Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Supply Priorities 1984REPORT ON WATER SUPPLY PRIORITIES SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. CO~MISSIONER ALDO ANDREOLI, P.E. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PREPARED BY DRINKING WATER SECTION BUREAU OF WATER RESOURCES APRIL 1984 RKCEIVED J~ $ ~? TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword · · o . ° ° . o · . I. Introduction ........ II. Public Water and Private Wells .... III. Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines IV. Statistical Data ....... V. Extension of Public Water ..... P~E iii . 1 1 6 1'0 20 LIST OF TABLES III-1 III-2 IV-1 II-1 Private Well Inventory by Township ..... II-2 Organic/Pesticide Compounds Detected in Suffolk County Groundwaters ...... New York State Drinking Water Standards Drinking Water ~uidelines ........ Summary of Private Well Inorganic Samples! County-Wi~e Basis ........... IV-2 Summary of Private Well Organic Samples~ County-Wide Basis ............. IV-3 Aldicarb Results by Township ...... IV-4 Carbofuran Results by Township ...... PAGE 4 5 8 9 16 17 18 19 i II-1 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-lO V-1 V-2 to V-5 V-6 to V-9 V-10 to V-13 LIST OF FIGURES Public Water SupDlies Suffok County Town of Babylon - Location Map of Wells Exceeding StanSards or ~uidelines Town of Brookhaven - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of East HamDton - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of Huntington - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of Islip - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines To~n of Riverhead - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of Shelter Island - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of Smithtown - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or ~ui~elines Town of Soutb-~ton - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Town of Southold - Location Map of Wells Exceeding Standards or Guidelines Typical Transmission Main Costs ......... Typical Cost for Water Main Extensions ..... Typical Cost for Water Main Extensions; 50 Feet of Main Provided By Water ComDany ..... Typical Cost for Water Main Extensions; 75 Feet of Main Provided By Water Company .... P~E Appended to Report Appended to Report Appended to ~%eport Ap~endsd to ~9ort ~d to ~port Ap~n~d to ~port Ap~nded to ~rt Ap~n~d to ~port Aphid to ~port ~n~d to ~port ~pende4 to ~port 23 24 25 26 LIST OF APP~ZCES A Inorganic Chemical Data by Com~,nity ..... B Oxganic Chemical Data by Community ..... PAGE A-1 · · B-1 FOREWORD The purpose of this report is to compile all available private water supply sam?ling data into a format that will assist decision makers' in formulating policy to address the problem of drinking water contamination in Suffolk County. Basic water quality information by com~m~nity for syn- thetic organics, hydrocarbons, pesticides and inorganic chemicals have been tabulated and locations of contaminated wells plotted on large-scale maps. The data contained in the report can be used to identify communities with poor or marginal private well drinking water sources. It also pro- vides a basis for comparative evaluation and establishment of priorities for appropriate corrective measures including the extension of public water. A section of the report o~tlines methods of obtaining public water and techniques for determining conceptional cost estimates. This report has been partially funded by a New York State Department of Health Grant, Contract No. C-178839. Assistance has also been provided by the Suffolk County Office of Community Development and the ~gional Planning Board. iii I. INTRODUCTION within the last several years, groundwater contamination has become a major environmental concern throughout the United States. Drinking water supplies have been found to be impacted by a wide range of chemicals. The contamination has particularly affected shallow wells serving individual homes. Suffolk County i~ no exception. Testing of private wells in Suf- folk reveals many residences have unacceptable or marginal water quality, thus subjecting residents to potential health risks. Over the years, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has established, what is perhaps, the most comprehensive private well testing program in the nation~ This has resulted in the development of an