are currently the foundation of the water quality-based control program mandated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).1 These standards are set individually by states2 in accordance with the CWA. Each water quality standard consists of two primary and distinct parts: (1) designated beneficial use(s) of the waterbody and (2) narrative and numeric water quality criteria for biological, chemical, and physical parameters that measure attainment of designated use(s). For example, a water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in surface waters would list the various oxygen concentrations required for waterbodies meeting different uses. New or revised water quality standards are subject to review and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA also authorizes the EPA to promulgate superseding federal water quality standards. Designated uses represent not only scientific understanding but also value judgments about what a waterbody can and should be used for, whereas criteria reflect only scientific information. Designated Uses The CWA requires states to designate a use for each waterbody in their jurisdiction. The primary goal of the CWA, and the minimum that should be attained in all states, is that surface 1   See Box 1-1 and http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/ for further information. 2   The term “state” collectively includes territories, American Indian tribes, the District of Columbia, and U.S. interstate commissions.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania waters in the United States should be “fishable and swimmable.”3 These two broad uses have been significantly elaborated on by the states, such that in Pennsylvania all surface waters have been designated for uses that include warm-water fish and other aquatic life use, recreational use, and drinking water supply. In addition to these uses, some waters are of exceptional quality (designated as high quality or exceptional value waters), and some of these may be protected for cold-water fish. As described later, water designated for these higher-end uses must meet more stringent water quality criteria. The most common designated uses are described below, with particular attention to drinking water uses of waters in southwestern Pennsylvania. Drinking Water Public health depends on provision of adequate quantities of drinking water free of harmful concentrations of human pathogens and chemical pollutants. Provision of clean, safe drinking water depends on the quality of both the source water and the treatment and distribution systems. Thus, assigning the appropriate use designation and then meeting water quality standards in source waters is the first step in providing safe drinking water (EPA, 2002a). In southwestern Pennsylvania, drinking water is taken from a variety of sources. While the urban core in Allegheny County (see Chapter 6 for further information) is served predominately by public water services utilizing surface water sources, other counties in the area rely more heavily on public and private groundwater sources. Figure 3-1 shows the distribution of sources by population served for each county. Because population density for the region is highest in Allegheny County, which relies heavily on surface water, the majority of people in the region rely on treated surface water for their drinking water (see Figure 3-2). Major surface water sources of drinking water in the region include the Allegheny River, the Monongahela River, the Ohio River, the Youghiogheny River, Beaver Run, and Indian Creek. Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 requires states to develop a Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program to assess the drinking water sources (not “finished” waters already treated to meet various drinking water standards) serving public water systems for their susceptibility to pollution.4 A state’s SWAP is required to (1) delineate the boundaries of the areas providing source waters for all public water systems, and (2) identify (to the extent practicable) the origins of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the delineated area to determine the susceptibility of public water systems to such contaminants. The key objective for conducting source water assessments is to support the development of local, voluntary source water protection programs. In conducting such assessments, each state must use all reasonably available hydrologic information (such as water flow, recharge, discharge) and any other information deemed necessary to accurately delineate the source water assessment areas. In order to protect public health, treatment of surface waters used for drinking water is mandated. Large water service suppliers in the region that utilize surface water are listed in Table 3-1. While these large systems provide significant populations with water, there are also many smaller water service providers in the region, many of which rely heavily on groundwater 3   It should be noted that exceptions to the fishable, swimmable use exist. For example, in Pennsylvania a portion of the Delaware Estuary and water in the vicinity of the harbor at Erie do not fully support and are not expected to support the “fishable and swimmable” goal of the CWA. 4   Further information on SWAP can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/swap.html.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 3-1 Percentage of southwestern Pennsylvania county populations served by groundwater and surface water. SOURCE: USGS, 1995. FIGURE 3-2 Source waters for drinking water in southwestern Pennsylvania by percentage served. NOTE: Black represents groundwater; white represents surface water. SOURCE: USGS, 1995. as sources. Table 3-2 indicates that nearly 90 percent of the community water systems in Pennsylvania serve fewer than 10,000 persons. Nationally, about 94 percent of community water systems in the United States (more than 54,000 systems nationwide) served populations of 10,000 or fewer in 1993, but only 21 percent of the U.S. population was served by systems providing water to 10,000 or fewer people (NRC, 1997). About two-thirds of the small systems in southwestern Pennsylvania serve 500 or fewer persons, which has contributed to a proliferation of management and operational organizations across the region (as discussed in Chapter 6). The smallest systems often lack the financial resources and technical skills

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 3-1 Public Water Systems Serving Populations of 100,000 or More in Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Supplier Principal County Served Population Served Pennsylvania-American Water Company-Pittsburgh Allegheny 569,300 Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority Allegheny 250,000 Westview Borough Municipal Authority Allegheny 200,000 Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority Allegheny 120,000 Westmoreland County Municipal Authority, Youghiogheny Plant Fayette 130,000 Westmoreland Municipal Authority, Sweeney Plant Westmoreland 140,000   SOURCE: Derived from EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System Data, available on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/pa.htm. TABLE 3-2 Community Water Systems in Southwestern Pennsylvania County Number of Active Systems Serving Populations of 10,000 or More Total Number of Active Community Water Systems Allegheny 15 41 Armstrong 0 23 Beaver 5 38 Butler 2 64 Fayette 5 29 Greene 1 7 Indiana 1 32 Lawrence 2 29 Somerset 0 45 Washington 2 15 Westmoreland 3 21 Total 36 344   SOURCE: Derived from EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System Data, available on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/pa.htm. necessary to cope with drinking water regulations that are increasingly complex, and they may have difficulty dealing with problems of source water contamination, should these occur. An EPA (2001a) survey of drinking water infrastructure needs lists Pennsylvania’s statewide need for providing adequate drinking water as $3.148 billion for transmission and distribution, $940 million for treatment, $800 million for storage, $314 million for source needs, and $56 million for other needs. Notably, Pennsylvania’s total drinking water infrastructure needs ($5.258 billion) are the highest in EPA Region III and are more than double the dollar needs of Virginia—the second-ranking state in the region ($2.068 billion). Furthermore, these dollar needs are often conservative estimates, because it is difficult to tally comprehensively the small system needs. Despite the strong reliance in the region’s urban core on surface water sources, a substantial population (30 percent, or approximately 800,000 residents) is served by public or private wells. It is important to note, however, that the CWA does not directly address groundwater or water quantity issues (i.e., there is no designated use of groundwater as a source of drinking water). Wellhead protection, required under Section 1428 of the SDWA, was established to protect public groundwater sources from contamination, and Pennsylvania’s

