-------
Table 4
Analytical Results
Field Blanks
Blank Type:
Sample Number:
Paraml^ter:
"
Methyl ene chloride
2-butanone
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
T datively Identified Compounds:
7-oxabicyclo [4.1.0] heptane
2-pentanone, 4-hydroxy-4-methyl
Hexanedioicacid, bis(2-ethylhex)
Cyclohexanone
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-
Phosphine, bis (pentafluoropheny)
Unknown hydrocarbon
Water Blank
84ER05R40
ug/1
(ppb)
11
19B*
48*
ND/10
ND/ 2
50 SC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sediment
Blank
85ER01R30
ug/1
(ppb)
ND/ 5
ND/10
1500
11B
330JB
ND
4900A
18100A,
600A
ND
ND
ND
ND
Water Blank
85ER01R31
ug/1
(ppb)
14B
14B
ND/10
ND/10
ND/10
ND
291 .OA
ND
11. 7A
12. ID
11. 9C
ND
Water Blank
85ER03R41
ug/1
(ppb)
8
ND/10
2JB
ND/10
ND/10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
45J,
96J
NOTES:
* =
J =
SC =
A =
C =
D =
B =
Detected below quantitation limit
(quantisation limit is 10 x detection limit),
Greater than zero but below detection limit.
Suspected lab contaminant.
High probability for correct identification.
Low probability for correct identification.
Solvent impurity.
Analyte is also found in lab blank;
possible/probable blank contamination.
-20-
-------
VIII. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Saginaw Bay Intakes
1. Presentation of Data
Complete analytical results for samples taken of Saginaw Bay intakes, the
Saginaw River standby intake, and Midland city tap water are presented in
Appendix A. Pertinent data are summarized below.
a. 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDD was not detected in any of these samples. Detection levels
ranged from 2-10 ppq. These samples were not analyzed for other PCDDs and
PCDFs.
b. Toxic Organic Compounds
Table 5 below summarizes those toxic organic compounds identified by
the laboratories.
Table 5
Saginaw Bay Water Supply Intakes
Toxic Organic Compound Summary
Saginaw
River
Standby
ug/1
(ppb)
ND/ 1
12*
ND/ 1
3
NO/ 2
Saginaw/
Midland
Intake
ug/1
(ppb)
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/50
3*
Pinconning
Intake
ug/1
(PPb)
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/50
1*
Bay City
Intake
ug/1
(PPb)
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/ 5
ND/50
1*
Midland
City
Tap Water
ug/1
(PPb)
26
ND/ 5
9
ND/50
ND/10
Toxic Organic Compounds
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Bromodichloromethane
Benzoic acid
Di-n-butyl phthalate
*Detected in blank sample.
c. Metals
Those metals positively identified are summarized in Table 6 below:
-21-
-------
Table 6
Saginaw Bay Water Supply Intakes
Metals Analyses Summary
Metal
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Saginaw/Midland
Intake
ug/1
(ppb)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
52
17
ND/ 5
84
ND/ 4
ND/ 3
27.
7,
3
56
4.11
Pinconning
Intake
ug/1
(ppb)
182
27
ND/ 5
352
18
7.2
48.1
13.4
15.6
Bay City
Intake
ug/1
(ppb)
223
19
35
464
19
5.2
33.2
8.68
8.29
2. Discussion of Results
The detection of 2378-TCDD is Saginaw Bay water intakes was not expected
given the documented discharge levels of dioxins from Dow Chemical, the affinity
of dioxin to particulate matter, and +he amount of dilution from the point of
Dow Chemical's discharge to the respective water intakes. The study results
are consistent with this expection. Accordingly, USEPA does not believe that
supplemental dioxin sampling at these intakes is warranted.
The data show that the raw water supply intakes are essentially free of
organic compounds. The presence of methylene chloride in the Saginaw River
standby intake can be attributed to glassware cleaning or laboratory operations.
Methylene chloride and di-n-butyl phthalate were also detected in the field
blank sample. The qualified finding of benzoic acid was slightly above the
analytical detection limit. Benzoic acid is not a priority pollutant but is
often reported in the broad organic scan.
Analytical results of Saginaw Bay raw water intakes and drinking water
regulations are presented for comparison in Appendix E. While drinking water
regulations are applicable to water quality at the consumer's tap, primary
standards were not exceeded for the raw water supplies. The Midland city tap
water sample results conformed with primary and secondary regulations.
Chloroform (26 ppb) and bromodichloromethane (9 ppb) were detected in
the Midland city tap water sample. These compounds are members of a family of
organic compounds called trihalomethanes. Other trrbalomethane compounds
include dibromochloromethane and bromoform. Trihalomethanes are introduced
into drinking water by the reaction of naturally occurring organic substances
-22-
-------
J
with chlorine in the course of water treatment. National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations promulgated in 1979 established a maximum contaminant
level (MCL) of 0.10 mg/1 (100 ppb) for the sum total of the trihalomethane com-
pounds. The detection of chloroform and bromodichloromethane is consistent with
levels typically found in finished chlorinated water and are less than the MCL.
B. Potable Well Water Samples
Complete analytical results for samples taken of potable water are presented
in Appendix B.
1. Presentation of Data
a. 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDD was not detected in any of the potable water samples obtained
on December 3-5, 1984, at low parts per quadrillion {ppq) levels (Table 7).
These samples were analyzed by Midwest Research Institute. Five supple-
mental samples were obtained on June 12, 1985, and analyzed by USEPA's
National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) located in Duluth, Minnesota.
NWQL found apparent positive findings of 2378-TCDD for two samples.
