minnesota ground water association · 2011. 9. 12. · ansi standards available on cd-rom all...

Minnesota Ground Water Association Volume 12, Number 1: March, 1993

President’s Page

Paradigm Shift I recently attended a three day

seminar about Holistic Resource Management. No, it’s not a New Age support group for project managers. It is a process of goal- setting, decision-making, and monitoring that helps people re- store the vitality of their communities and the natural resources (including ground water) on which they depend.

A paradigm is a way of thinking. It provides rules and a focus of attention. We filter ideas through our paradigms. Para- digms are common and useful, but can also be restrictive. Some- times we need to examine our paradigms and shift our thinking.

The seminar was oriented toward agriculture. The farmers were interested in managing their soil, water, crops, and livestock in a manner that was profitable, responsible to the community, and supported their quality of life goals.

The seminar participants also saw other applications. A hydrologist plans to use the information to manage watersheds. A biolo- gist saw the potential to better un- derstand the biological ecosystems of the area. A music teacher wants to incorporate this program into her support of music in the community.

I’m writing about the process because it has direct application to the ground water community. As ground water professionals, we influence the use and protection of water, soil, wildlife, money, and people resources, to name a few. However, we technical people have usually been trained to use mechanical models that work to fix parts in isolation of the

March 1993

r Carleton Students take MGWA-supported field trip

Last fall, 23 students and 7 faculty of Carleton College Department of Geology explored the North Shore along Lake Superior and the Iron Range. According to Timothy Vick, technical director, the trip was tremen- dously successful, despite a little bit of snow toward the last few days of the trip.

Their trip was supported, in part, by a scholarship from the MGWA to encourage student field experiences.

Carleton students brave the cold wind off Lake Superior while discussing the complex outcrops near Split

whole. The Holistic Resource Management (HRM) approach is to address the cause of the resource deterioration (e.g. ground water contamination), rather than apply a bandaid to symptoms.

HRM has proven successful because it is driven by visions and goals, rather than problem solving. Furthermore, the respon- sibility for making the resource use decisions are the people that are affected by the decisions, you and me.

So, what’s the big deal? The big deal is that a shift in our way of thinking is important to the MGWA goal of advocacy for the

-continued on page 2

wise use of Minnesota’s ground water. We ground water professionals may think that we are only dealing with water. But actually, our actions influence other arenas, such as research budgets, legislation, client fi- nances, and the health and well- being of communities.

Once the “whole” - people, ground water, money, and other factors - are recognized and brought together the first step in the HRM process is setting a goal. The goal reflects the whole by including: (1) the future quality of life desired by the people, (2) the forms of use of the resource (e.g. ground water) to support the quality of life, and (3) a vision of what the resource must look like to sustain itself and future generations of people.

The initial goal-setting process is one of the key elements for suc- cess. First, it reveals the many common desires and needs that we all have as human beings - things like happy families, quality education, and a healthy environment in which to live. Thus, it builds a common base from which a community can work. (A community can be a city, an agency, a client group, a watershed area, or a school district.)

Second, it keeps people from starting out by discussing “how they are going to achieve their goals, rather than “why,, they want to take an action and what effect the action will have on their goals. The questions are designed to make the decision ecologically, economically, and so ciologically sound.

The Minnesota Ground Water Association was created to advo- cate for the wise use of Minne- sota’s ground water. As MGWA members we endorse this goal. Our actions can be very significant as we shift from primarily problem solving decisions to a more holistic process that sus- tains our entire ecosystem for future generations. Make the paradigm shift and let your voices be heard!

--Larry L. Johnson, Dames & Moore

2

Call For Papers

An International Conference on Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwater Flow will be sponsored by the Indiana University School of Public and Environ- mental Affairs, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment and co-sponsored by the Environ- mental Education Enterprises, U.S. Department of Energy, and the International Ground Water Modeling Center. The conference will be held at the IU Conference Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, on April 19 - 21, 1994.

The Analytic Element Method for modeling groundwater flow has recently gained substantial recognition throughout the United States and Europe.

As AEM computer programs have become more available the technique has enjoyed increasing popularity. The purpose of this conference is to bring together current developers and practitio- ners, and anyone interested in what could be called the “newest wave,, in groundwater flow modeling technology.

Who should attend? l consulting hydrologists l government personnel l academicians and students

General topics: l History and development of

the analytic element method (AEM)

l Ongoing research in AEM l Engineering/remediation appli-

cations l Connection to GIS systems

350 word abstracts will be accepted until October 1, 1993. Presentations will be 25 minutes including discussion. Extended abstracts will be published in a proceedings. Send abstracts to: Jack Wittman Room 419- SPEA Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47465 (812)855-1606 FAX (812)855-7802

ANSI Standards Available on CD-ROM

All standards published by the American National Standards In- stitute (ANSI) are now available on CD- ROM (Compact Disc - Read Only Memory). This service, provided in cooperation with Information Handling Services (IHS), simplifies and accelerates the process of gaining access to ANSI standards.

IHS has scanned ANSI standards from cover-to-cover and integrated the standards with the lat- est in CD-ROM technology and high-speed search and retrieval software. This service allows per- sonal computer users with CD- ROM capability to locate ANSI standards within seconds.

In addition to CD-ROM, IHS provides this data to users via on- line, magnetic tape, microfilm, or microfiche.

The standards available on CD-ROM will cover the full range of standards activity and include such areas as information technology, telecommunications, image technology, occupational safety, and construction.

Included with the service is the IHS Worldwide Standards In- dex, a comprehensive CD-ROM index of standards from the United States, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Elec- trotechnical Commission (IEC), and other leading foreign standards bodies.

Additional features of the service include immediate access to related standards information via an index/cross reference feature; the ability to target precise information within texts via keyword search; and the updating of information every 60 days, thus keep- ing users aware of revision activity.

To gain access to this service, call ANSI’s Customer Service De- partment at (212)642-4900.

-Water Well Journal, Febraury ‘93

Minnesota Ground Water Association Newsletter

Maybe the Edwards Ground Water Reservoir Really is an Aquifer

Less than 48 hours after the Texas Water Commission (TWC) approved final rules to limit pum- page from the Edwards Aquifer, a State District Judge ruled that the Edwards Aquifer is not an underground river and, thus, is not sub- ject to TWC control.

The judge’s ruling stopped the TWC efforts to regulate the ground water stored in the Ed- wards Aquifer. Aquifer management legislation is planned for the current Texas legislative session.

