February  11,  2015       Mr.  Scott  Green,  RG       Remedial  Projects  Unit  Manager   Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality   1110  West  Washington  Street   Phoenix,  AZ    85007     Re:   Comments  on  the  ADHS  Health  Consultation  Dated  January  8,  2015,       Evaluation  of  Water  Sampling  Results  in  the  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District,   Phoenix,  Maricopa  County,  Arizona     Dear  Mr.  Green:       Synergy  Environmental,  LLC,  on  behalf  of  the  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  (RID),  has  reviewed   and  provides  the  following  comments  regarding  the  Arizona  Department  of  Health  Services   (ADHS)  Health  Consultation  -­  Evaluation  of  Water  Sampling  Results  in  the  Roosevelt  Irrigation   District  (RID),  dated  January  8,  2015  (ADHS  Report).    We  are  submitting  these  comments  to   ADEQ  for  the  administrative  record  because  ADEQ  has  attached  the  ADHS  Report  to  its   website.    It  seems  this  ADHS  Report  was  prompted  by  a  request  of  one  or  more  parties  who   are  potentially  responsible  parties  (PRPs)  for  groundwater  contamination  in  the  West  Van   Buren  Area  (WVBA)  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  (WQARF)  Site  and  these  PRPs   have  already  begun  to  misconstrue  the  significance  of  the  report’s  narrowly  focused   conclusions  to  ADEQ’s  feasibility  study  review  process.           The  ADHS  Report  is  a  very  limited  and  incomplete  characterization  of  public  risk  profile  in  the   WVBA  WQARF  Site.    The  ADHS  Report  has  significant  limitations,  summarized  below,  and   does  not  address  the  more  fundamental  issues  that  are  critical  considerations  in  the  process   for  ADEQ’s  selection  of  an  appropriate  groundwater  remedy  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  under   state  law  and  the  WQARF  Program  that  will  address  the  over  one  dozen  RID  wells  currently   exceeding  applicable  health-­‐based  legal  standards  for  the  hazardous  contaminants  that  are   impacting  those  wells  and  rendering  them  unfit  for  their  impending  use  as  a  West  Valley   drinking  water  source  without  treatment.         ! ADHS  considers  a  hypothetical  scenario  wherein  untreated  water  from  well  RID-­‐84  is   used  for  drinking  water  consumption.    This  is  not  a  realistic  scenario.   ! ADHS  concludes  that,  if  RID-­‐84  were  used  as  potable  water,  “...it  would  not  be  expected  to   harm  people’s  health...”  despite  the  fact  that  it  violates  applicable  federal  and  state   drinking  water  standards.       10645  North  Tatum  Boulevard,  Suite  200-­‐437,  Phoenix,  Arizona    85028-­‐3053     1           ! ADHS  does  not  consider  the  planned  use  of  groundwater  from  other,  more  contaminated   RID  wells  as  a  source  of  drinking  water,  even  though  that  has  been  determined  by  ADEQ   to  be  the  “reasonably  foreseeable  use”  of  the  water  supply.   ! ADHS  does  not  consider  the  health  effects  of  prolonged  (and  ongoing)  public  exposure   from  inhalation  of  the  thousands  of  pounds  of  contaminants  released  each  year  into  the   ambient  air  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.   ! ADHS  fails  to  consider  recent  exposure  assessment  air  sampling  data  that  show  “many   breathing-­zone  air  samples  exceed  screening-­level  guidelines  for  chronic  exposure  to  TCE   and  PCE  ...  in  ambient  air.”1   ! The  ADHS  Report  does  not  mention  the  ADEQ  policy  restricting  the  uncontrolled   transfer  of  contaminants  from  one  environmental  media  (groundwater)  into  another   (ambient  air)2.   ! ADHS  fails  to  note,  as  it  has  in  other  recent  and  similar  ADHS  health  consultations,  the   statutory  requirement  to  enforce  Arizona  Aquifer  Water  Quality  Standards  developed  to   protect  all  Arizona  aquifers  for  a  drinking  water  use  and  to  be  protective  of  human   health  and  the  environment.     The  ADHS  Report  examined  two  limited  scenarios  related  to  “potential  health  risks”  from   hazardous  volatile  organic  compound  (VOC)  contamination  impacting  RID  wells  in  the  WVBA   WQARF  Site.    Although  somewhat  confusing  in  scope,  the  first  stated  purpose  of  the  ADHS   Report  was  to  evaluate  the  potential  health  risks  associated  with  one  specific  well  (RID-­‐84)   “as  if  it  were  used  as  potable  water.”    