extensive water quality information data base which can be utilized for evaluating the need and setting priorities for extension of public water mains or other applicable actions such as the creation of home treatment unit maintenance districts. It is hoped the information contained in this report will provide the basis for further efforts in formulating a plan that will assure a safe'potable water supply to all residents in need. II. PUBLIC WATER AND PRIVATE WELLS In Suffolk County over one million of the permanent residents are served by public water systems which pump water from approximately 550 well sources. These public wells are generally several hundred feet in depth and provide adequate sanitary protection from the influences of many con- tamination sources. Public water supply wells are continually monitored to assure compliance with the requirements of Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code and must meet all public health standards and gUidelines. The remaining residents use shallow private wells as a primary source of drinking water. According to 1980 census data, there are 66,442 private wells serving permanent residents. An estimated ll,000 private wells serve secondary or vacation homes. Thus, over 77,000 private well sources may be subject to possible contamination. A private well inventory by township is shown in Table Iici. Communities in western Suffolk, for the most part, have public water available; however, in some isolated areas private wells are used. The converse is true in the eastern portions of the county where private wells are most common, with the exception of a few locations that have public wa- ter available. The location and extent of available public water systems is shown in Figure II-~. To date, 41 organic and pesticide compounds have been identified in Suffolk County drinking water supplies~ a listing of the compounds is con- tained in Table II-2. The natural groundwaters contain high concentrations of iron and man- ganese which cause objectionable taste, staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry, and odor problem~. The natural acidic or low pH condition is corrosive to piping and plumbing fixtures. Contamination originates from a variety of sources, including illegal industrial discharges or accidental spills, and commercial or residential uses of products which contain organic chemicals. Agricultural operations contribute pesticides to the groundwater. Nutrients such as nitrates are also a problem in high density communities and in farming areas. The chemicals eventually find their way into the groundwater supply via cesspoo%s, leaching fields, recharge basins, direct percolation through the ground, land gasoline and fuel oil tank leakage. Chemicals that reach the groundwater aquifer may impact drinking water supplies for many years to come. Investigations to date of contaminated water supply wells indicate that much of the contamination may come from multiple sources, and the pin- pointing of the specific source of origin of pollution may in most cases be difficult or impossible to determine. Shallow private wells are more susceptible to contamination then nor- mally deeper public water supply wells. A total of more than 2,600 private wells have been found to exceed drinking water guidelines for organic chem- ical and pesticides since the initiation of the monitoring program. In cases where private wells have been contaminated, residents are advised not to use the water for cons-~?tive purposes and to obtain alter- nate sources; i.e., bottled water or water from a public supply. R~medial measures such as relocating or deepening the well, or installation of treatment units (such as the granular activated carbon used for pesticide conta~nation), are recommended when connection to a public water supply is not possible. 