EPA-570/9-77-001
THE REPORT TO CONGRESS
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
AND THEIR EFFECTS ON
GROUND WATER
REPORT
January 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Supply
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
-------
THE REPORT TO CONGRESS
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
AND THEIR EFFECTS ON
GROUND WATER
January 1977
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Supply
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
-------
ABSTRACT
Ground water is a vital natural resource in the United
States. At least half the population depends upon it as a
source of drinking water. Waste-disposal practices have con-
taminated ground water on a local basis in all parts of the
nation and on a regional basis in many heavily populated and
industrialized areas. The severity of contamination ranges
from the exceeding of recommended standards for one or more
constituents not related to health to the presence of toxic
concentrations of hazardous wastes. Some economic losses
have occurred as a result of degradation of ground-water
quality, but the overall usefulness of the ground-water re-
source has not yet been impaired.
Nationally, the principal sources of ground-water contamina-
tion related to waste-disposal practices are industrial
waste-water impoundments and solid-waste land disposal sites.
These facilities are widespread, may involve hazardous sub-
stances, and physically provide an opportunity for contamina-
tion to occur. Septic tanks and cesspools service about
19.5 million households. Waste water from these sources is
discharged directly to the subsurface where it has, in
places, contaminated aquifers on a regional basis. The re-
maining waste-disposal practices are limited to certain geo-
graphic areas, or occur in low density. Waste-disposal prac-
tices of greatest significance to ground-water quality degra-
dation are most prevalent in California, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas
Because ground water and surface water are intimately inter-
related, clean streams programs cannot be successful without
a parallel effort directed toward maintaining the quality of
ground water. At present, legal controls are weak at all
levels of government, and budgets for regulatory agency ac-
tivities are inadequate. Protection of ground-water users
in heavily urbanized and industrialized areas is an immedi-
ate need. Initial emphasis should be placed on inventorying
and monitoring potential sources of ground-water contamina-
tion. Locating new land disposal sites in hydrogeological
settings where probability of contamination is low, or de-
signing such sites so that potential contaminants are con-
tained, will offer the best future protection to the ground-
water resource.
11
-------
\
r I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress "Waste Disposal
Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water" presenting the results
of a survey and study carried out pursuant to Section 1442(a)(4) of
Public Law 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Report is an evaluation of the impact of waste disposal
practices upon present and future underground sources of drinking
water. The Report also assesses the ability of Federal, State and
local authorities to control such practices. The Report does not
reflect the impact of the recently enacted Toxic Substances Control
Act (P.L. 94-469) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(P.L. 94-580) which will provide added protection of ground water
as they are implemented.
The Report is transmitted in two volumes. One volume is an
Executive Summary and the second is the Report itself. All the
material presented in the Executive Summary is duplicated in the
full Report so that it will stand alone as a complete document.
Sincerely yours,
Russell E. Train
Honorable Carl Bert Albert
Speaker of the House
Washington, D. C. 20515
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress "Waste Disposal
Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water" presenting the results
of a survey and study carried out pursuant to Section 1442 (a) (4) of
Public Law 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Report is an evaluation of the impact of waste disposal
practices upon present and future underground sources of drinking
water. The Report also assesses the ability of Federal, State and
local authorities to control such practices. The Report does not
reflect the impact of the recently enacted Toxic Substances Control
Act (P.L. 94-469) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(P.L. 94-580) which will provide added protection of ground water
as they are inplemented.
The Report is transmitted in toro volumes. One volume is an
Executive Sunmary and the second is the Report itself. All the
material presented in the Executive Summary is duplicated in the
full Report so that it will stand alone as a complete document.
Sincerely yours,
Russell E. Train
Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables xi
Sections
I Findings 1
II Introduction 6
III Importance of the Ground-Water Resource 15
IV Nature and Extent of the Resource 44
V How Ground Water is Contaminated 81
VI Industrial Waste-Water Impoundments 108
VII Land Disposal of Solid Wastes 144
VIII Septic Tanks and Cesspools 186
IX Collection, Treatment and Disposal of
Municipal Waste Water 206
X Land Spreading of Sludge 245
XI Brine Disposal from Petroleum Exploration
and Development 294
XII Disposal of Mine Wastes 322
XIII Waste Disposal Through Wells 362
XIV Disposal of Animal Feedlot Waste 389
XV Principal Sources of Ground-Water Contamina-
tion Not Related to Waste Disposal Practices 418
XVI Existing Federal Legislation 442
XVII State and Local Alternatives for Ground-Water
Quality Protection 456
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Sections Page
XVIII Acknowledgements 494
XIX Appendix A - Glossary 496
Appendix B - Abbreviations 503
Appendix C - Conversions 505
Appendix D - Water-Quality Standards 506
Appendix E - Estimated Number of Facilities,
Volumes of Waste, and Leakage
to Ground Water 508
IV
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1. Waste disposal practices and the routes of
contaminants from solid and liquid wastes 7
2. The hydrologic system controlling ground-water
contamination and its constraints on methodolo-
gies for'prevention, monitoring and abatement 12
3. Population served by source and supply, 1970 17
4. Dependence of United States population on
ground water as a source of drinking water 20
5. Water withdrawn for drinking water by source
and supply, 1970 21
6. Total drinking water withdrawn, public supply
and rural, mgd 25
7. Water withdrawn by public water systems, mgd 26
8. Density of housing units using on-site
domestic water supply systems (by county) 28
9. Total ground-water withdrawal, by use, 1970 32
10. Historical and projected trends of total
United States resident population 38
11. Historical and projected trends of fresh water
withdrawal for public supply use 38
12. Historical and projected trends of fresh water
withdrawal for rural supply use 39
13. Historical and projected trends of fresh water
withdrawal for irrigation use 39
14. Historical and projected trends of fresh water
withdrawal for electric utility use 40
15. Historical and projected trends of fresh water
withdrawal for other self-supplied industrial
use 40
16. Historical and projected trends of total fresh
water withdrawal 41
v
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No.
17. Illustration of relationships within the hydro-
logic system 46
18. Cone of depression created by pumping in a
water-table aquifer 49
19. Average annual precipitation 51
20. Relationship between unsaturated and saturated
zones 54
21. Rock texture in major aquifer types 56
22. Valley-fill aquifers 59
23. Sands and gravels of the Coastal Plain 61
24. Sands and gravels of the intermontane valleys 63
25. Alluvium of the High Plains 65
26. Glacial drift 67
27. Basalt aquifers 69
28. Carbonate aquifers 71
29. Sandstone aquifers 72
30. Crystalline rock aquifers 74
31. Hardness of ground water 76
32. Depth to saline ground water 79
33. How waste disposal practices contaminate the
ground-water system 83
34. Diagram showing percolation of contaminants
from a disposal pit to a water-table aquifer 85
35. Illustration of a line source of ground-water
contamination caused by a leaking sewer 86
36. Diagram showing contamination of an aquifer
by leaching of surface solids 87
VI
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
37. Diagram showing how contaminated water can be
induced to flow from a surface stream to a well 88
38. Diagram showing flood water entering a well
through an improperly sealed gravel pack 90
39. Diagram showing movement of contaminants from a
recharge well to a nearby pumping well 91
40. Diagrams showing reversal of aquifer leakage by
pumping 92
41. Diagrams showing lines of flow of contaminants
from a recharge pond above a sloping water table 93
42. Diagram showing migration of saline water caused
by lowering of water levels in a gaining stream 94
43. Flow in a water-table aquifer (humid region) 97
44. Effect of differences in transverse dispersivity
on shapes of contamination plumes 101
45. Plan view of a water-table aquifer showing the
hypothetical areal extent to which specific
contaminants of mixed wastes at a disposal site
disperse and move 104
46. Changes in plumes and factors causing the
changes 105
47. Total industrial waste water treated in ponds
and lagoons, 1968 117
48. Paper and allied products industries - volume
of industrial waste water treated in ponds and
lagoons, 1968 123
49. Petroleum and coal products industries - volume
of industrial waste water treated in ponds and
lagoons, 1968 124
50. Primary metals industries - volume of indus-
trial waste water treated in ponds and lagoons,
1968 126
VII
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
51. Chemical and allied products industries - volume
of industrial waste water treated in ponds and
lagoons, 1968 128
52. Area of ground-water contamination at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado 135
53. Value added by manufacture (in millions of
dollars) 1972 153
54. Potential evapotranspiration minus mean annual
precipitation (inches) 154
55. Projected growth of combined waste quantities for
four representative industries (inorganic chemi-
cals, paper, steel, and non-ferrous smelting) 169
56. Diagram of a typical domestic septic tank system 188
57. Density of housing units using on-site domestic
waste disposal systems (by county) 193
58. Primary agency acting on regulating, permitting
and inspecting on-site domestic waste disposal
systems 202
59. Typical hourly variation in flow and strength
of domestic sewage 216
60. Number of people using public sewer systems for
disposal of domestic waste (by county) 225
61. Density of population served by municipal sewage
treatment facilities using stabilization ponds
(by county) 226
62. Density of population served by municipal sewage
treatment facilities discharging effluent to
land (by county) 229
63. Relative use of combined sewers compared to
total sewered population (by state) 232
64. Generalized sludge processing and disposal flow-
sheet 247
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
65. Industrial sludges/residuals, 1968-1972 275
66. Industrial sludges/residuals 276
67. Major oil producing states (more than 5,000 bar-
rels per day in 1974) 307
68. States in which significant volumes of waste
water are discharged from coal mining and
processing operations, 1972 332
69. Total coal reserves of the conterminous United
States 334
70. States in which significant volumes of waste
water are discharged from mining and ore process-
ing operations (excluding coal and petroleum),
1972 345
71. Map of pressure surface in feet above sea level,
September 1, 1970, with Well 6 out of service
and Well 5 in use as injection well 372
72. Schematic diagram of a typical sewage disposal
well in lava terrane 375
73. Potential contamination of ground water from
perched water entering uncased water well 376
74. Procedures for the collection and handling of
animal wastes 391
75. Alternatives for the treatment of animal wastes 393
76. Alternatives for the disposal and utilization
of animal wastes 393
77. Distribution of cattle feeding operations, by
county 398
78. Evaporation lagoon: cost per animal day and
investment cost vs. feedlot capacity 408
79. Guidelines for ground-water quality standards 465
IX
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
80. Example of waste-load allocation based on
natural recharge 467
81. Example of waste-load allocation based on
ground-water discharge 468
82. Example of ground-water quality management
areas for Maryland 472
83. Map of theoretical critical zones 474
84. Correct and incorrect use of compliance mon-
itoring wells 483
x
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1. Waste disposal practices and their relative im-
pact 8
2. Dependence of the United States population on
ground water as a source of drinking water 18
3. Withdrawal rates of ground water for domestic
use (1970) ' 22
4. Types of small water systems in Maine not pres-
ently monitored, but requiring surveillance
under the Safe Drinking Water Act 29
5. Total fresh ground-water withdrawals for all
uses (1970) 33
6. Historical and projected trends in fresh water
withdrawal rates (United States-1970) 36
7. Industrial waste-water parameters having or in-
dicating significant ground-water contamination
potential 112
8. Waste-water discharge for all major United
States industrial groups, 1959, 1964, 1968, and
1973 114
9. Volumes of water use and disposal for all major
United States industrial groups (1968) 116
10. Industrial lagoon disposal by region (1968) 118
11. Industrial waste-water discharge - 1959, 1964,
1968, and 1973 119
12. Industrial waste-water treatment in ponds and
lagoons over the period 1954 to 1968 122
13. Origins and contaminants in 57 cases of ground-
water contamination in the northeast caused by
leakage of waste water from surface impoundments 130
14. Three case histories of ground-water contamina-
tion from leakage out of surface impoundments 134
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
15. Summary of leachate characteristics based on
20 samples from municipal solid wastes 148
16. Components of industrial waste 150
17. Types of possible leachate damage 156
18. Preliminary estimate of the relationship between
disposal method and damage mechanism, expressed
as percent of cases studied 157
19. Summary of data on 42 municipal and 18 indus-
trial landfill contamination cases 158
20. Case study summary 163
21. U. S. baseline post-consumer solid waste genera-
tion projections 171
22. Status of leachate control methods 172
23. Typical composition of domestic sewage 191
24. Counties with more than 50,000 and counties
with more than 100,000 housing units using on-
site domestic waste disposal systems 195
25. Municipalities using land applications and the
populations served 212
26. Characteristics of the irrigation, overland
flow, and infiltration-percolation systems 213
27. Summary of contamination likely from land dis-
posal of domestic waste water 214
28. Estimate of the components of total solids in
waste water 217
29. Typical composition of domestic sewage 218
30. Generalized water quality comparison of various
wastes 222
31. Sewer pipe length and estimated flows 223
Xll
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
32. Degree of treatment at municipal waste facili-
ties 228
33. Typical chemical composition of raw and digested
sludge 250
34. Concentrations or concentration ranges of trace
elements in sewage sludges from various loca-
tions in the United States 253
35. Range of metal contents in digested sewage
sludges 255
36. Example of pollutants which may be present in
industrial waste streams and residues 259
37. Typical refinery solid waste inventory associ-
ated with waste-water treatment 261
38. Typical chemical constituents in ash transport
water (coal plant) 263
39. Typical heavy metal concentrations in ash
transport water (coal plant) 264
40. Classification of metal finishing wastes 268
41. Annual sludge quantities for disposal 269
42. Municipal waste treatment facilities in the U.S. 270
43. Breakdown of total industrial residuals 274
44. Hazardous components of waste streams 277
45. Potential materials recovery from selected in-
dustries 278
46. Predictions of future residuals production by
industry 282
47. Ultimate disposal costs of sludge including
treatment costs (1968) 283
48. Factors affecting cost of municipal sludge
disposal on land 285
Kill
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
49. Analyses of oil-field brines 302
50. Amount of element per one million Ib. brine
necessary to produce corresponding chemical
product worth $250 303
51. Disposal of produced salt water, 1963 305
52. States in which significant volumes of waste
water are discharged from coal mining and
processing operation, 1972 331
53. Number of domestic metal and nonmetal mines in
1971, by commodity and magnitude of crude ore
production 338
54. Minerals produced in the United States by prin-
cipal producing states 340
55. States in which significant volumes of waste wa-
ter are discharged from mining and ore process-
ing operations (excluding coal and petroleum)
1972 344
56. Ground-water quality in the Toms River drainage
basin 348
57. Concentrations of chemical constituents in
wells inside (Farms 1-4) and outside (Farm 5)
the affected area 351
58. Distribution of 322 industrial and municipal
waste-water injection wells among 25 states
having such wells in 1973 364
59. Injected wastes 368
60. Comparative costs 381
61. Average installation cost 381
62. Average operating cost 382
63. Economic comparison of well vs. surface system 382
xiv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
64. Comparison of contaminant characteristics re-
ported from feeding operations 394
65. Comparison of feedlot runoff water quality 395
66. Number of cattle feedlots and capacity, by
states - 1974 397
67. Grain-fed beef cattle production, feedlot acre-
age, and waste deposits of the three leading
feedlot regions, 1962-1983 399
68. United States livestock numbers, and man-waste
equivalents, 1975 400
69. Principal states producing poultry, sheep and
hogs in 1973-1974 401
70. Summary of survey information on manure utili-
zation 404
71. Total investment, investment/head, annual cost/
head and per cwt of beef marketed by size class
required to contain surface-water runoff for a
10-year, 24-hour storm event on farms judged to
have surface-water pollution problems 406
72. Runoff control costs for fed-beef operations in
dollars 407
73. Prevalence of ground-water contamination not
related to waste disposal 420
74. Summary of interstate pipeline accidents for
1971 423
75. Use of deicing salts in the conterminous United
States in 1965-66 and 1966-67 434
76. Annual emissions of air pollution constituents
in the United States 437
77. Concentrations of selected particulate contam-
inants in the atmosphere in the United States
from 1957-1961 438
xv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
78. Classification of sources and causes of ground-
water pollution used in determining level and
kind of regulatory control 461
79. Restrictions on ground-water use in the criti-
cal zones shown on Figure 5 475
80. The principal variables in land disposal 487
xvi
-------
SECTION I
FINDINGS
Ground water is a high quality, low cost, readily available
source of drinking water.
- Half of the population of the United States is served by
ground water.
- In many areas, ground water is the only high quality, eco-
nomic source available.
- The use of ground water is increasing at a rate of 25 per-
cent per decade.
Waste disposal practices have affected the safety and availa-
bility of ground water, but the overall usefulness has not
been diminished on a national basis.
- Current data indicate that there are at least 17 million
waste disposal facilities emplacing over 1,700 billion
gal. (6.5 billion cu m) of contaminated liquid into the
ground each year. Of these, 16.6 million are domestic
septic tanks emplacing about 800 billion gal. (3 billion
cu m) of effluent.
- Ground water has been contaminated on a local basis in
all parts of the nation and on a regional basis in some
heavily populated and industrialized areas, precluding
the development of water wells. Serious local economic
problems have occurred because of the loss of ground-
water supplies.
- Degree of contamination ranges from a slight degradation
of natural quality to the presence of toxic concentra-
tions of such substances as heavy metals, organic com-
pounds, and radioactive materials.
- More waste, some of which may be hazardous to health,
will be going to the land because of increased regulation
against, and the rising costs of, disposal of potential
contaminants to the air, ocean, rivers, and lakes.
- Removing the source of contamination does not clean up
the aquifer once contaminated. The contamination of an
aquifer can rule out its usefulness as a drinking water
source for decades and possibly centuries.
Almost every known instance of ground-water contamination has
been discovered only after a drinking-water source has been
affected.
- Few state or local agencies systematically collect data
on contamination incidents, water supply wells affected,
-------
and drinking-water supplies condemned as unsafe.
- Effective monitoring of potential sources of ground-water
contamination is almost non-existent.
- Typical water-well monitoring programs traditionally have
not been directed toward protecting public health because
water analyses normally do not include complete coverage
of such significant parameters as heavy metals, organic
chemicals, and viruses.
- There are potentially millions of sources of contamina-
tion and isolated bodies of ground-water contamination
nationwide.
- While detailed national inventories of all potential
sources of ground-water contamination have not been car-
ried out, EPA and some states have begun some inventories
and assessments of some waste disposal sources.
Waste disposal practices of principal concern are those re-
lated to industrial and urban activities.
- For every waste-disposal facility documented as a source
of contamination, there may be thousands more sited, de-
signed, and operated in a similar manner.
- The opportunity for severe contamination of ground water
is greatest from industrial waste-water impoundments and
sites for land disposal of solid wastes.
- Septic tanks and cesspools discharge large volumes of ef-
fluent directly to the subsurface. In many cases, the
degree of treatment is not adequate to protect ground-
water supplies.
- Contamination resulting from the collection, treatment,
and disposal of municipal waste water exists but the mag-
nitude is unknown.
- Because there is a known potential for contamination from
the land spreading of industrial and municipal sludges,
there is concern about the expected increase in sludge
generation over the next decade.
- There have been far fewer reports of contamincition of po-
table ground-water supplies by the several hundred indus-
trial and municipal wells injecting into saline aquifers
than from thousands of shallow wells used to dispose of
sewage, runoff, and irrigation return flow to aquifers
containing potable water.
Other waste-disposal practices, whose distribution is depend-
ent upon geology, climate, and topography, have also contam-
inated ground water.
- Contamination from oil and gas field activities is caused
primarily by improperly plugged and abandoned wells and,
to a lesser degree, poorly designed and constructed oper-
-------
ating production and disposal wells.
- Although specific case histories of ground-water contami-
nation related to the disposal of mine wastes do exist/
adequate documentation of the problem is unavailable.
- Ground-water contamination from the disposal of animal
feedlot wastes is a relatively new environmental problem,
and few cases of ground-water contamination have been re-
ported.
Existing technology cannot guarantee that soil attenuation
alone will be sufficient to prevent ground-water contamina-
tion from a waste disposal source.
- Proper site selection as well as proper operation and
maintenance of facilities, is the principal technique
available for minimizing ground-water contamination prob-
lems .
- Such technology as advanced treatment and physical con-
tainment play a major preventive role where economics dic-
tate that sites be located in areas of critical ground-
water use.
- Land disposal of wastes is not environmentally feasible
in many areas and such alternatives as waste transport,
resource recovery, ocean disposal, and surface-water or
air discharge should be investigated and may be more envi-
ronmentally acceptable.
- Federal demonstration grants and technical assistance are
provided to assist the development of new technology and
facilitate the application of existing technology.
Existing Federal and state programs address many of the
sources of potential contamination, but they do not provide
comprehensive protection of ground water.
- Existing Federal programs administered by EPA which ad-
dress ground water are (1) the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; (2) the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974; and to a lesser degree (3) the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 1965; and (4) the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969.
- The FWPCAA provide for a statewide and areawide waste
treatment management planning function which may include
identifying and controlling pollution from mine runoff,
the disposal of residual waste, and the disposal of pol-
lutants on land or in subsurface excavations.
- FWPCAA also include (1) a program to issue permits for
point sources of water pollution, including some wells;
(2) best practicable treatment standards for municipal
sewage effluent disposal which must address ground-water
protection; (3) guidelines for land spreading of munici-
-------
pal sludges; and (4) municipal waste treatment facili-
ties planning for areas where septic systems pose poten-
tial adverse ground-water impacts.
FWPCAA do not address the discharge of contaminants to
ground water from surface impoundments, land disposal of
solid wastes, septic systems, or most wells.
The SDWA provides for a Federal/state cooperative effort
to prevent endangerment of underground drinking water
sources from industrial and municipal waste disposal
wells, oil-field brine disposal wells and secondary recov-
ery wells, and engineering wells. At present, surface im-
poundments are not included in this program, but some
types of impoundments may be included at a later time.
SDWA also provides that EPA may review any commitment of
Federal financial assistance in an area designated as
having a sole source aquifer.
SDWA cannot be used to regulate land disposal of solid
wastes, land application of sludges and effluents, or sep-
tic systems except under the emergency powers provisions
of the Act.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act contains no specific refer-
ence to ground water, however, guidelines developed under
the Act provide for ground-water protection from pollu-
tion activities and surface drainage. There are also
site development guidelines which consider the impact on
ground water. These guidelines are only mandatory for
Federal agencies.
The NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environment-
al impact statements on major actions. Ground-water pro-
tection is a significant need for writing an EIS.
While site selection is an important parameter in prevent-
ing ground-water contamination, there are no direct Fed-
eral controls in this area. States are encouraged to de-
velop site selection programs within the context of their
land-use planning and control authorities.
Most state laws give broad authority to protect all wa-
ters of the state, including ground water. Such language,
plus deficiencies in budget and staffing, force state and
local agencies to act on cases of contamination only af-
ter the fact.
States are beginning to develop programs which encourage
prevention of contamination from some waste disposal
sources.
Because clean-up of contaminated ground water is rarely
economically or technically feasible, action by the
states has been directed toward condemning the affected
water supply.
Legal action is seldom taken against a specific source of
contamination because individuals, private organizations,
and public agencies seldom have the resources required to
-------
prove a specific source as the source of contamination.
A national strategy of ground-water protection will require a
better understanding of the environmental, legal, technical,
and economic complexities of dealing with the resource.
- Better coordination of existing regulatory programs and a
better understanding of the impact of all regulatory ac-
tions on ground water is necessary. Regulatory programs
need to reflect the close relationship between land,
ground water and surface water.
