1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment
on the cause for any water quality problems.
2. Where possible, I have noted situations where elevated
levels of a water quality parameter exists in Pennsylvania.
3. If duplicate analysis provided, I attempted to use the
highest reported value.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review
of the data.
Well – HW-08a
With the exception of the following parameters, the
remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)
Total Coliform –
(54 colonies per 100 ml – since EPA collected this sample at the end of the
purging process – this suggests the well is vulnerable to near surface
influence and the presence of total coliform would suggest the water is not
potable. This is a very common problem
in NEPA and about 30 to 50% of private wells have total coliform bacteria. The problem could be private well
construction, type of well cap, or improper well siting. The primary recommendation would be to
inspect the well, shock disinfect the well, and retest.
Note: Fecal coliform was negative.
Ethylene glycol – the reported value is < 10 mg/L – there is
not standard, but the EPA has a guidance limit of < 7 mg/L. Other states have lower and higher standards:
New Jersey 0.300 mg/L
(300 ppb)
Arizona 5.5 mg/L (5500
ppb)
New Hampshire 7.0 mg/L
(7000 ppb)
Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota14.0 mg/L
(14,000 ppb)
Minnesota
At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene
glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or
conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
Chloride – 4.29
mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific
impact.
Sulfate –10.4 mg/L (OK) – drinking
water standard is < 250 mg/L –
this does not suggest any specific impact.
Aluminum – 0.0375
mg/L (Total) and < 0.030 mg/L (D)- drinking water standard ranges from 0.05
to 0.2 mg/L. This parameter is
regulated as a secondary drinking water standard, because of aesthetic
reasons. (OK)
Arsenic – < 0.002 mg/L (Total)
and < 0.002 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is < 0.010 mg/L – this does not suggest any
specific impact and arsenic is a common problem in NEPA – about 6 % of private
wells have arsenic above 0.010 mg/L. This should be monitored annually (OK)
Barium - 0.036mg/L (Total) and
0.0379mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific
impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a
level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK)
Calcium- 14.4 mg/L (Total) and 14.2
mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is
available. (OK)
Copper – 0.0113
mg/L (Total) and 0.009 mg/L (D)- Copper is regulated as a primary standard (EPA
and PA) and secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania. Primary standard 1.3 mg/L and secondary
standard 1.0 mg/L. (OK)
Lead – 0.0028
mg/L (Total) and 0.0012 mg/L (D)- Lead is regulated as a primary standard (EPA
and PA) at 0.015 mg/L, but the action level in PA for source water is 0.005
mg/L. Because of the hits for copper and lead, it is possible that the nuisance
bacteria may be causing some corrosion related problems – Call MIC –
Microbiologically Induced Corrosion – Problem recommend inspection of the well,
camera survey, shock disinfection, and retesting. This is a common problem in NEPA. (Action Needed may be a warning sign of
corrosion) - OK
Magnesium- 2.79
mg/L (Total) and 2.76mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking
water standard is available. (OK)
Manganese– 0.112
mg/L (Total) and 0.105 mg/L (D) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary
drinking water standard in Pennsylvania
and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.
Therefore, the total manganese content exceeds the secondary drinking
water standard. Since the manganese is
in a dissolved form, the water could become browner in color over time. Because the water coming out of the well has
dissolved manganese, the water treatment system would require either chemical
oxidation or some type of ion exchange system. Elevated level of manganese is a
common water quality problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Action
is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue and it could be related to
Iron-Related Bacteria and MIC.
Sodium – 2.67 mg/L (Total) and 2.60
mg/L (D) – – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is
available, but the EPA has added it to the Candidate List to provide more
analysis. The EPA’s initial value of 20
mg/L has been clearly identified as not realistic. When chloride (salt is sodium chloride) is
present at a concentration of over 250 mg/L, the water can have an “off” taste.
At 400+ mg/L chloride, the water will taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr.
Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)
Zinc
– 0.0086 mg/L (Total) and 0.0082mg/L (D) – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking
water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania
and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Ethane – 0.350 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard (OK)
Methane – 9.2 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard, but
the level indicates supersaturated conditions.
This means the well pump is pulling in water that is not in equilibrium
with the atmosphere. The well is above
the new action limit of 7 mg/L and methane gas mitigation measures should be
employed. These measures not only
include venting the well, but also potentially modifying the well, installing
treatment, or taking other action. For
more details, go to
http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm
There
are places in PA were baseline levels of methane gas are at or above 7 mg/L. In
general, I would estimate that 1 to 3 % of private wells may have elevated
levels of methane. In addition to
modifying the well, it would be advisable to conduct isotopic analysis. Based on the ratio of methane to ethane, the
ratio is 26.2. Since a ratio of methane to ethane of over 1000 typically suggests a biogenic source and a value of under 100 suggests a thermogenic source, the available information would suggest a thermogenic source for the gas.
As a guide, it may be possible to use a ratio to suggest the source of the gas- “ if the ratio of methane to ethane is 25, the source is thermogenic, but if the ratio is over 2500, then it is biogenic" (Mr. Bob Pirkle, President of Microseeps, Inc.), but between 25 and 2500 this is where isotopic analysis is critical.
No specific health concern, but a health risk associated with the potential for a flammable environment.
