LIBRARY GF THE 1*v.<“£i${7Y OF ILMUPI? TREASURY DEPARTMENT U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS IN PLUMBING A £,,viMARY OF THE INSPECTION OF PLUMBING IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. AND DETROIT, MICHIGAN MADE BY UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE AND WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION MAY 1936 - JUNE 1937 THE LIBRARY OF THE MAY 19 1938 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PREPARED BY DIRECTION OF THE SURGEON GENERAL U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DOMESTIC QUARANTINE DIVISION WASHINGTON, D. C. DECEMBER, 1937. UNIVERSiT* OF ILLINOIS ,w R-483 INTRODUCTION The severe outbreak of amebic dysentery in 1933 in Chicago ' 4 v resulted in a widespread interest in the health hazards involved in defective plumbing, especially in public buildings. In re¬ sponse to a request from Representative John D. Dingell, of Michigan, who believed that an investigation of plumbing in federal buildings might give some indication of the prevalence of plumbing defects in public buildings generally, the Public Health Service and the Works Progress Administration considered the practicability of making a survey of plumbing in federal buildings through the use of work-relief labor. However certain difficulties which would be met in an attempt to inaugurate such a project on a nation-wide scale immediately became apparent. There were but few sanitary engineers in the United States with expert training or experience in plumbing sanitation and these were not available for employment on the technical direction of a work-relief project. In undertaking such a survey it would be necessary to train supervisory personnel before actual work could be started. Information was not available as to the proper methods to be employed in such a survey. The availability and suitability of Works Progress Administration beneficiaries for work of this type was unknown. It was proposed, therefore, to establish an exploratory project which would cover federal buildings I 04 1273 - i - in only one or two Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/publichealthhazaOOunit R-4S3 large cities. The number of supervisory personnel required for such an experimental project would be small and it would be practicable to give the special training required for technical employees before the beginning of actual work. Methods of approach to and means of accomplishment of such a study, both unknown at the outset of the work, could be determined more readily on a small project than on one encompassing the .entire country. An opportunity would be presented, to observe the suitability of Works Progress Ad¬ ministration beneficiaries for work of this character. It was believed, also, that the findings of a survey in two sample cities would be fairly representative of conditions existing in all federal buildings and to a certain extent, in all public and quasi-public buildings. The two major cities chosen were selected because it was believed that they presented the moot likely opportunity for obtaining Works Progress Ad¬ ministration beneficiaries suitably qualified to carry out the work. Accordingly the Works Progress Administration, at the request of the Treasury Department, agreed to sponsor a project covering a plumbing survey of federal buildings in New York, New York, and Detroit, Michigan, designating the Public Health Service as co-sponsor. This report summarizes the work carried on under this project, during period May, 1936 to June, 1937. Permission to enter premises and make inspections was R-483 obtained by the Treasury Department from the several federal departments involved. The custodians and ethers in charge of federal properties manifested a most helpful spirit of cooperation without which satisfactory inspections would have been almost impossible. ORGANIZAT I ON OF STAFF AND PROCEDURES The working force was separated into three main divisions (1) field inspections, (2) laboratory and (3) administrative