2 However, it should be recognized that installation or extension of public water is the best alternate to provide the residents with a safe drinking water supply. The benefits of public water systems are as follows: 1. Public wells drilled in a protected watershed are deeper and less likely to become contaminated than shallow, unprotected wells. Public water systems, serving thousands of homes, can be monitored for contaminants more frequently and effectively than the almost 78,000 private wells. Moreover, the cost of continually monitoring all private wells is prohibitive. Public water supplies permit flexible arrangements not possible with private wells. If a public well is found to be contaminated, it can be taken out of service and another uncontaminated well sub- stituted, since wellfields are generally interconnected by a water main distribution system. This is not possible with a private well. As a last resort, if water needs to be treated to remove contami- nants, it can be done far more effectively and economically with public water supplies than with private wells. Se Public water can provide hydrants for fire protection which results in lower fire insurance rates and better safety for residents and businesses. III. DP. INKING WATER STANDARDS A~D GUIDELINES The basis for establishment of drinking water standards is the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93-523). New York State has accepted responsibility for implementing the federal law by incorporating the re- quirements into Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code. Part 5 of the Sanitary Code is more stringent than the federal law. A~ an example, the State Code includes secondary drinking water standards for chemical par~ters which are not directly health related. This includes chemicals such as iron which may cause aesthetic problems. Part 5 of the Sanitary Code includes standerde or max~--,~ contamina- tion levels (MCLa) for total coliform; ten health related metals and inorganic compounds; seven secondary or non-health related compounds; four halomethanes; six chlorinated hydrocarbons; three radiological parameters; turbidity; and two physical characteristics. The MCL~ of significant interest for Suffolk County groundwaters are summarized in Table III-1. As indicated, specific legal standerde have been set for a very lim- ited number of par~mAters. Since thousands of chemicals are in use, com- pliance with the present drinking water standards alone does not assure a water source is safe to drink. Extensive drinking water testing in Suffolk County for a broad range of 'organic and pesticide compounds, other than those for which standards have been established, has indicated many compounds are present in the groundwaters. The ingestion of excess amounts of these com{>ounds in drink- ing water represents an unacceptable health risk. Establishment of official MCLs for organic and pesticide compounds has been under consideration for several years by federal and state au- thorities; however, no official standards have been promulgated except for trihalomathanes, and six chlorinated pesticides and herbicides. Since there are no national accepted or mandated MCLa for potentially toxic compounds, New York State Health Department recommended guidelines have been adopted. Although the health effects of many synthetic organics an~ pesticides are not fully understood, pttblic health officials ~,-t proceed in a con- servative manner. The guideline levels for water have been set to provide minimum risk to the public. It should be noted that guideline levels are subject to revision, based upon new developments in the continued toxico- logical research under way at various federal and independent health research centers. The New York State Health Depart~nent guideline levels for synthetic organic and pesticide compounds have been set at 50 parts per billion (ppb) for any one com$ound and 100 ppb for any combination--the exoeption being chemicals which have been evaluated and found to require a more restrictive allowable level, such as vinyl chloride and benzene, for which 5 pph has been set, and pesticides like aldicarb, which has a guideline level of ? ppb. Upon the discovery of a new organic or pesticide compound in drinking water, the general guideline levels are initially utilized. A request is made to the New York State Health Department for a specific evaluation of the compound. If toxicological data for the compound warrants, a lower or higher g~ideline level may be established. Table III-2 contains a listing of compounds with maximum drinking water guideline levels. 