1

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Research and

Development

Washington, DC 20460

Drinking Water

Treatment for Small

Communities

A Focus on EPA’s

Research

EPA/640/K-94/003

May 1994
2

EPA’s Office of Research and Development

The Office of Research and Development (ORD)

conducts an integrated program of scientific research and

development on the sources, transport and fate processes,

monitoring, control, and assessment of risk and effects of

environmental pollutants. These activities are implemented

through its headquarters offices, technical support offices,

and twelve research laboratories distributed across the

country. The research focuses on key scientific and

technical issues to generate knowledge supporting sound

decisions today, and to anticipate the complex challenges

of tomorrow. With a strong, forward-looking research

program, less expensive more effective solutions can be

pursued and irreversible damage to the environment can be

prevented.
3

Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities

A Focus on EPA’s Research

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects

that new drinking water standards will help prevent hundreds

of thousands of cases of disease each year and will provide

increased health protection for all Americans served by public

water systems. The new standards include requirements for

increased water utility monitoring of water quality to ensure its

safety. Where contaminants are present at levels exceeding

the standards, utilities will need to provide treatment. Many

utilities will need to upgrade existing treatment facilities or

design new ones, and tens of thousands of small systems

(3,300 or less population served) may find it difficult to meet the

new requirements.

To address these needs, EPA’s Office of Research and

Development (ORD) is working with industry, states, and

communities to adapt alternative treatment technologies to

smaller scale to ensure that regulatory requirements can be

met cost-effectively and realistically by even the smallest

jurisdiction.

This effort focuses on treatment technologies for small

systems, including prefabricated central treatment systems

(package plants) and home treatment units, to reduce biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants to acceptable

levels in water supplies. Small communities throughout the

nation with differing raw water qualities are participating in

ORD’s studies to test and evaluate treatment technologies.

Results to date indicate that small systems can upgrade

drinking water quality at a reasonable cost.
4

Water Use

Americans use about 12

billion gallons per day in public

water supplies. This demand is filled

by the nation’s abundant fresh water

resources in over 2 million miles of

streams, 30 million acres of lakes

and reservoirs, and huge underground aquifers (subsurface geologic

formations that store water). About

50 percent of the population receives

drinking water from surface water

supplies and 50 percent from ground

water sources. Most large cities use

surface water as their drinking water

source, but small towns or communities with populations of less than

3,300 most often use ground water.

Currently, about 50 percent of

ground water supplies are disinfected. However, with new regulations, disinfection of all ground

waters will be required to inactivate

organisms or microbial contaminants, called pathogens, that produce

disease. About 13 million people (5

percent of the population) draw

water from private wells, which are

not federally regulated under the

Safe Drinking Water Act .

Community water

systems.

Number of Systems = 59,266

Medium, Large, &

Very Large

Population Served = 232,562,000

Very Small &

Small

Very Small &

Small

87%

Medium, Large, &

Very Large

System Size and Population Served: Very small (25-500): Small (501-3,300); Medium

(3,301-10,000); Large (10,001-100,000); Very Large (More than 100,000)

13% 11% 89%

The majority of our nation’s

water suppliers are small systems

serving 25 to 3,300 people. Eightyseven percent of community water

systems serve only 11 percent of the

community system population, and

two thirds of all systems serve

communities of fewer than 500

people. Small and very small

community water systems serve

fewer than 26 million of approximately 233 million customers in the

country.

Many small systems will find

it difficult to comply with new

environmental regulations because

they cannot afford the necessary

equipment or staff for treatment. As

additional contaminants are

identified in drinking water and

standards are developed, the

complexity of managing water

systems, especially for small

systems, will increase greatly.

Sources of Contamination

Treating water supplies to

remove health-threatening contaminants is costly. Some pollutants are
5

Contaminants Health Effects Sources

Microbiological Acute gastrointestinal Human and animal fecal

illness, dysentery, hepatitis, matter

typhoid fever, cholera,

giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, etc.

Arsenic Dermal and nervous system Geological

toxicity

Lead Central and pheripheral Leaches from lead pipes

nervous system damage; kidney and lead-based solder,

effects; highly toxic to infants pipe joints

and pregnant women

Nitrate Methemoglobinemia (“blue Fertilizer, sewage, feed

baby syndrome”) lots

Fluoride Skeletal damage, dental Geological

fluorosis

Pesticides and Nervous system toxicity, Farming, horticultural

herbicides cancer risk practices

Trihalomethanes Cancer risk Treatment by-product

Radionuclides Cancer Geological

harmful in small amounts, and can

be difficult to remove once they

have contaminated a water supply.

Many occur naturally in the earth’s

crust (geological), such as arsenic,

fluoride, and radionuclides. Other

potential sources of contamination

include failures in septic tanks,

sewer systems and municipal

landfills; pesticides and fertilizers

spread on cropland and lawns;

highway salt; and industrial and

municipal wastewater facilities that

discharge into surface waters.

Poorly constructed or improperly

abandoned wells provide pathways

for contaminants to enter aquifers.

Unless managed properly, all of these

sources have the potential to pollute.

Regulations

Concern about the quality of

the nation’s drinking water supplies

prompted the Safe Drinking Water

Act legislation in 1974. The EPA is

authorized to design national

standards that are the primary

responsibility of the states to enforce.

The Safe Drinking Water Act has had

a significant effect on improvements

in both water quality and water

supply management. Increasing

concerns with toxins in the drinking

water led Congress to amend the

Examples of

health risks from

the tap.
6

original Act in 1986, making it

stricter and more inclusive.

National Drinking Water

Standards

The Safe Drinking Water Act

has two parts. First, EPA is to

establish National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations for drinking

water quality. Generally these

standards are numerical criteria for

each contaminant that may be found

in a drinking water supply and that

may have an adverse effect on

health. Drinking water standards

establish maximum contaminant

levels, the highest allowable

concentration of a contaminant in

drinking water. The maximum

contaminant levels are determined

through risk assessment procedures

that take into consideration health

effects, treatment technologies,

sampling techniques, monitoring

requirements, and appropriate

management practices. Maximum

contaminant levels are usually

expressed as milligrams per liter

(mg/L), which are equivalent to parts

per million, since one liter of a

substance contains one million

milligrams.

Under certain conditions, EPA

may designate that a treatment

technique be used in place of a

maximum contaminant level. The

Surface Water Treatment and Lead

and Copper Rules require a treatment

technique instead of a maximum

contaminant level.

Monitoring Supplies

The second part of the Act

pertains to water suppliers. The

operators of the 200,000 public

water systems in the country will

monitor the quality of the water

delivered to consumers and treat that

water if necessary to assure that the

concentration of each contaminant

remains below the acceptable levels

established by EPA.

Monitoring requirements

differ according to whether the

system is a community or noncommunity supply. Community and

regional water supplies are developed, owned and operated by

various government agencies or

private groups. Other commercial

concerns, such as trailer parks or

hospitals often supply water as an

ancillary service. These suppliers

must meet some or all of the federal

drinking water regulations.

