Uranium in the Groundwater of Three Counties in Northeast Washington State Case Study. By Maria Schneider (Bachelor of Science in Biology)

Transcription

1 Uranium in the Groundwater of Three Counties in Northeast Washington State Case Study By Maria Schneider (Bachelor of Science in Biology) Submitted for Master of Science in Environmental, Safety and Health Management ENVM 698 The University of Findlay 2016 William J. Doyle, Ph. D., Capstone Advisor 1

2 For my family and my friends. ii

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the employees I worked with at the Northeast Tri County Health District who were so welcoming and eager to help me learn during my time in Washington. I would especially like to thank Matt Schanz, NETCHD Environmental Public Health Director and my mentor, who provided me with many learning opportunities and whose expertise and continuous support was invaluable to my internship experience. iii

4 ABSTRACT Northeast Washington state has a history of elevated levels of uranium in groundwater supplies due to the granitic bedrock that is present in most of the area. The Northeast Tri County Health District which serves the counties of Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Ferry, have over the last four years begun implementing regulations and recommendations which require individuals to test newly built wells for uranium. Despite these efforts, many homes in the area are still untested as they were built before the requirements were placed into effect. The purpose of this study is to examine water quality data for private wells to analyze the extent of the uranium problem and to see if uranium levels affect other analyte concentrations. For this study a total of 414 water quality reports submitted as part of building permit applications were collected from the three counties and analyzed. The data collected for this study will aid in future proposed studies by the NETCHD to further examine the uranium problem in the area. iv

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... vii LIST OF TABLES... viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND RADIOLOGIC PROPERTIES OF URANIUM GEOLOGY... 2 CHAPTER 2: HISTORY OF THE AREA GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHICS HANFORD SITE MIDNITE MINE... 5 CHAPTER 3: REGULATIONS FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS LOCAL REGULATIONS... 7 CHAPTER 4: HEALTH EFFECTS... 9 CHAPTER 5: TREATMENT CHAPTER 6: DATA METHODOLOGY- DATA COLLECTION WELL LOG ID VS. WELL TAG ID METHODOLOGY- DATA ANALYSIS v

6 6.2.1 MAPS GRAPHS RESULTS URANIUM VS. ARSENIC URANIUM VS. LEAD URANIUM VS. NITRATES URANIUM VS. COLIFORM BACTERIA URANIUM VS. WELL DEPTH CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION DISCUSSION FUTURE STUDIES LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX A: HOME TREATMENT SYSTEMS APPENDIX B: WATER QUALITY TESTING FORM vi

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Geologic Map of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille County... 3 Figure 2. Map of Uranium Data for Pend Oreille County, WA Figure 3. Map of Uranium Data for Stevens County, WA Figure 4. Map of Uranium Data for Ferry County, WA Figure 5. Uranium Data for Private Wells in Northeast Washington Figure 6. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Arsenic Levels Figure 7. Detectable Lead Levels versus Uranium Levels in Private Wells Figure 8. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Nitrate Levels Figure 9. Uranium Levels in Wells with Coliform Bacteria Figure 10. Uranium Levels in Wells without Coliform Bacteria Figure 11. Uranium Levels Grouped by Well Depth Figure 12. Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis System Figure 13. Whole Home Anion Exchange System Figure 14. Water Quality Testing Form for Anatek Labs, Inc vii

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Uranium Data for Private Wells in Northeast Washington Table 2. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Arsenic Levels Table 3. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Nitrate Levels Table 4. Uranium Levels in Wells with Coliform Bacteria Table 5. Uranium Levels in Wells without Coliform Bacteria Table 6. Uranium Levels Grouped by Well Depth viii

9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Naturally occurring uranium is a known problem that affects groundwater quality in northeastern Washington state. Through erosion, rock breaks down to soil, and the soil can be carried into surface water systems or impact groundwater systems 1. Through this process, uranium can get in to the drinking water supply. Uranium is also able to leach in to well water if the well is drilled into uranium-rich bedrock PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND RADIOLOGIC PROPERTIES OF URANIUM Uranium is a naturally-occurring radioactive metal that can be found in trace amounts in nearly all soil, rock, and water 3. Due to its abundance in water and soils, traces of uranium are also present in food and in human tissue 4. There are four main types of uranium which are determined by their isotopic makeup, and include natural, low enriched, high enriched, and depleted uranium. Naturally occurring uranium is weakly radioactive and emits low levels of alpha particles as it decays 5. This type of uranium is not typically suitable for use in nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons as it cannot sustain a fission chain reaction 5. Natural uranium can be extracted from uranium-bearing minerals through open-pit mines or through underground excavation 3. Uranium has twenty-seven known isotopes with the three most common being Uranium-238 ( 238 U), Uranium-235 ( 235 U), and Uranium-234 ( 234 U). Natural uranium consists of 99.28% 238 U, 0.711% 235 U, and % 234 U 5. The types of uranium used in nuclear reactors and in nuclear weapons are referred to as enriched uranium having 1

