EPA 560/7-75-001-1
COMPILATION OF STATE DATA FOR
EIGHT SELECTED TOXIC SUBSTANCES
VOLUME I
FINAL REPORT
<<:<
o
\
SB
O
z
LLJ
CD
SEPTEMBER 1975
FINAL REPORT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
560/7-75-001-1
COMPILATION OF STATE DATA FOR
EIGHT SELECTED TOXIC SUBSTANCES
VOLUME I
FINAL REPORT
BY
E. ROBERTS
R. SPEWAK
S. STRYKER
S. TRACEY
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-2933
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: DORIS J. FINLAY
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
4th and M Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SEPTEMBER 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vii
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMA1 Y 7
CONCLUSIONS 11
RECOMMENDATIONS 21
SECTION 1: OVERVIEW OF PROJECT RESULTS 27
Approach to the Project 29
Overview of Monitoring Capabilities 36
Overview of State Toxic Substances Problems 46
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF STATE TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MONITORING CAPABILITIES 67
Introduction 69
Arsenic 72
Beryllium 77
Cadmium 81
Chromium 86
Cyanide 91
Lead 96
Mercury 101
PCB’s 106
Other Toxic Substances 110
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
SECTION 3: TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROBLEKS AS
PERCEIVED BY STATE AGENCIES 111
Introduction 113
Arsenic 114
Beryllium 118
Cadmium 121
ChromIum 128
Cyanide 132
Lead 134
Mercury 145
PCB’s 156
Other Toxic Substances 161
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page
1 Project Scope and Objectives 5
2 Key to Codes Used on State Monitoring 38
Program Cap .bilities Descriptor Forms
3 Overall Summary of Monitoring for Toxic
Substances in 20 States 40
4 Arsenic Monitoring Summary 48
5 Beryllium Monitoring Summary 50
6 Cadmium Monitoring Summary 53
7 Chromium M6nitoring Summary 55
8 Cyanide Monitoring Summary 56
9 Lead Monitoring Summary 57
10 Mercury Monitoring Summary 62
11 PCB’s Monitoring Summary 65
12 Capability Descriptors for State Agencies 70
13 Summary of Monitoring Capability for
Arsenic in 20 States 73
14 Summary of Monitoring Capability for
Beryllium in 20 States 78
15 Summary of Monitoring Capability for
Cadmium in 20 States 82
Summary of Monitoring Capability for 87
Chromium in 20 States
17 Summary of Monitoring Capability for 92
Cyanide in 20 States
18 Summary of Monitoring Capability for 7
Lead in 20 States
19 Summary of Monitoring Capability for 102
Mercury in 20 States
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Number Page
20 Summary of Monitoring Capability for
PCB in 20 States 107
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Pa
1 States and EPA Regions Contacted
During the Toxic Substances Project 32
2 Total TOxic Substances Data Available 35
3 Monitoring Program Capabilities
Descriptor Form
vii
-------
INTRODIJCT ION
In line with its responsibility for assessing risks associated
with toxic substances occurring in more than one environmental media,
the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), contracted with The MITRE Corporation to obtain available ambient
toxic substances data and information from state agencies. MITRE
agreed to contact monitoring agencies in as many states as contract
resources allowed. The objectives of this project were the following:
• Assess toxic substances monitoring capabilities of state
agencies.
• Collect available state toxic substances data and assemble
a data base.
• Summarize and analyze the data for basic statistics
(minimum values, maximum values, annual means, standard
deviations).
• Analyze the data in terms of its availability, nature, and
usefulness to EPA.
In the course of this project, a variety of monitoring agencies
were contacted in 20 states and available toxic substances data was
collected and analyzed. This final report discusses the toxic sub-
stances monitoring capabilities of the agencies contacted, describes
the toxic substances data base that was acquired, presents the statistical
summaries and analyses of the available data, and analyzes the availability,
nature and usefulness of the state data to EPA. Complete, detailed
1
-------
accounts of the meetings with each agency and discussions of the
analysis performed on each portion of toxic substances data re-
ceived is contained in the four Quarterly Technical Sunumary Re-
ports, 1 ’ 2 ’ 3 ’ 4 submitted to OTS during the course of the project.
For the convenience of potential users, MITRE has divided this
final report into five volumes, as follows:
• Volume I: Collection and Analysis of Toxic Substances
Data from State Agencies — Final Report
• Volume II: A Directory of State Toxic Substances
Monitoring Agencies
• Volume III: Data and Information Sources Jsed in the
Course of the Study — An Annotated Bibliography
• Volume IV: pi1ation of the Summaries and Analyses of
State Data
• Volume V: Monitoring Program Capability Descriptor Tables
Volume I is the overall discussion of the results of the project,
including the summary, conclusions, recommendations, and main text.
The main text of Volume I is comprised of three principal sections:
Overview of Project Results, Description of State Toxic Substances
Monitoring Capabilities , and Toxic Substances Problems as Perceived
LRobertS, et al. Quarterly Technical Summary Report M74—l03 (The
2 MITRE Corporation, October 1974
Roberts, et al. Second Quarter Tecnnical Summary Report M75—3
(The MITRE Corporation, January 1975)
Roberts, et al. Third Quarter Technical Summary Report M75—27
(The MITRE Corporation, April 1975)
Roberts, et al. Fourth Quarter Technical Summary Report M75—57
(The MITRE Corporation, August 1975)
2
-------
by State Agencies . The first section is a review of the approach
and history of the project. The second section describes agency
capabilities based on information MITRE obtained from each agency
on 25 key monitoring program descriptors. Included here are such
items as size of networks, number of samples per year, major equip-
ment available, quality control procedures, amount and nature of
toxic substances data generated, and anticipated future capabilities.
The third section, Toxic Substances Problems as Perceived by State
Agencies , is an overall analysis of what was learned about each of
the toxic substances of interest from a review of MITRE’s summary
and analysis of the available data and from discussions with agency
officials in each of the states.
Volume II of the final report is the Directory of State Toxic
Substances Monitoring Agencies . For all 20 states MITRE representatives
visited, information is provided on each agency which as been in-
volved in monitoring any of the toxic substances of interest. The
information includes official agency name, address, and name and
phone number of the key toxic substances point—of—contact in the agency.
Volume III is Data and Information Sources Used in the Course
of the Study — An Annotated Bibliography . This volume contains
references and a brief description of each piece of toxic substances
data and information collected from agencies in the 20 states visited.
Referenced materials include raw data sheets, computer printouts,
published articles, memos, annual reports, and other documentation.
3
-------
A cross—reference index is included so that the bibliography may be
entered either by state or by specific toxic substance. This
volume serves as the index to the toxic substances data bank turned
over •to OTS at the completion of the project.
Volume IV is the Compilation of the Summaries and Analyses of
State Data . This volume includes a discussion, summary, and analysis
of the state agency data collected and processed in the course of
the project. The detailed information contained in this volume serves
as the statistical analysis data base for the discussion of toxic
substances problems contained in Volume I.
Volume V contains the Monitoring Program Capability Descriptor
Tables . This volume comprises 160 tables containing information on
toxic substances monitoring capabilities in 25 areas for each
monitoring agency and each toxic substance monitored. The tables
serve two purposes for the final report. Individually, each table
provides an evaluation of each agency in a state for monitoring
each toxic substance of interest. Taken as a whole, the 160 tables
are a data base useful for performing any number of cross—tabulations
and analyses based on the 25 descriptors, geographical areas,
program areas, and toxic substances. The discussion of agency
capabilities in Volume I is based on summaries and analyses of the
capability descriptor tables.
Throughout the following sections of the final report, it is
important to bear in mind the specific scope of the project. MITRE
4
-------
is reporting on the toxic substances monitoring capabilities and
toxic substances data of a variety of non—Federal agencies in the
20 states contacted. It was not the purpose of the projeèt to make
a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with toxic sub-
stances on a national scale based on all available knowledge. Table 1
summarizes the scope and objectives of the project.
Table 1
PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
INCLUDED
NOT INCLUDED
.
Assess Monitoring Capabilities
in 20 States
•
Assess Total National Moni—
toring capabilities
.
Assemble Data Base with Am—
bient Data from 20 States
•
Collect Emissions Data
.
Summarize and Analyze Data
Statistically
•
Collect Data from All Poten—
tial Data Sources,
.
Assess Availability, Nature
and Usefulness of Data to EPA
•
Perform In—depth Analysis of
All Data
•
Perform Comprehensive In-
terpretation of Toxic
Substances Data
5
-------
SUMNAIY
OTS contracted with the MITRE Corporation to collect and analyze
post—1970 data on a specified list of toxic substances under a 14—month
contract. The list was comprised of the following substances: arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB’s), aryl phosphates, benzene, 3,3’ dichlorobenzidine,
ethylene glycol, hydrazine, methyl chloroform, “MOCA” (4,4’ methylene
bis 2 chloroanaline, onapthylamine, acrylonitrile.
In the course of the project MITRE contacted toxic substances
monitoring agencies in 20 states. As described in the Overview of
Project Results section of the main text, states where agencies were
to be contacted were selected by MITRE in consultation with OTS and
Regional Offices in order to achieve a representative mix of geographical
location, population density, and industrial versus rural economy. By
contacting agencies within these states MITRE found that a wide variety
of agencies were involved with monitoring some of the toxic substances.
The types of agencies contacted included state departments of environ-
ment (all media), health, agriculture, fish and wildlife, natural
resources, public water supply, and sanitation.
When MITRE determined that a number of agencies in a state moni-
tored some of the toxic substances of interest, meetings were scheduled
to discuss the agencies’ programs and to make arrangements for
7
-------
acquiring the available toxic substances data. Copies of the agencies’
data were either obtained during the meetings or arrangements were
made tQ have the data compiled and mailed to MITRE. When the data
was received, the MITRE project staff processed it to usable formats
and performed basic statistical summaries and analyses including
minimum values, maximum values, annual means, and standard deviations.
After contacts had been made with 20 states and data was obtained
from agencies in the 20 states, MITRE began the process of preparing the
final report. In order to fulfill the project objectives, this included
assessing the monitoring capabilities of the agencies contacted,
assembling the data base from the state data collected, compiling
the statistical summaries and analyses of the state data, and assess-
ing the availability, nature and usefulness of the data to EPA.
To assess state monitoring capabilities, MITRE in the course of
the project asked each agency to provide information on 25 key
monitoring program descriptors. This information was assembled on
tables for each state and each toxic substance monitored. The
160 tables (one for each of 20 states and each of eight toxic
substances) have been published as Volume V to this final report. The
tables were then cross—summarized and analyzed for the monitoring
capabilities discussion in the main text of this volume. In addition,
Volume II was published as a directory of all agencies and officials
in the 20 states providing toxic substances data and information.
The toxic substances data base was assembled by state and
includes the agencies’ raw data as received, MITRE’s tabulation of
8
-------
the data in more standardized formats, and computer printouts and
punchçd cards for the data which was computer—processed. Volume III
was published as an annotated bibliography of the available state
data, with a cross—reference to retrieve the data either by state or
toxic substance.
Statistical summaries and analyses were performed as data was
received in the course of the project and has been published in
the four quarterly reports referenced in the introduction. For the
final report the results of the summaries and analyses of state data
were compiled and published as Volume IV.
Finally, the availability, nature and usefulness of the state
data to EPA are discussed in the conclusions, recommendations, and
main text of this volume, with reference to the more detailed in-
formation in Volumes IV and V.
9
-------
CONCLUSIONS
In the course of this project, personal contact was made with
officials of nearly 100 agencies in 20 states involved with monitoring
toxic substances. Additionally, information provided by these
agencies on their monitoring capabilities was analyzed, and the actual
monitoring data they submitted was summarized and analyzed statistically
(see Volumes IV and V). As a result of these activities, it is possible
to draw certain conclusions regarding the capabilities of the states
in toxic substances monitoring, and regarding the availability, nature
and usefulness to EPA of the data being generated. This discussion
is presented in terms of overall conclusions, and specific conclusions
by toxic substance monitored and agency.
Overall Conclusions: Agency Capabilities
1. In each of the 20 states visited, one or more agencies have
the present capability to monitor some of the toxic substances of
Interest. Whether or not a particular substance is actually
monitored appears to depend upon two main factors:
a. Availability of equipment (atomic absorption unit, mass
spectrophotometer, or X—ray fluorescence unit for metals,
and mass spectrophotometer or gas chromatograph for PCB’s,
other organics and exotic compounds).
b. A demonstrated need to monitor the substance (such as local
contamination problems, or state or Federal regulations
requiring monitoring).
11
-------
Where both of these criteria are satisfied, agencies do conduct
monitoring for toxic substances.
2. In the 20 states contacted, some monitoring was conducted for
one or more of the following substances: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromi im, cyanide, lead, mercury, and PCB’s. For the remaining nine
substances on the OTS list of toxic substances of interest, no agency
contacted conducted routine monitoring although several indicated they
had done occassional tests recently. Those nine substances are aryl
phosphates, benzene, 3,3’ dichlorobenzidifle, ethylene glycol, hydrazine,
methyl chloroform, “Moca” (4,4’ methylene bis 2 chioroanaline)
u napthylamine, and acrylonitrile.
3. With regard to future capabilities, over 85 percent of the
agencies contacted felt they had the equipment and trained personnel
to monitor additional toxic substances on the OTS list not presently
monitored if they were required to do so, and if a method of analysis
were available. Virtually every agency believed, however, that an
additional analytical burden would require additional funds for staff
and equipment.
4. In all but a very few agencies, the method of analysis
employed for each toxic substance was referenced to a recognized
standard method. In areas where EPA has recoimnended standard methods
and procedures, these were used by most agencies. In other areas,
agencies referenced the standards as set forth by the American
Public Health Association, the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Based on the information provided by the agencies,
12
-------
it may be concluded that standard methods ef analysis are
employed, so that on that basis data from differqnt agencies is
comparable.
5. Of 95 agencies contacted in the 20 states, only three had
no active quality control program. All of the remainder had at
least Internal programs, which included regular calibration and
maintenance schedules, standards for checking methods, equipment and
personnel, and the scheduled running of duplicate samples. In
addition, the majority of the agencies participated in interlaboratory
testing with other state and local agencies and with the appropriate
Federal agencies (EPA, FDA, USDA, etc.).
6. Except for fish and wildlife agencies, most agencies operated
their own laboratory facilities, or had control of their own lab-
oratory section within a larger laboratory system. The majority of
fiah and wildlife agencies either relied on other state laboratories
or contracted with private laboratories for toxic substances analysis.
7. On the average, for all state laboratories involved with
toxic substances monitoring, there were 38 personnel per laboratory
of whom 16 were degreed chemists, The ratio per laboratory is one
degreed chemist for each 2.5 employees. While there Is no meaning-
ful method of judging the skills and qualifications of the chemists,
the numbers alone suggest a good capability for toxic substances
analysis.
13
-------
8. When asked what type of assistance from EPA would be most help-
ful in their toxic substances activities, agency responses were split
fairly evenly into three categories. These were a.) standards promul-
gation including both safe limits of a substance in the environment,
and development of standard methods of analysis; b.) funds for more
personnel and analytical equipment; and c.) a wide range of other
agency—specific assistance (such as training, enforcement assistance,
etc.) Other assistance specific agencies mentioned is shown in the
tables of Volume V.
Overall Conclusions: Data Availability
1. While many agencies were sensitive to having additional
requirements put upon them for submitting data, in no case was there
refusal to cooperate with MITRE representatives in providing inf or—
mation and data. Including that data which had already been sub-
mitted to SAROAD, STORET, or directly to another Federal program,
data was available from 95 percent of the agencies which had some
toxic substances data. In those cases where data was available but
filed in a manner which would require a large amount of the state
agencies’ tliiie and resources to retrieve and copy that data, it
was not acquired. In all such cases, the agencies stated that
if OTS felt it were worth the time and expense, and provided
the necessary resources, they would cooperate in making the data
available. (Agencies with data which wa not received during the pro-
ject are listed and the data discussed in Volume III.)
2. In all cases where data was submitted, the agencies were
agreeable to providing updating data if required in the future. The
14
-------
only condition was that in many cases this would require some re-
imbursement for the costs of retrieval and copying.
3. Three state air quality agencies (14 percent of those
monitoring some of the toxic substances) submit their data to
SAROAD, and 14 of the water quality agencies contacted (58 percent)
submit their data to STORET. An additional six public water supply
agencies (38 percent of those with data) submit their data to STORET.
A large portion of the state air and water toxic substances data is
therefore currently available to OTS directly through EPA channels.
Overall Conclusions: Nature and Usefulness of State Data to OTS
1. One of the most important observations about the state toxic
substances data is that virtually none of it was generated for the
purpose of including it in a national data system and using it for
detailed research and analysis. As concluded in the discussion
of capabilities, states monitor a toxic substance for one of two
reasons: either there has been a problem of contamination, or there
is a requirement to monitor because of Federal and/or state regulations.
In the former instance the monitoring is usually after—the—fact and
source—directed. In the latter case, except where there may be a
real or suspected local problem, monitoring is for the most part in-
frequent. As a general conclusion, state agencies, because of
inherent limitations on how much they can do, monitor toxic sub-
stances only when, where, and as long as there is a real or
15
-------
perceived threat to public health. Consequently the state data is
of limited use for national trend analysis or establishing background
levels of various substances across the nation.
2. With a few notable exceptions, state agencies contacted have not
coordinated monitoring of toxic substances using the data from a
number of environmental media to achieve a more complete appreciation
of toxic substances problems. Air agencies check levels of a
substance in the air, water agencies check it in water, agricultural
agencies check it in food, etc., but only rarely is the information
coordinated at the state level to assess total environmental threat
and to pinpoint sources most requiring control. Two exceptions have
been the comprehensive environmental monitoring of lead in El Paso
and the similar coordinated study of arsenic in the Tacoma area.
Without reference to potential sources and to ambient levels in
other media, the state data is generally not very useful for
comprehensive toxic substances analysis.
3. While it may be concluded that state agency use of standard
analysis methods and laboratory quality control are strong points,
other factors lessen the usefulness of state data for comparisons
and aggregation for nationwide problem analysis. Chief among these
factors are frequency of sampling, and number and location of sampling Site
and samples. Frequency of sampling varied widely in all media for the
toxic substances of interest. In air sampling, for example, one
agency collects sample filters daily, several collect them for
16
-------
analysis every sixth day, while others analyze monthly and quarterly
composite samples. In water the range is from daily samples to one
sample every two or three years. Similarly, the number of sites or
samples ranges from several in some state agencies to several
hundred in others. Before state toxic substances data can be of
much use to OTS for analysis on a national level, standardization
must go beyond laboratory methods and include frequency of sampling
and number and distribution of sampling sites.
Conclusions: Arsenic
As the discussion of substances in Section 3 of this report
indicates, arsenic is generally not regarded by the state agencies
contacted as a significant environmental problem. The major exceptions
to this conclusion are In specific, localized areas where ore smelting
operations result in known arsenic emissions to the air and water, and
adverse health effects are suspected in the vicinity. From the states
contacted, these locations were El Paso, Texas; Tacoma, Washington; and
Kellogg, Idaho. Additionally, there still remains some concern in agri-
cultural states that lead arsenate spraying in past years may result in
significant arsenic levels in foods. Environmental contamination of
food with arsenic is found to be rare, however.
Conclusions: Beryllium
Beryllium was the least monitored of the toxic substances of
interest and is not generally regarded as an environmental problem by
17
-------
the 20 states. The only source—oriented monitoring was in Utah, where
beryl ore is mined; and in Pennsylvania, where much of the ore is
processed. Low ambient levels were reported in both states.
Conclusions: Cadmium
Cadmium is regarded as a potential environmental problem in all
20 states contacted. The toxic metal has been monitored in all
media; and known or suspected sources include smelting operations,
industrial/municipal effluents, leaching from ceramic utensils,
and plant uptake from naturally_occurring cadmium.
Conclusions: Chromium
Chromium is considered a potential environmental problem by all
states contacted, principally in waterways and drinking water supplies.
Where some high levels were detected In waterways and sediments, the
sources were believed to be industrial, especially plating industries.
Chromium in the air was generally below detectable levels.
Conclusions: Cyanide
Cyanide is not generally believed to be a major environmental
problem in the 20 states. Although it is monitored occasionally by
most public water supply agencies, it remains the least monitored of
the toxic substances of interest except f or beryllium. Part of the
difficulty of determining how much of a problem cyanide presents is
that it is difficult to detect in chlorinated water. (chlorine destroys
the cyanide ion in water.)
18
-------
Conclusions: Lead
Lead shares with mercury the role of most monitored toxic sub-
stance in the most media. It Is considered an environmental problem
by agencies in all 20 states contacted. Lead Is monitored in air,
waterways, public water supplies, human blood, household paint and
dust, soil, ceramic utensils, fish, wildlife, and food products.
Despite the, widely known effects of lead poisoning, it remains a
major problem because the opportunities for exposure are so widespread
in the environment..
Conclusions: Mercury
Because of nationwide public concern over the effects of
exposure to mercury in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, most of
the agencies in all 20 states contacted have monitored the substance.
It is now regarded as less an environmental threat than initially
feared, but it is still monitored with regularity in areas where
high levels have been reported in the past. Chief sources are
believed to be Industries, especially the chior—alkalal industry,
and residuals from fungicides c ith mercury compound constituents.
While sources of mercury contamination are now thought to be well
controlled, concentration of mercury in sediment and sludge from
past releases are seen as a lingering problem by state agencies.
Conclusions: PCB’s
Although all states contacted were aware of the potential hazards
19
-------
of PCB contamination, PCB’s were perceived as an environmental threat
only in the states where they have been manufactured and/or where
specific incidents of contamination have occurred. In the latter
states; such as Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan and Massachusetts;
PCB’s are monitored fairly regularly in foods and water. In the
remainder of the 20 states generally, the presence of PCW’s is
occasionally detected at low levels in the process of screening
for chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.
Conclusion: Other Substances
While the other nine toxic substances of interest are recognized
by the states as potential problems, many are now seen as highly
localized and specialized problems and consequently are riot routinely
monitored by the agencies contacted. On the other hand, aeveral agencies
have run limited tests in recent months on some of the exotic organics
of interest in water. These agencies felt that the organic substances
may pose a greater hazard than the more commonly monitored metals,
and they felt research and development of analytical methods in
this area was needed from EPA.
4.
-------
REC01 1MENDAT IONS
Based upon contact with nearly 100 toxic substances monitoring
agencies in 20 states and aquisition and analysis of most of their
available data, it has been possible to summarize and to draw
general conclusions as to the status of state agencies in monitoring
toxic substances problems.. Now, based on a knowledge of state
agency capabilities and the availability, nature and usefulness of
their data, recomm ndations can be made regarding how OTS should
proceed vis—a—vis the state agencies and what use can be made of the
accumulated data. Before proceeding with recommendations, it may be
useful to summarize the conclusions regarding state capabilities and
data, by listing the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
state agency programs, as follows:
Advantages : ______________
— In—depth knowledge of local —
problems
— Quick response to immediate —
problems
— Base of trained people and —
equipment and networks
available for integrated,
systematic monitoring
With these characteristics of state toxic substances monitoring
programs in mind, the principal recommendations follow.