New Requirements

The 1986 Amendments

greatly extended federal, state and

local responsibilities for protection

of community water supplies. Water

utilities must provide the necessary

facilities, personnel, and operating

vigilance to assure delivery of an

adequate supply of safe water that

consistently meets the requirements

of the National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations. In addition, they

have various decision-making

responsibilities beyond direct

operation and maintenance. They are

subject to increased public scrutiny

since the public must be notified of

each drinking water violation, and

they are subject to more frequent and

larger fines for violations.

Drinking water standards

must be met in the near future for

108 contaminants, which include

biological contaminants, pathogenic

bacteria, viruses, protozoa, etc.; lead;

radionuclides; by-products of

disinfection; organic chemicals; and

nitrates and other inorganic

chemicals. Monitoring will also be

required for a number of unregulated

parameters. Monitoring requirements

A community water supplier is a

utility that provides drinking water to 25 or more

people. There are

just under 60,000

community water

suppliers, but only

about 250 of

these suppliers

serve populations

of 100,000 or

more. Non-community drinking

water suppliers —

motels, resorts,

restaurants and

similar establishments, number

about 140,000

and serve nonresidential users.
7

Protection Programs- The Safe Drinking Water Act provides several programs that establish

environmental safeguards to prevent contaminants from reaching water sources.

•To assess and protect ground water sources:

Wellhead Protection Program - identifies all potential contamination sources within an

area surrounding a community water supply well.

Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program - prescribes a comprehensive land management plan that can be used to eliminate activities that have an adverse impact on public health

and ground water within the area surrounding a community supply well.

•To protect surface water supplies:

Watershed Control Program - restricts activities that have the potential to contaminate surface waters. The goal of the program is to preserve and improve raw water quality by identifying and controlling contamination sources in the watershed.

Tub from an old

washing machine

was used to filter

large particles from

a very small

community drinking

water supply. The

Safe Drinking Water

Act, as

reauthorized, sets

requirements for

filtration that cannot

be met with such

homemade devices.

Research Strategy

As a result of amendments to

the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA

estimates that more than 6,000 water

systems will have to install water

treatment to meet the proposed

standards for organics and

inorganics, 11,000 systems will be

affected by filtration requirements,

and 43,000 systems must address

corrosion control alternatives.

Under the Safe Drinking

Water Act, water utilities, EPA, and

states have enormous responsibilities.

The agenda for EPA to establish,

states to regulate, and utilities to

for each contaminant are quite

specific, and water systems must

follow a prescribed schedule and

procedure for contaminant sampling

and analysis. However, states have

the authority to waive monitoring

requirements for many contaminants if those substances have never

been used in an area or if water

systems are not vulnerable to

contamination by the substance.

Best Available Technology

The regulations designate the

best available technology for each

contaminant exceeding standards to

bring drinking water systems into

compliance. The best available

technologies are intended to assist

EPA in establishing maximum

contaminant levels by taking into

consideration the various treatment

technologies available, their cost

and efficiency for removing

contaminants from water, and to aid

water utilities in selecting appropriate treatment methods to meet

drinking water standards.

 The ORD provides supporting information on performance and

cost of treatment technologies for

maximum contaminant level or rule

development.
8

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

Much of EPA’s drinking water research is conducted by ORD’s Office of Environmental

Engineering and Technology Demonstration at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory’s

Drinking Water Research Division in Cincinnati, Ohio. This staff has provided leadership in

drinking water research for several decades. Their work in microbiological treatment and in

inorganics and organics control has contributed significantly to advancing the state of the

science in these areas.

Through a multidisciplinary program, integrating chemistry, engineering, microbiology,

and economics, drinking water research is conducted to establish practices for the control and

removal of contaminants and for prevention of water quality deterioration during storage and

distribution. This research is directed toward improving chemical removal methodologies,

controlling disinfection by-products, evaluating disinfection processes, and providing technical

assistance to states and municipalities in adopting and implementing drinking water standards.

In-house pilot plant treatment facilities aid the testing and evaluation of new and emerging

technologies for potential real-world application.

This Laboratory, in support of EPA’s National Water Program, is concentrating much of

its effort exploring new or improved and more affordable technologies for small communities.

meet a multitude of regulatory

requirements will demand solutions

to many new and complex problems.

Small Systems

To bring small community

systems into compliance will

necessitate some new thinking and

flexibility in terms of technology

applications and institutional

arrangements. Treating 50,000

gallons per day is not simply a

matter of downsizing to one percent

of a 5-million-gallon per day plant.

Operator ability, capital resources,

and extremes in water quality must

be taken into account.

The treatment needs of small

utilities often are not clear. Pilot

testing programs to evaluate

treatment processes and operations

on a small scale contribute significantly to final system design and

success. The innovative application

of proven techniques and technologies in individual plants and units

may provide solutions to most small

community water quality problems.

Package Plant Systems

The most significant requirements for small systems are low

construction and operating costs,

simple operation, adaptability to

part-time operations, and low

maintenance. To meet these needs,

the less costly package plant systems

present an attractive alternative to

small custom designed central

treatment systems. The difference

between package plants and custom

designed plants is that package

plants arrive on site virtually ready

to operate.

Most of the technologies used

in custom designed treatment plants

for community water systems can be

used in package plants and home

treatment units. These technologies

are applied to reduce levels of

organic contaminants and control

turbidity, fluoride, iron, radium,
9

Ultrafiltration membrane package plant undergoing tests at

EPA’s Test & Evaluation Facility in Cincinnati, OH.

arsenic, nitrate, microorganisms and

many other contaminants. Aesthetic

parameters such as taste, odor, or

color also can be improved.

Researchers in ORD are

working to provide an analysis of

package plant treatment systems to

determine performance, costs,

reliability, and capability. A great

deal of this effort is focused on

encouraging industry to design and

make prefabricated small treatment

plants suitable to the sizes and

various treatment needs of small

communities. Prefabrication means

lower on-site construction costs. To

complete this work, ORD will

create and demonstrate hybrid

package plant designs and configurations.

Operation and Maintenance

Through a cooperative effort

with the American Water Works

Association (AWWA), ORD has

been examining the broad application and use of package plants

across the country. This study,

Package Treatmant Plants

Package plants are treatment units that are assembled

in a factory, mounted on a skid, and transported to the

treatment site, or alternatively, transported as component units to the site and then assembled. They are

currently most widely used to treat surface water

supplies for removal of turbidity, color, and microbes

with filtration processes. However, most treatment technologies are adaptable to package plant design and

configuration.

Design criteria and operating and maintenance requirements can vary widely. Thus, there is a need to develop reliable data and knowledge of package plant systems to enable development of appropriate guidance on

selection criteria.

