United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/R08-86/007
September 1986
8EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
~I
YB 'b7 -I ~~'f03
~~e Conection
lource Center
3
~ 19107
'-. - -----------.
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide, ND
'U.S. Env:ronmCI\~~ !pQ@mtion Ag~~
Regiol11I1 If)tQii,,~~il)l1 Resouroa.
Center (3PM52) ?'
841 Chestnut Sires" ->... ~ ..;~.~~
Philadelphia, f~ 191~l ~"l:'~~
--
, .
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pftaft 'tad ["ftl'UctIOru 0" lht ,tvtr1t btfCNt co,""lttlfllJ
1. A.'OAT NO. r. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R08-86/007
,. TITI.! AND SUITITI.I 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION C::~ntember 26.'1986
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide, ND 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
,. AuTHOAISI 8. peRFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT "'0
I. '!A"oA""INQ oAGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRess 10. PAOGRAM EI..EMeNT NO.
11. I;ONT...ACT/GRAN NO.
12. S'ONSOAING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS 13. TyPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COvEI'IEO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1";n~l ROD R@Dort
401 M Street, S.w. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SU"I.EM.HTAAV NOTES
18. ABSTRACT
The North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide site consists of twenty townships in the Richland,
Ransom, and Sargent counties in southeastern North Dakota. About 4,500 people live in
this sparsely populated farmland area. Ground water use includes residential
consumption, irrigation, and livestock watering. The contamination, limited to ground
water~ appears to have two sources: naturally occurring arsenic contained in shales
native to the area; and an estimated 330,000 pounds of arsenic-laced bait u'sed to
control grasshopper infestations in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1979, during quality
monitoring of the municipal water supplies, the Water Supply and Pollution Control
division of the North Dakota State Department of Health detected elevated levels of
arsenic in the towns of Lidgerwood and Wyndmere. Add it iona1 monitoring found wid@s!'rear
and highly variable occurrences of arsenic in rural areas. In the late 1970s,
approximately 278 homes in Lidgenwood, which use private well systems, 'Nere cons idererl
to be at a health risk due to arsenic exposure. An emergency response action, to be
instituted by the EPA and scheduled for implementation in 1986, will consist of
install ing pOint-of-use treatment units for affected households, and provide for furt:-:e
study of a former arsenic-bait mixing site at Wyndmere. The primary contaminant of
concern is arsenic trioxide.
(See Attached Sheet)
1'. - KEY WOAOS AND DOCUMENT ANAI..VSIS
a. olSCAIPTOAS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field, Croup
Record of Decision
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide, ND
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: arsenic trioxide
1.. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECIJ RI TY CI..ASS I Tills Rtponl 21. NO. OF PAGES
I
20. SECURITY ~~, T"is paglJ 22. PRICE 86
I!'A ...,'" 2220-1 (R... 4-77)
P"EYIOUS EO,T'ON II OaIOl..ETE
,. .
-------
EPA/ROD/R08-86/007
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide, ND
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
/ ,
The selected remedial action for this site includes: expansion and
hookup of homes to the existing Richland Rural Water System; construction
and hookup of homes to a new rural water treatment and distribution system;
and evaluation of institutional controls. The estimated capital cost for
this selected remedy is $2,212,600 with annual O&M of $57,400.
.
, .
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
nHEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide in Southeastern North Dakota
DOCUMENTS REVIEVED
.
I am basing my decision primarily on the folloving documents describing the
analysis of the cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the North
Dakota Arsenic Trioxide Site.
~
7'
Investigation of Arsenic in Southeastern North Dakota Ground Vater,
Remedial Investigation prepared by Division of Vater Supply and
Pollution Control, North Dakota State Department of Health dated
December 1985.
Health Risk Assessment prepared by the Division of Vater Supply and
Pollution Control, North Dakota State Department of Health,
undated.
Vater Treatment Alternatives for the Reduction of Arsenic in Ground
Vater Supplies of southeastern North Dakota, Feas'ibility Study
prepared by the North Dakota Division of Vater Supply and Pollution
Control dated July 1986.
Removal Action Memorandum in support of the planned emergency
removal action prepared by EPA Emergency Response Branch dated May
23, 1986 and amended on September 10, 1986. -
Technical Memorandum concerning ROD studies dated August 12, 1986
from Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. to EPA.
Final Site Health Assessment prepared by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry dated August 28, 1986.
Summary of Remedial Alternatives.
Responsiveness Summary. -
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives to
reduce effectively the exposure to arsenic-contaminated ground vater in
southeastern North Dakota. Contaminated ground vater appears to have tvo
sources. The first is from naturally occurring arsenic contained in shales
native to the area. The background arsenic level in ground vater vas
estimated to be 0.025 mg/1. The second source of contamination is from
arsenic-containing bait that was used to control grasshopper infestations
in the 1930s and 1940s. Ground water in this area is used for agricultural
and domestic purposes. Agricultural use consists of irrigation and
livestock watering. Domestic use is for residential consumption, and lawn
and garden watering.
-1-
'" .
-------
.
4
The selected remedy to reduce human exposure to arsenic-contaminated groun\
water that resulted from arsenic bait application is to provide treated
water to households via a rural water distribution system. Presently, a
portion of the study area has water supplied by the" Richland Rural Vater
Distribution System. Expansion of this system combined with water supplied
by a new rural treatment and distribution system, oc a distribution system
tied into the existing system, will provide water to residents that exceeds
(i.e.. is lower than) the applicable Federal public health requirement,
which is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of the Safe Drinking Vater
Act. The selected remedy will provide arsenic removal to the background
level. Institutional controls will be investigated further during detailed
design, including restrictions on existing well use, restrictions on new
well drilling, a veIl permitting system, and economic incentives for
participation in the new distribution system and non-use of veIl water.
Institutional controls that are feasible and implementable will be adopted.
No action is required for those individuals using public vater from the
towns of Lidgervood and Vyndmere due to effective removal of arsenic by the
towns' vater treatment systems.
Under the selected remedy, Federal funding will be required for the rural
vater system expansion. This will include both expansion of and hook-up of
homes to the existing Richland Rural Vater System, and construction of and
hook-up of homes to a new rural vater system. Federal funding viII also be
required for operation and maintenance of the rural vater system, and
continued monitoring of ground vater. Continued monitoring viII include
quarterly vater quality monitoring of the Lidgervood and rural systems,
annual monitoring of the Vyndmere system, annual monitoring of the
representative glacial aquifer systems and random annual sampling of
private veIls outside the existing contamination boundaries. Federal
funding viII be required for 1 or 10 years depending upon the maximum
alloved under reauthorization of CERCLA.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent vith the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). arid the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300), I have determined that the expansion of the existing Richland
Rural Vater Distribution System and construction of a nev rural vater
system at the North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide Site is a cost-effective remedy
and provides adequate protection of public health and velfare. I have 8150
determined that remedial action for adequate protection of the environment
(specifically, restoration of ground water quality to background levels) is
not technically feasible because of the large areal extent of ground vater
contamination (approximately 171 square miles), hydrogeological
characteristics, and lack of a point source of contamination. The State of
North Dakota has been consulted and agrees with the approved remedy. The
action will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure
the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities viII be
considered part of the approved action and eligible for Trust Fund monies
for a period of 1 year. or 10 years if allowable under reauthorization of
CERCLA.
