Printer Friendly

Adapting military field water supplies to the asymmetric battlefield.

Introduction

Since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) the US Army has rapidly transformed from a division-centric force designed to fight 2 major theater wars concurrently, to a brigade-centric force, expeditionary in nature, and ready to respond simultaneously to many conflicts worldwide. Our forces have become more agile and battlefield operations more asymmetric. This remarkable transformation has created appreciable gaps in both doctrine and materiel essential to adequately address the needs of our Warfighters on the battlefield. The typical longitudinal methods for timely and adequate provision and medical surveillance of life-sustaining drinking water must be reconsidered in light of the changed battlefield. The preventive medicine (PM) community, and specifically military field water sanitary control and surveillance, is focused on adapting to minimize the gaps between theater needs and PM support.

The increased and expansive use of commercial bottled water notwithstanding, from the early 1980s, potable field water producers have relied on large, over-engineered water purification systems based on the principle that employing a single robust technology that could turn any water, anywhere, including seawater, into safe drinking water, was the best solution. That mindset has continued with the recent development and deployment of more agile, state-of-the-art materiel using better technologies to produce greater volumes of safe water from similar or reduced footprints. Preventive medicine responsibilities for the surveillance and certification of field water prior to consumption, as presented in current doctrine1 has been adapted to keep pace with emerging bulk water materiel. As such, bulk water continues to be safe, and most often, plentiful on the battlefield.

The focus of this article is on what lies ahead. Army transformation has distributed Warfighters into smaller numbers across more locations than ever. The PM community is responding to these challenges through a change towards a quasi-risk-based approach where, while bulk water production and doctrine-based surveillance will remain the norm, smaller-scale, decentralized water production will emerge, incorporating less robust treatment technologies and new deployment strategies.

LIFEBLOOD OF THE WARFIGHTER

Safe drinking water is an absolute necessity for health and well being, yet it is a scarce commodity in desert environments. Warfighters conducting operations in hot desert environments may need to drink 15 L or more of water a day to maintain acceptable levels of hydration. Without sufficient quantities of safe water, dehydration will quickly lead to loss of physical and mental capacity and degrade or create a total loss of mission performance. Individual requirements differ among personnel, and are affected by a number of variables. The time of day and related ambient temperature, the uniforms they wear, the amount of gear they must carry, their levels of activity, and acclimatization all play roles in the amount of water needed to stay hydrated. The US Army Combined Arms Support Command Water Planning Guide (2) specifies the need for over 15 gal (57 L) of potable water per person per day to sustain the force in arid environments. This quantity comes at great expense on personnel, transportation and logistics, and monetary expenditures.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF US ARMY FIELD WATER SUPPLIES

In all of the wars in which the US was engaged up to and through the Spanish American War (1898), each Soldier was responsible for obtaining his own water in the field. (3) In World War I (1914-1918), as many as 400,000 men occupied an area of 20 to 25 square miles, making local supplies insufficient. As a result, the first military field water treatment systems were developed. Engineer water supply regiments were formed and given the responsibility to procure water from the rear and haul it forward to the troops in 110gal mule-drawn carts. Unit-level water treatment equipment at the time consisted of "Lyster bags," heavy canvas bags that were hung off the ground using timber tripods as shown in Figure 1. (4) The open top of the bag allowed Soldiers to add calcium hypochlorite powder for disinfection, and instructions suggested finding a clean stick to stir the disinfectant into the water.

By 1949, the Army began developing mobile water treatment systems to be mounted on trailers and trucks to meet the needs of the modern mobile field Army. The work resulted in the production of the Army mobile water purification unit series of equipment with treatment consisting of coagulation, filtration, and disinfection (Figure 2). Later purification units employed a novel upflow clarifier, colloquially dubbed the "ERDL-ator" (Engineering Research and Development Laboratory -ator), that included a suspended sludge blanket for particulate matter reduction. They were the primary equipment sets used by the Army during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The uncertainty associated with military operations and the types of water sources that might be encountered in future operations in diverse areas of the world made it difficult to preselect which water purification equipment to take on a particular deployment. In response, the Army began investigating other technologies, looking for a single system that could treat any water source that might be encountered anywhere in the world. (5) This led to the development of the Army's reverse osmosis water purification units (ROWPUs) which continue to be the standard for Army field water treatment systems.