The ORD is working with plant manufacturers to

test different package plants at their Test and Evaluation

(T & E) Facility, located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The plants

to be tested focus on disinfection and removal of

organic material to improve the disinfection process,

since this is the area of greatest concern and subject of

the pending Disinfection/Disinfection By-Product and

Surface Water Treatment Rules. In addition, alternative

disinfectants will be tested via a nearly full-scale pipe

loop system to evaluate water quality as it is delivered to

the tap through the distribution system.
10

Point of Use Treatment Unit Point of Entry Treatment Units

Home Treatment Units

Home treatment units can be an alternative to centralized treatment technology for individual and small systems. Such systems have been widely adapted to treating water from a

single faucet at the point of use or for the entire house at the point of entry. Their off the shelf

availability makes them attractive alternatives. Very small systems may find point of entry units

less costly to buy and easier to install and maintain than a custom designed or package plant.

For example, a responsible party at a Superfund site in Pennsylvania opted to install 15 point

of entry units to remove trichloroethylene at individual homes rather than install a distribution

system connecting each home to another community’s network several miles away. The longterm future cost of monitoring, maintenance, and sampling was preferable to the high one-time

capital cost of installing a distribution system.

Point of entry treatment is acceptable as an available technology for complying with drinking water regulations under certain circumstances. Until recently, point of use treatment units

were acceptable only for interim measures, such as a condition for obtaining a variance or exemption to avoid reasonable risk to health before full compliance can be achieved. An EPA research study is evaluating point of use units to reduce naturally occurring ground water fluoride

to acceptable levels for a community of 40. It is expected that these units may be acceptable

for compliance in some communities in the future.

Neither point of use nor point of entry is designated as a best available technology because of the difficulty in monitoring the reliability of treatment performance and controlling performance in a manner comparable to central treatment. All public water supplies must monitor

and ensure the quality of water treatment, whether they provide central treatment or decentralized treatment through point of use/point of entry units. State approval is required for use of

such units.

Both systems are available from a large number of manufacturers and most treatment

technologies can be adapted to home devices. In certain situations, point of use/point of entry

units can be cost-effective solutions when a very small community cannot afford central treatment for removal of a contaminant, such as an organic chemical or fluoride. For example, with

state approval, several small communities (25 to 200 people) in Arizona installed home systems using activated alumina to remove fluoride. A manufacturing/engineering company on

contract with one community maintains all the systems.
11

which evaluated water treatment

filtration procedures at 48 small

systems, found that, in addition to a

lack of proven technology, the

success or failure of a plant is often

dependent on its financial status.

If a community fails to

recognize the need for training and

certification for operators in

specific treatment processes,

professional guidance and technical

assistance in system selection, and

adequate funding for operation and

maintenance, system operation and

water quality will suffer.

According to the study, an

operator’s technical ability and

availability to perform the job are

crucial to successful operation of

the system. Additionally, frequency

of and accessibility to training are

principally responsible for

improvement in water treatment

performance.

Because of limited revenues,

very often only part-time operators

can be hired by small communities

with little funding available for

training and certification. Small

systems normally do not have a

large pool of trained engineers and

scientists to deal with complex

equipment or with constantly

changing treatment needs. In

addition, the small system might

have difficulty attracting skilled

staff because of economic constraints.

The ORD is investigating the

utility of a telemetry system in

which the package plant treatment

system can be remotely monitored

and operated. This approach, called

a Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition system, could aid in the

development of an electronic

“circuit rider” that would provide

service and guidance simultaneously via long distance to several

Looking Ahead

Results of the recent ORD/AWWA evaluation of

package plants identified several technical issues that

require further investigation for resolution.

• As in systems of all sizes, the conflicting objectives

between minimization of disinfectant by-product

formation and maximization of water quality (through

effective microbe reduction) are a major concern for

small systems. Often, small systems may use extra

chlorine just to "make sure" the water is safe,

microbiologically, only to result in higher rates of disinfectant by-product formation. This in turn, may increase

the risk to the community of exposure to undesirable or

harmful chemicals.

In other cases, package plants, because of their

short disinfectant contact times with water flowing

through the treatment train, may not allow sufficient time

for the disinfectant to be effective. This is especially true

for small streams that exhibit highly variable water

quality because of storms and runoff, which require a

change in treatment or chemical feed rates. Thus,

disinfectant by-product formation may be low, but so is

disinfection efficiency.

• In theory, the treatment technologies utilized in

package plants and small systems can provide potable

water and achieve reductions in Giardia lamblia cysts

(99.9%) and viruses (99.99%), as required by the Surface Water Treatment Rule. However, there are little

field data to verify this assumption.

• Successful operation of surface water treatment

facilities may require a more sophisticated

understanding of water chemistry and engineering

principles than was traditionally believed necessary.

Operators may need more advanced training than is

typically provided. Remote monitoring and circuit rider

approaches may be especially important in effectively

leveraging the services of a qualified, fully capable

operator.

systems that cannot individually

afford a trained operator.

Research Activities

Meeting Biological Standards

Risk

Approximately 200,000 cases

per year of gastroenteritis will be
12

Microorganisms called coliforms are present in water

contaminated with human and animal feces. Although

coliforms do not usually cause disease, their presence

in drinking water indicates that disease-causing

organisms may be present. If a water sample is passed

through a filter, coliform bacteria present in the sample

are retained

and, under

specific test

conditions,

develop into

golden sheen

colonies.

Water

samples that

contain

coliforms are

tested further

to ensure that

a water supply

is safe to

drink.

Number of systems in violation (by system size)

avoided as a result of filtration and

disinfection.

Small systems have the most

trouble meeting EPA’s standards for

safe drinking water. Small systems

accounted for almost 87 percent of

the 5,400 systems with maximum

contaminant level violations in 1991.

Microbial violations accounted for

the majority of these cases, putting

12 million people at risk.

Although fatal waterborne

diseases are no longer a major public

health threat in the U.S., there are

still thousands of water-related

pathogen-induced cases of illness,

characterized by vomiting and

diarrhea, reported annually.

Fortunately, disinfection and

filtration processes can eliminate the

cause of such illnesses, and the

Disinfection Rule will require all

systems to meet new microbiological

standards.

The principal immediate risk

from drinking water contamination

is still biological in origin with

verified outbreaks of waterborne

diseases caused by lack of proper

treatment facilities or a breakdown

in such equipment. Throughout most

of recorded history, human organic

waste has posed the greatest threat to

safety of drinking water. Typhoid,

cholera, and other waterborne

infectious diseases could not be fully

conquered until disinfection and

filtration treatment processes were

adopted.

Treatment

At a minimum, the treatment

required to control microbiological

contamination must include

disinfection to kill disease-causing

organisms. The Surface Water

Treatment Rule also requires surface

water systems to install some form

of filtration (the process of removing

suspended solids that cause

Population served by community systems in violation

(by contaminant group)

Very Small 3,544

65.6% Small 1,148

21.3%

Medium 357

6.6%

Large 336

6.2%

Very Large 15

0.3%

Microbiological 12,000,000

Radiological 300,000

Inorganics 400,000

Organics 900,000

Turbidity 5,100,000
13

A community

drinking water

supply, serving

about 25 homes,

flowed to this tank

for treatment by

chlorination and

aeration. Due to

regulatory

requirements of the

SDWA, as

amended, this jerryrigged system was

no longer adequate

to insure a safe

water supply and,

thus, was recently

replaced by an

ultrafiltration

package plant.