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program5 forms the cornerstone of its SWAP. Similar to a SWAP assessment, wellhead protection involves the delineation of the area contributing water and an inventory of potential contaminant sources in that area with the ultimate goal of developing a voluntary, community-based drinking water protection program. Currently, the only national microbiological standard for groundwater quality is the Total Coliform Rule,6 which applies only to groundwater used in public water systems and only in the distribution system. However, in 2000, EPA proposed the Ground Water Rule (GWR) in response to the SDWA Amendments of 1996 that mandate the development of regulations for the disinfection of groundwater systems in order to protect human health (EPA, 2000a). The proposed regulation (the final rule has been expected since spring 2003) will establish multiple barriers to protect groundwater drinking water sources from bacteria and virus contamination and will establish a targeted strategy to identify groundwater systems at high risk for fecal contamination. The proposed GWR will apply to public groundwater systems that have at least 15 service connections or regularly serve at least 25 individuals at least 60 days a year. Notably, the GWR does not apply to privately owned wells (nationally approximately 15 percent of Americans rely on private wells; in southwestern Pennsylvania the number is 19 percent), although EPA recommends that private well owners test for coliform bacteria at least once a year. Furthermore, although the state Water Well Drillers License Act (Act 610)7 requires licensing of water well drillers and filing of well records, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not regulate the construction of or water quality in private wells (PADEP, 2003). Because construction of and water quality in private wells are unregulated in Pennsylvania, these wells may pose a threat to aquifers due to poor construction and maintenance. Additionally, many older private wells predate the 1956 Act 610, which requires filing of well information with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey; thus, no information is available regarding their construction or location. No regional data were available to assess this potential threat or the public health ramifications posed by unsafe private wells in southwestern Pennsylvania. Anecdotal information about the high rate of on-site sewage treatment and disposal system (OSTDS), or “septic system,” failure (described later) suggests that private wells may be at risk of contamination. Similar problems exist in other rural regions of the country, and programs such as the Statewide Rural Wellwater Survey and the Grants to Counties Program in Iowa can serve as a model of cooperative programs designed to protect public health and the environment (see Box 3-1). Contact Recreation Because of the importance of outdoor recreation to local economies and social well-being, many waters in Pennsylvania are designated for this purpose and have correspondingly strict water quality criteria. The 2001 Pennsylvania Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- 5   Further information on Pennsylvania’s Wellhead Protection Program can be found at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/srceprot/source/WHPPOVER.htm. 6   For further information on the Total Coliform Rule, see NRC (2004) or http://www.epa.gov/safewater/tcr/tcr.html#coliform. 7   The implementing regulations for Act 610 (the Water Well Drillers License Act) are found in 17 Pennsylvania Code § 47 and are available on-line at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/017/chapter47/chap47toc.html.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania BOX 3-1 Case Study: Iowa Private Well Programs Iowa is a rural state with 90 percent of the land under chemically intensive cultivation. The resulting threats to surface and groundwater have become a cause of concern as nitrate levels have risen and pesticides contaminate streams. Recreational waterbodies increasingly fail to meet EPA body contact guidelines for Escherichia coli. Many rural residents live on farms that have multiple wells in various states of repair, including shallow, hand-dug, brick-lined wells more than 100 years old; bored, cement-tile-cased wells; and drilled, steel cased wells. In addition, sand point wells are common along alluvial aquifers. The collective threat to groundwater and risks to individual and public health prompted the State of Iowa to pass the Groundwater Protection Act of 1987. In the 1990s, Iowa’s Grants to Counties Program was used to fund the identification and capping of thousands of abandoned wells, upgrades to existing wells requiring maintenance to meet current construction standards, and maintenance and improvements of septic systems adversely impacting groundwater. Counties were encouraged to apply for grant money and to provide oversight for well inspection, sampling, and testing and for sanitary surveys and improvements for septic systems. The program was highly successful because it was administered locally and preceded by an intensive public awareness program to inform stakeholders and potential participants. The program concept served as the basis of a subsequent Nine States Study supported by EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to extend the program to the region (see http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/emergency/wellwater/default.htm for further information). When Iowa was settled in the 1800s, there were considerable expanses of wetlands. Farmers sought to recover this land for agriculture by installing drainage tiles that carried surface water to nearby streams or piped surface water to boreholes called agricultural drainage wells. As chemical-intensive farming practices became dominant, these tiled fields became a serious threat to surface and groundwater. Several programs have been implemented to seal these wells; however, substantial numbers of Iowa fields are still tiled to drain into surface streams. This threat to the aquatic environment and groundwater is not unlike combined sewer overflow events in urban southwestern Pennsylvania, and perhaps some of the approaches that have been successful in Iowa could be applied to the Pittsburgh region. Iowa has an extensive county extension service operated by Iowa State University. The extension service provides a local point of contact for information on health-related issues associated with drinking water and septic systems. Iowa has adopted state-of-the-art requirements for well construction and septic system construction and maintenance, and state law requires these programs be administered through local county health departments, according to regulations and guidelines provided by the Iowa Department of Public Health. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seems to lack programs similar to those described above. Existing sanitation regulations are often not enforced or are unenforceable, and there is an apparent need for modernization of sanitation and zoning laws in southwestern Pennsylvania. Associated Recreation estimates that 1.3 million anglers spent 18.3 million days fishing in the state (DOI and DOC, 2002). Fishing expenditures were estimated at $580 million (DOI and DOC, 2002). Estimates of fishing are not available for counties in the region, but there are extensive resources for fishing, boating, and swimming managed by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.8 Bacteriological indicator data (as described below) are used to assess attainment of contact recreational use criteria in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Sampling is conducted during the swimming 8   See http://www.fish.state.pa.us/ and http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ for further information about these programs.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania season (May 1 through September 30) and is based on indicator organisms that suggest pathogenic organisms may be present and present a health risk to individuals during contact recreation. Human Health—Fish Consumption An important activity directly related to recreation is fish consumption, which often drives the specific use designation for surface waters. Water quality impairment can contaminate fish that may be caught from degraded rivers and streams, sometimes to levels that are considered unhealthy for public consumption. The Pennsylvania Fish Tissue Sampling and Fish Advisories Program is responsible for assessment of the attainment of human health use criteria in Pennsylvania waterways. Fish tissue samples are collected during low flow between August and October. Fish tissue concentrations are compared to standards, and decisions regarding fish advisories are made based on a mixture of risk assessment-based methods and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Action Levels. Currently, Pennsylvania has a statewide health advisory for recreationally caught sport fish. This advisory recommends no more than one meal of sport fish per week and is based on concerns regarding unidentified contaminants in untested fish. Specific to southwestern Pennsylvania, there are fish advisories in the Ohio River valley related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and chlordane. Advisories cover the main rivers (Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio) as well as a number of smaller tributaries, reservoirs, and lakes. Some advisories recommend restricted consumption at one or two meals per month, while others are “do not eat” advisories. Aquatic Life Use A final common designated use category, aquatic life use, specifically targets ecosystem health rather than human health and use. Water quality impairment can limit the diversity of aquatic life in an ecosystem, which many states, including Pennsylvania, have determined is of intrinsic importance and also has indirect effects on human health through recreation and fish consumption. Specifically, Pennsylvania uses aquatic life use data (habitat and biological indicator data) to assess the ability of its waterbodies to maintain and/or propagate fish species and additional flora and fauna that are indigenous to aquatic habitats in the state. Habitat is assessed visually using procedures from the Standardized Biological Field Collection and Laboratory Methods manual (as described in PADEP, 2004). Biological indicator data are collected through a biosurvey. Within lakes in the state, aquatic life use attainment decisions are based primarily on the ecological integrity of fish communities. Water Quality Criteria Ambient water quality criteria allow states to determine if their surface waters are impaired for designated uses and, if so, to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters to ensure future attainment of water quality consistent with the designated use (see NRC, 2001, for a full explanation of the TMDL process). Table 3-3 summarizes EPA’s published

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 3-3 Selected National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Priority Pollutant Freshwater CMC (µg/L) Arsenic 340 Cadmium 2.0 Chromium (III) 570 Chromium (IV) 16 Copper 13 Lead 65 Mercury 1.4 Nickel 470 Silver 3.2 Zinc 120 Cyanide 22 Pentachlorophenol 19 Aldrin 3.0 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.95 Chlordane 2.4 4,4’-DDT 1.1 Dieldrin 0.24 alpha-Endosulfan 0.22 beta-Endosulfan 0.22 Endrin 0.086 Heptachlor 0.52 Heptachlor epoxide 0.52 Toxaphene 0.73 NOTE: A CMC (criteria maximum concentration) is an estimate of the highest concentration of a substance in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect. SOURCE: EPA, 2002b. water quality criteria for some chemical constituents. These national criteria were established to provide guidance for states, which are authorized to establish their own water quality standards (no less strict than national standards) to protect human health and aquatic life. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has established numerical ambient water quality criteria for chemical constituents.9 Pennsylvania’s general information on water quality criteria states the following: Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source discharges in concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life. In addition to other substances listed within or addressed by this chapter, specific substances to be controlled include, but are not limited to, floating materials, oil, grease, scum and substances which produce color, tastes, odors, turbidity or settle to form deposits. As noted previously, water quality criteria are the numeric concentrations, levels, or surface water conditions that must be maintained or attained to protect existing and designated uses. In addition, a few distinct use designations require even more stringent water quality criteria. For example, waters designated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for cold water fish use or for 9   See 25 PA Code § 93.6 for further information; available on-line at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania trout stocking as high quality, or as exceptional value waters, must meet the statewide water quality criteria plus lower permissible temperatures and higher standards for dissolved oxygen. It should be noted that some of the Pennsylvania criteria may be superseded for the Delaware Estuary, Ohio River basin, Lake Erie basin, and Genesee River basin under interstate and international compact agreements with the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), and the International Joint Commission, respectively. Southwestern Pennsylvania surface water is part of the Ohio River basin and is governed by water quality criteria developed by ORSANCO (see Chapter 6 for further information about ORSANCO). Table 3-4 lists surface water quality criteria as promulgated by ORSANCO. Notably, many of the criteria are stricter than the corresponding national water quality criteria summarized in Table 3-3. Water quality criteria for bacteria were published by EPA in 1986 and updated in 2002 (EPA, 1986, 2002c). Because of the enormous number and types of pathogens to which humans could potentially be exposed, water quality criteria for human recreational contact specify allowable levels of certain indicator organisms, such as fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (described later). The national criteria were selected based on epidemiological work suggesting that body contact at the target level would result in eight gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in freshwater and 19 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers at marine beaches (EPA, 1986; NRC, 2004). “Excessive amounts of fecal bacteria in surface water used for recreation have been known to indicate an increased risk of pathogen-induced illness to humans. Infection due to pathogen-contaminated recreational waters includes gastrointestinal, respiratory, eye, ear, nose, throat, and skin diseases” (EPA, 2001b). TABLE 3-4 Water Quality Criteria Promulgated by ORSANCO for Three Common Designated Uses Conventional Pollutants and Chemical Constituents Aquatic Life Public Water Supply Contact Recreation Ammonia Temperature and pH dependent — — Arsenic — 50 µg/L — Bacteria (fecal coliform) — GM of 2,000 CFU/100 mL GM of 200 CFU/100 mL 400 CFU/100 mL in <10% samples Bacteria (E. coli) — — GM of 130 CFU/100 mL 240 CFU/100 mL in any sample Barium — 1,000 µg/L — Chloride — 2.5 x 105 µg/L — Dissolved oxygen 5,000 µg/L — — Fluoride — 1,000 µg/L — Mercury — 0.012 µg/L — Nitrite + nitrate nitrogen — 10,000 µg/L — Nitrite nitrogen — 1,000 µg/L — pH 6.0-9.0 — — Phenolics — 5 µg/L — Silver — 50 µg/L — Sulfate — 2.5 x 105 µg/L — Temperature Seasonally dependent — — NOTE: GM = monthly geometric mean consisting of at least five samples given in colony forming units (CFUs) per 100 milliliters (CFU/100 mL). SOURCE: Adapted from ORSANCO, 2002.