CCCA TechStudy Brownsville Issues

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS

ISSUES EVALUATION
OXFORD COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 2009
Issues Evaluation Report
October 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ISSUES IDENTIFICATION/EVALUATION PROCESS ........... 1
1.2. OXFORD COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS...................................................................... 1
2. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. ISSUE SCREENING.................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. DATA SOURCE........................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. MONITORING WELLS ................................................................................................................ 3
2.4. PATHOGENIC ISSUES............................................................................................................... 3
2.5. FLUORIDE AND SODIUM........................................................................................................... 3
2.6. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 4
2.7. WELL GROUPINGS .................................................................................................................... 4
3. ISSUES SCREENING – SYSTEM SPECIFIC ................................................................................. 5

3.1. BEACHVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ................................................................................. 5
3.2. BRIGHT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 5
3.3. BROWNSVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.............................................................................. 6
3.4. DEREHAM CENTRE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM...................................................................... 7
3.5. DRUMBO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM........................................................................................ 8
3.6. EMBRO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 8
3.7. HICKSON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 9
3.8. INGERSOLL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ................................................................................. 10
3.9. INNERKIP WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM..................................................................................... 11
3.10. LAKESIDE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .................................................................................... 12
3.11. MOUNT ELGIN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM............................................................................. 13
3.12. NORWICH WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .................................................................................... 14
3.13. OTTERVILLE-SPRINGFORD WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ...................................................... 15
3.14. PLATTSVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .............................................................................. 16
3.15. TAVISTOCK WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ................................................................................. 17
3.16. THAMESFORD WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ............................................................................ 18
3.17. TILLSONBURG WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ............................................................................ 19
3.18. WOODSTOCK WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.............................................................................. 21
3.19. SUMMARY OF SCREENED POTENTIAL ISSUES .................................................................. 22
4. ISSUE EVALUATION – PARAMETER SPECIFIC ........................................................................ 23

4.1. FLUORIDE................................................................................................................................. 23
4.2. ARSENIC ................................................................................................................................... 23
4.3. TRIHALOMETHANES ............................................................................................................... 23
4.4. NITRATE.................................................................................................................................... 23
4.5. BACTERIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS....................................................................................... 24
4.6. TRICHLOROETHYLENE AND TETRACHLOROETHYLENE .................................................. 24
4.7. HARDNESS ...............................................................................................................................24
4.8. SODIUM..................................................................................................................................... 24
4.9. IRON AND MANGANESE ......................................................................................................... 24
4.10. TDS, COLOUR AND SULPHATES ........................................................................................... 25
4.11. HYDROGEN SULPHIDE ........................................................................................................... 25
4.12. ORGANIC NITROGEN .............................................................................................................. 25
4.13. SUMMARY OF ISSUE IDENTIFICATION................................................................................. 25
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL RULES 114 - 116

APPENDIX B: TSR ISSUES EVALUATION METHOLOGY
APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
October 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ISSUES IDENTIFICATION/EVALUATION PROCESS
The Clean Water Act was enacted in 2006 to assist with the protection of Ontario’s drinking water
sources. The intent of the Act is to develop Source Protection Plans to identify and manage the risks
to municipal drinking water. The first step in developing the Plans is completing an Assessment
Report which will compile the technical information necessary to implementing the Plans. In
December 2008 the Province issued Technical Rules to guide the development of components of the
Assessment Report. The Technical Rules provide the legal requirements of the components.
This report is intended to fulfill Technical Rules 114, 115 and 116 which relate to the identification of
water quality issues in a drinking water source. Rules 114, 115 and 116 are provided in full in
Appendix A however in summary the rules require the water quality of municipal drinking water
sources and associated monitoring wells be assessed. Rule 114 mandates that the Ontario Drinking
Water Quality Standards (ODWS) and the Objectives and Guidelines associated with the Standards
be used as the benchmark against which the water quality is compared. Rules 115 and 116 specify
the information to be included when an issue is identified.
In addition to the Technical Rules, the Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region
(TSR) has produced a methodology to guide the identification and description of drinking water
quality issues. The methodology is provided in Appendix B.
1.2. OXFORD COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Oxford County is located in Southwestern Ontario and is comprised of eight (8) area municipalities:
the City of Woodstock, the Towns of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg and the Townships of Blandford
Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, South West Oxford and Zorra (Figure 1). As shown on
Figure 2 the lands within the County fall into four (4) different Conservation Authorities: Catfish Creek,
Grand River, Long Point Region, and Upper Thames River.
The County has responsibility for the provision of municipal drinking water and owns nineteen (19)
separate systems as shown on Figure 1. The County is entirely dependant upon groundwater for its
drinking water source and operates 57 production wells with another four wells in the planning stage.
A summary of each system is provided in Section 3 of this report.
Page 1
October 2009
Figure 1: Oxford County Water Systems
Figure 2: Conservation Authorities
Page 2
October 2009
2. METHODOLOGY
This report is meets the requirements of Technical Rules 114, 115 and 116 and is consistent with the
TSR Issues Evaluation methodology. Specifics regarding Oxford’s approach to the identification of issues
are provided below.
2.1. ISSUE SCREENING
Parameters have been screened for closer investigation where any of the following criteria have been
met:
• Consistent presence of microbiological parameters
• The parameter has a health related Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC)
associated with it and the concentration in the raw or treated water exceeds half of the
MAC level (with the exception of fluoride: see section 2.5)
• The parameter does not have a health related MAC but the concentration observed
exceeds the objective or guideline associated with the ODWS (see section 2.5 for
Sodium)
2.2. DATA SOURCE
The water quality data used in this evaluation was compiled by the Oxford County Public Works
Department. The data comprises the analytical results taken as part of operating the systems in
addition to water quality results received as part of other programs/projects. Ministry sources
referenced in the TSR methodology were not utilized as all those sources obtained their information
from the County data. The bulk of the data used in this evaluation is from 2001 to present. Older
data has been used where relevant.
2.3. MONITORING WELLS
In general, Oxford County does not maintain a water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells.
Monitoring wells have typically been used to assess water quantity impacts on the municipal aquifer
(i.e. depth to water table). The primary exception to this is the Woodstock Water System’s Thornton
Well Field. Outside of this wellfield, no water quality data from monitoring wells is available for the
purpose of this report.
2.4. PATHOGENIC ISSUES
Oxford County has not completed any testing for pathogenic organisms at any of the well supplies as
part of this report. Engineer’s Reports were completed for all County systems in 2000/2001 in
accordance with Ontario Regulation 459/00. The reports included an assessment of the wells with
respect to the potential to be Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of surface water (GUDI). The
majority of the supplies were found to be secure groundwater and the few wells that are GUDI have
effective in-situ filtration and have no indicators of microbial contamination. Therefore no pathogenic
issues have been included in this report.
2.5. FLUORIDE AND SODIUM
Fluoride has a MAC of 1.5 mg/L however the ODWS states that where naturally occurring fluoride is
present at levels between 1.5 mg/L and 2.4 mg/L and the operating authority does not fluoridate that
the 1.5 mg/L level is a reporting requirement and treatment is not required where the concentration is
below 2.4 mg/L. In Oxford County, several of the municipal bedrock wells have elevated levels of
naturally occurring fluoride. As Oxford does not add fluoride at any system, the screening threshold
for this parameter has been set at half of the treatment level of 2.4 mg/L.
Page 3
October 2009
Sodium has an aesthetic objective of 200 mg/L at which level the water will have a discernable salty
taste. A reporting limit of 20 mg/L has been set in order to provide information to individuals with
sodium restricted diets. For the purpose of this report, sources with sodium above 20 mg/L will be
mentioned however the screening threshold of 200 mg/L will be utilized.
2.6. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
Parameters meeting the screening threshold were further reviewed to determine whether to identify
them as issues. The considerations included:
• Whether the concentration is at or trending towards a health related MAC
• The frequency with which the parameter meets the screening threshold
• Capabilities of the treatment facility
• The ability of the parameter to interfere with/upset the treatment process
• Whether the parameter is related to concerns/issues raised by the public
• Importance of the well to the overall supply
2.7. WELL GROUPINGS
Where wells are located in close proximity and have similar water quality characteristics, they have
been grouped together into “wellfields”. This was done in an attempt to reduce the repetitiveness of
the report and to be consistent with how the Operating Authority considers and responds to water
quality issues.
Page 4
October 2009
3. ISSUES SCREENING – SYSTEM SPECIFIC
In the following section a brief description of each County drinking water system is provided followed by a
screening of the parameters associated with the system’s sources and a summary of the potential issues.
Detailed analytical results for each system can be found in Appendix C.
3.1. BEACHVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.1.1. Background
The Beachville Drinking Water System provides water from one 91 m deep well that is secure
groundwater. It is a Small Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a
portion of the larger Village of Beachville. The system has a population of approximately 130 and
Village residents not connected to the municipal system obtain drinking water from individual
private wells. The only water treatment is disinfection with sodium hypochlorite.
3.1.2. Water Quality