-2-
, .
-------
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites. .
~
Date
-
1J. . r«i~
~&.~.I. 6.. cb.' ~.
John"G. Velles~
Regional Administrator
-3-
,. .
-------
SUKHART OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide Site .is composed of 20 townships in three
counties (Richland, Ransom and Sargent) in southeastern North Dakota
encompassing about 568 square miles (Figure 1). Vithin this study area,
arsenic was detected in the ground water in four .eparate regions (Figure
2) at levels at or above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.05 mgll
set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Safe
Drinking Vater Act (SDVA). Included in these four regions are the small
towns of Vyndmere and Lidgerwood as well as private homes and farms in
rural areas. The affected area totals about 171 square miles.
This area of southeastern North Dakota is primarily sparsely populated
farmland. About 4,500 people live in the entire study area with 971 in
Lidgerwood and 550 in Vyndmere. Topography consists of gently rolling
hills and relatively flat plains, much of which has been influenced by past
lacustrine and glacial activity. Ground water systems include the deeper
Dakota Sandstone aquifer (200 to 1,000 feet below land surface), and the
more shallow glacial drift aquifers, (3 to 156 feet below land surface).
Arsenic contamination appears to be limited to the seven major unconfined
glacial drift aquifers.
SITE HISTORY
Arsenic-laced bait was used extensively throughout North Dakota to combat
grasshopper infestations in the 1930s and early 1940s. During water
quality monitoring of municipal supplies in 1979, the Vater Supply and
Pollution Control Division of the North Dakota State Department of Health
detected elevated levels of arsenic in the towns ~f Lidgerwood and
Vyndme~e.
Additional monitoring found more widespread occurrence of arsenic in rural
areas. The Division conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study overseen by the EPA from 1982 to 1986. The Final RI report was
is~ued in December 1985 and the FS report in July 1986.
Investigation of arsenic bait disposal methods an~ interviews with area
residents indicated that contamination could have resulted from bait
disposal although no specific disposal sites or contaminant sources were
found. One former bait-mixing station was identified near Vyndmere.
Arsenic-contaminated ground water was determined to be a health risk in the
late 1970s in Lidgerwood. The North Dakota State Department of Health
ordered Lidgerwood to take appropriate measures to provide drinking water
that met the MCL for arsenic (0.05 mg/l) as established by the SDYA.
Several alternatives were evaluated. Lidgerwood built a new water
treatment plant, overseen by the State under the SDYA. The plant was
completed in 1986 and drinking water in Lidgerwood now meets the MCL of the
-1-
y .
-------
~
52
51
,,!S!Sw
MILES
. . .. . .. . .
o 2 4 - 6
54
MILNOR
......~ ,...}It
~ ~~.
.
I
53
.
DE LAMERE
z
'"
'"
-
.-
o
R50W
, BARNEY
N
~
;;
FORMAN
~ (J,~
CI'C»
-,'''I''~\,..",
HANKINSON
'\~ .~
;'2
~
~;l
,
'8
~AVANA
FIGURE 1
PROJECT AREA LOCATION
-2-
; .
-------
'j
4
II
I
83
52
"SSW
M'LES
~
84
MILNOR
~'~,..A
~'
o (J,t7
~
~AVANA
Contour interval in ug/l.
FIGURE 2 ISOCONCENTRATION HAP OF OBSERVED
ARSENIC LEVELS IN GROUND VATER
-3-
... .
,Z
1ft
1ft
-
~
R50W
,8ARNEY
~
"'-\"_J
HANKINSON
....g ~ .. ~
~z
ca
\1~
-------
SOYA. The raw water supply from ~round water wells fnr the tnwn of
Vyndmere also exceeds the HCL for arsenic. However, Vyndmere's existing
water treatment system 1s effective in removing arsenic.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
'-'~
Chronic exposure to.arsenic1n humans causes characteristic toxic effects
on the peripheral nervous system, and, in children, effects on the central
nervous system. Acute arsenic poisoning in humans may result in
gastrointestinal effects, hemolysis and neuropathy. Arsenic has been found
to be embryotoxic, fetotox1c, and teratogenic in several animal species,
but its ability to induce malformations in humans is less veIl
substantiated. Arsenic's potential as a human carcinogen has long been
recognized, but its carcinogenicity has been demonstrated only recently 1n
animal models.
During conduct of the RI and FS, 704 samples from 558 ground water supply
locations in an area of 568 square miles indicated arsenic levels in ground
vater ranging from undetected to 1.56 mg/l. Arsenic vas found 1n ground
vater at levels at or above the HCL of 0.05 mgll in four separate regions,
to~aling about 171 square miles. Figure 2 shows observed arsenic values in
an arsenic isoconcentration map. Arsenic occurrence is widespread and in
highly variable levels and loca tions.
The RI and FS concluded that the elevated levels of arsenic in ground water
resulted both from use of arsenic-based grasshopper bait and naturally
occurring sources. An estimated 330,000 pounds of arsenic trioxide bait
may have been used in the entire study area. The background ground water
arsenic level was estimated in the RI to.be 0.025 mg/l.
Of the 4,500 persons living in the entire study area, an estimated 748
people 1n 278 homes are ~onsidered to be subject to increased health risk
due to exposure to arsenic above the HCL in ground vater supplies. Data.
are from the RI and Health Risk Assessment prepared by the North Dakota
State Department of Health. . Table 1 shows the population at risk by
location and arsenic level. These people represent rural sites using
private veIl systems. .
As- an interim measure, EPA insti tuted an emergency response ac Hon to
address the immediate health impacts of the arsenic-contaminated ground
vater. EPA determined that an interim measure vas necessary because the
levels of arsenic in ground vater exceeded the HCL and 10-day Health
Advisory of 0.05 mgll established by EPA. The emergency response action
viII consist of installation of activated alumina or other suitable point
of use treatment units for one tap per affected household (arsenic
concentration> '0.05 mg/l). The emergency response action is presently
scheduled for implementation during the last quarter of 1986. The
emergency response action also provides for further study of the former
~rsenic-bait mixing site at Vyndmere.