Disadvantages :
Monitoring is problem—response,
not systematic
Little anticipation of future
problems
Little integration of
monitoring among media and
across jurisdictions now
21
-------
1. Additional Data Acquisition .
Because the data acquired from the 20 states is believed to be
representative of the non—Federal toxic substances data which is
available, and because most of the data itself is not particularly
useful for national trends or background analysis, it is recommended
that additional historical data not be collected from the states at
this time. However, analysis of the data collected and the assess-
ment of state agency capabilities also indicates that there is a
strong monitoring base available that is limited from more systematic
monitoring primarily by lack of resources for more personnel and
equipment. While most past state data may not be particularly useful
for EPA ’s purposes, any plans for future expansion of toxic sub-
stances monitoring should take into account the existing base of state
agencies which could be expanded to an effective, systematic
monitoring network if funding is provided. It is therefore recommended
that OTS survey the remaining 30 states to determine capabilities
and availability of toxic substances data so that information will
be available to EPA on which to base funding decisions for any future
expansion of monitoring efforts.
2. Acquisition of Information on Federal Monitoring Activity
While the primary focus of this project was on acquisition of
data from state agencies, it was learned in the course of the state
meetings that a very considerable amount of environmental toxic sub—
22
-------
stances data is being generated by Federal agencies such as USGS, USDA,
FDA, Bureau of Sportfisherics and Wildlife, and others. Additionally,
a number of other institutions are involved with toxic substances
monitoring under Federal grants. It is recommended that OTS survey
Federal and Federally—supported organizations to determine the
nature and extent of their toxic substances monitoring capabilities,
the nature and extent of the data available, and the most appropriate
means of accessing the data.
3. Develop Information Clearinghouse Capability
It is recommended that OTS serve as the clearinghouse for
promulgating information to state agencies on such matters as the
latest standard methods of analysis, new analytical equipment de-
velopments, problems encountered and lessons learned in specific
cases which may have wide application, and news of emerging toxic
substances problems which states should be aware of. There is
presently no such central focus of toxic substances information,
and one clearly would be helpful to the state agencies.
4. Analyze Specific Problems in Depth
Since a broad, systematic approach to analyzing toxic sub-
stance problems across the nation does not seem possible with
the type of data that is available from the states, it is recommended
that OTS concern itself more with specific problems in the states
rather than searching for overall trends. For each specific toxic
substance, the available data can show where significant levels have
23
-------
been encountered for certain media. Working with the Regional Offices and
state agencies, OTS should perform a comprehensive analysis in
those areas to determine sources, distribution of contamination,
transport mechanisms, population at risk, documented health effects,
control measures and eventual fate of the substance in the environ-
ment. This will mean in virtually every case the data available
from the state agencies will have to be supplemented by additional
monitoring and research. The end result will be a more complete
understanding of the nature of the toxic substance as an environ-
mental problem, with experience and knowledge that can be transferred
to other areas with similar problems.
5. Early Warning of New Toxic Substances as Environmental Problems .
Toxic substances are generally monitored by state agencies only
after their existence as an environmental problem has been, veil
established. Furthermore, all state monitoring efforts are usually
targeted at existing, known problems with no resources available for
research into potential toxic substance problems. It is
recoriunended that OTS fill this gap, through its own resources and
those of other EPA offices where appropriate, by developing screen-
ing methods w iich will identify those substances most likely to
become environmental problems in the future. In this way state
agencies can have access to early warning on emerging toxic sub—
stances problems which their own resources could not provide.
24
-------
6. Develop and Promulgate Standard Analysis Methods for
Emerging Toxic Substances
Following logically from the above recommendation, methods will
have to be developed for monitoring new substances in various media.
Even i E states had the resources to dedicate to methods development,
there would be little value in having each laboratory develop its
own method for each new substance. It is therefore recommended
that OTS, with its own resources and those of other EPA offices
where appropriate, develop standard methods and procedures for the
analysis of all new environmental toxic substances, and promulgate
these standards for use by all agencies in the states. As standard
analysis methods are developed and promulgated, standards should be
promulgated for the size and distribution of sampling networks and
the frequency of sampling required to characterize a toxic substance
problem adequately.
25
-------
SECTION 1
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT RESULTS
27
-------
Approach to the Project
In June of 1974 The MITRE Corporation contracted with OTS to
collect and analyze post 1970 state monitoring data on specified
toxic substances of interest. The final OTS list included the
following 17 toxic substances.
arsenic benzene
beryllium 3,3’ dichlorobenzidifle
cadmium ethylene glycol
chromium hydrazine
cyanide methyl chloroform
lead “Moco” (4,4’ Methylene
mercury 2 Chloroanaline
polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB) ‘s a napthylamine
aryl phosphates acrylonitrile
OTS guidance regarding how much and what kind of toxic sub-
stances data and information MITRE should collect included the
following:
• Water data submitted to STORET and air data submitted to
SAROAD is available to OTS through EPA channels, so agencies
should not be asked to resubmit such data to MITRE.
• The priority and emphasis of data collection should be on
state agency data. Federal, university, and other data
should be collected after the states have been contacted
if contract resources allow.
• The data collection emphasis in the states should be on
ambient data (i.e., levels of the substances detected in
air, water, tissue, etc.).
• In addition to collecting and analyzing available data, it
is important that information be obtained on the general
monitoring capabilities of the agencies and supporting
laboratories.
In the approach to the project, the contract required a two—
phased effort. The first phase consisted of planning and testing
29
-------
out collection and analysis techniques in two states. From that
experience, recommendations were made as to the best way to proceed
with the second phase, which involved applying data collection and
analysis procedures to as many of the remaining states as resources
allowed. In suimnary, the data collection approach which was developed
involved the following steps:
1. First, MITRE contacted the OTS liaison representative in
each EPA Region to obtain information on the state ag€.ncies
where the Regional Office is located, and to arrange a
meeting with Regional program area representatives to
obtain information on monitoring programs of all states
in the Region.
2. With information supplied by the OTS liason representative,
and information from available directories, 1 ’ 2 ’ 3 all agencies
which might monitor toxic substances in the states where the
Regional Offices are located were contacted by telephone.
Meetings were scheduled with the officials of chose agencies
which indicated they had data, to follow the visit to the
EPA Regional Offices.
irectory of State Agencies Engaged in Environmental Monitoring ,
E.P.A. (Office of Research and Deve1optn nt), December 1973.
2 Governrnental Air Pollution Agencies , Air Pollution Control
Association, October 1973.
3 Ertvironineflt U.S.A.: A Guide to Agencies, People, and Resources , R.R.
Bowker Co., 1974.
30
-------
3. MITRE representatives met at the Regional Offices with
program representatives to obtain information on points—
of—contact and monitoring activity in all the states of
the Region.
4. Following the Regional Office meetings, MITRE representatives
met with the agencies in the states where the Regional
Offices are located to acquire all available toxic sub-
stances data and to evaluate laboratory capabilities.
5. When all. ten Regions and one state in each Region had been
visited, MITRE reviewed the information on state agency
programs and selected a priority listing of the remaining
states to be visited, using as criteria the following:
• amount of toxic substances data a” ailable
• seriousness of toxic substances problems
• east and west coast mix
• coastal and inland mix
• industrial and rural mix
The point of balancing the states in this manner was to ensure
that a representative mix of states would be contacted if it were not
possible to visit all states. Agencies in a total of 20 states
were contacted in the course of the project. Figure 1 shows the
states visited.
In formulating a general plan for processing, summarizing, and
analyzing the state data, a great deal of flexibility had to be
maintained. The experience of Phase 1 showed that the state agencies
monitor many of the toxic substances in a wide variety of media at
31
-------
California
Co lorado
Cannec ticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Massachusetts
Michigan
is sour i
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Uash ing ton
FIGURE 1
STATES AND EPA REGIONS CONTACTED DURING THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROJECT
-------
widely differing frequencies, and that rarely was anything resem-
bling a standard data format used except where the data was reported
to SAROAD or STORET. The data analysis plan which evolved called
for the following procedures:
1. MITRE processed the state air quality data into SAROAD-
compatible format; and summarized and analyzed for range of
observations, mean, and standard deviation by sampling
station, by toxic substance, and by year.
2. Where appropriate, MITRE processed water quality and
water supply data into a STORET—compatible format; and
summarized and analyzed for range of observations, mean,
and standard deviation by sampling station, by toxic
substance, and by year.
3. For the remainder of the data, which included levels of
toxic substances in hair, blood, fish and animal tissue,
paint, food, feeds, plants, soil, dust, and sludge;
MITRE processed the particular data to whatever reasonably
standard format it was amenable to; and summarized and
analyzed it as its unique characteristics allowed.
The plans for data collection and analysis were carried out
through contacts with environmental, health, and other related
agencies in the 20 states. The types of agencies providing data
included those with responsibility in the area of air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste, drinking water, fish and wildlife,
33
-------
sanitation, agriculture, natural resources, geology, food and drug,
arid public health. So that useful summaries and analyses could be
made of the type and amount of toxic substances monitoring in the
states, the various agencies were aggregated into the media or
program area categories for air, water, solid waste, human health,
fish and wildlife, and agriculture. In the four quarterly reports
which were submitted to OTS to review the progress on the project,
results of all contacts with the state agencies were summarized in
terms of those categories. More complete details of data acquisition
meetings were contained in the main texts of the quarterly reports,
as were complete summaries and analyses of the data obtained according
to the data analysis plan.
Clearly, with the focus of the project on state environmental
toxic substances data, a large amount of the total information
available on toxic substances from other sources was not collected
and analyzed for this project. Figure 2 illustrates the fraction
of toxic substances data collected for this project and its relation-
ship to the total amount of Information and data available.
As described in the introduction, the objectives of assembling
a toxic substances data base and presenting results of data summaries
and analyses are addressed in Volume III and Volume IV respectively.
The two remaining objectives —— describing toxic substances monitoring
capabilities and analyzing the availability, nature and usefulness
of the data to EPA —— are addressed in this volume, with reference
34
-------
FIGURE 2
TOTAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATA AVAILABLE
(For illustration only—proportions estimated)
35
-------
to the information contained in Volumes II through V.
Overview of Monitoring Capabilities
In order to provide some quantitative measure of state toxic
substances monitoring capabilities, MITRE identified 25 key monitoring
program descriptors and asked each agency to provide information on
them. Responses from each agency were recorded on a table, by state
and toxic substance, similar to that shown in Figure 3. Table 2
is a key to the codes which were used in completing the forms. When
these sheets were completed for all 20 states and all of the eight toxic
substances for which data was available (a total of 160 tables in
all), the matrices were summed and analyzed for each of the descriptors
by state, program, and type of agency. Highlights of that analysis
are contained in this overview section, and a more complete description
of results by toxic substance is found in the section describing
state agency capabilities.
Table 3 presents the overall summary of toxic substances
monitoring capabilities of the 95 agencies in 20 states contacted
in the course of this project. The table was developed from analysis
of information recorded on the 160 monitoring program descriptor
tables, one for each state and for each substance, found in Volume
V of this final report. This summary discussion is keyed to the
information contained in Table 3.
1. Total Sites . The data received represented over 25,000
sites in the 20 states. As the chart shows, the overwhelming
36
-------
MEDIA/PROGRAJI AREA
1.
MEDIAS A 1IPLED 1
—
NO. OF SITES
- -———
—
SAMPLINC. FREQUENCY
1
EST. OBSERVATIONS PER YR.
INCLUSIVE DATES OF DATA
AI4BSENTLEVELS 2
MONITORING OBJECTIVE 3
DATA STORAGE FORM
DATA RECORDING LAG
ANALYSIS PERFORMED 5
-1
DATA RETENTION PERIOD
SAMPLE RETENTION PERIOD
DATA IN FED. SYSTEM
AVAILA BSLIrEOFUPDATES
LABUSED 6
NO.OFLABPERSONNEL
NO.OFDEGREEDCHEMANTS
FORMALLABTRAININGPROGRAM
MAJOREQUIPMENT
METHODOFANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 7
OTHER T.S. MON. CAPABILITY
FUTURE FOCUS OF MONITORING 8
ASSISTA S IGEDESIR SDFROME PA 9
O T HER cOMMENT
STATE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE
1.
2.
3. 4.
AIR WATER SOLID WASTE HUMAN HEALTH FISH I ACES- OTHER
AND WILDLIFE I(T 1 .TCUEI
AGENCY
1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1.
C ,)
-.4
2.
NOTE Footnotes refer to the key to the codes, Table 1.
FIGURE 3
CAPABILITIES DESCRIPTOR FORM
-------
TABLE 2
KEY TO CODES USED ON STATE MONITORING PROGRAM CAPABILITIES DESCRIPTOR FORMS
N. A. = Not Applicable
N. 0. = Information not. obtained
1. Media Sampled:
A = Air, dust
W = Surface and groundwater
D = Drinking water
F = Food and cSonsumer products
T = Animal tissue
B = human blood, etc.
2. Ambient Levels:
Page number refers to
page in Volume IV
where statistics
may be found
3. Monitoring Objective:
C/E Compliance/Enforcement
RP = Routine population oriented
RB = Routine background
S = Scientific research
4. Data Storage Form:
C = Computerized
S = Report sheets
R = Periodic compiled report
5. Analysis Performed:
O = None
C = Screened for compliance
S = Basic statistics analysla
D = Detailed study
38
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
KEY TO CODES USED ON STATE MONITORING PROGRAM CAPABILITIES DESCRIPTOR FORMS
6. Lab Use:
A = Controlled by agency
S = Shared with other agency(ies)
C — Contract lab
U = University lab
7. Quality Control Procedures:
= Internal (standards, replicate)
C = Check samples with other labs
NP = No quality control program
8 . Future Focus of Monitoring:
IS = Increase substances monitored
IN = Increase sampling network
and/or number of samples
S Continue at about present level
DS = Decrease substances samples
DN = Decrease network size
and/or number of samples
9. Assistance Desired from EPA:
$ — Funds for more manpower
and/or equipment
S = Develop and promulgate standard
analysis methods for all toxic
substances
T — Funded EPA training programs
O = Other
39
-------
TABLE 3
OVERALL SUMMARY OF MONITORING FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN 20 STATES
PROCRAM ARFA
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTOR
AIR
WATER
SUPPLY
WATER
QUAliTY
SOIl))
WASTE
SIMIAN
1041. 11)
CIII S
WILOLI C)
)) —
CT) fl’kL
1. TOTAl. SITES
588
15,612
9,272
1(1
5.5.
4)
2. TOTAL OBSERVA—
HOES PER YEAR
44,906
103 114
254,762
60))
12,64))
49 174
5 , 1
PERCENT DATA
RECEIVED
91
Ri
92
11)1)
83
88
7
MONITORING
BACKGROUND
POPULATISS
CO S’I,1ANCE
I9)T4PI,IANl3
POFFI.ATI()N
EALKGR)HNS
FOP V)$TI O S
5. STORAGE FORM
SATA SlIEST
DA’IA SlIEST
COMPUTES
(flYPICTiS)
iOTA ( (lofT
DAiS 7FFF 1
( (9)4 903 1
6. EEl OF DATA
STATI STTCS
STATISTICS
SI ATISTI CS
SlAT) ((TIC))
S11 )OIFS/
5 PC K U I)
sTATIST)) S
(OF) K)))
DATA RETENTION
L0+yrs
1 S+yro
IO±yrs
ARyro
IO+yr
I ( l+yr
I D*yro
SAMPLE RETENTION
io+yrs
— S —
- II —
— (I
OAF.
- (0 —
- (C -
9. SIURET/SAROAD
4 of 22
6 of 16
16 of 25
14.4.
NA.
ES.
V.A.
SO. LAB TYKE
(SAN LAB
OWN LAB
OWN LAD
CIINTRACTLI)
OWN LAP
(OWN
(I)NTRACT
0)1.15 lAP
1 AB
CIIEME E l S
17/7
SR/lI
17/il
105/30
78/36
26/19
291)9
12. TYPE TRAINING
CIT +
O.IT +
IIJT +
O,IT +
l IlT +
(OTT -f
) .TT +
13. LABS WITH
CC & AA
12 of 22
14 of 16
22 of 24
2 of 2
7 of 9
6 of 8
II of 11
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
16 of 22
13 of 16
22 of 23
2 of 2
8 of 9
6 of H
II of Ii
ANALYSIS METHOD
EPA
AREA
EPA
EPA
PEA
API)))
SOON
16. QUALITY CONTROL
tNT/EXT.
INT./F.XT.
INT./ENT.
INT./FXT.
TNT/EXT.
lOT/EXT.
TST./FXT.
17. FUTURE MONITORING
POCUS
VAR.
VAR.
VAR.
lR3RF. Ti).
VAR.
VAR.
REPAIRS SERF
18. HELP DESIRED
STDS..
$, ((THUR
S
S
5, Ems.
S
° :nos.
40
-------
preponderence of sites were in water monitoring. No sites are
shown for the areas of human health and agriculture because in those
areas samples were taken of such materials as blood and food and
specitic sampling stations were not usually involved.
2. Total Observations/Year . Including all monitoring in all
media, there are 550,000 samples analyzed for toxic substances each
year by agencies in the 20 states contacted. The chart shows the
breakdown of sampling by program areas.
3. Percent Data Received . This line shows agencies from whom
data was received as a percent of total number of agencies contacted.
The overall figure for all agencies was 95 percent. For this summation,
data in SAROAD and STORET or otherwise submitted directly to Federal
agencies was considered data received. As explained in Volume III for
each specific agency, the reasons data wasn’t received from some agencies
were either that the data was in the process of being compiled, or that
the data could not be readily compiled without a considerable effort on
the part of the agency.
4. Monitoring Objective . Agencies were asked if their main moni-
toring objective was compliance/enforcement oriented, population oriented,
(i.e., checked for levels which may endanger human health), or background
oriented. Many responses showed combined objectives, but the prevalent
overall response was population oriented. No agency monitored purely
for research purposes.
5. Storage Form . The entries here concern form of data records
and are either report sheets, compiled periodic reports, or comput-
erized storage. As the chart shows, the common data storage form
is filed report sheets, except for water quality (where much of the
data is in the STORET system) and solid waste (where only two agencies
41
-------
contacted have toxic substances data), which were mostly computerized.
6. Use of Data . This line describes what is done with the
data once it is generated. The entries were checking for
compliance with standards, basic statistics, and detailed studies.
The most common use of the data was in basic statistical summaries,
except the areas of human health and agriculture where the data was
checked for compliance with standards only.
7. Data Retention Time . The majority of agencies in all media
maintain historical records of their data for at least 10 years.
8. Sample Retention Time . Because of the different nature of
samples in different media, retention time varies from zero to at
least 10 years. In the majority of cases, portions of air sample
filters are retained by air quality agencies at least 10 years. Food,
water, blood, and other samples are generally not retained after
analysis unless they show levels in excess of standards, and in those
cases samples are retained where possible until appropriate action
is taken and the case disposed of.
9. Data in STORET/SAROAD . This line refers to the two major EPA
data storage systems for water and air respectively. As shown, three
of 22 air agencies submit toxic substances data to SAROAD (although
this is not as yet a requirement), six of 16 water supply agencies
submit data to STORET, and 14 of the 24 water quality agencies
submit data to STORET.
42
-------
10. Lab. Type . Laboratories used by the various state agencies
were either controlled by the agencies, shared facilities with other
agencies, outside contracted laboratories, university laboratories,
or various combinations. For most of the program areas, the
majority of agencies used their own laboratories. The two solid
waste agencies doing toxic substances analysis contracted with other
laboratories, and the fish and wildlife agencies were split between
those that had their own laboratories and those which contracted
for analysis.
11. Av&. No. Lab. Personnel/Chemists . This line shows the average
number of people working in the laboratories by program area and the
average number of those that are degreed chemists. For some categories,
personnel with degrees in a related field and strong backgrounds in
chemistry were counted as degreed chemists. The overall average for
all laboratories in the 20 states was 38 personnel, 16 of whom were
degreed chemists, for an average ratio of one chemist per 2.5 total
personnel.
12. Type Trainii g . For the majority of agencies in all areas,
the prevalent type of training was on—the—job—training (OJT),
supplemented in a number of cases by occasional outside training
courses when resources allowed. No full—scale, formal training
programs were reported.
13. Labs with GC and AA . Possession of gas chromatograph
and atomic absorption equipment appears to be one indicator of
43
-------
the capability of agencies to monitor all the toxic substances of
interest. In virtually every agency, atomic absorption equipment
was available, and in most areas except air and water supply, the
majority of laboratories had both atomic absorption and gas chroma—
tograph equipment.
14. Can Do Additional Toxic Substances . Agencies were asked if
they felt they had the equipment and personnel capabilities for monitor—
ing additional toxic substances if there was a requirement to do so. A
large majority of agencies responded that they could monitor most toxic
stances on the OTS list if an acceptable method of analysis were available,
15. Analysis Method . All but five laboratories reported that they
employed the standard analytical method appropriate to the type of
analysis done. These included standard methods recommended by EPA,
the American. Public }tealth Association, the Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, the USDA, and FDA. Where EPA has recommended
a standard method, the majority of agencies reported that that is
the method they use. The other five agencies used manufacturers’
recommendations for the type of analytical equipment used, or they
have developed their own methods.
16. Quality Control . The prevalent type of quality control
procedures in effect in the majority of agencies includes both
internal checks with standards and duplicate samples; and some out-
side, interlaboratory checking of samples with Federal and other
laboratories.
44
-------
17. Future Monitorimg Focus . There was a division in most areas
as to whether the future fo’us of monitoring would result in increasing
the network size and number of samples ana1yzed increasing, the number
of substances monitored, or remaining at about the same level.
18. }Ielp Desired . When asked what assistance from EPA would
be most helpful in carrying out their toxic substances programs,
the majority of agencies responded that the two most needed items
were: development and promulgation of standards for acceptable
levels in the environment and for methods of analysis; and funding
support for laboratory equipment and personnel.
A more detailed discussion of agency capabilities is found in
the section Description of State Toxic Substances Monitoring
pabilities . The format of Table 3 will be followed there in
describing state toxic substances monitoring capabilities with
regard to each toxic . ubstance.-monitored.
45
-------
Overview of State Toxic Substances Problems
As is evident from the MITRE summaries and analyses of state
agency data presented in Volume IV, state toxic substances data
has been collected by a variety of agencies within states, for a
number of reasons, in many media, at different sampling frequencies,
from a variable number of sites, for different lengths of time.