Both raw and treated chemistry results were reviewed since the treatment does not substantially
alter the water quality.
Health Related Parameters

No parameters were found to exceed their Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC). The
fluoride concentration of the water marginally exceeds half of the reporting MAC value of 1.5 mg/L
at a value of 0.76 mg/L. As mentioned in section 2.5, given that the fluoride is naturally occurring
in the local bedrock, the treatment limit of 2.4 mg/L is being used for as a screening value.
Microbiological results are consistently good and indicate no concerns.
Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

With the exception of Hardness, no operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the associated
objectives or guidelines. Hardness which has an operational guideline (OG) range from 80 to 100
mg/L is typically exceeded in groundwater systems. The Beachville hardness concentration is
around 300 mg/L. This parameter is naturally occurring in the Beachville groundwater and does
not a health risk nor does it impact the treatment process.
3.1.3. Screening Result and Discussion

The only parameter in the Beachville Water Supply System to meet the screening threshold is
Hardness. The hardness is a naturally occurring parameter typical to most groundwater sources
and does not affect treatment.
3.2. BRIGHT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.2.1.Background
The Bright Drinking Water System provides water from two wells, 27m and 38m deep, that are
secure groundwater. Disinfection using sodium hypochlorite and addition of sodium silicate to
sequester iron are the only forms of treatment. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by
Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 405.
3.2.2.Water Quality
Both raw and treated chemistry results have been reviewed since the treatment process does not
substantially alter the water quality.

No parameters were found to exceed their Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC).
Page 5
October 2009

The system has several operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the associated objectives or
guidelines as detailed below.
Hardness which has a guideline range from 80 to 100 mg/L is typically exceeded in groundwater
systems. The Bright hardness concentration is typically around 300 to 400 mg/L. This parameter
is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact the
treatment process.
The Sodium concentration ranges from 39 to 52 mg/L which is above the reporting level of 20
mg/L but well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are quite low
suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but rather is naturally occurring.
No increasing trend is evident in the results.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the Bright system exceed the objective of 500 mg/L and
are around 600 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment
process. No increasing trend is evident in the results.
The raw water in the system exceeds the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron. The raw water is around
0.5 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment process. No
increasing trend is evident.
3.2.3.Screening Result and Discussion

The parameters in the Bright Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Hardness, TDS and Iron. These parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to groundwater
sources. They do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
3.3. BROWNSVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.3.1.Background
The Brownsville Drinking Water System provides water from two wells, 32m and 47m deep, that
are secure groundwater. Disinfection using sodium hypochlorite is the only form of treatment. It is
a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 serving a population of
approximately 490.
3.3.2.Water Quality

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC. Microbiological results are consistently good
and indicate no concerns. The Fluoride concentration ranges from 1.7 to 1.9 mg/L which is above
half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not
appear to be trending upwards. Its presence does not impact the treatment process.
Trihalomethanes (THMs) are a group of chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic and have a
MAC of 100 mg/L. Typically THMs are found in treated drinking water due to a reaction between
the chlorine used for disinfection purposes and organic material in the raw water. The THMs in
the Brownsville system are above the half MAC value and range from 57 to 65 mg/L. The levels
are stable and not trending upwards.

Page 6
October 2009
Hardness has a guideline range from 80 to 100 mg/L. The Brownsville hardness concentration is
slightly below the range at 70 to 75 mg/L. This parameter is naturally occurring in the
groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact the treatment process.
The Sodium concentration ranges from 79 to 85 mg/L which is above the reporting level of 20
mg/L but well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are quite low
The aesthetic objective for colour is 5 “True Colour Units” (TCU). The system has a value of 6
which marginally above the objective. There is insufficient information to determine whether the
value is trending upwards, however the parameter does not impact the treatment process.

The parameters in the Brownsville Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Fluoride, THMs, Hardness, and Colour. These parameters are all naturally occurring and typical
to groundwater sources. They do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of
upward trending.
3.4. DEREHAM CENTRE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.4.1.Background
The Dereham Centre Drinking Water System provides water from one 36m deep well that is
secure groundwater. Disinfection using sodium hypochlorite and the addition of sodium silicate to
sequester iron are the only forms of treatment. It is a Small Municipal Water system as defined
by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 47.
3.4.2.Water Quality

and indicate no concerns. The arsenic levels in Dereham Centre are right around half of the MAC
of 0.025 mg/L. Arsenic is naturally occurring in the raw water and does not appear to be trending
upwards. It is anticipated however, that the province will lower the MAC to 0.010 mg/L in the near
future.

With the exception of Hardness, Iron and Organic Nitrogen no operational or aesthetic
parameters exceed the associated objectives or guidelines. Hardness which has a guideline
range from 80 to 100 mg/L is typically exceeded in groundwater systems. The Dereham Centre
hardness concentration is 235 mg/L. The Iron concentration in the system is slightly above the
objective of 0.30 at 0.49 mg/L. Organic Nitrogen levels in the system are at the aesthetic
objective of 0.15 mg/L for the parameter. Organic nitrogen can be associated with unpleasant
taste and high levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant.