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Water designated for human contact recreation is considered unimpaired if levels of indicator organisms do not exceed the water quality criteria summarized in Table 3-5. Water containing higher levels of indicator organisms is considered unsafe due to the likely presence of fecal bacteria and other waterborne pathogens, leading to contact recreational risk. Although the EPA recommends the use of E. coli and enterococci as indicator organisms, Pennsylvania has retained fecal coliform as the indicator of recreational water pollution. See NRC (2004) for further information on the use of indicators for waterborne pathogens. Finally, as noted previously, not all water quality criteria are numeric. For many contaminants of concern such as nutrients, the criteria exist as narrative statements, which can make interpretation and thus determinations of attainment difficult (NRC, 2001). WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMS IN PENNSYLVANIA In order to determine the health of its surface waters and the extent to which its water quality standards are being met, each state has developed a comprehensive monitoring program. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states to compile and summarize water quality information collected by their monitoring programs every two years. In 2002, EPA released the National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report—the thirteenth installment in a series beginning in 1975 that uses state 305(b) reports to identify widespread water quality problems of national significance and to describe various protection and restoration programs (EPA, 2002d). Furthermore, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to list streams and other waterbodies having “impaired” water quality. In 2000, EPA reported that about 21,000 river and stream segments, lakes, and estuaries encompassing more than 300,000 assessed stream-miles and 5 million lake-acres were impaired (EPA, 2000b). In 2004, Pennsylvania’s 305(b) and 303(d) reports were published together in a combined document entitled 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (PADEP, 2004). TABLE 3-5 Water Quality Criteria for Bacterial Indicators by Recreational Designated Uses (CFU/ 100 mL)     Single Sample Maximum Bacteria Steady State, 30-Day Geometric Meana Designated Beach Area Moderate, Full Body Contact Recreation Lightly Used, Full Body Contact Recreation Infrequently Used, Full Body Contact Recreation Fecal coliform 200b   Enterococci 35, 33c 61 89 108 151 E. coli 126 235 298 406 576 NOTE: CFU = colony forming units. aFive samples in a 30-day period. bNot more than 10% of the total samples may exceed 400 per 100 mL for samples from May through September. For the balance of the year the standard is 2,000 per 100 mL (25 PA Code § 93.7). cThe criterion for enterococci is 35 CFU/mL in freshwater and 33 CFU/mL in marine waters. SOURCE: EPA, 1986.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania The PADEP maintains a system of 120 water quality monitoring stations throughout the commonwealth called “routine stations.” At these stations, water quality sampling is conducted bimonthly for streamflow, physical analysis (e.g., temperature), and chemical analysis (e.g., dissolved oxygen) and annually for biological evaluation (including macroinvertebrate and fish tissue sampling). Routine stations are located at or near the mouths of streams with drainage areas of about 200 square miles or larger. Another 22 stations, called reference stations, have been established to represent ambient waters with minimal influence from human activity or to represent typical waters having quality similar to that of other waters found in the area. These 22 stations are usually sampled monthly for streamflow and physical and chemical analysis and three times per year for biological parameters. Fish tissue is sampled periodically at about 35 water quality network stations per year. Sampling activity is rotated through the network of stations to give complete coverage over time (PADEP, 2004). Other than bacterial indicators of waterborne pathogens, the preceding section of this chapter does not list specific water quality criteria for biological parameters because bioassessment is an evolving and burgeoning field, with many states only recently adding new biological parameters to their monitoring programs. In some states, a modified version of EPA’s 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP II)10 is used to determine if a waterbody is impaired for designated aquatic life use. The assessment is performed in “wadeable” streams and rivers where physical examination of the stream or river and biological sample collection can be conducted. The protocol includes an evaluation of the presence of and identification to the family level of one to three groups of biota: typically periphyton (algae) and/or benthic macroinvertebrates such as crustaceans, insects, snails, and shellfish. A habitat assessment is also performed, which includes characterizing the stream with regard to the nature of the channel, bottom materials, vegetative cover overhead (shade trees), riparian vegetation in general, and aquatic vegetation. Presence of tree trunks and limbs in the channel is also noted, because these constitute habitat. Assessing the water quality of all the streams and rivers in Pennsylvania is not possible using only the 142 stations described above, so other monitoring programs are also conducted. Intensive surveys of streams and rivers are performed by PADEP for a variety of reasons, including the provision of background water quality data and assessing the effects of pollutant discharges on receiving waters. In addition, PADEP has a program to support volunteer monitoring efforts.11 The 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report states that more than 180 groups including 11,000 people have taken part in statewide monitoring activities. The PADEP provides workshops and training and quality assurance sessions for volunteer monitors throughout the commonwealth. This kind of volunteer training and education is necessary to help maintain quality control and attain uniformity of reporting when many heterogeneous groups and individuals perform water quality assessments. For the 2004 303(d) process, there were 10 respondents to the PADEP request for data and information from outside sources, and 7 sets of data related to bacteriological monitoring were used to evaluate attainment of recreational uses. In accordance with the SWAP program, approximately 96 percent of the 14,000 public water systems source waters were assessed by September 2003, with the balance to be completed 10   Details of the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol are available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/techmon.html. 11   Further information on the volunteer efforts is available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/cvmp/default.htm.