ML20054F923
| ML20054F923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1982 |
| From: | Swanson E ARIZONA, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F919 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206180210 | |
| Download: ML20054F923 (125) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:F A-f: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 52 J3l 16 P6 :28 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )-
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528 COMPANY, - - ~ ~ ~ET AL. ) STN 50-529
) -STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating)
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)) TESTIMONY OF EDWIN K. SWANSON Q. What is your name and business address? A. My name is Edwin K.-Swanson, and I work at 1740 West Adams, Phoenix, Arizona. Q. What is your current position? A. I am the Manager of the Ambient Water Quality Unit of the Bureau of Water Quality Control for the Arizona Department of Health Services. Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? A. I am testifying about the contamination of groundwater documented by the Department of Health Services in the Phoenix area and the likelihood that this contamination will increase and become a greater problem in the near future. This documented contamination of municipal well water sources is having adverse effects on the delivery of water to the public. 8206180210 820616 PDR ADOCK 05000528 T PDR
c 2 Q. What ic your prior work ~ experience? A. I have been with the Bureau of Water Quality Control for nine years. In January, 1979, I became manager of the unit after performing assignments in the areas of planning, engineering and the review of proposed water end wastewater facilities for compliance with design requirements. Prior to coming to work for the Bureau of Water Quality Control I worked as a senior engineer for Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems Division, Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Q. Describe your cducational background and any profescional societies to which you belong. A. I received a bachelor of sciences degree in mechanical engineering. I am a registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania and Arizona. I am currently a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Water Resources Association. I was chairman of the Arizona section for the American Water Resources Association for the 1981 to 1982 period. I formerly was a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers and the Air Pollution Control Association. Q. What are your duties and responsibilities in your present position? A. I supervise a unit consisting of three professionals with experience and expertise in wastewater, toxicology,
~- - 3 chemistry, biology, and limnology. The Unit deals with ambient water quality, both of surface and. groundwater. The unit attempts to identify problems associated with water quality, assess possible solutions for these problems, and implement these solutions whenever possible. In general our goals are to protect human health and to ensure that surface water quality is adequate to protect the food chain. Q. What is TCE? A. TCE, or trichloroethylenc, is a solvent for fats, waxes, resins, oils, rubbers, paints, and varnishes with a multitude of uses. It is commonly used as a degreascr in industry, and for dry cleaning, paint stripping, automobile body polishing and decaffeinating coffee. TCE was typically used, prior to 1970, in the aerospace and materials industries. TCE is a suspected carcinogen for humans because it has produced cancer in some, although not all, laboratory animals. Q. At what levels of concentrations is TCE a public health concern for the Department of Health Services? A. According to statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") the excess cancer risk for lifetimo exposure
~
of 1 x 10 is reached at a level of 5 ppb. This estimated l risk means that in a population of one million people, during l their ' lifetimes, the statistical probability is that one person i i
~- 4 will contract cancer by drinking water containing 5 ppb of TCE. In several other states, 4 or 5 ppb for longterm exposure have been considered sufficient levels to condemn a' water source. It is the policy of Arizona to minimize pollutants in drinking water and aim for exposure risks of carcinogenic
~
materials of not morc than 1 x 10 excess cancer risk for lifetime exposure. Therefore under this standard TCE is a chemical of concern to the Department at levels of greater than 5 ppb, expecially since EPA does not regulate TCE in the drinking water supplyprogram. TCE is an unregulated chemical under the Federal Safc Drinking Water Act. The TCE " action level" of 5 ppb is an alarm or early warning signal that groundwater pollution exists and that steps should be taken to assure a safe water supply and to investigate the source and magnitude of the pollution. Q. Describe the efforts of the Department of Health Services to detect and analyze TCE in the Phoenix area. A. On October 1, 1981, the City of Phoenix initiated analyses for TCE. On October 10, 1981, resampling was conducted in an area served by the 64th Street reservoir. Three of the ten wells sampled exhibited varying levels of
5 TCE. On October 27, 1981, the Department was informed of the results, and samples were collected for confirmation of the results by the State Laboratory. Wel:b Nos. 35 and 36 were taken off line until the extent of the problem was fully determined. On October 29, 1981, the Department met with representatives from the Cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe to discuss further monitoring. From October 30, 1981, to the present the Department is participating in an extensive monitoring program of all identified wells in the area to define the full extent of contamination. See Trichloreothylene, Briefing Document, January, 1982, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Q. What wells sampled by the Department have shown TCE at levels above the state action level of 5 ppb? A. Two wells in Phoenix, Nos. 35 and 36; two wells in Scottsdale, Nos. 6 and 31; three wells in Tempe, Nos. 4, 6, and 8; and one well in the Phoenix-Litchfield Aiqprt Area, No. 3., have shown TCE at levels above 5 ppb. In addition four Salt River Project irrigation wells were found to contain TCE at levels above 5 ppb. See Summary of Arizona's TCE-Contaminated Wells, May 28, 1982, attached hereto as l Exhibit B. 0 '. Which of these wells provided drinking water? i
, 6 A. The wells identified above as wclls operated by Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempo, and the well located in the Phoenix-Litchficld Airport Area provided drinking water. I would ectimate that more than 200,000 people were served by those wells and may be affected by the shutdown of these wells.
Q. What action did the Department of Health Services take with respect to these eight wells after determining that the TCE level exceeded stato action levels?. A. All of these eight wells were ordered shut down, except for well No. 36, for which Phoenix is abic to blend well watcr with other water containing less or no TCE. Well No. 3 has not been shut down although the Department of Health Services has ordered that bottled water be served for all drinking water use. Q. What were the flow volumes of the wells which were shut down? A. Well No. 35 had a flow volume of approximately 1800 gpm; Scottsdale well No. 6 had a flow volume of approximately 1200 gpm; and Well No. 31 had a flow volume of approximately 2500 gpm. Tcmpe Well No. 6 had a flow volume of approximately 1200 gpm. Q. What is DBCP? A. DBCP, or dibromochloropropane, is a constituent of posticldes sold under the trade names of Nemagon, Fumazone,
7 Nemafume, Nemaset, Nematox, BBC 12 and OS-1897. It has reportedly been used since the mid-1950's to control nematodes, worms which feed on plant roots, particularly citrus, cotton, and grapes. DBCP has been linked to male sterility in workers involved in its manufacture and handling and to cancer in laboratory animals. Q. What is the concentration or level of DBCP for an
-6 excess cancer risk rate of 10 for 70-year, lifetimo exposure?
A. The concentration or level of DBCP for such an excess cancer risk is between .01 and .005 ppb. Q. WPat is the current policy or practice of the Department of Health Services regarding DBCP? A. The current policy of the Department is to minimize human exposure to DBCP whenever possible. The Department is considering as interim standards for materials in drinking water an excess cancer risk of not greater than 1 x 10 ~ . A permit will not be issued by the Department for a public water supply source if that source is within 1.5 miles of a citrus-growing arca or a DDCP-contaminated well unless the well has been analyzed for DBCP and the DBCP level has been found to be below .01 ppb. Q. Describe the DBCP well sampling program conducted by the' Department of Health Services from June through September, 1979. I i
~ 8 A. A DBCP well sampling program was conducted in response to an EPA request to survey groundwater supplics in areas where it was suspected that DBCP had been used. EPA's request was based upon the discovery of DBCP in drinking water in California in citrus growing areas. A total of 107 water samples were taken from 93 wells and onc surface water sourcc. Of the 93 wcils sampled in Maricopa County,26 (28%) were found to be contaminated with DBCP, in excess of .01 ppb. Five percent of the wells contained DBCP in levels greater than 1 ppb. The surfacc water sample contained less than .01 ppb of DBCP. See Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Well Gampling Program For Maricopa County, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Q. What action did the Department of Health Services take after conducting the above analyses of wel.1 samples? A. The Department advised owners with wclls containing DBCP levels of greater than 1.0 ppb to seck alternative water supplies for all domestic uses. Owners of wells with DBCP levels of less than 1.0 ppb but greater than .01 ppb were advised to seek alternative water supplies for drinking and culinary purposes and to minimize human contact for all other uses. The Department recommended that three municipal wells he removed from their systems. Two of the wells were disconnected from the water systems.
9 O. What other potentially carcinogenic organic chemicals have been found in wells or water systems in the Phoenix area? A. Other potentially carcinogenic organic chemicals found in wells or water systems are PCE or pentachloroothane, DCE, or dichloroethylene, and trihalomethanes, including chloroform. Trihalomethanes are created when chlorine reacts with trihalomethanc precursors such as humic acid, fulvic acid, and other products produced by the breakdown of algae and other organisms. Trihalomethanes include such compounds as chlorinated hydrocarbons. EPA guidelines state that the entire class of trihalomethanes are potential carcinogens and that the level of these compounds should not be more than 100 ppb in delivered water supplies. The level of trihalomethanes in delivered water in the Phoenix area is within the range of 0 to 100 ppb at the present time, and averages about 42 ppb. Plants treating surface water for public water supply systems have had to modify their processes to minimize the formation of trihalomethanes to ensure that the level is kept below 100 ppb. Q. Have you found other organic chemicals in wells sampled by the Department of Health Services?
. 10 A. Yes. We have found a number of. chemicals, including, most notably, in nine wells tested, phthalates, a constituent in plasticizers.
Phthlates have been found in concentrations ranging from 25 to 100 ppb with an average of about 61 ppb in Maricopa County. Although the excess cancer risk of 1 x 10 -6 for this material is 15,000 ppb, ny staff has concern about phthalates because they are a material that should not be present in groundwater. Q. Why are volatile chemicals an important concern in groundwater contamination? A. Volatile chemicals have been shown to move very rapidly through soils, either together with water or possibly as a vapor. The are not absorbed into soils as readily as>are materials with larger molecules. As a group, volatilo chemicals tend to be linked to cancer. About one-half of volatile organics contained in the EPA Priority Pollutant List are known or suspected carcinogens. Q. Ilow does groundwater contamination spread? A. Contaminated groundwater, in traveling from the surface or point of contamination near the surface, follows the path of least resistance, through voids and porouc V ( L. .
~ 11 q's zones. Contamination moves areally until it reaches the top of a saturated zone. Some contaminants are believed to
< N migrato downward through the saturated zone.to bedrock or 9
other= impervious basement materials. Pollutants deposited s in the upper parts of the saturated zone move with the dircction of groundwater flow. Groundwater flow can either
~~
be in the direction of natural flow or toward wells that are pumping.
"When a pumping well is shut off, the groundwater flow.
3 is toward another pumping well or in the direction of natural flow. Groundwater flow is also altered by natural events such as infrequent flooding or wet peri'ods which re-charge groundwater in one area causing flow away from the recharge arca. , N This movement is not predictable for a number of reasons 5. including: 'ektremes in meterological conditions and runoff events. Moreover, at the present time, no state' regulatory program exists to manage groundwater flow for pollution plume management. Q. Can you detect the amount and effects of groundwater pollution precisely? A. No, detecting groundwater pollution is not an exact science. Often contaminants do not follow surface contours of the land. 4
12 Visual observation of contamination is not possible. Moreover, in order to take samples, ona must construct a sample point that requires drilling a hole and completing a sampling well. Often the existing sample points are not properly located and constructed for investigatory purposes. Also, because groundwater moves very slowly, and cannot be observed, material which is now detectable could have been discharged into the groundwater possibly more than 20 years agc. Q. Do you cxpect groundwater contamination to become a greater problem in the future in terms of discontinuing the use of public water supply wells? A. Yes. I believe that the Department, with increased capability to detect different chemicals and contaminants in water, expect to find more chemicals incompatible with public health. It becomes increasingly likely that other contaminants will be regulated as their presence becomes known and their effects on human health are determined. i One of the ways being considered by the Department of
!!ealth Services to deal with currently unregulated chemicals
! in the public drinking water supply is a proposed regulation to establish emergency action levels so the Department can l set limits for certain chemicals on an emergency basis when it determines these chemicals endanger the public health. l I I.
. . ~ _-
~- , 13 In addition, the current quality control program for public water supplies is currently overseen by the State of Arizona. Water system owners, however, have the responsibility to collect all water samples, submit the samples to a laboratory for analysis, and report the results to the Department. The Department periodically conducts random checks of these test results. The Department may enforce the quality control program more strictly if it were tc conduct its own collection an analysis of all samples. Q. What is the cost of correcting or remedying groundwatcr contamination? A. Corrective action is very costly becauce the contaminant spreads over a large area; typically the wells in Arizona are very deep, over 200 feet; and the source of contamination is difficult to locate with precision. e
a 'g i TRICHLOR0 ETHYLENE Briefing Docuir.ent s' f Prepared by: Environmental Health Services Civision Department of Health Services January 19E2
,U =
o Briefina Document TCE - T0XICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS Trichloroethylene is a solvent for fats, waxes, resins, oils,
~
rubbers, paints and varnishes with a multitude of uses. It is most commonly used as degreaser in various industries. Other applications, include dry cleaning, paint stripping, automobile body polishing and decaffeinating , coffee. Historically TCE has been used extensively in the aerospace and electronics industries. 1,1,2 Trichloroethylene (U.S.E.P. A. ) Symptoms : - Small quantities of TCE inhaled cause dizziness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting High concentrations may cause heart fibrillation and sudden death, " Turning On" Prolonged exposure causes hepatorenal failure, , abdominal cramps, vomiting, cardiac arrythmia, coma Chronic exposure may lead to double vision, color misinterpretation and blindness , Skin contact: Vesicular lesions (finger paralysis from hand immersion) Organs Affected - Respiratory system Cardiovascular Central nervous system Digestive system Urinary system i l Cercinogenicity (National Cancer Institute.1976) ! Cancer was produced in mice but not. i n rats. Teratogenicity ar.d Mutagenicity were also documented af ter lanc-term i exposure in experimental animals. l _,...,.,,_,...e3,_ _ . - . . _ _ , . . , - , , _ _ , , , _ _ _ _ _ , _.____.,,,,,_y_.______,__-__._.._-.m. _ _ _ _
s TCE - 10alCliY AND MtAliH EFFECi$ = (fage2 Risks: No Federal or State standards have been developed for TCE. The excess lifetime cancer risks computed by EPA. from the NAS model at various exposures assuming the 70 kg adult drinking two liters of water per day for 70 years at the indicated concentration are as fol' lows: Concentration Excess Risk 4.5 ug/l one in 1,000,000 45 ug/l one in 100,000 75 ug/l approximately two in 100,000 For water quality guidance in several other states, 4 or 5 ppb were considered sufficient cause to condemn a water source.
, _3 SENATE BILL 1055 -
TCE SUPERFUND Senator Usdane has introduced a bill which would result in the establishment of a State Superfund specifically for trichloroethylene contamination of drinking water supplies. It requests the allocation of 1.5 million dollars which would be made available to political subdivisions for the removal or reduction of TCE on a priority basis. The Arizona Department of Health Services would be responsible for the administration of the Superfund. Additionally, authority would be given to the County - Attorney to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each day that any person unlawfully disposes of TCE. The Bill passed the Senate Health, Welfare and Aging Comnittee on January 19 and is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee, i i f i' l \ i
.i
Q PROPOSED AMENDriENTS TO :!AZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS Regulatory controls on wastes containing TCE are being' tightened as a result of the recent discoveries of TCE in groundwater used for-drinking water. Currently the EPA, and Arizona, only regulate TCE as a hazardous waste in concentration above 85%. The Department proposes to, amend the hazardous waste regulations- to controLTCE-in- concentrations. above_.50Jpm. The second proposed amendment to the regulations will change the small quantity generator maximum generation rate to 250 kg per month for TCE waste generators. The current rate is 1,000 kg per month. Persons generating in excess of 250 kg per month will be required to use recognized hazardous waste facilities for disposal. Additional proposed amendments to the regulations will require all small quantity generators tc, submit annual reports to the Department' identifying wastes generated and final disposition of those wastes.
- The proposed amendments will serve to locate more of the TCE l currently being generated and to better anticipate potential problems with l -
j hazardous wastes. i j i i
s DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM EPA ACTION AGAINST HUGHES In July 1981, EPA requested certain information regarding hazardous wastes from Hughes Aircraft Co. under Section 3007(a) of th'e Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource' Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). EPA requested all information about analyses of soil, water, groundwater, TCE, DCE, and hexavalent chromium conducted on the Hughes In property or in the vicinity of the Tucson International Airport. addition EPA requested Hughes' results on split (duplicate) samples collected by representatives of Ecology and Environment, Inc., consultants for EPA, at wells in the vicinity of the airport in March and May 1981. Hughes responded in August 1981, refusing to release the information. They claimed that the allegations were vague, ambiguous and overly broad, that the EPA was not authorized by Section 3007 to seek disclosure of such result, that any tests conducted were covered by confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege and the work product rule, and were not properly subject to the disclosure under Section 3007. Hughes was served, on October 7,1981 with a Complaint and Compliance Order wnich alleged that Hughes did not provide the information requested and is thereby in violation. 29, 1981 Hughes subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, but on December Administrative Law Judge, Marvin E. Jones, in Kansas City ruied in favor of EPA. He stated that the information sought consisted of necessary data and records germane to a regulatory action in which the public interest cut-weighed the individual interest. He also rejected Hugnes' claim of confidentiality because of the relevance of the ir.fortat ion to :ne regulatcry
- 14. 1932.
l proceeding. Hughes was orcered to supply the infor:xtion by Jenuary However, Hughes again appealled and a further nearing was heic cn January 20, 1982 in San Francisco, at which Hughes was give" 5 tercorary stay pending a l
DEPARTMEtlT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM Page 2 hearing on or about April 6,1932. The Department of Defense Hazardous Waste Program has implemented a nationwide Installation Restoration Program (IRP) to clean up military sites at which toxic materials pose an environmental hazard. The program has three phases: Phase I is a complete analysis of background information and data on the groundwater pollution; Phase II is quantification of the problem and indepth studies; Phase III is corrective action, such as cleanup or confinement of the contaminated aquifer. Hughes has contracted with a private engineering firm to produce a report, due February 1,1982, which is equivalent to both Phase I and II of the IRP. It is unknown when the report will be made available to the State ,or EPA, but IRP reports are public - information, therefore a delay of more than a few months is un~likely. At a January meeting of the Department of Defense in Washington, D.C., the Hughes plant was designated as top priority in this project. If cleanup is deemed necessary, funding could take as long as two years if the normal budget cycle is followed. However, there is a possibility of emergency funding if appropriate. There will be a meeting on February 4,1982 with D0D representa-tives to discuss IRP and the ongoing or proposed studies at Davis Monthan and Hughes Aircraf t in Tucson.
HXSTORY - TUCSON March 5, 1981: EPA Field Investigation Team - uncontrolled hazardous waste. sites - Hughes selected by EPA, Region IX and ADHS based upon Surface Impoundment Assessment completed in December 1979 April 15, 1981: Analyses of 3 industrial wells and 8 wells in surrounding area are completed. Two industrial and one municipal well indicate presence of TCE May 1981: Resampling and new sampling conducted - all 129 Priority Pollutants done June 1981: Industrial wells contained TCE 100 - 1000 ppb 1,1 - dichloroethylene 200 ' 1,1,1 - trichloroethane 100
- SC-7 contained TCE 77 1,1 - dichloroethylene 13
- C-62 contained TCE 60 Since then ADHS conducted sampling of 68 Tucson Water wells, all 1 Tucson Water reservoirs, selected distribution system samples and 25 private or industrial wells.
Shallow and deep soil samples are being collected in an effort f to identify potential sources. Sampling sites were selected on the basis of information on known disposal areas. l Tucson Water has taken over the responsibility for routine j monitoring of wells that are still in use within the defined study area. Three abandoned wells on Tucson Airport Authority proper y are currently
HISTORY - TUCSON Page 2 being renovated by Tucson Water. Samples from these wells should aid in further defining the characteristics of the plunie. A i i e
e 6 HISTORY - VALLEY J j October 1, 1981: City of Phoenix initiated analyses for TCE. October 10, 1981: Resampling is conducted in " problem area" served ) by 64th Street reservoir. Three ,of the ten wells i sampled exhib,it varying levels of TCE. i October 27, 1981: ADHS is informed of the results. Samples are I collected for confirmation of results by the State Laboratory. Wells =35 and 36 are taken off line until the extent of the problem is defined. i i October 29, 1981: ADHS meets with representatives from the Cities of i , Phoenix, Scottsdale and Temoe to discuss further J i monitoring. .