The parameters in the Dereham Centre Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold
are Arsenic, Hardness, Iron and Organic Nitrogen. These parameters are all naturally occurring.
They do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
Page 7
October 2009
3.5. DRUMBO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.5.1.Background
The Drumbo Drinking Water System provides water from two wells 32m and 47m deep that are
secure groundwater. Disinfection using sodium hypochlorite is the only form of treatment. It is a
Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of
approximately 570.
3.5.2.Water Quality

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC. Microbiological results are consistently good at
Well 3. Well 2A has had periodic positive low level results for Total Coliforms while not in regular
service. This is not uncommon where wells are only periodically pumped as is the case with Well
2A and does not necessarily indicate a concern. The well recently began a rotational production
schedule and additional trending will be available shortly.

With the exception of Hardness no operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the associated
objectives or guidelines. Hardness which has a guideline range from 80 to 100 mg/L is typically
exceeded in groundwater systems. The Drumbo hardness concentration is typically between 230
to 330 mg/L.

The only parameters in the Drumbo Water Supply System that meets the screening threshold are
Total Coliform and Hardness. The Total Coliform presence is likely due to the Well being
maintained in standby mode and not operated frequently. Hardness is naturally occurring and
typical to groundwater sources. It does not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence
of upward trending.
3.6. EMBRO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.6.1.Background
The Embro Drinking Water System provides water to customers from 2 wells approximately 60m
deep that are secure groundwater. Treatment consists of filtration for iron removal and
disinfection. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a
population of approximately 820.
3.6.2.Water Quality

and indicate no concerns. The Fluoride concentration is typically 1.3 mg/L which is marginally
above half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and
there is no evidence of upwards trending. Its presence does not impact the treatment process.

systems. The Embro hardness concentration is typically around 430 to 470 mg/L. This
Page 8
October 2009
parameter is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact
the treatment process.
The Sodium concentration is occasionally marginally above the reporting level of 20 mg/L
however the most recent results are below the level. All results are well below the objective of
200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are quite low suggesting that the sodium is not caused
by road salt application but rather is naturally occurring. No increasing trend is evident in the
results.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the Embro system exceed the objective of 500 mg/L and
are around 640 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment
1.0 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter which is removed in the treatment process. Failure of
the iron removal would not impact the disinfection process. No increasing trend is evident.

The parameters in the Embro Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Fluoride, Hardness, TDS and Iron. These parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to
groundwater sources. They do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of
upward trending.
3.7. HICKSON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.7.1.Background
The Hickson Drinking Water System obtains water from one 53m deep secure groundwater well.
The water is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite and historically has been treated with
polyphosphate to sequester iron. No sequestration currently takes place. It is a Small-Municipal
Water System as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves approximately 105 customers.
3.7.2.Water Quality

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC. There are occasionally low level positive results
for Total Coliform in the raw water. The Fluoride concentration is typically 1.2 mg/L which is
equal to half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and

With the exception of Hardness and Iron, no operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the
associated objectives or guidelines. Hardness which has a guideline range from 80 to 100 mg/L
is typically exceeded in groundwater systems. The Hickson hardness concentration is 263 mg/L.
The iron concentration occasionally exceeds the objective of 0.30 mg/L ranging from 0.29 to 0.41.

The parameters in the Hickson Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are Total
Coliform, Fluoride, Hardness, and Iron. The Total Coliform presence is periodic and levels quite
low and thus presents no concern.
The other parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to groundwater sources. They do not
affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
Page 9
October 2009
3.8. INGERSOLL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.8.1.Background
The Ingersoll Drinking Water System obtains water from seven bedrock wells between 109 and
140m deep that are all secure groundwater. Each well has its own treatment facility associated
with it. The wells and corresponding facilities are listed below:
• Merritt Street WTF – Well 2
• Hamilton Road WTF – Well 3
• Canterbury Street WTF – Well 5
• West Street WTF – Well 7
• Dunn’s Road WTF – Well 8
• Thompson Road WTF – Well 10
• Wallace Line WTF – Well 11 (currently offline)
All of the facilities provide treatment for hydrogen sulphide removal and chlorination. It is a Large
Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of
approximately 14,000.
3.8.2.Water Quality

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC with the exception of one result for Fluoride at
the Wallace Line well of 2.5 mg/L. The Fluoride concentrations at all of the wells are above half
of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L and range from 1.4 to 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the
groundwater and there is no evidence of upwards trending. Its presence does not impact the
treatment process. Microbiological results are consistently good and indicate no concerns at the
majority of the wells. There are infrequent, low level positive results for Total Coliform and E.coli
in the raw water at Canterbury Street.
There have been two detection results of Benzo(a)pyrene in the system. The first result was
obtained in 2006 at the West Street well and the second was in 2009 at the Merritt Street well.
Both of these samples were treated water and occurred as the treatment facility was being
commissioned. In both cases resampling of the water resulted in non-detectable levels. It is
believed that the presence was due to the construction at the site and was not indicative of the
source water.
In 1993 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, (MOE) conducted an investigation on a private
industrial well located near Thomas and Ingersoll Street for trichloroethylene (TCE)
contamination. Traces of the chemical were detected in Well 7 at West Street and traces of
tetrachloroethylene were detected at Well 2 at Merritt Street. A clean up and monitoring program
has been followed by the industry. No TCE has been detected in samples reviewed for this report.
The industry’s consultant provided test results from 2008 and no was TCE detected. The affected
site is regularly monitored.

systems. All of the Ingersoll wells exceed this guideline with concentrations ranging between 282
to 492 mg/L. This parameter is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk
nor does it impact the treatment process.
The Sodium concentration is above the reporting level of 20 mg/L at all wells ranging from 29 to
97 mg/L. All results are well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are
Page 10
October 2009
low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but rather is naturally
occurring. No increasing trend is evident in the results.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the Ingersoll system exceed the objective of 500 mg/L at
the Merritt Street, West Street, Dunn’s Road and Canterbury Street wells. The concentration
ranges from 470 to 863 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the
treatment process. No increasing trend is evident in the results.
The water in the system exceeds the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron at the Wallace, Hamilton and
Thompson wells. The concentration is 0.38 mg/L at Wallace, 0.35 mg/L at Hamilton and 0.58
mg/L at Thompson. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment
process. No increasing trend is evident.
The aesthetic objective for colour is 5 “True Colour Units” (TCU). The Dunn’s Road well has a
value of 10 TCU. All other wells are below the objective.
Organic Nitrogen levels in the system are above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L at Dunn’s
Road, Canterbury Street and Thompson Road wells. Concentrations range from 0.16 to 0.31
mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be associated with unpleasant taste and high levels can reduce the
effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant.
All wells in Ingersoll exceed the aesthetic objective of 0.05 mg/L for Hydrogen Sulphide.
Hydrogen Sulphide is very difficult to collect samples and test for in water as the parameter easily
volatilizes into air. Laboratory results for the Ingersoll system have been reported as ranging from
0.26 to 6.02 mg/L. It is believed that the levels in Ingersoll source water are significantly higher
than some of these results indicate. Hydrogen Sulphide related odours are the number one
complaint historically received by the Operating Authority. Furthermore when not removed from
the water prior to disinfection, the Hydrogen Sulphide reacts with chlorine causing a turbidity
spike and potentially interrupting the disinfection process.