In 1992, the Edwards Aquifer filled to the highest level ever re- corded. The aquifer presently contains about twice the amount of water contained in all the surface water reservoirs in Texas.

-Water Well Journal, January

New Guidance for Environmental Site Assessments

The National Ground Water Association has completed a new guidance document for the performance of environmental site assessments. The document uses menus of technical options identifying potential environmental concerns which enable the investigator and the client to choose the appropriate tasks.

Copies of AGWSE Guidance to Environmental Site Assess- ments (Bookstore number T662) are available through the NGWA Bookstore, at $25 for NGWA/AG- WSE members, $31.25 for non- members, plus $3 shipping and handling. Credit card orders may be telephoned to (800) 551-7379 or (614) 761-1711, or faxed to (614) 761-3446. To order by mail, send payment to NGWA Book- store, PO. Box 182039, Dept. 17, Columbus, OH 43218-2039.

-AGWSE Newsletter, December 1992.

March, 1993

Pleistocene Ice From Well Cuttings in Wyoming

Recently, a driller working on a hole in the northwest part of Wyoming noticed ice chips coming out of the hole from a depth of 180 feet. The ice chips continued coming as the hole got deeper and deeper. The USGS was able to preserve a few chips before they all melted.

The USGS said the ice was probably frozen between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago when the Jackson Hole area was covered by a 2,000-foot thick glacier.

- Water Well Journal, January 1993

Estimates of National Water Use Available

Estimates of current water use in the United States are available from the USGS. The preliminary water-use estimates were re- leased by the USGS in an open- file report in advance of the final report scheduled for early this year.

The report summarized preliminary, state-by-state 1990 water use estimates for the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Dis- trict of Columbia. The 1990 estimates are slightly higher than 1985 estimates but less than 1980, which was a peak water- use year.

Copies of the open-file report, “Preliminary Estimates of Water- Use in the United States, 1990,” by Wayne Solley and Robert Pierce, are available for $1.50 paper and $4 microfiche, from Open File Services, USGS, Denver Fed- eral Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225; telephone (303) 236- 7476. Orders must be prepaid, by check or money order payable to “Department of the Interior - USGS.”

-Water Well Journal, January

1993 Board of Directors

Past President Sheila Grow

Camp, Dresser & McKee (612)293-1313

FAX(612)293-0547

President Larry Johnson

Dames & Moore (612)631-8838

FAX (612)631-8872

President Elect Doug Connell

Barr Engineering Co. (612)832-2722

FAX(612)835-0186

Secretary/Membership Bruce Olsen

MN Dept. of Health (612)627-5167

FAX (612)627-5135

Treasurer Rita O’Connell

MN Pollution Control Agency (612)296-8568

FAX (612)296-9707

Editor Jan Falteisek

MN DNR Division of Waters (612)297-3877

FAX (612)296-0445

Business Management & Publications

Dr. Jeanette Leete Watershed Research, Inc.

(612)426-8795 FAX (612)426-5449

3

The EPA’s Compre- hensive State Ground Water Protection Program and its Effect in Minnesota -by Dr. Rita O’Connell, Ground Water Unit, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

EPA’S Efforts Background The U.S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (EPA) has begun promoting improved ground water protection by encouraging all states and tribes to voluntarily develop what EPA is calling Compre- hensive State Ground Water Pro- tection Programs (CSGWPPs). These CSGWPPs are to be designed to promote a partnership approach to a state’s ground water protection efforts, including all levels of government (federal to local level) and citizens. EPA’s overall goal, as stated in its final CSGWPP guidance (December 1992), is “to prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation’s ground water”, including ensuring “protection of drinking water sup plies and maintenance of the environmental integrity of ecosystems associated with ground water”.

CSG WPP Criteria With extensive state input and

after several draft versions, EPA has developed CSGWPP guidance which includes a number of criteria which they feel would describe a comprehensive program. Those criteria are quite extensive and, in addition to mandatory “adequacy criteria”, include op tional “additional factors”. Table 1 is a short summary of the adequacy criteria, as divided into the six categories which EPA calls “Strategic Activities”.

If a state meets all of the criteria, then EPA would consider that that state has a “Fully-Integrating CSGWPP”. Compliance with a subset of the criteria (see the

-continued on next page, last column

4

TABLE 1. Summary of EPA’s Adequacy Criteria for a Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program. Note that the strategic activity and criterion descriptions have been very shortened, and the optional additional factors are not included.

Summarized from EPA‘s December 1992 “Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance”.

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 1 - Establish Goals Establish a ground water protection goal which guides all relevant pro-

grams in the state ADEQUACY CRITERIA: 1. Includes adequate public participation. 2. Goal is no less protective than EPA’s and is integrated with other

state water quality and environmental goals. 3. Goal guides all federal, state, and local programs.

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 2 -Establish Priorities Establish protection priorities to direct all relevant/activities toward

compliance with the state goal. The priorities are based on resource char- actieristics, contamination, and programmatic needs.

ADEQUACY CRITERIA: 1. Priority-setting is coherent and applied consistently across all

ground water protection programs in the state. 2. The priority-setting process is based onconsideration of a number of

varying ground water characteristics (a minimum list is provided in criteria).

3. Significant potential contaminant sources are identified and priorities are based on relative threats posed by these sources.

4. The state has adequate technical capabilities. 5. The state has formally adopted measures such as performance

standards and references points which support priority-setting and meas- urement of progress.

6. Protecting drinking water supplies is a high priority. 7. Ground water protection priorities are coordinated with surface

water quality and other environmental priorities. 8. Priorities include ongoing review and improvement of the state’s

CSGWPP STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 3 - Define Authorities and Coordination Mechanism

Define authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms across federal, state, tribal, and local programs.

1. Identify all agencies and programs responsible for addressing state ground water protection priorities.

2. The state has a coordinating mechanism for all state ground water protection agencies and programs.

3. The state has adequate authorities and resources. 4. Federal agencies are involved in the CSGWPP process. 5. Tribes and neighboring states are consulted in development of inde-

pendent or joint CSGWPPs. 6. Interstate mechanisms are established to coordinate ground water

protection issues. 7. Local governments are included in the CSGWPP process.

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 4 - Implement Protection Efforts

Implementation of ground water protection efforts to accomplish the state goal.