-4-
'" ,
-------
TABLE 1
POPULATION AT RISK VITHIN THE STUDY AREA(1)
Township
Population at risk .per arsenic level (mg/l)
0.05-0.10' 0.10-0.20 0.20-0.30 0.30-0.40
>0.40
Richland Co.
Belford
Brigh twood
Danton
Dexter
Duerr
Elma
Grant
Homestead
Liberty Grove
Horgan
Vest End
Vyndmere
-
27
59
16
140
23
110
36
9
34
o
3
5
25
18
14
o
o
6
2
3
5
7
Sargent Co.
Dunbar
Hall
Herma
Kingston
Harboe
Ransom
Rutland
Shuman
Tewaukon
Veber
24
38
24 .
28
10
1
66
3
6
6
Cities
L1dgerwood
Vyndmere
Rutland
-
_(2)
Totals
645
77
10
13
3
Total' population at risk:
748
(1) Based on RI and Health Risk Assessment prepared by North Dakota State
Department of Health.
(2)
Formerly 971, but new treatment plant now provides acceptable water.
-5-
... .
-------
ENFORCEMENT
~
Sporadic, devastating grasshopper infestations resulted in numerous arsenic
bait control programs within the site. . Identifiable Potential Responsible
Parties (PRPs) include the numerous individuals and entities which
participated in these programs.
Grasshopper infestations in the years between 1910 and 1950 resulted in
. Congressional funding to provide arsenic bait to the State and counties of
North Dakota and a number of Federal-State cooperative programs. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture apparently di$trlbuted Federal funds and assis-
tance to the State, which through its extension service and county agents,
facilitated distribution of arsenic bait to the counties and individual
farmers and landowners. It also appears that the county governments funded
and facilitated individual farmers' and landowners' use of arsenic bait,
both independently and in conjunction with Federal funding.
Enforcement activity at the North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide site would be
extremely difficult given the extensive involvement of numerous public and
private entities and given the remaining questions concerning the extent,
sources and cause of the ground water contamination. EPA recommends that
the Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund (Superfund) be used to finance
remedial action, and that further investigation be conducted to evaluate
and facilitate potential enforcement actions. State matching funds
amounting to ten percent will be required before final remediation can
begin.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The goal of the alternatives examined in the FS is to effectively mitigate
and minimize threats to and provide adequate protection of public health
and welfare and the environment. The alternatives examined to achieve this
goal in the FS and Technical Memorandum were:
1.
. '2.
No Action
Point of Use/Point of Entry Treatment
o Distillation
o Activated Alumina
o Reverse Osmosis
o Bottled Vater
3.
Vater Treatment Systems
o Community
o Rural Vater
4.
Total Ground Vater Treatment
. .
Alternatives were developed pursuant to 40 CFR 300.68(f). The SDVA
standard of 0.05 mgll of arsenic was identified as the applicable Federal
public health requrement for this sit~. No off-site disposal alternatives
are appropriate because contaminant source areas that require removal were
-6-
,. .
-------
~
not found. The Point of Use alternatives provIde fnr treatment at the
point of use in a household. The Point of Entry alternatives provide for.
treatment at the point of entry for water into the household. The Point aT
Use alternatives would reduce the likelihood of present or future threat
and provide significant protection of public health but would not attain
applicable Federal public health requirements. The Point of Entry
alternatives would attain the applicable Federal public health requirement,
the Safe Drinking Vater Act (SDWA) if installed, operated and maintained
properly. The Community and Rural Vater Treatment Systems and Ground Vater
Treatment alternatives would attain and exceed the applicable standard of
the SOYA. The Ground Vater Treatment alternative would also provide for
protection of the environment ~s well as public health and welfare.
Alternatives were initially screened using the criteria of cost,
effectiveness, and acceptable engineering practices as directed by 40 CFR
Part 300.68(g). Costs including Operation and Haintenance (O&H) were
considered for each alternative. Each alternative was screened by
evaluating feasibility, applicability, and reliability. Effectiveness in
protecting human health and welfare and the environment was also
considered.
~
~
During the screening process, the No Action alternative vas eliminated for
the rural homeowners because it does not protect p~blic health and welfare
and the environment. Inhabitants would continue to remain at risk due to
arsenic concentrations in drinking water above the 0.05 mgll HCL (SDVA
Standard). As discussed under Site History, the No Action alternative was
retained as appropriate for the towns of Lidgerwood and Vyndmere because
their water treatment systems currently remove arsenic and provide water
that exceeds (i.e., is lower than) the HCL.
The ground water treatment alternative was eliminated during the screening
process because it is not feasible for the location and condition at the
site (40 CFR 300.68(g)(2». A typical ground water treatment system
involves extraction of contaminated water through a cluster of wells,
treatment, and injection of the treated water back into the aquifer. To
achieve a detailed analysis of this alternative, the contaminant plume
boundaries and aquifer system (characteristics and interconnection) would
have to be well defined. At this site, these characteristics would be
nearly impossible to define because of the large study area and its complex
hydrogeology. Treatment would not be feasible because a point source that
would be treatable was not identified. Arsenic was observed in varying
concentrations and at different aquifer depths throughout the region.
An inordinant number of clusters of recovery we11s constructed at varying
depths over a very large area (111 square miles) would be required for
adequate collection of contaminated water. Therefore, the ground water.
treatment alternative was determined to be technically infeasible due to
the aquifer characteristics, the large area of contamination, and lack of a
point source.
The remaining alternatives were evaluated in more detail according to 40
CFR Part 300.68(h) in the FS and Technical Hemorandum. Alternatives were
refined and specified in detail. Detailed cost estimates were developed.
-7-
, .
-------
~
Engineering implementation, reliability and constructability were
evaluated. The evaluation included an assessment of the extent to which
each alternative would effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize threats
to, and provide protection of public health, welfare and the environment
and an analysis of adverse environmental impacts. Recycle/reuse and the
other alternative technologies listed in 40 CFR 300.68(h)(v) were
determined not to be appropriate for this site.
~
The various Point of Use/Point of Entry alternatives were evaluated in the
FS and by EPA. These included activated alumina, reverse osmosis,
di"stillation, and bottled water. The Point of Use/Point of Entry
Alternatives are characterized by inherent variability and inconsistency
associated' with occupant operation and maintenance of the system.
Therefore, because of lack of reliability and proper assurance of
implementation and maintenance of these alternatives, adequate protection
of public health could not be guaranteed. These types of technologies rely
heavily on institutional controls and would not provide a permanent remedy.