CURRENT US ARMY REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER PURIFICATION UNITS

The first Army tactical ROWPU was designed to produce treated water at the rate of 600 gal per hour (gph) from seawater or 900 gph from fresh water. The model, shown in Figure 3, was first produced in 1979, and, with some modifications, is still in use today. The unit package is mounted on a 5-ton trailer, powered by a 30 kW generator, and includes three 3,000-gal collapsible fabric tanks. Treatment centers around coagulation and prefiltration followed by high pressure reverse osmosis membranes and calcium hypochlorite solution injection. The system over-pack includes add-on activated carbon and ion exchange filters for use when chemical, biological, or radiological warfare agent contamination is suspected. A 3,000-gph (fresh water) ROWPU (2000-gph seawater) was introduced in 1987. It is essentially a larger version of the 600-gph ROWPU and was the most commonly used military water treatment unit at large base camps in Iraq.

Two newer systems recently brought into the inventory incorporate semiautomated operation, energy recovery, and membrane prefiltration in an effort to provide better quality feed water to the reverse osmosis elements. The state-of-the-art tactical water purification system (Figure 4) produces 1500 gph from freshwater, 1200 gph from seawater, and is being fielded as a 1-for-2 replacement for the 600-gph ROWPUs. The smaller 4-module lightweight water purifier (Figure 5) can be packed in the back of a HMMWV (high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle), and hand carried and set up by 4 strong Soldiers. It produces 125 gph from freshwater, 75 gph from seawater. Correctly maintained, Quartermaster-operated, and PM-surveyed, the Army's ROWPUs produce high quality drinking water that meets the Department of Defense (DoD) Military Field Water Standards and ensures Warfighters will not become sick as a result of consuming microorganisms or chemicals in the water they drink.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

WATER STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION

Once water is produced on the battlefield, storage and distribution equipment maintain water quality after production and prior to consumption, and allow transport of water from production points to forward locations.

The US Army fields multiple bulk-water storage containers and tanks ranging in capacity from 5 to 50,000 gal. Larger storage tanks from the potable water storage and distribution system may consist of a combination of 20,000- and 50,000-gal fabric bags connected with fabric piping at potable water production points to form a "tank farm." The forward area water point supply system (FAWPSS) is a portable, self contained gas- or diesel-powered system consisting of 500-gal storage drums and a 125-gal/ minute pump. Designed for various contingency operations, combining the FAWPSS with the tactical water distribution system, a highly mobile fabric piping water distribution system, creates complete, forward-deployable water storage and distribution.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Transporting water to other bases and smaller tactical locations is accomplished using tank trucks and water trailers. Older semitrailer-mounted fabric tanks requiring transport either completely full or empty are being replaced by next generation, hard-sided, baffled tanks such as the load handling system water tank rack (hippo). The hippo is a 2,000 gal stainless steel tank, transportable filled, partially filled, or empty, and contains a recirculation pump. Replacing the 400-gal unit-sized trailers, termed "water buffaloes," are 900-gal unit water pod systems (camels) mounted on M1095 trailers for better road and off-road transportability. Under development is an integrated thermal regulating capability for the camel which will heat water to prevent freezing, and chill water to improve its palatability in hot environments.

FIELD WATER DOCTRINE

Preventive medicine is doctrinally mandated to "provide the medical oversight of field water supply operations for the prevention of waterborne diseases". (6) Technical Bulletin MED 577 (1) describes current doctrinal requirements for the PM oversight of all aspects and components of field water including source, production, storage, distribution, and point of use.

The primary concept employed by the military to provide safe field water is termed a "multiple barrier" approach. The approach consists of 5 barriers to water contaminants that could cause adverse health effects if they are consumed:

1. source water selection and protection,

2. water treatment,

3. disinfection,

4. proper operation and maintenance of storage and distribution systems, and

5. operational water quality monitoring.

While PM assets primarily focus on barrier 5, all are critical and PM may have involvement and oversight of all 5 barriers.

Through robust water treatment technology and routine monitoring, the bulk water produced on the battlefield rivals municipal supplies in the United States. Army Engineers support the development of water sources, such as well drilling; highly-trained Quartermaster personnel (Military Occupational Specialty 92W) operate military ROWPUs and monitor the water quality and disinfection residuals during water production; and PM personnel provide oversight to the entire field water production, storage, and distribution process. Vital to PM oversight are the unit-level field sanitation teams (FSTs), non-PM assets that provide daily disinfectant residual monitoring and equipment oversight. The integration of Engineers, Quartermaster, PM, and FST assets has been the approach used for safe water production since the 1970s, and has proven itself as an effective collaborative effort.