7 not exceeed 50 ppb NOTE: furan, etc.) shall not exceed un£ty in the followinq formula: 7 15 not exceed lO0 ppb. 9 IV. STATISTICAL DATA The Suffolk County Department of Health Services~ private well testing program has resulted in a massive data base which provides a basis for un- derstanding water quality conditions in the upper glacial aquifer. The upper glacial aquifer is the source of ~rinking water for essentially all private wells in the county. Testing of private wells as a regular service was started in ~972. Initial analyses were performed for coliform bacteria and several inorganic chemicals such as nitrates, iron and detergents. Over the years, the pro- gram has been expanded to include a wide range of compounds including synthetic organics and pesticides. The private well monitoring program is considered to be the most ex- tensive and exhaustive testing program in the country. It is this inten- sive monitoring effort which is, to a great extent, responsible for the detection of the various organic and pesticides uontaminants in the groundwaters. The data base can be used to determine well water quality by community and to co,are the information with county-wide averages. It is possible to identify co~--~nities with poor or marginal drinking water sources, and to use the data as a basis for comparative evaluation and the establishment of planning priorities. This section presents some highliphts~ however, it should be noted that information is available in the data base to make other statistical evaluations which may be of interest. The summary of private well inorganic sampling is contained in Table IV-~. The table contains overall county-wide statistical data for each inorganic co~pound including the n-m~er and percentage exceeding drinking water limits. Infor~a'tion on a con~p/nity basis is found in Appendix A. Appended to this report are large-scale maps (Figures IV-1 through IV- for each township. The maps locate all wells exceeding guidelines or standards for organics, hydrocarbons, nitrates, chlori~es and pesticides. Nitrate and MBAS Nitrate in ~roundwater is derived from agricultural and lawn fertil- izers. Although fertilizers usually contain nitrogen in the form of urea, oxidation to nitrate will readily occur before contamination reaches the 10 water table. Nitrate is also derived (along with ammonia) from sanitary sewage, and is found in groundwater at elevated concentrations that vary directly with the density of residential cesspools. Since 1972 almost 19,000 samples have been analyzed county-wide for nitrates. Of these 7.7% have exceeded the drinking water standard of 10 ppm. The results of the testing program indicate residential and agri=ul- rural communities are affected and that residential com~unities in the mid- dle of the County, as well as the South Shore, have been impacted. Communities with significant nitrate contamination are as follows: COMMUNITIES WITH NITRATE CONTAMINATION* COMMUNITY ~ SAMPLES 9 EXCEEDED % EXCEEDED Aquebogue 174 30 17.2 Bay Shore 189 32 16.9 Bellport 187 19 10.2 Central Islip 146 25 17.1 Calverton 144 17 11.8 Centereach 233 35 15.0 Cutchogue 344 50 14.5 East Moriches 281 32 11.4 ~olbrook 142 22 15.5 Holtsville 123 17 13.8 Jamesport 135 19 14.1 Lake Ronkonkoma 189 20 10.6 Mattituck 429 90 21.0 North Patchogue 115 13 11.3 Nesconset 143 18 12.6 Orient 165 40 24.2 Rlverhead 296 52 17.6 Ronkonkoma 257 39 15.2 Selden 174 37 21.3 Southold 456 58 12.7 Wading River 360 37 10.3 Water MAll 141 23 16.3 *Communities with more than 100 samples, with at least exceeding the drinking water standard of 10 11 MBAS is a measure of detergent contamination and is indicative of cesspool pollution. MBAS caused aesthetic (fo~-~ng) problems in the 1960s, and led to the banning of "herd" detergents by the County in 1972. ~ne reintroduction of "soft" detergents in 1981 is not expected to cause similar contamination problems. During the period 1972-1983, a total of 17,500 samples were tested for MBAS; county-wide, concentrations above the 0.5 ppm drinking water guide- line were found in 1.3% of the samples, and detectable levels were present in 4.7%. Densely populated areas with a shallow depth to groundwater are most often impacted. Communities with significant MBAS contamination are as follows: COI~I¢~NITIBS WITH ~ CONTAMINATION* COMMONITY # SAI~L~S Amityville 64 2 3.1 Bayport 68 4 5.9 Brookhaven 247 5 2.0 Center Moriches 532 18 3.4 Copiague 57 3 5.3 Deer Park 64 2 3.1 East Islip 74 5 6.8 Bast Patchogue 376 9 2.4 [-la~ppauge 252 6 2.4 Holbrook 138 4 2.9 Lindenhurst 67 6 9.0 Mastic Beach 1333 36 2.7 North Babylon 108 5 4.6 North Haven 52 2 3.8 South Ja~esport 55 4 7.3 Shirley 1065 24 2.3 Wyandanch 163 5 