United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/4-83-050
October 1983
Research and Development
v>EPA
A Methodology to
Inventory, Classify, and
Prioritize Uncontrolled
Waste Disposal Sites
-------
EPA-600/4-83-050
October 1983
A METHODOLOGY TO INVENTORY, CLASSIFY, AND PRIORITIZE
UNCONTROLLED WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Ann R. Nelson
Louise A. Hartshorn
Monroe County Environmental Management Council
Rochester, New York 14614
and
Dr. Richard A. Young
State University of New York
Geneseo, New York 14451
This report was prepared under Contract Number 68-03-3049, subcontract
number 14043, with the Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Co., Inc.
Project Officer
Roy B. Evans
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under contract number
68-03-3049, subcontract number 14043, with the Lockheed Engineering and
Management Services Company, Inc. It has been subject to the Agency's
peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as
an EPA document.
-11-
-------
ABSTRACT
A comprehensive approach has been developed for use by local governments
to inventory active and inactive waste disposal sites for which little or no
information is available, and to establish priorities for further investigation.
This approach integrates all available historic, engineering, geologic, land
use, water supply, and public agency or private company records to develop as
complete a site profile as possible. Historic aerial photographs provide the
accuracy and documentation required to compile a precise record of site boun-
daries, points of access, and adjacent land use. Engineering borings for con-
struction projects in the vicinity of suspected sites can be integrated with
geologic information to construct reasonable hydrogeologic models to evaluate
potential leachate impact on water wells or nearby inhabitants. Sites are
systematically ranked in terms of potential hazard based on current land use,
hydrogeology, and proximity to water wells. Greatest attention is given to
those sites which could impact public or private drinking water supplies.
This kind of evaluation is a necessary step in the prioritization of abandoned
dump sites where little is known about contents and where numbers of sites
preclude a comprehensive drilling or testing program. Case histories from Mon-
roe County, New York, indicate that a well-designed study provides a conserva-
tive estimate of the number of large dump sites which deserve further consid-
eration. The Monroe County study also provided a comprehensive, 50-year in-
ventory of all potentially significant sites in a large urban area (Rochester,
N.Y.) in which at least 90 percent of initially identified targets were either
eliminated or were not classified as high priority sites.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 14043 under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a
period from July 1981 to July 1982, and work was completed as of November 1,
1982.
- 111 -
-------
PREFACE
The adverse effects of chemical leachate migration from
former waste disposal sites became a major public concern in the
late 1970's. In response, Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
on December 11, 1980. Better known as "Superfund," this law
provides a fund for the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste
sites. Section 105 directs that procedures and standards for
locating hazardous waste sites and determining priorities for
cleanup be developed based on relative risk to the public
health, welfare, or the environment. The criteria must take
into account the population at risk, hazard potential of the
substances, potential for contamination of drinking water
supplies, potential for direct human contact, and potential for
destruction of sensitive ecosystems. States are required to
annually nominate priority sites for remedial action based on
the above factors.
In 1978, Monroe County, N.Y., at the direction of the County
Legislature, began a process to discover and evaluate known and
unknown waste disposal sites. The problem proved complex, but a
wide range of valuable information sources were identified and
utilized.
In 1980, EPA reviewed the county's effort and awarded a
contract for the completion of the methodology. The preparation
of this manual, which outlines Monroe County's procedures for
identifying and characterizing waste disposal sites and for
establishing priorities for further investigation, is the final
product of this grant. EPA funded the effort to assist the
agency with its responsibility to discover and screen sites
under the National Contingency Plan. The methods can be used to
locate unknown sites and to develop more detailed information on
the many reported sites about which little is known.
-iv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ill
Preface iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
List of Abbreviations viii
Acknowledgements ix
CHAPTER
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Identification 5
3. Site Characterization 23
4. Geologic Analysis 33
5. Hydrogeologic Hazard Analysis 48
6. Application of Methodology to Rank Sites 65
References 73
Bibliography 75
Appendices
A. Administrative Procedures and Pert Demonstration Model 76
B. Addresses of Project Resources. . 91
C. Call-in Campaign Form 94
D. Call-In Campaign Flyer 95
E. Site Activity Record and Guide for Completing the Form 96
F. Symbols for Notation on Aerial Photographs 104
G. Waste Disposal Site Information Sheet 105
H. Notification Letter to Individual Well Owner 106
I. Notification Letter to Landlord ...... 107
J. A Geologic Case Study for an Industrial Landfill. 108
Glossary 118
- v -
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Site activity notation 12
2-2 Orthophot omap 18
2-3 Inventory of sites:
Rochester West Quadrangle 19
4-1 A portion of the Bedrock Surface Map,
Monroe County, N.Y 43
4-2 A portion of the Groundwater Contour Map,
Monroe County, N.Y 44
4-3 A portion of the Thickness of Overburden Map,
Monroe County, N.Y 45
5-1 Geologic ranking sheet 60
6-1 Matrix for ranking waste disposal sites 67
6-2 Distribution of waste disposal sites for
Town of Greece, Monroe County, N.Y 71
A-l PERT demonstration model 80
J-l Aerial photographs of Weiland Road
industrial landfill 109
J-2 Weiland Road industrial landfill Ill
J-3 Preliminary Diagrammatic geologic cross-section:
Weiland Road industrial landfill 113
J-4 Interpretative geologic cross-section:
Culver-Ridge Shopping Center site 115
- vi -
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 General Criteria for Distinguishing Waste
Disposal and Fil-1 Areas 13
2-2 Site Activity Categories 21
2-3 Land Use Classification 22
3-1 Criteria for Ranking Drinking Water Supplies 31
5-1 Typical Soil and Rock Permeability Ranges 51
6-1 Categorization of Sites, Greece, N.Y 70
A-l Component Activities and Time Estimates
for PERT Demonstration Model 81
A-2 Events and Time Estimates for
PERT Demonstration Model 87
- vii -
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980; also known as "Superfund"
CPM Critical Path Management
DEC New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
EMC Monroe County Environmental Management Council
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EROS Earth Resources Observation System
LRC Monroe County Landfill Review .Committee
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCIC National Cartographic Information Center
NCP National Contingency Plan
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NYS New York State
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
PERT Program Evaluation Review Technique
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
SAR Site Activity Record
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SHWRD EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
SIA Surface Impoundment Assessment Model
SIC Standard Industrial Code
HSDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
- viii -
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of individuals from New York county and
state agencies participated in various stages of this study.
Members of the Monroe County Landfill Review Committee (LRC)
played key roles in the development of the methodology. Dr.
Joel Nitzkin, County Health Director and Chairman of the LRC,
effectively coordinated the study among the various state and
county agencies. At various points, Richard Burton, director of
the Monroe County Health Department Laboratory, and Dr. Harrison
Sine, Jr., Vice-chairman of the Monroe County Environmental
Management Council, offered direction and insight as the
methodology was refined. During the early stages, Frank Clark,
Senior Sanitary Engineer for the Region 8 office of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), provided
engineering expertise, access to important information sources,
and support for the study in state offices in Albany. Donald
Barry, Executive Director of the Industrial Management Council,
provided valuable input from the industrial community.
Monroe County appreciates the support of former DEC
Commissioner Robert Flacke; Norman Nosenchuck, DEC Director of
Solid Waste; and Eric Seiffer, Director of Region 8, DEC. A
grant from the DEC in 1979-80 enabled the county to pursue the
study at a crucial stage in the project's development.
The completion of the work was made possible through
the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mr. Harold Snyder, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C. recognized the value of the work and provided
funding to complete the effort. Dr. Roy B. Evans, Project
Director for the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory of
the EPA in Las Vegas, Nevada, provided the federal perspective
needed for the generalization of the methodology.
John Earls, Frances Reese, and Patricia Terziani
gathered data for the project. Interns Robert Patterson and
Aaron Christiano assisted during the site clarification stage.
James DeMocker carefully edited the final draft and made many
excellent suggestions. Mr. DeMocker also constructed the PERT
Demonstration Model and wrote the accompanying text.
Completion of the final report would not have been possible
without the support of Joanne Brand and Jan Wilson, who typed
and corrected the various drafts.
Ann B. Nelson, Project Director
Louise A. Hartshorn, Research Assistant
Richard A. Young, Consulting Geologist
- ix
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the late 1970's the public became concerned about
uncontrolled waste disposal sites that could pose a hazard to
human health. In order to determine the location and impact of
these sites, accurate information is needed on site locations,
boundaries, contents, subsurface hydrogeologic conditions, and
proximal land uses. Documentation of past waste disposal
activities is, at best, incomplete and, in many instances,
nonexistent. An accurate and inexpensive method is needed to
develop site information based on existing data so that
expensive drilling and testing programs can be focused on those
sites of greatest potential hazard to human health.
This report describes a comprehensive approach that can be
used by local governments, particularly counties and large
municipalities, t6 inventory active and inactive sites for which
little or no information is available, and to establish
priorities for further investigation. The methods were designed
by agencies in Monroe County, New York, in response to a 1978
county legislature request to locate hazardous sites and a 1979
New York State law requiring counties to identify suspected
inactive hazardous waste sites and to report their locations to
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). The study has at various times been financially
supported by the County of Monroe, the State of New York, and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This broad
base of support illustrates the concern felt at all levels of
government that uncontrolled hazardous waste sites be identified
and their impacts accurately assessed so that potential health
hazards can be identified and corrected. It also reflects the
fact that limited available resources must be committed to
cleaning up the worst sites.
The study was conducted under the direction of the Monroe
County Landfill Review Committee (LRC). This committee, chaired
by the county Director of Health, includes representatives from
the county departments of Health, Planning, and the
Environmental Management Council (EMC); the New York State
Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation; the City
of Rochester; and the local Industrial Management Council. The
participation of individuals from this broad range of interests
facilitated access to information and provided valuable
- 1 -
-------
direction and guidance to the project. The work program was
funded through the Monroe County Environmental Management
Council. Council staff organized and conducted the study, hired
the consultants, and prepared reports for the committee's
review.
The Monroe County approach provides a method for
inventorying both known and unknown sites at the countywide
level, accurately delineating site locations and boundaries,
developing site profiles, and using geologic information to rank
sites in terms of their potential impact on drinking water
supplies and nearby populations. This is accomplished by
integrating data from a variety of sources. Historic aerial
photographs provide the accuracy and documentation required to
compile a precise record of site boundaries, points of access,
and adjacent land use. Interviews and files in various
government agencies substantiate types of activity noted on the
photos and provide information on water supply locations. Data
from engineering borings for construction projects in the
vicinity of suspected sites are integrated with geologic
information to construct preliminary hydrogeologic models to
evaluate potential leachate impact on water supplies or nearby
inhabitants.
It should be noted that not all waste disposal sites will be
evident on the historic aerial photographs. Some sites will be
too small to detect (usually less than one-half acre). Others
will be liquid waste disposed in areas other than surface
impoundments. In some areas activity may have occurred between
the years of available photography. Supplementary information
on intervening years may be necessary to compile a more complete
record of activity.
Sites are ranked using matrices with variables for geology
and land use. Greatest attention is given to those sites which
could impact either public or private drinking water supplies.
The ranking scheme is based on the assumption that any site
could contain hazardous waste because of past unregulated waste
disposal practices. Rank is assigned according to potential
impact on human health or drinking water rather than toxicity or
quantity of waste because the chemical composition of the waste
is generally unknown at this stage of the investigation.
When all the information has been collected and reviewed,
the sites are ranked in each of the separate categories of 1)
current land use, 2) hydrogeology, 3) proximity to water
supplies, and 4) type of site. For example, the hydrogeology
ranking process divides sites into higher, intermedi a t e, and
1ower potential hazard based on eight geologic variables
(permeability, separation from groundwater, etc.).
- 2 -
-------
When all sites have been ranked in each of the four
categories, a simple matrix can be used to develop an overall
site ranking according to any combination of the four variables.
For example: all sites positively identified as dumps can be
placed in a matrix where the variables considered are land use
and geology. Some of the resulting combinations in the matrix
categories might be 1) dumps with highest geologic hazard and
continuous site occupancy, or 2) dumps with highest geologic
hazard and part-time occupancy.
Depending on the variables that might be considered most
important in each region, the relative ranking derived from the
matrix or matrices can be used to select priority sites for
further testing or referral action.
Five basic steps are followed for inventorying and ranking
sites. These steps correspond to the next five chapters of this
report.
Site Identification:
Site Characterization;
General Geologic
Analysis:
Hydrogeologic Hazard
Analysis:
Application of
Methodology to Rank
Sites:
Interpretation of historic aerial
photographs, a search of agency
records, and a public call-in
campaign.
Refinement/confirmation of infor-
mation through interviews with
local officials, residents, and
industrial representatives; review
of agency files, street
directories, tax records, and
historic documents. Location of
water supplies in close proximity
to sites.
Development of general hydrogeo-
logic information on depth to
groundwater and bedrock, hydraulic
gradient, the character and
permeability of the overburden and
rock formations, and thickness of
the overburden.
Evaluation of sites for potential
impact of leachate on nearby water
supplies and human populations
based on geologic conditions.
Ranking of sites according to land
use, geology, and proximity to
water wells.
- 3 -
-------
Chapter 6 also includes an example of the application of the
methodology.
The tasks covered in each section are carried out by
individuals with varying backgrounds and skills. Appendix A
describes the organization of the study and the types of
expertise required. A Program Evaluation Review Technique
(PERT) model of the method is also presented in Appendix A.
The methods outlined in this report are a suggested approach
based on the experience of one county. Other municipalities
undertaking a similar study can adapt the approach to meet local
needs and conditions. While the procedures described are for
conducting a general inventory, the basic approach can also be
used to investigate individual sites.
- 4 -
-------
CHAPTER 2
SITE IDENTIFICATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes a systematic method of inventorying
active and inactive waste disposal sites. The approach provides
information on undocumented sites as well as those briefly
referenced in agency files but about which little is known.
The methodology uses historic black and white aerial
photographs in stereographic pairs as the data base to search
for unknown sites and to delineate accurate site boundaries.
The photos also supply information on periods of operation and
impacts on natural features and nearby residents. While these
photographs serve as the primary source of information on site
locations and activity, the data must be supplemented by
researching old records, conducting interviews, and by a public
call-in campaign. These secondary sources, when used without
photo analysis, are often insufficient for locating sites and
for determining boundaries, periods of operation, and potential
impacts. The integration of all available resources is the key
to accurate site identification and provides the most complete
profile of site activity.
Procedures to identify and characterize active and inactive
sites should meet the following objectives:
1. provide a method for locating sites for which there
are no detailed records, and for verifying the
location of known sites;
2. provide a means of accurately delineating site
boundaries and determining periods of operation for
active and inactive sites;
3. provide a method for compiling an historic profile
of relevant activity on and adjacent to sites; and
4. develop a consistent and reliable technique for site
identification and characterization that provides
accurate, standardized information which can be used
to compare sites and establish priorities for
remedial action.
- 5 -
-------
Site identification has two main components:
1. identification of known sites through a search of
existing records and a public call-in campaign; and
2. identification of unknown sites and verification of
the boundaries of known sites through interpretation
of historic aerial photographs.
IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN DUMP/LANDFILL SITES
The information on known sites is gathered by the research
assistant (see Appendix A). Information on documented sites can
be obtained from a number of sources:
. State and local government files
. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) county soil
maps/geologic quadrangle maps
. Historic sources
. Government publications on hazardous waste sites
A call-in campaign can provide additional information on
sites; information from this source will have to be corroborated
during the aerial photointerpretation stage.
State and Local Government Files
State and local health departments, state conservation or
environmental protection departments, public works departments
and other agencies that collect data relating to environmental
quality, such as planning agencies and environmental councils,
often have information on disposal sites. Health and
conservation departments may have records covering specific
sites for the last 10 to 20 years, including information on
owners, operators, permits, and enforcement actions.
In Monroe County useful information was found in County
Health Department files and the Solid Waste Division of the
regional office of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. A 1964 Disposal Site Survey was
found in the Monroe County Department of Planning library (1).
USDA County Soil Maps/USGS Geologic Quadrangle Maps
Recent and older versions of USDA county soil maps as well
as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologic quadrangle maps
(surficial and bedrock) provide valuable information on dumps,
pits and quarries, and artificially made land. This information
can serve as a guide to the photointerpreter when the photos are
being reviewed. Soil maps can be obtained from the USDA and the
- 6 -
-------
local Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Geologic quadrangle maps
are available from the USGS (2).
Historic Sources
The local history section of public libraries will often
have articles, newspaper clippings, and old photographs that
identify waste disposal areas that have been noteworthy in the
past. In addition to identifying sites, these sources can
provide information on associated activities, users, owners, and
operators.
Government Publications on Hazardous Waste Sites
An increasing number of reports on hazardous waste disposal
sites and generators are being published by federal and state
agencies. The federal reports include congressional surveys of
large chemical companies (3) and reports on sites or waste
characteristics submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by industries to meet the federal requirements of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (4,5)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (6), also known as "Superfund."
In addition, many state governments have solid waste agencies
that have conducted surveys of industrial and hazardous waste
disposal practices within their borders (7,8). All states have
conducted a survey of their worst uncontrolled sites as required
by the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and CERCLA and submitted
these to the EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response for
the establishment of the National Priority List of the 115 worst
sites, as of October, 1981.
Federal reports are available from the United States
Government Printing Office and the National Technical
Information Service in Washington (see Appendix B for
addresses). State conservation agencies are generally the
source of state or regional reports.
Call-In Campaign
In addition to researching documented sites, a public call-
in campaign should be conducted to obtain information on sites
that local citizens can remember but for which no records are
available. The information from this source is not as reliable
as the data obtained from official sources, but it can serve as
a useful guide during air photointerpretation.
The call-in campaign is conducted by publishing a list of
known sites in local newspapers and providing a phone number for
reporting additional sites or providing more information on
known sites. Telephone operators receiving the calls should
have a standardized form to fill out for each site (Appendix C).
- 7 -
-------
These forms become part of the permanent record of the study.
In Monroe County the Health department released the list of
sites and provided the switchboard to receive the calls.
Flyers requesting information on sites can also be prepared
and distributed to town halls, housing projects, government
agencies, community centers, and similar local groups (Appendix
D).
The call-in campaign requires the cooperation of the news
media and must be well publicized to be effective.
Recording Information
The information from all available sources is collected and
reviewed. It is recommended that the general locations of all
known waste disposal sites be marked with a dot on translucent
mylar drafting film laid over topographic maps for the study
area. The information on site locations will be general at this
point. Photographic interpretation will verify the exact
location and boundaries of these sites.
The sites are numbered by municipality using a two letter
abbreviation for the municipality (i.e., Rochester Site No. 1 =
RO 1). Site specific information is noted on a Site Activity
Record (SAR) form (Appendix E). This form is used to record all
pertinent information for each site and to provide an on-going
record during later phases of the study.
IDENTIFICATION OF UNKNOWN SITES
This portion of the study should be performed by an
individual with skills in air photo interpretation. The
gathering of the basic aerial photographs and map resources is
done by the research assistant (see Appendix A).
Survey of Photographic Resources and Collection of Materials
Before photointerpretation can be undertaken, a survey of
aerial photographic resources must be completed to determine
available flight years and the scale, completeness of coverage,
and location of the photographs. It must be determined which
sets. of photographs are best suited to the study and whether
these are readily available, can be borrowed, or must be
purchased.
Aerial photographs are generally available at three-to-five
year intervals from federal agencies such as the USDA, USGS, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Earth
Resources Observation System (EROS) Data Center, and the
National Archives. A list of most federal agency coverage
- 8 -
-------
(excluding USDA photos) can be obtained free from the EROS Data
Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Local, state, or federal
agencies may also compile lists of locally available
photography, including photos from private mapping companies.
Contacting private mapping companies directly may also produce
photos not listed on the governmental inventories. Appendix B
contains a complete listing of sources and addresses. It should
be noted that a large gap in photographic coverage exists
throughout the United States from 1940 to 1950 because of the
war effort.
In Monroe County photos were available for 1930, 1938, 1951,
1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, and 1975-78
(composite). In the final study only photos for 1951, 1961,
1970, and 1975-78 were used routinely for the inventory of sites
since the greatest volume of hazardous materials was assumed to
have been generated during and after the Second World War. For
the older urban industrialized area covering the City of
Rochester, 1930 photographs were also included. For the largest
and potentially most hazardous sites, intermediate years of
photography were used to provide a more complete profile of site
activity.
While the photographic resources are being identified and
collected, base maps must also be obtained. USGS 1:24,000
topographic maps are recommended for recording both site
locations and the geologic data described in Chapter 4. It is
important that both data sets be recorded on maps of a common
scale so that information on site locations and hydrogeologic
effects can be readily compared. USGS topographic maps were
chosen for several reasons. In addition to providing valuable
information on quarries, gravel pits, settling ponds, and
depressions, older editions can be compared to newer editions
for changes caused by filling or construction activity. These
maps contain all existing streets and highways and are updated
periodically with uniform standards of accuracy. The latest
editions of topographic maps are available from the federal
government or local retail outlets. Older editions can be
obtained on microfilm from the National Cartographic Information
Center (Appendix B).
Before the final survey map can be prepared on the USGS
topographic base map, the photointerpreter needs a larger scale
map for accurately recording individual site boundaries.
Orthophotomaps at the scale of 1"=200' are used when available
to record detailed information on each site. These maps are
enlarged paper prints of aerial photographs. When these are not
available, planimetric maps at the same scale can be
substituted.
- 9 -
-------
Organization of the Photointerpretation Stage
The inventory of active and inactive sites is most easily
conducted by dividing the survey area into sections
corresponding to individual USGS 7-1/2 minute topographic
quadrangle maps (1:24,000). The survey is conducted for one
USGS quadrangle at a time.
The photointerpreter organizes the following materials for
the study area:
1. the appropriate USGS 7-1/2 minute (15 minute if 7-
1/2 minute not available) topographic map; and
2. aerial photographs for the selected years of study
(in stereographic pairs).
The orthophotomaps will be obtained after the site locations
are known since these are only needed for areas where activity
has been noted.