However, these findings were not confirmed by subsequent split sample
analyses by the Brehm Laboratory at Wright State University and Dow Chemical
or by analyses of additional samples obtained on August 2, 1985, at those
two locations (Table 8). The August 2, 1985, samples were analyzed by NWQL
and Dow Chemical.
To insure that 2378-TCDD was not present in ground water from these
wells, USEPA initiated a follow-up survey which involved analyses of six
potable water samples and blank and control samples. The NWQL, the Brehm
Laboratory, and Dow Chemical analyzed split samples for that study. The
results presented in Table 9 show that 2378-TCDD was not detected in any of
the potable water samples by any of the participating laboratories.
b. Other PCDDs and PCDFs
Data for other dioxins and furans for potable well water samples
developed by Midwest Research Institute are not valid due to in-lab
contamination problems with TCDDs, OCDD, and OCDF (see Appendix D).
Screening analyses for PCDDs and PCDFs by NWQL for samples collected on
June 12, 1985, showed no detectable PCDDs or PCDFs.
c. Toxic Organic Pollutants
Priority pollutant analyses were completed for the potable water
samples. Summaries of the organic compounds detected are' presented in
Tables 10 and 11. All compounds not listed were not detected in the samples.
Refer to Appendix B for detection limits. Excluding those found in blank
samples, a listing of organic compounds identified in the potable well
sampling is presented below:
-23-
-------
Table 7
Midland Area Ground Water Samples
2378-TCOD — December 3-5, 1984
(parts per quadrillion)
Well Location 2378-TCDD (PL)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
N
P
Notes: (1) Samples analyzed by Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
(2) ND - Not detected.
(3) Detection level - ( ).
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
( 4)
( 7)
( 4)
(sa)
( 4)
( 5)
(12)
( 4)
( 2)
( 6)
(12)
( 4)
( 7)
-24-
-------
00
0)
J->
(O
0)
Q.UO
e oo
00
r— 4
A
CM
T-H
QJ
C.
3
i—^)
C
O
-o
QJ
-p
O
QJ
"o
O
CO
QJ
'a
E
i i **—*
t 1 O
1 1 Z
o o o
*
o o o
z z z
c
rO QJ QJ
•i- -M 4J
^0 'O fO
QJ > >
-4-> •!— -r-
t- C_ t-
^^ {%a ^^
CO ^" LO
o o o
vo ^o <*o
iiii in
i i i i — •
iiii a
1 1 t 1 -Z.
*~-** — * *- — s
c^ C^ 1 ^^ 1
r-l» — ' 1 ' 1
XwX
O 0 1 O 1
Z Z t Z 1
0001 1
O O O 1 «
**• Z Z 1 1
t
o
CO
>>^
.* o c c
C 4J 10 (0
(O (O ^~ ^^ r"™
.^ i— t- OQ c E c
QJ oo (O j QJ QJ QJ
1 * i en c~ en
*O ^3 E ^ ^J ^~ * c" QJ QJ
••- QJ cr QJ o£ So;
«- -r- 3 t. O
CL, U. Z CQ O
•^ r-~ I \ \
O O 1 1 1
^o vo
•
o
o
o
Lf>
c
o
*J •
3 O
r— ^^
0 0
co in
QJ
«- c
o
•»-> -f-
(v 4J
3
o "o
i— 1 CO
^•M^ ^)
^
o
^" -M
pg
• A
o -o
O Q)
O N
0^ >»
f—
C (O
0 C
•,- ns
4^
3 CO
•— QJ
O r—
co CX
QJ E
t- <0
i/)
-(_>
(0 t.
QJ
^^"^ ^3
0 4->
i— I O
o .—
z <
*
's-
uo
CO
^H
M
CM
•p
CO
3
en
3
^f
C
o
-o
QJ
1 *
U
QJ
"o
O
(/)
QJ
r—
a
- E
IT3
CO
i— I r-t 1
O O 1
Z Z 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
r-. O vo
^H *-T|_-»
V
O O O
z z z
^«— ^
CL
3
O
C C C
£) IO 'O
[ * *r— >^>
Q) CO CO
r- QJ QJ
CX4-> 4->
(O U (_
2: <: «t
CM i-H ^-(
o o o
to to o
o
CJ3
LU
LO
00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
co
Q
^^
^f
C
(Q
^-*
QQ
T3
r*«
QJ
•r*
u.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
o
z
.V
c
>a
^v
OQ
JQ
f
1
cr
zr
•
P.«
QJ
^
QJ
C
O
•t—
4->
O
QJ
4->
QJ
^J
QJ
IO
4->
•
r- .»->
Q) rO
>
Q) T3
•— QJ
C 0
O QJ
•^ 1 ^
+-> QJ
o -o
QJ
4-> +->
QJ O
O Z
1 1
—I Q
0 Z
• •
i— 1 CM
• »
CO
QJ
4^
O
Z
QJ
O
QJ
O
O
CO
QJ
'a.
E •
CO Li-
O
4- O
O 0-
M-
L.
—1 O
o-
3 co
^^ ^^
Q
>^ C-3
JD a.
CO QJ^
U. i— 1
0 jo"
CJ (O
Q- 4-»
O
T3 QJ
^^ 4 %
(O QJ
•o
o o
o c
o
a. -o
QJ
t- 5
O 0
t- .c
CO
CO
a> .
CO trt
>,oo
^— CTt
CO r- 1
C
lO •
CM
CT> i— 1
C
•I- QJ
c c
QJ 3
QJ 0
l_
o c
to o
•
co
-25-
-------
VI
V
i— in
Q. 00
E en
to ••*
CO
f_ ro
Oi
** c.
"O 41
*f
a ex
4*
1
0)
£8
!