The parameters in the Ingersoll Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold at each
well are shown in the table below.
West Street
Canterbury
Thompson
Hamilton
Wallace
Dunn’s
Merritt
Street
Street
Road
Road
Road
Line
Parameter
Fluoride 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Tetrachloroethylene 9
Trichloroethylene 9
Hardness 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
TDS 9 9 9 9
Iron 9 9 9
Organic Nitrogen 9 9 9
Hydrogen Sulphide 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Total Coliform/E.coli 9
3.9. INNERKIP WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.9.1.Background
The Innerkip Drinking Water System provides water from two wells approximately 35m deep that
are secure groundwater. The water is filtered to remove iron and sodium hypochlorite is used for
disinfection. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a
population of approximately 960.
Page 11
October 2009
3.9.2.Water Quality


systems. The system’s hardness concentration is typically around 860 mg/L. This parameter is
naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact the treatment
process.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the system exceed the objective of 500 mg/L and are 1280
to 1370 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment
The raw water in the system exceeds the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron. The concentration is
around 0.97 to 2.13 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the
treatment process. No increasing trend is evident.
Sulphates have an objective of 500 mg/L and in the Innerkip system, concentrations range from
500 to 720 mg/L. Sulphates are an aesthetic concern and are naturally occurring in the
groundwater.
There are two additional aesthetic parameters that are normally below their respective objectives
but have had one occurrence where they exceeded the limit. These are Organic Nitrogen and
Manganese.

The parameters in the Innerkip Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Hardness, TDS, Sulphates, and Iron. These parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to
upward trending. With respect to Organic Nitrogen and Manganese, given the bulk of the results
are well below the respective objectives, the parameters not at this time being elevated.
3.10. LAKESIDE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.10.1. Background
The Lakeside Drinking Water System provides water from one well 106m deep that is secure
groundwater. The water is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, and polyphosphate is
added to sequester iron. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03
and serves a population of approximately 400.


and indicate no concerns. The Fluoride concentration is typically 1.6 mg/L which is above half of
Page 12
October 2009
the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and there is no
evidence of upwards trending. Its presence does not impact the treatment process.

systems. The Lakeside hardness concentration is typically around 185 mg/L. This parameter is
naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact the treatment
process.
The aesthetic objective for colour is 5 “True Colour Units” (TCU). The source typically has a
value of 8. There is no evidence of upwards trending and the parameter does not impact the
treatment process.
The raw water in the system exceeds the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron. The concentation is 0.54
mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment process. No
The Organic Nitrogen level in the system is above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L with
concentrations of 0.28 mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be associated with unpleasant taste and high
levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant. There is no history of
objectionable taste that is sometimes associated with organic nitrogen.

The parameters in the Lakeside Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Fluoride, Hardness, Colour, Iron and Organic Nitrogen. These parameters are all naturally
occurring and typical to groundwater sources. They do not affect the treatment process and
there is no evidence of upward trending.
3.11. MOUNT ELGIN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.11.1. Background
The Mount Elgin Drinking Water System obtains water from one well 60m deep that is secure
groundwater. The water is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. It is a Large Municipal Water
system as defined by Regulation 170/03 that serves a population of approximately 370.


and indicate no concerns. The Fluoride concentration is typically 1.4 mg/L which is marginally
above half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and

systems. The Mount Elgin hardness concentration is typically around 220 mg/L. This parameter
is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it impact the
treatment process.
Page 13
October 2009
value below the objective with one result marginally above. There is no evidence of upwards
trending and the parameter does not impact the treatment process. The one result is insufficient
to screen the parameter as a potential issue.
The Sodium concentration is occasionally marginally above the reporting level of 20 mg/L at 24
mg/L. The results are well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are
quite low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but rather is naturally
occurring. No increasing trend is evident in the results.

The parameters in the Mount Elgin Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Fluoride, and Hardness. These parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to groundwater
sources. They do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
3.12. NORWICH WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.12.1. Background
The Norwich Drinking Water System provides water from three wells that are secure
groundwater. The Pitcher Street facility treats water from Wells 2 and 5 (34m and 40m deep
respectively) with filtration to remove iron and disinfection with sodium hypochlorite. The Main
Street facility treats Well 4, 26m deep, with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and sodium
silicate to sequester iron. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03


Microbiological results at Well 4 are consistently good. There have been occasional low counts of
Total Coliform and E.coli in the raw water at Wells 2 and 5. There doesn’t appear to be a regular
trend to the results and doesn’t indicate a concern.
Aesthetic or Operationally significant Parameters

systems. The system’s hardness concentration is typically around 305 to 320 mg/L. This
0.6 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment process. No
The Sodium concentration is occasionally marginally above the reporting level of 20 mg/L. The
results are well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are quite low
value below the objective with one result marginally above. There is no evidence of upwards
trending and the parameter does not impact the treatment process. The one result is insufficient
to screen the parameter as a potential issue.
Page 14
October 2009
The Organic Nitrogen level at Well 5 is above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L with

The parameters in the Norwich Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are Total
Coliform for Wells 2 and 5, Hardness, and Iron. The occasional Total Coliform and E.coli counts
that are found in Wells 2 and 5 are low level and do not suggest any trending. Hardness and Iron
are all naturally occurring and typical to groundwater sources. They do not affect the treatment
process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
3.13. OTTERVILLE-SPRINGFORD WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.13.1. Background
The Otterville - Springford Drinking Water System provides water to customers from four secure
groundwater wells. The system was formally two separate water systems and in 2004 a 3.3 km
long transmission main was constructed to connect the communities. Two 13m deep wells are
located at the east side of Otterville and two wells, 24m and 26m deep at located at the west end
of Springford. The water is treated at each community with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection. It
is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of
approximately 1580.

substantially alter the water quality. As the Springford and Otterville well fields have slightly
different water quality, the water quality discussion below considers them separately.
3.13.2.1. Springford Well Field

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC. Microbiological results are typically good
however occasional low level positive results for Total Coliform have been found when one of
the wells is operated in standby mode. The Fluoride concentration is typically 1.65 mg/L
which is above half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the
groundwater and there is no evidence of upwards trending. Its presence does not impact the
treatment process.

The system has several operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the associated
objectives or guidelines as detailed below.
The Sodium concentration at the well field ranges from 44 to 47 mg/L which is above the
reporting level of 20 mg/L but well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the
system are quite low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but
rather is naturally occurring. No increasing trend is evident in the results.
The aesthetic objective for colour is 5 “True Colour Units” (TCU). The source has a value of
8 TCU. There is insufficient evidence to comment on any trending. The parameter does not
impact the treatment process.
3.13.2.2. Otterville Well Field

No parameters were found to exceed their MAC. Microbiological results are typically good
however occasional low level positive results for Total Coliform have been found when one of
Page 15
October 2009
the wells is operated in standby mode. In 2007, there was a six month period where Total
Coliform counts were higher than usual and there were occasional low level E.coli positive
results as well. Following rehabilitation of the well in January 2008, the levels returned to
normal.
The Fluoride concentration is typically well below the half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. One result
was obtained which is above the half MAC however it is expected to be a sampling or
laboratory error.