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE RESPONSIBILITIES

Preventive medicine personnel must have a good understanding of what a field water supply system comprises (from source to tap) in order to provide effective water quality surveillance and the understanding to solve problems when they arise. Preventive medicine personnel and Army Engineers are involved in the evaluation and selection of a water source. Whether ground, surface, or host nation, potential water sources are assessed and their quality analyzed to select those with the lowest health risk. When conditions allow, waters deemed contaminated or vulnerable to threats, intentional or otherwise, may be passed over for lower risk sources. Once the source is selected, Quartermaster personnel prepare and operate the ROWPU, then PM certifies potability prior to distribution for consumption. The multitude of PM surveillance responsibilities is shown in the Table. Routine inspections cover water production, storage and distribution, bottled water, shower points, and advanced testing of untreated and treated water.

It is easy to imagine the strain that only routine water inspections place on PM assets, especially when added to other medical oversight responsibilities. A single PM team may have multiple water production points, dozens of shower points, each with storage tank and some with recycle systems, and hundreds of potable water tanks throughout their area of responsibility, all geographically dispersed throughout the battlefield. Despite the intense effort required by PM to successfully conduct doctrine-based water surveillance, Army transformation has created additional materiel gaps requiring PM evaluation and/or oversight to minimize health risks. The PM community is adapting to these changes at all support levels.

THE CHANGING BATTLEFIELD

Many current military operations lack the centralized characteristic of conventional warfare. The transformation to a more agile fighting force where Warfighters inhabit tactical, unit-sized forward operating bases (FOBs), smaller command outposts (COPs), and safe-houses creates unique, never-before-encountered requirements for field water operations and surveillance. Both materiel and doctrinal requirements have failed to keep pace with the creation of distributed operations. Current medical assets on the battlefield are already stretched thin providing oversight on well-established bases, and are not able to monitor the production and distribution of field water operations at the unit level or in ultradistributed operations where several Warfighters consume local municipal supplies in safe houses. Many of the challenges facing "big Army" today were only relevant to Special Operations Forces during past conflicts.

Fielded water purification systems produce safe water from virtually any source, however, they require a large footprint, dedicated operators, and lack overall portability. The smallest, the HMMWV transportable, lightweight water purifier with a 125-gph production rate, is too large for many FOBs and COPs and, while mobile, is designed to be set up and operated at one location for extended periods of time. Mobile military units have had to rely on bottled water resupply to meet hydration and sanitation needs. Resupply of bottled water is expensive, convoys are often targeted by the enemy, and is counter to the creation of a sustainable force.

To date, water treatment at the individual level has been reserved primarily for emergency situations under SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, and escape) environments. To counter waterborne pathogen threats, iodine tablets have been fielded by the US military since the 1960s, and Chlor-floc, a flocculent and chlorine-based disinfectant, since the 1990s. These products provide limited efficacy against certain known pathogens and have been surpassed on the commercial market by newer treatment innovations, including membrane filtration, granular media sorbents, and ion exchange resins.

Commercial manufacturers noticed the materiel gap of small-scale water treatment devices and moved full-force to capture the military market. Currently, individuals and military units are purchasing nondoctrinally-approved water treatment equipment for individual and multiuser (10 to 50 personnel) operation, but have little more than manufacturer marketing materials on which to base purchasing decisions. The US Army Public Health Command (USAPHC) identified the need for oversight and proposed 2 projects to the Army Studies Program Management Office to survey and evaluate the ability of these commercial products to fill military materiel gaps. The USAPHC's position is that the mission-critical need to provide water treatment at the smaller scale must not create unnecessary health risks to the Warfighter.

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE EVALUATION OF THE COMMERCIAL WATER TREATMENT MARKET

To evaluate commercial individual water purifiers, the USAPHC convened user and technical subject matter expert panels to develop and score devices against evaluation criteria. While no formal laboratory testing was conducted, devices were researched and procured for hands-on evaluation. In most cases device technologies were well understood and evaluations were based on industry-standard technology capabilities. Incorporating the help of the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Decision Analysis Team, a multiple-attribute decision model was created to score devices against weighted criteria, providing a summed hierarchy of devices. Accepted shortcomings of the model include an ever-changing commercial market of devices and criteria weights that may vary based on mission-specific needs. However, objective review of device capabilities laid the framework for further evaluation, leading to several valuable findings from the study:

* Within the commercial market, there is complete lack of oversight of device capability claims made by device manufacturers.