Point of Use systems also do not provide treatment for all of the water in
the household. Therefore, it was determined that these alternatives would
not effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize threats to and provide
protection of public health~ welfare and the environment~
The rural water alternative involves expansion of the existing water system
and construction of a new rural water distribution system. Centralized
treatment and distribution of water that meets the MCt of the SDVA would be
provided for rural residences with contaminated ground water within the
affected regions. The alternative consists of expanding the Richland Rural
Va~er Users Association (RVUA) system within its present boundaries, and
creating another RVUA to serve other residents within the affected area but
outside the existing Richland RVUA boundaries. Expansion of the
distribution system for the Richland RVUA would be necessary.' .Current
treatment capac.ity for expansion within the existing Richland RVUA is
adequate.
The new RVUA would require construction of wells, a treatment system and a
distribution system, or construction of a distribution system to tie into
the existing Richland RVUA treatment system. It would utilize deep wells
with co-precipitation of arsenic during iron and manganese removal. The
proposed method would use aeration and/or chemical oxidants such as
chlorine or potassium permanganate, followed by filtration through a high
rate sand filter or natural green and zeolite (if additional reaction time
is required). Construction of the new RVOA would be independent of the
Richland RVUA. However, the two systems should be jointly managed to
provide greater overall reliability and greater efficiency in administering
the associations. It .ay be possible to connect to the Richland RVUA well
and treatment system, in which case only a new distribution system would be
required. Evaluation of institutional controls will occur during detailed
design. This alternative will protect public health and welfare by
removing arsenic in order to exceed the applicable drinking water standard.
Cost estimates for the alternatives that were evaluated in detail are
presented in Table 2. The Point of Use/Point of Entry cost estimates were
-8-
; .
-------
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVES COST ESTIMATES
FIRST YEAR
Cost(l)
Alternative
Capital
Per System
O&H
Total
. Point of Use(2)
Distillation
Reverse Osmosis.
Activated Alumina
Bottled Vater
Rural Vater Distribution(3)
(Existing Richland
RYUA and Nev RVUA) .
$275,000 $ 2.7,112 $ 302,112
200,000 18,000 218,000
50,000 2,500 52,500
140,000 28,080 139,829
2,212,600 57,400 2,270,000
Additional Yearly
Honitoring Cost (All
Alternatives)
. 6, 000
(1)
Point of use costs based on 250 units, rural vater on 298 units (278
units currently affected plus an assumed 20 additional units that may
be affected).
(2)-
Costs from FS. Note ,that costs do not include costs to operate,
maintain and periodically replace individual veIl systems.
(3) Costs from Technical Memorandum.
-9-
" .
-------
taken from the FS and ~he Ground Vater Treatment and Rural Vater
Distribution cost es~jmates were obtained from the Technical Memorandum
from CDM to EPA.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The community's level and nature of concerns are summarized in the attached
Community Responsiveness Summary.
CONSISTENCY VITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Expansion of the rural water supply would comply with arplicable
environmental laws and regulations. A rural water system would provide
water that attains and exceeds the Safe Drinking Vater Act (SDVA) MCL for
arsenic of 0.05 mg/l. A water treatment system will be built as part of
the rural water supply. Sludge generated by the plant viII be disposed of
in accordance with applicable Resource Conservation and Recovery.Act
Standards.
Point of Use systems could provide water that meets the SDVA standard if
installed, operated and maintained correctly but would not comply with the
SD.A because all household water would not be treated. Point of Entry
s)ste~St if installed, operated, and maintained correctl)', would provide
water that meets the SD~A standard and would comply with the SD~A.
However, it would be difficult to ensure that these systems were operated
and maintained correct]y. Some Point of EntrylPoint of Use syste~s (e.g.,
activated 81u~ina) ~ener8te solid waste that would be considered a
hazardous waste. H~vever~ Korth Dakota Administrative Code
33-:('-0~-05 exe~pts household wastes fro~ being classified as hazardous.
No waivers of compliance vith other laws will be required for the selected
alternative.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The rural water treatment and. distribution system and no action in the
towns of Lidgervood and Vyndmere relative to the public water supply is the
recommended alternative. In selecting this alternative from those which
adequately protect public health and vel fare, the criteria of cost,
technology, reliability and administrative concerns were considered. The
recommended alternative is a cost-effective alternative that effectively
mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides adequate protection of
public health and welfare. The recommended alternative, expansion of the
rural vater system, is consistent with a permanent site remedy. The rural
water system will be designed to provide water that attain5 and exceeds the
SDVA MCL of 0.05 mg/l arsenic by removing arsenic to the background
concentration of 0.025 mg/l.
Other alternatives examined did not provide a permanent solution and
provide adequate public health protection (Point of Use Systems), or were
not technically feasible (Ground Vater Treatment). Although more costly
than Point of Use Alternatives, the rural vater system provides the most
-10-
; .
-------
reliable means of protecting public health and attaining anrl exre~ding the
SDVA MCL. Ground Vater Treatment is the only alternative that would"
provide for protection of the environment; however, it "is not technically
feasible. Costs are summarized in Table 3 for both systems and detailed ir.
Table 4 for expansion of the existing RVUA and Table 5 for the new RVUA.
~
At present, 90 of the 278 affected homes lie within the boundaries of the
existing Richland RVUA boundaries. These homes viII be connected to the
Richland RVUA for a $500 connection fee, extension of a main line to each
property, and addition of isolation gate valves. It is anticipated that
pipes in these homes will not need to be replaced. Leaching tests
conducted by the State indicate that any arsenic compounds in the mineral
. scale are not re-dissolved ,in the presence of chlorinated vater. Costs are
included for replacement of vater heaters. "
For the homes outside the existing Richland RVUA boundaries, a nev system
viII be constructed. A nev distribution system viII be required and
potentially a new treatment system depending upon the capacity of the
existing Richland RVUA system. Costs for a new treatment system are
included. The nev system viII be constructed similarly to the existing
system in that distribution lines and treatment systems are sized primarily
to supply in-house domestic use and minimal outside irrigation. Pipeline
materials, supply pumps, storage systems, and treatment equipment will be
selected to provide a reasonable balance between initial capital cost,
installation costs and long range operation and maintenance cost.
Therefore, methods and materials viII be less rigorous and expensive than
in major municipalities. Costs (shovn in Tables 3 and 5) reflect (1) the
generally lover labor costs for local unskilled and semi-skilled workers,
(2) the use of smaller equipment available locally, (3) easy to install"
material, such as plastic veIl and spigot "pipe; and (4) the general lack of
utility conflicts, extensive road improvements, traffic controls, easement
acquisition, or high administrative costs. To achieve low costs, the
design engineer viII need to understand the local situation and design the
plans to allow maximum flexibility for contractors to use high production"
excavation equipment.
The majority of cost results from installation of distribution mains over a
large area. Estimates are based on installation of 100 miles of nev
distribution pipe. The average service distance per home is estimated to
be less than 2,000 linear feet. Private ground water veIls viII be
disconnected from the residence, but will remain available for irrigation
use. North Dakota Administrative Code, Section 33-17-01-19, forbids
interconnection betveen individual water supplies and public water systems.
v
During final design, other institutional controls viII be investigated
further. Types of controls may include restrictions on existing well use,
restrictions on new veIl drilling, a veIl permitting system, and economic
incentives for participation in the rural water system and non-use of veIl
water. Institutional controls that are feasible and implementable viII be
adopted.
-11-
~ .
-------
OPERATION AND HAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance (O&H) activities will be required to ensure the
effectiveness of the rural water supply. O&K activities include a monthly
water user charge from the RVUA based on actual costs to produce and
distribute water including electric power, chlorine, chemicals, repairs and
maintenance. Labor for a maintenance person/meter reader are also
included. O&H costs are shown on tables 3, 4, and 5. Table 3 summarizes
capital costs and O&H costs for the rural water supply for 1 year and 10
years. '
In addition, the Vater Supply and Pollution Control Division of the North
Dakota State Department of Health estimate that $6,000 per year will be
required to provide for a ground water monitoring program (see Table 3).
This program will include (1) quarterly water quali ty moni toring at the
Lidgervood and rural vater distribution systems, (2) annual monitoring of
representative glacial aquifer systems, (3) random annual sampling of
private veIl systems outside the existing contamination boundary limits,
and (4) annual monitoring of the Vyndmere water treatment and distribution
systems. If additional contaminated rural wells (above the HCL) are found,
they viII be added to the rural water system. If levels of arsenic
increase in the town supplies, EPA would consider appropriate response
action in the future. .
SCHEDULE
The folloving key milestones have been established for this project:
-:-
Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD)
Avard Cooperative Agreement for Design
Initiate Design .
Begin Construction
* Pending reauthorization of CERCLA
September 1986
December 1986*
January 1987
Hay 1988
FUTURE ACTIONS
-
Long term O&H and monitoring will be required to maintain the effectiveness
of'the expanded and new rural water systems. No additional RI/FS projects
or operable units are anticipated at the site, although further evaluation
of minor types of institutional controls consistent with the selected
remedy will occur during the design phase.
-12-
, .
-------
TABLE 3
COSTS FOR RURAL VATER DISTRIBUTION
Expansion of Richland RVUA
Expansion and First Year O&M Costs
$ 305,000
Establish Nev RVUA
Construction and First Year O&M Costs
1,985,000
2,290,000
6,000
Total Cost to 298 Homes with 1 Year O&M
Plus 1 Year Monitoring
Total (1 Year)
$2,296,000
Total Cost to 298 Homes with 1 Year O&M
Additional 9 Years O&M - Richland RVUA
Additional 9 Years O&H - New RVUA
Additional 9 Years Monitoring
Total (10 Years)
$2,296,000
236,000
360,000
54,000
$2,940,000
(1) Assumes 278 existing homes with contaminated vater and 20 new homes.
-13-
r .
-------
TABLE 4
EXISTING RICHLAND RVUA
Costs identified below are for connection of the 90 homes presently within
the boundaries.
..
1. System Connection Fee - Represents individual share
of existing common facilities or required upgrading and
service line installation including meter, pit and
tapping saddle. .
90 homes @ $500/home
$ 45,000
2. 4ft dia. mainline extension - Average length assumed
to be 1,000 l.f. base~ on reducing the 1,000 l.f.
service line length described in the Feasibility Study
to a short stub. .
Hateria1 Cost
Installation Cost Using Trencher
$1.10
1.00
$2.10 l.f.
90 homes - 1,000 1.f. x 2.10/l.f.
189,000
3. Disconnection of plumbing from existing system and
connection to new system (4 hrs x $20/hr per home)
90 homes x SBO/home
8,000
4. Replacement of water heater if contaminated with
arsenic'
90 homes @ $150/home
14,000
SUB-TOTAL INITIAL COST
Cost per unit $2,850/home
256,000
5. Cost for including an additional 5 homes which are
not currently experiencing arsenic problems.
5 homes @ $2,850/home
6. First year O&H costs based on $26/2,000 gallon/
month minimum plus incremental cost of $1.50/1,000
additional gallons for 6,000 gallons/month
95 homes x $372/home .
19,000
TOTAL INITIAL COST
35,000
$305,000
Cost for an additional 9 yrs of O&H costs based on
$26/2,000 gallon/month minimum. Includes present
worth at 9 percent per annum interest rate and inflation
at 5 percent per annum.
. Present worth factor (6.731 x 35,000)
$236,000
-14-
~ .
-------
TABLE 5
ESTABLISH RVUA TO SERVICE AREAS NOT
INCLUDED IN RICHLAND RVUA
-
~
Costs identified below are for connection of 188 homes (278 homes less 90
within Richland RVUA) to a rural water system.
1. Main Distribution System - Est. 100 miles to basically
bisect the 11 affected townships.
Material cost 4" Class 160 psi PVC
pressure pipe $0.90/l.f.
Upgrade to Class 200 psi PVC
pressure pipe $0.20/l.f.
Installation cost assuming using trenching machine
along side the main roadway and no bedding installation
$1.00 l.f.
Total Pipe Cost $2.10/l.f.
100 miles x 5280 l:lf. x $2.10/l.f.
ml e
$1,110,000
2. 4" Gate Valves at average spacing of 1/2 mile
200 gate valves @ $250/ea installed
50,000
3. Air and vacuum valves average 1 per 10 miles
10 airlvacuum valves @ $750/ea installed
7,500
4. 2 Standpipe Reservoirs @ 30,000 gal/ea. Estimated
. costs including site preparation, piping, painting
$0. 75/gallon .
2 x 30,000 gal x $0.75/ga110n
45,000
5. 2 Booster Pump Stations including:
2 3 Bp booster pumps each station at $1,5000 each
including electrical
4 x $1,500/ea
6,000
2 10'x10' Pump Building @ $40/ft including electrical
and piping
8,000
-15-
y .
-------
TABLE 5
ESTABLISH RVUA TO SERVICE AREAS NOT
INCLUDED IN RICHLAND RVUA (cont.)
'.
6. 1 deep well 50 to 100 gpm capacity
188 home @ 3 p/u (people/unit) x 70 gpcd
40,000 gpd or 30 gpm
.