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 3-8 Pennsylvania Waterborne Disease Surveillance Data from CDC for Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water Use: 1983 to 2000 Year Agent Cases Deficiency Class Type of Location Source 1983 Giardia 366 3 C 16 communities Sewage-contaminated watershed 1983 Giardia 135 3 C Community Stream 1983 AGI 11 2 IND Camp Well 1983 AGI 11,400 3 NC Religious festival Well 1983 AGI 25 2 NC Recreation area Well 1983 AGI 200 2 NC Resort Well 1983 AGI 146 2 NC Recreation area Well, spring 1983 AGI 298 3 C Community River 1984 Giardia 8 2 IND Picnic Well 1984 AGI 34 2 IND Bicycle race Private well 1984 AGI 18 2 IND Industry Well 1984 AGI 98 2 NC Resort Well 1985 AGI 70 3 NC Restaurant Well 1985 AGI 275 2 NC School Well 1985 AGI 11 3 NC Restaurant Well 1985 Shigella 27 1 NC Camp Well 1986 AGI 213 3 NC Restaurant Well 1987 AGI 53 5 NC Resort Well 1987 AGI 22 2 NC Camp Well 1987 AGI ? 2 IND Home Well 1988 Giardia 172 3 C Community Lake 1988 AGI 26 2 NC Camp Well 1989 AGI 50 2 NC Camp Well 1990 Hepatitis A 22 2 IND Homes Well 1990 Hepatitis A 3 3 C Community Well 1990 AGI 63 5 C Inn Lake 1991 AGI 8 3 NC Restaurant Well 1991 AGI 170 3 NC Picnic area Well 1991 Giardia 13 3 NC Park Well 1991 Cryptosporidium 551 3 NC Picnic area Well 1991 AGI 300 3 NC Camp Well 1992 AGI 5 3 NC Restaurant Well 1992 AGI 28 5 C Park River 1992 AGI 38 2 IND Home Well 1992 AGI 42 3 NC Camp Well 1992 AGI 50 3 NC Camp Well 1992 AGI 57 3 NC Camp Well 1992 AGI 80 3 NC Camp Well 1993 Giardia 20 3 NC Trailer park Well 1993 AGI 65 3 NC Ski resort Well 1994 AGI 200 3 NC Resort Well 1995 AGI 19 2 NC Inn Well 1996-2000 None Reported — — — — — NOTE: AGI = acute gastrointestinal illness of unknown etiology; NC = noncommunity, C = community, IND = individual; 1 = untreated surface water, 2 = untreated groundwater, 3 = treatment deficiency, 4 = distribution system deficiency, 5 = unknown or miscellaneous deficiency. SOURCES: Adapted from various CDC reports available on-line at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/publications.htm.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania outbreaks reported to CDC in Pennsylvania due to drinking water sources from 1983 to 2000. Notably, no waterborne disease outbreaks were reported during 1996 to 2000. The preceding studies and reviews focused on drinking water as the vector of contamination. Identifying and summarizing epidemiological studies of waterborne illness contracted due to recreational exposure is more challenging. Most exposed individuals develop symptoms days after recreational contact, and most infected individuals attribute their illness to food poisoning or flu. Underreporting of gastrointestinal illness associated with recreational water contact (and, indeed, drinking water exposure) is expected to be high (NRC, 2004). Table 3-9 shows waterborne illness outbreaks reported to CDC in Pennsylvania due to recreational water contact during the 1980s and 1990s. Box 3-4 describes the one well-documented case of waterborne disease (in this case, giardiasis) known to have occurred in southwestern Pennsylvania, an incident related to operational failures at a treatment plant. Because no other specific outbreak data for southwestern Pennsylvania were obtained, it is difficult to extend the preceding findings on waterborne disease to the entire region. For example, no data were produced to suggest that southwestern Pennsylvania experienced more gastrointestinal illness that other parts of the state. Although the fecal indicator and pathogen concentrations released into the environment during wet weather events have exceeded federal guidelines in the past, no related illnesses have been identified. The only documented evidence of a drinking water-related public health problem for the entire state is the number of disease outbreaks in noncommunity drinking water supply wells and through recreational exposure that were caused by acute gastrointestinal illness of unknown etiology (AGI [likely of viral source]) and Shigella. The high viral host specificity indicates that these are likely caused by wells contaminated with human waste. TABLE 3-9 Pennsylvania Waterborne Disease Surveillance Data from CDC for Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use Year Etiologic Agent Cases Illness Source Setting 1982 Pseudomonas 127 Dermatitis Whirlpool Motel 1982 Pseudomonas 36 Dermatitis Whirlpool Motel 1982 Pseudomonas 68 Dermatitis 3 pools Hotel 1982 Pseudomonas 14 Dermatitis Pool Motel or hotel 1987 Pseudomonas 22 Dermatitis Hot tub Motel 1988 Shigella sonnei 138 Gastroenteritis Lake Recreation area 1990 AGI 60 Gastroenteritis Lake Camp 1991 S. sonnei 203 Gastroenteritis Lake Park 1995 AGI 17 Gastroenteritis Lake Park 1995 S. sonnei 70 Gastroenteritis Lake Beach 1998 Cryptosporidium parvum 8 Gastroenteritis Lake State park   SOURCES: Adapted from various CDC reports available on-line at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/publications.htm.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania BOX 3-4 The McKeesport Outbreak The Outbreak During the winter of 1983-1984, more than 340 cases of waterborne giardiasis occurred in McKeesport, Pennsylvania. In late December 1983, water demand in McKeesport was very high, depleting distribution system water storage and preventing effective backwash of the filters (Logsdon et al., 1985). Demand increased on December 24, and reservoir levels dropped to about half capacity by the 26th. On December 27 and 28, breaks in 3-inch and 6-inch fire lines were discovered at a U.S. steel mill (Stoecker, 1985). An elevated backwash tank at the water treatment plant was out of service at the time, so all backwash water had to come from the distribution system. Filters were run for several days without backwashing until December 31, when backwashing was performed for the first time in a week. (A filter typically is backwashed after operating times of one to three days when filtered water quality goals are met and when head loss through the filter has not reached the maximum allowed). On January 3, the plant had been pumping finished water at the rate of 13 to 13.5 million gallons per day (mgd) since Christmas, whereas normal winter pumping was about 10 mgd (Stoecker, 1985). This high rate of water production and failure to backwash filters for a week led to a large-scale turbidity breakthrough and significant deterioration of the finished water turbidity. Data entered in the plant report from December 25, 1983, through January 14, 1984 (MMWA, 1983-1984), indicate that composite turbidity from the plant rose to 5 nephelometric turbidity units (ntu) on December 29 and was 2.0 ntu or higher for 10 days during this 21-day period. For comparison, the weekly average turbidity of combined filter effluent was 0.24, 0.28, and 0.37 ntu, respectively, during the three weeks before the treatment problems started. After January 11, 1984, filtered water turbidity was generally 1.0 ntu or lower. From December 25 through January 14, free chlorine residual at the plant ranged from 0.7 to1.9 mg/L and was below 1.0 mg/L only twice in 21 days, which is typical of water treatment practices at that time. Total chlorine residual was generally about 0.3 mg/L higher than the free residual at the plant. During the three-week period from November 27 to December 17, 1983, one treatment plant effluent sample had a confirmed total coliform MPN count of 2.2 per 100 mL. From December 27, 1983, through January 30, 1984, five samples had an MPN count of 2.2 per 100 mL, and one sample had an MPN count of 5.1 per 100 mL (Logsdon et al., 1985). Two studies (Jarroll, et al., 1981; Rice et al., 1982) had shown that at 5°C (the approximate temperature of source water at McKeesport at this time) free chlorine is not very effective for inactivating Giardia cysts, but this information had not been publicized widely by the end of 1983 nor did drinking water regulations at that time reflect the findings that chlorination practices that were adequate for inactivation of bacteria were likely to be inadequate for inactivation of Giardia cysts. The high-turbidity episode was followed by an unusually high incidence of giardiasis that became apparent in the second week of February 1984. Microscopic analysis of sediment from large samples of finished drinking water, sampled by cartridge samplers during the week of February 27, 1984, by the EPA’s Health Effects Research Laboratory, later confirmed the presence of Giardia cysts in the raw water, the finished water at the plant, and the water in the distribution system (Logsdon et al., 1985). These results showed that the treatment plant was not performing as expected. Logsdon et al. (1985) reported that a “boil water” notice was issued on February 22, 1984, by the Allegheny County Health Department to all consumers in the affected communities, based on evaluations of 15 cases of giardiasis. The conclusion that the drinking water was the source of the giardiasis in McKeesport was strengthened because the time between the turbidity problem in late December and early January and the subsequent disease outbreak was similar to the incubation period for giardiasis.