- October 30 to i Present: Extensive monitoring of all identified wells in i
} the area are sampled in an effort to define tne - extent of contamination ar.d identify other areas I of concern. Shallow and deep soil samples have ] been collected in selected locations in the Indian i Bend Wash area. ) 4 4 i __,,_,._m_
t'k STATUS - CONTAMINATED WELLS City of T scson TCE' ppb 5' wells closed SC-7 Tucson Nogales Highway 70-122 ' C-62 6th & South of Valencia 55-107 C-64 5th & Bilby 2.4 - 9.7 B-101 13th & Nebraska 7.1 - 33.5 B-87 10th & Utah (S. of Irvington) 2.9 - 6.6 B-85 13th & Tennessee (N. of Irvington) 0.4 - 6.6 City of Phoenix 2 wells closed , Booster station - NE corner 52nd St. & Thomas 8.1 - 20.4 64th St. & Thomas - SW Corner reservoir 1.0 - 21.2 Well #36 - SE Corner Thomas & Miller 100 - 143 Well #35 - SW Corner Thomas & Indian Bend W. 7.2 - 223 Well #34 - NW Corner Indian School & Hayden Road 1.6 - 3.8 , City of Scottsdale 2 wells closed Well #31 - 82nd St. & Earle (3100N) 5.0 - 6.7 Well #6 - 82nd St. & Osborn (3400N) 18.0 - 22.5 City of Tempe 2 wells closed Well #6 - McKellips & 78th Street 2.1 - 8.7 Indian Bend Booster 1/4 mi, E & 1/4 mi. N of Hayden & McKellips (SRP well) ND - 0.9 Rural Road & Lemon Road 10 5altRiverProject-irricationwells Miller and Roosevelt 35.5 Miller & McDowell 440 - $10 Granite Reef & McDowell 700 - 900 (A sample has been submitted to be analyzed for the 129 priority pollutants) Thomas & 74th Street 35.5 47.00
STATUS - CONTAMINATED WELLS Page 2 . Phoenix-Litchfield Airport Area TCE ppb 1 well closed Well #3 116 Goodyear Aerospace #2 2.6 Goodyear-Aerospace 94 1.0 Other Analyses: Monitoring of all wells serving the communities of Mesa, Goodyear and Kingman have been sampled for TCE. The results were all below the detection level. Defined study area - Tucson South - Hughes Access Road East - Swan North - Tucson - Benson Highway ' West - LaCholla Defined study area - Phoenix-Scottsdale South - Salt River East - Pima Road - North - Chaparral Road West - Scottsdale Road
ADHS PLAN'0F ACTION I
, In response to the TCE problem, a special Task Force has been formed j
- within ADHS and has coordinated activities with the municipalities, DWR, the Attorney General's Office, industries, county health departments and
, EPA. Various individuals in ADHS have been assigned to work.on the TCE issue full time. The basic steps that are necessary to address the problem l ] of groundwater contamination have been identified. The first concern is to i ensure the protection of the public's health; second, to protect the groundwater quality. 1 - monitor all drinking water wells to ensure public safety
- 2 - monitor all other identified wells to further define the extent of contamination and characteristics of plume l 3 - evaluate historical and current land use in the area - SIA, landfills
- injection wells, complaints 4 - inspect and investigate potential source 5 - conduct extensive monitoring including i
- .. shallow and deep soil samples l' .. monitoring wells for vertical testing 1
j . . measurement of static water levels i j .. analyses for other contaminants ; 1 2 6 - evaluate potential for cleanup of significant sources that may be contributing to the contamination 7 - define the alternatives for future use of the aquifer including
. . treatment al ternatives i
j . aquifer management 1 .. alternative sources
, .. seasonal
! In mid February an interim report will be released. It will include: an evaluation of current and historical chemical quality data; a health risk 1 J i l
ADHS PLA!1 0F ACTION Page 2 assessment; evaluation of treatment alternatives; analysis of nistorical and current land use. . e d
STATE ORGANICS GROUP Additionally, it is apparent that groundwater contamination may be a problem throughout the State and that TCE may not be the only contaminant. A State Organics Group has been organized to develop an approach to identifyin> these areas of concern. It is broken into seven subgroups.
- 1. Laboratory Network
- 2. Education
- 3. Health Effects Assessment
- 4. Implementation / Regulation / Guidance
- 5. Surveillance / Monitoring
- 6. Control Option Development
- 7. Enforcement & Legal Counsel
SCOPE OF WORK I. HYDR 0 GEOLOGICAL STUDY
~
A. Well inventory B. Determination of Static Water Levels C. Definition of Subsurface Geology' ,
- 1. Interpretation of Data D. Determination of Aquifer Characteristics E. Development of Water Budget for Industries F. Evaluation of Current Chemical Quality G. Evaluation of Historical Chemical Quality H. Conduct Borehole Geophysical Study
- 1. Interpretation of Data I. Preparation of Report - Draft Final II. WASTE STREAM / SOURCE STUDY A. Analysis of Aerial Photography B. Evaluation of Historical Landuse & Industrial Practice C. Characterization of Solid Waste III. PLUME IDENTIFICATION A. Determination of Geographic Extent B. Determination of Vertical Extent
- 1. Existing wells
- 2. New wells C. Vadose Zone Sampling IV. MONITORING WELLS A. Development of Monitoring Wells B. Identification of Origin of Plume (Source) l l
} l 6 i - - -
GUIDELINES
, ADHS Guidelines for TCE and Other Organic Contaminants in Municipal
- and Community Water Supplies have been developed.
The Guidelines are a cooperative effort between the ADHS and public water suppliers to deal with the problem of TCE and other organic contaminants in groundwater. The major concern is to protect the public from the possible carcinogenic effects of long-term consumption of low levels of these compounds. The Guidelines defined the procedures for: Initiation of monitoring in high risk areas based upon landuse, waste disposal, hydrologic factors, pollution history Reporting requirements Resamp1ing Considerations for use , further analyses alternative sources
- feasibility of blending seasonal use*
treatment
- aquifer management
*e.g. If no other carcinogens beside TCE are present, the following levels are presently under consideration:
TCE Concentration in Water Oelivered to Consumers Use Period /Yr. 1 to 2 X action levels no more than 6 mos/yr. j 2 to 4 X action levels no more than 3 mos/yr. 4 to 8 X action levels no more than i 1/2 mos/Yr. 8 to 10 X action levels no more than 30 days /yr.
TCE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES The two most common methods of treatment for TCE are Aeration (Packed tower) Boiling is a possible method of and Adsorption (Granular activated carbon). removal as an emergency measure. Combining aeration and adsorption or blending , j may prove to be the most economical and practical, providing the system will i allow a combination scheme.
" Packed tower" aeration is being used in the Eastern U.S.A. to solve TCE i
d pollution problems in drinking water systems. These systems obtain removal efficiencies consistently in the range of 90-98 percent. Amortized capital ! and operation and maintenance costs of treatment using " Packed tower" aeration ! range from 8-10 cents per 1000 gallons treated (system size @ 5.0 MGD) to 50-60 cents per 1000 gallons treated (system size @ 100,000 GFD). Granular activated carbon (GAC) is also being used in the Eastern U.S.A.,
; e.g. Atlantic City, N.J. , to solve .TCE pollution problems in drinking water t
i systems. These systems obtain removal efficiencies consistently in the range t
- of 96 - 100 percent. Amortized capital and operation and maintenance c'osts of treatment using GAC range from 25 cents per 1000 gallons treated (system size l @ 5.0 MGD) to 51.50 per 1000 gallons treated (system size @ 50,000 GPD).
1 l ireatment combinations of partial treatment (using aeration) follcwed by j blending, and diffused aeration followed by GAC have been used as treatment schemes s in removing TCE. The combination used would depend on the influent TCE concentration, the layout of the system (wells, storage tanks, and service f connections), volume of water to be treated, and the effluent quality desired. 1 Use of treatment combinations will tend to be more economical and practical when able to incorporate into the treatment process. 4 1 1
i
- kV, u sk
#/ hE l $$l @t hTw ,
'! w.4 . Oi 00GAACf v T#ACK
~
..., - (~7 .b t O' ~
VfffRAN$
,,,:. . ~
g ein 3
,4,, s ( ;+ ,
* \
AJO O I_- WAY C A;o s 7
'jgG f '
j g g '. e = , s
~
// i :h)ffff a s w v=viscTcN C l RD [f5k I IRVINGTON h.g (.
1 ; s, 4 ..NTA. ; .,x 3
,'~t...-U \ \.,
= d. N l ! ;
% N
's.
attty s s oatrot-
.ch entret (@ no
/ I l . . . a,
=
a d 'e @ s i @ s s - .
^
"9 I 5
y eit sy ai @t e, $ .o 5
^ -
~
, 5 e \
$.G
~
q
. e x h
NCIA 1 AD vattNC:A : fr29 VAMNQA
- RD vat E NCI A j
I ttvd
! h Mi i kc- -
'l !
- y
- g. w. ,
/527 "0"^
yl
) ,
/\ d --.
m "EE5 l __------...._1...f._________..'esalds._."SJ):: w ,.e / : j van -( #o ' : ; , L_ ' - j e C
%p ,
' TUCSON sarco '
N * , INT [nNAT/0NAL AIRPORT k >i [ +
;e ivouN M' k --- 0 ---- 9 . .. i , ' . .,
,\ .,
TCE SAMPLING RESULTS @ , h BAD ('11000 ppb) O 5 0 0 POOa (So-tooo pob) ' ->c c5 'ccess "o J O FAIR (5-5o pob) "*
- h GOOD k5 pob) ,
.< / ,~ ~ u,,
, . N ~ce m s
BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - SCOTTSDALE TCE Date Agency Product / Activity Dec. 1979 ~ ADHS Surface Impoundment Assessment Report (SIA) Spring 1980 ADHS Prioritization of Surface Impoundments Juna 1980 ADHS/ EPA FIT Investigation of Motorola GED October 1980 ADHS Motorola stops using surface impoundment Spring-Sumer 1981 ADHS Motorola removes heavy metal residue in old surface impoundment October 1981 ADHS Motorola conducts test borings / sampling October 1981 Phoenix TCE detected in drinking water system , November 1981 ADHS Motorola submits results of sampling Nov.-Dec. 1981 ADHS/SRP/Munic. Additional samples collected for analysis (Att. Dec. 1981 ADHS TCE presence confirmed by State Laboratory Dec. 16, 1981 K0Y Bob Scott letter to ADHS discussing perched water theory D:c. 18, 1981 ADHS/SRP Sample cascading water in SRP well at McDowell and Granite Reef 3 Dec. 21 & 22, 1981 ADHS Soil sampling at Motorola 3-Jan. 5-7, 1982 ADHS Soil sampling in Indian Bend Wash Jan. 4, 21, 1982 ADHS/DWR Discuss groundwater investigation problems
& possible solutions March 4, 1982 ADHS/DWR Discuss groundwater investigation w/DWR and V of A cities and outline new field investigation techniques March 16, 1982 ADHS TCE Guidelines released (Attachment 25)
) March 17-19, 1982 ADHS/U of A Field testing of new investigation techniques using Gas Chromatograph March 30, 1982 ADHS, DWR, SRP, Draft work plan developed for coordinated U of A, Munic. project (Attachment 4b)
, BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - SCOTTSDALE TCE Pagd 2 .
Date Agency Product /Activi ty i April 5-13, 1982 City of Phoenix /SRP Test pumping of Well #35 and monitoring ADHS TCE values. Analyze for purgeable organics. (AttachmentSb) May 4, 1982 DWR/U of A Install soil drive points for soil gas sampling . O Large expenditures of resources by ADHS (a) Dec. 21 & 22, 1981 $9,000 (b) Jan. 5-7, 1982 $5,000 (c) Mar. 17-19, 1982 $2,000 Special expenditures of resources for testing by Motorola GED at ADHS' request Oct. - Dec. 1981 $7,000 - $10,000 l Work Plan - ADHS, DWR, SRP, U of A, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Phoenix - compile and evaluate historical well data
- long term pumping water level water quality
- pull pump tv scan gamma neutron logs sample cascading water
- pumping test w/ larger pumps
- monitoring wells in perched system SRP - compile and evaluate data
- drive point for soil gas near well
- auger holes for soil gas to perched system
- long term pumping water level 1 water quality .
Phoenix action olan (Attachment 3b)
- 192. priority pollutants analyses for all 3 wells - duplicates to State Lab
- continue use of #34'(<5 ppb), #35 (220 ppb) trade-off with SRP
- use #36 (130 ppb) on seasonal basis; blends with 40 MGD Verde System Scottsdale action olan Step 1: abandon wells if possible; Step 2: blend lower concentration well (=31),
taking 12 hour samples for TCE analysis Temoe action olan Seek alternate sources for now
'BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - SCOTTSDALE TCE Paga 3 Rough Estimate of Hydrological Investigation in Indian Bend Wash area of Scottsdale/Tempe M.onitoring Well Construction $150,000 Laboratory Analysis of Samples 84,000 ' Hydrologic Report (consultant) - 50,000 Personnel Costs (State) 25,000 Administrative Costs (State) 7,500 ' 5316,500
~ U uln.waa DG lS 107 E1FiD 011 HlEID F0!! PRB.f3?!?!!RY i!SE ONI. Preliminary TCE Results for Maricopa County March 29, 1982 Contents Page Map of Indian Bend Wash Area 1 City of Phoenix Wells 2 City of Scottsdale Wells 4 City of Tenpe. Wells 7 Salt River Project Wells 10 Goodyear Area Wells 11 Miscellaneous Private Wells 12
w~ e iv.m._ --- i w i-
. -{' p~.-
.W %- ;1- ,
- .)
c -r m;-" Y==~ w r
- ._ v
.i e$ 2 I m 24 99
= . _ ..
4
\ -P 4-., n I h, i 1: -
. - ;M.. .. , _..cd j es. ><{a ja 4 g -
fj g j, ., 3, ., _% %-t i ai n 3 u, k y ,,
.f
-h a j' .j
%.h U # .
.a ., . . .m. _, .. ... .. .. ... . .. ,. ,. , .,, . , . -- - .
.n- 3-., %, w.p. w=_.
1 ,,m ...a 2, .. ',
.,__1, I L _
m. _~ s,ag my _.. 3. . t i ,.,i ,a. . .-
/ w.
- - R ._ i a =.a. 1l w... m 1-a r;m,,, u - =._,g:-.
x
., u ,, 3- ; j_ ,, s
.e
;f3 ]~9 ' 9.a yN "' l "g-7'I+M3,"~M s.-, .,
I JI 1w[g %., - , 5 c i .3 ~,( t .--.2 Q,
-> 4 l g 1 1.
; ."i. m -;, --., . il- ,d r
i .
-==
E p.. . _ - . - , .,,,,,, ; g--- - . , g g ., y _, y l l 1-N1- ,h. i' Pedi!L m .._ J
,/u. m %,;_C s.9"4 -J" .!e. _ i8
-$ i -~ ~ A.an.= : ::.5 . 41e
-b.f J -: =9~ .
j A q?m-=_i> 7 ,. . n i_; -
, u,- --.:(--'"y~,sa, =; p . , n a . , . _ e- ,o(
= . .. . _ . .
- L.- -l a.; aI.
. 5
'8 es - ::J ..
[ ,,"*. W a,; y.3 f c. :. i
)
.s . ! .'h, .
.-p ,.::a.a
- i . U f N.h. "'- m -
,=-i-. ?.? I .
l l
#M
,,h,, .
ll i ..q_'s. ist l i, c 4. 1,I
' Q,,
- b,m -- f *a
- ~~~
,a. 4 k t
f,
- . , o-
=
.,.s.-g-..
, : i
. .r
- r. .
i i * ;,! e, 4 .---- i! > 1 f ;;;; di-4 i i I t-
, 1
- l ,i ;
as ca i;
.4
~ 4 cm *_.
- e g
^l I *
.A_.. ,.
f' tt g g. e e _ ,. ,s , . t.
-. 6 g e
- ==m r. .--- = )
Wannu." :-
== . 1 eW L ,i h 53
- 3l 4 t 18 1 9 ,.
' .,:;;- ,' ' e ,, y z ..! ='A t . e.s #.
F j k-l 58 g
._ -a :.;. .; ; g - ..- .. ; i g ; l ,L ---- %, ;; ,j.
.R .\h
- 2;""* ]l I.yi . u=;..=* * ..
i:mm.\ ,.i=;::z i
-> 1'-*J.
i t
. M,,--
B- % 1
.g s
-- r j y,,i$.,,l 3 I -
.I " [p'M p .. ,. n a
I .
! e f. -
i _ .a .
.a i ,, m
.e: . ,.ip i
. ;. I - t r
. n.e i .. .
ib,,, j ~ ---- ",*,11.9 j
'[ I no :m arm uh I
(D~ 'M." / - TCE SAMPUNG RESut.73 .( l l\
,s' ,. c .jl , i ... i e
.m.
l N,
..P., ' . ._ ,
_ _,._i.... . .i _ I C sac atem == i..._... . t O :csoso e .- f__. 5 A ! i'=i ! '-i I -l '.__ ) , ! O = s-ao== '.~.6#
- a
~
l .,e _ ..
;.i: i ; r-
'1 j gacco<aw., SF n,. f e ..sr. -
5.' . : -- g..M- ;g.- n: ,~ -
; u --
i:-..l'
~ "
i - .,.i.. / e - r
.7 ...o.. ; -
- . = . - +
,, a0 $.M, l
C5W OF PHCENU SAMPLES ANALY2D FOR VOIATILE ORGANICS SYSTEM TCE PCE NUMBER LOCATICN LA3 DATE PPB PPB NOTES
.7 Verde Well Fidld CCP 9/30/81 ND ND x
18 8791 E. Indian School COP 9/30/81 ND ND " 19 8601 E. Indian School COP 9/30/81 ND ND 20 8201 E. Indian School COP 9/30/81 ND NO 23 2916 N. 84th St. CCP 9/30/81 ND ND
= . i.
34 7992 E. Indian School COP 9/30/81 2.9 ND . I s COP 10/9/81 3.8 ND COP 10/29/81 3.4 , ADES 10/29/81 1.6 ADES 10/29/81 4.9 35 7825 E. Thomas COP 9/30/81 221 1.8 COP 10/9/81 223 5.5 Off-line CCP 10/29/82 8.7 Pumped 2 hr ADHS 10/29/81 7,2 ADHS 10/29/81 6.3 ADHS 11/2/81 134 Pumped 24 hr. 36 7601 E. Thomas COP 9/30/81 100' O.8 Off-line 10/8 CCP 10/9/81 102 5.1 COP 10/29/81 128 ADHS 10/29/81 143 ADHS 10/29/81 103 110 4530 N 17th Ave. CCP 9/30/81 ND hD 180 13009 N. 56th St. COP 9/30/81 ND ND
=
,, ~ -
t SAMPLES ANALY:2D FOR VCIATILE ORGANICS i SYSTEM 'ME PCE NUMBER LOCATICN 'AB DATE PPB NOTES _ PPB 7th St. & Broadway CCP 10/11/81, 12.9 to i 16th St. & Baseline CCP 10/10/81 5.8 ND 18th St. a Buckeye COP 10/10/8115.0 4.5
, r
, 40th St. & Baseline , CCP '10/10/81 7.8 3 , 10 40th St. & Van Buren COP 10/3/81 A +
1 h 40th St. & Washington CCP 10/10/81 1.6 IC Booster 52nd St. & - tomas CCP 10/9/81 20.4 ND CCP 10/29/81 8.2 ADHS 10/29/81 8.1 , 52nd St. COP 10/9/81 2.0 tm Booster at 64thSt. &
'Ihomas CCP 10/10.81 21.2 4.5 CCP 10/29/81 5.3-ADHS 10/29/81 5.1 ACHS 11/3/81 1.0
',s 4
Papago Booster at 64th St. CCP 10/9/81 20.6 tm Scottsdale & Indian School COF' 10/10/81 13.0 :D
~,
Scottsdale & Indian , School (Benihana) CCP 10/10/81 0.1 :D m ., s I g
'k
- l t - %
r i
'S I N 4
I e i' -
CITY CF SCOTTSDALE SAMPLES ANALYZED FCR VCLAT EE CRGANICS SYSTEM . TCE PCE NCMBER , LOCATION .e 7AB DATE PPB PPB NOTES 4 1 - ETL 11/6/81. It2.5 2 82nd'St. & Camelback ETL 10/29/81 2.9
, - ADHS 10/30/81 ito.3 ETL 10/30/81 lt2.5 ETL 11/6/81 lt2.5 3 Pima & Jackrabbit ETL 10/29/81 it 2.5 ADHS 10/30/81 ltO.3 ETL 10/30/81 It2.5
, ETL 11/02/81 lt2.5 E*L 11/06/81 2.9 4 9 4 Pima & McDowell ETL 10/29/81 lt2.5 ) ETL 10/30/81 lt2.5
/
ACHS 10/30/81 1t0.3 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 1 l j 5 82nd St. & AZ Canal ETL 10/29/81 2.8 ETL 10/30/81 lt2.5 ADHS 10/30/81 lto.3 E*L 11/6/81 1 2.5 e o r 6 32nd St. & Csborn E*L 10/29/81 18.1 fj/ /cw c /d ACHS 10/30/81 22.5 E*L 10/30/81 21.5 1
@ OF' SCOT"SDALE f' .