* Evaluating device capabilities based on manufacturer-stated technology alone will often lead to inaccurate conclusions.

* Laboratory testing of devices is paramount to understanding the true capabilities of devices and necessary to protect the health of Warfighters.

Mirroring the lessons learned for commercial individual water purification devices, USAPHC developed model criteria and evaluated the next size-class, small unit water purifiers (SUWPs), designed for unit-level deployment and ranging from suitcase to pallet-sized. The operation and quality oversight mission concept for SUWPs diverges from individual Warfighter responsibility to one parallel to that of military ROWPU operations. Only in this instance, the unit lacks a qualified operator and programmed public health oversight.

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE YARDSTICK

Burrows (7) highlighted the need for efficacy testing of water purification devices for individual Soldier use and the lack of a "suitable health-based protocol for such testing." As part of the original Army Studies project for individual water purifiers, it was proposed that a single testing "yardstick," similar to those of the American National Standards Institute or military standards, be developed to objectively evaluate the capabilities of water treatment devices. Previous testing protocols relevant to small-scale water treatment devices included those published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (8) (EPA) and NSF International (Ann Arbor, MI). (9) However, neither protocol met military evaluation needs, and, surprisingly, commercial products were often marketed as having passed the EPA protocol with absolutely no government oversight.

The USAPHC, in collaboration with10 NSF International, developed NSF Protocol P248, (10) which borrows heavily from the previous protocols for microbiological reduction performance criteria, then builds in important military specifications such as minimum treatment capacity and flow rate. Then, to provide strict control of protocol use, NSF P248 requires testing oversight by a government review agency who works with the test sponsor and laboratory to ensure testing sufficiently challenges device technology and demonstrates device capabilities. The USAPHC, currently acting as the government review agency, provides the final determination of compliance with NSF P248 to eliminate the loose interpretation and inaccurate compliance statements associated with previous testing protocols. NSF P248 has been adopted by US Army and Marine Corps combat developers as minimum performance criteria for waterborne pathogen reduction, and is endorsed by the Joint Medical Field Water Subgroup, a subgroup to the Joint Environmental Surveillance Working Group, which advises DoD Health Affairs.

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE SUPPORT TO FIELD WATER PACKAGING

Since the first Gulf War in 1990, bottled water has been provided to deployed personnel in increasing quantities from the US and from countries in and near areas of operations. Prior to that, virtually all the drinking water consumed by deployed personnel was produced in the field. This transition has occurred at great monetary cost and with a severe impact on transportation assets which must haul the bottles of water in competition with other important equipment, parts, and supplies. During current operations, at any given time, as much as 50 percent of transportation assets may be delivering bottled water. In an effort to continue the desirable use of bottled water, yet reduce the logistical impact and increase sustainability, the Army is turning to in-theater portable water bottling facilities to allow the military to produce, package, and distribute its own bottled water in areas of operations much closer to the consumers.

Commercial bottled water plants producing product for military use are inspected and approved by Army Veterinary Service (VS) personnel before being placed on an approved sources list. Periodic onsite sanitary inspections and sample analysis are performed by VS and approved sources lists are updated daily. Once bottled water is delivered, PM responsibilities begin. In contrast to commercial bottled water, bulk water produced and packaged in the field is termed "packaged field water," regardless of whether the container is a bottle or bag. It is the responsibility of PM to survey the bulk water production point that feeds the packaging system, as well as the packaging equipment and product water quality.