10 undergone isotope separation to increase the concentration of 235 U. Low enriched uranium, the type most commonly used in nuclear reactors, contains anywhere between 0.711%-20% 235 U. Highly enriched uranium that is used in nuclear weapons has a 235 U concentration greater than 20%. Depleted uranium, which is a side product of enrichment, has a 235 U concentration less than 0.711% U has the longest half-life of all uranium isotopes at 4.47 billion years, while 235 U has a half-life of 700 million years, and 234 U has a half-life of 244,000 years 1. The decay sequence of 238 U produces alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, though primarily it decays through the emission of alpha and beta radiation. Some daughter isotopes of 238 U produce gamma rays, but the energy levels are too low to be a danger to humans. The decay chain of 238 U includes several isotopes of thorium, protactinium, 234 U, radium, radon, several isotopes of polonium, several isotopes of lead, and two isotopes of bismuth. The final product of the decay sequence is lead (Pb-206) which is stable 6. The presence of radon in the decay chain can also present a problem for homeowners in areas with elevated levels of uranium. It is possible for uranium to breakdown to radon gas, which can seep through the soil and enter homes and buildings. It is also possible for radon to dissolve and be carried in groundwater and to enter a home through running a tap, causing radon gas to seep into the air. Radon gas affects the lungs and the Washington State Department of Health recommends that individuals who live in uranium-rich areas also have their home tested for radon GEOLOGY 2

11 Certain rock types such as granite, phosphorous sedimentary rock, high grade metamorphic rocks, and dark shales, can contain elevated levels of uranium 8. Particularly, two-mica granite can contain large uranium deposits which often leaches into groundwater supplies 9. Two-mica granite is any granitic rock that most commonly contains biotite and muscovite, which are the black and white flecks that can be found in some igneous and metamorphic rocks. Two-mica granites often occur in conjunction with other plutonic (intrusive igneous) rocks, as well as high grade metamorphic rocks 10. The most common rock types found in the northeast tri county area includes: Mesozoic granitic rock, mixed metamorphic rock, volcanic rock, and granitic-intrusive rocks (Fig. 1). Ferry County has the most Mesozoic granitic rock of the three counties 11. Figure 1. Geologic Map of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille County. Light pink indicates granitic rock. Retrieved from &y= &z=7# 3

12 CHAPTER 2: HISTORY OF THE AREA 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHICS This study focuses on the three counties in the northeast corner of Washington State; Pend Oreille County, Stevens County, and Ferry County. These counties are rural and sparsely populated, with Pend Oreille county having a population of 13,000 and Ferry county having a population of about 7,500. Stevens county is the most populous of the tri county area, with a population of nearly 44, The three counties are bordered by Canada to the north, and Pend Oreille county is bordered by Idaho to the east. To the south is Spokane county. Located in the southern part of Stevens county is the Spokane Indian Reservation. The Colville National Forest stretches across the northern part of all three counties. The Columbia River and several of its tributaries cut through each of the three counties. 2.2 HANFORD SITE Washington State has a rich history in the mining and processing of uranium. Just a few hours southwest of Stevens County is the Hanford Site, home of one of the nuclear facilities created as part of The Manhattan Project. The facility was used to extract plutonium from uranium, which would be used in the development of the atomic bombs in World War II 13. The Hanford Site is located along the banks of the Columbia River and there is concern that waste from the nuclear plant is leaching into the Columbia River, which is a major source of drinking water for several communities downstream of 4

13 the site 14. This contamination does not affect the Tri County area though, as they are located upstream from the Hanford Site. 2.3 MIDNITE MINE There are many uranium mines across the three counties, though the Midnite Mine is the most significant. This mine is located on the Spokane Tribe of Indians Reservation and was active from the 1955 to The site, run by the Dawn Mining Company, contained two open pit uranium mines. It was discovered that the site was threatening human health and the environment with elevated levels of radioactivity and heavy metals in acid drainage 15. Radioactivity from the site could be traced more than a mile to the north and south of the site 16. The site and its restoration was under the control of The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) until 1998, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took over, declaring the former mine a Superfund Site 17. 5