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Quality After the McKeesport giardiasis outbreak, a monitoring program for Giardia cysts in surface water was undertaken (Sykora et al., 1986). From November 1984 through September 1986, 37 samples were collected from the Youghiogheny River at the McKeesport treatment plant. All samples were positive for Giardia cysts. Seventeen of the samples contained between 11 and 100 cysts per 100 gallons (378 L). Ten samples had 101 to 438 cysts per 100 gallons. Ten samples had cysts in the range of 1 to 10 per 100 gallons. At wastewater treatment plants in the Youghiogheny River watershed, samples of raw wastewater and secondary effluent were obtained and analyzed. Raw sewage samples were reported to have Giardia cysts in the range of about 104 to 105 per 100 gallons at five plants, and in activated sludge effluent cysts were in the range of 102 to103 per 100 gallons. The data of Sykora et al. demonstrate that discharge of treated wastewater to surface waters is very likely to contribute Giardia cysts to those waters. Engineering Aspects The McKeesport Municipal Water Authority operated a 9 mgd conventional treatment plant that was constructed in 1907-1908 (Trax, 1916) and served about 51,000 residents in the communities of McKeesport, Versailles, Port Vue, and White Oak. Raw water was obtained from the Youghiogheny River about 0.5 mile (0.8 km) upstream from its confluence with the Monongahela River. Raw water typically had a turbidity of 2.5 to 200 ntu. Clarification processes included hydraulic mixing, baffled flocculation with no direct power input, sedimentation, and filtration. The sand filters at the plant were converted to monomedia anthracite filters in 1960. In the spring of 1984, when filters contained about 30 inches (0.75 m) of media, a core sample was obtained. The EPA’s Drinking Water Research Division performed three separate sieve analyses on the media that showed a mean effective size of 0.92 mm (range 0.89 to 0.93 mm) (Logsdon et al., 1985). This effective size was considerably larger than the size generally used for sand filters (0.5 mm) and was also larger than the fine media used in dual-media or mixed-media filters. Thus, although the bed depth was typical, the grain size was not. In response to the potential risk to recreational users of direct body contact with contaminated surface water, the ACHD initiated in 2003 a cross-sectional survey of recreational and competitive rowing organizations in the Three Rivers region. The total affected population is estimated at 10,000 rowers. The goal of the project is to assess whether there is any increased health risk associated with direct contact with river water during periods of wet weather when the microbiological water quality standards in the rivers are not being met. Results of the study are expected in early 2005. The committee concludes that a thoughtful analysis of the relationship between environmental conditions and disease incidence and morbidity in southwestern Pennsylvania is hampered by the unavailability of both public health and environmental data. Existing public health surveillance systems and environmental water quality monitoring programs lack the sophistication to adequately characterize surface water and groundwater microbial quality in the region.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Engineering investigations after the outbreak revealed a number of problems with the treatment plant (ACHD, 1984). Some were related to operation and maintenance, whereas others were related to facilities. Problems included the following: Excessive accumulation of sludge occurred in mixing and flocculating chambers and sedimentation basins. Some valves needed repairs so filter backwashing and sedimentation basin blow-off could be done properly. Filter media was dirty and needed to be removed and cleaned. Filter rate controls were not operable. Filters had no flow rate indicators. Filters had no loss-of-head gauges. Backwash water storage tank had to be repaired and returned to service to increase amount of water available for filter washing. Rate of flow during filter backwash had to be increased. Summary A combination of factors resulted in the outbreak at McKeesport. Treatment process equipment, including mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration process facilities had not been maintained adequately. The filter media being used was not as effective as the more commonly used media designs. Certain very important filter control and filter performance monitoring equipment had not been installed or was not working. The plant was unable to produce safe water at the excessive production rates needed to prevent depressurization of the distribution system after the water line breaks had occurred in late December. The chlorination practice was not sufficient for thorough inactivation of Giardia cysts, although this was not known at the time because only limited research data on chlorination of Giardia cysts had become available by the end of 1983. The confluence of numerous adverse factors led to the serious outbreak at McKeesport early in 1984. SOURCES: Based on Stoecker (1985) and Logsdon et al. (1985). SUMMARY Surface waters in southwestern Pennsylvania are impaired for a variety of uses including recreational use due to microbiological indicators and pathogens in surface water, fish consumption due to organic (PCBs) and inorganic (Hg) contamination, and aquatic life use due to metal concentrations and low pH. Inadequacies in the type and extent of water quality dataavailable in the region prevented the committee from assessing the full extent of adverse effects due to pollution. Almost all of the water quality data available to the committee were derived from single studies in specific areas for limited durations. Recently, a variety of agencies have expanded water quality data collection in the region; however, these activities do not appear to be coordinated. As a result, it is difficult to say how extensive and significant the water quality contamination is. Groundwaters in southwestern Pennsylvania, especially those used directly for drinking through private wells, have not been completely assessed. Limited data suggest that pathogen contamination is not unusual in groundwater. Whereas groundwater used for public drinking supplies generally meets water quality guidelines, private wells show significant variability, and the effects of mining are apparent.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Geochemical parameters in waters in southwestern Pennsylvania do not identify significant problems in the rivers. Water in the three main rivers in southwestern Pennsylvania generally shows adequate dissolved oxygen, is at near-neutral pH, and does not exceed water quality standards for inorganic constituents. Pesticides and volatile organic compounds were detected at levels below maximum contaminant levels in waters in southwestern Pennsylvania. Microbiological parameters indicate a wet weather contamination problem for the main rivers and a continual microbial problem in tributaries. Wet-weather microbiological water quality in the main stem rivers is demonstrably worse than dry weather microbiological water quality. Microbiological water quality in many tributaries does not meet standards in either wet or dry weather, suggesting the potential for multiple sources of pollution. Pathogenic protozoa and indicator organisms are routinely detected in surface waters used as drinking water sources in the region. Despite high levels of pathogens and indicators in regional waters, there is no evidence that southwestern Pennsylvania has recently experienced any waterborne disease that would link impaired source water quality with human health effects. However, as with water quality data, significant gaps exist in public health monitoring, thus preventing an adequate assessment of possible endemic waterborne disease occurrences. REFERENCES ACHD (Allegheny County Health Department). 