SAMPLES ANALY22D FCR VOLATEE CRGANICS i SYSTEM ' ICE PCE NCMBER LOCATICN LAB CATE PPB NOTES 4 _ PPB 1 ETL 11/2/81 i lt2.5 9 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 i j 10 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 11 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 - - 12 McCo= tick Parkway ETL 11/29/81 2.5 14 Scottsdale and Indian Send Poad EL 10/29/81 lt2.5 18 ETL 11/2/81 l't2.5 19 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 20 EL 11/2/81 lt2.5 21 E*L 11/2/81 1t2.5 22 E~L 11/2/81 lt2.5 23 En 10/29/81
- 2.9 W
e
SAMPLES ANALYZED FCR 70LAT %E CRGANICS SYSTEM TCE PCE NUMBER LOCATION LAB DATE PPB _ PPB NOTES 23 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 27 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 28 E% 11/2/81 lt2.5 29 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 31 82nd St. & Earl E% 10/29/81 6.7 off-line 10/31 s ADHS 10/30/81 5.0
. m. 10/30/81 13.7 32 ETL 10/29/31 1t2.5 G
h
SAMPLZlS ANALYZED FCR VCIATII.E CRGANICS SYST3!M E PCE IAB DATE PPB NCTES NUMBER , LOCATION P_FB 1 College & Railroad WCT 12/2/81 0.2 4 3 7th & College WCT 12/2/81 0.2
; 4 lemon at Rural Rd. WCT 12/2/81 10 off-line 12/10 ETL 12/11/81 ADHS 12/11/81 8.5 6 McKellips & 78St. ETL 10/30/81 5.9 ADHE 11/2/81 2.1 i
ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 WCT 11/3/81 3.2 , a - WCT 12/2/81 4.0 . , ja d WCT 12/4/81 13.0 MerN"[ line12/10 ADHS 12/04/81 8.7 ' ADHS 12/11/81 2.6 l ETL 12/11/81 2.5 I t 7 SI:u.d St.& Canal WCT 12/2/81 0.3 A.- flw ,e r: =A'sht 4.0 6/: j "' " ' Q S /,f e d e a
.s. ~%j. % /na 9 Calle de Caballos WCT 12/2/81 100.1 i
10 Price & Scu dern WCT 12/2/81 Ito.1 , 7 .
SAMPLES ANALY"JlD
. FCR 7CIATIII ORGANICS TCE PCE SYST.*M PPB NOTES
, LOCATION LAB CATE LPB NUMBER Indian B3nd Wall McKellips, E of Hayden m 10/30/81 lt2.5 ETL 11/2/81 lt2.5 ADHS 11/2/91 lt0.3 WCT 11/2/81 0.8 WCT 12/2/81 0.9 ADHS 12/17/31 0.7 Broadway & Rural WC"' 12/2/81 1.4 ADHS 12/10/81 0.9 '
ADHS 12/17/81 lt0.3 NE Carter & College WCT 11/3/81 2.8
- W Elna Pae & Priest WCT 11/3/81 1.1 SE McAllister & Continental 11/3/81 0.9 SW 56th St. & Carmen WCT 11/3/81 lto.5 SE Rural & Knox WCT 11/3/81 ito.5 6600 S. Price WCT 11/3/81 1.5 NE 3 roadway & Price WCT 11/3/S1 0.5 9 .
SAMPLES AIGLLYZID FOR VCIATILE ORGANICS l SYSTIM M PCI NUMBER , LOCATION LAB DATE _ PPB PPB NOTES NE Encanto & College WCT 11/3/81 ito 5 , 4 9
'/.
mu . ; SAMPLES ANALYZED FOR VOLATILE ORGANICS SYSTIM M PCE NUMBER , LOCATICN LAB DATE P_PB PPB NCffES , 21.5E, 8N ADHS 11/10/81 lto.3 22E,1.9N ADHS 1,f5/82 1.1 22.1E,8.5N ADHS 11/10/81 Ito.3 22.3E,7N ADHS 11/10/81 38.5 22.5E,5.5N ADHS 11/10/81 35.5 22.5E,6N ADHS 11/10/81 510 J 23.6E,6N ADHS 11/10/81 600-1000 ADHS 12/8/81 992 Cascading water at 113 ft. Sample also sent for PP 4 24.3E,3N ADHS' 1/15/82 1t0.3 1 i i
/b
SAMPLES ANALYZED FCR VCIATILE ORGANICS
~
SYST3M TCE PCE NUMBER LOCATICN LAB DATE PPB LPB NOTES 1 ADES 11/24/81 lto.3 i l 2 ADHS 11/24/81 lto.3 3 ADHS 11/24/81 lto.3 5 ADHS 11/24/81 0.4 6 ADHS 11/24/81 lto.3 7 ADHS 11/24/81 lto.3 Phoenix-Litchfield Municipal Airport Distribution system ADHS 11/24/81 47.3 2 ADHS 12/9/81 lto.3 3 ADHS 12/9/81 116 off-line 1 Goodyear Aerospace 2 ADHS 12/9/81 2.6 i 4 ADHS 12/9/81 1.0 Park Shadow Acartments 1 ADHS 12/9/81 10.3 ,
./
y_ . - _ - - -
SA r lS ANALYZED FCR VOLATILE CRGANICS SYST2M TCE PCE NUMBER lOCATICN LAB CATE PPB NOTJ' _ PPB SR BIA McKellips & 92nd St. ADHS 11/30/81 lto.3 4 . i Cuthbertson, 5135 E. Whittier ADHS 11/3/81 lt0.3 i AAA, ADHS 1/8/81 ito.3 3 rock, 2150 E lst St. Tempe " ADHS 1/8/82, it0.3 Csntury,100 S Price Pd. Tempe ADHS 1/8/81 lto.3 Donais ADHS, 1/8/83, lto.3 i Redirix ADHS 1/8/8J,, 1:0.3 Wabber ADHS 1/8/8%, 1t0.3 i l f Elliot & Price SE ADHS 1/8/8)., it0.3 l l I i l l4 - l t
'O '
((gg'; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
* ,~ Division of Environm:;nt:1 H;alth S;rvices lRUCI BC 8!Tr. Covernoe e r_ sm.x.o um o"'" March 16, 1982 TO: All Interested Parties FROM: J. Wesley Clayton, Assistant Direc* g Environ:: rental Health Services A
/
l RE: Final Guidelines for TCE in Public Water Supplies Inclosed please find the final " Guidelines for TCE in Public Water S upplies . " I appreciate the assistance provided in reviewing the draft versiens and hope that the final =eets with your approval. The cooperation given the Health Department by public water suppliers has been excellent. I hope the Guidelines will serve to direct our activities for the benefit of the public and the protection of drinking water supplies. If you have questions regarding the Guidelines, please call Sandra Eberhardt at (602)253-1172. SC:SE:nd Enclosure i l
- % Department of Neu.h Semces ns An Ecual oppomuuty Affirmatu:e Act:on Emolayer Allauchfied men and somen. anctuautg the nanascacced, ,1r* encouragea to partsctpate.
- ate Health Building 1740 West Adams Street Phoenix. Arizona 85007
3/11/82 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SEEVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES JUIDELINES FOR TCE IN PUBLIC WATER'5UPPLIES Page I. General Description i II. Action Level 1 A. Definition of Action Level 1 B. Definition of Average Value 1 III. Allowable Levels in Drinking Watar 2 IV. Water Supply System Testing 2 Initial Testing 2
- 3. Follow-Up Testing 3 V. Laboratory Requirements a VI. Analytical Reporting Requirements 4 A. Telephone 4 B. Mail 4 VII. Steps to Protect Water Supplies 5 A. Remove from Service 5 B. Cather Information 5 C. Assess Alterr.atives and Safeguards 5 D. Submit Plans '5 VIII. Alternatives and Safeguards for Use of Wells Higher Than The Action Level 6 A. Alte rnatives 6
- 3. Safeguards 7 ATTACHMENTS
, 1. TCE Sample Collection Instructions 8
- 2. TCE Analysis Report Form 10
- 3. Sample Notice 11
, 3/11/83 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES GUIDELINES FCR TCE IN PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Guidelines were written by the Environmental Heal.th Services (EHS) Division of the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) with comments incorporated from p,ublic water suppliers and other outside reviewers. They are neither regulatory nor mandatory but represent a cooperative ef fort to provide safe drinking water to the public. The Guidelines may be replaced by regulations l at a later time.
The Guidelines specifically address trichloroethylene (TCE), which often precedes or accompanies other organic pollutants. These organic compounds have acute toxic effects and chronic effects including suspected carcinogenesis. The suspected carcinogenic properties of organic compounds are of primary concern. , The Guidelines define the procedures for initiation of well monitor-ing by the public water supplier, resampling and reporting. The various considerations and alternatives for further use of a contami-naced well are also discussed. Where contamination is found, ADHS will, within its resources and in conjunction with other agencies , participate in activities to ensure a safe drinking water supply, define the extent of contamination and characteristics of the plume, identify potential sources, assist in the elimination of those
, sources, and define the alternatives for future use of the aquifer.
Where pollution sources can be pinpointed and legal liability can be i assessed, ADHS will take action against the discharger to ensure the cleanup or containment of contaminated groundwater and cleanup of disposal areas which pose a threat to groundwater. II. ACTION LEVEL A. Definition of Action Level (' Since there is no federal standard, the ADHS has set a TCE E action level of 5 ppb (ug/1). This corresponds with an esti-maced 70-year lifetime carcinogenic risk of 1 in 1 million, based upon consu=ption of two liters of water per day. The , action level serves as an alarm or early warning signal that
- industrial groundwater pollution exists, and that steps should be taken to assure a safe water supply and to investigate
- the source and =agnitude of the pollution.
is not the limit beyondwhichsafetyandp]lTheactionlevel ublic health are endangered, but rather the level at which action should com-i mence.
- 3. De finition of Averace Value The average value is used to determine compliance with the action level. The average value for TCE at a particular samp-ling location is defined as the average of the last five samples i
, 1 3/11/82 dates or tha total nurbar of staples collected on five diffe
' collected to date if les(ejsts than five have been analyzed. The individual analyses, reported to the nearest 0.1 ppb, should be averaged and the result rounded to the nearest whole number.
~
All reported "none detectable" or "less than" values shall be calculated as one-half, to the nearest 0.01 ppb, of the minimum detectable level reported by the analytical laboratory. If more than one sample is collected on the same date, the average of all samples collected on that date shall'be used as one data point for calculating the overall average. III. ALLOWABLE LEVELS IN DRINKING WATER The goal is to deliver water to the consumer with minimum risk, preferably less than one excess cancer per million population. This corresponds to an average concentration of 5 ppb or less of TCE. With ADHS approval, water exceeding the action level may be delivered based upon the following schedule, assuming no other contaminancs are present and the concentration is less than 5 ppb for the remainder of the year. Table I TCE Concentration in Water Allowable Use - mo/any Delivered to Consumers - oob 12-mo. ceriod
- 1. < 5 12
- 2. < 10 no more than 6
- 3. < 20 no more than 3 4 < 40 no more than l\
- 5. < 50 no- more than 1
- 6. > 50 should not be used Only one level greater than 5 ppb can be used in any 12-month period. If other suspected carcinogens are present, the risks will be created as additive and the calculations will be more complex. In determining total risk, ADHS will consult health effects data from various sources, including the EFA Office of Drinking Water, Criteria and Standards Division.
IV. WATER SUPPLi SYSTEM TISTING A. Initial Testing
- 1. Testing by ADHS ADHS will evaluate all available information (e.g., surface impoundment assessments, hazardous waste generator reports, underground injection well survey) relating to waste dispos-al practicas, land use, incustrial activity, etc. to identi-fy areas in the State which have a high risk of TCE contami-nation. ADHS will initiate testing in identified areas.
2-
- 2. Tasting by Public Water Supplices In high-risk areas, ADHS will notify public water suppliers to initiate TCE testing.
- a. Time Frame:
The monitoring of on-line systems is to commence within three months of notification, or at the next trihalo-methane (THM) sampling, whichever is first. When wells are put on-line, they should be tested within three months. If a new well is drilled in a known contamination area, a registered geologist or engineer should supervise drilling and sampling of soil and water. The quality of the final aquifer tapped should be tested before the permanent pump is installed.
- b. Sampling Sites:
1 The water system managers may use- their discretion in selecting sampling points. Ideally, individual wells should be sampled. However, systems with a large number of wells may use several distribution system sampling locations. The sampling site should be located such that all wells serving that portion of the system contribute significantly to the sample collected. The same sites collected for THM analysis may be used. Sampling should be performed during normal operating conditions in accordance wi-h the procedures given in Attachment 1. For iniormation regarding sampling site selection, call the Compliance Unic Manager at (602)255-1254
- 3. Follow-Uo Testing
- 1. Less Than 5 ppb TCE Wells containing less than 5 ppb TCE may remain on-line and will be resampled on the following schedule:
- a. Every Three Months (along with THM sampling)
- 1) We lls located near a contaminated well or a known TCE source. System wells to be sampled shall be determined by the ADES.
i
- 2) ' dells containing TCE above 2.5 ppb.
- b. Once Per Year i
~ Other wells should be sa= pled for TCE on the same schedule and at the sa=e sampling locations required by THMs, provided that at least i sample per year is collected.
- 2. Grantcr Than 5 spi TCE
- a. Well Sample s.
V Any well with an average value greater than 5 ppb TCE should immediately be resampled and the sample should be sent to the ADHS Laboratory at 1520 W. Adams, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 for analysis of purgeable prior-icy pollutants and general chemistry. A purgeable priority pollutant sample should also be collected at the nearest consumer's tap served by the contaminated well, or at a representative poir.c in the distribution system as close as possible to the nearest consumer's cap served by the contaminated well. Call the TCE Coordinator at (602)255-1134 to schedule the sample analysis.
- b. Distribution System Samples When the action level is equaled or exceeded in the average value for a distribution sample, the water sup' plier should, within one week, sample all individual wells significantly contributing to that sampling point. When TCE is detected in a distribation sample but at a concentration less than the action level, the water supplier should sample all individur.1 wells significantly contributing to that sa=pling point within six months.
V. LA30RATORY REQUIREMENTS The ADHS Laboratory Certification and Licensure Section is setting up a program to approve commercial and private laboratories to perform organic chemical analysis. Until this program is estab-lished, the ADHS Laboratory will accept samples f rom public water suppliers for TCE analysis at no charge. Such sample submittals should be scheduled in advance by calling Mr. Jerry McCarty, manager o f the ADHS Laboratory Chemistry Section at (602) 255-1188. VI. ANALYTICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS All analytical results will be shared between ADHS and the water supplier. A. Telechone All water system TCE results greater than 5 ppb action level will be reported by celephone wi hin one work day of receipt.
,Water suppliers will report to .ne ADHS TCE Coordinator at (bO2) 255-1134 ADHS will report water analyses by telephone to the water system manager.
- 3. Mail
.I. All TCE cr rcicted en317 tical results, regardicss of 1Gv31 fcund, will ba rcprrecd in writing within ena wack. W2cor supplicrs will mail results to tha TCE Cecrdinator, Envircn-mental Health Services,1740 W. Adams, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. ADHS Laboratory will mail reports to the water system managers. All written reports should include the name of the utility, the sampling site identification,
~
the date and time of sample collection, the name of the analyzing laboratory, date of laboratory report and analyti-cal result. In addition, information should be available regarding the USGS well number or legal description of the sampling point, and the pumping time prior to sampling. An analysis report form is incl,uded for convenience (Attachment 2).
- 2. All TCE samples analyzed prior to the establishment of these Guidelines should also be reported so that both parties have complete records.
VII. STEPS TO PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES When a well exceeds the action level, the following steps should be taken: A. Remove from Service The well should be taken off-line if possible while investiga-tions are conducted and alternatives are considered. B. Cather Information The water supplier and ADHS should confer regarding the f easi-bility of returning the well to service. ADHS and the water supplier should work together to gather information and data needed for this determination. C. Assess Alternatives and Safeguards ADHS and the water supplier should review the alternatives and required safeguards given in the following section. Decide which alternatives are feasible and how the safeguards could be met. D. Submit Plans
- 1. Written Plan of Action The water supplier should submit a written plan of action giving in detail what will be done with the well and how the safeguards will be met in accordance with Section VIII. Rele-vant information should be given, such as dates, concentrations, flows, diagrams, blending and treatment capacity, hydrologic data, estimated population affected, estimated number of service connections, type of water use (residential, industrial, etc.),
ostimated residenca cima of tha ptpulation, end eny othar partinant informacien. Tha plcn is to b2 submittad to tha TCE Coordinctor. 2. Engineering Plan
~ Engineering plans and specificationss needed to carry out tha plan of action should be submitted to ADHS for approval.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES ACTION LEVEL AND SAFECUARDS FOR USE OF WELLS HIGHER TRAN THE A. Alternatives The following alternatives for use of wells higher than the TCE accion level may be employed by water suppliers with the approval of ADHS. or in combination. The alternatives may be employed singly Fegardless of the resources expended, if the water does not meet the allowable levels given in Table , I, p. 2, it should not be delivered to the consumer. ADHS will provide technical information and will seek aid and funding for water treatment. However, the ultimate responsi-bility supplier. for delivery of acceptable water rests with the water
- 1. Well Not Used Leave the well off-line or use it for other non-drinking water purposes. This is a possibility where other water sources are available at reasonable cost. The health risk of the alternative water supply should also be examined beingdetermined and aba-Joned. by ADHS to be less than that of the supply
- 2. Blend aMix the contaminated water with other sources to obtain final product within the allowable level at all consumer's taps.
The other source should be analyzed and determined to be of a lesser health risk than the water being blended. Submit engineering plans to ADHS for approval.
- 3. Seasonal Use The well can be used during periods of high demand in accordance with the allowable levels previously given in Table I, page 2.
6 ' Jell Modification It is possible that, in some cases, well modifications 3 may result in improved water quality. This would require site-specific evaluations of hydrologic conditions. Submit t l engineering plans to ADHS for approval.
. 1 .~. ,
l
- 5. Tron tment There are several methods for TCE removal. The two most common metho'ds are aeration (packed tower) and adsorption i on granular activated carbon (GAC). Combinations of partial treatment followed by blending, and diffused aeration followed by GAC have also been used.
- 6. Continued Use .
If necessary, the well may be used "as is" if it is deter-mined by ADHS that it is the only source of supply or that it is not feasible to blend or treat the water. Notice should be provided as given in the following section.
- 7. Other Any other proposal that meets the intent of safeguarding the consumers will be considered by ADHS.
- 3. Reouired Safeeuards for Use of Wells Above the Action Level If a well higher than the action level is to be used as a water supply, the following safeguards should be e= ployed:
- 1. Monitor The distribution system and source well should be monitored on a regular basis, initially every day until a trend is defined, and then less often af ter stable conditions are established according to the written plan of action submitted by the water supplie;.
- 2. Meter Water suppliers should record and report to ADHS the volume of water pumped from the well.
2
- 3. Notice Consumers should be given notice when water containing more than the allowable level of TCE is delivered. Notice should be given in the next set of bills and repeated quarterly as long as the condition exists. For non-billing water systems, notification may be given by posting, publica-tion, or direct mail. ADHS will assist utilities in develop-ing notice and establishing other related.. require =enta-auch-as methods of notification and frequency. For assistance, call the ADHS TCE Coordinator at 255-1134 A sample notice is given in Attachment 3.
l _
.. l ATTACHMENT 1 1
. TCE SAMPLE COLLECTION INSTRUCTIONS Items Needed:
1
- 1. Field notebook
- 2. Pen 1 1
i
- 3. Marking pen (waterproof) 4 Clean two Pierce vials supplied by the analyzing laboratory (at least samples) 5.
" Blank" vials supplied by the laboratory (at least one for each group of samples to be analyzed)
- 6. Ice chest
- 7. Ice or blue ice
- 8. Labeling tape
- 9. Scrapping tape for sealing the ice chest
- 10. Map (USGS 7 minute map is recommended) for plotting well location
- 11. Stainless steel cup
- 12. Conductivity meter for measuring salt content
- 13. Well sounder for measuring water levels Precumoing the Well In order to obtain a sample that is representative of the groundwater, the well should be pumped for a period of time before collection because the water within the well casing and in the immediate vicinity of the well may dif fer significantly f rom the quality of the groundwater .