14 CHAPTER 3 REGULATIONS 3.1 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 30 µg/l for uranium in drinking water. Drinking water standards for uranium contamination are regulated by the federal government under the Radionuclides Final Rule of 2000, which placed the 30 µg/l MCL into effect in December Federal regulations require uranium testing for Group A community water systems, which serve fifteen or more service connections or twenty-five residents regularly all year round. Group A transient non-community water systems, such as resorts, and Group B water systems which serve fewer than twenty-five people per day are not required to conduct regular uranium testing on their water supplies. Private wells, particularly those that serve single-family homes, are not required by the federal government to conduct water quality testing 2. The EPA allows each state to develop its own standards regarding radionuclides which may be more restrictive than national standards. The state of Washington follows the set EPA standards of 30µg/L for uranium in Group A drinking water systems, but does not enforce these regulations for Group A transient noncommunity systems, Group B systems, and private wells 2. The state of Washington recommends that residents have their water tested, though it is entirely their responsibility to cover the costs; as such, many privately owned wells tend to go untested 19. 6

15 3.2 LOCAL REGULATIONS In 2001 a drilled well at the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in Stevens County had its water tested and found uranium levels of 229 µg/l. In 2005 the Washington State Department of Health tested twelve private wells in Stevens County. All twelve wells were selected based on their location in an area that was believed to have elevated levels of uranium. Water quality tests showed that ten of the twelve wells had uranium exceedances. This testing was prompted by one of the local companies, which installs many of the area s private wells, after recognizing that the area was likely to be a hotspot for uranium. The same well supply company encouraged residents to have their water tested. Between 2006 and 2010, fifty-six wells were found to be out of compliance with the 30 µg/l rule 20. In 2012, the Northeast Tri County Health District proposed a revised edition of the water quality standards for the three counties which would require the building and planning department to enforce water quality testing for all new building permit applications that would require the installation or use of a well water system. Also in 2012, Stevens County adopted the policy of testing for uranium in new wells before a building permit can be issued for the construction of a new home. Pend Oreille County followed suit and adopted this requirement in Ferry County does not require uranium testing for building permit applications, however it is strongly recommended 2. The Spokane Tribe of Indians, though not under the authority of the Northeast Tri County Health District, resides largely in Stevens county and often works with NETCHD 7

16 as the same environmental issues directly affect them. In 2012 they began their own sampling program of private wells and found that thirteen of the two hundred wells had uranium levels above the MCL, with the highest level reported being 203 µg/l. Since then, Indian Health Services has implemented a rule that requires all newly drilled wells must be tested for uranium 20. 8

17 CHAPTER 4: HEALTH EFFECTS The main pathway of exposure for uranium is ingestion through consumption of drinking water or foods grown in uranium rich soils. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, so bathing in water with elevated uranium levels is not known to pose any risk to human health 21. Unlike the enriched uranium used in nuclear reactors, natural uranium emits very low levels of radiation and is not known to have any radiologic toxicological effects on human health. Health issues caused by exposure to natural uranium are due to its chemical toxicity and the chemical reactions it causes within the body 22. Uranium is known to have toxic effects on the kidneys and chronic exposure can greatly increase the risk of developing cancer 23. Other potential health effects of uranium exposure include: effects on brain development, damage to DNA, diminished bone growth, and developmental and reproductive damage. Health risks are greatest for infants and young children as exposure to uranium during critical growth stages can impact their development 24. It is still uncertain whether chronic exposure to uranium while pregnant can have any developmental effects on the fetus 21. When exposed to extremely high levels of uranium over a short period, there can be effects on the kidneys which typically reverse themselves once the exposure ends. Chronic exposure to elevated uranium levels, however, can cause irreversible kidney damage that can take years of daily exposure to manifest 25. Only 0.1-6% of ingested uranium enters the bloodstream, while the majority is not absorbed and is expelled in 9

18 urine. Uranium that is not expelled from the body, is absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract (mouth, stomach, and large intestines) and enters the bloodstream. Via the bloodstream, the uranium is deposited throughout the body with the highest concentrations being in the kidneys, bones, and liver. Uranium mainly targets the kidneys and chronic exposure can cause lasting damage and can potentially lead to kidney disease and failure. Uranium also remains in the bones for a lengthy duration of time 21. A case study in 2003 examined the duration of uranium in the body after the drinking water supply of a community in South Carolina had tested well over the EPA uranium standard MCL. The residents were advised to switched to bottled water as the source of their drinking water. Uranium levels for individual homes were collected and initial urine samples were taken as soon as the residents switched from tap to bottled water. Urine samples were then collected again six months later. The study showed that uranium levels in the body decreased significantly over the six months, indicating that most uranium leaves the body relatively quickly. Uranium that was still being passed in the urine was attributed to absorbed uranium being released from bone 23. Uranium stored in the bone has a half-life of about two hundred days, so when individuals are exposed on a daily basis the uranium levels stored in their body will just continue to accumulate

19 CHAPTER 5: TREATMENT If a water quality test of a private well reveals that there is an exceedance in uranium levels, the owners of the well have several options for treating the water. Any water that is used for drinking or cooking will need to be treated, but it is not necessary to treat the water used for bathing and other purposes as uranium is not absorbed through the skin. The two most common methods of treatment for a private well system are Pointof-Use (POU) reverse osmosis, and anion exchange. Another option available to well owners is to haul water on-site that can be used for drinking water. Boiling water is not an effective means for removing uranium from a water supply 19. Point-of-use reverse osmosis is a point source treatment and works by filtering water through a fine membrane that removes impurities from the water. It is mounted under or near a faucet and only filters the water that comes out of that tap (See Appendix A). The filters must be changed and disposed of regularly as they lose their efficiency to filter out uranium as they become more saturated 26. Most reverse osmosis systems can treat about 7-14 gallons of potable water per day. There are many types of POU systems available on the market that vary in what contaminants they remove and how effective they are, so it is up to the homeowner to determine what their needs are based on the uranium levels in their water. It is recommended that once the system has been installed and is operational, periodic water quality testing is conducted to ensure that the system is 11

20 functioning properly and is reducing uranium levels 19. This is the most economically feasible option for treating private water systems in single-family homes and is the most commonly used system by residents of the tri county area who have elevated levels of uranium in their drinking water. The other treatment option available is to install a whole-house treatment system that uses anion exchange to remove uranium from all water that is piped into the home. With this type of treatment system, water flows through a tank which contains a resin that exchanges uranium for a safer compound such as chloride (See Appendix A). The clean water then enters the home while the uranium waste and used resin is collected to the side 27. When treating drinking water for uranium, waste generated by the removal process will contain concentrated uranium. In the case of anion exchange systems there may also be aged or ineffective resin included in the waste products. The concentration of the uranium found in the spent filters and resin will vary depending on how much uranium was present in the water supply 1. Depending on how much uranium a system processes daily, there is potential for the waste products to be classified as low-level radioactive waste. The transportation and handling of low-level radioactive waste is regulated by the United States Department of Transportation, which allows up to 2,000 picocuries (pci) per gram (roughly 3000 µg/l) of media before it is classified as a lowlevel radioactive waste 28. Each home treatment system operates under different circumstances, so the manufacturer of the anion exchange system or the resin supplier 12

21 must determine the uranium levels in the waste products to see whether special precautions must be used when disposing of the spent media. 13

22 CHAPTER 6: DATA The Northeast Tri County Health District was prompted to revise its water quality recommendations to building officials in the area after wells in suspected uranium hotspots were tested and reported exceedances in uranium levels. In 2012 Stevens County added the requirement that uranium levels must be tested before a building permit can be issued for construction on new homes. Pend Oreille County followed suit in 2014, making this a requirement for the construction of new homes that have private wells. As of December 2016, Ferry County does not require this for building permits, though it is strongly recommended to anyone beginning construction on a new home or structure METHODOLOGY- DATA COLLECTION Uranium data was collected from the water quality reports on file for all building permits in Stevens, Pend Oreille, and Ferry County issued between 2011 and The year 2011 was chosen as by that time more people were becoming aware of the uranium issue and voluntarily had their well tested for uranium as part of the building permit process. Building permits for each of the three counties are filed at their respective Planning Departments. For each county, access was granted to the archives of all building permits issued since All building permits that had a water quality test on record were obtained and the data from the water quality report was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. The analyte data that was recorded included uranium, arsenic, lead, nitrates, and whether the well tested positive or negative for coliform bacteria. Other information 14

23 initially recorded included the date the water sample was taken, parcel numbers for the well location, and the Department of Ecology Unique Well Log ID or Well Tag ID if available. After the data available on the water quality report was recorded, additional information on the individual well was gathered using the Department of Ecology Well Log Information Database. This database allows users to search for wells by Well Log ID or by parcel number and county. Using this information, Well Tag ID and Well Depth were obtained and added to the data set. Three weeks in total were spent pulling records and recording the data, with the most time being devoted to Stevens County as it issues more building permits per year than Pend Oreille or Ferry counties. Water quality reports that did not test for uranium were still recorded to illustrate what percentage of wells are tested for uranium WELL LOG ID VS. WELL TAG ID The State of Washington Department of Ecology has two systems for logging private wells. The Well Tag ID is a series of three letters followed by three numbers, and serves as a reference number to search for an individual well. It is possible for the same Well Tag ID to be found on more than one well, though it cannot be determined which is the correct well without a physical analysis of the well. The Well Log ID is a unique number assigned to each new well log entry as it added to the Department of Ecology database. This number does not carry any significance for the actual well and it is possible for this ID to change should the record ever be deleted and reentered into the system

24 6.2 METHODOLOGY- DATA ANALYSIS MAPS A map of the uranium data was generated for each of the three counties using ArcGIS software (Fig. 2, 3, 4). Using the parcel numbers collected from the water quality reports, the data points were matched with the respective location on the parcel layer of the county map. Data points were color coded using the following system: Green: µg/l Yellow: µg/l Red: 30 µg/l When compared to a geologic distribution map, the maps of the uranium data points for each county indicate that the areas with uranium exceedances correlate with areas where the bedrock is granite. 16

25 Figure 2. Map of Uranium Data for Pend Oreille County, WA. Green dots indicate uranium levels from µg/L, yellow dots indicate uranium levels µg/l, and red dots indicate uranium levels 30 µg/l. 17

26 Figure 3. Map of Uranium Data for Stevens County, WA. Green dots indicate uranium levels from µg/L, yellow dots indicate uranium levels µg/l, and red dots indicate uranium levels 30 µg/l. 18

27 Figure 4. Map of Uranium Data for Ferry County, WA. Green dots indicate uranium levels from µg/L, yellow dots indicate uranium levels µg/l, and red dots indicate uranium levels 30 µg/l. 19

28 6.2.2 GRAPHS Other data collected from the water quality reports included arsenic, lead, and nitrate levels, as well as whether the water tested positive or negative for coliform bacteria. To determine if there is any potential correlation between uranium levels with the presence of these other analytes, graphs were created to study the relationships. For each arsenic, lead, and nitrates scatter plots were generated in Microsoft Excel using the Graphing Function to plot the given analyte on the X-axis as the dependent variable and uranium on the Y-axis as the independent variable. For distribution of uranium levels and for coliform bacteria pie charts were created in Microsoft Excel. 6.3 RESULTS The data collected from the water quality reports was used to analyze rates of uranium exceedances for the three counties and to look for any correlation between uranium levels and the presence of other analytes. A total of 414 water quality reports were collected for the three counties, with 280 points from Stevens county, 115 points from Pend Oreille county, and 19 points from Ferry county. Of the 414 water quality tests, 18% did not test for uranium, 27% had levels less than 1.0 µg/l, 45% had levels between µg/l, 5% had levels between µg/l, and 5% had levels at or above the MCL of 30 µg/l (Fig. 5; Table 1). In Stevens county, there were twenty (20) reports of uranium levels exceeding the MCL, in Pend Oreille county there was only one (1) report of a uranium exceedance, and in Ferry county there were two (2) reports of uranium exceedances. The highest exceedances were in Stevens county, at 965 µg/l and 639 µg/l. 20

29 Figure 5. Uranium Data for Private Wells in Northeast Washington. Water quality data in µg/l for private wells tested in Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties for building permit applications from Table 1. Uranium Data for Private Wells in Northeast Washington. Uranium levels in µg/l for private wells tested in Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties for building permit applications from URANIUM VS. ARSENIC A scatter plot was created to see if arsenic levels affected the levels of uranium in the water (Fig. 6; Table 2). Both uranium and arsenic leach into water supplies from bedrock and high arsenic levels could indicate a higher potential for contaminated water. 21

30 Of the 414 total wells, 136 tested for uranium and had detectable arsenic levels. The correlation coefficient for arsenic versus uranium was calculated and was found to be This indicates a weak positive correlation between arsenic and uranium levels. Figure 6. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Arsenic Levels. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that had detectable arsenic levels. Table 2. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Arsenic Levels. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that had detectable arsenic levels. 22

31 6.3.2 URANIUM VS. LEAD A scatter plot was created to see if lead levels affected the levels of uranium in the water (Fig. 7). Lead is the final decay product of uranium so there is potential for a stronger correlation between uranium and lead levels 6. Of the 414 total wells, 100 tested for uranium and had detectable lead levels. The correlation coefficient for lead versus uranium was calculated and was found to be This indicates that lead has a stronger positive correlation with uranium levels than did arsenic, however the correlation is still weak. The two outliers on this graph are the highest uranium levels, of 965 µg/l and 639 µg/l which could have affected the correlation coefficient. Figure 7. Detectable Lead Levels versus Uranium Levels in Private Wells. Scatterplot of the correlation between lead levels and uranium levels. The calculated correlation coefficient is r =

32 6.3.3 URANIUM VS. NITRATES A scatter plot was created to see if nitrate levels affected the levels of uranium in the water (Fig. 8; Table 3). Nitrates are one of the most commonly tested analytes for the region. Of the 414 total wells, 140 tested for uranium and had detectable nitrate levels. The correlation coefficient for nitrates versus uranium was calculated and was found to be This indicates a very weak negative correlation between nitrates and uranium levels, and nitrate levels do not affect uranium levels. Figure 8. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Nitrate Levels. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that had detectable nitrate levels. 24

33 Table 3. Uranium Levels in Wells with Detectable Nitrate Levels. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that had detectable nitrate levels URANIUM VS. COLIFORM BACTERIA To analyze coliform bacteria versus uranium, a pie chart was created that sorted all of the positive coliform bacteria results by uranium level (Fig. 9; Table 4). Of the 414 total water quality reports for the three counties, forty tested positive for coliform bacteria. Of the forty: seven (7) did not test for uranium, ten (10) had uranium levels below 1.0 µg/l, twenty (20) tested between µg/l, two (2) tested between µg/l, and one (1) tested at or above 30 µg/l. Figure 9. Uranium Levels in Wells with Coliform Bacteria. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that tested positive for coliform bacteria. 25

34 Table 4. Uranium Levels in Wells with Coliform Bacteria. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that tested positive for coliform bacteria. A pie chart was also created to compare all of the negative coliform bacteria results by uranium level (Fig. 10; Table 5). Of the 414 total water quality reports for the three counties, 325 tested negative for coliform bacteria. Of the 325: sixty-four (64) did not test for uranium, eighty-nine (89) had uranium levels below 1.0 µg/l, 142 tested between µg/l, eleven (11) tested between µg/l, and nineteen (19) tested at or above 30 µg/l. Figure 10. Uranium Levels in Wells without Coliform Bacteria. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that tested negative for coliform bacteria. Table 5. Uranium Levels in Wells without Coliform Bacteria. Water quality data by uranium level for private wells that tested negative for coliform bacteria. 26

35 6.3.5 URANIUM VS. WELL DEPTH Uranium levels vary depending on the type of bedrock a well is drilled into, so it is a practical assumption that well depth would also affect uranium levels (Fig. 11; Table 6). Of the 414 total wells, 330 had well depth information available. The correlation between well depth and uranium levels was calculated as This would indicate a weak positive correlation. Figure 11. Uranium Levels Grouped by Well Depth. The number of wells and their respective uranium levels grouped by well depth. Table 6. Uranium Levels Grouped by Well Depth. The number of wells and their respective uranium levels grouped by well depth. 27

36 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 7.1 DISCUSSION Since the inception of the water quality testing requirements and recommendations for building permit applications began in 2012, there have been 23 reports of uranium exceedances in the tri county area just from building permit applications. The tri county area is sparsely populated and many of its citizens live in single-family homes in relatively remote locations. As such, the use of private drilled or dug wells is a common means for individuals to get their drinking water. Stevens county did not require uranium testing for new homes until 2012, Pend Oreille did not implement this requirement until 2014, and Ferry county only recommends testing but does not require it 2. This study only looked at the results of water quality tests that were required to obtain a building permit; many homes in the tri county area were built prior to 2012 and would not have been required to do a water quality test to obtain the building permit. While individuals can voluntarily submit a water sample to have their water quality tested at any time, it is relatively uncommon as the cost of testing is high, especially when the public lacks general awareness and education on uranium in groundwater and the benefits testing can provide. As of 2013, it was reported that 54% of the population in the tri county area obtained their drinking water from private wells which had not been tested for uranium 20. It is likely that if older homes in the area were 28

37 encouraged to have their water tested, the number of exceedances would likely increase significantly. This study also examined the correlation between levels of uranium and other water quality analytes such as arsenic, lead, and nitrates. The correlation coefficients and scatter plots generated for arsenic versus uranium showed little correlation when uranium was made the independent variable. Based on these findings, it is unlikely that arsenic levels can predict uranium. Similarly, analysis of uranium versus nitrates was found to have very little correlation and uranium levels are not likely to predict or be affected by nitrate levels. 238 U, 235 U, and 234 U, which make up natural uranium, all have a final decay product of lead 6. These uranium isotopes have very long half-lives, ranging from several thousand to several billion years 5. Beginning this research, it was uncertain whether there would be any correlation between uranium and lead. Based on the correlation coefficient and scatter plots generated for this data set, it appears that uranium versus lead had a slightly higher correlation coefficient than uranium versus other analytes, however there is still no strong evidence based on this study that indicates uranium concentration affects concentration of lead. 7.2 FUTURE STUDIES Further study of uranium in groundwater in Northeast Washington is imperative to the continued understanding and increased public awareness of the presence of uranium in drinking water and the effects prolonged exposure can have on human health. A public information session on the basics of uranium and discussion of its health effects could be useful in encouraging homeowners to voluntarily have their drinking water 29

38 tested, as there are still no regulations that pre-existing wells must be tested. The uranium data collected from building permit applications can be utilized in further studies of the distribution of uranium geographically in comparison to where granitic bedrock is located, and whether the uranium exceedances occur in any other type of bedrock in the area. Additionally, 3D maps can be generated to illustrate the geologic breakdown of the wells with uranium exceedances. These 3D maps would show what type of rock is present at what depths, and can be used to determine what areas have the highest concentrations of uranium. Another study that could also be conducted based on this research would be to examine the radon levels in homes that have uranium exceedances versus radon levels in homes that tested below the MCL for uranium. Radon is one of the decay products of uranium and could potentially be more abundant in areas with high uranium concentrations, as it escapes from the soil or dissolves and travels through water and is released into homes. A closer look at coliform bacteria would be a good future study. Certain types of bacteria have been known to show a resistance to heavy metals at certain concentrations. Some of the elements found in heavy metals are important to microbial growth, but at higher concentrations can be toxic to the organisms 30. In regards to health effects and uranium exposure, further tests of pre-existing wells for uranium is recommended as much of the population still gets their water from untested wells. It would also be useful to gather information on rates of kidney disease and kidney failure in the tri county area to determine if their rates are higher than in other 30

39 areas of the country. It is also possible for uranium to affect growth and development, so further studies should be made for the potential health implications of chronic exposure in pregnant women, infants, and young children. 31

40 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Radionuclide Basics: Uranium. Radiation Protection. Retrieved from (Accessed on July 25, 2016). 2. United States Geological Survey. (2016). Uranium in Groundwater in Northeastern Washington State Washington Water Science Center, Northwest Region. A Proposal for Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Health, Tri County Health Department, and Other Potential Stakeholders; October 11, (Accessed November 28, 2016). 3. United States Department of Energy. (2016). Nuclear Fuel Facts: Uranium. Uranium Management and Policy. Retrieved from (Accessed on July 25, 2016). 4. Washington State Department of Health. (2003). Uranium (U). Fact Sheet Retrieved from (Accessed July 28, 2016). 5. Los Alamos National Laboratory. (2013). Uranium. Periodic Table of Elements: Los Alamos National Laboratory. Retrieved from (Accessed November 15, 2016). 6. United States Geological Survey. (2004). Uranium. USGS Publications Warehouse. Retrieved from (Accessed July 28, 2016). 7. Washington State Department of Health. (2011). Radionuclides in Drinking Water. Fact Sheet. Retrieved from (Accessed June 18, 2016). 8. Hwang, J., Moon, S. H., Ripley, E. M., Kim, Y. H. (2014). Determining Uraniferous Host Rocks and Minerals as a Source of Dissolved Uranium in Granite Aquifers Near the Central Ogcheon Metamorphic Belt, Korea. Environmental Earth Sciences, 72, (Accessed August 8, 2010). 32

41 9. Ibrahim, M. E., Saleh, G. M., Abd El-Naby, H. H. (2001). Uranium Mineralization in the Two Mica Granite of Gabal Ribdab Area, South Eastern Desert, Egypt. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 55; (Accessed September 23, 2016). 10. Armstrong, F. C., Boudette, E. L. (1984). Two-mica Granites: Part A, their occurrence and petrography. Open-File Report Retrieved from (Accessed October 9, 2016). 11. United States Geological Survey. (2016). Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. Mineral Resources. Retrieved from &y= &z=7#. (Accessed July 25, 2016). 12. United States Census Bureau. (2015). Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille County. Quick Facts. Retrieved from (Accessed December 01, 2016). 13. United States Department of Energy. (2016). Hanford History. Hanford: About us. Retrieved from (Accessed October 9, 2016). 14. Washington State Department of Ecology. (2016). Hanford Frequently Asked Questions. Nuclear Waste. Retrieved from (Accessed October 8, 2016). 15. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). EPA Superfund Program: Midnite Mine, Wellpinit, WA. Superfund Site Information. Retrieved from (Accessed October 9, 2016). 16. Huntting, M. T. (1957). Uranium in Washington. Inventory of Washington Minerals, Bulletin 37 (Part II), (Accessed December 3, 2016). 17. Washington State Department of Health. (2015). Midnite Mine. Radiation: Waste management. Retrieved from gement/dawnmining/midnitemine. (Accessed October 9, 2016). 18. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Radionuclides Rule. Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems. Retrieved from (Accessed June 18, 2016). 33

42 19. Northeast Tri County Health District. (2014). Uranium in Drinking Water: Frequently Asked Questions. Stevens County Land Services Department. Retrieved from ater-faq.pdf. (Accessed July 14, 2016). 20. United States Geological Survey. (2016). Uranium in Groundwater in Northeastern Washington State: Occurrence and distribution, Washington Water Science Center, Northwest Region. A Proposal for Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Health, Tri County Health Department, and Other Potential Stakeholders; Draft April 22, (Accessed November 28, 2016). 21. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2015). Public Health Statement for Uranium. Toxic Substances Portal: Uranium. Retrieved from (Accessed July 28, 2016). 22. Argonne National Library. (2016). Uranium Health Effects. Uranium and Its Compounds. Retrieved from (Accessed October 8, 2016). 23. Orloff, K. G., Mistry., K., Charp, P., Metcalf, S., Marino, R., Shelly, T., Melaro, E., Donohoe, A. M., Jones, R. L. (2003). Human Exposure to Uranium in Groundwater. Environmental Research 94 (2004); (Accessed August 10, 2016). 24. Eggers, M. J., Moore-Nall, A. L., Doyle, J. T., Lefthand, M. J., Young, S. L., Bends, A. L., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee, Camper, A. K. (2015). Potential Health Risks from Uranium in Home Well Water: An Investigation by the Apsaalooke (Crow) Tribal Research Group. Geosciences, 5; (Accessed July 18, 2016). 25. Skipton, S. O, Dvorak, B. I., Baumert, F., Woldt, W. (2008). Drinking Water: Uranium. Water Management. Retrieved from (Accessed August 10, 2016). 26. Hsiue, G. H., Pung, L. S., Chu, M. L., Shieh, M. C. (1989). Treatment of Uranium Effluent by Reverse Osmosis Membrane. Desalination, 71; (Accessed July 28, 2016). 34

43 27. DeSilva, F. (2005). Uranium Removal by Ion Exchange: Measures to reduce uranium in the drinking water supply. Water Quality Products Market Outreach. (Accessed July 28, 2016). 28. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). TENORM: Uranium Mining Wastes. Radiation Protection. Retrieved from (Accessed August 12, 2016). 29. Washington State Department of Ecology. (2016). Tag Number on the Well: Well Tag ID. Text Search Help. Retrieved from m#welllogid. (Accessed November 20, 2016). 30. Trevors, J. T., Oddie, K. M., Belliveau, B. H. (1985). Metal Resistance in Bacteria. Federation of European Microbiological Societies Microbiology Reviews 32; (Accessed October 8, 2016). 31. Brugge, D., de Lemos, J. L., Oldmixon, B. (2005). Exposure Pathways and Health Effects Associated with Chemical and Radiological Toxicity of Natural Uranium: A Review. Reviews on Environmental Health, 20 (3); (Accessed August 12, 2016). 32. Canu, I. G., Jacob, S., Cardis, E., Wild, P., Caër, S., Auriol, B., Garsi, J. P., Tirmarche, M., Laurier, D. (2011). Uranium Carcinogenicity in Humans Might Depend on the Physical and Chemical Nature of Uranium and its Isotopic Composition: Results from pilot epidemiological study of French nuclear workers. Cancer Causes Control, 22, (Accessed August 8, 2010). 33. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (2016). FAQs: Arsenic and uranium. Energy and Environmental Affairs. Retrieved from (Accessed October 8, 2016). 34. Kurttio, P., Komulainen, H., Leino, A., Salonen, L., Auvinen, A., Saha, H. (2005). Bone as a Possible Target of Chemical Toxicity of Natural Uranium in Drinking Water. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (1), (Accessed August 8, 2010). 35

44 35. Northeast Tri County Health District and Washington State Department of Health. (2006). Radionuclides in Private Northeast Washington Drinking Water Wells. Northeast Tri County Health District Uranium Study. Retrieved from e%20drinking%20water%20protection/uranium%20in%20drinking%20 Water/Radionuclides_in_Private_Northeast_Washington_Drinking_Water_ Wells.pdf (Accessed June 21, 2016). 36. United States Department of Energy. (2016). Hanford Site. Office of Environmental Management. Retrieved from (Accessed October 9, 2016). 37. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2016). Backgrounder on Uranium Enrichment. Fact Sheets. Retrieved from (Accessed October 8, 2016). 38. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2016). Uranium Enrichment. Fuel Cycle Facilities. Retrieved from (Accessed October 23, 2016). 39. Wade-Gueye, N. M., Delissen, O., Gourmelon, P., Aigueperse, J., Isabelle, D., Souidi, M. (2012). Chronic Exposure to Natural Uranium via Drinking Water Affects Bone in Growing Rats. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA): General Subjects, 1820 (7); (Accessed November 10, 2016). 40. World Health Organization. (2012). Uranium in Drinking Water. Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Retrieved from uranium.pdf. (Accessed September 28, 2010). 36

45 APPENDIX A HOME TREATMENT SYSTEMS Figure 12. Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis System. Retrieved from 37

46 Figure 13. Whole Home Anion Exchange System. Retrieved from 38

47 APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY TESTING FORM Figure 14. Water Quality Testing Form for Anatek Labs, Inc. Retrieved from NETCHD records. The most common water quality testing form submitted with building permits. 39