1984. Engineering Evaluation of the McKeesport Water Treatment Plant. Draft. Pittsburgh, PA: ACHD. Ali, S., and D. Hill. 2003. Giardia intestinalis. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 16(5):453-460. Anderson, R., K. Beer, T. Buckwalter, M. Clark, S. McAuley, J. Sams, and D. Williams. 2000. Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland (1996-98). Denver, CO: United States Geologic Survey. ASM (American Society of Microbiology). 2004. Comments on EPA's Proposed Policy for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit Requirements for Wastewater Treatment Discharges During Wet Weather. Available on-line at http://www.asm.org/Policy/index.asp?bid=24834. Accessed June 15, 2004. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1995. ToxFAQs™ for Chlordane. Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts31.html. Accessed March 23, 2004. ATSDR. 1999a. ToxFAQs™ for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs). Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts104.html. Accessed March 23, 2004. ATSDR. 1999b. ToxFAQs™ for Mercury. Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html. Accessed March 23, 2004. ATSDR. 2001. ToxFAQs™ for PCBs. Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html. Accessed March 23, 2004. ATSDR. 2002a. ToxFAQs™ for Aldrin/Dieldrin. Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts1.html. Accessed March 23, 2004. ATSDR. 2002b. ToxFAQs™ for DDT, DDE, and DDD. Available on-line at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html. Accessed March 23, 2004.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Azadpour-Keeley, A., B. Faulkner, and J. Chen. 2003. Movement and longevity of viruses in the subsurface. EPA 540/S-03/500. Cincinnati, OH: EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. CCME EPC-98E. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Task Group on Water Quality Guidelines. Chester Engineering. 1996. Comprehensive Water Supply Plan: Allegheny County Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA: Chester Engineering. Collins, T., D. Dzombak, J. Rawlins, K. Tamminga, and S. Thompson. 1998. Nine Mile Run Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan: Appendix IV: Water Quality Issues in the Nine Mile Run Watershed. Pittsburgh, PA: Studio for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University. Desmarais, T., H. Solo-Gabriele, and C. Palmer. 2002. Influence of soil on fecal indicator organisms in a tidally influenced subtropical environment. Applied Environmental Microbiology 68(3):1165-1172. DOI (U.S. Deaprtment of the Interior) and DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. FHW/01-NAT. Washington, DC: DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and DOC U.S. Census Bureau. Engler, R. 1993. Memorandum: Lists of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2000a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule; Proposed Rules. Federal Register 65(91). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/gwr/gwrprop.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2004. EPA. 2000b. Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters. EPA 840-B-00-002. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2001a. Infrastructure Needs Survey: Second Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2001b. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. EPA 841-R-00-002. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2002a. Consider the Source: A Pocket Guide to Protecting Your Drinking Water. EPA 816-K-02-002. Washington, DC: Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. EPA. 2002b. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. EPA 822-R-02-047. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. EPA. 2002c. Public Review Draft: Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA 823B-02-003. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2002d. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. EPA 841-R-02-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2003. Proposed Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA-815-F-03-006. Washington, DC: Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Feder, I., F. Wallace, J. Gray, P. Fratamico, P. Fedorka-Cray, R. Pearce, J. Call, R. Perrine, and J. Luchansky. 2003. Isolation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from intact colon fecal samples of swine. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9:380-383.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Frost, F., R. Calderon, and G. Craun. 1995. Waterborne disease surveillance: Findings of a survey of state and territorial epidemiology programs. Journal of Environmental Health 58:6-11. Geldreich, E, K. Fox, J. Goodrich, E. Rice, R. Clark, and D. Swerdlow. 1992. Searching for a water supply connection in the Cabool, Missouri disease outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Water Research 26:1127-1137. Gibson, C., K. Stadterman, S. States, and J. Sykora. 1998. Combined sewer overflows: A source of Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Water Science and Technology 38(12):67-72. Guerrant, R. 1997. Cryptosporidiosis: An emerging, highly infectious threat. Emerging Infectious Diseases 3(1):51-57. Hammermueller, J., S. Kruth, J. Prescott, and C. Gyles. 1995. Detection of toxin genes in Escherichia coli isolated from normal dogs and dogs with diarrhea. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 59:265-270. Higgins, J., G. Heufelder, and S. Foss. 2000. Removal efficiency of standard septic tank and leach trench septic systems for MS2 coliphage. Small Flows Quarterly 1(2):26-27, 57. Jarroll, E., A. Bingham, and E. Meyer. 1981. Effect of chlorine on Giardia lamblia cyst viability. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41:483-487. Jensen, P., Y. Su, K. Lee, A. Boer, H. Rifai, S. Payne, R. Stein, and T. Running. 2002. The 2002 Texas Water Monitoring Congress Proceedings: Indicator bacteria monitoring on Houston Bayous. Available on-line at http://www.txwmc.org/2002_TWMC_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2004. Knauer, K., and T. Collins. 2001. 3 Rivers 2nd Nature Aquatic Report: Pittsburgh Pool, Phase 1—2000, Water Quality. Pittsburgh, PA: STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University. Knauer, K., and T. Collins. 2002. 3 Rivers 2nd Nature Aquatic Report: Monongahela River Valley, Phase 2—2001, Water Quality. Pittsburgh, PA: STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University. Knauer, K., and T. Collins. 2003. 3 Rivers 2nd Nature Aquatic Report: Allegheny River Valley, Phase 3—2002, Water Quality. Pittsburgh, PA: STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University. Kolpin, D., E. Furlong, M. Meyer, E. Thurman, S. Zaugg, L. Barber, and T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology 36:1202-1211. Koryak, M., and J. Reilly. 2000. Nine Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Water Quality and Aquatic Life Report. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lee, S., D. Levy, G. Craun, M. Beach, and R. Calderon. 2002. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1999-2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(SS-8):1-47. Levy, D., M. Bens, G. Craun, R. Calderon, and B. Herwaldt. 1998. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47(5):1-34. Lindsey, B., J. Rasberry, T. Zimmerman. 2002. Microbiological Quality of Water from Noncommunity Supply Wells in Carbonate and Crystalline Aquifers of Pennsylvania. Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4268. Washington, DC: DOI, USGS.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Lippy, E., and S. Waltrip. 1984. Waterborne disease outbreaks—1946-1980: A thirty-five year perspective. Journal of the American Water Works Association 6(2):60-67. Livingston, R., S. McGlynn, and X. Niu. 1998. Factors controlling seagrass growth in a gulf coastal system: Water and sediment quality and light. Aquatic Botany 60(2):135-159. Logsdon, G., V. Thurman, E. Frindt, and J. Stoecker. 1985. Evaluating sedimentation and various filter media for removal of Giardia cysts. Journal of the American Water Works Association 77(2):61-66. Luneburg, W. 2004. Where the Three Rivers Converge: Unassessed Waters and the Future of EPA’s TMDL Program: A Case Study (Water Quality Policy and Regulation in Allegheny County, PA). A report for 3 Rivers 2nd Nature, STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, College of Fine Arts, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Marshall, M., D. Naumovitz, Y. Ortega, and C. Sterling. 1997. Waterborne protozoan pathogens. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 10:67-85. Medema, G., F. Schets, P. Teunis, and A. Havelaar. 1998. Sedimentation of free and attached Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64:4460-4466. MMWA (McKeesport Municipal Water Authority). 1983-1984. Unpublished Purification Plant Report Data Sheets from McKeesport for Weeks Ending December 31, 1983; January 7, January 14, January 21, and January 28, 1984. McKeesport, PA: MMWA. Mulroy, A. 2000. Correlating residual antibiotic contamination in public water to drug-resistant Escherichia coli: Is remediation an option? Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation 2000 U.S. Stockholm Junior Water Prize. NRC (National Research Council). 1987. Drinking Water and Health, Volume 7 Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1992. Restoring Aquatic Ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1993. Managing Wastewater. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997. Safe Water from Every Tap. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1999a. Setting Priorities for Drinking Water Contaminants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1999b. Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2002. Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2004. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. O’Connor, D. 2002. Report of the Walkerton Inquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues. Part One: A Summary. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Queen’s Printer for Ontario. O’Donoghue, P. 1995. Cryptosporidium and cryptosporidiosis in man and animals. International Journal for Parasitology 25:139-195. ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission). 2002. Biennial Assessment of Ohio River Water Quality Conditions for Water Years 2000 and 2001. Cincinnati, OH: ORSANCO.

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Osterkamp, W., P. Heilman, and L. Lane 1998. Economic considerations of a continental sediment-monitoring program. International Journal of Sediment Research 13 (4):12-24. PADEP. 2003. Frequently Asked Questions About Private Water Wells in Pennsylvania. Fact Sheet 3800-FS-DEP2657. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/questions/default.htm. Accessed March 18, 2004. PADEP. 2004. 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/303d-report.htm. Accessed June 16, 2004. Pait, A., A. DeSouza, and D. Farrow. 1992. Agricultural Pesticide Use in Coastal Areas: A National Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Pesaro, F., I. Sorg, and A. Metzler. 1995. In situ inactivation of animal viruses and a coliphage in nonaerated liquid and semiliquid animal wastes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(1):92-97. Pontius, F.W. (ed.) 2003. Drinking Water Regulation and Health. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rice, E., J. Hoff, and F. Schaefer, III. 1982. Inactivation of Giardia cysts by chlorine. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43(1):250-251. Robertson, L., A. Campbell, and H. Smith. 1992. Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts under various environmental pressures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 58(11):3494-3500. Rose, J., and T. Shifko. 1999. Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Cyclospora and their impact on foods: A review. Journal of Food Protection 62(9):1059-1070. Rose, J., D. Huffman, and A. Gennaccaro. 2002. Risk and control of waterborne cryptosporidiosis. Federation of European Microbiological Societies Microbiology Reviews 26:113-123. Schallenberg, M. and C. Burns. 2004. Effect of sediment resuspension on phytoplankton production: Teasing apart the influences of light, nutrients, and algal entrainment. Freshwater Biology 49(2):143-159. Schaub, S., and R. Oshiro. 2000. Pubic health concerns about caliciviruses as waterborne contaminants. Journal of Infectious Diseases 181:S374-S380. Sharpe, W., D. Mooney, and R. Adamis. 1985. An analysis of ground water quality data obtained from private individual water systems in Pennsylvania. North Eastern Journal of Environmental Science 4:155-159. Snyder, S., P. Westerhoff, Y. Yoon, and D. Sedlak. 2003. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors in water: Implications for the water industry. Environmental Engineering Science 20(5):449-469. States, S., K. Stadterman, L. Ammon, P. Vogel, J. Baldizar, D. Wright, L. Conley, and J. Sykora. 1997. Protozoa in river water: Sources, occurrence, and treatment. Journal of the American Water Works Association 89(9):74-83. Stoecker, J. 1985. Memorandum: McKeesport Water Quality. Philadelphia, PA: EPA. Stumm-Zollinger, E., and G. Fair. 1965. Biodegradation of steroid hormones. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 37(11):1506-1510. Sykora, J., S. States, W. Bancroft, S. Boutros, M. Shapiro, and L. Conley. 1986. Monitoring of water and wastewater for Giardia. In Proceedings of the American Water Works

OCR for page 55
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Association Water Quality Technology Conference, Portland, Oregon. Denver, CO: AWWA. Tabak, H., and H. Bunch. 1970. Steroid hormones as water pollutants. Developments in Industrial Microbiology 11:367-376. TPRC (Third Party Review Committee). 2002. Third Party Review of the ALCOSAN Regional Long Term Wet Weather Control Concept Plan. Pittsburgh, PA: ALCOSAN. Trax, E. 1916. A new raw water supply for the City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania. Journal of the American Water Works Association 3:947-958. Trussell, R. 2001. Endocrine disruptors and the water industry. Journal of the American Water Works Association 93(2):58-65. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1997. Montour Run Watershed, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Water Quality and Aquatic Life Resources. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture: Pennsylvania State and County Data. Available on-line at http://www.census.gov/prod/ac97/ac97a-38.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2004. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1995. The Allegheny-Monongahela River Basin NAWQA Project. Available on-line at http://pa.water.usgs.gov/almn/. Accessed June 16, 2004. USGS. 1996. Quality of ground water at selected sites in the upper Mahoning Creek basin, Pennsylvania. Fact Sheet 176-96. Available on-line at http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/fs_176-96/report.html. Accessed June 16, 2004. VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2000. Fecal Coliform TMDL for Muddy Creek, Virginia: Revised Final Report. Available on-line at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/apptmdls/shenrvr/muddyfe.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2004. WHO (World Health Organization). 1990. The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. WHO. 2000. Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes, J. Bartram and G. Rees (eds.). London: E. and F.N. Spon.