1. Prevention, control, and remediation programs are adequate and include measurable objectives.

-Table 1 continued on page 5


Table 1, cont.

2. Site- and area- specific prevention and remediation measures are based on adequate characterization and assessment of the ground water’s vulnerability.

3. The state is implementing an EPA-approved Wellhead Protection Program.

4. The state is applying an integrated strategy to implement increasing levels of prevention and control measures based on the levels of ground water contamination detected.

5. Cross-media contamination is avoided during remediation activities. STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 5 - Information Collection and Management

Information collection and management is coordinated in order to measure progress, re-evaluate priorities, and support programs.

1. The state collects, coordinates, and manages information within and across all programs.

2. The state uses relevant data from local, state, and federal programs. 3. The state’s data elements are sufficient to facilitate data sharing. 4. State monitoring programs reflect statepriorities and are scientifi-

cally sound. STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 6 - Public Education

Public education is improved and the public is involved in all aspects of ground water protection.

1. Public participation is part of CSGWPP development and implementation.

2. The public is educated on goals, objectives, prioriti&,and progress of the CSGWPP

3. The state provides ground water information to the public and decision- makers, including monitoring data.

TABLE 2. Steps in Developing a CSGWPP Note that steps are not neces- sarily sequential; tasks can be undertaken concurrently Summarized from EPA’s December 1992 “Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protec- tion Program Guidance”.

STEP

. STATF VISION, Defining the state’s long- term directions for its CSGWPP.

A comparison of the state’s vision with existing efforts.

CORE CSGWPP: A less than Fully- Integrating CSGWPP which is EPA endorsed.

. MUITI-YEAR PROGRAM AGREEMENT, Steps needed to achieve a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP.

. YEARY WORKPLANS: Annual steps to achieve Multi-Year Program Agreement.

. ATING CSGWPP, Full achievement of State Vision.

March, 1993

EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE

September 30,1993

September 30,1993

December 31,1995

After achievement of Core CSGWPP

Annually, with annual progress expected

Not specified

complete EPA guidance for the description of the subset) would mean that the state has achieved a “Core CSGWPP” and is well on its way toward the fully-integrating program.

Process EPA has asked that states un-

dertake a series of steps to move toward a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP An outline of the process is described in Table 2. Some of these steps can occur sequen- tially or concurrently.

Developing the State Vision (also called a Framework) is the first step. Its purpose is to define the state’s long-term directions for its CSGWPP serving as a “template” of what its Fully-lnte- grating CSGWPP will ultimately comprise. The Vision is to be based on the EPA CSGWPP criteria, state ground water strategy and profile documents, and nego- tiations with the EPA regional office. The Vision modifies and/or adds to the EPA criteria in order to reflect state-specific environmental and institutional circum- stances, as well as to include those roles and responsibilities the state wants to undertake. EPA expects states to complete development of their Visions by Sep- tember 30,1993.

The State Assessment is the second step. In it, the state, with EPA region input, compares the state’s vision with existing efforts. The end result is an assessment of activities which the state must undertake to achieve first a Core CSGWPP and, later, a Fully-lnte- grating CSGWPP If the state feels that its existing activities already meet Core CSGWPP adequacy criteria, the Assessment can describe those. EPA expects states to complete development of the Assessment by September 30, 1993.

Achieving a Core CSGWPP is the third step. A Core CSGWPP is a milestone on the way to achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP and is considered to demonstrate a state’s tangible


Effect of EPA Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program on Minnessota, cont.

elude steps EPA can take to sup port state effortsacross all relevant EPA programs.

commitment to comprehensive ground water protection. A Core CSGWPP must meet a subset of the same adequacy criteria that the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP must meet, but details of compliance can be negotiated between the state and EPA. The state can claim that it has already achieved a Core CSGWPP as part of its State Assessment or can submit later documentation. The states are each expected to achieve Core CSGWPPs by December 31, 1995.

The ultimate goal is achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP, which is full implementation of the State Vision, including meeting the EPA adequacy criteria. It includes coordination of all federal, state, and local ground water protection efforts. It ensures that all relevant decision-making in the state is consistently based on the state’s understanding of its ground water resources and all actual or potential contamination sources, as well as the state’s ground water protection goal and priorities.

Once the Core CSGWPP is achieved, a state is expected to develop a Multi-Year Program Agreement to describe how the state plans to move, over time, toward the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP This Agreement is to be developed with EPA input and will identify not only state actions and specific milestones, but will also identify actions various EPA programs will take to support state efforts.

Response By States

The Multi-Year Program Agree- ment will serve as the basis for Yearly Workplans designed to describe specific activities to be ac- complished in that year to move the state towards the Fully-lnte- grating CSGWPP The Yearly Workplans are agreements between the state and EPA, and in-

This EPA CSGWPP initiative is a major effort which has far- reaching impacts on states. Many states have applauded the effort to improve coordination in protection efforts for this resource. They also agree that developing a state vision and identifying gaps in existing legal authorities and programs will help states identify where additional efforts are required. But many have also pointed out that complying with all of EPA’s specific steps and re- quirements will take a substantial amount of time and effort without a clear picture of whether EPA can provide any funding or program flexibility which isn’t already available.

Join the Minnesota Ground Water Association!

Minnesota Current Efforts Minnesota, through the Envi-

ronmental Quality Board’s (EQB) Water Resources Committee (WRC), has agreed that developing a State Vision would be a valu- able extension of recent efforts the state has already made to improve protection of its ground water resources. With the agreement of the Governor and WRC, therefore, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has agreed to coordinate CSGWPP planning efforts in Minnesota.

The WRC also noted, however, that extensive input from various levels of government and the public had been included in those previous planning efforts, as reflected in the MPCA’s Sep tember 1988 “Ground Water Pro- tection Strategy”, the EQB’s Janu- ary 1991 “Minnesota Water Plan”, and the 1989 Minnesota Ground Water Protection Act. It was felt, therefore, that those documents and existing laws would serve as an appropriate beginning for developing a State Vision.

With this in mind, the MPCA has moved forward with prepara- tion of a State Vision based on existing documents as well as on EPA’s CSGWPP adequacy criteria, and recommendations by agency members of the WRC. At


If you are reading this newsletter second-hand, we’d like to take this opportunity to invite you to become a member of MGWA for 1993. Annual dues are $15 for professional members and $10 for students. Additional dona-. tions toward the use of 100% recycled paper will be gratefully accepted.