In general, where significant levels of a substance are determined,
the monitoring has been source—specific; and where more widespread
monitoring is done because of administrative requirements rather
than because of a problem, sampling is infrequent and values are
consistently low. Consequently, a quantitative aggregation and
analysis of data from the 20 states contacted would not be very
meaningful. However, based on the summaries and analyses of data
and on discussions with officials in the states, it is useful to
present a narrative discussion of the environmental problems asso-
ciated with each of the toxic substances of interest as perceived
by agencies in the 20 states. A more detailed discussion of each
substance is presented in Section 3, Toxic Substance Problems as
Perceived by State Agencies . The following is a summary of the
Section 3 discussion.
46
-------
Arsenic
Arsenic is a well known toxic element whose compounds have wide-
spread use in agriculture and industry. All 20 states monitor water
supplies and none except Iowa report any substantial problem. In the
case of Iowa raw surface water supplies were found to have exceeded
the 0.05 ppm US PuS limit, but, after treatment for the removal of
iron, the level usually dropped well below that value.
The most prominent case of arsenic pollution and hazard was
reported in Tacoma, Washington,where the largest production of the
metal in this hemisphere occurs. Studies have been conducted by state
agencies and their preliminary results linked stack emissions to
illnesses and high household levels of arsenic. El Paso, Texas has
also reported high arsenic concentrations in Hi—Vol samples tested
to determine the levels of lead and other trace metals present.
The agricultural food laboratories in ten states test
routinely for arsenic and five states include arsenic in their trace
metal air programs.
Outside of the areas of specific source emissions, arsenic is
not viewed by the state agencies contacted as an environmental problem.
Table 4 shows a summary of arsenic monitoring among the 20 states.
Beryllium
Beryllium is the least monitored of the toxic substance under
review. Its toxicity is recognized by state officials but they feel
its main threat to health occurs in the workplace. A Beryllium
47
-------
TABLE 4
ARSENIC MONITORING SU ARY
LEGION
STATE
MED IA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN.
.
•
I MASS.
.
II N.J.
.
IIN.Y.
3
.
.
.
III DEL.
•
IIIPA.
.
.
.
IV FLA.
.
IVGA.
.
.
IVN.C.
.
•
IVTENN.
•
.
I
VMIC}1.
•
a
.
VITEX.
•
•
•
VII IOWA
VII MO.
.
•
.
TIII COLO.
I
•
UTAH
I
I
S
IX CAL.
I
•
I
XIDAHO
1
b:::::
:
.
.
‘
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time survey.
48
-------
Registry is maintained by the Massachusetts General Hospital and
discussions with the staff reveal that over 99 percent of more than
800 cases reported over the years were work—related incidents.
None of the states has reported any current problem in. any area
of the environment resulting from beryllium contamination. It
is mined in Utah (the only such operation in the US) and air mon-
itoring stations reportedly show low levels there. Data from this
surveillance was not immediately, available to MITRE. Pennsylvania,
which is a prime area of processing the ore, monitors air and water
for the metal but has not reported any significant levels.
Additional background monitoring in air occurs in Connecticut, New
York, Tennessee, and Michigan. It is also monitored in water in
New York as a part of the heavy metals program in cooperation with
the USGS, but was not detected in significant concentrations.
In spite of the wide industrial use of beryllium and, its
compounds, it was not considered by the state agencies contacted to be
a problem in the ambient environment in any media. Table 5 shows the
monitoring of beryllium in the States.
Cadmium
Cadmium, widely recognized as a toxic substance with suspected
carcinogenic properties, has varied application in industries
throughout the nation. It was one of tI’e substances most extensively
monitored by the 20 states. All states monitor their water supplies
for cadmium content and 17 monitor their wastewater discharges.
49
-------
TABLE 5
BERYLLIUM MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
& STATE
MEDIA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN.
.
•
I MASS.
II N.J.
IIN.Y.
.
.
III DEL.
III PA.
•
o
IV FLA.
IV GA.
IV N.C.
IV TENN.
.
VMICH
.
VI TEX.
VII IOWA
VII MO.
.
VIII COLO.
VIII UTAH
.
IX CAL.
X IDAHO
X OREG.
X WASH.
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time survey
50
-------
However, cadmium has not been reported by the states as a problem
in public water supplies.
Cadmium was reported in California in high levels in areas which
were used for the cultivation of spinach and other crops. It was
traced to naturally occuring deposits in phosphatic rocks which
had weathered and eroded into the Salinas Valley. Spinach
and other leafy crops were found, to have an affinity for
cadmium which was concentrated in far greater levels than the sur-
rounding soil showed. This discovery occurred during 1970 and forced
the temporary discontinuation of spinach farming in that area of the
state.
Agency officials felt other sources of high cadmium levels were
from lead and arsenic smelters in El Paso, Texas; and Tacoma, Washington.
Hi—Vol samples from the vicinity of the smelter in El Paso showed high
concentrations of cadmium. Lead, which was emitted in greater
concentrations than cadmium, was believed to be the source of ill—
nesses in the area. Large volumes of data have been collected by
the El Paso Health Department and most of it was obtained by MITRE.
Air, soil and dust have been analyzed and the analysis is included
in Volume IV. In Tacoma, Washington, less data was available, but
indications from state health officials were that high levels of
cadmium were also emitted from the smelter.
The other states monitored for cadmium as a part of their
programs to determine background levels for heavy metals. There
51
-------
were no reports of elevated levels in any medium other than seafood
and sediments. Samples from such areas showed the presence of the
metal resulting, according to state agencies, as a fallout from indus—
trial wastes. These levels were not found in any substantial concentratj
Outside of California and the environs of the smelters, cadmium
was not reported by the states contacted as an environmental problem.
Table 6 illustrates a summary of cadmium monitoring in the states.
Chromium
All of the states contacted are concerned about the toxicity of
hexavalent chromium. Many states monitor for both hexavalent and total
chromium, while some test only for total chromium. Chromium is monitored
in drinking water supplies in 15 of the 20 states, and other states mori
itor the chromium content of wastewater discharged to streams. Chromit
has not been reported by the 2 states as a problem in water supplies.
However, some states have reported concern over probable discharge
of chromium waste to streams. For example, Florida reported the
unconfirmed belief that chromium salts are used in air conditioning
systems as anticorrosive agents and are discharged to surface
waters.
Five of the 20 states monitor chromium in their air network
routinely and none have noted any problem area. Five states have
included the metal in fish surveys and two have bee.n routinely checking
solid waste leachate for it. Three states report that they check
for chromium in agricultural products regularly.
.52
-------
TABLE 6
CADMiUM MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
& STATE
MEDIA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN.
•
•
•
•
IMASS.
•
•
IIN.J.
.
•
IIN.Y.
•
•
•
III DEL.
.
.
IIIPA.
•
•
•
IV FLA.
•
IVGA.
•
IVN.C.
•
•
•
IVTENN.
•
•
VMIC}L.
.
•
VITEX.
•
•
•
VII IOWA
•
VIIMO.
•
•
VIII COLO.
•
•
•
•
•
VIII UTAR
•
IX CAL.
.
.
•
•
XIDAHO
•
•
X OREG.
•
XWASH.
•
.
.
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time survey
53
-------
The emphasis in chromium monitoring, as can be seen from Table 7,
is in water. It continues to have a high priority in all 20 states
and will undoubtedly remain on the list of heavy metals monitored.
Cyanide
The 20 states contacted did very little monitoring of cyanide.
Although it is well recognized as a lethal substance, state agencies were
aware of no health hazard from environmental sources. The low level of
monitoring activity might also be related to the instability of the
substance and hence the difficulty of detecting it. It is destroyed
by chlorine and other oxidizing substances and therefore its detection
in drinking water would be rendered difficult, if not impossible,
since such water usually carries a residue of chlorine. Nevertheless,
ten of the states monitor water supplies routinely for cyanide.
The only other monitoring occurs in one state where solid waste
leachate is tested, and in two states where it is monitored in
agricultural products. Table 8 shows the monitoring of cyanide
amoung the 20 states.
Lead
Lead is the most widely monitored of all the toxic substances
being considered. All 20 states monitor it in water and all but four
monitor it in air routinely. Those that do not have ongoing
programs have generally done preliminary investigations in the past,
and are planning to start regular programs. In addition, several mon-
itor it in human blood, in fish and game, and in agriculture. Table 9
54
-------
TABLE 7
CHROMIUM MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
& STATE
MED IA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
I CONN.
•
.
•
•
•
I MASS.
•
•
II N.J.
•
•
II N.Y.
.
•
•
III DEL.
•
•
III PA.
.
IV FLA.
.
IV GA.
•
IV N.C.
•
.
IV TENN.
I
e
V MICH.
•
VI TEX.
•
•
VII IOWA
.
VII V.
•
I
.
VIII COLO.
.
VIII UTAH
•
.
IX CAL.
•
•
•
X IDAHO
.
X OREG.
.
XWASH.
.
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time survey
55
-------
TABLE. 8
CYANIDE MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
MEDIA
SOLID
HUMAN
FISH &
& STATE
AIR
WATER
WASTE
HEALTH
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN.
.
•
I MASS.
II N.J.
IIN.Y.
.
III DEL.
III PA.
IV FLA.
•
IVGA.
•
IVN.C.
I
IV TENN.
.
V MICH.
VI 1EX.
VII IOWA
VII MO.
S
VIII COLO.
•
VIII UTAH
a
.
IXCAL.
•
.
X IDAHO
X OREG.
•
j
X WASH.
= Fairly routine monitoring program, more than one—time sampling
56
-------
TABLE 9
LEAD MONITORING SUNMARY
REGION
& STATE
MED IA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN.
I
•
•
•
0
IMASS.
•
•
IIN.J.
I
.
II N.Y.
•
•
I
—
V
III DEL.
•
•
IIIPA.
0
I
.
IVFLA.
I
I
•
IVGA.
•
0
‘
IVN.C.
•
°
IVTENN.
•
I
VMICR.
•
I
I
VITEX.
•
I
I
VII IOWA
•
VII MO.
I
I
VIII COLO.
I
I
I
I
VIIIUTAH
.
•
.
IX CAL.
•
.
•
I
XIDAHO
•
I
XOREG.
•
•
I
XWASR.
o
I
•
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time sampling
57
-------
shows the extent of the monitoring activities among the states.
The presence of lead in air is widespread throughout the nation
partly because of its use in gasoline, but more serious incidents of
airborne lead pollution concerned the emissions from the stacks of
metal smelters. The most outstanding case was reported in El Paso,
Texas where city/county officials obtained a court injunction which
barred the smelting company from future emissions of dangerous levels
of toxic substances by 1977. Epidemiological studies had correlated
illness of residents of immediate areas of the smelter with elevated levels
of lead in their system. Similar concern over lead contamination was also
reported from Tacoma, Washington, and Kellogg, Idaho, where smelters
are also operated. Studies were continuing in both locations and re-
ports should be available soon. The Texas and Washington health agencies
have reported some degree of cooperation with operators of the smelters
in instituting controls on stacks to reduce levels of emissions of
particulate matter.
Many states are engaged in studies with children to detect ele-
vated levels of lead in the blood so that treatment can be effected.
These programs arise from the problem of pica* in neighborhoods with
old housing which usually has leaded paint. These programs are
usually sponsored by and coordinated with the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.
*The habit of young children ingesting strange objects such as
dirt and paint chips.
58
-------
Lead is usually among the heavy metals monitored in water
supplies. None of the states report any significant problems with
lead in water supplies. The data generally reveal very low levels or
values below levels of detection.
Many states have determined lead in pottery and other household
wares. Such determinations are usually sporadic and are done on the
request of private individuals who might suspect lead contamination.
The vast majority of the’tests performed in the states do not show
any lead, and the number of these kinds of samples have diminished
considerably from a peak in the early l 97 O’s. California officials
indicated that a bill was recently enacted to monitor the movement of
foreign pottery which is believed to be the major source of utensil lead.
Because of the use of lead in the canning Industries as a compo-
nent of solder, occasional contamination might be evidenced. However,
none of the states reported any significant recent incidents, and dis-
cussions with officials of the National Canners Association have indi-
cated that close, stringent quality control measures are observed to
prevent possible contamination.
Although all 20 states seem to be wary of the toxic potential, of
lead, only those with metal smelting and refining operations or problems
with lead—based paint in older dwellings have indicated significant
environmental health problems of lead poisoning.
Mercur 1
Mercury is well known to the environmental agencies in the 20
59
-------
states contacted as a potentially hazardous substance. Probably
because of the publicity which followed from the reported illnesses
and deaths in Japan in the late 1960’s, all the states have monitored
mercury in at least one medium. The predominant emphasis was on sur-
veys in water and fish and wildlife. Most of these started in about
1969 and were discontinued after several years or were reduced in
scale to intermittent monitoring.
Much historical data is available from most states, although only
a few states have compiled and analyzed their data. One of the major
mercury surveys occurred in Massachusetts where there was substantial
pollution from industrial sources, and subsequent contamination of
fish. In Georgia, Texas, and Idaho, mercury pollution was a major
problem in the fishing and hunting areas. Fishing areas were closed
and residents were cautioned about excessive consumption of fish and
birds from some locations. The results from the fish surveys generally
showed that larger and older fish had more mercury than smaller and
younger ones of the same species. The predominant source of mercury in
Georgia was identif led by state officials as a chior—alkali plant, while
in Texas and Idaho the sources were believed by the agencies to be
industrial wastes and the drainage from natural deposits. Pheasants in
Idaho, according to the state agency, became contaminated from eating
mercury—treated grains planted during the spring. The use of mercury
was discontinued in the industrial processes implicated in Massachusetts
while GeorgIa and Texas agencies reported that the concentration of
60
-------
mercury in wastes has decreased substantially. All of the remaining
states except Missouri and Utah also reported surveys over a three to
five-year period, but none revealed findings of similar magnitudes
as those mentioned above.
At about the same time as the fish surveys, many states also
monitored water systems for mercury. All 20 states did some testing
for mercury. The levels reported in water quality data were at or below
limits of detection. The only exception was in Massachusetts where
surface and ground water in the immediate area of specific waste disposal
and discharge was found to have very high levels of mercury. This
water system was not identif led as a source of potable water supply.
The data available in the 20 states substantiate the statements
made by the states that mercury is not as widespread a problem as initially
believed, at least in their water supplies. No state reported any
current case of contamination in any area where fishing or hunting
had to be restricted or prohibited, and most have expressed confidence
in the acceptable quality of their fish and game. Furthermore, none of
the 20 states identified any case of human mercury poisoning or
associated illness. Table 10 illustrates the extent of mercury monitoring
among the 20 states.
PCB’s
Because of the physical and chemical similarities of PCB’s to DDT
and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, there is a strong awareness of po-
tential PCB problems among the environmental agencies in the 20 states
61
-------
TABLE 10
MERCURY MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
& STATE
MED IA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
WJMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
ICONN
.
•
•
•
1 MASS
.
•
•
•
IIN.J.
.
.
IIN.Y.
.
•
.
.
III DEL.
•
•
•
IIIPA.
.
•
IVFLA.
.
•
•
•
IVGA.
.
.
IVN.C.
.
.
IVTENN
•
.
VMICH.
.
.
•
.
.
VITEX.
.
.
.
VIIIOWA
.
•
.
VII MO.
.
VIII COLO
.
•
VIII UTAH
•
.
IXCAL.
.
.
.
.
XIDAHI
•
•
•
•
XOREG.
.
.
.
XWASH.
.
.
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time surveys.
62
-------
contacted. Only Colorado and Missouri did not report any monitoring
activity for PCB’s in any medium.
According to agencies in Massachusetts and Georgia there was a
significant pollution of surface waters and the biota which inhabit
them. In both states the sources of PCB’s were believed by agency
officials to be from electrical component manufacturing operations which
contaminated the streams. Iowa has reported a localized case of PCB
contamination of two species of rough fish. Florida reported an earlier
incident in Escambia Bay which was probably the first known case of fish
contamination by PCB’s in the United States. The Florida incident was
traced by the state agency to leakage from the PCB storage facilities at
the producer’s plant. California and New York have also done fish sur-
veys on a sporadic basis but did not report any significant findings.
Eight of the states —— Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, and Oregon —— routinely monitor agricultural
products for PCB’s as a part of pesticide residue monitoring. When PCB’s
are detected in preliminary tests these states have the capability to
quantify the level of the substance present. A major agricultural episode
of PCB contamination occurred in a number of the southern states including
Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. This incident involved the death
of a large number of chickens, and resulted in an extensive survey that
found massive contamination in a wide range of agricultural products,
silage, and compost.
States generally did not have consistent programs of routine
63
-------
onitorthg of water supplies for PCB’s. Several of the states have
checked surface water and groundwater at some time in the past and
those that have done fish surveys usually analyzed water samples.
Most of the water supply laboratories do not have the capability for
analyzing PCB’s now, but most states have expressed the view that the
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act will result in an in-
crease in agency capability for its routine determination along with
other organic chemicals.
While all the states seem to be fully aware of the potential for
adverse effects from PCB’s, only the pesticide residue laboratories and
a few fish and wildlife agencies have evolved any significant programs
to monitor them. This will probably change in the near future with the
increased interest in organic chemicals and the recently reported
findings (at the time of writing this report) of abnormally high
levels in commercial fish in the state of New York. Table 11 illustrates
the extent of PCB’s monitoring in the states.
Other Toxic Substances
There were nine other toxic substances on the list of those of
interest to OTS. These were: aryl phosphates; benzene; 3,3’ dichioro—
benzidine; ethylene glycol; hydrazine; methyl chloroform; “Moca”
(4,4’ methylene bis 2 chioroanaline); a napthylamine; and acrylonitrile
None of these nine substances were routinely monitored by any agencies
contacted in any of the program areas, and no data was obtained.
64
-------
TABLE 11
PCB’s MONITORING SUMMARY
REGION
& STATE
MEDIA
AIR
WATER
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
GAME
AGRICULTURE
I CONN.
•
IM.ASS.
•
•
II N.J.
•
IIN.Y.
•
•
III DEL.
•
IIIPA.
•
•
•
IVFLA.
•
•
IVGA.
•
•
•
IVN.C.
,
•
IVTENN.
•
•
VMICH.
•
,
•
VITEX.
•
•
VII IOWA
•
VII MO.
VIII COLO.
VIII UTAH.
•
•
I X CAL.
.
•
•
X IDAHO
•
X OREG.
,
X WASH.
•
• = Fairly routine monitoring, more than one—time surveys.
65
-------
However, the Connecticut Health Department Laboratory and the Iowa
Hygienic Laboratory had recently performed limited testing for benzene
and methyl chloroform in connection with occupational health programs;
and the Florida Department of Pollution Control had recently been
involved with limited testing for organics in water.
66
-------
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF STATE TOXIC
SUBSTANCES MONITORING CAPABILITIES
67
-------
INTRODUCTION
One of the main objectives of this project is to report on the
capabilities of the various state agencies in the area of toxic substances
monitoring. The discussion of agency capabilities should include
items such as size of monitoring network, analysis equipment
available, quality control procedures, amount and type of toxic
substances data generated, and anticipated future capabilities, for
each agency and each toxic substance of interest. In order to obtain
the information to describe agencies adequately MITRE defined a set
of 25 key program descriptors and each monitoring agency and/or
laboratory was asked in the course of the project to provide infor-
mation on each descriptor. Responses from the agencies were recorded
on capabilities descriptor forms such as the one shown as Figure 3
in the preceeding overview section. Table 12 lists the 25 descriptors
used on the form.
Once a capability descriptor form had been completed for
agencies in each of 20 states and for each of eight toxic substances
they monitor, a complete set of 160 forms was available. These forms
provide a description of the toxic substances monitoring capabilities
of every agency contacted in 20 states which has monitored at least
one of the toxic substances of interest. Rather than include all
160 basic forms in the body of this final report, the forms have
been published separately as Volume V of the complete report.
69
-------
TABLE 12
CAPABILITY DESCRIPTORS FOR STATE AGENCIES
1. MEDIA SAMPLED
2. NO. OF SITES
3. SAMPLING FREQUENCY
4. EST. OBSERVATIONS PER YR.
5. INCLUSIVE DATES OF DATA
6. AMBIENT LEVELS
7. MONITORING OBJECTIVE
8. DATA STORAGE FORM
9. DATA RECORDING LAG
10. ANALYSIS PERFORMED
11. DATA RETENTION PERIOD
12. SAMPLE RETENTION PERIOD
13. DATA IN FED. SYSTEM
14. AVAILABILITY OF UPDATES
15. LAB USED
16. NO. OF LAB PERSONNEL
17. NO. OF DEGREED CHEMISTS
18. FORMAL LAB TRAINING PROGRAM
19. MAJOR EQUIPMENT
20. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
21. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
22. OTHER T.S. MON. CAPABILITY
23. FUTURE FOCUS OF MONITORING
24. ASSISTANCE DESIRED FROM EPA
25. OTHER COMMENTS
70
-------
In addition to providing detailed information on the toxic
substances monitoring capa ’ilities and the availability and nature
of the toxic substances data for each individual agency contacted,
the descriptor forms contained in Volume V serve as a basic data
base for any number of cross-summaries and analyses that O1 may
find useful to make. For the overview section of this final report,
MITRE aggregated all states and all toxic substances monitored for
an analysis of overall monitoring capability in each program area
(i.e., air, water supply, water quality, solid waste, human health,
fish and wildlife, and agriculture). Obviously, analysis is possible
on many other bases, such as geographically, for specific combinations
of substances, for specific types of programs, for agencies with
specific types of equipment, etc. The ordering scheme MITRE used
in constructing the descriptor tables was the following:
State
Substance
Media/Program Area
Specific Agencies.
After the primary ordering were the 25 capabilities descriptors,
describing the monitoring capabilities of the agencies.
With the tables available in Volume V, it is possible to order the
data by any of 24 possible combinations, and then to summarize and
analyze the data according to any combination of the 25 capability
descriptors desired. For example, if it were necessary to know the
71
-------
amount of monitoring done for cadmium in surface water by fish and
wildlife agencies on the west coast whose data is not reported to
STORET, this could be found by checking the appropriate descriptor
tables in Volume V.
In this section of the final report, agency capabilities have
been aggregated for all 20 states and the analysis is by each toxic
substance monitored in each program area. A detailed summary table
has been constructed for each substance, and the accompanying
discussion is keyed to the capability descriptors shown on the
tables. A far more detailed discussion of each specific agency
contacted in each state and the arrangements made for data acquisition
may be found in the four quarterly reports submitted to OTS during
the course of the project and referenced in the introduction to
this volume. The discussion by substance follows.
Arsenic (See Table 13)
1. Arsenic is monitored at a total of 25,005 sites in the 20
states In all media, which means that the substance is monitored
at virtually all the sites where toxic substances are monitored.
Most of the sites are in water, with 243 in air and only
30 in solid waste (only two solid waste agencies monitored toxic
substances).
2. There are nearly 83,000 analyses done for arsenic per year
by agencies in every program area. The majority of analyses are done
by the water supply and water quality agencies.