Photographic Annotation
The photointerpreter begins by overlaying translucent mylar
drafting film on the selected USGS quadrangle map. The
locations of known sites are marked on the drafting film by a
small dot to highlight areas where the photointerpreter should
pay special attention (see p. 8). Experience has shown that the
preliminary location and size of many sites may have to be
revised based on information contained on the photos.
The photos for each quadrangle are systematically reviewed
by year using stereo pairs, beginning with the earliest years
and proceeding to the most recent. When relevant activity is
observed, mylar drafting film is taped to one photo in the
stereo pair. Since the film is translucent, the photos can
still be viewed stereoscopically. The relevant activity is
annotated on the drafting film and numbered sequentially by
municipality. Types of sites that should be numbered include
dumping, filling, lagoons, and junkyards. Features that should
be noted but not numbered are extraction activities, adjacent
industries that need to be identified, drainage patterns,
wetland areas, access roads, trucks, smoke, and any other
activities that could be significant. Special note should be
made of barrels or containers. The boundaries of borrow,
quarry, mining, or extraction areas should be delineated as a
reminder to check newer photographs for subsequent filling or
dumping. In general most sites are identified by observing
either active dumping or filling activity, or by noting features
such as uneven mounds or landscape changes that were not
apparent on earlier photographs.
- 10 -
-------
The photo identification number, flight year, one or two key
road intersections, and a north arrow should also be noted on
the drafting film to provide a permanent record of site activity
by year. Figure 2-1 is an example of site annotation. Standard
symbols shown in Appendix F should be used where possible.
Interpretive notes describing the types of activities
observed on photos should be added directly to the drafting film
taped to each photo. It is important to make notes directly on
the drafting film covering each photograph at the time of
interpretation to avoid forgetting pertinent site information as
the study progresses.
Notes should be made on sites where supplemental information
is necessary in order to determine the type of activity observed
or concurrent occupants of adjacent buildings. Often the
identification of nearby businesses provides valuable clues.
Business or street directories for the years of photography can
provide this information.
When interpreting information on aerial photographs, it is
not always possible to distinguish between waste disposal and
filling activity. Dumping/landfilling is the addition of wastes
which may be hazardous, while filling is the addition of inert
material in preparation for building or road construction. High
volume disposal activity can be clearly noted, but there are
many instances where filling can be observed with insufficient
evidence to determine if waste was also disposed on the site.
When annotating sites, the criteria in Table 2-1 should be used
as a guide to distinguish waste disposal and filling activity.
The interpreter should have practical experience with
landfill and dumping operations, extraction activities, and
engineering construction practices in order to accurately apply
the criteria. They should not be used by an individual
unfamiliar with these techniques, since interpretation of the
photographic clues requires judgement and skill.
The interpreter should be extremely careful to accurately
characterize the type of activity noted on the photographs.
Experience in the early stages of the Monroe County study
indicated that, if care is not exercised, abandoned sand and
gravel extraction areas, stockpiles, and disturbed land
associated with construction activity can easily be
misinterpreted as waste disposal. If the disposal of waste is
not obvious or already known to have occurred in the area, it is
better to indicate filling until more specific information can
be obtained from other sources. The methods for obtaining this
information are described in Chapter 3.
- 11 -
-------
5-5-56
ARK-41
Surface
drainage
Abandoned
sand/gravel
Figure 2-1. An example of site notation that would be recorded
on a piece of drafting film attached to an aerial photograph.
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 2-1. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING WASTE DISPOSAL AND FILL AREAS
Waste Disposal Activity - Not all conditions are unique to waste disposal; some features may
not be easily identified on small sites. Newer sites may show results of technological change (use
of equipment) and recent state or federal regulations (stockpiles of cover material, sediment ponds,
graded slopes, cell excavation construction method). Sites should be evaluated in conjunction with
adjacent land use and industries. It should be remembered that sites may have been active between
periods of available photography.
1. Material has a speckled black and white appearance or uneven coloration (recent
clean fill is assumed to have a more uniform texture and light tone). Extensive
dark grey to black tone often indicates fly ash or cinders from power plant,
heating plant, or furnace slag.
2. There is obvious material mounded above surroundings or partially filling
depression.
3. Steep embankment and scalloped edge of waste material evident, often in fan-shaped
pattern extending into wetland, natural depression, or quarry/borrow pit.
4. Vehicle tracks are in evidence from machinery associated with the spreading of
waste material (often in fan-shape pattern).
5. Photographic tone of the site is usually conspicuously different from (contrasts
with) the surrounding area and land use. Usually lighter tone overall (except fly
ash, cinders).
6. Well-traveled access roads are evident; trucks may be observed on photos in the
process of dumping at the site.
7. Smoke from controlled or spontaneous fires, (especially evident on pre-1970 photos).
8. Barrel/container piles.
9. Small building on site for caretaker and/or equipment.
10. Evidence of junked autos or large appliances or tires (salvage materials usually
in piles).
11. Stockpile of cover material for more recent sites.
-------
12. Sediment containment ponds (for more recent landfills) .trenches, or lagoons
with obvious berms or dikes.
13. Signs of vegetation stress, leachate seeps, or discoloration of surface water,
streams, or lakes.
Filling Activity - Assumed to be largely "clean" (uncontaminated) and inert. Fill activity
usually implies short-term preparation of the site for building or road construction, whereas disposal
activity is usually longer term. Series of photos or revised topographic maps may document areas
where filling occurs rapidly, followed by the appearance of a highway, new building or structure,
or parking areas.
1. Location has been identified on previous photographs as former excavation, low
area, wetland, or depression. Surface area generally higher than on previous
photos. (Not always distinguishable from dump sites if old.)
2. In early stage uniformly-sized and spaced mounded piles may be present. Area
worked and leveled in later stage resembles plowed soil; light toned with
smooth texture when fresh. Tracks from grading may remain visible for months
or years if construction does not occur immediately.
3. For recent sites fill material stands out from background due to light tone
(when less than a year old); later brush and or trees begin to appear but paths
or sandlot ball activities may be evident.
Lagoons/Settling Ponds/Surface Impoundments
1. Bermed or excavated pits or trenches associated with evidence of other disposal
activity, including dumping, barrels, or containers.
2. Depression generally water filled. Discolored inlet plume may be identified if
active discharge pipe is present.
3. Settling pond associated with sewage treatment facilities are usually distinctive,
round features with aeration booms.
4. Settling ponds/lagoons associated with industrial facilities.
-------
Disturbed Land - Indicates investigation of other photographs or records is necessary.
1. Light tones without detectable topographic modification (implies low volume or
little disturbance).
2. Different in tone and texture from surrounding area. Example: possibly staging
area for construction activity.
3. Possible trails associated with recreational or other use (bikes, trails, horse
paths).
Excavations - Source of possible waste disposal or filling activity requiring further evalua-
tion with .additional photographs.
Borrow Pits
l 1. Curved, sloping excavation walls; irregular, scalloped outline.
h-i
01 2. Usually lighter tone than surroundings.
3. Irregular, curving edges on depressions created by excavation and loading equip-
ment; closely-spaced tracks in active working areas.
4. Spoil (boulders) or stockpiles in evidence.
5. Often can identify conveyor equipment or sorting and crushing machinery assoc-
iated with a pond (for sediment trap and washing purposes).
6. Artificial drainage ditches to divert or drain surface water.
7. Intricate pattern of access roads connecting building and work areas.
Quarries or Strip Mines
1. Sharp jointed bedrock surfaces.
2. Horizontal terraces or "lifts" associated with rock removal.
3. Vertical walls with conspicuous right-angle edges.
-------
Oi
I
4. Machinery (drill stands, conveyor belts, air compressor, rock crusher equip-
ment, drag lines).
5. Artificial drainage ditches and pipelines to drain depressions.
6. Stockpiles of "prepared" rock (building stone) or spoil piles of rock and
overburden. May be ringed with dike of overburden.
7. Generally, more permanent or elaborate buildings and equipment than borrow
pits or landfills (may have railroad access spur).
8. Strip mines: Many follow contours in steep terrain. Often large acreage
with spoil in regular patterns where not restored by regulation.
9. Underground mining: Spoil or tailing piles near entrance or processing plant,
-------
Recording Information
After all the photos have been interpreted, the information
is reviewed for all years and a complete, composite description
of specific activities is recorded by year for each numbered
site. This is most easily accomplished by noting all visible or
suspected activity on the SAR form (Appendix E, Item 5).
A maximum site boundary map is also prepared. This map is a
compilation of information from each year of photography. The
most accurate method of developing a site boundary is to
transfer the information from each set of photographs to an
orthophotomap or other large-scale map (1"=200I). These maps
are obtained from local planning departments for each area where
dumping, filling, junkyards, or lagoons have been noted. When
orthophotomaps are available, accurate mapping can be done
directly on these photographic sheets using landmarks common to
all photographs (Figure 2-2). These maps not only assist in the
construction of accurate site boundaries, but they are used in
the more detailed site investigation work described in Chapter 3
and the geologic analysis described in Chapter 4.
Whether or not orthophotomaps are available, extreme care
must be used in all instances when replotting any photographic
information at different scales to insure that all boundaries
are accurately recorded.
General Inventory Map
After the site boundaries are accurately drawn on the large
scale orthophotomaps, they are transferred to the drafting film
on the topographic map to complete the site inventory (Figure 2-
3). The scale of the topographic maps permits direct comparison
of information on site locations with geologic data described in
Chapter 4.
The basic recording of information in the
identification phase is shown by the flow chart below.
site
Interpret
aerial
photographs
Compile information
for each site
on orthophotomap
(maximum site
boundary)
Record activity
on SAR sheets
Prepare
survey
maps (1:24,000)
- 17 -
-------
00
1
Figure 2-2. An orthophotomap would appear similar to the above figure, which shows the
detail visible on these sheets: (A) apartments and residential area; (B) athletic
complex; (C) parking lot; (D) active landfill. A maximum site boundary is drawn on
the map which includes B, C, and D. B and C were active in the 1950's and 1960's and
have subsequently been covered by a parking lot and ball fields.
-------
GENERAL SURVEY SITES - ROCHESTER WEST QUADRANGLE 1930-1976
LEGEND 0
DUMP •
POSSIBLE DUMP E3
UNSPECIFIED FILL D
N
1 MILE
MCEMC-7/81
SCALE
,
D p
1
»
ROCHESTER
^
Figure 2-3. Inventory of sites: Rochester West Quadrangle.
- 19 -
-------
CLASSIFICATION OF SITES
After the photointerpretation is complete and the data have
been recorded on the SAR, the sites are classified by the
research assistant according to type of activity and surrounding
land use.
Site Activity
Sites are classified by activity using one of five
classifications found in Table 2-2. These classifications are
assigned based on the criteria outlined in Table 2-1. In many
instances this preliminary determination of activity will change
as more site-specific information is gathered (Chapter 3).
Land Use
The initial land use classification for each site is
assigned at this stage based on a review of the information on
the most recent aerial photographs. The information is used to
rank the sites for impact on nearby populations using the
criteria in Table 2-3. Land use classifications are refined
during field investigations conducted at later stages of the
study.
- 20 -
-------
TABLE 2-2. SITE ACTIVITY CATEGORIES
D - Identifiable Dump/Landfill
Sites where information on dumping or landfilling activity is
known from public records, interviews with government or
industry officials, the public call-in campaign, industrial
surveys, or where dumping activity is clearly evident on aerial
photographs. This category includes sites with conspicuous drum
storage.
P - Possible Dump/Landfill
Sites where filling activity is evident but there has been no
confirmation as to whether or not dumping occurred. However,
based on the location of the site and peripheral land use, it
would appear that dumping could have occurred. Sites located
adjacent to industrial or commercial activities, maintenance
areas, large construction sites, and public facilities such as
sewage treatment plants and incinerators should be evaluated as
possible dumps.
U - Unspecified Filling
Sites that are apparent either as recent surface disturbances or
topographic changes that were not present on earlier
photographs. Sites that are obviously clean fill for
construction purposes are not included in this category nor are
they annotated. (Such sites may be identified by the relatively
rapid completion of activity followed by the appearance of a
highway, new building or structure on more recent photographs.)
L - Lagoons, Surface Impoundments, or Bermed Pits
Potential liquid waste disposal areas that are either suggested
by associated activity on the photographs or are known to have
existed. Standing water in borrow pits or quarries is not
generally placed in this category unless associated with
dumping.
J - Auto Junkyards, Waste Piles, and Salvage Areas
Areas identified on the photos as having an unusually high
volume of junked autos, appliances, or similar material should
be noted. Such sites may contain significant surface disposal
or spills of oil, transmission and hydraulic fluids, or
solvents.
- 21 -
-------
TABLE 2-3. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
Land Use Activity
.01 24-hour occupancy* on or within 100 feet of site
.02 Part-time occupancy* on or within 100 feet of site
.03 24-hour occupancy from 100 to 1000 feet of site
.04 part-time occupancy from 100 to 1000 feet of site
.05 24-hour occupancy from 1000 to 2500 feet of site
.06 part-time occupancy from 1000 to 2500 feet of site
* residences, hospitals, nursing homes
+ industrial and commercial facilities
After the photointerpretation is complete, site boundaries
will exist for most sites identified through the call-in
campaign, historic records, and government hazardous waste
reports. In some cases the call-in information will not be
verified by photo interpretation or agency records. It will
then have to be concluded that the information was in error, was
for a site that was incorrectly located by the caller, or was
for a site used during a period when no aerial photographs were
taken. The call-in information that is not confirmed should be
filed in case additional documentation is obtained at a later
date which verifies dumping activity
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter describes a method of inventorying active and
inactive dump/landfill sites. The criteria recommended for
distinguishing between waste disposal and fill areas should be
carefully applied by a photointerpreter with experience in waste
disposal and engineering techniques to avoid incorrectly
identifying the sites. Since it is difficult to determine site
contents from photointerpretation, supplemental information from
other sources must be gathered. This will help clarify and
verify the activity noted on the photos. These methods are
described in Chapter 3.
- 22 -
-------
CHAPTER 3
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
After the inventory phase is complete, a variety of sites
will have been identified. Some will obviously be
dumps/landfills, but there will be many possible dumps/landfills
and unspecified fills for which supplemental informaton will be
required in order to determine if wastes were disposed of at
these locations. This chapter describes various resources that
can be used to obtain additional information for development of
a more detailed profile of site activity, and to evaluate
potential impacts.
The objectives of developing site-specific information are:
1. to verify and clarify activity noted on the aerial
photographs (which of the possible dump s/1and fills
and unspecified fills were actually used for
dumping);
2. to produce more detailed site information on
identified dumps/landfilIs (owners, users, permits,
contents); and
3. to provide the information necessary to rank the
sites for potential impact on drinking water
supplies and people living/working on or near the
dumps.
ORGANIZATION
While the overall inventory phase is organized by USGS
topographic maps, the site characterization phase should be
organized by municipality since one of the activities involves
interviewing local officials, and the information on site
locations will ultimately be published by municipality. This
approach may require completion of the inventory for several
contiguous topographic maps prior to site-specific investigation
since USGS maps do not conform to municipal boundaries.
- 23 -
-------
Once the inventory for a municipality is complete, a
composite of all sites within the municipality should be
prepared. Site locations for dumps/landfills, possible
dumps/landfills, unspecified fills, lagoons, and junkyards are
transferred from the orthophotomaps (1"=200') to an intermediate
scale (1"=800' to 1"=1200') municipal subdivision map. Both the
municipal map and the site boundaries prepared on the
orthophotomaps are shown to city and town officials during the
search for site-specific information. The municipal maps can
also be compared with other local resource maps (wetlands,
natural drainage, woodlots, water service areas) to obtain
information on environmental and social impacts.
The SAR initiated during the inventory phase is used
extensively during this phase to record detailed informaton on
individual sites. The use of this form is discussed in detail
in Appendix E.
The preparation of maps and the compilation of additional
information from interviews and other sources is performed by
the research assistant. The site rankings for impact on
drinking water supplies are performed by the geologist and the
research assistant.
SITE VERIFICATION/CLARIFICATION
Because waste disposal cannot always be distinguished from
clean fill on the aerial photographs, it is necessary to verify
site activity, particularly for sites in the possible
dump/landfill and unspecified fill categories. There are two
primary sources used for this purpose:
. interviews with municipal, industrial, and public
works officials; and
. public agency records and files
Information from these sources can (a) help identify the
inventoried sites that were actually used for waste disposal,
those containing clean fill, and those requiring further
investigation; and (b) provide more detailed information on
known dumps/landfills.
Interviews
The interview process should begin with a senior
administrative official of the municipality. It is important to
inform this person of the study's goals and findings and of the
need to identify and contact other knowledgeable people for
additional site information. In addition, this individual may
- 24 -
-------
be able to assign one municipal employee to work with the study
staff in researching records.
The interviewer is looking for maps, records, and permits,
as well as information that may be remembered by longtime
employees. The fourth page of the SAR contains a checklist of
municipal officials that should be contacted. Personnel who
work with records, as well as those who perform field
inspections, should be sought out. In addition, members of town
boards, including planning, zoning, and/or environmental boards
who conduct field inspections, may also be a valuable resource.
The municipal historian should not be overlooked. In Monroe
County, the most useful contacts were with town supervisors,
building inspectors, and those who work with town records.
Town officials and employees respond most effectively when
shown both the municipal subdivision maps and the orthophotomaps
for individual sites. Preparation of these materials in advance
of the interview is advisable. All information obtained from
interviews should be recorded on the SAR. More complete
information can be obtained during these interviews if the
research assistant visits all sites first. The land use ranking
assigned during the site identification stage can be verified or
modified at this time (Table 2-3). Additional valuable
information on the area is often obtained during these visits
including identification of adjacent industries, visual evidence
of unpermitted waste disposal, the presence of leachate seeps,
and the adequacy of site coverage.
In assessing information on possible dumps/landfills and
unspecified fills obtained during interviews it is important to
obtain information from other sources before eliminating sites
identified by local officials as uncontaminated. Claims that no
waste was disposed at a specific location should be corroborated
since municipal officials may simply not be aware of past waste
disposal activity.
The maps should also be reviewed with personnel from local
industrial organizations, utility companies, and county public
works agencies to identify sites used for industrial waste
disposal. Interviews can then be held with specific industrial
and utility company personnel to confirm the activity.
Agency Files
Agency files and reports checked during the site
identification stage should be reviewed now that specific site
boundaries have been delineated. These reports may confirm
waste disposal activity and provide information on site
contents, owners, and operators. Local health department files
often contain inspection reports on both permitted and
unpermitted waste disposal activities of the past 10 to 20
- 25 -
-------
years. Files in solid waste offices of state departments may
also produce valuable documentation of disposal activity.
General reports on disposal practices, both historic and recent,
may be located in other agency files. Industrial inventories
conducted for other purposes, such as pretreatment programs,
provide information on waste streams for specific industries.
There are also an increasing number of federal and state reports
on hazardous waste site locations, contents, operators and
owners. The information in these documents should be verified
by additional research since the data is not always complete or
accurate.
In Monroe County, health department inspection reports and
permits were located that allowed the reclassification of some
possible dumps/landfills and unspecified fills. New York State
DEC files provided information on permitted sites and a survey
of disposal practices for major industries. A computer listing
of all city building permits, filed by address and extending
back to the early 1900's, was located for the City of Rochester.
This listing includes information on permits to construct
storage tanks and other disposal facilities.
DETAILED INFORMATION ON IDENTIFIED DUMP/LANDFILL SITES
In addition to clarifying activity noted at possible
dump/landfill and unspecified fill sites, the interviews with
local officials and the search of agency files can provide more
detailed information on known dump/landfill sites. Town
officials can often identify owners and users; occasionally they
can provide information on site contents, periods of operation,
and disposal practices. Agency records may contain information
on permits issued or correspondence indicating site contents.
Once waste disposal activity is confirmed, interviews with
officials from industries located on or adjacent to sites may
produce valuable information. The interviewer should have the
orthophotomap as well as the relevant years of aerial
photography available during the interview. Plant managers,
environmental control personnel, and long-time employees should
be asked to clarify any activities noted on the photos,
including waste disposal locations, other related activites
(e.g., sand and gravel extraction), site owners, users,
contents, and solid waste management practices employed. Not
all industries will be willing to give complete or accurate
information; data should be cross-checked through other sources.
All information should be recorded on the SAR.
In addition to interviews with local officials, records in
agency files, and interviews with industrial personnel, sources
that should be consulted for site information include street
- 26 -
-------
directories, historic maps, business directories/ deeds, and tax
records.
Street Directories
One clue to the types of activities observed on the photos
can be obtained by identifying industries operating on adjacent
properties during the period of observed activity. Although it
may eventually be necessary to research deed information on past
site ownership, particularly if enforcement action is
anticipated, an initial identification of present or past
industries may be more helpful. This is most easily
accomplished by consulting city or suburban street directories
(see Bibliography) for the years that activity was noted. This
is a simpler and more useful approach than researching deeds,
which sometimes reveal the owners but not the users of a site
during the period of concern.
Historic Maps
There are two types of historic maps that provide valuable
clues to previous ownership and site activity.
Historic plat book maps found in county clerks' offices and
public libraries contain property line boundaries and owners.
Fire insurance maps contain historic information on building
locations, design details, and types of businesses dating as far
back as the 1860*s. These maps were prepared by the Sanborn
Fire Insurance Company to show the location and flammability of
buildings for fire insurance purposes. Prepared at a scale of
1"=50I, they provide excellent site detail on structures and
occupants. They also contain information on natural features,
such as wetlands and gorges, that could have been used for
dumping. The maps can be found in the Library of Congress as
well as public and college libraries. For a complete listing of
all maps and locations consult The Union List of Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps Held in the United States and Canada (9). For a
more complete discussion of these maps, see Mudrak (10).
Business Directories
Business directories contain information on types of
businesses and industries, locations, and the nature of the
products and services offered. There are also directories of
manufacturing industries published by either state or municipal
agencies that provide basic information on industries by
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) (see Bibliography). These
documents provide clues about the type of waste produced by
industries on or adjacent to a site.