Just complete the form below and mail to: MGWA, c/o WRI, 4779 126th St. N, White Bear Lake, MN 55110.

Name ---m--e --- --- Affiliation ---- -- ----- Mailing Address -- -m-p-- ------ City, State, Zip Code ------- ------ Work Telephone Number ------ --- -------- Home Address (optional) ----------- --------- --I------- City, State, Zip Code -------- ------- ------------- Home Telephone Number ---_-l_-------____------------ --I---- Which Address should we use for Directory Listing? -- ---- ----- Which Telephone Number should we use for Directory Listing? ------- ----------- ------

6 Minnesota Ground Water Association Newsletter

-CSGWPP continued from page 6

press time, the draft State Vision was being considered by the EQB for approval.

The State Assessment development process has also begun. When the final State Vision is ap proved, it will be compared against existing ground water protection and management programs to determine gaps in authorities and/or programs.

The State Vision may evolve as the process proceeds and is not likely to remain a static document. As we look more closely at our programs and where we want to go in Minnesota, we may identify additional goals and elements or may need to modify existing elements of the Vision.

As deficiencies and gaps are identified in existing programs, it will be important to bring all interested parties into the process. All levels of government, citizens, tribes, etc. will need to help determine how to correct deficiencies and fill gaps.

Future Efforts Minnesota has not committed

to proceed through the entire EPA CSGWPP process beyond the above identified planning stages. The planning efforts will be valu- able in helping identify where additional efforts are required in the state. The state can then proceed with those efforts.

Minnesota can decide at a later date whether completing all of the additional steps necessary to comply with EPA’s voluntary program are productive for the state; EPA has not currently identified benefits to Minnesota which would make the additional efforts worthwhile.

Additional Information If you have questions on the

EPA process or Minnesota’s efforts, please contact Rita O’Con- nell, Ground Water Unit, MPCA at the following numbers: 612-296- 8568 or 800-657-3864 or TDD 297-5353 or 800-627-3529.

March, 1993

CFCs in Ground Water Can Be Put to Good Use

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in refrigerators and air condi- tioners and linked to ozone deple- tion, can also be used to age- date ground water and trace the flow of subsurface contamination, according to a new report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior.

“Although CFCs are detrimen- tal to the atmosphere, they have provided hydrologists with a valu- able tracer of recently recharged ground water and a tool for age- dating shallow ground water,” USGS hydrologist Niel Plummer said. “CFCs in ground water are not themselves harmful, but their presence can indicate a hydro- logic pathway that could result in water-quality problems.” The report, by Eurybiades Busenberg and Plummer, appears in the September issue of Water Re- sources Research.

CFCs were first synthesized in the 193Os, and their concentration in the atmosphere has in- creased steadily since the 1940s. They are highly soluble in water and their concentration in water - usually from rain or snowmelt, but also from surface water or soil moisture - is related to the atmospheric CFC concentration when the water recharged the aquifer. Although CFC concentrations in water are usually very small, measured in parts per trillion, they can be measured with sufficient accuracy to relate to post- 1940 atmospheric concentrations of CFCs. This link can be used to determine the time period in which the water recharged the aquifer. Under ideal conditions, the CFC dating system is accu- rate to about two years, according to Busenberg and Plummer. Ground water ages produced by this technique generally agree with age-dating from two radio- active decay methods, known as tritium/helium-3 and krypton-85 analyses.

CFC measurements can also be used as a relatively inexpen- sive pretest for ground water con-

tamination. Most contamination originates at the surface, and the presence of CFCs in ground water usually indicates a hydro- logic pathway from the surface that could convey contaminants downward.

To test the new method, the re- searchers initially used deep wells in central Oklahoma expect- ing to find “old” water free of CFCs, but were surprised to find relatively large concentrations of CFCs in the water produced by these wells.

Because large quantities of water have been withdrawn from the wells, shallow ground water has been drawn into the wells along with the water from deeper zones. “When water is pumped from wells, it can come from many directions, depending on the pumping rate and hydraulic con-nections in the ground. When we find CFCs in water pumped from deep wells, we know there must be a hydraulic connection to shallow water,” Plummer ex- plained.

Busenberg and Plummer also sampled water from many home- owner wells that were drilled in shallow alluvium and terrace de- posits along streams in central Oklahoma. Water in many of the shallow wells adjacent to streams where flow is sustained by sewage effluent had high levels of CFCs, some as much as 1000 times that found in modern rainfall. (The CFC levels in modern rainfall exceed the highest levels found in shallow ground water, un- less the ground water is enriched by another source of CFCs.) The water in streams near these wells was also sampled for CFCs. Large CFC concentrations were detected in the streams near or just downstream of discharge areas from sewage treatment plants. Busenberg and Plummer concluded that treated sewage effluent in these streams could recharge the shallow ground water in these areas, which is now being pumped from shallow wells


EPA Distributes Booklets on Wellhead Protection Programs

With the increasing interest in groundwater protection at the state and local level, there is a growing demand for relevant information.

To meet this demand, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a number of technical documents on wellhead protection and management.

These reports are available free of charge and can be ob- tained by calling EPA’s Safe Drink- ing Water Hotline at (800)426- 4791. Specify the document title and number:

Case Studies in We//head Pro- tection: Ten Examples of innova- tive Wellhead Protection Manage- ment Programs (EPA 813-R-92- 002).

Guide for Conducting Contami- nant Source inventories for Public Drinking Water Supplies (EPA 570-9-91 -014).

Managing Groundwater Con- tamination Sources in Welihead Protection Areas:A Priority Set- ting Approach (EPA 570-g-91 - 023).

Why Do We//head Protection? (EPA 570-9-91 -014).

Delineation of We//head Pro- tection Areas in Fractured Rocks (EPA 570-9-91-009).

Wellhead Protection Strate- gies for Confined Aquifer Settings (EPA 570-9-91 -008).

Protecting Local Groundwater Supplies through Weiihead Pro- tection (EPA 570-9-91 -007).

A Review of Sources of Groundwater Contamination from Light industry (EPA 440-6-90- 005).

Guide to Groundwater Supply Contingency Planning for Local and State Governments (EPA 440-6-91-003).

Citizen’s Guide to Groundwa- ter Protection (EPA 440-6-89- 004).

Local Financing for Wellhead Protection (EPA 440-6-89-001).

