Table of Contents
Can You Drink Tap Water in Lancaster?
Yes, Lancaster's tap water is generally considered safe to drink as Lancaster has no active health based violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that we are aware of. Other factors such as lead piping in a home, or low levels of pollutants on immunocompromised individuals, should also be considered, however. To find more recent info we might have, you can check out our boil water notice page or the city's water provider website.
According the EPA’s ECHO database, from April 30, 2019 to June 30, 2022, Lancaster's water utility, City of Lancaster, had 0 violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. For more details on the violations, please see our violation history section below. The last violation for Lancaster was resolved on Dec. 31, 2016. This assessment is based on the City of Lancaster water system, other water systems in the city may have different results.
While tap water that meets the EPA health guidelines generally won’t make you sick to your stomach, it can still contain regulated and unregulated contaminants present in trace amounts that could potentially cause health issues over the long-run. These trace contaminants may also impact immunocompromised and vulnerable individuals.
The EPA is reviewing if it’s current regulations around pollutant levels in tap water are strict enough, and the health dangers posed by unregulated pollutants, like PFAS.
Water Quality Report for Lancaster Tap Water
The most recent publicly available numbers for measured contaminant levels in Lancaster tap water are in its 2020 Water Quality Report. As you can see, there are levels which the EPA considers to be acceptable, but being below the maximum allowable level doesn’t necessarily mean the water is healthy.
Lead in tap water, for example, is currently allowed at up to 15ppb by the EPA, but it has set the ideal goal for lead at zero. This highlights how meeting EPA standards doesn’t necessarily mean local tap water is healthy.
EPA regulations continue to change as it evaluates the long term impacts of chemicals and updates drinking water acceptable levels. The rules around arsenic, as well as, lead and copper are currently being re-evaluated.
There are also a number of "emerging" contaminants that are not currently. For example, PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), for which the EPA has issued a health advisory. PFAS are called "forever chemicals" since they tend not to break down in the environment or the human body and can accumulate over time.
We recommend looking at the contaminants present in Lancaster's water quality reports, or getting your home's tap water tested to see if you should be filtering your water.
Lancaster Tap Water Safe Drinking Water Act Violation History - Prior 10 Years
Below is a ten year history of violations for the water system named City of Lancaster for Lancaster in Pennsylvania. For more details please see the "What do these Violations Mean?" section below.
From Oct. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016, Lancaster had 1 health-based Safe Drinking Water Act violation with the violation category being Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, more specifically, the violation code was Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average which falls into the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule rule code group, and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule rule code family for the following contaminant code: Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5).
From Aug. 1, 2013 to Aug. 31, 2013, Lancaster had 1 non-health based Safe Drinking Water Act violation with the violation category being Monitoring and Reporting, more specifically, the violation code was Monitoring, Turbidity (Enhanced SWTR) which falls into the Microbials rule code group, and the Surface Water Treatment Rules rule code family for the following contaminant code: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Is there Lead in Lancaster Water?
Based on the EPA’s ECHO Database, 90% of the samples taken from the Lancaster water system, City of Lancaster, between sample start date and sample end date, were at or below, 0.0057 mg/L of lead in Lancaster water. This is 38.0% of the 0.015 mg/L action level. This means 10% of the samples taken from Lancaster contained more lead.
While Lancaster water testing may have found 0.0057 mg/L of lead in its water, that does not mean your water source has the same amount. The amount of lead in water in a city can vary greatly from neighborhood to neighborhood, or even building to building. Many buildings, particularly older ones, have lead pipes or service lines which can be a source of contamination. To find out if your home has lead, we recommend getting you water tested.
No amount of lead in water is healthy, only less dangerous. As lead accumulates in our bodies over time, even exposure to relatively small amounts can have negative health effects. For more information, please check out our Lead FAQ page.
Are there PFAS in Lancaster Tap Water?
Currently, testing tap water for PFAS isn’t mandated on a national level. We do have a list of military bases where there have been suspected or confirmed leaks. There appears to be at least one military base - Harrisburg International Airport - near Lancaster with suspected leaks.
With many potential sources of PFAS in tap water across the US, the best information we currently have about which cities have PFAS in their water is this ewg map, which you can check to see if Lancaster has been evaluated for yet.
Our stance is better safe than sorry, and that it makes sense to try to purify the tap water just in case.
