Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 6.3
1,4-Dioxane Detections in Drinking Water
Location
Maximum Detected Concentration
Year
References
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
285 ppb in a single well
a
; 31 ppb in i nished water
2005
1
Nakdong River, South Korea
119 ppb in raw river water; 92 ppb in treated river water
2003
2
Tama District, Tokyo, Japan
2005
3
113 ppb in a well; detected in >70% of 338 wells tested;
average 4.5 ppb in deep wells
Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan
95 ppb in a production well
a
1997
4
Bally, Pennsylvania
24-77 ppb in a single well (30-50 ppb more frequent range)
2004
5
Ann Arbor, Michigan
3-38 ppb in four single-family domestic wells; earlier results
up to 71 ppb in a single domestic well
2007
6
Banning, California
35 ppb in a single well
a
2005
7
Durham Meadows, Connecticut
27 ppb in a single well, uni ltered; 27 ppb in a GAC-i ltered
well
b
2004
8
Santa Monica, California
22 ppb in a single well
a
2002
9
Costa Mesa, California
16 ppb maximum; 3.3 ppb average
2005
10
Spokane, Washington, DC
13.8 ppb in a single well
c
2006
11
Fountain Valley, California
7.7 ppb
2006
12
Downey, California
5.6 ppb in a single well; average 4 ppb in four wells with
detections of eight total in system
a,d
2005
13
Japan
e
5.52 ppb maximum detected in groundwater; average of 22
detections in groundwater was 1.0 ppb
2006
14
Irvine, California
5 ppb
a
2007
15
Tucson, Arizona
2.3 ppb
2003
16
Suffolk County, New York
0.7-2.3 ppb
2007
17
City of Commerce, California
2.2 ppb maximum; detections in four wells
a
2004
18
Ann Arbor, Michigan
2 ppb in a single well
f
2001
19
Bell Gardens, California
1.92 ppb in a single well; average 1.7 ppb
a
2003
20
Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan
0.2-1.5 ppb in tap water
1995
21
City of Clare, Michigan
1.0 ppb
2006
22
the Netherlands
0.5 ppb
1999
23
Niigata Prefecture, Japan
0.39 ppb in river water used to supply drinking water
2002
24
Sources:
[1] Waterloo (2005); [2] Park et al. (2005); [3] Toshinari et al. (2005); [4] Abe (1999); [5] USEPA (2004a); [6]
MDEQ (2007); [7] City of Banning (2005); [8] USEPA (2004b); [9] City of Santa Monica (2002); [10] MCWD
(2005); [11] WSDOH (2006); [12] City of Fountain Valley (2006); [13] Belll ower/Norwalk/Park Water Company
(2005); [14] Simazaki et al. (2006); [15] IRWD (2007); [16] Tucson Water (2004); [17] SCWA (2007); [18] CWSC
(2004); [19] City of Ann Arbor (2001); [20] SCWC (2004); [21] Abe (1997); [22] City of Clare (2007); [23] VROM
(1999); and [24] Kawata et al. (2003).
a
Water utilities often manage wells by blending water from contaminated wells with clean water from uncontaminated wells,
so that tap water in homes is below regulatory thresholds or advisory action levels, if not laboratory detection levels.
b
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon; Chapter 7 presents information on GAC limitations to 1,4-dioxane removal with GAC.
c
WSDOH conducted a health consultation jointly with ATSDR for the maximum 1,4-dioxane occurrence of 13.8 ppb in a
well supplying 34 homes near the Colbert Landi ll in Spokane, Washington. The review concluded that no apparent public
health hazard exists for all routes of exposure to all exposed populations at this concentration (WSDOH, 2006).
d
Only 15% of the Belll ower/Norwalk/Park Water Company System water supply comes from groundwater; its main source
is imported surface water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The surface water/groundwater mix
for other water systems on this list was not evaluated.
e
Detected in 39 of 91 raw water samples from drinking water treatment plants; 22 out of 29 groundwater samples contained
1,4-dioxane.
Ann Arbor Montgomery Street well was not in service at time of detection; it remains off-line.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search