-to bottom of next column

8

Superfund Issues Ground Water Remediation Report

The U.S. EPA’s Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) has issued a technical report, “Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies: Phase II "

In preparing the study, OERR reviewed performance data from 24 hazardous waste sites using pump-and-treat remedies. Seventeen sites were first studied for OERR’s 1989 Phase I report and five sites where non- aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) are known to be present were added for Phase II.

The study concludes that pump-and-treat systems generally are effective in containing dissolved contaminant plumes and in removing dissolved contaminant mass. However, if NAPLs are present, extraction systems may be unable to achieve cleanup levels within the predicted time period.

The report also found that site characterization data and extraction system monitoring frequently are insufficient to fully assess contaminant movement or remedy performance: effective ground water remediation may require periodic evaluation of system performance, data needs, and remediation time frames.

In most cases where NAPLs have been observed directly, they have been found unexpectedly since NAPLs typically were not addressed during site investigation or remedial design. In addition, dense NAPLs rarely were observed at study sites, possibly due to complex subsurface behav- ior and/or rare efforts to specifically identify them.

The report is published in two volumes (PB92-963346 for the Sum- mary Report and PB92-963347 for the case studies) and is available from the National Technical Information Service: (703)487-4650.

-Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Winter 1993

Letter to the Editor In the January 1993 MGWA newsletter I read the short article “Groups

Suggest Change in Terminology,” (p. 4), regarding changing the name of non-point source pollution (NPS) to polluted runoff. Yes, I agree that most folks don’t what NPS is, but the new name also has a major problem. It en- tirely ignores the underground/ground water component, both from the source (e.g., high densities of septic systems) and the impacted resource point of view. When the word “runoff” is included, to me it implies surface runoff into surface water bodies, ignoring percolation and/or leaching of surface and near-surface contaminants into the ground water.

Already many NPS programs are directed primarily to surface water impacts at the expense of ground water (e.g., unsealed holding basins designed to prevent contaminants from reaching lakes and streams can in- stead result in percolation of the contaminants into the ground water.) Changing the name to polluted runoff would, I fear, increase the prob- ability of ground water impacts being even more ignored than they already currently are.

--Rita O’Connell. Minn. Pollution Control A aencv

Continued - Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments (EPA 440-6- 89-002).

Developing a State Wellhead Protection Program: A User’s Guide to Assist State Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (EPA 440-6-88- 003).

Guidelines for Delineation of We//head Protection Areas (EPA 440-6- 87-01 0).

-Groundwater Policy News, February ‘93


MGWA Spring Conference A Blast From the Past

Applications of Geographic Information Systems for Investigating Ground Water Resources

April 20, 1993 1-5 p.m. Earle Brown Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus

Notes From Previous Newsletters

April 1986

Schedule

1 :oo

1:05

Opening Remarks

The Basics of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - Dan Faibo, Environmental Systems Research

institute (ESRI), St. Paul, MN

Quarterly seminar schedule begins with joint meeting with Wis- consin Ground Water Association. Gretchen Sabel chairs MGWA Speaker’s bureau. Pat Leonard- Mayer writes on environmental mediation.

1:55 GIS Training and Ap l!

Ii&ion for Local Governments - Dr. Robert Bixby, eography Deparment,

St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN

2:45

3:15

Break

Merging Ground Water Computer Modeling with GIS - Mike Kernodie, Water Resources Division, US. Geological Survey, Aibequerque, NM

September 1986 John Cherry, University of Wa-

terloo, to speak at fall meeting. Lake-ground water interactions are discussed in an article by Eric Mohring.

4:05 The Global Positioning System (GPS): Friend or Foe? - Justin B/urn, Minnesota Department of Health,

Minneapolis, MN

4:55 Closing

Four Continuing Education Credits are available through the Minne- sota Department of Health. Preregistration fees are $1 S/professional MGWA member; $20/

!r rofes-

sional nonmember, $5/student; Registration at the door will be $25/professional, $10/student. Preregistration rates apply until April 10, 1993

Name

Affiliation -- Mailing Address

December 1986 New MGWA logo contest.

[Since we’re still using the same logo, apparently there were no winners.] Joint meeting with Twin City Geologists at Stroh’s in Janu- ary to welcome the new Minne- sota Geological Survey Director, Priscilla Grew. Implications of federal Superfund, recently signed into law by President Reagan, are described by Susan Brustman and John Morley.

May 1987 Spring meeting canceled be-

cause everyone hit the field early following a “no-show winter.

September 1987 Lee Trotta and Eric Porcher re-

port on construction of the state’s first ground water vulnerability map.

October 1987

City, State, Zip Code Work Telephone Number I request continuing education credit q Yes q No

Mail a copy of this completed form and your check to MGWA, PO Box 65362, St. Paul, MN 55165-0362

CFC’s, continued from page 7.

for domestic use. The CFC dating system works best in areas having shallow, aerobic,

sandy aquifers. CFC analysis is cheaper, easier, and faster than the tritium/helium-3 and krypton-85 dating systems. The authors note, however, that contamination from septic and sewage systems and urban runoff can affect the results of the CFC-testing method. Some evidence also indicates that CFCs can be degraded in anaerobic ground water systems; this makes the method less reliable. The system is not yet commercially available.

Busenberg and Plummer’s research work is being carried out in con- junction with the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assess- ment (NAWQA) program.

-Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Winter 1993

March 1993

Nuclear waste disposal issues are reviewed by MGWA President Linda Lehman. Federal ground water legislation proposals are summarized by Holly Stoerker. Ron Nargang addresses protection of the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer and asks if anyone knows of any potential Mt. Simon-Hinck- ley monitoring wells.

February 1988 Student Assistance Fund initi-

ated. Gretchen Sabel announces the Minnesota Ground Water Pro- tection Strategy and describes its major features. Linda Lehman writes on radium in drinking water.