The length of time required to pump should be suf ficient to remove a minimum of 3-5 bore volumes. The bore volume in gallons equals the casing diameter in inches times casing height in inches times 3.14159 times 0.004329. before a sample collectionIdeally, the wells should be pumped for several hours if the well has been out of operation. The change in conductivity should be recorded with time and the sample should be collected after the conductivity has stabilized. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE i qS MPLE AFTER THIS POINT O&
-8 9mme ,, W
Sr.mplo Collaccion If possible, the sample should.be' collected directly from the well discharge, otherwise as close to the discharge point as possible. Since TCE is extremely volatile, precautions must be taken to reduce the extent of aeration that occurs during sample collection. The tap should firse be opened full and allowed to run for a couple of minutes. The valve should then be closed until a slow, steady, clear non-aerated stream of water is flowing. To avoid aeration, the glass sampling vial should be held at an angle so that the stream af water flows down the side. Fill the vial until it overflows to eliminate any air bubbles and replace the teflon-lined cap. Be very careful not to contaminate the inside cap or the mouth of the vial. A stainless stoel cup, rinsed before and af ter each use, may be used to fill the vial, if necessary. Two vials should be collected for each sample. Turn the vial upside down and cap it to check for air bubbles. If there are any bubbles, top of f the vial and check for air bubbles again. Repeat this procedure until an acceptable sample is obtained. Samole Identification All samples must be clearly labeled with a waterproof pea on labeling tape with an identifying number and date. The sample ID, date, time, location, pumping time before sampling, exact sampling point and name of sampler and witness should be recorded in a record book in ink (Attachment 2). The well locations should be given by both system name and number and USGS well number (or township, range, section and quarter, quarter, quarter) so that the data can be correlated. Sample Preservation and Transoortation Place the samples in an ice chest with 10 pounds.of ice or blue ice to maintain a cold temperature and prevent volatili:ation. The vials need not be placed in contact with the ice. Seal the ice chest and ship or deliver it to the laboratory within 48 hours. Also, include two blank control samples--these are vials filled with distilled water by the lab and are carried along with the rest of the vials to pick up any volatile materials encountered along the way. Coordinate ticing with the shipper and lab so that samples can be analy:ed within the 14-day holding time. The sample submittal form should indicate the test (s) to be performed and where the report (s) are to be mailed. . Other Information Measure and record static water lecel and pumping water level if pos-sible. Record all other available information, including date drilled, total depth, casing diameter and depth, yield in GPM, surface elevation, well use and pe rforated interval . _ g-
~ g 4'
~
_ s e lo i t e l iE pC pT - t r o p t e
. I i
.et l
)
- a. la I l r
e e l i ( - b M o n u l C N l e . g O p o n l . F n i l i n i l i s n s s Z f pr e e T i e e W t l l f r , n imu o S s y O s t y o a l l G l i t l' s l l i S E a. Ai i C l r , U t I I' o en r n I i r o ri o i S l' T t I r m S t e t i Y. l r r a t _ A l e u s _ l l Q l l A p nt e , i i r r E aa e o C . SD t f T r
- a e* T u D l ' Q ,
pe , l i np ay r l e e ST ~ t r W a r u o O I d n a W e s g a n a e e R p l y p* , t p in i e
) a n l i
l S o s p ( n i m i t t ca ac i o a l e T s c i o ( EI x o. e e n i C i v i v l i a . G G c l l l s i l o _ I o y ss Z f r . . e . - . . _ p l e e e i r l l y n ~ o, - 6 t i h
. L t c ,-
G
~
A 3' N
.g
.A. .
.w
. / .
'w'/""-
"A
( , a y g
. J 4
u,. .J
.. (..
g w .L xq .L t q .y. . ..'"'**
; ." a
.r-
., e
- .7.-
Lx - 8 . - C ALITORNI A
^
OFFICT. OF T11C DIRT.CTOR OF CENER AI. 5ERVICT5 lemas M Al% STREET. 39s.M 3 SA NTA if 053CA, CA!.lf. Mict Cear Resident: No C0ubt you are sware of the cetection of :nctioretnyiene (TCE; and the ;resence of tnnalemethane (THM) and ascestos in theInent wate* in Scutnern Cant 0mia. The C;:y nas encsen to intcrm ycu of th cuestions so tnat misuncerstancmgs may Oe alleviatec. and answers to 50me to the :er: Questierr What is TCE? It is an mcustrial sctvent that is currently uscc cy many autemecele re::ir sno::s anc Oy mest incus. trial snc::s. It is listec Oy the National Acacemy of Sc:ences as cne of ne enemscal su: stances that nas procuced cancer m laccrarcry ammals anc is c nsecuently susce:tec as a ;cssible breatningcarcinogen of en numans. In.tne work sta:e anc mcustnal enverenments excesure item hancling er concentratec TCE.(createrin.n 100.000 pans cer cilhon (;cci)nas tec t: sericusdamage !c health in humans. Cu estiert: Whst is the situation ==nceming TCE in Santa Monica Water? Traces of TCE were fcunc in :wo et :ne,C2:y's water wells, anc :ne City teck immec:ste ste:s to cen. trel anc recuc.* tnese !cvels. T:'e tw we:!s nave act ::een usec f er severa: mentns. Tn tien :ne amount Of TCE wnicrt reacnec ::esumers *nen tne weds were in use e::eecec Ce:artment :! -eattn er Emironmen:ar Ar::ec:,en Ageaty hmitatiens Tests mercate :ne maximum amount was less tnan 5 :ans :cr Osi':en Water trem the atte:tec weHs was aeratec sec S ami etner water as a n0rmal aart cf tni *ater treatment crocess :elcre Deing allowec to enter tne dis. rn::utien system. Cue stion: wnat are the healtn risss eennec:ec with cnnking water ontaining TCI? A) Orcrects Ai:ncugn no :in it has teen estacosnec 'me U S Eawronmeatal crotecticn Agency (5: ina: crmung water :: .:2.mn; a 5 :::: :! 705 wm .-crease a ::e'sen s ns et cying cf ca .:ar :y one it c:.asu.mec at tne ra:e et 2 hters P'r gancru a cay ict 70 years. Tne nsks msy te
- nance m 1.000.000.
ccm:::unp.s wnen :ne cankm; vat +< also c:ntams einer crganic su stances. 70 yO. .;are E3A's estim3teC nsk mtn Ctner 4Newn nsks. : rtsider !?:e f !!Owing (fr0:". statist: f eImation ;uctisnec Oy Purcue Umversityk [ tn a :COulatlOn Of One r"ilhCn ::eCOleN'uring inetr lifetimes !ne statisiiOsl ara,cattitty is 1531 - 23 ::ee::te weil cie in t'urncanes. }
;5 trem cem; struex y Ugninmg.
7CO by air travet. 2.;C': y Orcwning.
'7.500 :y me:r ve/me:e -- . e n t s. Of _a w. c f or ,, O years.
1 :y ... . . , _ . .
..ctaming 5 :::::
C uestion: Wnst are T :nal=me:nar es(THMs) U ii e TCE wmen is an incus:r.i.! ::foca : fcunc in scmc weH water, TH.'.ts are a Oy.crocu:: fourc in im:::nec water wnien nas :een en::rmatec. Santa Mcmea uses trem 10J0. im:ened ua is cur nasec f r:m Ine Ve'rO::O"'an '.* dater CistrtC' Sur' ace ater su *hes (su:n a! MWC sue::ly In materials ** m weecs, ;rass, snc leaves as'it tr vets Intcugh Ine N c-S ern Cah f: r ta) ::. *. . . 3 c.. m.
$40 Franc: 500 cet:a re3. W.*e". 'P.e Orgam: ""talertal :Or*es c :StaC wita :*.!Orme gring tne cisin.
*eO:;On arOC*ss THMs ar* !Ormec. ..
w u e s tie rt: M c w
-a u:* ..i-. M is. in . -
ca..!: Monica Water :nc west re the nea:In nsxs assoc:st:c ws!N 1*.:s COntaminarit? The VWC wat e' 're :.e*" s::at:in: '*0= : "O*C ar's ,ar .:olicyn Of 7H1.( 34r.;- uends ::;eng3 its vite P r e C.:y. 75 .cs.u;;; ,g .ater On ".e : :nt: wc"
- Cter win *
- t s ". W."w ng cra 0un!: d ep?"::.. In.e n- ,;rn 00:-12mina"t C S * *.m s .rc r a.
. ." . ;C ,rt a.:; ar ,,,,0-7,-V s. 7.e 2. A has ::al&c :n.aJ~hve
- Md2. In? Scme level Of
*. . ' C ' J w ; - >v - -' ,4 e :: $ ,- 9 J s
- 0*; r -M : .a < .:.,,r c" 6 : .; gre 3 ; ras f,:vn.C
,ca ? e " '. . o r : - . art 3: ' un est 3;,,,,,
i
*:! ' 4 ! ~CE.'T?e 0**4-*s . '
v "; S g '. : :*. e s ::a 25 0.:r- - : y- : O i',0 c
- te nf O m 5.
;*c -Ci.s
- inereesnos w so!&4 wobGV. I&cAJ ur@ *ev7J:s c9 Ir9Ms in 'Sc wstGr wntCn occassofElly et.
e cee c inc OrcDosSc 1982 larTuts of the EPA (100 :::01. 7ne :rcs2nce et sig"iticent irrwSfs cf IMMs is relatec Only lo tnc Ourcnasec Metrecolitan Water Dis. trict water. All cf inc citias in Scutnern Casslerma weien use MWO 'vate, laimest all cf Soutn .rn Cali- - forms) arc excen@nC'ng the sim@ Situallon ac Santa Mcnica. Santa Momca intcugn its representa-tive on the MWD Scare nas recuestec !ne MWC te ta*.e stecs to centret tne THM levels. 'h The City nas contrcilec its TCE level by temocrarily c!csing two weils, cut nas necessarily purenasec larger amounts of MWO wafef wnica. as discussec 20cve aDcroacnec maximum allowa le levels of TH M s. Question: What is the situation regarcing asbestos in the water? Ine creseace of measuracle levets of asces:0: fibers in the water is again relatec Only to the water we pur: nase from MWO anc again this affec:s most all Scutnern California cities. Safety stancarcs for ascestos concentraticas in cran 6ng water nave never een set anc there nas been no link estab. lesnec cetween ascestos in crinking water anc cancer en tne Occy. MWO is currently intensifying the level ct filtration of its water to recuce tne presence of these fibers. Cuestictr Wnat is :urrently being done by the City to better these types of pro lems? T,9 City is ceing :ne fcilewing:
- 1. Engage: a censultant tc survey 100 cusinesses wnica use enemicals. :c cetermine scurce of pur.
cnase, mernoc of use anc metnoc cf ciscosal.
- 2. Engagcc a soils enginect to cc investigative crilling, sam: ling anc analysis to try to cetermine the scurcetst at :ne TCS in the grcunawater.
1 Autneruec curc ,ase of new taccratory equioment cacaOle of analycin; minute cuantities c! cr.
;anic materrals in water.
4 Increasec trecuency cf sam: ting anc analysis Of crinning water !ct cetermination of ;cssible centamtr ants.
- 5. increasec sunvesitance for .ite;at ciscesal Of sucstances unica uculc enter the grouncwater er s:ctm crain system. Citations are t:etn;issuec ter niegan cis: sal.
- The City can assure ycu trat we well centinue :c memtcr anc :est tr:e water wiin Ine cest avaiia:le analyt. cal te:nac:cqy. ace wiil nctify ycu if :ne -a:er f ans in any aay :c n eet Feceraf, State anc cur con sti:ngeat recui'ements. Tne sa'ety cf our :uctic mater sue:!y is our business anc more tnan p/uw
- 1. COO se:arate quanty anc sJiety tes:s are Cencyctec on Cur water e3C3 000th.
C uestion: What are the attematives? Sim:ty s talec. 41 you're act senvinccc in3t the wales safe there are always alternatives. Some are;
- 1. Scil ine water. TCS anc THMs nave lCwer bciling Ocints : nan water, so inis is most effecitve in rer" cving it f ron* f ne wat er.
- 2. Use ecmmercia !y Octtlec water. Ycu may wisa !c check the cuality of this water to see if it mee:s your recuirements.
- 2. Inve:::;c:e ;ccrefutty) :ne var:0.:s mares anc ty: es cf 6 tiers anc !*eatmeat urut? wr* ten fit on your sann er ncme clumcing.'
The City, as a matter cf Oclicy, wi!! neitner a ; rove not casa:: rove any ccmmercial:recuct. Summsry The as:ct in Scu!Nem C.:::ifernia centains smali ccecentratices cf crgame sucstances. New tecn. ncicgy 9as allowec catectica cf Orevicesty unt easurec matenais suc*: as TCZ ar.c THMs. Santa Memca water cent:nues te mee: State anc Feceral recuireme9ts. Base cn these stancarcs. ac nes;th risa tc ina cit:: ens cf S.:nta Monica is increatec at inis time. We will centtnue :: r eec you inferme: cf any Orc::e -.s .nics -.sy ar'se ntcuga !ne iccal news mecia. anc cu may cen:ac C;ty raali at 030 3975. extensen 2.24 S. S. Scact! Dir-c:ce et Ge~ ra: Se.wie:s Qcd _12.
- AWQU - 543.02 (.
- t. .
9f ('
SUMMARY
OF ARIZONA'S TCE-CONTAMINATED WELLS MAY 28, 1982 .l j 1
- 1. Public Water Supply Wells Off-Line due to TCE Contamination Greater than 5 ppb
- Highest TCE Concentration Well Name USGS Well No. Location Analyzed, ppb Tucson International Airport Area Tucson:
SC-7 (D-15-13)19ccc 8100 S. Tucson- 122 Nogales Highway B-87 (D-15-13)1bcb 499 W. Wyoming St. 6.6 B-101 (D-15-13)12 dab 754 W. Dakota Dr. 90 C-64 (D-15-13)12dba 222 W. Bilby Road 9.7 C-62 (D-15-13)13abe f.643 S. Missiondale Rd. 107 North Tucson Area Tanner Co. (D-13-13)17 cad Camino del Cerro & I-10 15.1' Indian Bend Wash Area Phoenix: 35 (A-2-4)35aab 7825 E. Thomas 223 36 - (A-2-4) 35abb 7601 E. Thomas 143 Scottsdale: 6 (A-2-4)25bdd 82nd St. & Osborn 49.3 31 (A-2-4)25cdb 82nd St. & Earll 13.7 Tempe: 6 (A-1-4)ll-6 McKellips & 78th St. 13 4 (A-1-4)23-4 Lemon and Rural Rd. 10 Goodyear Area Phoenix Litchfield Municipal Airport: 3 (B-1-1)l6acd North of Buckeye & 577 Litchfield Rd.
,y -~
_q P ga 2
.t:-
- 2. Other Wells with TCE Contamination Greater than 5 ppb Highest TCE Concentration Well Name USGS Well No. Approximate Location Analyzed. ppb Tucson International Airport Area Tucson:
B-85 (D-14-13) 35 dad 4642 S. 13th St. 6.6 B-102 (D-15-13)2dda Drexel & 12th Avenue 18.1 Tucson Airport Authority: TAA-5 (D-15-14)19aac Tucson International 21.7 Airport Hughes Aircraft Co.: H-CU (D-15-14)19cdc Hughes Aircraft Credit 1,580 Union i H-1 (D-15-14)29bbb Hughes Aircraft Co. 4,600 H-4 (D-15-14)29bdd 108 H-2 (D-15-14)30ada 7.7 North Tucson Area } Ina Rd. Landfill: IRL2 (D-13-12)lacb Ina Road Landfill 1,040 i Indian Bend Wash Area I ' Tempe: 8 (A-1-5)19-8 George St. & McArthur 6 Salt River Project: 22.3E,7N (A-2-4)35bba Thomas & 74th St. 38.5 22,5E,5.5N (A-1-4)2dbb Miller & Roosevelt 35.5 22.5E,6N (A-2-4)35bec Miller & McDowell 510 23.6E.6N (A-1-4)laba Granite Reef & McDowell 992 Goodyear Area None I 1 i 1
~ - ._
s. u a P , f y i Dibromochloropropane(DBCP)WellSamplingProgram For Maricopa County, Arizona
. (June 11-September 25,1979)
~
Prepared by: Timothy D. Love Microbiologist II Ambient Water Quality Unit ' Bureau of Water Quality Control Arizona Department of Health Services Phoenix, Arizona December 10, 1979 IEEk Manager, Ambient Water Quality GaullA%Dd1L&tlL L Manager, Technical Services. Manager, Planning Section
//
Unit d Section
, r
/ \. (, f f b thie'f, ,
Bureau of' Water Quality Control a
e TABLE OF CONTENTS g c, Page Acknowledgements........................................... i l l Abstract.................................................. 11 ] Recommendations........................................... 111 Background................................................. 1 Network.................................................... 3 Collection Methodology..................................... 4 General County. Characteristics............................. 6 Physiography, Relief and 0rainage.......................... 6
- Climate.................................................... 8 Farming.................................................... 9 Soil Description........................................... 9 i R e s u l ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 i
Discussion................................................ 11 A. South Phoenix Area.................................. 11 1 i B. Eas t Me sa Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 i j C. Chandler Heights Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
- D. Northern Glendale Area.............................. 15 Possi bl e Well Con tamination Mechanisms . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
- Conclusions............................................... 21 l
i Tables.................................................... 24 i A p p e n d i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4 i References................................................ 64 P1ates..:.................................................. 65 i i r i 1
y, 3 s a g ;
~
q
) I ! _- -k Acknowledgements ,,
1 The Arizona Cepartment of Health Services. Bureau of Water Quality control,' expresses its appreciation to the municipal water departments of the Cities of Glendale, Mesa, and Phoenix; to the Salt River Project, Roo'sevy.lt Water Conservation District and Chandler Heights Citrus Irriga-tion District; and to various private irrigation and/or domestic well cwners for their cooperation during the well sampling program, cs, - The Arizona Water Comission provided a partial inventory of resistered wells in Mariccpa County with their characteristics, assisted in obtaining search warrants, and assisted in the technical review of this report. Access to aerial photographs provided by the Maricopa County Office of the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization ar 3rvation Service was helpful in 1ccating citrus growing areas. Mancopa County maps were drafted by the Mapping Division of the State Land Department. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided funds for conducting
. ~
a
- the sampling program by contracting with LFE Corporation, Environmental Analysis Division, 2030 Wright Avenue, Richmond, California 9480$.
+ , y s
t a T 1
\
1
t o ( Abstract This report reviews the dibromochloropropane (DBCP) well sampling program conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona during the months of June through September, 1979. Data indicate that a number of wcils associated with citrus growing areas have been contaminated. These wells have been used for irrigation, municipal and/or domestic purposes. Of the 26 wells found contaminated, three were used for public water supply systems. Of 1 these three wells,- two were large municipal wells and have been removed from the water supply systems. DBCP ('1,2-dibremo-3-chloropropane) is a constituent of pesticides soldunderthetradenamesofNemagon(Shell),Fumazone(Dow).Nemafume, 4 Nemaset, Nematox, BBC 12, and 05-1897.- It has been reportedly used since the mid-1950's to cont.?? nematodes, worms which feed on plant roots, particularly citrus, cotton, and grapes. DBCP has been linked to male sterility in workers involved in its manufacture and handling and to cancer in laboratory animals. 1 I [ l Keywords: Arizona, citrus, contamination, detection levels, dibromochloro-J propane, groundwater, nematodes, pesticide, wells. i l l i 11 i
7 RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the study results, the Bureau of Water Quality Control recommends that the following things be done:
. The BWQC should require DBCP residual analyses to be conducted prior to approval of any domestic water sources within 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of known DBCP contaminated wells or citrus growing areas as identified in plates 1-4 and refuse to permit sources -
with any evidence of DBCP contamination.
. The BWQC shculd establish sampling precedures, identify laboratories certified to perform DBCP analysis, and provide other necessary guidance to water system owners.
. The Board of Pesticide Control should reorganize their records so that information on the amount of pesticides applied can be retrieved by both type and geographic area.
. The BWQC should develop and implement a monitoring program to identify the occurrence of organic contaminants in groundwater.
The BWQC in cooperation with EPA should develop and adopt drinking water standards for organic chemicals including DBCP. i The BWQC in cooperation with EPA should investigate the
. potential use of home water treatment devices to remove
! DBCP and other organic chemical contaminants. iii
~ O a v
. The AWC in cooperation with the BWQC should investigate the following specific hydrologic issues relative to DBCP contamination:
- a. Most likely pathways of DBCP transport into the groundwater. -
- b. Whether DBCP samples obtained are representative of well point contaminaticn or aquifer wide contamination; -
- c. ' Occurrence and rate of DBCP movement between and within ground water bodies.
- d. Feasibility of eliminating or reducing DBCP contamination through.insitu means.