72
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR ARSENIC IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
PROGRADI
DESCRII’JUR
AiR
WATER
SI 3EI.Y
WATF.B
QUALITY —
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
IIF.AI TN
FISH &
WILDLIFE
AUNt—
CI1LTI’BF
1. ‘]UiAL SITES
241
15,613
9,119
30
NA.
NA.
NA.
T SFAi, ()HSERVA—
2. TIÜNS PER 8EAR
6,388
17.762
39,654
120
1,200
6,000
11,873
PERCENT DATA
REURI YES
83
81
94
100
75
— 0
80
MONITORING
OB.JECTIVE
EALK(KOUNI)
POPULATION
COMPLIANCE
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
5. S DRAGE 10kM
VAR.
DATA SHEETS
COMPUTER
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
6. USE OP DATA
S AT1STICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STUDIES!
CHECKED
STUDIED
CHECKED
CHECKED
DATA RETENTION
TIME
IO+yro
IGI-yro
1O+yro
5 yrs
104-yrs
1O+yrs
1 y
H. SAMPLE RET. TIME
1O+yrs
— 0 -
- S —
- 0 —
— 0 —
— 0 —
— 0 —
9. SIOHET/SAHOAII
— I ) —
6 of 16
14 of 18
NA.
N.A.
N.A.
NA.
DO. LAB TYPE
OWN lAB
OWN I.AB
OWN LAB
CONTRACTED
CAiN LAB
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
,VG. NO. LAB
PERSONNEl.!
CIIIDMT STS
34/8
17/ 10
17/11
170/25
12/5
5/3
36/lB
12, VSPE TRAINING
O,lT
SiT
(UT
OJT +
OJT
OJT +
OJT
13. LABS WITH
CC & AA
3 of 6
14 of 15
16 of 17
1 of 1
3 of 4
1 of 1
6 of 9
14. CAN SO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
4 of 6
13 of 16
16 of 17
1 of 1
3 of 4
1 of 1
9 of 9
15. ANALYSIS METHOI)
EPA
EPA/APHA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
AOAC
16. QUALITY CONTROL
lIlT/EXT.
INT./F.XT.
ERr/nIT.
EPA Q.C.
INT./EXT.
LNT./EXT.
lIlT/EXT.
FUTURE MONITORING
INCH. NET
MORE IS.
MORE T.S.
MORE TN.
flEd. NET
MORE T.S.
REMAIN SANE
18. HELl’ DESIREI)
lIDS.. VAR.
0, VAR.
$
$
STDS., $
$
sTRs.
73
-------
3. For all the agencies contacted which had data on arsenic,
data has been received from 84 percent. This included agencies
which submitted their data directly to SAROAD, STORET, or another
Federal program. All agencies state that their data could be made
available to EPA on request in the future, although the majority
would require assistance for retrieval and copying. The specific
reasons some data was not obtained are discussed in Volume III.
4. The prevalent reason for monitoring arsenic in the various
program areas was basically the same as the other toxic substances:
population—oriented for water supply, human health, and agriculture;
background monitoring for air and fish and wildlife; and compliance
for solid waste and water quality.
5. From the air programs monitoring arsenic, data was received
in a variety of forms——data sheets, compiled reports, and computer
printouts. Of the other program areas except for water quality,
where the majority of agencies had computerized data storage, the
prevalent storage form was on data sheets.
6. The predominant use made of arsenic data by air, water and
solid waste agencies was basic statistical analysis for their own file
information. Agricultural agencies would generally only check the data
to see if levels were within tolerances. In fish and wildlife and
human health areas, arsenic levels were checked for tolerances and
the data was used in detailed studies.
7. The only solid waste agency monitoring arsenic retained
data for the current five years. All other agencies intended to
74
-------
maintain historical data files for at least ten years, although
few had arsenic data going back that far.
8. Air agencies monitoring arsenic intended to retain portions
of Hi—Vol filter samples at least ten years. Some specific human
health samples might be kept for varying lengths of time, but most
were discarded after analysis was completed or were consumed in the
analysis, as was true of ai,l the other program areas. The only
exceptions were where high levels were detected and the sample
was required for possible litigation. In these cases, samples
would be retained until the cases were resolved.
9. None of the air agencies monitoring arsenic have submitted
the data to SAROAD except Texas, and since no code was available
for Texas’ X-ray fluorescence method, that data has not yet been
entered into SAROAD. Three water supply agencies and 14 water
quality agencies submit arsenic data to STORET.
10. All agencies except the one solid waste agency analyze for
arsenic in the agencies’ own laboratories. In the agency for solid
waste, analysis was done under contract.
11. In all the laboratories which analyzed for arsenic,
there were an average of 42 laboratory personnel, of whom an average
of 11 were degreed chemists. The breakdown of average laboratory
personnel and degreed chemists for each program area is shown in
Table 13.
75
-------
12. In laboratories where arsenic analysis is performed, the
most common form of training is on—the—job—training, supplemented by
outside training courses when schedules and resources allow. None of
the laboratories reported having formal training programs.
13. In all program areas except air, 83 percent of agencies
had use of atomic absorption and gas chromatograph equipment. Three
of six air agencies had both units.
14. Eighty—five percent of air and water agencies, and all of the
solid waste, human health, fish and wildlife, and agriculture agencies
which monitored arsenic, felt they had the capability in terms of
trained personnel and equipment to monitor almost any toxic substance
that might be required from the OTS list. The only conditions were
that a method of analysis be available and that the additional analysis
could fit into their work load.
15. The prevalent analysis method for arsenic across the board
except for agriculture was that recommended or endorsed by EPA. For
agricultural agencies the most commonly referenced method was that
recommended by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
16. Thirty—three of 52 agencies and laboratories reported that
they employed both internal and external procedures for quality
control. Specific procedures varied from laboratory to laboratory,
but generally they included standards and duplicate samples in the
laboratory and occasional check samples with outside laboratories.
76
-------
17. The expected future focus of toxic substances monitoring
varied from program to program. Air programs monitoring arsenic
expected for the most part to increase network size and number of
samples. In water 17 of 38 agencies felt that new regulations would
require monitoring more substances than arsenic and the others they
are currently doing. More metals and organics on the OTS list were
also expected to be monitored in the areas of solid waste and fish
and wildlife. Human health agencies expected less widespread analysis
or random analysis for arsenic and more detailed study in specific areas
of concern. One—half of the agricultural agencies expected the sample
work load to remain about the same for the near future.
18. Responses to the question of what assistance from EPA
would be most desirable varied within and among program areas.
The nxst common assistance desired was research arid development of
standards for substances, development of methods of analysis for new
toxic substances, and funds for additional personnel and equipment.
Beryllium (See Table 14)
1. Beryllium was n nitored at a total of 7,039 sites in the
20 states——the least number of sites of any of the substances for
which data was available. All but 235 of these sites were water
quality and water supply sites in two states.
2. The total of all analyses for beryllium per year was 16,526,
also the lowest number for all substances.
77
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR BERYLLIUM IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
10045 / 01
DESCRIPTOR
AIR
WATER
SUPPlY
WATER
QUAlITY
5 1 ) 1 111
04511
1 1 11)15 5
lUAU))
ITS 1 .
WII,SIllf
51
I II ) ) )
1. SIITAL SITEs
235
1(123
5,701
-
—
5. 5.
2. TOTAl. OIISERVA—
TIDES PER YEAR
3,526
1,500
5,500
—
6)5)))
3 PERCENT DATA
RECEIVED
100
ISO
1(1(1
—
—
—
) ‘
4. MONITORING
ORJF.CTIVE
BACKGROUND
POIlII.ATION
VAR.
—
—
—
lUMP) SN( F
5. STORAGE FORM
COME UTEII
COMPUTER
I )I)MEI1IER
—
—
-
055 ‘ I I I
6. USE OF DATA
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATIST IIS
—
—
—
U A
7 DATA RETENTION
TIME
lI}fyro
10+vro
.
lOfyrs
—
—
—
I l l+vr
II. SAMPLE RETENTION
TIME
lOfyrs
— 0 —
— 0 —
- S —
9. SIUEETJSARDAD
1 of 8
2 of 3
2 of 2
—
.
10. lAB TYPE
OWN LAB
0DM LAD
OWN AD
—
—
5 25 I SR
15. oEG. AU. LsR
P ER SO NNEL /
CIIEMISTD
32/51
20/12
17/10
—
—
1 0/9
12. TYPE TRAINING
OJT
SIT
OTT
—
‘IS
13. LABS WITH
SC E AA
5 of 8
2 of 2
1 of 1
I 0
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAl.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
6 of 8
1 of 2
1 of I
-
I oI I
ANALYSIS METHOD
EPA
EPA
EPA
-
—
—
IDA
16. QUALITY CONTROL
INT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
—
—
-
INS/EDT.
17. FUTURE MONITORING
FOCIIS
LNCR. NET
FR3RE T.S.
REMAIN SAME
-
—
-
REMAIN SAME
18. hELP DESIRED
$, VAR.
$
VTDR.
—
—
—
511)5.
78
-------
3. Including data in STORET, data was counted as received from
all agencies which monitored beryllium except for the Connecticut
Agricultural Station. That agency randomly samples food but compiles
no data.
4. Objectives of monitoring for beryllium varied. In air it
was primarily to determine background levels, in water supply it was
population oriented, and for the water quality and agricultural
agencies it was population and compliance oriented.
5. The predominant data storage form for 54 percent of air
and water agencies was a computer system, and for the agricultural
agency data sheets were used.
6. In all areas the most common use of the data was to determine
basic statistics for the agencies own information. Air agencies re-
ported that routine checking was also done to see if levels were
excessive.
7. In nearly all cases it was the Intention of the agencies
to maintain data records at leastten years.
8. Air sample filters for beryllium were kept for at least ten
years. In water and agriculture, samples were genetally not retained
beyond analysis except where required for possible litigation. In
these cases, samples were kept until enforcement litigation was re-
solved.
9. Of eight air agencies monitoring beryllium, only Utah submits
the data to SAROAD. Both of the water supply and water quality agencies
submit beryllium data to STORET.
10. All of the agencies nk nitoring beryllium have control of
their own laboratory, or of their own section within a larger
79
-------
laboratory system.
11. For all laboratories monitoring beryllium, the average
persontrel strength is 22, 10 of whom are degreed chemists. Table 14
shows the breakdown for each program area.
12. For all program areas, the prevailing form of training is
on—the--job—training. Some agencies reported that this is occasionally
supplemented by outside training courses when schedules and resources
permit.
13. Except for air, all agencies had access to atomic absorption
and gas chromatograph equipment. All air agencies had atomic
absorption units, which are required for trace metal analysis, and
five of the eight monitoring beryllium did have gas chroxuatographs
as well.
14. The majority of agencies in the programs where beryllium
was monitored felt they could monitor most additional toxic sub-
stances if required, and all agencies felt they could do at least
some additional ones. The only conditions were that a method of
analysis be available for the substance, and time and personnel be
available to do the analysis along with all other requirements.
15. Except for the agricultural agency, which reported using
a USDA analysis method, all the agencies monitoring beryllium use
the analysis method endorsed or recommended by EPA.
16. The most CommOfl quality control procedures reported were
80
-------
both internal (calibration, standards, duplicates) and external (check
samples with outside laboratories). Two air agencies (Utah and Wayne
County, ichigan) reported that no formal quality control programs
were being practiced.
17.. The agricultural and water quality agencies expected their
toxic substances monitoring to remain at about the same level in the
near future. About 44 percent of air and 67 percent of water supply
agencies anticipated increas d networks and sampling and an increase
in the number of substances sampled.
18. The assistance most desired from EPA varied among the
agencies n nitoring beryllium, but two items were prevalent. One
was standards, both of acceptable levels of substances in the en-
vironment, and standard methods of analysis for new substances. The
other comr nly mentioned item was funding for more personnel and
equipment.
Cadmium (See Table 15)
1. For the 20 states contacted, cadmium is rr nitored at an
overall total of 25,380 sites. It is monitored at all the solid
waste, water supply, and water quality sites where any toxic
substances are monitored, and it is nonitored at the majority of
the air and fish and wildlife sites where metals are analyzed.
2. For all media, there are about 93,000 analyses done for
cadmium per year by all agencies reporting. The predominant media
is water, with a significant anount of sampling and analysis also
81
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR CADMIUM IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
PROCRAPI
DESCRIPTOR
AIR
WATER
s1JPPI ,y
WATER
QuALITY
01)1))
05611:
ROMAN
IIEAI:I1F
F ‘ II 1.
611,10 (CI-
5 —
‘ ‘ f
1. ‘IOTA), sITES
427
15,612
9,272
3(1
NA.
19
\.‘
2. TOTAL ORSERVA—
TIONS PER YEAR
11,824
2(1,262
43,846
120
780
‘ I (IF
F,
PERCENT DATA
RECE [ V II)
100
70
96
100
100
OI l
1 , 5
4.
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
COMPLIANCE
IilMPI,IJINCE
P1 (PTI.A’FION
SAUKGRO’Nll
( R II’l ,IAN( ’F
5, S’IORACE FORM
REPORT FORM
RF.PORT FORM
COMPUTER
O)MPUTER
COMPII’IliR
KEP (l8’I FORM
RFI ’I (FT 1 )1kM
6. USE OF (AM
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
S’I’ATIVTUCS
CHECKE))
I )If l’KE I)
GIA3IG I 1)5
(II ) ) fEll
DATA RETENTION
lS+yrs
IO+yro
1O-fyrs
5+yrs
lI )+yro
I( )+vr ’.
oor.
SAMPLE RETENTION
lO4yrs
- 0 —
— 0 —
— 0 —
— .5
- 0
- o -
9. S’IORET/SAROAD
1 of 16
6 of 17
16 of 25
NA.
8.5.
TA.
8. 2.
1)). LAB TYPE
OWN lAB
OWN LAD
OWN LAB
CONTRA)’TEI)
OWN IA ))
TAR.
1671 IA !)
PERSONNEL/
CRRMI ITS
10/6
18/10
17/11
171/25
16/7
24/19
371:4
42. TURD ThAINING
OJT +
OJT
0. 0’
0 ,11’ +
(01’
II’! +
(IT
13. LADS WITH
CC 8 All
8 of 16
14 of 16
2]. of 23
1 of 1
2 s) I
4 oF
4 sf 6
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
12 of 15
13 of 16
22 of 23
1 of 1
2 of 3
4 0 5
4 ol 4
CS. ANALYSIS METHOD
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EDA/AOAC
VAR.
1 ) 10 /A(IAC
16. QUALITY CONTROL
IMT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
INT./RXT.
INT./F.XT.
INT.IEXT.
IN ’I ’./FX’I’.
INI./FX ’1.
17. FUTURE MONITORING
FOCUS
VAR.
MORE ‘ES.
VAR.
MORE TX.
VAR.
MORE TI.
MORF TO.
DECREASE
EAR.
8)51518 SAME
18. HELP DESIRED
Sn), $
$, VAR.
S
S
SillS., VAR.
S
Sills.
82
-------
done in the air and fish and wildlife areas.
3. The overall percentage of data acquisition from all
agencies with some cadmium data was 86 percent. This Includes those
agencies sending data directly to SAROAD, STORET, or another Federal
program. All agencies contacted felt that they would be able to send
future updates if required, although some assistance may be needed
for retrieving and copying data.
4. The objective of monitoring for cadmium varied within and
among program areas. Eleven of 22 air agencies monitored to determine
what background levels were, and at other air agencies the objective
was population and compliance oriented. Sixty—eight percent of water
quality, solid waste, and agricultural monitoring was compliance
oriented. The water supply, fish and wildlife, and human health
monitoring was primarily population oriented.
5. The predominant form of data storage for water quality,
solid waste, human health, and 50 percent of water supply agencies,
was computerization. For the other agencies, data was maintained
on some form of data sheets.
6. The cadmium data was used in some sort of statistical
analysis by the majority of agencies in the air, water, and fish
and wildlife areas. In solid waste, human health, and agriculture,
individual levels were checked mainly to determine if they were
excessive.
83
-------
7. Most agencies intended to retain cadmium data a minimum of
ten years. Solid waste agencies expected to retain data at least
five years, and the retention period among agricultural agencies
ranged from one year to more than ten years.
8. Nine of 16 air agencies retained portions of filter
samples for at least ten years. In all other areas, samples were
not retained beyond analysis unless levels were significantly high.
In these cases, samples were usually retained until enforcement
litigation was resolved.
9. One of the 16 agencies reporting cadmium data submits the
data to SAROAD. Six of 17 water supply agencies and 16 of 25
water quality agencies submit their data to STORET.
10. Except in the areas of fish and wildlife and solid waste,
the majority of agencies perform cadmium analysis in their own
laboratory. The solid waste analysis is done by contract
laboratories, and the six fish and wildlife agencies nxnitoring
cadmium are split among contract laboratories, shared facilities,
and their own laboratories.
11. Overall, for all laboratories performing analyses for
cadmium, there are an average of 42 personnel in the laboratory, of
whom 15 are degreed chemists. The average proportions for laboratories
in the various program areas are sbown in Table 15.
12. For most laboratories, the primary training of personnel
84
-------
is on-the—job training, with occasional outside courses when schedules
and resources allow. No laboratory reported having a formal training
program.
13. Almost 80 percent of agencies contacted had access to both
atomic absorption and gas chrornatograph equipment. All air agencies
had access to at least atomic absorption units, which are required in
their trace metal analysis..
14. Based on the trained personnel and equipment available, 88
percent of the agencies monitoring cadmium felt they had the capability
to monitor most other toxic substances on the OTS list if required. Every
agency felt it could do at least some additional substances. The only
conditions were that a method of analysis be available and that
resources be provided for n re personnel and equipment if new
analytical burdens Interfered with existing work loads.
15. In the air, water, and solid waste areas, the method of
analysis for cadmium n st frequently referenced was the atomic
absorption method recommended or endorsed by EPA. In human health
and agriculture, it was the FDA and Association of Official Analytical
Chemists standard method, and for fish and wildlife agencies a variety
of standard methods were reportedly used, the most common being that
recommended by EPA.
16. Except for three air agencies which reported no programs
and several water and agricultural agencies which had only internal
85
-------
programs, 49 percent of the agencies in all areas have both internal
and external quality control programs. Internal procedures included cal...
ibratiot-is, standards, and duplicate samples; and external procedures usually
included exchanging check samples with Federal or other laboratories.
17. Views of the future focus of monitoring varied considerably
within and among program areas. Eighteen of 19 air agencies expected
to see more substances monitored and an increase in network size and
number of samples, as was also true of 33 of 44 water supply and
water quality agencies. Solid waste anticipated that more toxic
substances would be monitored, agriculture expected about the same
level of effort, human health looked for a decrease in random sampling
with a concentration on problem areas, and fish and wildlife was
divided among agencies which expected to expand sampling, decrease
sampling, and remain at about the same level.
18. As was the case for the aggregate of all agencies n’onitori
all substances, of all the areas of assistance from EPA which would
be most useful to agencies monitoring cadmium, two were primary.
These were standards for levels of toxic substances in the environ—
ment and standard methods for their measurement, and funds for
additional equipment and personnel. There were also a variety of
individual items mentioned by specific agencies. (See Volume V ror
other items mentioned).
Chromium (See Table 15)
1. Chromium is monitored at nearly 25,000 sites in the 20
states contacted. It is monitored at all solid waste sites where
86
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR CHROMIUM IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
PROGRAM
YESCRIPTOR
AIR
WATER
SUPPLY
WATER
QUALITY
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
WILDLIFE
ACES-
CIDTFRF
1. IOTAL SITES
223
15,122
9,255
30
—
39
—
2. TOTAL OBSERVA—
TIONS PER YEAR
4,488
20,012
43,562
120
6,335
6,600
3 PERCENT RATA
RECEI VED
100
69
91
100
—
100
33
4 MONITORUNC
OBJECT IVE
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
COMPLIANCE
COMPLIANCE
-
BACKGROUND
COMPLIANCE
5. STORAGE PORN
COI UTER
DATA SHEETS
COMPUTER
cOMPUTER
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
6. USE OF DATA
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
—
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
7 DATA RETENTION
TIME
1O+yr
1O4 yr
1O4-yr
S+yr
—
1S+yrs
1O#yr
8. SAMPLE RETENTION
T rIP
IO+yro
— 0 —
— —
— —
.
— —
— 0 —
9. STORET/SAROAD
—0—
5 of 16
15 of 21
10. LAB TYPE
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
CONTRACTED
—
VAR.
OWN LAB
11. AVG. NO. LAB
PERSONNEL!
CHEMISTS
15/11
17/10
18/11
105/30
24/20
27/18
12. TYPE TRAINING
OJT +
SJT
OJT
OJT +
—
OJT +
OJT
13. LABS WITR
GC & AA
2 of 5
13 of 16
20 of 23
2 of 2
—
4 of 4
2 of 3
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
3 of 5
13 of 16
20 of 23
2 of 2
4 of 4
2 of 3
15. ANALYSIS METHOD
EPA
APHA/ EPA
EPA
EPA
—
EPA
USDA/AOAC
16. QUALITY CONTROL
INT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
—
UNT./EXT.
INT./EXT.
FUTURE MONITORING
POCUS
VAR.
VAR.
VAR.
MORE T.S.
—
VAR.
REMAIN SAND
18. hELP DESIRED
VAR.
$, VAR.
S
S
—
S
STDS.
87
-------
toxic substances are n nitored, at nearly all the water supply and
water quality sites, and the majority of fish and wildlife sites, and
at about half of the air sites.
2. Over 81,000 analyses are made for chromium per year by
agencies in all the program areas combined. Water sample analysis
accounts for about 63,500 of this total.
3. For all agencies which conducted chromium analysis, data
was considered received from 83 percent. This includes agencies
which submitted their chromium data directly to SAROAD, STORET, or
another Federal program. For specific reasons some data was not
collected, see Volume III.
4. Similar to the situation for other toxic metals, the n nitor—
ing objectives varied within and among program areas. The primary
objective for air and fish and wildlife programs was background
level determination. In water supply, the objective was primarily
population oriented, while for water quality, solid waste, and
agriculture, it was compliance.
5. Computer systems were used for data storage for 53 percent
of agencies in air, water quality, and solid waste which monitor
chromium. For water supply, fish and wildlife, and agriculture, the
data sheets were used for storage.
6. For 65 percent of agencies in all program areas monitoring
chromium, the use made of the data was in basic statistical analyses
for the agencies’ own information files.
88
-------
7. Except for two solid waste agencies, which reported at least
a five—year data retention period, 39 of 47 agencies in the program
areas where chromium is monitored retain (or intend to retain) their
data for at least ten years.
•8. Three of five air agencies retained portions of Hi—Vol
filter samples at least ten years, and the minimum retention period
for any of them was five years. In the other areas, agencies
generally do not retain samples after initial analysis unless levels
are significantly high and the samples may be required in litigation.