Example of a small community "homemade” system that

provides no adequate assurance that drinking water is safe.

This drinking water supply intake structure is placed in a stream

bed, surrounded by mud, moss, gravel and water.

turbidity) unless criteria for

exemptions can be met. (Turbidity

is a measure of the cloudiness of

water caused by the presence of

suspended matter. Turbidity can be

caused by many things, including

the presence of microorganisms,

which can interfere with disinfection effectiveness.) These treatment

technologies and standards for

microbes, coliforms, and a

requirement that all systems be

operated by qualified operators,

expand control of disease-causing

microbes.

Concern has recently

mounted over the ability of certain

pathogenic protozoan

(Cryptosporidium) cysts to survive

treatment processes and, thus, enter

the distribution system. Researchers

are designing and testing filtration

techniques to physically remove the

cysts. Slow sand, diatomaceous

earth, coagulation/rapid sand

filtration, bag filtration, and

membrane processes are being

studied.

Research

Many small communities

across the nation are seeking

solutions to financing basic

drinking water treatment. Two

small communities in West

Virginia, like thousands of other

very small towns across the country

with central systems (at least 15

service connections serving 25

people) distribute water from the

only available source in the area.

One town delivers untreated water

from a cave; the other delivers

minimally treated water from a

collapsed mine shaft. Both sources

are from unprotected aquifers.

Escherichia coli, a bacterium

indicating fecal contamination, and

other microbiological contaminants

were detected in both source waters
14

Precast manholes placed in the left side of the stream serve as

drinking water intake structures for a very small community

supply. Water is distributed directly to customers via the

overhead hose attached to poles.

New ultrafiltration membrane package plant located by Lake

Havasu.

and in one of the distribution

systems.

The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

of Lake Havasu, California,

distributes water from that lake to

400 people. Although raw water

quality is generally good, because of

intense recreational use in the

summer, compliance with the

Surface Water Treatment Rule is

doubtful.

A sportsman camp in

Lakeville, Maine, serves five cabins

and a transient population of

approximately 30 people daily

throughout the hunting and fishing

seasons. The water supply from the

lake is adversely affected by erosion

from clear-cut logging within its

watershed. Soil and silt buildup and

significant algae growth have

already damaged nearby lakes,

rendering them incapable of

sustaining wildlife.

Disinfection is a basic

requirement for each of these

systems. Filtration to remove

suspended solids also is a requirement for the surface water source.

The ORD is working with these

communities to conduct research on

package plant systems to see if they

are capable of meeting regulatory

requirements for microbiological

contamination under different water

source and geographic conditions.

Ultrafiltration membrane

package plants are installed in two of

these community central systems to

provide filtration plus disinfection.

Data from monthly sampling of

microbiological contaminants will

determine the plants’ capabilities to

perform throughout changes in

seasonal weather and raw water

quality. Other analyses will be done

throughout the system for disinfection by-products and toxic chemicals.
15

Meeting Organic Chemical

Standards

Risk

Approximately 30 cancer

deaths per year will be avoided if

all water supplies lower vinyl

chloride concentrations below

0.002 mg/L.

Approximately 72 cancer

deaths per year will be avoided if

all water supplies lower ethylene

dibromide concentrations below

0.00005 mg/L.

While microbiological

contamination primarily produces

infectious diseases, chemical

pollutants can contribute to chronic

toxicity or cancer. Drinking water

sources can be selected that are free

of significant microbiological

contaminants or protected from

potentially harmful contaminants of

human origin, but these same

waters are vulnerable to a variety of

chemicals usually related to

pollution discharge or treatment.

Ground water in the vicinity of

improperly designed waste disposal

sites often has been found to be

heavily contaminated by migrating

toxic chemicals.

Many synthetic organic

chemicals, compounds that contain

carbon, have been detected in water

supplies in the U.S. Some of these,

such as the solvent trichloroethylene, a carcinogen (an agent that can

incite malignant tumor growth), are

volatile. They easily become gases

and can be inhaled in showers or

baths or while washing dishes.

They can also be absorbed through

the skin.

More than 60,000 toxic

chemicals are now being used by

various segments of industry and

agriculture. These substances range

from industrial solvents and

pesticides to cleaning preparations

and degreasers. When used or

discarded improperly, these chemicals pollute ground and surface

waters used as sources of drinking

water.

Technology and operating

procedures are available to prevent

release of many contaminants or

control them in drinking water.

However, costs can be substantial,

especially for small systems, because

they cannot benefit from economies

of scale.

Treatment

The technologies most suitable

for organic contaminant removal in

small systems are granular activated

carbon and aeration. The carbon process has been designated as the best

available technology for synthetic

organic chemical removal, and

packed column aeration, as best for

volatile organic chemicals. The

graular activated process uses carbon

that has been treated to make it extremely porous so that it can remove

organic contaminants through adsorption.

Aeration, also known as air

stripping, mixes air with water to

volatilize contaminants. The

contaminants are either released

directly to the atmosphere or are

treated and then released. Aeration is

used to remove volatile chemicals.

Research

Organics control has been a

focus of drinking water research for

more than twenty years. The

pioneering work contributed by ORD

to this field has provided new

technologies and methodologies for

the standard-setting process,

benefiting not only small communities but the entire drinking water

community.
16

100

50

25

20

15

10

No. of Houses

200

400

600

800

1000

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

POE Cost

10000 50000

Length of Pipe in Connection (ft.)

Cost of POE vs. Cost of

Connecting to a Central System

Recent studies have been

comparing cost and performance of

small systems (point of entry and

centralized treatment technology) for

removal of organic contaminants.

Whole house, point of entry

treatment units may provide an

attractive alternative to centralized

treatment technology, since costs for

installing a new distribution system

with central treatment or connecting

to a distant water supply may be

prohibitive. Conversely, with

distribution systems in place, point

of entry is not likely to be a viable

alternative, except for the smallest

utility, one that is unable financially

to build a new central treatment

plant, or a community with multiple

source waters contaminating only a

portion of the distribution system.

Various Superfund sites as

well as states have been employing

point of entry systems for several

years in remediation programs. The

predominant contaminants being

removed in point of entry applications are chlorinated solvents,

petroleum products, aldicarb,

ethylene dibromide, and radon.

Treatment technologies such as

granular activated carbon, aeration,

reverse osmosis, ion exchange and

ozone/ultraviolet light have been

widely adapted to treating water for

the entire house. The removal

efficiencies provided by these

various systems range between 86

and 99+ percent.

Cost depends on system

capacity and type of contaminants

being removed. For organic

chemical contamination in the water

supply of a small community,

granular activated carbon treatment

is needed. The cost-effectiveness of

a central system is in part a function

of the number of households

involved, total length of pipe and

pumping required for connections,

size and economics of the existing

central plant, and additional

treatment required by the central

plant.

