OCCURRENCE OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN DRINKING
WATER.

-------
--3a IEFING--
The Occurrence of Volatile Qrganics
in Drinking Water
FOR
Victor J- Ki.im
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Drinking Water
March 6, 1980
Prepared 3y
Criteria and Standards Division
Science and Technology Branch
Exposure Assessment Project
William A« Conislio
KiTTiaEL Filler
Duncan MacKeever

-------
Table of Contents
Purpose
PARAMETERS OF ANALYSIS
Data Availability
Ranking or Organics by Frequency
Population Characteristics of Federal Sampling
Surface Water
Statistics on Raw and Finished Surface Water
Population Characteristics of Federal Sampling
Ground Water
Statistics on Raw and Finished Ground Water
Comparative Data on Ground and Surface water
Trichloroethlyene
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylsne
1,2-Dichloroethane
i,l,1-Trichloroethane
LI-Oichloroethane
trans-Dichloroethylene
cis-Qichloroethylene
LI-Qichlqroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Hot Spot Identification 3Y States
Summary of State Data on Volatiles
Summary of State Data for Specific Chemicals
Trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
LLI-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Detailed Data from Mew Jersey
Organics Found in New York
Organics - Nassau County, Mew York
Future Sources of Data
i

-------
Page
Population Characteristics of Rural Survey -
Ground Water	41
Regional Distribution of Rural Survey - Ground Water	42
Population Characteristics of Community Survey -
Ground Water	43
Population Characteristics of Combined Federal Data	44
State Plans for 1980	45
Total Data on Volatilss in Wells	46
Findings	47
Recommendations	48
11

-------
The Occurrence of Volatile Organics
in Drinking Water
Purpose
1-	To DEFINE THE EXISTING DATA ON VQCs IN DRINKING WATER,
WITH EMPHASIS ON GROUND WATER-
2-	To DETERMINE IF THE FREQUENCY AND CONCENTRATION OF
SPECIFIC VCCS DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR "CL REGULATION AND
IF SO IF THERE IS ENOUGH DATA TO SUPPORT A REGULATION.
1

-------
Parameters of Analysis
a Frequency of occurrence
Number of samples vs. number positive
Levels found (concentrations).
Representativeness of samples
population coverage
size of system
Regional differences
0
2

-------
Data Availability
MORS
MOMS
SRI
QTS*
Annapolis Field Study*
Region V survey*
Stat? Data
-Data available prom approximately 19-20 States
-Data only available (in most cases) in summary form
*Limited surveys
3

-------
Frequency qf
Surface
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Cmlorodibromomethane
Pentachlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
Dichloroiodomethane
Dl BUTYL PIITHALATE
Al RAZINE
2,'|-Dichlorophenol
Benzene
Phthalic acid
Ioluene
" Fetrachloroethylene
•Carbon tetrachloride
"Trichloroethylene
SlMAZiNE
p-Dichlorobenzene
Bromoform
1, 3,'|-Trichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
"1 , 1,1-Trichloroethane
Dl SULFOTON
Benef in
Malathion
Kliioranthene
Phenyl acetic acid
Cyanazine
PuOPAZINE
"cis-1„2-Dichloroethylene
Tkichlorofluoromethane
Frequency %
99
6
95
0
79
3
38
1
36
1
35
2
33
3
27
8
21
8
21
6
20
'1
19
4
17
8
16
0
15
5
13
0
12
5
12
'1
11
5
10
0
9
9
9
2
9
2
6
5
5
8

6
H
6

6
'I
6
1
6
"PRESENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR MCLs •
> Presence in Fin-Lsjieji
fiamiim	Ea£mi£io,_X
Chloroform	70-3
Bromodichloromethane	69-2
ClILORODI BROMOME THANE	61-5
Bromoform	36.3
Dichloroiodomethane	30-3
Dibutylphtiialate	28-6
•Tethachloroetiiylene	26-1
p1,1,1-Trichloroethane	22.2
"LI-Diciiloroethane	21 - 'i
~cis-I^-Dichloroethylene	21.'I
Phthalic acid	21 -'l
2,'l-DlCHLOROPIIENOL	17-2
"Trichloroethylene	16 - 'l
OlETHYLPIITHALATE	11 • 3
p-Dichlorobenzene	12-9
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether	8-7
Benzene	8.5
Ethyl chloride	7-1
Trichlorofliioromethane	7-1
•1, I-Diciiloroethylene	7-1
• TRANS-1,2~Dlchloroethylene	7-1
Chlorouenzene	7-1
SlMAZiNE	7-1
Methyl parathion	7-1
Malathion	7-1
PlrN'l ACHLOROPHENOL	6-9
Fluoranihlne	6-9
Dichloromethane	6-7
"Carbon tetrachloride	5-5
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl ) ether	'1-3
4