££
O Ol
II
o
« 01
JtJ
CO
C. 4->
00 £
Ol
T
31
0.0
°. "S
1 >
oo t-
r>- oi
ro M
CM JO
Ol
Q.
3*
(— U
oo >
r- o
ro u
CM Ol
ee
o
fi
g^
t- *CT
i a
ao a
r*. •—
ro
CM
Ol
•a c 01
o oi a
** tj tn
J|^-CM
to
.—
SOI
.u
o -^
1— Ol
i a
oo- •
ro o1
CM O.
a
i i t i i i
i i t i i i
i i i i i i
************
to P-. CM ro ro in
in oo ao to ao oo
en oo eo
,-H O — O -H O
o a o a o o
z z z z z z
•n
************
en o in •— i f-H in
tn in ^ m
r^ 0
ro o
CM 01
etc
o
ro **
§^
O-^
1— Ol
1 Q
CO —
r*.
ro
CM
VI
01
>>
f— 4->
S^
*
•• c
VI Ol ^
oi oi c
4J 10 IB
£ SZ
i
io
>>
O f—
C Ol
i S'
•r- ^" •
4- O)
*- r—
0) J3
o a.
M .e 4» •
0) *J U
4-* 4J O
S2SJ §
»O •** P* CM ro oi
4-1 4J ^* C
XXX °
«
^
H-
4J
*= *: * O
U.
n
i
M
Wl
C
X
5
r-
O
0
5
*-
M
*0
a>
>
«
c
CT
&
O
*
CX£N
,
I
^ o
t-
o
u
5§
en
oi
j<
"a.
VI
oi
t
a. t~
(A
4)
1
^ ^ f^.
C f-l CX~H C -"
«O E o a O
SO UJ CO UJ CO UJ
oi oi "oi
1. u. . uT
-26-
-------
t-l r-l O
> 0.
Q.
CD I
z z
in o if>
• • •
o — i o
-^.\*^
Q O O
O O O
IO
3 0)
O 1/1 4J
i-H (O
O 3
OJ -r-
r- C CU
1C r-
CDjQ
t- «0
O *J
O
O Q-
•r™
X
o
UJ
CO C<0 CVJ CM
Q Q
.Q
IO
<
cvi evj oo
ol
CQ
*
o
000
I CO CM CM CM
O O O
+J +J
•i~ o
detection
^1
TJ
C
3
O
Q.
O
O
U
•r-
C
IO
CD
O
O
•r™
X
o
*
I— 1
CU
-o
•r*
O
fi—
JZ.
o
CU
CU
1^—
^fc
JC^*
j %
4)
z:
<— i
Q
0)
C
CU
*>>
^J
CU
o
t_
o
JZ
0
^
4-*
CU
r-« O
^H
o a
•z. •z.
fc
-C
CU
1
CM
*t_^>
t/)
•r-
CO
»
3
J2
|
C
1
•r~
Q
ected below quantitation
ntitation limit is 10 x d<
imated value.
analyzed.
detected. Value given i,
+J <0
CU 3
Q cr
u
«<
• •
to
UJ
1—
o
z
4 > f * 4_)
to O O
UJ "Z. Z
II II M
< Q
-S-Z.-Z.
CU
CL
IO
c
IO
-Q
C
•r-
-a
CU
CU
<4-*
CU
Q
II
*
-27-
-------
IT) O O IO
a o o
0)
"a.
to
fO
3 Ol
<-H OO 4->
m o o o
O
0) T-
S
(O
0»
o +J
o
o o.
•r»
X
o
o o
* *
«: -i
4->
•r- 10
3 t~
cr E
3 4J
E 3
T- -O
C
•r' 4J
E'i
5 >r~
O .—
"a! c
JQ O
T3 •£
O» O
+J -o
0)
o
O) ^
•r- r- Q
0> Q.Z
d) fO
fO
r- 3 +J N i—
C
O)
N
O
r— C
O) O
•o
c
o
Q.
O
o
o
o
•O T3
(V 01
C
O
>, O Q I
J= C I C
+J (T3 4-> 0)
O> 3 10 Q.
O O*LiJ 10
II II
«c o
oo
LU
(U
N
• f*> /^
C -D O
O •—
d) *o -C
t- | * Q) O
(D O) +J T—
I
^) I ^ 4_> CO
t_ O 4> *
C7) ^* <*^ i™H
II II II
Q * *
Z *
-28-
-------
Organic Compound
Number of
Occurrences
Concentration(s)
[Detection Limit (ppb)3
Tetrachloroethylene
To!uene
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3
2
4
2
1
1
The organic compounds detected in individual
found in blank samples, are listed below:
1, 1, 4 [ 1]
1, 1 C 1]
13, 13, 17, 17 [10]
6, 7 [ 4]
3 [ 2]
14 [ 4]
wells, excluding those
Organic Compound(s)
Well [Concentration (ppb)]
A All ND
B Tetrachloroethylene [1]
Acetone [13]
C Toluene [1]
Acetone [17]
D Tetrachloroethylene [1]
Acetone [17]
E Acetone [13]
F Tetrachloroethylene [4]
Toluene [1]
Hell
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
P
Organic Compound(s)
[Concentration (ppb)]
[7]
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene [14]
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl) phthalate [6]
Phenol [3]
1,3-Dichlorobenzene [<10]
All ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
All
All
All
All
Six of the 15 wells had no detectable toxic organic pollutants.
Chlorinated organic compounds were detected in five wells at concentrations
ranging from 1-14 ppb. Phenol was detected in Well I at 3 ppb.