- Inventories of ground-water contamination cases have
shown that other contaminant sources including spills,
salt-water intrusion, and highway deicing, have a signif-
icant impact on ground water. Many of these sources are
not included within the scope of Federal/state ground-
water protection programs, but may be addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
- The most effective means for protecting ground water is
to control and monitor the potential source of contamina-
tion and not the aquifer or point of withdrawal.
- New potential sources of contamination should be evalu-
ated on a case-by-case basis.
- Existing potential contamination sources should be re-
viewed in order to develop control strategies that are in-
stituted in accordance with local priorities.
- Increasing Federal regulation of surface-water and air
discharge and ocean disposal may result in land disposal
practices (particularly of sludge) which could contami-
nate ground water.
- At the present time, there does not exist a comprehensive
Federal program for sludge management. However, EPA is
developing a comprehensive program to address this issue.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act became lav
(PL 93-523). Under Sec. 1442(a)(4) of the Act, the Adminis-
trator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
was directed to conduct a survey of "(A) disposal of waste
(including residential waste) which may endanger underground
water which supplies, or can reasonably be expected to sup-
ply, any public water systems, and (B) means of control of
such waste disposal." This report describes the results of
the investigation.
Waste disposal practices discussed in this report include
only those activities which result in the actual collection
and disposal of liquid, semi-solid, and solid wastes. Such
materials include: (1) industrial waste water that is con-
tained in surface impoundments (lagoons, ponds, pits, and ba-
sins) ; (2) municipal and industrial solid refuse and sludge
that are disposed of on land; (3) sewage wastes from homes
and industries that are discharged to septic tanks and cess-
pools; (4) municipal sewage and storm-water runoff that are
collected, treated, and discharged to the land; (5) munici-
pal and industrial sludge that is land spread; (6) brine
from petroleum exploration and development that is injected
into the ground or stored in evaporation pits; (7) solid
and liquid wastes from mining operations that are disposed
of in tailing piles, lagoons, or discharged to land; (8)
domestic, industrial, agricultural, and municipal waste wa-
ter that is disposed of in wells; and (9) animal feedlot
waste that is disposed of on land and in lagoons. The
sources of potential contaminants and their various routes
to the ground-water system are shown on Figure 1. Table 1
lists the waste disposal practices discussed in this report
and their relative impact on the ground-water environment.
The first few sections of the report describe the use and oc-
currence of the ground-water resource along with the mechan-
isms of contamination. These are followed by a discussion
of each of the major waste disposal practices. All of these
latter sections are uniformly organized with (1) an explana-
tion of the practice, (2) a listing of the characteristic po-
tential contaminants, (3) an estimation of the extent of the
ground-water contamination problem on a national basis, and
(4) a review of the present prevention technology. The fi-
nal portion of each section explores some of the typical in-
stitutional controls presently available to state agencies
to prevent or correct ground-water contamination problems.
-------
£
-------
[
U
Q-
—
UJ
^
1 —
^1
LU
LLJ
in
K~
Q
Z
oo
y
i—
u
Q-
^f
DISPOS/
LU
1—
^
.
, —
0)
_Q
D
1—
^
o
(D
-«.
o o
(_ "w
O ~D
O l-
.- O
D- N
X O
1— -C
J.
'o
c
ct
c
o
'5)
<"
D-
LU
1
'o
c
ct
Q
c
o
I
Q
§
^z
c
-a
a)
o
o
».*-
o
-2
1/1
ntaminan)
o
o
0
c
o
cr
LL.
~£t
O
OJ
u
c
£
o
0_
JE
U
c
£
o
O-
E
o
v~
T3
-H
o
Q_
aj
i_
^
u
«/)
o
X
X X
_- *
> X •* — "
:> >^ >^ >^ >^
= J. -L _L> J.
.^ — — __ — ^_ __ — — —
— ^_ ^_ _ — . __ .
X XX XX XX XX
- -- =- == ==
<| u xE -.
a.-3; . - E
V ^~ *
c ». ».
X U a Z Z
£
w» J^
o o o
•C ? o . u>
5 -o » £ c~i
E — £ o o —
| S 8 5 o ^
§•6 ? ^J-2 »
o "n— ° ,, — ot>-t: c D —
E S &.S JS -^ .2 ? x £^5 .§-.2
"~ o'citc^i- — i_EOu-t
"a 8"E ! £ ! 3 8. S S 2 -E 3
'£:5^1oO'golfi«^'i
3 Tj^i^Q-E-oot-^-S-
-o c a- § c
c O H> •< D
-5 _J on S _i
_
^ 1 ^
= 1 X
V. S. — _
xS ^N -*. ^.^ ^' ?X ?X -^
TT "i ~i T Ti
z:= => == > =
— ~— — _ ^— ^_ ^_ ^_
— — — — —
— - — — — —
XX XX XX NN
E E E - - E =
Z
s
E i_-
0 i
(^ ^
_- E
- ° -r1 ~7
oo oo X •*—
1^ — ~ —1H ~~
Q.
O
§: ^.- >O-c"S'i-"oD £-c
-5 "c -2 .t: # °^ * "^o? o air
0 o > o- a) U O °_< o JE E U O
•^ E .E <" '?
^ 5 5 <
-------
Y —
u
<
Q-
5
LLJ
>
f_
WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND THEIR RELA
EXPLANATION
TJ
£
TJ 1
0) 3
x-§ o
$s Z e i
T; •£ — o-o
2 ° o *> =
2 2 § S "
._ 3 ._ X 3
E 0) TO — o
_ K £ g TJ
0 a, w DO
_8 S.° j) g
c •• D a ~f.
Ill i-§
D *™ *. ° "
O) TI O
•*- fl) c J- 01
g fi -2 £ 1
-8 < U v-2
C Q- **_ _ J2 O
g.1" "S S . S .E
1" S C '•= S DC
-D u- — D Jj j) 0)
'o3"3' § ." 'o
E -R
x - small area, but can be regional
due to high density of individual
sources
y - can affect adjacent properties
acid z - contained on one property
lure
histories described in published and unpublished
analyzed constituents. Unfortunately, for econo
refore, the principal contaminants reported do nc
; elements that may actually be present.
0, - F 0 S S x.2 >
s i i s s. s = - i
•- ~ J 1 ^ 1 ^ § - 8
ZOo-oiooi— i_ o^-o
, • JJ c o S
ZO"-1"^1- | °co
c x.2 »
~z: '^ >/»
OJ C n — -
> o S o
o -8'i-i
— "5 S S v
•J; „, -° 0 -5
0 ^ E | ' u y
ililii i !!'l
1 1 1 1 1 1 5 *- c «T
-Q "> 3 —
< «> U E — 5 i c°S
X T, g o> £
OJ ._ 4- C
t: E S x
2 D P >
OJ D- -t e O
o 2! o .5 _g
C
• C 8 «
^ .2 D^ ±-
*- *- O 01
u = -^ x •£
OJ -Q O °- D
D. -r- 3 in P
X -fc « 3 .-
OJ » «- O X
„ 15 o -c o
1 t\\ 1
0-030 c
> C c 0)
O J7 OJ
8 *2 " • -**
.^ -o ^fc t5 oj —
o. « M- c o —
^ " '" •» S *
y J! 3 g £ «,
-£ ^ -° -D 0 .0
_ . t- 9- •*•
S S g f •§ J S
c 5 £ -c — a.
?! oj 3 * g -
•5, ^ .E S .2 g
f the contaminants with secondary consideration
i hazard of the contaminants, the typical size of
iposal practice may be a serious problem in certa
i high national rating. A very widespread practi
>uld also be given a low rating with regard to nal
relative national importance of each waste dispt
O -1- .—
— -D c J -c
1 s s 1 ,- r
i _c t> .- Tp o
o o a> JS _c
c o * y. a S
I £< •* 1 ?
~ & o § •£
§•*- • c O ..
00 C C °
« • -o o ^
X -C — \ — o
_X -•- 3 3 ° J)
•c c oj ° £ a.
| °i * o
. "0 «, « c o
V a) S u o — ,
°- S 2 '•= -z ^
-o -S o " o j;
S • ° § .E J5
-S g 8 S" o '
i c *• -c 't: «)
* ^c§ |
— oo-^^ £
O Q. -C ^ i-
(U p— *• ° O
-c .E o „ o-
o — oj •- *•
-c o 5, v o
_ OJ J .i -C C
8 -IjO* £
'a. -° - £ £ 3
^ ^ -s « S; L?
3 E
2 n
* -sl
-^ LO ?
technological trends in the treatment and dispose
nental Protection Agency's Regions 1 through X a
into account the degree to which the waste dispc
re pertinent.
r c raj
£ 2. El
w> .— _v
S g S x
C
= c £ '•= °
o o ^: -5 x
o — a, ro
o o £ £-2
o "5 .2 c °
i. CD en a; co
.E £ £ ._ D c
t— S O) «> O
" 2! § '5)
^ "5 '•S £
So -^ | 3
X n 0 ro 0
C SL c 'jj> 'u
1 .§ £ ^ 5
-------
>
X
o
-------
In the next section of the report, there is a discussion of
the importance of non-waste disposal practices as they af-
fect ground-water quality. The final two sections of the re-
port define the present status of Federal legislation that
applies to ground-water quality protection and the various
regulatory alternatives and strategies available to state
and local agencies. Estimating the economic impact of tech-
nological or institutional controls was not one of the ob-
jectives of this survey.
The report is based on an evaluation and analysis of avail-
able data, a major portion of which has not been published.
About 40 technicians in the ground-water and pollution-
control fields contributed directly to this effort. Many
more were contacted and provided the researchers with essen-
tial information. In addition, a working group consisting
of representatives of various offices of EPA, plus personnel
of state environmental agencies, periodically reviewed the
report and contributed significantly to its content. This
publication represents a compilation of key data taken from
a larger draft Report to Congress on file with EPA.
Ground-water contamination is the degradation of the natural
quality of ground water as a result of man's activities.
The term "contaminant" is defined in the Safe Drinking Water
Act as "any physical, chemical, biological or radiological
substance or matter in water." In this report, only those
contaminants which result from waste disposal activities are
considered in detail.
In order to appreciate the magnitude and severity of ground-
water contamination, the hydrologic system itself, mechan-
isms of ground-water contamination, and environmental haz-
ards must be understood. Figure 2 illustrates these con-
cepts.
The contamination process begins with sources of contami-
nants; the waste disposal practices. The type of contami-
nant, of course, depends on the source and can range from
hazardous organic chemicals in landfill leachates to high
concentrations of salt in oil-field brines. Either deliber-
ately (septic tanks) or unintentionally (industrial waste-
water impoundments), contaminants can leak, percolate, be
discharged to, or injected into water-supply aquifers.
As the contaminant travels through the soil and into the
ground-water system, it can be modified by various attenua-
tion processes. These processes are very complex and not
all are completely effective. In fact, once in an aquifer,
certain toxic substances, such as some heavy metals, are
11
-------
LJ
e>
cc
o
CO
II
o o
s
'i
Characi
S
|
e
'c
1
E
fc
"5
oundW
rated Gr
'i
of Cent
£
£
8 *
8 ^
£ i
1 °
si, i
trio- ?
IS!* 1
o
.... 5
s
1 ,
E o
o TT
S s
S -o
i s . i
-5! iH
Hi!
. . ,
CO
or
*
o
o
a:
CD
o
UJ
I
CO
_J
ffl
OT
UJ
U)
o
a:
o
o
CO
/
D
'•£
I
a
V
1
E
g
£•
V
•s
trial Wasfe-W(
a
J
:?lls and Dump*
c Tanks and G
c
E
a
e
S
5
c
D
1
C
E E
0
C
li
E
s s-s
III
jnfcipal Wasre
Spreading of S
Disposal from
o •
*j ^
OJ C
«
and Developrn
o .j
Si'W
CU
8
•6
1 1
a LL-
sal of Mine W
sal Wells
aal of Animal
u
a:
o
CO
|*
*f X
•s "8 '>
* Treat, limit use i
water source, fen
recreational act!
-i
if
01 0
•s!
.I-S
1 »
* Regulote pumpage or o
water to controf mover
in aquifer
"!-§
° S.
§.s
* Control design, construct!
siting to prevent or minimi
1.
13
D
1 1-
"c "u
Los* War
* Required as a saf
to monitor trends
i
1
0) ||
£ t -
Intermediate W.
* Useful for problems th
regional and to monit
"I E °
6 3 -O C
l2?" ?
Early Warning
* Only alternative availabli
individual bodies and locc
contaminated ground wate
determine success of preve
techniques
_j>
« X
Jl
Too Late
* Clean-up of most ai
technically or econ
1
s
§ 3
-M » 1
Long Term Benefits On
* Eliminating source prevent
of problem but does not cli
aquifer
O
c
'5
u>
O
U
i
II
i!
C O)
O C
o -c
•- o
il
t~ J-
V) C
O)
a>
« £
11
o «,
U Q)
11
«/> O
2
cu
tN
£
O)
l-
z
111
>
u
ce
a.
z
o
W31SAS 3Hi
12
S3I901000HJ.3W
-------
highly mobile. Attenuation in an aquifer is extremely slow
as is the movement of ground water (typically less than 2
ft/day or 0.6 m/day). Therefore, contaminants within the
ground-water system do not mix readily with native water and
move as: (1) individual bodies or slugs (e.g., caused by in-
termittent filling of and seepage from waste-water impound-
ments) ; (2) local plumes (e.g., caused by continual flow of
leachate from beneath a landfill toward a pumping well);
and (3) masses of degraded water (e.g., caused by a large
number of septic tanks discharging nitrate-enriched water
which travels with the regional ground-water flow pattern).
Although ground water travels through an aquifer slowly, it
is in constant motion and must eventually discharge to the
surface because all aquifer systems are being recharged to
some degree. In humid areas, discharge of contaminants is
relatively quick for shallow water-table aquifers and slow
for deep artesian aquifers. In arid regions, recharge and
discharge are so slow that some aquifers can actually be con-
sidered sinks similar to the ocean. Points of discharge in-
clude wells and springs used for water supply, and surface-
water bodies such as rivers and lakes. In fact, the base
flow of most streams is supported by ground-water discharge,
and the quality of the surface water during low flow periods
is dependent upon ground-water quality. The usefulness to
man and his environment of both surface water and ground wa-
ter is severely limited if ground-water quality is degraded.
The way the ground-water system works controls the methodol-
ogies available to prevent, monitor, and abate instances of
contamination. Prevention must be directed toward the
source, where proper design, construction and siting can
help protect the resource or at least minimize problems. If
the aquifer becomes contaminated, then the resource has al-
ready been degraded, and efforts must be shifted toward pre-
venting the ground-water user from being damaged. Controls
involve such actions as regulating pumpage patterns in order
to contain or isolate the contaminant. When the contaminant
reaches the point of discharge, it is too late except for
such expensive alternatives as treatment or condemnation of
a water supply.
Again, in monitoring, the most effective place to devote the
greatest effort is at the source, where observation of water
quality degradation allows enough time for minimizing the
problem and for establishing a warning procedure. After con-
tamination has affected enough of the aquifer, monitoring no
longer becomes a protective measure but simply informs the
regulator or the user of long-term changes. Also, random
placement of monitoring wells on a regional basis can pro-
13
-------
vide misleading information, because important plumes and in-
dividual bodies of contaminated ground water are overlooked. ,
Monitoring of discharge points serves as a safety precaution
and helps define trends. For this reason, it cannot be elim-
inated from the monitoring program.
The principal abatement procedure for surface-water problems
is to eliminate or correct the source of contamination. Be-
cause streams are subject to the cleansing action of turbu-
lent flow and the purifying effects of air, light, and bio-
logical organisms, they can recover quickly. The opposite
is true for ground water. Removal of the source prevents
the problem from becoming worse but does not lead to a
cleansing of the aquifer. In addition, clean-up procedures
such as removal of the contaminant by means of pumping wells
followed by treatment of the water is almost never economi-
cally or technically feasible. For example, pumping may re-
quire the use of an inordinate number of wells and a complex
collection and treatment system, which is only temporary and
difficult to support with either private or public funds.
Although containment of contaminants within a selected por-
tion of an aquifer has been achieved to various degrees in
certain instances, complete removal is rarely attempted and
has not been successful.
14
-------
SECTION III
IMPORTANCE OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE
SUMMARY
At least one half of the population of the United States de-
pends upon ground water as a source of drinking water. Of
the total population, 29 percent use ground water delivered
by community systems and another 19 percent have their own
domestic wells. In addition, millions of Americans drink
ground water from wells serving industrial plants, office
buildings, restaurants, gas stations, recreational areas,
and schools. Practically none of the domestic wells in the
nation are subject to routine or even initial evaluation of
water quality. Few of the several hundred thousand small
water systems supplying industrial establishments, schools,
etc., are monitored.
INTRODUCTION
There are many reasons why ground water has become a major
source of drinking water in the United States. It is more
widely available and accessible than surface water. A domes-
tic or farm well can be successfully constructed almost any-
where; over one third of the nation is underlain by ground-
water reservoirs generally capable of yielding at least
75,000 gpd (285 cu m/day) to an individual well; and there
are large areas where hundreds or even thousands of gpm can
be obtained from wells or springs. Ground water is a rela-
tively reliable source, not subject to the rapid and some-
times great .fluctuations in availability characteristic of a
surface-water supply. Over much of the United States, the
present utilization of ground water is small compared to the
total supply potentially available.
Ground water is generally more mineralized than surface wa-
ter, but its quality is more uniform at a specific locality
from year to year. Likewise, the temperature of ground wa-
ter is usually constant throughout the year. Because of the
efficient filtering capacity of the unsaturated zone, ground
water is normally free of most organisms and suspended sol-
ids and requires little or no treatment. As compared to sur-
face water, the evaporation losses of ground water are mini-
mal except in areas where it occurs at shallow depth.
The development of ground-water reserves commonly has little
negative impact on the surface environment, and the costs of
such development are, except for the required hydrogeologic
15
-------
investigations, relatively low.
USE OF GROUND WATER FOR DRINKING PURPOSES (1970)
The actual importance of the ground-water resource may best
be illustrated by an examination of water-use data. Drink-
ing water is supplied by three different types of systems:
1. Public or municipal water wells
2. Individual domestic wells
3. Self-supplied industrial or commercial wells
The specific data listed below in this section have been com-
piled from published and unpublished records of the U. S.
Geological Survey, the U. S. Water Resources Council, and
the U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Dependence on Ground Water as a Source of Drinking Water
Almost one half of the United States population (48 percent)
depends on ground water for drinking (Figure 3). Of the to-
tal population, 29 percent obtains ground water through pub-
lic supplies and 19 percent through individual domestic
wells. The variation among states, as illustrated in Table
2, ranges from a 92-percent dependence in New Mexico to a
30-percent dependence in Maryland and Pennsylvania, still
considerable.
The rural population dependent upon ground water is much
higher (94 percent) than the population served by public sup-
plies (37 percent). This is because it is almost always sim-
pler and cheaper to install a domestic well than to pipe and
treat water from the nearest surface-water body. Also, un-
less the surface source were a large lake, river, or reser-
voir, the supply would probably not be as reliable. The re-
lationship of ground-water to surface-water use is shown in
a somewhat different manner on Figure 4. The shaded states
are those in which over one half of the total population re-
lies on ground water as a source of drinking water. As can
be seen, this is the case in nearly two thirds of the states.
Withdrawal Rates of Ground Water for Domestic Use
The total withdrawal of ground water for domestic purposes
in 1970 was 9.4 bgd (35.6 million cu m/day). 2) ^s shown on
Figure 5, of all water withdrawn for drinking water purposes,
45 percent was ground water. The per capita-ground-water
usage varies from state to state and from the urban to rural
environment (Table 3). Per capita withdrawal from public
supplies is considerably greater — 114 gpd (431 litres/day)
16
-------
SURFACE WATER-
PUBLIC SUPPLIES
51 %
GROUND WATER -
PUBLIC SUPPLIES
29 °/o
GROUND WATER -
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES 19 %
SURFACE WATER -
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES I %
Figure 3. Population served by source and supply^ 1970. '
17
-------
id
H
s»
§fi
id c
rH -H
h
41
4J
id
Oi s
>u 9
O a,.
O 4)
or Cu K
8,
Q
z
m ro
\O r~l >H in rH
1-1 v0 ro
'II
IM CN in «n
m oo co 01
CM
_Q
O
.2 3
01 c o -H
IB G -a 4J
iJ
4)
x -a 11 §
01 O -H 13 O ~~
>,
X
•s
01 N
id -H
_ _ _ o> Hid-Hi])-HOid
01iJ-HC>iO)£C01in4J
JC3-HHU)OC«"1C
£ 3 S 3? 3 S S S Z £
18 T3
u o
x> >
4) 41
5
X >1
» »
18
-------
c^
L1..I
h=
CC-Ho
I -H O -H K 4J
•S 8
^3
ZOOO0.2M
m
o
a
4J
m
3
<0
B
3
19
-------
o
O)
^c
"C
-D
l*_
O
I
T3
o
D)
§
I
0.
£
OO
c
Z)
u
c
0)
-
a;
Q
.0>
uT
-------
SURFACE WATER-
PUBLIC SUPPLIES
54 %
GROUND WATER-
UBLIC SUPPLIES
33%
GROUND WATER
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES 12 %
SURFACE WATER
RURAL DOMESTIC
SUPPLIES 0.5%
Figure 5,, Water withdrawn for drinking water by source and supply, 1970. '
21
-------
R
inror-r^cnrtr-r*rHrocoomin
co oo r^
cnmocnvocoioin
cMininincMinom
(J
\—
to
LU
O
Q
O o>
H 01 «
Cu 01 3
•H
g rH O 2
Id CU 4J if-
n 3 w i.
•O Ul 01
4J rH O
•H Id Q
ss
CO rH ID C-
CMrHr-TfTS-rtvOrHI1
CM in O CM
en oo rH m
CM CM
CO CM in ro O
i 10 vO
LU
I
Q
z
D
O
C£
O
LL.
O
to
LU
i
01
&.
O
t,
4J 4J
"3
*~J pt
« ,5
o —
•H a
4J a.
»4 O. ,. 01
S S §-°S
* 5 M fa „ -
S W .. 01 O Q
2*2
o
rHCMinOVOTTrHT3»inO
in oo
r~ oo
ior*~inoor**vocDO
incMrHoocnrrr~cn
iH rH CM rH
r*-fMr*^lr-*at^'CMmaoocnco^t^'cn
rH rH lO rH in rH rH
cMCMmcnrninr^ro^fTji^cn
OrHoincMrHincMcncncMin
rH rH fH rH CM n
a
x
COOOCMinCNCMOCM
« rH rH rH »» CM fM
r*« o oo rr> rH ff\ o rH in en
^•cnoDvoomkOCMr^T
rHCM rHrH COrHCni1
CO
J)
-Q
O
fl
01 C O -H
id id M *o 4J
id c 01 o id o
if O C i« -I 4)
' -t O C
rH rH C
id O O
i C T) 3 C JJ -H -H
jf id c x: i O
01 CU O
a. n -H
e h x
id 01 i)
x n s
i«
rH
O
14
jt a)
s°
>• J=
u
II
22
-------
—• ^
•
o^
rt^
t/^
^3»
LU
Z)
U
co
LU
O
Q
Qi
O
VI
id o>
4J 4J
•H id
Q< S
o -o
c
Vi 3
a o
a. vi
o
Vl
(U
id
Ground
u
0)
1
id
•O
S
4J
..H
S
§
§
Withdra
&
01
it
•H
rH
9-
cu
3
05
B
VI
3
VI
o
01
li
•H
a
3
^-1
H>
S
HI
Ul
3
O "rZ
^S
M ii
e
o
a
01
> 01 id nj a)
rH M O Q 01
c >< 01
4-> •H
O -H
id
•H
c
C -H
o cr> c
*J Vt -*4
tjl -rt 0)
"HO
OO
-H
4J a;
4J
id
•a
41
•u
c
_o
"o
o
o
23
-------
— than from rural supplies — 65 gpd (246 litres/day).
