|
|
| Introduction :: Data Search Options :: Water System Search :: DWS Home :: DWS Rules |
OHA Drinking Water Services
Contact Report Details |
|||
| PWS ID: | OR41 00367 | ||
| PWS Name: | HEBO JOINT WATER & SANITARY AUTH | ||
| Who Was Contacted and Phone: | Willard Anderson | ||
| Contact Date: | 04/16/2013 | ||
| Contacted By: | PATTEE, TOM (REGION 1) | ||
| Contact Method/Location: | Office | ||
| Assistance Type: | OTHER REGULATORY - REGULATORY ASSISTANCE | ||
| Reasons: | Operations None |
||
| Details: | SUMMARY: Site Visit - Inspection of Springs #3 and #4 DETAILS: On April 16th a site visit was conducted by Tom Pattee (Regional Hydrogeologist), Annette Pampush (Tillamook County), and Melissa Kauffman (Tillamook County). The purpose of the site visit was to meet with Willard Anderson and review any information that might help determine the source of confirmed E.coli that was detected at the common header for Spring #3 and Spring #4. Willard indicated that he thought that the construction of the two spring boxes was the most likely source of the contamination. He thought that after the concrete casing had been set, the annulus around the casing had been backfilled with native material instead of an impermeable material. Both springs were inspected and the exposed casing at the surface did not have observable cracks or points of easy entry. However, there was standing water in close proximity of both spring structures which could be the E.coli source. We discussed how the springs could be modified to keep the surface water from coming in contact with the concrete casing. We agreed that raising the casing height and adding material that sloped away from the casing should be part of the modified construction. I mentioned that intercepting ditches would help remove some of the standing water from the immediate area. I also informed Willard that since the spring boxes were constructed like shallow wells, they would need to meet the shallow well construction standards and that I would provide the OAR describing the construction requirements. Although surface water was present, we agreed that Spring reconstruction was preferable to collecting MPAs. Twelve months of source assessment monitoring would have to follow reconstruction to determine if it resolved the E.coli contamination. ACTION NEEDED: Wait for plan review submittal regarding spring reconstruction | ||