and drafting. The field inspection group was the nucleus around which the entire survey organization was constructed. Field parties performed the actual inspections, prepared the preliminary reports and made the decisions as to whether or net plumbing fixtures and installations fell in the category of potential health hazards. The Works Progress Administration roll of relief recipients was lacking in personnel qualified to serve as field inspectors. It was necessary to select these men from non-relief sources. The men selected were, for the most part, recent graduates in sanitary or allied engineering courses. They were given a four weeks 1 training course at New York University on the technique of plumbing inspection, - 3 - . R-463 together with lectures cn public health hazards, cross-con¬ nections, back-siphonage, and water-borne diseases. Upon the completion of the training course the engineers v/ere divided into six field parties. Each field party con¬ sisted of a chief of party, one or more engineers, from one to four plumbers and from one to three handymen obtained from the work-relief roll. The six chiefs of party were selected from among the engineers completing the training course; and each supervised the workings of his field group, maintained the necessary link between the field and office forces and assisted in and supervised the writing of the preliminary field reports. The engineers, with the aid of the chiefs of party, inspected the plumbing and fixture., prepared the field sketches and composed the field reports. The plumbers, handymen and laborers furnished such assistance as was re¬ quired . The laboratory personnel comprised a chief, several as¬ sistant bacteriologists, and a number of attendants trained In the technique of proper water sample collection. This division cooperated with the field force in the collection and bacteriolog¬ ical examination of water samples taken from supplies in the - 4 - ■ R-463 various buildings inspected. Wherever the condition of the plumbing in a building warranted it, exhaustive tests were run. Certain limitations were imposed on the work of the laboratory by the occupancy of the buildings and the necessity for con¬ tinuous use of the water. As a result, the usefulness of the laboratory examinations to the project was somewhat lessened. The administrative and drafting division cted as a co¬ ordinating unit for the three divisions. It maintained the necessary liaison with the Works Progress Administration and the co-sponsor, the Public Health Service. The drafting section consisted of a supervising draftsman and a number of draftsmen selected from the relief roll of the Works Progress Administration. These men, under close supervision and with the assistance of the chiefs of party, prepared the finished drawings from the field sketches. > The force of stenographic and clerical 'workers in the administrative section of the division transposed the field notes into the final reports under the guidance of the office engineer. These data, with the finished drawings and sketches, tabulations and photographs made up finished reports for each federal department which, after careful checking by the super¬ vising engineer in charge of the project, were forwarded to - 5 - R-483 the v iblic Health Service for transmittal to the Secretaries of the respective federal departments concerned. The manner in which the staff was coordinated is shown in Figure 1. SCOPE OF WORK While the scope of this project was limited to the inspec¬ tion of the federal buildings in two cities, the large number of structures to be inspected necessitated the development of a simplified system of identification. This was accomplished by means of a group and unit scheme. Each separate group of structures in each of the two cities was given a group number. (For locations of the various groups, see Figures 2 and 3) Each group was then sub-divided by giving each structure in it a unit number. Plot plans of groups having more than one or two units were included