In those cases, samples are retained until litigation is resolved.
9. None of the five air agencies which monitor chromium submit
their data to SAROAD. Five of 16 water supply agencies and 15 of 21
water quality agencies submit chromium data to STORET.
10. Sixty percent of all agencies analyze chromium at their own
laboratory. The solid waste analysis is done by contracted laboratories,
and the fish and wildlife analysis is divided among contracted laboratories,
shared facilities, and one agency’s own laboratory.
11. For all laboratories which do analyses for chromium, the
average number of laboratory personnel is 34, 17 of whom are degreed
chemists. Breakdowns of average personnel strength and number of
chemists for each program area are shown in Table 16.
89
-------
12. As was the case for all laboratories generally, the
most common form of training in laboratories which analyze for
chromium is on—the—job—training. In some agencies this is supple—
men ted with outside courses when resources and schedules allow. None
of the agencies monitoring chromium had formal training programs.
13. in all program areas except air, the majority (81 percent) of
agencies had access to both gas chromatograph and atomic absorption
equipment for analysis. All the air agencies had access to atomic
absorption equipment, which they used for analysis of chromium
and other toxic metals.
14. Of all agencies contacted which did analyses for chromium,
85 percent felt they could also monitor most other toxic substances
on the OTS list if a method of analysis were available and if the addi—
tional analytical burden did not interfere with their present work load.
15. For air, water, solid waste and fish and wildlife agencies,
the primary methods of analyses employed were standard atomic
absorption methods recommended or endorsed by EPA. Agricultural
agencies used standard methods recommended by the USDA and Associa-
tion of Official Analytical Chemists.
16. One air agency reported no quality control program, and
three water supply and six water quality agencies reported using
only internal quality control procedures. All other agencies
0 nitOriflg chromium used a combination of internal and external
quality control procedures in their laboratories.
90
-------
17. There was considerable variety in what agencies viewed
as the future focus of toxic substances monitoring. In general,
most air, water, solid waste, and fish and wildlife agencies ex—
pected to increase network size, number of samples, and number of
substances; although some agencies in each area expected the level
of effort to remain about the same. Both agricultural agencies
monitoring chromium expected the level of monitoring to remain the
same in the near future.
18. Although there were a variety of responses from agencies
in all areas as to what assistance from EPA would be most useful,
two items continued to stand out. These were that EPA should
develop standards for levels of substances in the environment and
standard methods for measuring the substances; and that EPA should
provide funds f or additional manpower and equipment for toxic
substances monitoring. After these two major items, there w re
a variety of specific items mentioned by various agencies. (See Volume
V tables for other items mentioned).
Cyanide (See Table 17)
1. In the 20 states contacted cyanide is monitored at 19,647 sites.
All these sites are either water supplied or water quality stations.
2. There are on the average about 44,000 analyses done for
cyanide per year by water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife,
and agricultural agencies. The bulk of these are in the water
med ia.
91
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR CYANIDE IN 20 STATES
P ROCI1AM AREA
1 4 0, 1 1E V
WAIFS
W A F El l
SOil ’
RIIMAN
R EAI.T ’II
I I ’ll ‘,
oil 5 I i
. 51 —
Cl [ ‘CI
I I ETCR [ I’IIR
AiR
SIJPI’I.R
QFALII A
WA5Fl
TOTAl SITES
-
12 , 1 1 ) 9
7,1 1 3 9
-
-
-
--
TOCAI. OIISERVA—
11055 PER YEAR
7 122
24 1191)
,
—
6
h (lIP)
I. P1115151 lIAR/I
—
80
(2
0)4
—
— (I
0
R iOT VEI l
4. OIlS [ TORI l i T
—
[ ‘OP [ ILA’CI(IN
(‘0141 .1 A lICIA
AIIIP I,I ANTI-:
—
1101 (‘I.E FAil
io OIL I 5 5 ( 5
0143 EUTIVE
5. 5415 FORM
—
VAR.
i :o , - lp [ J ) ’l -:R
RAIN ShEET:;
—
11015 .0 1-I I ’
TIN ChEEPS
6. USE II’ DATA
—
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
—
(TI ,I C l ii
5751151 II’S
7. RAIN 5144SF [ ON
—
154-yro
1 C9+yr
54-yr
—
I i h4 -vr
I (i -I yr
11111
R. SAAIPLEIRE ’I’ENTION
—
—0—
—41--
—R—
—0—
‘0-
-1-—
[ I ll
.
9. ATORET/SAROAII
—
4 0 10
Xl of 12
—
.
.
[ S. JAR SI ’S
—
((VS I_All
(lIAR JAR
CONTRAC’rFAI
—
( (UN [ AR
1.5 .11
11. AVO. NO. lAB
—
41/9
20/Il
411/15
- ‘
5/ 1
41/17
PERS ONNEL/
CHEMISTS
[ 2. 7YPE TRADE INC
—
0,11 +
OTT
(421 4-
—
(hiT 4-
CI
13. 1,5145 51111
—
9 of 14
[ 0 of [ 2
1 01 I
—
I l
2 411 1
CC 14 AD
14. CAN SO AIID [ ’I’ll)NA:
—
8 of 15
9 of 12
I of I
‘-
I il 4
1 . 1 2
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
15. ANA [ .TSIS METHOD
—
APHA/EPA
APIIA/EPA
EPA
-
5111
I’S I IA/A OAC
16. QUAlITY CONTROL
—
[ NT/EDT.
4111./EXT.
[ NT/EXT.
—
1 51./ ISI .
INT,/ 4X’T,
11. SECURE MONITORTN(
—
VAR.
VAR.
INCH, NI-I’.,
MIll IE 1.9.
—
14 1 1(5 ‘I .S.
RFVAIN 4kM?
FOCUS
18. 1411,1’ DESIRED
VAR,
VAR.
$
4
‘IllS
92
-------
3. For all agencies monitoring cyanide in the 20 states, data
was obtained from 77 percent. This percentage includes agencies
submitting data to STORET or another Federal program directly. All
agencies with cyanide data indicated their willingness to submit
updates in the future if required.
4. The predominant monitoring objectives were population oriented
for water supply agencies, (i.e., checking levels which may endanger
human health), determination of background levels for fish and wildlife,
and compliance oriented for water quality, solid waste, and agricultural
programs.
5. The most commonly data storage form was the computer for
water quality, divided between the computer and data sheets for water
supply, and data sheets for fish and wildlife and agricultural agencies.
6. Fish and wildlife cyanide data is checked to see if levels
are significantly high. For other program areas, the main use of
the data is in some basic statistical analysis.
7. The solid waste agency monitoring cyanide retains that
data at least five years. For all other areas the retention time
is at least 10 years.
8. No agency contacted keeps samples after they have been
analyzed for cyanide unless high levels are encountered and the
samples may be needed in litigation. In these cases the samples
are retained until the litigation is resolved.
9. Four of 10 water supply agencies submit cyanide data to
STORET, as do 11 of 12 water quality agencies. No air agency
93
-------
monitors cyanide.
10. Except for solid waste, where analysis is done by lab-
oratories under contract, the majority of agencies performed tile
analyses in their own laboratory.
11. The average number of personnel in laboratories conducting
cyanide analyses in the 20 states is 25, 16 of whom are degreed
chemists. Table 17 shows the average breakdown of personnel and
degreed chemists per laboratory in each program area.
12. The most common type of training is on—the—job—training,
supplemented in some agencies by outside training courses. No
laboratory reported a formal training program.
13. Of the agencies monitoring cyanide, 89 percent had both
gas chroinatograph and atomic absorption equipment.
14. Eighty—one percent of the agencies monitoring cyanide
felt they had the capability for analyzing most additional toxic sub-
stances on the OTS list if analysis methods were available. All the
agencies felt they could do at least some additional substances.
Resources would be required in most cases for more people and equip-
ment if analytical requirements were significantly expanded.
15. The primary method used for determining cyanide in water
is the standard colorimetriC method endorsed by the American Public
Health Association and EPA. For solid waste and fish and wildlife,
EPA’S recommended standard method is reported to be used. In
agriculture, the standard method recommended by the USDA and the
94
-------
Association of Official Analytical Chemists is used.
16. Two water supply and two water quality agencies reported
usIng only internal quality control procedures in the laboratory.
All other agencies used procedures of quality control that included
both internal checks and interlaboratory testing.
17. There were a variety of views as to the future focus of
toxic substances monitoring among the various agencies. In water
supply and water quality, there was a split among agencies which
expected to increase sampling and network size, increase number of
substances sampled, and maintain about the same level of effort.
The one solid waste agency expected to increase both sampling and
the number of substances monitored. The one fish and wildlife
agency monitoring cyanide expected to monitor more toxic substances.
Agricultural agencies expected to remain at about the same level
of effort, with perhaps some increase in the number of substances
monitored.
18. There were a variety of items that the agencies would
like in the way of assistance from EPA, but again these were in
two primary categories. The agencies would like EPA to develop
standards for levels of toxic substances in the enviroxmient and
standard methods for measuring new substances, and they would like
additional funds for more people and equipment. There also was
a large variety of specific items mentioned by the agencies.
95
-------
Lead (See Table 18 )
1. Lead is monitored at 25,058 sites in the 20 states, which
is all but 461 of the total toxic substances monitoring sites
reported. All water supply and solid waste sites are used to monitor
lead, as are most of the sites for air, water quality, and fish and
wildlife.
2. There are about 110,000 analyses done for lead per year by
agencies in the 20 states. This is more analyses than for any
other single toxic substance. About 80 percent of the observations
are in the air and water media.
3. For all agencies contacted with lead data, about 90 percent
of the data is counted as received. This includes agencies reporting
data to the SAROAD and STORET systems and to other Federal programs
directly. The reasons that some lead data was not received are
discussed in Volume III by agency.
4. For 54 percent of agencies in air, solid waste, fish
and wildlife, and agriculture, the main reason given for monitoring
lead was to determine background levels. In both air and agriculture
there were also a number of agencies who reported the objective
as population oriented and compliance. In the areas of water supply
and human health, 20 of 34 agencies considered lead monitoring to
be populatation oriented. For the 14 of 30 water quality agencies,
monitoring was done to ensure compliance with regulations.
96
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR LEAD IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
PROGRAM
DESCRIPIOR
AIR
WATER
SUPPLY
WATER
qUALITY
SOLID
WASTE
HUMAN
HEALTH
FISH &
WILDLIFE
ACRE—
1, TOTAL SITES
565
15,612
8,812
30
—
39
CIQTIRF
—
TOTAL OBSERVA—
2. TIONS PER YEAR
16,522
24,262
43,846
120
4,230
9,330
11,748
3 PERCENT DATA
RECEIVED
95
88
92
100
78
80
90
4 MONITORING
OBJECTIVE
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
COMPLL ’,NCE
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
BACKGROUND
O)I4PLIANCE,
BACKGROUND
5. STORAGE FORM
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
COMPUTER
COMPUTER
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
6. USE OF DATA
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
VAR.
STATISTICS
COMPLIANCE
DATA RETENTION
19
1O yro
LO4yr
5+yts
1O+yrs
1O+yrs
lIWyrs
8, SAMPLE RETENTION
1O+yro
- 0 —
— 0 —
— o —
VAR.
— 0 —
— -
9. STORET/SABOAO
3 of 21
6 of 17
LI of 24
N.A.
N.A.
NA.
NA.
10, LAB IYPE
WN LAB
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
CONTRACTED
ODIN LAB
VAR.
OWN LAB
PERSONNEL/
CHEMISTS
31/13
18/1.0
18/11
170/25
77/28 —
30/24
31/16
12. SYPE TRAINING
JT +
OJT
OJT +
OJT +
OJT
OJT +
OJT
13. LABS WITH
IC & AA
12 of 21
14 of 17
20 of 24
1 of 1
7 of 9
5 of 5
9 of 10
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
16 of 21
12 of 17
22 of 24
1 of 1
8 of 9
4 of 5
9 of 10
15. ANALYSIS METHOD
PA
APRA/EPA
EPA/AlMA
EPA
EPA/FDA
VAR.
AOAC
16. QUALITY CONTROL
INT./EXT.
lIlT/EXT.
INT./EXT.
IN’r./EXT.
INT./EXT.
1ST/EXT.
INT./EXT.
17. FUTURE MONITORING
FOCUS
INCR. NET
ORE T.S.
VAR.
MORE T.S.
VAR.
MORE T.S.
VAR.
VAR.
REMAIN SAME
18. hELP DESIRED VAR.
$, VAR.
8, VAil.
8, VAR.
8, VAR.
STDS., $
STDS., $
97
-------
5. For water quality and solid waste agencies monitoring
lead, the most common data storage from is by computer. For all
other agencies, the most common form is data sheets.
6. For most agencies in most program areas, the predominant use
made of the data after it is generated is basic statistical analysis
for the agencies’ information files.
7. Solid waste agencies report that they maintain data files
for at least five years. Eighty—one percent of all other agencies
keep data records for at least 10 years.
8. The most common air sample retention time for agencies
monitoring lead is at least 10 years. Some human health and
agricultural samples are retained for shorter periods of time, but
for the most part, with the exception of air filters, samples are
not retained after analyses are completed. In some agencies,
samples showing high lead levels will be retained for possible use
in litigation. These samples would be kept until the cases were
resolved.
9. Three of 20 air agencies which monitor lead submit their
data to SAROAD. Six of 17 water supply agencies and 15 of 24 water
quality agencies submit data to STORET.
10. Sixty—seven percent of the agencies in all program areas
except solid waste and fish and wildlife analyze for lead in their own
laboratories. In solid waste the analysis is done by a laboratory
under contract, and in fish and wildlife, agencies use their own
laboratories, contracted laboratories, and laboratories shared with
98
-------
other agencies.
11. For all laboratories where lead is analyzed in the 20 states,
the average number of personnel per laboratory is 54 and an average
of 18 of those are degreed chemists. The breakdown of average
proportions by program area is shown in Table 18.
12. Training in 81 of 84 laboratories where lead is monitored
is on—the—job—training, supplemented by some outside courses when
possible. None of the laboratories reported having a formal
training program.
13. For all program areas, 78 percent of the agencies had
access to both gas chroniatograph and atomic absorption equipment.
Fewer air agencies had gas chromatograph equipment than was the case
in other program areas, but lead and all the other toxic substances
presently monitored in air can be analyzed by atomic absorption
methods, and all air agencies had atomic absorption units.
14. Of the agencies monitoring lead, 83 percent felt they
were capable of monitoring most additional toxic substances on the
OTS list if required and if a method of analysis existed. If the
additional analysis burden interferedwith their existing work load,
however, many agencies felt they would need more manpower.
15. The prevailing standard methods for lead analysis for air
and solid waste agencies are those recommended or endorsed by EPA.
Water agencies had preference for the EPA and the American Public
Health Association standard methods. Human health was divided
99
-------
between FDA and EPA methods, agricultural agencies primarily used
Association of Official Analytical Chemists recommendations, and
fish and wildlife agencies were divided among methods recommended
by EPA, the American Public Health Association, the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, and the instrument manufacturer.
16. Two air agencies reported no quality control programs in
effect, and 20 agencies across all program areas had only internal
quality control procedures. The majority of agencies (45 of 82)
in all program areas, however, had programs which included both
internal and external quality control procedures. Internal checks
included calibration, standards and duplicate samples; and external
procedures ranged from check samples exchanged with other lab-
oratories to certification by the appropraite association or
Federal agency.
17. Responses from agencies regarding how they saw the future
focus of toxic substances monitoring varied considerably from
agency to agency. Most of the air agencies foresaw increases,
either in the amount of sampling or the number of substances
sampled. In water the prevalent expectation was for more substances
to be monitored, as was the case in solid waste. In human health,
agencies were almost evenly split among t 1 ie choices of increasing
amount of sampling, decreasing amount of sampling, increasing
number of substances sampled, and remaining about the same; and
100
-------
a somewhat similar split was found in the fish and wildlife
programs. The prevalent expectation among agricultural agencies
was that the monitoring level—of—effort would remain about the
same.
18. As was reported for other substances, agencies which
monitor lead had a variety of responses when asked what assistance
from EPA would be most helpful to them. Nevertheless two themes
continued to predominate. These were a need for EPA to develop
standards for levels of toxic substances in the environment and
standards for measurement of new substances, and a need for EPA
to provide funds for more personnel and equipment.
Mercury (See Table 19 )
1. Mercury was monitored at 19,866 sites in the 20 states,
all but 117 of which were water supply or water quality stations
in the 20 states.
2. There are about 78,900 analyses done for mercury each year,
and nearly 70 percent of these involved samples analyzed by water
agencies.
3. For all agencies contacted in the 20 states which had
mercury data, data was received from 75 percent. Data which was
not received is discussed in Volume III.
4. Monitoring objectives varied by program area. The primary
objective for air and fish and wildlifo agencies monitoring mercury
was to determine background levels. Compliance and population
orientation (i.e., checking for levels hazardous to human health)
were the main objectives of most agencies in the other program areas.
101
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR MERCURY IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
FRI 1C UADI
0 10CAIPI DE R
AIR
WATER
SUPPLY
WATER
QUALITY
SOLID
WASTE
ROMAN
HEALTH
1 DI I &
WII,DLIPE
MINI—
CIILTURI7
I. lOYAl. SITES
65
10,723
9,026
30
—
22
—
TOTAL OOSERVA-
2,158
11,000
43,204
120
3,530
7,167
11,723
1. PERCENT lISTS
RICE IDE !)
75
62
82
100
80
80
67
4. MONITORINC
ODJICTIVE
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
COMPLIANCE,
VAR.
COMPlIANCE
POFIJI.ATION
BACKCHO)IRI)
POPUI ATIOV/
( )VIPI.I ANCE
I. IITOSACE P0 )0 .1
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
COMPUTER
COMPUTER
DATA SUEETS
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
0. 1106 (JR DATA
VAR.
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STATISTICS
STUDIES
STATISTICS
CIIECKEI)
DATA RETENTION
1& yrs
1 +yr
10+yr R
5+yrs
1O+yrs
lO+yr o
VAR.
• I.ERE ENTION
10+yrs
—0—
—0—
—0—
—()—,VAR.
—0—
0—
9. STODET/SAHOAD
1 of 4
5 of 13
14 of 21
—
—
—
—
10. LAB I’YPE
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
DON LAB
CONTRACTED
Ol IN LAN
VAR.
OWN LAR
11. AID;. NO. LAB
P 1 SHORN ELI
C_SM_‘I IS
40/7
16/11
15/11
305/30
93/34
17/12
32/16
12. TYPE TRAINING
Dir ÷
OJT +
OTT +
OTT +
OTT
(liT +
OTT
3. LABS WITH
CC & AS
3 of 4
10 of 13
17 of 22
2 of 2
5 of 5
7 of 10
7 of 9
14. CAN DO ADDITIONAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
4 of 4
9 of 13
17 of 22
2 of 2
5 of 5
7 of 10
7 of 9
15. ANALYSIS METHOD
EPA
EPA/ADRA
EPA/AURA
EPA
VAR.
EPA//IPHA
VAR.
16. QUALITY CONTROL
INr./EICT.
SET/EXT.
IHT./EXT.
TNT/EXT.
TIlT/EXT.
LET/EXT.
INT./FXT.
17. FUTURE MONITORING
FOCUS
INCR, NET
BRORE T.S.
VAR.
VAR.
ENCR. NET
MORE T.S.
‘JAR,
INCR. NET
lURE T.S.
REMAIN SAYI!
18. HELP DESIRED
STOS., VAR.
6, VAR.
$, VAR.
9
VAR.
9
STDI. , VAR.
102
-------
5. Except for water quality and solid waste, where most of
the agencies computerized their data, the most common form of
data storage was data sheets.
6. Human health agencies usually used their mercury data in
detailed studies of potential health effects, and agricultural
agencies checked the data o be sure no significantly high levels
were encountered. For 64 percent of the other agencies, the data
was processed for basic statistics for their own information files.
7. In solid waste, data was expected to be kept for at least
five years, and in agriculture the time period varied among agencies
from one year to more than 10 years. For most of the remaining
agencies, data records were expected to be kept at least 10 years.
8. Air agencies monitoring mercury generally keep portions of
Hi—Vol air filters for 10 or more years, and human health agencies
keep some samples for short periods of time. Most of the otheT
agencies, however, do not retain samples after analysis unless
high levels are determined and there may be a need for the sample
in litigation. In such cases, samples are retained until the
litigation is resolved.
9. One of four air agencies monitoring mercury submits the
data to SAROAD. Five of 13 water supply ag encies and 14 of 21
water quality agencies submit data to STORET.
103
-------
10. Forty of 64 agencies have their own laboratories for
mercury analyses. The solid waste agencies contract their analyses
to other laboratories; and of the seven fish and wildlife agencies
monitoring mercury, three have their own laboratories, three share
facilities with other agencies, and one contracts for the analyses.
11. For all laboratories doing analyses for mercury in the
20 states, the average number of personnel per agency is 45, 17 of
whom are degreed chemists. The average personnel breakdown by
agency is shown in Table 19.
12. For all agencies contacted, except one in water supply
and one in fish and wildlife which reported no program, the train-
ing carried on in the laboratories is primarily on—the—job type
training. In several agencies this is supplemented by occasional
outside training courses. No agency reported a formal training
program.
13. As Table 19 shows, nearly all agencies in all program
areas have access to both gas chromatograph and atomic absorption
equipment.
14. Of all agencies monitoring mercury, 79 percent felt they
were capable of monitoring most toxic substances on the OTS list if
required. The conditions were that a method of analysis be available
and that no undue additional analytical burden be placed on their
staffs unless funds were provided for more people.
104
-------
15. Except in the areas of human health and agriculture, the
prevalent standard methods of analysis for mercury in the various
media were those recommended or endorsed by EPA. In human health
and agricultural agencies, the standard methods referenced were
those of the FDA, USDA, EPA, Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, and American Public Health Association.
16. One air agency reported no quality control program, and
nine agencies in other program areas reported only internal
quality control procedures. For 30 of a total of 54 agencies,
quality control procedures included both internal checks and inter—
laboratory testing.
17. Views of the anticipated future focus of toxic substances
monitoring differed within and among program areas. For the most
part, air, water, solid waste and fish and wildlife agencies
expected increases in amount of sampling and in number of substances
monitored. The prevalent expectation for human health and ag i—
cultural agencies was that the level of effort would remain about
the same.
18. When agencies monitoring mercury were asked what assis-
tance from EPA would be most helpful, there were a wide variety
of responses. However, two themes predominated. The agencies
wanted EPA to develop standards for levels of toxic substances in
the environment and standard methods of measurement for new sub-
stances, and they wanted additional fund8 for personnel and
105
-------
equipment. After those two principal items, there were a wide range
of other specific items mentioned by individual agencies.