The system has several operational or aesthetic parameters exceed the associated
objectives or guidelines as detailed below.
Hardness which has a guideline range from 80 to 100 mg/L is typically exceeded in
groundwater systems. The system’s hardness concentration is between 247 and 336 mg/L.
This parameter is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does
it impact the treatment process.
The Sodium concentration at the well field ranges from 28 to 44 mg/L which is above the
reporting level of 20 mg/L but well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the
system are quite low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but
concentrations of 0.29 mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be associated with unpleasant taste and
high levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant. There is no history of

The parameters in the Springford Well Field that meet the screening threshold are Total Coliform,
Fluoride and Colour. The Total Coliform results are likely due to infrequent operation of the well
when it is in standby mode. The remaining parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to
upward trending.
The parameters in the Otterville Well Field that meet the screening threshold are Hardness, and
Organic Nitrogen. The Total Coliform results are likely due to infrequent operation of the well
when it is in standby mode. The remaining parameters are all naturally occurring and typical to
upward trending.
3.14. PLATTSVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.14.1. Background
The Plattsville Drinking Water System provides water from 2, 15m deep wells that are secure
groundwater. The water is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, and sodium silicate is
added to sequester iron. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03


Microbiological results are consistently good.
Page 16
October 2009

systems. The system’s hardness concentration is very high, typically around 1000 to 1340 mg/L.
This parameter is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does not a health risk nor does it
impact the treatment process.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the system exceed the objective of 500 mg/L and are 1620
to 1880 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment
0.48 to 0.6 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment
process. No increasing trend is evident.
Sulphates have an objective of 500 mg/L and in the Innerkip system, concentrations range from
870 to 1000 mg/L. Sulphates are an aesthetic concern and are naturally occurring in the
groundwater.
The system typically exceeds the aesthetic objective of 0.05 mg/L for Manganese with
concentrations in the 0.06 – 0.08 mg/L range. There is no increasing trend to the concentration
and its presence does not interfere with the treatment process.

The parameters in the Plattsville System that meet the screening threshold are Hardness, TDS,
Iron, Manganese and Sulphates. These parameters are all naturally occurring and do not affect
the treatment process. There is no evidence of upward trending.
3.15. TAVISTOCK WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.15.1. Background
The Tavistock Drinking Water System provides water from three wells 19.5m, 48m and 61.5m
deep that are secure groundwater. The water is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection
and sodium silicate is added to sequester iron. It is a Large Municipal Water system as defined
by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 2300.


Microbiological results are consistently good in Wells 1 and 3. Well 2, which is a standby well,
has occasional low level positive results for Total Coliform in the raw water.

Page 17
October 2009
The raw water in each of the three wells exceed the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron. The
concentrations range from 0.6 to 0.9 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere
with the treatment process. No increasing trend is evident.

The parameters in the Tavistock Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Total Coliform, Hardness, Iron and Organic Nitrogen. Total Coliform presence is likely due to the
fact that Well 2 typically operates in standby mode. The remaining parameters are all naturally
occurring, they do not affect the treatment process and there is no evidence of upward trending.
3.16. THAMESFORD WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.16.1. Background
The Thamesford Drinking Water System provides water to customers from 3 well sources. Wells
1 and 2 are 9.4m and 14m deep respectively and are Groundwater Under Direct Influence of
Surface Water (GUDI) with effective in-situ filtration. Well 3 is a secure 78m deep groundwater
well. Treatment for all the wells consists of filtration for iron and manganese removal followed by
disinfection with Ultra Violet (UV) irradiation and sodium hypochlorite. It is a Large Municipal
Water system as defined by Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 1970.

substantially alter the water quality. The GUDI wells (1 & 2) are located adjacent to the Thames
River and have different water quality characteristics than Well 3 as shown in the sections below.

Microbiological results are consistently good at Wells 1 and 3. Well 2 has occasional low level
Total Coliform and E.coli results due to being operated infrequently. The only health related
parameters to exceed the half MAC screening thresholds are Nitrate in Wells 1 and 2 and
Fluoride in Well 3. Nitrate levels in the wells have been regularly monitored since 1999 and
remained in a similar range. In 2008 the results ranged from 4.71 to 9.76 mg/L. The most recent
result above the MAC of 10 mg/L was one result of 10.2 mg/L reported in December 2007.
Nitrate is not typically a naturally occurring parameter in groundwater at levels around the MAC
and may be from nutrient application, septic systems or sewage effluent.
The Fluoride concentration in Well 3 ranges from 1.5 to 2.2 mg/L which is above half of the MAC
of 2.4 mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and there is no evidence of
upwards trending. Its presence does not impact the treatment process.

The Sodium concentration in all wells is above the reporting level of 20 mg/L. In Wells 1 and 2
the concentration ranges from 22 to 27 mg/L and in Well 3 it ranges from 45 to 51 mg/L. These
levels are well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are also quite low
Page 18
October 2009
The raw water in wells 1 and 2 exceed the objective of 0.05 mg/L for Manganese with
concentrations of 0.19 mg/L. Manganese is an aesthetic parameter and no increasing trend is
evident. The treatment facility removes manganese through an oxidation and filtration process.
Failure of this process could potentially result in decreased clarity of the water which would
impact the effectiveness of the UV disinfection.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in Well 3 exceed the objective of 500 mg/L and ranges from
628 to 827 mg/L. TDS is an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment
process.
The Organic Nitrogen levels in Wells 1 and 3 are above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L with
concentrations ranging from 0.16 to 0.19 mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be associated with
unpleasant taste and high levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant. There
is no history of objectionable taste that is sometimes associated with organic nitrogen.

The parameters in the Thamesford Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
Total Coliform and E.coli, Fluoride, Nitrate, Hardness, Manganese, TDS and Organic Nitrogen.
With the exception of the bacteriological parameters and Nitrate, these parameters are naturally
occurring and typical to groundwater sources.
The bacteriological positive results are likely due to the fact that Well 2 is used as a standby well
and not operated frequently. Nitrate at the levels in the Thamesford system are likely
anthropogenic in source.
3.17. TILLSONBURG WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.17.1. Background
The Tillsonburg Drinking Water System is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by
Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 16,400. It provides water to
customers from 10 source wells. Wells 1A, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are GUDI wells with effective in-
situ filtration. Wells 6A, 11 and 12 are secure groundwater wells. There are currently four
different treatment schemes used in the system summarized as follows:
• Well 6A and 12, have a treatment process consisting solely of chlorination.