3.1 *Co~nities with more than 50 samples, with at least 2% exceeding the drinking water g~i~eline of 0.5 ppm. 12 Other Inor~anic Chemicals Iron in excess of the .3 ppm standard was detected in 47.6% of the private well samples tested. The community of North Lindenhurst had a high of 81.3% exceeding the standard for iron, based u~on ten or more samples. Manganese in excess of the .3 ppm standard was detected in 18.8% of the samples. The com~unity of North Amityville had a high of 77.4% exceeding the standard for manganese. Although lead and cadmium are not naturally occurring elements in Suffolk County groundwaters, the materials have been detected in private well drinking water sources. The contamination is caused by the corrosive nature of the local groundwaters. The lead is leached from lead plumbing solder and the cadmium is an impurity in zinc, which is used in the galva- nizing process for well casings. A summ~ry of lead and cadmium testing results on a county-wide basis is aa follows: Average # Samples # Exceeded ~ Traces Concentration* Lead 1938 41 (2.1%) 154 (7.9%) 40.3 ppb Cadmiu~ 1494 15 (1.0%) 165 (11.0%) 4.7 ppb NOTE *Includes all positive samples The drinking water standard for lead is 50 pph, and for cadmium it is 10 ppb. Statistical information for other inorganic chemicals; i.e., chlo- rides, sodium, copper, zinc and sulfates, is contained in Table IV-1 and Appendix A. Organic Ch-m{cals The s,mmary of private well organic samples on a county-wide basis is contained in Table IV-2. Twenty-one volatile organic compounds are listed which have been detected in private well drinking sources. The most common compounds detected were 1,1,1 trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,2 trichloroethylene, and 1,1 dichloroethane. Table IV-2 contains the average and maximum concentration for each compound, percentage exceeding guide- lines, percentage with traces, and the maximum concentrations detected. Data on a community basis are contained in Appendix B. 13 Many of the organic chemicals identified in Suffolk County drinking water supplies are used as industrial/comerciel solvents or are breakdown ~roducts of these solvents. This includes tetrachloroethylene, which is used as an industrial solvent, dry cleaning fluid, and a degreesing agent. The following is a listing of communities with the highest percentage of tetrachloroethylene contamination= CO~RITY % ~C~EDING AVG. C~C. (p~b)* MAX. CONC. (~b) E. Farming~ale 33.3 450.0 1,800 Farming~ale 28.6 46.8 157 N. Amityville 27.6 415.9 13,900 Cu.-.-~ok 22.6 271.2 2,130 West Babylon 17.9 231.8 13,100 Amityville 13.5 442.5 9,100 Great River 12.5 535.0 1,070 Lindenhurst 5.0 88.8 1,546 Sayville 3.4 68.8 211 Babylon 3.1 5.3 52 West Islip 3.1 93.6 460 * Average concentration includes all positive sA-~.les. Organic cesspool cleaners, which were banned by Suffolk County in 1980, have also contributed to groun~ater contamination. Trichloroethane was a major component of these cleaners, and is still found throughout densely developed residential area, particularly those in the western portion of the county. Comm~nities with significant trichloroethane contam~nation are as follows: CO~3NITY % ~XC~EDING AVG. CONC. (~}* M~X. CON.C. (~b) N. Lindenhurst 45.5 72.3 460 N- Amity~ille 34.5 45.0 585 West Babylon 29.9 353.6 38,400 Lindenhurst 25.0 28.7 590 Brentwood 16.7 65.0 260 East Islip 15.3 65.5 1370 Amityville 14.8 104.8 2575 Deer Park 14.3 361.6 7000 Babylon 12.5 9.6 80 West Islip 12.5 26.7 296 * Average concentration includes all positive samples 14 Statistic&l information for other organic and hydrocarbon compounds is contained in Table IV-2 and Appendix B. Pesticides Until a few years ago, pesticides were not considered a major ground- water contamination problem. Data from limited sampling, usually for chlorinated pesticides (e.g, DDT, endrin, and lindane), were negative. In August 1979, the pesticide aldicarb was found in several wells. This discovery resulted in an extensive pesticide monitoring program. As a result of the monitoring program, the following pesticide compounds have been detected: aldicarb (Temik carbaryl (Sevin) carbofuran (Furadan) dacthal dibrom dinoseb methomyl (Lannate) oxamyl (Vydate) paraquat picloram 1,2 dichloropropane chlorothalonil Contamination by pesticides, particularly al4icarb and carbof~ran, has i~acted many private water supply wells in agricultural communities. The latest aldicarb and carbofuran testing results are s~mmarizsd in Tables IV-3 and IV-4. 