This may be partially explained by greater use of water-
consuming devices by the urban dweller.
Of interest, and often not appreciated, is the fact that
little of the so-called drinking water is actually consumed,
and most is returned to ground waters through septic tanks
and cesspools or to surface waters through sewage treatment
plants. According to a 1964 study by the U. S. Geological
Survey, the percentage breakdown of domestic water use is as
follows: 1)
Flushing toilets -41 percent
Washing and bathing -37 percent
Kitchen use - 6 percent
Drinking water - 5 percent
Washing clothes - 4 percent
General household cleansing - 3 percent
Watering garden - 3 percent
Washing car - 1 percent
The recorded withdrawal rates may also include substantial
unaccounted losses within the supply and distribution system
due to leakage. Figure 6 is a state-by-state illustration
of the comparative importance of ground water to surface wa-
ter as a source of drinking water. The figures presented
are a composite of the public-supply and rural withdrawals
for domestic use.
Public Water Supplies
The total quantity of water withdrawn for public supplies in
1970 was estimated as 27 bgd (102 million cu m/day). In-
cluded in this quantity was water for domestic use; water
for commercial and industrial use; water lost in the distri-
bution systems; and water supplied for carrying out public
services such as firefighting, street washing, and water for
municipal parks and swimming pools. Of the total, ground
water supplied approximately 34 percent, and was the major
source of water to over 59 million persons served by public
supplies. Water utilities supplied by surface-water sources,
although furnishing almost twice as much water, are relative-
ly few in number compared to the number of utilities using
ground-water sources.
Figure 7 illustrates the breakdown by source and state for
the total public supply for all uses.
Because of economic factors (including convenient access),
many industrial and commercial establishments use public sup-
24
-------
O)
E
-o
c
o
Q.
Q_
(A
U
IB
D
CL
««
C
1
D
O)
15
O)
25
3
O
-------
~o
o>
E
0)
D
_Q
Q-
X
_Q
3
O)
26
O
IE
e
-------
plies, especially where the volume of water they require is
small and the quality of the water must be high. Commerce
and industry received approximately one third of the public
supply withdrawals in 1970.
Individual Domestic Wells
In 1970, 41 million persons relied on their own supply of wa-
ter and withdrew an average of 2.6 bgd (9.8 million cu m/day)
for domestic use. Of this amount, ground water supplied 96
percent.
The per capita rate for domestic well use is about 65 gpd
(246 litres/day). This represents a quantity intermediate
between estimated low withdrawal rates in homes without run-
ning water and estimated high withdrawal rates in suburban
homes that have running water and are equipped with modern
high water-requirement appliances. Figure 8 illustrates the
density of domestic wells by county.
Self-Supplied Industrial and Commercial Wells
Many of the large water-dependent industries of the country
have installed their own ground-water supply systems for
processing rather than depend on the more expensive purchase
of water from public systems. In most of these installa-
tions, the drinking water for the employees is provided by
the same wells. Examples of other small drinking-water sys-
tems, practically all supplied by well water when not served
by a local public utility, include schools, restaurants and
motels, highway rest stops, recreational areas, mobile home
parks, and shopping centers. One requirement of the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 is that states provide water qual-
ity monitoring for drinking water systems serving 15 connec-
tions or more, or 25 people or more. It is estimated that
there are some 200,000 of these small systems. 2)
Specific information on water consumption and the actual num-
ber of people served by such systems is not readily avail-
able. However, for a few states, the number of small drink-
ing-water systems not presently monitored has been estimated.
For example, in Indiana, 10,000 additional water sources
will require surveillance; ^) in New Jersey the number is
7,000; 5) and in Washington, 3,455. 6) In Maine 2,555 sys-
tems will have to be brought under surveillance (a breakdown
by type of system is presented in Table 4).
27
-------
X
-•—
D
O
O
X
Q
X
V)
Q.
Q.
D
v>
0!
O
C
O
O)
c
O)
c
VI
o
O
X
0)
Q
CO
-------
Table 4. TYPES OF SMALL WATER SYSTEMS IN MAINE NOT PRESENTLY
MONITORED, BUT REQUIRING SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT. ^
Small year-round systems serving groups of homes
Systems serving seasonally used groups of homes
Schools using well water
Industrial systems
Restaurants and motels
Highway Dept. rest centers
Dept. of Parks systems
Mobile home parks with 7 or more trailers
Total
30
50
400
50
1,772
45
30
178
2,555
29
-------
DEGREE OF TREATMENT NORMALLY PROVIDED TO DRINKING WATER
Municipal Water Purification Works
The most common classes of municipal purification works as
applied to ground-water sources are:
1. Iron and manganese removal plants — reduce or eliminate
excessive amounts of iron and manganese.
2. Softening plants — remove excessive amounts of scale-
forming, soap-consuming ingredients, chiefly calcium and
magnesium ions.
Aeration in conjunction with filtration is the most common
unit operation employed for the removal of dissolved iron
and manganese from raw ground water. This operation also
facilitates taste, odor, and corrosion control by removing
dissolved volatiles, such as hydrogen sulfide.
One of the most important chemical precipitation techniques
employed by municipal water treatment works is lime-soda
softening. Calcium is precipitated as a carbonate (CaC03),
and magnesium is precipitated as a hydroxide (Mg(OH)2). Wa-
ter softened by the lime-soda process is generally super-
saturated with CaC03 and Mg(OH)2 which can be stabilized by
aeration with carbon dioxide. Normally this is done before
filtration. Secondary carbonation or recarbonation relieves
supersaturation and reduces precipitation of CaCO^ on filter
sand and in pipelines.
Today, most water supplies are chlorinated to assure their
disinfection. Lime or other chemicals are often added to re-
duce the corrosiveness of water to iron and other metals,
thereby preserving water quality during distribution and en-
suring longer life to metallic pipes in particular. Odor-
or taste-producing substances are adsorbed onto activated
carbon, or destroyed by high doses of chlorine or chlorine
dioxide. Numerous other treatment methods serve special
needs.
Household Water-Conditioning Equipment
Individual water-supply systems, both domestic and commer-
cial-industrial , encounter virtually the same quality prob-
lems with raw ground-water sources as municipal water-supply
systems. Economic factors, however, limit the degree to
which the raw water may be treated. Purification must nor-
mally be limited to simple water conditioning units.
30
-------
Chlorination or ultraviolet treatment are the most common
disinfection techniques employed by self-supplied dwellings.
Roughly 90 percent of all ground-water problems due to chem-
ical characteristics in individual water supplies relate to
either hardness or dissolved iron. Both characteristics are
normally treatable to tolerable limits by simple water-
softening units which employ ion-exchange techniques. If
iron is not effectively controlled, an iron filter may be
required ahead of the softener.
Feed pumps, chemicals, and specialty filters are commercial-
ly available for handling unusual water problems such as
color, taste, odor, and corrosion control.
OVERALL GROUND-WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES
Total fresh ground-water withdrawal is estimated to have
been 66.6 bgd (252 million cu m/day) in 1970. 2) This
amounts to 21 percent of the total fresh-water withdrawal.
Common practice segregates usage into the following six cat-
egories :
1. Public supplies (for domestic, commercial and industrial
use) .
2. Rural domestic
3. Livestock
4. Irrigation
5. Self-supplied thermoelectric power generation
6. Other self-supplied industrial use
The usage category most dependent on ground water is rural
domestic, which withdraws 96 percent of its water from the
ground. Livestock use is 61 percent ground water.
The other large users of ground water are public supplies
and irrigation which rely on ground water to the extent of
34 and 36 percent, respectively. In terms of absolute quan-
tity, irrigation accounts for 67 percent of total ground-
water withdrawal. Public supplies are the second largest
consumer of ground water. At the other end of the spectrum,
ground-water use by thermoelectric utilities is negligible.
Figure 9 illustrates the breakdown of ground-water withdraw-
al by use, and Table 5 further differentiates these data by
state.
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED TRENDS IN FRESH-WATER WITHDRAWAL
RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES (1900-2020)
Trends in overall water use have been compiled from various
31
-------
SELF-SUPPLIED
INDUSTRY-
12%
PUBLIC SUPPLIES-
14 %
ELECTRIC _
UTILITY-
2%
RURAL DOMESTIC
RURAL LIVESTOCK-
-«- 2 %
IRRIGATION - 67 %
Figure 9. Total ground-water withdrawal, by use, 1970. '
32
-------
ooooinofMoooooooor-oofnoooooTOoirMOcNOo
voooooomooo
ro • co o • r**
r-t j in U
SQl £
> —
•H
O O O O
03 tH O C«
ro r-l vD i-(
• ID O •-! rH
CM O
00
O fS rH
r~ cs
aocNrMOor
-------
— V
•
4J
n
3
•B
-d
'.0)
'""I
rH
0
0
en
i
M-l
1 — 1
(U
w
rH
2
rH
id
w
05
tn
«)
•H
s
0
W
o
•H
in
V< 7"
J5 "
•u £
o
4J
rH
•H
4J
=> Q
5 a
4J
U
0>
rH
W
C
o
** C5
1M
H
H
^
•u S
01 O
Q) £
^
O
rl
«1
Q) y
6 •^-'
Q
•— »
01
Ol
QJ ^
U
rH £
5!
"^CnPlrHOrHlnrHCOCoinrHrMSfMrHlD™?
'5'fOrH^T Tjl rHrHrH
ocneoooor-r^oooooooooof
. rj. . . . vo .
rH n .H rH
UJOOOcotcnrHnooorMOOnoor-
fM-fMn-'-n-OfM -in mm vo
cnt^^o co rHco^ mm rH
r~
• CN»"rH«"CO'O>ro>iH'«in-
cn\DfM ^rin in^r mrH
rHODfMSrH^-SrHrlCnolrHPSrHr--^'0'^
iH rH ll1 U1
^•OfMr*'Ocoinri4ooo*3'^'O*0o^lo*3'
fN CM r^ \G m rH in *d* VD ^ m rH r^ en n fM CM ro
m CM rH „ rH CM M
o
o
o
CO
o
o
rH
O
O
O
in
«
o
0
rH
rH
(— \
O
in
o
o
en"
d?
fM
rH
*
fM
__^
*
~
*>
fM
y
Tj*
~
^^
<*>
^
O
u
£
O
-8
O
VI
$
(U
C
R
o
u
_Q
O
en
id
4J
O
§
O id
id
-rl
- O> C
Id 4J rl -H
cn-rl in
c g c > c
•rH -rl O
4J U
n in
0) -H
O
O
UH
O
4J
cn O
C -H
•rH VI
§4J
in
m
5
id
4J
U]
•O
S
•rl
§
4J
Ol
id
•O
Gro
g
C
o
D
O)
jl)
15
34
-------
sources. Projections through the year 2020 have been added,
using common population and economic growth assumptions.
One must continually bear in mind, however, that these
trends are merely indicative of the general direction of
growth of water use. Future quantitative predictions must
never be considered as established facts.
Table 6 lists water withdrawals by use, source, and demand
for the years 1900-2020. Included, and used as a basis for
many of the water projections, are trends and projections of
total population, based upon U. S. Bureau of Census Series C
projections. For all types of supplies, the withdrawal fig-
ures are subdivided into "all water" and "ground water" cat-
egories. The difference represents the withdrawal rate for
surface water. All figures are in billion gallons per day.
Figures 10 through 16 depict these trends.
It is estimated that between 1970 and 2020 the United States
population will increase to 355 million persons — 1.7 times
the population in 1970. In addition to the expected in-
crease in water demand from this increasing population, it
is expected that the per capita withdrawal rate for all uses
will increase from its 1970 figure of 1,571 gpd (5,946
litres/day) to over 2,100 gpd (almost 7,950 litres/day) in
2020. It is expected that a rise in our dependence on the
products of water-using industries and utilities will create
a greatly increased demand for water. Electric power plant
cooling alone will account for over 50 percent of the total
withdrawals.
By 2020, total fresh-water withdrawal is expected to rise to
760 bgd (2.9 billion cu m/day), of which ground water will
provide almost one fifth or more than twice the amount of
ground water withdrawn in 1970. The greatest increase in de-
mand will be due to the expanding use of surface water for
electric power plant cooling — 300 bgd (1.1 billion cu m/
day) more in 2020 than in 1970. The domestic use portion of
the public supply water withdrawal will grow approximately
at the same rate as the population, assuming that the na-
tion's population growth will occur in areas served by pub-
lic distribution systems.
It is projected that the commercial, public, and industrial
use of public supply water will grow at an accelerated rate;
almost twice that of the population. It is expected that
the rural population, although growing, will do so at a much
slower rate than the urban population. Rural domestic de-
mand in 2020 is projected to be only 1.4 times that of 1970.
Shifts in population, Federally-assisted rural community
water developments, and expanding urban growth are all fac-
35
-------
oo
LU
io rofN cnco r-m roro -*CN mrn
r-rH rHrH u)o mo IHO ^"o oocn
or* OrH O vD voin roro rocN Ch»H
in -H ro rH CN lA p*
r-l
MfN m^r *oco com cnco cnr^ co\D
fN** men >^j^ m^ fNoi CN«H CNCN
^3- rH CN rH in U3
^
\pin oco \Qf"- rH o p»o ^^ cjv'd1
rOrH rHP* fNro intf CNCN fNrH Lrtlrt
rO rH CN rH ^f in
rH
cN1^ tncn p* ui in *o voin cnrH cno
r- <7i CO \JP CO fN Tf ro CNfN rH
rH rH 0 rH
rH
r-4CO P*rH ^"P* rHVO OCn rHp- OfN
OfN P»CN CNO rOCN fNrH rHO rHrH
rH r- rH
0" roco p-in cn^J1 cnco ous CNM
COfJ vDrH rHO CNfN rHrH rHO OCn
&
OCO COro fNro ^"Cn vDin CO ^f CnfN
KO«H ^"m rHO fNrH rHrH OO UlOO
in
p^in CO30iai at ot -ri a P rH rH
V4 <0 U fl» rl IT) M n) 0, M
S2«o3» «2 iTl Ifl T3 U)
rHO hrHO ^ rH O rH
rHV4 prHh MrHMO)
«CO a < o M < fN CN fN
SrH *O P»
ro
<* VO « U>
in o o u>
«f ro
CN fN O CO
ro o p* in
CN CN
•* CN O fN
CO O rH •*
rH CN
CN rH O CO
en o co ro
rH
in rH o o
U) O ^" ro
rH
O rH O ^
in o d CN
rH
a
CQ
""•*
rH
id
•H
^
U)
1
H
TJ
V
•H
rH
n a
oi a
•P 3
M 0
4J rH VI
o < a
36
-------
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED TRENDS IN FRESH WATER WITHDRAWAL RATES
(UNITED STATES - 1970). 2,8,9,10,11)
19001 191Q1 19201 19301 19401 1950* I9602 19703 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
'-Q
C
0
>0
0
*
in
id
O
0}
tn
O
o
m
CN
CN
cn
o
m
CN
CN
m
0
CN
in
00
r-
i-H
^
S
rH
^
2
CO
CN
CN
rH
r-
m
O
in
O
CN
O
\o
la
1
•H O
C
Populatio
ing Puerto
• (-4
D U
2~
0
tn
r-
r*
r-
m
CO
tn
r*
cn
CO
CN
r—
ro
0
fN
0
r>
fN
o
cn
rH
m
rH
m
o
rH
rH
m
-H
cn
CN
d
Q
£
1
2
•H
2
s
s
M
0)
rl
rH
0
rH
rH
CN
rH
'o
0
rH
I-I
r*
*cn
rH
CO
r-
\o
o
m
\o
m
CN
CN
CN
CO
CO
m
rH
r-
rH
cn
»
•H
3
s
C
-H
4-1
S
o
0)
[ft
D
TJ
id
1
4J
(A
PI
CO
13
V
4-1
•H
C
D
0)
x:
4-1
c
•rl
4-1
id
o
4-4
O
Ul
3
Ul
C
O
cn
D
tn
3
Ul
C
V
o
o
s
V
3
ID
U>
D
Population Reports," Series P-25, Nos. 311, 483, and 493, Series C Projection. This projection assumes a slight
net immigration of 400,000 and a completed cohort fertility rate (average number of births/1,000 women upon
00.
rH CO
4-> flj -
C 3 CN
a s«
M cd o
3 c~
= i M
3 4J «d
Ul rl Q)
01 fl)
o *j -a
IH O *rt
O E -C
3 C
0)
• O rH
D rl Q<
§•§
jections.
o
1
•d
V4
S
•H
individual
IH
o
a
g
C/l
u
i
u
«/>
o
o-
D
S
rx
CO
4)
i/i
C
O
"o
O)
c
o
CO
O
Z
37
-------
360-
300-
O ISO-
l'°
3 ISO -
IOO -
so
ItOO
I MO I MO
YCAN
f020
Figure 10. Historical and projected trends of total United States
resident population. °>
OOMOTIC USE
PUBLIC.COMMEMCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL USE
ItOO
It40 I»SO
YEAR
SOtO
Figure 11. Historical and projected trends of fresh water withdrawal
for public supply use. °'
38
-------
1900
DOMESTIC USE
LIVESTOCK USE
1940 1980
YEAR
2020
Figure 12. Historical and projected trends of fresh water withdrawal
for rural supply use.
1900
1940 1980
YEAR
2020
Figure 130 Historical and projected trends of fre^h water withdrawal
for irrigation use0
39
-------
400
350 -
300 •
250 -
>•
<
Q
« 200 H
< 150 -
o
100 -
50
GROUND WATER
I I I * I I I | 1 I I I I
1900 1940 I960 2020
YEAR
Figure 14. Historical and projected trends of fresh water withdrawal
for electric utility use. '
100
90
1900 1940 1980
YEAR
202O
Figure 15. Historical and projected trends of fresh water withdrawal
for other self-supplied industrial use. °/
40
-------
1900
1940 1980
YEAR
2020
Figure 16. Historical and projected trends of total
fresh water withdrawal. °'
41
-------
tors that may decrease the reliance on individual water sys-
tems .
The use of water for irrigation will continue its upward
climb of the past several decades. In addition, irriga-
tion's reliance on ground water will increase from 35 per-
cent in 1970 to over 50 percent in 2020. The long-term up-
ward trend in irrigation is related to more efficient tech-
nology for storage, conveyance, and application; develop-
ment of new water sources, particularly in the arid west;
and socioeconomic factors including lowering of farm produc-
tion costs and the benefits of a wider economic base in
areas of heavy irrigation development.
Both the expanding population and the growth in real person-
al income will exert pressures on industry to increase its
output. Considerable additional water will be required to
satisfy this growth. The new water demand will be met part-
ly by increased withdrawals, but in larger part by improved
methods of water management including extensive recycling.
42
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Division. 1970.
Unpublished data.
2. Murray, C. R., and E. B. Reeves. 1972. Estimated use
of water in the United States in 1970. U. S. Geological
Survey Circular 676. 37 pp.
3. McDermott, J. H. 1974. .Impact of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Page 3 in Proceedings national symposium on
the state of America's drinking water. North Carolina
Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
4. Indiana State Board of Health. 1975. Personal commu-
nication.
5. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bu-
reau of Potable Water. 1975. Personal communication.
6. Robischon, J. 1975. Optflo 1(7).
7. Maine Department of Health, Division of Health En-
gineering. 1975. Personal communication.
8. U. S. Bureau of Domestic Commerce. 1960. Water re-
sources activities in the United States. National Wa-
ter Resources Committee, Senate, United States Congress.
9. U. S. Water Resources Council. 1968. The nation's wa-
ter resources - the first national assessment of the
Water Resources Council. U. S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, D. C. Parts 1-7.
10. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. U. S. census of
population: 1920-1970. U. S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, D. C. Vol. 2.
11. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Current population
reports. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C. Series P-25: Nos. 311, 483, and 493.
43
-------
SECTION IV
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE RESOURCE
SUMMARY
At almost any location, ground water may be tapped to pro-
vide a supply sufficient for single-family domestic use, and
more than one third of the nation is underlain by aquifers
generally capable of yielding at least 100,000 gpd (380 cu
m/day) to an individual well. In many regions, ground water
is the only economic and high quality water source available.
In others, ground water can be developed at a fraction of
the cost of surface water.
Ground water in aquifers across the nation is generally suit-
able for human consumption with little or no treatment neces-
sary, except for disinfection where large, piped water-
supply systems are involved. Salinities tend to be higher
in arid regions and areas where drainage is poor.
INTRODUCTION
As discussed in the previous section, ground water presently
supplies almost one quarter of the nation's total water sup-
ply. It provides the dry-season flow (base flow) of streams
that otherwise might cease flowing part of the year. Some
of the nation's largest cities and most of the rural popula-
tion depend on ground water as a source of drinking water.
It has been estimated that total ground water in storage in
the United States greatly exceeds the combined volume of all
the Great Lakes, and that the amount of useable ground water
is 150 times the amount of water presently used. At almost
any location, ground water may be tapped to provide a supply
sufficient for single-family domestic use. However, the dis-
tribution of ground-water reservoirs (aquifers) capable of
supplying communities, towns, and cities is more limited.
DEFINITION OF GROUND WATER
In the hydrologic cycle, water is continually evaporated
from the oceans, moves through the atmosphere, and eventual-
ly returns to the ocean through one or more paths. Of the
water that precipitates, a portion infiltrates into the
ground under the influence of gravity. It moves first
through an unsaturated zone known as the "zone of aeration."
Passing downward, the water arrives at the zone of satura-
tion where the voids between the rock particles are complete-
44
-------
ly saturated. The water in the zone of saturation is called
ground water. Figure 17 illustrates the relationships with-
in the hydrologic system.
THE OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER
The ability of an aquifer to store and transmit water is a
function of its porosity and permeability. Porosity re-
flects the volume of void space (pores) in a rock, and is an
index of how much ground water can be stored in the satu-
rated material. Porosity is usually expressed as a percent
of the bulk volume of the material. Permeability is an in-
dex of how much ground water can be transmitted through a
rock. The coefficient of permeability is expressed as the
rate of flow of water (gallons per day) that will flow
through a one-foot square area per unit of time under a hy-
draulic gradient of one, at a temperature of 60°F (16°C).
An index closely related to permeability is transmissivity.
Transmissivity is simply permeability multiplied by aquifer
thickness; it is indicative of the water-transmitting capac-
ity of the entire aquifer thickness. Where the saturated
rock is sufficiently permeable to store and transmit signif-
icant quantities of water, the rock is called an aquifer.
Aquifers are defined by the ability to store and transmit
water and not by rock type directly.
Major Types of Aquifers
The two major types of aquifers are: unconfined or water-
table aquifers, and confined or artesian aquifers. Less per-
meable zones are called aquitards or confining layers. Fig-
ure 17 illustrates the major aquifer types.
Unconfined Aquifers -
When an aquifer is unconfined, the water is under atmospher-
ic pressure. The upper surface of the aquifer is known as
the water table and is free to rise and fall with changes in
volume of stored water.