• GUDI Wells 4 and 5 have disinfection treatment with UV and chlorine gas.
• GUDI Wells 1A, 2, 9, 10, and 11 are treated with filtration to remove iron, disinfection
treatment with UV and chlorine gas.
• GUDI Well 7 is currently only used for emergency backup and has disinfection treatment
with sodium hypochlorite and iron sequestering. Plans for the well include a transmission
main connection to a GUDI treatment facility.

substantially alter the water quality. For the purposes of water quality characteristics the wells
can be grouped into six different wellfields; Mall Road (Wells 1A & 2), North Street (Wells 4 and
5), Well 6A, Well 7, Bell Mill Sideroad (Wells 9, 10 and 11) and Well 12.

Microbiological results are consistently good at all ten wells. The health related parameters to
exceed the half MAC screening threshold are Nitrates, Fluoride and Arsenic as described below.
Nitrate levels in Wells 4, 5 and 12 are above half of the MAC of 10 mg/L. In Well 12, the
concentration is right at the half MAC threshold ranging from 4.9 to 5.9 mg/L and does not show
Page 19
October 2009
an increasing trend. The nitrate levels at the North Street well field are higher and are monitored
regularly. In 2008 the concentration ranged from 6.18 to 9.24 mg/L. In January 2005 two results
were received above the MAC at 10.0 and 10.2 mg/L. There is no evidence of upward trending.
Nitrate is not typically a naturally occurring parameter in groundwater at levels around the MAC
and may be from nutrient application, septic systems or sewage effluent.
Arsenic levels in Well 7 have been above half of the MAC of 0.025 mg/L once. Concentrations
range from 0.003 mg/L to 0.017 mg/L. There does not appear to be an increasing trend in the
results.
The Fluoride concentration at Well 6 is typically 1.5 mg/L which is above half of the MAC of 2.4
mg/L. The fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and there is no evidence of upwards
trending. Its presence does not impact the treatment process.

systems. The system’s hardness concentration is typically around 262 to 320 mg/L. Only Well 6
does not exceed the guideline. This parameter is naturally occurring in the groundwater and does
not a health risk nor does it impact the treatment process.
The Sodium concentration at the North Street Wellfield and Wells 6A and 7 is above the reporting
level of 20 mg/L. North Street concentrations range from 16 to 15 mg/L, Well 6A ranges from 41
to 46 mg/L and Well 7 ranges from 81 to 89 mg/L. These levels are well below the objective of
200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the system are also low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by
road salt application but rather is naturally occurring. No increasing trend is evident in the results.
The raw water in Mall Road wellfield marginally exceed the objective of 0.05 mg/L for Manganese
with concentrations around 0.06 to 0.08 mg/L. Concentrations in the Bell Mill wellfield are slightly
higher and exceed the objective with concentations ranging from 0.10 to 0.16 mg/L. Manganese
is an aesthetic parameter and no increasing trend is evident. The treatment facility removes
manganese through an oxidation and filtration process. Failure of this process could potentially
result in decreased clarity of the water which would impact the effectiveness of the UV
disinfection.
The raw water at the Mall Road and Bell Mill wellfields and Well 7 exceed the objective of 0.3
mg/L for Iron. The concentrations are 0.8 to 1.2 mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and no
increasing trend is evident. The treatment facilities remove iron through an oxidation and filtration
process. Failure of this process could potentially result in decreased clarity of the water which
would impact the effectiveness of the UV disinfection.
The Organic Nitrogen level in the system is above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L at Wells 2,
4, 6, 7, and 11. Concentrations range from 0.18 to 0.42 mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be
associated with unpleasant taste and high levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a
disinfectant. There is no history of objectionable taste that is sometimes associated with organic
nitrogen.

The parameters in the Tillsonburg Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
summarized in the table below.
Page 20
October 2009
Bell Mill
Parameter Mall Road North St. Well 6A Well 7 Well 12
Sideroad
Fluoride 9
Arsenic 9
Nitrates 9 9
Hardness 9 9 9 9 9
Iron 9 9 9
Organic Nitrogen 9 9 9 9 9
Manganese 9 9
3.18. WOODSTOCK WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
3.18.1. Background
The Woodstock Drinking Water System is a Large Municipal Water system as defined by
Regulation 170/03 and serves a population of approximately 36,000. It provides water to
customers from ten well sources. Six of the wells (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8) GUDI with effective in-situ
filtration and four (6, 7, 9 and 11) are secure groundwater wells. For the purposes of water quality
there are five different well fields; Thornton (Wells 1, 3, 5, 8 and 11), Tabor (Wells 2 and 4), Well
6, Well 7 and Well 9. The bulk of the City’s water is taken from the Thornton and Tabor wellfields.
Treatment for the Thornton and Taber wells consists of UV and chlorination for disinfection.
Wells 6 and 9 have disinfection only and Well 7 has aeration for hydrogen sulphide removal and
disinfection.


Microbiological results are consistently good at all ten wells. The only health related parameters
to exceed the half MAC screening threshold at any of the wells are Nitrates and Fluoride as
described below.
Nitrate levels in Wells 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 are routinely above half of the MAC of 10 mg/L. In Well
4, the concentration is typically below the half MAC threshold but has occasionally been
marginally above the threshold. The nitrate levels are monitored regularly from the raw water as
well as the treated point of entry to the system. In 2008 the concentration ranged from 3.7 to 11.5
mg/L in the raw water. Well 3 typically has the highest Nitrate concentrations. Nitrate is not
typically a naturally occurring parameter in groundwater at levels around the MAC and may be
from nutrient application, septic systems or sewage effluent.
The Fluoride concentration at Well 9 is 1.4 mg/L which is above half of the MAC of 2.4 mg/L. The
fluoride is naturally occurring in the groundwater and there is no evidence of upwards trending.
Its presence does not impact the treatment process.

systems. The system’s hardness concentration is typically between 349 and 567 mg/L. This
Page 21
October 2009
The Sodium concentration in Wells 6, 7 and 9 is above the reporting level of 20 mg/L and ranges
from 36 to 53 mg/L. These levels are well below the objective of 200 mg/L. Chloride levels in the
system are also quite low suggesting that the sodium is not caused by road salt application but
The concentration of Manganese in Well 7 is equal to the objective of 0.05 mg/L. It is naturally
occurring and does not interfere with the treatment process.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in Wells 6, 7 and 9 exceed the objective of 500 mg/L. TDS is
an aesthetic parameter and does not impact health or the treatment process.
Well 6, 7 and 9 exceed the objective of 0.3 mg/L for Iron. The concentration is around 0.6 to 3.8
mg/L. Iron is an aesthetic parameter and does not interfere with the treatment process. No
The Organic Nitrogen level in the system is above the aesthetic objective of 0.15 mg/L at Wells 6,
7, 8, 9 and 11. Concentrations range from 0.37 to 0.75 mg/L. Organic nitrogen can be
associated with unpleasant taste and high levels can reduce the effectiveness of chlorine as a
disinfectant. There is no history of objectionable taste that is sometimes associated with organic
nitrogen.
Wells 7 and 9 exceed the aesthetic objective of 0.05 mg/L for Hydrogen Sulphide. Hydrogen
Sulphide is very difficult to collect samples and test for in water as the parameter easily volatilizes
into air. Laboratory results are reported as being right around the objective. It is believed that the
levels in wells are higher than the results indicate. Complaints related to Hydrogen Sulphide
odours have been received from Well 7. Well 9 combines with water from other wells prior to
entering the distribution system and odours are not noticeable.