ADHS  concluded  that  exposure  to  VOCs  in  the  water   supply  from  RID-­‐84  “would  not  be  expected  to  harm  people’s  health  under  typical  conditions  of   household  water  use.”    Such  a  conclusion  disregards  the  fact  that  tetrachloroethene  (PCE)  is   present  at  a  concentration  of  8.1  micrograms  per  liter  [µg/L],  which  exceeds  the  primary   drinking  water  maximum  contaminant  level  (MCL)  standard  of  5.0  µg/L.    MCLs  are   enforceable  health-­‐based  standards  set  by  the  United  States  Environmental  Protection  Agency   (EPA)  as  the  legal  threshold  limit  for  the  concentration  of  a  substance  that  is  safely  allowed  in   public  water  systems.    Consequently,  the  water  in  this  hypothetical  scenario  is  prohibited,  as  a   matter  of  law,  from  being  used  as  a  potable  drinking  water  source  without  treatment.    In  fact,   serving  this  contaminated  water  for  potable  purposes,  as  considered  in  the  ADHS  Report,   would  be  a  violation  of  federal  and  state  law,  as  Arizona  has  adopted  the  EPA  primary  MCLs  as   applicable  Arizona  public  drinking  water  supply  standards.3                                                                                                                         Early Response Action, Public Health Exposure Assessment and Mitigation Summary Report, Sept. 16, 2011.   ADEQ has confirmed this policy in response to the legal position taken by Maricopa County Air Quality Department which “clearly articulated” that “ADEQ does not support the relocation of contaminants from one media (groundwater) to another (air). Contaminants should be removed from the environment and treated or disposed of appropriately.” See ADEQ letter to the Director of Superfund Program, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, November 14, 2007. 3  A.R.S. § 49-353.A.2; A.A.C. R18-4-109.   1 2   10645  North  Tatum  Boulevard,  Suite  200-­‐437,  Phoenix,  Arizona    85028-­‐3053     2         The  second  stated  purpose  of  the  ADHS  Report  was  to  evaluate  hazardous  VOC  concentrations   in  other  RID  wells  and  canal  water  to  determine  if  there  is  a  health  concern  for  people  that   come  in  contact  with  this  water  ”during  recreational  use  and  gardening.”    The  ADHS  Report   provides  little  useful  information  in  this  regard  and  simply  clarifies,  once  again,  that  there  is   no  current  risk  to  public  health  from  incidentally  swallowing  small  amounts  of  contaminated   water  while  occasionally  gardening  or  playing  in  the  water.4    The  ADHS  Report  did  not   evaluate  the  more  pertinent  issue  of  the  public  health  risk  associated  with  potable  use  of   contaminated  groundwater  from  these  RID  wells.      Consequently,  this  report  accomplishes   very  little  towards  informing  the  public  about  the  health  concerns  associated  with  the   reasonably  foreseeable  future  use  of  contaminated  groundwater  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  as   a  drinking  water  resource.         RID  is  concerned  that  the  casual  reader  of  the  ADHS  Report  will  fail  to  grasp  these   distinctions,  especially  given  the  mischaracterization  of  the  ADHS  Report  provided  to  ADEQ   by  the  PRPs.    In  this  regard,  the  ADHS  Report’s  Executive  Summary  states,  “ADHS  concluded   that  ingestion  exposure  to  TCE  and  PCE  in  groundwater  and  canal  water  in  RID  sampling  area  is   not  expected  to  harm  people’s  health.”    This  conclusion  is  confusing  and  misleading.    Since  this   statement  (in  bold  font)  so  plainly  references  ingestion,  the  general  public  may  wrongly   interpret  this  statement  as  applicable  to  potential  drinking  water  use.    The  public,  however,   would  need  to  sift  through  the  detailed  report  to  understand  the  evaluation  is  not  about   potable  use  (like  the  first  scenario)  and  only  considers  very  limited  and  incidental  exposure  to   contaminants.    The  misplaced  emphasis  on  this  exposure  pathway  and  failure  to  address  the   health  risk  associated  with  potable  use  of  this  water  supply  are  confusing,  misleading  and   inadequate.     RID  also  is  concerned  that  the  ADHS  Report  fails  to  consider  the  potential  public  health  effects   of  prolonged  (and  ongoing)  public  exposure  from  inhalation  of  the  thousands  of  pounds  of   contaminants  released  each  year  into  the  ambient  air  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Over  the  past   ten  years,  an  average  of  nearly  3,000  pounds/year  of  VOC  contaminants  have  been  released   into  the  local  environment,  the  ambient  air  and  surface  water  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.     ADHS  fails  to  include  recent  air  sampling  data  that  consider  that  “many  breathing-­zone  air   samples  exceed  screening-­level  guidelines  for  chronic  exposure  to  TCE  and  PCE  ...  in  ambient   air.”5                                                                                                                         4 Such points of exposure and assumed intake may be appropriate at present, particularly because RID has converted most of the open waterways in the WVBA to buried pipelines. However, these assumptions do not apply to past exposures. In particular, video footage that was telecast on KPHO news showed local residents swimming in RID canals and intentionally drinking contaminated water. Past public exposure potential is likely much greater due to higher contaminant concentrations, more widespread points of exposure, and through direct and incidental ingestion. 5 For example, TCE concentrations up to 29.0 µg/m3 were measured in the breathing zone in areas of public exposure. All TCE concentrations measured in this study exceeded the Annual Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guideline of 0.58 µg/m3, established by ADHS. See Early Response Action, Public Health Exposure Assessment and Mitigation Summary Report, Sept. 16, 2011   10645  North  Tatum  Boulevard,  Suite  200-­‐437,  Phoenix,  Arizona    85028-­‐3053     3           The  ADHS  Report  only  discussed  health  risks  based  on  current  and  future  exposure  and  did   not  consider  the  consequence  of  long-­‐term  exposure  over  the  past  30  or  possibly  50  years  of   past  exposure  to  VOC  contaminants  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    There  also  was  no   consideration  of  ADEQ’s  determination  that  measures  should  be  taken  to  limit  the  transfer  of   contaminants  from  groundwater  into  the  air.    RID  would  have  thought  the  state  agencies   would  coordinate  on  such  important  policy  matters.    Even  the  City  of  Phoenix,  an  identified   PRP  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  has  expressed  support  for  a  remedy  that  will  “capture  and   treat  the  contaminants  …  preventing  exposure  to  the  public  and  the  environment.”6    Likewise,   SRP  previously  indicated,  “[a]lthough  not  required  to  meet  water  quality  standards  associated   with  RID’s  current  irrigation  use,  some  or  all  of  the  groundwater  could  be  treated  to  reduce  the   transfer  of  VOCs  from  the  current  plume  to  the  air”.7    Not  only  have  such  measures  already   been  adopted  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  ADEQ  has  required  similar  measures  at  other  WQARF   sites.         At  the  West  Osborn  Complex  WQARF  Site,  ADEQ  required  treatment  that  would  provide  a   high  degree  of  public  protection  against  potential  exposure  to  VOCs  in  air.8    It  is  apparent  that   ADEQ  is  applying  this  policy  against  the  transfer  of  contaminants  at  WQARF  sites  regardless  of   whether  “an  unacceptable  risk  level”  is  created  by  the  transfer.9    In  fact,  ADEQ’s  prior  actions   at  other  communities  contradict  the  recent  arguments  raised  by  the  PRPs  that  the  minority   population  in  West  Phoenix  should  not  be  afforded  the  same  level  of  environmental  and   public  health  protection  as  provided  at  other  groundwater  cleanup  sites.10         Further,  it  is  curious  that  this  particular  ADHS  Report  does  not  contain  specific  language  that   has  been  included  by  ADHS  in  other  recent,  relevant  and  similar  health  consultation  reports.     For  example,  in  a  similar  July  2013  report,  ADHS  noted  that  “[a]t  the  present  time,  the   chemicals  detected  in  the  monitoring  wells  …  are  not  expected  to  cause  public  health  concern”   and  that  “[t]here  would  be  no  public  health  concern  if  these  wells  were  to  be  used  as                                                                                                                     6 City of Phoenix Comments in letter to ADEQ dated January 13, 2015, Attachment 2, page 1. It is unclear why the Environmental Programs Manager for the City of Phoenix supports a remedial strategy that prevents exposure to the public, but the City of Phoenix attorney concurs that treatment is not necessary if no immediate health risk exists. See City of Phoenix Comments, page 1. . 7 SRP letter regarding Roosevelt Irrigation District’s Proposed Early Response Plan, West Van Buren WQARF Site, December 4, 2009. 8 Final Feasibility Study Report for the Shallow Groundwater System, West Osborn Complex WQARF Site, Phoenix, Arizona, prepared by GeoTrans, Inc. January 27, 2012, page 46. Note, the proposed remedy was projected to remove approximately 30 pounds of VOCs per year. 9 Ibid. For example at the West Osborn Complex WQARF Site, ADEQ stipulated treatment to address uncontrolled hazardous VOCs even though there were no Maricopa County regulatory requirements. It was stated that the use of treatment to eliminate air emissions was a matter of ADEQ internal policy and because the Site “encompasses predominantly residential neighborhoods” and there may consequently be “political and /or public perception concerns.” 10 Working Group comments in letter to ADEQ dated January 14, 2015, pages 9-10.   10645  North  Tatum  Boulevard,  Suite  200-­‐437,  Phoenix,  Arizona    85028-­‐3053     4         residential  wells,  because  no  cancerous  or  non-­cancerous  adverse  health  effects  would  be   expected  under  the  assumed  exposure  scenarios.”11    However,  this  ADHS  report  goes  on  to  say   that  “[i]n  Arizona,  all  aquifers  are  identified  as  drinking  water  source  aquifers  unless  specifically   exempt  (ARS  §49-­224).    The  Arizona  Aquifer  Water  Quality  Standards  (AAWQSs)  are  enforceable   standards  developed  to  protect  groundwater  sources  for  drinking  water  use  (AAC  §R18-­11-­406)   and  protective  of  human  health.”    Surprisingly,  these  relevant  statements  are  not  included  in   the  ADHS  Health  Consultation  Report  for  RID’s  wells.    Nevertheless,  these  relevant  statements   demonstrate  that  ADHS  correctly  recognizes  that  there  are  environmental  health-­‐based   standards  that  must  be  achieved  in  a  WQARF  remedial  action,  even  if  there  is  no  immediate   public  health  risk.         In  closing,  RID  is  concerned  that  the  casual  and  uninformed  reader  of  the  ADHS  Report  could   be  misled  to  the  conclusion  that  there  are  no  applicable  health-­‐based  legal  requirements,   standards  or  policies  requiring  ADEQ  and  PRPs  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  to  proactively   address  the  groundwater  contamination  impacting  the  WVBA  aquifer  and  RID’s  water  supply   wells.    Such  an  impression  would  be  incorrect  and  would  violate  multiple  applicable  state   laws  and  WQARF  Program  requirements.12         The  ADHS  Report  also  overlooks  critical  information  regarding  the  pervasive  exposure   pathway  from  inhalation  of  hazardous  VOC  contaminants  released  to  ambient  air,  historically   over  the  past  30  to  50  years  and  going  forward,  as  well  as  ADEQ  requirements  to  prevent  such   pollutant  transfer.         We  appreciate  your  prompt  review  of  these  comments  and  are  available  to  meet  at  your   convenience  regarding  any  questions  you  may  have.     Best  Regards,   Synergy  Environmental,  LLC       cc:   by  Electronic  Mail           Danielle  Taber,  ADEQ   Laura  Malone,  ADEQ     Donovan  Neese,  RID     Dennis  Shirley,  Synergy   Joel  Peterson,  PE     Tina  LePage,  ADEQ   Will  Humble,  ADHS   David  Kimball,  Gallagher  &  Kennedy   Sheryl  Sweeney,  Ryley  Carlock  &  Applewhite                                                                                                                                                                                                                           11 ADHS, Health Consultation: Kinder Morgan Yuma Booster, An Update for Water Sampling Results, page 2 (2013). more complete information on the applicable state laws, standards and policies see RID’s responses to comments on its FS Report. 12  For   10645  North  Tatum  Boulevard,  Suite  200-­‐437,  Phoenix,  Arizona    85028-­‐3053     5