PCB’s (See Table 19 )
1. In the 20 states contacted, PCB’s were monitored at a total
of 3,246 sites. Most of these were water supply and water quality sites,
and there was no reported monitoring of PCB’s at air or solid waste sites.
2. The total number of analyses made for PCB’s per year was
36,390. The largest number of analyses were performed by agricultural
agencies, mainly as a sideline of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide
residue analysis.
3. For all agencies contacted which had PCB data, data was
counted as received from 87 percent. This includes agencies which
submitted data to STORET or to another Federal program. Data which
was not received is discussed in Volume III.
4. The main objective of monitoring PCB’s in the fish and wild-
life program area was to determine background levels. Water supply
and human health agencies conducted monitoring for population—
oriented objectives, and the primary objective of water quality and
agricultural agencies was compliance.
5. For most water agencies, the computer was the data
storage form. For most other agencies the data was stored on data
sheets.
6. Once generated, the data was used in basic statistical
analysis for their own information by most water agencies. Most health
106
-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF MONITORING CAPABILITY FOR PCB IN 20 STATES
PROGRAM AREA
pR;RAM
DESCRIPTOR AIR
WATER
SUPPLY
WATER
QUALITY
SIlL II)
WASTE
HUMAN
I IYALT ) !
FISH &
WILDLIFE
AGO I—
CULTURE
1. TOTAL SITES
—
2,535
693
-
—
18
—
2. TOTAl. O8SERVA—
lIONS PER YEAR
1.024
10,270
—
3,101 !
7.012
14,904
3. PERCENT DATA
RECEIVE))
—
60
100
. .
50
100
91
4 MONITORING
OBJE CT I V F
POPULATION
COMPLIANCE
—
POPULATION
BACKGROUND
POPULATION
5. STORAGE FORM
—
COMPUTER
COMPUTER
—
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
DATA SHEETS
6. USE OF DATA
—
STATISTICS
STATE STICS
-
STUDDES
STUDIES
CHECKED
DATA RETENTION
TIME
1O+yre
1O+yr
—
1O+yr
1O+yrs
1O+yrs
8, SAMPLE RETENTION
TIME
— o —
— 0 —
—
— 0 —
— 0 —
— 0 —
9. STORET/SAKOAD
-
2 of 5
5 of 8
—
NA.
N.A.
NA.
10. LAB TYPE
-
OWN LAB
OWN LAS
—
OWN LAB
OWN LAB
OWN I.AB
AVG. NO. 1 .A8
PERSO )RNELI
CH EMS ST S
10/N
16/12
—
206/ 80
13/7
31/16
12. TYPE TRAINING
-
OJT +
CUT
-
OJT
OJT +
OJT
13. I.ABS WITH
CC & AA
—
3 of 5
8 of 8
—
2 of 2
3 of 4
11 of 51
CAN DO ADDITIONAL
14. TOXIC SUBSTANCES
2 of 5
8 of 8
—
2 of 2
3 of 4
11 of 11
15. ANALYSIS METHOD
VAR.
EPAIAPR 1A
-
FDA/EPA
EPA
FDA/AOAC
16. QUALITY CONTROL
—
INT./EXT.
INT.IEXT.
-
INT.IEXT.
5 5fF/EXT.
INT.IEXT.
FUTURE ‘SOU4ITORENG
POCUS
MORE T.S.
VAR.
-
INCR. NET
MORE TB.
REMAIN SANE
18. HELP DESIRED
—
S
VAR.
-
VAR.
S
STDS. , $
107
-------
and fish and wildlife agencies used the data in preparing detailed
studies. In agriculture, the data was routinely checked for signi-
ficantly high levels.
7. For 68 percent of agencies in all program areas, data
on PCBts was expected to be retained at least 10 years.
. K ei_ ana1 tt % or C ’ s tter ally did not retain
samples after analysis. The only exception was when high levels
were determined and the sample might be needed in litigation. In
these cases samples were usually retained until the litigation was
resolved.
9. Two of five water Supply agencies and five of eight water
quality agencies report that they submit their PCB data to STORET.
10. All human health, fish and wildlife, and agricultural
agencies monitoring PCB’s perform the analysis in their own lab-
oratories, as do nine of the 14 water agencies.
11. For all laboratories analyzing for PCB’S, the average
personnel strength is 55, 25 of whom are degreed chemists. Table 20
shows the breakdown of average personnel strength by program area.
12. One fish and wildlife agency reported no training program
in the laboratory. Otherwise, nearly all agencies conducted on—
the—job—training with occasional outside courses.
13. Ninety percent of agencies monitoring PCB’s have access to
both atomic absorption and gas chroluatograph equipment. The latter
is used in PCB analysis.
108
-------
14. Nearly 87 percent of all agencies monitoring PCB’s felt
they had the capability to monitor most additional toxic substances
on the OTS list if they were required to do so. The only conditions
were that a method of analysis would be available for any new toxic
substance, and that manpower assistance would be provided if the
additional analytical burden were significant.
15. The most common among a variety of analysis methods
referenced by the agencies were those recommended by the American
Public Health Association and EPA for water analysis; and the
recommendations of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
EPA, and FDA for agencies in human health, fish and wildlife, and
agriculture.
16. One agricultural agency reported no quality control
program, and two water and two agricultural agencies reported having
only internal quality control procedures. The remainder of the 30
agencies monitoring PCB’s had both internal and external quality
control procedures. Internal procedures generally included cali-
brations, standards, and duplicate samples. External procedures
involved exchanging check samples with appropriate Federal and
other laboratories.
17. The opinions of the agencies with regard to expected future
focus of monitoring varied from agency to agency. However, the
prevailing view in the water and fish and wildlife agencies was
that the number of samples and number of toxic substances monitored
109
-------
would increase in the near future. The two human health agencies
were divided between increased sampling and remaining at the same
level. Seven of 13 agricultural agencies felt monitoring of
toxic substances would remain at about the same level as in recent
years.
18. On the question of what assistance from EPA would be most
helpful, 52 percent of the agencies stated that they could most use
funds for personnel and equipment. The second most common
response among these agencies was that EPA should develop standards
for levels of toxic substances in the environment and standard
methods of analysis for new toxic substances. After those two
common responses, there were a variety of specific items mentioned
by the agencies.
Other Toxic Substances
No agency in the 20 states contacted monitored any of the
other toxic substances of interest, although in Connecticut, Florida,
and Iowa there has been some limited specific testing for several
of the substances in recent months.
110
-------
SECTION 3
TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROBLEMS
AS PERCEIVED BY STATE AGENCIES
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
A detailed discussion and presentation of summaries and analyses
of the state agencies’ toxic substances data has been included under
separate cover as Volume IV of this final report. The Volume IV pre-
sentation includes a review of all the data that was made available by
environmental,, health, and various other agencies in 20 states during
the course of this project. Because of the large volume and very wide
variety of data in many media acquired on a number of the toxic sub-
stances of interest, and lack of consistency in sites, sampling fre-
quency, and type of samples, it has not been possible within the re-
sources of this project to prepare a comprehensive interpretive analy-
sis of the situation with regard to each substance in the United States
today. Additionally, the problem of analysis of a large amount of dif-
ferent, discrete, ambient data on a nation—wide scale has been com-
pounded by data and information gaps in the areas of source identifica-
tion Information, health effects data, and the non—inclusion of ambient
data already submitted to Federal data systems. Nevertheless, within
the constraints of using only data provided by the agencies in 20 states
as a base, an overview analysis of each toxic substance can be provided
in terms of: general background information on the substance; why and
how the state agencies perceive the substance as an environmental prob—
lem; what they believe to be the main sources of the substance in the
environment; what trends their monitoring data show; and how they deal
with any environmental threats posed by the substance.
113
-------
The remainder of this section consists of narrative overall analy-
sis for each toxic substance based on the state data summaries and
analyses contained in Volume IV. At the outset of each discussion,
there is a brief background summary describing the substance and its
known and suspected impacts, based on the existing literature familiar
to nearly all the state agency officials contacted. From that point on,
the discussion for each toxic substance is based on the data and infor—
niation which was provided by the state agency officials themselves and
summarized and analyzed by MITRE.
Arsenic
Arsenic compounds have long been known to be highly toxic and to
accumulate readily in the human body. In addition to acute cases of
ingestion and resulting poisoning, arsenic from the environment may
enter the human body through inhalation, ingestion of food, water,
and dust, and absorption through the skin. The principal means of
excreting arsenic is through urine, and the body burden is also
lowered through feces, skin, nails and hair. Ingestion of arsenic
has been shown to cause dermatitis, heratosis, nausea, stomach pain,
diarrhea or constipation, and edema, with the fatal dosage in the range
of 70—180 mg. Inhalation causes bronchitis, nasal irritation, and in
concentrated exposures, perforation of the nasal septum. From long
term exposure, arsenic is believed to be carcinogenic, affecting the
skin, lungs, and liver; and there is some evidence that it may be
teratogenic as well. The potential carcinogenic effect of arsenic
114
-------
is probably the most serious from an environmental point of view,
since the arsenic can accumulate in the body over long periods of
low—level exposure in the environment.
Officials of state agencies, because of familiarity with the
existing literature as well as from their own experiences, were
aware of the principal environmental sources of arsenic. Besides
trace amounts which are believed to be naturally occurring and which
occasionally are detected in drinking water supplies and surface and
groundwater, there are several widely recognized areas of man—made arsenic
contamination. Two of these are the processing of gold, copper, and other
ores, including extraction and smelting; arid residues resulting from
pesticides used in the past which contained arsenic compounds such
as lead arsenate. Besides these main sources, coal combustion is
also believed to release small amounts of arsenic, as are some other
specific industrial processes, and some phosphate detergents contain
arsenic concentrations whici are drained Into waterways.
Because of the types of sources of arsenic, every type of
monitoring agency has been involved In testing for arsenic in the 20
states contacted. Public drinking water supply agencies have
monitored arsenic in all of the 20 states contacted. However, except
for one or two localized, temporary problems in a few states, all
water supplies have consistently been determined to be well within
the Public Health Service standard of 0.05 mg/i for arsenic. The
vast majority of drinking water supplies sampled have, in fact, been
115
-------
reported as below the detectable limits of the method of analysis
employed. Iowa has noted that arsenic levels in raw water supplies
sometimes exceed the standards, but the levels drop after treat-
ment for iron removal. Several states monitor agricultural foods
routinely for arsenic because of its use in the organic form as
a growth stimulant in feeds and also because of its use in pesticides.
The most outstanding environmental problems of arsenic pollution
were reported from Tacoma, Washington and from El Paso, Texas. The
Tacoma problem, according to state officials, arises from a copper
smelter which is the largest source of arsenic in the western hemisphere.
An extensive program of environmental monitoring is being pursued and a
report sould be available soon through EPA Region X. Preliminary find-
ings indicate a major output of arsenic into the atmosphere. Samples
have been taken from humans, soil, water and air in the vicinity of the
smelter. The early results showed that household dust had up to 427 ppm,
hair up to 104 ppm and soil up to 797 ppm arsenic. The results have shown
a correlation between the distance from the smelter and the concentration
of arsenic in samples. In general, samples from sites and residents near-
est to the smelter showed larger levels of the metal and these levels di-
minish with increasing distance from it. Arsenic levels in workers In the
smelter were similar to levels in residents of the immediate area of the
smelter. An examination of death records also revealed an in-
creasing incidence of respiratory cancer among men who worked in the
smelter. Arsenic was also a major pollutant in the emissions from
116
-------
smelters in El Paso, Texas. The epidemologiCal studies carried
out in El Paso have not attributed specific cases of illnesses to
arsenic. The emphasis in the El Paso study was on monitoring lead
to substantiate its role in health effects which were demonstrated
in residents of the inuediate area.
Other states monitoring arsenic in air as a part of their
heavy—metal program are New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and
Michigan. None of these states has reported any unusually high
levels in ambient air and therefore no problems of arsenic air pol-
lution are thought to exist. All the states contacted have monitored
their water supplies for arsenic. It is usually done on the same
frequency as the other metals: annually, biennially or triennially.
Iowa is the only state contacted that has reported a localized
problem of contamination, in surface water in Charles City, which
has been traced by state officials to a pharmaceutical laboratory.
New York has monitored solid waste leachate for arsenic from about
30 sites on a quarterly basis since 1973. From 22 samples done
over that period from some of the sites, the average values were
relatively low, ranging between 0.0 and 0.19 mg/i.
To summarize the activities of the states with respect to
arsenic the following were the highlights
. Arsenic is monitored in water by all 20 states. Iowa was
the only state that report a localized case of arsenic pollution
117
-------
in water.
• Six states monitored for arsenic in air: New York, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Nichigan, Texas and Washington. In Texas (El Paso) and
Washington (Tacoma), arsenic from smelters is a probable health hazard.
• H.uman and household samples have been analyzed in Texas,
Colorado, California and Washington. Vacuum dust from houses in
El Paso and Tacoma showed very concentrated levels of arsenic.
• Arsenic Is monitored routinely in agricultural products in
about 10 states: Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, California and Oregon.
• Arsenic was not viewed by state agencies as a widespread
environmental problem outside of El Paso, Texa$, and Tacoma, Washington.
Beryllium
Over the past 30 years, the toxicity of beryllium has been
established with regard to industrial exposure. The most common
route of intoxication is through inhalation of dust or fumes
containing beryllium and its compounds. Some uncertainty remains as
to the pathogenesis of beryllium disease, but the principal effect
is felt in the lungs and respiratory tract. Acute poisoning causes
inflammation of the upper air passages leading to a pneumonia—like
condition with fever, cough, and shortna ;s of breath. The disease
may last up to three months if it is not fatal, and in some cases
chronic effects follow the acute form of the disease. Additional
acute effects may include contact dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and
118
-------
corneal burns. The main chronic effects of long term exposure to
beryllium are gran.ulomatous changes in the lungs. Granulated lesions
are distributed throughout the lungs, which lead to cou ghing,
progressive shortness of breath, weight loss, and sometimes fever
and nausea. In some cases, weight loss is so severe that it may
cause death in a matter of months. As beryllium disease progresses,
granulomatous inflammation .is frequently followed by scarring of
lung tissue and damage to the heart. Beryllium compounds have
caused carcinoma of the lungs in laboratory rats and monkeys, but
the evidence that beryllium is carcinogenic, to humans is not yet
conclusive.
State agency officials contacted were generally aware of the
toxicity of beryllium and of the principal sources of the metal and
its compounds in the environment. Extraction of beryl ore.in Utah
is one potential source. The bulk of beryllium ore, however, is
imported; and processing of the ore is concentrated in Pennsylvania
and Ohio. While the chief hazard of exposure in processing plants
has involved the workers, cases of neighborhood contamination have
been reported in the literature. In these cases it was generally
concluded that exposure resulted not so much from breathing contami-
nated air near processing plants, but rather from contact with
beryllium dust from such sources as workman’s clothing and shoes.
Beryllium has a number of very beneficial properties that make it
useful in a variety of industries. These properties include stability,
119
-------
high melting point, high strength—to—weight ratio, extreme hardness,
and excellent ductility. When used as an alloy, it imparts increased
resistance to shock, vibration, and corrosion to other metals.
Because of these and other properties, beryllium and beryllium
compounds have a wide variety of useful applications, ranging from
the aerospace and nuclear industries to the manufacture of bicycle
spokes, jewelry, and spark plugs. Consequently, there is a wide
dispersion of the potential sources of beryllium contamination.
According to the state agency officials contacted, however, there
have not been reported cases of environmental contamination from
these potential sources and the known cases involving beryllium
disease resulted from occupational exposure. This was confirmed in
discussions with staff members at the national Berylium Case
Registry at Massachusetts General Hospital. Of more than 800 cases
reported to the Registry, nearly all were the result of occupational
exposure.
Despite its known toxicity, and its knowtt o u’ att a1 a arc1s,
‘c ot ,e’n.eraUy Considered an environmental threat by
state agency officials. This is reflected in the fact that it is the
least monitored of all eight toxic substances on which states had
some data. Because the main threat to human health is through
inhalation, most of the monitoring that was done was carried on by
air agencies. These were the agencies for the states of Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Michigan; and Wayne
120
-------
County (Detroit), Michigan. In Utah, the monitoring was source—
oriented. Three Hi—Vol samplers were operated near the only known
beryllium mining operation in the United States. Data from Utah was
in the process of being validated and compiled, and was not available when
this report was prepared. The agency director stated that beryllium levels
were usually very low, and that monitoring was done to see that they
remained that way. For t a other states beryllium was one of a
number of metals analyzed to determine ambient background levels in
the air throughout the state. In virtually all of this data, levels
of beryllium were at or near the minimum detectable level.
Other than air, the only agencies with data on beryllium were the
water quality agencies in Pennsylvania and New York. In New York,
one of the primary reasons for monitoring beryllium was that the
monitoring program is operated in cooperation with USGS, and
beryllium is one of the metals which USGS regularly monitored in an
extensive five year period. One of the reasons for monitoring
beryllium in Pennsylvania water is that that state is a major processor
of beryl ore. Since both of these states include their data in the
STORET system, the data was not acquired at MITRE for summary and
analysis.
Cadntj .nn
Cadmium is one of the heavy metals which is widely used in
industry for electro—plating and alloying in conjunction with lead,
zinc or nickel. These uses expose workers to fumes, and the products
121
-------
of plating and alloying are often used in food utensils which can
contaminate food. The metal is usually manufactured as a by-product
of lead, arsenic and zinc. Such mining operations release vast
quantities of fumes and particulates which can further be transported
by water and air to other areas of the environment. Cadmium is also
released in the environment by crops which feed on phosphatic
fertilizers which are obtained from naturally occurring rocks. All
23 states have shown a concern for the metal and therefore have
monitored it in at least one media. The concern over it stems from
its well established severe toxicity and suspected carcinogenic
property. Much research has been done on its toxicity and the
literature has many references of studies and cases indicating the
toxic characteristics and the concomitant disease from high levels in
animals and humans. Disease from cadmium poisoning reveals damage
to the kidney, bone and lungs.
While none of the states which were visited reported any
poisoning or disease outbreak as a result of cadmium ingestion, four
have reported its presence in the environment, and surveys were
initiated from the early 1970’s to determine its concentration in
different media. One of the most significant reports was from
California where high levels of cadmium rjere found by the State
Department of Agriculture in lettuce and other leafy vegetables
grown in the Salinas Valley of the Monterrey Basin. A team of
scientists and officials from the state resource and environmental
122
-------
agencies and the Department of Toxicology at the University of
California at Davis was formed to investigate the extent of cadmium
pollution among other objectives. A monitoring program was set up and
conducted up to the beginning of this year, and the data is now being
validated for inclusion in a forthcoming report by the project team.
Samples were taken from water, plants, soil, indigenous fauna (mainly
rodents and fish). The preliminary findings indicated large concen-
trations of cadmium in many of the samples. The results also showed
that levels in lettuce and spinach were several orders of magnitude
above the ambient soil concentration. This led to the tentative con-
clusion that such leafy crops had an affinity for the metal which was
stored in the leaves and tended to be at higher levels in the older
leaves of the same plant. Preliminary findings suggest that the source
was naturally occurring deposits of cadmium from phosphatic rocks which
had eroded into the valley In which the vegetables were grown. This
discovery of high cadmium levels in the Salinas Valley caused the tem-
porary discontinuation of spinach production from the area. Independent
studies were conducted by the state’s Division of Geology and Mines and
these phosphatic rocks were found to contain levels of cadmium as high
as 625 ppm, as determined from 350 samples taken from 4—6 foot cores.
The details of results from both surveys were not yet available,
although published reports are anticipated soon.
There was a major concern with source emission of cadmium in
El Paso, Texas. This resulted from a smelting complex which
123
-------
is a major source of lead, copper and zinc. The operators of the
smelter were taken to court and charged with violating the city/
county and state standards for particulates, and they were ordered to
institute the necessary installations for reducing the volume of par-
ticulate emissions. Particulates were monitored in El Paso with Hi—Vol
sampling apparatus, from which samples were composited and analyzed
for cadmium and other trace metals (see the arsenic and lead discussions).
High levels of cadmium were found at all the sites throughout the
sampling area. In 1972, 132 samples were analyzed from 23 sites,
and the average value varied between 0.006 and 1.3 g/m 3 of cadmium.
For 1973, 238 samples were analyzed from 20 sites and gave an aver-
age value varying between 0.01 and 0.45 g/m 3 . The 1974 average
values varied between 0.01 and 0.5 g/m 3 , with the 1975 values
between 0.03 and 0.32 ig/m 3 cadmium. The data generally showed a
decline in levels of cadmium over the 4—year period and reflected
the use of additional controls on the stacks of the smelters.
A wide range of dust and soil samples were also analyzed and cadmium
levels were unusually high. Illnesses which developed among residents
in the immediate smelter area were attributed to lead poisoning, which
was the predominant pollutant in the particulate emissions. No casu-
alties of cadmium toxification were specifically identified, nor was
any synergistic correlation established with lead or the other toxic
metals present.
124
-------
In Washington and Idaho where copper and lead smelters are operated,
cadmium was also monitored in the samples taken from humans, water, air,
dust and soil in the affected areas. While the thrust of the effort in
Washington concerned arsenic, cadmium was also determined. The available
data obtained by MITRE includes only five soil samples which were tested
for cadmium in 1972. A more comprehensive report is being prepared
and will undoubtedly include a wider range of samples. The five samples
showed a range of 4 to 16 ppm of the metal. A preliminary conclusion
from the Washington study is that death records showed an increased
incidence of respiratory cancer among men who worked in the smelter.
The cause of this was mainly attributed by state investigators to
arsenic, but since cadmium is also suspected to be carcinogenic its
role cannot be ignored. The Washington environmental agencies in-
volved anticipate a more extensive investigation of the heavy—metal
problem during which the specific role of single metals might be more
clearly defined. The monitoring program in Kellogg, Idaho, a
joint venture involving the State, EPA and CDC, will be a compre-
hensive investigation In the mold of the El Paso study. Data has
been made available to the EPA Regional Office, and a final report
is in preparation.
Other states monitoring cadmium in air are Connecticut,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado and
California. The values reported of ambient concentration in areas
outside of the smelter influence are very low and range from no
125
-------
detection to hundredths of a microgram per cubic meter. All the
states report that they monitor water supplies for cadmium. No
drinking water supply has indicated any appreciable levels and most
record levels below detection limit of the atomic absorption instru—
mentatlon.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California have mon-
itored cadmium in sea foods. In Massachusetts, between 1971 and 1973,
there were 141 determinations for cadmium in shellfish, and the aver-
age concentrations ranged from 0.14 to 0.78 ppm. During the same
period 42 samples of finfish were tested and average values varied
between 0.0 and 0.83 ppm. Six hundred and twenty two (622) sediment
samples taken from the same waters over the same period revealed
average values of 2.37 to 14.74 ppm. The results indicated that cadmium
wastes were getting into the waterways, and were thought by the state
agencies to be due primarily to plating industries. At the same time the
water itself showed average levels of 0.003 to 0.02 ppm from the analyses
of over 400 water samples. The heavy metal survey in Connecticut from
1970 to 1974 investigated shellfish contamination. Cadmium was
determined in 78 samples from different water bodies and the average
value varied between 0.5 and 8 ppm. Six states —— Connecticut, New
York, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Idaho —— reportedly
monitor agricultural products for cadmium. No state except California
has found any excessive levels in any of the products tested.