The parameters in the Woodstock Water Supply System that meet the screening threshold are
summarized in the table below.
Parameter Thornton Tabor Well 6 Well 7 Well 9
Fluoride 9
Nitrates 9 9
Hardness 9 9 9 9 9
Iron 9 9 9
Organic Nitrogen 9 9 9 9
TDS 9 9 9
Hydrogen Sulphide 9 9
Manganese 9
3.19. SUMMARY OF SCREENED POTENTIAL ISSUES
The following table summarizes the potential issues that have met the screening thresholds as
described in detail in the previous sections.
Page 22
Summary of Screened Potential Issues
ne
e
le
n
s
ge
ne
le
l
th
a
hy
o
ic
ha
oe
itr
g
e
t
et
es
lo
r
oe
es
N
ss
lo
m
e
io
e
ic
r
c
at
m
id
ch
ne
rid
lo
lo
ur
te
ga
ni
an
iu
h
te
h
a
d
a
o
e
lp
lp
ou
an
S
ih
tr
n
ac
ic
rg
itr
ar
rs
ol
TD
So
Iro
Su
Su
Te
Tr
Tr
Fl
O
A
C
Type of Threshold MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC OG AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE
Beachville 9
Bright 9 9 9 9
Brownsville 9 9 9 9 9
Dereham Centre 9 9 9
Drumbo 9 9
Embro 9 9 9 9
Hickson 9 9 9 9
Ingersoll
Merritt (Well 2) 9 9 9 9 9 9
Hamilton (Well 3) 9 9 9 9 9 9
Canterbury (Well 5) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
West (Well 7) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Thompson (Well 10) 9 9 9 9 9 9
Dunn's (Well 8) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Wallace (Well 11) 9 9 9 9 9
Innerkip 9 9 9 9
Lakeside 9 9 9 9 9
Mount Elgin 9 9 9 9
Norwich LEGEND
Wells 2 and 5 9 9 9 9 9
Well 4 9 9 9 9 exceeds MAC, AO, OG
Otterville-Springford 9 exceeds 1/2 MAC
Otterville 9 9 9 9 9 exceeds reporting level, not screened
Springford 9 9 9 9
Plattsville 9 9 9 9 9
Tavistock 9 9 9 9
Thamesford
Wells 1 and 2 9 9 9 9 9 9
Well 3 9 9 9 9 9
Tillsonburg
Mall Rd (Wells 1A & 2) 9 9 9 9
North St. (Wells 4 &5) 9 9 9 9
Well 6A 9 9 9
Well 7 9 9 9 9 9
Bell Mill (Wells 9, 10 & 11) 9 9 9 9
Well 12 9 9
Woodstock
Thornton 9 9 9
Tabor 9 9
Well 6 9 9 9 9 9
Well 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Well 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
October 2009
4. ISSUE EVALUATION – PARAMETER SPECIFIC
The following section provides a brief discussion of the screened potential issues for each system and
whether they constitute an issue taking into consideration the criteria established in section 2.6.
4.1. FLUORIDE
Fluoride has been screened as a potential issue in ten systems (Brownsville, Embro, Hickson,
Ingersoll, Lakeside, Mount Elgin, Otterville-Springford, Thamesford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock). In
all cases fluoride is a naturally occurring parameter and concentrations are below the health related
MAC. There is no indication of increasing trending and no impact on any of the treatment processes.
Therefore Fluoride is not considered an issue in any Oxford County Water System.
4.2. ARSENIC
The screening process identified Arsenic as a potential issue in Dereham Centre and Well 7 in the
Tillsonburg system. The parameter is naturally occurring and is at a concentration right around the
half MAC. There is no evidence of increasing trending and therefore Arsenic would not be
considered an issue however, it is anticipated that the province will soon adopt the Health Canada
limit of 0.010 mg/L as a MAC. Both wells exceed this concentration and therefore the County
considers it an issue.
4.3. TRIHALOMETHANES
Trihalomethanes are a group of chemicals that are health related and are present in treated water
due to chlorine reacting with naturally occurring organic material during the disinfection process.
Levels are consistently around the half MAC were found in Brownsville. As they do not appear to be
increasing it is not an issue in the system.
4.4. NITRATE
Nitrate at concentrations above the half MAC were found in Thamesford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock.
The specifics for each system are presented below.
4.4.1.Thamesford Wells 1 and 2

The Nitrate found in Thamesford’s Wells 1 and 2 is at a level that is likely anthropogenic. The
treatment process combines the high nitrate water with water from Well 3 to control nitrate levels
in the distribution system. If Well 3 was to fail or be offline for long periods of time, supply could
be compromised. For this reason nitrate is an issue in the Thamesford system.
4.4.2.Tillsonburg North Street Wellfield (Wells 4 and 5)

Nitrate was screened as a potential issue at the North Street Wellfield. The Nitrate found in Wells
4 and 5 is at a level that is likely anthropogenic. The planned treatment process will combine the
high nitrate water with water from Well 7 to control nitrate levels in the distribution system. Wells
4 and 5 are large producing wells and any increase of nitrate at this location could compromise
the supply and therefore Nitrate is an issue in the North Street wellfield.
4.4.3.Tillsonburg Well 12
The concentration of Nitrates found in Well 12 at Tillsonburg is right around the half MAC. There
is no evidence of increasing trending and therefore is not being identified as an issue.
4.4.4.Woodstock Thornton Wellfield (Wells 1, 3, 5, 8 and 11)

Nitrates were screened as a potential issue in the Woodstock System’s Thornton wellfield. The
presence of nitrate in this wellfield has been studied in depth for over a decade. Research by the
Page 23
October 2009
University of Waterloo has confirmed that the presence of the parameter is likely due to historical
nutrient application practices on the surrounding agricultural fields. Nitrate concentrations at the
wells have been increasing and the research has found that concentrations within the Wellhead
Protection Area are higher than those currently seen in the production wells. Currently water
from this wellfield is combined with water from the Taber wellfield to ensure nitrate levels in the
distribution system remain low. The wellfield represents a significant portion of the total supply to
the Woodstock system and therefore Nitrate has been identified as an issue in the Thornton
Wellfield.
4.4.5.Tabor Wellfield (Wells 2 and 4)