Lancaster SDWA Violation History Table - Prior 10 Years
Compliance Period | Status | Health-Based? | Category Code | Code | Rule Code | Contaminant Code | Rule Group Code | Rule Family Code |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10/01/2016 - 12/31/2016 | Resolved | Yes | Maximum Contaminant Level Violation (MCL) | Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average (02) | Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (220) | Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) (2456) | Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (200) | Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (220) |
08/01/2013 - 08/31/2013 | Resolved | No | Monitoring and Reporting (MR) | Monitoring, Turbidity (Enhanced SWTR) (38) | Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (122) | Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (0300) | Microbials (100) | Surface Water Treatment Rules (120) |
What do these Violations Mean?
Safe Drinking Water Act Violations categories split into two groups, health based, and non-health based. Generally, health based violations are more serious, though non-health based violations can also be cause for concern.
Health Based Violations
- Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) - maximum allowed contaminant level was exceeded.
- Maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) - maximum allowed disinfectant level was exceeded.
- Other violations (Other) - the exact required process to reduce the amounts of contaminants in drinking water was not followed.
Non-Health Based Violations
- Monitoring and reporting violations (MR, MON) - failure to conduct the required regular monitoring of drinking water quality, and/or to submit monitoring results on time.
- Public notice violations (Other) - failure to immediately alert consumers if there is a serious problem with their drinking water that may pose a risk to public health.
- Other violations (Other) - miscellaneous violations, such as failure to issue annual consumer confidence reports or maintain required records.
SDWA Table Key
Field | Description |
---|---|
Compliance Period | Dates of the compliance period. |
Status |
Current status of the violation.
|
Health-Based? | Whether the violation is health based. |
Category Code |
The category of violation that is reported.
|
Code | A full description of violation codes can be accessed in the SDWA_REF_CODE_VALUES (CSV) table. |
Contaminant Code | A code value that represents a contaminant for which a public water system has incurred a violation of a primary drinking water regulation. |
Rule Code |
Code for a National Drinking Water rule.
|
Rule Group Code |
Code that uniquely identifies a rule group.
|
Rule Family Code |
Code for rule family.
|
For more clarification please visit the EPA's data dictionary.
Lancaster Water - Frequently Asked Questions
By Mail: | 120 N DUKE ST PO BOX 1599 LANCASTER, PA, 17603 |
Existing customers can login to their City of Lancaster account to pay their Lancaster water bill by clicking here.
If you want to pay your City of Lancaster bill online and haven't made an account yet, you can create an account online. Please click here to create your account to pay your Lancaster water bill.
If you don't want to make an account, or can't remember your account, you can make a one-time payment towards your Lancaster water bill without creating an account using a one time payment portal with your account number and credit or debit card. Click here to make a one time payment.
Moving to a new house or apartment in Lancaster means you will often need to put the water in your name with City of Lancaster. In order to put the water in your name, please click the link to the start service form below. Start service requests for water bills typically take two business days.
Leaving your house or apartment in Lancaster means you will likely need to take your name off of the water bill with City of Lancaster. In order to take your name off the water bill, please click the link to the stop service form below. Stop service for water bills requests typically take two business days.
The estimated price of bottled water
$1.75 in USD (1.5-liter)
USER SUBMITTED RATINGS
- Drinking Water Pollution and Inaccessibility
- Water Pollution
- Drinking Water Quality and Accessibility
- Water Quality
The above data is comprised of subjective, user submitted opinions about the water quality and pollution in Lancaster, measured on a scale from 0% (lowest) to 100% (highest).
Related FAQS
Lancaster Water Quality Report (Consumer Confidence Report)
The EPA mandates that towns and cities consistently monitor and test their tap water. They must report their findings in an annual Consumer Confidence Report. Below is the most recent water quality report from Lancaster's Water. If you would like to see the original version of the report, please click here.
2020 ANNUAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY REPORT
PWSID #: 7360058 -- NAME: CITY OF LANCASTER, PA
\
Este informe contiene información importante acerca de su agua potable. Haga que alguien lo traduzca para usted,
- hable con alguien que lo entienda. (This report contains important information about your drinking water. Have someone translate it for you, or speak with someone who understands it).
WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION:
This report shows our water quality and what it means. We want you to be informed about your water supply. If you have any questions about this report or concerning your water utility, please contact the water quality lab at
-
291-4818.
SOURCES OF WATER:
Our sources of water are the Conestoga River and the Susquehanna River located in Lancaster County. A Source Water Assessment was completed in 2012 by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). The Assessment found our sources are potentially susceptible to agricultural activity, accidental spills along roads and urban runoff. Overall, our sources have a low risk of significant contamination. The assessment is available at:
Complete reports were distributed to municipalities, water supplier, local planning agencies and PA DEP offices. Copies of the complete report are available at the DEP Regional Office, Records Management Unit at
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
MONITORING YOUR WATER:
We routinely monitor for contaminants in your drinking water according to federal and state laws. The following tables show the results of our monitoring for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2020. The State allows us to monitor for some contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of our data is from prior years, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The date has been noted on the sampling results table.