in the reports to indicate the locations of the respective units. Throughout all of the work and in the final reports reference was made to bu_laings only by their group and unit assignment. In cases where more than one governmental department controlled buildings in the same group, a sub-division of the group was made; as, for instance, Group 2 and 2A. These sub-divisions were in turn divided into units to corresoond with the other groups. Table I gives, by departments in each of the two cities, the number of groups and units and the floor area / - o - of the structures. . m rH © Eb •rl Cn 7 ■\ttt Ll&KArt* Of THE. UHWERSITV of ILLINOIS *-433 NEW YORK CITY Plumbing Survey of Federal Buildings U. S. Public Health Service and Works Progress Administration May 1936 - June 1937 Locations of Groups of Buildings Inspected GROUP LOCATIONS ARE INDICATED BY BLACK. DOTS Figure 2 8 UHWtSsS W ' aW0 ' S LOCHMOOR we' UB^ TABLE I NUMBER OF STRUCTURES and FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEET NEW YORK CITY, N. Y . Floor Area Department Number of Groups Number of Units Square Feet A 1 35 645,375 B 25 25 5,028,094 C 8 62 2,046,271 D 4 5 849,147 E 7 34 156,111 F 1 11 460,000 G 10 638 8,762,990 56 810 17,947,988 DETROIT, ' MICHIGAN A 3 15 45,185 B 3 3 356,882 C A 58 427,786 D 1 8 55,550 E f-' 12 185,155 12 96 1,070,358 - 10 - R-483 Table II classifies the buildings or structures (each being a unit irrespective of size, use or shape) in accordance with their height and floor area. TABLE II STRUCTURES CLASSIFIED BY HEIGHT* \ Number Percent of Floor Area percent of of Number of Total Number Square Total Stories Structures of Structures Feet Floor Area NEW YORK 1. 376 46.4 1,035,738 5.6 r-\ d 104 12.9 1,755,308 9.6 3 193 23.8 1,959,178 10.9 4 43 5-3 1,772,820 9.9 5 9 1.1 388,558 2.4 Over 5 17 2.1 10,615,399 59.1 Unclassi¬ fied 68 8.4 420,987 2.3 DETROIT 1 39 40.7 87,681 8.2 r*. <. 7 7.3 47,176 4.4 3 31 32.3 463,393 45.1 4 15 15.6 250,010 23.4 5 3 3.1 132,436 12.4 Over 5 1 1.0 69,660 6.5 Unclassi¬ fied 0 0.0 0 0.0 * Basements and sub- -basements are counted as stories. - 11 - R-483 Another differentiation of the structures has been made in Table III. Here .they are shewn in accordance with their use. While most of t:.em are readily classified, a number, especially in New York, failed to fit under any general heading. These have been listed as unclassified. TABLE III Classification of Structures by Use NEW YORK Percent of Total Type of Structure Number of Units Number of Un Small Residences 261 32 _ Multiple Apartments, Barracks and Dormitories 59 7.3 Office Buildings 32 3.9 Hospitals 28 3.5 Unclassified 430 53.1 810 100.0 • DETROIT Small Residences 32 Q9 Q • J Multiple Apartments, Barracks and Dormitories 6 6.3 Office Buildings 12 U"\ • CM i—1 Hospitals 2 i — 1 (V Unclassified 44 45.8 96 100.0 - 12 - R-483 ?^1ETK0D OF PRESENTATION To prevent the final inspection reports from becoming too large and thus being lessened in value, a simplified method of presenting the results of the work to each depart¬ ment was devised, which consisted in: 1. A general department report, presenting (a) a history of the project, (b) the problem involved, (c) an outline of the inspection organization, (d) a short summary describing the order and method of presentation of the material collected, and (e) a general discussion of plumbing defects or deficiencies and health hazards, with detailed explanations and illustrations of the more common defects. 2. A list of groups of buildings under the jurisdiction of the department, with an accompanying map showing the location of each group in the city. 3. A brief group report, preceding the detailed unit reports of that group, containing information pertaining to the group as a whole. 