The AWC should seek authority to establish well construction regulations to ensure that well. construction or abandonment does not contribute to pollution of ground water. The ADHS Bureau of Epidemiology should investigate the occurence of male sterility problems or unusual occurrances of cancer in individual served by domestic wells in proximity to existing and past citrus growing areas. iv
~ ,
r This report reviews the dibromochloropropane (DBCP) well sampling program conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona during June through September, 1979.~ Data indicate that a number of wells associated with citrus growing areas have been contaminated. These wells have been used for irrigation, municipal and/or dcmestic purposes. Of the 26 wells found contaminated, three were used for public water supply systems. Of these three wells, two were large municipal wells and have been removed from the water supply systers. DBCP(1,2-dibrcmo-3-chloropropane)isaconstituentofpesticidessold underthetradenamesofNemagon(Shell),Fumazone(Dow).Nemafume,Nemaset, Nematox, BBC 12, and 0S-1897. It has been reportedly used since the mid-1950's to control nematodes, worms which feed on plant rcots, particularly citrus, cotton, and grapes. DBCP has been linked to male sterility in workers involved in its manufacture and handling and to cancer in laboratory animals. BACKGROUND ! The OBCP well sampling program in Yuma and Maricopa Counties was ccnducted l in response to a request by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 31 to survey groundwater supplies in suspected 08CP use areas. EPA's request was precipitated by recent DSCP findings in California. ! The initial Mariccpa County sampling program conducted en June 11, 1979 sampled wells in proximity to two suspected OBCP use areas--cotten fields and citrus groves.* These areas were suspected because there were no readily available data frcm the Arizona Pesticide Control Board on DBCP use in Maricopa County. 1
On July 18, 1979 EPA announced plans to suspend the use of DBCP , due to health-related concerns. The use of DBCP on some vegetables was banned by EPA in 1977.I California banned the pesticide for all uses in 1977 after discovering DBCP in drinking water wells in citrus l, growing areas. i The July 18 announcement to suspend DBCP use would have become effective within five days after the announcement unless manufacturers and associations representing citrus growing interests requested a hearing. As a result, the ban was delayed 60 days pending the outcome
~
of court hearings in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing was to detemine if an iminent health hazard existed frcm the use of DBCP. If the data establish DECP as an iminent health hazard, a temporary ban would have gone into effect imediately. This hearing ended on October 20,1979, with Judge Gerald Harwood agreeing with EPA staff that the pesticide should no longer be sold for any purpose in the United States.2 Additional court hearings will be initiated on whether a permanent ban should be imposed. There are about 6800 hectares (16,800 acres) of citrus grcwing areas in Maricopa County as of 1972.3 Pressures from urban populatin growth and periodic frost damage to citrus is expected to contribute to the reduction of citrus production in 11aricopa County. The impact, if any, of a DBCP ban on citrus production cannot be assessed at this time. To date, no alternative pesticide or nematode resistent root stock is comercially available. 2 x
Network Design Methodology After a State DBCP Working Group Meeting of June,22, the Ambient Water Quality Unit, Arizona Department of Health Services began identi-fying citrus groves in both Yuma and Maricopa Counties in which DBCP contamination was suspected. Although specific infomation on DBCP use was not generally available, prior surveys conducted in California affimed citrus groves as target areas. Agencies contacted for purposes of crop data acquisition included: Arizona State Land Department,~Sta'.e OfficeoftheAgriculturalStabilizationandConservationService(ASf,5), County Office of ASCS, and Arizona Department of Transportation. Verification of citrus grove locations in both counties was made by reviewing aerial photographs furnished by the county office of the ASCS. The aerial photographs for Yuma and Maricopa Counties were taken in 1976 , and 1970, respectively. Infomaticn en citrus locations were transposed cnto ccunty highway maps. l After the citrus graves were delimited, the Arizona Water Comission ! (AWC) was requested to provide an inventory of registered walls in the target areas and their characteristics. Well locations were correlated l with proximity to citrus areas. Further, AWC staff recomended sampling i shallow wells in order to sample the upper portion of the saturated aquifer where potential DBCP percolaticn from the soil was expected to be fcund. Also, AWC staff advised BWQC staff that small well casing diameters associated with domestic wells would' ensure that the capacity of the wells were icw and associated cones of depression small. Unfortunately, there 3 + _ _ _ _ _
y are few such wells in Maricopa County. The 30 to 200 m (100 to 650 ft.) , depth to groundwater and continucus drop in the water table has generally made such wells impractical. Therefore, most wells sampled in Maricopa County were large, deep irrigation or municipal wells. The ADHS requested the cocperation of Maricopa County Health Depart-ment (MCHD)inthelocal:ionandsamplingofwel.ls. Because of shortages of MCHD personnel during the period of the study, ADHS personnel conducted the sampling and public informati'on programs in Maricopa County. Consider-able help was provided by the municipalities--Glendale, Mesa, and Phoenix; by various irrigatian districts--Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Water Conservation District and Chandler Heights Citrus Growers Irrigation District; and by public and private companies such as Consolidated Water Utilities, Inc. and Bob Fletcher Farms. - i To ensure that ADHS did not overlook any private well not listed on the Water Connission printout, a news release was issued for any owners of wells f ! locatednearsuspecteduseareastocontactADHS(AppendixA). 4 Collection.Methodoloqy Sampling and collection methodology were conducted according to the , following EPA protocol: 1 Samples are collected in unused 1-quart comercial mason jars. The dome lids were carefully wrapped in heavy duty aluminium foil to preclude sample altera-tion by lid materials. Bottles were ccmpletely filled so that no air space was left at the top when the lid
'and screw ring were secured.
4
At all sampiing locaticns, replicate samples were taken. o The water from the private wells were run for approximately 10 minutes before each sample was taken. This procedure was followed to ensure that the water was fresh from the water column. Large irrigation wells or large municipal wells were sampled from a sampling valve or port located as close to the well head as possible. If no sampling valve or part was present or if the distance to the end of discharge pipe was less than 10 meters, samples were taken a't the end of the discharge pipe. The sample bottles were rinsed three times with the well water before sampling. Samples were labeled with the sampling location, date, time
. and sampler's name and cooled imediately after coilection.
Other pertinent information relative to well and soil characteristics were included on EPA's " chain of custody and sample history" fom (Appendix B). Samples were sealed by adhering paper strips over the top to detect any unauther-ized tampering with the samples. . i Samples were placed on ice in Igloo-type picnic coolers imediately after collection and later transferr,ed to dry Igloo-type coolers packed with cardboard, polystyrene, or other available packing materials to prevent breakage during shipment. To ensure that the samples remained cool during shipment frozen " blue ice" was used. 5
Samples were sent by air freight using Federal Express which provided one day, door-to-door service except for one holiday weekend when Hughes Airwest Air Freight was used. LFE Corporation, Environmental Analysis Laboratories, 2030 Wright Avenue, Richmond, California 94804 was the EPA contracted laboratory responsible for DBCP analysis. GENERAL COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS Most of the following four sections was either paraphrased or taken verbatim from two United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service soil surveys.3,4 Physiograohy, Relief, and Drainage Maricopa County is characterized by broad, featureless valleys that are filled with alluvial material as much as several hundred meters thick. Elevations range from 230 to 410 m (750 to 1,350 ft.) in the valleys and from 275 to 1,130 m (900 to 3,700 ft.) in the mountains. The mountains are generally rugged and steep, though they attain only a moderate height. In parts of Maricopa County there are a few scattered mountains 6cmposed of granite and schist of Precambrian age, conglomerate of Cretaceous-Tertiary age, and andesite of Tertiary age. Maximum difference in elevation between the floor of the valley and the tops of the mountains is about 735 m (2,420 ft.). The valley floor is occupied by nearly level or gently sloping soils; ic most places slopes are less than 1 percent. Soils in this transitional area are moderately sloping to steep. Drainage of the Salt River Valley is mainly provided by the Gila River and its Agua Fria River and Salt River tributaries. Except for a few art a between Bu'c keye and Gillespie Dam, the entire survey area is well drained. 6
~ . The water table in most areas is below a depth of 60 a (200 ft.) and declining due to pumpage in excess of recharge. The four general landforms in the area are valley plains; stream channels, flood plains, and low terraces; alluvial fans; ar.d mountains and low hills. The valley plains appear to be level, but rise steadily with increasing steepness from the axial trough toward the marginal mountains. Slope is less than 1 percent near the axial trcugh ar.d approaches 9 or 10 percent near the mountains. Stream channels, flood p'lains, and low terraces are the lowest points on the landscape. They are in or adjacent to the majcr stream channels. Valley plains and the remnants of a few old stream terraces are at slightly higher elevations. They roughly parallel but are one-fourth to one-half mile frcm the major stream channels. Near the base of the mountains are alluvial fans that are generally at right angles to the valley plains. They are generally distinct where the ephemeral stream leaves the mountain, but lose their identity downslope where they coalesce, fonning a single broad plain. Often, the alluvial fan surface is a ccmplex pattern of old and young alluvium. The areas of old alluvium appear stable because the ephemeral streams in these areas have become deeply entrenched. The recent alluvium can occur at the foot of an older entrenched fan. In various places the alluvial fans are encroaching on the valley plains. Scme extend several miles frcm mountain frcnts. Some places in the area could have been old playas. One is near Luke Air Force Base, and the other is in the southern part of the Harquahala Valley. Both areas now have through-ficwing drainage. The area near Luke Air Force $ase is underlain by a silica-lime cemented hardcan. The area 7
in the southern part of the Harquahala Valley is underlain by a highly mottled, highly stratified sediment, and the nearby hills show evidence of having been an old shoreline. Climate Maricopa County has a desert-type climate. Relative humidity is low with an annual rainfall of 18 to 25 cm (7 to 10 in.). Average monthly precipitaticn exceeds 2.54 cm (1 in.) only during August and December. There are generally two separate precipitation seasons which are highly variable. The first occurs from November to March, when the area is subjected to cccasional storms from the Pacific Ocean. Yet, there have been occasions when the area generally has little precipitation during this time. An example is the period frcm December 30, 1971 through June 6,1972 (a period of 160 consecutive days) when no measurable precipi-tation was reported at Phoenix Airport. The second rainfall season occurs in July. August, and most of September, when the area experiences widespread thunderstonn activity. These thunderstenns are extremely variable in intensity and location. Temperatures are nonnally high in summer. Frcm early June until mid-September the af ternoon maximum temperature ccmonly exceeds 38 0 C (1000 F) and tamperatures of 430 C (1100 F) or more are not uncomon.
. In winter the temperature ranges fran 2 to 80 C (36 to 460 F) near day-break to 18 to 210 C (65 to 70c F) in the afternoon. Freezing tempera-tures are not ccmon. They generally occur on about 15 mornings in a normal winter.
8 I
y Farming The size of farms ranges from 130 to 4050 hectares (320 to 10,000 acres). The main cash crop is generally cotton. Alfalfa and small grain are grown to improve fertility, tilth, and organic content. The main acreage of vegetable crops is restricted to a few farmers who l specialize in such crops. Table 1, lists the estimated harvested he: tares of the principal crops in Maricopa County.
~
Soil Descriotion The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service has catalogued the soils in Maricopa County in two surveys.3,4 The soils are quite diverse and'cannot be adequately discussed in this report. The different types o'f landforms found in Maricopa County make any generaliza-tion of soils difficult. If a generalized term is needed the closest description would be sandy clay loam. RESULTS . A total of 107 water samples from 93 wells and one surface water source were obtained be6 ween June 11-September 25, 1979. Of the 93 i different wells sampled, 26 (28".) were found to be contaminated with DBCP; 5 (5%) were above 1 ppb DBCP. The surface water sample was found to l contain less than 0.01 ppb DBCP. The other water samples were either l
- duplicate or resamples of wells that had been sampled for quality assurance checks or for surveying wells over a period of time. A suranary of DBCP l results (reported in parts per billion') obtained during this sampling period is found in Table 2.
1 . 9 l D
~ The detection level for the analyses of the June samples (AM-1 , through 13) was 0.1 ppb OBCP. These samples were analyzed by the California State Department of Food and Agriculture laboratory. All subsequential samples were analyzed by LFE Corporation in California with a detection level of 0.01 ppb 08CP. A compilation of the data collected in Maricopa County is fou:d
~
in Table 3. Information presented includes sample identification number, general location, well type and depth, pump setting, well casing, diameter, proximit'y to suspected CBCP use, suspect crop, soil type, sampling dates and reported OBCP level detected. Positive results (20.01 ppb DBCP) obtained frcm the Maricopa County DBCP Well Sampling Program ranged from 0.01-4.5 ppb DBCP. The pesticide contamination was found in wells that have been drilled as deep as 625 m (2,050 ft.), but general well depths were around~305 m (1000ft.). . Plates 1 through 4, identify the well sampling locations in Maricopa County. The BWQC designated samples with an "AM" number (State of Arizona, Maricopa County). Positive DBCP well sample sites are identified by " solid" circles, while wells in which no DBCP was detected are identified by " clear" circles. Shaded areas 1ccated throughout the plates represent citrus growing areas which have been verified by 1970 aerial photographs taken by the U.S. Soil Stabiliza-tion and Conservation Service and personal ccmunication with their staff relating to the current status of citrus production. I 10
DISCUSSION The analysis of the data collected in Maricopa County indicates that DBCP residuals may be associated with large citrus groves. Wherever cotton was the suspected crop no trace of DBCP was found except at one location (AM-35). Possible reasons for ' these findings are: First, DECP was not used in cotton areas because it was not economically justified.5 Second, the amounts used were not great enough for DBCP to be detectable and/or, third, the duration of use was not long enough to reach the groundwater. There is some' controversy about whether DBCP has been used on ! cotton. Bob Dowling, a technical representative for Shell Oil Co.,
- whichmanufacturedthepesticideinthepast, stated..."(DBCP)is
! usedintheUnitedStittestocontrolnematodesincotton,andthatits use on food crops has been discontinued."6 i . A. South Phoenix Area The highest levels of DBCP contamination in Mariccpa County were fromtwoirrigationwells(,AM-26andAM-27)locatedinanareaof i South Phoenix bounded roughly by Baseline Road on the north, 40th Street on the east, South Mountain Park on the south and 35th Avenue on the west. In this area the depth to groundwater is the shallowest i in Maricopa County and ranges from 24 to 30 m (80 to 100 ft.). Also, these two wells had not been pumped ~ extensively in the last two years because the irrigation water demand has been generally met by surface water. To the west of these wells are three private wells (AM-25, AM-54 and AM-75). All three were found to be contaminated. i 11
~ 1 These private wells may be contaminated for a variety of reasons, i l l ncne of which are conclusive. First, the area was in citrus production five to ten years ago.7 As a result, CBCP may have percolated dcwn through the soil or cascaded down the well casings. Second, the con-tamination may have moved from the extensive citrus groves located east of the vicinity of these contaminated wells. This is supported by data compiled by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicating that groundwater movement in this area is from east to west. The eastern section of this citrus area was not sampled because of the difficulty in finding wells. There are no municipal wells or irriga-tion wells in this area. The locations, construction specifications, and present owners of private wells were not readily obtainable. ADHS relied on cooperation from the Arizona Water Comission, Maricopa County Health Department and the general public in locating and contacting owners of private wells in this citrus growing area. B. East Mesa Area Detectable levels of DBCP were found in wells sampled in the East Mesa area. Fifteen wells were sampled in this area bounded by Thomas Road on the north,Higley Road on the east, University Drive on the south and Gilbert Road on the west. In this area, four municipal wells used by the City of Mesa were sampled. One was found positive for OBCP (0.0S-0.09 ppb)---Falcon Field
#2 (AM-18). Although this contamination was near the laboratory detecticn level (0.01 ppb D8CP) ADHS reccmended that the well be removed frcm the 12
~
i system because DBCP is a known carcinogen and because of the unavail-ability of health effects data at low levels of exposure. The City of Mesa imediately isolated this well from the system upon receiving ADHS recomendations. This well was resampled twice because of the important health aspects and the low level of contamina-tien found. Resampling was accomplished while the well was separated from the system to preclude any further contamination of the municipal system. Six other samples frcm irrigation wells (AM-2, 30, 33, 40, 71, 73) from this area were all found to be contaminated. Three of these wells belonged to SRP and had not been extensively pumped during the last two years because surface water has been readily available. Two other irrigation wells (AM-30 and 40) located in the area, which had been pumped daily for several montas prior to sampling, were also-fcund to be contaminated. The number of wells :. hat were available to sample in the East Mesa area was limited by two factors. First, the AWC inventory of wells cnly accounts for mandatory registration of all wells after 1968 and other a l large wells since 1948. Infomation relating to these wells is often i ! current only to the date when the well was drilled. Information on present cwners of these wells is not updated, nor have abandoned wells been recently updated. Second, there was a lack of public willingness to identify private wells located in this area. Therefore, the number of wells that ADHS could readily identify that were adjacent to other known centaminated wells became an important, fact in the sampling program. l l l 13 i
An example was the wells of Citrus Heights Farms in the East Mesa , area. ThiscitrusfarmissurroundedbyDBCPcontaminatedwells(AM-2, 18, 30, 33, 40 and 71). Numerous staff contacts with the farm manager appealing for cooperation were unsuccessful (Appendix C). Therefore, to obtain the needed samples, ADHS had to obtain a search warrant (Appendix D, E and F). Detailed data analysis may indicate a pattern in the well cen-tamination in the East Mesa area. The Arizona Water Comission staff indicates that the East Mesa area is an area of significant groundwater withdrawal where the local groundwater table is depressed because of extensive pumping. The contaminated area is located near the center of the depression. Further data collection and analysis are necessary for assessment.of the hydrologic situation. . C. Chandler Heights Area About 23 kilometres (14 miles) south of the East Mesa arca is another large c'itrus growing area located around Chandler Heights. The soils of this area is either of the Antho-Valencia association or the Gilman-Estrella-Avondale association.4 Both are sandy or sandy clay
~
loam soils. The depth to groundwater in this area was 90 to 120 m (300 to 400 ft.) in 1976.9 Three well samples were found contaminated (AM-39,64and69). One of the contaminated wells was sampled'twice (AM-39 and 64) and is used both for irrigation and domestic supply for the Chandler Heights area. Theothercontaminatedsample(AM-69)wastaken frcm a well used only for irrigation. The operators of the Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District were infonned .by telephone and letter about the positive DBCP. values found in their wells (Appendix G). 14
- D. Northern Glendale Area Another large citrus grcwing area is primarily located within a newly annexed area of the City of Glendale, Arizona. This area is bounded by Pinnacle Peak Road on the north, Sist Avenue on the east, Greenway Road on the south and 91st Avenue on the west. Included in this area are three large farms: Fletcher Farms, Bodine Produce Co., Inc. and Arrowhead Ranch.
ADHS personnel were infonned by the owner that DBCP has never been used on Fletcher Farms.10 Yet,twoofthesixwellssampled(AM-82and85)were found to be contaminated. If DBCP has never been used on this farm, from where did the DBCP ceme? If there,is no perched water in this area, the DBCP contamination is believed to have ccme frcm outside this far.n either from the south or east. Further sampling, data collection and analysis is necessary for better documentation of this pattern. Repeated attempts were made to contact the owners of Bodine Produce Co., Inc. requesting pennission to sample their wells (Appendix H). Inaction by these owners resulted in affidavits being sworn and a search warrant served to sample the Bodine Produce Cmpany wells (Appendix I through K). Three of the six well; sampled (AM-88, AM-89 and AM-91) were contaminated
- with DBCP.
l The ADHS sampled seven irrigation wells on September ll, 1979 on I Arrowhead Ranch under the guidance of Art Martori, manager of Arrcwhead Ranch (AM-94 through 100). Of these 'seven wells, two were found contaminated ! (AM-94 and 97). After discussions with the City of Glendale staff and their l 1 1 15 l
1 . i engineering consultants, it was detennined that not all of the wells b i were sampled on Arrowhead Ranch. On September 25, 1979, the manager again guided ADHS to three additional wells on Arrowhead Ranch (AM-106 through108). Waters from all three of these wells were found tc be contaminated. The occurrence of DBCP well contamination in the northern Glendale area seems to follow the Nett River stream bed with highest values located downstream. Surface features have little effect on the state of i ground water movement as indicated by the USGS map revealing that the local grcund water gradient is toward the north, and the surface gradient is to the south.3 This factor in addition to the prevalence of the j three various soils types (Carrizo-Brios, Gilman-Estrella-Avondale and Mahall-Laveenassociah. ion)inthisarea,makesanycorrelationofDBCP contamination difficult.3 Sixtoeightkilometres(4-5 miles)southoftheabovedescribed area is a municipal-irrigation well (AM-109) used by the City of Glendale. It is located adjacent to an old citrus grove and was found to contain 0.01 ppt DBCP. Following ADHS health recomendations, the City of Glendale imediately removed the well from their system. The City requested further clarification on what levels of DBCP are deemed safe and what actions are recomended to remove or control DSCP contamination. ADHS has previously asked for such guidance frcm EPA in a letter from Dr. Suzanne Danday, M.D., M.P.H., Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, to Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator, U.S.E.P.A., Region IX (Appendix L). On September 20, Frank M. Covington, Director, Water Division, EPA, Region IX, respcnded to Dr. Dandoy's request stating, "The infonnation which we have 16
~
gathered regarding the feasibility of treating DBCP contaminated water is inconclusive, and we have not yet received a response from EPA HeadquarterstocurrequestforanMCL(sic,MaximumContaminantLevel) or interim standard for DBCP. We are continuing to work with our Head-quarters and Cincinnati Laboratory to deve'op the infonnation you have requested."- It has been comen practice in Maricopa County to share the use of wells between irrigation.and domestic municipal use. Of the 93 wells tested in Maricopa County for DBCP, eight had shared use (Table 4) with four having detectable levels of DBCP. Only one of these contaminated wells has been removed from service (AM-109) despite ADHS recomendations. The others have not been taken cut of service because there are no alter-native sources of water in those areas. POSSIBLIWELLCONTAMINATIONMECHANISMS Possible well contamination routes have been discussed by Ham with the most probable avenues of DBCP contamination being related to well l design arfd construction.II The first of these is by direct contamination i of the well through any break or other opening in the casing or between the casing and the pump base or seal (Figure 1A). The second is by the reversal of contaminated discharge system ficw (Figure 1B). The third is the disturbed zone or open area imediately surrounding the casing (Figure 1C). The fourth path similar to the third, may occur if a well was gravel packed during constructicn. This type of construction necessitates a conduit from the surface into the well bore for replenishment of the gravel (Figure 10). 17
-v
Y - Q. D..
-GRCUT $EAL a,a - . *
*'g*,.,*g*.*
- t.# : .'.'.
$:[*.*#
#. d.
- 4*.
id . a ,.
=8 #
p, 1 A. UNDER THE PUMP B. THROUGH THE PUMP
~
A ^ 1- ~
"'""f 2 l
,,,,,,,4
.=,-. .w&
)Yxvs ,,,,,,,,,
. ,tc g:,' :_f i . _;d.w.:.
- s * .m
-? * <
.**2.:~:
.. C*.
C. AROUM0 THE CASING D. THROL[GHTHEGRAVELPACK F:GURE 1. Entrance of contaminants, modiffeo fr m Ham II
~
/#///'ffg w pgfy
) i i \ f // -
- //0 f//jj,,,
} ""'%_L a, , '1
..\...
.. . . . .4..,.34,5Syrers_r'l/tr" I
. . R. .
FI g.:..
- 2. Ent c's of contam1nants Resulting from subsidence, modified from Ham Il i
1 O
.. ,.. ? .w mit.
Gr ? -
.* . _:. ;
- f 5. :
> 2 a .
~
* ' . ' ' . . , , .' .*.. . , . * - - .. n .
, %T ,
a .. .. . . . <a , .,.
**f b-. ' 'o <_ .;:.ll$
. ** f,*. . , ,:, ,
~
h!s'h!!!1k 'hhNhh?
- - 't m . . ..;.
1 : . .; . : . . . . .. .
.. . . . . ) v 5,. . . , /. g:5 .. . . . . ;..
. . . . e- . . . . . . .
i _ L.* . : * . . -
. ' . .' 5 . : . *... '
I A. THROUGH THE CASING S. INTO THE GRAVEL PACK , 3 FIGURE 3. Entrance of contaminant:. modified from Ham. *I 1 18 I. . _
Modern well construction methods allow contaminated zones to be avoided. The more advanced of the presently used techniques--sealing off contributing zones of contamination by casing, liner or by grouting--- are probably adequate under ideal conditions. However, changing conditicns often resulting from imprcper design or construction, operation or lack of maintenance tend to circumvent the protective techniques. A few of these conditions are:
- 1. Subsidence, which can cause surface grade reversals, destruction of surface protection and reduction of grout seal protection (Figure 18).
- 2. Desica. tion or other factors causing shrinkage, cracking or other alteration of grout material.
- 3. Breaks or leaks in discharge pipes, leading to erosion and failure of protective facilities. ,
j Under certain hydrologic conditions other routes of contamination other than surface sources are present. Near surface groundwater may enter an l opening in the casing and be conveyed into the aquifer in use (Figure 3A). , The opening may be a split seam, weld, other joint failure, corrosion - l pitting or a perforation in the casing. Another pathway may be an inadequatelyprotectedgravelpack(Figure 38). Another mechanism of contamination of an aquifer other than well design or construction is via the normal percolation through overlying materials. This could be the case here because DBCp is a volatile ccmpound that leaches extensively through soils with icw concentrations of clay and silt and diffuses I I 19
~: ~~^
l
. \
through soil air spaces.12 DBCP vapor pressure (0.58 torr, or 0.55 m) I I and water solubility (0.125) are both high relative to other halogenated hydrocarbons and lead to the conclusion that this chemical would be very mobile in soils. DBCP has been found to leach extensively in certain kinds of soils with its distribution and persistence dependent upon soil particle si$e, amount of organic matter present and whether DBCP is in the vapor phase or in solution. Calculations by EPA sta'ff based on data derived from a known DBCP contaminated aqdifer in Adams County, Colorado have estimated that DBCP may be persistent in groundwater for as long as 24 years.I3 If DBCP has such a long persistence in the soils of Maricopa County, a slcwer rate of DBCP movement may be related to the greater percentages of clay found in Maricopa County soils. Such a condition would have only delayed the eventual contamination of the groundwater. Therefore, frem the various i data presented, soil percolation cannot be completely ruled out as a ! possible contamination mechanism. l Samples from two high capacity irrigation wells (SRP 30.5 6N and i l SRP 31.EE 6.5N) were taken to try to detemine the mechanism of their DBCP contamination with no results. For both wells, samples were taken 15 and 30 minutes after starting their pumps (AM-60, 61, 71 and 72). An additional sample was taken from 30.5E 6N after 60 minutes of pumping (AM-62). Temperature and specific conductance were monitored and were found to remain constant after 10 minutes of pumping for both wells. 20
~
l
* \
l
- Mcwever, the concentration of DBCP from Well 30.5E 6N taken after ;
60 minutes (0.12 ppb) was higher than at 15 (0.06 ppe) and 30 minutes (0.06 ppb). The samples from 31.8E 6.5N (AM-71 and 72) had little difference (2.8,,2.7 ppb). Further analysis and data collection is needed to clarify the possible mechanisms of DBCP contamination of samples from not only these wells but also samples from o,ther contaminated wells in Maricopa County. CONCLUSIONS In an Aucust 27 letter from Dr. Suzanne Dandoy, M.D., M.P.H. , Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, to Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator,d.S.E.P.A.,RegionIX(AppendixL),DBCPwasrecognizedto be a public health problem in Arizona. To ccmplement Bureau of Water Quality sampling activities, EPA was requested by ADHS to provide further inferv.ation and guidance to answer DBCP-related issues. < Frank M. Covington, Director, Water Division, EPA, Region IX, responded to Dr. Dandoy's request in a September 20 letter stating..."The information which we flave gathered regarding the feasibility of treating DBCP contaminated water is incenclusive, and we have not yet received a response from EPA Head-j quarters to our request for an MCL (sic, Maximum Contaminant Level) or in-
- terim standards for DBCP. We are continuing to work with our Headquarters j and Cincinnati Laboratory to develop the infonnation you have requested."
A review of the data collected on the occurrence of DBCP contamination I in well water samples in Maricopa County, Arizona reveals that residues were l found in all four citrus-growing areas that were sampled: South Phoenix area l 21 l
bounded roughly by Baseline Rord on the north, 40th Street on the cast, South Mountain Park on the south and 35th Avenue on the west; East Mesa bounded by Thcmas Road on the north, Higley Road on the east, University Drive on the south and Gilbert Road on the west; two to four kilometre area surrounding Chandler Heights; and northern Glendale bounded by Pinnacle Peak Road on the north, Sist Avenue on the east, Greenway Road on the south and 91st Avenue on the west. Approximately 28% (26) of the 93 well samples collected indicated positive DBCP values of 20.01 ppb. Approximately 5% (5) of th'e wells sampled in Maricopa County, Arizena contained DBCP values 21.0 ppb. The latter value was established by the State of California as an administrative " action level" and was adapted for use during this sampling and public 'notificaticn program. The following notificaticns were made by ADHS: Owners with wells containing DBCP levels 21.0 ppb were advised to s ek alternative water supplies for all dcmestic uses. Well owners with detectable DBCP levels <l.0 ppb were advised to seek alternative water supplies for drinking and culinary purposes and minimize human contact for all'other uses. These advisements also stated the point that the Department's reccmmendations were conse'rvative. 3 ADHS had recomended that two municipal wells be removed from their
\ 7- o , N. A systems and had_imediate-ccmprltance. These interim health precauticns have been established until further information becomes available.
Possible explanations for the presence of the DBCP contamination have not been adequately defined or proven. A number of po:;sible centamination mechanisms dic, however, become apparent during this study. Further 22 > ~
T investigations in the following areas needed to verify and/or differentiate between these mechanisms:
. Relation of well characteristics (well depth, casing diameter, perforation depth, depth to grcundwater, andconstructiondate)toevidenceofDBCP;
. Soil characteristics in impacted areas and its ability to allow percolation of D8CP to groundwater table;
. Infonnation on DBCP persistence over time; Groundwater movement and its relation to CBCP contamination.
O i 1 e I l 1 l i . 23
TABLE 1. The estimated harvested acreage in 1972 of the principal crops in Maricopa County.2 Crop Hectares (Acres) in 1972 Cotton 38 000 (94000) Long staple 7 300 (18000) Short staple 30 800 (76000) Alfalfa 38 000 (94000) Barley 25 900 (64000) Wheat 22 700 (56000) Sor9 hum and corn 17 400 43 000) Safflower 5.160 12 750) Sugarbeets'(sugarandseed) 2 839 7 016) Vegetables 15 300 (37830) Cantaloupes 542 (1340) Honeydew melons . 28 ( 70) Watennelons 809 ( 2 000) Potatoes 4 686 (11 580) Irish 4 480 (11080) Sweet 200 ( 500) Lettuce 6 090 (15050) Spring 3 300 (8150) Fall 2 800 (6,900) Carrots 1 190 ( 2 935) Spring 824 (2,035) Fall s 364 ( 900) Cauliflower 249 ( 615) Breccoli 405 (1000) Cabbage 486 ( 1 200) Onions 825 (2040) Dry 421 ( 1 040) Green 405 ( 1 000) G 24
TA8LE 1. (continued) Crop, Hectares (Acres) in 1972 Citrus 6 780 (16750) Navel and sweet 1 500 3 700)
. Valencia 1 860 4600)
Grapefruit 2 020 5 000) Lemon 810 2000) Tangerine 202 500 Tangelos 202 500 Other citrus 182 450 Grapes 1 610 ( 3 980) Thompson seedles. 1 040 2 570) Cardinals 300 740 Exotics - 154 380 Purlettes . 110 275 Robins 6 15 Apricots 81 ( 200) G
s I
~
t e m e 9 25
TABLE 2. Sumary of positive OBCP results obtained during - { sampling period June 11-September 25,1979. fof wells with fof wells positive 08CP #cf wells with D8CP Month Sampled Results* Results >l.0 ppb June 13 1 0 July 15 6 2 August 13 4 49 September 16 6 0 TOTAL 93 26(28%) 5(5%) NOTES:
- Detection limit of 0.01 ppb, except for June, which is 0.1 ppb.
e a e 26
i TAf4E 3 Well Water Saseling for DDCP in Hartcopa County. Artaona Well Type Piasp Well Proximity to Sample D8CP Depth 1 Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to MJ location Depth (ft.) (ft.) (in.) 08CP Use Crop _ _ _ Jyge, (1979) _ __(ppb) Grounikater (ft.) M-1 Sparkling Bottled Industrial Sandy 6/11 , <0.1 504 Water; 12815 N. 800 Clay . 39 Ave. 13M R2E Loam Section 15 , , M-2 Salt River Project Irrigation Citrus Sandy 6/11 0.1 334 30.5E 6N McDowell A 785 482 24 Clay lehl RDS TIN R6E . Loan Section 6 perforations 300-760 - M-3 Botwie Water Co. Domestic Cotton Sandy 6/11 40.1 80 Near El Mirage & Clay
- Elwood ilN AlW Loam Section 23 M-4 11N R2W Domestic Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 ---
Q 5ection 10 ' Clay Loam M-5 Roosevelt Irr. Olst. Irrl0ation Cotton Sandy 6/11 <0.1 --- BW 41: N Citrus RD Clay 4 mile 5. of Van Bunn . Loam TIN R2W Section 11 M-6 Domestic Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 --- k mile E Citrus RD Clay ( mile $ Van Buren Loam
. TIN R2W Section 10 M-7 City of Phoenix knicipal Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 83
#193 580 280 12 Clay llN RIE Loam Section 18 o
O e O l
TALLE 3
' bell Water Sampling for DOCP in kricopa County. Arizona
~
Wil Type Pung Well Prostmity to Sample OlkP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to locat{on, Depth (ft.1 (f t.) . A l. 004.P use Crop h (1979) _ (ppb) Groundweter(ft.) .
I.D.1 M-8 City of" Phoenix Nnicipal Cotton Sandy 6/11, < 0.1 83
#191 bio 267 12 Clay iIN RIE ,Lome Section 18 .
M-9 City of Pteenta Nnicipal
- Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 108
#196 384 249 12 Clay 11!! RIE Loam section 11 M-10 Rigby W ter Co. Domestic Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 ---
TIN RlW Clay Section 36 Loan' M-Il Rigby W ter Co. Damestic Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 --- TIN RIE Clay Section 30 Loas
- ro M-12 Unknown irrigation irrigation Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 ---
CD Well 5% WL-24W Clay IIN ElW Loas section 19 M-13 Unknown irrigation irrigation Cotton Sandy 6/11 < 0.1 --- Well Clay ilN RlW Loam section 17 - M-16 Turner Ranches Water Domestic Citrus Sandy 7/17 < 0.01 --- 1 Sanitation Co. 800 620 20" to 350' Clay 1517 5. Power RD 16" 350' to Loam 11H R6E SU. SE% 5th 800' section 36 e s
1ALIE 3 hell hier Sangeling for DUCP la kricopa County, Arizona Well Type Pimp Well Presimity to Sample DSCP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected suspect soll Collected Detected to LLL tocati_ott Depth (ft.) (ft.) (In.) D8CP use Crop Jyg (1979) (peab) Groundwater (ft.)
M-23 CrystalhattledWater Industrial Sandy 7/18, <0.01 --- 3302 W. Earil Dr. 953 450 12 Clay 12M R2E Ican . Section 26 M-25 115 R2E Domestic Sandy 7/30 0.17 --- Section I 185 165 6 Clay perforations Loas last 40' M-26 Salt River Project irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/30 4.5 --- 12.5E 0.65 , Clay 115 R3E Loan Section 6 M-27 Salt River Project . Irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/30 3.8 --- u 13E 0.15 Clay O 115 R3E Loan Section 6 M-28 City of Mesa Municipal Sandy 7/31 <0.01 15
. Falcon Field #2 .
Clay 11N R6E Loam Section 10 M-29 Salt River Project Irrigation - Citrus Sandy 7/31 <0.01 10 30E. 4.3M Clay 1111 R6E Loam Section 7 M-30 Roosevelt Conservation irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/31 0.03 --- 2's I 118 W 870 600 Clay Loas g 6E, SE 4 SC k NE 4 geggtlons
l
-g.
1ASIE 3 Idell Water Sampling for 00CP in Maricopa County. Arizona Well Type Pimp Well Prosimity to Sample BBCP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to LD I tocatlan Depth (ft.) (ft.) (In.) 08CP use Crop Iya (1979) (pte) Groundwater (ft.)
M.23 Crystal attied Water Industrial Sandy 7/18, < 0.01 --- 3302 W. Earil Dr. 950 450 12 Clay 12N R2E . I can . Section 26 . M.25 Domestic Sandy 7/30 C.17 --- TIS R2E Section 1 185 165 6 Clay perforettons loam last 40' , M-26 Salt River Project Irrigation Citrus Sandy
- 7/30 4.5 ---
12.5E 0.65 Clay 115 R3E
- Loam Section 6 M-27 Salt River Project . Irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/30 3.8 ---
ca 13E 0.15 . Clay o 115 R3E Loam Section 6 M-28 City of Mesa Mimicipal Sandy 7/31 <0.01 15
.Fal:en Field #2 .
Clay llN R6E Loam Section 10 AM-29 Salt River Project irrigatloa - Citrus Sandy 7/31 <0.01 10 30E. 4.3H Clay 11H R6E Loam Section 7 M-30 Roosevelt Conservation Irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/31 0.03 --- 25 1 1/8 W 870 600 Clay Loam {g.95E k SE k NE k gfgtfons
IAELE 3 bell hter Sangiling for DBCP in Maricopa County [ Arizona Well Type Pung Well Praxistty to Sample ' 00CP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to I.D.f locatlog Depth (ft.) (ft.) (in,) DBCP Use Crop ,1yg, (1979) (pptr) Groumiwater (fts.)
AH-31 Roosevelk hter Consv. Irrigation Citrus Sandy 7/31 < 0.01 490 Dist. I lip 1200 600 Clay 12H A6E perforations Loan Section 33 500-1200 h 32 City of Mesa Nnicipal Citrus Sandy 7/31 0.08 --- Falcon Fleid #2 - Clay TIN R6E Loan Section 10 h 33 Salt River Project Irrigation i Sandy 8/l 0.14 362 31.5E 3.5N 606 20 Clay
. IIN R6E Loam '
Section 17 AM-34 125 R6E Domestic 100 meters Cotton Sandy 8/l < 0.01 --- Section 8 Clay Lcm . AM-35 T25 R6E Domestic & - 100 meters Cotton Sandy 8/I 0.24 --- Section 8 Animal Clay Lome h 36 12S R6E comestic Cotton Sandy 8/l < 0.01 --- Seation 16 Clay Lone h 37 125 R6E Domestic 20 meters Cotton Sandy 8/l < 0.01 --- Clay Section 16 Lon1
6-TAELE 3 leell hter Sampling for DOCP in bricopa County". Arizona . Well Type Pimp Well Prostelty to Sample BBCP Deptli l & Settin Casing Suspected Suspect soll Collected Detected to l I.D.f Location Septh (ft.1 .(it,)g (in,) DeCP use Crop Jype, __ (1979) _ (ppb) Groundwater (ft.)
~
20 meter Cotton Sandy 8/l , <0.01 --- h 38 T25 R6E Domestic Clay Section 9 Loan W 39 Chandler lielghts Irrigation & Citrus Sandy 8/l 0.24 --- 850 20 Clay Irrigation Well #3 knicipal Loam 125 R7E 1141 Section 31 , Sandy 1/3I 0.37 555 AH-40 Roosevelt h ter Consv. Irrigation 600 24 Clay Dist. 2 1 91 1200 Loam 11N R6E perforations
- Section 4 500-1200 Municipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- ,
AH-41 City of Mesa Clay w Well 39 1000 460 20 N Loas 11N R5E . Section 14 City of Mesa knicipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- h 42 Clay Well #1 700 410 20 Loam TIN REE Section 22 City of Mesa Municipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- h43 Clay Hel) fil 1006 410 20* 500 perforations 16" 506- Loam ilN R5E Section 22 371-1006 1006 City of Mesa Municipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- h 44 Clay Well #12 1000 460 20" 0-610 perforations 16" 340- Loan TIN R5E , Section 15 500-1000 1000 o s _ w
-~ . .._- __ . - - - - _ - - - - - - - . -. .
.- . -7 TA6LE 3 kell Water SaaplinD for 06CP in br'icopa County'. Arizona Well Type Pump Wall Presimity to Sample 00CP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected suspect Soll Collected Detected to L0d locatigt Depth (ft.) (ft.) (In.) D8CP Use Crop Jg,e, e (1979) (pple) Croundwater(ft.)
City of Hesa halcipal Sandy 8/8 <0.01 --- AH-45 Well l8 870 380 20 Clay IIN R5E perforations Loan Section 15 494-870 AH-46 City of Hesa knicipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Well #15 . 1000 440 18" 0-600 Clay llN RLE perforations 16" 600- Loam O Section 24 600-1000 1000 AH-47 City of Hesa kanicipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- - Desert Wells #5 922 623 16" 0-527 Clay 11N R7E 12" 295-922 Loam Section 30 . AH-43 City of Hesa Municipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Desert Wells #6 1000 660 20" 0-700 Clay . 11H R7E perforations 16" 700- ' Loam Section 5, 700-1000 1000 AH-49 ilN R6E Domestic & Citrus Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Section 3 Irrigation Clay 800 16 Loan AH-50 City of Hesa knicipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Well #16 1000 450 20" 0-500 Clay T1H R6E perforations 16" 500- Loam Section 21 600-1000 1000 , AH-51 City of Hesa Municipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Well #14 1030 454 26" 0-4% Clay TlH R5E perforations 16" 496- Loan . 5cction 26 o30-1030 1030 ,
8-TAbtE 3 laell Water Sampling for DOCP in Maricopa County. Arlaena Well Type Pimp Well Proaletty to Sample OSCP Oupth
. & Settin Casing Suspected Suspect Sell Collected Detected to LM tocation_ Depth (ft.) _( ft.)g (In,1 f4CP use Crop ly21 (1979) _ (sob) Grounduater (ft.)
h 52 City of Mesa knicipal Sandy 8/8 < 0.01 --- Well #13 1000 460 20" 0-500 Clay TIN R5E perforations 16" 500- Loam Section 22 560-1000 1000 AM-53 City of m sa Nunicipal Sandy 8/8- < 0.01 --- Well #10 . 1200 385 20" 0-500 . Clay 11N RSE perforations 16* 500 Loam W Section 22 400-1200 1200 E 54 T15 R2E Domestic Sandy 8/13 0.04 -- NEk NEk SEk 168 125 6 Clay . Section 1 Loam . W 55 City of Hesa well Municipal Citrus Sandy 8/13 0.00 --- Falcon Fleid #2 1000 620 20 g al. to W Clay TIN R6E perforations Loam Section 10 450-1000 E 56 City of Hesa well knicipal Sandy 8/13 0.08 --- Falcon Field #2 620 20 % al. to W Clay 11N R6E Loan Section 10 AM-57 City of Phoentz surface Sandy 8/l3 < 0.01 --- Val Vista Treatment water Clay Plant Loam E 58 City of msa well Nnicipal Citrus Sandy 8/13 < 0.01 384 ' falcon Field #5 1000 16 50 yards to Clay - llN RCE SM. SEk SEk perforations North Loam Section 17 600-1000 ,
- _ - - _ _ - - _ - -_-- --- - - - - - - - - _ - - - ----__.-..-___-.-___-._--_A
a l
.g.
I Al.! C 3 , Well Water sangiling l'or I*CP in Maricopa County, Arizona Well lyse ramp Well Proximity to Sample DUCP Deptis
& Setting Caslu Suspected Suspect Sell Collected Detected to I,u.# 1oca t {on, Ikptli Ib,9 _(It.) _(In.g1 IWLp Use Crop Tyg (1970)_ ___.(ptt}_, Erous@ater_(fl) a Mi-59 City of"Hesa isell Municipal Citrus Sandy 0/13 <0.01 384 Falcor fteld #5 1000 16 50 yards Clay 11N REE perforations to Nortin Loam Section I? 600-1000 Mi-60 Salt River Project Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/15 0.06 334 30.5 6N 24 Middle of Clay various Loam fields ,
AH-61 Salt River Project irrigation Sandy 8/15 0.06 334 30.5 6N 24 Clay g Loan AH-62 Salt River Peeject irrigation saady 8/15 0.12 334 30.5 6N 24 Clay Lona AH-G3 Crownt Valley Water Cotton Sandy C/15 <0.01 --- System . 20 yards Clay 115 R7E Loam Section 3 , AH-64 Cliandler lleiglits Irrigation & Citrus Sandy 8/15 0.17 --- Well #3 Dunestic Clay ' 125 R7C 1141 850 20 70 yards Loam Section 31 AH-65 Ctandler lleiglits Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/15 <0.01 --- Well #2 1215 700 20 70 yards Clay T25 RFC perforations l oam section 31 392-1215 e e 4 e 9
. c
-10 TAELE 3 Well Water Sangaling for DOCP in Maricopa County, Arizona Well Type Pianp Well Prominity to Sample DSCP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to LDJ Localjog Deptli(ft.) (ft,) ({n,) DSCP use Crop h (1979) (sob) Groundwater (ft.)
~
M-66 Chandle}lleights Irrigatten Citrus Sandy 8/15 '
<0.01 ---
Well #4 1200 690 20 70 yards. Grapes Clay 125 R7E perforatl& 5 Loam ., Section 31 500-1060 M-67 Chandlerlleights Irrigatten Citrus Sandy 8/15 <0.01 --- Well #5 1200 714 20 100 yards Clay 125 N7E Loam Section 31 AM-68 Chandler lleights Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/15 <0.01 --- Well #6 973 780 20 170 yards Clay 125 R6E Loas-
- Section 36 AH-69 Cliandler lleiglets Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/15 1.5 ---
Well #1 1085 760 16 2 yards Clay u 125 R6E Loan i ch Section 36 - AN-70 Salt alver Project Irrigation & Cittis Sandy 8/20 < 0.01 --- 32.3E 7N Comestic Clay - 12N R6E 778 532 24 40 yards Loan Section 33 AM-71 Salt Siver Project Irri Citrus Sandy 8/20 2.8 31.8E 6.5N 749(gation son) 522 24 20 yards to Clay T2N R6E perforations llorth Loan Section 32 300-785 t
IAhlE 3 , Well Water 3aagiling for DSCP in Maricopa County, Arizona Well Type Pump Well Proximity to Sample 00CP Depth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to tocellon Depth (ft.) (In.) DDCP use Crop Jyg (1979) (ppb) Groundwater (f t.)
I.D.# (ft.) Salt River Project Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/20 2.7 AM-72 Clay 31.8E 6.5N 749 (800) 522 24 20 /ards T2N R6E perforaticas to North Loam Sectica 32 300-785 . Citrus lleights Farms irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/27 0.01 390 AM-73 820 24 5 yards. Clay 12H R6E. NWk inik SWh Section 34 Loan Citrus Sandy 8/27 < 0.01 420 M-74 Citrus lleights Farms Irrigation 731 24 15 yards Clay T2N R6E. SWh NEk inik Secilon 34 Loan Sandy 8/28 0.01 80 AH-75 T15 R2E Domestic 130 105 6 Clay Mk inik SEk E0am Section 1 N , Sandy 8/28 < 0.01 58 AH-76 City of Phoenix knicipal
#204. TIS R2E 95 78 8 Clay Loan SEk NIk SEk Section 9 AH-77 City of Phoenix Henicipal Sandy 8/28 < 0.01 58
#204 95 78 8 Clay Loan AM-78 City of rhoenix Nnicipal Sandy 8/29 < 0.01 ---
Desert h 11 #8 Clay , Loan
- g9 e
e 6
l 4 )
- TA5LE 3 Well Water Sampilng for DBCP in Maricopa County. Arizona Well Type Pine Well Prostelty to Sample DSCP Oepth
& Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to I.D.f Locat L'at Depth (ft.) (ft.) (10.1 00CP use Crop Jn (1979) (ppb) Gra e ter (ft.)
4 79 12M R6E"' Domestic Sandy 8/29 , < 0.01 300 SWh IM4 580 390 8 Clay Loam Sction5 . . M-80 Citrus lloights Well Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/29 < 0.01 --- TIN R6E. NEk NE4 NEk 1104 20 5 yards Clay '
- Section 4 ,
M-81 Citrus lleights Well Irrigatten Citrus Sandy 8/29 < 0.01 --- 20 5 yards Clay TIN A6E. hEk NEh NEk 1804 Lo88 , j . Section 4 . 4 82 Fletcher Fams Irrigation & Citrus Sandy 8/30 0.22 --- Well di Domestic 20 10 yards Clay 14N RIE, NW4 stEk NEk ~ 848 Loan M Sectier, 23 , M-83 Fletcher Fams Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/30 < 0.01 --- Well #2 1280 20 20 yards Clay T4N RIE. SEh NEh SEk Loam , Section 14 M-84 Fletcher Fams Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/30 < 0.01 --- Well #4 1308 16 15 yards- Clay T4N R1E. SEk NEk NW4 Loam Sectlen 23 M-85 fletcher Fa ms Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/30 0.21 --- Well 15 1180 16 10 yards Clay T4N RIE. NEk NEk SWh Loam Section 23 4 A
TAbtE 3 Well Water Saagiling for imCP in Maricopa County, Arianna Well Type Pimp Well Proslaity to Sample 08CP Oeptli A- Setting Casing Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to LDJ [ocation_ Depth (ft.) (ft.) (In.} DOCP Use Crop Jype, (1979) (pph) Groueulwater (ft.) AM-86 fletcher fams Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/30 i <0.01 --- Well #3 1650 16 2 yards. Clay T4N RIE. % NL'h SEk Loan Section 22 - ' AM-87 fletcher fams Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/30 <0.01 --- Well s5 1977 16 5 yards
- Clay T4N. RIE, NWh SW4 SEk Loam Section 22 .
M-88 Bodine Produce Co. Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/31 0.98 --- Well #1 1198 20 5 yards; . Clay (mostnorthernwell) Loam . 14N RIE NW. FN% ledh . Section 35 M-89 Bodine Produce Co. Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/31 1.7 --- Well #2 1005 20 3 yards Clay u (mostsouthernwell) . Loam
'O 14N RIE NW4 SWk NWh .
Section 35 AH-90 Bodine Produce Co. Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/31 <0.01 --- Well i4 1193 20 Clay T4tl RIE. NEk NW4 NE4 Loana Section 34 AH-91 Bodine Produce Co. Irrigation Citrus Sandy 8/31 1.6 --- Well #5 1060 18 Clay 14tt RIE. SW4 NEk Ek Loam Section 34 AH+92 Dodine Produce Co. Irrigation Grapes Sandy 8/31 <0.01 --- Well #8 940 10 yards Clay . 14N RIE. NEk SEk HE% Loam Section 22 . O
IALLE 3 , I hell hier Saagiling for DHCP ist Maricopa County. Arizona Sample DSCP Depth Well Prostelty to Well Type Piamp Suspect Soll Collected Detected to
- f. Setting asing Suspected (pse)
Crop Jylgr, (1979) G_rnundwater(it.) LDa l laEd!h!n, Septi t l&l _j&L. J Qn (Wite use - Sandy 8/31 <a.01 AM-93 Bodine Produce Co. Irrigation Clay
- 1522 20 Well #9 T4M RlE I M . SE8. E 8 Section 22 Citrus Sandy 9/11 0.02 b AM-94 Arrowleead Ranch . Irrigation 2050 860 20 Clay 530 Wil #19 Loan I4al RIE perforations Et E8.1[k 780-1765 5ection 23 Sandy <0.01 490 frrigation Citrus 9/11 .
AM-95 Arrowlead Ranch 20 20 Clay Well #18 1766 700 Loam 14N RIE perforations NW4 lp. ISP. 394-1758 Section 25 Sandy <0.01 380 Irrigatton Citrus 9/11 AH-9b Arrowlead Ranch 20 10 yards Clay Well #15 lib 4 769 T4H RlE (1150) , flL8. HL4 SW. perforations Section 24 275-1038 Citrus Sandy 9/11 0.02 470 Arrowlicad Fanch Irrigation Clay AH-97 20 20 yards Well #21 1490 660 Loam T4N Rl[ perforations 5th W( M( 450-1020 Section 25 Citrus Sandy 9/11
- 40.01 464 AH-94 Arrowlicad Ranch Irr194Llon Grapes Clay 615 12 Well #30 Loen T4N R2E
- perforetlons '
SD. 5W( SW4 307-615 ' Section 30 *
. 39 4
TALLE 3 Well Water Sampling for 08CP in Maricopa County, Art 2cna Well Type Pust. Well Prostelty to Sample DSCP Depth
& Settin Castag Suspected Suspect Soll Collected Detected to g{ tocation Depth (f t.) Jt.)g Jin.) DSCP Use Crop M * (1979) (ppb) Grounester (ft.)
AH-99 Arrowficad Ranch Irrigation Citrus Sandy 9/11 <0.01 455 Well #20 2017 750 22 Clay 14n R2E p-900-2017 Loam SW% SEk $W4
- Section 30
- AH-100 Arrowhead Ranch irrigation Citrus Sandy 9/11 <0.01 463 Well #7 541 20 Clay .
14tl R2E p-160-528 Loam SE4 SEh NEh Section 30 AM-101 City of Phoenix Municip'al Sandy 9/14 <0.01 552 Well #149 811 592
- 20 Clay 13N R2E to 538 Loam HEk NE8. NW4 '16" open Section 24 hole to 811 3 AM-102 Consolidated Water Co. Municipal Sandy 9/14 <0.01 Well- DV-5 Clay T3M R2E Loan HEk NEk NW4 Section 4 .
AM-103 City of Glendale Malcipal Sandy 9/14 <0.01 500 Well #31 805 610 18" Clay T4N R2E. NEk hEh SW% Loam Section 32 - AH-104 City of Glendale Municipal Sandy 9/14 <0.01 535 Well #33 935 660 16 Clay 14N R2E Perforations Loam NEN ME4 7474 535-935 Section 32 O e u
4 1ALLE 3 j leell Water Sanc11ag for 06CP in Maricopa County, Arizona i Well Type Ptap Well Proximity to Saaple DBCP Depth
& Settin Casing Suspected Suspect soll Collected Detected to
- LDj{ location Depth (ft.1 jft.)g (In.) 06CP Use Crop Jyvge, (1979) (ppb) Grousuhdater lit.)
t, i AM-105 City of Glendale Municipal Sandy 9/14 <0.01 490 . Well #8 1310 570 16 Clay ! T3M Rt.' . Lose l SEk NE4 NE4 Section 12 AM-106 Hillcrest Farms #5 Irrigation . Citrus Sandy 9/25 0.05 T4N RIE 2004 765 16 Clay Ntfon 2 AM-107 Hillcrest Fanus #6 Irrigation Citrus Sandy S/25 0.14 T4N RIE 2055 645 18 5 Clay
,' IGP4 SEk NEk perforations Loam Section 23 660-1730 M AM-108 Arrowbead Ranch #16 ' Irrigation 5 Citrus Sandy 9/25 0.01 450 T4P; R2E 1C03 660 20" Clay Stk SEk SWh perfora.:.-- 0'-637' Loam Section 30 176- % 9 16" 637'-969' AM-109 City of Clandale #20 nanicipal 10 Citrus Sandy 0.01 9/25 290 LA-3-2)30-20 Irrigation 502 20 Clay 1,$RP7E13.4N) 1000 Loam 13N R2E perforations Sectica 30 450-900 e
e
~ TABLE 4. Irrigation Wells that have been used for domestic or municipal use I.D. Number Other Use DBCP Detected AM-2 Domestic Yes AM-20 Municipal No AM-39 Municipal Yes AM-49 Domestic No AM-63 Municipal No AH-70 Domestic No AM-82 Domestic Yes AM-109 , Municipal Yes ( B D e 43
~ _ . _ ,
August 10, 197'9 g D EP,1 m
. o~ . .
gd POR MORE NWFORMATIOZ CINTACT: Y , q* Ed Swanson 255-1173 e ? J:.
- John Mark 255-1001 -
C- % & '
#p
'% -NEWS RELEASE ,
%rn J The pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) has been found in water sanples i from nine of the 15 ve11s tested in Maricopa County by the Arizona Department i
of Health Services from July 30 through August 1. s In two of the walls, the DBCP level was higher than the action limit of one I part per billion recommended by California health officials. These wells were { . reported at 3.8 and 4.5 parts per billion. T1 e lowest level reported in the j l j positive samples was 0.03 parts per billion. i j DBCP is used to control nematodes, worns which feed en plant roots, parti- l calarly citrus, cotton, grapes and carrots. It has been linked to nale sterility l l
- I in workers involved in the macnfacture and handling of the pesticide, and to l csncer in laboratory an d nmis.
! ADHS has been sampling wells in Maricopa and Yuma counties since June 7, i a ! whan it was learned DBCP might be contaminating ground water supplies in those I e [ areas. Thus f ar, DBCP contamination has been found in four areas of Maricopa County ! and one area in Yuma County. .) ! The highest DHCP levels were found in irrigation wells in Phoenix, in an area approximately one-eighth of a mile north of Baseline Road ranging sodch to South Mountain Park, between 40th Street and 35th Avenue. f Another area is in East Mesa, bounded by McDowell Road on the north, Univer-1
; sity Drive on the south, and Gilbert and Higley Roads to the west and east.
l l The other two areas where DBCP has been f,ound are south of Chandler nen! the 1 intersection of Alna School and Queen Creek Roads, and within a two-mile radius i of Chandler Heights. , 1740 West Adame Street Phoenix, Ariaone 86007 Phone 256-10o1 Suzanne Dandoy, M.D Director
~ -- .
DBdP IN WELLS
.Page 2 August 10, 1979 ADES has contacted otmers of wells containing detectable levels of D3CP.
Persons with walls containing more than the one-part-per-billica D3CP action linit are advised to use alternative water supplies for all domestic uses. Those served by wells with detectable DHCP levels below the action linit are advised to seek alternative water supplies for drinking and culinary purposes and to "d"d'd e hu=an contact for all other uses. Owners of d:nestic or irrigation wells located in areas where DECP may have been used - particularly where citrus, cotton, grapes or carrots are grown - are urged to contact the ADES Bureau of Water Quality Control to have water sa=ples taken. They,are asked to supply the following inforsation if possible: well location, well depth, casing diamer.er, locacica of pe=p, depth to ground water, locacicus of perforaticus in casing and daytina phone number. Letters shculd be addressed to Room 200, 1740 West Adams, Phoenix 85007, or call 255-1254. l l 30 I 1 ! 45 l L
I APPENDIX B u.S ENVIR0llMEIITAL PROTECTION AGENCY S& A DIVISIOll, WATliR URANCil -
. CllAIN OF CUSTODY AIID SAMPI.E IIISTOltY
, ., . DATE OF
~
TIME . SOllRCE PRESERV. ANALYSES DP. 97 RED At1AI.YS IS ANAI.Y S' I:PA SMtPl.E I DATE
~
Well location: fla me , . Addresa _ or Tuulip. Range Sect. Well d e p tli: Well puinp aceting: Well caning: D itC P use liis to ry: Application rate n Application ma t tiod Application date Soil type: __ t c
=
I.OC ATIOtt I.D.
.AllORATORY NAMR DATE REC'p.
SIGNATURE OF SAitPI.ER (S) SEAIED llY REC'D DY - TilANSI' Ells a. ' 13'A-lX c, SEAI.S INTACT' YES _ NO. IDitH-611 d I. c p O. f . . l ..
pituusy Weiturn! j . .y, ,, cvara expira.
, jigh }Ilgrenix, [riartin 85007 m-.
August 20, 1979 Kobert J. Corbin Mr. Art Martori P.O. Box 1029 Glendale, Arizona 85311 Re: Obtaining Data on Wells Located on Citrus Heights Farms
Dear Mr. Martori:
You have expressed doubt as to the legal authority of State representatives to take water samples from irrigation wells located on Citrus Heights Farms in Maricopa County, in order to determine DBCP concentration. The Arizona Department of Health Services has such author-ity pursuant to A.R.S. S 36-136.A.6. The Arizona Water Commis,- sion has such authority pursuant to A.R.S. S 45-302. The Arizona Board of Pesticide Control has such authority pursuant to A. R.S . S 3-373. For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of these laws. - Sincerely, BOB CORBIN . Attorney General V
, EVELYN R. EPSTEIN Assistant Attorney General ERE/bl Encl.
cc: Wes Steiner, P.E., Executive Director Arizona Water Commission Suzanne Dandoy, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Arizona Department of Health Services Bill Blackledge, Administrator Arizona Board of Pesticide Control t :c: Timothy i,cva 2d NccccC 47
~
....,e,.. .
+
AFFIDAVIT F03 SEARCE WARRAllT COUNTY OF MARIC"FA STATE OF ARIIONA Your affiant., Edward A. Nemecek, an official of the Ari:ena Water Cos:siss'.on, being first duly sworn, upon cath, deposes and says: That the property in Maricopa County, known as Citrus Heights Far:ss and particularly described as follows: TNIR6E Sectica 4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 T2NR6E Section 34, SW 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4 T2NREE Section 34, NW 1/4, NE 1/4, SW 1/4 constitutes lands at a groundwater basin where a well or other works for the withdrawal of groundwater are 1ccated. - l I
~
That in order to obtain factual data in said g cundwater basin, and specifically to determine the extent and areal distri-bution of contamination by dibrennochloroprepane (CBCp) in the
- i groundwater of ,said basin, it is necessary that your effiant
, obtain samples of water from ht e wells located on the afore-described property. So that raid samples consist of water from the aquifer / they must be taken when specific conductance has stabilized as deter:nined by a field plot of conductance versus 3
., . time.
- That wells located on Citrus Neights Farms have been selected for sampling pursuant to a general administrative plan derived frca objective sources. The Arizona Water Commission l
i l has been cooperating with the Arizona Department of Health 1 i ' I Services to determine the grcundwater areas that have been con-f taminated by cacP. When the Ari:ena Department of Health Ser-vices discovers a well of which the water supply contains DSCp j 1 conenmi'= tion, it informs the Arirona Water Con: mission of the well's location and the level of centamination. Sased on hydro- l Logical data, the Ari:ena Water Consnission then points out other wells which should be sampled in order to determine the areal distribution of the discovered contaminatica, and to projact the s direction in which this contamination will travel through the aquifer. I I l 1 1 1
5*
~
h APPENDIX 0 O
' Pursuant to this general administrative plan, the Arizona Department of Health Services has informed the Ariscna .
Water Comstission that a well located in Mar copa County, TINR6T., i Section 4. adjacent to Citrus Heights Farms, contains DSCP con- l tamination, and the Arizona water Coastission has determined that the three wells located on the aforedescribed premises kncwn as , j Citrus Heights Farms must be sampled in order to determine the areal distrinution of the discovered DSCP contamination and to Project the groundwater migration of that ecstamination. Your affiant has a B.S. degree in Caology, and has been employed by the Arizona Water Coconission as a staf" hydrologist frem 1972 to 1976 and since February, 1979. Affian - Arizona Water Concaission day of SUBSCRI3ED AND SWORN TQ before me this August, 1979. Judge, Jus. ace of cne Peace or Magistrate l 4 1 i l J 1 2-49
AFFIDAVIT FOR SEADCM WARRANT , COUNTY CF MARICOPA . STATE OF ARI CNA Your affiant, Timothy D.. Love, an official of the Arizona capartment of Health Services, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: That a source and means of water supply, namely, three - wells, are located upon the property in Maricopa County, known as Citrus Heights Farms, and particularly described as follows T1NR6E 'Section 4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4
- T23A6E section 34, SW 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4 T2NR6E Section 34, NW 1/4, NE 1/4, SW 1/4 That your af fiant has probable cause to believe and
. . does' believe that pesticides containir.3 dibromochloropropane (CS, Cpl have been used upon said property, and that said source and means of water supply may contain concentrations of OSC7.
j .
- - That in order to examine said source and means of water .
supply, and specifically to determine whether said source and means has been conemminated by CBC2, and the areal distribution of such contamination, it is necessary to obtain samples of water from said wells. i *. - That wells located on Citrus Heights Farms have been j . selected for sampling pursuant to a general administrative plan i . derived from objective sources. Prior to realization of the health hazards it posed, dibromechloropropane was used to cor. bat i nematode infestation of* citrus crops. To determine the extent 1 of groundwater contamination by CBCP, employees of the Arizona Capartment of Health Services, including your affiant, have therefore identified large citruc-growing areas in the State, and are presently sampling wells within those areas. L.trus i Reights Farms is located in a large citrus-growing area, and thus wells located on that property are included among those to ' he sampled pursuant to the foregoing general administrative plan. 1 i
=e I
d i 50
That a further ccpect of the gen:rci administr:tive plcn purcuant to which y;ur ef fiant to actiig is th:t, when
- CSCP contamination is discovered in. groundwater, the Arizona Department of Health Services samples wells in adjacent areas both to determine the extent of existing contamination and to .
project the movement of this contamination through the aquifer. Samples from a well is an area adjacent to Citrus Heights Farms (TlNR6E, Section 41 show that the groundwater supplying that well has been centaminated by 08CP. The wells on Citrus Heights Farms must be sampled in order to ascertain the extent of that existing contamination, and to project the direction in which the contamination is likely to travel through the groundwater. Your affiant has an'.M.S. degree in Botany. He is emple'ed y as a nierebiologist by the Arizona Department of Health Services, and is presently assigned to the sureau of Water cuality - Control of the Arizona Capartment of Health Services. Affianz Arizona Copartment cf Health Services SUBSCRIBED AND SWCRM TO before me this day of August, 1979. s J Judge, Justice of sne Peace or Magistrate e l l l 1 51
^ - - -- - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r Mws* * "" ~ 0'30S
- SEARCH WARRANT CQ3TY Of MARICOFA ,
STATE QT ARIZCWA TO ANY "EACE OTTICER IN MARICCPA COUNTY, STATE OT ARI:0NA Proof by affidavit having been made this. y before me by Ti:nothy D. Love and Edward A. Nemecek, there is probable, cause for believing that on the premisee known as Citrus Heights Tarms in Maricopa County, the following-described property: Groundwater supplying the wells located on Citrus Heights Farms, (TINR6E, Section 4, and T2NR6E, Section 34) is subject to search and inspection by officials of the Arizona Department of Health Services and the Arizona Water C:mmission, in the interest of public health, safety or welfar , according to'A.R.S. 5 L3-3912. YCG ARE THEREFORE CC.*etANCED, in the daytime, to make a search of the above-named premises !cr the hereinahove property
'or things and, pursuant to A.R.S. $ 13-3916.E, to make or cause to be made scientific tests of the groundwater supplying said wells, performed upon water obtained when specific conductance has stabilized ss determined by a field plot of c=nductance versus time, and to retain the evidence of said scientific tests in your i
custody, or in the custody of the agency you represent or the Arizona Copartment of Health Services or the Ari:ena Water Com-mission, as provided by A.R.S. 5 13-3920. RETURN this Varrant to me within five days of the date thereof, as directed by A.R.S. 5 13-3918. GIVEN UNDER tty HAND and dated this JJ7 d day of August, 1979. l l i 8 52
r ARIZONA DEPARTMENT ~OF HEALTH SERVICES
. . Division of Environmental Health Services
" ' " " " September 21' 1270"
".a p's%%s 044007.
O. **4P to.. Cwasser Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District P. O. Box 38 Chandler Heights, Arizona 85277 Gentlemen: In the past few months, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) has conducted a well sampling program for dibromochloropropane (DBCP) and had sampled your wells which are listed on the enclosed form. The reported results are frcm a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted laboratory and are expressed in parts per billion (ppb) DBCP. The State of Arizona is recomending that individuals served by wells with CBCP levels equal to or greater than 1.0 ppb utilize alternative water supplies for all dcmestic uses. For wells containing detectable OBCP (0.01 ppb or greater) and less than one part.per billion, the State is recomending that the water not be used for drinking and culinary purposes and to minimize human contact for all other uses. Owners of wells con-taining less than detection (less than 0.01 ppb) are advised that there are no reccmendations for its use. tio standards have been established for drinking water supplies by eitner EPA or the State of Arizena although recent data indicate medical ccacern. The ADHS has asked EPA to set drinking water standards and to recemend acceptable methods for DBCP removal from contaminated waters. In the meantime, if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (602) 255-1173. Thank you for your help and services in aiding us in our DECP program. Sincerely, 1- - O. f ...--L. Timothy D. L'ove Ambient Water Quality Unit - Bureau of Water Quality Control TDL:jle Enclosure 53 State Health Butiding 1740 West Adams Street Phoenix. Arizona 55007
Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District P. O. Box 38 Chandler Heights, Arizona 85227
' dell Date Sampled 08CP Detected in pob
#1 8/15/79 1.5 42 8/15/79 <0.01
#3 - "/:/7: 7.8 /[ 77 /h(hf 0.24
#3 8/15/79 0.17 f4 8/15/79 <0.01 15 , 8/15/79 <0.01
#6 8/15/79 <0.01
< stands for less than e
i . I i l l . 1 M
r at*FEMu&A M .
~
August 28, 1979 Mr. Ralph Bodine . Bodine Produce Co., Inc. 10451 W. Palmeras Suite 217 Sun City, Arizona 85373
Dear Mr. Bodine:
The Arizona Capartment of Health Services, Bureau of Water Quality control cslied your office the weeks of August 13, 20, and 27 and left messagas for Messrs. Bodine and Lopez to return
.our call to this office.
The purpose of the call was to solicit your cooperatien in allowing
- water samples to be takan from well sites within your citrus grow-ing areas. The nature of this statewide sampling is to test for the presence of the pasticida dibrosechloropropane (DBCP) in groundwater supplies. .
Sincerely, ? Samuel J. Hadeed Ambient Hatar Quality Unit . Bureau of Watar Quality SJH:jle t 55 j - . _ ._
~
mnnosil -- -
. AFFICAVIT TOR SEARCE WARRANT COUNTY OF MARICOPA e.
STATE OF ARIZCHA Your affiant, Edward A. Nemecek, an o!!icial of the Arizona Water Commissiun, being first duly swczn, upon oath, deposes and says: That the property in Maricope. County, particularly described as follows:
. . T4NR12 Section 22, NE 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 a
T4NRIE Section 22, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, NE 1/4
- T4NA1E Section 22, NW 1/4, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR12 5.netion 34, SW 1/1, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NRIE Section 34, NW 1/4, NE 1/4 TiNR12 Section 34 NE 1/4, NW 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR12 Section 35, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4
.T4NRIE Sectier: 35, NW 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4 T4NR13 . Section 35, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 constitutes lands of a groundwater basin where a well or other 1
works for the withdrawal of groundwater are located. ] j That *in order to obtain f actual data in said groundwater l basin, and specif1: ally to determine the extent and areal distrihu-1
. . tion of contamination by dibromochicropropane (DBCP) in the ground-l water of said basin, it is necessary that your affiant cbtain l smples of water frca the wells located on the aforedescribed i
preperty. So that said samples consisc of water from the aquifer, they must be taken when specific conductance has stabill:ed as determined by a field plot of conductance versus time. That wells located on the above-described premises have I been selected for sampling pursuant to a general adrainistrative I plan derived fr:m objective sources. The Ari:ena Water Commission i has been cooperating with the Ari=ona Department of Health Services i to determine the groundwater areas that have been contaminated by DSCP. The Ari=cna :: apartment of Health Services identifies large citrus-growing areas and the Arizona Water Ceaunissica then reviews 1 56 l
~
u"~en m M ? l e
. its records end lacct03 wello in thts crea that thould b] tScted
. in order to determine whether the groundwater has been contaminated by 03CP, an'. the areal distributica of such contamination.
That pursuant to this general administrative plan, the Arizona Copartment of Health Services has informed the Arizona Water Commissica that the aforedescribed premises constitute a large citrus growing area and the Arisena Water Cossaission has reviewed its records and identified ten wells on that properti. The water supplying these wells :aust be sampled in order to determine whether , the aquifer has been contaminated by CSCP and the areal distribution of such contamination, and to project the groundwater movement of that contamination. Your affiant has a B.S. dog ee in Geology, and has been employed by the Ari:ena Water C:mmission as a staff hydrologist from 1972 to 1976 and since February,1979. 6 Affiant
- Arizona Water Connaission SUBSCRIBED AND SWCRN To before me this day of August, 1979.
Judge, Justace of er a Peace or Magtstrate e l l t f 7 l
.J- c APPENo!X J g .
o * . e e, .. AFFIDAVIT FCR SEARCN WARRANT ' COUNTY OF MARIC0pA . STATE CF ARIZONA Your affiant, Timothy D. Love, an official of the Arizona Department oi Health Services, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: That a source and seans of water supply, namell , ten
, v.11s, are locatad upon the property in Maricopa County, particu-larly described as follows:
T4NRIE Section 22, NE 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NRIE Section 22, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR1E Section 22, NW 1/4, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR1E Section 34, SW 1/4, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR15 Section 34, NW 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR13 Sec*. ion 34, NE 1/4, NW 1/4, NE 1/4 T4NR13 Section 35, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4 T4NalE Section 35, NW 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4 T4NRIE Section 35, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 That your af*iant has probable cause to believe and does believe that pesticides containing dibroacchloropropane (DSCP) have been used upon said property, and that said source and means
- .of water supply may contain concentrations of caC7.
That in order to e= amine said source and means of water supply, and specifically to determine whether said source and means has been contaminated by DBCP, and the areal distribution o* such contamination, it is necessary to obtain samples of water *roct said wells. That wells located on the aforedescribed premises have been selected for sampling pursuant to a general administrative plan derived from objective sources. Prior to realization of the health hazards it posed, dibromochlorcprepane was used to combat nematede infestatica of citrus crops. To determine the extent of groundwater conenMnatior. by OSCP, employees of the Arizona Copartment of 9. ealth Services, including your af*1 ant, have there* ore identi*ied ;arge 58
e M 4A t) ===
~
4 citrus-growing area 3 in the State, and are pr:sently sampling wello within those areas. The aforedescribed pre'aises are located in a large citrus-growing area, and thus wells located on that property are included among those to be sacipled pursuant to the foregoing general administrative plan. i Your af *1mt has an M.S. degree in Botany. He is employed as a mic:obio.logist by the Arizona Copart:nent of Health Ser rices, and is presently assignN to the Bureau of Water quality control of
- the Arizona Copartment of Mealth Services.
At2iant Arizona Department of Health Services SUBSC.USED AND SWCR28 To before me this day of August, 1979. _. J Judge, Justaca of sne Peace or : tag:. strate e O 1 i 59
APPtit08)I i 'r; . SEAllCH WARAUT COUNTT CT MARICCFA - STATE OF ARIIONA TO ANY PEACE CTTICER IN MARICCFA COUNTY, STATE OF ARI*CNA Proof by affidavit having been made this day before me by Timothy D.14ve and Edward A. Nemecek, there is probable cause
. for believing that the groundwater supplying wells located on the following-described premises in Maricopa County:
T4NRiE Sections 22, 34 and 35 is subject to search and inspection by officials of the Arizona Department of Health Services and the Arizona Water Coemissica,
.in the interest of public health, safety or welfare, according to A.R.S. 5 13-3912. .
YOU ARE EHEREFORE COMMANCED, in the daytime, to make a search of the above-named premises for the hereinabove property or things and, pursuant to A.R.S.'5 13-3914.3, to make or cause to be made scientific tests of the groundwatar supplying said wells, performed upon water obtained when myecific conductance has stabilized as determined by a field plot of conductance versus i ti=e, and to retain the evidence of said scientific tests in your
' ' custody, or in the custody of the agency you represent or the Ari:ena Depart =ent'of Health Services or the Arizone Water Ccamis-i sion, as provided by A.R.S. 5 13-3920.
RETURN this warrant'to se within five days of the date thereof, as directed by A.R.S. 5 13-3918. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND and dated this day of August, 1979. , i bb[ Judge, Justsce of .no Peace og Magtstrate O I I l 4 N
~.. ama ts . l
/~ 1 . ; p .%e_; t;-
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Office cf the Direct:r N_*[.*lli W 1 e i. unire. o.--
., oooor.uo.un. w Au9ust 27e 197c-l l
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr. . Regional Acministrator U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency Region IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. De Falco:
This letter concerns the involvement of the Arizona Department of Health Services in' the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study of dibremo-chlorcpropane.(0BCP) in groundwater. The Bureau of Water Quality Control respcndad to a request frem your Agency to initiate a program to identify suspected OBCP use areas, select wells for sampling, and obtain and forward samples. During the period of June 7 through 11, 31 samples were collected in Yuma and Maricopa ccunties. Of these samples,11 were reported at or above the 0.05 parts.per billion OSCP detection level. Based upon the high percentage of OECP pcsitive results and substantial public interest, a more exhaustive (Phase II) study was proposed to EPA stat f. Since the State is not able to analyze samples for DECP, EPA was requested to previde labcratory sarvices fer up to 2C0 samples. Recorted results for the Phase II study (at 0.01 parts per billien OBCP detaction level) have sensrally confinned the positive results of the initial sampling prcgram. During this program, 54 additional grouncwater supplies were sampled in Yuma County with 17 showing detectable GECP levels. The Mariccpa County sampling' program has included nearly 50 additional groundwatar supplies as of August 10. Although the laboratory has not ccmpleted its analysis of these samples, several have been reported positive. 2 61
.ste Health Bulbling :0 mot Mams Senet Phoeni:. Arizona S5007
* - APPEN0!X L
) . ~ . Paul Ce Falco, Jr. Page 2 August 27, 1979 As the results are reported to the Bureau of Water Quality Control staff, owners and operators of DBCP positive wells are being notified of the reported results and of precautionary actions for dcmestic water supplies. Recon::: ended actions are based upon (a) the State of California's " Action Level" per : May 31,.1979 letter frcm John M. Gasten, California Depart-ment of Health Services, to Marcia Williams, EPA Office of Texic Substance, and (b) the concern of Alexander Kelter, M.D., Chief of the ADHS Bureau of Chronic and Environmental Disease Epidemiology, that OBCP is a known carcinegen and that detectable concentrations shculd be avoided by humans. In addition, these notifications include an advisory that there are no - State or EPA health standards established for DBCP in drinking water supplies. Because ADHS has not determined whether DeCP can be removed frcm contaminated water supplies, our reconmendations urge discontinuatien of the use of such water supplies for domestic purposes. When additional infant.ation beccmes avail,able, our recoseendations will be modified. As a result of these notifications, over 20 water supplies. have been identified as not suitable for all domestic uses. The City of Mesa has shut down one municipal well. We believe that DBCP is a public health problem in Art:ena. The Bureau of Water Quality Control is cenducting the necessary sampling studies to icentify contaminated aquifers and is properly notifying affected water users. To ccmplement these activities, we believe EPA should provide us with further infonnation and guidance to answer the DBCP related issues, outlined belcw:
- 1. The' feasibility of treating DBCP contaminated waters to pensit unrestricted domestic use.
- 2. The results of EPA sponsored engineering studies.
- 3. The feasibility of treating individual and municipal water supplies. .
- 4. An EF established maximum centaminant level for DBCP in drinking water supplies. If such standards requir? more researen, an interim standard should be established as expediticusly as possible.
t 62
~
APPENDIX L
~
aul Ce Falco, Jr. age 3 ugust 27, 1979 , If this information is available ..i a timely manner, we believe. the public un fo11cw a reascnable ccurse of action when dealing with CSCP centamina-tion in grcundwater supplies. We look forward to ycur reply and assistance in advising us in this area of concern. .. Sine rely.
- Dandoy,- M.D. h = -4//'A ffSuzanne , M.P.H.
Director 50:RSS:,jla cc: Alexander Kelter, M.D. Mariccpa Ccunty Health Depart =ent Yuma County Health Department OO ee e e e
?
63
o - References
- 1. Federal Register, 42 FR 48915, September 26, 1977.
- 2. " Judge Approves Ban on Pesticides Used Against Hematodes" Arizona Republic, October 21, 1979, page B-17.
- 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
" Soil Survey of Maricopa County, Arizona, Central Part,"
(September, 1977) .
. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
" Soil Survey, Eastern Maricopa and Northern Pinal Counties Area, Arizona," (November, 1974).
- 5. Personal Comunication, Jim Carter, Agriculture and Horticulture Comission.
- 6. "Section of Freeway Closed by Leak from Truck Loaded with Pesticide," Arizona Republic, September 30, 1979.
- 7. Personal Connunication, Mrs. Bruce Westburg, Phoenix, Arizona.
- 8. Ross, P. P., " Maps showing groundwater conditions in the western part of the Salt River area" Department of the Interior U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigation 78-40, March 1978.
- 9. Laney, R. L., Ross, P. P., and Litter, G. R., " Maps showing Groundwater Conditions in the eastern part of the River Valley area. Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona - 1976." Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 78-61, April 1978.
- 10. Personal Connunication, Bob Fletcher, Fletcher Fanns, Glendale, Arizona.
- 11. Ham, H. H., " Water Wells and Ground Water Contamination", Bulletin of theAssociationofEngineeringGeologistsVIII(1): 79-90, 1971.
- 12. Hodges. L. R., Lear, B., " Persistence and Movement of DBCP in Three TypesofSoil",SoilScience118(2): 127-130, 1974.
- 13. Cohen, S. Z., " Direct Testimony of Mr. Stuart Z. Cohen", In Re:
NoticeofIntenttoSuspendRegistrationofDibromochloropropane(0BCP), U.S. EPA, FIFRA Docket No. 485, 1979.
- 14. Hodges, L. R. and Lear, B., " Distribution and Persistence of 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane in Soil After Application by Injection and in Irrigation Water" Nematologies 19: 146-158, 1973.
64 l
~
o UNITI:D STATl:S OF AMERICA NL'C1.UAR Rl:CUI.ATORY COMMISSION D1:l'O!!E Tilt ATOMIC SAPl?!'Y AND 1.1CI:NSING DOAltu In the Matter of )
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) COMPANY, ljT M ., ) D::cket Non. STN 50-528
) STM 50-529 (Pale Verde Nucicar Generating) STU 50-530 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3))
CUl:TIFICATE Ol' *:ERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Testimony - of Edwin K. Swanson has been served upon the following persons i by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by other means as specified, this 16th day of June. k
** DOCKETING AND SERVICE SECTION ** ROPERT M. LAZO, EFQ.
U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Atomic Safety Washington, D.C. 20555 and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cl! AI RMAN , MARICOPA col'NTY Com.is a ion Board cf Supervisors Washi.ngton, D.C. 20555 111 South Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004
- DP. DIXON CALLAHAN Union Carbido Corporation
** DR. RICllARD F. COLE P.O. Box Y Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tenne.?see 3785 U.S. Nuclear itegulatory Commission Washingten, D.C. 20555 *
- ATOMIC SAFETY AMD LICENSIR
,7ARD PANEL
*
- ATOMIC S.'.FUTY AND LICENSING U.S. Nuclear Regulatory APPEAL DOARD PANEL Commission U.S. Nuclear nequlatory Commission Wanhington, D.C. 20555 Waahington, D.C. 20555
** LEE SCOTT DEMEY, ESO.
*** CllARI.CS A. P,1SCl:Ji P Office of the Executive 3100 Valley Bank Center Legal Director Phoenix, Arizona 85073 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RAN D L. GREENPIELD Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General P.O..Dox Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexice P7504-350P l
(c, e l'. . . ( j Lynne Bernabei
*VIA EXPRESS MAIL )
** HAND DELIVERED .
***VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS '.
- _}}