Comment
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.
6. A well by well review for
Dimock, PA
7. Well appears to be impacted by saline water.
8. The treatment system that has been installed appears to mitigate methane, iron, and manganese, but not addressing barium and potential concerns related to bromide.
9. It might be advisable to pull the pump - camera survey the well and seal off a portion of the well.
Well – HW-16 (2/10/2012)
With the exception of the following parameters, the
remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)
Aluminum – 0.102 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. The
treated water level of aluminum is < 0.030 mg/L. It would be advisable to continue monitoring.
(Action- monitoring)
Anionic Surfactants
–0.023 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is 0.5
mg/L. (OK)
Arsenic – 0.0053
mg/L – 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. The treated water level of arsenic
was 0.0033 mg/L and treated and filtered 0.0028 mg/L. (Ok – monitoring recommended)
Barium – 2.91
mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this is elevated and raises specific concerns related to the inter-relationship between fresh and saline water. Barium is typically detectable in
non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L, but regionally is detected at levels of 1 to over 2 mg/L for water that are influenced by saline water. (The level is Elevated).
It appears the treatment system only reduced
the level of barium to 2.85 mg/L. It may be possible that the water treatment system did not take into consideration the level of barium. A
water softener may be needed. (Action- Continued Monitoring - well may be influenced by saline water- it may be possible to mitigate saline water impact - but additional work is needed.)
Bromide – 0.857 mg/L - In freshwater,
bromide is typically less than 0.05 mg/L. Therefore, it would be advisable to
retest using a method with a lower detection limit. If an ozone-based water
treatment system is proposed, it may be best to have the bromide level of less
than 0.0063 mg/L to prevent the formation of bromates. Additional Sampling post-treatment for
bromates would be advisable (Action Suggested- again this suggests the well water is influenced by saline water).
Other
References
Boron –0.0915
mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is
available. EPA appears to have a long-term health advisory of 2.0 mg/L, but
other states have limits that range from 0.6 to 1 mg/L. Therefore, this does not appear to suggest
any form of impact. (OK- but monitoring advisable- again this suggests the well water is influenced by saline water).
Calcium- 35.0
mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is
available. (OK) – the value seems
low. The treatment system has reduced
the level to 1.56 mg/L.
Chloride –94.1
mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific
impact.
Chromium-< 0.002
mg/L (D) and the EPA/ PADEP primary drinking water standard is
< 0.100 mg/L (OK).
Copper – < 0.002
mg/L (Untreated) - the secondary
drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is
1.3 mg/L. (OK) At the tap the level was
0.0035 mg/L – this suggests there is some level of corrosion and leaching of
copper in the plumbing for the home.
Ethane –0.011
mg/L – No specific drinking water
standard (OK) and treated < 0.0012 mg/L.
Fluoride – < 0.1
mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water
standard is 2 mg/L.
Iron – 0.464 mg/L
(Total)) – Iron is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the
action limit is 0.3 mg/L. Therefore, the
total iron content does exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (Treatment Needed) After water treatment the level was <
0.100 mg/L.
Lead – < 0.001
mg/L (Total) - 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. (OK)
Lithium – <
0.200 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water
standard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L (OK)
Methane – 26 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard.
(Action Needed). The well water is above the new action limit of 7 mg/L- The
well should be actively vented, but it may be advisable to evaluate a
structural modification to the well and changing the pumping system. After treatment, the level of methane is
0.380 mg/L. For more details, go to
http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm
Note – It appears the
well water is treated and the treated water methane was 0.380 mg/L. Water treatment system may be specifically designed for methane, but no specifically addressing the issue of bromide and barium.
Magnesium-10.7
mg/L– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is
available. (OK) The treated water level of magnesium was
0.629 mg/L.
Manganese– 0.0648
mg/L (Total) – 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 does exceed the secondary drinking water standard. Some intermittent problems with discolored
water may occur – additional monitoring recommended. (Elevated) After treatment the level is < 0.001
mg/L.