15 u.I A l? V. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER Extension of public water mains is the optimum solution in co~nities with poor water quality. The cost for extending public water consists of the following components: · Cost of the transmission main, if recluired, to the co~nity to be served. · Cost of providing a water main service grid within the co~anity. · Cost of installing a house-connection line to the water main and internal house pl.~mhing. The cost for transmission maine is ~m~en~ent upon the size of the wa- ter main, distance it must be extended, and several other factors. If a water main must be extended from a remote area through undeveloped land, the cost per user will be higher than if the main is extended in developed areas. Should water mains of sufficient ca,city be syllable directly ad- jacent to a new area to be served, no tran~seion cost would be incurred. Estimated transmission main costs for typical installations are shown in Figure V-I. The cost of providing a water main service grid within a co~unity is dependent upon land use density, percent of land developed, property front- age, size of water mains, type of roadway and extent of repeving required. High density housing in developed co~nities results in lower cost per household for water main extensions. Low density housing with a high per- centage of undeveloped land results in higher water main extention costs. Typical costs for wa~er main extension under various options have been prepared and are contained in Figures V-2 through V-13. Costs for exten- sion of public water based upon the homeowner paying for the entire project are contained in Figures V-2 through V-5. Potential customers in publicly owned tax collection water districts are generally required to pay for the entire cost of water main extension. The Suffolk County Water Authozity provides an allowance of 50 feet of main for each customer who applies for service for the replacement of private wells serving existing structures. No allowance is given for new construction. The entire cost of water main exten~ion must be paid by the builder. Typical costs for extension of public water mains, with an allow- ance of 50 feet of main to be paid by the water company, are found in Figures V-6 through V-9. 20 Water ~urveyors regulated by the New York Stats Public Service Com- mission are rsquired to provide 75 feet of water main for each new cus- tomer. Figures V-10 through V-13 contain typical cost data for extension of ~ublic water mains allowing 75 feet of free main. It should be noted several utilities in Suffolk have received a variance from the requirement to provide 75 feet of main. There is a great variability in the cost of installing house connec- tions to the water main. In addition, several other costs may be incurred including tapping fees, charges for vault boxes, remote readout equipment, and for any internal house ~lumbing required. ~ne following are typical ranges of costs= 3/4' ~Lameter copper house connection 1# diameter copper house connection . Tapping fees ..... · . . Vault ............ Remote readout equipment .... Internal house ~lumbing .... $10-15 ~er foot 15-20 per foot 150-300 75-150 25-50 Varies It should be noted the foregoing cost data on transmission, water main service grid, and miscellaneous items are intended only to provide a basis for conceptional cost estimates. Detailed construction costs for indivi- dual projects should be calculated based upon site-specific data and input from the water purveyor. The cost for extsntion of public water mains in soma cases may be a major financial burden for homeowners to pay in a single lump sum, since there is no direct federal or state aid programs for public water main tensions. At the present time, only limited financial aid is available from community development funds or the New York State Petroleum Spill Fund for cases involving gasoline and fuel oil contamination. However, the monies available are small in comparison to the needs. Several options have been devised which enable residents to pay for the cost of water main extensions over a period of time. As an example, the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) has a construction revenue contract 91an. Under this 91an, a