8" well 150 ft deep drilling and casing
mobilization 1/2 day
6" stainless steel screen, 30 ft @ $100/ft
screen fi ttings
sand pack and development
3,000
500
3,000
100
500
5 Rp submersible pump w/drop 2-1/2" drop pipe and
electrical panel
5,500
7. 40,000 gpd iron and manganese treatment system
including chlorination @ $0.65/gallon
8. 50'x50' Backwash Pond 500 yd excavation @ $5/yd plus
$1/ft square surface prep
26,000
5,000
. Lining of pond $1.25/sq ft
9. VeIl and treatment building 15'x20' @ $30/ft including
piping and electrical
3,100
9,000
10. Service line installation - average length assumed to be
1,000 1.£. of 1 1/2" polyethylene service line. 1 1/2"
diameter used to reduce head loss on long services.
Material Cost $0.65/1.£.
Installation cost using trencher $1..0011. f.
$1.65 l.f.
188 homes x 1000 1.£. x $1.65/l.f.
310,000
11. Vater meters, pit, valves, tapping saddle and Pressure
Reducing Valve .
188 homes x $350/home
66,000
12. Disconnection of existing plumbing
188 homes x $80/home
15,000
-16-
". .
-------
TABLE 5
ESTABLISH RVUA TO SERVICE AREAS NOT
INCLUDED IN RICHLAND RVUA (cone.)
13. Replace water heater
188 homes @ $150/home
CONSTRUCTION COST SUB-TOTAL
14. Engineering Cost for expanded system estimated @ 10
percent of construction cost
SUB TOTAL INITIAL SYSTEH COST
15. Cost for including an additional 15 homes which are not
currently experiencing arsenic problems. Unit costs were
calculated assuming that additional extensive distribution
lines would not have to be constructed.
$760,000 . 188 homes = $4,000/home
15 homes @ $4,000
16. First year O&H costs based on actual cost to produce
. and distribute vater including electric pover, chlorine,
chemicals, repairs and. maintenance, est. to be $1.50/1000
gallon
(188 + 15) homes x 3 p/u x 70 gpd
$1.50
x 365 days/yr xIOOO gallon
1 full time maintenance man and meter reader
$30,000/yr w/benefit
TOTAL INITIAL COST
Cost for an additional 9 yrs of O&H costs based on
$37,OOO/yr (production and labor cost li$ted above).
Present worth at 9 percent per annum interest and
inflation at 5 percent per annum.
Present Vorth (6.75 x 53,400/yr)
28,000
$1,700,000.
170,000
$1,870,000
60,000
23,400
30,000
$1,985,000
$360,000
-17-
... .
-------
RESPOt~S IVENESS SLM'~ARY
NO~TH DAKOTA ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SUPERFUND SITE
This responsiveness 'summary is prepared to accompany the Record of
Decision announcing EPAls selected remedial action at the North Dakota
Arsenic Trioxide site.
.....,.
..
BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The site was listed on the ~!PL in 1981 after routine "'State sampling
in 1979 and 1980 in~icatert arsenic levels above the MCL in drinkinq water
supplies in the towns of lidgerwood and Wyndmere, along with more than
100 private well s in the rural area. The State of North Dakota assumed
the lead for activities, including community relations.
In March 1982. the North Dakota State Dept. of Health (NDSDH) and EPA
conducted a public meeting in the town of Lidgerwood to discuss the
-arsenic levels in the municipal water supply and in private wells in the
study area. Accordinq to a newspaper story of April 1. 1982 in the
lidgerwood MONITOR, approximately 50 people attended the meeting. Many
of those people had wells which were tested and they were interested in
getting further explanation of , what the test results meant.
Throughout 1982 and 1983, NDSDH staff continued to meet with lidgerwood
city officials and State leqislators to talk about contamination and
possible solutions. They talked with citizens in the area during continued
testing of the water.
On March 25, 1983, the NDSDH issued a press rel ease to all newspapers
in ~orth Dakota informinq the general public of continuinq testinq of
water supplies in the area.
Th~ MONITOR again covered the progress of the NDSDH study-in a story
publis~ed Auqust 18, 1983, and Fargo TV station KXJB covered the story on
Auaust 26, 1983.
In February 1984, .IDSDH dhtributed a pamphlet entitled "Things You
Should Know About the Arsenic Samplinq of Water Supplies in the Rutland.
~lyndmere, li dgerwood Area (An Informal Di scussi on)" throughout the study
area.
On February 26, 1986, a press release was issued by NDSDH announcing
that public comments were beinq taken until March 31. 1986 on the draft
Feasibility Study and that a public meeting was scheduled for March 25,
1986 in lidgerwood to discuss the study. The press release identified
information centers throughout the study area where citi zens could review
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility (RIfFS) reports, describing data
gathered throughout the study period and alternative remedies for dealing
with the arsenic contamination.
The draft FS primarily identifies alternative solutions for
contamination in private wells. The March 25 meeting. however, was
attended mostly by people from the town of lidgerwood who were concerned
that they have to pay for a new municipal water treatment plant while EPA
.. .
-------
Pesronsiveness Summary
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide
Dage 2
. is payinq for solutions in the rural areas. A detailed sUI)1'TIary of that
pUblic meetina, including citizen ouestions and NDSDH and EPA responses,
is attachert (Attachment A).
Two Fargo TV stations covered the Dublic meeting, and newspapers in
Fargo, Lidgerwood, Wahpeton, Grand For~s, and Bismarck pUblished stories.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONCERNS
Community concern at this site can be divided into
-- municipal and rural. B~th groups are concerned with
contamination, health effects associated with low-level
amd economic ramifications of any solution.
two main categories
the extent of
arsenic exposure,
r~UNICIPAL
. .
In late 1979, the NDSDH required the City of Lidgerwood to
re~uce arsenic levels in their drinking water supply. After the city
eval uated several al ternatives for achieving compl i ance wi th the State
order, the city leaders decided to build a new water treatment plant.
The city reouested approval and fundinq fro~ EPA for the
treatment plant. In a l~tter dated Nov. 22, 1982, Steven J. Durham, then
Reaional Administrator, stated that EPA was not in a position to provide
funding to the city under the Safe Orinkino ~!ater Act, and that Superfund
monies could not be used within the timeframe mandated by the State.
The City of Lidgerwoorl proceeded to build the treatJTIent plant
and levied a $970 charge per Lidgerwood household to pay for it. Citizens
protested the charqp., anrl now are voicing concern that they had to pay
for the ir treatment pl ant whi 1 e EPA has decided to ~onstruct a new
rural water system (which Superfund will largely finance) for private
well owners in the area.
RURAL
Private well owners in the study area were polled by the NDSDH
in April 1986 and asked their preference in the selection of alternative
~emedies for arsenic contamination of their water supplies. Residents
were given a synops; s of the four al ternatives described in the Feasibility
Study and asked to return a post card indicating their preferred alternative.