Connecticut has also been doing additional research on the uptake of
126
-------
cadmium and other heavy metals from soil fertilized with sanitary
sludge. Colorado has done bioassays with cadmium using fish and other
aquatic insects to evaluate tolerance levels, as well as the re-
sulting physiological and anatomical defects which might be induced
by the metal.
With regard to analytical procedures employed in the states, the
initial efforts to analyze samples for cadmium were set back by
difficulties in developing reproducible analytical procedures among
the participants from the different agency laboratories. This was
of specific relevance in California where the validity of high cadmium
values concerned the researchers. Eventually, methods were satis-
factorily worked out to effect adequate interlaboratory practices
which gave confirmatory assurances to the results. All laboratories
report that they use atomic absorption spectrophotometry except in
California and Texas, where X—ray fluorescence (XRF) is used in air
analyses.
• All 20 states put cadmium high on their priority list in
monitoring for trace metals. All have monitored it to some extent
in water, and most indicate that a more frequent and comprehensive
program will emerge with the implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. In the states where cadmium has been identified as a
pollutant from stationary sources, the indication is that close
monitoring will be continued, and the industries have cooperated
in the monitoring and further control of emissions with additional
127
-------
equipment. The data from sediment and biota indicate that cadmium
wastes are getting into waterways, and the states have instituted
additional discharge guidelines and closer surveillance of effluents.
For example, Connecticut has specified that industrial wastes should
contain no more than 0.5 ppm cadmium prior to discharge into the
waterways. Although there is a US Public Health Service (US PHS)
maximum limit of 0.01 ppm for drinking water, most states have not
imposed local guidelines for water supplies; nor are there any for
air emissions separate from particulate standards,
Chromium
Chromium was formerly regarded only as a toxic substance with
no known beneficial value to human biologic activities. In 1974 the
National Academy of Sciences noted, however, that it was indeed an es-
sential element in minute concentration for plants, animals and man. A
deficiency of chromium in the body has been known to cause impairment itt
glucose metabolism because of an apparent ineffectiveness of insulin.
There is no known incidence of adverse effects from excessive in-
gestion or inhalation of chromium from the ambient environment. Injuries
and illnesses resulting front the contact with or use of chromium compounds
have occurred through accidents or with workers experiencing con-
tinuous exposure over a period of time. The respiratory tract and
fat tissues have been found to accumulate it more than other
tissues, but high levels have also been found in the skin, muscle, fat
and the pancreas in reported cases.
128
-------
Chromium is the fourth most abundant essential trace element
and is found occurring in combination with other elements in ores
and other deposits, and is widely used in industry for plating and
alloying. It is found in soil, plants, air and water and can result
from natural sources, industrial wastes or from the burning of wood
and coal. The two most significant forms are the trivalent, stable
and nontoxic form;and the water—soluble, corrosive, toxic, hexavalent
form. Because of its Suspected carcinogenic characteristic as well as
the adverse health effects Observed among industrial workers in
chrome plating industries, most of the 20 states Contacted have
monitored for chromium in at least one media. Some States have
been monitoring for hexavalent and total chromium, while the majority
only monitor for total chromium. None of the states have reported
any incidence of contamination in the water or food Industries, but
several have reported cases of chromium wastes getting in water
systems mostly from plating industries. A summary of the salient
findings from the states follows.
Connecticut, Tennessee, Texas and Missouri, were the only
states in which chromium was monitored in the air. In 1973, 107
composite air samples were analyzed by St. Louis City for chromium.
The average values for all eight sites varied between 0.001 and
3
0.016 p.g/m . For the sante year 199 quarterly composite air samples
from about 55 sites in Connecticut were analyzed. These are low
levels and would not seem to indicate any direct source of emission.
129
-------
The average values per site varied between 0.0015 and 0.0120 pg/m
In Connecticut and New York, chromium has been monitored for
the past two years in ground water from wells in the vicinity
of solid waste disposal areas. No significant levels were reported
in the results of chemical analyses. Food laboratories under the
state departments of agriculture in Connecticut, New York and
California check food products routinely and none has reported any
appreciable levels of the metal. Fish surveys for heavy metals in
California, Connecticut and Massachusetts have checked different
varieties of shell and fin fish for chromium. The results from a shell-
fish survey in Connecticut show low levels of chromium. Eighty five
samples were analyzed and gave average values of 0.60 to 1.60 ppm. The
survey in Massachusetts included samples of fish, sludge, core and
sediments. Between 1971 and 1974, 141 samples of shellfish were ana—
lyzed for chromium. The average values of chromium reported varied
between 0.91 and 2.25 ppm for the four years. Finfish reported some-
what lower levels of between 0.3 and 0.96 ppm from 60 samples analyzed
between 1971 and 1973. Sediment samples analyzed between 1971 and 1973
revealed average values of 12.2 to 175.4 ppm. The level of the metal de-
tected in water was substantially lower and ranged between 0.12 and
0.0002 ppm according to results of 382 water samples analyzed between 1971
and 1972. The high levels of chromium noted in these Eassachusetts samples
were attributed by the state agency to industrial waste from plating
industries. The high level in the sediment and biota with contrastingly
130
-------
low levels in water further illustrate the build—up of trace contaminants
in the food chain even though level8 in the ambient water are low.
All 20 states monitor water systems for chromium. The systems
chosen are either ones involved in a public water supply or rivers
and streams known or suspected to be receiving industrial wastes,
which are thus checked for discharge compliance. Drinking water
sources in l states——Connecticut, Missouri, Georgia, New York,
Washington, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Colorado, Florida,
Tennessee, Iowa, California and Texas——are monitored routinely for
the metal. In Missouri and most of the other states, chromium, like
other trace metals, is determined infrequently——every one, two, or
three years. None of the data reveals any appreciable amounts of the
metal in any drinking water supply, and invariably the levels are
below the APHA’s limit of 0.05 ppm hexavalent chromium. ininany
cases trace amounts are below levels detectable with atomic absorp-
tion spec trophotometry.
The water pollution agency in the County/City of Jacksonville,
Florida, monitors chromium in streams that receive waste from plating
industries or from utilities that use chromium salts as anticorrosive
agents In cooling Systems. It was noted that waste water from air con-
ditioning equipment Is suspected by the agency of containing chromium
salts. The agency has expressed concern over the difficulty of deter-
mining the chemical constituents of such materials, as they only carry trade
names without labels indicating their chemical composition. However, the
1.31
-------
chemical analyses done on water samples from streams receiving the
effluent have not shown any excessive concentration of chromium.
In review of discussions with state agencies and an assessment of
available state data, there is no major pollution problem evident
with hromium with regard to reported health effects in any area of the
environment. Nevertheless, all the states are quite aware of the po-
tential deleterious effects of chromium and have indicated their de-
cision to continue monitoring it in sensitive areas of the environment.
Cyanide
Cyanide has been well known as a very potently toxic substance.
Research has shown that the presence of cyanide In water will inhibit
biologic activities. For example, it was shown that above 0.1 mg/liter
the substance is toxic to fish and above 0.3 mg/liter it inhibits the
activity of the bacteria responsible for self—purification of rivers.
Its toxic effects on the human system are also well recognized. How-
ever, none of the 20 states visited reported any problem of cyanide
pollution. Furthermore, most of the states do not monitor for it
routinely. A common reason raised Is that the cyanide ion is very
unstable in the presence of certain chemicals and hence it is not
easily detected. For example, the ion is destroyed by chlorine
molecules in water. Since cyanide is most likely to be transported by
waste water or potable water, both of which have a chlorine residual
from treatment, it would not be detected if it were tested for in such
waters.
132
-------
Cyanide salts y enter the environment as components of in-
dustrial wastes and can therefore be transported by water into aquatic
systems. Likewise, solid materials containing cyanide disposed in
dumps and landfills could leach into surface or groundwater. Tennessee
and Florida have ongoing programs to monitor streams in their dis-
charge surveillance networks, and Connecticut and New York have recently
initiated programs to monitor solid waste areas for it. The data
collected thus far from these states indicates very low levels or
levels below detection limits • Other states n nitoring water
supplies are Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado,
1orida, New York, Georgia, Missouri, and California. In every
state there have been no significant values reported. For example,
1972 water quality data from the state of New York shows that
167 systems were checked for cyanide and at least 97 percent of them
5 hoWed no cyanide. For those that indicated its prasence none
was above the allowable limit of 0.2 mg/liter, All of these states
rePOrt that they use standard calorimetric methods which are
recommended for waters with low Concentrations of cyanide.
While all the states seem to recognize the very toxic nature
of cyanide, it is not viewed by them as a pollutant which poses any
immediate hazard in any area of the environment and is one of the
least monitored of the eight toxic substances,
133
-------
Lead
For at least several hundred years the health effects of lead
poisoning have been recognized. More recently, acute and chronic
lead intoxication from inhalation of fumes or ingestion of food,
drink, or materials containing high levels of lead has been shown
to impair blood-forming mechanisms resulting in anemia; cause gastro-
intestinal bleeding; damage the kidneys and heart; and, in advanced
cases, attack the nervous system resulting in death or permanent
injury. Chronic exposure to lead is a serious problem because over
and above a certain body burden level where lead uptake is balanced by
excretion through normal processes, lead tends to accumulate in the
system Except in cases of massive and acute exposure, lead
accumulates gradually over time, and the resulting illnesses develop
slowly and are difficult to identify.
Besides its extreme toxicity, the principal reason lead is of
concern as an environmental contaminant is that it is found in
virtually all media of the environment. Lead is useful in such a
wide variety of applications that there is consequently mere of it
produced commercially than any of the other toxic heavy metals.
Some of the mere commonly known products with lead as a constituent
are batteries, paints, plastics, stabilizers, ceramic glazes, food
can sealants, and leaded gasoline. From these kinds of products,
as well as from the basic mining and smelting processes which produce
the metal, and natural lead sources, lead enters all areas of the en—
vironment. In all 20 states contacted, some lead at least in trace
134
-------
amounts had been found in the water, in air, and in ceramics, food,
and human blood.
Many of the state agency officials were aware of the more
familiar cases of acute lead poisoning in the literature. These
cases involved inhaling lead fumes from burning automobile batteries,
exposure of workers in the smelting industry, and exposure of wor ’ers
in the production of leaçied gasoline. Chronic environmental, as
opposed to industrial lead intoxication cases were also I
-------
drinking water supply and food and food—related materials, since
these were the areas where human exposure and consumption are direct.
Water supply agencies in all the states included lead among, the
toxic metals which they monitored. With the exception of several
of the’ more than 1,000 water supplies analyzed for toxic metals for
the first time in Missouri, reported lead levels in the public
water supplies in the 20 states were below the Public Health Service
standard of 0.05 mg/i. In the majority of cases, lead levels were
below the detectabie limits of the atomic absorption analysis
methods employed. Because levels were consistently low, and because
of the large number of supplies to be sampled, any given public
supply in the states would generally have lead analysis done only
once every two or three years. In summary, lead contamination of
public drinking water supplies is not viewed as a general or widespread
problem by the states, but because of the toxicity of lead and the
potential hazard, lead is a substance requiring periodic nxnitoring.
Food and food—related materials are monitored sporadically for
lead content by state agricultural agencies, health departments, or
both to some extent .as in the states of California, North Carolina,
and Michigan. For the most part, samples are analyzed for lead
because of a complaint or request from the public. According to
agency officials, there is usually a spate of such requests whenever
there is press coverage of the rare occurrences of lead poisoning
from food or utensils. On the rare occasions where agencies detected
136
-------
high lead leveiB in food (none of which were reported in the data
for 1971—1974 time frame), the source was believed to he lead used in
solder in the food canning process. According to a spokesman for
the National Canners Association contacted during the course of this
project, improved canning techniques have now largely eliminated this
source of lead in food. Lead from utensils——principally earthenware
cups, pitchers, bowls and casseroles with lead glazes——were more
frequently tested for lead than was food. In each of the 20 states,
the health and/or agricultural agency has done some analysis of
lead leaching from ceramic samples. After a high—interest period
in the early 1970’s, the number of samples analyzed has now dwindled
to about 10—20 per state per year. Agencies now report that detection
of lead leaching is rare, and it is even more rare that levels exceed
the 7 mg/i which the FDA considers the safe limit for use with food
or drink. State health officials in California indicated that a bill
has been drafted to safeguard against lead contamination from foreign
pottery. This is expected to be achieved through independent
chemical analyses of materials used in the manufacture of utensils.
The largest amount of data on utensils was obtained from the Coiorado
health agency, where 824 samples were analyzed from 1971—1974. Of
these, 687 resulted in no lead detected. In cases where the FDA
limit was exceeded, the sample was returned to the owner with the
warning that it should not be used to contain food or drink.
While the major toxic substances monitoring involvement of state
fish and wildlife agencies has been with mercury analysis, several
137
-------
have also monitored other substances including lead. In Colorado,
bioassays were underway to determine maximum acceptable toxicant
concentrations of lead and several other metals on fish and aquatic
insects. The objective of that effort was to develop proposed
standards for levels of toxic substances in water, and to determine
if insects could be used as indicators of toxic substances contamina-
tion. Besides bioassays, ambient samples were also analyzed. While
insufficient samples were taken for firm conclusions to be drawn,
the results indicated that organisms tend to accumulate significant
amounts of lead even when the water environment contains only small
amounts of the substance. A toxic metal survey in Massachusetts,
which included analysis for lead in shellfish and finfish, slid larly
indicates that aquatic organisms will tend to accumulate lead at a
higher level than that present in the surrounding water. Sources
in Colorado were believed to be mine drainage and natural occurrence,
while Massachusetts officials attributed lead contamination to a
variety of industries and treatment plants discharging into the
state’s waterways. Besides fisheries, another concern with lead
was poisoning of game birds through ingestion of lead shot. Data
from Washington and Colorado indicate that ingestion of a single
pellet may cause lead poisoning in birds. The problem was
sufficiently widespread in one area of Colorado that hunters were
required to use steel shot only.
Lead is monitored by the majority of state water pollution
138
-------
control authorities. Many of the larger water monitoring programs,
such as in Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado,
Oregon, Utah, and others, report their data on a routine basis to
the Federal STORET system. All of that water analysis for lead, con-
sequently, was not acquired by MITRE during this project. From the
remaining data that was acquired and analyzed on lead in surface
and groundwater, levels were found to be significantly high only
near areas where mine drainage has occurred as in several western
states and the Missouri lead belt; and in areas with industries and
treatment plants discharging into water. In the Massachusetts toxic
metals survey discussed earlier, river water samples analyzed for lead
in 1972 averaged 1.17 mg/i, with a maximum of 190 mg/i. For the same
year, sediment samples had a mean of 150.87 mg/kg and a max:Lrnuni of
2,000 mg/kg, indicating considerable accumulation of lead in bottom
sediments.
State air quality agencies are presently required to nonitor
only those air pollutants for which standards have been established,
and lead is not included among them. Nevertheless, reflecting
concern with the estimated 180,000 tons of lead emitted annually by
nobile sources and additional emissions from lOcal industrial sources,
many air agencies analyze their total suspended particulate samples
for lead content. While there is no national standard for airborne
lead as yet, there appears to be consensus, as state agencies see it,
anong EPA and other organizations, such as the World health Organization
139
-------
and the National Academy of Sciences, that lead in the amount of
2—3 ug/m 3 of air may result in higher than normal blood lead levels in
humans. Most state air agency lead monitoring consequently is routine
population and background—oriented to determine if existing levels
are near the 2—3 ig/m 3 range. Analyzed results of lead monitoring
in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, California,
Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Oregon, Delaware, and New York reveal
that with the exception of one or two source—oriented sites per state,
annual averages are usually less than 2 g/m 3 . Two exceptions to
these lower background levels are evident in the result s of data
analysis from specific source—oriented monitoring conducted in
California and in El Paso, Texas.
The California survey was made following lead poisoning among
horses in the Carquiney Strait area of Northern California. The con-
cern was that if horses were affected, hazardous levels of lead may
be entering the hinnan food chain from airborne lead as well. A
several—year study In communities in the northern and southern
areas of the state monitored air concentrations of lead, lead in
food from local groceries and home gardens, and blood lead levels
of children and adults in the study couimunities. Air samples from
the southern comrmnities frequently exceeded 2 g/m 3 , with a
maximum level of 10.5 p.g/m 3 ; in the northern communities, where
lead poisoning had been found in the horses, samples never exceeded
140
-------
1 ig/m 3 . From the data on the wide variety of food samples from
all areas, it was concluded that no significant amount of lead would
he ingested through the food chain, and no significant area
differences were present. Blood lead levels from the northern
communities were not in the range likely to be clinically important;
and the levels in the southern communities, while somewhat higher,
were well below the 40 p.g/ml considered by the U.S. Surgeon General
to be indicative of undue lead absorption. In summary, the data
generated was inconclusive and analysis did not tie airborne lead
levels to significant human hazards either from the food chain or
from inhalation.
In 1971, the El Paso City—County Health Department, in an
investigation of a large smelter preparatory to a court case
brought for violations of Texas sulfur dioxide and particulate
regulations, learned that the smelter had emitted 1,012 metri c tons
of lead in the period 1969—1971. As the local officials were well
aware of the potential health hazards of exposure to lead, the scope
of the investigation was immediately broadened to include n nitoring
of human exposure to lead in the air. First, air filter samples from
1969—1971 were analyzed for lead; then, after consultation with
several recognized authorities on the relationship of airborne
lead to human health, blood lead levels were determined for a
sample of the El Paso population. Results showed that 43 percent
141
-------
of those tested living within a mile of the smelter had levels exceed-
ing 40 g/ml, and that this decreased to one percent two miles from
the smelter. At this point, extensive sampling was undertaken
including air, dust, soil, paint, food, water, and pottery; and the
Center for Disease Control in Atlanta was asked for assistance in
human health effects testing.
The findings indicate that ambient air near the smelter con-
tained very high concentrations of lead: 92 g/m 3 annual mean in
1971, and 43 g/m 3 mean from June 1972—July 1973. Much of the lead
was In the respirable size range. No other stationary sources were
found to emit significant amounts of lead, and correlations of lead—
bromine ratios in dustf all data indicated that mobile sources accounted
for only a small portion of the lead content. Dust analysis also
showed a geographical distribution of lead content similar to high
blood lead levels, indicating that where highest levels of lead would
be inhaled or ingested, blood lead levels were higher. The data on
soil analysis was less conclusive and showed no clear relationships.
Paint ingestion could not account for age and geographic distribution
of lead absorption, although there was some evidence that children
did ingest lead—based paint. Lead in food and water was found to be
negligible, and only 2.8 percent of households had pottery with
potentially dangerous lead content. On the basis of the data gathered,
the El Paso agency concluded that at least within a one—mile radius
of the smelter, the smelter was the principal source of lead in the
142
-------
environment. The courts have concurred, and the smelter is enjoined
from discharging hazardous metals and has paid damages and medical
payments for those suffering chronic lead poisoning in the El Paso
area. At present, except for the area immediately adjacent to the
smelter from which people were relocated, ambient lead levels are
3
below 2 g/m
Blood Level Studies
Many cities throughout the country have conducted blood lead
screening and, on occasion, performed studies in attempts to
determine the sources of elevated blood lead levels. For several
reasons, data from most of these activities was not acquired in the
course of the project. Most of the meetings with state agency
officials were held at the state capital, and if the capital city or
a state agency had a lead program, then an attempt was made to
acquire that data. With the priority of getting as much data as
possible on 17 toxic substances from as many state agencies as
possible, however, it was not considered resource— and time—effective
to attempt to acquire blood lead data from every city in each state
which might perform some lead screening. There were additional
problems with patient confidentiality, and the situation where the
results of many programs were already being reported directly to the
CDC in Atlanta. Nevertheless, data on some blood screening was
acquired in the course of the state meetings. In general, results
from California, North Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
143
-------
St. thuis, Missouri, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, indicated
that elevated blood lead levels In children, while still a problem
in the older sections of large cities, is becoming somewhat less
serious than was the case in the 1950’s and 1960’s when lead intoxica-
tion of inner city children was more common. Then, as now, the
major source of the lead exposure is believed by agency officials
to be a children’s habit referred to as pica, which involves eating
such materials as soil, flaking paint, and plaster, containing
significant amounts of lead. When agencies’ blood lead screening
showed results over the generally accepted threshold of 40 .ig/ml,
household Inspections were conducted and orders were issued to remove
and/or repaint surfaces where paint was found to have high lead content.
Although several agencies (e.g., Allegheny County) attempted to deter-
mine sources of high blood lead levels other than ingestion of paint,
all studies except the El Paso case discussed above were inconclusive
in their results. While agencies involved generally believed that
airborne lead in particulate and in settled dust contributed to
elevated blood levels, actionable data was only available on lead-
based paint ingestion. Another study, also involving a lead smelting
complex, is underway in Kellogg, Idaho, with a joint task force involv-
ing the state, EPA, and CDC. A similar comprehensive monitoring
approach to that used in El Paso is being employed, and data on the
results of analysis should be available from EPA ia the near future.
144
-------
Mercury
The problem of mercury pollution has been recurring in the United
Statesduring the last thirty years ever since mercury poisoning was
first reported in 1935 by the American Medical Association. In that
instance a study was made of 529 workers In the fur cutting industry
where a mercury solution was used. It was found that about 42 of the
workers were chronically poisoned with mercury. Between 1953 and 1960,
111 persons in Japan were severely disabled and 43 were killed as a
result of consuming fish taken from Minamata Bay which had been con-•
taminated with mercury from industrial wastes. In addition, 19 babies
born to families from the same region had congenital defects even
though their mothers showed minimal or no symptoms of mercury poisoning.
Another episode of mercury poisoning was reported in the Japanese
island of Hon Shu in 1965. In that instance 26 persons were poisoned and
five subsequently died. The source of mercury was determined to be
fish containing 5 to 20 ppm mercury which was derived from industrial
waste discharged in water and consumed by the fish. One of the first
reports of mercury poisoning in the United States was made by the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta in 1970. The case concerned
the consumption of pork by a family in New Mexico from hogs which had
eaten mercury-treated grains. High mercury levels were found in the
home—butchered hog and in the treated grain which had been fed to it.
Abnormally high concentrations were also found in human samples taken
from three of the ill family members as well as three other members who
145
-------
had not become ill. In the reported cases where mercury toxicity has
been established in humans, the hair and kidneys are found to have the
highest levels. The damages associated with it include brain damage,
kidneymalfunction and muscular atrophy. It has also been established
that pregnant mothers transmit the substance rapidly to fetuses and
many congenital damages to infants have been linked to mercury poisoning.