- 27 -
-------
Deeds and Tax Records
Deeds and tax records can be searched to locate information
on past and current site owners. Searches for past owners are
usually time-consuming and would be most expeditiously and
accurately carried out by an attorney or researcher familiar
with deed information. Current owners should be identified for
each confirmed dump so that they can be notified of the presence
of waste disposed on the property.
Environmental Data
Environmental atlases and natural resource inventories
contain valuable information on the location of important
environmental features such as wetlands, drainageways, streams,
ponds, subsurface geology, and soil characteristics. This
information is useful in assessing the potential impact of
uncontrolled sites on surrounding areas.
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFIRMED DUMPS/LANDFILLS
Once the interviews and review of agency files are complete,
a list of confirmed waste disposal sites can be developed.
These sites are mapped on mylar overlaid on the appropriate USGS
topographic sheet. These maps are then referred to the project
geologist for geologic ranking of sites (Chapter 5). A search
for drinking water supplies within specified distances is also
conducted.
WATER SUPPLY IMPACT EVALUATION
There are numerous pathways of exposure between contaminants
from an uncontrolled site and human receptors (drinking water,
ambient air, food, soil). Drinking water containing toxic
chemicals often has the greatest potential for directly
impacting human health and is a pathway that can be most easily
documented with available records. Therefore it is important to
identify public and private drinking water supplies located
close to uncontrolled sites.
There are three types of drinking water sources:
1. public water supply system: a system for the provision
of piped water to the public for human consumption.
Such a system has at least 15 service connections or
regularly services 25 or more individuals;
2. private water supply system: a system which provides
piped water for human consumption to less than 25
individuals (nonresidents) on a daily basis at least 60
days of the year. Facilities include restaurants, golf
courses, camps, and churches; and
- 28 -
-------
3. individual system: a water well (generally) that
serves a single residence.
Public and private water supply systems can have either surface
or groundwater as a source. In Monroe County only the location
of groundwater sources (wells) were researched since the one
downstream surface water intake location is in Lake Ontario
beyond the immediate impact of any single site. The selected
distances of concern from the boundary of a site were 1000 feet
for wells serving single residences and one-half mile for public
and private water supplies. Under unique geologic conditions
public wells from one-half to three miles and individual wells
from 1000 feet to one mile were independently evaluated.
Locating Drinking Water Supplies from Groundwater Sources
The locations of public and private water supply systems can
be obtained from the local health department which has
responsibility for testing these sources on a regular basis.
The utility providing the service and the state agency in charge
of allocating groundwater resources can also identify locations.
Information on wells serving single residences can be more
difficult to obtain, particularly in counties that do not
maintain a comprehensive list of individual well owners. The
existence of individual wells in areas not served by public
water supplies can be assumed. The presence of these wells can
be determined by checking maps delineating the boundaries of the
municipal water supply system.
Availability of public water does not necessarily mean that
all residences are connected to the system, however. A search
must be made for homes using water wells within 1000 feet of
each site within a water supply district. This is done by
comparing the street numbers of homes and businesses with water
billing records. The large-scale site orthophotomaps are the
best base on which to draw the 1000 foot boundary and to record
house numbers and water well locations. When an address is
found that does not receive a bill, it is assumed that a private
well is in use. These locations should be field checked to
verify that the address is not vacant property or part of a
multiple dwelling unit. (Water bills are usually sent to only
one resident or to the owner of multiple units.) The actual
existence and use of the wells will have to be confirmed by the
homeowner after notification by the Health Department (Chapter
6).
- 29 -
-------
Ranking of Sites and Water Supplies
After a search has been made for nearby drinking water
intake locations, all sites are ranked for proximity to drinking
water supplies (Table 3-1, Stage 1). Sites that receive a
ranking of .01 have supplies within the specified distances.
Not all supplies will be impacted equally, however; each must be
separately evaluated and ranked for contamination potential
(Table 3-1, Stage 2). This is done by the hydrogeologist who
considers both geologic conditions and surface features (Chapter
5). A site visit is important at this stage to assess special
conditions not evident on maps and aerial photographs that could
exacerbate or ameliorate the contamination of water supplies.
Response
After the geologist ranks the water supplies for
contamination potential, public and private water supplies found
to be in the path of a potential leachate plume should be
referred immediately to the local health department for follow-
up action.
For individual well owners within the 1000 foot boundary,
one of two actions is possible:
1. testing of the well by either the homeowner, local
health department, state conservation department,
EPA, or the dump site owner; or
2. notification of the homeowner of the potential
hazard and recommendation of connection to a public
water supply or use of bottled water if public
supplies are not available.
The actions chosen will be determined by local policy makers
based on the availability of funds for testing, the potential
severity of the problem, and whether or not a site owner,
operator, or user can be identified.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Once sites have been initially identified, it is important
to verify the type of activity noted on the aerial photographs.
This is done to determine which sites in the possible
dump/landfil1 and unspecified fill categories were actually used
for waste disposal. Interviews with municipal/public works
officials and industry representatives and a search of agency
records are the best means of confirming waste disposal
- 30 -
-------
Table 3-1. CRITERIA FOR RANKING DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
Stage 1. Site Proximity to Drinking Water Supplies
Rank
.01
.02
.00
Proximity Category
Site has active water wells
serving a single residence
within 1,000 feet, or a
public/private water supply
system within one-half mile
(or up to three miles with
geologic conditions indicating
potential contamination).
Single well or public/private
water supply system within the
zone of influence described
above but not in use.
No single well or
public/private water supply
source within zone of
influence described in .01
above.
Stage 2. Water Supply Contamination Potential
Rank
.01.
,02.
Hydraulic Gradient Category
Single well or public/private
water supply system
downgradient of site.
Single well or public/private
water supply system not
downgradient of site.
- 31 -
-------
activity. Local residents are contacted only after other
sources have been reviewed.
Once waste disposal locations are confirmed, a careful
search for private and public water supplies within specified
distances of the sites is undertaken.
For both the site characterization and water supply location
phases, it is important to contact individuals with detailed
knowledge of municipal records and personnel who have worked in
the municipality for a number of years. Employees or board
members that regularly conduct field inspections often can
provide valuable information.
Completion of the site characterization work described in
this chapter concludes the site inventory phase. The work
should be integrated with the geologic evaluation described in
Chapters 4 and 5.
- 32 -
-------
CHAPTER 4
GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
At the same time that the inventory of sites is being
conducted, a general geologic analysis of the entire region
under study should be done so that sites can be evaluated and
ranked according to potential impact on nearby residents and
surface and groundwater drinking water supplies. This analysis
also provides useful information for site-specific studies
conducted during later phases of the project.
The important factors examined in the general hydrogeologic
analysis are those which directly influence the production,
containment, attenuation, or migration of leachate. These
generally involve the groundwater system, the soil or rock
permeability, and the structures within the overburden or rock
that control eith'er the direction of movement, rate of movement,
or local concentrations of fluids. In most cases, landfills or
old dumps will be found in unconsolidated soils or overburden,
but occasionally the character of the local bedrock is also
significant. The critical factors must be evaluated within the
particular region under study.
When assessing waste disposal sites that were operated prior
to the late 1970's, it should be assumed that wastes were placed
primarily in natural or man-made depressions without utilization
of sophisticated preparation or containment techniques. Thus,
the structures and properties of the overburden and rock
formations should be assumed to control the natural migration of
fluids and groundwater on or adjacent to the site.
This chapter describes the general types of geologic
information needed, as well as sources, organization, and
utilization. The procedure for site ranking based on the
analysis of this information is described in Chapter 5.
The hydrogeologic aspects of this project involve a
comprehensive review of published literature, the location and
collection of unpublished data, development of both regional and
site-specific groundwater models, and an integrated analysis of
the geologic/historic information preserved on aerial
photographs. The detail and accuracy of the geologic
- 33 -
-------
interpretations will depend on the quality and types of
available information, as well as on the complexity and
variability of surficial and bedrock geology.
The experience gained during the Monroe County study
indicates that a year should be allotted for the location,
collection, and mapping of data from unpublished sources (e.g.,
engineering borings). This is because a substantial portion of
this data must be identified and gathered through personal
contacts, which develop gradually, and from exhaustive searches
through agency files and unpublished records.
Because there may be valuable geological information
contained on aerial photography, it is recommended that the
geologic and aerial photographic analysis be closely coordinated
and integrated. In particular, aerial photographs that predate
extensive urbanization may contain valuable clues to the near
surface geology or groundwater conditions in areas where
extensive excavation and landfilling are subsequently noted.
A general geologic analysis serves the following functions:
1. it provides a broad framework for understanding the
general hydrologic, stratigraphic, and soil
conditions in the region that are important in the
production, containment, attenuation, or migration
of contaminated groundwater or leachate at or
adjacent to potential sites;
2. it provides a consistent framework with which to
rank and compare the general hydrogeologic
characteristics of sites for which specific
information is lacking for the purpose of:
a. determining the potential impact on people;
b. furnishing local officials a consistent,
scientific basis upon which to allocate
scarce resources for clean-up efforts; and
c. allowing municipalities to more effectively
meet federal (CERCLA and RCRA) and state
regulatory requirements;
3. it allows the development of more detailed models
of the hydrogeologic conditions at specific sites,
especially where some limited subsurface
information (e.g., outcrops, borings) is already
available or might be safely extrapolated from
information available at nearby locations. This
should include, where possible, information on the
water table gradient and groundwater velocity and
- 34 -
-------
the geologic conditions controlling these
parameters;
4. it reduces the expense of costly or randomly
designed drilling or exploration programs by
utilizing presently available information on
subsurface conditions; and
5. it provides an understanding of the basic geology
that permits focusing of studies or limited funds
on those areas where excavation/disposal activities
might have been concentrated (e.g., abandoned
borrow pits).
ORGANIZATION OF THE GEOLOGIC STUDY
The geologic portion of the study should be performed by a
hydrogeologist associated with the project and familiar with the
area. This individual should direct the collection of basic
geologic information, prepare geologic maps, and analyze the
information (including aerial photographs) for specific sites.
The quality of hydrogeologic information will vary from
state to state and region to region. The hydrogeologist will
have to locate published and unpublished geologic and
engineering documents, evaluate the quality of the data, and
identify information gaps. From this information a preliminary
hydrogeologic model for the area can be developed that will
enable the hydrogeologist to determine how the existing
information should be used and the most practical formats into
which the different data sets should be converted. This might
vary from regional groundwater contour maps to detailed
hydrogeologic cross section diagrams of individual sites. In
some regions, published hydrogeologic or geologic maps may be
well suited to the needs of a site evaluation study and only
need minor updating with new information and conversion to a
convenient scale. After the geologic information is gathered
and mapped, it is used by the hydrogeologist to rank the sites.
The three basic steps in developing a geologic information
base are:
1. inventory and collection of existing geologic data;
2. compilation or modification of regional, quadrangle,
or site specific geologic maps or profiles; and
3. development of hydrogeologic models.
- 35 -
-------
INVENTORY AND COLLECTION OF THE DATA BASE
There are numerous documents or records, published and
unpublished, that contain geologic information useful in the
construction of hydrogeologic models. A general listing of
these sources includes:
. USGS publications
. State Geological Survey publications
. Geologic maps and reports in professional
journals
. Bulletins or proceedings of local
scientific societies or associations
. USDA county soil maps
. Topographic maps
. Aerial photographs
. Engineering data and reports
. Miscellaneous information in unpublished
or limited distribution form
Because the variety of materials available from some of
these sources may not be familiar to the reader, the individual
categories are described in the following section in greater
detail.
United States Geological Survey Publications
The Geological Survey regularly publishes Bulletins, Water
Supply Papers, Professional Papers, and individual State or
Geologic Quadrangle maps. A significant amount of material is
only available for limited distribution as "open file" reports
(Open File Services Section, USGS) or through the National
Technical Information Service. These two latter categories
include much information of environmental interest. Anyone
pursuing these sources should consult at least one issue of the
free monthly listing of "New Publications of the Geological
Survey" (2) that describes more fully the types of materials
available and ordering information. Separate state lists of
geologic and water supply reports or maps are available free
from the USGS.
Of special interest are the Miscellaneous Investigations
Series geologic maps prepared for 7-1/2 or 15 minute quadrangles
or special geographic regions. The maps are prepared in
alphabetical series for each quadrangle or region and may
include such parameters as:
. Depth to water in wells
. Groundwater velocities
. Recoverable groundwater resources
. Vegetation types
. Sand and gravel or mineral resources
- 36 -
-------
. Land subsidence
. Slope
. Dissolved solids in groundwater
. Chemical quality of groundwater
. Land use classification
. Thickness of alluvial deposits
. Land status
. Water budget components
. Aquifer thicknesses
Generally several maps are completed for each quadrangle,
depending on the purpose, scope, and data available for each
study. Good examples of such maps can be seen in published USGS
map series 1-856 (Denver Urban Corridor Area), 1-844 (Tucson
Area), 1-1074 (Connecticut Valley Urban Area) and 1-766 (Sugar
House Quadrangle, Salt Lake County, Utah). A general index of
all USGS maps through 1977 has been prepared by Androit (11) and
newer maps appear in the monthly listing mentioned above. Free
geologic map indices are available on a state by state basis
from the USGS.
State Geological Survey Publications
All states have either geological surveys or water resources
divisions that publish formal or informal reports of geological
significance, such as well drilling logs. The variety of types
of information available is very different from state to state
and often reflects differences in major industries (mining, oil,
agriculture) or natural resource management policies. Direct
contact with such state agencies is the best way to find out
about current published information or files of data that may
have been maintained in the past.
Information within individual states may be collected and
maintained by regional offices of agencies such as the U.S.
Forest Service or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Increasingly these agencies are being required to produce
reports relating to land management problems that are not
formally published but may contain up-to-date and unique
information on geology and groundwater.
Geologic Maps and Reports in Professional Journals
Although fewer geologic maps are being published in most
nongovernmental publications, the geology of many local areas is
contained in the past issues of journals such as the Geological
Society of America Bulletin. These sources are so diverse and
randomly distributed throughout the professional literature that
a knowledgeable person should be consulted to conduct a search
for such information. A local university geology department or
library is a good place to begin such a search.
- 37 -
-------
Local Scientific Societies or Associations
These local or regional organizations irregularly publish
reports describing the local geology, often in the form of field
trip guidebooks compiled for scientific meetings or as symposia
volumes. Many are called "state geologic societies" but have no
official ties to state geological surveys. An attempt should be
made to contact or inventory all such groups or organizations
for information or suggestions.
USDA County Soil Maps
The USDA has published one or more editions of county soil
maps at scales of 1:24,000 or larger for most counties where
agriculture has been a significant activity. These maps usually
describe only the qualities of the top few feet of soil.
However, there is usually a direct relationship between the
surficial soils and the deeper overburden or bedrock geology.
Many of these maps and reports contain geologic descriptions of
the materials or geologic events that influence soil properties
and development. The newer series of reports are being prepared
on an aerial photographic base and contain some detailed charts
of the engineering properties of the different soil types.
The older soil maps are important sources of information for
areas where urbanization has since obscured the surficial
geology. These same maps often have special designations for
"dumps," "made land," and "pits and quarries" that were active
or inventoried at the time of the survey. Also the local county
Soil Conservation Service office that was involved in the
production of the county soil maps may have retained the
original field copies of the aerial photographs that were used
to construct the published maps.
Topographic Maps
Although topographic maps are produced by the USGS and are
used for general mapping throughout this project, they are
discussed separately here with regard to their value as geologic
tools. To a geologist, the shape of the earth's surface
contains a record of the processes that have shaped it. In many
instances a reasonably accurate estimate of soil textures or
related information may be inferred from a careful study of good
topographic maps when used in conjunction with aerial
photographs. Because topographic maps are regularly updated
from aerial photographs or topographic surveys, they contain a
reasonably detailed record of land use changes and topographic
modifications. Thus, older editions should be used for
geomorphologic interpretations, whereas newer editions reflect
land use activities including landfills, dumps, sand and gravel
extraction, or mining activity. Out-of-print editions of old
- 38 -
-------
topographic maps are available by state on microfilm from the
National Cartographic Information Center (NCIC).
Aerial Photographs
While aerial photographs are used for other portions of the
study/ they also contain valuable geologic information. When
viewed stereographically, aerial photographs, especially older
photographs of urbanized areas, provide the next best
alternative to field surveys. The subtle features seen on
aerial photographs provide more detailed clues to the geologic
events and soil textures than do topographic maps. Where no
other source of information is available, a photogeologic
analysis may provide the only type of data to fill in the gaps
between existing maps, reports, and borings. Aerial photographs
are especially useful in former glacial regions where geologic
processes often provide direct information concerning landform
genesis and overburden character. One example of this is the
appearance on aerial photographs of easily recognizable glacial
meltwater channels. These features usually contain sand and
gravel resources. After the resources are extracted, these
areas are frequently used for dumping activity. These and other
glacial landforms are found throughout the United States north
of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and in New York and New England.
Engineering Data and Reports
This information, gathered by government agencies or private
companies, is generally related to construction projects and is
in the form of soil testing data and boring logs. The specific
sources vary considerably, depending on local engineering
practices or construction problems common to particular regions
of the country. The general sources of such information are:
. Local, state, or federal highway agencies and
contractors
. Town, village, or county construction and
maintenance projects
. Utility companies (e.g., for powerlines and
power plants)
. Firms or agencies responsible for canals,
pipelines, railroads, airfields, and public buildings
. Drilling, soil testing, and engineering consulting
firms
. Architectural firms
. Oil, gas, and water well drillers (some states
require public records of these activities)
. Sewer and water district agencies
. Quarry, tunnelling, or mining companies
. Industrial firms
- 39 -
-------
Geologic consultants or field geologists within various
regions of the United States are generally familiar with such
sources of information. Some of this information may not be
released by private companies or individuals. However, for a
survey such as this, the development of personal contacts at the
various types of firms or agencies listed above may result in
significant cooperation in securing information that is in the
public interest. In some cases it may be necessary to document
the location of specific sites so that engineering boring logs
can be efficiently obtained from inactive files.
Miscellaneous Information in Unpublished or Limited Distribution
Form
Government agencies or corporations may have unique
collections of information of geologic importance in specific
areas of the country. It is difficult to list or even surmise
what all these sources might be, but some attempt should be made
to inventory unique resources within each region. These might
include reports on special projects by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, state environmental
agencies, departments of health, or the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. Regional 208 water quality management agencies map
water resources, industries with effluents, and waste disposal
activities. These are classified by drainage basins.
Only a short list of potential sources has been presented to
provide some illustration of the different types of activities
that characterize different regions of the country. Many
federal, state, and local agencies maintain or periodically
contract for aerial photographic surveys for special projects or
studies.
The cost of time invested in a careful search for
unpublished engineering records and subsurface data can be more
than compensated for by the elimination or reduction of costs
associated with fieldwork or exploratory drilling. The
successful location of detailed subsurface geologic information
on even a few critical sites can significantly reduce costs and
provide a greater measure of confidence for extrapolation of
subsurface hydrogeologic conditions to less well documented
sites.
The initial survey of available sources of geologic
information should begin with a thorough review of published and
open-file reports of the USGS, state geological surveys, local
or state geologic societies, university geology departments and
libraries, and firms holding engineering data. From this
general review of information a more detailed approach for
locating specific or missing information can be developed.
- 40 -
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEOLOGIC MODELS
The purpose of a geologic analysis of waste disposal sites
is to understand how groundwater or leachate may migrate within,
beneath, or adjacent to the sites. This is generally achieved
by analyzing water table data and information on the textures,
structures, and permeabilities of the overburden sediments and
the bedrock formations. When the near-surface geology consists
of several heterogeneous rock or overburden formations there is
usually a predictable relationship between the properties of the
geologic materials and the movement of fluids through them.
Where sufficient data is available to estimate the local
groundwater depth and gradient, the likelihood of contaminant
migration through typical sediments or bedrock formations can be
estimated either for the region or for individual sites.
A hydrogeologic model is constructed by locating existing
maps or plotting all relevant geologic and groundwater data on
contour maps so that both the areal and vertical variations of
important parameters (e.g., depth to groundwater) can be
compared. Groundwater depth and gradient, and estimated soil or
rock type and permeability are the main considerations. A more
detailed discussion of all the common variables is included in
the section explaining the Geologic Ranking Sheet (pp. 60-61).
If the existing geologic map or groundwater data coverage
for a region is extensive and of sufficiently good quality,
modeling of hydrogeologic conditions near most suspected sites
may be relatively straightforward. This is more likely to be
true in the southern nonglaciated portions of the United States.
The boundary of continental glaciation conforms approximately to
the line formed by the Missouri and Ohio Rivers extended
eastward through northern Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey.
Because the sedimentary deposits left by the Pleistocene ice
sheets north of this boundary are generally very heterogeneous
with irregular surface relief, it is more difficult to
extrapolate hydrogeologic models of groundwater flow in these
glaciated areas. Unusual groundwater flow conditions can also
be found in regions underlain by limestone bedrock containing
irregular solution channels produced when groundwater enlarges
natural joints or openings in the rocks. In such regions
surface streams may disappear underground and groundwater
conditions are often unpredictable.
Because of the variety of geologic conditions that are found
throughout the United States, it is recommended that the
planning and implementation of the hydrogeologic analyses
required for this survey be carried out or closely supervised by
a geologist familiar with the local geology and experienced in
hydrogeologic analysis.
- 41 -
-------
In areas where little subsurface geologic data is available,
a thorough knowledge of the geologic history pertaining to the
origin of the overburden, coupled with stereographic analyses of
diagnostic landforms, can enable a geologist to extrapolate or
approximate the hydrogeology of a site.
The project geologist should develop either regional or site
specific models based on the geologic complexity or unique
conditions in each project area. Some suggestions and examples
based on the Monroe County study are included in the next
section and in the case history discussed in Appendix J.