The figure above shows

annual household costs of point of

entry systems and those of central

water supply as a function of the

total length of pipe and components

required for connection of the

specific number of homes involved.

The cost trade-offs indicate that if

the average length of new distribution components required for

connection to central supply per

house are significantly greater than

200 feet, then point of entry may be

a cost-effective alternative.

Cost of Point of

Entry Units vs. Cost

of Connecting to a

Central System. Cost $/Year/Household
17

Meeting Disinfection

By-Product Standards

Risk

Millions of people may be

exposed to trihalomethanes in their

drinking water at levels above 0.10

mg/L, resulting in approximately 50

cancer deaths annually.

A wide variety of chemicals

are added to drinking water to

remove various contaminants.

Among them are alum, iron salts,

chlorine and other oxidizing agents,

all of which may leave residues or

potentially hazardous by-products

in the finished water. In fact, the

most common source of synthetic

organic chemicals in treated

drinking water is the interaction of

chlorine or other disinfectants with

the naturally occurring particles

found in the water.

Chlorine, the major

disinfectant used in treatment plants

to purify water supplies, can

undergo complex chemical

reactions when mixed with

contaminated water. In the 1970s,

scientists at EPA discovered that

chlorine can react with natural and

man-made chemicals in water to

create by-products known as

trihalomethanes. At least one of

these by-products, chloroform, is

carcinogenic in animals. Other

disinfectants also have been found

to generate undesirable by-products.

The establishment of a maximum

contaminant level for total

trihalomethanes (chloroform,

bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane) will control these

disinfection by-products. Future

regulation of compounds such as

haloacetic acids will control

additional disinfection by-products.

Treatment

In general, disinfection byproducts are difficult and costly to

remove from drinking water once

they have been formed. It is better to

remove the natural organic matter

prior to disinfectant addition.

From an economic standpoint,

alternative disinfectants should be no

more expensive than chlorine.

Unfortunately, since no single

existing alternative disinfectant, such

as ozone, chlorine dioxide, chloramines and ultraviolet radiation, can

satisfy all requirements (effective,

inexpensive, and can provide a

disinfectant residual in the distribution system to prevent regrowth of

microorganisms), a combination of

alternative disinfectants is needed.

Though such a strategy can be used

to reduce trihalomethanes and total

halogenated organic by-product

levels, the combined use of these

disinfectants will produce other

disinfectant by-products.

Several strategies for minimizing harmful chlorination by-products

are used by small systems:

1) Reduce the concentration of

organic materials before adding

chlorine. Water clarification

techniques, such as coagulation,

sedimentation, and filtration, can

effectively remove many organic

materials. Activated carbon may be

used to remove organic materials at

higher concentrations or those not

removed by other techniques.

2) Reevaluate the amount of

chlorine used. The same degree of

disinfection may be possible with

lower dosages.

3) Change the point where

chlorine is added. If chlorine is

presently added before treatment,

instead it can be added after

filtration, or after chemical treatment.
18

4) Use alternative disinfection

methods. Ozonation and ultraviolet

radiation, the alternative methods

most practical for small systems,

cannot be used as disinfectants by

themselves. Both require a secondary

disinfectant (usually chlorine) to

maintain a residual in the distribution

system.

Research

Research activities include

studies on the maintenance of

microbial quality of treated drinking

water while minimizing the

formation of disinfection byproducts. Any changes that are made

in drinking water treatment must be

made in such a way that the

microbial safety of drinking water is

maintained. Research studies are

focusing on the use of disinfectants

other than chlorine and removal of

precursor material by enhanced

conventional treatment, granular

activated carbon, and membranes for

controlling disinfection by-products.

In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,

and Evansville, Indiana, work is in

progress that can be applied to small

systems. Mutagenicity data are being

collected together with physical and

chemical performance data to

characterize the operating parameters

for a series of treatment processes. A

pilot column system will be operated

to assess seasonal variations with an

overall objective of comparing the

effects of ozonation and various

filter media in reducing ozone byproducts and stabilizing water.

Other field work focuses on

an integrated ozone-bioreactor system with the objective of chemically/

microbiologically transforming

precursors to less reactive and less

problematic by-products. Other

investigations focus on the use of

chlorine dioxide in conjunction with

a reducing agent to eliminate the

metabolites, chlorite and chlorate,

while controlling disinfection byproducts. Membrane treatment

research is evaluating the potential

role of nanofiltration and reverse

osmosis in removing by-product

precursors from drinking water.

Meeting Inorganic

Contaminant Standards

Risk

Many potential drinking water

contaminants are of natural origin.

There may be inorganic contaminants, such as common salts, or

trace toxic substances like radium

and radon. Nitrates, common in

agricultural areas, can cause a

disorder in infants (“blue baby”

syndrome) that affects the ability of

the bloodstream to carry oxygen.

These health concerns are generally

associated with failure to protect

original water sources.

Some other inorganic

contaminants are from localized

geologic deposits of arsenic or

selenium. Arsenic occurs naturally

as an impurity in various minerals

and in the ores of certain commercially mined metals. If untreated,

arsenic exposure can cause liver and

kidney damage.

Another natural contaminant

controllable with modern technology

is fluoride. Many communities add it

to their drinking water in regulated

amounts to improve dental health.

However, excessive exposure to this

inorganic chemical, which is the

seventeenth most abundant substance in the earth’s crust, can cause

skeletal damage, as well as a

brownish discoloration of teeth.

Treatment

Inorganic contaminants

presently regulated under the Safe

Drinking Water Act include many

metals, such as arsenic, barium,
19

cadmium, copper, lead, mercury,

and nickel; other elements, such as

asbestos and fluoride; and radionuclides. Conventional treatment,

coagulation/filtration (initial

treatment that converts

nonsettleable to settleable particles),

can be used to remove some

inorganics. Additional technologies

focus on specific contaminants.

Separation processes, reverse

osmosis and electrodialysis, use a

semipermeable membrane that

permits only water, and not

dissolved ions (atoms that have an

electrical charge because they have

gained or lost electrons), such as

sodium and chloride, to pass

through its pores. With reverse

osmosis, contaminated water is

subjected to a high pressure that

forces pure water through the

membrane, leaving most contaminants behind in a brine solution.

The electrodialysis process employs

electrical current to attract ions to

one side of a treatment chamber.

This process is effective in

removing fluoride and nitrate, and

can also remove barium, cadmium,

selenium, radium, and other

inorganics.

Ion exchange units can be

used to remove many ionic

(charged) substances from water.

Ion exchange works by exchanging

charged ions in the water for ions of

similar charge on an exchange

medium, usually a synthetic resin.

In cation (a positively charged ion)

exchange, the ions most often

displaced from the resin are sodium

ions. For anion (a negatively

charged ion) exchange, the ion

exchanged is usually chloride.

Research

Arsenic Removal

Water supply for the small

rural community of San Ysidro,

New Mexico, exceeded federal

drinking water standards for both

arsenic and fluoride. This community

with 200 residents and 80 homes

receives water of poor quality from

ground water sources and has

difficulty in providing central

treatment. The water supply contains

naturally occurring arsenic, fluoride,

and a high level of total dissolved

solids.

Researchers embarked upon a

two-year study in 1988 to help the

community achieve compliance and

evaluate removal efficiency, cost,

and management effectiveness. An

initial nine-month research study

with the Mobile Drinking Water

Treatment Research Facility

determined that the most costeffective means of removing arsenic

and fluoride from the water would be

with home treatment point of use

reverse osmosis units.

The eighty under-the-sink

units installed in homes lowered

levels of arsenic, fluoride, total

dissolved solids, chloride, iron, and

manganese to well below the federal

standards. The cost to the customer

for point of use treatment was less

than half the estimated cost of

proposed central treatment. To assist

customer responsiveness to new

treatment units, special ordinances

were issued by the utility to address

customer and water utility responsibilities and liability issues, and to

require that the unit be installed in

homes obtaining water from the

utility.

To assist small communities

with water supplies that exceed the

maximum contaminant levels for

arsenic, ORD conducted a demonstration project in four homes in

Alaska and Oregon to evaluate point

of use systems. These homes were

supplied by private wells with water
20

containing naturally occurring

arsenic in concentrations ranging

from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L. The current

standard for arsenic is 0.05 mg/L.

The pilot systems consisted of

an activated alumina tank, an anion

exchange tank, and a reverse

osmosis system. Both point of use

and point of entry systems were

used. Results showed that all three

treatment techniques effectively

lowered arsenic concentrations in

water. The ion exchange units were

able to treat water containing as

much as 1.16 mg arsenic/L.

Additional research is needed to

verify the results from the earlier

study and to further define the cost

and performance characteristics of

these units.

Nitrate Removal

An extensive study was

sponsored by ORD in 1985 in

Glendale, Arizona, where 10 of 31

drinking water wells had been shut

down due to excessive nitrates. The

water supply, containing 18 to 25

mg/L of nitrate, was reduced to 7

mg/L in a 1-million-gallon per day

plant, well below the existing

maximum contaminant level of 10

mg/L.

This project (using the Mobile

Drinking Water Treatment Research

Facility for initial work) tested the

feasibility and provided cost data for

three nitrate removal technologies:

reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and

ion exchange. Comparative costs for

producing 1,000 gallons of treated

water in the 1-million gallon per day

plant were 30 cents for ion exchange,

85 cents for electrodialysis, and one

dollar for reverse osmosis.

To obtain detailed information

on design, operation, performance,

and cost for removing nitrate by ion

exchange, ORD sponsored a two and

a half year study at a 1-million

gallon per day plant in McFarland,

California, in 1985. The plant treats

close to 700 gallons of ground water

per minute. Data showed that the

facility reduced nitrate levels to well

below the maximum contaminant

level of 10 mg/L. Researchers also

found that if the well was continuously pumped, the need for nitrate

treatment decreased. Maximum

automation was used successfully

with minimum staffing, which is

typical for a small water system

operation. Additional research is

needed to verify the concepts

established during this study and

should focus on alternative brine

disposal techniques, as well as the

concept of operating small treatment

plants on an automated basis.

Meeting Radionuclide

Standards

Risk

Radionuclides, which are

known human carcinogens, exist in

water supplies serving as many as

100 million people.

Radionuclides found in

drinking water are members of three

radioactive series, uranium, thorium,

and actinium and include the

naturally occurring elements radium,

uranium, and the radioactive gas,

radon. These radionuclides are found

in drinking water supplies throughout the U.S., but certain geographic

areas have particularly high levels.

Different types of ionizing

radiation emitted by these contaminants may cause different levels of

biological damage. Radium, when

ingested, concentrates in bone and

can cause cancers. Ingested uranium

can cause cancers in bone and can

have a toxic effect on kidneys.
21

EPA Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research Facility

For over a decade, EPA’s Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory has sponsored the operation of a transportable, reusable, pilot-plant facility for inorganic contaminant removal.

This pilot plant is particularly applicable to the diverse inorganic contamination problems in

small communities. The plant is housed in a 10- x 40-ft. trailer that can be transported to a

site to study treatment technologies applicable to a given contaminant removal problem.

An estimated several thousand public water supplies in small communities in the U.S.

contain inorganics that can be removed by advanced water treatment processes, such as

packed beds of activated alumina, ion exchange resins, or by separation using reverse

osmosis or electrodialysis. Where reliable design criteria and economical operating procedures are not available for the selection, cost-effective application, and safe operation of

these processes, the mobile facility, built and operated by the University of Houston, can

be transported to a site for water treatment process research and analysis.

Radon, a colorless, odorless,

tasteless gas, poses unique

problems. The gas, a decay product

of uranium deposits, enters homes

dissolved in drinking water;

however, when the water is heated

or agitated in a shower or washing

machine, it becomes a breathable

drinking water contaminant that

may, in the opinion of scientists,

greatly increase the risk of lung

cancer. Removal of radon-222,

radium-226 and -228 and uranium,

all of which are carcinogenic, are in

the proposal stage for regulation by

the Safe Drinking Water Act at 300

pCi/L (picocuries per liter), 20 pCi/L,

and 20 μg/L (micrograms per liter),

respectively. Picocuries per liter is a

measure of the concentration of a

radioactive substance. A level of 1

pCi/L means that approximately two

atoms of the radionuclide are

disintegrating per minute in every

liter of water.

Treatment

Today’s treatment techniques

also are effective against radionuclides. Reverse osmosis is effective

for treating several radioactive

contaminants in drinking water. Ion
22

exchange can be used to remove

radium and uranium. Radon removal

requires use of granular activated

carbon or aeration techniques. Each

of the treatment processes for

removing radionuclides from

drinking water generates waste that

must be handled and disposed with

care.

Research

Uranium Removal

Uranium-contaminated

drinking water is a common

problem, particularly in the western

U.S. Approximately 100 to 200

community water supplies treat their

water to reduce uranium levels to

concentrations that meet federal

regulations.

Removal of uranium from

ground water supplies in New

Mexico and Colorado was demonstrated in studies by ORD to both

reduce levels that were 20 times the

proposed maximum contaminant

level and to determine operating

characteristics, costs and uranium

treatment waste disposal options.

Four ion exchange columns, housing

three different types of resins, were

pilot-tested in New Mexico and a

full-scale ion exchange system was

evaluated in Colorado.

Results showed that anion

exchange can remove more than 99

percent of the uranium present in

raw water at reasonable cost.

Disposal of uranium-laden wastewater was a complex task because of

the sophisticated sample analyses

required. Operation and maintenance

costs for such removal systems will

be high. The removal efficiency of

these units is very much a function

of the source water matrix. Additional research is needed to define

the removal characteristics of these

unit processes as a function of source

water characteristics. The general

cost and performance of these unit

processes also must be verified.

Radon Removal

Aeration and granular

activated carbon treatment to remove

radon have been demonstrated

extensively as highly effective

(greater than 90 percent removal)

and reliable. ORD participated in a

study to analyze a large body of

performance data to determine the

effectiveness of home treatment

units to remove radon from drinking

water. Point of entry granular

activated carbon units were installed

at 122 sites in 12 states by Lowry et

al. to treat ground water supplies

with varying quality characteristics.

The treatment units were

single vessels containing 1 to 3 cubic

feet of granular activated carbon.

Most units were installed downstream of an existing pressure tank

and were operated under existing

water pressure in the home. In

general, the only maintenance

required was twice-yearly replacement or washing of the sediment

filter. Researchers concluded that a

typical point of entry granular

activated carbon unit may last a

decade.

Researchers also have

demonstrated that low cost/low

technology aeration techniques can

be applied easily in small communities to significantly lower radon

concentrations in drinking water. At

a 33-home trailer park in New

Hampshire, removal of 60 to 87

percent was achieved with simple

aeration and by retaining water in a

storage holding tank for nine hours

to allow for decay of radon. Better

than 95 percent removal was

observed by increasing retention

time to 30 hours, also with aeration

applied.
23

Average total

uranium concentrations in public

ground water

supplies.

To compare three types of

point of entry treatment systems for

removal of radon, researchers

evaluated granular activated carbon

(with and without ion exchange

pretreatment) and two types of

aeration devices, diffused bubble

and bubble plate. The granular

activated carbon unit proved to be

the easiest to operate and maintain

and the least expensive. Radon

concentrations were always

reduced, but not necessarily at the

same rates. Waste from the system

may require special handling and

disposal. The aeration systems were

very efficient in removing radon;

however, they were more susceptible to operational problems.

Comparative studies are needed to

further define the most efficient

type of unit process for proposed

maximum contaminant levels and

under various source water

conditions.

Radium Removal

More than 175 cities in the

Midwest deliver drinking water that

contains radium in concentrations

that exceed proposed federal

standards. To assist small communities with compliance, ORD investigated several treatment methods to

remove radium economically from

drinking water.

A study in Iowa evaluated

possible economical ways to remove

radium from drinking water by

typical iron removal plants. The

study found that sorption of radium

to manganese oxides could possibly

be exploited to remove radium, and

that filter sand was able to sorb

significant concentrations of radium

at typical hardness concentrations, if

the sand is periodically rinsed with a

dilute acid.

Researchers, over a two-year

period, also evaluated a system to

remove radium from ion exchange

pCi/L

0.00 - 1.99

2.00 - 4.99

5.00 - 9.99

10.00 - 19.99

> 20.00 _
24

pCi/L

0.00 - 99.99

100.00 - 199.99

200.00 - 499.99

500.00 - 999.99

_

> 1000.00

Average radon-222

(Rn-222) concentrations in public

ground water

supplies.

waste at a small water treatment

facility in Redhill Forest, Colorado,

where raw water comes from deep

wells and contains naturally

occurring radium, radon and iron.

The treatment system consisted of

aeration to remove radon gas and

carbon dioxide, chemical clarification to remove iron and manganese,

and ion exchange to remove radium

and reduce “hardness” or pH level. A

separate system removed only

radium from the regeneration water

(brine) of the ion exchange process

by permanently complexing it on a

radium selective complexer resin.

This treatment was found to be very

efficient in the removal of radium

from the ion exchange process

wastewater.

Full-scale application of

radium adsorption onto MnO2

-coated

filters was tested at several small

public water systems in North

Carolina. The filter tests showed that

for hard water (pH=7.4), total radium

removal was 14,200 pCi/g MnO2

before the maximum contaminant

level was exceeded. For softer water

(pH=4.5), total radium removal was

5,000 pCi/g MnO2

 before the

maximum contaminant level was

exceeded. The filters also can

remove low concentrations of

cadmium, calcium, cobalt, cesium,

iron, and manganese. Future work in

this area is needed to define costeffective treatment technologies for

removing radium with special

emphasis on residual disposal.

Meeting Corrosion

By-Product Standards

Risk

Millions of people may be

exposed to lead, resulting in

potential risk of central and

peripheral nervous system damage,

particularly to infants and fetuses.

Exposure to excessive levels

of lead and copper in drinking water

is primarily caused by corrosion
25

the water is not moving, generally

overnight or other times when the

water supply is not used for several

hours at a time. The first water that

comes from the faucet after long

periods of no use may have lead in it.

Future use of lead pipe and lead

solder has been banned. New

standards for lead and copper will

require treatment of water to inhibit

corrosion and the leaching of lead

from the distribution system.

In many areas of the U.S.,

homeowners and small water supply

systems use water that is potentially

corrosive to metallic materials

(copper, lead, and zinc) in the

distribution system. Corrosion can

be caused by the use of minimally

acidic waters (low pH or alkalinity)

and concentrations of dissolved

solids. Health problems can result

from ingestion of corrosion byproducts, aesthetic quality of the

water can decline, and costs due to

piping system deterioration may rise.

Average radium226 (Ra-226)

concentrations in

public ground water

supplies.

_

pCi/L

0.00 - 0.49

0.50 - 0.99

1.00 - 1.99

2.00 - 4.99

> 5.00

resulting from the contact of

corrosive water with these materials

found throughout water distribution

systems and in the plumbing of

private homes. Of particular

concern is the presence of lead

service lines and connections, lead

pipes in the home, and lead solder

that is less than five years old. In

1986, EPA estimated that as many

as 42 million people in the U.S.

may be exposed to water lead levels

in excess of 20 μg/L. In homes less

than five years old that contain lead

solder, it is not uncommon to find

water lead levels in excess of 100

μg/L. The most cost effective way

to prevent lead and copper

corrosion by-products and reduce

the risks posed to human health and

the environment is through

comprehensive corrosion reduction

carried out by water suppliers.

Where lead is present in

pipes and soldered connections, the

lead dissolves into the water while
26

responsible for the uptake of lead

and copper in drinking water;

developing chemically-sound and

practical treatment strategies for lead

and copper control that are applicable to water systems of all sizes;

determining potential adverse side

effects on other materials and

potential users; and demonstrating

the effectiveness of different

treatment processes.

To control corrosion in small

systems using minimally acidic

water, ORD sponsored research to

derive and test a model for limestone

contactor design, examine the

relationship between contactortreated water quality and metal

release from pipes, and monitor the

field performance of full-scale

contactors. Results indicated that

limestone contactors can effectively

reduce the tendency of water to take

up corrosion by-products from

surfaces in piping systems.

Pilot studies are being

conducted at the Cincinnati Lab to

test the effects of different major

water chemistry variables on lead

pipe and other plumbing materials.

Studies will determine potential

inhibitors and mechanisms of lead

and copper corrosion protection in

actual pipe systems, and integrate

this information into a predictive

theory of leaching control. Basic

investigations will be conducted on

the equilibria of solubility and

transport and the effect of pH,

carbonate, ortho and polyphosphate,

and temperature on fundamental

chemical constants.

Other studies will focus on the

extent of corrosion and remediation

strategies for a range of water

qualities and problems. Designs of

treatment systems will be developed

that require little operator attention

and that provide consistent water

Treatment

Lead levels in drinking water

are managed indirectly through

corrosion controls. Lead is not

typically found in source water, but

rather at the consumer’s tap as a

result of the corrosion of the

plumbing or distribution system. If

tests for corrosion by-products find

unacceptably high levels of lead,

immediate steps should be taken to

minimize consumers’ exposure until

a long-term corrosion control plan is

implemented.

Research

To control the input of lead

and copper into drinking water, the

research program is determining the

water chemistry and physical factors

Corrosion has

caused severe

blockage in an 8-

inch water main

pipe. The reddish

coloration is rust

that has built up

over time and now

acts to harbor

bacteria in the

distribution system.
27

Rust is indicative of

corrosion in a small

drinking water

distribution system

built in1935 that has

not been well

maintained.

quality and corrosion control for

small suppliers. Additional

investigation will be conducted on

the mechanism and control of lead

leaching from brass and solder.

Summary

When evaluating treatment

options and alternatives for small

systems and private homeowners,

decision-makers will have to

consider the potentially very high

cost for custom designed central

treatment and its long-term

operation and maintenance versus

maintenance and monitoring of

package plants or home treatment

units. Package plants or point of

entry units may present a costeffective solution for small systems

and individual homeowners,

eliminating many of the problems

small systems face when attempting

to finance and operate central

treatment facilities.

Currently, several states are

enacting legislation to require

certification of treatment units,

certification of water quality for

home loans, and tougher “truth in

advertising” requirements for water

treatment units. Several states are

also making it easier to acquire funds

for treatment technology installation

and upgrades and for the creation of

water quality districts to address the

problems of small systems and rural

homeowners.

 The President’s budget for

fiscal year 1994 includes resources to

help meet state and local needs in

protecting the nation’s drinking

water. Close to six hundred million
28

A schematic of a

point of entry unit

for disinfection by

ozone and

ultraviolet light. The

unit receives raw

water at right, which

travels through a

prefilter, ozone

generator,

ultraviolet light,

contact chamber,

and polishing step

(optional) to

produce the

finished water

(outlet at left).

dollars will be invested by EPA in a

Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund to provide low-interest loans to

communities for the repair and

improvement of existing systems.

Documentation of increasing

contamination of the nation’s ground

water is abundant. Small systems

and private homeowners have been

and will continue to be the most

vulnerable and least capable of

meeting current and future drinking

water regulations. However, longterm cost-competitive alternatives

are becoming available in terms of

package plants and home treatment

units to reduce the risk of contaminated drinking water.
29

References

Campbell, S., Lykins, Jr., B.W., and Goodrich, J.A. Financing Assistance Available for Small Public Water

Systems. JAWWA, 85:6:47, June 1993.

Clifford, D. and Bilimoria, M. Project Summary: A Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research Facility for

Inorganic Contaminants Removal: Design, Construction, and Operation, U.S. EPA, MERL, Cincinnati,

OH, (EPA-600/S2-84-018), March 1984.

Cothern, C. R., and Rebers, P. A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water, Lewis Publishers, Inc.,

Chelsea, Michigan, 1990.

Goodrich, J.A., Stevens, T., Walsh, C. Small Systems Meet Superfund Challenge with Point-of Entry

Treatment Units. Proceedings, Hazardous Materials Control/Superfund ’91, Washington D.C., December

3-5, 1991.

Goodrich, J. A., Adams, J. Q., Lykins, B.W., Jr., and Clark, R. M. Safe Drinking Water from Small Systems: Treatment Options. JAWWA, 84:4-55, May 1992.

Lowry, J.D., Lowry, S.B., and Cline, J.K. Radon Removal by POE GAC Systems: Design, Performance,

and Cost. U.S. EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, (EPA/600/2-90/049), January 1991.

Lykins, B.W., Jr., Clark, R.M. and Goodrich, J.A. Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry for Drinking Water Treatment, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI, 1992.

Parrotta, M.J. Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective, JAWWA, April 1991.

Sorg, T. Process Selection for Small Drinkihg Water Supplies, Proceedings, 23rd Annual Public Water

Supply Engineers’ Conference, University of Illinois, April 21-23, 1981.

Symons, J. M. “Plain Talk About Drinking Water,” American Water Works Association, 1992.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary

Drinking Water Regulations, ORD, MERL, Cincinnati, OH (EPA-600/8-77/005), April 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nationwide Occurrence of Radon and Other Natural Radioactivity

in Public Water Supplies, Office of Radiation Programs (EPA 520/5-85-008), 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Drinking Water

Treatment for Small Communities, ORD, CERI, Cincinnati, OH (EPA/625/5-90/025), 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and American Water Works Association. Package Water Treatment Plant Operation and Field Data. Vol. 1, Draft, June 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Public Water System Supervision Program: FY 1991

Compliance Report, Office of Water, March 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center Small

Systems Resource Directory (EPA/600/R-92/098), ORD, Cincinnati, OH, March 1992.
30

Copies of this and other ORD publications are available from EPA’s Center for Environmental

Research Information (CERI). Once the CERI inventory is exhausted, clients will be directed

to the National Technical Information Service where documents may be purchased.

Center for Environmental Research Information

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Phone: (513) 569-7562 FAX: (513) 569-7566

Federal Funding Programs for Small Public Water Systems

Appalachian Regional Commission (202) 673-7874

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (202) 708-2690

Community Development Block Grants

Economic Development Administration (202) 482-5113

Indian Health Service (301) 443-1083

Rural Development Administration (202) 720-9589

(formerly Farmer’s Home Administration)

Technical and Administrative Support for Small Public Water Systems

American Water Works Association (800) 366-0107

National Rural Water Association (405) 252-0629

Rural Community Assistance Program (703) 771-8636

Rural Electrification Administration (202) 720-9540

(private; provides some financial funding)

Rural Information Center (800) 633-7701

National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (800) 624-8301

USEPA, A. W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center,

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Robert M. Clark (513) 569-7201

Sources of Information
31

The research described in this report was funded by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and conducted as part of

the Office of Research and Development’s comprehensive

long-term Research Issue Plan for Drinking Water.

This publication was prepared by Carol Grove of ORD’s Center for Environmental Research

Information (CERI), Cincinnati, Ohio, under the Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory

Evaluation. It was prepared from information developed by Jim Goodrich and staff of the Drinking

Water Research Division, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati. Other

contributors and reviewers include Robert Clark, Tom Sorg, Ben Lykins, Walter Feige, Kim Fox,

and Sue Campbell, RREL - Cincinnati; Rita Shoeny, Environmental Criteria and Assessment

Office - Cincinnati; Ronnie Levin, Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory Evaluation; and

Peter Shanaghan, Office of Water.

Thanks to Jim Goodrich, Sue Campbell, and Ed Geldreich of RREL and Jim Walasek, Office of

Water, Technical Support Division, for photographic support and to Steve Wilson, CERI, for

graphics support.
32