Organic analyses on the potable well samples at location A-I, J-K, and
L-P were conducted at three different laboratories. The findings of acetone
and other solvents were limited to the first set (A-I) of well analyses.
d. Inorganics
Chloride analyses showed a wide range.of concentrations of the 15 potable
well samples. Chloride values ranged from 4.4-1100 mg/1. Bromide and
iodide were analyzed in nine potable well samples. Bromide was detected in
one sample, Well D (3.0 mg/1). All others were not detected at a 2 mg/1
detection limit. Iodide was detected in Wells B and C at 2.1 and 4.5 mg/1,
respectively. All other iodide results were reported not detected at a
2 mg/1 detection limit.
e. Metals ''.
A summary of metals analyzed in the potable well samples is presented in
Table 12.
-29-
-------
Table 12
Potable Well Samples
Metals Analyses Summary
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1i urn
Cadmiurn
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Copper
Lead
Tin
Calcium (ppm)
Magnesium "
Sodium
Potassium "
Number of
Analyses
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
6
6
6
6
Number of Positive
Identifications
2
2
2
10
6
0
1
0
16
13
0
0
2
0
2
15
2
7
3
6
6
6
6
Number Not
Detected
14
14
14
6
10
16
15
16
0
3
16
16
14
16
14
1
14
9
13
0
0
0
0
Note: Results in parts per billion (ppb) unless
otherwise stated as parts per million (ppm).
Range
(low-high)
(ppb)
ND/35-162
ND/20-82
ND/ 3-17
ND/12-300
ND/0.6-10
ND/l-ND/5
ND/3.4-14
ND/4.7-ND/50
62-5230
ND/4-61
ND/4-ND/40
ND/2-ND/5
ND/5-10
ND/5-ND/10
ND/5-11
ND/3-970
ND/5-53
ND/2-17.5
ND/14-52
18.1-86.5
7.42-25.6
16.1-899
1.85-8.69
Average
(ppb)
20.2
10.2
1.3
92
0.97
NO
0.88
ND
1066
20.3
ND
ND
1.1
ND
1.4
297
4.8
3.8
6.9
53
18
174
3.4
2. Discussion of Results
A total of 17 water samples were collected from 15 residential and public
potable well sites and analyzed for a variety of inorganic and toxic organic
parameters. In general, as a group the potable well samples were characterized
by elevated iron content and variable chloride content. Iron values ranged
from 62-5230 ppb with an average of 1066 ppb. Chlorides ranged from 4.4-1100
ppm. These data are comparable to results from the USEPA study of the Hemlock
area 8/, which are presented in Appendix F. There are no health related
standards for iron or chloride in public drinking water supplies. National
Secondary Drinking Water regulations have been establishred for setting recom-
mended limits for aesthetic qualities of water provided by public water
systems. A comparison of analytical results of the potable wells samples in
-30-
-------
this screening survey to National Interim Primary Drinking Water regulations
and secondary non-health related standards is presented in Appendix E and
summarized in Table 13. For secondary standards, there were four exceedances
for chloride, 13 exceedances for iron, one exceedance for sulfate, and one
exceedance for manganese. All analytical results were within the primary
standards with the exception of one analysis for fluoride of 2.7 ppm. USEPA is
in the process of revising the fluoride MCL. An RMCL of 4 ppm has been adopted
with a revised MCL to be established. The present MCL is based upon cosmetic
and not health-related effects.
The toxic organic priority pollutant scan detected a few compounds at trace
levels that are not regulated. These compounds include tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, phenol, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, and
1,3-dichlorobenzene. These data were evaluated with respect to available
criteria including EPA health advisories, maximum contaminant levels (MCL),
and recommended maximum contaminant levels (RMCL). Refer to Table 14 for a
comparison of USEPA screening survey results to available health advisory
criteria. Based upon this evaluation, there is no evidence of significant
toxic organic contamination of the potable wells sampled as part of this
screening survey.
Follow-up sampling by the Michigan Department of Public Health was conducted
in September 1985 at selected wells sampled previously by USEPA (C, D, E, G, H)
to confirm the presence or absence of trace organics. The analytical results
showed these well samples free from organic contamination. Specifically, for
those trace organics detected previously by USEPA, toluene was ND at Well C,
tetrachloroethylene was ND at Well D, and 1,2,-dichlorobenzene was ND at Well H
all at the 1 ppb detection level.
C. Dow Chemical Brine Operation
1. Presentation of Data
Complete analytical results of sample taken of the Dow Chemical brine
operation are presented in Appendix C. Selected data are reviewed in the
following sections.
a. 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDD was not detected in any of the liquid brine or brine pond
sediment samples taken. Detection limits on the liquid samples ranged from
2-54 ppq. 2378-TCDD was not detected in the three brine pond sediments at a
detection limit of 6.9-15.7 ppt.
b. Other PCDDs and PCDFs
Other dioxin and furan data for the liquid brine samples are not valid
due to the background levels of TCDDs and OCDD found in nearly every
laboratory method blank sample (see Appendix D). Method blank contamination
was also noted for HpCDDs, HxCDDs, and OCDFs.
-31-
-------
Table 13
Comparison of Potable Well Results
to Available Drinking Water Regulations
MCL (ppb)
National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations*
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Endrin
Toxaphene
Trihalomethanes
50
1000
10
50
50
2
10
50
1.4-2.4
0.2
5
100
ppm
Potable Well
Results
Range (ppfa)
Number of
Exceedances
ND-17
ND-300
NO
ND-14
ND-17.5
ND-0.1
ND
ND-1.1
0.24-2
ND
ND
ND
7 ppm
National Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations**
Chloride
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Sulfate
250 ppm
1000
300
50
5000
250 ppm
4.4-1100 ppm
ND-53
62-5230
ND-61
ND-970
6-268 ppm
13
1
Notes:
(1) National interim primary and secondary water regulations are appli-
cable to public water systems and not to individual private or small
semi-private water supplies. The data are presented above with the
standards for comparison purposes.