COMPILATION OR MODIFICATION OF REGIONAL, QUADRANGLE, AND SITE
SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC MAPS OR PROFILES
It may be necessary to compile or revise different types of
geologic maps for use in hydrogeologic site analyses for the
following reasons: (a) detailed surficial geology and
groundwater maps have not been prepared for all of the United
States at scales of 1:24,000 or greater, (b) many geologic maps
do not show the distribution of unconsolidated overburden
sediments, (c) newer information may have to be added, and (d)
existing maps may need to be redrawn at the same scale as other
project maps or overlays.
One advantage of constructing general maps for the entire
project region is that significant new information is likely to
be located. Integration of all available information will
produce a more comprehensive understanding of the regional
geology and is likely to improve the individual site
hydrogeologic analyses. However, the practicality of such an
undertaking should be weighed against the costs and time
involved for the estimated number of sites in a region.
The different types of geologic maps that could be compiled
include all of those previously listed under the category of
USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Maps, depending upon the scope
of each study and the problems that are identified as being
significant within the region. In general, three types of maps
would be most useful (Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3):
. a map showing the shape and elevation of the
bedrock surface, including any formations that are
considered to be important in the analysis of
groundwater movement (Figure 4-1);
. a map showing the surface of the groundwater table
in the overburden sediments and/or bedrock. In
areas of more complex hydrology such basic maps may
only be simplified representations of actual
groundwater conditions. Such a map might also
- 42 -
-------
LEGEND
1-500- BEDROCK CONTOURS
SANDS.GRAVEL (SHORELINE)
IROQUOIS SHOREUNE
DAWSON SHOREUNE
, • NEWFANE BEACH
LOCKPORT DOLOMITE
SOLUTION ZONE (LOCKPOR
SUBSURFACE DATA POINT
Figure 4-1. A portion of the Bedrock Surface Map (with selected surficial geology)
prepared for Monroe County, N.Y. Contour interval 25 feet.
-------
Figure 4-2. A portion of the Groundwater Contour Map prepared for Monroe County, N.Y,
Contour interval 25 feet.
-------
Ul
I
Figure 4-3. A portion of the Thickness of Overburden Map prepared for Monroe County,
N.Y. "R" represents rock outcrops.
-------
include all surface streams/ lakes, and major
drainage divides (Figure 4-2); and
. a map showing thickness and/or character of the
overburden sediments, including any known aquifers,
well fields, or highly permeable deposits. This
map should be as detailed as available information
allows (Figure 4-3).
Maps similar to these were constructed for the Monroe County
study, generally using contour intervals of 25 feet (12). The
basis for constructing such maps was a 1935 water well survey
for the county, supplemented primarily by extensive highway,
sewer project, and engineering boring logs. No recent geologic
maps for the surficial geology of the entire county existed,
although mapping at a 1:250,000 scale was in progress at a
nearby university.
It is important in the construction of all such maps that
sufficient data be available to make the effort worthwhile and
that the finished map product will actually be a useful tool in
the hydrogeologic modeling of suspected sites. It should also
be realized that such maps would have a variety of uses for
local town boards or planning and environmental agencies when
the study is complete. It is recommended that the maps be
prepared at the scale of 1:24,000 for ease of comparison with
the dump site inventory, and that all data points be shown on
all maps so that their reliability can easily be ascertained.
These maps serve several important functions during the
study:
. the maps provide a convenient format to record and
display all the geologic data collected that is
needed for hydrogeologic site analysis;
. the actual construction of the maps themselves
constitutes the basis of the regional hydrogeologic
model and requires the project geologist to
formulate a coherent view of the salient factors
controlling the hydrogeology;
. the data is all reduced to a common scale and made
available to all project personnel and consultants;
and
. discrepancies in the data are more easily
identified. Suspect or anomalous data can be
corroborated or discarded.
- 46 -
-------
SUMMARY
The geologic data base is the key to understanding the
hydrogeology of sites. The collection of this information/
although time consuming, is much less expensive than collecting
similar data through fieldwork with exploratory test borings.
This analysis is the basis for the geologic ranking of sites
described in Chapter 5.
- 47 -
-------
CHAPTER 5
HYDROGEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
A number of comprehensive systems have been proposed to rate
the hazard potential of waste disposal'sites. The most recent
of these by the Mitre Corporation (13) reviews and compares the
other major existing models. The other models are known as the
LeGrand (14), the Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) (15), the
EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division (SHWRD)
Predictive Method (16), and the Rating Methodology Model (17).
In general all of these comprehensive systems are intended
to rank sites when a considerable amount of information is
available on site contents, site operation, and engineering
parameters. Some also consider such factors as air pollution
and explosion potential.
The methodology described in this report was designed to
inventory and rank active and inactive sites for which little or
no information is available. Although pertinent data collected
during this study is used to develop a site profile or
description, the scanty information available does not readily
lend itself to the more sophisticated approaches that have been
developed to deal with the known, high priority sites currently
under investigation by various state and federal agencies across
the country.
This study does not attempt to deal with the comparative
risks associated with specific chemical substances, but rather
with the hydrogeologic conditions that control the migration of
fluids under typical geologic circumstances. Direct
contamination of groundwater or dwellings near the site is
considered the primary concern. This approach dictates that
sites with private or public water wells close by should receive
the highest priority. Many of the sites have been closed and
the land developed so that no direct evidence of activity is
necessarily visible at the present time. Once a site has been
identified and all available information compiled from historic
aerial photographs and records (as previously described in
Chapters 2 and 3), a hydrogeologic ranking is assigned based on
the best available surface and subsurface information (Chapter
4).
- 48 -
-------
Although the method described here is necessarily less
comprehensive than those listed above, an effort has been made
to devise a scheme that is compatible with existing ranking
models. The similarities apply basically for measurement
parameters, such as distances from sites to critical targets
(i.e., water wells), or measurement categories, such as soil
permeability ranges.
This ranking scheme is an attempt to apply a relative
hydrogeologic ranking scale to all dump sites within a specific
area, such as a county, so that significant sites can be further
investigated in a logical, consistent, scientific, and efficient
manner. Sites for which detailed information is available can
be evaluated more definitively by such methods as the Mitre
Corporation Site Ranking Model (13).
GEOLOGIC VARIABLES TO BE CONSIDERED
It is recommended that the geologic ranking of the sites be
completed by a local geologist with experience in the areas of
groundwater geology or hydrogeology.
The hydrogeologic ranking process takes into consideration a
large number of interdependent variables. Evaluation of these
factors is necessary to effectively assess the hazard potential
associated with contaminant migration through the groundwater
system. The factors evaluated in the Monroe County study were:
1. overburden geology (sedimentological and textural
characteristics);
2. estimated overburden permeability;
3. relief or geomorphology (surface processes or
history);
4. separation of waste from groundwater;
5. groundwater gradient;
6. bedrock character (including structures, faults,
joints); and
7. soil mineralogy and texture.
These factors would be appropriate for most areas of the
country but could be modified by the project geologist where
necessary to reflect unusual geologic conditions. The factors
are applied through the use of the Geologic Ranking Sheet, pp.
60-61.
- 49 -
-------
Overburden Geology
The properties, geometry, and stratigraphy (layering) of the
unconsolidated overburden sediments may cause groundwater or
fluids to be concentrated in discrete zones or layers and to
move at varying speeds in either the horizontal or vertical
directions. Consideration should be given to these possible
effects when relative permeabilities are being estimated.
Overburden deposits are seldom homogeneous, especially in
glaciated regions. Examples: (1) relatively impermeable glacial
lodgement tills are commonly overlain by more permeable ablation
till or outwash gravels; (2) relatively impermeable lake clays
or silts may contain sandy layers that allow significant
horizontal fluid migration at specific intervals; (3) arid soils
may contain relatively impermeable caliche or "hard pan"
horizons which are discontinuous or highly jointed.
A three-dimensional groundwater flow model should be
envisioned which includes the effects of different layers,
textures, or structures (joints, faults) on relative
permeabilities. A generalized understanding of the most obvious
overburden characteristics can be developed by evaluating a
number of existing groundwater well logs or engineering borings
throughout the general area of the study. Any property of the
sedimentary sequence that substantially enhances vertical or
horizontal groundwater flow would tend to increase the potential
hazard. Any condition which essentially limits or contains
fluids within acceptable vertical or horizontal limits would be
expected to decrease the hazard (see Separation of Waste from
Groundwater Table, pp. 53-55, and the Geologic Ranking Sheet, p.
60. A general working knowledge of sedimentary depositional
mechanisms and normal sediment textures is required to
accurately evaluate this factor.
Estimated Overburden Permeability
Permeability (or hydraulic conductivity) is the capacity of
a soil or rock formation to transmit fluids. It is dependent
upon the pore spaces in sediment and their interconnections. It
is measured as the rate at which a fluid moves a given distance
in a specified time interval under a specified hydraulic
gradient and temperature. The most common units are given as
centimeters per second (cm/sec).
Typical permeability ranges for soils and rocks are given in
Table 5-1 with approximate equivalents in English units.
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 5-1. TYPICAL SOIL AND ROCK PERMEABILITY RANGES
Soils
Permeability*
Metric Units
English Units
I
Ui
clay, silty clay
silt, sandy silt
fine to medium sand,
silty sand
coarse sand, gravel
lacustrine (lake) sediment,
fine-grained tills
lacustrine sediments, flood-
plain sediments, medium-grained
or jointed tills
coarse lacustrine dune and river
sands
coarse river sediments, beach
sands, glacial outwash
—6
<10 cm/sec
< .03 in/day
10~6to 10~3cm/sec .03 into3ft/day
10 3to 10~1cm/sec
>10 cm/sec
3 ft to 300 ft/
day
>300 ft/day
Rock
Permeability*
Metric Units
English Units
Shales, well-cemented fine-grained rocks, massive
igneous rock (unjointed)
Siltstones, well-cemented sandstones and conglomerates
Weakly cemented sandstone and conglomerates; some
fracturing
Highly fractured rocks, solution affected carbonates
—
<10 cm/sec
< .03 in/day
10 6to 10~4cm/sec .03 into 3 in/day
10~4to 10~2cm/sec 3 in to 30 ft/day
_2
>10 cm/sec
>30 ft/day
*Permeability: The rate of water flow through a cross section of one square centimeter under a
unit hydraulic gradient.
-------
The lowest velocity categories for soil and rock «0.03
inches/day) are considered a "decreased hazard" unless they
create the so-called "bathtub" effect whereby leachate seeps or
springs form at the perimeter of sites when increased
infiltration from rainfall exceeds the capacity of the soil to
absorb the local precipitation.
Soils or rocks with permeabilities of 3 to 300 feet per day
or more would be considered unlikely to contain fluids
effectively. Values between these extremes must be evaluated in
combination with other characteristics, such as local relief or
groundwater gradient, in order to estimate potential leachate
movement. The following examples are intended to illustrate the
complexities involved.
In predominantly clayey to silty soils natural fractures may
be more important than permeability in the evaluation of fluid
migration. Fractures are caused by glacial deposition and
unloading stresses, tectonic stresses, erosional unloading, and
soil shrink-swell cycles related to climatic fluctuations.
When the overburden sediments are stratified and variable in
composition, both vertical and horizontal flow conditions should
be considered. A thin sandy layer in otherwise impermeable
fine-grained sediments may allow significant, although
restricted, horizontal transport.
It must be kept in mind that fluid contaminants do not
necessarily mix with groundwater. Some fluids may move at or
above the surface of the water table (volatiles, gasses, or low
density liquids). Other heavy contaminants may sink through the
groundwater aquifer and concentrate near the lower confining
surface. Such heavy fluids may follow the bedrock slope under
the influence of gravity, rather than moving entirely with
groundwater flow. Some ionic species can move through the local
groundwater at rates greater than the actual groundwater flow
velocity. For the above reasons it should not be assumed that
all potential problems are downgradient or that contamination is
moving at the* average groundwater velocity. Any eventual
sampling of sites should be designed to take these possible
effects into account. However, most substances present should
be carried, to a degree, in the direction of the predominant
groundwater flow.
Relief or Geomorphology
The relief or geomorphology at or near a site is evaluated
from two different but related perspectives. First, the relief
at the site will directly affect groundwater gradients or runoff
potential as well as general site integrity relative to erosion,
mass wasting, slope failure and potential leachate plume
asymmetry. Second., natural landforms seen on aerial photographs
- 52 -
-------
taken prior or subsequent to site development may permit
reasonable conclusions to be drawn concerning the character
of the subsurface sediments or structures. This is especially
true for glacial, floodplain, dune, beach, karst, volcanic, or
active tectonic landforms where some direct inferences
concerning anticipated subsurface permeability or fracture zones
can be made. Such information is best integrated with a
comprehensive view of the most recent geologic events or
processes known to have affected an area.
Examples: Relict glacial lake shorelines or glacial
meltwater channels are assumed to concentrate well-sorted,
permeable sands and gravels, whereas glacial drumlins (oval
hills) usually signify impermeable materials. Karst solution
terrain or recently active fault zones may signify near-surface
conditions that control groundwater migration and allow rapid
migration in selected directions not predicted by surface
relief.
Relief and geomorphology contribute information that
overlaps with the categories of overburden geology and
groundwater gradient, but constitute a different (indirect)
source of information with which to evaluate leachate migration
potential.
A "higher hazard" would be one involving enhanced leachate
migration, such as might occur with an "abandoned" glacial
outwash channel (glacial meltwater origin) trending from a site
toward an area of potentially serious impact. A "lower hazard"
would result from physiographic and geologic properties
conducive to leachate attenuation or containment, such as a
gently undulating glacial till plain with low relief and no
adjacent stream.
Separation of Waste from Groundwater Table
The separation of waste from the surface of a saturated zone
(either a perched or a permanent water table) is of critical
importance. Obviously, situations where groundwater is at or
above the base of the waste are potentially the worst. However,
waste sites in permeable gravels above a deeper water table may
be equally bad. Separation of waste from groundwater must be
evaluated in conjunction with the overburden character and
estimated permeability. Arbitrary distance criteria alone are
not always adequate for a useful ranking of sites.
In this report "highly permeable" includes permeabilities
>10^3 cm/sec; "moderately permeable" includes the range from
10~3 cm/sec to 10~5 cm/sec; "relatively impermeable" sediments
have permeabilities <10~5 cm/sec (Table 5-1).
- 53 -
-------
A "higher hazard" exists when groundwater is in contact with
or separated from waste only by highly permeable sediments
(>10~3 cm/sec) or rock (jointed or weathered). Infiltrating
precipitation or migrating groundwater are presumed to be in
contact with or carry pollutants readily into surrounding
aquifers. The distance of separation could be less than 20 feet
in moderately permeable materials but may be greater in sand or
gravels. Narrow, discrete zones of high permeability, such as
faults or permeable, dipping rock layers, could also place sites
in this category.
An "intermediate hazard" exists when waste is separated from
local groundwater by 20 feet or more (in humid climate) of
moderately permeable sediment (10~3 to 10~^ cm/sec) without
significant layers or structures that might increase
permeability in a restricted zone or layer.
A "lower hazard" exists when waste is separated from
groundwater table by 10 to 20 feet of relatively impermeable
overburden such as clay-rich glacial till (<10~5 cm/sec), or 20
to 50 feet of moderately impermeable overburden with significant
amounts of silt or clay.
Obviously these simple criteria cannot cover all potential
geologic conditions. The "separation from groundwater"
criterion must be evaluated by comparison with or consideration
of the local relief and estimated permeability. If two different
sites with identical wastes were 20 and 50 feet, respectively,
above the water table in highly permeable materials, the
difference would be minimal for their relative ranking.
Conversely, sites in relatively impermeable clays could be
isolated from the water table but may develop the so-called
"bathtub" effect where saturation produces marginal seeps and
springs.
Clearly, distance criteria are interrelated with overburden
characteristics and climate. A knowledgeable integration of all
pertinent factors for each climatic zone and type of surficial
geology is recommended.
Sites in direct contact with surface streams or ponds are
considered equivalent to sites where groundwater is in contact
with the waste. In the case of surface water, it is assumed
that significant quantities of fluids are likely to follow
groundwater flow lines that contribute to sustained streamflow
and the water balance of lakes. A simple separation of ground
and surface water is unrealistic, although direct surface runoff
obviously constitutes an increased hazard. Direct surface
runoff of contaminants during storms or at stream bank exposures
can be complicated by the greater dilution potential that exists
in rivers, as contrasted with the zone of groundwater
saturation. However, streams directly adjacent to sites provide
- 54 -
-------
direct access for sampling of groundwater entering the stream.
Sampling should normally be done during periods of low
streamflow when groundwater discharge constitutes a greater
proportion of the streamflow.
Sites directly adjacent to water bodies present unusual
problems of analysis due to the complex flow of leachate to the
stream and the possibility that the stream or lake may be
providing recharge to the waste site, especially during periods
of variable flow or changing water levels.
Groundwater Gradient (Slope)
The groundwater gradient is the vertical change in elevation
of the groundwater surface per unit of horizontal distance.
Under similar conditions a steeper gradient implies a faster
rate of flow. In humid climates the groundwater surface
configuration tends to parallel the topography, but with a more
subdued profile. When evaluating the groundwater gradient for
two sites an attempt must be made to distinguish between actual
groundwater gradients and those artificially steepened by the
existing topographic slope. In addition, a steeper gradient is
required to produce the same groundwater velocity in finer-
grained sediments as compared to course-grained sediments. Thus
gradient cannot be used in a straight-forward way to compare
sites without taking topography and permeability into account.
Gradients may also vary seasonally in concert with rising
and falling water tables in humid regions.
Topographic slope can be assumed to outweigh the effect of
gradient in areas of moderate to high relief. Gradient should
only be considered independently where moderately to highly
permeable sediments are present in areas of little or no relief
(topographic slopes on the order of 150 feet per mile or less).
Absolute gradient values cannot be assigned to hazard categories
on the ranking sheet in most instances.
Groundwater gradients of approximately 10 feet per mile have
produced leachate plume velocities of 1 to 4 feet per day in
course sands and gravel on Long Island, N.Y. (18). Thus in
permeable sediments, even low gradients should be considered
indicative of an increased hazard.
At a given site, in uniform geologic materials, the steepest
gradient should indicate the direction of greatest potential
leachate migration. In any event, the most important use of
gradient may simply be as an indicator of the most probable
direction in which to evaluate the impact of the site, or where
to concentrate additional sampling. Its most useful application
is in the evaluation of potential water well contamination near
sites.
- 55 -
-------
It is worth repeating the observation made under Estimated
Overburden Permeability that contaminants may move not only with
the groundwater flow but along the surface of the water table,
near the base of the aquifer (controlled by gravity), or through
the groundwater at an increased velocity. The occurrence of
these phenomena depends on the relative densities, mixing, and
immiscibility of fluids.
Bedrock Character
Most disposal sites have undoubtedly been located in
unconsolidated overburden or soils. Some sites involve surface
disposal or disposal in abandoned rock quarries. If bedrock
with moderate to high permeability or unusual structures (e.g.,
faults) is close to the waste or separated from it by moderate
to highly permeable sediments, the influence of the rock should
be considered. Because bedrock formations tend to be regionally
more homogeneous than overburden sediments, the pathway to
potential targets may be easier to predict where pollution has
access to rock formations. Fluids in rocks tend to move either
through relatively permeable aquifers or along zones of enhanced
permeability, such as near-surface joints. Limestone solution
terrane (karst) may be the most difficult in which to anticipate
pathways. Joints with preferred orientations, fault zones,
dipping permeable bedrock layers and cavernous solution zones
all provide rapid and highly directional pathways for
concentrated contamination.
The general impact of the bedrock should also be considered
under Estimated Overburden Permeability. The Bedrock Character
section of the Geologic Ranking Sheet is intended to draw
attention to any other structural features, joints, or unusual
bedding that might directly influence pollution migration either
by creating a barrier (diverting flow) or by creating more
direct pathways for groundwater and water well contamination.
In Monroe County the only significant bedrock aquifer is a
dolomitic shale formation (Lockport Dolomite) containing limited
and generally disconnected solution zones or cavities. However,
in near-surface exposures the rock is weathered and much more
permeable. Joints in shales, dolomites, and sandstones were
found to allow significant water movement only in the upper 50
to 75 feet of the rock. At least one large site was aligned
with a fault zone which passed through an area where residential
water wells had once been actively used. The existence of the
fault zone raised the geologic ranking for the site and
influenced both the groundwater and water well evaluations.
Tunnel construction intersecting faults in the area has
demonstrated that faults are a primary locus of groundwater
movement at depths to 100 feet or more below the surface.
- 56 -
-------
The evaluation of unusual bedrock characteristics requires a
working knowledge of the local rock formations and not just a
search of general literature sources if the influence of bedrock
is to be realistically evaluated for factors other than general
permeability.
Soil Mineralogy and Texture
This category, like that of bedrock character, is designed
to allow for the evaluation of conditions other than normal
sediment characteristics and permeability. Some soils, or their
mineral constituents, have widely-known characteristics that
either enhance or decrease their suitability for engineering
uses. An example of this is clays that swell or shrink
abnormally with seasonal variations in rainfall. Such soils can
develop extensive vertical cracking during the dry season, which
enhances rainfall infiltration and groundwater recharge when
wetter conditions return. Another example is clay minerals
which have strong cation exchange capacities. Other fine-
grained soils tend to become highly unstable on low slopes when
saturated. Tropical laterite soils and arid caliche horizons
may be strongly indurated and relatively impermeable near the
surface. Unusual factors such as these are usually
characteristic of broad areas or the rock types from which the
soils have evolved. Such conditions are generally known by
persons familiar with the local geology and might be found in
specific local engineering project reports or on soil maps.
If no specific conditions are known that significantly
increase or decrease local hazards, sites may all be ranked as
intermediate or this factor might be disregarded in the ranking
scheme (with appropriate point value adjustments).
GEOLOGIC RANKING: WATER WELL EVALUATION
One of the important aspects of ranking active and inactive
waste sites involves consideration of the pathways by which
pollutants can migrate from a site and thereby produce a
significant environmental hazard. For many sites, obvious
surface contamination is not apparent. In most cases the
movement of groundwater through the soils or rock formations on
or near a site is presumed to be the mechanism by which
contaminants are dispersed or transported throughout the
surrounding subsurface environment.