Nickel – 0.0018 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard
drinking water standard is available, but
the
EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.
(OK) After treatment the level was 0.0015
mg/L
Potassium – 2.1
mg/L (Total) and 2.03 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking
water standard is available (Ok)
Sodium –50.2 mg/L –
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) After treatment, the level was
66.00 mg/L – this suggests that the treatment system probably includes a water
softener that uses a sodium based salt.
Sulfate –0.628
mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific
impact.
Strontium – 1.803 mg/L – no specific
drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but it is on the
EPA Candidate List. The
EPA recommends that drinking water levels of nonradioactive strontium should
not be more than 4 mg/L. The report
limit is consistent with background levels in Northeastern
Pennsylvania. If the
background level was above 4 mg/L, it would be advisable to test for
radiological parameters, especially alpha/beta.
(OK) After treatment, the level
is < 0.200 mg/L.
Total Dissolved Solids – 258
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. After
treatment the level was 239 mg/L.
Total Suspended Solids - < 10
mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection
limit.
Uranium –< 0.001 mg/L (Total) – Uranium is regulated as a primary
drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.030
mg/L. (OK)
Zinc
–0.0248 mg/L – Zinc is
regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the
action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Nitrate+Nitrite-
N – < 0.05 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limit
of 10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L for
nitrite-N. (OK)
Acetone - the reported value was 0.0042
mg/L (J- actually below the actual water limit of < 0.002 mg/L in the treated water, but
< 0.002 mg/L in the untreated water) 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)
Bromoform – 0.0024 mg/L – the Total Trihalomethane
Group has a limit of 0.08 mg/L, but bromoform should be less than 0.004
mg/L. This is probably formed by the
reaction of bromide and ozone – Assuming ozone is used in the treatment
system. (Action is Needed- monitoring
and additional testing for bromates).
Methyl ethyl ketone –
0.0031 mg/L in the treated water, but < 0.002 mg/L in the untreated water.
Methyl
ethyl ketone is a colorless volatile liquid that is soluble in water. The odor
threshold for methyl ethyl ketone is 5.4 parts per million (ppm), with an
acetone-like odor reported. Methyl ethyl ketone is also referred to as
2-butanone. The EPA and PADEP has not
set a drinking water standard, but it appears that Massachusetts has set a level of 4
mg/L. The likely source is the piping of the home –
additional monitoring is recommended.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/methylet.html
‘
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 and glycol-type compounds using a method that is more sensitive or
conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
1. Methane was present at a level that is above the action
limit of 7 mg/L and exceeding a limit of 20 mg/L. Action is needed. Since the ratio of methane/ethane (C1/C2) is 2600
– this would suggest that the gas is of biogenic origin.
2. Barium is high, but the combination of barium, sodium, strontium,
boron, and bromide would suggest the water is impacted by saline water. The existing water treatment system is not
addressing the issue with barium and bromide.
3. Iron and manganese were elevated in the raw water, but
reduce to below the drinking water standard in the treated water.
4. The copper is
higher after treatment than in the raw water, this could suggest an
internal corrosion related problem in the piping of the home.
5. Bromoform – probably related to the reaction between
bromide and ozone. Additional monitoring and adjusting treatment system for bromide-based compounds advisable.
6. Acetone and Ketone – possibly higher in the treated water-
this is most likely related to the plumbing for the home and treatment system
and not groundwater quality.
Annual Water Testing
Watercheck with Pesticide Option (Order Online)- This informational testing package will check for 103 contaminants in your well water. These contaminants include Bacteria, (19) Heavy Metals & Minerals, (6) Other Inorganic Chemicals, (5) Physical Characteristics, (4) Trihalomethanes (disinfection by-products), (47) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs), and (20) Pesticides, Herbicides and PCBs.
This package works well for well water customers (Code 9002)- $ 206.00, plus shipping - Request information .
Add Methane (Order from us) - We can do a methane, ethane, propane - test for about $ 100.00
( self collection)-Request information .
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