4. For ail groups having more than one or two units, a list showing (a) the unit number used for the purpose of the survey, (b) the number assigned to the unit by those in charge of its maintenance, (c) the name of the unit, (d) its height, and (e) its approximate floor area. 5. A map showing the location of each unit in the group with the identifying unit numbers. Such a map was not prepared for t a group consisting of only one or two units. - 13 - R-483 6. The unit reports in numerical order. For larger units a complete description of the water and sewerage systems was given for a full understanding of the remainder of the report and following that, a summary of all plumbing defects and de¬ ficiencies separated into six general classifications. In small units it 5 possible to include all of the information on one sheet. In the larger units, defective fixtures were tabulated so as to show their location and with reference symbols to indicate the riser connection in the basement or pipe gallery feeding them. In the last column of the tabulation was given the type of defect or deficiency, or a reference to a detail drawing or photograph which, supplemented with explanatory remarks, further cl rifled the report. The commoner defects and deficiencies, repeated in many buildings, were explained in the general discussion' of plumbing defects and mentioned only by name in the tabulation. When it was desirable to snow complete piping layouts, isometric sketches giving all essential details and the reference symbols heretofore men ioned were inserted at the end of the unit report. In the course of this survey, a number of plumbing defects were found that merited further consideration than would be afforded by a simple tabulation. Some of them were important because they presented a more hazardous aspect than the general class of disapproved f xtures; others; because they represented - 14 - ' ■ R-483 an entirely new type of plumbing defect or deficiency hitherto seldom mentioned in any plumbing survey reports. These were given special attention and some of them are discussed in this summary. One of the defects that presented a definitely hazardous condition was a connection of a water line to the discharge side of a sewage ejector. This water line taken from the distribution system in the sub-basement of the build¬ ing was needed to supply the cooling jackets of two air com¬ pressors which in turn furnished air to two sewage ejectors. The discharge pipe from the air compressor cooling jackets was connected directly into the discharge pipe from one of the sewage ejectors. This ejector had a rated discharge pressure of 40 pounds per square inch nd the water pressure at that point averaged about 55 pounds per square inch. Presupposing that the ejector v/as discharging, with the water running through the cooling jacket and into the discharge line of the sewage ejector, a reduction of the water pressure to a point below that of the discharging sewage would allow sewage from the ejector to be forced back into the cooling jackets of the compressors, and then into the water distribution system of the building. Since the cooling jacket supply line would be open at the time of the ejector discharge, the only condition necessary to permit contamination of the water supply was the occurrence of a pressure drop in the water line at that time. Figure 4 illustrates this connection. - 15 - * 483 u. °s the soil pipe, to the right of the trap, turns upward and connects to the various fixtures in the building. In the event of a stoppage in the horizontal stretch of this soil pipe, sewage may back up in the vertical leg and exert an increasing pressure on the valve separating the water and sewer systems. If this valve is opened to flush out the soil pipe, or if it is closed but leaking, and the pressure on - 17 - . R-483 the soil line side of the valve becomes greater than that on the water line side, then sewage will flow into the water line of the building. A vacuum in the water line also would produce a similar result. Figure 5 -18- IHt UBRM^ O fWt ,. unl r UWVtRS«'< or ll " ' R-483 An installation which represents a type of defect seldom mentioned in plumbing survey reports is the flush- rim floor drain in common use in a large number of hospitals and industrial buildings. In