Because individuals or communities may utilize groundwater
directly as a source of drinking water, the location of public,
private, or individual water supplies or well fields near sites
is accorded the highest priority in the geologic ranking system.
Proposed distance limits within which sites are given priority
for potential well water contamination have been suggested by
- 57 -
-------
the Mitre Corporation (13) and others. Individual wells within
2000 feet downgradient of a site and public and private water
supplies within a 3 mile radius downgradient are considered to
be in the greatest jeopardy. However, because the geologic
information may be incomplete and groundwater flow is often
unpredictable, all relations between sites and wells within
these distances should be conservatively evaluated.
A simple hydrogeologic model, based on assumptions or scanty
information, only provides information on the most logical place
to perform initial tests of water samples (downgradient), but
all wells nearby may eventually have to be analyzed. This
results from the fact that groundwater movement in heterogeneous
overburden sediments is unpredictable, especially where the
volume of water pumped from shallow aquifers is large or where
the aquifers are highly irregular in shape. Continuous pumping
of several shallow aquifers penetrated by one or more wells can
substantially alter the groundwater flow paths over a wide area
adjacent to the pumping wells.
Because not all pollutants move with or mix readily with
groundwater (see previous groundwater discussion) complex
patterns of pollution dispersion are possible. For the Monroe
County study, distance criteria of 0 to 1000 feet for individual
wells and 0 to one-half mile for public and private water
supplies were initially used. The choice of distance criteria
should be dependent upon some basic knowledge of geologic
conditions influencing groundwater movement and use in each
region.
If an identified site is found to have wells within the
limits specified above, the site is placed in the category
recommended for testing of existing wells. Where two or more
wells are located within the distance limits above, the
pertinent groundwater information (especially gradient) is used
to establish a priority list of wells recommended for testing
(Table 3-1). HoweVer, if hydrogeologic indications suggest that
groundwater conditions are variable or unpredictable, testing of
all nearby wells within the prescribed distances is advised,
especially within the 1000 foot perimeter. For large sites or
permeable aquifers the minimal distance criteria should probably
be increased to 2000 feet for individual wells and 3 miles for
public or private water supplies.
APPLICATION OF GEOLOGIC RANKING SYSTEM
A numerical "ranking" scheme is basically an information
gathering and documentation device. It should:
. be simple to apply;
- 58 -
-------
. not be complicated by too many parameters, rating
intervals, or arbitrarily designated multiplier
factors;
. have intervals that are discrete, separate units
and do not overlap;
. include an indication of the degree of uncertainty
of the variables involved; and
. not be used to the exclusion of common sense or
strong circumstantial evidence analyzed by
experienced personnel.
The geologic ranking system incorporated in this study is
designed to divide sites into high (.01), intermediate (.02), or
low (.03) priority based on the anticipated geologic conditions
governing leachate (groundwater) occurrence, production,
migration, or accumulation. Ranking is based on the score the
site receives on the Geologic Ranking Sheet (Figure 5-1).
The ranking system has as its prime consideration the
potential or inferred effects that groundwater contamination
would have on people or water resources on or near the sites.
The highest priority sites are those where leachate could impact
water supplies. Therefore it is important to evaluate sites
with nearby drinking water supplies first.
After the water supply evaluation has been completed, all
sites are ranked geologically. The "highest priority" sites
(.01) are those where leachate might pond near the surface, move
at shallow depths off the site, or resurface in concentrated
amounts a short distance away.
Sites at which the soils (overburden sediments) are
relatively impermeable and where the groundwater considerations
are judged to create a less severe impact are ranked as
"intermediate priority" (.02).
"Lower priority" sites (.03) would be those located on steep
hill slopes and presumed to be better drained and less likely to
have accumulated undetected leachate in significant quantities,
or sites in which most of the factors on the site ranking sheet
indicate that either attenuation or containment are excellent.
However, such low priority sites may be individually re-
evaluated if other data are available on contents or unusual
localized impacts. Sites adjacent to larger water bodies such
as lakes, bays, or major rivers were also placed in the lowest
geologic category in the Monroe County study because leachate
entering such water bodies does not usually accumulate in
concentrated amounts but is flushed away and diluted or taken up
- 59 -
-------
GEOLOGIC RANKING SHEET
FOR GENERAL COMPARISON OF ABANDONED LANDFILL/DUMP SITES
SYMBOLS USED IN COLUMNS
X PROBABLE EFFECT
U UNCERTAIN: LIKELY EFFECT
® EFFECT OF OVERRIDING SIGNIFICANCE
Superscripts refer to footnotes.
SITE NAME/NO.,
SITE RANK
(CHECK ONE)
FACTORS
TO BE
EVALUATED
OVERBURDEN
GEOLOGY 2
ESTIMATED
PERMEABILITY
RELIEF, 4
GEOMORPHOLOGY
SEPARATION OF
WASTE FROM 5
GROUNDWATER
GROUND WATER
GRADIENT 6
BEDROCK
CHARACTER 7
SOIL MINERALOGY;
TEXTURES 8
NUMBER OF
ENTRIES
MULTIPLIER
ENTRIES X
MULITPLIER
PRESUMED EFFECT1
A
HIGHER
HAZARD
3
B
INTERMEDIATE
(UNCERTAIN)
2
C
LOWER
HAZARD
1
SUBTOTAL.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS.
TOTAL POINTS: SITE RANK.
.01 HIGHEST PRIORITY (17-21 PTS)
02 INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY
(12-16 PTS)
03 LOWEST PRIORITY (7-11 PTS)
TFMTATIW F1NA1
NOTE- IN CASES WHERE MORE THAN HALF
THE CRITICAL FACTORS MUST BE RATED AS
UNCERTAIN (U), THE RANK SHOULD BE
TENTATIVE
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
(CIRCLE AND ADD TO CHART)
THESE POINTS MAY INCREASE (+1),
DECREASE (-1),
OR NOT AFFECT (0) SCORE
VERY LARGE SITES (20+ ACRES) +1
ENGINEERING/GEOLOGIC DATA ON
OR NEAR SITE 0, -1, +1
GEOLOGY EXTRAPOLATED
CONFIDENTLY FROM NEARBY 0, -1, +1
DESCRIBE IMPORTANT OR OVERRIDING
FACTORS BELOW IF APPROPRIATE
(DESCRIBE SPECIAL CONDITIONS):
Figure 5-1. Geologic ranking sheet.
- 60 -
-------
Footnotes to Accompany Figure 5-1.
1. PRESUMED EFFECT; A decision is required as to whether each
inferred or documented FACTOR would increase or decrease the
hazard relative to leachate production, migration, or
attenuation. No simple, uniform guidelines can be set forth
that cover all situations or geohydrologic complexities.
2. OVERBURDEN GEOLOGY: Based on inferred nature of
unconsolidated sediments, would leachate occurrence be
likely to increase or decrease human exposure hazard?
3. ESTIMATED PERMEABILITY; Is estimated permeability of
unconsolidated materials likely to increase or decrease
exposure risks? Include the estimated effect of either
aquifers or aquicludes or inferred combinations.
4. RELIEF, GEOMORPHOLOGY; Does relief on or adjacent to the
site influence the occurrence or migration of leachate so as
to increase or decrease the exposure hazard?
5. SEPARATION OF WASTE FROM GROUNDWATER; Does the estimated
depth to the water tableimplyahigh or low risk for
contamination or leachate production? Relate to
permeability and gradient factors.
6. GROUNDWATER GRADIENT; Gradient is dependent on local
relief, estimated permeability, aquifer characteristics and
rainfall patterns. Steep or flat gradients by themselves
cannot be presumed to have similar effects in each case.
Judgment is required on local conditions.
7. BEDROCK CHARACTER; Is local bedrock an important factor in
the local hydrologic system? If so, do textures or
structures in the bedrock produce asymmetry or enhanced flow
of a potential leachate plume (flow along bedding, joints,
faults, or solution channels, etc.).
8. SOIL MINERALOGY; TEXTURES; Are there known textural or
mineralogical factors that could enhance or diminish
leachate migration, such as strong cation exchange or
swelling/shrinking clays (cracking)? Are seasonal effects
such as rainfall duration, infiltration capacity, freeze-
thaw conditions, vegetation cover, etc., of significance?
- 61 -
-------
by various natural biologic systems. If large water bodies are
heavily used for recreation or drinking water, any potential
problem sites should be referred to existing health or
conservation departments who have the authority and existing
monitoring facilities to deal with such public health concerns.
These are considered special cases that do not share the
problems of sample accessibility common to inactive sites where
excavations or wells would be required to ascertain the nature
of hazardous substances.
Geologic Ranking Sheet
The Geologic Ranking Sheet (Figure 5-1) is intended to
provide a prioritized list of sites based on potential hazard
and hydrogeologic and other data by:
. providing a means of organizing the process of
geologic comparison of sites;
. preventing inconsistencies and reduce oversights
that might occur when dealing with large amounts of
data;
. providing a permanent record for other project
personnel and allow for discussion or independent
review of site characteristics; and
. allowing for updating of information during the
course of the continuing data collection effort and
evaluation process.
The main purpose of the geologic ranking process is to
provide a uniform and systematic comparison of sites within the
limits of the available data. For each site a judgment is made
as to whether each "factor" on the ranking sheet increases or
decreases the potential for substances to accumulate on or
migrate away from the site. All available engineering or
geologic information and potential interrelations among factors
are considered before filling in the appropriate symbol (x,u,®)
in each column. When this information is completed, the number
of entries in each column is multiplied by the rating value (1,
2, or 3). The scores for the three columns are added to compute
the subtotal.
An adjustment called "Additional Factors" has been
incorporated in the ranking sheet to allow for further
subjective modification of the subtotal after all sites have
been evaluated. This is intended to allow for discrimination
between sites which have identical subtotals that were based on
different types of information. For example, two sites in
similar geologic settings may produce identical geologic ranking
scores (subtotals), but one site score may have been derived
- 62 -
-------
from good engineering boring information, whereas the other may
have been based only on extrapolation of the surface geology or
known geologic history of the general area. The site with the
best documented data may be assigned additional points (+1 or-1)
depending upon whether the supporting information is considered
to increase or decrease the hazard. For geologically equivalent
sites, the larger site might receive an additional point in this
same category.
It is important to document the reasons for these subjective
adjustments in the space provided at the bottom of the form.
After the numerical score has been computed, the site is
assigned to one of three geologic categories (highest,
intermediate, or lowest priority). For borderline cases with
point values from 16 to 17 or 11 to 12, the data may be
reexamined and reevaluated for factors of overriding importance.
This would include any verifiable geologic condition considered
as having a predictable and significant effect on hazard
potential, whether positive or negative. These conditions can
also be noted in the appropriate space provided and a tentative
or final rank assignment made (.01, .02, or .03). For sites in
which more than half of the "factors" are marked as "uncertain"
(u) a tentative rank should be assigned pending acquisition of
further data or supporting information. Borderline sites should
be carefully reviewed to ascertain that an arbitrary numerical
score has not overrated or underrated a site.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This ranking system is different from those already devised
for more detailed analyses or comparisons of known sites, such
as the systems by LeGrand (14), Kufs et al. (17), or the Mitre
Corporation (13). These detailed ranking systems cannot be
applied to the type of information developed from this more
general survey of sites. However, such sophisticated systems
might be appropriately used in refining site rankings after a
more definitive investigation of the highest priority sites has
begun, or where a few sites have been well documented.
Although subjective and tentative, the Geologic Ranking
Sheet permits a consistent ranking of sites with an indication
of the degree of uncertainty involved, and it allows for
modification of the geologic ranking of any site should
additional information become available.
A conscientious effort must be made to apply the criteria
carefully so that the relative ranking of sites is internally
consistent for each geographic region. Relative ranking scores
of two different sites in widely separate geologic regions may
not be strictly comparable.
- 63 -
-------
Even within a single region, a strictly numerical comparison
of such site rankings should be avoided and geologic expertise
or experience substituted where appropriate. The system
requires knowledgeable decisions to be made for each of the
"Presumed Effects"; the ranking sheets should not be routinely
filled in by persons with insufficient geologic or hydrologic
background. Complex interactions among the "presumed effects"
resulting from unique geologic conditions may occur. A
geologist analyzing the sites should be capable of anticipating
the more obvious of these complications and should make
allowances for such situations in the ranking process.
The present scheme is mainly a method by which an orderly
analysis may proceed and be documented for updating or
reevaluation. An important aspect of the entire survey process
is the recording of a great deal of information. This permits
the study team to evaluate sites so that a more efficient
allocation of limited resources can occur. It also documents
activities and findings so that the study can continue in an
uninterrupted manner if project staff change.
Points of Emphasis
1. The surficial geology of the numerous regions
(geologic provinces) within the United States, as
it pertains to the occurrence and movement of
groundwater, should be evaluated by a
hydrogeologist familiar with the local geologic
conditions.
2. The geologic evaluation of potential groundwater
contamination (hazard potential) used in the Monroe
County, N.Y., study may have to be modified for
other geologic provinces (especially nonglaciated
regions). However, the basic data collection
process and integrated analysis of the hydrogeology
should be applicable using a very similar geologic
ranking sheet (with possible minor modifications
devised to suit the local geology).
3. The Geologic Ranking Sheet is designed to allow a
subjective but practical comparison of high,
intermediate, and low hazard site hydrogeology. It
also serves to document the information and the
process by which the ranking is accomplished. As
such, it becomes a valuable part of the data base
to be used for reference and possible revision or
updating.
- 64 -
-------
CHAPTER 6
APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY TO RANK SITES
INTRODUCTION
Previous chapters in this report describe methods for
locating inactive waste disposal sites and suggest a ranking
system for the separate categories of site activity, land use,
geology, and proximity to water supplies. This chapter
describes how the rankings are combined in a matrix to establish
priority sites for further investigation. The application of
the methodology is illustrated for one town in Monroe County.
The final report for the town is also described.
CATEGORICAL RANKINGS: A REVIEW
Site Activity
The initial categorization of sites occurs when the
photointerpreter identifies a potential area for inclusion in
the inventory. Chapter One suggests five classifications that
could be applied, depending on how clearly the activity can be
characterized from information contained on the aerial
photographs (Table 2-2).
. identifiable dump/landfill
. possible dump/landfill
. unspecified fill
. lagoon, surface impoundment, or bermed pit
. auto junkyard, waste piles, or salvage area
The assignment of these classifications to specific sites is
subsequently refined based on supplementary information obtained
from agency records, interviews, and field checking, as
described in Chapter Three. After the verification stage, the
number of confirmed waste disposal sites will increase, assuming
the photointerpreter has been careful initially to classify as
dumps/landfills only those sites for which prior knowledge or
clear aerial photographic evidence of waste disposal activity
exists. This increase occurs as sites initially categorized in
the possible dump/landfill and unspecified fill categories are
found to have received waste.
- 65 -
-------
Land Use
During the initial investigation all sites are ranked for
land use activity at the time of photointerpretation (Table 2-
3). The information is taken from the most recent year of
aerial photography. This classification is later verified or
corrected by field checks.
Geology
Using relevant geologic criteria, the hydrogeologist ranks
sites according to potential hazard (Chapter 5). This is done
only for confirmed dumps/landfills.
Proximity to Water Supplies
Confirmed dump/landfill sites are ranked for proximity to
drinking water supplies. Public and private water supplies
within one-half mile and individual wells within 1000 feet are
each ranked for contamination potential (Table 3-1). All
potentially impacted drinking water supplies and associated
sites are referred immediately to the appropriate county or
state agency for action (Chapter 3). These sites should also be
placed in the evaluation matrix described below since follow-up
action based on site proximity to a nearby water supply may be
limited to a recommendation to cease using the water for
drinking purposes. It is also important to provide a basis at
this stage for future site-specific evaluations of potential
soil, sediment, and air quality impacts.
SITE RANKING TO ESTABLISH PRIORITY SITES FOR FURTHER
INVESTIGATION
Once values have been assigned in all of the separate
ranking categories, a matrix is constructed to establish final
site rankings. In accordance with the response phase described
later in this chapter, matrices are constructed separately for
each municipality. In Monroe County, only confirmed
dumps/landfills, junkyards, and lagoons were included in the
matrices since information on the remaining sites was too
limited to justify further investigation. However, records on
sites in the possible dump/landfill and unspecified fill
categories were maintained in the event that more information
became available at a later date.
Because little is known at this stage about the composition
of the waste contained in most sites, the assumption is made
that any confirmed disposal site may contain hazardous waste.
It is the potential impact of assumed hazardous wastes, then,
which is evaluated by using the matrix. The matrix itself
combines the variables considered most important for the
- 66 -
-------
evaluation of potential impact in the particular area under
study. In Monroe County, the selected primary variables were
land use and geology (Figure 6-1).
DUMPS
LAND USE
.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06
.01
GEOLOGY .02
.03
Figure 6-1. Matrix for ranking waste disposal sites
As can be seen from the above matrix, site rankings range
from the extreme values of .01 Geology, .01 Land Use (higher
geologic hazard and continuous site occupancy within 100 feet)
to .03 Geology, .06 Land Use (lower geologic hazard and part-
time occupancy no closer than 1000 feet). The actual priority
ordering of sites within these extremes is dependent on the
relative importance of the primary variables.
Once all sites within a municipality are assigned a priority
ranking, the response phase of the study is initiated.
RESPONSE
The response phase consists of three basic components:
1. publication of the municipal report;
2. referral to appropriate agencies for follow-up,
site-specific action; and
notification of water
and site landowners.
supply owners, well owners
Municipal Report
A report consisting of information distilled from the SAR
and the municipal map is prepared and distributed to local and
state officials. The information is presented using the Site
- 67 -
-------
Information Form (Appendix G) accompanied by a 1"=800' scale
site map designed to show the general location and shape of the
site. The SAR forms are not publically released since these are
considered working documents used to record preliminary
information.
Referral
The municipal reports are referred to the appropriate
agencies for action. Copies of the SAR forms and site
orthophotomaps should be made available to these agencies to
facilitate the follow-up investigations.
Notification of Water Supply Owners, Well Owners and Site
Landowners
Prior to the distribution of the municipal report, letters
are sent to the individual homeowners with wells or public or
private water supply system owners potentially impacted by
confirmed waste disposal sites and to the current owners of all
dump/landfill sites. Sample letters sent to these individuals
by the county Health Department can be found in Appendices H and
I. It is also helpful to attach a copy of the Site Information
Form and site map to the letters sent to the landowners.
APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY: TOWN OF GREECE
The Town of Greece, N.Y., with a population of 82,000, is an
urban ring town located northwest of the City of Rochester.
With an area of 42 square miles, it is the largest of the 19
towns in Monroe County. Greece is a town in transition, with
suburban development expanding from the eastern and southern
portions into the more rural northwest sections. There is
little industry except for the Eastman Kodak Company, which is
located in the more developed southeastern section.
The town employs a full-time planning staff, as well as a
building inspector, town engineer, and public works personnel.
The Greece Conservation Advisory Board, appointed by the town
board to advise on environmental matters affecting the town, is
knowledgeable and active in pursuing environmental problems.
Thus, the town possesses many resources that were valuable in
clarifying and verifying the information gathered as part of the
County's inventory of active and inactive waste disposal sites.
Greece is served by a public water supply system and has a
water billing department with computerized records for water
service provided by the town. Individual water wells are still
used by some homeowners but there are no central records
locating these wells.
- 68 -
-------
Identification of Sites
When Monroe County first began to inventory the location of
dump/landfill sites in the fall of 1978, sites were identified
through a public call-in campaign, a record search, and
interviews with local officials. This resulted in the
identification of 10 sites in the Town of Greece. Of these 10,
2 were subsequently eliminated after aerial photointerpretation
was conducted using photos from 1951, 1961, 1970, and 1975-8.
One site was removed because it was active prior to 1950. (The
LRC had decided to limit the investigation to sites that were
used after World War II.) The second site was never located on
the aerial photographs.
After the 4 years of aerial photography were systematically
reviewed and interpreted, an additional 33 potential sites were
identified. These 41 sites were initially classified by the
photointerpreter as follows:
11 - Identifiable Dumps/Landfills includes
seven of the original sites)
19 - Possible Dumps/Landfills
11 - Unspecified Fills (includes one of the
original sites)
41 - Total
Site Characterization
At this stage town officials were contacted to clarify which
possible dumps/landfills and unspecified fills were actually
used for waste disposal. During the interviews additional
information was also obtained on the known dumps/landfills. The
orthophotomap of each site with the maximum boundary delineated
over current land use was shown to the assistant town
supervisor, a town planner, and town conservation board members.
Comments on each site were recorded on the SAR forms. Sites
were also field checked, which produced changes in site
classifications as shown in Table 6-1.
- 69 -
-------
Table 6-1. Categorization of Sites, Greece, N.Y.
Dumps/
Landfills
Possible
Dumps/
Landfills
Unspecified
Fills
Total
After Photo-
interpretation 11
After Interviews
with Local
Officials 19
After Field
Inspection 21
19
13
11
11
6
6
41
38*
38
3 sites were eliminated because they were found to be clean
fill for construction or landscaping
Several
findings:
benefits of the methodology can be shown from these
1. by using aerial photography, 41 sites were
identified. Of these, 21 were actually confirmed
to have received some form of waste disposal from
information obtained through interviews, agency
records, and field checking;
2. these 21 sites represent twice the number of sites
initially identified through the call-in campaign,
interviews with local officials, and a records
search; and
3. the existence and exact locations of the 21 sites
were clearly documented. The photointerpreter was
able to eliminate one original site that could not
be found on the photos, and to accurately locate
other sites that had been incorrectly placed during
earlier phases of the study.
Categorical Rankings
Site Activity
As specified previously, only confirmed dumps/landfills,
lagoons, and junkyards were included in the site ranking
procedure in Monroe County. Since no lagoons or junkyards were
- 70 -
-------
identified, only 21 confirmed dumps/landfills were evaluated
further.