-------
ORGANIC '/OLATILZS
IN
SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES
FEDERAL DATA

-------
Population Characteristics of
Surface Water Systems Sampled
(SRI, MOMS, QTS, Region V)
Population 2 of Systems	? of Systems
Served	in 1J• S~	Wh ich have Data
25- 99	814	0
100- 499	919	1
500- 999	1,014	1
1,000- 2,499	864	1
2,500- 4,999	798	9
5,000- 9,999	519	9
10,000-99,999	771	62
100,000-1 million	135	90
Over- 1 Million	10	3
Totals	5,844	181
5

-------
COMPARATIVE STAnSJLQA_flJi-IJl£-|.QttL£mMTUili
Qf_i£l_E£r£0 -flflfiAJH CS-IN J{A«_AaO



El
ui^hfin Hater
C Sll fl£AC(LJ







U Cities
Z Positive








&H£L£D
. Samples


Meulm
Bahse


Raw Fin
Raw
Fim
Haw
Fin
Raw
Fin
Haw
Fim
1 K 1 CHLORGE f IIYLEHE
105
133
11.41
32. n
.9
• 1 1
.25
• 26
• 1-'I2
.06-3.2
f.AHBON TeTHACHLOH) DC
151
181
9-71
11-8X
2.98
3-58
2-0
1.0
•2-10.0
• 1-30
11 r iiaciilohoethvlehe
151
180
13-61
2<|.'| X
) >96
1-19
2-0
.3
•1-9-0
• 1-21
1 , 2 -D1 CIILORQETIIANE
105
153
9-5X
'|. 5X
J* <16
2-11
.55
1.8

.8-1-8
1 . L 1 ~ fit 1 C lit. OftOE THANE
105
133
12-1X
21-8X
• 32
.56
• 2
•1
•1-1.2
.1-3-3
1 , 1 DlCIILOUOETIIAHe
105
103
1 • 92
2-9X
1
• 2
1
.2
• 1--1
• 2-. 2
tkans-Uiciilohoetiiylene
105
103
1.02
0
• 1
0
-
0
• 1--1
0
C 1 S-|l|CIILOHOErHVLENE
105
103
2.9X
H-9Z
.17
.66
.2
.3
• 1-.2
.1-2-2
1, 1 "111 CIII.OROE CHYLENE
105
103
0
lr9X
0
• 36
0
• 36
0
•2-.51
Mt i iiYi.tne Chloride
151
178
3-21
18. OX
1-11
1.81
1-0
1.15
•1-19-0
• 2-13
Vinyl Chloride
105
133
7-61
2.3X
2-85
3-13
3-25
• 1
•2-5-1
•1-9-8

-------
ORGANIC VOLATILES
IN
GROUND VAXES SUPPLIES
BASED ON FEDERAL DATA

-------
Population Characteristics of
Groundwaters Sampled*
Population
Served
* Systems
t n U. S ¦
# Systems
Whtch Have Data
25- 99
19,205
0
100- 499
13,361
0
500- 999
4,168
0
1,000- 2,499
4,339
1
2/500- 4,999
1,519
2
5,000- 9,999
1,355
1
10,000- 99,999
1,196
15
100,000-1 million
55
20
Over 1 willion
1
0
Totals
45,310
39
0
0
0
0-02
0-1
0-07
1-3
JO-5
0
0.09
•Based on SRI, MOMS and Region V study-
Q

-------
Comparative Statistics oh the
CoHCEHmuJi^E-liLiiLiERjjaeattL^
IN RAH AMD FlJlLSU£Q flAT£R (flBflUHQT Jtfi/t.