homeowner or group of homeowners can finance the project ~irectly with the SCWA. The homeowners pay off the debt via a surcharge arrangement. This is in addition to the normal water use charges. The surcharge cost will depend upon the capital cost to 21 install the water main service and prevailing finance charges which are based u~on bond market conditions. At present, the payback plan consists of a 15-year term, in which 12% of the water main costs are repaid annu- ally. ~n allowance of 50 feet of free main is provided for each homeowner who applies for service under this option. Another approach to financing water main extensions is through the formation of a water supply district. The cost of the capital project is funded by a long-termbond issue. Repayment is made by all property owners within the ~istrict in the form of a s~ecial assessment based upon an sd valorem property tax. The SCWA will enter into a contract with local government entities to ~inance water supply districts. No #up front" monies are required from the local government body since the SCWA utilizes its own bonding authority to pay for the capital costs of constructing the water mains. The contract generally provides for 38 yearly ~ayments to be ma~e by the municipality during which the SCWA credits the district with 40 percent of the revenue received from the sale of water within the district. AS new customers connect to the water mains and water sales revenues increase, it may be ~ossible to pay the debt off prior to the 38-year ~eriod. If this occurs, the debt is dissolved and no further special property tax is paid. The advantage of the SCWA a~ree~nt is that the local government does not have to utilize any of its debt limit, and the special district is only .required to raise taxes until the revenue generated is sufficient to provide the debt reduction. The SCWA presently requires an annual payment of 10% of the cost of the project, minus revenues, from the sale of water for the 38-year bond Period. 22 $500,000 $100 24"DIA, 810,000 FEET OF MAIN REQUIRED TYPICAL FIGURE '~'- 1 TRANSMISSION MAIN COST 23 [[I 26 APPENDIX - A INORGANIC CHEMICAL SAMPLING RESULTS BY COF~UNITY NOTE: The following standard or guidelines have been used as maximum limits: Nitrates ~0 ppm Copper 1.0 ppm Chlorides 250 ppm Zinc 5.0 ppm Sodium 20 ppm Sulfates 250 ppm MBAS(detergents) .5 ppm Arsenic 50 ppb Iron .3 ppm Cadmium ~0 ppb Manganese .3 ppm Lead 50 ppb pp~ = parts per million ppb = parts per billion A-2 &-4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% A-5 A.'-6 A-'7 A-10 A-12 it .A-13 A-14 i m A-i5 .A-16 A~17 A-18 A-19 Ax21 A122 A-23 A-24 APPENDIX ORGANIC CHEMICAL SAMPLING RESULTS BY COMMUNITY NOTE= A maximum guideline of 50 parts per billion (ppb) has been used for all organic compounds except benzene and vinyl chloride. The benzene and vinyl chloride level has been set at 5 ppb. O000OO000000000000000~O00000000000000~O000000~O0000000 B-2 ,.,,,,~J . ,,,,. ~. ,,, .... ~, g ..,,,.,,,$ B-4 0~0~000000000~000000 O0 O0 0 0 0 ~ 000 0 C..DOOO0OO00000000000OO0000000000000000~O00000000~O~O000 B:-5 ooo .~oooo~o~--~ooo ,~oo ooo~o ,~oo --.6 O000000000000000000000000000OO~O~O00000000000000000000 ~ oooooooooooooooooooo.~ooooooooooooooo~ooooooooooooooooo · ~ J 0~0000000~0000~0~00000000000~0000000~00000000000000000 000000000000~00000000000000000~0000000000000000~000000 ~ i!~'~°"°°°°°°°"'°°°-°-°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°~°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°~ B-7 B-B E ~ ~ 1000000000000000000000000000000000000~0000000~000~0 ~000000000000000000000000000000000000~0000000~00000 B.-9 B-10 IO~O000~O00~O0000000~O00~O0000000000QO00000~O00~O000000 ~ ...................................................... 0000,~.000000000~.00000 ~0000000000000000000000~000000 O0 O0 ~~oo~o~o~ooooooooo~o~o~o~o~o~ooo~oooo B,'ll B-12 B-13 B=14 ,:¢.20000000000~0~0000000000~ B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 .:.:.cc.o c~acco¢.:¢.cc¢c' :.:-c. .:--.-~00~.¢,:0,:..~o.:'¢,~.:'.0¢.:'.:c,.-'c¥.:'.~ B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23 B-24 By25 B-26 ~!oooocoocooo~oc.~ooo©ooo~ocooo¢cooccccoc¢.cccoc~ooc.~.: B-'27 B.28 B~29 B-30 000000000000000000~0000~00~0000000000~00000~0000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000~0~000.~0000000000000000 0000000~00~00~0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Bt31 B-32 Bm33