Land Use
Of the 21 sites, 10 were classified .01 (continuous
occupancy on or within 100 feet of the site), 10 were classified
.02 (part-time occupancy on or within 100 feet of the site), and
1 was classified .03 (continuous occupancy from 100 to 1000 feet
of the site). There were no sites classified .04, .05, or .06.
Geology
Of the 21 sites, 4 were classified .01 (higher hazard), 8
were classified .02 (intermediate hazard), and 9 were classified
.03 (lower hazard).
Proximity to Water Supplies
The county Health Department provided a list of the private
water supply systems (wells) located in the town. Subsequent
research indicated that none of these were within one-half mile
of any of the 21 sites. Individual water wells were more
difficult to locate. Nevertheless, following the procedures
outlined in Chapter 2, 55 potential wells were initially
identified within 1000 feet of the 21 sites. Additional record
checks reduced this number to one water well which was confirmed
to be in use.
Site Ranking to Establish Priorities for Further Investigation
In Monroe County the categorical variables considered most
influential in determining potential impact were geology and
land use. The resulting matrix for the town of Greece is
depicted in Figure 6-2.
DUMPS
LAND USE
.01 .02 .03
GEOLOGY
.01
02
,03
0
0
Figure 6-2. Distribution of Waste Disposal Sites for Town of
Greece, Monroe County, N.Y.
- 71 -
-------
Since no determination was made by the county LRC of the
relative importance of the geology and land use variables, no
priority ordering of sites within the individual matrix
cagegories was specified.
Response
When the site ranking procedure was completed, a report on
the 21 sites was prepared and distributed to the Town of Greece,
the Monroe County Legislature, and the NYS Departments of Health
and Environmental Conservation (19). The director of the county
Health Department notified the owner of the individual water
well of the potential hazard and recommended connection to the
existing public water supply system. Current site owners were
notified that their land had received waste in the past and were
encouraged to contact the Health Department if they had
additional information on the type of activity and waste
disposed. The 21 sites were referred to the state departments
of Health and Environmental Conservation for follow-up
investigation and evaluation.
One site known to contain potentially hazardous wastes had
been previously investigated by the county Landfill Review
Committee. The investigation is described in Appendix J.
- 72 -
-------
REFERENCES
1. Monroe County Health Department and Planning Council.
1963. Survey of Disposal Facilities, Monroe County Towns
and Villages. 20 pp.
2. United States Department of the Interior. New Publications
of the Geological Survey. Published Monthly.
3. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1979.
Waste Disposal Site Survey. U.S. House of
Representatives, 96th Congress. 487 pp.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Solid
Waste Disposal; Inventory of Open Dumps. Federal
Register. 86 pp.
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1980.
Notification to EPA of Hazardous Waste Activities.
Document SW 897.1 to 897.10.
6. United States Congress. Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
Public Law 510. 96th Congress, 2nd Session, 1980.
7. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
1980. Registry of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, Monroe
County, N.Y. Mimeographed ring-bound pages.
8. New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation
and Health. 1979. Toxic Substances in New York's
Environment. 244 pp.
9. Hoehn, R.P. 1976-77. Union List of Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps Held by Institutions in the U.S. and Canada.
Western Association of Map Libraries, Santa Cruz, Calif.
10. Mudrak, Louise. 1979. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, A Tool
for Identifying Closed Landfills or Hazardous Waste
Sites. Cornell University. 24 pp.
11. Androit, Laurie. Guide to U.S. Government Maps: Geologic
and Hydrologic Maps, 1928 - 1977. 1978. McLean, Va.
254 pp.
- 73 -
-------
12. Young, Richard A. 1980. Three maps: Subsurface Bedrock
Contour Map, Generalized Groundwater Contour Map, and
Overburden Thickness Map. Monroe County Environmental
Management Council, Rochester, N.Y. 9 sheets and
explanation. 8 pp.
13. Caldwell, S., K.W. Barrett, and S.S. Chang. 1980.
Ranking System for Releases of Hazardous Substances.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, pp. 14-20.
14. LeGrand, H.E. 1980. A Standardized System for Evaluating
Waste Disposal Sites. National Water Well Association.
42 pp.
15. Silka, L.R., and T.L. Swearingen. 1978. A Manual for
Evaluating Contamination Potential of Surface
Impoundments. EPA 570/9-78-003, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
16. Klee, A.J., and M.V. Flanders. 1980. Classification of
Hazardous Wastes. Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE 106, v. 1, pp. 163-175.
17. Kufs, C., D. Twedell, S. Paige, R. Wetzel, P. Spooner, R.
Colonna, and M. Kilpatrick. 1980. Rating the Hazard
Potential of Waste Disposal Facilities. Proceedings of
the U.S. EPA National Conference on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Hazardous Materials
Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Md. pp. 30-
41.
18. Kimmel, G.E., and O.C. Braids. 1980. Leachate Plumes in
Ground Water from Babylon and Islip Landfills, Long
Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1085. 38 pp.
19. Monroe County Landfill Review Committee. 1982. Inventory
of Active and Inactive Dump Sites, Town of Greece, Monroe
County, N.Y. 50 pp.
20. Krueckeberg, D.A., and A.L. Silvers. 1974. Urban Planning
Analysis: Methods and Models. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
New York, N.Y. pp. 231-242.
21. Monroe County Landfill Review Committee. 1980. Monograph
#2: The Weiland Road Industrial Landfill, Greece Landfill
Site No. 7. 49 pp.
- 74 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Executive Office of the President - Office of Management and
Budget. 1972. SIC Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Monroe County Landfill Review Committee. 1979. Monograph #1:
The Lower Falls of the Genesee River. Monroe County
Environmental Management Council, Rochester, N.Y.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:
Division of Solid Waste Management. 1979. Industrial
Hazardous Waste Generation in New York State, An Inventory.
1982 Rochester City and Suburban Criss Cross Directory. 1982.
Haines and Co., Inc., Rochester, N.Y.
Rochester (Monroe County) Directory. Selected years. R.L. Polk
& Co., Maiden, Mass.
Rochester Suburban (Monroe County) Directory. Selected Years.
R.L. Polk & Co. , Boston, Mass.
Roy, W. R., R. G. Thiery, R. M. Schuller, and J. J. Suloway.
1981. Coal Fly Ash: A Review of the Literature and Proposed
Classification System with Emphasis on Environmental Impacts.
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, State Geological
Survey Division, Environmental Geology Notes 96.
- 75 -
-------
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND PERT DEMONSTRATION MODEL
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
Participants
In organizing an inventory of waste disposal sites, it is
important to decide which agencies, groups, and individuals
should be involved and how they should participate. This
decision will be based upon the responsibility each has for
waste disposal, the expertise they can provide, both personally
and through additional resources, and the interest they have in
the subject.
The study direction will be strengthened if overseen by a
multi-disciplinary committee comprised of county and state
agency representatives. This provides access to a wide range of
information sources and allows the project findings to be
evaluated from a broad perspective. To form a coordinating
committee, one should begin by identifying state and local
government agencies that have a role to play in solid waste
disposal. In Monroe County, key agencies with responsibility
for controlling and/or monitoring solid waste include the Monroe
County Department of Health and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). In addition, the New York
State Health Department conducts tests to determine health
impacts of waste disposal sites.
Other agencies that have a nonregulatory role to play should
also be identified. In Monroe County, the Environmental
Management Council (EMC) provides advice on environmental
matters to the county legislature and administration and has a
long history of involvement with the solid waste issue. The
County Planning Department and the Community Development Office
of the City of Rochester are important agencies because of the
land use concerns that a study of this nature raises. The
industrial sector was also considered important. Appointing an
industrial representative to the coordinating committee
facilitates the exchange of information between industry and the
committee and increases confidence in the results. A
representative from the Monroe County Industrial Management
Council was considered a logical choice.
- 76 -
-------
Representatives of these various agencies were contacted by
the Director of the Monroe County Health Department and asked to
participate on the Monroe County Landfill Review Committee
(LRC). All accepted the invitation. The Director of Health
chaired the committee.
Study Staff and Consultants
In organizing the study, one agency should be chosen to
direct the daily work effort and to hire the study staff. In
Monroe County the EMC performed this task. Funds for staff and
consultant contracts were awarded to the Council. The EMC
Director served as Project Director (approximately 1/3 time was
allocated to this project), and a full-time research assistant
was hired to collect information, research files, interpret
photographs and prepare maps, and interview public and private
officials. Several summer student interns assisted with various
aspects of the work. If funds had been available, an additional
research assistant would have been hired, so that one could
collect existing data and assist with the air photo
interpretation and map preparation (Chapter 2) while the second
verified the site activity and prepared the final reports
(Chapters 3 and 6).
Two consulting contracts are recommended, one with an air
photointerpreter and the second with a geologic consultant.
It is important that any consultants hired for the project
be familiar with the local area. The consultants do not need to
be employed full-time. In fact, since it takes time to collect
existing geologic data from a variety of agencies and private
companies, it is better that the individual or firm hired to
perform the geologic portion of the study work part-time over a
number of months.
Job Specifications
Project Director; an ability to handle all administrative
requirements, including the organization of a
comprehensive study involving several levels of
government, supervision of study staff, coordination
with multiple agencies, preparation of consulting
contracts, and the preparation of reports.
Research Assistant(s); background in geology or geography;
an ability to interpret aerial photographs in stereo
pairs; organizational skills; research abilities; map
and report preparation; and communication skills.
Air Photointerpreter Consultant; trained or experienced in
land use/environmental analysis with background or
familiarity with geology, engineering construction
- 77 -
-------
methods, quarry operations, highway construction, and
landfill operations.
Geologic Consultant; hydrogeologist or geologist with
background and experience in hydrology and applied
engineering practices.
STUDY PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to provide assistance to
those planning and implementing studies based on the methods
described in this report. The specific objectives of this
section are:
1. to summarize the component activities associated
with the method; and
2. to provide the basis for the efficient scheduling
and duration estimation of studies based on the
method.
To achieve these objectives, a demonstration model based on
the Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) is presented and
described. The model follows the techniques set forth in
Krueckeberg and Silvers, Urban Planning Analysis; Methods and
Models (20). For those unfamiliar with PERT and Critical Path
Management (CPM) (a related tool), this volume can provide
excellent guidance and additional references and is highly
recommended.
Based on Monroe County's experience in applying the method,
the Demonstration Model can be adapted for use by each
particular study team. The nature of that use will depend on
the technical expertise of the study team and the available
resources. The model has been constructed to anticipate
variability in both of these factors. On a basic level, the
model can be easily adapted to construct a simple flow diagram.
For study teams familiar with PERT, the model can be used in its
current form, with specific activities, linkages, and time
estimates respecified as necessary. The model can also be
expanded according to the techniques of CPM. Employing CPM
would allow for the cost-efficient scheduling and allocation of
resources for the study. Study teams with PERT programming
capability will find the Demonstration Model readily adaptable
to the computer (e.g., dummy activities are incorporated in the
model to allow the computer to distinguish between parallel
activities).
- 78 -
-------
PERT; A Basic Description
To understand PERT, it may be helpful for those unfamiliar
with the technique to view the PERT diagram (Figure A-l) as
analagous to a road map. Beginning from the left hand side of
the diagram at Event 1, one imagines the study team travelling
as a group down the first path. This path corresponds to
Activity A in Table A-l. The end of activity A is represented
by the teams arrival at Event 2. At Event 2, however, there are
two divergent paths (B And C). At this point, the study team
has two concurrent tasks to perform (called parallel
activities). Using the road map analogy, part of the team is
engaged in Activity B (the proverbial high road) and the rest of
the study team is engaged in Activity C (the proverbial low
road). The arrival of both groups at Event 4 (the proverbial
Scotland) is necessary before the team can begin Activity D.
The true purpose of PERT then becomes clear. By
systematically defining each distinct path and the order in
which they must be travelled, study planners can anticipate
"Slack Time" at any given event (i.e., how long the group
travelling the low road must wait for the group travelling the
high road). Defining Slack Time at each event allows the study
planners to arrange the timely hiring of staff and the efficient
distribution and timing of specific tasks. PERT also provides
the expected value and probability distributions for the
duration of the project. The estimation and comparison of costs
incurred during Slack Time and costs required to speed up
("crash") an activity is the basis for CPM.
PERT Demonstration Model
This section describes the PERT Demonstration Model and the
general procedure used to derive it. First, a number of
relevant assumptions and characteristics of the model are
presented. In addition, this list contains several suggestions
which should further facilitate the reader's understanding of
the model.
The model is based on the actual procedure followed
by Monroe County, with minimal rescheduling of
activities (a normal part of PERT applications).
This was to facilitate careful consideration and
respecification of the model by each study team.
The part of the overall study that the model (and
the results) correspond to is from the original
inception of the project to the completion of the
study for the first municipality. Activities A to N
and P correspond to the entire study area, whereas
activities 0 and Q to LL are for the first
municipality.
- 79 -
-------
00
o
Figure A-l. PERT demonstration model
-------
TABLE A-l. COMPONENT ACTIVITIES AND TIME ESTIMATES FOR PERT DEMONSTRATION MODEL
Activity a m
Time Estimates (days)
t
(A) Formulate study goals 1 2 3 2.0 0.3 0.1*
(B) Identify state and local government
agencies with regulatory or review
responsibilities pertaining to solid
waste management 1 2 3 2.0 0.3 0.1
(C) Identify other agencies, groups, and
individuals with relevant interests 2 5 10 5.3 1.3 1.8*
(D) Form study committee 7 28 42 26.8 5.8 34.0*
1 (E) Secure funding 42 90 180 97.0 23.0 529.0*
oo
( (F) Identify agency to conduct study 7 14 28 14.2 4.5 20.3
(G) Develop specific study plan 7 21 42 22.2 5.8 34.0
(H) Identify aerial photograph, map, and
information resources 10 21 56 25.0 7.7 58.8
(I) Allocate responsibilities to
existing staff; arrange to hire
consultants 3 14 28 14.5 4.2 17.4*
(J) Collect geologic maps and
information 21 90 180 93.5 26.5 702.3
(K) Collect aerial photographs,
orthophotomap index 3 14 42 16.8 6.5 42.3
(L) Collect current USGS topographic
maps 1 14 90 24.5 14.8 220.0*
-------
Time Estimates (days)
t 2
Activity a m b e cr
-------
Time Estimates (days)
t 2
Activity a m b e cr a
(Z) Interview municipal engineer, fire
marshal, building inspector, police
chief, historian; conservation
officers; other law enforcement
officers; local chambers of commerce;
utility personnel; waste haulers;
public works agency personnel;
industrial organization personnel;
residents 7 14 21 14.0 2.3 5.4*
(AA) Interview specific industry personnel 7 14 21 14.0 2.3 5.4*
(BB) Confirm/modify site activity rankings;
1 compile list of confirmed waste
°° disposal sites; revise municipal map 1 3 7 3.3 1.0 1.0*
1 (CC) Locate public/private/individual
drinking water supplies 7 21 35 21.0 4.7 21.8*
(DD) Complete site-specific hydrogeologic
analysis and establish preliminary
geologic ranking for sites near
water supplies 1 2 3 2.0 0.3 0.1*
(EE) Complete site-specific hydrogeologic
analysis and establish preliminary
geologic ranking for remaining sites 1 2 3 2.0 0.3 0.1
(FF) Establish preliminary rankings of
water supplies for contamination
potential 1 2 3 2.0 0.3 0.1*
-------
Time Estimates (days)
(GG)
Activity
Confirm/modify geologic rankings of
a
m
b
t
e
cr
cr
2
water supplies and sites using field
(HH)
(II)
(JJ)
(KK)
(LL)
checks if necessary
Construct matrix to determine site
rank
Establish priorities for further
investigation
Publish site inventory report
Notify landowners, well owners
Refer sites to appropriate agency
for action
1
1
1
14
2
2
2
2
2
21
4
4
3
3
3
42
7
7
2
2
2
23
4
4
.0
.0
.0
.3
.2
.2
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
3
3
3
7
8
8
0
0
0
21
0
0
.1*
.1*
.1*
.8*
.7
.7
* denotes an activity on the Critical Path in the demonstration model
Calculations:
a = optimistic time estimate (shortest result in 100 trials)
m = modal time estimate (most frequent result in 100 trials)
b = pessimistic time estimate (longest result in 100 trials)
a + 4m + b
e = expected time =
6
b - a
o~ = standard deviation from expected time =
-------
The authors suggest that it would be most expedient
for the study planners to select for initial study a
municipality with readily available information and
map resources.
Since activities 0 and Q to LL must be repeated for
each of the remaining municipalities, it is
suggested that a new PERT model (which may be easily
derived from the Demonstration Model) be specified
so that the scheduling and allocation of resources
for the study of the remaining municipalities may be
determined.
It was assumed always that a particular activity
leading up to an event had to be entirely completed
before subsequent activities could be started. This
is clearly not always the case in reality. For
example, it is not necessary to have all of the
aerial photographs for the study area collected
(activity K in the model) before photointerpretation
(activity O) can begin. This is generally one of
the few drawbacks of PERT (or at least of this
particular model). However, a creative
respecification of the model may well resolve this
not-too-serious problem.
In estimating the duration of the activities, the
authors felt it would be most useful to assume a
situation similar to that confronting the reader
(i.e., no prior experience applying the method, but
having this report as a planning tool).
Time estimates were based on a study area of the
size and population of Monroe County (central city
with 19 surrounding municipalities, population
700,000); variability in the availability of
resources (e.g., USGS topographic maps); and staff
resources consisting of a project director, one
staff research assistant, one consulting
hydrogeologist, and one consulting air
photointerpreter.
It was assumed that no activity would take less than
one day.
The assignment of numbers to events is arbitrary and
does not necessarily reflect the order in which
events are arrived at.
Study planners should transfer Figure A-l to a
larger sheet of paper. Expanding the diagram will
allow the replacement of the letter codes with the
- 85 -
-------
actual written descriptions of the activities from
Table A-l and the addition of the time estimates
from Table A-2.
The main text of the report should be read carefully
for detailed descriptions of the activities.
The Demonstration Model is depicted in Figure A-l, and the
relevant data are presented in Tables A-l and A-2. The
following description of the model derivation procedure and the
results are presented for further clarification. The separate
subject headings correspond to the steps of the derivation.
Define activities;
All of the separate tasks performed by the study team were
defined and listed (Table A-l).
Sequence activities;
A complete list of specific activity sequences was compiled.
For example, it was necessary to form a study committee
(activity D) before identifying a specific agency to conduct the
study (activity F). This was represented in the list as:
D . F .
The PERT diagram represents the network constructed on the
basis of these linkages. The observant reader will have noticed
that there is a dashed arrow running from Event 3 to Event 4
(also from Events 16 to 17 and 31 to 32). This arrow denotes a
dummy activity. Dummy activities are not real activities.
Taking neither time nor resources, they simply provide a way of
distinguishing Path B from Path C in terms of events (i.e., Path
B corresponds to 2 - 4, Path C corresponds to 2-3-4). This is
to facilitate adaptation of the model to a PERT computer
program.
Activity duration estimation;
Once the basic PERT model was constructed, estimates were
obtained for the expected duration of each activity. The
expected duration of each activity was derived mathematically
from three separate estimates: an optimistic time estimate (a),
a modal time estimate (m), and a pessimistic time estimate (b) .
Krueckeberg and Silvers provide the following definitions of
each:
the optimistic estimate (a) is the time the activity
would take "under the best of luck and conditions—
having a probability of about one out of 100;"
- 86 -
-------
TABLE A-2. EVENTS AND TIME ESTIMATES FOR PERT DEMONSTRATION
MODEL
Event
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TE
0
2.0
7.3
7.3
34.1
48.3
131.1
145.6
240.3
264.8
306.8
310.8
336.0
347.3
360.6
350.0
TL
0
2.0
7.3
7.3
34.1
108.9
131.1
145.6
240.3
264.8
306.8
310.8
336.0
347.3
373.6
350.0
Slack
0
0
0
0
0
60.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.0
0
Event
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
T
E
350.0
352.0
354.2
357.5
371.5
385.5
388.8
409.8
411.8
413.8
415.8
417.8
419.8
443.1
424.0
443.1
TL
350.0
352.0
354.2
357.5
371.5
385.5
388.8
409.8
411.8
413.8
415.8
417.8
419.8
443.1
443.1
443.1
Slack
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.1
0
= Earliest expected arrival time (days)
T_ = Latest allowable leaving time (days)
- 87 -
-------
the modal estimate (m) is the time the activity will
require most frequently if it were conducted many
times "under randomly varying conditions;" and
the pessimistic estimate (b) is the length of time
the activity will take "under the worst of luck and
conditions—having a probability of about one out of
100."
From the basis of these specific estimates, a single value
for the expected duration of the activity (t sub-e) was defined.
Also/ since we were interested in the expected deviations from
that value/ the standard deviations of each estimate were
calculated (sigma). The formulas used for the calculation of t
sub-e and sigma are presented at the end of Table A-l.
Establish earliest expected arrival times for each event;
The earliest expected arrival time (T sub-E) is obtained by
summing up the expected activity durations (t sub-e) for each
different sequence of activities leading up to that event. The
arrival time assigned to the event is the latest arrival time
derived from each of the activity sequences leading to that
event.
Establish latest allowable leaving times for each event;
Next, the latest allowable leaving time (T sub-L) was
defined for each event. Again using the road map analogy, this
is the latest time that the reconvened study team can leave a
particular event without delaying the entire project. The best
way to illustrate its calculation is with an example. The T
sub-L assigned to Event 19 equals the T sub-E of Event 20 minus
the t sub-e of the activity running between Event 19 and Event
20. Using the values from Tables A-l and A-2, we obtain:
T sub-L(Event 19) = 357.5(T sub-E, 20) - 3.3(t sub-e, Y)
= 354.2
Define Slack Time;
Slack Time (S) was defined for each event. S equals T sub-L
minus T sub-E for that event. For example, for Event 6:
S(Event 6) = 108.9(T sub-L, 6) - 48.3(T sub-E, 6)
= 60.6
Whenever there is Slack Time at an event, the study planners
should reconsider the timing of the performance of the relevant
tasks or, if the timing is unalterable—e.g., due to contract
obligations or unalterable parallel activities—the planners
should weigh the relative costs of Slack Time efficiency losses
- 88 -
-------
and speeding up the slower activity. Again, the reader is
reminded of the suitability of CPM for this purpose.