Under nonpumping conditions, the water level in a well and
the adjacent water table are at the same elevation. The wa-
ter table is responsive to changes in the amount of stored
water, and fluctuates seasonally in response to variations
in the rate of natural recharge. In the humid eastern
states, for example, the water-table elevation is normally
highest in spring and lowest in autumn.
The principal source of natural recharge to a water-table
45
-------
46
-------
aquifer is precipitation. In arid regions, because precipi-
tation is infrequent, intermittent surface streams carrying
runoff from other parts of the region may provide signifi-
cant recharge. Perennial through-flowing streams of more
humid regions can be areas of recharge to or discharge from
water-table aquifers.
A variant type of water-table aquifer is a perched aquifer.
Occurring within the zone of aeration are beds of relatively
low permeability, but of limited areal extent. Precipita-
tion moving downward cannot pass easily through these beds,
so a thin zone of saturation is created above the bed, form-
ing a perched water body. Although perched aquifers are
sometimes tapped by wells, they are usually not sufficiently
thick or extensive to provide a significant supply of water.
They do, however, restrict and control recharge to the under-
lying aquifer.
Confined Aquifers -
Confined or artesian aquifers are bounded below by geologic
formations of relatively low permeability. In addition, an
artesian aquifer is separated from the zone of aeration
above or from shallow aquifers by geologic formations of low
permeability. The aquifer is completely saturated with wa-
ter, and the upper surface is defined and fixed by the lower
limit of the overlying confining unit. Under nonpumping con-
ditions, when a well is constructed and open only to an arte-
sian aquifer, the water level in the well stands above the
top of the aquifer at a height dependent upon the pressure
in the confined aquifer (artesian pressure). Where suffi-
cient pressure is encountered, the water level may stand
above the top of the well casing, causing the well to flow.
The hypothetical projection of the water levels is known as
the potentiometric surface.
An artesian aquifer does not receive recharge everywhere uni-
formly. Most recharge is received in one or more general
areas known as recharge areas. Rather than being sensitive
to volumetric changes, the water levels in wells in artesian
aquifers respond principally to changes in artesian pressure.
Rocks with identical characteristics may form an aquifer in
one area, yet may act as a confining unit for a more perme-
able zone in another area. No confining unit is completely
impermeable. Where an aquitard is sufficiently permeable to
allow significant volumes of water to leak into or out of an
aquifer, the aquifer is called semi-confined or leaky arte-
sian. A water-table aquifer can overlie an artesian aquifer,
separated by an aquitard. Two artesian aquifers can be sep-
47
-------
arated by a confining unit.
Recharge and Discharge
Ground water is constantly moving from a point of recharge
toward a point of discharge. If a particular region is a re-
charge area, the recharging water exerts a stress on the
aquifer in the form of increased hydrostatic head. This
head seeks release in areas of low head, which are desig-
nated discharge areas. Thus, movement of ground water is
from regions of high hydrostatic head toward those of low hy-
drostatic head. In practice, recharge and discharge areas
of an aquifer are indicated by relative water levels. With-
in an aquifer, areas of high water-level elevations indicate
higher hydrostatic head and areas of lower water-level eleva-
tions indicate lower hydrostatic head, so ground water moves
from areas of high water-level elevations toward areas of
low water-level elevations. The hydraulic head difference
divided by the distance along the flow path is known as the
hydraulic gradient.
Head differences can be induced artificially by pumping
wells. As water is withdrawn from a well, a hydraulic gra-
dient is produced, which causes water to move toward the
well. A cone-shaped depression in the water table or poten-
tiometric surface is produced (Figure 18). As more water is
extracted, the depth and radius of the cone increase, but at
a decreasing rate, until the volume of water leaking into
the aquifer exactly equals the withdrawal rate. At this
point, the cone will stabilize (stop growing). Cones of de-
pression from more than one well can overlap if leakage does
not stabilize them first. In some cases, particularly in
aquifers in arid western basins, the volume of water leaking
to the cone (or cones) of depression never equals the total
volume withdrawn. The cones continue to expand downward and
laterally indefinitely. This activity is known as ground-
water mining.
In addition to precipitation, a water-table aquifer can be
recharged where it is hydraulically connected to a surface-
water source, such as a stream or a pond. A water-table
aquifer can receive leakage through semi-permeable confining
beds of an underlying artesian aquifer. Artesian aquifers
can receive recharge from confining beds or from precipita-
tion and surface-water bodies in the outcrop area of the
aquifer.
Recharge locations can be points, lines, or areas. Natural
point recharge locations are infrequent; individual sink-
holes in limestone terrane are an example. Artificial point
48
-------
WELL CASING
LAND SURFACE
H-RADIUS OF INFLUENCE
oor—•>
IMPERVIOUS STRATUM
Figure 18. Cone of depression created by pumping in a water-table aquifer. '
-------
recharge locations are very common, and in fact are of major
concern in a later section of this study. Examples include
waste-disposal or recharge wells and individual septic tanks
and cesspools. Natural line recharge is related to leakage
from the beds of streams. This is a common situation in the
western states where mountainous areas tend to capture pre-
cipitation, pass it to streams as runoff, and the streams
carry it across valley-fill deposits where recharge to aqui-
fers occurs. Natural line recharge also occurs along the
edge of valley-fill deposits, the coarser layers of the fill
receiving direct overland runoff from the adjacent mountains.
Leaky sewage transmission pipes are an example of artificial
line recharge. Most natural area recharge occurs across
broad regions and is derived directly from precipitation.
Artificial area recharge occurs where homes in subdivisions,
as a group, each have septic tanks which recharge the aqui-
fer. Reservoirs and large waste-water disposal ponds are
also examples of artificial area recharge.
Discharge locations for aquifers can also be points, lines
or areas. A spring is a natural point discharge location
while a pumping well is an artificial point discharge loca-
tion. Gaining streams can be line discharge areas. In this
case, precipitation falling on adjacent upland areas infil-
trates the water-table aquifer, and the ground water moves
toward a nearby stream where it is discharged. Area dis-
charge locations are swamps, ponds, lakes, and the sea. The
volume of ground water naturally discharged to the ocean
along the Atlantic coast is many times that discharged to
wells, springs, and streams.
Climatic Effects
The amount of precipitation and the percent returned to the
atmosphere (evapotranspiration) vary according to climatic
conditions. Variations in the average precipitation in any
region may create exceptional surpluses or deficits — evi-
denced by floods or droughts — during individual years.
Figure 19 illustrates the average annual precipitation over
the United States.
The processes which return water from the land surface to
the atmosphere are evaporation and transpiration. The com-
bined term evapotranspiration represents the amount of water
lost to the atmosphere from the land surface. A distinction
has been made between potential evapotranspiration and actu-
al evapotranspiration in an area. Potential evapotranspira-
tion represents the volume of water which would be lost from
a completely vegetated area if there were no water deficien-
cy at any time. On the other hand, actual evapotranspira-
50
-------
o
28^'Sl 1
i-itvi'i'S :§.
— N 10 * «> 'J3
I
§
0>
0)
E
0)
§
O)
51
-------
tion is the real volume of water lost under prevailing condi-
tions. Except in rain forests, potential and actual evapo-
transpiration are seldom equal.
Wherever evapotranspiration is greater than the precipita-
tion, ground-water recharge by downward percolation through
the zone of aeration is minimized. Such water-deficient
areas exist, especially in the desert lowlands of the south-
west, where annual precipitation is less than 10 in. (25 cm),
and potential evapotranspiration is 4 to 20 times greater.
In areas of prevailing water deficiency in the western
states, ground-water recharge" may result from abundant pre-
cipitation during "wet" years or multi-year cycles, rainy
seasons, or prolonged storm periods. In many valleys that
are practically rainless throughout the warmer half of the
year, winter precipitation provides the major portion of re-
charge to shallow ground waters. In other valleys, there
may be evidence of ground-water recharge only during years
of greater than average precipitation.
In the eastern states, annual precipitation exceeds evapo-
transpiration, creating surpluses which discharge to and
form the base flow of perennial streams and springs. But
the locale of the water surpluses may vary from season to
season. In the winter, with minimum evapotranspiration, wa-
ter may accumulate in the soil and percolate downward. In
the growing season, vegetation depletes the soil moisture
and, even with frequent rains, may leave nothing for ground-
water recharge.
Temperature
Temperature is also an important factor in ground-water re-
charge. In northern latitudes and western mountainous re-
gions, floods have resulted from rain falling upon accumu-
lated snow during unseasonably warm periods in winter or
early spring. The flood runoff is increased if the underly-
ing soil is frozen, thus preventing infiltration. The per-
sistence of extremely low temperatures may cause unusual
conditions which acutely affect the existence and flow of
ground water. Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, is
common in Alaska, and exists over 60 percent of the state.
Within these regions, the soil from a few feet to several
hundred feet below the surface is continuously frozen with
the exception of a relatively thin, seasonally-thawed sur-
face layer.
Permafrost zones act as confining beds, and both their com-
position and distribution have a significant influence on
52
-------
patterns and rates of ground-water flow. In a number of ba-
sins, the artesian pressure of water confined below perma-
frost causes wells drilled through the permafrost to flow.
Ground-water discharge may be restricted to the lower, cen-
tral part of many river valleys where the permafrost is dis-
continuous. In the region of continuous permafrost, unfro-
zen zones penetrate the permafrost only where salinity of
the ground water prevents freezing, or where heat transfer
from a body of surface water or from discharging subperma-
frost water is sufficient to maintain the unfrozen condi-
tions .
Water in the Unsaturated Zone
The unsaturated zone occupies a critical position in the hy-
drologic cycle. The relationship between the unsaturated
and saturated zones is shown in Figure 20.
From land surface, the unsaturated zone receives water from
precipitation to the limit of its infiltration capacity;
the rest is left for surface storage, runoff, or evaporation.
In most places, the upper part of the unsaturated zone is
soil, which absorbs the infiltrating water, and retains much
of it against the force of gravity until such time as the wa-
ter is taken up by plant roots or otherwise returned to the
atmosphere.
Some water, in excess of the retention capacity of the soil,
percolates downward through the soil. In some places, the
unsaturated zone is permeable enough to receive water rapid-
ly and permit downward percolation with little retention.
Under most of the land, the unsaturated zone extends below
the soil and below plant roots to depths ranging from a few
feet to hundreds of feet.
Topography
The amount of precipitation which recharges to ground water
in any specific area depends, to some degree, upon topog-
raphy. Rolling terrain, particularly when underlain by
soils of low infiltration capacity, facilitates rapid runoff
of precipitation to surface-water bodies. In valleys sur-
rounded by mountains, the mountains tend to capture precipi-
tation and direct it into the valleys, where it can recharge
underlying aquifers. Spring runoff from snow melt in moun-
tain areas is the principal source of recharge to many arid
and semi-arid valleys in the western states.
53
-------
UJ
z
o
Isl
O
UJ
<
co
o
N
CO
GROUND SURFACE
SOIL MOISTURE
PORE SPACES PARTIALLY:
FILLED WITH WATER
I V
CAPILLARY RISE
FROM WATER TABLE
WATER TABLE
GROUND WATER
Figure 20. Relationship between unsaturated and saturated zones. '
54
-------
ROCK TYPES COMPRISING AQUIFERS
The principal aquifers in the United States consist of satu-
rated sedimentary, igneous, and rnetamorphic rocks. Among
the sedimentary rocks are elastics, evaporites, and carbon-
ates, elastics may be subdivided into consolidated and un-
consolidated rocks. Igneous rocks also are divided into two
classes: plutonics and volcanics. Volcanics are subdivided
into flows and py.roclastics. Metamorphic rocks are not. sub-
divided. Figure 21 shows several types of interstices (open-
ings or void spaces) found in aquifers.
elastics
Clastic sedimentary rocks are composed of fragments of other
rocks transported from their sources and deposited by water
or glacial ice. elastics include both unconsolidated and
consolidated rocks. Unconsolidated deposits are relatively
uncemented and loosely compacted. The degree of consolida-
tion is determined by the degree of cementation and compac-
tion. In unconsolidated elastics such as gravel and sand,
ground water is stored and transmitted in the interconnected
voids which occur between individual grains.
Water availability in unconsolidated rocks is greatly af-
fected by sorting and grain size. Deposits which are well
sorted have many particles of the same or similar size.
This assures that very little of the available pore space
will be occupied by grains which are either overly large or
overly small.
A high degree of sorting alone, however, does not insure
high ground-water availability. Water moving through rock
has a tendency to cling to the rock by capillary and molecu-
lar attraction, forming a thin coating of water on the indi-
vidual grains of rock. This water is unavailable to wells.
Where grain sizes are small, as with silt and clay, even a
well-sorted deposit will have a significant percentage of
pore space occupied by retained water. Although the quan-
tity of water in storage is great, that which is available
is so small that clays and silts are normally considered to
be confining beds. Well sorted sands and gravels, on the
other hand, are considered aquifers.
As much as 30 percent of an unconsolidated rock may consist
of pore space. Where sedimentary rocks are partially consol-
idated, a precipitated substance like silica or calcium car-
bonate occupies some of the space and cements some of the in-
dividual grains together. As a result, the intergranular
space available for ground-water storage is decreased, and
55
-------
ROCK TYPE
INTERSTICES
SAND AND GRAVEL
PORE SPACES
CONSOLIDATED ROCK!
IGNEOUS, METAMORPHIC , SEDIMENTARY
FAULT
FRACTURES
CARBONATE ROCK!
LIMESTONE, DOLOMITE
SOLUTION CHANNELS
VOLCANIC ROCK:
LAVA FLOWS
HRINKAQE CRACKS
INTRA-FORMATIONAL CHANNELS
Figure 21. Rock texture in major aquifer types. '
56
-------
the available interconnected spaces needed for ground-water
transmittal are also decreased. Where completely consoli-
dated, a major portion of the available pore space has been
decreased by cementation and/or compaction.
In consolidated coarse-grained sedimentary rocks like sand-
stone and conglomerate, pore space is usually small, and
ground water is stored and transmitted chiefly in fractures
and joints, between layers, and along fault zones. In fine-
grained, consolidated sedimentary rocks, pore space is virtu-
ally non-existent.
Evaporites
Sedimentary rocks which form by precipitation of dissolved
minerals are called evaporites. When such deposits come in-
to contact with fresh ground water, rapid dissolution occurs.
Where other rocks are interbedded with evaporites, the voids
produced by dissolution produce highly permeable aquifers.
Unfortunately, ground water in these aquifers is normally so
high in total dissolved solids that it is useless as a drink-
ing-water source without costly treatment.
Carbonates
Rocks produced by secretions from organisms form a third
class of sedimentary rocks known as carbonates. Shells and
bones from aquatic animals collect on floors of seas, lakes,
and streams. The matter is compacted and crystallized to
form carbonate rock. Natural ground water, which is slight-
ly acidic, can slowly dissolve carbonate rocks along joints
and fractures. The resultant porosity and permeability may
range from low values where the rock is slightly fractured
to extremely high values where extensive fracturing and solu-
tion have taken place.
In some carbonate rocks, intergranular permeability is much
more important than that attributable to fractures and solu-
tion openings. Some of the best aquifers of the southeast-
ern coastal plain consist of soft coquinoid or bryozoan lime-
stone or of slightly dolomitized limestone apparently owing
most of its permeability to crystal-volume changes during
dolomitization. In such aquifers, high permeability is so
widespread that properly completed wells can obtain large
yields almost everywhere.
Igneous
Igneous rocks form by crystallization of molten rock. Plu-
tonic rocks cool and crystallize deep beneath the land sur-
57
-------
face, and volcanic rocks cool and crystallize on or near the
surface. As with consolidated sedimentary rocks, ground wa-
ter is available from fractures and joints, between layers,
and along faults. A special class of volcanic rocks is
known as pyroclastics — unconsolidated to semi-consolidated
deposits of fragmental material blown from volcanoes. How-
ever, pyroclastic deposits are rarely extensive. Ground-
water availability in pyroclastics is variable but similar
to that in semi-consolidated sedimentary rocks.
Metamorphics
Metamorphic rocks are recrystallized deposits of previously
formed sedimentary and igneous rocks. No distinction is
made here between metamorphic rocks of sedimentary origin
and those of igneous origin. The distinction has little
bearing from the standpoint of ground-water availability.
Metamorphic rocks store and transmit water in a manner simi-
lar to plutonic rocks.
Other Factors
Other factors exert major influences on the availability of
ground water from certain rock types. A principal factor is
the variation in structure of geologic formations from one
place to another. For example, in consolidated rock aqui-
fers, a well drilled through a fault (a major break in the
rocks) may be significantly more productive than a well in
the same aquifer away from the fault. Faulting of the rocks
produces more fractures along which ground water can move
and be stored.
Weathering may also affect ground-water availability. In
unconsolidated deposits, weathering of rock fragments may
turn some of them to clay, thereby decreasing permeability.
For consolidated rocks, weathering may enlarge or increase
the number of joints and fractures, thereby improving the
ability of the aquifer to yield water to wells.
PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS
Valley-Fill Aquifers
Valley-fill aquifers are composed of sand, gravel, and silt
and generally lie along the course of present-day streams
and rivers. Figure 22 indicates the locations of the major
valley-fill aquifers. They are comprised of channel, flood-
plain, and terrace deposits, and are usually in direct hy-
draulic connection with surface streams. The deposits in
each valley act as a single hydrologic unit, existing under
58
-------
D
cr
o
f
x
CN
CM
D
CD
0
59
-------
water-table or leaky artesian conditions. Where permeable
valley-fill aquifers exist adjacent to perennial streams,
large potential for ground-water development exists because
of the opportunity to supplement natural recharge with in-
filtration of surface water.
The availability of potable water and the gentle topography
of stream valleys has made them popular areas for urban de-
velopment — for example, the Ohio River valley and the Sus-
quehanna River valley. Valley-fill aquifers are extremely
susceptible to contamination from infiltration of poor qual-
ity surface water, or from wastes dumped on the land surface.
Because of the widespread distribution of valley-fill aqui-
fers, no general statement can be made with regard to natu-
ral ground-water quality. However, the heavy use of these
aquifers by industries and municipalities indicates the
availability of generally good quality water.
Sands and Gravels of the Coastal Plain
Extensive deposits of elastics are deposited seaward of an-
cient uplands from which they were eroded. The principal
water-bearing units are sands and gravels, which are inter-
bedded with silts and clays, and occasionally marls and lime-
stones. The sediments were deposited on plains only slight-
ly above sea level or in the shallow near-shore marine envi-
ronment. Land emergence has since raised these sediments
above sea level. The most extensive coastal plain in the
United States (the Atlantic-Gulf Coastal Plain) extends from
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Texas (Figure 23).
Coastal plain sediments thicken seaward, and progressively
younger geologic units outcrop in seaward direction. Al-
though the outcrop areas of all units are under water-table
conditions, the deeper sections are strictly artesian.
Where some confining units are thin or moderately permeable,
leaky artesian conditions may allow ground-water flow be-
tween artesian aquifers.
The outcrop areas of coastal plain aquifers receive recharge
by direct precipitation and leakage from surface-water bod-
ies. This recharge is transmitted downgradient within the
aquifer to replenish the artesian portion. An additional
source of recharge, where artesian conditions prevail, is
inter-aquifer flow. Natural discharge areas for coastal
plain aquifers are near the present shorelines.
The chief threat of contamination to coastal plain aquifers
occurs where they exist under water-table conditions (in the
60
-------
Ill
I
sS
58
M
g
s
o
i§
li
H
9E
ox
3
_ w
8
o
<
c
e
OEND
U
_1
o
z
<
en
o
z
<
8
u
0)
14—
o
0)
o
0)
13
C
D
tn
-o
C
D
to
CO
CM
-------
outcrop areas of the principal aquifers). Coastal plain
aquifers are also vulnerable to inter-aquifer flow of con-
taminated water through leaky confining beds. Inter-aquifer
flow has been a particular problem where an aquifer has been
abandoned because of salt-water encroachment and is sepa-
rated from an adjacent heavily pumped aquifer by leaky con-
fining beds.
The natural water quality of coastal plain aquifers is gen-
erally good, particularly near outcrop areas. Problems do
exist in some areas, however, principally related to low pH,
high concentrations of iron, and the presence of connate
saline water.
Sands and Gravels of the Intermontane Valleys
Mountain building periods in the western states have created
intermontane valleys (Figure 24). These valleys have filled
with sediment eroded from the adjacent mountains. The sedi-
ments include rock detritus, alluvial sand and gravel, and
silts and clays. The permeable alluvia constitute excellent
aquifers, and the valleys contain enormous quantities of wa-
ter in storage. Because the sediments were transported by
surface runoff from adjacent mountains, the aquifers are gen-
erally coarse grained toward the edges of the valleys and
finer toward the centers. Occasionally, extensive clay and
silt deposits are encountered within the geologic sequence.
Water-table and leaky artesian conditions prevail except
where the extensive silts and clays overlie water-bearing
zones (producing tightly confined aquifers). Because the
intermontane valleys occur in generally water-deficient
areas, little recharge is received by direct, downward per-
colation. The major source of recharge is runoff from adja-
cent mountains — particularly from snow melt and spring
rains -- which flows down mountain canyons and percolates
into the coarse deposits at the edges of the valleys. In
many intermontane valleys, pumping from wells far exceeds
annual recharge, seriously depleting the resource.
Like other aquifers exposed at the land surface, those in
intermontane valleys are susceptible to contamination. Con-
tinuous sources of contaminants (cesspools and septic tanks,
leaky lagoons, mine drainage) and accidental spills are al-
ways a threat, particularly in the recharge areas. Also, in
some closed basins, ground water is high in dissolved solids
content as a result of continuous evaporation and accumula-
tion of residual salts.
62
-------
u>
X
J)
1
0)
c
I
o
c
V
V
1
O)
T3
O
CN
£
D
O)
63
-------
Alluvium of the High Plains
Alluvium, derived from the Rocky Mountains and laid down by
eastward flowing streams, was deposited on a vast plain
stretching from Wyoming to Texas (Figure 25). A large part
of the original plain has been eroded by streams along its
margin, but the remnants exist as the High Plains. The re-
gion is an important ground-water area because of the abun-
dance of saturated sand and gravel, interbedded with silt
and clay. The chief water-bearing unit is the Ogallala For-
mation.
Leaky artesian conditions prevail in the High Plains. Re-
charge is chiefly by downward leakage of direction precipita-
tion through water-table beds. The High Plains lies com-
pletely within the water-deficient region of the United
States, so recharge is variable. Generally, the southern
part receives no recharge, and the northern part receives as
much as 5 in. (12.7 cm) annually. Major streams can provide
additional recharge where they have eroded into water-
bearing zones.
Except in the Sand Hills region, the Ogallala aquifer ap-
pears to be well protected by overlying fine grained sedi-
ments from direct infiltration of contaminants. In some
places, water levels are declining so rapidly from pumpage
that the water table is falling at a rate greater than con-
taminants can percolate down to it. This pumpage also has
resulted in the upward movement of saline water from deeper
formations in some locales. Where streams have dissected
the Ogallala, the near-stream portions of the aquifer are
susceptible to contamination from infiltrating surface water,
The chemical quality of water in the High Plains is satis-
factory for irrigation and generally meets the requirements
for drinking water. Total hardness ranges from 200 to 600
ppm, although the average is less than 300 ppm. Excessive
fluoride is a problem in some areas with local concentra-
tions up to 5 ppm, and commonly exceeding 1.5 ppm. Silica
may also be high, ranging up to 40 ppm. Total dissolved
solids concentration averages less than 300 ppm, but. may be
as high as 1,000 ppm or greater. The quality of the water
tends to deteriorate toward the southern end of the High
Plains, and also tends to degrade with decreasing depth to
the water table — a condition produced by evapotranspira-
tion, which has concentrated dissolved salts near the sur-
face.