Because of the deleterious effects of mercury, many of its uses in
medicine, agriculture and industry have been banned and/or curtailed.
The activities of states in monitoring mercury have involved most media
and have essentially been confined to areas where pollution is known
or suspected. Monitoring activities were somewhat set back by the
uncertainty of analytical methods in more unconventional media such as
fish and animal tissue. Initially, interlaboratory testing provided
poor reproducibility of data in some states, but with improved instru—
mentatlon and specially trained laboratory personnel, most state labo.-
ratories have achieved acceptable analysis for mercury in many media.
Mercury was of concern to the health and environmental agencies
in all of the 20 states contacted. The results from the surveys showed
that in those states that identified mercury pollution, the source was
usually believed by agencies to be from industrial wastes. In Massachu-
setts, mercury entering surface and ground water systems was believed
by state officials to originate from a dye manufacturing industry that
used mercury. In Georgia, mercury wastes were traced by state agency
officials to caustic soda and chlorine manufacture (chior—alkali
industry). Texas agencies reported mercury pollution from the aluminium
146
-------
industry as well as from mercury smelting operations in areas of nat-
urally occurring mercury deposits. The pollution in the state of New
York has been linked by officials there to the decomposition of nat-
urally occurring rocks. In Tacoma, Washington, airborne particulates
from a copper smelter were believed to be the cause of mercury deposits
found in nearby soil samples.
Mercury can enter the environment as liquid industrial waste,
airborne emissions from mining operations, or from other sources where
it is used, such as hospitals and agricultural processes. The chemical
form (organic, inorganic, or elemental) p’resent varies according to the
source. It exists as inorganic chemical compounds in the waste from
chior—alkali industry; it vaporizes from hospitals and other labora-
tories as elemental mercury; and it is found in agriculture, where It is
used as a fungicide, as organic mercury (ethyl, methyl or phenyl)
derivatives. In any of these forms, the substance is transported by
air or water or soil and. may cause contamination in any of these forms.
The organic species are considerably more soluble in water at d are also
determined to be more toxic to organisms. In water systems——rivers,
ponds or lakes——mercury travels rapidly to the bottom because of its
high density and insolubility. From the sediments, It is picked up by
aquatic fauna and flora. Fish may ingest it directly through their
gills or from other food such as planktons or smaller fish. Further,
mercury tends to adhere to organic material from which bacterial
activity catalyzes its transformation into organic forms. When mercury
147
-------
enters the body of an organism, it tends to accumulate as it seems to
be eliminated slowly.
The publicity resulting from the reported episodes of mercury
poisoning prompted environmental agencies in all 20 states to
initiate surveys to determine the extent of mercury contamination.
Monitoring in those states contacted has been concentrated on water
supplies, seafoods and agricultural products. The ambient levels
reported vary greatly from state to state as well as within states.
A summary of the most significant programs follows.
In Massachusetts, one industry used mercury in its process of
manufacturing dye. Consequently, very large concentrations were
present in the effluents that left the plant and ended up in the
Sudbury River system by way of a small brook. A survey conducted to
investigate the mercury problem in the state estimated that over a
30—year period in excess of 100,000 pounds of mercury were carried
into the river from this plant. It was further estimated that
between 25,000 and 35,000 pounds of the metal are presently contained
in sludge deposits on property in the vicinity of the plant. Levels
as high as 4,985 ppm were recorded in 6—18 inch core samples taken
from the property. Surface water samples analyzed recorded as much as
57 ppm mercury. Sediment samples taken from a pond which received
water from the contaminated brook showed as much as 1,500 ppm mercury.
Over 90 percent of this concentration was in the top 12 inches., The
levels of mercury discussed above were reported as total mercury, and
I
-------
methyl mercury was estimated by the state agency to be less than one
percent of the total value. Groundwater samples taken from test wells
in the vicinity of mercury disposal sites showed high levels of as much
as 4,300 ppm as total mercury and 3,300 ppm as dissolved mercury from
a 41—foot well. The concentration was somewhat lower for a shallower
well (12—feet deep), where values as high as 148 ppm and 118 ppm were
found for total dissolved mercury respectively. One disconcerting impli-
cation of this data is that an area which was a recharge zone for the
underlying aquifer was overlain with concentrated mercury deposits
which were contaminating the groundwater. These waters apparently
were not used for drinking and would be totally unsuitable for that
purpose as US PHS standards would not allow more than 0.05 ppm
mercury in drinking water supplies.
Another survey was done on the Taunton River system in
Massachusetts which receives mercury wastes from another industrial
user of mercury. Samples taken from sections of the river bed showed
levels which were as high as 173 ppm mercury, and other samples from an
estuarine area showed total mercury as high as 131 ppm. In another
trace metal investigation of the Boston Harbor, sediment analyses
showed mercury concentration of 0.92 to 5.70 ppm mercury. The
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game conducted two mercury
surveys between July 1970 and March 1972. In the first one,
fifty—nine (59) fish from seven species taken from 27 random
statewide sites, were analyzed and showed mercury between
0.03 and 1.36 ppm. Twenty-two fish had concentrations greater than
149
-------
the F,D.A.’s limit of 0 5 ppm In the second survey 148 fish made
up of yellow perch nd largeniouth bass, were analyzed, The results
varied between 0.0 and 12.43 ppm. The data from this as well as
others in the different states established a direct relationship
between the concentration in a fish and its size, weight, length, and
age. The data from 211 shellfish analyses over four years (1971—1974)
showed mean levels between. 0.33 and 0.39 ppm mercury. Between 1971
and 1972, 413 sta ewjde water samples were analyzed for mercury with
mean values between 0.0002 and 0.012 ppm mercury.
Mercury investigation in Georgia between 1971 and 1974 revealed
significant contamination of biota from two major river systems In
the state. In 1971, 143 fish representing 20 species of finfish were
analyzed from the Savannah River with mean values between 0.07 and
1.54 ppm. During this same period 14 species of shellfish and finfish
(97 fish) from the Brunswick River indicated mean values between 0.08
and 1.57 ppm. For 1972, 136 samples from 16 species of finfish from
the Savannah River were analyzed, and mean values varied between 0.23 and
1.45 ppm mercury. From the Brunswick River, 140 samples from 14 mixed
species (fin and shellfish) gave mean values between 0.21 and 1.79 ppm
mercury. For 1973 and 1974 over 200 samples from 27 species of finfish
were done and mean levels varied between 0.21 and 1.35 ppm of the metal.
These results indicate substantial contamination from two rivers that
were the recipients of mercury waste from two chior—alkali industries 0
150
-------
Both rivers were closed to fishing for human consumption. In
addition, water fowl and their food were analyzed for mercury. Sixty—
three bird samples showed levei ’ between 0.01 and 9.45 with a mean of
1.72 ppm, while 48 samples of food gave between 0.12 and 16.8 with a
mean of 1.88 ppm mercury.
In Texas, a mercury survey was concentrated around estuarine areas
as a result of mercury wastes discharged Into Lavaca Bay from aluminum
operations. This bay showed the highest levels In the biota sampled. Be-
tween 1971 and 1974, over 200 samples of fin and shellfish were analyzed
and mean values ranged from 0.02 to 1.0 ppm mercury. In addition, fish
samples were taken from the Concho and Rio Grande Rivers and analyzed for
mercury. The five species sampled from the Concho varied between 0.11
and 0.55 ppm. In over 135 samples taken from nine species of finfish
recorded mean values were between 0.16 and 0.84 ppm. These two river
systems were thought to receive drainage from areas with natural
deposits of mercury from which the metal is mined.
In California, an Interagency Committee was formed in 1970 to
investigate mercury levels in the environment with samples from fish,
game birds, water, and sediments. The fish data derived from 151
samples from 18 species indicate a range of 0.0 to 1.27 ppm,with over
30 percent exceeding the 0.5 ppm tolerance limit. Of 20 samples of
harbor seals analyzed, a range of 0.23 to 3.10 ppm and a mean of 1.1 ppm
mercury was determined. As in most states, water supplies were
151
-------
generally below detectable limits. The biota showed significant
mercury concentration, further substantiating the concept of bio—
magnification through the food chain from low ambient levels in water
and substantial concentrations in sediments.
The Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources monitored birds and mammals for mercury. Included were ducks,
pheasants, miscellaneous mammaLs, and birds. Over 267 samples were
analyzed but only two varieties of ducks showed levels in excess of the
F.D.A.’s 0.5 ppm. One set of 39 samples had a range of 0.01 to 1.76
ppm with mean of 0.65 and the other set of 32 samples ranged from 0.18 to
1.76 ppm with a mean of 0.76 ppm mercury. Wayne County in Michigan
is one of the few jurisdictions in the nation which tests for mercury in
Hi—Vol particulate samples. Quarterly composite samples for 1972
revealed values of 0.05 to 2.03 of g/m 3 of mercury in the atmosphere.
Fourteen (14) samples of sediment from estuarine areas in Washington
were analyzed for mercury. Levels of mercury revealed a range of 0.9 to
7.8 ppm. Thirty—seven wild pheasants were sampled and the results
showed only five birds had levels in excess of 0.5 ppm mercury, with
high values of 4.8 and 4.6 in liver and breast tissues respectively.
In a study of metals emitted from the Tacoma smelter, five soil
samples were analyzed for mercury and r su1ts ranged from 2 to 10 ppm.
The samples were taken from the vicinity of the smelter so the source
of the metal was linked by state officials to the deposition of
152
-------
of airborne particulates from the smelter.
A shellfish survey for heavy metals showed very low levels of
mercury in Connecticut. In over 85 samples analyzed, values ranged
from 0.0 to 0.18 ppm mercury.
A study was conducted to determine mercury levels in food
samples in various areas c5f Idaho. The samples included beef.
pork, poultry, grain, eggs, dry cereals. and a variety of other foods.
The results showed that none of the foods tested which were consumed
by humans contained organic mercury In excess of the 0.5 ppm FDA
limit. The highest level observed was 0.4 ppm in a sample of chicken
liver. Generally, all the foods with the exception of poultry and red
meat (pork and beef) were negative or contained very low mercury
levels.
In a survey using 246 pheasants over a one—year period, it was
found that the highest levels of mercury contamination occurred in the
spring. This indicated that the pheasants ate mercury treated grains
planted during the spring. One set of 90 birds was collected in June
and July of 1970. It was found that 80 percent contained detectable
mercury residues. The mean level was 1.12 ppm and the range was from
0.05 to 7.6 ppm. Forty—three (43) perce. t exceeded. the 0.5 ppm limit.
These findings prompted the Idaho Department of Health to make certain
recommendations regarding the consumption of pheasants. These included
153
-------
a caution not to eat more than one meal of pheasant per week, a sug-
gestion to discard the back and giblets, and a warning that pregnant
women should avoid eating foods with suspected quantities of mercury.,
Farmers were also advised to clean up treated grains and to use phenyl—
mercury instead of methyl— or ethyl—mercury treated grains.
In 1970 a total of 160 fish samples from 19 species were
collected and analyzed. Ninety—eight (98) percent showed detectable
levels of mercury with the highest level of 1.7 ppm in squawfish A
total of 19.3 percent exceeded the 0.5 ppm limit. The data suggested
that channel catfish, yellow perch and suckers accumulate higher
mercury levels than other species from the same waters. Fish from
reservoir sections of Snake River contained higher mercury concen-
trations than those from the free—flowing sections of the river. The
contamination of Idaho waters with mercury has been traced to naturally
occurring mercury ores and to massive spills of mercury during mining
operations of the late 1800’s. These findings also resulted in the
State Health Department promulgating guidelines to citizens similar to
those for pheasants. In addition, fishermen were advised to practice
“catch and release” in the Jordan Creek and Snake River reservoir which
were determined to be contaminated with mercury.
Conclusion
The other states from whom data is available did some surveys, but
none reported any serious contamination from mercury. New York had
154
-------
a localized problem of contamination from natural cources of mercury,
but studies have not become available as of the time of this writing.
In summary, the examples cited above show that mercury pollution has
been strongly evidenced in the aquatic eco—systems and has affected
the fauna from those systems more than any other facet of the
environment.
One result of the series of surveys and investigations which
were initiated throughout the country in the early 1970’s was the
reassurance that mercury was not as widespread in water and food in
the public marketplace as initially feared. Invariably, all water
supply systems revealed none or exceedingly low amounts of mercury in
water that was being publicly consumed. On the other hand, the find-
ings did delineate some features of mercury pollution. For example,
contamination of fish in areas receiving mercury pollution was found
to vary directly with length, size and, less clearly, with the age It
is also related to positions in the food chain——those fish highest in
the chain tend to have larger amounts of mercury than was true
of those that feed among the bottom layers,
In states that identified high levels of the substance in
commercial fishing areas, those areas were closed and/or closely
monitored. In Georgia, sections of the Savannah River and the Brunswick
River were closed and when the sections were reopened, residents were
cautioned to avoid excessive consumption of fish from those areas. In
Texas, the oyster industry was adversely affected by the identification
of mercury in Lavaca Bay. Such occurrences resulted In economic loss
155
-------
to the local fishing industries but the extent of such losses have not
been documented. Whereas the toxic nature of different forms of mercury
has been documented in several publications based on research done
throughout the world, none of the state agencies contacted have noted
any human fatalities or cases of poisoning resulting from the consump-
tion of mercury—contaminated foods or from industrial exposure to the
metal or its compounds. This, however, might only reveal a lack of
correlation of data between medical examiners’ offices, hospitals and
clinics and other agencies rather than substantiate the absence of mercury—
related i11ness s or deaths.
Polychiorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s )
Polychiorinated biphenyls were introduced in the United States
of America in the 1930’s and their production was rapidly increased
to about 34,000 tons in 1970. Up to that time they were widely used
in industry for many purposes such as platicizers, insulating
fluid in electrical devices (transformers and capacitors), and as
solvents. It was not until 1968 that PCB’s were identified as
injurious to human health. This caine about as the result of the
outbreak of Yusho disease in Japan. The cause was traced to the
consumption of food which had been contaminated with a PCB chemical.
Although no incidents of poisoning in humans have been reported In
this nation,iuany states have been aware of the potential hazard of
PCB’s and have been quick to investigate episodes of contamination
of agricultural foods and fish. The concern over PCB’s resulted
156
-------
from the similar biochemical characteristics which they exhibit with
DDT and its other analogs. These include toxicity to many organisms
and wildlife (0.1 ppm has been shown to be toxic to shrimp); biomagni—
fication in the food chain; and pervasive persistence in the environment.
The literature on PCB’s estimates that over 4,000 tons of these sub-
stances entered the nation’s waterways annually up to 1970.
The laboratory determination of PCB’s in the states visited is
relatively new and resulted from an almost Inadvertent discovery of
interferences In pesticide residue analyses in the late 1960’s. Most of
the states worked closely with the FDA on the methodology for PCB sepa-
ration and identification and are now capable of making the determination
routinely, although a few states have indicated the need for more
sophisticated gas chroinatograph instrumentation.
One of the first episodes of contamination reported in the U.S. was
the identification of PCB’s in oysters from Escambia Bay, Florida, in
April of 1969. A survey revealed contamination of sediment, water and
shellfish. This Incident was traced to leakage from an industrial plant
6 miles upstream from the Bay. The leak was stopped but PCB’s continued
to be present in the bay although in decreasing amounts. At the time
of the Florida visit many environmental agencies referred to this episode,
which was published in the Bulletin of EnvIror nenta1 Contamination and
Toxicology in 1970. Fishing was suspended In the bay but has since been
resumed. Because of the past problem of PCB contamination cited in
Florida, the state Department of Pollution Control (DPC) has noted that
157
-------
efforts are being made to discourage the use of PCB’s in old electrical
equipment and new installations are being required not to use PCB’s in
their systems. PCB’s are currently monitored in water and sediments by
the DPC and in foods by the Pesticide Residue Laboratory, state
Department of Agriculture.
In Massachusetts there was a survey between 1971 and 1973 to deter-
mine PCB’s in fish from rivers throughout the state, and also to use
mussels as indicators of PCB pollution. In the first study, levels of
PCBtS as high as 32.8 ppm were determined in fish from one of the rivers.
A second survey revealed levels of PCB’s as high as 79.5 ppm in fish,
while uncontaminated mussels introduced in suspected areas showed PCB’s
as high as 36.5 ppm. This presence of PCB’s was traced by state officials
to an electrical components manufacturer adjacent to the area of the
stream found to have fish with the highest concentration of PCB’s. The
sediment from this area was also high in PCB’s. The study also served
to test laboratory methodology for the identification and quantification
of PCB’s and other chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The Georgia and North Carolina Departments of Agriculture reported
a major incident of PCB contamination of chickenswhich occurred in 1970.
A number of chickens had died and there was an evident thin—egg—shell
phenomenon which threatened chicken farmers in several states in the
region. The contamination was traced to affected feed eaten by the
chickens. In an extensive survey which followed, PCB’s were detected in
a wide variety of chicken and other farm products including eggs, tissue,
158
-------
milk, silage, feed, nesting material and compost. Very large values of.
PCB’s were recorded in many of the media tested. The highest was found
in nesting paper (shredded IBN paper), which had up to 32,000 ppm PCB.
A water survey was also carried Out in 1973 from 39 stations on streams
from 11 river basins to determine PCB’s. Fifteen samples showed signif-
icant levels of PCB’s ranging between 0.009 and 1.800 ppm. The source of
this was also traced to an electrical components manufacturer. In Texas
two surveys were made for PCB’s. The first one done by the Health Depart-
ment in the Rio Grande area between 1969 and 1972 dealt with 221 samples
of human fatty tissue obtained from elective surgery. Seven percent of
the samples (15) showed PCB’s ranging from 0.0 to 10 ppm and a mean of
0.1 ppm. In the second, the Department of Agriculture analyzed 433 sed—
Lment samples over a 23—month period which began in 1970. The samples
were taken from 50 stations on eight major Texas rivers and three smaller
streams. A total of 40 samples showed PCB’s with a mean of 0.16 ppm.
The source of PCB’s in the rivers was not identified, but it was believed by
state officials to be an industrial discharger.
The Iowa Pesticide Residue laboratory of the Department of Agricul-
ture picked up PCB’s in fish and fishmeal. Further studies were done
and some samples of fish (carp and buffalo fish)were found to have sig-
nificant levels of PCB’s. These kinds of fish had been used to manufac-
ture fishineal which was also found to have correspondingly high levels
of PCB’s. Iowa has established a maximum allowable level of PCB’s in
food of 2.0 ppm. Analyses of 20 samples of fish showed PCB values be—
159
-------
tween 0.18 and 10.26 with a mean of 2.15 ppm. Further investigation
was occurring but the source of the contamination was not determined
at the time of the visit.
The monitoring activities for PCB’s in the twenty states have been
centered around four areas. They are agricultural products; fish and
other animal tissue; water and sediments from water bodies; and human
tissues. Nost states report their findings as aroclor, specifically
Aroclor 1248, 1250, or 1260. These designations are references to the
manufacturer’s trade names, and refer to the percentage composition of
chlorine and the aromatic constituent of the PCB’s. Aroclor 1248 denotes
12 percent of the aromatic constituent and 48 percent chlorine, while
1260 would likewise denote 12 percent aromatic and 60 percent chlorine.
None of the states indicated any differences In toxicity of the various
forms and seemed to have treated each with equal concern and attention.
The PCB’s reported most frequently from the surveys were 1260 and 1248 or
were just reported as PCB’s. Apart from known or suspected cases of PCB
pollution the agencies do not monitor routinely for PCB’s in fish or water,
and no case of PCB monitoring in air was reported by any state. This is
surprising in view of the emissions reported in the literature of over
1,000 tons of the substance to the air, primarily from plasticizing in-
dustries. The state agency which usually screens routinely for PCB’s is
the pesticide residue laboratory which Li most states comes under the
state department of agriculture. This laboratory functions primarily as a
pesticide regulating body. A wide range of substances, Including fruits,
160
-------
vegetables, dairy and poultry products, are examined frequently to ensure
safety from pesticides. PCB’s can be identified qualitatively on the gas
chromatograph when analysis Is done for pesticides. When this identif i—
cation occurs most of the states further check samples to quantify the
amount of PCB’s present. The states with such capability are Connecticut,
Georgia, New York, Florida, Tennessee, Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan,
Utah, Pennsylvania, California and Iowa. States that did a survey for
PCB’s in fish are Michigan, Massachusetts, Georgia, New York, Florida,
and California. Most states do not monitor their water supplies for
the biphenyls, but whenever they are suspected analyses are carried
out. Twelve states have tested water and sediments for PCB’s (see
Table 11).
PCB’s continue to be of interest to these states. Where industrial
contamination was identified, as in Florida, Georgia and Massachusetts,
agencies were able to get the industries to curtail or discontinue their
use of the substances. Although PCB’s have been found in fatty tissues
(in which they have been found to accumulate) from humans, there have
been no reported cases of poisoning or Illness in any of the 20 states.
Only Iowa among these 20 states has an “action limit” on PCB’s of 2 ppm.
The others have reacted to episodes of contamination of food products
by closing fishing areas or taking foods off the market.
Other Toxic Substances
There were nine other toxic substances on the list of those of in-
terest to OTS. These were: aryl phosphates; benzene; 3,3’ dichioro—
161
-------
henzidirie; ethylene glycol; hydrazine; methyl chloroform; “Moca”
(4,4’ methylene his 2 chioroanaline); napthylamine; and acrylonitrile.
None of these nine substances were routinely monitored by any agencies
contacted in any of the program areas. However, several agencies
had done limited testing for benzene and methyl chloroform in water
recently. These were specifically the Connecticut Health Department
and the Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, which analyzed some samples in
connection with occupational health programs; and the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, which conducted some limited analysis of
water samples for organics. In none of the three instances was
data available for inclusion in this report.
162
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read I.qst.ructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 12.
EPA 560/7-75—001-1 I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compilation of State Data for Eight Selected Toxic
Substances
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSIOrNO.
5. REPORT DATE
September, 1975
6 PERFORMING ORGANUZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
E. Roberts, R, Spewak, S. Stryker, S. Tracey
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
75—52 Volume I
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The MITRE Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2LA328
11.CONTRACT/GRANTNO.
68-01-2933
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
—
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
In June 1974, the Office of Toxic Substances, EPA, contracted with MITRE to
collect and analyze toxic substances data in the U.S. In the next 14 months,
MITRE contacted agencies in 20 key states and collected and analyzed their monitoring
data. This report describes that effort and discusses the amount, type and useful-
ness of the data and the toxic substances monitoring capabilities of the state
agencies contacted.
l•7.
Ar sen i C
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromi urn
Cyanide
Lead
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURiTY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Mercury
PCB’s
Toxic Substances - Data
Collection
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
1 UISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
21. NO. OF PAGES
165
22. PRICE
EpA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |