|
|
Reich Farm Health Assessment
(Dover Township) Toms River, New Jersey
|
Groundwater Investigations: 1974 to 1976
In early 1974, approximately two years after the deposition and discovery of the chemical wastes at the Reich Farm, residents of three properties proximal to the site began to notice abnormal tastes and odors in their well water.
The Dover Township Board of Health (DTBH) recommended that homeowners submit samples of their water to private laboratories for analysis. Subsequent analysis indicated that one of the wells was contaminated with unspecified levels
of toluene and the other two with phenolic compounds. In addition, the DTBH received a similar complaint concerning a well next to the DTML where subsequent testing revealed the presence of phenolic compounds. These wells were condemned,
and in two cases were replaced by deeper wells whose quality was found to be satisfactory (Ghassemi, 1976).
As a result of these initial complaints, the Ocean County Health Department (OCHD) initiated a wider survey of potable wells in the area during the period from March through June 1974. Analysis was performed by the New Jersey Department of
Health (now NJDHSS) Laboratory in Trenton. The analysis method employed detected total organic compounds through ether extraction. (Organic compounds were adsorbed on activated carbon; the carbon was then dried and eluted with ether to recover
and quantify the adsorbed organic chemicals.) As indicated in Table 3, concentrations of total (ether extractable) organic compounds were reported to range from not detected (ND) to over 21,000 ppb. At the time of the analysis, there existed
no Federal or State standards regarding ether extractable compounds in potable water supplies. Ghassemi (I 976) concluded, "However, such extractable organics are not naturally occurring and should not be in the water."
During the period from June 19 through July 30, 1974, the USEPA analyzed additional samples of private wells in the area near the RF site, and TRWC public supply wells (#20 at Indian Head and #26 at the Parkway well field).
Activated carbon filters were installed at six selected locations. After saturation, the filters were collected and transported to the USEPA laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio for determination of chloroform extractables.
Table 4 presents the summary of this investigation. Analysis indicated the presence of carbon /chloroform extractable compounds (CCE) ranging from 100 to 1,200 ppb. Only one sample, from a private residence located due south
of the RF site on Lakewood Ave., exceeded the U.S. Public Health Service drinking water standard of 700 ppb for CCE in effect in 1974.
On July 11,1974, the USEPA obtained four additional samples for organic chemical analysis by a gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer method in the USEPA laboratory in Edison, New Jersey. This analysis showed no contamination
(at a method detection limit of 0.1 ppb) in the Toms River Water Company well # 22, or in wells supplying the Ocean County Agricultural Building and the North Dover School. The well at the Lakewood Ave. private residence noted in Table 4
(with CCEs at 1,200 ppb) was found to contain toluene at 12 ppb and styrene at 30 ppb. Although there were no standards for these chemicals at the time, the levels are below current drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) or ATSDR
comparison values (1,000 ppb for toluene and 100 ppb for styrene).
During the periods from July 31 through August 27, and October 12 through November 9, 1974, the NJDEP and the USEPA conducted a sampling program of private wells within one to 1.5 miles of the RF site. Analyses were performed by the New
Jersey Department of Health (now NJDHSS) Laboratory in Trenton and the USEPA Laboratory in Edison, utilizing the carbon tetrachloride extraction/infrared absorption (CC14/IR) method. The method was calibrated using an equivolume blend of
seven likely contaminants (Ghassemi, 1976). Table 5 summarizes the results of this sampling episode. The July 31, 1974 samples showed anomalously high levels, which were not confirmed with repeated samples at the same locations taken one
week later; these data are not presented in Table 5. Results from private wells in the area ranged from not detected to 1,900 ppb. The highest level was found in the same private well that had the highest CCE level and that contained toluene and
styrene. However, the overall pattern of contamination could not be attributed to the Reich Farm site alone (Ghassemi, 1976; NUS, 1986).
In June 1974, the DTBH had requested the assistance of the NJDEP (Bureau of Potable Water) in determining the nature and extent of groundwater contamination in the Pleasant Plains section of Dover Township. After review of the above data, the
recurrent reports of taste and odor problems associated with some private wells, and the documentation of hazardous chemical waste dumping at the Reich Farm site, the NJDEP concluded that a groundwater contamination problem existed in portions
of Pleasant Plains. The Bureau of Potable Water directed the Township of Dover to take action to protect the public health on July 30,1974. The DTBH, on September 16, 1974, passed an ordinance, which forbade the use of groundwater within a
designated area of Pleasant Plains.
In December 1974, the NJDEP issued a report entitled "Final Report -- Delineation of Extent of Groundwater Contamination, Pleasant Plains Section of Dover Township, Ocean County, N.J." (NJDEP, 1974). This report delineated areas of groundwater
contamination into three zones and set requirements for private well usage in an area including and expanding beyond the area denoted by the DTBH (Figure 3). Zone I was classified as "Contaminated" and was condemned as a source of water for any
purpose; no new wells were permitted to be installed in this area, and all existing and new homes were to connect to the TRWC supply service. Zone II was designated as a "Questionable Area," and included those areas, which were perceived as
susceptible to future contamination based upon their location with regard to groundwater movement. The NJDEP recommended that a well monitoring program be established for Zone 11 wells and all new wells were to utilize the Kirkwood aquifer.
Zone III was designated as "Uncontaminated," and included those areas thought to be not likely to become contaminated based upon information available at the time. A total of 148 wells in Zone I were condemned and ordered capped.
Area residents and public facilities relied upon water tanker trucks and bottled water for a period of approximately six months while the infrastructure for community water supplies was completed (Ghassemi, 1976).
Of the analytical methods discussed above, results from the gas chromatography/mass spectrophotometry method are likely to be most reliable and interpretable. As noted above, interpreting results of the other early groundwater analyses is
difficult because: 1) there is little information on sampling procedures employed; 2) the analytical tests are not chemical-specific; 3) there is considerable variation in results from the same location over short periods of time; and 4)
the different extraction techniques represent different fractions of the compounds potentially present.
Nonetheless, the data generated by these methods may provide useful information regarding water quality. The laboratory manual Standard Methods (1965 edition) states, in reference to the carbon chloroform extraction (CCE) method, ". .. where
concentrations of 200 µg/l [micrograms per liter, equivalent to ppb] have been found, the taste and odor of the water have nearly always been poor." Although the CCE method does not determine the total organic content of the water (due to
the escape of the lighter volatile compounds in the carbon drying process, variability to the degree which compounds are adsorbed onto the charcoal, and solubility of specific compounds in the solute), mass recovery ranges from 50 to 90 percent.
The CCE method was described as useful for "revealing stress on water from most industrial contaminants, particularly synthetic chemicals." Finally, Standard Methods indicated that clean surface and groundwater will usually contain only 25 to 50 µg/l
of CCE (APHA, 1965). In 1960, the CCE method was described as capable of recovering nitrites, 60 to 70 percent of phenolic compounds, substituted nitrobenzenes, aromatic ethers, hydrocarbons, and chlorinated insecticides (Ettinger, 1960).
This source evaluated CCE values above 200 µg/l as a useful criterion for chemical pollution of a watershed, and maintained that above this level, consideration be given to alternative water sources and adoption of treatment procedures
designed to remove organic contaminants. Another reference source at that time stated that clean water will exhibit less than 25 to 50 µg/l of CCEs, and water known to be polluted with industrial wastes will commonly contain CCEs in the hundreds
and sometimes thousands of micrograms per liter (Middleton and Lichtenberg, 1960). With reference to values generated by the CC14/IR method, Ghassemi (1976) notes that the USEPA Region 11 Chief of Laboratories at the time considered 1,000 ppb to
constitute reason for suspicion of organic chemical contamination.
Newspaper accounts from the period report that two of the TRWC supply wells at the Parkway well field sampled during the July to November 1974 investigation exhibited "phenol" contamination at a maximum level of 42 ppb, while TRWC supply well #20 located
at Indian Head Road was reported to have exhibited "phenol" contamination at 6 ppb (APP, 1975a; APP, 1975b). In March 1976, "phenol" was detected in nine of fifteen private potable wells approximately 4,000 feet down-gradient of the RF site in the area
of Dugan Lane. "Phenol" concentrations were reported to have ranged from 10 to 5,900 ppb (NUS, 1986). These wells were ordered closed by the DTBH. The test for "phenol" is sensitive to a variety of phenolic compounds (such as phenol itself, ortho- and
meta-substituted phenols, and some para-substituted phenols), so the specific chemical composition cannot be determined from this test. No additional information was available for evaluation by the ATSDR or the NJDHSS regarding the analytical methods
employed for these sampling events.
The "Pathway Analysis" and "Public Health Implications" sections of this Public Health Assessment evaluate the public health significance of the data presented above.
|
 BACK
||
CONTENTS
||
NEXT
||
|
|
|