S Cities
SAtlELiQ
% Positive
&A/i£iJL£
tlfcAil
fkuiAti
JlAUfiJL

R
v Fin
Rah
Fin
Rah
Fin
Rah
Fin
Rah
Fin
ll8
2-13
1 • 1
2-1
.315.0
1.3-5-0
1 , 1 "111 CIILPNOETHAME
1
13
23.1
23.J
• 7
.3
.8
• 2
• IJ-.9
-2-. 5
TkAHSDlCIILOROETIIYLENE
1
13
15.4
15-1
1-75
1-05
1-75
1-05
.2-5-3
•2-1-9
C 1 i " 1) 1 CIILOfiOE TIIYLENE
1
13
38-5
30.8
J 3-56
9-35
• 1.
• 15
•1-60-0
.1-57-0
1, OHOETHYLENE
1
13
15.^
7.7
• 5
.2
.5
-
¦ 5-.5
• 2
MlIIIYLEUE CtlLOfi | DE
2
38
3.7
2-6
<1.0
7.0
-
-
<|.0
7-0
VlNYl CllLOHlDE
1
25
15-1
4.0
5-8
9-
-------
COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS
OF
VOLATILE ORGANICS
IN
GROUND AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES
BASED ON FEDERAL DATA

-------
TRICHLOROETHVLENE
ci2c = i;hoi
SUIIFACE
WATEI1
SUPPlIES
32.3%
GltOUND
WATfcH
SUPPLIES
36%
%
%
so
uo
70
so
60
40
30
JO
10
0
MD
GROUND
n= 26
M	110
SURFACE
10 40
>10
n= 133
<10	14	4 10
GROUND & SURFACE
10 40
-40
n = 30
ND
<10
1 4
4 10
10 40
•40
12

-------
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
40
30
20
10
0
SURFACE
water
SUPPhES
44.8%
GliOUND
WATER
SUPPLIES
23.7%
CC1
%
%
%
90
BO
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
SO
ao
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
90
ao
70
60
60
40
iO
20
10
0
GROUND
NO
10
14	410
SURFACE
jam.
n= 39
10 40
>40
it = 181
(2)
NO	<10	14	4 10
GROUND & SURFACE
10 40
-40
n = 32
NU
<10
I 4
4 10
10 40
'40
13

-------
TETRACHLOItOIETHYLENE
%
%
%
SURFACE
WATER
SUlVllES
24.4%
GltOUND
WATEII
SUPPLIES
26%
uu
uo
70
GU
6(1
40
30
^0
10
0
UO
no
70
60
t>0
40
30
20
10
0
90
eo
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
GROUND
n = 36
(3)
<10
14	4 10
SURFACE
10 40
>40
it = 180
(211
<10	14	4 10
GROUND £l SURFACE
10 40
>40
n= 32
(12)
NO
<10
1 4
4 10
10 40
>40
l'l

-------
1, 2-DICHLOROIETHANE
CII2CICIIjCI
SUnFACE
WATEn
SUl'I'lliS
4.6%
GHOUND
WATEn
SUPI'l IES
4%
%
%
%
BO
UO
70
bO
60
40
30
20
1U
0
90
UO
70
60
UO
40
JO
20
10
0
80
eo
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
GROUND
n = 26
NO
-<10	14	4 10
SURFACE
10 4a
>40
II - 133
(1)
nuu
:10	14	4 10
GROUND a SURFACE
10 40
-40
n — 30
NO
<1 0
1 4
4 10
10 40
-40
IS

-------
SUIII-ACE
WATER
SUWl'lES
21.»%
1, 1, 1-TRICI-ftLOKOlHTHANE
CljC - C»i3
*
mm
;g}$&
GltOUND
IVATEH
SUPPLIES
21.7%
%
%
%
•JO
(10
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
•JO
UU
;o
60
60
40
JO
20
10
0
1)0
uo
70
bO
bO
40
30
20
10
0
GROUND
n = 2l
(21
Nf>
0
14	4 10
SURFACE
10 40
>40
n = 133
171
ND	<10	14	4 10
GROUND ft SURFACE
10 40
-40
n= 30
ND
<1 0
1 4
4 10
10 40
'40
16

-------
1, 1-DICHLOIIOETHANE
CI|CI2- CMi
SURFACE
WAIEJ1
SUPPLIES
2.9%
UnOUND
WATEII
SUPPLIES
23.1%
%
%
%
90
BO
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
30
uo
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
90
80
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
m
<10
ND
GROUND
i) — 13
14	4 10
SURFACE
10 40	>40
n= 103
<10	14	4 10
GROUND & SURFACE
10 40
>40
it = 14
ND
<1 0
14
4 10
10 40
•40
\7