this fixture, a vacuum in the water line feeding the fixture at the two points marked "Pipe tap" (Figure 6) together with an open or leaky control valve on that line may permit the contents of the floor drain to be drawn into the water supply of the building. v Figure 6 - 19 - *• •. R-4S3 Another type of defect which may be easily overlooked or dis¬ missed as unimportant involves soil or waste pipes on the ceilings of ice manufacturing plants, above food preparation tables or over open drinking water tanks. Figure 7 shows several soil pipes located on the ceiling of an ice plant. The tank on the hoist in the center of the photograph is one of a number of such cans which are filled with water and placed in a brine tank in the i floor of the room. During the freezing process some of these cans are located under the soil pipes shown in Figure 7 and if any leakage of the soil pipes siiould take place, it would drop into the cans and be frozen into the ice. Figure 7 - 20 - R-483 Figure 8 shows several soil pipes above food preparation equipment in a kitchen. Leakage from these soil pipes may drop upon the food on these tables. Figure 8 The possibility of infective materials being spread in this manner may be eliminated entirely by more careful attention to pipe location when plumbing layouts are designed. For - 21 - R-483 example, installing soil or waste lines at points other than immediately above food preparation or storage spaces, or placing water storage tanks at points other than directly below soil or waste lines should eliminate the chance of spreading contamina¬ tion or disease in this manner. SUMMARY In order to present the results of this survey in a simple yet complete form, two,tabulations of the findings in each of the two cities have been made. Table IV gives the number of fixtures inspected and Table V the number disapproved for each type of building. (The term disapproved is used here to denote those fixtures which fall in the category of plumbing installa¬ tions which, under certain conditions, may present a hazard to the public health. It is impossible in this condensed summary of results to differentiate between the various conditions which, when present, make each fixture a public health hazard or to qualify in any way the potential degree of danger attached to any of the fixtures). From Tables IV and V it may be noted that the number of fixtures inspected in federal buildings in New York City and Detroit were 21,928 and 2,736 respectively or a total of 24,664. The number of fixtures listed as disapproved in New York City was 14,844 and in Detroit was 2,052, being respectively 67.7 percent and 75-0 percent of tne plumbing installations inspected in the two cities. * 2*0 — ' TABLE IV NUMBER OF FIXTURES INSPECTED NETT YORE TYPE OF BUILDING FIXTURE Residences Dormitories Multiple Apart- V'onts & Barracks Office Buildings Hospitals Unclassified Totals T^avrvfcories 700 1220 3062 769 S23 6673 Flushameter Closets 306 662 2483 345 906 4702 Low TeJik Closets 317 77 24 47 236 701 Hi gh Tank Closets 81 44 195 148 591 Other Type Closets 1 16 1 13 17 48 Bath Tubs 596 270 5 159 49 1079 Laundrv Travs 396 231 4 20 39 690 Sinks 420 261 154 249 374 1458 Showers 136 394 190 191 311 1222 Urinals 8 208 1102 115 404 1837 Slot) SinkB 7 82 424 ISO 79 _ 111.... nrl nldnc Fountains 93 424 85 89 691 Puirros 3 1 49 5 4 62 Hot Water Storare Tanks 111 38 28 8 42 227 Tanks (’'isoellanoous) 1 44 11 17 73 Laundrv Washers 1 28 29 Miscellaneous Submerged Inlets 5 1 6 " Sinks 3 9 2 14 " Sterilizers 3 11 1 15 " Utensil Washers 5 5 10 " Me eh inn R 9 1 16 Water-Sewer Connectsons 1 1 Cross-Connections 2 1 3 Punp Priming, Lines 1 1 2 Refrigerating Uaohinos 2 3 2 4 5 16 Dislr.mshors 5 27 8 40 Soun Kettles 3 14 8 25 Steam Tables 3 1 14 11 29 Viator Filters 5 1 6 Voretable Cookers 3 8 11 Bed Pan Washers 20 20 Treatment Baths 17 17 Water Stills 2 2 4 3 11 Bar Sinks 2 2 Boilers 167 34 20 4 59 284 Pressure E.iootors 5 6 Suction E.ieotors 3Q 7 8 3 5 42 Developing Tanks 1 14 15 8 38 Dental Cuspidors 3 