Nitrates were screened as potential issue for the Woodstock Tabor wellfield. Levels at this
wellfield are significantly lower than those seen in the Thornton wellfield and are around half of
the MAC. There is evidence to suggest that concentrations are trending upwards. The wellfield
contains two highly productive wells that are a main supply of water to the system. Increased
levels of nitrate in this wellfield could reduce the effectiveness of blending the water with Thornton
to lower the overall nitrate concentration in the system. Therefore Nitrate is an issue in the Tabor
wellfield.
4.5. BACTERIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Total Coliform and/or E.coli was screened as a potential issue in six systems (Drumbo, Hickson,
Ingersoll, Otterville-Springford, Tavistock and Thamesford). In all cases the results were found
occasionally and at very low levels. Typically this is due to infrequent pumping of the well while it is in
rotational or standby operation. None of the findings are significant enough to warrant being elevated
to an issue.
4.6. TRICHLOROETHYLENE AND TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene were observed once in the Ingersoll system over 15 years
ago in trace amounts. All recent test results for these parameters have been non-detectable and
therefore the parameters are not an issue for the system.
4.7. HARDNESS
Hardness was identified as a potential issue at every system. Hardness is naturally occurring and
commonly elevated in groundwater sources. It does not interfere with the treatment process and is
therefore not an issue.
4.8. SODIUM
Sodium above the reporting limit of 20 mg/L was found in nine systems (Bright, Brownsville, Ingersoll,
Mount Elgin, Norwich, Otterville-Springford, Thamesford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock). All
concentrations observed were well below the aesthetic objective of 200 mg/L. Concentrations in the
range observed are common in groundwater supplies and none of the systems were screened as
having sodium as a potential issue.
4.9. IRON AND MANGANESE
Twelve systems (Bright, Dereham Centre, Embro, Hickson, Ingersoll, Innerkip, Lakeside, Norwich,
Plattsville, Tavistock, Tillsonburg and Woodstock) were screened as having Iron as a potential issue.
Manganese was screened as a potential issue in five systems (Ingersoll, Plattsville, Thamesford,
Tillsonburg and Woodstock).
Page 24
October 2009
Iron and Manganese are aesthetic parameters that are commonly found in groundwater supplies.
There presence does not represent an issue in secure groundwater. The parameters are present in
the following GUDI wells:
• Thamesford Wells 1 and 2 – Manganese only
• Tillsonburg Mall Road Wellfield (Wells 1A and 2) – Iron and Manganese
• Tillsonburg Bell Mill Sideroad (Wells 9, 10 and 11) – Iron and Manganese
At the three wellfields both Iron and Manganese are removed from the raw water through oxidization
and filtration prior to disinfection with UV. If these parameters were not removed the clarity of the
water and therefore the ability of the UV light to penetrate the water could be decreased. This could
potentially compromise the effectiveness of the enhanced disinfection required for the GUDI well
supplies. Therefore Iron and Manganese are issues in the Tillsonburg Mall Road and Bell Mill
wellfields and Manganese is an issue in the Thamesford system.
4.10. TDS, COLOUR AND SULPHATES
TDS, Colour and Sulphates are all naturally occurring parameters aesthetic parameters that are
common to groundwater supplies. TDS was found in seven systems (Bright, Embro, Ingersoll,
Innerkip, Plattsville, Thamesford and Woodstock), Colour was found in five systems (Brownsville,
Ingersoll, Lakeside, Mount Elgin and Otterville-Springford) and Sulphates were found in the Innerkip
and Plattsville systems. The parameters do not effect treatment and therefore are not considered
issues.
4.11. HYDROGEN SULPHIDE
Hydrogen Sulphide in the source water of the Ingersoll system is quite high and can cause significant
water quality and treatment issues when the filtration systems are not in service. For this reason
hydrogen sulphide is being identified as an Issue for the system even though it is naturally occurring
and does not have a health related impact.
4.12. ORGANIC NITROGEN
The Organic Nitrogen was screened as a potential issue in eight systems (Ingersoll, Lakeside,
Norwich, Otterville-Springford, Tavistock, Thamesford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock). It is an aesthetic
parameter and can be associated with unpleasant taste. High levels of Organic Nitrogen can reduce
the effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfectant. There is no history of taste complaints associated with
organic nitrogen or disinfection difficulties at any of the systems. Therefore it is not an issue.
4.13. SUMMARY OF ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
The majority of the potential issues identified in Section 3 of this report are non-health related
parameters that are naturally occurring and typical to groundwater supplies. As shown on the table
below the issues identified are Arsenic in the Dereham Centre and Tillsonburg systems, Nitrate in the
Thamesford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock systems, Hydrogen Sulphide in the Ingersoll system, and
Iron and Manganese were present in a GUDI treatment environment (Thamesford and Tillsonburg).
Page 25
Summary of Issues
ne
e
le
n
s
ge
ne
le
l
th
a
hy
o
ic
ha
oe
itr
g
e
t
et
es
r
lo
oe
es
N
ss
lo
m
e
io
e
ic
r
s
c
at
m
id
ch
ne
rid
lo
lo
ur
te
ga
ni
an
iu
h
te
h
a
d
a
o
e
lp
lp
ou
an
S
ih
n
tr
ac
ic
rg
itr
ar
rs
ol
TD
So
Iro
Su
Su
Te
Tr
Tr
Fl
O
A
C
Type of Threshold MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC OG AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE
Beachville
Bright
Brownsville
Dereham Centre 9
Drumbo
Embro
Hickson
Ingersoll
Merritt (Well 2) 9
Hamilton (Well 3) 9
Canterbury (Well 5) 9
West (Well 7) 9
Thompson (Well 10) 9
Dunn's (Well 8) 9
Wallace (Well 11) 9
Innerkip
Lakeside
Mount Elgin LEGEND
Norwich
Wells 2 and 5 9 Identified Issue
Well 4
Otterville-Springford
Otterville
Springford
Plattsville
Tavistock
Thamesford
Wells 1 and 2 9 9
Well 3
Tillsonburg
Mall Rd (Wells 1A & 2) 9 9
North St. (Wells 4 &5) 9
Well 6A
Well 7 9 9
Bell Mill (Wells 9, 10 & 11) 9 9
Well 12
Woodstock
Thornton 9
Tabor 9
Well 6
Well 7
Well 9

CCCA TechStudy Brownsville Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CCCA TechStudy Brownsville Issues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCCA TechStudy Brownsville Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS

3. ISSUES SCREENING – SYSTEM SPECIFIC ................................................................................. 5

4. ISSUE EVALUATION – PARAMETER SPECIFIC ........................................................................ 23

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL RULES 114 - 116

1.1. CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ISSUES IDENTIFICATION/EVALUATION PROCESS

1.2. OXFORD COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

Figure 1: Oxford County Water Systems

Figure 2: Conservation Authorities

2.1. ISSUE SCREENING

2.2. DATA SOURCE

2.3. MONITORING WELLS

2.4. PATHOGENIC ISSUES

2.5. FLUORIDE AND SODIUM

2.6. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

2.7. WELL GROUPINGS

3. ISSUES SCREENING – SYSTEM SPECIFIC

3.1. BEACHVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

3.1.2. Water Quality

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.1.3. Screening Result and Discussion

3.2. BRIGHT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.2.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.3. BROWNSVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.3.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.4. DEREHAM CENTRE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.4.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.5. DRUMBO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.5.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.6. EMBRO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.6.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.7. HICKSON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.7.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.8. INGERSOLL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.8.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.9. INNERKIP WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Health Related Parameters

Aesthetic or Operationally Significant Parameters

3.9.3.Screening Result and Discussion

3.10. LAKESIDE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

3.10.2. Water Quality

Health Related Parameters