-------
TRANS
,-;V <•
: < 'i V/'; ;
SUilFACE
WAIER
SUPPLIES
0%
(¦HOUND
WATEII
SUPPLIES
16.4%
DICHLOROETHYLENE
%
%
%
80
80
JO
to
60
40
30
20
10
0
GROUND
14	4 10
SURFACE
ND
n = 13
10 40	>40
n = 103
<10	14	4 10
GROUND £l SURFACE
10 40
-40
n - 14
Nl>
<10
I 4
4 10
10 40
'40
18

-------
CIS - DICHl-OROETHYLENE
bUhi-ACE
WATEfl
SUPI'llkS
4.9%
(illOUNIi
WATEil
SUPI'I its
30.0%
%
%
%
no
eu
70
bU
t(J
4 (J
3 (J
iO
10
0
NO
NO
GnOUND
n= 13
14	4 10
SURFACE
10 40
>40
:10	14	4 10
GROUND h SURFACE
10 40
:io 14
4 io 104a
19
n = 103
-40
n = 14
-40

-------
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
tn
%
%
%
sunt-ACE
WATER
sumies
1.9%
UIIOUNIJ
WATEIi
summies
7.7%
9U
eu
70
60
CO
40
JO
JO
10
0
GROUND
H — 13
14	4 10
SURFACE
1U 40
>40
it = 103
NO	<10	14	4 10
GROUND £* SURFACE
10 40
• 40
i) — 14
NO
<1 0
1 4
4 10
10 40
>40
20

-------
METHVLEIUIiCHLORIDE
CIIjCIj
hIJIIFACE
SUf'Pl.lES
18%
GHOUNO
WATEI1
SUf'I'UES
2.6%
%
%
%
ao
uo
70
bO
1.(1
40
JU
.'0
10
0
CI 0
GROUND
i»=3B
M aim
14	4 JU
SURFACE
10 40	>40
n = 17fl
-MtiSL
jsesa.
14	4 10
GROUND £t SURFACE
10 40
•40
n=32
ND
10
1 4
4 10
10 40
-40
21

-------
40
VIIMYLCHLORIDE
||2C = CIICI
30
20
10
0
SUHFACE
WATEn
SUPPLIES
2.3%
GIIOUND
WATER
StJPI'IIES
4.0%
%
%
%
BO
(10
70
60
EU
40
3U
20
10
0
SO
eo
?o
61)
bU
40
Jll
20
10
(1
DO
BU
70
611
bO
40
30
20
10
0
GROUND
n= 25
• <10	14	4 10
SURFACE
10 40
>40
n = 133
NO	<10	14	4 10
GROUND Et SURFACE
10 40
-40
11 = 30
NO
<10
1 4
4 10
10 40
>40
r?

-------
groundwater data
AVAILABLZ FROM STATS AGZI1CIES

-------
HOT SPOTS
Intensive stats investigation of localized ground water
contamination pronlans.
Examples:
St. Louis Park, Jlinnesota
wells closed as early as 1930's (phenols -?NA)
Jackson Township, Mew Jersey

100 wells closed
near dump (TCZ -
1000 ug/1

Denver, Colorado
64 wells affected
by pesticide di
sposal.
Numoer
of Hot Spots known:


MA
44 IL
3
SC 1
CT
16 CA
3
CO 2
?A
23 Mr
3
'-ID 1
}rr
12- TN
3
DE 1
NJ
9 PL
2
IN 1
MN
4 NC
2
TX 1
NH
4 ME
2
MO 1
RI
4 WA
1
AL 1
24

-------
Summary of Stat = Data
CHCMrrA.
i States
Tested
t Wells
T= ST = !3
* Posmv?
Max- ug/l
Trichloroethylene
3
2894
28
35,000
Carbon Tetrachloride
4
1659
10
379
Tetrachloroethylene
5
1652
14
50
1, 2-0 r chloroethane
2
1212
7
400
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
3
1611
23
2,250
1,1-Dichloroethane
9
785
18
11,330
Dichloroethylenes (3)
8
781
23
860
Methylenechloride
10
1183
2
3,600
Vinyl Chloride
9
1033
7
380
•Ratio of community wells
TO PRIVATE
WELLS IS
mot known-