64
-------
Q-
_C
O>
X
0)
_c
>-»-
o
E
IT)
CM
£
D
O)
65
-------
Glacial Drift
During the Ice Age, glacial ice (continental glaciation) cov-
ered northern portions of the country (Figure 26). Glaciers
also occupied major river valleys. Repeated glacial ad-
vances eroded the soil and bedrock and incorporated the mate-
rial in the ice. When the ice melted, these particles were
left behind or were carried across the land surface by melt
water. Glacial drift is composed of all particles carried
by the ice, regardless of size. Those deposits left in
place (till) are unsorted; those sediments that were trans-
ported by water before deposition are generally better sort-
ed. Where many small sediment-laden streams issued from the
melting glaciers, broad extensive outwash deposits occurred,
which are usually very productive water-table aquifers.
Where fine grained glacial drift was deposited in standing
bodies of water, like lakes in ice-dammed stream valleys,
the resulting low permeability deposits constitute confining
beds for underlying valley-fill aquifers.
The presence of low permeability till is much more common
than that of more permeable water-borne deposits. Although
till is tapped for small domestic supplies using dug wells,
it more often acts as the confining bed for an underlying
artesian sand and gravel aquifer.
Water-borne glacial drift is commonly a productive aquifer.
Where it occurs in stream valleys, it can receive recharge
from perennial streams and surface runoff from adjacent bed-
rock uplands.
Because glacial drift aquifers are commonly under water-
table conditions, and highly permeable, they are vulnerable
to downward percolation of contaminants. Precipitation is
abundant over the glaciated region, and production of leach-
ate from landfills, for example, in this water surplus area
is of particular concern.
The natural quality of water in the glacial drift reflects
the regional geology. In New England, where much of the bed-
rock is crystalline, the ground water in the glacial drift
is normally of good quality and low in mineral content, al-
though high concentrations of iron and manganese are not un-
common. In the Ohio River basin, the water in glacial-drift
aquifers is generally hard and can be high in mineral con-
tent, especially calcium bicarbonate and sulfate. Similarly,
in the Upper Mississippi River basin, much of the ground wa-
ter has a total dissolved solids content ranging from 300 to
1,000 ppm, with hardness from 120 to 700 ppm. Still farther
west, in the semi-arid Dakotas, ground water in the glacial
66
-------
>-
-o
-------
drift, although of better quality than in the underlying bed-
rock aquifers, may have a mineral content exceeding 1,000
ppm and may be locally brackish or even saline.
Basalt Aquifers
Basalt is volcanic rock which has flowed as lava across the
land surface, or has intruded near the surface, and subse-
quently cooled. The basalt aquifers are thick, extensive
sheets of rock piled in layer-cake fashion and interbedded
with unconsolidated sediments. High capacity wells tap the
natural openings between the basalt flows and depending upon
their permeability, the interbedded sediments. Figure 27
shows the distribution of the principal basalt aquifers.
Ground water in the basalt aquifers occurs under artesian to
leaky artesian conditions, produced by the varying permeabil-
ities of individual beds in the aquifers. Recharge is al-
most exclusively by direct precipitation. Streams and riv-
ers are incised deeply into the aquifers and serve to re-
ceive discharge from the aquifers rather than provide re-
charge to them.
In Hawaii, where basalt aquifers constitute most of the is-
lands ' ground-water reservoirs, water-bearing zone:s occur un-
der both water-table and artesian conditions. Recharge is
by both direct precipitation and stream flow. Hawaii's
ground-water conditions are unusual because the basalt aqui-
fer is sloping and is cross cut by many vertical dikes, most
of which are impermeable and divide the aquifer into compart-
ments. Individual compartments, if untapped, can fill and
overflow to a compartment at a lower elevation through seeps
and springs. A natural system of reservoirs is thus provid-
ed, which can be tapped by wells and tunnels for water sup-
ply.
In most basalt terranes, liquid contaminants can readily en-
ter rock openings and move quite easily through the aquifer.
In the northwestern states, the volume of ground water under-
flow is very large and there is an opportunity for some dilu-
tion.
The water in the basalt of the northwestern states typically
has a total dissolved solids content in the range of 200 to
300 ppm. The best quality is found near recharge areas and
in shallow aquifers. The waters are generally of a calcium-
magnesium bicarbonate type, with total hardness ranging from
50 to 250 ppm. In addition, the water in these aquifers gen-
erally contains 40 to 80 ppm of silica, and locally, exces-
sive iron. The ground water of Hawaii is of excellent qual-
68
-------
0 S
-------
ity with total dissolved solids concentrations in the range
of 100 to 300 ppm.
Carbonate Aquifers
Limestone and dolomite are relatively dense rocks composed
of calcium and magnesium carbonate. However, in some places,
ground water has partly dissolved the rock, increasing pore
space and permeability. As a result, some carbonate rocks
are among the world's most prolific aquifers.
Carbonate aquifers underlie large areas of the United States.
The principal carbonate aquifers are shown in Figure 28.
Carbonate aquifers may exist under either water-table or ar-
tesian conditions, but artesian conditions are most common,
except where the aquifers outcrop at the surface. Recharge
is by direct precipitation and leakage from surface-water
bodies.
Karst topography is the ultimate development by erosion of a
carbonate aquifer. In this situation, ground water has so
dissolved the rock that extensive subterranean caverns and
channels form. At the surface, karst topography is mani-
fested by the lack of surface drainage, rivers that disap-
pear underground and emerge at another location, and un-
drained surface depressions.
Especially where carbonates outcrop at the surface, the aqui-
fers are highly vulnerable to contamination. The enlarged
pore spaces in the rock provide easy movement for contami-
nants and very little treatment by natural filtration.
Water from carbonate aquifers is typically hard (high in cal-
cium bicarbonate content), and high in dissolved solids.
Other ions, sulfate for example, are present in excessive
concentrations in some regions.
Sandstone Aquifers
Major sandstone aquifers occur in many states and constitute
the principal water source of many urban and suburban areas
(Figure 29). One important aquifer, the Dakota sandstone
and its geologic equivalents, underlies all of the north-
central and western Great Lakes states. Other productive
sandstone aquifers are found in New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and
Texas. These aquifers usually do not contain just sandstone
but are commonly interbedded with shales.
Because of the interbedded shales, which are of low permea-
70
-------
H
s
§
O
fc
I
cr
o
o
U
CO
CN
D)
71
-------
3
tr
o
-------
bility, water in sandstone aquifers exists under artesian
conditions except in the outcrop area. Artesian sandstone
aquifers have been heavily pumped, particularly in the north-
central states. Withdrawals have not been balanced by natu-
ral recharge and serious water-level declines have resulted.
When the northern Great Plains were settled, wells tapping
the Dakota sandstone flowed naturally; now, they must be
pumped.
•
Where sandstones are exposed at the surface or underlie thin
soils, contaminants can enter the aquifer directly. Under
artesian conditions, sandstones are better protected, bur in
areas where significant overpumping of deeper zones has oc-
curred, contamination does occur by inter-aquifer flow. Lit-
tle natural treatment or filtration is provided by the more
permeable sandstones.
Water quality in the outcrop and recharge areas of sandstone
aquifers is typically good, but mineralization increases rap-
idly with depth and distance from recharge areas. High dis-
solved solids and excessive concentrations of iron and manga-
nese occur in some regions, particularly where the interbed-
ded shales comprise a considerable portion of the aquifer.
Crystalline Rocks (Igneous and Metamorphic)
In the unglaciated areas (the Appalachian Piedmont and Cali-
fornia, for example) and on the inter-stream uplands in the
glaciated region (New England and the Adirondack Mountains
of New York), crystalline rock aquifers are tapped for small
ground-water supplies (Figure 30). Individual well yields
average 2 to 10 gpm (0.008 to 0.04 cu m/min) and rarely ex-
ceed 50 gpm (0.19 cu m/min).
Water from crystalline rock occurs principally in fractures
and joints in the weathered zone; intergranular porosity is
nil. Although wells in crystalline rock commonly are 165 to
330 ft (50 to 100 m) deep, most of the water is derived from
the upper 100 ft (30 m). An exception is when a well pene-
trates a deep fault zone in crystalline rock.
Ground water in crystalline rock is generally under water-
table conditions because the network of joints and fractures
in the weathered zone extends to the surface. Recharge is
by direct precipitation, but where a fracture connects to an
adjacent surface-water body, considerably more recharge may
take place.
Crystalline rock aquifers are highly susceptible to contami-
nation. Overlying soils are commonly thin, and provide lit-
73
-------
O"
D
o
O
Q>
u
8*
0>
3
O>
74
-------
tie retention of contaminants. Because ground-water move-
ment through fractures can be rapid, little treatment takes
place in the aquifer.
The water in crystalline rocks is generally soft and of ex-
cellent quality, reflecting the low solubilities of the ma-
jor minerals in the rock. At isolated locations in some
western states, however, highly mineralized water, often of
high temperature, may discharge from springs fed by very
deep fractures.
NATURAL CHEMICAL QUALITY OF GROUND WATER
All ground water contains chemical constituents in solution.
The kinds and amounts of constituents depend upon the envi-
ronment, movement, and source of the ground water. Typical-
ly, concentrations of dissolved constituents in ground water
exceed those in surface waters. Salinity tends to be higher
in arid regions and in areas where drainage is poor.
Chemical constituents originate primarily from solution of
rock materials. Common chemical constituents of ground wa-
ter include:
Cations Anions Undissociated
Calcium Carbonate Silica
Magnesium Bicarbonate
Sodium Sulfate
Potassium Chloride
Nitrate
Within a large body of ground water, the natural chemical
composition or type of water tends to be relatively consis-
tent, although the concentrations of individual minerals in
solution may be variable from place to place. Time varia-
tions of ground-water quality under natural conditions are
minor in comparison with surface-water quality changes. In
a few isolated cases, significant concentrations of such haz-
ardous constituents as arsenic and radioactive elements have
been found to occur naturally. These instances are related
to the unique aquifer materials of the area.
The chemical quality of ground water is often conveniently
described for domestic and industrial use in terms of its
hardness and salinity. Hardness is a measure of the calcium
and magnesium content and is usually expressed as the equiva-
lent amount of calcium carbonate. Figure 31 shows ranges of
hardness in ground water in the United States.
75
-------
CN
a
-o
o
TO
0)
I
o
X
OO
0)
0)
76
-------
The definition of saline water varies somewhat depending on
the intended use of the water. The recommended limit on to-
tal dissolved solids for drinking water established by the
U. S. Public Health Service is 500 ppm. However, where such
water is not available, water containing 1,000 ppm or more
is used for drinking water purposes. The Safe Drinking Wa-
ter Act of 1974 considers waters containing up to 10,000 ppm
as "potential" sources of drinking water.
Naturally occurring saline ground water may be classified by
origin into four types, all of which generally exceed 10,000
ppm total dissolved solids content:
1. Connate water
2. Intruded sea water
3. Magmatic and geothermal water
4. Salt leaching and evapotranspiration products
Many sedimentary rock formations were originally deposited
in a marine environment. Saline water may have remained
trapped in the material throughout geologic history until
the present. Such water is termed connate water. In many
aquifers, infiltration and subsurface flow have flushed the
connate water from the aquifers and replaced it entirely
with fresh water. In other areas, for example in western
Washington, such flushing is incomplete, and connate water
is still present.
Sea-water intrusion has occurred in several coastal ground-
water basins hydraulically connected to the sea where, as a
result of pumping, the head of fresh water has been lowered
relative to that of sea water. This lowering has resulted
in landward movement of sea water in the aquifer.
Magmatic water is water derived from molten igneous rock or
magma. It is also called juvenile water. Geothermal water
is water of any origin, including precipitation, which has
been heated by a geothermal source. These mineralized wa-
ters may issue forth as hot springs. The concentrations of
some constituents, particularly sodium, potassium, calcium,
and chloride, may be very high, ranging in some cases up to
many tens of thousands of ppm. Various heavy metals are al-
so commonly present. Most of these types of saline water
occurrences are concentrated in the arid states, in areas of
relatively recent volcanic and intrusive activity.
Evapotranspiration and accumulation of residual salts may
produce relatively large bodies of shallow saline water.
Precipitation, percolating through the unsaturated zone, con-
tinually dissolves various soluble salts and flushes them
77
-------
through to ground water. This action produces a large por-
tion of the total dissolved solids found in subsurface water.
Ground water also is changed in composition as it moves
through an aquifer because of contact with the rock mate-
rials .
Vegetation tends to absorb relatively pure water through its
root systems leaving behind dissolved salts. In areas where
precipitation is insufficient to provide flushing to the wa-
ter table (notably the arid regions of the west), salts may
accumulate in the unsaturated zone. The natural accumula-
tion of salts is greatest in the areas of lowest precipita-
tion and areas where natural drainage is restricted. During
times of unusually heavy precipitation, these minerals may
be leached from the unsaturated zone and carried to ground
water.
Most of the geologic formations containing fresh ground wa-
ter are underlain by waters varying from brackish to highly
saline. Approximately two thirds of the United States is un-
derlain by aquifers containing at least 1,000 ppm of dis-
solved solids. These aquifers may occur very close to the
surface or at depths of many thousands of feet. As a gen-
eral rule, the salinity of ground water increases with depth.
Figure 32 shows the distribution of depth to shallowest sa-
line ground water, with saline water defined as that contain-
ing 1,000 ppm or more total dissolved solids. It should be
noted that in much of the shaded area on the figure, ground
water exceeds 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids. The blank
areas on the map denote either a lack of information or geo-
logic and hydrologic conditions that rule out the presence
of saline ground water at depths within 1,000 ft (300 m) of
land surface.
78
-------
CN
£
O
O
O)
S
O
Q.
d>
Q
CN
CO
£
O
O)
79
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Edward E. Johnson, Inc. 1966. Ground water and wells.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
2. Geraghty, J. J., and others. 1973. Water atlas of the
United States. Water Information Center, Port Washing-
ton , New York.
3. Walton, W. C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
80
-------
SECTION V
HOW GROUND WATER IS CONTAMINATED
SUMMARY
Innumerable waste materials and natural and man-made prod-
ucts, with the potential to contaminate ground water, are
stored or disposed of on or beneath the land surface. Con-
taminants found in ground water cover the entire range of
physical, inorganic chemical, organic chemical, bacteriolog-
ical, and radioactive parameters.
Contaminants that have been introduced into ground water can
move horizontally or vertically, depending on the compara-
tive density and natural flow pattern of the water already
contained in the aquifer. They tend to travel as a well-
defined slug or plume but can be reduced in concentration
with time and distance by such mechanisms as adsorption, ion
exchange, dispersion, and decay. The rate of attenuation is
a function of the type of contaminant and of the local hydro-
geologic framework, but decades and even centuries are re-
quired for the process to be completely effective.
Under the right conditions and given enough time, contami-
nating fluids invading a body of natural ground water can
move great distances, hidden from view and little changed in
toxicity by the processes of attenuation. The eventual
point of discharge of the contaminated ground-water body can
be a well used as a drinking water source.
INTRODUCTION
The many and diverse activities of man produce innumerable
waste materials and by-products; these are often deposited
or stored on land surfaces where by percolation they may
eventually be carried downward modifying the natural quality
of the underlying ground water. . Because of the large number
of such locations, the sources and causes of ground-water
contamination in the United States total in the millions.
Fortunately, most are small sources whose contaminating ef-
fects are rapidly dissipated after they enter the ground. A
few are widespread enough to affect large volumes of ground
water.
The mechanisms of ground-water contamination are shown by
illustrating the flow paths of contaminants for a variety of
situations. The flow of ground water within underground for-
mations affects the sizes and shapes of typical zones of con-
81
-------
taminated ground water.
Ground-water contamination is the degradation of the natural
quality of ground water as a result of man's activities.
Contamination may impair the use of the water or may create
hazards to public health through poisoning or the spread of
disease. The term "contaminant" as defined in the Safe
Drinking Water Act, means "any physical, chemical, biologi-
cal, or radiological substance or matter in water."
Sources of contamination related to waste-disposal practices
and described in detail in the following sections are:
1. Industrial Waste-Water Impoundments
2. Landfills and Dumps
3. Septic Tanks and Cesspools
4. Collection, Treatment, and Disposal of Municipal Waste
Water
5. Land Spreading of Sludges
6. Brine Disposal from Petroleum Exploration and Develop-
ment
7. Disposal of Mine Wastes
8. Disposal Wells
9. Disposal of Animal Feedlot Wastes
How contaminants from these waste disposal practices enter
the hydrologic cycle via the ground-water system is illus-
trated in Figure 33.
MECHANISMS OF CONTAMINATION
If it were possible to see zones of ground-water contamina-
tion from an aerial vantage point, most would appear so
small in relation to the total areas as to be termed scat-
tered points of contamination. Areally extensive sources
such as irrigation return flows and sea-water intrusion
would be identified as non-point sources. A line source
would result, for example, from recharge of sewage effluent
in an ephemeral stream channel.
Shallow aquifers are normally the most important sources of
ground water for water-supply purposes, but the upper por-
82
-------
83
-------
tions of these aquifers are also the most susceptible to con-
tamination.
It should be recognized that the configuration of contamina-
tion entry into and movement within the underground is
unique for each individual source of contamination. Further-
more, because there are many millions of ground-water contam-
ination sources in the United States, it becomes apparent
that the possibilities in terms of contaminant movement and
distribution are virtually limitless. Notwithstanding this
fact, typical flow patterns of ground-water contaminants for
a variety of common situations can be described.
The diagrams on the following pages depict some of the fre-
quently occurring contamination geometries. These emphasize
vertical cross sections at sources of contamination; hori-
zontal movement of contaminants thereafter is discussed
later. Whatever the particular source of contamination may
be, these diagrams indicate the hydraulic relationships for
a given situation. Where the local hydrogeology is known,
paths of probable contaminant movement can be defined. With
estimates of permeability and hydraulic gradient available,
rates of ground-water movement can be ascertained. Rates of
contaminant movement are based on ground-water flow rates,
chemical interactions with aquifer materials, and changes in
water chemistry. Thus, contaminants travel at velocities
equal to, greater than, or less than that of average ground-
water flow.
Figure 34 illustrates the flow of contaminants from a sur-
face source such as a disposal pit, lagoon, or basin. Note
that the contaminated water flows downward to form a re-
charge mound at the water table and then moves laterally out-
ward below the water table.
Figure 35 shows cross-sectional and plan views of ground-
water contamination caused by a leaking sewer. The contam-
inant drains downward to the water table and then flows lat-
erally thereafter to form a line source of contamination be-
neath the sewer.
Figure 36 indicates how contaminated water leached from a
chemical or waste stockpile moves downward to the water ta-
ble and thereafter laterally and vertically to a nearby pump-
ing well.
Figure 37 indicates contaminant movement from a surface
stream or lake to a nearby pumping well. The drawdown of
the water table induces recharge of surface water to ground
water. Because so many municipal water-supply wells are lo-
84
-------
II
CO
z
o
o
111
o
o:
13
O
-------
LAND SURFACE
*^ >', L . M . , .
S>xx/v.v^X/x^ | |_
LEAKING SEWER
GROUND WATER
$^^
CONTAMNATION
LEAKING SEWER
Figure 35. Illustration of a line source of ground-water contamination
caused by a leaking sewer.
86
-------
o
5
o
a;
<•»-
J?
D .
§ s
'•^ 0)
0 U
i
D> C
o
E
E
D)
O
CO
D
D)
87
-------
I
T3
0>
O
TJ
CCN
O
U _•
0) 0)
o *
£ o
-D O
OJ *-
p E
C O
E 8
2 «
5
-------
cated adjacent to rivers in order to insure continuous water
supplies, this is an important ground-water contamination
mechanism where rivers are polluted.
Figure 38 suggests how temporary flooding of a well can lead
to ground-water contamination. Downward flow of polluted
surface water occurs around the well casing if the well has
been improperly sealed at ground surface.
Figure 39 indicates how contaminants introduced into a dis-
posal well can be transported through the aquifer and lead
to contamination of a nearby pumping well. Because a pump-
ing well is a convergence point for ground water over an
area, this collection mechanism increases the opportunity
for obtaining contaminated water from a pumping well.
Figure 40 illustrates the reversal of underground flows due
to pumpage from one aquifer and hence the possibility to de-
grade the ground-water quality by interaquifer flow. Under
natural conditions shown in the upper diagram, the water ta-
ble of Aquifer A is higher than the potentiometric surface
of Aquifer B; therefore, ground water tends to move down-
ward through the semi-permeable zone separating the two aqui-
fers. In the lower diagram, however, pumping has inter-
changed the relative positions of the two water levels. As
a result, the greater pressure in Aquifer B causes water to
migrate upward into Aquifer A. If, as is often the case,
the lower aquifer is more saline, this will cause the salt
content of the upper aquifer to increase.
Figure 41 shows plan and profile views of a recharge pond
overlying an unconfined aquifer with a sloping water table
and with ground water flowing from left to right. Under
these conditions contamination from the pond extends a short
distance upstream and is stabilized. The bulk of the contam-
inants moves away from the pond in a downgradient direction
within clearly defined boundaries. For given aquifer and re-
charge conditions, the lateral spread of the contamination
as it moves downstream can be determined. Waste water from
a disposal well penetrating an aquifer having the same condi-
tions would move in a similar flow pattern.
Figure 42 suggests how underlying saline ground water can
rise due to deepening of a stream channel with a resultant
lowering of the water table. This intrusion of saline water
occurs because of the reduced head of fresh water.
ATTENUATION OF CONTAMINATION
Contaminants in ground water tend to be removed or reduced
89
-------
§
o
:D
o
c
o
_c
D)
D
O
— CN
(D
^J
D O
™ H.
i"5
> )
Q)
-
11
E
e
C3)
O
5
CO
co
-------
CO
D
_c
o
V.
D
O^
"c •
D —
C V
I |>
o '5.
o E
<*- 3
o CL
E
«
D)
C
'i
o
CO
E
s
CD
O
Q
CN
CO
D)
91
-------
PUMPING CONDITIONS
A
Figure 40. Diagrams showing reversal of aquifer
leakage by pumping. '
92
-------
ZONE OF
CONTAMINATION
UNSATURATED
ZONE
Figure 41. Diagrams showing lines of flow of contaminants from a recharge
pond above a sloping water table. ^)
-------
i V
2 \
\
I
CO
o:
a:
lit
UJ
<
(0
Quj
UIZ
x
\
O)
c
X
_Q
T3
-------
in concentration with time and with distance traveled. Mech-
anisms involved include adsorption and other chemical proc-
esses, dispersion and dilution, and decay. The rate of at-
tenuation is a function of the type of contaminant and of
the local hydrogeologic framework. Predicting the degree to
which contaminants will become attenuated is one of the most
difficult -- but also one of the most important — problems
in the design of subsurface waste disposal systems.
Adsorption
Adsorption, in the context of this report, is the phenomenon
whereby the surfaces of solids in contact with water are cov-
ered with a thin layer of molecules or ions taken up from
the water and held tightly by physical or chemical forces.
The more finely divided the solid, the greater the surface
area per unit volume, which is one of the reasons that clays
and silts have greater adsorptive capacities than do sands.
When all potential adsorption sites on a surface become occu-
pied, the process becomes one of ion exchange. This is the
case through much, or all, of the subsurface-water system.
Percolating water has four options in passing through the un-
saturated zone. It can move virtually unchanged, can show a
net gain of solute, show a net loss of solute, or keep the
same total ionic concentration with a net exchange of ions.
Since few soils or sediments are chemically inactive,
changes in transported solute are to be expected.
Clay minerals carry a net negative charge on their surfaces.
The amount of charge and surface area depends on the mineral
type. The negatively charged points on the clay surface
hold cations (which carry a positive charge) by electro-
static and van der Waals forces. Usually the attraction is
proportional to the positive charge on the cation.
A quantitative exchange is usually observed in which two
monovalent ions replace a divalent ion, etc. Heavy metal
ions, for example, having more than one unit charge, are at-
tracted to the exchange sites and tend to displace hydrogen,
sodium, and potassium ions which are already adsorbed. A
net reduction of heavy metal concentrations can occur in
this way if percolating water contacts clay in the unsatu-
rated zone. The limit for fixation is the cation exchange
capacity (CEC) of the sediment, which can range from nearly
zero to probably not more than 60 milliequivalents per 100
grams. When the saturation point is reached at which ca-
tions have occupied the available sites, the percolate com-
position will remain stable. Solution concentrations, pH,
and percolation rate affect the reactions quantitatively;
95
-------
thus, no quantitative predictions can be made without spe-
cific operating parameters.
Many soils and sediments have coatings of hydrous oxides of
manganese and iron which exert controls on the availability
of metal ions, and heavy metals in particular. 3) in fact,
the hydrous oxide coating frequently covers clay-mineral sur-
faces and becomes the truly effective sorptive surface.
These coatings exist in amorphous or microcrystalline forms
and in themselves exhibit a high specific surface area; up
to 300 square meters per gram. The oxygen and hydroxyl
groups of the hydrous oxides exert electrical charges which
are pH dependent. Therefore, their capacity for sorption is
pH dependent.
The dissolution and deposition of the coatings are also de-
pendent upon the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential in
the system. This parameter then becomes indirectly impor-
tant in the adsorption or desorption of heavy metals. Sorp-
tion and desorption of metals further depends upon their con-
centrations in the percolate and upon which ones are present.
As with clays, there is an order of selectivity in adsorp-
tion. It is quite possible, however, that some heavy metals
may move into the ground-water system prior to the exhaus-
tion of exchange capacity.
Dispersion
An understanding of the flow pattern of contaminants is of
considerable importance to the understanding of dispersion,
and indeed of the entire ground-water contamination picture.
Figure 43 illustrates an idealized flow pattern. From this
it is seen that the contaminated water moves to its dis-
charge area by a definite route, and is not (as is often im-
agined) subject to dilution by the entire body of ground wa-
ter lying between the disposal area and the area of dis-
charge. There is, however, dilution caused by mechanical
dispersion, which results from the complexity (on a micro-
scopic level) of the paths followed by the fluid, and (on a
macroscopic level) inhomogeneities within the aquifer. Be-
cause of this, the contaminated fluid invades the natural
ground water to some extent and is concurrently invaded by
the latter. Molecular diffusion also takes place, but this
is relatively unimportant except when the flow rate of
ground water is very low, or the concentration of the contam-
inant is very high. The latter is associated with high den-
sity percolates, which will also distort the idealized pat-
tern by tending to sink to the bottom of the aquifer.
Two related parameters are commonly used in dispersion stud-
96
-------
o:
UJ
C
O
'5)
a>
c
CO
97
-------
ies. The first, dispersivity, may be described as the inher-
ent capability of the aquifer to cause dispersion,, Disper-
sivity multiplied by ground-water flow velocity gives the
dispersion coefficient, which is the dynamic equivalent un-
der actual aquifer conditions. Both are given for longitu-
dinal (in the direction of ground-water flow) and transverse
directions.
The rate of ground-water movement within an aquifeir is obvi-
ously of great importance. It is governed by the hydraulic
gradient and aquifer permeability, the latter of which var-
ies far more widely than any other physical property encoun-
tered in contamination studies. The U. S. Geological Survey
4) has determined permeabilities for a gravel through which,
under a gradient of 10 ft/mi (2 m/km), water would move at
the rate of 60 ft/day (18 m/day), and for a clay through
which, under the same gradient, the rate of movement would
be one ft (0.3 in) in about 30,000 years. Flow rates in most
aquifers, however, range from a few feet per day to a few
feet per year.
Theoretical solutions are available for the expression of
dispersion phenomena. In digital models, these are usually
combined with terms for molecular diffusion and adsorption
isotherms. Unfortunately, these solutions are either re-
stricted to relatively uncomplicated systems quite unlike
those encountered in actual aquifers, or require the input
of years of accumulated data to develop the values of other-
wise undeterminable parameters. Mechanical dispersion,
which is usually predominant in determining the shape of the
plume of contamination, is so profoundly affected by hetero-
geneity that any attempt at detailed prediction is futile.
Skibitzke 5) comments that "....the nature of the heteroge-
neous region can hardly be described through reference to
the individual geometric discontinuities. Such a descrip-
tion would require an endless compendium of individual de-
scriptions, a device so obviously impractical that it ren-
ders the region not amenable to description by measurement
of any of the characteristics visible or accessible from the
surface of the region."
One of the most informative studies on the spread of ground-
water contamination, and the modeling thereof, is that car-
ried out at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL)
and reported by Robertson and Barraclough 6) r with addition-
al background material in a report by Robertson, Schoen, and
Barraclough. 7) Their findings show the state of the art of
digital modeling for such purposes, and demonstrate clearly
both the powers and the limitations of the method. The fol-
lowing discussion is directed to these ends, and technical
98
-------
details are limited to those necessary for a proper under-
standing.
The INEL site is on the Snake River Plain in southeast Idaho,
overlying an aquifer consisting of thin basaltic flows and
interbedded sediments, with a water table about 450 ft (137
m) below land surface. Industrial and low-level radioactive
wastes have been discharged to the aquifer through seepage
ponds since 1952, and since 1964 cooling tower blowdown has
been injected directly into the aquifer through an injection
well. The U. S. Geological Survey has monitored the facili-
ties since their inception, and has analyzed the fate of the
wastes, using data from about 40 observation wells. The com-
plexity of the subsurface regime, however, is such that no
explanation could be given for past behavior, and no predic-
tions could be made about the future. To resolve these ques-
tions a digital model, simulating the aquifer, was developed.
The modeling included a hydrology phase to solve the equa-
tion for ground-water flow, and a solute-transport phase to
solve the equation for solute movement, both of which were
verified on the basis of historical behavior. The verifica-
tion procedure is used to adjust the values of various param-
eters, and Robertson and Barraclough note that the most spec-
ulative of these are the dispersivities and distribution co-
efficients, remarking that there is no effective and practi-
cal way of measuring coefficients in the field because of
the large-scale aquifer inhomogeneities, and that it is
therefore invalid to extend ordinary laboratory measurements
to field conditions.
Simulations were made for chloride, a conservative ion; trit-
ium, which is subject to radioactive decay; and strontium-
90, which is strongly adsorbed. It was concluded that the
model is a valid tool for estimating waste distribution in
the aquifer. Even so, the authors warn that this is highly
dependent upon future hydrologic conditions, which can only
be assumed.
Note that this model (which still provides only a fair to
good approximation) required the input of 20 years of data
from about 40 observation wells. It would not have been
possible to predict the shape and extent of the plumes a.
priori by means of this or any other model.
The transverse dispersivity value (450 ft or 137 m) required
to give the best fit of the theoretical plume to the ob-
served plume is much larger than had been expected from
either classic theory or laboratory models. The actual chlo7
ride plume, after 16 years, extended about 5 mi (8 km) down-
gradient and had a maximum width of almost 6 mi (10 km). In
99
-------
contrast, Pinder 8) found a transverse dispersivity value of
only 14 ft (4.3 m) in a case of chromium contamination in a
glacial aquifer on Long Island. The shapes of the two types
of plumes are shown in Figure 44. In this particular case,
the shape of the plume of contamination could have been pre-
dicted with moderate accuracy from the time that contamina-
tion commenced, since the aquifer is fairly homogeneous in
two dimensions. Drawing a three degree cone, as suggested
by Danel (quoted by Todd 9)), along the flow lines, using
the mound formed under the disposal ponds as an apex, gives
nearly as good a fit as does the digital model. This ap-
proach does not, of course, involve the element of time.
For practical purposes, however, it could be applied to sim-
ilar aquifers to provide a general idea of what the area of
contamination would be, but this by no means would eliminate
the need for monitoring and periodic analysis of collected
data.
Radioactive Decay 10)
Radioactive isotopes may be defined as forms of atoms that
are characterized by spontaneous disintegration, with the re-
lease of energy. Some occur in nature (e.g., the isotopes
of uranium), while hundreds more have been produced artifi-
cially. At least one radioactive isotope is known for every
element. All of the radioactive and stable isotopes of an
element are indistinguishable by chemical means, since they
have the same atomic number. The differences are in the
mass of the atomic nucleus, and the isotopes are identified
by this mass number, as carbon-12 and carbon-14.
Radioactive contaminants of concern to ground-water systems
can include waste materials produced from a variety of com-
mercial and governmental activities. Both naturally occur-
ring and so-called artificial or man-made radionuclides are
included. By-products and wastes from uranium mining and
milling activities contain uranium decay products, for exam-
ple, which can enter ground-water systems. Ground-water con-
tamination has occurred in conjunction with storage and dis-
posal of nuclear fuel cycle wastes, including high-level liq-
uid wastes leaking from steel tanks into the ground. The
foremost example of this occurred at Hanford, Washington.
Radioactive contaminants lose their radioactivity at a fixed
and unalterable rate that is characteristic of the isotopes
involved. This decay rate is expressed in terms of half-
life, which is the time lapse required for the loss (per
unit mass) of half the radioactivity. Half-lives range from
fractions of a second to millions of years; but those of
the isotopes of principal concern in ground-water contamina-
tion are mostly in the range of tens to thousands of years.
100
-------
DISPOSAL
DIRECTION OF
GROUND-WATER FLOW
'.• ,.:
/
?v,\
-^;"\
£
•6 MILES-
^
\
a) CHLORIDE PLUME, INEL, IDAHO
Transverse dispersivity. 450 feet
Time ! 16 years
DIRECTION OF
GROUND-WATER FLOW
A^IOOOft
/: '•••:.-}
I I
\
o
o
o
b) CHROMIUM PLUME , LONG ISLAND
Transverse dispersivity' 14 feet
Time ! 13 years
Figure 44. Effect of differences in transverse dispersivity
on shapes of contamination plumes.
101
-------
Strontium-90, for example, has a half-life of about 28 years.
Many radioisotopes are members of radioactive decay chains
or series wherein the daughters produced by decay are them-
selves radioactive. One example is the decay of strontium-
90 to form yttrium-90, with a half-life of about 62 hours,
which in turn decays to the stable zirconium-90. Thus, at
any moment, all three isotopes will be present in any media
containing strontium-90. Similarly, uranium-238 passes
through 14 states of decay before arriving at lead-206, the
stable end product.
In considering the rate of movement of radwaste materials in-
to and through ground-water systems, the effects of radioac-
tive decay, dispersion, and adsorption must be considered to-
gether. Within the ground-water system, the other mechan-
isms may be more effective than decay in reduction of radio-
active contamination. For example, field data from the Ida-
ho National Engineering Laboratory show a very small plume
of strontium-90 as compared with tritium, from radioactive
wastes which had entered the ground from various disposal
operations. Because strontium-90 has a half-life over twice
as long as tritium (28 years versus 12 years), one might ex-
pect the strontium to have migrated further than the tritium.
The reason for the discrepancy is that strontium-90 is
strongly adsorbed in the subsurface while tritium is not ad-
sorbed at all.
Adverse water quality impacts from radionuclides are depend-
ent upon numerous factors, chief of which are concentration,
half-life, toxicity, hydrogeologic conditions, and biologic
receptors (plants, animals, man). Attenuation in the envi-
ronment also is dependent upon these factors, which must be
mutually considered in evaluating the hazard of a given situ-
ation involving radioactive contaminants in ground water.
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATION UNDERGROUND
Specific statements cannot be made about the distances that
contamination will travel because of the wide variability of
aquifer conditions and types of contaminants. Also, each
constituent from a source of contamination may follow a dif-
ferent attenuation rate, and the distance to which contamina-
tion is present will vary with each quality component. Yet
certain generalizations which are widely applicable can be
stated. For fine-grained alluvial aquifers, contaminants
such as bacteria, viruses, organic materials, pesticides,
and most radi.oactive materials, are usually removed by ad-
sorption within distances of less than 328 ft (100 m). But
most common ions in solution move unimpeded through these
102
-------
aquifers, subject only to the slow processes of attenuation.
A hypothetical example of a waste-disposal site is shown in
Figure 45. Here ground water flows toward a river. Zones A,
B, C, D, and E represent essentially stable limits for dif-
ferent contaminants resulting from the steady release of liq-
uid wastes of unchanging composition. Contaminants form a
plume of contaminated water extending downgradient from the
contamination source until they attenuate to acceptable qual-
ity levels.
The shape and size of a plume depend upon the local geology,
the ground-water flow, the type and concentration of contam-
inants, the continuity of waste disposal, and any modifica-
tions of the ground-water system by man, such as well pump-
ing. 1) Where ground water is moving relatively rapidly, a
plume from a point source will tend to be long and thin;
but where the flow rate is low, the contaminant will tend to
spread more laterally to form a somewhat wider plume. Irreg-
ular plumes can be created by local influences such as pump-
ing wells and variations in permeability.
Plumes ordinarily tend to become stable in areas where there
is a constant input of waste into the ground. This occurs
for one of two reasons: (a) the tendency for enlargement as
contaminants continue to be added at a point source is coun-
terbalanced by the combined attenuation mechanisms, or (b)
the contaminant reaches a location of ground-water discharge,
such as a stream, and emerges from the underground. When a
waste is first released into ground water, the plume expands
•until a quasi-equilibrium stage' is reached. If sorption is
important, a steady inflow of contamination will cause a
slow expansion of the plume as the earth materials within it
reach a sorption capability limit.
An approximately stable plume will expand or contract gener-
ally in response to changes in the rate of waste discharge.
Figure 46 shows changes in plumes that can be anticipated
from variations in waste inputs.
An important aspect of ground-water contamination is the
fact that it may persist underground for years, decades, or
even centuries. This is in marked contrast to surface-water
pollution. The average residence time of ground water is on
the order of 200 years; consequently, a contaminant which
is not readily decayed or sorbed underground can remain as a
degrading influence on the resource for indefinite periods.
But the comparable residence time for water in a stream or
river is on the order of 10 days; thus, contamination can be
rapidly eliminated. Controlling ground-water contamination,
103
-------
,-WASTE SITE
DOWNSTREAM LIMIT
OF CONTAMINANTS
Figure 45. Plan view of a water-table aquifer showing the hypothetical
areal extent to which specific contaminants of mixed wastes
at a disposal site disperse and move. '
104
-------
::•> o o
LJ t-
UJ1
U|V>
UJ
UJ
-"5^0
0)
TO
o"
-C
v
y
t-
o
= "j z oui K
S^|fe^azu, Suj
I*JD. •"H^UjSulOIEH
OC t> Q K K* H UJ
13 uiuj UJQ. ui!r %ui
o u. *" KK o: i 5 ui
H O
>
,c?
LL,
105
-------
therefore, is usually much more difficult than controlling
surface-water contamination. Underground contamination con-
trol is best achieved by regulating the source of contamina-
tion, and secondarily by physically entrapping and, when
feasible, removing the contaminated water from the under-
ground.
106
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. LeGrand, H. E. 1965. Patterns of contaminated zones
of water in the ground. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 1. pp. 83-95.
2. Deutsch, M. 1963. Groundwater contamination and legal
controls in Michigan. U. S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1691. 79 pp.
3. Jenne, E. A. 1968. Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu,
and Zn concentrations in soils and water: The signifi-
cant role of hydrous Mn and Fe oxides. Pages 337-387
in Robert F. Gould, ed. Trace inorganics in water. Ad-
vances in chemistry series No. 73. American Chemical
Society, Washington, D. C.
4. Wenzel, L. K. 1942. Methods for determining permeabil-
ity of water-bearing materials. U. S. Geological Sur-
vey Water-Supply Paper 887.
5. Skibitzke, H. E. 1964. Extending Darcy's concept of
ground-water motion. U. S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 411-F.
6. Robertson, J. B., and J. T. Barraclough. 1973. Radio-
active and chemical-waste transport at National Reactor
Testing Station, Idaho; 20-year case history and digi-
tal model. Underground Waste Management and Artificial
Recharge. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
U. S. Geological Survey, and International Association
of Hydrological Sciences. 1:291-322.
7. Robertson, J. B., Robert Schoen, and J. T. Barraclough.
1973. The influence of liquid waste disposal on the
geochemistry of water at the National Reactor Testing
Station, Idaho. 1952-1970. U. S. Geological Survey
Open-file Report.
8. Pinder, George F. 1973. A Galerkin-finite element sim-
ulation of groundwater contamination on Long Island,
New York. Water Resources Research. 9(6). 1657-1669.
9. Todd, D. K. 1959. Ground Water Hydrology. John Wiley
& Sons, New York. 336 pp.
10. Glasstone, Samuel. 1958. Sourcebook on Atomic Energy.
2nd Ed. D. Van Nostrand, Princeton.
107
-------
SECTION VI
INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER IMPOUNDMENTS
SUMMARY
Industrial waste-water impoundments are a serious source of
ground-water contamination because of their large number and
their potential for leaking hazardous substances which are
relatively mobile in the ground-water environment. In some
heavily industrialized sections of the nation, regional prob-
lems of ground-water contamination have developed where the
areal extent and the toxic nature of the contaminants have
ruled out the use of ground water from shallow aquifers.
Contaminated ground water originating from impoundments at
isolated industrial establishments can be even more impor-
tant because of the potential for migrating to local water-
supply wells with no warning.
Either by design, or by accident or failure, surface impound-
ments of industrial effluent can cause ground-water contami-
nation because of leakage of waste waters into shallow aqui-
fers. Potential contaminants cover the full range of inor-
ganic chemicals and organic chemicals normally contained in
industrial waste waters. Those documented as having de-
graded ground-water quality include phenols, acids, heavy
metals, and cyanide.
United States' industries treat about 5,000 billion gal./yr
(18 billion cu m/yr) of waste water before discharging it to
the environment. Of this volume, about 1,700 billion gal.
(6.4 billion cu m) are pumped to oxidation ponds or lagoons
for treatment or as a step in the treatment process. Un-
known quantities of industrial wastes are also stored or
treated in other types of impoundments, such as basins and
pits. Based on standard leakage coefficients and volumes of
waste waters discharged, it is estimated that more than 100
billion gal./yr (380 million cu m/yr) of industrial efflu-
ents enter the ground-water system. This source of contami-
nation is one of the most frequently reported, in spite of
the almost complete lack of ground-water monitoring.
One option to correct leaking impoundments is the use of an
impermeable barrier or liner. A second is to replace waste-
water treatment operations now performed in ponds and la-
goons with such alternatives as clarifiers, filtration or
centrifugation equipment, and digestion (anaerobic, aerobic),
Impoundments of industrial wastes are normally not subject
108
-------
to any special regulations unless it is shown that they may
affect surface- or ground-water quality. In order to over-
come this burden of proof, a few states have developed spe-
cific regulations covering such aspects as design of the fa-
cility to guard against or minimize leakage, reporting types
and volumes of effluent, and installation of monitoring
wells.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
In the literature, industrial waste-water impoundments are
referred to as "lagoons," "basins," "pits," and "ponds."
All these terms are used interchangeably. There is no typi-
cal design for an industrial impoundment. It may be a natu-
ral or man made depression, lined or unlined, and from a few
feet in diameter to hundreds of acres in size. Oxidation la-
goons are used for secondary treatment of waste water and
are necessarily shallow. Pits are distinguished by a small
ratio of surface area to depth. Any one of these can serve
as a holding pond, and all are basically surface impound-
ments. Some lagoons, basins, and pits are intended to dis-
charge liquid to the soil system, while others are designed
to be leakproof. The former are unlined structures sited on
good infiltrative surfaces; the latter are lined with clay,
concrete, asphalt, metal, or plastic sheeting.
Industrial impoundments used for treatment are often unlined,
although leakage is not a desirable feature. The nonferrous
smelting and refinery industry, for example, utilizes predom-
inantly unlined settling pits and basins for waste and scrub-
ber waters, with some permanent sludge disposal in lagoons.
These various types of surface impoundments range up to 40
acres (16 ha) in size. Either by design, or by accident or
failure, surface impoundment of industrial effluent can
cause serious ground-water contamination because of leakage
of hazardous waste waters into shallow aquifers.
In industrial pollution control, ponds are most often used
in some form of effluent treatment, frequently biochemical
stabilization. Stabilization ponds can be aerobic, anaero-
bic, or both, and are used primarily to reduce biochemical
oxygen demand levels. Aerating devices are used to improve
oxygen transfer in many aerobic ponds.
Impoundments can be used for solids separation and are usual-
ly called settling ponds in these instances. Dewatering can
be accomplished by a combination of evaporation and seepage.
Impoundments thus utilized are referred to as evaporation
pits, even though seepage of waste water to the ground-water
system may be the principal mechanism of disposal. Other
109
-------
forms of treatment are occasionally accomplished in a lagoon,
such as reducing the temperature of power plant cooling wa-
ters, ammonia reduction, pH neutralization, chemical coagula-
tion and precipitation, and other forms of chemical treat-
ment.
If the discharge rate is small enough, lagoons can be used
for permanent disposal. With such a system, when one lagoon
is full, wastes are simply diverted to other lagoons which
are filled in turn. Such lagoons can be dredged to remove
sediment buildup and then reused. Impoundments can also be
used for temporary storage of wastes or other materials pri-
or to treatment or use, in which case they are referred to
as holding ponds.
A large variety of potentially hazardous wastes are depos-
ited in industrial surface impoundments. Most of the sub-
stances contained in these wastes are complex, and many of
the constituents that could find their way into ground wa-
ters are not normally included in routine analysis of water
supplies. General guidelines regarding siting or designing
of surface impoundments from the standpoint of protecting
ground water from contamination by such wastes have not been
enforced until recently. Consequently, industrial waste-
water impoundments are frequently constructed to meet cri-
teria such as convenience and lowest possible cost rather
than to protect ground-water quality. Most impoundments
operate on the principle that some leakage will occur. An
evaporation pit may operate successfully in a humid region
only if enough leakage takes place through the bottom and
sides of the pond to create storage space for continued
waste discharges.
Regional and local conditions which influence the contamina-
tion potential of a surface impoundment include soil permea-
bility, height of the water table, rainfall, and evaporation.
Also to be considered are the types of potentially hazardous
materials contained in the wastes. For example, industrial
wastes can contain toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals and
synthetic organic compounds. If these chemicals enter
ground-water supplies, serious health hazards may be created.
Industrial impoundments, therefore, require proper construc-
tion to provide protection against both surface-water and
ground-water contamination. Artificial liners can be used
or the structures can be located on naturally impervious
soil. Except for dry climates, as found in parts of the
western United States, lined impoundments without some form
of discharge may occasionally overflow from rainfall accumu-
lation or flood inundation of the area.
110
-------
This section is directed toward ground-water contamination
as a result of waste-water discharge to lagoons, ponds, pits,
and basins. However, it should be noted that industrial
waste-water impoundments along with landfills and dumps re-
ceive large volumes of sludge and other residuals in addi-
tion to liquid effluent. Sludge and other residuals dis-
posed of in surface impoundments can be significant sources
of ground-water contamination. The characteristics of
sludge and their potential impact on ground-water quality
are described in the sections on land spreading of sludges.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
Four major industrial groups generated about 91 percent of
the total volume of waste water put into ponds and lagoons
in 1968: paper and allied products, 29 percent; petroleum
and coal products, 22 percent; primary metals, 22 percent;
and chemicals and allied products, 18 percent. D While the
number of individual chemical constituents contained in the
waste waters of these major industrial categories is very
large, general constituent groups that are useful in indi-
cating contamination potential can be identified. Table 7
was modified from the EPA list of waste-water parameters
having significant pollution potential by deleting those ele-
ments which do not represent a significant threat to ground-
water quality. 2) However, it must be kept in mind that no
such table can be complete.
It is important to note that waste-water chemical character-
istics are only one factor controlling the severity of
ground-water contamination from impoundments. Volume of
leakage is a second important consideration and depends upon
the ability of the impoundment to seal itself, soil permea-
bility, or the effectiveness of artificial sealing if the im-
poundment is lined. Geologic and hydrologic conditions
along with the characteristics of the soil determine the de-
gree of attenuation of contaminants in the waste water as it
moves from the lagoon into and through the ground-water sys-
tem. Natural water quality, ground-water use, and pumping
patterns represent other key considerations.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
Table 8 shows the volume of waste water discharged by the
major industrial groups during the years 1959, 1964, 1968,
and 1973. 1/3,4) while there was an upward trend from 1959
to 1968, the total volume discharged in 1973 is nearly iden-
tical with the 1968 total. There were significant changes
in volume discharged by several of the smaller industrial
groups. However, the four key groups discussed in some de-
111
-------
Table 7. INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER PARAMETERS HAVING OR INDICATING
SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL. 2
PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
COD
TOC
PH
Ammonia
Pulp and Paper Industry
Phenols
Sulfite
Color
Heavy metals
Nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus)
Total Dissolved Solids
PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
Ammonia
Chromium
COD
PH
Phenols
Sulfide
Total Dissolved Solids
Petroleum Refining Industry
Chloride
Color
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercaptans
Nitrogen
Odor
Total Phosphorus
Sulfate
TOC
Turbidity
Zinc
PRIMARY METALS
PH
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia
Steel Industries
Cyanide
Phenols
Iron
Tin
Chromium
Zinc
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
COD
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Organic Chemicals Industry
TOC
Total Phosphorus
Heavy metals
Phenols
Cyanide
Total Nitrogen
112
-------
Table 7 (Continued). INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER PARAMETERS HAVING OR
INDICATING SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER CON-
TAMINATION OR POTENTIAL. 2)
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (Continued)
Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalies and Chlorine Industry
Acidity/Alkalinity
Total Dissolved Solids
Chloride
Sulfate
COD
TOC
Chlorinated Benzenoids and Chromium
Polynuclear Aromatics Lead
Phenols Titanium
Fluoride Iron
Total Phosphorus Aluminum
Cyanide Boron
Mercury Arsenic
Plastic Materials and Synthetics Industry
COD
PH
Phenols
Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfate
Ammonia
Chloride
Chromium
Total Dissolved Solids
Nitrate
Calcium
Dissolved Solids
Fluoride
PH
Phosphorus
Phosphorus Ammonia
Nitrate Cyanide
Organic Nitrogen Zinc .
Chlorinated Benzenoids and Mercaptans
Polynuclear Aromatics
Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry
Sulfate COD
Organic Nitrogen Iron, Total
Compounds pH
Zinc Phosphate
Calcium Sodium
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Acidity Mercury
Aluminum Nitrogen
Arsenic Sulfate
Iron Uranium
113
-------
Table 8. WASTE-WATER DISCHARGE FOR ALL MAJOR UNITED STATES INDUS-
TRIAL GROUPS, 1959, 1964, 1968, and 1973. (Billions of gallons) 1,3,4)
Total Waste Water Discharged
Industrial Groups
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Paper and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Food and kindred products
Transportation equipment
Stone, glass and clay products
Machinery, except electrical
Textile mill products
Rubber and plastic products
Lumber and wood products
Fabricated metal products
Electrical equipment and supplies
Instruments and related products
Leather and leather products
Furniture and fixtures
Tobacco
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Total
1973
4,756
3,911
2,300
1,158
744
227
191
165
160
142
122
100
97
34
7
6
4
11
14,135
1968
4,696
4,175
2,078
1,217
752
293
218
180
136
128
92
65
118
36
14
3
4
13
14,218
1964
4,093
2,866
1,888
1,130
545
206
121
119
86
120
92
35
71
23
9
2
2
8
11,416
1959
3,142
2,470
1,774
1,118
470
204
158
136
79
89
100
28
77
19
7
2
2
16
9,891
114
-------
tail within this section did not show substantial changes be-
tween 1968 and 1973. Because of this, and because the 1968
data provide more detail in certain categories, the 1968
data are primarily used in the following discussions.
Manufacturing industries used over 15,000 billion gal. (57
billion cu m) of water in 1968. This figure excludes hydro-
electric power generation and those facilities that used
less than 20 million gal./yr (76,000 cu m/yr). More than
14,000 billion gal. (54 billion cu m) were discharged after
use. 1) Much of the discharge was returned to a stream or
other surface-water body, but a substantial portion was suf-
ficiently contaminated during use to require treatment prior
to discharge. In 1968, United States industries treated
4,524 billion gal. (17 billion cu m) of waste water before
discharging it to the environment. Of this volume, 1,668
billion gal. (6 billion cu m) was pumped to an oxidation
pond or lagoon for treatment or as a step in the treatment
process. 1) Table 9 lists the major industrial groups along
with the volumes of water each used, discharged, treated,
and lagooned in 1968. Figure 47 shows the total volumes of
industrial waste water discharged to lagoons and ponds by re-
gion throughout the United States. The data for Figure 47
are given in Table 10. For historical comparison, Table 11
indicates the total industrial waste-water discharge for
each state in 1959, 1964, 1968, and 1973.
Owing to the lack of data on either the individual or the
large-scale impact of industrial waste impoundments on
ground-water quality, the present discussion must be limited
•to the potential impact, based On what is known about leak-
age, chemical characteristics of industrial waste water, and
concentrations of impoundments throughout the nation.
In addition to oxidation ponds and lagoons, primary sedimen-
tation basins are used by industry to remove suspended sol-
ids from waste water prior to discharge or as a preliminary
treatment step. However, since primary sedimentation basin
area is estimated to be less than one percent of oxidation
pond and lagoon area, the impact of basins is not included
in the following summaries.
Paper and Allied Products Industries
Included within this category are pulp mills, paper mills,
paperboard mills, converted paper products companies, paper-
board container industries, and building paper and board
mills. Altogether, 619 individual establishments represent-
ing this industry are considered. D Although the volume of
water used by these plants was considerably less than that
115
-------
£
^
O
O
^
a:
i —
00
13
Q
Z
OO
LJJ
}«_
i
OO
Q
OJ
I —
Z
^>
C£
o
< oo
SO-
— 1 C
V»
|2
00 §
d~
O CD
Z ' — '
<
LJJ
OO
Di
UJ
-^
Q- 0
ai
^0
c
Industrial group
CM CM CN
•«t •* CM
CO <> -O
•* CO CO
O O CM
CM CM CO
C*^ 0s ^~
r~~
10 O CO
— CO
oo r^ o
O CM -O
^ ^ K
CN i— -»J-
LO O CN
— CO
CN LO lO
LO CO O
CN Tj- S
CN" •— in
t;
r ^
Q_ Q
"D o
= c "o
D 0 "£
0 V £•
OL? 0? tE
"~ V
•«t CN O -O O OO OO
hv LO CO OO « — •^
•— t~x — — CM •—
^
"*
O LO — — CM —
CN
•o — •*(• o — i^
IX, ^- LO OO LO CN
-* OO — — CM •—
^
4)
£ — O ~Q-
0 0 D O.
3 O "O 3
-or -eg"1
2 o t3 Q-"2
°--o — v> °
~O O v» 4) O ••-
.£ a o - •» g
— 3 Q_ JE
— ~O -n 4) ~D C
o 4) o oca
IIS- 8»|.
0 — = v X 4)
-5 T3 'E ^-[3 "o
Jgju j j£
J "§ i 1 1 i
U UL. h- 5 OO LU
V V V
rx LO CM
o o o
00 CM 0--
— CM
— CM O
CN CO -*t
O O^ —
CN
— CN O
OO CO *C<
— CO "~
Lumber and wood products
Transportation equipment
Leather and leather products
V V V
CN . — i—
o o o
Ox fx CN
0 — 0
LO OO O
O CM CO
0 — 0
OO LO OO
~O CO CO
IA
4-
o
Fabricated metal products
Rubber and plastic products
Instruments and related produ
V V
° Z "~
V
o o o
— — —
V V V
o o o
CO ^ CO
o o o
^^ *o ^^
' —
«A
41
v>
D
-D
C
Furniture and fixtures
Tobacco
Miscellaneous manufacturing
1
3
-o
fc.
1
^.
CN
^
i
•O
CM
2:
'1
CN
12
~S
o
116
-------
CO CM If) IO
N 0) 00 00
10 CO N N
T 19 K>
A
oo
o
o
c
o
o
D)
JO
-a
o
-------
Region
Table 10. INDUSTRIAL LAGOON DISPOSAL BY REGION.
(In billions of gallons for 1968)
Paper Petroleum Metals Chemicals Total a'
New England
Delaware and Hudson
Chesapeake Bay
Eastern Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence
Ohio River
Tennessee
Southeast
Western Great Lakes
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Missouri
Arkansas, White and Red
Western Gulf
Colorado Basin
Great Basin
California
Pacific Northwest
Cumberland
Alaska
Hawaii
3.5
8.4
21.8
4.6
4.3
0
264.4
25.0
1.1
0
0
76.4
23.8
NA
None
0
33.3
NA
NA
None
0
92.7
NA
0
7.9
None
0
16.1
9.1
0
14.8
10.4
119.2
NA
0
73.0
0
None
NA
NA
0
66.9
29.3
44.9
51.8
6.8
3.0
115.6
28.8
NA
0
0
0
0.6
NA
0
0
NA
None
None
0
66.3
12.2
16.2
27.9
58.0
26.1
2.6
17.1
2.5
1.7
15.1
21.5
NA
NA
14.5
11.9
NA
None
None
11.7
239.2
69.1
78.9
104.1
78.8
324.3
163.1
77.1
23.8
25.7
103.1
166.4
2.2
8.9
104.7
81.4
11.2
0
0
a): Total is for all industries, including the four listed
NA: Information was withheld to protect individual industries
None: No industries of this category in this area
118
-------
Table 11. INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER DISCHARGE - 1959, 1964, 1968, AND'
1973.^(Billions of gallons per year)
State
Texas
Pennsylvania
Louisiana
Indiana
Ohio
Michigan
West Virginia
Illinois
New York
Tennessee
California
New Jersey
Alabama
Maryland
Washington
Connecticut
Virginia
Florida
Wisconsin
Georgia
Delaware
North Carolina
Maine
Oregon
Massachusetts
South Carolina
Iowa
Mississippi
Kentucky
Minnesota
1973 Total
water
discharged
1,554
1,377
1,299
1,178
964
803
511
493
491
406
387
384
370
341
328
297
283
265
244
243
182
175
167
150
148
134
125
115
108
83
1968 Total
water
discharged
1,654
1,470
999
1,072
1,128
738
610
652
519
445
307
391
360
404
333
187
362
264
272
220
179
141
153
138
141
133
107
83
122
110
1964 Total
water
discharged
1,455
1,475
843
830
1,115
739
690
591
569
287
313
395
242
401
341
118
275
230
236
213
164
146
163
151
144
101
103
65
117
87
1959 Total
water
discharged
1,159
1,324
692
629
979
780
540
550
587
228
277
415
208
266
261
128
261
222
192
168
155
93
135
134
169
84
89
59
99
92
119
-------
Table'11 (continued). INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER DISCHARGE - 1959, 1964, 1968,
AND 1973.UBillions of gallons per year)
197 3 Total
water
State discharged
Missouri
Arkansas
Hawaii
Colorado
Montana
Idaho
Alaska
Kansas
Utah
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Arizona
Vermont
Nevada
Wyoming
New Mexico
South Dakota
North Dakota
81
73
50
43
39
38
31
30
27
24
23
18
13
10
6
5
4
2
1
1
196 8 Total
water
discharged
88
50
93
51
36
53
32
36
21
21
55
9
19
10
6
10
3
1
2
1
1964 Total
water
discharged
82
42
102
54
26
47
34
24
27
24
35
10
16
10
7
4
7
1
5
1
1959 Total
water
discharged
66
33
-
40
37
43
-
22
22
22
41
9
17
5
8
2
4
1
_
«
Total: 14,124 14,255 13,157 11,736
- Not available
120
-------
used by the metals and chemical industries, the volume of
waste water discharged to ponds and lagoons was higher for
the paper industry than any other. In 1968, the paper indus-
try discharged 484 billion gal. (1.8 billion cu m) of waste
water to ponds and lagoons, or 29 percent of the total of
all impounded industrial waste water in the United States.
This represents an increase of over five times the volume
for 1954 and the quantity is expected to nearly quadruple by
1983 (Table 12). • Figure 48 shows the distribution of im-
pounded waste water from the paper industry in 1968 in vari-
ous regions across the United States, based on data given in
Table 10.
A number of investigators have calculated water seepage from
waste-water lagoons, and an average value from these studies
is approximately 30 in./yr (76 cm/yr). This value may vary
by as much as a factor of 10, depending on local soil condi-
tions , the ability of the surface impoundment to seal itself,
and the amount of leakage that can take place before the sur-
face impoundment seals itself. However, for a general esti-
mate, based on 30 in./yr (76 cm/yr), leakage is approximate-
ly 6 percent of the total volume of waste water entering
ponds and lagoons.
Thus, from Table 10 and Figure 48, the southeast region has
by far the greatest impounded waste-water volume with 55 per-
cent of the total, and leakage is estimated at 16 billion
gal./yr (61 million cu m/yr). Other regions with signifi-
cant percentages are Arkansas with 16 percent, Pacific North-
west with 7 percent, and Western Great Lakes, Western Gulf
'and Chesapeake Bay with about 5 percent each.
Petroleum and Coal Products
This industrial group includes several manufacturing proc-
esses; however, the use of lagoons and ponds to treat waste
water is virtually confined to the petroleum refining indus-
try. In 1968, 25 plants reporting water consumption over 20
million gal. (76,000 cu m) discharged a total of 1,217 bil-
lion gal. (4,6 billion cu m) of waste water. Of this total
volume, petroleum refineries ponded or lagooned 363.8 bil-
lion gal. (1.4 billion cu m). The regions where impounding
of waste water from this industry is most prevalent are
shown on Figure 49, and the reported volumes by region are
given in Table 10. Three regions dominate the United States
in volume of refining waste water impounded: Western Gulf,
Delaware and Hudson, and California account for 78 percent
of the nation's total. Estimated leakage of petroleum refin-
ing lagoons and ponds for 1968 are: Western Gulf region,
7.2 billion gal. (27 million cu m); Delaware and Hudson re-
121
-------
Table 12. INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT IN PONDS AND LAGOONS
OVER THE PERIOD 1954 TO 1968. 5>
(In billions of gallons)
1954
1959
1964
1968
Paper and Allied Products 86
Petroleum and Coal Products 90
Primary Metals 46
Chemical and Allied Products
191
168
96
311
277
221
227
484
342
362
304
122
-------
r s
0
z
UJ
o
UJ
— 1
3
0
CO
z
o
_j
2
J
<
C!)
CO
z
0
d
m
00
!>_•
10
v
o
—
V
ft
M
o>
00
^~
00
N-'
to
o
in
1
o
n
in
00
N
10
o
10
—
o
o
1
in
Rl
in
00
ro
A
O
O
A
O
H
«c
K
O
u_
z
0
Z
n
o
D
r
E o
D O
0) O
-
•g
•- c
O
T!
Q)
"D
C
O
U.
0)
Q-
D
O_
CO
^t-
2
3
D)
123
-------
$"
o
z
UJ
o
UJ
_)
2
3
0
co
•^
o
d
2
j
<
CO
CO
z
o
_l
_J
m
oo evj
r-' 0>
to oo
V I
00
s'
to
0 0
— in
V I
o
HR
in
oo
h-
ro
I
o
ro
o>
O
o
1
in
H
in
00
t>-
10
A
O
O
A
E?l
z
o
<
s
K.
0
U.
0
z
n
_OJ
(/)
a
?
]a
4-
CO
D
"D
C
' \
O
1
to
0)
00
O
O
^~
^
(/}
o
o
O)
_o
T3
c
a
c —
— c
l/> "~
8
o
-o
D
JD
O
E
3
D)
-------
gion, 5.5 billion gal. (21 million cu m); and California re-
gion, 4.3 billion gal. (16 million cu m). The greatest con-
centration of pond and lagoon area per square mile would be
in the Delaware and Hudson region.
Primary Metals
Of the primary metals industries, blast furnaces and basic
steel production generate about 90 percent of the total vol-
ume of waste water discharged to ponds and lagoons. Most of
the remaining 10 percent is produced by the electrometallur-
gical products and primary nonferrous metals industries.
As shown in Table 9, the primary metals industries use, dis-
charge, and treat more water than any other industrial group.
The volume of this waste water treated in ponds and lagoons
in 1968, however, is almost exactly the same as the volume
impounded by the petroleum industries and somewhat less than
the paper industries.
The volume of waste water discharged to ponds or lagoons in
1968 was reported to be 362 billion gal. (1,375 million cu
m) . The regional distribution of this volume is shown in
Figure 50. The Western Great Lakes region has the greatest
volume with 116 billion gal. (440 million cu m) but the Dela-
ware and Hudson region has about the same volume per unit
area. Other regions with substantial percentages are the
Eastern Great Lakes - St. Lawrence, Ohio River, Chesapeake
Bay, and Upper Mississippi.
Estimation of leakage is as follows: Western Great Lakes re-
gion, 6.9 billion gal. (26 million cu m); Delaware and Hud-
son region, 5.6 billion gal. (21 million cu m); Ohio River
region, 3.1 billion gal. (12 million cu m); Eastern Great
Lakes - St. Lawrence region, 2.7 billion gal. (10 million cu
m); Chesapeake Bay region, 1.8 billion gal. (7 million cu m);
Upper Mississippi region, 1.7 billion gal. (6 million cu m).
Total leakage for the industry in 1968 was about 22 billion
gal. (84 million cu m). As shown in Table 12, the projected
volume of waste water from the primary metals industry
pumped into ponds and lagoons will be 1,029 billion gal.
(3,910 million cu m) by 1983. 5) Regional volume distribu-
tions are expected to remain roughly proportional to what
they were in the 1968 inventory.
Chemical and Allied Products
The chemical industry is the second largest user of water in
the nation, but ranks fourth in volume of waste water treat-
ed in lagoons and ponds. However, the overall nature of
125
-------
£
O
D
~O 00
X -O
"!/>
3 1~"
c «"
D —
J-B
O O
1 ~c
v> O
-------
this water is potentially more hazardous than the other in-
dustrial categories. The industrial chemicals industries
generate 66 percent of the total chemical industries impound-
ed waste water. Other substantial fractions are contributed
by the following: plastic materials and synthetics, 20 per-
cent; agricultural fertilizers, 6 percent; and explosives,
5 percent. Drugs, wood chemicals, adhesives and others con-
tribute the remaining 3 percent.
•
The total volume of chemical industry waste water in treat-
ment lagoons and ponds in 1968 was 304 billion gal. (1,155
million cu m). Figure 51 shows the regional distribution of
this volume. The Delaware and Hudson, and Tennessee regions
together contributed 41 percent of the total. Most of the
remaining volume was fairly evenly divided among the nine re-
gions indicated on Figure 51 as having 10 to 50 billion gal.
(38 to 190 million cu m) each (see Table 10).
Estimated leakage from chemical industry impoundments in
1968 is 18 billion gal. (68 million cu m) . The two relative-
ly small regions of Delaware and Hudson, and Tennessee, with
about 4 billion gal. (15 million cu m) each represent the
areas of greatest concentration,
Based on the methods described, above, the total estimated
leakage from industrial lagoons in the United States in 1968
was 100 billion gal. (380 million cu m). If this volume
were concentrated into one place, it would occupy an impound-
ment 10 ft (3 m) deep, one mi (1.6 km) wide, and 50 mi (80
km) long. If this quantity of liquid were placed in the
ground, taking into account soil porosity, it might occupy
as much as 5 times this volume. As ground water does not
discharge quickly, accumulations of many years' input are
likely to be found at any particular location.
Although only the major water-using industries have been dis-
cussed above, consideration must be given to the total num-
ber of manufacturing establishments that discharge waste wa-
ter and probably use lagoons, basins, pits, and ponds.
About 10,000 plants each used 100,000 gpd (380 cu m/day) or
more of water in 1968 1) and, assuming an average of two sur-
face impoundments per plant, a minimum of 20,000 lagoons and
ponds can be estimated. Taking into account that there are
altogether about 250,000 water-using establishments in the
United States, then a reasonable estimate for total surface
impoundments of all types for the nation would be about
50,000. It is interesting to note that in an aerial survey
of several industrialized portions of the state, personnel
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
counted 1,500 surface impoundments which contained indus-
127
-------
_0>
"o
_o;
o
loo'
•s*
0) ^
Ji
O O
> CO
- O
"D C
C O
— a.
£ c
o •-
m
O
o
0)
_c
U
O)
-------
trial effluent. "'
Case Hi stories
The results of the inventory of ground-water contamination
problems involving surface impoundments, carried out as part
of an 11-state investigation in the northeastern part of the
country, emphasize the variety of the contaminants and the
diversity of the origins of waste water that can be encoun-
tered. 7) Table 13 is based on 57 cases of contamination
taken from the files of public agencies and private organiza-
tions. Each involves a separate location where leakage of
contaminants from some form of surface impoundment has en-
tered the ground-water reservoir. In most cases, water-
supply wells have been affected, and this is the only reason
that the specific incident has been reported or investigated,
In a few, simply observing operation of the impoundment has
led officials of an environmental or health agency to inves-
tigate whether ground-water contamination has taken place.
In others, the owner has noted the loss of a highly toxic
substance to the ground and has brought this to the atten-
tion of authorities. In only a few cases had monitoring
wells been installed specifically to detect degradation of
ground-water quality. The types of surface impoundments
represented in the 57 cases vary considerably, but lagoons
and basins are listed most frequently.
One case in the northeast involved a 3-ft (1-m) wide, 48-ft
(14.6-m) long, and 10-ft (3-m) deep concrete canal, used for
storage of radioactive material ah a private laboratory. An
estimated 20,000 gal. {75.7 cu m) of slightly radioactive
water leaked into a thin soil layer overlying shale and sand-
stone. The leak was reported to state authorities by the
company, and to date, six monitoring wells have been install-
ed in and around the facility to determine where the contam-
inant has traveled. Cobalt-60 activity has been picked up
in some observation wells, and the investigation is contin-
uing. Meanwhile, use of the canal has been curtailed. 7)
In Maryland, discharge of phenolic waste water to several
clay-lined lagoons had been going on for 10 years before it
was discovered that the lagoons were leaking. Contaminated
ground water had migrated downs lope to a fresh-water pond
and a small stream. Geophysical surveys and monitoring
wells installed under the direct .ion of the state's Water Re-
sources Administration revealed that an extensive zone of
ground-water contamination exists; in the water-table aquifer.