Action needed to properly vent gas from the well, perhaps modifying the well, water treatment to reduce methane level in the water to < 7 mg/L or more, and isotopic analysis recommended.
May be advisable to check the level of other gases, such as propane.
Total Dissolved Solids – 62 mg/L
– Total Dissolved Solids is regulated as a secondary drinking water
standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania
and the action limit is 500 mg/L. (OK)
Anthracene the reported level was
0.00006 mg/L (0.06 ug/L). is
an unregulated synthetic organic compound and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. PAHs are created when products like coal,
oil, gas, and garbage are burned but the burning process is not complete. There
is no EPA or PADEP drinking water standard and the primary recommendation would
be to retest the water. During
retesting, it is critical to check for airborne sources of contamination during
sampling. The EPA reports a trigger
value of 1.3 mg/L, but I can not find a reference, but I did find a reference
to a DWEL of 2.0 mg/L. It appears that
the health-based screening requirement in California is 2.0 mg/L and a lifetime
exposure limit is 10 mg/L- based on this information (OK).
Butyl benzyl phthalate – the reported
level was 0.00011 mg/L – “
Benzylbutylphthalate, also called n-butyl benzyl
phthalate (BBP) or benzyl butyl phthalate, is a phthalate, an
ester of phthalic acid, benzyl alcohol and n-butanol.” The health based screening level appears to
be 0.100 mg/L and the EPA Human Health Equivalent is 1.4 mg/L. Butyl
benzylphthalate is an industrial solvent and additive used in adhesives, vinyl
flooring, sealants, car-care products and some personal care products. (OK)
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether was
reported at a level of 0.03 ug/L or 0.00003 mg/L. The preliminary research suggests that this
chemical has a relatively low solubility and would have a tendency to bind to
soil and sediment. In general, it is
considered to be insoluble or have a low solubility in water. The U.S. EPA Storet Data Base, 1,333 samples,
1.1% positive, median concentration less than 10 ug/L or 0.010 mg/L. Because of the affinity to have only slight
mobility in soil and water and because the well is vulnerable to near surface
activity, it may be advisable to check the area around the well for evidence of
surface contamination.
“4-Chlorophenyl
phenyl ether which finds use as a dielectric fluid, can be released to the
environment during its manufacture, formulation, and through its use in
capacitors. If released to the atmosphere, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether should
react with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals with an estimated
half-life of 1.3 days. Direct photolysis in the atmosphere should be an
important fate process, as 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether has an absorption
greater than 290 nm. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether should be expected to undergo
biodegradation in soil and in water. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether should display
slight mobility in soil, and volatilization to the atmosphere may be an
important process. If released to water, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether would be expected
to adsorb to sediment and suspended material, can volatilize to the atmosphere,
and should bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Degradation by direct photolysis
in surface water has been estimated to proceed with a half-life of 200-400
days. Volatilization from water to the atmosphere should be an important fate
process. The estimated volatilization half-life for a model river is 6 hours,
while from a model pond which takes into account adsorption processes, the
estimated half-life is 40 days. Exposure to 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether should
be by inhalation and dermal contact which might occur during its manufacture,
formulation, or use in capacitors. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether is an
anthropogenic compound, and is not known to exist in nature.” Florida
appears to have established a standard of 0.010 ug/L. Based
on the available standard, the level seems appropriate, but it would be
advisable to monitor the quality of the water and inspect the area for signs of
surface contamination. (OK)
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) - was reported
at 0.07ug/L or 0.00007 mg/L and the reported PADEP/ EPA has a MCL of 0.001
mg/L. (OK) Florida also has a standard of 0.001
mg/L. (OK)
di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)- the
reported value was 0.00008 mg/L and no trigger limit is reported.
Exposure to di-n-octylphthalate occurs
mainly from eating food or drinking water that is stored in plastic containers.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts95.html There does not appear to be an action
limit, but it would be advisable to monitor and conduct a site-specific survey.
“T
his type of plastic
can be used for medical tubing and blood storage bags, wire and cables,
carpetback coating, floor tile, and adhesives. It is also used in cosmetics and
pesticides.”
Pryene - the reported value was 0.00006
mg/L and the reported trigger limit is 0.087 mg/L. Florida has a health
advisory level of 0.210 mg/L for Pryene.
(OK)
Acetone - the reported value was 0.0008
mg/L and no trigger limit is reported, but PADEP has a Medium Specific
Concentration (MSC) for aquifers with a TDS of < 2500 mg/L of 33.0 mg/L and Massachusetts appears to have a
drinking water standard of 6.3 mg/L. (OK)
Nitrate+Nitrite –
0.19 mg/L, the drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L and nitrite is 1
mg/L. (OK)
b. Retesting for
glycol using a more sensitive method.
c. Hits for
copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum may suggest corrosive water which is common in
NEPA. These parameters were not above a
drinking water standard.
d. The water was
positive for total coliform bacteria, water would be classified as not potable.
This would suggest that the well is vulnerable to contamination or impact and
that the well could facilitate groundwater contamination. Well system needs to be inspected and
possibly repaired.
Again – this is
not about cause and effect- it is an honest review of the data. (Period)
Document
can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of
Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com