25

-------
Ground Water Data Reportedly Availa3L£
From State Agencies*
Tr F CHLORQETHYLENE
# Wells Tested	% Positive
New Jersey	411	27
Alabama	80	10
Connecticut	1,200	2
Delaware	19	79
Idaho	9	II
Kentucky	22	0
Maime	89	0
Massachusetts	16J	36
V!s'v Hampshire	5	17
N- Carolina	44-	18
Rhode Island	88	22
S- Carolina	4	0
$• Dakota	1	0
Tennessee	50	14
VIRGIn r A	1	100
Washington	6	33
New York	372	13
Florida	329	33
Pennsylvania	?	?
*20 States have not tested for this chemical-
25

-------
Ground
Water Data Reportedly Available


from State Agencies*

Carbon Tetrachlori



'i Wells Tested
7 Posr
Alabama
30
0
Connecticut
1,200
7
Florida
329
50
Kentucky
22
5
Maine
89
0
Massachusetts
153
0
Mew Hampshire
6
0
New Jersey
411
23
.'Jew York
37Z
0
M. Carolina
44-
0
Pennsylvania
7
7
Rhode Islantj
88
0
S- Carolina
4
0
S» Dakota
1
0
Tennessee
50
8
*24 States have not tested for this chemical-
27

-------
Ground Wat;ia Pat; Reportedly Available
F9QM STATE AGENCIES*
Tetrachloroethylene
# Wells Tested 1 Positive
Alabama	30	4
Connecticut	1,200	?
Florida	329	20
Idaho	9	1
Kentucky	22	0
Maine	89	0
Massachusetts	163	19
Hew Hampshire	5	0
New Jersey	411	11
Mew York	372	IS
M- Carolina	44-	5
Pennsylvania	40	48
Rhode Island	88	?
S- Carolina	4	0
S« Dakota	1	0
Tennessee	50	2
Washington	32	34
*22 States have not tested for this chemical-
28

-------
Ground Wat=r Data Reportedly Ava[la3le
from Stat; AGgNcrgs*
1.?-QrCHLOROgTHANE
# Wells Tested % Positive
Alabama
80
7
«~
Delaware
15
73
Florida
329
15
Kentucky
22
0
Ma i ne
39
0
Massachusetts
163
3
New Jersey
411
2
fJ. Carolina
W
7
Pennsylvania
7
7
S- Carolina
4
25
S- Dakota
1
0
Tennessee
50
8
Washington
4
0
#26 States have not tested for this chemical-
29

-------
Ground Water Data Reportedly Available
from State Agencies*
1 • 1 ¦ 1 ~T^ ! CHLQROETHANS
# Wf; i.s Tested 7, Positive
Alabama
30
10
Connecticut
1,200
?
Florida
329
15
Idaho
9
11
Kentucky
22
0
Maine
39
18
Massachusetts
163
21
New Hampshire
6
0
Mew Jersey
411
48
New York
372
9
N. Carolina

2
Pennsylvania
7
7
Rhode Island
88
7
S- Carolina
4
0
Tennessee
50
26
Washington
32
69
•24 States have not tested for this chemical-
30

-------
Ground Water Data Reportedly Availasle
from State Agencies*
1 ¦ 1-DtCHI QRQgTHAMg
.3 Wfi i.s Tested	1 Positive
Alabama	80	8
Florida	329	36
Kentucky	22	0
Maine	89	0
Massachusetts	163	1
M. Carolina	44	14
Pennsylvania	?	?
S- Carolina-	4-	0
Tennessee	50	25
Washington	4	0
*29 States have not tested for this chemical-
31

-------
Ground Water Data Reportedly Available
from State Agencies*
DrCHLOROFTHYLENFS
# Wells Tested % Posftive
Alabama
80
10
Florida
329
38
Kentucky
22
0
Maine
89
0
Massachusetts
163
8
North Carolina
W
45
Pennsylvania
0
t
?
S* Carolina
4
50
Tennessee
50
26
*29 States have not tested for this chemical-
32

-------
(iroiinn Water
Data Reportedly Ava
[ LA 3LE
pwh
State Agencies*

Methylene Chloride



# Wells Tested
I Post-
Alabama
80
0
Delaware
9
56
Florida
329
1
Ma i me
89
0
Massachusetts
163
2
Mew Jersey
411
0
M- Carolina
44
18
Pennsylvania
7
?
S. Carolina
4
0
Tennessee
50
8
Washington
4
0
*11 States have mot tested for this chemical-
33

-------
Ground Water Data Reportedly Available
from State Agencies *
Vinyl Chloride
* WgLLs Tested	% Positive
Alabama	80	1
Florida	329	16
Kentucky	22	0
Maine	89	0
New Jersey	411	0
N« Carolina	44	34
Pennsylvania	?¦	?
S- Carolina	4-	0
Tennessee	50	6
Washington	4	0
*29 States have not tested for this chemical*
34

-------
EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION
AVAILABLE FROM SOME STAXSS

-------
Reported Findings in Nfew Jersey Ground
Water Survey ~ Partial
If OF
Samples	Chemical	% Positive
i TR1 BUT I ON (llO/l.)
io-if(r>nro
399	Chloroform	35	337 52	5	3
393	Bromoform	'I	390	2	1	0
227	Dibromochloromethane	8	226	1
ViiLAlLLtS.
397
39<|
39'l
39'l
397
391
399
397
717
396
397
,1,2-Trichloroethylene
,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
,\j2-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichloromethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylenp
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Iodomethane
73
337
<11
15
1
6
393
1


10
376
17
1

2'|
335
57
1
1

391
2
'1
2
387
4
1

66
203
I'll
55
1
23
3'|8
31
15

1
710
'1
3

3
383
10
3

12
395
2


Iiie following
ME MIOXYCHLOR,
CHEMICALS were NOT FOUND: METHYL CHLORIDE, METHYL
METHYLENE CHLORIDE, TR|FLUOROMETHANE, TOXAPHENE-
BROMIDE, VINYL CHLORIDE,
36

-------
The Ten Most Commonly |:qund Organic Chemicals
Detected in New Yqrk Pupmc Water System Wells - 10/78
WELLS WELLS PERCENT MAXIMUM LEVEL
CONTAMINANTS
TESTE!)
POSITIVE
POSITIVE
DETECTED (ug/i )
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
39
36
92
170.0
Toluene
39
33
85
10.0
Di-n-butyi. phthalate
39
21
51
170-0
Tkichloroethylene
39
T8
'16
19-0
Ethylbenzene
39
17
11
10.0
Diethyl phthalate
39
13
33
1*6
Trichlorofluoromethane
39
U
28
13-0
Anthracene/Pmenanthrene
39
7
18
21-0
Benzene
39
a
15
9.6
Butyl benzyl phthalate
39
5
13
38-0
37

-------
Organic Chemicals Detecteu in Community Water
Supply Wells Nassau County, New York - V28/78
Wells Weh-S Percent Maximum Level
Contaminant	TESTED	POSITIVE	PoaiXLVE	lifXECTEl) (llfi/lJ	
Ietrachloroethylene
372
57
15
375
1,1,2-Trichloroethylene
372
50
13
300
Chloroform
372

U
87
1,1, 1-Triciiloroethane
372
33
9
310
Carbon Tetrachloride
372
20
5
21
Trifluorotrichloroethane
372
'1
1
135
38

-------
DATA 3EING DEVELOPED
III
1980

-------
Future Sources of Data on
Qrgamics in Ground Water
Federal Programs
ODW RURAL SURVEY
ODW COMMUNITY SURVEY
OTS	Aldicars survey
OTS	DBCP
OTS 5 CITY SURVEY
ORD exposure assessment
State Programs
Delaware
Connecticut	State-wide ground water programs underway
Massachusetts
California
*1 Ground water unknown-
100 samples	Feb• 1980
70 samples	March 1980
50 samples	April 1980
500 samples	June 1980
1,200 samples	Feb- 1981
100 samples	April 1980
230 samples	August 1980
105 samples*	May 1980
50 samples	July 1980
1,000 samples*-	In planmtvg
^0

-------
Comparison of Samples Available in
the Rural Survey and Users of Groundwater
Size of	Estimated Mo- of
Pop. Served	No- in U.S. Sample?
Private Wells
1-5 homes	10,000,000 1,298
Community Supplies
25- 99	19,205
100- 499	13,361
500- 999	a,158
1,000- 2,499	4-, 339 622
2,500- '4,999	1,519
S,000- 9,999	1,355
10,000- 99,000	1,196
100,000-1 MILLION	66
Over 1 million	1
41

-------
Characteristics of the Ground Water
Samples from the Rural Survey
Regional Distribution
Z U.S. Pop-
using Public
GW Supplies
Region	I
Region	II
Region	[II
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VI11
Region IX
Region X
Selected States (worst case)
Alaska
California
Florida
Hawai i
Texas
Puerto Rico
Wyoming
1
32
1 9
X/o
42
162
182
16%
72
52
172
32
• 051
132
82
1-2%
t
Z SAMPLES
Rural Survey
62
n
m
m
222
112
92
32
HZ
42
n
3%
32
•	63T
•	2%
42

-------
pQPIII AT! ON CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLES FROM
thf Community Water Supply Study
Population	* Samples	Estimated
Served	Collected	i 6•W•
25- 99	55	53
100- 499	129	90
500- 999	64	44
1,000- 2,499	79	55
2,500- 4,999	39	27
5,000- 9,999	39	27
10,000-99,999	56	46
^3

-------
Population Characteristics of Groundwater
Samples Present and Future
% Systems
Tested
Including
Population
Ser^EQ
# Systems
IN U-S-
# Systems
Fed- Pata
# Systems
Coqti- SURVEY*
% Systems
Teste!)
Rural Water
Survey
25- 99
19,205
0
38
•2
)
100- '199
13,361
0
90
'7 (
>
500- 999
1,168
0
11
1 * 1 (
.9*"
1,000- 2,199
1,339
I
55
1.3 3

2,500- 1,999
1,619
2
27
1-8
1.8
5,000- 9,999
1,355
\
27
2-1
2-1
10,00- 99,999
1,196
15
16
5.1
5.1
100,000-1 MILLION
66
20
0
30-3
.30.3
Over 1 million
1
0
0
0
0
Total
15,310
39
327
• 8X
2.2%
"Estimate





•"Complete population
breakdown
AVAILABLE IN
August-


VI

-------
1980 Plans for Examining Volatile
Organics in Drinking Water Wells'1
: ST 1 GAT I ONS
.OMMUNITV
Systematic Sampling
Private
Connecticut
Ma i ne
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
California
New jersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Community
X
X
X
X
?
?
X
Remarks
Over 1200 samples- ai l
communities tested by
April 1980
All communities tested
jn.1978 (-TIIMs&selected
VOLATILES)
1,000 samples-Nov- 1980
1-2000	samples-April 1980
Large amount of data
available from cancer
& TOXICS PROGRAM
Maybe
Limited sampling
2-75,000	pop-
16-8,500 pop-
Telephone contacts of States reportedly having active programs-
'15

-------
Summary - Data Availability
Volatile? in Drinking Water Wells
Federal	State
Surveys	Surveys
March 1980 209	1,000 - >3,000
November 1980 2,341	3,000 - >5,000
46
Total	2,550	4,000 - >8,000

-------
FlNDINGS
- Qrganics in Ground Water
Data on the occurrence of organics other than selected
volatiles in ground water are nil*
Federal Surveys:
MOMS. SR T. MORS. Rest on V - limited number of sampling sites,
weighted toward larger COMMUNITIES.
Rurai Survey - will help TO CHARACTERIZE VERY SMALL
COMMUNITIES; NO DATA FROM 3 STATES-
Community Survey - will help to characterize intermediate
SIZE COMMUNITIES*
State Surveys:
Some sampling in 19 States-
Most of the data is from Connecticut, Florida, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island-
Additional data may be available in Texas and California-
The frequency of finding- volatile organics is similar in
G-fiOUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER*
The maximum- concentrations found in ground water are
HIGHER THAN THOSE FOUND IN SURFACE WATERS-
Several volatile organics are found more frequently in
FINISHED SURFACE WATER THAN IN RAW WATER-
47

-------
REC0MIIENM1IOMS
DaIA fi£H£MXiM
Data Analysis
Initiate sampling for other
HIGH PRIORITY ORGANICS IN
GROUND WATER
Compile ahu evaluate raw data
FROM SjATp PROGRAMS
Complete the analysis (VOA)
OF COMMUNITY SAMPLES FROM THE
RURAL SURVEY
Expedite the analysis of GW
SAMPLES FROM THE COMMUNITY
SURVEY
Initiate limited sampling for
VOLATILES FROM SELECTED STATES AND
INTERMEDIATE SIZE COMMUNITIES
Refine the analysis to
DETERMINE TfiE EFFECT OF
PIFFERENT TREATMENT REGIMES
Continue MCL development for:
Trichloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroetiiylene
l,l,l~TRICIILORQETIIANE
Continue a review 10 determine
if national MCL are needed for
OTHER VOLATILES
48

-------