9

Directory Update These corrections and addi-

tions are current through January 15, 1993. Please let us know when your information changes! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ..‘.‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i... ii........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.._~.~.~_~.~_~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.i...,........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.:.:.~.:.:.~.~.~.:.:.:.~.~.~.~.~............................................ -.-..i ii....... -...-.- i............. . i... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.- . . . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘.‘.“.~.‘.‘.“.~.‘.~.“.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ . . . .._.iZ......i................................................. _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .._....i -:..:..:..:..:i. . . . . . . . . .i....i..ii...................,.............................................................. Es&~*: . . . :.:.:.:...‘...:.:.:.:::::.‘.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:-:.:-. . . . . . . . . . . . .F.. . . . . . . ‘::: 2: :. . . 2:. .:. .., . . ,.. :., ;j~~~~~ . ~~~~~~.~:~~~~~~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . :: i....... &::..::.:...:.:::::.::.::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._............ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :-:.::+:-:.: . :. :. :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::....::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:..::::... .‘““.~.“.“.‘““..~~~.~.~.~.~.~.~ . . . . i......i....ii... :.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. ~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:.:.:.::.:.:.: ._............................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~ ._...,. ,...,_...,..._..._. _..._..... _.,.r.i,.,.,...,...i,.....,.........,......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i i................... . i......... ..i. ‘.‘.~.‘.‘.~.“.“.~.~~~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~.~.~.~.~.~~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.:.~: . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘.‘.y.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ._._..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ii..i............................................................................. .::::.~:_ . . . . . . . . .ii..i..iii....i.......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii............. . . . . . . . ..i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abulaban, Abdelkarim University of Minnesota 1390 Eckles Ave St. Paul MN 55108-6005 Work: (612)625-9277

Alexander, Jacqueline H. 1227 Minnesota Ave Duluth MN 55802

Anderson-Meger, Steven Michaels Engineering Inc Box 2377 La Crosse WI 54601 Work: (608)785-1900

Bacig, Ed 1817 Woodland Ave. Duluth MN 55803 Work: (612)726-7935

Bakken, Scott A. 702 North 19th Ave E Duluth, MN 55812-1318

Barquest, Bradley A. SEACOR Environmental Eng. 3433 Broadway St NE Ste 210 Minneapolis MN 55413 Work: (612)627-0340 Fax: (612)627-9082

Bernard, Michael MN Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd St. Paul MN 55155-3898 Work: (612)296-8838 Fax: (612)297-8683

Best, William A. Bd of Water & Soil Resources 3217 Bemidji Ave N Bemidji MN 56601 Work: (218)755-4176 Fax: (218)755-4201

Brekke, Jay P. GME Consultants PO Box 250 Lake Shore Drive Crosby MN 56441 Work: (218)546-6371 Fax: (218)546-8196

10

Brown, Tim P. L. Lehman & Associates 1103 W. Burnsville Pky Ste 209 Burnsville MN 55337-5803 Work: (612)894-0357 Fax: (612)894-5028

Cechota, Madonna University of Minnesota 525 University Ave SE Apt 106 Minneapolis MN 55414-1738

Dahlman, Bruce N. DNR Division of Waters 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4032 Work: (612)296-2790

Droehl, Peter J. PACE Inc 1511 E4thAve Shakopee MN 55379 Work: (612)525-3391

Dzubay, James D. Delta Env Consultants Inc 12021 Quay St NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Work: (612)486-5729

Evans, Craig 0. USACE 839 Iowa Ave W St. Paul MN 55117-3474 Work: (612)220-0594

Fruehe, Cathy RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #l75 Minneapolis MN 55441-2648

Gibson, Robert G. Woodward Clyde Consultants 6465 Wayzata Blvd Suite 660 Minneapolis MN 55426-1732 Work: (612)835-6360

Gillespie, George WESI Johnson Screens 1950 Old Highway 8 New Brighton MN 55112-2300 Work: (612)638-3158 Fax: (800)477-0099

Grubb, Stuart Grubb Environmental Services 2232 15th Ave N St Paul MN 55109 Work: (612)773-9590

Hartfiel, Martha S. Freshwater Foundation 725 County Road 6 Wayzata, MN 55391-9611 Work: (612)449-0092 Fax: (612)449-0592

Jacques, Jim Resource Engineering Assoc. 4080 83rd Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Work: (612)560-6965 Fax: (612)560-6965

Jarvi, Thomas Consulting Geologist 6321 Edgemont Circle Brooklyn Park MN 55428-l 881 Work: (612)533-5982

Jensen, Scott W. Braun lntertec Environmental 520 Fisherman’s Rd La Crosse WI 54603-1215 Work: (608)781-7277 Fax: (608)781-7279

Johnson, Carol Brown-Nicollet Env Health 301 S Washington St. Peter MN 56082 Work: (507)931-4140 Fax: (507)931-9220

Kading, Kelly W. 6915 Sweetbrier Ave NW Albuquerque NM 87120-4145

Keister, Beth A. RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #175 Minneapois MN 55441-2648 Work: (612)551-1001 Fax: (612)551-2499

Lath, James B. Foth &Van Dyke 10340 Viking Dr Suite 100 Eden Prairie MN 55344 Work: (612)942-0396 Fax: (612)942-0865

Larson, Craig B. RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #f75 Minneapolis MN 55441-2648 Work: (612)551-1001 Fax: (612)551-2499

Locke, Sharon University of MN Geology 1595 Griggs St N St. Paul MN 55108 Work: (612)624-1392

MacDonald, Michael 6019WlOSthSt Bloomington MN 55438-1831

Malmanger, Mark MN Department of Health 828 Chester Park Dr Duluth MN 55812-1136 Work: (218)739-7585

Mannion, Ciaran E. Minnesota Env Initiative 10s5thst Minneapolis MN 55402 Work: (612)338-3828 Fax: (612)338-1876


Mathison, Carie Barr Engineering 8300 Norman Center Dr Bloomington MN 55437 Work: (612)832-2679 Fax: (612)835-0186

McAdams, Toby V. 3210 18th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407

Oothoudt, Greg Summit Enviro Solutions Inc W171S7592 Lannon Dr k54 Muskego WI 53150-9404 Work: (612)595-8888

Pettit, Stephen D. RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #I75 Minneapolis MN 55441-2648 Work: (612)551-1001

Proronotarios, Beth 5475 Howards Point Road Shorewood, MN 55331

Reinbold, Mark L. RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #l75 Minneapolis MN 55441-264

Roushar, Thomas A. Maier Stewart & Assoc., Inc. 3559 Island View Cir NW Prior Lake MN 55372-1603 Work: (612)774-6021 Fax: (612)774-0838

Rzepecki, Piotr A. RUST Environment 3033 Campus Dr #l75 Minneapolis MN 55441-2648 Work: (612)425-2181 Fax: (612)425-1913

Swenson, Karen Brown-Nicollet Env Health 301 S Washington St. Peter MN 56082 Work: (507)931-4140 Fax: (507)931-9220

Timerson, Benjamin J. DPRA, Inc 5813 143rd St W Edina MN 55424-1769 Work: (612)227-6500 Fax: (612)227-5522

Tipping, Robert G. Minnesota Geological Survey 2642 University Ave St. Paul MN 55114 Work: (612)627-4795 Fax: (612)627-4778

Tupy, Steve WESI Johnson Screens PO Box 64118 New Brighton MN 55164 Work: (612)638-3156 Fax: (800) 477-0099

March I993

Vranicar, Steve American Engineering Testing 2102 University Ave W St. Paul MN 55114 Work: (612)659-1318 Fax: (612)659-1379

Wheeler, Betty 1830 Green Bay St La Crosse WI 54601-6533

Whiting, Nancy M. MN Dept of Transportation Material Research & Eng 1400 Gervais Ave Maplewood MN 55109 Work: (612)779-5603

de Lambert, Jim Bruce A Liesch Associates Inc 13400 15th Ave N Plymouth MN 55441 Work: (612)559-1423

Lost a VW Lately? A lime-green Volkswagen was

among items discovered in a Floyd County, Iowa sinkhole, one of several sinkholes to be cleaned in a new environmental program.

The one-acre sinkhole also contained automobile tires, toys, scrap iron, old jars and cans, sheets of corrugated metal, bot- tles of all kinds, and rusted-out pesticide containers. State offi- cials said the hole had been used as a public dump.

The sinkhole is one of 33 on 29 farms spread across seven northern and northeast Iowa counties that were earmarked for the initial cleanup and clean-out operation in 1992.

A similar schedule is planned for subsequent years. State offi- cials say nearly 13,000 sinkholes have been identified in the seven Iowa counties, but only about 200 are thought to have been used as public dumps.

The effort to repair the 33 sinkholes was expected to cost $350,000 in state money during 1992. The money comes from a tax on farm chemicals, including nitrogen fertilizer, established by the 1987 Iowa Ground Water Pro- tection Act.

-Iowa Water Well News

26th Annual Water Resources Conference

October 26-27, 1993 University of Minnesota St. Paul Campus

Call for Abstracts The planning committee of the

Water Resources Conference is seeking proposals for presentations at the 26th Annual Confer- ence All public and private organi- zations and individuals are invited to submit abstracts for review.

Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:

Hydrology of Land-locked Areas

l Determination of Flood Levels l Water Quality l Infiltration of Surface Water l Water Budget

Hydrological Modeling (Quality or Quantity)

Unusual Applications Model Calibration Snow Melt Less Used Models G IS Applications Non-point Source Pollution Agriculture Urban NPDFS Forest Water Toxins Construction Sites

Ground Water / Surface Water Interactions

l Water Quality l Wetlands (bogs, fens) l Agricultural Drainage Impacts l Infiltration of Urban Storm

Water l Well Drilling, Sealing

Hydraulics and Hydraulic Structures

Bev Ringsak 206 Nolte Center 315 Pillsbury Drive S.E Minneapolis, MN 55455-0139 (612)625-6689 FAX (612)626-1632

11

Calendar

April 12 - 14,1993. Theory and Practice of Ground Water Monitoring and Sampling, Minnea- polis, MN. Contact NGWA.

April 13 - 15 1993. Nine- teenth Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, Westin Hotel, Cincinnati, OH. Sponsored by EPA’s Risk Reduc- tion Engineering Laboratory, Cin- cinnati, OH. FFI (800)783-3870 or (215)628-9317.

April 17 - 21, 1993. Canadian Qua ternary Association (CA N- QUA). Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Information: Environ- mental Geology Section, BC Geo- logical Survey Branch, 553 Supe- rior St., Victoria, British Columbia, V8V 1X4, Canada, (604)387- 6249, fax (604)356-8153.

May 1 - 2,1993. First Great Lakes Ground Water information System Regional Workshop. Pheasant Run Conference Cen- ter, St. Charles, IL. Contact: Fresh- water Foundation, Spring Hill Cen- ter, 725 County Road Six, Wayzata, MN 55391; (612)449- 0092, fax (612) 449-0592.

May 2 - 8,1993. National Drinking Water Week. For a packet of information contact Joan Dent, National Drinking Water Week Coalition, American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235, (303)794-7711.

May 17 - 20,1993. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Practi- cal Models for Site Assessment and Remediation - Short Course, San Diego, CA. Contact IGWMC.

May 19 - 21,1993. 6th Sympo- sium on Artificial Recharge of Ground Water: Purpose, Prob- lems, & Progress. Phoenix, AZ. Contact: WRRC, University of Ari- zona, 250 N. Campbell, Tucson, AZ, 85721.

June 9 - 12,1993, Ground Water Modeling Conference. To be held in Golden, Colorado by IGWMC.

June 21 - 23,1993. Stochas- tic and Statistical Methods in Hy- drology and Environmental Engi-

12

neefing. Waterloo, Ontario, Can- ada. Contact: Keith W. Hipel, Uni- versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, On- tario, Canada N2L 3Gl.

June 24 - 25,1993. ASTM Symposium on Analysis of Soils Contaminated with Petroleum Constituents. Atlanta, GA, Con- tact: Tracey O’Shay, Gordon and Lawton, PO. Box 80072, Austin, TX 78727-0072, (512)475-2302.

June 27 - 30,1993. Symposia on Water Resources Education & Changing Roles in Water Re- sources. Seattle, WA. Contact AWRA.

August 15 - 20,1993. IBM PC Applications in Ground Water Poi- iution and Hydrology. To be held in San Francisco by NGWA.

October 6 - 8,1993.38th An- nual Midwest Ground Water Con- ference, Champaign, IL. Call for papers - abstracts due June 1, 1993. Contact Adrian Visocky, Illi- nois State Water Survey, 2204 Griffith Drive, Champaign, IL 61820.

October 25 - 28,1993. Geo- logical Society of America Annual Meeting. Boston, MA. Contact: GSA, Box 9140,330O Penrose PI., Boulder, CO 80301, (303)447- 2020.

April 17 - 20,1994. Re- sponses to Changing Mu/tipie- Use Demands: New Directions for Water Resources Planning and Management, Nashville, TN. Call for papers - abstracts due August 16,1993. Contact AWRA.

THEIN

WELL Corn Call us for your

Monitoring Well needs

June 26 - 29,1994. Effects of Human-induced Changes on Hy- drologic Systems. Jackson Hole, WY. Call for papers - abstracts due August 16, 1993. Contact AWRA.

Thanks! Thanks to those members

who contributed toward the use of recycled paper:

James Almendinger, Henry Anderson, Jr., Robert Beltrame, Bart Biernat, Larry Carlson, Mi- chael Convery, Chris De Mattos, Evan Drivas, Eric Evenson, Jay Ronald Frischman, Scott Gol- berg, Bjorn Haavik, Dr. Gordon Hess, Rudy Hoagberg, Barbara Huberty, Dr. Randy Hunt, Sean Hunt, Thomas Jarvi, Larry Johnson, Terry Kaiser, Carolynn Keefner, Kate Kleiter, Mark Lar- son, Dr. Jeanette Leete, Sharon Locke, Amy Loiselle, Steve McManamon, Michael McMurtry, M.D., Bob Merritt, Bryan Mur- dock, Dr. Hans-Olaf Pfannkuch, R. Andrew Polzin, Damon Pow- ers, Susan Price, Bernd Rehm, Daniel Reid, Steve Robertson, Rob Runkel, Lynette St. George, Melinda Salisbury, Ralph Schnorr, Kevin Sikkila, Dr. Otto Strack, Robert Tipping, Jeffrey Travis, Ronald Vaughn, lngrid Ver- hagen, Cynthia Widlund, Ray Wuolo.


Natural Carcinogen Content of Common Foods

increase in cell division produced by high doses rather than simply to selection of suspicious chemical structures.

In the October 9, 1993 issue of Science, Gold, et a/., (including Bruce Ames) at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley com- piled and calculated the natural carcinogen content of some foods and compared those values to average synthetic carcinogen exposure of human populations using their HERP index. The HERP index, Human Ex- posure/Rodent Potency, is a way of transferring the results of rodent studies to human populations.

The report listed 80 typical daily exposures by possible carcinogenic hazard (HERP), and included 49 natural chemicals in the diet, 15 synthetic pesticide residues and 16 other exposures.

Ranking of Possible Carcinogenic Hazards from Se- lected Natural and Synthetic Chemicals

Ames and his fellow workers point out the short- comings of the regulatory process, including:

Possible Human dose of hazard: Daily human rodent HERP(%) exposure carcinogen

“1) natural chemicals make up the vast bulk of chemicals humans are exposed to; 2) the toxicology of synthetic and natural toxins is not fundamentally dif- ferent; 3) about half of the natural chemicals tested chronically in rats and mice are carcinogens; 4) testing for carcinogenicity at near-toxic doses in rodents does not provide enough information to predict the ex- cess number of human cancers that might occur at low-dose exposures; and 5) testing at the maximum tolerated dose frequently can cause chronic cell kill- ing and consequent cell replacement (a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses), and that ignoring this greatly exaggerates risks.

4.7 2.8 1.4

As an example, the article lists the natural carcinogens that have been identified so far in roasted coffee:

Carcinogenicity status of natural chemicals in roasted coffee.

0.4

0.3 0.1 0.03

0.008

0.006

Positive: Acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, ben- 0.002 zofuran, benzo(a)pyrene, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenzathracene, ethanol, ethylbenzene formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, limonene, MelQ, stryrene, toluene.

Not Positive: Acrolein, biphenyl, eugenol, nicotinic

0.001 0.0005 0.0002

acid, phenol, piperidine [uncertain - caffeine] Not Tested: Approximately 1000 chemicals.

A cup of coffee contains more than 1000 chemicals. Only 26 have been tested for carcinogenicity, and 19 of these were positive in at least one test, to- taling at least 10 mg of rodent carcinogens per cup. The average coffee consumption of Americans is about three cups per day.

0.00008

0.00003

0.00001

According to the group, there is an imbalance in the both the data on and the perception of chemical carcinogens: 1) The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the public tends to view chemicals as only synthetic and to think of synthetic chemicals as toxic despite the fact that every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose. 2) It has often been wrongly assumed that humans have evolved defenses against the natural chemicals in our diet but not against the synthetic chemicals. 3) Because the toxicology of natural and synthetic chemicals is similar, one expects (and finds) a similar positivity rate for carcinogenicity among synthetic and natural chemicals. The group’s basic argu- ment with the regulatory interpretation of studies is that the high positivity rate in rodent studies is due to

March 1993

0.000001 Lindane, avg. Lindane, daily exposure 32 ng (1990)

The group cautions drawing conclusions from the occurrence in the diet of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens. However, they do point out the widespread exposures. Their results seem to indicate that many ordinary foods would not pass the regulatory criteria used for synthetic chemicals. They main- tain that “adequate risk assessment form animal cancer tests requires more information about many aspects of toxicology, such as effects on cell division, in- duction of defense and repair systems, and species differences.” They conclude by stating “agencies should at least establish a threshold of attention for hypothetical cancer risks that are low compared to the background risk; otherwise, resources may be di- verted from important tasks.”

Wine (250 ml) Ethyl alcohol, 30 ml Beer (12 oz.) Ethyl alcohol, 18 ml Mobile home air Formaldehyde, (14 hr/day) 2.2 mg Conventional home Formaldehyde, air (14 hr/day) 598 ug Lettuce (1/ 8 head) Caffeic acid, 66.3 mg Apple (1 whole) Caffeic acid, 24.4 mg Peanut butter (32 g/ Aflatoxin, 64 ng sandwich) Swimming pool, Chloroform, 1 hour (child) 250 ug Well water, Trichloroethylene 1 liter contaminated 2.8 mg (worst in Silicon Valley, CA) White bread, Furfural, (2 slices) I 333 ug Tap water, 1 liter Chloroform, 83 ug Jasmine tea, 1 cup Benzyl acetate, 460 ug Toxaphene: daily Toxaphene, dietary avg. 595 ng (1990) Ham burger, pan MelQx, fried (3 oz.) 111 ng Whole wheat toast Urethane, (2 slices) 540 ng Lager beer (12 oz.) Urethane, 159 ng

13

Minnesota Ground Water Association P. O. Box 65362 St. Paul, MN 55165

100% recycled

First Class

U.S. Postage

PAID

St. Paul, MN

Permit No. 7122

minnesota ground water association · 2011. 9. 12. · ansi standards available on cd-rom all...

Documents