A copy of the NDSDH letter to residents 1 s attached (Attachnent B). The
State's Fact Sheet is on file.
Al ternatives given were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Do Hothi ng
Construct a Rural Water System
Install Activated Al urnina Filters
Install Distillation System
,. .
-------
Resp~nsiveness Summary
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide
page 3
.1
In a letter sent with this survey. the NOSDH indicated that 90%
of the construction costs for any of these alternatives ~rould be provided
by Superfund. with the remaining 10% State share being passed on to the
residents. In addition. the letter said that all operation and maintenance
costs would be the responsibility of the residents after the first year.
NOSOH received a 60~ response on the survey. with 43~ saying
the'y preferred the "00 Nothi ng" opti on. Detai led survey resul ts are attached
(Attachment C).
REMOVAL ACTION AT THE SITE
Ouri n9 the summer 'of 1986. EPA i niti ated a two-part removal action
designed to 1) determine the extent of contamination at the Wyndmere site
and proceed with soil removal. and 2) beqin installation of activated
alumina filters or other suitable treatment on rural ho~es where residents
indicated they wanted ther.1. EPAls Emergency Response staff is working
with NOSOH on a door-to-rloor survey to determine acceptability of the
filters. Installation of three test systems is anticipated before the
end of Sertember 1986. Installation of the preferred system should begin
on private wells sometime in October 1986.
. -
EPAIS DECISION OF FINAL REMEDY
Rased on the NOSDH surv~y. F.PAls selected alternative of buildin~ a
ne~l water system for rural resirtents is not the preferred choice of citi zens
in the area. Most of the older citizens in the area rtonlt believe arsenic
in their water is a problem. However. some younger residents with children
have shown concern.
NDSOH officials said they think a new rural water system will be
looked at more favorably if EPA. under CERClA reauthorization. pays for
90% of the construction cost and 90% of the operation and maintenance
costs for ten years~ rather than the present one year.
REMAINING CONCERNS
No design or construction can be taken at this site until Superfund
; s rea ut hor; zed.
The State of North Dakota must establish a funding mechanism to
provide the 10~ match required to build the system.
Another issue of concern is who will pay the O&~' costs of a new rural
water system after EPA fundinq runs out.
,.. .
-------
SL~_~\RY OF PUBLIC CO~ES!S AT TriE P~BL!C ~E~TI~G H~LD ~~~CH 25. 1986 IN
LIDGER\.;OOD
- - -----
-
-
Pur~ose of ~eetin~
The purpose of this meeting ~as to present State Health Department findings on
the g~ound wate~ arsenic study in the Li~gerwood-Rutland-wyndmere area and to
present information on water treatment alternatives for arsenic removal.
Over 70 residents attended this meeting. Approximately 86% of those who
signed the Public Meeting Attendance Sheet vere Lidgerwood residents.
The majority of the public comm~nts and questions at this meeting could be
categorized into the following three areas:
I.
Lid~erwood Water Treatment Plant
Eight questions and comments were directed to the'Department concerning
the Lidgerwood Water Treatment Plant, i.e., why Lidgerwood was required
to put 1n this plant, why isn't the plant operational yet, why do
residents have to pay for the plant when it is a .solution. for,removal
of the arsenic in their water and, also. how much arsenic will be removed
when the plant is on-line.
Department's and EPA's Response -- The Department responded to the above-
noted by indicating that the City of Lidgerwood was the only public water
supply system 1n the State that consistently exceeded the federal and
state Safe Drinking Water Act's Maximum Cont~inant Level (MCL) for
arsenic of 0.05 milligr~~s per liter. Because of this, it was necessary
for the City to come into compliance by whatever means they would chof ~
either by finding an 'al.ternative water source or by treating their waL. .0
The EFA and the State granted the City of Lidgerwood extensions to the
Safe Drinking Water Act's 1981 deadline for all public water systems to
cooe into compliance. The City of Lidgerwood then had time to develop
and review their options and determine which alternative they fe~t would
best meet their needs and resources. .It was the City's decision to build
a water treaCroent plant to remove iron and manganese. There i8 evidence
that arsenic in the ionic form will co-precipitate with iron and
manganese. The State approved this solution on an experimental basis
with the proviso that the city will reduce the arsenic concentrations by.
o.ther methods if this treatment process does not do a satisfactory jobo
Construction was completed on the water treatDent plant in early 1986;
however, t he plan t has no t been able to go in to ope ration ye t due to the
necessity for cleaning out the water mains. After that the plant should
be able to go .on line. and if it operates as projected, it should re:ove
90-95% of the arsenic. This amount of arsenic recoval will bring the
City's water into co~pliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The question of why should the City of Lidgerwood and its residents have
to pay the costs for their water treatment plant when 1t is a solution to
,
~
--~- -~.~--I"'~~~ ~ .~'I.~""'~-.'Io-.~.~~
'-- ..!~~. ~."..~:.... {\tf."'---~.f':
~~~....:...
....e~...~
. .:"""'-!,...'~. --~..-.~_......:
... .
-------
that city's arsenic proble~ was responded .to by Walt Sand~a. the EPA
Su?er:und Project Officer. He indicated that he was willing to go back
to ~?A and double-check on whether the plan~~could possibly be eligible
to receive Superfund funding. "
Heal:h E:fects fro~ Cons~~~tion of Arsenic-Cont~~inated Water
11.
Nine questions and co=~ents dealt with health effects. i.e., how does
arsenic affect people and will the arsenic levels that residents are now".
seeing remain at current levels or get worse.
Department's and £PA's Response -- The Department's response to these
questions 1s also contained within the -Health Risk Assessment --
Southeastern North Dakota Ground Water Arsenic Remedial Investigationm:
Arsenic 1s a toxicant which effects the whole body. Major effects of
chronic, long-term arsenosis are seen in the.kidneys, liver and skin. In
the case of long-term chronic ingestion of arsenic, it appears that the
rate of excretion approaches the intake rate.
Symptoms of long-te~, chronic exposure to elevated levels of arsenic in
drinking water include, but are not limited to, skin lesions (generally
pre-cancerous), facial edema, numbness and tingling of the extrem1ties~
asthca, anemia, swelling of the liver, ~astrointestinal damage, gener~l
vascular collapse and hearing loss.
.-
Francis Schwindt, Water Supply & Pollution Control Division Director,
stated that if individuals have or are experiencine any of these symp~oms
they should talk to their family or local doctors. Mr. Schwindt also"
indicated that the Department doesn't anticipate arsenic levels to
increase from what t~ey are now.
III. Su~erfund Fundin£
Ten questions and comments were directed to the Department regarding
whether Superfund funding could pay for the LidgerVood water trea~ent
plant, what percent of funding could Superfund provide and why should" "
local residents have to pay for the negative impacts from the use of che
grasshopper poison bait supplied by the federal government.
Department's and EPA's Response -- EPA indicated that they'd check on
~hether Superf~d could provide funding for the L1dgerwood Water
Treatment Plant. The level of EPA funding for the arsenic removal.
alternat1ve(s) that the rural residents, the Department and £PA decid~ to
go with, hasn't been established as of yet. Up to 90 percent of the
initial construction cost of the implemented alternative and the first
year's operational and maintenance costs could possibly be paid through
the Superfund Program. The remaining 10 percent of. the cost for the
first year would then have to be paid by the homeowner. This area is one
that EPA and the Depart~ent will further discuss and review.
In closing the meeting. the Department indicated that the public com~ent and
review period wo~ld continue through March 31, 1986, and that local residents
should feel free to contact us.
---...~-
.. .
-------
EFA Representatives in Attendance.
-
I
,
I
i
~ar1lyn Null, Com:un1ty Relations Specialis,~
Walter Sand~a, Superfund Site Project Officer
- - .-
.... .. - -_._~. "'.
- "'" .-. -- -
NDSDH Representatives in Attendance
. '.'.. ....- .. ~.
..' - - -.
.... 40.--' ... .
.~: .,""", . . -' -
-
. - ".'
. .
- -
j
I
.
i
.
.
,.
t
Francis Schwindt, Water Supply & Pollution
Kris Roberts, Env1roncental Scientist.
Dave Glatt, Environmental Engineer
Tic Safford, Environmental Engineer
Teri Lunde, Planner .
Control Director
:J
I
!
~
y .
-------
AT!ACrr'~E~IT B
... .
...
. -_.
April 9, 1986
- ...
. .. ._.. ..--
': ."-
.. '. ~..:...:~-:::.-=-~._..:
Dea r :
. ~ .< ._.'.~....;='~-::.=-...:~
.-. ."..':. -';.: '--~ -" .
Over the past several years a study wa s conducted to determi ne the. . :... 7'.:-""C'
source and extent of arsenic contamination .of groundwater in your
area. Arsenic contamination information was collected from your well
and several others in the area.
A followup study has identified alternatives to reduce the arsenic in
drinking water supplies. Those alternatives have been categorized as
point of use water treatment and rural water supply systems. A point af
use water treatment system ;s designed to treat water at a single .
drinking water tap in the home. On the other hand, a rural water supply' ,
system provides water to a number of rural homes-through a pipeline'
distribution system. .
The information in the following" pages has been compiled to give you a
better understanding of the water treatment alternatives currently under
study. Financial assistance may be available to offset the initial.-
costs of a water treatment alternative. Up to 90 percent of the initial
construction cost as ~ell as the first year operational and maintenance
costs would be paid throuoh the Superfund Program of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The remaining 10 percent of the
cost for the first year would be paid by the owner. However, all"
expenses incurred after the first year shall be the responsibility of .
the owner. The extent to which assistance ,is provided will depend upon
the local interest in the project area.
A survey is being conducted to determine what type of treatment, if anYD
that would be of most interest to you. Please return the enclosed
stamped, self-addressed postcard with your ranking of the alternatives.
you would like to see used in the area. If you should have any
questions regarding these alternatives or require additional infonmatign
please 'feel free to contact me at: No rth Da kota State Department of '
Health, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, 1200 Missouri
Avenue, Box 5520, Bi sma rclt, NO 58502-5520 or phone (701 ) 224-2354.
Sincerely,
Tim Safford
Environmental Engineer
Water Supply & Pollution
TS: LOG :dn
Enc.
Control
lPA NOTE:
ND~Dn Fact Sheet on file
...--...-
,.. -
-------
\.:..\"..~-; -;
\~~ ~~-;'I'
..-: -'
~~~."
~~'
--....- -......-
Bismardt, North D.ir.ota 68505
~
ENVI~ONMENT AL. MEAL. TH SE':
..
..
1200 Missouri Avenue
Box 5520
, Bismarck, Nonn Dakotr -"'50:
M E M DR AND U M
TO
Teri Lunde
Environrnent3l Health Section
-.- --: -.':.. ....
L. David Glatt. Environmental Engineer
Water Supply & Pollution Control ~~
FS Arsenic Remediation Survey
FR or~ :
RE
DATE:
July 24, 1986
In April of this year each household identified as currently being at
risk due to the exposure to elevated concentrations of arsenic in their
drinking water supply ,were asked to respond to a survey conducted by
this Depar~ment. The survey outlined several water treatment arsenic
r~ediation alternatives such as a centralized rural water system and
point of use home treatment systems. Each respondent was requested to
indicate, in oroer of preference, those alternatives which they would
consider most beneficial t~ them at this time. Enclosed please find the
information forwarded to each individual at the time of the survey.
A total of 122 survey forms were di stri buted throughout the project area
and 72 (59 percent) were returned. Listed below are the results of the
,survey:
Percent
A 1 ter-nati ve
Number of ResDondents
Do Hothi ng
", Di still at ion
Activated Alumina
Reverse Osmosi s
Rural Water System
New Well (Low Arsenic)
Iron Removal System
Point of Use (General)
Currently h~ve Rural Water
No Longer Living in Area
31
9
7
5
5
1
1
Z
10
1
72
43
13
10
7
7
1
1
3
14
1
100~
Envif'Dft--
S8ni18llon
HaZIIf'OOUI W8ft8 .
Mer-.-."Mnt 1& $o8c:iaI'Stud18
Ww1
~h
Environ-till
EnfOrc8rNftt
Envil'Oft~
Entin88f1nt
701.224023&8
701.224-2382
701.224-323&
... .
701.224-%388
1'0'
----lID .
-------
G
It is important to note that a total of 30 respondents indicated ~hey
would prefer some type of remedial action in the:fonm of water
treatment.
There were not any written questions directed toward this Depa~ent
which pertained to the arsenic study after the public meeting. . Any '-.' .-; .
questions directed toward this Department were answered during the .;~.~: .':>:~:: ..' :.
publ ic mel!ting held in Lidgerwood, North Dakota. . "-:~--'.'.._~'::'.:'. ..,~.~ .':~:'-"~,:)':.~..-~r.-:".::'.~:;
. . .0 -. ~. . :.~ ~.~:.-..-.:u .
or have questions
contact Tim Safford or
If you should require any additional information
regarding this matter. please do not hesitate to
myself.
LDG :1 b
'"
.. .
. . 'I> '., . .~:', :. . . '.: ~;...:....'::.' :.': -,
---.....-..-..--........ .. ...
"-_._~._-----'-:..~. .
.. .
------- |