(2) National secondary drinking water regulations are applicable to
contaminants in drinking water that primarily affect the aesthetic
qualities relating to public acceptance of drinking water.
(3) ND = Not detected.
i '-
(4) USEPA is in the process of revising the fluoride MCL. A final RMCL of
4 ppm has been adopted with a revised MCL to be established. The present
MCL is based on cosmetic and not health-related effects.
* 40 CFR 141.1-141.6, as amended
** 40 CFR 143.1-143.4
-32-
-------
^J-
1-H
0)
r_
f^
*O
I—
•O TD
C r—
«o c_ o
O -C
<0 -0 CO
4-> O CO
to (.
ITS JC
I— I—
•O
CO
CO _l
O O
T3 CXZZ
•r- 0 0£
C_ l_
CO Q-
•IJ
c_
o
i_ * •- v> 0
O CO C r— CO
CO *£ O OS -r-
•r- Z t- CO >
>^m "^ ^*^
JC^ _L. ^J
"O O <
JC
CO +J
4J •—
i— , CO JO — ^
4) ^J *o *o
> *r* »~~ **— -*
S- C_ -I- CO
3 O ITS CO
CO > 'I-
^* ^c <
C7> t. ^— ^ O
c o jo co
•i- CO Q. -r-
c -i- Q. <: >
CO > Q- T3
CO "O CO LU ^C.
I- ^C CO CO
o 3 r> .c
CO JZ r- -M
4-> H> r-*
«C I— >
o
Q. •—
E 3
O CO
0 CO
cc.
>fc
•Q
3
-M
c
^
(O
0
1
o
1-t
>fc
(T3
Q
1-1
CO
c
ITS
on
CO
<»- eo
o o
c
t- eo
CO (-
JO C_
E 3
3 O
Z O
O
1
1
-o
<^_«*
0
1
1
o
00
<£>
O
^"
t^^
<-H
O
o
o
A
^^
co
i
i
^r
i
z
co
^^^
u
CO
CO
">>
JZ
+J
CO
c_
^:
0
«
d.
•4-^
CO
f-
1
1
eo
^— '
^^
0
0
CM
1
O
o
00
o
T"H
1
1
O
o
o
UD
O
O
O
*
00
*""*
t-H
1
Q
'^
C\l
""eo
c
eo
3
r-"*
o
t—
o
o
o
t-H
^f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r«-
i— i
1
Q
^^
-
*3-
""oi
c
o
^_>
CO
u
>
_£Z
CO
CM
^_ -»
CO
• p-
co
*-~,
JO
^0
0
O
.—I
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
co
i
t~*\
^*
i— i
f—
o
c
CO
JZ
OL.
1
1
CO
*^— '
o
CM
vo
1
1
Lf>
CM
!-H
CO
0
co
cy^
00
i
i
i
i
^^
,_4
1
Q
Z
i—*
41
CO
Nl
c
CO
0
h*.
0
^"™
J=
o
f^
1
CM
*
^-i
1
1
1
t
1
1
ID
CM
i— I
CO
o
co
o^
CO
1
1
1
1
0
1— I
V
1
Q
Z
.—4
CO
c
CO
FsJ
c
CO
JO
o
(
«B
o
-C
o
'9—
Q
1
co
M
r— 1
>1
J, %
^•^
•1—
• r~*
C
o
CO (T3
ITS CO «-
•i- T3 CO
«_ C 0.
eo 3 o
I *
•r~ C7^ ^>
t- C t-
0 -i- O
r— ••->
+J r— (T3
O
CO H- • T3
CO (-CO
•r- i— CO 4->
C- CO •«-> 3
O > US -Q
CO CO 5 •!-
•i- r- «_
^^ "1--* ^ -*
T3 T3 C 4->
>1
CO CO
vo
LO
oo
CTt
i-H
CO
« CO
CO O
•-I C
CO
£_ «r—
CO O
jo co
E
CO <4-
> 0
o
Z >%
E
. CO
CTi "O
i-H ITS
CM O
^
•
O •—
^^ ITS
c
• o
O -r-
UO +J
ITS
• Z
^~
•M O II
<*- >
US CO
u ce. <£.
Q U- Z
T3 CO *
-------
However, other di'oxin isomer classes and furans were positively detected
in the three brine pond sediment samples analyzed by a different laboratory.
Table 15 below summarizes the range of values found.
Table 15
Dow Chemical Brine Pond Sediments
PCDDs and PCDFs
PCDDs
Total TCDDs
Total PCDDs
Total HxCDDs
Total HnCDDs
OCDD
Range (ppb)
ND-0.016
ND-0.15
ND-0.07
0.19-0.21
1.5-3.8
PCDFs
2378-TCDF
Total TCDFs
Total PCDFs
Total HxCDFs
Total HpCDFs
OCDF
Range (ppb)
0.03-0.11
0.04-0.21
ND
ND-3.5
ND-2.8
0.5-5.8
c. Toxic Organic Pollutants
Toxic organic pollutants in the volatile and acid and base neutral
fractions were identified in the liquid brine and brine pond sediment
samples. All other toxic organic pollutants were not detected. Table 16
summarizes the volatile pollutants identified.
Acid and
included:
base neutral pollutants detected in the liquid brine samples
Raw Brine
Prod.
South Combined Well #29
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
North
27
ND
ND
35
5
ND
16
ND
ND
24
2
ND
Filtered
Brine
ND
ND
14
TH-18
ND
ND
ND
Several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were detected near or
estimated below the detection limit of the compound at the intermediate
brine pond sampling point. These compounds were not found in any of the
liquid brine samples.
1) Raw Brine Samples
The analytical data show that the following organic pollutants were
detected in all three main Dow Chemical raw brine lines sampled and at one
individual production well, #29:
benzene (390-580 ppb)
toluene (130-280 ppb)
trichloroethylene (14-150
phenol (16-35 ppb)
ppb)
-34-
-------
t- O TD
OQ O- 01
00
oo
CM
CM
10
* *
CO i-l CM CO CO CM
O O
CM
O> =«=
•r- C •
t. O T3
CO O. Ol
00
00
CM
CM
CM
*
CO t-l
o
oaaoaoaooa
QQQ
CO
3,
>k
<_
IQ
C E
O E
•r- 3
4J OO
ITS
C. 4->
QJ C
Q, <0
O 4->
3
VO C r—
1-1 T- O
l_ Q-
01 OQ
r— O
JD t— ••-
t— o
E l-
Ol O
JZ
O QJ
5 "f—
O 4->
/"* co
o
c -o
•r- C •
«- O T3
OQ Q. QJ
00
t-4
1
DC
h-
C
O
•r—
O r— CXI
3 Ol CM
-O 3 =*=
O
O-
•o
{_ C
C_
i— CO
•r™
u.
Ol e~
jt C 4->
o; t- o
OQ 00
•o
O) QJ
^ c c
CO 'r~ •!—
Oi C_ JD
OQ E
o
0
QJ JZ
CL
O 3
t— 1
«*• ^,
2J. ^.21
CO Ol <•>
t-H 3 ^ I
***•» "~ _ A
00
~oJ
i~H 3 <^ 1
^*^ s— H
CO
^^
00 f"" "*"^*j
"***» ""^^ -Q]
^- CTJ Q|
*-« 13 Q!
"^^s. "^-H
CO
• •
4) x)
-t-> C
lO 3
/"* O
Q.
E
O
o
O)
•r*
4J
~^^.
0 0
z z
ooo
CO rH t-l
o o
z z
Ol
c
*^.
o o
z z
"•^ ""•^
0 O
z z
*
LO O
CO ^H
**s^
o
z
o o
•"^.-C.
o o
z z:
O CD
t— I t— I
^^ «*^
O O
z z
Ol
c
J=
4->
Ol
o
c_
o
F—
_P"
0 E
c. o
J—
NJ •> O
^w g^ £
J= 4-> O
4-) QJ t-
"S»^ "X»^
0 0
Z Z
«-H
**^S» "**X.
0 0
z z
*
<:
o <* o
~^ t— 1
o
z
*
"""^ *^»
o o
z z
*
ooo
t— i r^. co
•^> t-H CM
o
z
ooo
0 Q
z z
4t
^^
O t-H O
1— 1 p^ p~.
•^ CM
O
Z
*D
C OJ
UJ C
J= 01
4J r—
o» >>
E J=
O 4->
E Ol
0 0
C_ (_
^> Q
•r— r""
^D ^T" Ol
O u c
t— *O Ol
0^3
•— 4-> •—
J= Ol O
O 1— 1—
CD t— I
*^_ '^^
0 0
z z
*
<:<
^-» CM
•"••^
O
Z
*
O O
•^^ **«^
0 Q
Z Z
*
CM i-l
"Ss^
O
z
* o o
ooo
LO 1— 1 !— 1
•— • ^«»"~x
0 O
z z
*^ —
o o
z z
O)
c
Ol
^_
>>
) %
Ol Ol
o c
(- O
o Q) cr
r- C *
f* Q 4J
O 4J 3
•r- 01 CO
C- U 1
t— < CM
^^ ^"s,^
o a
z z
^^ ^"^
^x,^ """^
o o
z z
0 0
t-H t-H
• — ' — .
o o
z z
*S»^ ^i*^
o o
z z
o o
t-H I— 1
~-^ t-H
0
z
,
X
c
O r1— *
<"i co
c 4-J
CO O
0 1—
^j
•i— •
E 4->
J^*E
C r—
O
•r- C
4-* O
O T-
Ol 4->
4-> U
O) Ol
Ol
>: -o
0 4->
t-H O
CO
II t_
1 %
4-> C
•r- O
E U
•r—
•— T3
0)
O C
•r~ *r*
4-> U
CO Ol
4-» a.
•i- lO
4J
c E
CO 3
3 E
0--I-
•p—
4-> E
•t—
E 2
•r- 0
"~ "aj
c: jo
-r- -O
*O -4^
4-> 0
•r™ 4-9
C
jf^
•o
T3 Ol
4-> CO
0 E
O> -r-
4-> 4->
ai 10
O UJ
II II
^c *-^
• •
oo
UJ
I—
C3
z
c_
o
T3
CO
•o
"o»
•r*
«t
C
O
Jj J
2
CO
ex.
Ol
Q.
Ol
JJ
O
jQ
01
"o.
E
CO
O
Ol
3
"O
01
jQ
j^
CO
E
O CO
t- -a
QJ C
N 3
O
c a.
« E
-C O
4-> O
^ *4—
Ol O
1 »
CO Ol
Ol U
t- C
O> O)
CO
4-> O)
3 (-
^ fV^
u
*
.
c
o
•r*
«(_>
t3
C
•r™
E
CO
4->
C
o
o
^s
C-
o
4->
CO
t_
0
J*}
fT3
l—
-35-
-------
Other organic pollutants detected in one or more of the raw brine
sampling sites included: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (35 ppb); ethylbenzene
(16 ppb, 25 ppb); tetrachloroethylene (64-170 ppb); xylenes (37-110 ppb);
and 4-methylphenol (2-5 ppb).
2) Filtered/Spent Brine Sample
Aside from two compounds found in the blank sample, three organic
compounds were detected in the filtered brine sample which is representative
of the processed brine prior to injection. The compounds were tetrachloro-
ethylene, bromoform, and acetone at concentrations near the respective
detection limits (3, 3, and 21 ppb). One chlorinated benzene compound,
1,2-dichlorobenzene, was detected at 14 ppb in the filtered brine sample.
3) Dow Chemical Recovery Well TH-18
Aside from compounds found in the blank sample, two organic compounds
were detected in the sample taken at recovery well TH-18:
• tetrachloroethylene (12 ppb)
• acetone (12 ppb)
d. Inorganics
The liquid brine samples were analyzed for several inorganic constituents,
These data are summarized below:
Filtered
Raw Brine Brine TH-18
Parameter Range Average
Chloride, mg/1 226,100-273,600 250,000 233,300 2850
Fluoride, mg/1 0.25-0.38 0.30 0.28 0.15
Bromide, mg/1 31-52 37 30 5.1
Iodide, mg/1 ND-7.9 6.0 7.2 ND/ 2
e. Metals
Positive identification of heavy metals in all of the raw brine samples
included: aluminum (1617 ppb average); cadmium (11 ppb average); manganese
(499 ppb average); nickel (226 ppb average); and zinc (57 ppb average).
2. Discussion of Results
While 2378-TCDO was not detected, other PCDDs and PGOFs were found in the
brine pond sediments, including 2378-TCDF ranging from 0.016-5.8 ppb.
Their presence in the brine pond sediments may be attributable to atmospheric
-36-
-------
deposition over the years. As noted earlier, PCDD and PCDF data for raw and
filtered brines are not valid due to a quality control problem at an analytical
contract laboratory.
With respect to toxic organic pollutants, the screening study identified
several aromatic hydrocarbons and phenolic compounds in the raw brine samples
including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, phenol, and 4-methyl
phenol.
The literature was reviewed for priority pollutant and other analyses of
brines. 9,10,117 Available data for oil field and other brines in Michigan and
offshore-produced oil and gas brines are summarized in Appendix 6.
Michigan DNR has conducted research investigating the quantity of aromatic
hydrocarbons in oil field and other brines utilized for roadway application. 9/
Twenty-five sites were sampled representing ten distinct formations in tTfe
state. Most of the samples were taken from the Dundee, Niagran, and Traverse
formations. Study results indicated measurable quantities of benzene in all
samples of oil field brine and, in lesser concentrations, in samples of other
brines. Other organic compounds detected in measurable quantities in many
samples included ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes. In addition to compounds
targeted by this study, trace amounts of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(acenaphtylene; chrysene; naphthalene, phenanthrene; pyrene) and phenolics
(phenol; 4-nitrophenol) were detected. One brine sample taken from the Sylvania
formation in Midland County showed the presence of benzene at 270 ppb and
toluene at 70 ppb.
Organic priority pollutants were determined in samples of produced water
(brine) from Alaska and California oil-producing fields. 10/ Six organic
priority pollutants (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol, and phenol) were present in all brine samples analyzed making up over
99 percent of all organic priority pollutants detected. A USEPA verification
study of 30 oil and gas drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico identified the
presence of similar organic priority pollutants. 117
The analytical results for this study are consistent with the above findings.
Solvents were also detected in the brine samples including trichloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, ,and bromoform. However, based upon
the results of split sample analyses with the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and Dow Chemical, the findings are likely due to laboratory operations.
None of these compounds were detected by the other laboratories. The USEPA-Dow
Chemical-MDNR split sample data are presented in Appendix H. Low-level
laboratory contamination at USEPA contract laboratories may be responsible for
these findings. Michigan DNR conducted additional sampling at two injection
wells and two production wells in February 1985. These data are presented in
Appendix I. The solvents in question were not detected at lower detection
levels than achieved by USEPA contract laboratories for the first round of
sampling in this survey.
-37-
-------
Chlorinated phenolic 'compounds and chlorinated benzene compounds were not
detected In the raw brine samples or TH-18, the site of a brine spill recovery
well.
The filtered brine sample, taken prior to reinjection, was characterized by
the absence of most of the volatile compounds found in the raw brine. Tetra-
chloroethylene was detected in a trace amount near the detection limit for this
compound. Given the concentrations found in the raw brine, processing through
the Dow complex and the retention in the brine holding pond, these findings are
not unexpected. The finding of 1,2-dichlorobenzene at low levels in the filtered
brine appears anomalous as this compound was not detected in any of the liquid
brine or the brine pond sediment samples.
Based upon these results, spills of Dow Chemical production raw brine would
be expected to result in the release of aromatic and phenolic compounds
identified in this screening study. As mentioned earlier, MDNR has required
that Dow Chemical conduct environmental studies to determine the environmental
impact of the release of brine from the Dow brine operation at 75 sites using
chloride or an equivalent indicator parameter. Consistent with the MDNR consent
order, the organic pollutants identified in this screening survey should be
considered for evaluation at sites where Dow Chemical studies show an aquifer
may be impacted.
D. Tentatively Identified Compounds
Several organic compounds were tentatively identified in the field blank
samples and certain environmental samples. These compounds are not EPA priority
pollutants. The concentrations of these compounds were estimated. The identi-
fication of each compound is based upon a computer match between the mass
spectra of the unknown chromatograph and the EPA/NIH (National Institute of
Health) mass spectral database of over 38,000 compounds. If visual inspection
shows an acceptable match, the peak is tentatively identified. If an acceptable
match with the EPA/NIH database is not obtained, the peak is characterized as
"unknown".
Estimated concentrations of tentatively identified and unknown compounds are
calculated by ratio of the peak area against the peak area of a known concen-
tration of an internal laboratory standard. The reported concentrations
are considered estimates since response factors for the compounds cannot be
calculated. In order to positively identify and quantify these compounds,
standards of each compound would have to be injected on a GC/MS and the retention
times, mass spectra and peak areas determined. This work was beyond the scope
of the analytical protocols for this study.
As shown in Table 4, the analytical laboratory noted that the probability
of correct identification of the tentatively identified 'compounds is variable.
Solvent impurity is a suspected source of laboratory induced contamination of
these compounds.
-38-
-------
The data for tentatively identified compounds for environmental samples are
presented in the appendices. Given the findings of these compounds in blank
samples, the types of compounds tentatively identified, and the nature of the
identification and quantitation, Region V did not initiate additional sampling
and analyses for these compounds in environmental samples.
-39-
-------
jfr
REFERENCES
1. Soil Screening Survey at Four Midwestern Sites, Amendola, Gary A., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, June 1985.
2. Point Sources and Environmental Levels of 2378-TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-
benzo-p-dioxin) on the Midland Plant Site of the Dow Chemical Company and
in the City of Midland, Michigan, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan,
November 5, 1984.
3. Dioxin Strategy, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Dioxin Strategy Task Force, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 20, 1983.
4. Michigan Department of Natural Resources file data.
5. Veurink, Gary R., Manager, Environmental Services, Michigan Division, Dow
Chemical USA, Midland, Michigan, to (Gary A. Amendola, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V, Eastern District Office, Westlake, Ohio)
July 12, 1985, ALS, 8 pp.
6. State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Consent Order,
in the matter of the Dow Chemical Company, Midland Brine System, Midland,
Bay and Saginaw Counties, Michigan, MW01-56-84, May 3, 1985.
7. Representative Traxler, Robert to (William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.) October 16, 1984.
8. Evaluation of Suspected Environmental Contamination of the Hemlock,
Michigan, Area, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1980.
9. Analysis for Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Oil Field Brines, Preliminary Report,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, August 24, 1984.
10. Priority Pollutants in Offshore-Produced Oil Brines, Lysyj, Ihor, Rockwell
International forU.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency, January 1983.
11. Assessment of Environmental Fate and Effects of Discharges from Offshore
Oil and Gas Operations, original 5y Dal ton-Dai ton-Newport, amended by
Technical Resources, Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-40-
-------
Appendix A
Analytical Results
Saginaw Bay Water Supply Intakes/Midland City Water
-------
«A VI
IO
O.
g o
5.
u o
•0*0
U t-
O
Q. Ck
-
SO O
o. o. u
* X «
o o e
o
V. >
L. 3
*»• CTJ3
oo CM LU • i
00 CM UI O
cu
a.
CO
'a.
10
co
z o
o •-«
o >• o
0£ •-•
Q. Z OS
O H-
s: oc
Z UJ
O I—
ex: to
to
10
CO
I/)
CU 4)
«o
IO T3
CO i-
>o
s=
to
cu
en
(O
x:
u
co
•4^
4J
C C C
•f— *r~ *—i
0. C
Ic -o
c a» TJ
"»™ > C
o>-»-
00
CO
O CM
oc co
ii i {/)
in
oo
CO
0 O
Of. CO
i , i y)
in
00
CD
0£ CM
i i i ^/>
*
OO
i.
9)
J=>
z
»-t
•«>.
CO
d
3 d
'•Z.-Q
O> Q
3 Q.
^.a
CJ> O
3 a.
Parameter
•«^.
T3
0)
3
J
5
u
••i*
oo
UJ
_l
H-4
h-
>
J
•v
<
'*i
<
<
<
§
J
3
j
;
5
5
3
3
5
>
3
Q
in
o
^
in
3
in
o
f
m
Q
a
z
j
3
5
j
5
>
i
3
9
5
D
in
o
^e
in
3
in
a
in
o
a
0)
5
3
a>
3
5
3
9
5
u
in
o
"*•
in
Q
£
in
o
in
a
*"
a
L)
3
3
3
in
a
^b
in
a
»
^>
a
^^
xi
a
a
D
3
3
O)
>
5
i
o
o
1— 1
Q
^b>
O
r— (
O
w
o
r-l
a
^p
o
i— i
o
a
cu
•o
>
3
^
»
o
i-H
O
o
rH
0
w
3
rH
2
(*
O
r-4
Q
i— 1
Q
£
J
3
i>
u
<
o
l-t
Q
O
FH
a
i*
3
— i
3
-^
O
-4
Q
r-l
Q
P
J
5
5
3
£3
1
•M
in
^"
in
5
in
o
in
o
a
cu
X3
3
I/)
3
3
a
3
J
O
Q
^^
O
r-l
Q
F
O
r-«
Q
-^
O
r-l
Q
Q
| z-nexanone
0
i-H
Q
O
r-4
O
F
9
r-t
O
-^
o
1— 1
Q
Q
Z
J
3
o
3
i
M
1
5
J
"
>»•
in
a
x)
a
F
x>
Q
-^
r>
a
a
u
u
j.
^
o
a
s~
o
a
o
o
o
o
o
u
0
J
u
j
X
a
3