Packaged field water, or the expeditionary water packaging system (EWPS) as the materiel solution has been coined, remains in the development stages (Figure 6) in terms of the Army concept of employment and program of record materiel. The US Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) is currently developing requirements and, in a coordinated effort, the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC) is conducting market research and technology comparisons of potential candidate technologies. Several EWPSs have been deployed to Afghanistan in support of Urgent Needs Statements, requiring level IV and V PM engagement due to the specialized skills required and undermanning of PM in theater. The CASCOM concept of employment has the EWPS resident at echelons above brigade, and will require PM surveillance not currently programmed. The USAPHC is working with CASCOM and TARDEC to ensure PM oversight is considered throughout the entire development process.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

ADAPTING PREVENTIVE MEDICINE OVERSIGHT

The USAPHC, as the level V PM support activity, is charged with providing technical assistance and consultation to levels I to IV, as well as developing and maintaining doctrine to minimize health risks on the battlefield. The sanitary control and surveillance procedures for legacy-based equipment evolved from solid scientific and engineering principles developed over years of research, and various wartime efforts. However, realizing that theater-specific conditions may dictate unforeseen requirements, Technical Bulletin MED 577 (1) is general in nature and encourages the development of local supplements to address specific situations or those not covered in sufficient detail. For example, the Multi-National Corps [Iraq] standard operating procedure11 addresses PM involvement in contract oversight and reduces shower point inspections and tank super-chlorination frequencies.

Water sustainability and the demand of the current battlefield to produce potable water outside major basecamps is requiring level V PM to review how water purification equipment is developed and evaluated, and how potable water will be certified. Traditionally, the US military has relied on robust water treatment equipment to counter other areas of the multibarrier approach that may lack sophistication or be subject to threats in a battlefield environment. However, individual and small unit water purification equipment often lack the technically-sophisticated contaminant barriers of military-fielded ROWPUs, and therefore, intrinsically pose higher levels of health risk. Additionally, users of commercial equipment are not trained by the military in operating, monitoring, or troubleshooting the equipment. The employment of this water purification equipment may lack, or have seriously degraded, 3 or more of the 5 aspects of the multibarrier approach. Because materiel development is slow, the PM community is tasked with developing ad hoc operating procedures while balancing the immediate need from the battlefield to fill this gap with the mandate to minimize health risks to the Warfighter.

The requirements for new materiel are not expected to diminish and are by far the more common subjects of field consultations received by USAPHC rather than bulk water systems. To respond, USAPHC is working with various research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) organizations and combat developers to create evaluation criteria based on sound principles for reducing health risk. For example, the employment of a small unit water purifier as a means of producing drinking water on the battlefield is not doctrinally-approved as it lacks operation by Quartermaster and oversight by PM to certify water potability. Increased health risks result from the absence of source water quality characterization, less robust treatment technology, and lack of formal military test and evaluation. These limitations may be countered somewhat by the short term consumption of product water from these devices by Warfighters, however, this may not always be the case. While this identified materiel gap is being developed into a formal program, USAPHC is working with representatives from various military services to create interim solutions. Key to these solutions is the recommendation to evaluate device capabilities to reduce acute microbial threats via testing to NSF P248 (10) and further evaluation against short term potability standards identified in Technical Bulletin MED 577. (1) However, evaluating treatment equipment in a laboratory setting, or even through the Army Test and Evaluation Command, then neglecting the monitor responsibility in the field hardly instills the same confidence engendered by the thorough, time-proven treatment and monitoring techniques of bulk water supplies. This exemplifies the current situation in the field. Individuals and military units require alternative water supplies to bulk and commercially-bottled water. The PM community has realized the materiel gap and responded by initiating device evaluation procedures and interim deployment strategies. However the PM community has not yet identified doctrinally-mandated solutions for the oversight of unit-level water production when trained operators and PM personnel are not available.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Army transformation to a brigade-centric force has created a distributed battlefield, challenging the surveillance and logistical supply of field water. The daily requirement of up to 15 gal of potable water per person per day from bulk water supplies has been achievable for many years using currently fielded ROWPUs. However, the need to reduce the transport of water and move towards a sustainable force has created a gap in materiel capable of producing safe water at the individual and unit level. While materiel development is slow, the PM community, tasked with doctrine development and battlefield oversight of field water, is beginning to address the requirements of field water on the changed battlefield. In addition to materiel gaps, the transformed battlefield has created a lack of trained personnel for water production and oversight. Without trained operators and PM oversight, to what level of health risk are consumers of this water exposing themselves? Currently PM is unable to answer this question but is working diligently with the RDT&E community to develop materiel solutions, and with the medical community to provide interim guidance to reduce the potential health risks to using such equipment.

REFERENCES

(1.) Technical Bulletin MED 577, Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field Water Supplies. Washington, DC: US Dept of the Army; May 1, 2010.