31 2 36 Bed Pan Sterilizers 1 44 45 Water Sterilizers 17 1 18 Instrument Sterilizers 2 17 1 20 Utensil Sterilizers 36 36 Autoclaves 1 1 3 16 3 24 Cooling Jackets 11 5 14 30 Air Conditioners —n - 22 2 45 Sitz Baths 6 G Potato Peelers 5 14 4 23 Coffee Urns 13 13 IS 42 Autor>sy Tables 3 3 Floor Drains 1 25 26 Watering Troughs 1 8 9 Print Washors - 3 - - 2 2 5 Soap Melting Pots 2 4 6 Crease Removing Tanks - 1 1 Lye Vats 1 1 Starch Mixers 2 2 Lime Boxes 1 1 Water Softeners 1 1 1 Paint Stringing Vats 1 1 Crease Traps 1 1 Svriming Pools 1 1 Material Washers 4 4 Straddle Stands 7 7 ^ Cooling Towers 1 1 Coffee Roasters 3 3 Printing Vaohines 3 2 5 Miscellaneous 5 46 51 Totals 3276 3676 8312 2739 3925 21928 - 23 TABLE IV (Concluded) NUMBER OF FUTURES INSPECTED DETROIT TYPE OF BUILDING FIXTURE Residences Dormitories Multiple Apart¬ ments & Barracks Office Buildings Hospitals Unclassified| It Totals T,avatories 116 177 567 130 11 1001 Flushorneter Closets 33 94 263 60 4 454 Low Tank Closets 92 46 6 8 1E2 Hieh Tank Closets 11 8 1 20 Other Tvre Closets 8 2 10 Bath Tubs 106 14 30 150 Laundry Trays 81 19 1 101 Sinks 67 17 14 28 8 134 c hov'ers 11 38 20 18 3 20 Urinals 5 41 152 12 1 191 Sion Sinks 1 10 44 15 70 Prinking Fountains 5 13 77 10 4 109 Pumps 10 1 11 Hot W'ater Storage Tanks 54 10 11 4 79 Tenks ("iscellanebus) 11 1 12 Laundry Washers 3 3 Miscellaneous Submerged Inlets 1 ] " ginks 5 5 " Sterilizers " ’Jtonsil Washers " Machines Water-Sewer Connections Cross-Connections Pjhp Priming Lines Refrigerating Machires 3 3 Dishwashers 1 1 1 9 U Sour) Kettles Steam Tfttlfifi 1 1 1 3 Water Filters Vepetable Cookers Bed Tan Washers Treatment Baths 2 2 ’Water Stills Bar Sinks Boilers 34 9 8 1 3 54 Pressure Ejectors Suction Ejectors 4 4 Developing Tanks 8 8 Dental Cuspidors 1 3 4 3ed Pan Sterilizers -8 Water Sterilizers 3 3 Instrument Sterilizers 0 w 2 Utensil Sterilizers 9 9 Autoclaves 4 4 Cooling Jackets 1 2 1 4 Air Conditioners Sitz Baths 6 6 Potato Peelers 5 1 1 7 Coffee Urns -1 1 Autopsy Tables 1 1 Floor Drains 1 1 Watering Troughs Print Washers 1 1 Soap Melting Pots Crease Removing Tanks Lye Vats Starch Mixers -1- ~T~ Lime Boxes Water Softeners Faint Stripping Vats Grease Traps 3 3 Primming Pools Material Washers Straddle Stands Cooling; Tcwers Coffee Roasters _ Printing ’ achir.es Miscellaneous 1 1 2 Totals 62S 453 1238 37C 52 273 6 - 24 TABLE V NDMBER OF DISAPPROVED FIXTURES TTETT YORX TYPE OF BUILDING Residenoes Dormitories Multiple Apart¬ ments & Barracks Office Buildings Hospitals Unolr.ssi fied! Totals Lavatories 614 1040 2664 606 741 5565 Flushcmetor Closete 306 662 2463 346 - w‘0 4702 L057 Tank Closets 317 77 24 47 235 ZQ£L Hi;sh Tank Closets 81 44 196 148 123 591 Other Type Closete ”"I 16 ~~r~ 12 X 1 47 RAth Tuba 365 126 5 22 35 726 Lvindrv Travs 248 127 4 16 12 412- Sinka 11 6 7 8 25 57 Shov/ers Urinala 2 4 246 36 15 302 Sloe Sinka 1 102 32 13 148 Drinking Fountains 88 364 82 82 £12 Pumos 1 1 16 1 12 Hot "Y.tcr Storage Tanka 8 2 8 10 28 Tanks (Miscellaneous) 1 26 9 11 47 Laundry Washers 1 28 29 Miscellaneous Submerged Inlets 6 1 6 -"-Sinks 2 1 3 Sterilizers 3 11 14 Utenail Washers 2 6 7 Haohlnes 2 2 We.ter-Serwor Connootiona 1 1 Croso-Connootione 2 1 3 Purvo Priming Lines ~r~ 1 2 Rofrigcrrtinr: Maohinea 2 3 2 4 3 14 pish:m?hers 6 27 8 40 Soup Kettles 3 6 ? 17 Steam Tabloa “5“ ~YT 6 20 Wator Filters 6 1 6 Vegetable Cookers Ted Pan Washers 20 20 Treatment Rathe 17 17 'fi'ator Stills 2 2 4 Rar Sinks 1 1 Boilers 166 34 19 4 68 281 Fressure E.leotors 3 3 Suction E.leotors 1$ ~T~ “5“ 3 5 42 Developing Tanks ii 14 8 33 Dental Cuspidors 3 31 2 36 Bed Pan Sterilizers 1 44 45 Water Sterilizers 16 16 Instrument Sterilizers 2 16 ie Utensil Sterilizers 36 35 Autoclaves 1 3 12 2 18 Cooling JaoketB 11 6 9 26 Air Conditioners 21 22 2 45 SJLtz Baths 6 6 Potato Peelers 3 4 1 8 Coffee Urns 4 4 Autoosv Tables 3 3 Floor Drains 1 26 26 Watering Troughs 1 1 Print Washers 2 2 5 Soap Felting Pots 4 4 Grease Removing Tanks 1 1 ^Y© Vats 1 1 Staroh fixers 2 Lime Boxos Water Softeners Paint Stripping Vats 1 1 