Define critical path;
The critical path (CP) is the sequence of paths with (a) the
longest elapsed time, and (b) the lowest total Slack Time. It
is this path (or paths, for there can be more than one at a
time) which determines the duration of the entire project. Any
delays in activities on a critical path will delay the
completion of the project. For the demonstration model, the CP
was found to be:
1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-
27-28-29-30-32
The resulting time estimate for the duration of the project
was 443.1 days, rounded off to 443 days (or 63.3 weeks). It is
important to remember that this is the time expected to elapse
between the inception of the project and the completion of the
procedure for the first municipality.
Project duration probability distribution;
It is often useful to provide some estimate of the
variability to be expected in the duration of the project. It
is for this purpose that we calculated the standard deviation
from the expected duration of each activity. Only activities
along the CP are incorporated in the calculation. The values
for sigma-squared for CP activities are marked with an asterisk
in Table A-l. To calculate the standard deviation from the
expected duration of the entire project (443 days), the
following formula was used:
a(project) = (£o?) where i = each CP activity
For the demonstration model, then, the values marked with an
asterisk in Table A-l were summed and the square root was taken.
The resulting value, 40.1 days, was rounded to 40 days.
Employing a Bayesian interpretation of this result, the project
in its current unmodified form would be expected to take between
403 and 483 days to complete 68%, or roughly two-thirds, of the
time. The other one-third of the time, the project would be
expected to take less than 403 days or more than 483 days.
If we want to establish a higher level of certainty, we must
accept a broader estimation interval. For example, if we wished
to define an interval which we expect to contain the actual
result 95% of the time, we must add and subtract two standard
deviations from the expected duration of the project. In the
demonstration case, we can say that (again returning to a
Bayesian interpretation) 95% of the time, we expect the project
- 89 -
-------
will take from 363 to 523 days to complete (this is 443 plus or
minus 2 x 40 days).
It is possible that more than one CP will emerge. In fact,
this would tend to indicate a higher degree of scheduling
efficiency since there is probably less overall Slack Time. The
normal procedure, in this case, is to use the CP with the wider
duration probability distribution to determine the confidence
interval of the project.
Some Final Words on Model Respecification
Slack Time was found at Events 6, 15, and 31. Clearly,
there is room for respecification of the procedure. For
example, Activity L on the CP, the collection of USGS
topographic maps, is expected to take 24.5 days. The optimistic
estimate is based on the previous availability of the maps. The
pessimistic estimate assumes a serious backlog of map orders at
the Geological Survey (which is common in September as many
schools order maps for fall geology courses). The CP can be
shortened by 24.5 days if, during Activity H, the identification
of resources, the order for topographic maps is placed if they
are not already available. Again, the Demonstration Model is
based on Monroe County's actual experience, rather than how it
would have been done were Monroe County to try it again.
In order to arrange the efficient rescheduling of the
project, it will be necessary to define slack time for each
activity (which we will call Idle Time to distinguish it from
normal Slack Time). For example, look at Activities B and C in
the Demonstration Model. Although Events 2,3, and 4 all show no
Slack Time, we know by looking at the model that Activity B is
expected to be finished in only 2.0 days, while Activity C is
expected to require 5.3 days to complete. This means that,
although no Slack Time emerged, those involved in Activity B
will be idle for 3.3 days waiting for those involved in C to
complete their work.
The study team should look for Idle Time in each non-CP
activity. Idle Time can be determined by subtracting the T sub-
L of the activity's starting event from the T sub-L of the
activity's ending event. If the t sub-e of the activity is then
subtracted from this number, Idle Time for that activity is
obtained. Options for reallocating resources and rescheduling
activities can then be assessed with the intention of shortening
the CP.
- 90 -
-------
APPENDIX B
ADDRESSES OF PROJECT RESOURCES
Aerial Photographs
Computerized indices for all USGS, NASA, and satellite
photography
EROS Data Center
Sioux Falls
SD 57198
USGS Photography (ordered from EROS Data Center, above)
includes orthophotoquad maps (1:24,000) which may be
useful for filling in missing photo data or as base maps.
Orthophotoquad maps can be ordered from the National
Cartographic Information Center, Reston, VA (see address
below).
County and Strip Coverage
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Green Belt, Maryland and Salt Lake City, Utah Repositories
NASA Skylab (5" format), high altitude U-Z or RB-57
aircraft photography, (order from EROS Data Center)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Offices
State Departments of Transportation (NYSDOT has a
comprehensive county index issued in 1979)
Coastal or Near Coastal Areas
National Ocean Survey
Photogramrnetry Division
National Ocean Survey, NOAA
Rockville, MD 20852
Flood hazard areas and miscellaneous projects
Federal Emergency Management Agency
90 Church St.
New York, NY 10007
- 91 -
-------
National Cartographic Information Center has miscellaneous
coverage indexed by state, as well as orthophotoquad maps:
National Cartographic Information Center
U.S. Geological Survey
507 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
National Archives and Records Service has photos from 1934 to
1942. Free catalog on request.
Cartographic Archives Division
National Archives and Records Service
General Services Administration
Washington, DC 20408
U.S. Forest Service (as available for specific National Forest
areas)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (as available for specific project
regions)
Private Commercial Aerial Photography Firms (see yellow pages of
telephone directory)
Colleges and Universities (miscellaneous collections in
divisions or departments)
City or County Planning Agencies or Environmental Management
Councils
Real Property Tax Offices or Departments
Agriculture Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
U.S. Government Maps
Current Editions of topographic and geologic maps
East of the Mississippi:
Branch of Distribution
U.S. Geological Survey
1200 South Eads St.
Arlington, VA 22202
West of the Mississippi:
Branch of Distribution
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25286 Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
- 92 -
-------
Older Editions of topographic and geologic maps
(micro film and special products)
National Cartographic Information Center
U.S. Geological Survey
507 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
Soil Maps
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Local Office, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Government Publications
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
- 93 -
-------
APPENDIX C
CALL-IN CAMPAIGN FORM
Monroe County Landfill Review Committee
Old Dump Sites
telephone call form
Date Call Received Call Received By.
Caller Information-
Additional Comments
About Dump
name telephone #
mailing address & zip code
Dump Information
city or town location
street or road location
year or years dump used
materials deposited at dump
is dump still used?
Draft Form Used in Monroe County. New York
- 94 -
-------
APPENDIX D
CALL-IN CAMPAIGN FLYER
Monroe County is trying
to find old dump sites....
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ANY ?
IF SO, CALL THE MONROE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AT 442-4000.
WE'RE WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS
OF OLD DUMPS IN MONROE COUNTY THAT COULD POSE PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS. WE ARE
PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN DUMPS USED BEFORE 1960 AND BACK TO AROUND THE TURN OF THE
CENTURY.
THE KIND OF INFORMATION WE NEED IS:
* WH ERE WAS THE DUMP LOCATED ?
CITY OR TOWN; STREET OR ROAD
* WHEN WAS THE DUMP USED ?
APPROXIMATE YEARS
* WHAT TYPES OF MATTER WERE DUMPED ?
HOUSEHOLD TRASH, AGRICULTURE OR INDUSTRIAL WASTE
PLEAS E CALL US IF YOU HAVE SUCH INFORMATION BEFORE THE END OF MAY, 1979.
DIAL 442-4000 AND ASK FOR EXTENSION 2882.
JOEL L. NITZKIN, M.D.
COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR
- 95 -
-------
APPENDIX E
SITE ACTIVITY RECORD AND GUIDE FOR COMPLETING THE FORM
These pages serve as a guide to completing the Site Activity
Record (SAR).
The site summary in the upper right hand corner of the first
page identifies key information.
. Quadrangle No. refers to the number assigned to the
particular USGS quadrangle map in which the site is
found. (These numbers are assigned to each quadrangle
map at the beginning of the study for reference
purposes.)
. Planimetric Map No. and Orthophoto No. refer to the
numbers found on the map sheets.
. Site Activity refers to the five categories of
dump/landfill (D), possible dump/landfill (P),
unspecified fill (D), lagoon (L), or junkyard (J)
defined in Table 2-2.
. Geology is ranked .01, .02, or .03 depending on the
score the site receives on the Geologic Ranking Sheet
described in Figure 5-1.
. Land Use is ranked .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, or .06 as
described in Table 2-3.
. Water Supply Contamination Potential is ranked .01 or
.02 as shown in Table 3-1, Stage 2.
The description below correspond to numbers on the SAR.
5. Record activity noted on each year of photography
along with the appropriate aerial photo numbers
(Chapter 2).
6. An estimate of site acreage is most easily obtained
by developing a standard grid to lay over the
maximum boundary delineated on the orthophoto-or
planimetric maps.
7. Land use activities can be shown on either a ln=200'
orthophoto-or planimetric map or a small scale site
sketch map. Since the orthophotomaps and some
planimetric maps show building locations, these maps
can be used to provide some indication of the
- 96 -
-------
populations that could be impacted. They are also
at an excellent scale for recording house numbers
and water supply locations. (See item 19.) General
criteria for distinguishing between known
dumping/landfilling, possible dumping/landfilling,
etc. can be found in Table 2-1.
8. Type of Waste: This is general information obtained
from existing records and interviews with local
officials, industrial representatives, waste
haulers, or the general public.
9. Current Site Owner: Obtain from tax records.
10. Previous Owners: Search deed records
11. Site Operator: Research municipal, county, or state
records or contact site owner.
12. Haulers Using Site: Records or interviews.
13. Municipalities/Industries/Commercial Establishments
Using Site: Records or interviews.
14. See item 7 for a discussion of maps.
15. Noteworthy Current Land Use Information should be
obtained from the most recent aerial photographs and
verified for confirmed dumps/landfills by field
checks. Any major facilities on or adjacent to the
site should be noted.
16. Contact local planning departments or zoning boards
to determine zoning.
17. Estimate the number of buildings/homes within 1000
feet using the orthophotomap or the most recent
aerial photographs.
18. The Site Impact Data Sheet is the fifth page of the
SAR.
19. To locate individual water wells, draw a line 1000
feet from the perimeter of the maximum boundary as
depicted on the orthophotomap. Check addresses for
water service (Chapter 3). Increase the line to
2000 feet from the site boundary for high volume
sites over 20 acres.
- 97 -
-------
20. Private water supply systems serve less than 25
individuals and are usually associated with
restaurants, golf courses, mobile home parks, camps,
or industries. The location of these supplies can
be determined through local health department
records.
21. Information on surface drinking water supplies
should be available through local health department
records.
22-30. This section should be completed by the
hydrogeologist associated with the project. Item 29
should include information on the potential impact
on streams, wetlands, wildlife, etc.
31-36. All documentation from supplementary sources should
be added to this section. The additional
information section (item 36) may include data from
a variety of documents, including street or business
directories, plat books, fire insurance maps, and
hazardous waste publications (see the checklist on
the fourth page of the SAR).
- 98 -
-------
Site Activity Record
Site No Quadrangle No..
1. Site Name <•> u u M
Planimetric Map No Orthophoto No
2. Municipality
3. Address
4 General Site Location Classification
. Site Geology Land Use
Activity
_ Water Well Contamination Potential
Site Activity
5. Photo Years Description of Activity Observed On Aerial Photographs Photo Numbers
6. Estimated Site Acreage _
7. Note on Site Sketch Map or Orthophoto Map Relevant Activities Listed Below as Well as Land
Use Activities on and Adjacent to the Site During Period of Operation, Including Industries,
Commercial Establishments, Sand and Gravel Operations, Etc.
Information Source/ Information Source/
Date Date
. Known Dumping Drum Storage
. Possible Dumping Tank Storage
. Unspecified Filling . Oil Spill
. Scattered Surface Dumping Injection Well
. Lagoon Junkyard
. Clean Fill Other
Information Source/
8. Type of Waste Disposed of at Site Source of Waste rjate
. Mixed Municipal
. Industrial
. Construction/Demolition
. Tree/Brush
. Chemical
. Fly Ash From Power Generators
. Sludge From Sewage Treatment Plant
. Agricultural/Nursery Debris
Draft Form Used in Monroe County, New York
- 99 -
-------
Site Owners/Users
9. Current Site Owner —
10. Previous Owner(s) During Period of Waste Disposal .
11. Site Operator(s)_
12. Haulers Using Site.
13. Municipalities/lndustries/Commercial Establishments Using Site
Land Use
14. Indicate Current Land Use on Site Sketch Map or Orthophoto Map, Including Residential,
Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Vacant Land on or Adjacent to Site.
15. Summary of Noteworthy Current Land Use Information
On Site
Adjacent to Site
16. If Site is Currently Vacant, Indicate Zoning.
Proposed Future Development
17. Approximate Number of Buildings/Homes Within 1000 Feet of Site
18. Record Addresses of Residences Located Directly Over Site on Site Impact Data Sheet (attached)
Water Supply Information
19. Indicate on Orthophoto or Planimetnc Map the Location (Street and Number) of Individual
Water Wells Within 1000 Feet of Site
For Dump Sites Larger than 20 Acres, Locate Wells Within 2000 Feet of Site
Record Information on Site Impact Data Sheet (attached)
20. Locate Public and Private Water Wells Within 3 Miles of Site
Record Information on Site Impact Data Sheet (attached)
21. Locate Other Public Water Supplies (Streams, Reservoirs, etc.) Within 3 Miles of Site
Record Information on Site Impact Sheet (attached) Noting any Unique Geologic Conditions
Natural Features of Site
22. Type of Soil or Overburden
23. Depth to Bedrock
24. Separation of Waste From Groundwater.
25. Site Elevation Prior to Filling
26. Present Site Elevation
27. Estimated Depth/Height of Fill
28. Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body Direction,
Name of Water Body Elevation.
29. Noteworthy Natural Features of the Site
30. General Geologic Evaluation.
- 100 -
-------
Supplementary Information Sources
31. Agency File Information
32. Permits for Site.
33. Interview Information
34. Call-In Information.
35. Field Inspection Remarks .
36. Additional Information-
Final Recommendations
- 101 -
-------
Information Sources Checklist
Source Contact/Document Date
. Aerial Photographs
Agency Files
. DEC
Health Department
Planning Department
Atlases
Boring Logs
Business Directories
Call-In Information
Deeds, Tax Records
Field Inspection
Government Publications
Relating to Hazardous
Waste
Historic Sources
Industry Files
Interviews
Local Officials
Conservation Board
Residents
Industry Officials
Plat Books
Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps
Site Permits
Soil Maps
Street Directories
Water Billing Records
Municipality Contacts Checklist
Contact Name Date
Supervisor
Building Inspector
Engineer
Historian
Commissioner of Public Works
Highway Supervisor
Police Chief
Fire Marshal
Conservation Board Chairperson
Conservation Board Members
Other
- 102 -
-------
Site Impact Data Sheet
Names and Addresses of Residents Located Directly Over Site
Date Owner Notified
Individual Wells Within 1000 Feet of Site
Type of Aquifer Well Date
Well (Overburden, Contamination Owner
Name of Resident and Address for Water Well Depth Bedrock) Potential Notified
Individual Water Wells Within 2000 Feet of Site (for sites larger than 20 acres)
Type of Aquifer Well Date
Well (Overburden, Contamination Owner
Name of Resident and Address for Water Well Depth Bedrock) Potential Notified
Public and Private Water Wells Within 1/2 Mile of Site
Type of Aquifer Well Date
Well (Overburden, Contamination Owner
Name of Facility and Address for Water Well Depth Bedrock) Potential Notified
Public and Private Water Wells Within 3 Miles of Site
Type of Aquifer Well Date
Well (Overburden, Contamination Owner
Name of Facility and Address for Water Well Depth Bedrock) Potential Notified
- 103 -
-------
APPENDIX F
SYMBOLS FOR NOTATION ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
D WASTE DISPOSAL
POSSIBLE WASTE
DISPOSAL
F FILLING
CF CLEAN FILL
JY JUNKYARD
S/G SAND AND GRAVEL
EXCAVATION AREA
S/Ga ABANDONED SAND
AND GRAVEL AREA
St STOCKPILES
Id Ind IDENTIFY INDUSTRY
\D DRAINAGE
DITCH
WETLAND
PONDED WATER
ELIMINATE SITE
- 104 -
-------
APPENDIX G
Waste Disposal Site Information Sheet
Monroe County, New York
Municipality:
Site Number:
Location:
Type of Disposal:
Current Owner(s):
Operators/Users During
Period of Activity:
Type of Waste:
Period of Operation:
Acreage:
Individual Water Wells
Within 1000 Feet of Site
Boundaries:
Public/Private
Water Supply Systems
Within 1/2 Mile of Site
Boundaries
Current Land Use on Site:
Special Comments:
Date of Report:
Municipal Chftmiral
Tree/Brush Industrial
Construction/ Fly Ash from Power
Demolition Generators
Sludge from Sewage Agricultural/Nursery
Treatment Plant Debris
nth«r Typ°
Yes Nn
Information contained on this sheet is preliminary and subject to further refinement.
Report prepared by the Monroe County Environmental Management Council.
Draft Form Used in Monroe County, New York
- 105 -
-------
APPENDIX H
NOTIFICATION LETTER TO INDIVIDUAL WELL OWNER
Date
Dear Sir:
The County Health Department has been working with state and
local agencies to survey active and inactive waste disposal
sites in the county.
Our search of records and our analysis of aerial photos
indicates the presence of a site within 1000 feet of your home.
Since waste disposal sites may adversely affect the quality
of water in nearby wellsr you may wish to consider connecting to
a public water supply system, installing an on-site water
treatment system, or using bottled water for drinking and
cooking.
To assist us in completing this survey, please contact my
office at 555-5555, extension 555, to confirm whether there is a
well on your property that is used for drinking water. I will
be glad to answer any questions you may have about this program.
Sincerely,
Director
County Health Department
cc: concerned agencies
- 106 -
-------
APPENDIX I
NOTIFICATION LETTER TO LANDOWNER
Date
Dear Sir:
During the last three years the County Environmental
Management Council and the County Health Department have been
working with concerned state and local agencies to identify and
classify active and inactive waste disposal sites in the county
to determine what effect they might have on county residents.
Attached is a description of a site you currently own which
has been used for waste disposal in the past. This information
is contained in a report, "Inventory of Active and Inactive
Waste Disposal Sites," prepared by the County Landfill Review
Committee. The report has been forwarded to the State
Department of Environmental Conservation in accordance with
Article 55, Section 5555 of the State Environmental Conservation
Law. Follow-up investigations may be conducted by the State
Department of Environmental Conservation and/or the State Health
Department.
Please review the data and, if you can be of assistance to
us in our attempt to complete this survey or if you have any
questions, please call my office at 555-5555, extension 555.
Sincerely,
Director
County Health Department
cc: concerned agencies
- 107 -
-------
APPENDIX J
A GEOLOGIC CASE STUDY FOR AN INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
INTRODUCTION
This case study illustrates how the geologic information
discussed in this report was applied to the investigation of an
industrial landfill in Monroe County. The landfill, owned by
the Eastman Kodak Company, currently operates under permit from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). When the Monroe County Landfill Review Committee (LRC)
first began to review the site in detail, they suspected that
waste disposal previously had occurred over a wider area than
the current operation. No public records were available to
detail the boundaries, contents, or waste disposal practices of
any earlier activity. To substantiate this belief, the
committee utilized aerial photographs and other records to
confirm that the Weiland Road Industrial Landfill had existed
since the late 1940's.
Due to the scarcity of aerial photography during the 1940's,
the first documented dumping was noted on 1951 photographs.
This activity occurred at the eastern end of the site. Borrow
operations and grading expanded westward during the 1960's. By
1975 the dumping on the eastern two-thirds of the site had been
covered and the area converted to parking lots, roadways, and
recreational facilities (Figure J-l). While only one-third of
the site is presently active, a total area of approximately 45
acres has been involved since the earliest recorded activity.
The aerial photographs also provided information on site
drainage and identified a wetland that existed prior to waste
disposal activity on the southwest portion of the site.
According to old engineering drawings and records furnished by
Kodak, the stream draining the site was gradually filled in, but
a shallow, buried french drain was extended along its former
course as landfilling continued in a generally westward
direction. In the 1950's a chlorination station was installed
along the drain system to correct odor problems in response to
complaints from local residents.
In 1979 an ad hoc committee of the newly created Monroe
County LRC began to take a close look at both the past and
present disposal activity at the site. The ad hoc committee
- 108 -
-------
Figure J-l. Aerial photographs of the Weiland Road industrial
landfill (1963 and 1975). A. View of site during early stage
of development (1963). B. View of site as it appeared in
1975. See Figure J-2 for maximum boundary of waste disposal.
- 109 -
-------
included representatives from the DEC, the Monroe County
Department of Health, and the Monroe County Environmental
Management Council (EMC). The study's consulting geologist
participated with the group in analyzing the information.
When the committee began evaluating the site, Kodak had an
application pending with the DEC for a permit to move the
chlorination station and extend the existing drains to the
northwest corner of the site. Shortly thereafter Kodak decided
to connect the drains to the company's industrial sewage
treatment plant. The LRC's geologist was concerned that
leachate could still move off the site in a northwesterly
direction through soils beneath the drains. In fact, the
committee knew that contaminated groundwater was moving in this
direction because tests conducted in 1979 by the Monroe County
Health Department detected acid magenta in a private water well
on the northwest corner of the site.
The LRC began by gathering information on site boundaries
and drainage, and by interpretating available aerial photography
from 1930 to the present. This information permitted the LRC to
document the maximum boundary of the site as well as pre-
existing site drainage without access to company records.
(Figure J-2). This information was supplemented by records and
permit applications in the DEC files, as well as Monroe County
Health Department inspection reports.