(2.) Water Planning Guide. Fort Lee, VA: US Army Combined Arms Support Command. November 25, 2008. Available at: http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/pwd/Publications/ Water/Water_Planning_Guide_rev_103008_dtd_Nov_08_(5-09).pdf. Accessed June 14, 2011.

(3.) Hardenberg WA. Water purification. In Coates JB, edin-chief, Hoff EC, ed. Preventive Medicine in World War II, Volume II, Industrial Hygiene. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, US Dept of the Army; 1986.

(4.) Saville T. Military sanitation in the present war. Am J Public Health (N Y). June 1917;VII(6):527-547.

(5.) Bagwell TH Jr, Shalewitz B, Coleman A. The Army water supply program: an overview. Desalination. 1994;99:423-445.

(6.) Department of the Army Pamphlet 40-11: Preventive Medicine. Washington, DC: US Dept of the Army; July 22, 2005.

(7.) Burrows WD, Temkar PM, Phull KK, Timmes TC, Richards TE. Force health protection and military drinking water supplies. Army Med Dept J. January March 2004:55-59.

(8.) Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; April 1987.

(9.) NSF Protocol P231: Microbiological Water Purifiers. Ann Arbor, MI: NSF International; February 2003.

(10.) NSF Protocol P248: Emergency Military Operations Microbiological Water Purifiers. Ann Arbor, MI: NSF International; December 2008.

(11.) MNC-I SOP 08-01: Iraqi Theater-Specific Requirements for Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field Water Supplies. Baghdad, Iraq: Headquarters, Multinational Corps; November 2007: Section Q, Appendix 6, Tab H.

Arthur H. Lundquist, PE

George H. White, Jr, REHS

CPT Alejandro Bonilla, MS, USA

Todd E. Richards, PE

Steven C. Richards, PhD, PE, BCEE

Mr Lundquist is an Environmental Engineer, Water Supply Management Program, Army Institute of Public Health, US Army Public Health Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Mr White is an Environmental Scientist, Water Supply Management Program, Army Institute of Public Health, US Army Public Health Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

CPT Bonilla is a Project Officer, Water Supply Management Program, Army Institute of Public Health, US Army Public Health Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Mr Todd Richards is Program Manager, Water Supply Management, Army Institute of Public Health, US Army Public Health Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Dr Steven Richards is a Supervisory Environmental Engineer, Water Supply Management Program, Army Institute of Public Health, US Army Public Health Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
Inspection Frequencies During Deployments.

    Equipment or       Responsible   Frequency          Notes
      Activity            Agent

Raw water sources      PM            Initial     annual sanitary
                                     only        survey, annual
                                                 advanced water
                                                 testing (AWT)

Water purification     PM            Monthly     semiannual AWT
points *

Storage and            PM            Monthly     inspect and confirm
distribution                                     free available
facilities                                       chlorine (FAC)
                                                 [greater than or
                                                 equal to] 1 mg/L

                       FST           Daily       confirm FAC [greater
                       ([dagger])                than or equal to] 1
                                                 mg/L, semiannual
                                                 disinfection

Bottled water          PM            Monthly     bacteriological
storage                                          testing of 10
                                                 bottles/lot until
                                                 lot is exhausted

Unit potable water     PM            Monthly     inspect and confirm
                                                 FAC [greater than or
                                                 equal to]0 .2 mg/L

containers             FST           Twice       confirm min FAC
                                     daily       [greater than or
                                                 equal to] 0.2 mg/L,
                                                 semiannual
                                                 disinfection

Showers and personal   PM            Monthly     inspect and confirm
sanitation points                                FAC [greater than or
                                                 equal to] 1 mg/L

                       FST           Twice       inspect and confirm
                                     daily       FAC [greater than or
                                                 equal to] 1 mg/L

* Military/contract water treatment operators monitor hourly for
FAC ([greater than or equal] 2 mg/L) and pH (5-9).

([dagger]) FST duties may also be performed by trained contract
owner/operator.
COPYRIGHT 2011 U.S. Army Medical Department Center & School
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lundquist, Arthur H.; White, George H.; Bonilla, Alejandro; Richards, Todd E.; Richards, Steven C.
Publication:U.S. Army Medical Department Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jul 1, 2011
Words:4752
Previous Article:Reducing the public health risk of Cryptosporidiosis by optimizing treatment processes at a military water system.
Next Article:Improving detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in a deployed setting.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters