SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT ASSESSMENT
NATIONAL REPORT
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 1983
-------
-------
FOREWORD
Preliminary studies conducted in the early 1970's indicated
that the storage, treatment and disposal of liquid wastes in
surface impoundments could be a significant source of contamination
to ground water. Moreover, it was anticipated that as Federal
and State laws governing air and water pollution were implemented,
the volume of waste liquids and sludges disposed in impoundments
would increase. During the same period, Congress, in passing
the Safe Drinking Water Act, expressed concern about the potential
effect impoundments might have on ground water. In response
to this growing body of knowledge and Congressional concerns,
EPA decided in 1977 to inventory impoundments and assess
their potential to contaminate ground water. The Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) was the outcome of this decision.
The reader should note that the information which forms
the basis of this report was collected by the States in 1978,
1979, and 1980. Accordingly, much of the information is dated.
In particular, the discussions describing State programs
reflects their status at the time the information was gathered;
much has changed since. Ground water has been given increased
attention in both Federal and State programs and new laws and
regulations are being implemented which bring this practice
under stricter controls. At the Federal level, for example,
the development and implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental
Damages, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) provided
national controls over the most dangerous segment of impoundments—
those handling hazardous waste.
Throughout the report, we use the term "potentially hazardous
waste", or "waste hazard potential." The use of "hazardous" and
similar terms in this study is not identical to designated
hazardous waste as used in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The SIA rating system was developed before
regulations under RCRA were promulgated, and SIA waste ratings
were assigned based on general industry characteristics, or on
standard industrial classification codes. A more complete
discussion of the SIA rating system is included as Appendix A.
Although the information is dated, the report is a valuable
addition to our knowledge. It is perhaps the broadest look at
the use of impoundments, and how that use may affect ground
water quality. The descriptions of State programs provides an
accurate picture of how States managed impoundments in the
past, and provides a benchmark against which we may measure
improvement.
The reader will also note that we have refrained from
identifying specific facilities. The SIA does not provide
-------
-11-
meaningful data on a site specific basis. The study was designed
to be a first-round approximation of contamination potentials
and the assessment methodology uses secondary sources of data
to perform desk-top analysis of an impoundment's potential to
contaminate ground water. The data are designed to provide
only a relative ranking of sites. Accurate conclusions can
only be made when the data are used in aggregates that are
sufficiently large to provide statistical validity. Thus,
the report confines itself to general observations based on
summary data.
Finally, the results of this study have been used to make
a preliminary ranking of contamination potential to help the
new hazardous waste protection programs assign priorities to
site investigations. The data are also helping States to assess
problems related to other types of impoundments which need to
be addressed to protect ground water quality.
The data, which have been available since 1979, have been
used extensively by both the Office of Solid Waste and the
Superfund program. The Office of Solid Waste has used the data
to cross check the results of the hazardous waste facilities
notification, to identify non-notifiers, and to set permitting
and enforcement priorities. The Superfund program used selected
SIA data as a source of information for site identification,
screening and investigation. More recently, the Superfund
program has been seeking to assure the accuracy and
comprehensiveness of its data base, and has been using data
from the SIA as one tool in this effort.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
FOREWORD ii
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. OVERVIEW 8
III. STATE REGULATORY CONTROLS 21
AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY
IV. LOCATION AND COUNT 34
V. ANALYSIS OF DATA 67
VI. CASE STUDIES OF GROUND WATER 92
CONTAMINATION FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
VII. STATE FINDINGS 105
VIII. CONCLUSIONS 111
APPENDICES
A. MANUAL FOR EVALUATING CONTAMINATION
POTENTIAL OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
B. I. LOCATED ACTIVE SITES AND IMPOUNDMENTS
II. ASSESSED ACTIVE SITES AND IMPOUNDMENTS
III. LOCATED ABANDONED SITES AND IMPOUNDMENTS
IV. ASSESSED ABANDONED SITES AND IMPOUNDMENTS
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Located Active Surface Impoundment Sites 3
3 .1 State Authorities 23
3 . 2 Institutional Approaches 30
4.1 Located Sites » 35
4 . 2 Assessed Sites 36
4 . 3 Agricultural Sites 40
4.4 Municipal Sites 42
4.5 Industrial Sites 45
4.6 Mining Sites 50
4 .7 Purpose of Impoundments 54
4 .8 Impoundment Size « 55
4.9 Industrial Impoundments (Age vs. Liner) 62
5.1 Rating of the Unsaturated Zone 68
5.2 Rating of the Saturated Zone 71
5.3 Rating of the Ground Water Quality 74
5.4 Ground Water Quality Ratings by Category 75
5 .'5 Waste Hazard Potential Rating 78
5.6 Rating Endangerment to Potential Water Supplies. 84
5.7 Characteristics of the Potential Endangerment to
Water Suppl ies . 85
5.8 Endangerment to Water Supplies from Sites most
likely to Contaminate Ground Water 87
6 .1 Causes of Contamination 97
6.2 Summary of Remedial Action Employed at Case
Study Sites 101
8.1 Elements of Selected State Programs 113
-------
-VI-
Table
B.I Located Active Sites and Impoundments
B.2 Assessed Active Sites and Impoundments
B.3 Located Abandoned sites and Impoundments
B.4 Assessed Abandoned Sites and Impoundments
-------
-Vll-
Figure Page
2.1 Surface Impoundment Assessment Schedule 11
2.2 Responsibility of the Grantee.... .. 12
2.3 Educational Composition of SIA Teams 12
2.4 Percent of Located Sites Assessed... 14
2.5 Percent of Located Impoundments Assessed 14
2.6 Percent of Total Impoundments in Existence
which were Assessed 15
2.7 Evaluation Scheme 16
2.8 Sources of Data . 17
2.9 Verfication Methods 17
4.1 Relative Importance of Different Categories... 37
4.2 Agricultural Sites 39
4.3 Municipal Sites 41
4.4 Industrial Sites 44
4.5 Oil and Gas Sites 46
4.6 Mining Sites 48
4.7 Type of Mining Activity 49
4.8 Distribution of Abandoned Sites by Category... 51
4.9 Assessed Sites 53
4.10 Use of Liners in the Agricultural Category.... 57
4.11 Use of Liners in the Mining Category 58
4.12 Use of Liners in the Industrial Category 59
-------
-Vlll-
Figure
Paqe
4.13 Industrial Category, Use of Liner vs. SIC
Codes 61
4.14 Monitoring Wells, Municipal Category 63
4.15 Monitoring Wells, Industrial Category 64
4.16 Use of Monitoring Wells in the Industrial
Category 65
5.1 Characteristics of the Unsaturated Zone 70
5.2 Characteristics of the Saturated Zone 72
5.3 Hydrogeologic Characteristics of Assessed
Sites 77
5.4 Characteristics of the Waste Hazard Potential. 79
5.5 Industrial Category, Sites with High Waste
Potential 81
5.6 Step 5 Scores 82
5.7 Characterization of the Potential Endangerment
to Water Supplies 86
5.8 Use of Liner vs. Characteristics of the
Unsaturated Zone 89
5.9 Use of Liners vs. Waste Hazard Potential 90
5.10 Use of Liners vs. Hydrogeology 91
6.1 Location of Case Studies 93
6,2 Summary of Case Studies by Category 94
6.3 Distribution of Step 5 Scores for Case Studies 96
6.4 Methods of Detection 99
6.5 Mode, Mean, Range: Step 5 Scores of
Contamination Cases 104
-------
CHAPTER I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began a
study in collaboration with the States of the magnitude and
potential effects of surface impoundments on ground water
quality. This effort was designed to carry out Section
1442(b)(3)(c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The
Agency knew that increased emphasis on air and water pollution
controls resulted in an increase in sludge and waste water
generation and disposal, but it had little information on the
numbers, location and construction of surface impoundments or
their potential for groundwater contamination. The Agency
developed the Surface Impoundments Assessment (SIA) to provide
more information on these issues.
Since the time the study began in 1978, several new Federal
programs have come into effect with authority to protect ground
water quality. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) provides controls over the most important kind of
impoundments, those handling designated hazardous wastes..
Under this legislation, increased Federal grants have assisted
many States to expand programs in this area. In addition, the
enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Damages,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) will
provide resources with which to control the worst of the
abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. Although these
Federal programs do not provide coverage over all impoundments,
many States have expanded programs to protect ground water and
to manage instances in which contamination has been detected.
The findings of this study must be viewed in historical
perspective. The data was collected in 1978 to 1980 and predated
the increased public interest in ground water protection which
began later, and the major programs initiated after 1980 as
EPA and the States moved toward implementation of RCRA.
In conducting the SIA, EPA attempted to: 1) increase the
Nation's data base concerning impoundments; 2) determine numbers,
location and potential effects of surface impoundments on
groundwater quality; 3) solicit information on existing State
approaches to groundwater protection from these facilities;
and 4) provide EPA with information to allow for a review of
Agency programs regarding groundwater protection and surface
impoundments.
The Assessment, with a few exceptions, was essentially a "desk-
top study;" States used mainly secondary sources of data such
as USGS maps, information from permit files, well drillers
reports and other such sources in conducting both the inventory
-------
_ f\ _
and assessment. Information on waste characteristics, for
instance, was often inferred from standard industrial
classification (SIC) codes rather than actual knowledge of the
waste contained. In most instances, the data were not field
verified by the States (or in a few States by contractors)
which collected the data. The quality of the information,
therefore, varies considerably from State to State. Nevertheless,
the data, when used in sufficiently large aggregates and not
applied to site-specific situations, characterizes the total
population of surface impoundments and their potential impact
on ground water quality.
The results of the study confirmed the concerns which led to
its initiation. Surface impoundments, without proper siting,
design, construction and operation, can threaten ground water
quality. On a national level, Federal regulations and most
States did not adequately address this problem in the past,
although several States, including New York, California, New
Mexico, New Jersey and Pennsylvania had or were developing
aggressive ground water prptection programs.
The data from this study have been useful to States and EPA in
providing an inventory of surface impoundments and a preliminary
ranking of contamination potentials with which to establish
meaningful priorities for the new hazardous waste protection
programs. The data will also help States to assess problems
related to other types of impoundments which need to be addressed
to protect ground-water quality.
The Hazardous Waste Enforcement Task force has used the data
to identify high priority sites for field investigations and
the Superfund Program used them as a source of information for
site identification, screening and investigations. Finally,
the Office of Solid Waste used the data to cross check the
results of the Hazardous Waste facilities notification, to
identify non-notifiers and to set permitting and enforcement
priorities.
Briefly, the study was designed to locate and count as many
impoundments as possible and to assess the ground water
contamination potential of a significant number of the located
sites. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the active sites and
impoundments located in the inventory, as well as the number
of sites assessed. They are presented in five major categories:
Industrial, Municipal, Agricultural, Mining, and Oil and Gas.
A small number of sites have been assigned to a category termed
"Other" because they do not fit any established category. For
example, some States collected information on facilities which
went beyond the definition of impoundment used in the national
study. These "others" include such facilities as industrial
septic systems, multi-family septic systems, safety impoundments
around bulk storage tanks, and farm ponds used for stock watering.
-------
-3-
TABLE 1.1
Summary Statistics
for Located Active Surface Impoundment Sites
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Agricultural
Mining
Oil & Gas
Brine Pits
Other
Located
Sites*
11,760
19,746
14,850
7,364
24,990*
1,553
Assessed
Sites*
8,662
10,822
6,646
1,552
3,354
350
Located
Impoundments*
27,912
37,185
19,437
25,038
65,488
5,913
TOTAL
80,263
31,386
180,973
SIA site numbers for the mining and oil & gas brine
pit sites are usually related to lease or field data,
not 'to actual ownership and should not be referred
to as the actual number of legal sites. The number of
located impoundments would be a closer approximation
for these two categories.
Located sites: Total number of facilities identified
in the inventory.
Assessed sites: Total number of facilities evaluated
in the inventory.
Located impoundments: Total number of impoundments
identified in the inventory.
The number is larger than located
sites since many facilities had
more than one impoundment.
-------
-4-
METHODOLOGY
The SIA used an evaluation methodology developed specifically to
assess the potential effects of surface impoundments on ground water
quality. This method assigned ratings to a site based on the
following factors:
1. the permeability and thickness of the earth material
above the water table (a measure of the relative rate at
which liquid waste could migrate through the ground to
reach the ground water);
2. the quantity of ground water available (the permeability
and thickness of the aquifer);
3. the quality of the ground water (combining Step 2 and
Step 3 provides a rating of the usability of the aquifer);
4. the potential hazard or toxicity of the waste (based on
general industry waste characteristics-the term "hazard"
and "hazardous" is not equivalent to designated "hazardous
waste" under RCRA since RCRA definitions were developed
after the study began);
5. the overall potential for ground water contamination
(the sum of the first four steps); and
6. the potential for a nearby water supply well or
surface water body to become contaminated (this
involves the estimation of the flow path of contaminated
ground water and whether it would intersect a well or
surface water).
In addition to conducting an inventory of all known surface
impoundments and conducting assessments, States provided
information on impoundment bottom liners and ground water
quality monitoring. States also submitted representative case
studies of contamination caused by impoundments, and descriptions
of their State programs.
FINDINGS
The major findings of the study are outlined below:
Site Selection
0 Unsaturated Zone;
Nearly 50 percent of all sites are located over
unsaturated zones that are either very thin or very
permeable. Such siting, given improper design,
6onstruction and/or operation, may allow leachate to
-------
-5-
attenuation of contaminants. For industrial sites,
over 50 percent are so sited.
0 Saturated Zone;
Approximately 70 percent of all sites are located
over thick and very permeable aquifers that allow
relatively rapid movement of any plumes that may
develop-. For the industrial category, the percentage
rises to nearly 80 percent.
0 Total Hydrogeologic Setting;
Approximately 30 percent of the sites are located in
areas that have thin or permeable unsaturated zones,
and overlie highly transmissive aquifers containing
water that is currently used or of high quality.
These sites provide the least natural protection to
ground water quality. For the municipal and industrial
categories, the percentage of sites so located rises
to approximately 40 percent. Only about 7 percent
of all sites appear to be located in areas which have
hydrogeologic settings that offer the maximum protection
from ground water contamination.
0 Proximity.to Potential Water Supplies;
Less than 2 percent of the sites are located in areas
where there is no drinking water within 1 mile, or
where the water contains in excess of 10,000 parts per
million total dissolved solids (>10,000 ppm TDS) .
Waste Characteristics
0 Approximately 15 percent of all sites (excluding oil
and gas related facilities) contain waste which may
be-considered hazardous as the term is used in the
SIA (e.g. hazard rating in excess of 6. See Appendix
A for an explanation of the rating system.). In the
industrial category, about a third of the sites
contain potentially "hazardous waste." The SIA used
general industry waste characteristics or SIC codes
to assign waste ratings. Thus, "hazardous," as used
in the SIA, does not correspond directly to designated
"hazardous waste" under RCRA.
Ground-Water Protection
0 As previously mentioned, nearly half of the sites
assessed are located over unsaturated zones that
afford little protection to ground water supplies.
-------
-6-
0 Approximately 30 percent of the industrial sites are
lined. There is little or no apparent correlation
between the type of waste, the siting characteristics
and the use of liners.
0 In addition, data on monitoring show little apparent
correlation between the potential for aquifer
contamination and the use of monitoring wells.
State Programs
The State staff conducting the SIA provided informatiori
on the State programs and, in most instances, conclusions
and recommendations relative to the programs. it is
important to note that these conclusions primarily reflect
State staff opinions, and not necessarily official State
views. Moreover, these data represent the status of
State programs at the time of the assessment which began
in 1978, and many States have revised ground water related
programs since that time. The information and data submitted
to EPA, show the following findings:
0 Most States derived their statutory authority from a
prohibition against "polluting the waters of the
State." Although this includes ground water, the laws
are generally surface water oriented.
0 State regulations concerning surface impoundments
generally covered only the treatment and/or discharge
of waste to surface waters, not ground water.
0 Only six States had developed regulations which
specifically address ground water contamination from
surface impoundments at the time the study was
conducted.
0 Despite the fact that oil and gas pits are strictly
regulated and their use limited to emergency and mud
pits, oil and gas pits accounted for more impoundments
than any other category (approximately 65,000).
CONCLUSIONS
The study leads to the following conclusions:
0 Without proper design and siting, impoundments have
a high potential for contaminating ground water.
0 Treatment, storage and disposal of liquids in surface
impoundments is a common practice. There were over
180,000 impoundments located in the inventory.
-------
-7-
In general, impoundments have historically been
sited and constructed without apparent regard for
the protection of ground water quality.
In the past, the practice has been virtually
unregulated by the Federal government and many States
from the perspective of ground-water protection.
However, with the implementation of RCRA, and increased
attention at the State level, sites handling designated
hazardous wastes will be more strictly controlled in
the future. Beyond regulatory controls, the Federal
programs are providing the States with resources to
help administer programs to control designated hazardous
wastes and generally expand programs to protect ground
water quality.
-------
-8-
CHAPTER II
OVERVIEW OF THE SIA
The Environmental Protection Agency decided to conduct the
Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) because of the findings
of several preliminary studies, and as a result of Congressional
concerns reflected in §1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The preliminary studies indicated that the storage, treatment,
and disposal of liquid wastes in surface impoundments (pits,
ponds, and lagoons) may be a significant source"of contamination
to ground water and that the extent of the problem was unknown.
The Agency determined that an inventory and assessment of
surface impoundments was required, one that was comprehensive
and in line with Congressional intent as expressed in both the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
SCOPE OF THE SIA
The Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) is a one time only
inventory and hydrogeologic evaluation of the ground water
pollution potential of waste pits, ponds, and lagoons funded
under the SDWA.
The goals of. the SIA were to study the magnitude and potential
effects of" surf ace impoundments on ground water. In order to
carry out these goals, five objectives were established. These
objectives were:
(1) To inventory (locate and count) the number of surface
impoundments in existence in the United States and
its territories.
(2) To provide a first-round approximation of the ground
water pollution potential of these practices.
(3) To assist the States and EPA in developing a better
understanding of the problems caused by surface
impoundments.
(4) To provide a data base on which EPA and the States
may develop a strategy to control or regulate pollution
from these sources.
(5) To provide data for review of State and Federal
authorities and to recommend legislative programs to
address the problem, if necessary.
-------
-9-
As part of determining the pollution potential, a hydrogeologic
evaluation of ground water contamination which used existing
data was devised. Evaluations were performed on as many randomly
selected sites as time and resources permitted. The system was
based in part on the system developed by Harry Le Grand. The
rating gives a numerical score which indicates the relative
potential for ground water contamination. .Appendix A gives a
detailed explanation of the rating methodology.
To provide for consistency of coverage nationwide, it was
necessary to develop a uniform definition of "impoundment" and
to list exclusions that were not to be included in the assessment.
The definition of a surface impoundment as used in this study
is:
A natural topographic depression, artificial excavation,
or dike arrangement with the following characteristics:
(1) it is used primarily for storage, treatment, or
disposal of wastes -in the form of fluids;
(2) it may be constructed above, below, or partially in
the ground;
(3) it may or may not have a permeable bottom and/or
sides potentially.allowing contamination of ground
water by infiltration of its contents.
(4) it has a surface dimension greater than its depth.
The list, of exclusions consists of the following:
Farm ponds used for stock watering or for fisheries;
product storage tanks; ponds related to sand and gravel
operations; swimming pools; natural lakes and ponds; furrow
irrigation fields; rice paddies; irrigation re-use pits;
sediment control basins; borrow pits resulting in sand pit
lakes; storm water basins; individual and residential
septic systems; well drilling mud pits; emergency pits;
steel and/or concrete wastewater treatment unit process
impoundments.
These exclusions are listed because they are deemed "non-problems"
or contain fluids only intermittently on an emergency basis or
are so numerous as to make it unrealistic to inventory. In certain
cases and for compelling reasons, some of these have been included
by certain States in the "Other" category.
-------
-10-
METHODOLOGY OF THE SIA
EPA Funding for the SIA
EPA made available $5,000,000 in grants to the States for the
conduct of the SIA. These grant funds, made under §1442(b)(3)(C)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, were distributed
among the States by a formula which took into account ground
water use, population, number of manufacturing establishments,
area, oil and gas sites, and mining sites. The institutions
that were granted funds to conduct the SIA are outlined below:
0 EPA awarded funds for conduct of the SIA to:
contractors or universities in six States and
Territories
State agencies in 49 States and Territories.
0 Of the 49 State agencies which took grants, the SIA
was :
conducted either partially or totally by
subagreements with...
another State or Federal agency in 13 States
a university in five States
a consultant in nine States
conducted totally by the Grantee agency in 22
States.
The timetable for the activities of the study is included in
Figure 2.1.
State SIA Organization
State SIA grantees organized their functional units and teams
to suit their own needs. The following describes how the
State SIA teams were organized and how they functioned.
Figure 2.2 shows the functional responsibilities of the
grantees. It demonstrates that the responsibility for
conducting the SIA rested with a State agency rather than a
consultant or university in the vast majority of the States.
The educational composition of the SIA teams is represented
nationally by the bar graph in Figure 2.3. Although the
educational backgrounds of the people who worked on the SIA
involve many fields, the majority were in the fields of geology
and hydrology.
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF S.I.A.
GRANT AVAILABILITY (317/78)
S.I.A. GRANT APPLICATION PERIOD
(3-7-78 TO 6-7-78)
OFFICIAL S.I.A. PROJECT PERIOD
(7-1-78 TO 12-31-79)
STATE S.I.A. REPORTS DUE
(PROGRESS: 1(1(79 AND 7(1(79)
(FINAL: 12(i31|79 TO 4(30(79)
i i .... I, ii i—i ' • •" ' '"i-1""" '
S.I.A. TRAINING SESSIONS
S.I.A. NATIONAL MEETING WITH
STATES (4(10(79)
END OF FORMAL INPUT TO S.I.A.
DATA BASE (3125180)
A
1978
PROGRESS
1979
PROGRESS A
FINAL
A PHILA.
A DENVER
A OAKLAND
A ATLANTA j
A ST- PAUL
A KANSAS CITY
A WASHINGTON, D.C.
A DALLAS
1980
81
A
Figure 2.1
-------
STATE PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY
STATE ENVIRONMENTAUNATURAL RESOURCE AGENCY
STATE SOLID WASTE AGENCY
OTHER STATE AGENCY
CONSULTANT
Figure 2.2
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE GRANTEE *
UNIVERSITY
20
31
NUMBER OF STATES
GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY
CIVILIENV./SANITARY ENGINEERING
SOIL SCIENCE/AGRICULTURE
BIOLOGY/CHEMISTRY
OTHER TECHNICAL
NON-TECHNICAL
Figure 2.3
EDUCATIONAL COMPOSITION
OF THE S.I.A. TEAMS
14
Hal
NUMBER Of PERSONS
*The total exceeds the number of States and territories
since/ in some instances, more than one State agency
worked on the SIA in a State.
-------
-13-
SIA TRAINING
To standardize the data collected, the SIA Work Group developed
and administered training courses for the people who were to
conduct the SIA in the States. This three-day training course
was given seven times during the period June 1978 through
February 1979 . ,
Coverage of the SIA
There was a random selection of the inventoried sites to identify
sites to be assessed. Then within each site, a random selection
was made of all impoundments to determine which impoundment
should be evaluated. This random selection procedure was
repeated for each category. Thus, not all sites or all
impoundments within a given site were assessed. Some States
assessed all sites located; other assessed every impoundment
located. As a result, it is difficult to make meaningful
comparisons between States on a national level on the total
number of impoundments. Figure 2.4 shows the percentage of
located sites which are assessed.
When considering impoundments alone, independent of sites, it
is significant to note the reasonably wide distribution of
assessed impoundments as a percentage of located impoundments.
Figure 2.5 shows the statistics on percentage of located
impoundments which were assessed. Nationally, 80,263 sites
were located and 39 percent or 31,386 of them were assessed.
However, 180,973 impoundments were located and 21 percent or
38,089 of them were assessed. The Location and Count phase
consisted of "finding" and "inventorying" as many surface
impoundments as was reasonably possible by any legal means
available to the State SIA Teams. The sources of data varied
from State to State as did the State's best estimate of what
percentage of all sites were located (see Figure 2.6).
HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
One of the primary objectives of the SIA was to provide a
first-round approximation of the ground water pollution potential
of surface impoundments. The system was not designed to discover
if contamination had indeed actually occurred. Such detailed
studies could logically follow the SIA with priority given to
those sites having high contamination potentials. The steps
used in this system are outlined in Figure 2.7. The SIA Manual
for Evaluating Contamination of Potential of Surface Impoundments
is reprinted in Appendix A.
of data used in this study.
sources listed as "Other":
Figure 2.8 illustrates the sources
Here are some of the more common
Well Drillers Logs
County. Governments - i.e. Sanitarians
-------
% OF LOCATED
SITES WHICH
WERE ASSESSED
Figure 2.4
91-100
81-90
71-80
61-70
51-60
41-50
31-40
21-30
11-20
1-10
0
21
-11
51
21 -
6
6
>l
31
NUMBER OF STATES
% OF LOCATED
IMPOUNDMENTS
WHICH WERE
ASSESSED
Figure 2.5
91-100
81-90
71-80
61-70
51-60
41-50
31-40
21-30
11-20
1-10
0
.91
.31
'6
6
5
Kl
NUMBER OF STATES,
-------
% OF TOTAL IMPOUNDMENTS
IN EXISTENCE WHICH WERE
LOCATED AND COUNTED*
100
95-99
85-94
50-84
25-49
LESS THAN 25
ni
M
NUMBER OF STATES
*Not all States estimated the % of total impoundments
located
Figure 2.6
-------
-16-
EVALUATION SCHEME
STEP 1: Rate the Unsaturated Zone
STEP 2: Rate the Ground Water Availability
STEP 3: Rate the Ground Water Quality
STEP 4: Rate the Waste Hazard Potential
STEP 5: Sum Up Overall Ground Water Comtamination
Potential
Step 1 + Step 2 -t- Step 3 + Step 4
STEP 6: Rate the Potential Kndangerment to Water
Supplies
Figure 2.7
-------
EXISTING PERMIT FILES
CONTAMINATION CASE FILES
GENERAL FILES
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
REMOTE SENSING
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
INTERVIEWS
EXISTING INVENTORIES
INDUSTRIAL DIRECTORIES
QUESTIONNAIRES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
OTHERS
Figure 2.8
SOURCES OF DATA
33
NUMBER OF STATES
USING THESE DATA SOURCES
COMPARISON OF FILES AND RECORDS
TO TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
COMPARISON OF FILES AND RECORDS
TO REMOTE SENSING
REVIEW BY KEY STATE STAFF
FIELD VERIFICATION
OTHER
i
Figure 2.9
VERIFICATION METHODS
JH
NUMBER OF STATES
USING THESE VERIFICATION METHODS
-------
-18-
U.S. Geological Survey Reports
Soil Conservation Service Reports/Soil Surveys
River Basin Plans
Dairy Inspectors
Chambers of Commerce
0 "208" Reports and Surveys
0 Consultant Reports
Since the data sources were largely "desk top," many States
employed verification methods to confirm the data collected.
Figure 2.9 illustrates the methods used.
DATA HANDLING
EPA made the decision to develop a centralized ADP system at
Washington which could handle all of the States' data at no
cost to them. EPA developed the Surface impoundment Assessment
Information System (SIAIS) on IBM System 2000 software.
Limitations of the Study
The SIA was designed to provide a first round approximation of
the contamination potential of surface impoundments. The
methodology, funding, and rating system were not designed to
provide data that would prove valid on a site-specific basis.
Nevertheless, the data, when used in sufficiently large aggregates,
can establish the nature and extent of the potential impact on
ground water from surface impoundments.
Funding limitations dictated that priorities be established for
the inventory and assessments. Consequently, the comprehensiveness
and accuracy of the data vary across categories.
Phase I, the Location and Count of Surface Impoundments, was
given the highest priority. At a minimum, the State SIA Teams
were to exhaust all reasonable possibilities to locate and
count surface impoundments.
Phase II, the Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Surface Impoundments,
was to be conducted after completion of Phase I with whatever
funds remained. Under Phase II, if it was presumed that there
would be more impoundments to evaluate than could be paid for
with the remaining funds, then the State was to conduct
hydrogeologic evaluations on one randomly selected impoundment
at randomly selected sites. Funds were to be divided among the
several categories of impoundments as follows:
-------
-19-
(1) The evaluation of oil and gas sites should not receive
more than 5 percent of the remaining funds;
(2) The evaluation of mining sites should receive not
more than 5 percent of the remaining funds;
(3) The evaluation of industrial sites should receive at
least 50 percent but not oiore than 80 percent of the
remaining funds;
(4) The evaluation of municipal sites should receive a
minimum of 10 percent of the remaining funds;
(5) The evaluation of agricultural sites should receive
a minimum of 10 percent of the remaining funds.
The rating system emphasized existing data sources and is
essentially a desk top study. Depending on the State, there
was little or no field verification of the data collected.
Accordingly, when viewed on an individual site basis,
inconsistencies occur such'as waste ratings which either
underrate or overrate the waste hazard potential, or
identification of sites as active that are closed or abandoned.
Although there was a training program developed and guidances
issued on a continual basis, the States varied their approach
to the study. To the degree that the rating system and training
allowed for subjective interpretation, efforts between individual
States were not consistent in their waste rating scores, in
the priority they assigned to assessing the various categories
of impoundments, or in the sources and interpretations used to
conduct the hydrogeologic evaluation. Moreover, the quality
of State ground water programs varies considerably, and the
availability and comprehensiveness of the data vary accordingly.
This limited the uses to which the data could be put.
The waste hazard score, as used in the SIA, is an approximation
of the hazard potential that, is based either on Standard
Industrial Classification Codes (SIC) or a general waste
identification. It is important to note that this method of
classifying waste, while reliable for large numbers of sites
viewed in aggregate, can result in errors on a site specific
basis. For example, an impoundment at a facility with SIC code
classification of 28 (chemical products) without further
analysis would receive a relatively high hazard rating. However,
it is conceivable that upon further investigation such an
impoundment might be found to contain cooling water, not chemical
wastes. Because the study was a first round approximation
conducted without extensive field verification, it was not
always possible to determine what waste an individual impoundment
contained. The limited field verification that was performed
suggests that while the extent may vary from State-to-State,
such "misscores" are the exception, not the rule.
-------
-20-
The term "hazardous," as used in the SIA, is not synonomous with
"hazardous waste" as used in RCRA since that definition was
developed after this study. In addition, wastes were assigned
hazard values based on five parameters: toxicity, mobility,
persistence, 'volume, and concentration. As a result, facilities
which produce extremely high volumes of waste, such as mining
operations, could receive a waste hazard rating equal to a site
which produces relatively little waste of a higher toxicity.
-------
-21-
CHAPTER III
STATE REGULATORY CONTROLS
AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION
One of the objectives of the SIA was to collect information
on State programs dealing with surface impoundments in
particular and ground water in general. Accordingly, EPA
asked States to describe their laws, regulations, institutions,
funding, and the general efficacy of their programs and
regulatory activities that affect surface impoundments. This
chapter is based on the results .of these self-assessments.
Although the information that follows represents the status
of State programs as described by State personnel, there were
often differences of opinion within individual State agencies
concerning the effectiveness of programs. As a result, the
characterizations of programs provided in this chapter may
not reflect official State views.
In addition, many changes in State programs have resulted
since the time of the study (1978-1979) due to the increased
concern about ground water protection at the State level and
the passage and implementation of Federal programs under
RCRA, the Superfund and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
LEGISLATIVE BASIS
At the time of the study few States had laws relating
specifically to ground-water contamination from surface
impoundments. More often, States derive their statutory
authority from broad mandates against polluting the "waters
of the State." in the majority of instances, State laws were
formulated primarily with surface water protection in mind.
In some cases States had laws which specifically related to
only one type of impoundment or. laws that provided different
levels of control for different types of impoundments.
For example, one State had six different agencies empowered
under distinct acts which assigned authority over various types
of operations. California, on the other hand, uses the Porter-
Cologne Act as the primary basis for establishing specific
standards for water quality control plans, waste discharge,
and disposal of liquid waste. A single State agency, the
State Water Resources Control Board (in conjunction with the
9 Regional Water Quality Control Boards) had the primary
responsibility for administering this and other ground water-
related legislation.
-------
-22-
Several States indicated they were in the process of developing
new, more stringent legislation that addressed ground water
specifically. This was largely a result of recent Federal
legislation and increased demand for good quality water.
Hawaii, for example, was developing a State water code which
requires the following: (1) review of all water quality
programs, (2) establish agency responsibilities, (3) streamlined
regulatory processes, (4) establish guidance on water rights.
Table 3.1 is an overview of State authorities at the time of
the survey. With regard to enabling legislation, most State
programs did not specifically address ground water pollution
from surface impoundments. As discussed earlier, States
derived their statutory authority from broad mandates against
polluting the "waters of the State." Where legislation
addressed surface impoundments, it generally focused on point
source discharges to surface water rather than seepage and
non-point pollution. t
STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
A majority of the States surveyed had some sort of regulatory
program involving a permitting system for waste impoundments
under either State or Federal programs. In the States which
practice permitting and licensing (see Table 3.1) of surface
impoundments, the focus of the program was frequently directed
on the treatment phase of the entire facility, or on the
direct discharge of wastes to surface water through the NPDES
program and not on ground water contamination. However, a
few State programs (New Mexico, Connecticut, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, and California) concerned themselves directly
with the discharge of wastes to the ground water.
However, most State programs—whether they addressed facility
standards and direct discharges or whether they were empowered
to permit indirect dischargers—reported that they were not
adequately staffed and funded to provide the comprehensive
plan reviews, regular inspections, effective monitoring programs,
and consistent, timely enforcement actions required to assure
compliance with permit conditions.
Enforcement of permit requirements and pollution controls, for
example, was subject to the effects of limited resources.
Approximately half the States reviewed construction plans prior
to issuing a permit, but only nine states regularly inspected
facilities, and even these inspections were reported to be
sporadic due to time and staff constraints.
Over 50% of the States could require a new operator to monitor
his facility in some manner. However, again resource constraints
limited both the number of sites at which monitoring was actually
required and the efficiency of any State review of monitoring
-------
-23-
TABLE 3.1
STATE AUTHORITIES
LEAD
STATE AGENCY(S)
Alabama Alabama Geological
Survey
Water Improvement Gomm.
Dept. of Public Health
State Oil & Gas Board
Alaska Dept. of Env. Conser.
American Degt. of Health,
Samoa Dept. of Public Works
Arizona Dept. of Health Services
(11 Other Agencies
included)
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control
and Ecology
State Health Dept.
California Resources Agency DWR,
WRCB, RWQB
Colorado Water Quality Control
O&G Conservation Goran.
Div. of Mined Land
Reclamation
Dept. of Natural
Resources
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Statutory Rules/ License/ Plan
Law Regulations Permit Review Inspection AGR MUN IND OAG MNG
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X XXX
X
X X X X X X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X X
X X
X
X
XXX
-------
-24-
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
STATE AUTHORITIES
STATE
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
LEAD
AGENCY(S)
Div. of Env. Control-
Dept. of Health & Social
Services
Dept. of Env. Regulation
Dept. of Natural Resources,
Environmental Prot. Div.
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health & Welfare
Statutory
Law
X
X
X
X
Rules/
Regulations
X
X
X
X
License/ Plan
Permit Review Inspection AGR MUN IND OAG
XX XX
XX X XXX
X XXX
XX XXX
MNC
X
X
Div. of Environment X
Dist. Health Dept.
Dept. of Water Resources
Soil Conservation Com.
Dept. of Lands
Illinois Env. Protection Agency X
Dept. of Mines & Minerals X
Indiana Board of Health
Stream Pollution Control Board X
Water Pollution Control Div.
Water Supply Section
General Sanitation section
Solid Waste Management Section
Dspt. of Natural Resources X
Reclamation Division
Oil and Gas Division
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
-25-
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
STATE AUTHORITIES
STATE.
Kansas
Kentucky .
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
LEAD
AGENCY(S)
Dept. of Health &
Environment
Div. of Environment
Dept. of Natural Resources
& Environmental Protection
Office of Env. Affairs
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Env. Protection
State Water Res. Adm.
Env. Health Adm.
Maryland Bureau of Mines
Water Resources Commission
Dept. of Env. Quality
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Public Health
Pollution Control Agency
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Natural Resources
Oil and Gas Board
Board of Health
Dept. of Health & Env.
Sciences
Oil & Gas Conservation Div.
Dept. of State Lands
Statutory Rules/ License/ Plan
Law Regulations Permit Review Inspection AGR MUN IND OAG MNG
X
X X
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X XX
X X
X XX
X
X
X
X XX
X XX
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X XX
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
-26-
TABLE 3.1 (Cbnt'd)
STATE AUTHORITIES
STATE
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Mexico
LEAD
AGENCY(S)
Dept. of Env. Control
O&G Conservation Comm.
Dept. of Env. Protection
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
Dept. of Health & Welfare
Env. Improvement Division
Oil Conservation Division
Coal Surface Mining
Statutory
Law
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rules/
Regulations
X
X
X
X
X
License/
Permit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Plan
Review
X
X
X
Inspection AGR
X
X
X
X
X
MUN
X
X
X
X
X
IND OAG
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
MNC
X
X
New York
North
Carolina
North .
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Bureau
Dept. of Env. Conservation
Dept. of Natural Resources
& Community Development
Dept. of Hunan Resources
Dept. of Health
Geological Survey
Public Service Commission
EPA
Dept. of Natural Resources.,
Corporation Commission
Dept. of Health
Water Resource Board
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Mines
Dept. of Env. Protection
Dept. of Water Resources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX X
X
XXX
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
-------
STATE
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
LEAD
AGENCY(S)
Dept. of Env. Quality
Dept. of Geology &
Mineral Ind.
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Bureau of Surface Mine
Reclamation
Bureau of Topographic
& Geologic Survey
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth
Env. Quality Board
Dept. of Health
Rhode Island Dept. of Env. Management
South
Carolina
South
Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Dept. of Health & Env.
Control
Office of Water Quality
Div. of Water Quality Control
Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt.
.Dept. of Water Resources
Railroad Conm.
State Dept. of Health
Agency of Env. Conservation
-27-
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
STATE AUTHORITIES
Statutory Rules/ License/ Plan
Law Regulations Permit Review Inspection AGR MUN IND OAG MNG
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
-28-
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
STATE AUTHORITIES
STATE
Virginia
Washington
West
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
LEAD
AGENCY(S)
State Water Control Board
State Dept. of Health
Dept. of Ecology
Div. of Water Resources
Env. Health Division
Div. of Reclamation
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Env. Quality
O&G Conservation Ccmm.
Office of Ind. Siting
Mm.
Statutory
Law
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rules/
Regulations
X
X
X
X
X
License/
Permit
X
X
X
X
X
X
Plan
Review Inspection AGR
X
X
X
X X
X
MUN
X
X
X
X
X
X
IND OAG
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MTC
X
X
X
-------
-29-
data. Frequently, facilities which existed before regulations
became effective were not subject to monitoring requirements
and, in many States these laws and regulations are relatively
recent. As a result, many older facilities are not subject to
monitoring requirements even where such requirements exist.
A few States had developed computerized data bases that were
sampled for selected parameters periodically. The ultimate aim
of these programs was to establish background quality so that
changes can be detected.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The organization within States having responsibility for control
of surface impoundments covers a broad spectrum of practices at
the time of the study. In general, institutional approaches
employed by the States may be characterized as single agency,
lead agency with cooperating agencies, or multi-agency. Table
3.2 illustrates the percentage of States in these categories.
It appears that the majority of States fall into the multi-agency
category, i.e. have several agencies involved in regulating
impoundments, with no specific agency taking the lead. It is
difficult to make other conclusions on a nationwide basis from
this table since some States did not include sufficient information
to adequately characterize their program.
Many States indicated that having several agencies involved in
water pollution control in general, and surface impoundment
controls in particular, can cause problems. The surface
impoundment survey revealed voids and overlaps in management
authority, probably resulting from the involvement of several
agencies. The State agencies often competed for limited resources
to accomplish similar goals.
At the time the study was conducted the legislature in Maine
had authorized a Ground Water Protection Commission, and regulations
were being drafted for control of hazardous waste. In Colorado,
a ground-water quality task force responded to the passage of
the Safe Drinking Water Act by promulgating State rules which
will serve to regulate surface impoundments. With increasing
attention to the control of designated hazardous waste under
RCRA, many additional States are currently considering actions
to improve coordination among agencies involved in ground-water
protection.
Impoundments in the Agricultural category were the most
consistently unregulated facilities. Most States had no program
pertaining to these, other than voluntary construction requirements
established by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). After
agricultural impoundments, oil and gas sites were the least
regulated, particularly in the producing States in the East and
Midwest. Even in the West and Southwest, where regulations
-------
-30-
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES
NUMBER OF
STATES
PERCENT
Single Agency
Lead Agency-with
Cooperating Agencies
Multi-Agency
No Data
11
9
19
11
22%
18%
38%
22%
Table 3.2
-------
-31-
either prohibit or severely limit the use of oil and gas
impoundments, the large number of such sites in the inventory
indicated that regulations were not strictly enforced.
PERSONNEL AND FUNDING
The issue most critical to the effectiveness of State programs
and most frequently mentioned by the States was funding and, as
a result, staffing. In general, the States found current funding
and staffing inadequate. A few States indicated that
funding and staffing were taxed just to maintain present programs.
Several States noted unfilled positions due to lack of funding
or hiring constraints, and lack of qualified candidates.
Staffing qualifications varied from State to State but most
positions dealing with ground-water contamination in general,
and surface impoundments in particular, require training in
hydrology or geology. However, most States had difficulty
finding candidates with adequate training.
Ohio was training existing staff in ground water science and
policies and was hiring persons with some ground water background.
In many States, the staff had training in sanitary engineering
and water chemistry, but few had specific hydrogeologic
expertise. This may reflect the bias towards surface water
quality. States reported that the most critical issue to
hiring qualified staff obtaining adequate funding and
identifying competent candidates.
TECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA
Most States had established some type of technical design
criteria for siting, constructing, or operating surface
impoundments. Here again there was a wide disparity between
States as to what was required, and often considerable difference
in technical requirements between agencies of a single State.
Most States applied design criteria on a case-by-case basis
depending on hydrogeologic conditions, type of waste and category
of impoundment, and aquifer quality and use. The technical
requirements most commonly employed by the States included
liners, buffer zones in the vicinity of production wells, and
the use of water quality standards.
The most common technical requirement was the use of liners to
prevent seepage. Liners were usually required to meet a certain
maximum permeability. The use of liners as a requirement often
depended on waste type. Many States also used buffer zones in the
vicinity of production wells. Essentially this type of
requirement is not designed to protect ground water, itself,
but it does isolate areas of aquifers used as drinking water
supplies from potential sources of contamination. Isolation
zones prohibit siting of disposal facilities within a given
-------
-32-
distance from a well. In most cases, the distance is determined
by the type of well and hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity
of the well. Distances varied considerably, with one State
requiring as little as a 200 ft. buffer and another a buffer in
excess of 2000 ft. While a number of States were moving towards
ground-water standards, at the conclusion of the study only nine
(California, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New
Mexico, Nebraska, Utah, Virginia) had done so.
Several more States were in the process of developing new
regulations, or legislation which would authorize them. Still
other States were developing aquifer classification schemes
based on use patterns and ground water quality. Many States
were developing minimum standards for impoundments which were
part of a treatment chain, but since this focuses primarily on
surface features, such an approach may not significantly affect
ground water contamination.
STATE ASSESSMENTS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The principal Federal programs which the States discussed were
the ones implemented under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) which authorized the Underground Injection Control
Program, the SIA, and the Sole Source Aquifer Program; and the
Toxic Substances Control Program. There were a variety of
attitudes on these programs.
For example, California found that Federal legislation and
programs have had little effect on State programs because
Federal guidelines were no more stringent that those of the
State programs. Delaware, on the other hand, noted improvement
in the State program directly attributable to Federal initiatives.
Arkansas suggested that a ground-water protection program be
developed in each State. On the other hand, Indiana stated that
while both State and Federal programs are weak, EPA oversight
is excessive. Kentucky cited excessive reporting requirements.
Vermont noted a need for Federal research into the long range
effects of hazardous materials on the environment and the
development of uses and markets for these wastes.
The most frequent comment made by the States was the need for
Federal programs to be more flexible and to acknowledge local
needs of the States. South Dakota expressed a desire to see
Federal programs place greater emphasis on local governments
and their part in controlling ground water pollution. Several
States, including Nebraska and Louisiana, noted that Federal
programs do not always apply from region to region and from
State to State due to variations in geology, hydrology, climate
and other geographical features. Arizona pointed out a need
for programs under CWA, SDWA, and RCRA to be coordinated and
integrated so that the programs support one another and avoid
duplication of effort. Several States noted that control is
-------
-33-
best achieved through existing or modified State programs but
most required Federal funding to staff adequately and operate
some existing programs and any new ones. Idaho noted that
improved auditing of Federally-funded State programs to assure
proper management and implementation could be the Federal
government's "most valuable contribution to ensuring strong
and uniform State enforcement policy."
-------
-34-
CHAPTER IV
LOCATION AND COUNT
As stated in Chapter II, a total of 80,263 active and abandoned
sites has been located and inventoried in the course of the SIA.
These sites contain a total of 180,973* impoundments.
The inventoried sites, both active and abandoned are distributed
among six categories designated as:
Municipal
Agricultural
Mining
Oil & Gas
and Other
Table 4.1 shows the nationwide distribution of sites and
impoundments among these categories. Of the 80,263 sites,
31,386 were randomly chosen to be assessed as shown in Table
4.2. A State-by-State distribution of assessed sites is shown
in Appendices I-IV. The assessment is described in Appendix A;
it consists generally of ratings based on characteristics of
the 'unsaturated zone, the saturated zone, the transmissivity of
the aquifer, and the waste.
LOCATION AND COUNT
Active Sites
To provide for nationwide consistency in presenting and
analyzing the results of the SIA, we reorganized some of the
data provided by some States to get a uniform categorization
of the sites. We based the reorganization on Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes to sort the data according to the
original SIA instructions or the prevalent interpretation by
the States. This was necessary only where States did not
assign a given industrial group to the proper SIC code and, in
general, States did an adequate job in identifying the correct
classification code.
The relative importance, in terms of numbers, for each category
is shown in Figure 4.1. Thirty-one percent of all sites, and
37% of all impoundments belong to the oil and gas category,
making it the most important, -in terms of numbers, in the data
base. The municipal and agricultural categories come next in
terms of number of located sites. The number of assessed
*A11 numbers and percentages presented in this chapter reflect
the numbers in the data base and represent only an approximation
of the actual numbers of sites and impoundments in the various
categories of data presented.
-------
-35-
LOCATED SITES
Active Active Abandoned Abandoned
Sites Impoundments Sites impoundments
Agricultural
Municipal
Industrial
Mining
Oil & Gas
Other
TOTAL
14,677
19,116
10,819
7,100
24,527
1,500
77,739
19,167
36,179
25,749
24,451
64,951
5,745
176,242
173
630
941
264
463
53
2,524
270
1,006
2,163
587
537
168
4,731
Total Located Sites 80,263
Total Located Impoundments 180,973
Table 4.1
-------
-36-
ASSESSED SITES
Active Active Abandoned Abandoned
Sites Impoundments Si,tes Impoundments
Agricultural
Municipal
Industrial
Mining
Oil & Gas
Other
TOTAL
6,597
10,675
8,193
1,448
3,304
327
30,544
7,133
13,626
10,664
2,045
3,330
327
37,125
49
147
469
104
50 :
23
842
49
152
578
105
54
26
964
Total Assessed Sites 31,386
Total Assessed Impoundments 38,089
Table 4.2
-------
OC
LLJ O
^$$^$$$$$^^^^
I
CO.
•*
0)
D
CO
"J
53
UJ
O
-------
-38-
sites reflects the greater emphasis placed on municipal and
industrial sites, while the mining and oil and gas category
were given less consideration. The study specified this approach
since mining, oil and gas sites, and agricultural sites are
generally located in more remote areas and therefore have a
lower potential for adverse impact on large numbers of people.
Agricultural Category
Included in the agricultural category are all impoundments
associated with farming, crop production and animal husbandry.
Specifically excluded are slaughterhouses and other animal
processing facilities which belong in the industrial category.
The location of the agricultural sites, depicted in Figure 4.2,
shows a high concentration of these sites in the Midwest and*
the central and southeastern United States. Heaviest
concentrations are in Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and Illinois. The States
of Louisiana and Nevada chose not to inventory agricultural
sites.
A breakdown by SIC codes is contained in Table 4.3 and shows
that general livestock and dairy farms comprise the greatest
number of sites, followed by hog farms and cattle feedlots.
Municipal- Category
Three types of facilities make up the municipal category.
1 - All domestic waste treatment facilities regardless of
ownership, including municipal sewage treatment plants
and privately owned facilities located at hotels,
restaurants, mobile homes, parks and subdivisions (SIC
code 4952) .
2 - Impoundments associated with water treatment facilities
(SIC code 4941) .
3 - Impoundments used to collect seepage and run off at
^landfills (SIC code 4953).
The location of the municipal sites is depicted in Figure 4.3,
and shows a higher concentration in the eastern half of the*
nation. The location of these sites is evidently tied to the
population centers. The apparently higher concentration in
Florida is deceptive since septic tank drainfields were included
by this State in the inventory of municipal impoundments.
A breakdown by SIC codes is contained in Table 4.4, and shows
that the majority of sites in this category are the sewage
treatment plants and other domestic waste treatment facilities.
-------
AGRICULTURAL SITES
--•^
Figure 4.2
Note: Louisiana and Nevada did not
inventory agricultural sites
-------
-40-
SIC CODE BREAKDOWN
OF
AGRICULTURAL SITES
SIC
Code
01
0211
0213
021, 0212,
0214, 0291
0241
025
027
029
0921
Type
Facility
Crop Production
Cattle Feedlot
Hogs
Livestock
General
Dairy Farms
Poultry Farms
Other Fur Bearing
Animals
General farms
Fish Hatcheries
Located
Sites
90
1,599
2,528
4,402
4,141
515
215
1,112
18
Located
Impoundments
190
2,974
3,492
5,333
4,732
717
336
1,208
95
Assessed
Sites
81
413
1,062
2,049
2,058
284
132
504
14
Table 4.3
-------
MUNICIPAL SITES
Figure 4.3
-------
-42-
SIC CODE BREAKDOWN
OF
MUNICIPAL SITES
SIC
Code
4941
Type
Facility
Located
Sites
Water Treatment
Plant 768
Sewage Treatment
Plant 17,467
Municipal Sanitary
Landfill 179
Located Assessed
Impoundments Sites
1,307
32,856
446
483
9,740
149
Table 4.4
-------
-43-
The small number of sites in the sanitary landfill category is
probably due to general lack of knowledge about these sites and
may not be a true representation for this type of impoundment.
Industrial Category
The industrial category includes all impoundments used in the
processing, storage or disposal of industrial waste but excludes
impoundments used for raw or processed material storage or in
the manufacturing process. The location of the industrial
sites is depicted in Figure 4.4, and shows a higher concentration
in the eastern part of the nation and along the West Coast.
A breakdown by SIC codes is contained in Table 4.5 and shows
that impoundments are widely used throughout industry. The
most important users of impoundments are the food processing
industry (2,087 sites and 4,960 impoundments) and the chemical
industry (1,414 sites and 4,377 impoundments). Other industries
accounting for more than 1,000 impoundments each are the petroleum
refineries; power plants; paper and allied'products; stone,
clay and glass products; primary metals; and fabricated metals.
Oil and Gas Category
The oil and gas category is comprised strictly of impoundments
associated with oil and gas extraction, commonly known as brine
pits. Two types of brine pits are found in the oil fields—
disposal pits, which most States discourage except where they
do not endanger ground water, and emergency pits, where generally
the brine should not be held for more than 24 to 72 hours.
Because they are used extensively and sometimes on a continuous
basis, emergency pits, normally excluded from the SIA, were
included by most States for this category. Well drilling mud
pits were excluded and refinery wastes are included in the
industrial category.
There are 24,527 oil and gas sites in the data base with a
total of 64,951 impoundments, and 3,302 sites which have been
assessed. A geographic breakdown of the sites is provided in
Figure 4.5. Because of the high concentration of these brine
pits in very localized areas, these sites are most often not
representative of ownership or of single facilities as in the
other categories. In Arkansas each oil field was considered a
site; in the small fields, each impoundment was counted, but
in the larger fields, the total count was extrapolated from
the count in one portion of the field. New York assumed one
impoundment per lease and used well coordinates for the
impoundment location. Pennsylvania assumed one impoundment
per well. In Texas the impoundments were grouped by oil field
or by 5 minute quadrant. Coordinates for the center of the
oil field or of the 5 minute quadrant were used as site
coordinates. In New Mexico, all impoundments within a given
-------
INDUSTRIAL SITES
F,igure 4.4
-------
-45-
INDUSTRIAL SITES
SIC
Code
1389
07
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40-47
491
492
493
496
4953
517
Type Located
Facility Sites
Oil Field Services
Agric. Services
Food 2
Tobacco
Textile Mills
Apparel
Lumber and wood
Furniture & Fixtures
Paper & Allied
Printing & Publishing
Chemical & Allied 1
Petroleum & Allied
Rubber & Misc. Plastics
Leather Products
Stone, Clay & Glass
Products
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery
Electric & Electronic
Transportation Equip.
Instruments
Misc. Manufacturing
Transportation
Power Plants
Gas Production & Dist.
Combination Elec/Gas
Steam Suply
Industrial Refuse Sites
Petroleum Bulk Terminal
554 Service Stations
721
7542
Cleaning Establishments
Car washes
266
93
,087
6
. 258
10
348
23
371
18
,414 ••',.
•671
156
34
698
574
661
174
200
217
47
235
310
543
240
39
17
199
65
50
251
59
Located
Impoundments
764
167
4,960
11
536
13
781
35
1,249
24
4,377
1,884
252
104
1,243
1,380
1,316
294
391
487
92
359
516
1,671
543
81
35
602
141
65
381
72
Assessed
Sites
97
83
1,608
5
210
10
294
20
288
15
1,176
537
129
31
580
444
513
141
177
152
36
120
239
442
63
37
14
162
47
45
130
49
Table 4.5
-------
SHIIS SV3 QKV 110
-------
-47-
36 square mile township range were given the coordinate of the
center of the range, which explains the regular pattern observed
in that State.
Mining Sites
The mining category includes impoundments associated with ore
extraction and on site activities such as washing, crushing
and sorting of ore, as well as treatment of mine wastewater.
It does not include milling and processing wastes which are
included in the industrial category.
The geographic distribution of mining sites is illustrated of
Figure 4.6 and shows a higher concentration of sites in
Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, associated mostly with
coal mining. Some ore mining activity takes place in almost
every State except Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts and Delaware.
The type of mining activities going on in each State is
illustrated in Figure 4.7. Table 4.6 which is a breakdown of
mining sites by SIC code, shows that the majority of sites and
impoundments are associated with bituminous coal and lignite
mining.
As in the oil and gas category, the sites do not necessarily
represent ownership or facilities. For example, in Ohio, the
count includes "strip pits" grouped by 7.5 mn quadrangle with
each quarter of the quadrangle counted as a site.
In Pennsylvania, the State assumed each deep mine permitted
after January 1, 1966 had at least one impoundment located
near the mine portal, and each surface mine permitted after
January 1, 1972 was also assumed to have one impoundment.
This method did not distinguish between active and abandoned
sites.
Abandoned Sites
Most States only recorded data on abandoned sites as they were
found during the inventory of active sites. Some States did
not inventory them at all; therefore, the data on abandoned
sites are not complete and cannot be used to draw any conclusions
on a nationwide basis since there are not enough facilities to
provide a statistically valid data set.
The inventory of abandoned sites is presented in Appendix B.ll.
Abandoned sites account for 6 percent of all located sites in
the data base. A distribution by category is shown in Figure
4.8 and is a reflection of the emphasis placed by the States
on diverse categories rather than a true representation of the
abandoned sites population. Most abandoned sites inventoried
and most of the ones assessed fall in the industrial category.
-------
MINING SITES
Figure 4.6
-------
TYPE OF MINING ACTIVITY
10 = METALS
11 = ANTHRACITE
12 = BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE
14 = NON METALLIC MINERALS
UNDERLINED NUMBERS INDICATE
PREVALENT ACTIVITIES
Figure 4 .7
-------
-50-
SIC CODE BREAKDOWN
FOR
MINING SITES
SIC
Code
Type
Facility
Located Located Assessed
Sites Impoundments Sites
10
11
12
14
Metals 501 1,754
Anthracite 350 459
Bituminous Coal
and Lignite 5,038 19,891
Non-Metallic
Minerals 1,187 2,272
247
7
830
369
Table 4.6
-------
OF ABANDONED POPULATION
601-
50
40
30
20
10
n
DISTRIBUTION OF ABANDONED SITES
BY CATEGORY
AGRICULTURAL
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
MINING
OIL & GAS
j j OTHER
n
LOCATED SITES
LOCATED IMPOUNDMENTS
ASSESSED SITES
-------
-52-
CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPOUNDMENTS
The data collected on the randomly chosen "assessed sites"
consist of two parts, data on the characteristics of the
impoundments (purpose, age, size, construction features) and
the hydrogeologic assessment of the site. The impoundment
characteristics will be discussed here, with the hydrogeologic
assessment discussed in the following chapter.
A distribution of the assessed sites is shown in Figure 4.9.
A majority of the located industrial sites (75 percent) were
assessed, representing 41 percent of the impoundments in this
category. Approximately half of the agricultural and municipal
sites (45 percent and 56 percent respectively) were assessed,
representing 37 percent of the agricultural impoundments and
38 percent of the municipal impoundments.
In contrast only 20 percent of the located mining sites and 13
percent of the located oil and gas sites were assessed. This
represents 8 percent of the mining impoundments and 5 percent
of the oil and gas impoundments, making detailed analysis of
the data in these two categories less meaningful.
Purpose of Impoundments
A summary of the primary purposes of the impoundments is
contained in Table 4.7. In the municipal category, the primary
purpose is treatment. Impoundments associated with water
treatment plants are most often used for settling of sludges.
At sewage treatment plants, the most common uses are settling
of raw and treated sewage, and oxidation and stabilization of
primary and secondary effluent.
Impoundments in the industrial category serve a multitude of
purposes; 52 percent of the impoundments are used for treatment
of the waste: settling, anaerobic or aerobic digestion, pH
adjustment, equalization, polishing, etc. Fifty-five percent
of the impoundments in the agricultural category are used for
waste storage, usually prior to land application. In the
mining category, the primary use is treatment which generally
consists of settling prior to discharge into streams. In the
oil and gas category the primary use (67 percent) is disposal;
29 percent of the oil and gas impoundments in the data base are
storage, (i.e. emergency pits), and 4 percent are used for treatment
prior to discharge, (usually oil skimming).
Size of Impoundments
The size distribution of the impoundments in the various
categories is shown in Table 4.8. In the agricultural category,
most of the impoundments (87 percent) cover less than one acre in
surface area with the largest reported agricultural impoundment
665 acres.
-------
ASSESSED SITES
20 -
10 -
|| SITES
IMPOUNDMENTS
AGR MUN
MNG OAG CATEGORY
Figure 4.9
-------
-54-
PURPOSE OF IMPOUNDMENTS
(By Percent)
Storage
Disposal
Treatment
Agricultural
Municipal
Industrial
Mining
Oil & Gas
55
5
17
18
29
26
31
31
27
67
19
64
52
56
4
Table 4.7
-------
% Sites
-55-
IMPOUNDMENT SIZE
(Acres)
5-<10 10-<100 >100
Agricultural
Municipal
Industrial
Mining-Metals
Mining-Coal
& Lignite
Mining-Other
Non-Metals
Oil & <3as
20
20
29
10
24
5
46
67
37
40
26
60
21
29
10
30
20
22
6
22
23
1
6
5
6
4
11
-------
-56-
In the municipal category, most of the impoundments are less
than five a.cres (87 percent), with a slight predominance of
impoundments in the 0.1 and 1 acre range. The larger municipal
impoundments (largest reported is 850 acres) are usually oxidation
ponds and sludge disposal lagoons.
The picture is similar in the industrial category where 89 percent
of the impoundments are less than five acres. However, some 20
industrial impoundments have been reported which exceed 1,000
acres with the largest impoundment reported covering 5,300
acres. Most of these larger impoundments are located at power
plants (cooling lakes), paper mills and copper refineries.
Because the practices included in the mining category vary
widely in their use of impoundments, this category has been
divided according to the SIC codes. Impoundments associated
with coal mining are generally small; 84 percent are less
than one acre.
They are larger in the other two categories. In the non-metal
mining 52 percent of the impoundments are greater than five acres.
Largest reported sizes are 299 acres in the coal mining category,
1,990 acres in the metals mining and 1,229 acres in the non-metal
mining category.
Finally oil and gas impoundments are usually very small; 46 percent
are less than 0.1 acres and 98 percent are less than five acres. The
largest reported size is 79 acres.
Characteristics of Impoundments - Liners
The data show that 16 percent of agricultural impoundments are lined.
This number increases to 23 percent in the municipal category and
28 percent in the industrial category. For the mining and oil
and gas categories, the percentage of lined impoundments is
17 percent and 10 percent respectively. It should be noted
that for the purpose of the national report, impoundments
which used soil amendments (such as bentonite mixed with native
soil) or compacted soils to reach a low permeability were
considered to be lined. In some instances, States did not
count such as lined. A complete discussion of the liner categories
is provided in Appendix A.
The distribution of lined impoundments varies from State to
State as shown in Figures 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 for the agricultural,
municipal and industrial categories. Some States are consistently
higher than the national average (Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky). While this is indicative
of a generally stronger water protection program, it is in
some cases a result of the hydrogeologic settings or specific
industrial practices in the State. In some States certain
categories are given more emphasis than others. In addition
-------
USE OF LINER IN THE
AGRICULTURAL CATEGORY
100-500 SITES
500-1000 SITES
>1000 SITES
NA - DATA AVAILABLE ON < 10% OF THE SITES
18 - % SITES LINED
0 - <1% LINED
Figure 4.10
-------
USE OF LIHER IN THE
MUNICIPAL CATEGORY
<100
I I 100-500
500-100
>1000
NA - DATA AVAILABLE ON
42 - % SITES LINED
0 -<1% OF SITES LIMED
<10% OF THE SITES
F:gure 4.11
-------
USE OF LINER IN THE
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
<50
50'250
250-500
NA - DATA AVAILABLE ON < 10% OF THE SITES
24 - % SITES LINED
-------
-60-
to the States listed above, 50 percent or more of the industrial
impoundments are lined in Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Alaska.
In Minnesota 50 percent or more of the agricultural impoundments are
lined, and more than 50 percent of municipal impoundments are lined
in Wisconsin. In contrast, less than 10 percent of impoundments are
lined in every category in Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina,
Florida, Mississippi and Montana.
Because a small percentage of impoundments were assessed in the
mining and oil and gas categories, the data in these categories
do not Tend themselves to State by State breakdowns. However,
there was a sufficient amount of data to establish that in the
oil and gas category, only 3 percent of the disposal pits are lined
while 18 percent of the storage, i.e. emergency pits are.
In the municipal category, impoundments located at landfill
sites are lined more often than the other types of impoundments
(30 percent to 21 percent). Figure 4.13 shows that in the
industrial category there is a slight relationship between the
use of liners and the SIC codes (e.g., SIC codes that are
associated with potentially hazardous waste have a slightly
higher percentage of lined impoundments) and more particularly
between the type of liner used and the SIC code. For example,
in SIC code 36—electric and electronic, which includes battery
manufacturing —more than half the liners are synthetic, while
in SIC code 24—lumber and wood products—most liners are
naturally occurring soil materials. There is also a relationship
between the age of the impoundments and the use of liners
(Table 4.9). Generally the younger impoundments are lined
more often than the older ones, reflecting an increased awareness
of the need to protect ground water.
Impoundment Surveillance - Monitoring Wells
When the data on monitoring wells were entered in the computer,
the difference between "unknown" and "no monitoring wells" was
lost and the only hard data now retrievable are the number of
sites with monitoring wells. A total of 1,564 sites are monitored:
725 of these fall in the industrial category and 634 in the
municipal category.
The distribution of known monitoring wells, by State, for the
municipal and industrial categories is shown in Figure 4.14
and 4.15. Monitoring, like lining, is more prevalent in some
States than others. Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas and California
account for 44 percent of the sites known to be monitored in the
industrial category, and Florida and California account for
64 percent of the sites known to be monitored in the municipal
category. In the industrial category monitoring is more prevalent
in certain SIC codes. The distribution of monitoring by SIC
codes is shown in Figure 4.16. These data show that 32 percent of
the industrial refuse sites and 20 percent of the sites in the
-------
o
n
FOOD
TEXTILE
LUMBER &
WOOD
PULP &
PAPER
CHEMICAL
PETROLEUM
REFINERIES
STONE, CLAY
& GLASS
PRIMARY
METALS
FABRICATED
METALS
MACHINERY
ELECTRIC &
ELECTRONICS
TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT
MISC.
MANUFACTURING
ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
IND.
REFUSE
o o f* o 3 x>
r- O CO O m =°
^1 3!?i3
S *s is
" -" =j 5 >
en
o
GO
-------
-62-
COMPARISON OF
INDUSTRIAL IMPOUNDMENTS
Age vs. Liner
AGE
% LINED
1-5
6-10
11 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 30
>30
36
30
23
25
17
18
Table 4.9
-------
MONITORING WELLS
MUNICIPAL CATEGORY
14 = NUMBER OF SITES MONITORED
-------
MONITORING WELLS
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
7 = NUMBER OF SITES MONITORED
Figure 4.15
-------
USE OF MONITORING WELLS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
07 - AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
20 - FOOD INDUSTRY
22 - TEXTILE MILLS
24 - LUMBER & WOOD
26 - PAPER & ALLIED
28 - CHEMICAL & ALLIED
29 - PETROCHEMICAL
30 - RUBBER & MISC. PLASTICS
32 - STONE, CLAY & GLASS
33 - PRIMARY METALS
34 - FABRICATED METALS
35 - MACHINERY
36 - ELECTRIC & ELECTRONIC (BATTERIES)
39 - MISC. MANUFACTURING
491 - POWER PLANTS
4953 - INDUSTRIAL REFUSE
MONITORED
Figure 4.16
-------
-66-
agricultural services category are being monitored; more than
10 percent of the sites are monitored in the Paper and Allied,
Chemical and Allied and Electric and Electronic categories;
and nearly 20 percent of the impoundments located at power'
plants are monitored.
-------
-67-
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF DATA
In this chapter, we will examine the results of the assessment
and attempt to use the data to draw correlations that provide
an insight on the potential impact of surface impoundments on
ground water. Only the categories where the data can ±>.e considered
valid on a nationwide basis will be used; these are data in the
agricultural, municipal, industrial, mining and oil and gas
categories. Excluded are the "abandoned" categories which are
too incomplete, and the "other" category, which some States
used to store data not directly related to the SIA, such as
industrial septic systems and impoundments which were excluded
by definition from the SIA. As in the preceding chapter, the
numbers and percentages reflect the data base and are an
approximation of the actual numbers.
RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT
Step 1, The Unsaturated Zone
Step 1 is intended as a measure of the ability of the unsaturated
zone to impede or retard the downward movement of the waste
contained in the impoundments. The score is based both on the
thickness and lithology of the unsaturated zone.
A summary of the ratings for the unsaturated zone is shown in
Table 5.1. This table shows a fairly even distribution of
sites among the different types of earth materials, except for
the very impermeable materials (k =10~7 cm/sec) where only 7
percent of the sites are located.
The numerical component of Step 1, which ranges from 1 to 9 can
be used to divide the sites in three broad groups representing
varying degrees of contamination potential.
Group I - A score of less than 3 represents sites located in
thick and relatively impermeable unsaturated zones
which would provide good protection to underlying
aquifers.
Group II - A score of 3 to 6 represents sites where moderate
protection to underlying aquifers is provided by a
fairly impermeable or fairly thick unsaturated zone. -
Group III - A score of greater than 6 indicates sites with
a very thin or very permeable unsaturated zone
affording little protection to underlying aquifers.
-------
STEP 1 - RATING OF THE UNSATORATED ZONE
EARTH MATERIAL
Permeability cm/sec
No. (%) Sites
Thickness
(m)
>30
>10 £30
>10 <30
XL <_ 3
>0 £1
Gravel,
Medium to
Coarse Sand
Cavernous or
Fractured
Limestone ,
Evaporites,
Basalt Lava
Fault Zones
>l(r2
6,236 (20)
Score Nb.
9 1,017
9 892
9 1,398
9 1,386
9 1,543
Fine to Very
Fine Sand
Fractured
Igneous and
Metamorphic
(Except Lava)
Sandstone
(Poorly
Cemented)
io-£io-2
5,675 (18)
Score No.
6 843
7 760
8 833
9 1,002
9 2,237
Sand with
<15% clay,
silt
Sandstone
(Moderately
Cemented)
Fractured
Shale
io-5-io-4
6,623(21)
Score No.
4 775
5 1,053
6 2,039
7 1,864
9 892
Sand with
>15% but
<50% clay
« •£
Sandstone
(Hell
Cemented)
>10-5
4,720 (15)
Score No .
2 544
3 959
4 2,118
5 778
9 321
Clay with
<50% Sand
Siltstone
>10~6
6,148 (19)
Score No.
0 693
1 1,635
2 2,239
3 1,319
9 262
Clay
Unfractured
Shale,
Igneous and
Metamorphic
Rocks
>10~7
2,093 (7)
Score No.
0 384
0 422
0 648
1 385
9 254
Table 5.1
-------
-69-
An analysis of Figure 5.1 shows that nearly 50 percent of the
sites fall in Group III. This percentage is highest in the
municipal and industrial categories where 56 percent and 50
percent of sites respectively are located in areas where they
threaten underlying aquifers. Thirty percent of the sites
fall in Group II. The percentage of agricultural sites found
in this group is significantly higher (43 percent) than for
sites in the other categories.
Finally, 22 percent of all sites are located in areas where the
unsaturated zones afford good protection to underlying aquifers.
This percentage is highest in the oil and gas category (47 percent)
and lowest in the municipal category (16 percent).
Step 2, The Saturated Zone
The Step 2 score is based on the saturated thickness and lithology,
or the permeability of the saturated zone, and is a measure of
the transmissivity of the aquifer. Table 5.2 shows that a
majority of the sites (55 percent) are located over highly permeable
aquifers, with only ten percent located over fairly impermeable
formations (k >10~° cm/sec). Using the. same rationale as in Step
1, the sites can be divided in three groups:
Group I - A score of less than 3 indicates aquifers with
very low transmissivity where contaminants
would move slowly.
Group IT - Sites where Step 2=3 are located over thin or
moderately permeable aquifers.
Group III - A step 2 score greater than 3 indicates sites
located in ares where thick and very permeable
aquifers would allow a widely dispersed
contaminant plume.
An analysis of Figure 5.2 shows that the data are definitely
skewed towards Group III. Seventy-one percent of all sites
fall in this group. The industrial category has the greatest
percentage (78 percent), while the mining category has the lowest
(47 percent).
Approximately 20 percent of all sites fall in Group II, with
the mining category leading the ranks in this group (32 percent).
Only 11 percent of all sites fall in Group I. Mining and oil
and gas sites appear more frequently in this group (21 percent and
18 percent respectively) than the other categories.
-------
3D
O
C
•o
CJI
O
CO
a
CO
o
H-
OQ
l-i
ft>
CO
25
m
a
^^^$^^^
C/3
I
I
00
O
Qo
-------
-71-
STEP 2 - RATING OF THE SATURATED ZONE
Gravel or
sand
Sand with
>50% clay
Clay with
>50% sand
EARTH MATERIAL
Cavernous or
Fractured Rock,
Poorly Cemented
Sandstone,
Fault Zones
Moderately
Well Cemented
Sandstone,
Fractured
Shale
Siltstone,
Unfractured
Shale and
other
Impervious
Rock
Permeability
(cm/sec)
1-4
<10
~6
NO.
(%) Sites
Thickness (m)
>30
3-30
<3
17,
298
Score
6
5
3
9,
6,
1,
(55)
No.
653
535
110
11,
069
Score
4
3
1
6,
4,
(35)
No.
235
408
426
3,
087
Score
2
1
0
1
1
(10
No.
,402
,261
424
)
Table 5.2
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE* SATURATED ZONE
% OF SITES
80
70
60
40
30
20
10
1
ST
•• ui
ill
GROUP 1
EP 2 < 3
GROUP II
STEP 2=3
GROUP III
STEP 2 >
- STEP 2 SCORE
F i
-------
-73-
Step 3, Ground Water Quality
Step 3 is a rating of Ground Water Quality based on current
usage and total dissolved solids (TDS). Table 5.3 shows that
almost 87 percent of the sites are located over aquifers currently
used as a source of drinking water, while less than 2 percent are
located in areas where there is no ground water or where it is
extremely saline (>10,000 mg/1 TDS). These proportions are
constant throughout the different categories, as shown in Table
5.4, with the mining and oil and gas sites having a slightly
lower percentage of sites located on drinking water aquifers
(80 percent) and the industrial category having the highest
percentage (89 percent).
The Hydrogeologic Setting
Another way to look at the data provided in the first three
steps of the assessment is to combine the scores to obtain a
general picture of the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
sites assessed. Two groups clearly emerge: sites with a low
potential to contaminate an aquifer (Group I) and sites with a
high potential to contaminate ground water (Group III).
Between these two extremes are .all other sites (Group II).
Group I - Low Endangerment Potential.
This group is comprised of sites which fall in
Group,! for Steps I and II (i.e. are located in
areas where the unsaturated zone is very thick
or very impermeable and the aquifer has low
transmissivity) and where the ground water is
not currently used and of poor quality (>J3,000
mg/1 TDS) or where there is no ground water.
Group II - Moderate Endangerment Potential
This group contains sites where a good aquifer
is protected by a thick unsaturated zone, or
sites where the ground water is not currently
used but is of good quality: in other words,
sites where potential endangerment is moderate,
since seepage is somewhat mitigated by natural
conditions.
Group III - High Endangerment Potential
This group is comprised of sites which fall
in Group III for Step I and II (i.e. located
in areas where highly transmissive aquifers
are poorly protected by thin or very permeable
' unsaturated zones) and where the ground water
is currently used or of high quality 1,000
mg/1 TDS).
-------
-74-
RATING OF THE GROUND WATER QUALITY
Ground Water Quality
TDS mg/1
No. of Sites (%)
Located Over Aquifers
Used As a Supply
<500 or current drinking water
>500 - £1,000
>1,000 - £30,000
>3,000 - £10,000
>10,000
No ground water
37,464 (86.7)
1,629 ( 5.1)
1,347 ( 4.2)
629 ( 2.0)
289 ( 0.9)
276 ( 0.9)
Table 5.3
-------
-75-
GROUND WATER QUALITY RATINGS
by CATEGORY
Ground Water Quality
(TDS mg/1)
£500 or
water
>500 -
>1,000
>3,000
>10,000
No grou
drinking
source
<1,000
- £3,000
- £10,000
.nd water pres
AGR
%Sites
88
3
2
4
0
ent 1
;1
.6
.2
.0
.8
.6
MUN
%Sites
88
4
4
1
1
0
.4
.4
.2
.9
.1
.5
IND
%Sites
88
5
3
1
1
0
.7
.8
.0
.2
.2
.7
MNG
%Sites
80
7.
8.
2.
0.
1.
9
5
4
5
7
OAG
%Sites
80
7
10
0
0
1
.1
.5
.3
.6
.1
.1
Table 5.4
-------
-76-
Figure 5.3 is a graph of the data grouped in this manner and
shows that the majority of sites fall in Group II. Very few
sites, 7 percent in all, can be discounted as presenting no
threat to ground-water users based on their hydrogeologic
characteristics. This proportion is slightly higher in the
mining category (11 percent).
In the municipal and industrial categories, 41 percent and 39
percent of the sites respectively are in Group III, i.e. they
have a higher potential to contaminate ground water, -while
only 8 percent or the oil and gas sites fall in that group.
Step 4, Waste Hazard Potential
In Step 4, the waste contained in the impoundments is assessed
to determine its "hazard potential" and given a score of 1 to
9. Table 5.5 shows the results of step 4 in all but the oil
and gas category where the uniform nature of the waste—brine—
resulted in a score of 7 in 87 percent of the assessments.
The guidance for the SIA suggested a scoring range in the
agricultural category of 1 - 2 for crops and 2-5 for livestock.
Table 5.5 shows that the score is heavily skewed towards the
upper end of the range, probably because in most instances,
livestock operations are more frequently associated with
impoundments. Pits used to dispose of pesticides or herbicides,
and impoundments, such as dipping vats, account for the sites
which scored higher than five in this category.
In the municipal category, the suggested range for rating the
waste hazard was 2 to 5 and the scores are fairly evenly
distributed within that range. The sites scoring higher than 5
are probably associated with facilities where there is a heavy
contribution of industrial waste.
Scores in the industrial category are fairly evenly distributed
between 2 and 9, while in the mining category, most sites fall
within the range of 2 to 7, with the emphasis towards the upper
end of the scale.
Figure 5.4 shows that overall
which, while they can degrade
low end of the rating (score
may be considered hazardous (
sites are predominant in the
The reason that mining wastes
because of their toxicity but
involved. Since volume was a
rating, mining sites received
, 25 percent of the sites contain wastes
water quality, appeared at the
<4), while 15 percent contain waste which
score >7). Mining and industrial
potentially hazardous category.
rank so high is not so much
because of the high volumes
consideration in the waste hazard
a high score.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF ASSESSED SITES
OF SITES
80
GO
40
20
I
ALL
AGRICULTURAL
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
MINING
OIL & GAS
I
n
GROUP I
GROUP II
GROUP III
Figure 5.3
-------
-78-
WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL RATING
Score
AGR
MNN
IND
MNG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
97
301
2,333
3,625
15
28
10
91
24
1,236
2,997
2,278
3,035
809
163
230
38
19
913
1,251
993
935
1,277
927
1,141
767
3
210
51
55
112
348
659
8
11
Table 5.5
-------
% OF SITES
100
80
60
40
20
LOW
STEP 4 = 1-3
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
MEDIUM
STEP 4 = 4-6
\»l A
HIGH
STEP 4 = 7-9
WASTE HAZARD
POTENTIAL
Figure 5.4
-------
-80-
The waste rating was based either on the SIC code of the facility
or the nature of the waste. .In the agricultural, municipal,
mining and oil and gas categories, the nature of the waste is
almost always clearly related to the SIC code and little variation
except for degree of treatment can be expected within each SIC
code.
Within the industrial category, there is greater variation in
the waste streams for industrial sites, and the scores may
misrepresent the true hazard potential when SIC codes are used
to determine the rating. However, in 44 percent of the cases, the
assessments are based on the waste identification, not the SIC
code, and thus any potential for misrepresentation is somewhat
mitigated.
Figure 5.5 shows how the various SIC codes differ in degree of
hazard. In the chemical and petroleum refining categories, as
well as fabricated metals manufacturers and industrial refuse
sites, more than 60 percent of the sites contain potentially
hazardous waste. At the other end of the spectrum are the
food processors and stone, clay, glass and concrete products
industry, where less than 10 percent of the waste is hazardous.
Step 5
The step 5 score is the sum of the scores obtained in steps 1,
2, 3 and 4. Figure 5.6 shows the range, mean and mode of step
5 for each category. The step 5 score is most meaningful at
each end of the range. If a site ranks lower than 14, it is
probably not posing a threat to ground water, while a site
that ranks higher than 26 must contain potentially hazardous
waste and be located above a vulnerable aquifer. Between
these two extremes, the scores can•represent a variety of
conditions and they should not be considered alone. For
example, a score of 23 can represent an impoundment located on
a very vulnerable aquifer but containing fairly innocuous
waste (Step 1 = 9.' Step 2 = 6_, Step 3 = 6_, Step 4 = j2) or an
impoundment containing potentially hazardous waste (Step 4 =
7) located on a good aquifer (Step 2=6, Step 3=5) protected
by less than 3 meters of clayey sand (Step 1 = 5D). For this
reason, the step 5 score is most meaningful when the individual
steps are considered in evaluating the total score.
Step 6, Potential Endangerment to Human Health
Step 6 looks at the potential for a site to endanger human
health by assessing its proximity, and therefore its potential
impact, on a water supply.
By using 7.5" topographic maps or other available information,
a determination was made of:
-------
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
SITE WITH HIGH WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
20 - FOOD INDUSTRY
22 - TEXTILE MILLS
24 - LUMBER & WOOD
26 - PAPER & ALLIED
28 - CHEMICAL & ALLIED
29 - RUBBER & MISC PLASTICS
32 - STONE, CLAY, GLASS
33 - PRIMARY METALS
34 - FABRICATED METALS
35 - MACHINERY
36 - ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS
37 - TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
39 - MISC MANUFACTURING
491 - POWER PLANTS
4953 - INDUSTRIAL REFUSE
SITES WHERE STEP 4 > 6
Figure 5.5
-------
STEP 5 SCORE
CATEGORY MEAN
AGRICULTURAL
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
MINING
OIL & GAS
19.2
19.6
20.2
19.4
19.1
RANGE
1 5 10 15 20 25 29
i i i i I i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i
MODE
Figure 5.6
-------
-83-
(1) the anticipated flow direction of seepage from the
site
(2) whether a potential plume of contamination would first
intersect a water well supply or a surface water
supply, and the distance of this water supply from
the site.
Where no hard data were available, the States were to assume that
any stream other than intermittent was a potential water supply
and that any well shown on the topographic maps was a drinking
water well. Furthermore, in rural areas any house was assumed
to use a water well.
Table 5.6 shows that 26 percent of all sites assessed would have a
potential impact, primarily on ground-water supplies, while in
the majority of cases (60 percent), the impact of any seepage would
affect primarily a surface water supply via ground-water
discharge into that surface water.
These percentages are fairly constant in each category, as
illustrated in Table 5.7, with the proportion of surface water
supply to ground-water supply slightly higher in the mining
and oil and gas category, and lowest in the industrial category.
These proportions vary from State to State as illustrated in
Figure 5.7 which shows areas of the country where surface
water supply would be the primary affected entity (>60 percent
of the site potentially affect a surface water supplier) and
those areas in which ground water supplies would be the primary
affected entity (>60 percent of the sites potentially affect a
ground water supply).
As discussed above, sites in the "Group III" hydrogeologic
setting are the ones most likely to contaminate ground water.
Table 5.8 shows that 31 percent of these sites are likely to
impact primarily a ground-water supply while 57 percent are
likely to impact a surface water supply. The proportion in
each category is similar to those of the population as a whole,
except in the municipal and industrial categories where the
ratio of ground water supply to surface water supply is slightly
higher for the "Group III" sites.
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
The Use of Liners
The determining factors in whether or not a site is lined
should be the nature of the unsaturated zone (Step 1) and/or
the nature of the waste (Step 4). This last factor is
particularly important in the industrial category.
-------
-84-
RATING OF THE ENDANGERMENT TO
POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLIES
Distance from
potentially
affected water
supply (m).
# Sites
with Water
well down
dip
# Sites
with Surface
water down
dip
# Sites
with well
water up
dip
# Sites
with no
nearby
water
source
<200
200 - 400
400 - 800
800 - 1,600
TOTAL
3,508
1,956
1,572
1,070
10,529
4,750
2,186
1,416
8,106 26% 18,881 60%
717
421
695
539
2,372 8%
1,942 6%
Table 5.6
-------
-85-
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POTENTIAL ENDANGERMENT
TO WATER SUPPLIES (ALL SITES)
% Sites
AGR MUN IND MNG OAG
A. Potentially
affecting a
water well
B. Potentially
affecting a
Surface water
C. No water
source down
dip
D. No water
source within
1 mile
28 27 29 17
61 58 56 64
10
17
68
11 10
Table 5.7
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE POTENTIAL EMDANGERMENT TO
WATER SUPPLIES
Fiyure 5.7
>60% OF SITES
POTENTIALLY AFFECT
GROUND WATER
1 l>60% OF SITES
POTENTIALLY AFFECT
SURFACE WATER
>60% of Sites
potentially
affect surface
and ground
water
-------
-87-
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POTENTIAL ENDANGERMENT
TO WATER SUPPLIES
(SITES IN "GROUP III" HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING)
Category % Sites
AGR MUN IND MNG OAG ALL
A. Potentially
affecting
a water well
B. Potentially
affecting
a surface water *
C. No1water
source
down dip
D. No water
source
within one mile
29
61
32
55
10
33
57
23
63
16 31
64 57
12
*Although surface water is the primary supply that may be affected
in B, ground water between the waste source and surface water supply
would also be adversely affected.
Table 5.8
-------
_Q Q_
o o
An attempt to establish a correlation between liners and Step 1
rating is shown in Figure 5.8. The figure indicates that no
correlation exists.
Approximately 30 percent of the industrial sites, 22 percent of
the municipal sites and 16 percent of the agricultural sites are
lined, regardless of the nature of the unsaturated zone.
Furthermore, the type of liner does not seem to be influenced
by the siting. Clay and compacted soil liners are as prevalent
in sand and gravel areas as in the tighter formations.
Similarly, Figure 5.9 shows very little correlation between the
presence of a liner and the hazard potential estimated for the
waste. In the mining, industrial and municipal categories, the
hazard potentials of the waste cover a broad range and should
have some influence over frequency of liner use. Only in the
municipal category is there a significant difference between
the percentage of sites lined when the waste rating is >7
(22 percent) or >7 (35 percent lined). The types of liner used
do not vary however, and clay or compacted soil from the majority
of liners.
The industrial category shows a slight increase in the use of
artificial liners in impoundments containing wastes with a
higher hazard potential, but little difference in the percentage
of impoundments lined.
Finally, a comparison of lined and unlined sites in the different
hydrogeologic groups shown in Figure 5.10, illustrates that
there is no correlation between the natural setting and the use of
liners.
Use of Monitoring Wells
The limited amount of data available on monitoring wells and
the problems with the validity of the data explained in Chapter
IV, make it difficult to derive any correlations. However,
none could be found between the hydrogeology of the sites and
the use of monitoring wells. In other words, the sensitivity
of the aquifer to contamination appears to have little to do
with whether it is monitored.
-------
USE OF LINERS VS. CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE UNSATURATED ZONE
ARTIFICIAL
MEMBRANES
CONCRETE
ASPHALT METAL
COMPACT SOIL,
CLAY
LINED
INDUSTRIAL
30
20
10
III
MUNICIPAL
AGRICULTURAL
GROUP I = STEP 1 < 3
GROUP II = STEP 1 = 3~.fi
GROUP III = STEP 1 > S
STEP I GROUP
III
Figure 5.8
-------
% OF SITES
LINED
40
30
20
10
MUN
USE OF LINERS VS. WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
IND
MNG
ARTIFICIAL
MEMBRANES
CONCRETE
ASPHALT METAL
COMPACT SOIL,
CLAY
LOW STEP 4 < 4
MEDIUM STEP 4 = 4-6
HIGH STEP 4 >6
LOW
MED HIGH
LOW MED HIGH
LOW
MED
HIGH
STEP 4 SCORE
-------
USE OF LINERS VS. HYDROGEOLOGY
% LINED
30
20
10
AGR
MUN
^^n
;v
IND
m
MNG
I
OAG
ARTIFICIAL
MEMBRANES
CONCRETE
ASPHALT METAL
Spjfj COMPACT SOIL,
Siiiiij CLAY
I II III I II III I II III I II III I II
HYDROGEOLOGIC
GROUP
t'iyure 5.10
-------
-92-
CHAPTER VI
CASE STUDIES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents summary information on incidences of
ground water contamination from surface impoundments. The
data on which this summary is based were provided by the
States as part of their final SIA Report. The nature of the
information provided showed considerable disparity in both
quality and detail, since the level of investigation performed
by the States in gathering the data varied. However, in
nearly all instances. States were careful to include only
documented case studies that could clearly be attributed to
surface impoundments. In the few instances where this was
not the case, they carefully indicated the situation.
The data here are illustrative rather than comprehensive.
Indeed, the case studies cited by the States are merely
representative and in most cases include only a small number
of the known cases of ground water contamination from surface
impoundments, and do not consider contamination from other
sources.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED
A total of 416 case studies were discussed in some detail in
the State Reports. Several states reported an additional 143
cases but these are' not included in the analysis that follows
since they did not contain sufficient information. Within
the data base, there are an additional 115 sites that have
not been developed as case studies, since sufficient detail is
not available to characterize them. However, the information
is discussed briefly at the end of the chapter. Seven States
provided no case studies at all. Figure 6.1 shows the geographic
distribution of the 416 sites as reported by the States.
In general, States included information on four major areas:
cause of contamination, method of detection, affected supplies
and remedial action taken. These topics are discussed in the
sections that follow.
Figure 6.2 provides a breakdown of the sites by category,
with the industrial category further delineated by SIC codes.
Over^O percent of the sites fall into the industrial category and
within this, over 30 percent are in "Chemical and Allied Products."
This trend may not necessarily reflect poor design and siting
-------
LOCATION OF CASE STUDIES
6 = No. of contamination cases
ND = No Data
'ADDITIONAL SUSPECTED SITES
CASES OF KNOWN WELL CONTAMINATION
Figure 6.1
-------
SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES
BY CATEGORY
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
20 FOOD
22 TEXTILE MILLS
24 LUMBER & WOOD
26 PAPER & ALLIED PRO.
28 CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRO.
29 PETROLEUM & ALLIED PRO.
30 RUBBER & PLASTICS
32 STONE, CLAY, GLASS
33 PRIMARY METALS
34 FABRICATED METALS
35 MACHINERY
36 ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.
40-47 TRANSPORTATION
491 POWER PLANTS
4953 COMMERCIAL REFUSE
OIL & GAS
MINING
AGRICULTURAL
40
60
NO. OF SITES
80
100
120
Fiyure 6.2
-------
-95-
Dn the part of the industrial sector; rather it may result
from the fact that State programs tend to focus on industrial
facilities. Of the remaining sites, just over 17 percent of
the case studies are in the municipal category, 10 percent
are in mining, 7 percent in oil and gas and just under 4
percent are in the agricultural category.
ASSESSMENTS OF CASE STUDIES
Of the 416 case studies reported, 208 were assessed using the
SIA rating scheme. A comparison of their Step 5 (ground-
water contamination potential, see Figure 6.3) score shows
that the average score for case studies was 24.4, while the
average score for the entire industrial sector was 20.2. In
ranking sites for further study/ a Step 5 score of 22 was
considered to indicate a high potential for contamination.
In view of the scores for the case studies evaluated, it
would appear that the case studies indicate that the rating
system does discriminate potentially dangerous sites from
relatively safer sites, but the system may not be sensitive
enough to provide more detailed analysis.
While this is to some extent true, there are some important
limitations in such an assumption. In many instances, the
investigations which led to these sites being identified as
case studies were prompted by the SIA score itself. Thus, it
is possible that the investigation and discovery of contamination
in cases was not random and it favored sites with high scores.
Second, the variation in enforcement procedures and efficacy
found from State to State was frequently accompanied by
concommitant variations in the conduct of the SIA. Necessarily,
the rating system allows some subjectivity in site evaluations.
As a result, a State that conducted an aggressive inventory
and assessment program frequently assigned relatively higher
scores and at the same time identified more case studies than
other States. This could have the effect of tipping the
results in favor of higher scores for case study sites.
Nevertheless, the average Step 5 score for case studies
evaluated is sufficiently greater than the same score for the
system as a whole that it is supportive of the rating system.
CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION
Information provided in the State reports pointed to four
primary causes of contamination. Table 6.1 outlines the
frequency with which a particular cause was cited as contributing
to contamination.
Of course, defining the cause of contamination is a complex
task that often involves extensive investigations conducted
over a long time throughout large areas. In some cases, the
-------
NO. OF CASE STUDIES
H-
02
C
i
en
ALC INDUSTRIAL SITES
-------
-97-
CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION
Cause
Seepage
Dike Failure/Overflow
Liner Failure
Catastrophic Collapse
Other
Frequency
(Percent)
78.7
10.1
7.6
1.6
2.0
Table 6.1
-------
-98-
State reports reflected investigations of this depth; in
others, either the level of detail provided or the depth of
the initial study was not as comprehensive. Furthermore,
just 277 of the 416 sites had data on causes of contamination.
Thus, this table is valid for a general overview of causes
contributing to ground water contamination but should not be
viewed as definitive.
Seepage, as used in this table, refers to the direct
percolation of liquids to the water table from the impoundment
itself. Overflow and liner failure, which also involve
seepage, are viewed separately for the purpose of this analysis
Catastrophic collapse refers here to situations where the
contents contributed to enlarging solution channels or to
furthering sink hole development.
A variety of causes that did not fit a particular category
have been termed "other." This category included sites in
which the contents were in direct contact with ground water
(and thus did not involve seepage) , sites which were located
over boreholes which acted as a conduit for contaminants, and
other miscellaneous causes.
Of particular significanc in Table 6.1 is the incidence of
liner failure. The total number of case study sites which
are lined is not known, but just under 8 percent of the case
studies involved liners. Leaks due to loss of liner integrity
was the primary cause of liner failure, other problems
included improper installation (allowing seepage through the
dikes or liner seams) displacement of membrane liners
(presumably due to hydrostatic pressure), and inadequate
design standards for clay liners which allowed seepage of
contents through the liner (despite apparent liner integrity).
This clearly indicates the need for careful design, inspection,
and other quality control measures when relying on liners.
METHOD OF DETECTION
The reported means of detecting contamination reveal a pattern
of inadequate monitoring and surveillance. Figure 6.4
illustrates the means which led to discovery of ground water
contamination. Just under 45 percent of the cases were not
discovered until they had adversely affected water quality in
supply wells and often more than one well was affected from a
single instance. One case caused more than 50 domestic wells
to be closed. Twelve percent of the cases either caused injury
to crops, wildlife, or livestock, or contaminated surface
water.
Although about 30 percent of the cases were detected by
monitoring wells, many were not monitored until percolation
was suspected. Moreover, less than 16 percent of the sites in
-------
METHODS OF DETECTION
a.
a.
DETECTED IN
DOMESTIC WELLS
DETECTED IN
ON-SITE WELLS
DETECTED IN
MUNICIPAL WELLS
DETECTED IN
IRRIGATION WELLS
<>
DETECTED IN
MONITORING WELLS
DETECTED IN
SURFACE WATER OR
OTHER VISUAL DETECTION
INJURY TO CROPS,
LIVESTOCK, OR
WILDLIFE
PERMIT REVIEW OR
APPLICATION
ESTIMATE OF
MASS BALANCE!
WATER BUDGET
OTHER
Figure 6.4
-------
-100-
the data base as a whole are known to be monitored, and the
efficacy of many monitoring programs (particularly those located
in aquifers composed of crystalline or soluble rock) is open
to question. Nevertheless, these figures indicate site monitoring
is effective in identifying pollution at an early stage.
Review of existing permits and new applications together with
rough estimates of water budgets based on available data were
used as a method of detection in just 4.6 percent of the cases.
Thus, contamination from unmonitored sites was identified bv
active intervention by authorities preceding obvious damage
in less than 5 percent of the cases.
REMEDIAL ACTION
The following options were used most frequently in sites which
practiced remedial action:
Closing the impoundment or the facility
Monitoring the problem with further actions studied
Improved design or engineering (such as lining or
relining) y
Containing or intercepting the plume
0 Treating or replacing ground water
0 Pretreating the waste
0 Reuse/Recycle
Only about one third of the 416 case studies contained data on
remedial action. The remaining sites either have done nothing
or have no data. Operators seldom used only one measure for
remedial action, but more often used a combination of actions
such as closure, counter pumping, and replacement of the affected
water supply Table 6.2 illustrates the frequency with which
the given methods were used.
Closure, which was employed at 28 percent of the sites, for the
purposes of this study includes a variety of measures ranging
from simple abandonment to detailed engineering plans that
incorporate waste removal and treatment, filling, gradina
capping, seeding and fencing. y^umg,
Of the 17 percent of the sites that lined or relined
f- °^fy W3S USSd m°St fre<3uently> followed by membrane
f;?all£ asPhalt °r cement liners. in some instances,
attempted to seal the impoundment while full
-------
-101-
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION
EMPLOYED AT CASE STUDY SITES
Remedial Action
Closure*
Line or Reline Impoundment(s)
Interceptor Wells, Counter Pumping
Well Points, Slurry Trench etc.
Treat or Replace Affected Supply
Monitor and/or Ongoing Study
Treat or Pretreat Waste
Construct New impoundments
Litigation
Recycle/Reuse
Frequency of Use (%)
28%
17%
15%
13%
9%
8%
6%
2%
2%
100%**
*Refers to closure of impoundment(s), not necessarily company
or facility.
**Only one third of the sites contained information on remedial
action.
Table 6.2
-------
•102-
using bentonite or other fine-grained admixtures; however,
the majority of the sites had to interrupt operations and
install the liners using conventional measures.
A surprisingly large percentage, 15 percent of the sites,
used some means of intercepting or containing the plume.
These can be viewed essentially as active or passive management
approaches. Counter pumping, interceptor wells, barrier
wells etc., represent active measures that require significant
expenditures for operating and maintenance. Passive approaches
include cutoff walls, french drains and intercept trenches
that rely primarily on gravity and that may involve significant
initial capital expenditures, but usually do not require
extensive costs for operating and maintenance. with both
systems, some provision is necessary for treating or disposing
of the affected ground water.
Treating or replacing the affected water supply was used by
13 percent of the sites. Treatment included Granulated Activated
Carbon (GAC), chlorination, and other techniques and alternative
water supplies included deeper wells, increased pumping from
remaining wells in municipal systems, and connection to city
supplies for affected domestic supply wells.
In 9 percent of the cases, although remedial action was either
planned or required, no specific course of action was possible
without further study and increased monitoring. The reason
for this was frequently the possibility of litigation, or the
presence of complex hydrogeologic conditions that precluded
obvious assessments of damage and simple remedial solutions.
Waste treatment or pretreatment, used in 8 percent of the
remedial actions, consisted of lime treatment, activated
carbon and granulated activated carbon, reverse osmosis, ion
exchange and other treatment methods. Closely related to
treatment/pretreatment were alterations in -the manufacturing
process designed to reuse what had been waste and/or to
recover and market waste products (used for upgrading at 2
percent of the sites).
Of the remaining 8 percent, 6 percent constructed new, usually
lined, impoundments and closed existing impoundments; 2% were
in some stage of litigation. The later figure may be somewhat
misleading, however, since two-thirds of the case studies
contained no data on remedial action and these sites may be
involved in some form of litigation.
OTHER INSTANCES OF CONTAMINATION
As part of the assessment, States identified 183 instances
where monitoring wells showed evidence of contamination.
There is some overlap of the data presented here and the
information extracted from the case studies provided in the
-------
-103-
State reports which formed the basis for the analyses presented
earlier in this chapter. Specifically, 68 listings, or just
over 37 percent of these sites, were included in the preceding
analyses.
Figure 6.5 presents the range, mean, and mode of the overall
contamination scores (Step 5) for these sites by category.
Industrial sites, which comprised 65 percent of this subset of data,
had the highest mean score (24) while agricultural sites,
comprising 7 percent of the data subset, had the lowest (18.4).
Since these sites represent actual cases of contamination, it
appears that the rating scheme emphasizes more the potential
for adverse health effects than simply loss of ground water
as a resource due to contamination. While this is valid for
rating the hazard strictly from a health perspective, it
tends to minimize the energy, economic, and resource impacts
of damage to water supplies. The result may be that ratings
which constitute a high potential for contaminating water
supplies may not be consistent across categories. The primary
problem appears to be the waste hazard rating.
-------
MODE, MEAN AND RANGE:
STEP 5 SCORES OF CONTAMINATION CASES
CATEGORY
AGRICULTURAL 7%
MUNICIPAL 18%
INDUSTRIAL 65%
MINING 3%
OIL & GAS 7%
ALL SITES 100%
RANGE
, 12 , ',* , 1,6 , ',' , 2,° , ? , 2< . » , 2,8 ,
I S-1M- 1 A
1 * = 22'5 t A
x = 24
If = 21.4
7 = 22.8
If = 23.3
STEP 5 SCORE
Figure "6 . 5
-------
-105-
CHAPTER VII
STATE FINDINGS
States presented conclusions and recommendations in addition
to the data on active and abandoned surface impoundments. In
some cases the conclusions and recommendations address a wide
range of issues related to "ground water quality and are not
directly related to the findings of the SIA. The conclusions
and recommendations presented in this chapter represent the
views (written in 1979-80) of the individuals responsible for.
conducting the SIA and not necessarily the policy of the
State. ,
The State-identified issues generally predate the passage and
implementation of Federal, initiatives such as RCRA, Superfund
and the UIC program. Since these programs have been initiated,
the most threatening segment of impoundments (those containing
designated hazardous wastes) are beginning to be addressed.
Moreover, as mentioned in Chapter 3, State programs were
changing at the time the SIA was conducted, and today the
problems related to ground water contamination are more widely
recognized.
In this chapter, the major and often-recurring conclusions
and recommendations are summarized. Not all States addressed
all issues and in some cases the responses were indirect.
Thus, some interpretation was necessary. Nevertheless this
report attempts to reflect State positions accurately.
Ground Water Contamination From Surface Impoundments
Ground water contamination has occurred from surface impoundments
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
44 93 7.
There is a high potential for ground water contamination from
surface impoundments.
% Disagreeing
7
# of States Addressing Issue , ,% in Agreement
43 93
Surface impoundments are often poorly sited.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
39 -90 , . 10
-------
-106-
Design and construction practices are inadequate.
f of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
30 90 10
Operation, maintenance and monitoring practices are inadequate.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
33 89 11
The vast majority of States indicated that surface impoundments
have already polluted ground water, and that the potential for
further contamination is high. in those States indicating
that contamination had not occurred or that the potential for
contamination was not high, none practiced extensive monitoring
of impoundments.
The problems identified by the States covered every phase—
from site selection, to monitoring. Again, the majority of
States indicated that current practices were not adequate,
while a small percentage stated that impoundment practices
were, in general, sound, although most of the latter acknowledge
individual abuses.
Effectiveness of State Laws and Regulations
Legislative authority is adequate.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement
36 81
Rules and Regulations are adequate.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement
40 35
Monitoring and Enforcement are adequate.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement
40 28
% Disagreeing
19
% Disagreeing
65
% Disagreeing
72
Programs suffer from jurisdictional fragmentation and/or
inadequate resources.
# of States Addressing Issue
30
% in Agreement
70
% Disagreeing
30
-------
-107-
The majority of the States believed that existing legislation
was sufficiently comprehensive to establish effective programs.
However, most of the,States indicated that lack of adequate
funds and a patchwork organization severely limited the
effectiveness of existing programs. They cited other problems
such as a bias towards surface water quality in regulations
and a lack of inspection capabilities.
In those States citing jurisdictional fragmentation as a
problem, the most common complaints were that agencies
frequently competed for resources, that voids and duplication
were often present in regulatory programs, and that communication
between agencies was sparce when it occurred at all.
i
Impoundments in the agricultural and oil and gas category
were the least regulated facilities.
Effectiveness of Federal Programs
Federal funding is necessary to existing programs and necessary
for any improvements in programs.
# of States Addressing Issue
26
% in Agreement
96
% Disagreeing
4
Federal legislation is fragmented and/or does not adequately
address groundwater contamination.
t of States Addressing Issue
23
in Agreement
70
% Disagreeing
30
State criticism of federal programs reflected many of the
same issues as their evaluation of their own programs. They
cited fragmentation, strong bias towards surface water quality,
and the presence of voids in certain types of impoundments
(non-hazardous) as major problems. They also cited the
inflexible approach of the Federal programs and described the
administrative requirements as burdensome. Several States
indicated that excessive reporting and public participation
requirements were counter productive, often siphoning off
resources that could be applied to ground water protection.
Some also believed that the relative inflexibility of many of
the Federal programs did not enable the States adequately to
address problems that were unique to their own circumstance,
problems that emanated from specific localized hydrogeologic
conditions, for example.
The most frequently mentioned programs in their critique of
the Federal role were those funded under RCRA, the Clean
Water Act (especially the 208 program) and the Safe Drinking
-------
-108-
Water Act. While they were critical of the Federal role,
most did not favor additional Federal legislation, and nearly
all the States indicated that programs could not be run
without Federal funds.
Recommendations Regarding State Programs
New programs should be developed or existing programs improved.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
40 70 30
Site Selection Criteria or standards should be developed for
surface impoundments.
# of States Addressing Issue
31
% in Agreement
90
% Disagreeing
10
Design Criteria should be developed or improved for surface
impoundments.
f of States Addressing issue
32
% in Agreement
91
% Disagreeing
9
Routine monitoring should be required either for all impoundments
or at least for the high risk impoundments.
of States Addressing Issue
32
% in Agreement
97
% Disagreeing
3
More resources and/or better trained personnel are required
to conduct an effective program.
# of States Addressing Issue
31
% in Agreement
93
% Disagreeing
7
A permanent data base should be established for the SIA data and
made available to the States.
of States Addressing Issue
28
% in Agreement
100
% Disagreeing
0
The majority of the States felt that new or revised programs
were needed to adequately regulate surface impoundments. The
specific actions needed were the establishment of criteria
and standards for siting, designing, operating, maintaining
-------
-109-
and monitoring impoundments, and the reorganization of
institutions to streamline regulatory efforts. However, in
order to effect these changes, the States felt that additional
staff and funds were necessary.
Conclusions Regarding the SIA
The SIA assessment methodology yielded an accurate first
round approximation of the ground water contamination potential
of surface impoundments.
# of States Addressing Issue
37
% in Agreement
78
% Disagreeing
22
The assessment can be used to prioritize sites for further
study.
# of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
37 95 5
The assessment methodology contained elements that distorted
the accuracy of the rating.
tt of States Addressing Issue % in Agreement % Disagreeing
38 53 47
The majority of the States commenting felt that there were
some problems with the rating system; however, most felt that
the rating system was adequate to develop a first-round cut
at defining the contamination potential of surface impoundments.
The specific areas in which many States felt that the rating
system needed improvement was the waste rating scheme (step
4) which was characterized by some as not sensitive enough,
and as inaccurate by others. Other States noted that scores
for the overall contamination potential (step 5) were
consistently at the higher end of the scale, which they
interpreted as being insufficiently sensitive to discriminate
accurately between extremely hazardous sites and relatively
safe sites. Many States felt, for example, that the system
did not allow for discrimination between sites which posed a
threat to health, and those that threatened the ground water
quality, but had only minimal or no health impacts.
Nevertheless, most of the States felt that the methodology
was sufficiently accurate to be useful in ranking sites and
determining roughly the first round approximation of the
contamination potential of surface impoundments. It was
recommended that the assessment be field verified and the
methodology refined if necessary.
-------
-110-
In summary, it is evident that the majority of States believe
that existing State laws are adequate to develop an effective
program.
However, in general the States characterized regulations,
funding and staffing as major problem areas. Specifically,
design criteria and monitoring were the features mentioned
most frequently as areas that required improvement.
While most States clearly wanted Federal involvement, there
was no consensus on what form it should take. However, most
favored a role that accented funding, technical assistance
and research assistance, rather than additional mandatory
requirements.
-------
-111-
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS: STATE PROGRAMS
With a very few exceptions, State laws have not historically
addressed the specific problem of ground water contamination
from surface impoundments; however, they do in general provide
.adequate authority. in most cases, enabling legislation is
general in nature and focuses primarily on surface water
contamination. Such authority as does exist is derived by
interpreting "waters of the State" to include ground water.
Regulations governing surface impoundments at the time of
this study reflect this bias towards surface water protection.
Although the majority of States require some sort of permit
for most surface impoundments, the focus of the permit
historically was primarily on direct discharges or on the
surface impoundment as part of a treatment chain and not on
seepage. A few States have established ground-water quality
standards, monitoring requirements, specific siting standards,
and other technical requirements, such as liner use, but even
in these cases application of these requirements has often
been sporadic or applicable only to new facilities.
Based on the data provided, in most cases the institutional
framework for administering regulations is shared by several
agencies, often without a formal coordinating mechanism.
State reports said that this often resulted in interagency
competition for resources, duplication of effort, and voids
in responsibility and coverage.
One of the primary limitations to effective regulation of
impoundments, even in cases where effective regulations and
institutions are present, is the low priority and lack of
qualified personnel in this area. States were nearly unanimous
in citing this as a problem. They mentioned both lack of
funds and lack of available qualified ground-water experts as
problems in hiring adequate staff. However, increases in
Federal grants related to the hazardous waste program under
RCRA and other ground water protection programs such as the
UIC program under the SDWA and the Superfund should help with
this problem.
It is interesting to note the characteristics of State programs
that had high incidences of lined sites at the time of data
collection. While there are a number of other variables
which may influence the incidence of lined sites (i.e. local
geology, type of industry, age of impoundments, etc.) the
-------
-112-
efficacy of the State programs probably played a role in the
frequency of lined sites. Pennsylvania, California, and
Texas showed the highest percentage of lined industrial
impoundments for States having data on more than 500 sites
(See Chapter IV, Figure 4.12). The key elements of their
programs are outlined in Table 8.1.
These three States exhibit clearly defined areas of responsibility
for the institutions that are charged with regulating impoundments,
They are developing and have established technical requirements
(such as siting requirements, ground water quality standards,
monitoring requirements, and maximum permeabilities). They may
permit both direct discharges and indirect discharges, and they
have established some form of waste classification (See Table
8.1). The latter may be an important component of their programs
because it allows these States to rank sites and use limited
resources more efficiently. Although the majority of States
indicated that Federal funding was required to run effective,
adequately staffed programs, there was no consensus on how
constructive Federal legislation, regulations, and programs
have been. Three common themes were expressed in State
assessments of Federal programs:
0 Most. States rely heavily on Federal funds to administer
programs.
0 Federal programs are characterized by many States as
inflexible and sometimes burdensome.
0 The existing Federal programs must be integrated and
a more coordinated approach between programs is
desirable.
The States mentioned RCRA, the SDWA, and the CWA as the Federal
programs having the greatest impact on regulation of surface
impoundments. As a result of these Acts and an increased
awareness of the importance of ground water as a supply source,
many States are considering further legislation or are upgrading
existing regulations to better address the problem of ground
water contamination.
CONCLUSIONS: LOCATION AND COUNT
Inventory
The data from the location and count phase of the SIA indicate
that oil and gas sites are the most numerous category, followed
by municipal, agricultural, industrial and mining. Municipal
and industrial sites tend to be in close proximity to population
centers and also have more impoundments per site on the average.
Accordingly, their potential impact, in terms of the number of
people who could be affected by any contamination that occurs,
may be greater than other categories.
-------
r
-IB-
ELEMENTS OF SELECTED STATE PROGRAMS
California — Lead Agency: WQCB with Empowered to protect
Regional Boards. Areas "Waters of the
of Responsibility are State"; includes by
definition ground-
water. Permits both
direct and indirect
discharges.
Texas -
clearly defined.
Two: Texas Division of Empowered to protect
Water Resources (TDWA)
and Texas Railroad
Commission (TRRC).
Distinct areas of
responsibility.
Pennsylvania - Lead Agency: Bureau
Water Quality
Management with Oil and
Gas under a second
Agency.
"Waters of the
State" includes by
definition Ground-
water. Permits both
direct and non-
discharging
impoundments
Empowered to protect
"Waters of the
State" includes by
definition Ground-
water. Permits all
facilities above a
minimum capacity.
Ground water quality standards;
waste classification; siting
(maximum permeability); may require
lining and monitoring.
Distinct requirements based on
waste type; siting requirements
10-7 on/s; may require monitoring
or lining; extensive statewide
monitoring network.
Currently developing Ground water
quality standards; distinct
requirements based on waste type;
siting standards, (maximum
permeability)
Annual Inspection
of Permitted
Facilities.
Field Inspection
for Selected
Facilities.
Semi-Annual
Inspection
Table 8.1
-------
-114-
Data on the quality and quantity of the influent and effluent
fluids were sometimes unavailable and States generally indicated
a low confidence rating on the validity of such information.
They thought data on impoundment size was somewhat more valid,
and on the average, mining and industrial impoundments tended
to be larger.
Ground Water Protection
Less than 30 percent of the industrial impoundments are lined and
fewer are lined in other categories. Similarly, monitoring is
conducted at very few sites on a national level, although a few
States require monitoring more frequently.
The study indicated that the main correlation that existed
between increased use of liners and monitoring reflected
variations of requirements in State programs, rather than the
relative danger of the practice. For example, liner use should
increase in sites that are located over usable aquifers within
thin or permeable unsaturated zones. Similarly, more liners
should be used when the waste is relatively more hazardous.
However, the data showed no correlation between the hydrogeology
of a site and the frequency of liner use and only a slight
correlation between the waste hazard rating and liner use.
One factor that influenced the frequency of liner use was the
relative age of the impoundment. Newer impoundments were more
likely to be lined than older ones. Presumably this reflects
the impact of recent legislation, as well as an increasing
reliance on ground water as a water supply. In general, States
which had a relatively higher percentage of impoundments lined
also had more monitoring at sites. (Florida is an exception,
with relatively few sites lined, but a high number of sites
monitored.)
CONCLUSIONS: ANALYSES OF DATA
The analyses indicate that surface impoundments are often sited
in a way that allows percolation of wastes to the ground water.
In addition, they often are lacking in design safeguards and
monitoring, and are located in close proximity to water supplies.
The use of siting and design safeguards shows little or no
correlation with waste hazard potential or sensitive hydrogeologic
settings. Indeed, patterns for both liner use and frequency of
monitoring showed a greater correlation to State boundaries
than to technical criteria which indicates little past attention
to potential impacts on ground water.
Viewed from the perspective of specific categories, the industrial
category shows the greatest contamination potential, with a
mean Step 5 score of 20.4. Municipal sites followed with a
mean score of 19.6. Moreover, municipal and industrial sites
-------
-115-
are generally located in proximity to both population centers
and water supply systems. Beyond this, about 35 percent of the
industrial sites contain waste which scored greater than 6 on
the hazard potential rating.
potentially hazardous waste
data reveal the following:
Site Selection
This rating is indicative of
Summarizing these analyses, the
Nearly 50 percent of all sites are located on
unsaturated zones that are either very thin or very
permeable. For industrial categories, more than 50
percent are so sited.
Approximately 70 percent of all sites are located
over thick and very permeable aquifers that allow
rapid movement of plumes. For the industrial category
the percentage rises to nearly 80 percent.
Over 30 percent of all sites are located in areas
that have thin or permeable unsaturated zones, overlie
highly transmissive aquifers containing water that is
currently used or of high quality. For the municipal
and industrial category, the percentages rise to
approximately 40 percent. Less than 10 percent of
all sites are located in a manner that poses little
threat of ground water contamination.
Waste Characteristics
Over 15 percent of all sites (excluding oil and gas)
contain waste which received waste rating scores that
indicate a high potential for noxious or toxic waste.
In the industrial category, about a third of the
sites contain potentially toxic waste.
Proximity to Water Supplies
Approximately 85 percent of all sites are located within
one mile of a potential surface or ground water
source.
Gound Water Protection
Approximately 30 percent of the industrial sites are
lined, 20 percent of the municipal sites are lined,
and 15 percent of the agricultural sites are lined.
There is little or no correlation between the waste
hazard, the siting characteristics and the use of
liners.
-------
-116-
0 Data on monitoring also show little correlation
between the sensitivity of the aquifer to contamination
and the use of monitoring wells.
CONCLUSIONS: CASE STUDIES
Analysis of the case studies points to the following: surface
impoundments—whether they are termed evaporation ponds, holding
ponds, etc.—have contaminated ground water when careful siting,
design and operation were not practiced. Analysis of the causes
of contamination shows, further, that liners and other design
measures,-by themselves, are no assurance that an impoundment
will perform satisfactorily. There should be a well planned
program of inspections, maintenance, and monitoring in order
to assure satisfactory performance and adequate protection.
Use of monitoring practices seems to be inadequate, with
detection occuring only as a result of contamination of the
water supply in 45 percent of the cases. Moreover, in some
cases when monitoring wells are employed, there is no assurance
that detection will be adequate to prevent contamination of
supply wells. Beyond this, the case studies indicate that
remedial approaches, while practiced, require extensive study
and often involve difficult legal determinations.
Finally, the Step 5 scores indicate that the rating system used
'in the SIA may be generally valid for its stated purpose: a
first-round approximation of the contamination potential that
can be useful in large aggregates but that cannot be applied to
site-specific situations. It appears, however, that the rating
system could be improved by increasing its sensitivity. The
difference in overall contamination sources between industrial
sites known to contaminate ground water and the mean score for
all sites was only 3.8 out of a possible 29.
CONCLUSIONS: STATE FINDINGS
It is evident that the majority of States believe that existing
State laws are adequate to develop an effective program.
However, in general the States characterized regulations,
funding and staffing as major problem areas. Specifically,
design criteria and monitoring were the features mentioned most
frequently as areas that required improvement.
While most States clearly wanted Federal involvement, there was
no consensus on what form it should take. However, most favored
a role that accented funding, technical assistance and research
assistance rather than additional mandatory requirements.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
PREFACE
The Manual for Evaluating Contamination Potential of Surface
Impoundments was prepared specifically for implementing a standardized
evaluation system for the EPA Office of Drinking Water Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) and serves as the training manual for that
assessment. The SIA evaluation system set forth in the manual is based
upon the previous work by Harry E. LeGrand who began over 15 years ago to
develop a standardized, consistent approach to the selection of proper
waste disposal sites. This system departs from the LeGrand system in
order to accommodate certain philosophical differences concerning
ground-water protection and specific technical aspects related to
surface impoundments. In no way does this detract from the importance
of the LeGrand system in serving as the basis for the SIA evaluation
system.
This manual also was prepared with the assistance of the SIA work
group who made many valuable suggestions. The work group members are:
Jack Keeley
Ground Water Research Branch
Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory/EPA
Ada, Oklahoma
Charles Kleeman
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region III
Richard Bartelt
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region V
James K. Channell
Hazardous Materials Branch
EPA/Region IX
-------
George Garland,
Toby Goodrich
Office of Solid Waste
EPA/Headquarters
Jane Ephremides,
Larry Graham,
Ted Swearingen,
Lyle Silka
Office of Drinking Water
EPA/Headquarters
The Office of Drinking Water also extends its appreciation to the
following"for their assistance in reviewing early drafts of this manual;
Bruce F. Latta
Oil Field and Environmental. Geology Section
Kansas State Department of'Health & Environment
John Dudley
Water Quality Division
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Robert M. Sterrett
Virginia Water Control'Board
Donald G. Williams
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environment
Ronald G, Hansen
Water Pollution Control
Alaska Department of'Environmental Conservation
Paul Beam
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Robert Wall
Division of Water Pollution'Control'
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Leonard Wood
USGS/Water Resources Division
Reston, VA
3.1.3.
-------
Jay H. Lehr
Tyler E. Gass
National Water Well Association
John Osgood
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
James Geraghty, David Miller and Nat Perlmutter
Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
We also take this opportunity to thank the following for
assisting Messrs. Silka and Swearingen in collecting case studies
and field testing the evaluation system in the early phases of its
development.
John Scribner and Ronald G. Hansen
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Mead Sterling and Lyndon Hammond
Arizona Department of Health
Tom Bailey and Alvin L. Franks
California State Water Resources Control Board
Orville Stoddard
Colorado State Health Department
Dick Woodhall
Connecticut State Health Department
Paul Beam and Frank Andrews
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Rauf Piskiii
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Latta and Bill Bryson
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
Charles Bishop
Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
iv
-------
Cheater Harvey and Fred Eyer
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Donald G. Williams
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Bob Wall, Clark Haberman, Jon Atkinson and Dennis Heitman
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Wendall McCurry
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Patrick A. Clancy and Jon 0. Nowlin
USGS/Water Resources Division
Nevada
Joe Pierce, Maxine Goad, Mike Snavely and John Dudley
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Dan Serrell
New York Department of Health
Norman Peterson
North Dakota State Health Department
Mark Coleman and Dick Jones
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Harold Sawyer
Qregon Department of Environmental Quality
Jerry Mullican and Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
Charles Ratte
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
R.M. Sterrett, Eugene Siudyla and Virginia Newton
Virginia Water Control Board
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Step 1—Guidance for Rating the Unsaturated Zone 8
Step 2—Guidance for Rating Ground-Water Availability 33
Step 3—Guidance for rating the Ground-Water Quality
Step 4—Guidance for Rating the Waste Hazard Potential ...
Step 5—Determination of the Site's Overall Ground-
Water Contamination Potential
36
39
50
Step 6—Determination of the Potential Endangerment
to Current Water Supplies 52
Step 7—Determining the Investigator's Degree of
Confidence 56
Step 8—Miscellaneous Identifiers
Step 9—Record the Final Score ..
Appendices
61
62
64
vi
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Title
Flow Chart of the Surface Impoundment assessment
Generalized sequence of steps involved in the
SIA evaluation system
Guide of the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone
Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood,
Illinois
Well hydrograph of the Ainsworth, Nebraska
water supply well
Common driller's terms
Earth material categories and their approximate
Page
2
6
11
12
14
17
-, o
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Unified Soil Classification System equivalents
Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping
from a surface impoundment through unsaturated
sands containing clay lenses
Poultry Processing Plant site plan
Portion of the 7-5 minute quadrangle topographic
map of the Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of the geologic map from the County
Geologic Report containing the location of the
Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of the geologic cross-section from the
County Geologic Report
Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant
Driller's logs of test boring beneath the waste
treatment lagoon at the Poultry Processing Plant
Initial ratings of hazard potential range for
common sources and types of ground-water
contaminants
20
24
25
26
29
30
31
32
46
vii
-------
LIST OP TABLES
Table Title
Step 1. Rating of the Unsaturated Zone
Page
9
II
Step 2. Rating of the Ground-Water
Availability
III Step 3'. Rating the Ground-Water Quality
37
IV
Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by Source
V
Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by'Type
45-46
VI
Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment
to a Water Supply
54
VII
Rating of the Ground Water Pollution
Potential
63
viii
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Typical Sources and Types of Data Useful
in Applying the Assessment System
Appendix B - Measuring Unit Conversion Table
Appendix C - Glossary
Appendix D - Selected References
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
An objective of the surface impoundment assessment (SIA)
program (see Figure 1) is to rate the contamination potential of ground
water from surface impoundments and to develop practices for the
evaluation of different surface impoundments (elsewhere referred
to as pits, ponds, and lagoons). One of the activities conducted
under the SIA program is the application of the evaluation system
described in the present manual. This evaluation system applies
a numerical rating scheme to different impoundments that yields
a first round approximation of the relative ground-water contamination
potential of these impoundments.
The basis of this system was developed by Harry E. LeGrand
in 1964. LeGrand and Henry S. Brown expanded and improved
the system in 1977 under contract to the Office of Drinking Water.
The present system described in this manual has been modified
by the Office of Drinking Water through consultation with LeGrand
and Brown to reflect its ground-water protection philosophy.
Before the selection of the present evaluation system, other
standardized systems were considered (Cherry, et. al., 1975; Finder,
et. al., 1977; Phillips, 1976) but were not deemed as suitable for the
purposes of the assessment. The system is designed to provide an
-------
POTEHTIAl
DAHGERMEKT
SITE
HYDROGEOLOGY
WASTE
HAZARD
CONSTRUCTION I"~
OF U-
IMPOUNOMEHT
OPERATION OF
IMPOUNDMENT
GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
REPORTED
CONTAMINATION
CASE STUDIES
AOUIFER MAPS
STATE PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
STATE
RECOMMENDATION
Figure 1. Flow chart of the Surface Impoundment Assessment.
evaluation system described in this manual.
The outlined portion is the
-------
approximation of the ground-water contamination potential of
impoundments at a minimum cost. Precise, in-depth investi-
gations of actual ground-water contamination from surface impound-
ments (i. e., drilling, etc.) would be too costly and time-consuming
and are not involved in this first-round site evaluation. The specific
site investigations into actual contamination would begin after this
assessment is finished in order to optimize expenditures. Those
sites identified as high contamination potential would be addressed
first.
The philosophy guiding the development of this surface impound-
ment evaluation system is that underground drinking water sources
must be protected for both present and future users as intended
by Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974. Ground-water
pollution occurs when contaminants reach the water table (saturated
zone) beneath the site. This is contrary to the commonly held
view that ground-water contamination cannot legally be determined
until the contaminated ground water crosses the property boundaries
of the facilities. EPA believes that in order to protect the nation's
ground-water resources it is necessary to identify potential contamin-
ation at the source where preventive measures may be initiated.
The purpose of this evaluation system is to rank impoundments
-------
in terms of their relative ground-water contamination potential.
The evaluation system considers several hydrogeologic parameters
in the rating of the site. There are numerous parameters that
may be used in evaluating a site. However, many of these para-
meters are related and their simultaneous consideration would be
redundant. Thus, only selected parameters representative of
different processes, have been included. The present evaluation
system provides a standardized methodology which will ensure more
consistent national results.
The parameters used in the present SIA. system have been separated
into two distinct groups which correspond to the two phases of the
evaluation, i. e., 1) the rating of the ground water contamination
potential itself and 2) the rating of the relative magnitude of potential
endangerment to current users of underground drinking water sources.
The parameters considered unique in rating the ground-water contamin-
ation potential are 1) the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the
type of earth material of that zone, 2) the relative hazard of the
waste, and 3) the quantity and quality of the underground drinking
water source beneath the site. The parameters considered unique
in determining the rating for the potential for endangerment of
currently used water resources include: 1) the type of water source,
i. e. ground water or surface water, 2) whether that water source
is in the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground water
-------
(if such contamination occurred); and 3) the distance between the
potential contamination source and the water source. These para-
meters account for the basic processes and factors which determine
the contamination potential of the site and which indicated the relative
threat to underground drinking water sources.
The level of contamination of ground water is subject to varying
degrees of attenuation as the water flows through the unsaturated
zone and on through the aquifer; however, the evaluation focuses
on the potential for contamination of underground water sources.
Attenuation mechanisms are very complex, varying with the type of
waste, earth material, and physico-chemical environment. A general
site evaluation system concerned with an approximation of the contamin-
ation potential cannot consider the specific attenuative capabilities
of different earth materials for different wastes, particularly since
there exists a vast variety of complex wastes possible. This evaluation
system therefore treats attenuation in an indirect manner by considering
it in combination with permeability.
The evaluation is performed in a sequence (see Figure 2). The
first four steps involve the evaluation of the potential for ground water
to be contaminated by rating the site's hydrogeology and waste character.
The fifth step then determines the site's overall contamination potential
relative to other rated sites by combining the first four steps. It must be
stressed that this overall rating will express only a site's hydrogeologic
-------
Step 1
Rating the Unsaturated Zone
Step 2
Rating the Ground Water Availability
Step 3
Rating the Ground Water Quality-
Step 4
Rating the Waste Hazard Potential
I
Step 5
Overall Ground Water Contamination Potential
Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
1
Step 6
Rating the Potential Endangerment to Water
Supplies
Figure 2. Generalized sequence of steps involved in the SIA.
evaluation system.
-------
conditions relative to those conditions for all possible sites, and
does not relate to a site's absolute degree of ground-water contamin-
ation. Such determination of actual contamination involving ground-
water monitoring and sampling procedures must be made following
site specific investigations. This system allows the investigator to
assign priorities to sites on the basis of contamination potential so
that the investigator could then concentrate resources upon the further
investigation of these sites that rank highest in terms of their conta-
mination potential.
Precise data is not necessary for the application of the
SIA evaluation system. Performing precise measurements of the
the depth to the water table, the character of the earth materials
underlying the site, the hydrogeology at the site, etc., can be costly
and time consuming. It must be remembered that this evaluation
system is a first-round approximation and therefore estimates based
on the best available information will be used with the expectation that
they will provide satisfactory results for first-round evaluations.
-------
STEP1
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE UNSATURATED ZONE
The earth material characteristics of the unsaturated zone
underlying the surface impoundment are rated to determine the
potential for contaminants to reach the water table. This step
involves the combined rating of a) the thickness of the unsaturated
zone, and b) earth material (both consolidated and unconsolidated
rock) in the unsaturated zone (see Table I).
Step 1, Part A, Determination of the depth to the saturated zone for Step 1
Contaminants attenuate to varying degrees as they migrate down
through the unsaturated zone, depending upon the thickness and the
type of earth material. Therefore, more favorable conditions exist
where the water table is deeper. The depth to the saturated zone is
the depth from the base of the surface impoundment to the water table.
This depth may be measured to the water table in unconfined aquifers
(See Site 1 in Figure 3) or, in the case of a confined aquifer, to
the top of the confined aquifer (See Site 2 in Figure 3). Where a
perched water table is known to occur, the depth may be measured
-------
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING CATEGORY
Thickness of the
Unsaturated Zone (in
Deters)
V V V V
O — » V
VO VD GO ' — J C7N
G"5 ~H DO DO DO
«
VQ -^J O~> Ul .f
:E o o o o
VQ vn -ft- v*J I"O
— o o o o
VQ VA> to — • O
C— m m rn m
VO — O O O
7\ T|. T* ^> T|
po
^
«_
z
o
3
H
^_
X
3 3 CD CD
— ^ ~O
O in 3-1
3 TJ CD CD
^v. CL Q> in
i/> ^» cr CD
CD -h — ZJ
O rt — • rt
1-0 — Oi
rt rt
1 1 •< —
^
CD
M V
— -» N3
0 0
1 O
ro
o
i
-P- S3
1 1
N3
— > O
O O
M
o o
1 •
\J~l NJ
1
1
_»
O M
1
-C-
* A
0 0
vn NJ
A A
o o
ON O
ro
^ A
0 O
***J C^
o
N>
0 0
O 3
o
CL
QJ
rt
CD
Q.
~n CD m r~ ~n o
QJ QJ < — • -J QJ
c m QJ 3 Q) <
— QJ TJ CD O CD
rt — • O l/> rt T
rt -i rt C 3
M — O -I O
O l~ rt 13 CD C
13 QJ CD CD CL 0)
CD < w »
1/10)- O
T
0 ^-^ CO ^~, 2 — T|
CD TJ QJ m CD in -i
3 0 3 X rt 3 QJ
CD O CL O Q) CD O
3 -i in CD 3 O rt
rt — rt TJ O C C
CD ~£ O rt -1 l/> -1
CL 3 TJ CD
CD r~ 3" QJ CL
QJ — 3
< O CL
3" -i CD 2 QJ
QJ Q) 3 O 3
— • O CD CL CL
CD rt 3 CD in
C rt -i rt
-i CD QJ O
CD CL rt 3
CL CD CD
— ^
-<
O ^~~ CO
CD C QJ
3 CD 3
CD — CL
rt rt
CD O
CL 3
-— CD
W/ J
rt
in
rt
0
CD
pa 2 — co C
O CD in 3" 3
O rt 3 QJ -h
7T QJ CD — • -i
in 3 O CD Q)
O C - O
-1 in rt
TJ ' C
3- Q> -I
— 3 CD
O CL CL
0 3
0 0
;*• o
3
I/)
O
— •
CL
QJ
rt
CD
CL
0 2 CD
O CD T
QJ CL QJ
-I — <
in c CD
CD 3 —
CO rt
0) O
3
CL
TI -n
^3 ^3
CD CD
CO rt
QJ O
13
CL <
CD
-<
\J I j. \J1
— » /> a>
— * ^ 3
rh Vn Q_
(5^)
£
0 —
— • rt
QJ 3"
^<
^
I^V^
O vn CL
as <5x ^
o cr —
— C rt
D) rt 3"
(. *
A o7
l/i rt
QJ 3"
CL
0
0)
^<
1 J 1 1'l
QJ QJ
rt -1
CD rt
in 3-
o
-i 2
-< QJ
rt
CD
-I
^*
QJ
^~
—
^~
—
—
—
_
•^
...
^C
—
CD
-a
cr
13
in
QJ
rt
C
~\
Q)
rt
CD
CL
M
O
-------
to it rather than the underlying regional water table (See Site 3
in Figure 3). The investigator will decide whether to measure
the depth to the perched water table or ignore it and measure
to the regional water table. This decision should be based on
the extent and thickness of the perched water table and its usefulness
as a drinking water source. If the perched water table is currently
being utilized as a drinking water source, the depth should be
measured to it.
Water tables fluctuate on a diurnal, seasonal and annual basis
due to natural and artificial causes. For this assessment system
the depth to the water table should be determined on the basis
of the seasonal high water table elevation. As is shown in Table I,
the depth determination does not have to be exact since the
intervals are large. Illustrations of possible well hydrographs
are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a depicts a hydrograph
of a well in Illinois which is only affected by seasonal climatic
variation. The depth to water table would be taken as approximately
five feet (1.6 meters). In Figure 4b the well hydrograph illustrates
a water table which is affected by seasonal pumping variation.
Pumping is greatest and, as a result, the water table is lowest
during May through September, the hot season when consumption
10
-------
SITE 1
Unsaturated
Zone
Water
Thickness
Table
Aquifer
SITE 2
Aquifer
Unsaturated Perched
Zone
Regional
Water Table
Figure 3. Guide for the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone (water table in the unconfined case
or top of confined aquifer) for completion of Step.1
11
-------
1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1918 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1953 1959 I960
Figure 4A
COK 39N !2E-ll.7f
(MAYWOOD)
JAN
FEB
MAR APR MAY JUN JUI_ AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure
Figure A. Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood, Illinois,
showing, in Figure ^A, seasonal fluctuations in a well
remote from pumping well influences; and in Figure kQ,
fluctuations in a well close to a ground water pumping
area (from Walton, 1970, p. 106).
12
-------
is greatest. During the winter months of November through March
the demand decreases and the ground-water table recovers. In this
case the depth to the water table would be computed at the highest
level, at 168 feet (51.2 meters) of elevation rather than the summer
levels of 142 feet (43. 3 meters).
Figure 5 shows a long period of record for a well hydrograph
located in Ainsworth, Nebraska, in which annual and longer term
fluctuations exist. Although the maximum change in water level
amounts to only about 6 or 7 feet (2 meters), other areas of,the
country do experience much greater variation and should be
considered. However, in this example, the water level used in
determining the depth to the water table should be the higher level
of 34 feet (10.4 meters) below the surface. Note that in all these
examples, the more conservative estimate is used for depth to
the water table.
In the situation where a confined (artesian) aquifer isi encountered
below a disposal site and an unconfined (water table) aquifer does not
exist, the depth is measured to the top of that confined aquifer.
Due to the nature of the confined aquifer, the net hydrostatic head
of the system may decrease the possibility of contamination. However,
conditions are not steady-state and other phenomena may affect the
13
-------
)MM« IXC t rmli or^t
HIHSHORIH BECOBOER (€LL
BTOUN comnr
90K21M I9CC I tr«lT2 OTZI
RINSWORTH RECORDER WELL
iiiiiiiiiii|miiiiiHi|iHuiiiui|iiiiiHiiii|iiiiiiimuiiiuiiiui|Hiiiiimi|a79-'''1
M77.W ;
aro.m d
-V
i"
am.wi
J473.V4
Figure 5. Well hydrograph of the Ainsworth, Nebraska, water supply well
showing annual and longer term ground water level fluctuations
(from Ellis and Pederson, 1977, p. 67).
-------
net hydrostatic head of the confined aquifer. With the reductions
of head which can be experienced (as in many irrigated areas of
the country), confined aquifers may become vulnerable to contamination
from surface sources through over pumping.
Step 1, Part B, Determination of the earth material category for Step 1
The type of earth material must be identified in order to complete
Step 1. Table I contains an ordinal ranking of the general categories
of earth materials based upon permeability, secondarily upon sorption
character. The inclusion of sorption is based on the general
relationships between grain size/surface area arid permeability/sorption.
Grain size (or pore size) is proportional to permeability and inversely
proportional to surface area which is an important factor in sorption
mechanisms. As grain size is inversely proportional to sorption
capacity, sorption capacity is inversely proportional to permeability.
Thus, going from left to right across the earth material categories
in Table I, permeability decreases while sorption generally tends
to increase. The categories take into account whether the permeability
of the material is primary (properties existing at the time of formation
such as the pore spaces) or secondary (properties of the material
imposed upon it sometime after formation such as joints, fractures,
15
-------
faults and solution channels). Secondary permeability is usually
much greater than primary permeability due to the larger pathways.
This distinction is very important in the categorization of earth
materials as the presence of secondary permeability increases
the flow of water and decreases attenuation. Fractures, joints,
and faults are caused by earth movement and generally become
closed and tighter with depth (generally within a hundred meters)
because of increased pressures and decreased weathering effects.
Faults often have an associated zone of crushed rock (fault breccia)
which may be highly permeable.
The classification of the earth material should follow the
guidelines of Table I and of Figures 6 and 7 which supply further
assistance in the classification. Figure 6 gives a fairly compre-
hensive list of driller's terms found in driller's logs and the
equivalent classification for Table I. Some groups of terms are
assigned to more than one category, in which case the investigator
must make a judgement. In Figure 7, the equivalent Unified Soil
Classification System codes are shown.
16
-------
I
Gravel, Sand, Sand and Gravel, and Similar Materials
Specific yield 25 O«r cent
Boulders Gravel and sand
Coarse gravel Gravel and sandrock
Coarse sand Medium sand
Cobbles Rock and grave*
Ccbotc ttcnes Running send
Dpycravel tiffctaovewater Sand
teuie Sand, water
Flee: rocks Sand end boulders
Free sand Sand and cobbles
Oravpl Sand and fine grave.)
Loose gravel Sand and oravel
Loos* sano Sandy gravel
Rocks Water gravel
II or III
Fine Sand. TtpMSand.TightGravel.andStmilarMateriats
Specific yield TO percent
Sand and clsy Sandy loam
Sand and clay strata (traces) Sandy loam, send, end clay
Sand and din Sandy silt
Sand and hardpan • Sandy soil
Sand and hard sand Surface and fine send
Sand and lava
Sand end pack sand Cloggy sand
Sand eno sandy clay Coarse pack sand
Sand end soapstone Compacted send and sltt
Sand and soil Dead send
Sena end some clay Dirry send
Sand, clay. and water Fine pack sand
Sand crust FineQuicksandwlThetkalisveek
SandHtnle water Fine sand
Sand, mud. and water Fine sand, loos*
Sand (some water) Hard peck sand
Sand streaks, balanceclay Hard send
Sand, streaks of clay Hard sand and streaks of
Sand with cemented sandy cley
streaks
Sand withthinstreaksof Herd send rock end some water
° *V Hard sand, soft streak*
Coarse, and sandy Loamy fine sand
Loose sandy clay Medium muddy sand
Meoium sandy Milk sand
Sandy More or less sand
Sandy and sandy clay Muddy sand
Sandy clay, sand, and Peck sand
clav Poor water Band
Sandy clay —water Powder send
bearing Pumice sand
Sandy clay with streaks Quicksand
of ssnd Sand, mucky or dirty
Sandy formation Set sand
Sandy muck Sitiy sand
Sandy sediment Sloppy send
Very sandy cley Sticky sand
Sueeksf ine end coarse send
Boulders, cemented sand Surface sand and clay
Cement, gravet.send, and Tight sand
rocks
Clay and gravel, water
bearmg Brittle clay and sand
Ciay Arock, some looserock Cley end send
Ctay, sand end gravel Clay, sand, and water
Clay, silt, sand, andgrevel Clay with sand
Conglomerate, gravel, and Clay with sand streaks
bouloers More or less cley, hard a»nd
Conptomerete,stickycley. end boulder*
sand and gravel Mud end sand
Dirty prevet Mud,sand,andwater
Fine c-evel, hard Sand and mud with chunks
Graveiandhardpanrrrata Of clay
Gravel, cemented sand Silt and fine sand
Grevelwithstreaksof clay Silt end sand .
Hard crevel Soil, sand, and
Hard sand and gravel clay
P*cfced gravel Topsoil and light
Packed Sfcnd and gravel sand
Quicksand end cobbles Water sand sprinkled whh
Rock sand and clay clay
Sano and gravel. cemented
streaks Float rock tstona)
Send and silt, many gravel Laminated
Sanevciayandgravel Seep water
Set gravel Soft sandstone
SilTysendandgravel Strong seepage
(cobbles)
Tight pravel
IV or V
Clay and Gravel, Sandy Clay, and Similar Material*
Specific yield S percent
Cemented pravel (cobbles) Clay and sandy clay
Cemented g»evel find cley Clay and silt
Cem*nte£ grevcl, hard Clay, cemented sand
Cementend rocks (cobbles) Clay, compact loam and send
Clay end pravel (rock) Cley to coarse sand
Clay and boulders (cobbles) Cley, sir eats of hard packed tend
Clay, peck sond. and gravel Clay, streaks of sandy clay
Cobbles in cley Clay, water
Conglomerate Clay with sandy pocket
Drygravel (be low \veter Clay with small streeks of
tacte) sand
Gravel and clay Clay with some sand
Gravel (cement) Oay with streaks of fin* tend
Gravel and sandy clay Clay with thin streaks of sand
Gravel and tough shale Porphyry clay
Gravelly ctcy Quicksand y clay
Rocks in clay Sand-clay
Rorten cement Sand shelf
Rorxenconcretemixture Shale and sand
Sencstonc*nd fleet rock Solid clay with strata of cemented sand
Sitt and gravel Sticky sand and clay
Soil and boulders Tight muddy sand
Very fine tight muddy sand
Cementedsandandclay Dry sandy »itt
Clay send Fine sandy loam
Dry htrd sacked srrtd Fine sandy slrt
Dry sandf&fitow Ground surface
water table! Loam
Dry sand and dirt Loam end clay
Fine muddy sand Sandy clay loam
Fine send, streaks of cley Sediment
Fine ticht muddy sund Silt
Hard pAckedsand, streaks Silt and clay
of clay Si try clay foam
Hard s*nd and clay Silty loam
Herdsettandandclay Soft loam
Muddy sand and clay Soil
Packed sand and clay Soil and clay
Pecked sand andsnale Soil and mud
Sand and clay mix Soil and sandy thai*
Sand end tough shale Surface formation
Sand rock Top hardpan soil
Sandstone Topsoil
Sandstone and lava Topsoil andsandytltt
Set send and clay Topsol1-«ftt
Set sand, streaks of clay
Cemented sandy clay
Hard sandy clay (tight) Decomposed hardpan
Sandy clay Hardpan and sandstone
Sandy clay with small sand Hsrdpsn and tandy day
streak:, very fine Herdpan and sandy she)*
Sancy shsie Hartjpan and sandy strata*
Set sancy ciay Hard rock (alluvial)
Silty ciay Sandy hardpan
Soft sondy clsy Semi-harcpen
Clay and fine sand Washboard
Ctay an o pu m ice streaks
Ash Herd pumte*
Caliche Porphyry
Chalk Seepage soft clev
Hard lava formation Volcanic ash
1
V or VI
Clay and ReUled Materiel
Specific yield 3 percent
Adobe Lava
Brittle clay Loose sha4*
Caving clay Muck
Cement Mud
Cement ledge Packed clay
Choppy clay Poor clay
Clay Shale
Cley. occasional rock Shell
Crumbly clay Slush
Cuba cley Soapston*
Decomposed granite Soapstone float
Dirt Soft clay
Good cley Squeeze clay
Gumbo ciay Sticky
Hard clay Sticky clay
Hardpan (H.P.) Tiper clay
Herdpan shalft Tight clev
Hard shale Tule mud
Hard shell Variable cley
Joint clay Volcanic rock
VI
Crystalline Bedrock (freth)
Specific yield xere
Granite Hard rock
Hard boulders Graphite and rocks
Hard granite Rock (If In area of known
crystalline rocks)
Figure 6. Common driller's terms used in estimating specific yield
(from Todd, 1970, p. 205) and the equivalent evaluation
system earth material categories.
17
-------
Step 1
Earth Material Category
(and Step 1 Designation)
Unified Soi1
Class!fi cation
System Designation
Permeabi1i ty
Range (cm/sec)
Gravel (I)
Medium to Coarse Sand (l)
Fine to Very Fine Sand (II)
GW, GP
SW, SP
SW, SP
Permeable
> 10"^ cm/sec
Sand with £15% Clay, Silt (III) GM, SM, SC
Sand with >15* but£50% Clay (IV) GM, SM, ML
Semi-permeable
7 -6
10 to 10 cm/sec
Clay with <50% Sand (V)
Clay (VI)
OL, MH
CL, CH, OH
Relatively imperme-
able
< 10~° cm/sec
Figure 7. Earth material categories and their approximate Unified Soil
Classification System equivalents.
18
-------
The geologic conditions beneath the site can be a very complex
layering of clays, sands and gravels or consolidated sedimentary
rocks such as sandstone, limestone and shale. In these layered
situations the rating may be accomplished by considering the probable
hydrology of the system. Where the different layers have similar
hydrologic properties, the layers may be considered a single hydrologic
unit for rating purposes. Where contrasting layers are encountered,
best judgement must be exercised in rating the site. For example,
if an impermeable shale overlies permeable sandstone rate only
the thickness of shale. The investigator must be cautioned, however,
that in rating a case where hydrologic ally unlike layers alternate,
the waste is more likely to move through the more permeable zones
and avoid the impermeable layers. As an example, a sand containing
clay lenses should be rated as if only sand were present (See Figure 8).
Similarly, where secondary permeability is present (i. e. fractures,
joints and faults) the major path of waste movement is through
the large conduits of secondary permeability rather than the interstices
of primary permeability. This results in a short circuit of any
attenuation capability present in the material. In such cases, the
earth material would be rated as the more permeable categories.
19
-------
Imp oundment
TUnsatura'ted*
* . • 'Sands' '
ClayLenses }' ' '
»•• * * " *
»•• * I *
' * ' n '^ '
Water Tab^e • . ( — *
. •.«.»•
•Saturated Sands
Figure 8. Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping from a
surface impoundment through unsaturated sands containing
clay lenses.
20
-------
Step 1, Part C, The Scoring of Step 1.
After the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the type of earth
material in the unsaturated zone have been determined, refer to the
Step 1 matrix (in Table 1) and record the appropriate score for the
particular values of thickness and material.
Sources of information for completing Step 1.
Many data sources exist for the depth to the water table and
the geologic material beneath a site. The site may have specific
data available from State files if the site is permitted. The owner/
operator may have data on shallow bedrock and soils available
from borings or trenches made for the impoundment or nearby
building foundations. Nearby water wells may provide data on
the geology and ground-water levels, and adjacent road cuts can
provide additional information on the subsurface.
General information is available from State agency reports
such as the State geological survey, State departments of transpor-
tation soil borings, water resources agencies or universities with
departments concerned with geology and ground-water resources.
The United States Geological Survey also publishes reports and
21
-------
maintains files on ground water occurrence in each State. The
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
publishes county soils reports and maps with information on local
soil profiles and bedrock, depth to the water table and depth to
unweathered bedrock or parent material of the soil.
Example for determining the score for Step 1.
To score a site for Step 1, information is needed on: 1) the
depth to the saturated zone and 2) the earth material of the unsat-
urated zone. The following example illustrates the method of
scoring a site and will be utilized in all steps of the evaluation
system.
A poultry processing plant, located in the Appalachian Valley
and Ridge Province of a Mid-Atlantic State, operates a two acre waste
treatment lagoon (about 8000 m ) for disposal of poultry processing
waste water. The waste treatment lagoon is shown in the site plan of
Figure 9; Figure 10 gives the site location in relation to local
topography.
Example Step 1, Part A. Determine the depth to the water table to
establish the thickness of the unsaturated zone. In this example the
22
-------
depth to the water table may be obtained from the driller's log
of the plant water well. Figure 11 shows the driller's report which
indicates that the depth to the static water table is 33 feet (about
10 meters). This static water table level is not the seasonal high
water table at this site. The seasonal high water table would be
expected to occur around 25 feet (7. 5 meters).
The depth to the water table could also be estimated by studying
the topographic map in Figure 10 if no well data was available.
The elevation of the lagoon bottom is estimated to be about 1020
feet (311 meters) Mfean Sea Level as the site is located between
two 1020 foot contours. The river is about 100 feet (30 meters)
to the west and, in the humid eastern climate, the water table
can be assumed to be the river level at the river. Since the lagoon
is close to the river, the water table is estimated to be about
the same elevation as the river, i. e., 990 feet (302 meters). This
is determined by noting that the 980 foot (299 meters) elevation
crosses the river about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) downstream and
the 1000 foot (305 meters) elevation crosses about 1 mile upstream.
Interpolation between 980 and 1000 gives a river elevation of 990
feet. By estimating the lagoon elevation (1020 feet) and adjacent
23
-------
Figure 9. Poultry Processing Plant site plan.
-------
SCALE 1:24000
o
1 MILE
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
Figure 10. Portion of the 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic map of
the Poultry -Processing Plant (Marked by arrow).
25
-------
IWATER ooNDi.Ti.onal
DEPTH
STATIC WATER LEVEI
WATER ZONES (fissures or formations supplying water)
(from) (to) (from) (to) '
-ft.-
-ft-
-ft-
-ft-
QUANTITY OF WATER
WELL PUMPED (or bailed) at _ IS- — Gal, per Min. with
lldQ fpet pR AW DOWN of ter _Z _ HOURS PUMPING.
FLOW (natural) _ G.PM. HEAD - ft. (above ground)
IS GPfft
v' QUALITY OF. WATER/:
_ - TASTED-
ANALYSIS: AVAILABLE-Y«. Q NoO: ATTACHED
TEMPERATURE; • — ! ' • . , ..,,.•
. . (from) ,. "°l ..
• WATER _ 1 ft, ,-==Jt.
(jolt, brocVuh, Iron, sulfur,ocid, olhtr) '2Si2
,USE OF WATER! Oom.ttlea Town/^i^StfTM^Fofm D PublleD
CONST RUG TIP N
r method)—; 3—,-. _
..... .. (rotary", cable, bored, drivl
DATE! Started JS^J4=^4!*—; Completed.
;TOTAL DEPTH(^^—ft,
BED ROCK '• fit ^~7? ft-'
GROUTING INFORMATION.
'METHOtJ USED.
GROUTING MATERIAL-^
•f U^lejfLl.
hEPTH OF GROUTJNG- SO
(diorn)
' ff)
HOLE SIZE..
(from) (to)
!„ fi fl
f) *>&
1 ..'".' & i: i r i j
CASING SIZE
(diom) (from) (to)
u « fl
/* '•''<: £'• -<7 ' f
•*"*"
SCREEN (or perforations)
(diomj (from) M v (oDeninj sue)
'"*" t<- ~
Figure 11.
Portion of the driller's report on the water supply well_
drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant showing the static
ground-water level.
26
-------
river elevations (990 feet), the water table depth is estimated at
£»
30 feet (about 9 meters). This estimate is fairly close to the
measured static water level in the well. This method of estimating
ground-water levels is useful only for perennial streams and is
not reliable in the arid western United States where streams are
intermittent. In such cases the ground-water level is often deeper
than the stream bed and may have no relationship to the stream
level or topography.
Example Step 1, Part B. The second part of completing Step 1
is to estimate the composition of the earth material of the unsaturated
zone. For the Poultry Processing Plant, there is a substantial
amount of data available from a county geologic report, the driller's
report for the water well at the site and, several test borings
conducted at the lagoon site. Figure 12 and 13 show the surface
bedrock configuration and the structural cross-section of the
area. The bedrock at the site is the Edinburg Formation composed
of shale and limestone layers tilted at about 70 degrees to the
west. The Driller's report containing the well log (Figure 14)
indicates that about 16 feet (about 5 meters) of unconsolidated
clay and gravel overlie a considerable thickness of variable lime-
stone down to 424 feet (129 meters).
27
-------
The logs of the test borings shown in Figures 15 indicate
a quite variable thickness of sand and gravel (from 12 to 60 feet,
or 3 to 18 meters) above limestone. It would be expected in this
area of steeply tilted limestone and shale layers to have a rough,
variable bedrock surface as a result of differential weathering.
Example, Step 1, Part C. After determining the thickness of
the unsaturated zone (7. 5 meters) and the type of earth material
in the unsaturated zone, the Step 1 score can be determined from
the Step 1 matrix in Table I for the following parameters:
Thickness of the unsaturated zone = 7. 5 meters
Material of the unsaturated zone = 3 meters of sand and gravel
4. 5 meters of limestone
As the sand, gravel and limestone are of similar hydrologic
character and in the same earth material category of Step 1,
their thickness can be combined so that the Step 1 score would
be determined for 7. 5 meters of category "I" material rated at
9C. (The presence of a liner would be noted by recording the
appropriate code in the reporting form.)
28
-------
Edinburg formation
Dark graptolite bearing shale, dense
black limestone, and nodular weather-
ing limestone.
New Market and Lincolnshire limestone
Dense light gray limestone and dark,
medium-coarse, cherty limestone.
Beekmantown formation
Thick-bedded, gray, medium-grained
dolomite and some blue limestone; much
Chepultepec limestone
Gray and blue dense limestone, some
dolomite.
Fugure 12. Portion of the geologic map from the County Geologic Report
containing the location of the Poultry Processing Plant
(marked by an X and an arrow).
29
-------
SCALE 1:62500
Chiefly shale and silty shale; greenish
sandstone commonly at top.
Edinburg formation
Dark graptolite bearing shale, dense
black limestone, and nodular weather-
ing limestone.
New Market and Lincolnshire limestone
Dense light gray limestone and dark,
medium-coarse, cherty limestone.
Beekmantown formation
Thick-bedded, gray, medium-grained
dolomite and some blue limestone; much
chert.
Figure 13. Portion of a geologic cross-section from the County Geologic Report depicting the
general subsurface geologic structure around the Poultry Processing Plant (marked
by the arrow).
-------
mow
0
¥
13
7?
16?
TO
L/l?
s
13
23
1*
log
/f?
34?
tj/t
r. 01 ! OIL OR IUH-K PENR HATED
(grovel, cloy, etc., hordnors, color, etc)
fa
-------
(JO
ro
Depth
^
10.5
.12.5^
12.7.
15.5.
.30.0
Material Description
Sand and Gravel
Suspected Residual Clay
Hard Limestone
Mudseam (Stiff)
Hard Limestone
Hole Terminated at
30.0 Feet
Depth
Feet
15.a
-60.5
.64.Q
65.a
• 70.0
Material Description
Sand and Gravel
Sand and Silt with
Occasional Gravel
Hard Limestone
Mudseam
Hard Limestone
Hole Terminated at
70.0 Feet
Figure 15. Driller's logs of test borings beneath the waste treatment lagoon at
the Poultry Processing Plant.
-------
STEP 2
GUIDANCE FOR RATING GROUND WATER
AVAILABILITY
Determining the ground-water availability ranking.
The ability of the aquifer to transmit ground water depends
upon the permeability and saturated thickness of the aquifer.
Step 2 provides the guidance to determine the ground-water
availability rating of the aquifer. Since this evaluation system is
a first-round approximation, the ground-water availability rating
is not exact, but an approximation. The categories of earth material
which make up the saturated zone are the same categories as used
in Step 1 but have been combined into good, fair and poor aquifer
material categories (Table II).
Estimate the aquifer's saturated thickness (in meters) and the
type of earth material in the saturated zone as done for Step 1.