Grease Traps Swimming Pools 1 1 Material Washers 4 4 Straddle Stands Cooling Towers 1 1 Coffee Roasters Printing Fachines 2 2 4 Miscellaneous 5 6 11 Totals 2247 2267 6260 1660 2430 14844 - 36 SION mi dO AilSydAIND 3H1 dO AMvaan 3Hi ■V'- TABLE V (Concluded) NUMBER OF DISAPPROVED FIXTURES DETROIT TYPE OF BUILDING FIXTURE Residences Dormitories Multiple Apart¬ ments & Barracks Offioe Buildings Hospitals Unclassified Totals 1 113 177 553 129 10 982 Flu nhnmater Closets 33 94 263 60 454 T.m of the results of the work in the two cities has been made for the purpose of furnishing a check on one of the original premises, namely, that the findings of this survey would be representative of the conditions in federal buildings in general. In plotting the results, the figures listed in Tables IV and V have been expressed as percentages of the total fixtures inspected for each type of building as shown in Table IV for New York City and Detroit respectively. This has been done not only for each type of building but for all buildings as a whole. The percentages for New York City and Detroit are plotted against each other for each classification of fixtures. It will be noticed from the graphs that the segregation of the buildings on the basis of use, Figures 9 to 13, shows in most cases a closer correlation than resulted from the plotting of the total results for each city. Figure 14. This was to be expected because while the plumbing within certain classes of buildings may vary with the location, size of city, and severa.1 other factors, in other classes of buildings, such as small residences, it may be expected to be comparatively similar throughout the United States. CONCLUSIONS In any survey of plumbing defects, before an appreciation of the results can be had, it is necessary to understand fully the conditions under which a plumbing fixture or installation may become a public health hazard. First, the design of - 47 - ■ . 83 Figure DORMITORIES, MULTIPLE APARTMENTS AND BARRACKS roved PERCENT 3 in - ;; ;j ,i ,j 'i i * 4 :j i H i! !l ! 1 :» : !i !> ij fl , 4- >t f : '! I* H i IS. co i iO 00 C S # I‘ - ®| -r* •- W -H- ♦» t) ' • U >1 ox •«-< :*h M ), fX^'O O « fp L L C- rt +> P- to tO K § I »'2:° .Sir¬ a'S! S S!> I -p I ‘- ^ ^ to «h» Sv!3 ® co ■ Q ® . o cn T* 45 r-r i 1 w ti u C bo ax 5 L ;i>» CO «?* « lO 00 St ■4» ttf); ri a'lw js *t ® tI tl P aii^ i „ _ o ® -H M flip Cjr-I SP Ij r-j 8-3i2 U 4J|! W ^3 ‘ PPTf t * siis 1 t ,,£3 o -n- (■ I tO - 29 - Figure 10 w e uewR'* °l ^ \LL\HO>S UUNERS'I OFFICE BUILDINGS 83 - TO - Figure 11 483 - 11 - Figure 12 R-483 - 32 - Figure 13 -483 - 33 - Figure 14 Wl R-4S3 the fixture or installation must be such that it furnishes a direct or indirect path for the spread of contamination. Second, the occurrence of conditions which would permit contamination must be possible. The paths through which contamination may be spread through a plumbing fixture or installation can be determined. In some fixtures, a direct and unobstructed course is presented. In others, the path is indirect and blocked by valves, siphon preventors, and sometimes air gaps. In this survey to determine the prevalence of plumbing defects in public buildings no cognizance was taken of the fact that the conditions necessary for the spread of contamination varied in the different build¬ ings inspected; the presence of a definite path by which con¬ tamination possibly could be spread was the sole basis for approval or disapproval of the fixtures and plumbing installa¬ tions. / It was noticed during the course of the work that the conditions required for the spread of contamination, such as the occurrence of a vacuum in a water system; the leaking or general inefficiency of valves; the leaking or general dis¬ repair r water, soil, ad waste lines; the stopping up of soil and waste pipes with the development of a back pressure; and the contamination of open water stora.ge tanks varied in the different buildings inspected. It is apparent that the 34 - . B-483 frequency with which these conditions occur