The LRC's consulting geologist prepared a preliminary
geologic report on the site and meetings were held with company
officials to verify the committee's findings and to obtain
additional information, including site contents. These meetings
clarified aerial photointerpretations concerning extraction
activities, resulted in Kodak sharing with the committee
photographs of the site taken by low flying aircraft, and
revealed a new set of boring logs from a recent county highway
project on the west end of the disposal area (Figure J-2).
These borings proved to be invaluable in confirming the
subsurface geology. A revised geologic report was prepared by
the committee's geologist, documenting loose sands and gravels
at depth on the west end of the site. Further meetings were
held with Kodak personnel to discuss the committee's
documentation of the potential for leachate to migrate westward
off the site.
These concerns were also addressed in a monograph on the
Weiland Road site published by the LRC in June 1980 (21). This
report included a summary of the committee's investigation and a
recommendation that further testing down to the bedrock surface
be completed to determine if leachate was migrating below the
- 110 -
-------
MAXIMUM
DUMPING
BOUNDARY
N
Figure J-2. Weiland Road industrial landfill. A. Topography
and geologic features of site prior to urbanization. Contour
interval 50 feet. B. Maximum boundary of waste disposal
through 1975 with additional road construction. Black dots
indicate borings located for highway construction and engineer-
ing projects. Triangles are new groundwater monitoring wells
completed as a result of recommendations following preliminary
study. Large arrows indicate groundwater flow directions
determined from all borings.
- Ill -
-------
french drains. Also included in the report was documentation on
site activity noted on each year of available photography, the
two geologic analyses, and pertinent information obtained from
agency records and Eastman Kodak, including site contents. The
company responded to the committee's concerns by proposing a
drilling and sampling program to determine whether or not
problems existed. Laboratory analyses of the initial samples
did not indicate that significant quantities of leachate were
leaving the site, but an ongoing monitoring program has been
recommended by Kodak's consulting geologists to insure that
undetected problems do not occur in the future.
The successful investigation of the Weiland Road Landfill
and the subsequent agreement by Eastman Kodak to conduct a
drilling and sampling program was a result of the information
the LRC had been able to gather on site boundaries, drainage,
and geology using aerial photographs and general geologic
information. The committee was able to work effectively with
Kodak because of the accurate and detailed information gathered
from historic photos and engineering boring logs.
The sections that follow provide details of the geologic
analyses and how these assisted both the company and the
committee in identifying areas where testing should be
conducted.
GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY
As part of the Monroe County study of this site, a
preliminary report on the site geology was prepared by the LCR's
geologist. This report was based on published information from
general geologic reports and an interpretation of the site
geomorphology on old topographic maps and 1930 aerial
photography. This report was updated when newer information
became available during the investigation.
The Rochester area contains a number of old glacial beach
deposits and glacial moraines which exert a significant
influence on the local occurrence and movement of groundwater
(Figures J-2, J-3). The Weiland Road site is located along an
old glacial lake shoreline known as Lake Dawson, which marks
an ice-dammed proglacial lake about 200 feet higher than Lake
Ontario. Such shorelines are common in western New York and
form pronounced ridges of sand and gravel with trends roughly
parallel to the present lake shore. As is typical of modern
lake shorelines, the glacial beach zones often consist of
foreshore beach deposits, backshore storm beach ridges,
embayments or lagoons behind the foreshore, and occasional dune
fields extending downwind. Because the glacial lake levels
- 112 -
-------
is;
M
M
Co
r
-------
commonly fluctuated as the ice shifted position, many of these
features were covered, abandoned, or reworked by wave action as
the lake rose and fell repeatedly. In some places permeable
sand and gravel deposits are present in broad bands up to a mile
wide. In other locations the beaches and sandbars are
relatively narrow but may be up to several tens of feet thick.
These old beach deposits have commonly been used for gravel
extraction followed by waste disposal in the abandoned pits.
The Weiland Road site is located along an obvious beach
ridge with parallel stream tributaries (Paddy Hill Creek)
developed in the "ridge and swale" topography immediately
upslope from the main beach (Figure J-2). Immediately behind
this beach shore complex is a 50-foot subdued escarpment formed
by the local sandstones and the dolomitic Rochester shale
(Figure J-3). Wave action at the highest Dawson stage may have
eroded this zone and created the pronounced change in slope that
is present on the topographic maps.
Because this landfill was obviously sited in an area of
potential sand and gravel deposits, an effort was made to
determine the nature of the local soils and overburden. Borings
from available sewer and highway construction projects were
sought, and records of sand and gravel operations along other
shoreline segments were reviewed. A set of borings through a
former waste disposal site on another beach ridge east of the
Genesee River was located (Figure J-4). These data allowed the
project geologist to infer subsurface geology at the Weiland
Road site. Shallow sewer borings a mile west of the site
indicated that rock was relatively shallow. However,
descriptions of gravel extraction operations elsewhere in
Rochester suggested that the shoreline deposits were often
extremely variable in thickness over short distances. Water
levels in existing borings in the general area were from 1 to 5
feet below the surface and overburden consisted of 12 to 20 feet
of silt, fine sand, gravel, and boulders. Borings on the site
proper, supplied by Kodak, indicated that glacial till underlay
portions of the site along its northern edge. Borings near
Latona Road on the west end of the site indicated very loose
sediment and organic material close to the bedrock surface and
only about twenty feet below the original ground surface. These
data were included in the initial report by the committee's
geologist. This geologic analysis indicated the potential
groundwater flow direction to be to the northwest, and further
subsurface testing was recommended.
REMEDIAL ACTION AND SITE INVESTIGATION
From a geologic standpoint, the regional geologic
information available for the general area, especially for the
old glacial shorelines, enabled the geologist to develop a
- 114 -
-------
Ol
450 -.
430 .
H
LL.
o
H
PJ
390 -
370 -
350-
330-
N
10
RIDGE ROAD
WELL NUMBERS
COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
AND SAND: MANY COBBLES
(beach gravels)
LOOSE
SILT
AND
>FINE SAND
(layers)
MEDIUM TO FINE
RUNNING SAND
(observation
wells)
GENERALLY
COMPACT
GRAY TO
BROWN SILT AND FINE SAND
VERY DENSE GRAY-BROWN TILL
ARTESIAN
WATER
PRESSURE
200 ft.
ROCK
ROCK
Figure J-4. Interpretative geologic cross-section: Culver-Ridge Shopping Center Site.
-------
reasonable hydrogeologic model of groundwater conditions prior
to expensive site investigations. Although this model included
generalizations made from sites up to several miles away/ the
trend of potentially sandy deposits was predictable and the
movement of groundwater (westward or northwestward) along the
former course of Paddy Hill Creek appeared likely. The model
was sufficiently complete that selection of additional drilling
sites was relatively straightforward. All concerned parties
were satisfied that the minimal number of initial monitoring
wells located along the west and northwest edges of the site
were sufficient to address concerns relating to groundwater
contamination and potential leachate movement offsite (Figure J-
2).
Groundwater Movement and Water Well Locations
Subsequent to the concerns over potential groundwater
contamination and the proper design of the leachate collection
system, the issue of drinking water well contamination over a
wider area was raised. Drinking water wells were known to have
existed near the Weiland Road site between the mid 1930's and
the early 1970's. One house located on the northwest corner of
the property was connected to a public water supply system in
1979 after the Monroe County Health Department detected acid
magenta in the well water.
While a general search was being made to locate or verify
the existence of any individual water wells within 1000 feet of
the site/ additional information concerning the movement of
groundwater in the bedrock became available. Ongoing
engineering studies and deep sewer tunnel construction in the
City of Rochester produced additional information concerning the
localized movement of groundwater. Water pressure tests in
borings in all of the local bedrock units demonstrated that
significant water movement is probably confined to the upper few
tens of feet of jointed rock. Fault zones with small vertical
displacements were encountered in tunnel drilling operations.
Small faults were found to exert significant controls over the
amount and direction of groundwater movement in bedrock. A
number of potential fault zones have been located in the western
portion of the city, some close to the Weiland Road site, and a
more realistic approximation of zones of enhanced groundwater
flow could have been prepared if any individual, private, or
public water supplies were found to be in use in the vicinity of
the landfill site. Aside from these fault zones with their
potentially higher permeability, it does not appear that any of
the local bedrock units is generally very permeable, except
close to the rock surface where weathering and jointing are
present.
- 116 -
-------
Usefulness of Geologic and Engineering Data
Preliminary and improved hydrogeologic models of the Weiland
Road site and its surroundings enabled the site to be evaluated
without expensive testing by outside agencies. The localization
of two potential areas of concern involving groundwater movement
beneath the site was possible with existing engineering records
and subsurface geologic information. The information from other
projects on and adjacent to the site minimized the need for
additional wells.
- 117 -
-------
GLOSSARY
ablation till; Loosely consolidated rock debris that
accumulated in place as the glacial ice melted. (see also
glacial till)
acid magenta; A dye that is produced by oxidation of a mixture
of aniline and toluidines and yields a brilliant bluish red.
aeration booms; Mechanical aeration or mixing booms visible
above settling tanks at sewage treatment facilities. Allows
discrimination of sewage treatment facility from similar-sized
circular storage tanks on aerial photographs.
alluvial deposits; A general term for unconsolidated detrital
material deposited by a stream in its channel or on a
floodplain.
aquifer; A body of rock or soil sufficiently permeable to
conduct groundwater and to yield significant quantities of water
to wells or springs.
attenuation; The reduction of ionic concentrations in solutions
by natural earth materials by the processes of cation exchange
with clays or similar mechanisms.
backshore storm beach ridges; The shore zone between mean high
water and the upper limit of shore-zone processes that is acted
upon only by severe waves or during unusually high tides.
bathtub effect; An overflow effect commonly seen in landfills
located in impermeable clay soils where infiltration of
precipitation through waste and cover materials exceeds the
capacity of the soil to absorb the normal rainfall. Springs of
leachate may appear around the site perimeter.
- 118 -
-------
berm; A narrow bench or dike-like barrier of earth commonly
built to contain spills or liquid waste.
boring logs; Engineering and geologic descriptions of
exploration drill holes commonly utilized during the design and
planning phases of construction projects.
borrow pit; An excavated area where earth materials (not rock)
have been removed to use for fill or construction elsewhere.
caliche; Calcareous material of secondary accumulation near the
surface of soils in arid to semi-arid regions. Such deposits
indicate the upward movement of groundwater (evaporation) and
decrease soil permeability.
cation exchange capacity; The capacity of a material (commonly
clay minerals) to exchange weakly bound ions with preferred ions
that occur in groundwater or leachate.
cell excavation construction; The more recent methods of
landfill construction whereby adjacent trenches are excavated in
turn and daily waste is compacted and covered by soil in 6" to
12" lifts.
channel; A linear depression such as is commonly associated
with an existing stream bed or an abandoned river system or
irrigation trench.
clean fill; Inert materials/ especially soils or rock that are
commonly used to fill depressions prior to construction of large
buildings, parking lots or housing developments.
continental glaciation; The resulting effects of the processes
of ice deposition and erosion by large ice sheets which covered
the northern United States until 13,000 to 20,000 years ago.
dipping rock layers; Sedimentary rocks usually occur in layered
sequences which are originally horizontal on the ocean floor,
but may become tilted and eroded after large scale earth
movements have occurred.
- 119 -
-------
drag lines; Large scoops or buckets on the end of chains or
cables attached to crane-like booms are sometimes used to
excavate sand or gravel. Such methods often leave visible, fan-
like marks visible on aerial photographs.
drainage basins; A relative term referring to a master stream
and its tributaries and the surface over which they collect
runoff. The term may be used to denote a feature as large as
the Mississippi River System or as small as a gully system in a
small field.
drainage divide; The highest point of land separating one
drainage basin from all adjacent drainage basins and forming a
continuous boundary that includes all the area draining into the
master stream.
drumlins; Elongate hills resulting from glacial deposition and
erosion under ice sheets. Their long axes are parallel to the
ice flow direction and their bluntest slopes point in the
direction from which the ice advanced.
effluent; A liquid discharge, such as waste from a factory or
water from a sewage treatment facility.
enhanced groundwater flow; Groundwater flow that is being
increased in a particular direction due to variations in the
factors (i.e., permeability) that control flow.
environmental atlas; An atlas containing maps and descriptions
of parameters useful in environmental planning, such as soil
types, rainfall, land use, etc.
extraction activities; The activities associated with sand and
gravel pits, borrow pits, or rock quarry operations.
faults; Fractures in earth materials, usually bedrock, that
develop when sudden earth movements occur. Such fractures may
be planar features or zones of crushed and broken rock and often
permit groundwater to migrate more rapidly than through
unfractured materials.
fill; See clean fill. (Some processed material such as cinders
or furnace slag may be used as fill material).
- 120 -
-------
filling activity; The activity (spreading, hauling, etc.) that
is associated with the emplacement of fill.
fly ash; Particulate matter usually associated with a gas
stream, especially in the stack gases of a coal-fired electric
generating plant. May be referred to as cinders or ash.
foreshore beach deposits; Deposits formed on the outer,
seaward-(lakeward) sloping zone of a beach, commonly between
high and low water marks.
geologic quadrangle maps; Maps showing the distribution of
geologic formations (commonly shown without surficial soils) at
the earth's surface. These maps are usually compiled at scales
of 1:24,000 or 1:63,360 on topographic base maps.
geomorphologic; Pertaining to the shape of the land surface as
influenced or shaped by geologic processes (glaciers, rivers,
etc.).
lacial lodgement tills; A glacial till formed of the rock
ebris transported beneath a glacier and therefore more compact
and generally less permeable than ablation till.
glacial meltwater; The water discharged by a melting glacier,
which forms channels or deposits similar to those formed by
normal streams.
glacial moraine; Generally loosely consolidated deposits of
glacial till, sand, or gravel deposited near the edge of a
stationary ice front and rising conspicuously above the
surrounding terrain. Often linear or ridge-shaped.
glacial till (or till); Unsorted rock debris (clay, silt, sand,
gravel) deposited by a glacier. Such deposits may be highly
variable in texture or composition and are often erroneously
assumed to be relatively impermeable.
groundwater flow path; The pathway followed by groundwater as
it moves through bedrock or soil formations.
- 121 -
-------
hard pan; Unusually hard or naturally cemented soil layers
(such as caliche). The term may be informally used by some
laymen to refer to glacial till soils that are very compact at
depth.
hydraulic conductivity (permeability coefficient); The rate of
flow of water (volume per unit area) under a unit hydraulic
gradient (45 slope) at a specified temperature.
hydraulie gradient; In an aquifer, the rate of change of total
head (pressure) per unit of distance of flow at a given point in
a given direction.
hydrogeologist; A geologist whose special interest, training,
or experience is the study of ground and surface water, its
occurrence, movement, and associated engineering problems.
ice-dammed proglacial lake; A glacial lake that owes its origin
to the damming action of a glacier where the adjacent land forms
an enclosing basin. The lake cannot be maintained when the
glacial barrier melts or retreats. Commonly found in front of a
glacier.
immiscibility; Two phases, commonly liquids that cannot
completely dissolve in one another (such as oil and water).
indurated; Rock or soil that has been hardened or consolidated
by pressure or cementation.
inlet plume; A visible discolored plume of a liquid that is
clearly visible as it enters a body of water of a different
color or having a different sediment content.
ionic species; Chemically dissociated substances (elements) in
a fluid medium, such as sodium and chloride ions formed when
salt dissolves in water.
joints; Natural breaks in bedrock along which no apparent
movement has occurred (unlike faults). Caused by large scale
earth movements or gradual unloading of the earth's crust.
- 122 -
-------
karst; Terraine in which the dominant surface relief is due to
groundwater solution of soluble carbonate rock (limestone or
dolomite).
lake clays; Fine-grained sediment resulting from settling of
suspended particles in quiet lake waters. Commonly these
deposits are conspicuously layered and impermeable.
laterite soil; An iron-rich/ reddish soil that is sometimes
hard enough to cut into building stone; may form hardpans.
leachate: A solution formed by the percolation of water through
materials containing other fluids or finely divided or soluble
constituents. Commonly used in reference to landfills.
lifts; Refers to the method of landfill operation where the
daily waste is compacted and covered by soil in layers, commonly
1 ft. to 4 ft. thick with 6" to 12" soil layers.
lodgement till; See glacial lodgement till.
mass wasting; A general term for the downslope transport of
soil and rock material under the influence of gravity and aided
by water content.
matrix; The finer particles of a soil or overburden within
which the larger fragments appear to be contained.
metric conversions; 1 mile = 1.609 kilometers
1 foot = 30.480 centimeters
1 inch = 2.540 centimeters
1 acre = .405 hectares or 4047 square
meters
moraine; See glacial moraine.
mylar; See translucent drafting film.
orthophotomaps; Planimetric maps on a photographic base.
Commonly produced at a large scale for land use planning or
similar activities.
- 123 -
-------
outcrops; Places on the earth's surface where bedrock
formations are naturally exposed or visible, as in a cliff face
or road cut.
outwash; The sorted deposits (usually sand or gravel) that are
laid down by glacial meltwater (see glacial meltwater).
overburden; A general term referring to all the unconsolidated
rock debris overlying the bedrock. Engineers sometimes use the
terms overburden and soil interchangeably. Geologists commonly
infer that "soil" is the upper few feet of overburden that has
been obviously weathered and is often divisible into secondary
zones of variable color or texture.
perched; Refers to a water table that is separated from the
general, regional groundwater table. The perched water table is
located on top of a localized impermeable layer.
permeable; Capable of transmitting fluids, especially water, at
a significant rate, generally in inches or feet per hour for
highly permeable materials.
planimetric maps; A map which has features located accurately
in the horizontal sense. Also a map without topographic
contours. However, topographic maps may be planimetrically
correct.
plat book maps; Historic maps dating back to the early 1900's
often found in municipal offices or public libraries. These
maps delineate property boundaries and identify owners and
acreage.
Pleistocene; The geologic epoch during which the earth was
partially covered by large ice sheets. The latest interval
(Wisconsin Stage) lasted from about 75,000 to 13,000 years ago
in the northern U.S.
preferred orientations; The nonrandom orientation of planar or
linear fabric in rocks or overburden. Pebbles, sand grains, or
joints may be oriented preferentially by the directional
processes or forces that deposited or formed them.
- 124 -
-------
profiles; A line representing the shape of a surface in cross-
section, such as the profile of a valley from one side to the
other.
property line maps; Maps commonly used by municipal agencies
(tax assessors, etc.) that show all property boundaries
accurately, to scale.
relict glacial lake shorelines; Well sorted sandy to gravelly
deposits marking the former positions of the edges of proglacial
lakes (see ice-dammed proglacial lake).
ridge and swale topography; Low ridges and linear depressions
commonly associated with foreshore and backshore beach zones.
saturated zone; The zone in the overburden in which all the
pore spaces are filled with water or leachate (contrasted with
the zone of aeration above it).
sedimentary depositional mechanisms; All of the processes which
may occur when sediments are formed and laid down by geologic
processes (glaciers, rivers, wind).
sedimentological; Pertaining to the properties of sediments or
the factors that affect their formation.
seeps; Small springs where natural groundwater issues from the
ground. Also used to describe leachate oozing from landfills
(see bathtub effect).
soil; The term soil has different meanings and usages among
geologists, engineers, and soil scientists (see overburden).
solution zones; Zones in rock, especially limestone, where the
action of flowing groundwater has produced enlarged passages for
water movement. Joints or faults are places where this may
occur.
spoil; Waste material left from mining, quarrying or other
excavating activities that is not usable (for example finely
broken rock from a building stone quarry).
- 125 -
-------
standard industrial code (SIC); A standard method of
classifying businesses by the type of activity in which they are
engaged.
stereographic pairs: Sequential, overlapping photographs taken
from slightly different positions and allowing a scene to be
viewed in 3-dimensions.
stockpiles; Materials stored in proximity to a manufacturing or
construction activity, i.e., road salt, lumber, building stone,
concrete aggregate, etc.
stratigraphy; The study of stratified rock (sedimentary rocks)
and the processes that form them. Also the arrangement of
strata (layers) in a particular region.
street directories; A compilation of information which includes
a register of property owners by street and address.
structures; A megascopic feature of a rock mass, such as a
fault, joint, or layer.
surface impoundment; A surface depression for the storage of
liquid waste.
surficial and bedrock geology; The surficial geology of a
region is usually contrasted with or studied separately from the
bedrock geology. "Surficial" usually refers to the
unconsolidated materials (overburden) such as the glacial
sediments, alluvium, or soil.
tailing piles; Rock debris left over from washed or milled ore
that is considered as too low grade to be treated further.
tectonic stresses; Stresses or forces within the earth that
cause movement (faulting or folding) of rock layers.
topographic maps; A map showing the relief of the land surface
by means of contour lines.
- 126 -
-------
translucent drafting film; A plastic base (usually mylar)
drafting material having the appearance of frosted glass.
unconsolidated overburden; Overburden that is not compacted or
cemented to such an extent that it cannot be readily excavated
by hand or with machinery.
unloading stresses; Forces created by the natural erosion of
the earth's surface (or melting of glacial ice) that gradually
decrease the pressure on subsurface rocks or sediments and
sometimes cause joints or horizontal cracks to appear.
varve: A pair of layers of alternately finer and coarser silt
or clay believed to comprise an annual cycle of deposition in a
body of still water.
waste piles; Temporary storage of any solid waste.
water balance; The interrelations of all the input or output
factors relating to a stream/ lake, or aquifer (groundwater and
surface water).
water pressure tests; Tests performed in boreholes to determine
how readily water enters a rock or soil formation, and hence its
permeability.
water table (also groundwater table); The surface of the
saturated zone in the rock or overburden, below the zone of
aeration, where both air and water may occur in the pore spaces
of rocks and soils.
water well; A vertical shaft or boring which produces economic
quantities of water and is usually located in permeable rock.
weathering; The in situ physical and chemical disintegration of
rock and soil near the earth's surface on exposure to water and
atmospheric agents.
well fields; Groups of wells drilled into the same aquifer to
increase total yield or to allow alternate pumping when yields
are inadequate or when excessive pumping causes damage to well
installations.
- 127 -
------- |