Choose the appropriate ranking in the matrix of Step 2 (Table
II) from the respective saturated thickness and earth material
category. The letter accompanying the ranking is for the purpose
of identifying what the rankingTs derivation is if, at sometime in
the future, there is reason to verify the number.
Sources of information for completing Step 2 .
Sources of information in determining the parameters of Step 2
are similar to those of Step 1.
33
-------
TABLE I I
Step 2. Rating of the Ground Water Availability
>-
cc
c
li.
<
13
O£
LU
1-
Uj
o
C£
O
b.
irt
UJ
z
_i
ii i
o
0
Earth
Material
Category
Unconsol i dated
Rock
Consolidated
tock
Representative
Permeabi 1 i ty
2
in gpd/ft
n cm/sec
1
Gravel or sand
Cavernous or
Fractured Rock,
Poorly Cemented
Sandstone,
Fault Zones
>2
-k
>10
1 1
Sand with <50%
clay
Moderately to
Wei 1 Cemented
Sandstone,
Fractured Shale
0.02 - 2
-6 -4
10 -10
1 1 1
Clay with <50%
sand
Si 1 tstone,
Unf ractured
Shale and other
Impervious Rock
< 0.02
-6
RATING MATRIX
Thickness Jj 30
of Saturated
Zone 3-30
Meters)
£3
6A
5A
3A
kc
3C
1C
2E
1E
OE
-------
Example, Step 2.
The type of earth material of the saturated zone can be
determined from the county geologic map and cross-section
(Figures 11 and 12) and the driller's log of Figure 13. Generally,
the material down to greater than 400 feet (122 meters) below
the surface is limestone with shale interbeds. From the drillers'
report of the pump test (shown in Figure 10) the water supply well
near the surface impoundment had 400 feet of drawdown at 15 gpm
(57 liters per minute) after 2 hours pumping. From this data the
limestone is very tight with little permeability and very little
development of open fractures. The category in Step 2 for rating
this material would be category n as the saturated zone is capable
of producing water but only at moderate to low quantites. From
the above sources of information the thickness of the saturated
zone is estimated to be several hundred feet. The score for the
ground-water availability ranking would be determined for earth
material category II and greater than 30 meters thickness, i. e.,
the Step 2 ranking is "4C. "
-------
STEPS
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE GROUND-
WATER QUALITY
Ground-water quality is a determinant of the ultimate usefulness
of the ground water. Waste disposal sites situated in an area of
poor quality ground water unsuitable as a drinking water supply would
not present the same degree of pollution potential to ground water as
the same site situated in an area having very good quality ground
water. Step 3 (Table m) is used to determine the ranking of
the aquifer's ground-water quality. The ranking is based upon
the criteria that has been set forth in the proposed Underground
Injection Control Regulations (40 CFR Part 146) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-523). The descriptions are to be
used as basic guidelines to assist the investigator in arriving
at the appropriate rating of ground-water quality. Consideration
of only the background water quality of the aquifer is intended.
Determine the Aquifer Quality Ranking
Determine the total dissolved solids content of the ground water
and apply it to the appropriate rating in Step 3, Table HE. If the ground
water is presently a drinking water supply, the ranking would be a
"5" regardless of its total dissolved solids content.
36
-------
Table II I
Step 3. Rating the Ground-Water Quality
Rating
Qua 1 i ty
3
2
1
0
< 500 mg/1 IDS or a current drinking water
source
>500 - £1000 mg/1 IDS
>1000 - 53000 mg/1 IDS
>3000 - £.10,000 mg/1 IDS
>10,000 mg/1 IDS
No ground water present^
37
-------
Sources of information for completing Step 3 .
Ground-water quality data for the determination of the Step
3 rating may be obtained from several sources. If the aquifer
is presently used by individuals or communities, no further docu-
mentation is required. If industries or agriculture use the ground
water, but not currently for human consumption, further quality
data may be required for the rating. Many State agencies (i. e.,
geological surveys, health departments, water boards or commissions
and State engineers) and the U. S. Geological Survey have consider-
able water quality data on file, in published reports and as maps
outlining the ground-water quality in the States by aquifer.
Example, Step 3.
The quality of the ground water beneath the Poultry Processing
Plant site would be rated "5" since the aquifer does supply drinking
water, and in addition based upon driller's report, general State
files and published reports, the aquifer has an overall good quality
with very low total dissolved solids.
38
-------
STEP 4
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
Contaminants that may enter ground water have been evaluated
by their potential for causing harm to human health (Hazard
Potential). The hazard potential rankings for contaminants range
from 1 to 9 with 1 being least hazardous and 9 being most hazardous.
Contaminants and their hazard potential rankings are classified
in two ways: (1) by contaminant source (Table IV), and (2) by
contaminant type (Table V). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
numbers are used to classify sources. Common sources and types
of contaminants and their hazard potential ranges are illustrated in
Figure 16.
There are many variables that influence a substance as it enters
the ground-water environment such that its true hazard potential as
a ground-water contaminant is not likely to be the same as its
apparent hazard potential. Most such variables tend to reduce
hazard potentials. The hazard potential rankings considered the
following factors and their interactions.
TOXICITY - The ability of a substance to produce harm in or on the
body of living organisms is extremely important in ranking the
hazard potential of that substance. While some substances are highly
toxic they may possess low mobility and thus be assigned a lower
hazard potential ranking than a less toxic but highly mobile substance.
39
-------
TABLE IV
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF'WASTE CLASSIFIED
BY SOURCE FOR STEP k.
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
01 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION =• CROPS
02 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK
021 Livestock, except Dairy, Poultry and
Animal Specialties
024 Dairy Farms
025 Poultry and Eggs
027 Animal Specialties
029 General Farms, Primarily Livestock
10 METAL MINING
101 Iron Ores
102 Copper Ores
103 Lead and Zinc Ores
104 Gold and Silver Ores
105 Bauxite and other Aluminum Ores
106 Ferroalloy Ores Except Vanadium
103 Metal Mining Services
1092 Mercury Ore
1094 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
1099 Metal Ores not elsewhere classified
11 ANTHRACITE MINING
12 BITUMINOUS COAL'AND LIGNITE MINING
13 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
131 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
132 Natural Gas Liquids
1381 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services
1389 Oil and Gas Field Services not elsewhere
classified
14 MINING AND QUARRYING OF NON-METALLIC MINERALS,
EXCEPT FUELS
141 Dimension Store
142 Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Riprap
144 Sand and Gravel
145 Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Minerals
147 Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining
148 Nonmetallic Minerals Services
149 Miscellaneous Non-metallic Minerals,
except Fuels
1-2
(5 for Feedlots)
4
4
2-4
2
4
6
5
6
5
5
4
6
7
5
7
7
6
1
Variable depending on
Activity
2
2
2
2-5
4-7
1-7
2-5
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
16
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
1629 Heavy Construction, not elsewhere classified
(Dredging, especially in salt water) 4
20 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
201 Meat Products 3
202 Dairy Products 2
203 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables 4
204 Grain Mill Products 2
205 Bakery Products 2
206 Sugar and Confectionery Products 2
207 Fats and Oils 3
208 Beverages 2-5
209 Misc. Food Preparation and Kindred Products 2
22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS, ALL EXCEPT LISTINGS
BELOW
223 Broad Woven Fabric'Mills, Wool (including 6
dyeing and finishing)
226 Dying and Finishing Textiles, except 6
Wool Fabrics and Knit Goods
2295 Coated Fabrics, Not Rubberized 6
24 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FURNITURE
241 Logging Camps and Logging Contractors 2
242 Sawmills and Planing Mills 2
2435 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2436 Softwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2439 Structural Wood Members, not elsewhere 3
classified (laminated wood-glue)
2491 Wood Preserving 5
2492 Particle Board 4
2499 Wood Products, not elsewhere classified 2-5
26 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
261 Pulp Mills 6
262 Paper Mills Except Building Paper Mills 6
263 Paperboard Mills 6
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Retlng_
28 CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
2812 Alkalies and Chlorine 7-9
2813 Industrial Gases
2816 Inorganic Pigments 3-8
2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
not elsewhere classified 3-9
2821 Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and
Nonvulcanizable Elastomers 6-8
2822 Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable Elastomers) 6-8
2823 Cellulose Man-Made Fibers 6-8
2824 Synthetic Organic Fibers, except Cellulosic 6-8
2831 Biological Products 6-9
2833 Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products 3-8
2834 Pharmaceutical Preparations 6-9
2841 Soap and Other Detergents, except
specialty cleaners 4-6
2842 Specialty Cleaning, Polishing and
Sanitation Preparation 3-8
2843 Surface Active Agents, Finishing Agents,
Sulfonated Oils and Assistants 6-8
2844 Perfumes,. Cosmetics, and other Toilet
Preparations 3-6
2851 Paints, Varnisher, Lacquers, Enamels, and
Allied Products 5-8
2861 Gum and Wood Chemicals 5-8
2865 Cyclic (coal tar) Crudes, and Cyclic
Intermediates, Dyes and O.rganic Pigments
(Lakes and Toners) 6-9
2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals, not elsewhere
listed 3-9
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers . 7-8
2874 Phosphatic Fertilizers 7-8
2875 Fertilizer Mixing Only 5
2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals,
Not Elsewhere Listed 5-9
2891 Adhesives and Sealants 5-8
2892 Explosives 6-9
2893 Printing Ink 2-5
2895 Carbon Black 1-3
2899 Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, not
Elsewhere Listed 3-9
29 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
291 Petroleum Refining 8
295 Paving and Roofing Materials 7
299 Misc. Products of Petroleum and Coal 7
30 RUBBER AND MISCELIANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS
301 Tires and Inner Tubes 6
302 Rubber and Plastic Footwear 6
303 Reclaimed Rubber 6
304 Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting 4
306 Fabricated Rubber Products, not Elsewhere
Classified 4
31 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
311 Leather Tanning and Finishing 8
(Remaining Three-Digit Codes) 1-3
32 STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS
321 Flat Glass
322 Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown
324 Cement, Hydraulic
3274 Lime
3291 Abrasive Products
3292 Asbestos
3293 Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices
33 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW)
3312 Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and
Rolling and Finishing Mills
333 Primary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
34
35
36
37
38
39
49
347
3482
3483
3489
349
3691
3692
386
491
492
FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS, EXCEPT MACHINERY
AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED 5
BELOW)
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services 8
Small Arms Ammunition 7
Ammunition, Except for Small Arms
not Elsewhere Classified 7
Ordnance and Accessories, not Elsewhere
Classified 7
Misc. Fabricated Metal Products 3-6
MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 5-7
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW) 5-7
Storage Batteries 8
Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet 8
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 5-8
MEASURING, ANALYZING, AND CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS;
PHOTOGRAPHIC, MEDICAL, AND OPTICAL GOODS; WATCHES 4-6
AND CLOCKS (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW)
Photographic Equipment and Supplies 7
MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES
Electric Services
Gas Production and Distribution
3-7
3-5
3
494 Water Supply 2
4952 Sewerage Systems 2-5
4953 Refuse Systems (except Municipal Landfills) 2-9
496 Steam Supply 2-4
-------
TABLE V
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF WASTES, CLASSIFIED
BY TYPE1 FOR STEP 4
Hazard Potent iaj ID
Description Initial Rating Number *
A. SOLIDS
Ferrous Metals
Non-Ferrous Metals
Resins, Plastics and Rubbers
Wood and Paper Materials (except as noted below)
- Bark
Textiles and Related Fibers
Inert Materials (except as noted below)
- Sulfide Mineral-Bearing Mine Tailings
- Slag and other Combustion Residues
- Rubble, Construction & Demolition Mixed
Waste
Animal Processing Wastes (Except as noted below)
- Processed Skins, Hides and Leathers
- Dai ry Wastes
- Live Animal Wastes-Raw Manures (Feed lots)
- Composts of Animal Waste
- Dead Animals
Edible Fruit and Vegetable Remains -
Putrescables
B. LIQUIDS
Organic Chemicals (Must be chemically Classified)
- Aliphatic (Fatty) Acids
- Aromatic (Benzene) Acids
- Resin Acids
- Alcohols
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Petroleum
Derivatives
- Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Benzene Derivatives
- Sulfonated Hydrocarbons
- Halogenated Hydrocarbons
- Alkaloids
- Aliphatic Amines and Their Salts
- Arii 1 ines
- Pyridines
- Phenols
- Aldehydes
- Ketones
- Organic Sulfur Compounds (Sul fides,
Mercaptans)
- Organometa 1 1 i c Compounds
- Cyanides
- Thiocyanides
• - Sterols
- Sugars and Cellulose
- Esters
I-42
1-72
2
2
4
2
2
6
5
3
2-4
6
4
5
2-4
5
2-3
2
3-5
7-8
5-7
4-6
)6-8
7-8
7-9
7-9
1-4
6-8
2-6
7-9
6-8
6-8
7-9
7-9
7-9
2-6
1-4
6-8
1100
1200
1300
1400
1401
1500
1600
1601
1602
1603
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1800
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
-------
Description
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
Inorganic Chemicals (Must be Chemically Classified)2
- Mineral and Metal Acids 5-8
- Mineral and Metal Bases 5-8
- Metal Salts, Including Heavy Metals 6-9
- "Oxides 5-8
- Sulfides 5-8
- Carbon or Graphite 1-3
Other Chemical Process Wastes Not Previously Listed
(Must be Chemically Classified)2
- Inks 2-5
- Dyes 3-8
- Paints 5-8
- Adhesives 5-8
- Pharmaceutical Wastes 6-9
- Petrochemical Wastes 7-9
- Metal Treatment Wastes 7-9
- Solvents 6-9
- Agricultural Chemicals (Pesticides,
Herbicides, Fungicides, etc.) 7-9
- Waxes and Tars 4-7
- Fermentation and Culture Wastes 2-5
- Oils, including Gasoline, Fuel Oil, etc. 5-8
- Soaps and Detergents 4-6
- Other Organic or Inorganic Chemicals,
includes Radioactive Wastes 2-9
Conventional Treatment Process Municipal Sludges 4-8
- From Biological Sewage Treatment 4-8
- From Water Treatment and Conditioning
Plants (Must be Chemically Classified)2 2-5
ID
Number*
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2300
2301
2302
* ID Number is for identification of waste type in the Reporting Form.
Classification based on material in Environmental Protection Agency
Publication, 670-2-75-024, pages 79-85, Prepared by Arthur D. Little. Inc.
and published in 1975-,
For individual material ranking refer to solubi1ity-toxici ty tables
prepared by Versar, Inc. for the Environmental Protection, Agency.
46
-------
MOBILITY - The material must be able to enter the ground-water
environment arid travel with the ground water. Certain substances
are essentially immobile (eg., asbestos fibers) while others are
highly mobile with most substances falling between these extremes.
PERSISTENCE - Some substances such as halogenated hydrocarbons
decay or degrade very slowly and receive a higher hazard potential
ranking than other equally toxic materials that decay more rapidly.
VOLUME - Some substances, such as tailings or slimes from
mining operations, are only moderately toxic but because they
are produced in enormous quantities are given a somewhat
higher hazard potential ranking.
CONGENTRAT ION - Substances entering the ground-water
environment in concentrations which could potentially endanger human
health are ranked. Concentration may decrease with dilution and
attenuation but the amount of decrease at a given place depends, in
part, on waste mobility, waste interaction with soils and aquifer
material, etc.
Determining the Waste Hazard Potential for Step 4 .
Wastes may be simple in composition, but most are complex
and the hazard potential rankings given in Tables IV and V are
maximum values based on the most hazardous substance present in
the contaminant. Such rankings are, of necessity, generalizations
because of the unknown interactions that occur between substances
and the variables of the ground-water environment.
47
-------
For those substances or sources that show a hazard potential
ranking range (e. g., 5-8) additional information concerning the specific
nature of the source or contaminant is required for assigning a
specific ranking. Specific rankings in such cases must be personal
judgements by the assessor. Additional information for determining a
specific ranking may be available from the source of the contaminant,
i. e., the industry may be able to supply specific information about
the contaminant. In the event specific information is not available
from the source, additional information may be obtained from an
examination of descriptions of average contaminant characteristics
listed in several publications cited below. For cases when there is
considerable pretreatment of the waste, the ranking may be lowered
to the bottom of its range. If no additional information is available,
the first round approximation ranking must assume the worst case
and a low confidence rating be given the ranking.
If sufficient information exists about the material (i. e., exact
composition, concentration, volume, treatment prior to coming in
contact with the ground, etc.) the rating may be lowered. In considering
whether to lower the rating, some compounds degrade aerobic ally or
anaerobically and the products of degradation are more hazardous
than the parent chemical. Initial rankings may be modified downward
provided:
-------
1. The hazardous material in question has been effectively
treated to lower its hazard potential as a ground-water pollutant.
Several references describe best available methods for treating
contaminants to reduce their toxic ity, for example see:
- Sax, 1965, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials.
- Identification of Potential contaminants of underground
water sources from land spills, by Versar, Inc. (Task
H of EPA contract No. 68-01-4620.
- EPA, 1973, Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste
Disposal
- Powers, 1976, How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and
Industrial Wastes.
2. It can be shown that the hazardous material in question has
low mobility in the specific site it is contaminating. Most solid
and inert substances have low mobility. Substances with high
solubilities tend to be most mobile. Mobility depends on a
complex interplay of many factors and only a few substances
have been studied sufficiently to predict with any degree of
confidence their specific mobilities at a specific site.
3. The volume and/or concentration of the hazardous material
is so small that there is a good probability that it will be diluted
to safe (drinking water standard) levels at the point of concern.
Example for Determining the Score for Step 4 .
The waste in thePoultryProcessing Plant lagoon is a meat
product waste, SIC number 201 and would receive a "3" rating.
49
-------
STEP 5
DETERMINATION OF THE SITE'S OVERALL GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
After the site has been rated on Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4, the overall
ground-water contamination potential of the site can be determined by
totalling these scores. This overall score allows a comparison of one
site with other rated sites by indicating the general, overall contamin-
ation potential. Sites may be rated identically, yet be very different
in one or several of the parameters included in the overall score; thus
the overall score of Step 5 should be used with caution in assessing
a particular site's potential to allow ground-water contamination. In
addition, this overall score cannot be used to assess the actual amount
of ground-water contamination at the site. The score is only for relative
comparison with other sites. An actual determination of ground-water
contamination requires an intensive on-site investigation.
EPA has not formulated an interpretation of the overall ground water
contamination score other than as a relative means to prioritize sites.
Step 5. Determination of the Site's Ground-Water Contamination
Potential Rating.
The site's ground-water contamination potential rating is the addition
of the rating scores for the first four steps:
Contamination Potential = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4.
50
-------
The highest ground-water contamination potential rating a site
can receive is "29" while the lowest is "1. "
Example for determining the score for Step 5.
The overall ground-water contamination potential score for the
Poultry Processing Plant lagoon is determined in Step 5 by adding
the scores from Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4:
Step 5 Rating = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
= 9 + 4 + 5 + 3 = 21
51
-------
STEP 6
DETERMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL
ENDANGERMENT TO CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES
The distance from the impoundment to a ground or surface water
source of drinking water and the determination of anticipated flow
direction of the waste plume are used to ascertain the potential endanger-
ment to current water supplies presented by the surface impoundment.
For many assessments this step can be accomplished by measuring the
horizontal distance on a 7. 5 topographic map, or similar scale. In order
to use this step, the anticipated direction of ground water flow within
1600 meters (1 mile) of the impoundment must be determined. Ground-
water movement depends upon natural ground-water flow direction,
variations due to pumping wells, mounding of the grounc water beneath
the site and other factors influencing flow direction, such as faults,
fractures and other geologic features.
In the case of artesian wells, the anticipated flow direction of the
waste plume generally would not be in the direction of the artesian well ,
intake. Artesian wells are located in confined aquifers separated
hydraulically from the surface sources of contamination by relatively
impermeable confining layers, and wells tapping the confined zone
generally will not be drawing ground water from upper zones.
-------
Artesian wells should not be considered in this step unless there is an
indication that the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground
water would be in the direction of that well. To score Step 5, prioritized
cases (cases A-D) have been established for rating the site according to
the potential magnitude of endangerment to current sources. These
priorities are detailed in Step 6 (Table VI). To score a site when a
water table is nearly flat and the flow direction is indeterminable, a circle
with a 1600 meter radius should be drawn around the site for designating
the area of concern. In this situation the evaluator would use the same
criteria, in sequential order, begining with Case A, Case B, and then
Case D, eliminating Case C.
After the distance has been determined, use the Step 6 rating matrix
to determine the rating under the column of the appropriate case.
-------
TABLE VI
Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment to a Water Supply
Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D
Highest Priority: Rate the closest water well within
1600 meters of the site that is in the anticipated
direction of waste plume movement.
Second Priority: If there is no well satisfying Case A,
rate the closest surface water within 1600 meters of the
site that is in the anticipated direction of the waste
p1ume movemen t.
Third Priority: If no surface water or water well
satisfying Case A or B exists, rate the closest water
supply well or surface water supply within 1600 meters
of the site that Is not in the anticipated direction of
waste plume movement.
Lowest Priority: If there are no surface waters or water
wells within 1600 meters of the site in any direction,
rate the site as "OD."
Select the appropriate rating for the given distance and case:
Distance
(Meters)
Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D
<200
>200, SAOO
>*»00, £800
>800, ^1600
>1600
9A
7A
5A
3A
8B
6B
2B
7C
5C
3C
1C
OD
-------
Example for determining the score for Step 6.
The potential health hazard to existing water supply sources which the
Poultry Processing Plant presents is found by determining what
types of water supplies are present and their distances from the
lagoon. The drilled well described in Figure 11 is for industrial
water supply. Surface water (a river) is within about 30 meters of the
lagoon as shown in Figure 9. Step 6 requires an estimation of the
anticipated flow direction. In this example, the anticipated flow of the
waste plume is to the river. The rating of Step 6 would be based on
Case B, and would be scored "8B".
55
-------
STEP 7
DETERMINING THE INVESTIGATOR'S DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE
The evaluation of a surface impoundment's ground-water contamination
potential involves three steps and about twice ae many separate variables.
In many situations the investigator will not have comprehensive information
concerning the variables and will have to evaluate the site on the basis
of estimation or approximation. For this reason a rating of the investigator's
confidence in scoring each step will be made. The following outline
is intended to assist the investigator in rating the confidence of the
data for each step, with "A" the highest confidence, "C" the lowest.
Step 1 confidence rating for determining the earth material of the
unsaturated zone.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Driller's logs containing reliable geologic
descriptions and water level data;
U. S. Department of Agriculture soil survey
used in conjunction with large scale, modern
geologic maps.
Published ground-water reports on the site.
B Soil surveys or geologic maps used alone.
56
-------
General ground-water reports.
Drillers' logs with generalized descriptions.
Drillers logs or exposures such as deep road cuts near
the site of contamination allowing interpolation
within the same general geologic unit.
C On site examination with no subsurface data and no
exposures of subsurface conditions nearby.
Estimation of water levels or geology based on
topography and climate.
Extrapolations of well logs, road cuts, etc.
where local geology is not well known.
Estimation based on generalized geologic maps.
Estimations based on topographic analysis.
Step 2 confidence rating for determining the ground-water availability
ranking.
This step involves the earth material categorization and thickness of the
aquifer's saturated zone. The confidence rating for Step 2, Part A follows
the same basis as Step 1, Part B above.
Step 3 confidence rating for determining background ground-water quality.
i •
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Water quality analyses indicative of background
ground-water quality from wells at the site or
nearby wells or springs or known drinking water
supply wells in vicinity.
57
-------
B Local, county, regional and other general hydro-
geology reports published by State or Federal
agencies on background water quality.
Interpolation of background grourid-water quality
from base flow water quality analyses of nearby
surface streams.
C Estimates of background ground-water quality from
i
mineral composition of aquifer earth material.
Step 4 confidence rating for waste character.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Waste character rating based on specific
waste type.
B Waste character rating based on SIC category.
Step 6 confidence rating for determination of the anticipated direction
of waste plume movement.
Rating
A
Basis for Determination of Rating
Accurate measurements of elevations of
static water levels in wells, springs, swamps,
and permanent streams in the area immediately
surrounding the site in question.
Ground-water table maps from published State
and Federal reports.
58
-------
B Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in non cavernous area having
permanent streams and humid climate.
Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in arid regions of low relief containing some
permanent streams.
C Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in cavernous, predominantly limestone
areas (karst terrain).
Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in arid regions of highly irregular
topography having no permanent surface
streams.
Example for determining the confidence rating for each step.
Based upon the guidance just presented, the confidence ratings for the
Poultry Processing Plant are:
Confidence Rating
Step 1 A—Based upon measurement in on site
well.
Step 2 A—Based upon well logs of on site well.
Step 3 A—Based upon water well analyses.
59
-------
Step 4
Step 6
B—Based upon SIC category.
B—Estimate of flow direction from
topographic map in humid region.
60
-------
STEPS
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTIFIERS
This step allows the evaluator to identify any additional
significant variable not noted in the rating system. Such para-
meters are:
Identifier
R - The site is located in a ground-water recharge area,
D - The site is located in a ground-water discharge area,
F - The site is located in a flood plain and is susceptable to
flood hazard,
E - The site is located in an earthquake prone area,
W - The site is located in the area of influence of a pumping water
supply well,
K - The site is located in karst topography or fractured,
cavernous limestone region.
C - The ground water under the site has been contaminated
by man-made causes (i. e., road salt, feed lot, industrial
waste).
M - Known ground-water mound exists beneath the site.
I - Interceptor wells or other method employed to inhibit
contaminated ground-water migration (endangerment to
water supply wells may be reduced).
61
-------
STEP 9
RECORD THE FINAL SCORE
In order to present the rating scores from the previous nine steps
of the evalution system in a logical manner, Step 9 provides
a systematic format in which the evaluation of the site can be
recorded. The nine steps are not recorded in numerical order as
the focus of the evaluation is on the ground-water pollution potential
score of Step 5. Thus, Step 5 is listed first, followed by Steps 1, 2, 3, 4,
6 and 8. The example of the Poultry Processing Plant waste treatment
lagoon has been listed on page 63 on the following sample reporting
form. The confidence scores of Step 7 have been distributed
among the appropriate steps.
62
-------
TABLE VI I
RATING OF THE GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL:
9 C
a)
c
O
M
.
4-J
03
tn
c
^
A
0
c
>-
03 —
»— •—
(U 4->
o c
in a)
X 2
63
-------
APPENDIX A
TYPICAL SOURCES AND TYPES OF DATA USEFUL IN
APPLYING THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Type of Data
Typical Sources
Useful in determining
Steps
1 2&3 4 6
Property survey
Well drillers logs
Water level measure
ments
Topographic Maps
Air Photos
County Road Maps
Ground Water Reports
Soil Surveys of Counties
Geologic Maps
Waste Character
County Records, property
owner
Well Driller, property
owner, state records
Well owners' observations,
well drillers' logs, topo-
graphic maps, ground water
maps (reports)
U. S. Geological Survey and
designated state sales offices
U. S. Dept of Agriculture,
U. S. Forest Service, etc.
State agencies
U.S. Geological Survey,
State agencies
U. S. Department of
Agriculture
U. S. Geological and State
Surveys
Owner/operator, State or
Federal permits, SIC Code
X
X
X
X X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
* - Source of data may be especially useful
X - Source of data may be of slight use or may be used indirectly
-------
APPENDIX B
MEASURING UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
inch (in)
centimeter
feet (ft)
meter
mile (mi)
kilometer
U. S. gallon (gal)
cubic meter
cubic feet (ft 3)
cubic meter
acre -foot (ac-ft)
cubic meter
hectare
square meter
hectare
acre
Hydraulic Conductivity
gpd/ft2
cm/sec
Darcy
Darcy
X
X
X
X
X
X
,x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.54
0. 3937
0. 3048
3. 2808
1.609
0.621
0.0038
264. 17
0, 0283
35.314
123. 53
0. 0008
10, 000. 0
0. 0001
2.471
0. 4047
-5
4. 72 x 10
3
21. 2 x 10
18.2
-4
8. 58 x 10
= centimeter (cm)
= inch
= meter (m)
= feet
= kilometer (km)
= mile
«3
= cubic meter (m )
= U.S. gallon
= cubic meter
= cubic feet
= cubic meter
= acre -feet
= square meter ( m )
= hectare
= acre
= hectare
= cm/sec
= gpd/ft2
= gpd/ft2
= cm/sec
65 -
-------
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
Aquifer - a formation, group of formations or part of a formation that
contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant
quantities of water to wells and springs.
Artesian ground water - synonymous with confined ground water which
is a body of ground water overlain by material sufficiently impervious
to sever free hydraulic connection with overlying ground water.
Confined ground water is under pressure great enough to cause water
in a well tapping that aquifer to rise above the top of the confined
aquifer.
Discharge area - geographic region in which ground water discharges
into surface water such as at springs and seeps and subsurface seepage
into streams, lakes and oceans (referred to as base flow in streams).
Karst topography - geologic region typified by the effects of solution of
rocks by water. Rock types most likely effected are limestone
dolostone, gypsum and salt beds. Features produced are caverns,
collapse features on the surface (sink holes), underground rivers
and zones of lost circulation for well drillers.
Perched water table - unconfined ground water separated from an underlying
body of ground water by an unsaturated zone. Its water table is a
"perched water table" and is sustained by a "perching bed" whose
permeability is so low that water percolating downward through it is
not able to bring water in the underlying unsaturated zone above
atmospheric pressure.
Plume of contaminated ground water - as contaminants seep or leach into
the subsurface and enter the ground water, the flow of the ground
water past the site of contamination causes the contaminated ground
water to move down gradient. This action results in the creation of
a "plume" shaped body of ground water containing varying concentrations
of the contaminant, extending down gradient from place of entry. The
shape of the plume of contaminated ground water is affected by
attenuation of the specific contaminants and, to a lesser extent, by
dispersion.
Primary permeability - permeability due to openings or voids existing
when the rock was formed, i. e. , intergranular interstices.
66
-------
Rechafrge area - geographic region in which surface waters infiltrate
yfAo the ground, percolate to the water table and replenish the ground
water. Recharge areas may be well defined regions such as lime-
stone outcrops or poorly defined broad regions.
Saturated Zone - the zone in the subsurface in which all the interstices
are filled with water.
Secondary permeability - permeability due to openings in rocks formed
after the formation of the rock, i. e., joints, fractures, faults,
solution channels and caverns.
Unsaturated zone - formerly the "zone of aeration" or "vadose zone".
It is the zone between the land surface and the water table, including
the "capillary fringe".
Water table - that surface in an uncorifined ground-water body at which
the pressure is atmospheric. Below the water table is the
saturated zone and above is the unsaturated zone.
-------
APPENDIX D
SELECTED REFERENCES
Alexander, Martin, 'The Breakdown of Pesticides in Soils, in Brody,
N. C. ," Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment, Plimpton
Press, Norwood, Massachusetts, pp 331-342, 1967.
Belter, W. G., "Ground Disposal: Its Role in the U. S. Radioactive
Waste Management Operations,: in Comptes Rendus, Collogue
International sur la Retention et la Migration de Jons Radioactifs
dans les Sols, Centre dfEtudes Nucleaires, Saclay, France, pp
3-10,- 1963.
Bredehoeft, J. D., and G. F. Pinder, "Mass Transport in Flowing
Groundwater," Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No. 1, pp 194-
210, 1973.
Born, S. M., and D. A. Stephenson, "Hydrogeologic Considerations in
Liquid Waste Disposal," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Vol 24, No. 2, pp 52-55, 1969.
Brown, R. E., Hydrologic Factors Pertinent to Ground-Water Contami-
nation, Public Health Service Technical Report W61-5, pp 7-20, 1961.
Brown, R. H., andJ.R. Raymond, "The Measurements of Hanford's
Geohydrologic Features Affecting Waste Disposal," in Proceedings
of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working Meeting - Ground
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Chalk River, Canada, U. S. Department
of Commerce TID 7628, pp 77-98, 1962.
Carlston, C. W., "Tritium - Hydrologic Research: Some Results of the
U. S. Geological Survey Research Program," Science 143 (3608),
pp 804-806, 1964.
Cartwright, K., and F. B. Sherman, "Evaluating Sanitary Landfill Sites
in Illinois," Illinois State Geological Survey Environmental Geology
Note No. 27, 15 pp, August 1969.
Cherry, J.A., G.E. Grisak, andR.E. Jackson, "Hydrogeological
Factors in Shallow Subsurface Radioactive-Waste Management in
Canada," Proceedings International Conference on Land For Waste
Management, Ottawa, Canada, October 1-3, 1973.
-------
Clark, D.A. andJ.E. Moyer, 1974, An Evaluation of Tailings Ponds
Sealants, EPA-660/2-74-065.
Cole, J.A. (ed.), Groundwater Pollution in Europe, Water Information
Center, Port Washington, New York, 347 pp, 1975.
DaCosta, J. A. , and R. R. Bennett, 'The Pattern of flow in the Vicinity of
a Recharging and A Discharging Pair of Wells in an Aquifer Having
Area! Parallel Flow," International Union Geodesy and Geophysic,
International Association Committee Subterranean Waters, 196IT
Davis, S.N. andR.J.M. DeWiest, 1966, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. , New York.
DeBuchannanne, G.D. , and P. E. LaMoreaux, Geologic Control Related
to Ground Water Contamination, Public Health Service Technical
Report W61-5, pp 3-7, 1961.
Deutsch, M., Groundwater Contamination and Legal Controls in Michigan,
Public Health service Technical Report W61-5, pp 98-110. , 1961.
Ellis, M.J. andD.T. Pederson, 1977, Groundwater Levels in Nebraska,
1976, Conservation and Survey Division, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln.
Engineering-Science, Inc. , "Effects of Refuse Dumps on Groundwater
Quality," Resources Agency California State Water Pollution Control
Board, Pub. 211, 1961.
Geswein, A. J. and 1975, Liners for Land Disposal Sites—An Assessment,
EPA/530/SW-137.
Giddings, M.T., 'The Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Sanitary Landfill:
State-of-the-Art in Ground-Water Protection," Ground Water, Vol 2,
Special Issue, pp 5-14, 1977.
Haxo, H.E. , Jr., andR.M. White, 1976, Evaluation of Liner Materials
Exposed to Leachate, Second Interim Report, EPA-600/2-76-255.
Haxo, R. S. andR.M. White, 1977, Liner Materials Exposed to Hazardous
and Toxic Sludges, First interim Report, EPA-600/2-77-081.
Hughes, J. L., Evaluation of Ground-Water Degradation Resulting From
Waste Disposal to Alluvium Near Bar stow, California, U.S. Geological
Survey Prof. Paper 878, 33 pp, 1975.
69
-------
Hughes, G.M., and K. Cartwright, "Scientific and Administrative
Criteria for Shallow Waste Disposal," Civil Engineering-ASCE,
Vol 42, No. 3, pp 70-73, 1972. "
Hughes, G.M. , R.A. Landon, andR.N. Farvolden, Hydrogeology of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Northeastern Illinois, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report SW-122, 154 pp, 1971.
LeGrand, H. E., "System for Evaluating the Contamination Potential
of Some Waste Sites," American Water Works Association Journal,
Vol 56, No. 8, pp 959-974, l964a.
LeGrand, H.E. , "Management Aspects of Ground-Water Contamination,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 36, No. 9, pp
1133-1145, I964b.
LeGrand, H. E. , "Patterns of Contaminated Zones of Water in the Ground,"
Water Resources Research, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 83-95, 1965.
LeGrand, H.E., "Monitoring the Changes in Quality of Ground Water,"
Ground Water, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 14-18, 1968.
Lieber, Maxim, N.M. Perlmutter, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Cadmium and
Chromium in Nassau County Groundwater," Journal American Water
Works Association, Vol 56, No. 6, p 742, ISM]
Meyer, C.F. (ed.), Polluted Groundwater: Some Causes, Effects, Controls
and Monitoring, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.
EPA-600/4-73-OOlb, Washington, D. C., 325 pp, June 1974.
Miller, D.W., F.A. Deluca, andT.L. Tessier, Ground Water Contamination
in the Northeast States, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-660/2-74-056, Washington, D. C. , 325 p, June 1974.
Miller, D.W. (editor), Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on
GroundWater, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.
EPA-570/9-77-001, Final Report to Congress, 1977.
Morrison, W.R., R.A. Dodge, J. Merriman, C.M. Ellsperman,
Chungming Wong, W. F. Savage, W.W. Rinne and C. L. Granses, 1970,
Pond Linings for Desalting Plant Effluents, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress
Report No. 602.
70
-------
Palmquist, R., andL.V.A. Sendlein, TThe Configuration of Contami-
nation Enclaves from Refuse Disposal Sites on Floodplains,
Ground Water, Vol 13, No. 2, pp 167-181, 1975.
Panel on Land Burial, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, The
Shallow Land Burial of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Solid
Waste, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D. C., 150 pp 1976.
Papadopolos, S. S. , and I. J. Winograd, Storage of Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes in the Ground Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Factors with
an Appendix on the Maxey Flats, Kentucky, Radioactive Waste Storage
Site; Current Knowledge and Data Needs for a Quantitative Hydrogeologic
Evaluation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-
520/3-74-009, Reston, Virginia, 40 pp, 1974.
Parsons, P. J. , "Underground Movement of Radioactive Wastes at Chalk
River," in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission
Working Meeting - Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River,
Canada, U.S. Department of Commerce, TIP 7628, pp 17-64, 1962.
Perlmutter, N M., M. Lieber, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Waterborne
Cadmium and Hexavalent Chromium Wastes in South Farmingdale, Nassau
County, Long Island, New York," U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper
475-C, pp 179-184, 1963.
Peters, J. A., 1968, Ground Water Course, State of California, The
Resources Agency, Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif.,
pp. 5-7.
Pettyjohn, W. A., "Water Pollution in Oil Field Brines and Related
Industrial Wastes in Ohio," in Water Quality in a Stressed Environment,
Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 166-180, 1972.
Phillips, C.R., Development of a Soil-Waste Interaction Matrix, Canada,
Environmental Protection Service, Solid Waste Management Report
EPS-EX-76-10, 89 pp, 1976.
Pinder, F. F., "A Galekin -Finite Element Simulation of Groundwater
Contamination on Long Island, New York," Water Resources Research,
Vol. 9, No. 6, pp 1657-1669, 1973.
Pirider, G. G., W. P. SaukinandM. Th. Van Genuchten, 1976, Use of
Simulation for Characterizing Transport in Soils Adjacent to Land
Disposal Sites, Research Report 76-WR-6, Water Resources Program,
Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University.
71
-------
Robson, S. G., and J. D. Bredehoeft, "Use of a Water Quality Model for
the Analysis of Ground Water Contamination at Barstow, California,"
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Annual
Meetings, Vol 4, No. 7, pp 640-641, 1972.
Romero, J. C., "The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses through Porous
Media," Ground Water, Vol 8, No. 2, pp 37-48, 1970.
Sendlein, L.V.A., andR.C. Palmquist, "Strategic Placement of Waste
Disposal Sites in Karst Regions,: in Karst Hydrology, Memoirs of
the 12th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists,
published by University of Alabama at Huntsville Press, pp 328-335
1977.
Simpson, E. S. , Transverse Dispersion in Liquid Flow through Porous
Media, U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 411-C, 30 pp, 1962.—
Theis, C. V. , "Notes on Dispersion in Fluid Flow by Geological Factors,"
in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working
Me"et!hg, Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River, Canada,
U.S. Department of Commerce TID 7628, pp 166-178, 1962.
Thomas, Henry, "Some Fundamental Problems in the Fixations of
Radioisotopes in Solids," Proceedings U.N. International Conference:
Peaceful Uses Atomic Energy, 18, pp 37-42, 1958.
Todd, D. K., 1959, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ,
New York, p. 53.
, 1970, The Water Encyclopedia, The Water Information
Center Inc. , 559 pp.
Todd, D. K., andE.E. McNulty, Polluted Groundwater: A Review of the
Significant Literature, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-680/4-74-001, Washington, D. C. , 215 pp, March 1974.
Todd, D.K., R.M. Tinlin, K.D. Schmidt, and L. G. Everett, Monitoring
Groundwater Quality; Monitoring Methodology, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-600/4-76-026, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 154 pp, June 1976.
Vogt, J.E., "Infectious Hepatitis Outbreak in Posen, Michigan," in
Ground Water Contamination, Proceedings of 1961 Symposium, pp
87-91, 1961. ~ —
72
-------
Walton, W. C. , 1970, Ground Water Resource Evaluation, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. , New York, p. 36.
Waltz, J. P., "Methods of Geologic Evaluation of Pollution Potential at
Mountain Homesites," Ground Water, Vol 10, No. 1, pp 42-47,
1972.
Walz, D. H. , andK.T. Chestnut, "Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes:
An Example from Hopewell, Virginia," Ground Water, Vol 15, No. 1,
pp 75-79, 1977.
Wenzel, L.K., Methods for Determining Permeability of Water-Bearing
Materials, U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 887, 1942.
73
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B-I
LOCATED ACTIVE SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State
AK
AL
AR
AS
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
oyi
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
Agricultural
Sites Imps
11
404
204
52
190
221
18
5
312
733
6
43
576
38
171
578
1020
12
409
236
86
394
392
19
10
509
748
31
50
721
67
246
766
1816
Municipal
Sites imps
107
378
346
2
374
839
443
120
14
2527
430
34
30
759
134
978
480
422
142
562
490
2
980
3390
823
359
35
3505
513
48
44
1268
311
2142
666
833
Industrial
Sites Imps
10
249
163
2
135
523
263
162
33
747
158
10
21
100
50
380
213
107
22
628
322
3
336
1596
939
372
86
1306
293
80
202
194
110
974
492
245
Mining oil & Gas
Sites Bnps Sites Imps
1
33
16
79
81
78
5
58
42
19
6
31
132
146
3
3
96 1 1
29 132 5729
211 1 2
183 117 2014
216 262 1261
8
290
86
37
13
50
264 2810 3051
264 480 490
5 418 429
Other Total
Sites Bnps Sites Imps
129
1065
861
4
641
1750
1267
305
52
3644
1363
33 38 102
94
343 343 1784
253
4471
1897
1970
179
1696
6806
5
1615
7577
3631
758
131
5610
1640
234
296
2539
538
6677
2678
3328
-------
LOCATED ACTIVE
State
KY
LA
MA
MD
v ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
: MM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
Agricultural
Sites Imps
61
8
79
28
557
1404
2006
421
85
100
248
619
15
3
88
3
71
154
330
58
131
20
97
33
659
1530
2123
476
129
132
285
1139
22
8
142
11
56
184
429
74
Municipal
Sites Imps
199
72
210
79
56
689
381
1318
476
227
256
363
360
107
74
337
87
395
458
749
211
262
113
1811
122
111
1063
866
2035
533
466
352
748
702
202
185
863
259
684
727
1316
396
Industrial
Sites Imps
147
213
122
124
48
891
112
282
399
61
339
8
81
30
219
293
24
299
854
224
90
259
865
377
248
175
1648
211
436
640
233
542
26
227
50
670
732
82
645
1528
422
214
SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Mining Oil & Gas Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Bnps Sites Imps Sites Imps
124
3
1
161
50
55
51
5
31
14
25
1
15
86
102
28
541
85
11
152 109 118
8 696 1818
3
369
135
60
89
10 5 8
107 264 331
25
85 23 24
1 570 1183
33
836 12097 15173
189
119 277 333
12753 1280 1345
138 1547 2233
30
640
984
341
443
132
2187
1952
3657
1306
668
709
667
1 2 1632
152
311
12901
216
1070
3287
2935
370
922
2804
2211
836
319
3505
2733
4683
1667
1266
1051
1168
3254
274
896
17746
541
1837
16537
4538
714
-------
LOCATED ACTIVE SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TT
TX
UT
VA
VI
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Agricultural
Sites Imps
249
300
9
1068
279
271
510
6
393
128
133
392
13
6
339
302
17
1107
343
368
1181
8
557
130
174
427
16
8
Municipal
Sites Imps
404
4
8
595
276
143
3
761
42
399
7
64
168
301
322
88
761
4
24
753
487
177
5
1658
182
546
7
96
360
644
408
138
Industrial
Sites Imps
668
23
27
203
20
211
612
30
254
2
21
91
323
104
44
1680
78
92
397
51
484
2272
78
507
10
45
468
635
348
99
Mining
Sites Imps
4331
2
4
121
47
3
166
1
11
6
249
40-
5611
2
14
296
144
10
365
3
47
14
1089
139
Oil & Gas Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps
571 20471 1123 5362 7346
327
44
1868
27 31 606
746
3
1742 5485 3672
130 2067 211
1212
9
214
403
1022
688
968 1354 1146
34224
384
133
2259
926
1325
5
10740
2345
1975
17
274
1049
1720
1861
1738
-------
APPENDIX B-II
ASSESSED ACTIVE SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Agricultural Municipal Industrial Mining
Oil & Gas Other Total
State
AK
AL
AR
AS
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
GM
HI
LA
ID
IL
IN
KS
Sites
6
201
46
5
172
35
14
5
311
251
6
42
57
38
170
569
100
Imps
6
201
46
• 5
194
35
14
10
508
251
6
46
57
38
170
569
100
Sites
38
169
146
43
796
68
107
14
2523
141
32
30
74
128
204
477
42
Mps
38
169
146
43
1087
68
107
36
3487
141
32
37
74
129
204
477
42
Sites
7
83
153
92
475
36
158
32
740
117
10
21
80
46
379
206
49
Imps
7
83
153
92
613
37
158
85
1299
117
10
41
80
46
379
206
49
Sites t
1
14
14
18
79
10
5
57
28
18
30
130
146
Bnps Sites Imps i
2
14
14 131 131
18
97 107 117
10 40 41
5 "
289
28
18
30
130 183 183
146 473 473
20 20
Sites Dnps Sites
52
467
490
0
158
1629
189
284
51
3631
537
33 33 99
93
211
242
1066
1871
211
Imps
53
467
490
0
158
2108
191
284
131
5583
537
99
124
211
243
1066
1871
211
-------
ASSESSED ACTIVE SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State
KY
LA.
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
Agricultural
Sites Imps
60
3
68
28
82
673
827
157
18
76
248
30
15
2
4
2
14
130
3
69
28
82
751
827
157
18
76
287
30
22
2
4
2
14
Municipal
Sites Imps
186
70
138
79
56
117
378
652
189
33
241
360
48
107
39
98
14
43
250
70
139
79
56
117
844
652
189
33
241
739
48
202
39
98
16
43
Industrial
Sites Imps
141
204
75
122
48
167
110
272
363
39
327
8
70
30
126
40
12
92
255
204
75
122
48
167
279
272
365
39
327
26
71
59
172
40
15
93
Mining Oil & Gas Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps
121
2
128
23
5
45
5
14
13
25
1
7
73
9
1
151 109 118
2 41 41
128
23
8
45
555
14 48 48
13
65 23 23
1 22 22
7
73
9
1 20 20
617
317
216
397
132
389
1166
1796
719
152
657
664
171
152
174
215
37
170
904
317
217
398
132
389
1882
1796
721
152
657
1140
172
283
220
215
42
171
-------
ASSESSED ACTIVE SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TT
TX
UT
VA
VI
VT
WA
WI
WV
W
Agricultural
Sites Imps
128
49
55
242
102
9
921
278
41
50
5
20
127
17
200
12
6
128
50
55
243
102
17
955
334
41
51
7
21
129
22
200
14
6
Municipal
Sites Imps
430
63
207
398
2
8
579
267
20
3
110
39
34
7
61
25
199
314
29
430
63
213
401
2
24
731
475
20
3
110
169
34
- 7
93
57
199
394
29
Industrial
Sites Imps
806
145
90
652
16
27
200
18
147
610
29
87
2
19
85
202
99
29
807
148
90
1021
16
88
390
50
148
610
79
87
2
41
446
202
326
29
Mining . Oil & Gas
Sites Bnps Sites Imps
133
35
11
124
2
4
17
28
3
11
1
2
5
37
13
134 1200 1200
36 151 151
11
129 116 116
2
14 27 31
17
28 103 103
10 128 128
11
3
10
5
274
14 357 359
Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Imps
2697
443
363
294 294 1826
120
44
1702
594
225
3
901
204
152
9
208
129
606
462
434
2699
448
369
2204
120
129
2078
904
226
3
902
393
153
9
266
535
606
1008
437
-------
State
AK
AL
AR
AS
AZ
CA
CD
CT
DE
FL
GA
GM
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
APPENDIX B-III
LOCATED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Agricultural Municipal Industrial Mining Oil & Gas Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps
26 30
2 10 10 14
1 8 13 33
3 5 10 37
16 63 65 121
12 12 49 50
88 134 69 139 16 28 413 438
27 31
12 24
67 20 48
49 1 5 12 19 1 26 31 101
83 188
65 70
591 745
-------
LOCATED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Agricultural Municipal
Industrial
Mining
Oil & Gas
Other
State Sites
KY
LA
MA 1
MD
ME 3
MI 2
MN 2
MO 4
MS 47
MT
NC 1
MD
NE
NH
NJ 3
MM 2
NV
NY
Imps Sites
1
6 18
1
3 13
2 6
2 11
4 250
52 5
. 1 6
1
5 6
3 18
7
Imps
1
142
1
16
10
13
250
'6
6
1
24
47
8
Sites
20
8
12
23
63
18
221
15
1
37
9
4
33
Imps
39
25
24
111
114
29
221
15
3
100
32
264
44
Sites
2
104
4
4
7
6
'
116
4
10
118
28
37
24
28
35
28
Total
Sites Bnps
49
33
13
41
76
135
507
52
26
2
46
39
10
40
77
208
25
133
135
160
507
58
30
4
129
116
382
52
-------
lOCATED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Agricultural Municipal Industrial Mining Oil & Gas Other Total
State Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Bnps Sites
OH
OK
OR
PA 7 17 18 30 130 395 60 97 6
PR
RI 3 13
SC
SD
TN 9 12 1 1 47 136 11 1
TT
TX 60 120 31 54 79 191
UT
VA 4 4 13 19 8 15 5 24
VT
VT 1 1 4 4 5 12
WA
WE 22 2 2 42 67 3 11
WV 2 3 14 14 8 19 42 150
WY
Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps
18 13 70 234 627
3 13
1 59 151
170 365
30 62
10 17
49 82
66 186
-------
Agricultural
State Sites Imps
AK
AL
AR
AS:
AZ
CA 33
GO
CT 1 1
DE
PL
GA 11
GM
HI
IA
ID
IL 5 5
IN
KS
APPENDIX B-IV
ASSESSED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
Municipal Industrial Mining Oil & Gas , Other Total
Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites ' Imps Sites Bnps Sites Imps Sites Imps
55 55
2 2 10 10 12 12
10 13 33 1 1 10 14 1 3 28 37
16 16 62 63 1 1 80 81
44 44
111111 44
21 21 69 69 16 16 30 30 141 141
'
• '
-------
ASSESSED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State Sites
KY
Agricultural Municipal
Imps Sites Baps
Industrial
Mining
Oil & Gas
Other
Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites
Total
Imps
IA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
1
1 1 13
1
3 3 13
3
2 2 11
14 14 4
116
1
223
5
1
1
13
1
13
3
13
4
6
1
3
5
1
19
6
4
22
27
18
15
1
25
4
2
2
19
6
4
22 2 2
27
29 14 14
15 4 4
3
25
444
334
2
33 23
6 6 26
5
40
4 4 34
45
• 18
26
2
30
11 14
5
3
23
26
5
40
34
58
18
26
4
30
14
7
3
-------
ASSESSED ABANDONED SITES & IMPOUNDMENTS
State
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TT
TX
UT
VA
VI
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Agricultural Municipal Industrial Mining oil & Gas Other
Sites imps Sites Imps Sites Imps Sites imps Sites Mps Sites Mps
7 7
1 1
17
17
8 8
4 4
128 197
13
11 11
5 12
56
56
11 1 1 20 20 2 2
6 14
12 13
Total
Sites imps
226 296
3 13
26
10
24
6
26
17
24
14
-------
------- |