either singly or together determine the degree of hazard presented by a faulty fixture. A more valuable presentation of results of a plumbing survey of this kind should include, therefore, fixtures improperly designed, installed or used, together with factors representative of the frequency with which conditions can be expected to occur that will contribute to health hazards from such fixtures. A differentiation then could be made between the amount of hazard involved in each fixture in¬ spected. Such a frequency factor would depend among other things upon the condition of the piping in the building, the design and number of fixtures, the design of the distribution system, the average water consumption, the height and size of the building, and the frequency with which a vacuum might occur in the water system. In newer buildings where the piping is new, the size of the pipes is adequate, the valves are in good condition and lunctioning efficiently, the distribution system is of good design, water pressure is sufficient and tne vacuum frequency is extremely low, the hazard factor would be small and the degree of hazard presented by any one defective fixture similarly would be small. In older buildings where opposite conditions exist - 35 - ' . R-483 the hazard factor would be high and the degree of hazard in fixtures similar to those in the new building would be much greater. In a study of several of the buildings inspected in New York, subsequent to the completion of the survey, circumstances con¬ ductive to the spread of contamination, generally reduced water pressure or creation of partial vacuum in water lines, were examined for the purpose of comparing their frequency of occurrence. In one building constructed recently, those factors necessary for the development of a disapproved fixture into a potential health hazard were almost non-existent. Thus, while several of the fixtures in this building were listed as disapproved, the degree of hazard to health in their use was exceedingly small. In another building studied, conditions potentially contributary to the spread of contamination were observed to occur quite frequently. While about the same per¬ centage of fixtures were listed as disapproved, in the older building as in the newer building, the health hazard surround¬ ing their use was many times greater. It is evident, therefore, that fixtures which might be permitted in one building, if allowed to exist in another building, where different physical forces come into play, might contribute measurably to the health hazard in the latter building. In the two cities in which surveys were initiated, - 36 - R-483 the work as planned was successfully completed. In 1935 it was possible to find a sufficient number of young engineers seeking employment who could be trained and utilized on the projects. Whether they would be available in times of normal employment conditions is doubtful. These surveys demonstrated that other required personnel could not be secured from the Works Progress Administration relief rolls in adequate numbers and, further, that employment restrictions necessarily imposed by Works Progress Administration rules for the utilization of work relief labor were such as not to permit the establishment of the most effective organization in an undertaking of this character. That cross-connections and defective plumbing fixtures or installations exist in federal buildings can not be denied. Some defects were of immediate danger to the health of the water users in the buildings in which they v/ere located; others Were of remote significance unless other variables were brought into play. As defects v/ere found in the New York buildings in about the same numbers as in Detroit buildings, it can be con¬ cluded that the same conditions exist in federal buildings in all other cities. Also, it seems reasonable to conclude that similar conditions could be found in other public buildings generally. gpSJ- 1 ' ! Ov \W - 37 - . r L 1 2 072912394 UNIVPBAITV DP II I INDIA.IIRRANA 30