DEFINITIONS:
Action Level (AL) - The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) - The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) - The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health.
Minimum Residual Disinfectant Level (MinRDL) - The minimum level of residual disinfectant required at the entry point to the distribution system.
Treatment Technique (TT) - A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water
ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter |
mrem/year = millirems per year |
pCi/L = picocuries per liter, measure of radiation |
ppm = parts per million or milligrams per liter |
ppq = parts per quadrillion or picograms per liter |
ppt = parts per trillion or nanograms per li |
|
1 |
DETECTED SAMPLE RESULTS: SUSQUEHANNA PLANT; ENTRY POINT 101
Chemical Contaminants
|
|
MCL in |
|
|
|
Level |
|
Range of |
|
|
|
Sample |
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
Contaminant |
CCR Unit |
s |
MCLG |
|
Detected |
|
Detections |
|
|
Units |
Date |
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water additive |
|
Fluoride |
2* |
|
2 |
|
0.61 |
|
- - - |
|
|
ppm |
2020 |
|
N |
|
that promotes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
strong teeth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discharge of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drilling wastes; |
|
Barium |
2 |
|
2 |
|
0.027 |
|
- - - |
|
|
ppm |
2020 |
|
N |
|
Discharge from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
metal refineries; |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erosion of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
natural deposits |
- EPA’s MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm. However, Pennsylvania has set a lower MCL to better protect human health.
Turbidity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level |
|
Sample |
|
Violation |
|
|
|
Source of |
||||
|
Contaminant |
|
MCL |
|
MCLG |
|
|
Detected |
|
Date |
|
|
Y/N |
|
|
Contamination |
|||||
|
Turbidity |
|
TT=1 NTU for a single |
|
0 |
|
0.03 |
|
07/09/20 |
|
|
N |
|
|
Soil runoff. |
||||||
|
|
|
measurement |
|
|
|
|
NTU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
TT= at least 95% of |
|
|
|
<0.15 |
|
Jan - Dec |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NTU |
|
2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
monthly samples<0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
NTU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Range of percent |
|
Range of percent |
|
quarters out of |
|
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
||||||||||
|
Contaminant |
Removal Required |
|
removal achieved |
|
|
compliance |
|
|
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
||||||||
|
TOC |
0% - 35% |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
Naturally present |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entry Point Disinfectant Residual: Susquehanna and Conestoga Treatment Plants
|
|
|
|
Lowest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MinRDL |
|
Level |
|
|
Range of |
|
|
|
Lowest |
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
Contaminant |
|
|
Detected |
|
|
Detections |
|
|
Units |
Sample |
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
Susquehanna Plant |
0.20 |
|
0.44 |
|
|
0.44– 2.19 |
|
ppm |
02/29/20 |
|
N |
|
Water additive used |
|
|
Chlorine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
to control microbes. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Conestoga Plant |
0.20 |
|
0.53 |
|
0.53 - 1.44 |
|
|
ppm |
01/29/20 |
|
N |
|
Water additive used |
|
|
Chlorine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
to control microbes. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
DETECTED SAMPLE RESULTS: CONESTOGA WATER PLANT; ENTRY POINT 102
Chemical Contaminants
|
|
MCL in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CCR |
|
|
|
Level |
|
|
Range of |
|
|
|
Sample |
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
Contaminant |
Units |
|
MCLG |
|
Detected |
|
Detections |
|
|
Units |
Date |
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water additive to |
|
Fluoride |
2* |
|
2 |
|
0.60 |
|
- - - |
|
|
ppm |
2020 |
|
N |
|
promote strong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
teeth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runoff from |
|
|
Nitrate |
10 |
|
10 |
|
6.89 |
|
|
samples |
|
ppm |
2020 |
|
N |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fertilizer use. |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.30 – 6.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discharge of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drilling wastes; |
|
Barium |
2 |
|
2 |
|
0.053 |
|
- - - |
|
|
ppm |
2020 |
|
N |
|
Discharge from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
metal refineries; |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erosion of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
natural deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discharge from |
|
Chromium |
100 |
|
100 |
|
2 |
|
- - - |
|
|
ppb |
2020 |
|
N |
|
steel and pulp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mills; Erosion of |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
natural deposits |
*EPA’s MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm. However, Pennsylvania has set a lower MCL to better protect human health.
Turbidity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level |
|
|
Sample |
|
Violation |
|
|
|
Source of |
|
|||||
|
Contaminant |
|
MCL |
|
MCLG |
|
Detected |
|
|
Date |
|
|
Y/N |
|
|
Contamination |
|
||||||
|
Turbidity |
|
TT=1 NTU for a single |
|
0 |
|
0.03 |
|
07/23/20 |
|
|
|
N |
|
|
Soil runoff. |
|
||||||
|
|
|
measurement |
|
|
|
NTU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
TT= at least 95% of |
|
|
|
<0.15 |
|
|
Jan - Dec |
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
NTU |
|
2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
monthly samples<0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
100% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
NTU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
the time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Range of % |
|
Range of percent |
|
quarters out of |
|
|
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
|||||||||
|
Contaminant |
Removal Required |
|
removal achieved |
|
|
compliance |
|
|
|
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
||||||||
|
TOC |
|
0% – 30% |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
Naturally present |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The sample in July was out of range most likely due to a testing error, but the sample still met compliance by the running annual average being 1.0 or more and performance ratio is 1.0 or more.
3
DETECTED SAMPLE RESULTS: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Distribution Disinfectant Residual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Range of |
|
|
|
|
|
Month w/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
MRDL |
|
|
|
Highest |
|
Monthly |
|
|
|
|
|
Highest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
Avg |
|
|
|
|
|
Avg. Result |
Violatio |
|
|
Sources of |
|
||||||||||
Contaminant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Result |
|
Results |
|
|
Units |
|
|
|
|
|
n Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
||||||||||
|
Chlorine |
|
4.0 |
|
0.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
ppm |
|
September |
|
N |
|
Water additive used to |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
control microbes. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Disinfection Byproducts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
MCL in |
|
|
|
|
|
Highest |
|
|
Range of |
|
|
|
Sample |
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
||||||||||
|
Contaminant |
|
CCR Unit |
s |
|
MCLG |
|
|
LRAA |
|
|
Detections |
|
Units |
|
Date |
|
|
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
|||||||||
|
Haloacetic Acids |
|
60 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
ppb |
|
2020 |
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
disinfection |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trihalomethanes |
|
80 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
57.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
ppb |
|
2020 |
|
|
|
N |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
disinfection |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
*Violation of MCL is based on Running Annual Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lead and Copper
|
Action |
|
90th |
|
# of Sites |
Sample |
|
|
|
Level |
|
Percentile |
|
Above AL of |
Date |
Violation |
Sources of |
Contaminant |
(AL) |
MCLG |
Value |
Units |
Total Sites |
|
Y/N |
Contamination |
Lead |
15 |
0 |
5.7 |
ppb |
0 of 50 |
2019 |
N |
Corrosion of home |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plumbing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copper |
1.3 |
1.3 |
0.16 |
ppm |
0 of 50 |
2019 |
N |
Corrosion of home |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plumbing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
DETECTED SAMPLE RESULTS: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONTINUED
Microbial (related to Assessments/Corrective Actions regarding TC positive results)
|
|
|
Assessments/ |
Violation |
|
|
Sources of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Contaminants |
TT |
MCLG |
Corrective Actions |
Y/N |
|
|
Contamination |
|
Total Coliform |
Any system that has |
N/A |
0 |
N |
Naturally present in |
|||
Bacteria |
failed to complete all the |
|
|
|
|
the environment. |
||
required assessments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or correct all identified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sanitary defects, is in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
violation of the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
treatment technique |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
requirement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microbial (related to E. coli)
|
|
|
|
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
Contaminants |
MCL |
MCLG |
Positive Sample(s) |
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
E. coli |
Routine and repeat |
0 |
0 |
N |
Human and animal |
||
|
samples are total |
|
|
|
fecal waste. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
either is E. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or system fails to take |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeat samples |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
following E. coli- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
positive routine sample |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or system fails to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
analyze total coliform- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
positive repeat sample |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for E. coli. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessments/ |
Violation |
|
Sources of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contaminants |
TT |
MCLG |
Corrective Actions |
Y/N |
|
Contamination |
|
E. coli |
Any system that has |
N/A |
0 |
N |
Human and animal |
||
|
failed to complete all |
|
|
|
fecal waste. |
||
|
the required |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assessments or correct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all identified sanitary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
defects, is in violation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of the treatment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
technique requirement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
Unregulated Contaminants are those for which EPA has not established drinking water standards. The purpose of unregulated contaminant monitoring is to assist EPA in determining the occurrence of unregulated contaminants in drinking water and whether future regulation is warranted. In 2020 City of Lancaster participated in the fourth round of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). For a copy of the results please call the city of Lancaster Water Lab at (717)
TABLE OF UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS: Susquehanna and Conestoga Treatment Plants and Raw Water
Contaminant |
Units |
Average Level |
Low Range |
High Range |
Susquehanna Plant |
ppb |
14.6 |
7.8 |
21.4 |
Manganese |
|
|
|
|
Conestoga Plant |
ppb |
7.4 |
5.4 |
9.3 |
Manganese |
|
|
|
|
Susquehanna Raw* |
ppm |
3.41 |
3.17 |
3.65 |
Total Organic Carbon |
|
|
|
|
Conestoga Raw* |
ppm |
5.06 |
4.53 |
5.59 |
Total Organic Carbon |
|
|
|
|
Susquehanna Raw* |
ppb |
16 |
13 |
19 |
Bromide |
|
|
|
|
Conestoga Raw* |
ppb |
23 |
20 |
25 |
Bromide |
|
|
|
|
- Total Organic Carbon and Bromide were tested on the Raw/untreated water only. They were tested because they are precursors for Haloacetic Acids.
TABLE OF UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS: Distribution
Contaminant |
Units |
Average Level |
Low Range |
High Range |
DiChloroAcetic Acid |
ppb |
8.9 |
7.1 |
19.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
TrichloroAcetic Acid |
ppb |
9.9 |
7.1 |
14.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
BromoChloroAcetic Acid |
ppb |
2.3 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
BromoDiChloroAcetic Acid |
ppb |
3.4 |
2.4 |
4.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
ChloroDiBromoAcetic Acid |
ppb |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
DiBromoAcetic Acid |
ppb |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
MonoChloroAcetic Acid |
ppb |
2.3 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
6
VIOLATIONS:
No Violation
EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION:
The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally- occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include:
- Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.
-
Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be
naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwaterrun-off, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. - Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses.
-
Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are
by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, and septic systems. -
Radioactive contaminants, which can be
naturally-occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.
In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA and DEP prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. FDA and DEP regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health.
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline
CRYPTOSPRODIUM MONITORING:
Our system preformed Cryptosporidium monitoring for both sources of our drinking water, Conestoga River and Susquehanna River. Cryptosporidium is a microbial pathogen found in source water throughout the US.
The monitoring took place form April 2015 to March 2017. Results indicated that Cryptosporidium was present in both sources of water. This was only for our source water and not our finished water. Our water plants do everything to try to ensure NO Cryptosporidium is in our finished water. Our filtration for both plants is Ultrafiltration Membrane technology. This type of filtration can filter out particles and microorganisms much smaller than conventional filtration. We also use Log Inactivation monitoring to ensure proper disinfection. Even though we cannot guarantee 100 percent removal and disinfection of Cryptosporidium, we believe there is no reason to be alarmed about the results of the Cryptosporidium monitoring of our source water.
7
INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD:
If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The City of Lancaster, Bureau of Water is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. Lead was not detected in City drinking water when it leaves our treatment plants and underground pipes. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. For information about lead, go to the city web site:
OTHER INFORMATION:
About Nitrate: Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less than six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. If you are caring for an infant, you should ask for advice from your health care provider.
8
Contaminants
City of Lancaster
EWG's drinking water quality report shows results of tests conducted by the water utility and provided to the Environmental Working Group by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, as well as information from the U.S. EPA Enforcement and Compliance History database (ECHO). For the latest quarter assessed by the U.S. EPA (January 2019 - March 2019), tap water provided by this water utility was in compliance with federal health-based drinking water standards.
Utility details
- Serves: 120000
- Data available: 2012-2017
- Data Source: Surface water
- Total: 17
Contaminants That Exceed Guidelines
- Bromodichloromethane
- Chloroform
- Chromium (hexavalent)
- Dibromochloromethane
- Dichloroacetic acid
- Nitrate
- Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
- Trichloroacetic acid
Other Detected Contaminants
- 1%2C4-Dioxane
- Barium
- Bromoform
- Chlorate
- Fluoride
- Haloacetic acids (HAA5)
- Molybdenum
- Strontium
- Vanadium
Reminder
Always take extra precautions, the water may be safe to drink when it leaves the sewage treatment plant but it may pick up pollutants during its way to your tap. We advise that you ask locals or hotel staff about the water quality. Also, note that different cities have different water mineral contents.