Phenolic concentrations are 14.4 pom. Discharge of this con-
taminated ground water has adversely affected the entire
stream, from the industrial plant site to a marshy area two
129
-------
Table 13, ORIGINS AND CONTAMINANTS IN 57 CASES OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION IN THE NORTHEAST CAUSED BY LEAKAGE OF
WASTE WATER FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. 7)
Type of industry or activity
Chemical
Metal processing and plating
Electronics
Laboratories (manufacturing and processing)
Paper
Plastics
Number Principal contami-
of cases nanf(s) reported
13 Ammonia
Barium
Chloride
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Organic chemicals
Phenols
Solvents
Sulfate
Zinc
9 Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phenols
4 Aluminum
Chloride
Fluoride
Iron
Solvent
4 Arsenic
Phenols
Radioactive
materials
Sulfate
3 Sulfate
3 Ammonia
Detergent
Fluoride
130
-------
Table 13. (continued). ORIGINS AND CONTAMINANTS IN 57 CASES OF GROUND-
WATER CONTAMINATION IN THE NORTHEAST CAUSED
BY LEAKAGE OF WASTE WATER FROM SURFACE IM-
POUNDMENTS. 7)
Type of industry or activity
Sewage treatment
Aircraft manufacturing
Food processing
Mining sand and gravel
Oil well drilling
Oil refining
Battery and cable
Electrical utility
Highway construction
Mineral processing
Paint
Recycling
Steel
Textiles
Number
of cases
2
2
2
1
Principal contami-
nant^) reported
Detergents
Nitrate
Chromium
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Chloride
Chloride
Oil
Oil
Acid
Lead
Iron
Manganese
Turbidity
Lithium
Chromium
Copper
Acid
Ammonia
Chloride
131
-------
miles away. Because of the slow rate of movement of the con
taminated ground-water body, it has been estimated that a
century or more will be required before the stream can fully
recover, even though the leaky lagoons are presently being
removed. 8) it is interesting to note that in a recent sur-
vey by the State of Maryland, it was found that 75 percent
of the liquid waste generated by industry is disposed of to
the ground in "lagoons" and "pits" on site. 8)
In another case in the northeast, an abandoned sand and grav
el pit was used by a paint manufacturer to contain liquid
and sludge wastes removed from a stream during a clean-up
operation. Monitoring wells installed later on the edges of
the pit and driven to a depth of 15 ft (4.6 m) produced wa-
ter with a chromium (hexavalent) concentration of as much as
7.2 ppm. 9)
Many of the contaminants reported in Table 13 are related to
hazardous wastes, as indicated by the large number of heavy
metals listed. The concentrations of these toxic substances
can be very high at sites where the untreated industrial ef-
fluent is leaking from a surface impoundment and reaching
the saturated zone almost unchanged in chemical composition.
Concentrations of some of the heavy metals in water from a
lagoon containing untreated industrial sludges and liquid
wastes were: copper 5,250 ppm; chromium (trivalent) 1,380
ppm; and lithium 280 ppm. The site was investigated by a
public agency after a stream near an abandoned plant proper-
ty showed indications of contamination. The source of con-
tamination in the stream was traced to the lagoon, which was
leaking the waste effluent to the ground-water system. The
contaminated ground water, in turn, was discharging into the
stream. The problem is presently in litigation. 10)
The most grossly contaminated ground water encountered in
the northeast investigation contained 10,000 ppm arsenic.
Liquids and sludges containing arsenate compounds had been
deposited by a chemical company in unlined surface impound-
ments for many years, and the plume of contaminated ground
water had reached a stream adjacent to the plant site, where
arsenic concentrations as high as 40 ppm were observed. The
lagoons were abandoned after the problem was recognized and
the wastes were stored in plastic-lined drums. An attempt
was made to pump out and treat the contaminated ground water.
After 2.5 years of controlled pumping and monitoring, con-
centrations of arsenic in both ground water and surface wa-
ter have been greatly reduced, but the condition is still
dangerous.
To provide some insight into typical ground-water contamina-
132
-------
tion cases related to surface impoundments, Table 14 has
been prepared based on three detailed studies in the north-
east region. The first is a well documented case of the dis-
persal of plating wastes in ground water in southeastern Nas-
sau County, Long Island, New York. 12) The other two are
based on investigations carried out in southern New Jersey
and in central Connecticut. 13,14)
All three situations are related to industrial waste water
having leaked out of surface impoundments. In two of the
three cases, the plume of contaminated ground water had
moved beyond the property limits of the industrial site be-
fore the problem became known and was defined. No monitor-
ing had been carried out on the industrial plant property.
The contaminated ground water migrated slowly toward an area
of discharge. In two cases, major discharge is to streams
draining the affected water-table aquifer. In the third,
the pattern of ground-water movement was controlled by pump-
ing from a series of water-supply wells, which were aban-
doned after contamination was discovered. Of significance
is the small size of the impoundments as compared to the
areal extent of the plumes of contaminated ground water. In
two of the instances, the lagoon and basin areas represented
0.25 percent and 1.25 percent of the areal extent of the con-
taminated ground-water body. In only one case has removal
or containment of the hazardous wastes been attempted.
An evaluation of ground-water pollution problems in the
northwestern states has revealed similar instances in that
region. 15) in Colorado, disposal of liquid chemical waste
into unlined holding ponds at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
near Denver caused contamination of shallow ground water in
a 12-sq mi (30-sq km) area of the South Platte River valley.
16,17,18) ipfte problem was discovered through damage to
crops that were irrigated with water from shallow wells.
The contaminated water moved northwest in the normal direc-
tion of ground-water flow toward the South Platte River (Fig-
ure 52). Contaminants known to be present in the shallow
aquifer included chloride, fluoride, arsenic, chlorate, the
herbicide 2-4D, and the pesticides aldrin and dieldrin. 19)
A total of 119 observation wells was installed and a system-
atic study of water quality was undertaken to map the extent
of contamination by measuring chloride concentrations in
shallow wells. These concentrations reached a maximum of
4,600 ppm in several areas. The approximate rate of ground-
water movement was 13 ft (4 m) per day or about 4,800 ft
(1,500 m) per year. Damage claims totaling $74,000 were
paid by the government to five farmers that had suffered
crop damage. 18)
133
-------
Table 14. THREE CASE HISTORIES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION FROM
LEAKAGE OUT OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. 7)
Description of Surface
Impoundment
Type of Waste
Principal Pollutant(s)
Observed and Maximum
Concentrations Reported
in affected wells (mg/l)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Cadmium
Cyanide
Zinc
COD
Copper
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Dimensions of Plume of Con-
taminated Ground Water
Maximum Length (feet)
Maximum Width (feet)
Maximum Depth (feet be-
low the water table)
Estimated Maximum Volume
of Contaminated Ground
Water in millions of gallons
and year
Two disposal basins,
65x65x15 feet and
one disposal basin,
130x54x15 feet
One storage lagoon
approximately
50x50x10 feet
Aircraft manufacturing Metal plating
Series of lagoons and
basins covering an
area of about 15 acres
and average about
six feet in depth
Chemical
40
10
2.3
0.4
1.4
4,300
1,000
70
1,000
200
60
50
5,000
135
150
10
2,200
1,200
30
Year Reported
Remedial Action(s) and
Status of Problem
200 (1962)
1949
Periodic research and
monitoring; affected
wells abandoned; some
treatment and reduction
of waste effluent; con-
centrations of chromium
and cadmium have de-
clined but problem still
present in 1974
50 (1969)
1969
Lagoon and affected
wells abandoned; no
further action; prob-
lem still present in
1974
20 (1972)
1971
Lagoons and basins
sealed with cement
and/or plastic liners;
continuing program of
monitoring; system of
pumping wells installed
to contain pollutants in
area of plant site and
in shallow aquifer zones;
problem still present in
1974
134
-------
Crt
UJ
U
Q
O
-o
O
U
c
0)
o
2
c
£
I
_
8
oi
4-
o
E
£
S
o
o>
%
o
CN
O)
135
-------
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The primary contamination potential from impoundments is deg-
radation of ground or surface waters from seepage of liquids.
One countermeasure is to prevent seepage by installing an im-
permeable barrier. Another approach is to choose an alterna-
tive treatment method which can perform the function of the
impoundment to be replaced, i.e., additional treatment, stor-
age, or disposal. In the following paragraphs, these op-
tions and alternatives are briefly explored.
A wide range of materials are useful as barrier membranes
for impounding liquids and sludges. Many are being used in
the lining of ponds, reservoirs, lagoons and canals for re-
ducing or eliminating the seepage of liquids into ground wa-
ter. Today an increasing number of industries are install-
ing synthetic liner materials, especially hypalori and poly-
vinyl chloride, to meet environmental quality standards.
The number and location of lined lagoons and ponds is not
known. Liners are not a guarantee against eventual leakage
of contaminants into the ground-water system. They can fail
mechanically or can be physically altered by the contained
wastes.
Lagoons used primarily for storage can be replaced by leak-
proof facilities, such as above-ground tanks or concrete ba-
sins. The major criteria for storage tank selection involve
quantity of the waste and the expected length of storage,
and the physical and. chemical properties of the waste. For
example, the waste containing volatile contaminants should
be stored in properly vented closed tanks, which could be
either vertical or horizontal. In the cases in which vola-
tility or odors pcse no problem, wastes can be stored in
open facilities.
A waste which is not corrosive can be stored in a concrete
or steel tank; storage of wastes which are corrosive would
require tanks made of other materials. Reinforced wall de-
sign is required for concrete basins, and the concrete must
be water-proofed with a suitable paint or plastic coating.
Short-term or temporary storage basins would have less strin-
gent construction criteria than long-term or permanent stor-
age.
More effective and environmentally-sound techniques are
available to replace waste-water treatment operations now
performed in ponds and lagoons or to reduce the volume of
waste water now discharged to impoundments. Solids separa-
tion can be more effectively performed either in clarifiers,
or by filtration or centrifugation. Another example is bio-
136
-------
logical stabilization through use of activated sludge or
trickling filtration rather than lagoons. Digestion (anaero-
bic, aerobic) can be used as an alternative treatment for
sludges or wastes with high organic content. Chemical treat-
ment is occasionally carried out in lagoons. The same reac-
tions can be carried out in other facilities less prone to
causing contamination.
An alternative to on-site treatment in general would be con-
nection to a municipal treatment plant, assuming that it had
the capacity and capability of treating the particular waste.
In such a situation, a surcharge may be imposed by the munic-
ipality, the amount depending upon the volume and composi-
tion of the waste.
Sealing of lagoons, basins, pits, and ponds can have a major
economic impact on industries. Lining can amount to several
hundred thousand dollars in capital expenses at a particular
industrial site. Also to be considered are the added costs
involved in treating the additional quantity of waste efflu-
ent that previously would have been allowed to leak into the
ground-water reservoir.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
In most states, impoundments of industrial waste are not sub-
ject to any special regulations but are considered simply as
potential sources of contamination. If it can be shown that
they affect or may affect surface- or ground-water quality,
they may be maintained only under a permit. Application of
these laws to industrial impoundments may simply be infer-
able from the general provisions of the statute, or specific,
as in the Montana statute which specifies that the provi-
sions of the water-pollution control law, including permit
requirements, apply to:
"...drainage or seepage from all sources including
that from artificial, privately owned ponds or la-
goons if such drainage or seepage may reach other
state waters in a condition which may pollute the
other state waters." 20)
A state with only general statutory provisions may find it-
self in the position of having to prove that contamination
of ground water is occurring as a result of a storage or dis-
posal activity, before it can prohibit or otherwise control
the operation. It is to overcome this difficult burden that
states have expanded upon their control authority in various
ways.
137
-------
A Pennsylvania regulation, for example, requires that im-
poundments for storage of industrial or other wastes be
structurally sound, impermeable, protected from unauthorized
acts of third parties, and that they maintain a 2-ft free-
board. If a person or municipality is operating or intends
to construct an impoundment to contain more than 250,000 gal.
(946 cu m) of waste, or where total capacity of several im-
poundments on any tract of land exceeds 500,000 gal. (1,893
cu m), or wherever the Department of Environmental Resources
determines that a permit is necessary, a permit must be ob-
tainedo The Department then approves the location, construc-
tion, use, operation, and maintenance of the impoundment
based upon a plan that the applicant must submit. 21)
The Pennsylvania statute allows regulation by permit of im-
pounding, handling, storage, transportation, processing or
disposal activities that create a danger of water contamina-
tion, or where regulation of the activity is necessary to
avoid such contamination. 22)
Michigan, without a specific regulation for lagoons, con-
trols industrial waste collections through its water pollu-
tion control law and regulations. A person who wants to dis-
pose of wastes on the ground must file a "new use statement"
(Statement of New or Increased Use of Water of the State for
Waste Disposal Purposes), drill three initial observation
wells, then file an application for a ground-water discharge
permit, which is reviewed by the Water Resources Commission.
The permit allows disposal of specified wastes under a speci-
fied monitoring program. It may require treatment of wastes.
The permittee must sample and report each month, and the
agency also checks monthly. The Commission does not follow
general guidelines, but established requirements industry by
industry as necessary to preserve U. S. Public Health Serv-
ice standards. 23)
The Michigan statute requires that every industrial or com-
mercial entity whether underground or on the ground, which
discharges liquid wastes into any surface or ground waters,
must have waste treatment or control facilities under the
specific supervision and control of persons who have been
certified by the Water Resources Commission as properly qual-
ified to operate the facilities. This person must file
monthly reports to the Commission showing the effectiveness
of the treatment or control operation and the quantity of
liquid wastes discharged, subject to revocation of his cer-
tificate if he makes a false statement. 24) in addition,
the statute requires every person doing business within the
state to annually report discharge of waste water (other
than sanitary sewage) indicating quantities of "critical ma-
138
-------
terials" used in its manufacturing processes. The Commis-
sion maintains a "Critical Materials Register" of organic
and inorganic materials for this purpose.
The Michigan statute also requires a person engaged in re-
moving liquid industrial wastes from the premises of others
to be licensed and bonded, requires licensing and marking of
his vehicles, and requires the licensee to keep records of
materials transported and places of disposal. This law pro-
hibits the licensee from disposing of wastes onto or into
the ground except as approved by the Commission. 25) A few
other states have similar laws. New York's law in addition
applies to septic-tank cleaning firms.
An approach used by some states is to require a permit for
construction of waste-creating facilities. A rule of the
Florida Department of Pollution Control requires:
"Any stationary installation which will reasonably
be expected to be a source of pollution shall not
be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or
modified without an appropriate and currently valid
permit issued by the Department, unless the source
is exempted by Department rule. The Department may
issue such permit only after it is assured that the
installation will not cause pollution in violation
of any of the provisions of Chapter 403, FS, or the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder." 26)
Applicable regulations are detailed, including standards for
'issuance of denial (the applicant must affirmatively provide
the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans,
test results, and other information that the activity will
not cause pollution); revocation (including revocation for
refusal to allow inspection); and detailed requirements for
obtaining a permit, which includes:
"An engineering report covering plant description
and operations, types and quantities of all waste
material generated whether liquid, gaseous or
solid, and proposed waste control facilities, the
treatment objectives and the design criteria on
which the control facilities are based, and other
information deemed relevant. Design criteria shall
be based on the results of laboratory and pilot-
plant scale studies whenever such studies are war-
ranted. The design efficiencies of the proposed
waste treatment facilities and the quantities and
types of pollutants in the treated effluents or
emissions shall be indicated "
139
-------
"Owners written guarantee to meet the design cri-
teria as accepted by the Department and to abide
by Chapter 403, FS, and the rules and regulations
of the Department as to the quantities and types
of materials to be discharged from the plant.
The owner may be required to post an appropriate
bond to guarantee compliance with such conditions
in instances where the owner's financial resources
are inadequate or proposed control facilities are
experimental in nature."
Delaware's regulation requiring a permit prior to construc-
tion, instead of applying only to installations which may be
a source of pollution, includes "any structure or facility
the occupancy or use of which will generate liquid waste."
It specifies four types of permits: (1) septic tanks, (2)
liquid waste treatment systems, (3) bulk storage, transfer,
and pipelines, and (4) sewers or pipelines carrying liquid
waste. 27)
In a few states, landfill laws apply to liquid industrial
wastes. Generally, state sanitary landfill laws specifical-
ly prohibit disposal of liquids in the landfill. Califor-
nia's is an exception. The State Water Resources Control
Board has established site classifications, with restric-
tions that must be observed for disposal of certain types of
waste.
California's system is unique in that requirements for each
waste disposal site, whether solid or liquid, are establish-
ed by Regional Water Quality Control Boards which issue
"discharge orders" which must be consistent with a water
management plan adopted for the region. These requirements
vary from one region to another. Orders are "tailored" to a
particular site, and are adopted after a public hearing held
by the board. 28)
140
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Bureau of the Census. 1971. 1967 census of manufac-
tures, water use in manufacturing. U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C. 361 pp.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Handbook
for monitoring industrial waste water. U. S. Environ-
ment Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
3. Bureau of the Census. 1975. 1972 census of manufac-
tures, water use in manufacturing. U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C. 194 pp.
4. Bureau of the Census. 1966. 1963 census of manufac-
tures, water use in manufacturing. U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C. 174 pp.
5. Karubian, J. F. 1974. Polluted ground water: esti-
mating the effects of man's activities. Office of Re-
search and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. EPA 600/4-74-002. 99 pp.
6. Westlund, C. W. 1973. Personal communication. Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania.
7. Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. 1974.
Ground-water contamination in the northeast states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
EPA 660/2-74-056.
8. Schiffman, Arnold. 1975. Disposal of hazardous and in-
dustrial wastes in Maryland. Report to Legislative
Council, Maryland General Assembly. Maryland Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland.
9. Schiffman, Arnold. 1973. .Personal communication.
Ground Water Technical Services, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland.
10. Confidential communication. 1973.
11. Wright, J. F. 1973. Administrative and legal consider-
ations: an interstate viewpoint. University of Cali-
fornia Water Resources Engineering Education Series.
141
-------
12. Perlmutter, N. M., and Maxim Lieber. 1970. Dispersal
of plating wastes and sewage contaminants in ground wa-
ter and surface water, South Farmingdale-Massapequa
area, Nassau County, New York. U. S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1879-G.
13. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1972. Consultant's report.
Port Washington, New York.
14. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1969. Consultant's report.
Port Washington, New York.
15. van der Leeden, Frits, L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller.
1975. Ground-water pollution problems in the northwest-
ern United States. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. EPA 660/3-75-018.
16. Petri, L. R. 1961. The movement of saline ground wa-
ter in the vicinity of Derby, Colorado, in Robert A.
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center. Proceedings of 1961
symposium on ground water contamination. Technical Re-
port W 61-5.
17. Walton, Graham. 1961. Public health aspects of the
contamination of ground water in the vicinity of Derby,
Colorado, ill Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Proceedings of 1961 symposium on ground water contami-
nation. Technical Report W 61-5.
18. Gahr, W. N. 1961. Contamination of ground water -
vicinity of Denver. Paper presented at 128th meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Denver, Colorado.
19. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. 1965.
Ground water pollution in the South Platte River valley
between Denver and Brighton, Colorado. U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare. Published Re-
port 4.
20. Montana Revised Code, Section 69-4804.
21. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Rules and Regulations, Chapter 101.
22. Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Section 402.
23. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Re-
sources Commission. General Rules, Part 21.
142
-------
24. Michigan Water Resources Commission Act. Public Acts
of 1929.
25. Michigan Public Acts of 1969. Act 136.
26. Florida Department of Pollution Control. Rules, Chap-
ter 17-4.
27. Delaware Water Pollution Control Regulations, Section 4
28. California State Water Resources Control Board. Waste
discharge requirements for waste disposal to land.
143
-------
SECTION VII
LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
SUMMARY
Solid waste land disposal sites can be sources of ground-
water contamination because of the generation of leachate
caused by water percolating through the bodies of refuse and
waste materials. Precipitation falling on a site either be-
comes runoff, returns to the atmosphere via evaporation and
transpiration, or infiltrates the landfill. Contamination
problems are more likely to occur in humid areas, where the
moisture available exceeds the ability of the waste pile to
absorb water.
Leachate is a highly mineralized fluid containing such con-
stituents as chloride, iron, lead, copper, sodium, nitrate,
and a variety of organic chemicals. Where manufacturing
wastes are included, hazardous constituents are often pres-
ent in the leachate (e.g., cyanide, cadmium, chromium, chlo-
rinated hydrocarbons, and PCB). The particular makeup of
the leachate is dependent upon the industry using the land-
fill or dump. Another problem is the disposal of low-level
radioactive wastes.
There are about 18,500 land disposal sites which accept mu-
nicipal wastes, of which only about 20 percent are "auth-
orized." Most are open dumps, or poorly sited and operated
landfills, and most receive some industrial wastes. There
is no national inventory available on privately owned indus-
trial land disposal sites. However, it is estimated that 90
percent of industrial wastes that are considered hazardous
are landfilled, mainly because it is the cheapest waste-
management option.
Problems presently associated with existing or abandoned
dumps and landfills should not be consider^ in the same
category as potential problems at new, properly designed san-
itary landfills because there are methods available for mini-
mizing environmental effects and managing leachate produc-
tion. Proper siting in locations where potential contamina-
tion of ground water is limited is one method. Reduction of
leachate formation by use of selected cover materials and
surface grading of the refuse pile is another. Also promis-
ing but costly are such techniques as pre-treatment capable
of reducing the volume or solubility of the waste, detoxifi-
cation of hazardous wastes prior to disposal, and. collection
of the leachate by means of impermeable barriers or liners
144
-------
followed by treatment.
There is no effective Federal regulatory control of land dis-
posal of solid waste except as it may enter navigable waters.
Forty-four states have statutes which prohibit the disposal
of solid waste without a permit. The range of requirements
for state permit systems extends from simple notification
that a facility exists to detailed site descriptions includ-
ing the results qf soil borings and sampling of baseline
ground-water quality. About 15 states have regulations lim-
iting land disposal of hazardous wastes.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
A wide variety of wastes from industries, residences, and
municipalities is disposed of on the land. This practice
ranges from simple dumping of refuse on a readily available
piece of property to controlled disposal of processed wastes
on sites which are designed to minimize the potential for
contamination of local water resources.
According to EPA, the term "solid waste land disposal site"
refers to the following types of operation which may accept
garbage, refuse, municipal and industrial sludges and liquid
waste; discarded solid materials resulting from agricultur-
al, industrial, and commercial operations and from community
activities; and hazardous wastes:
Dump: An uncovered land disposal site where solid and/or
liquid wastes are deposited with little or no regard for pol-
lution control or aesthetics. Dumps are susceptible to open
burning and are exposed to the elements, vectors, and scaven-
gers .
Landfill: A land disposal site located without regard to
possible effects on water resources, but which employs inter-
mittent or daily cover to minimize scavenger, aesthetic,
vector, and air pollution problems.
Sanitary Landfill: A land disposal site employing an engi-
neered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a man-
ner that minimizes environmental hazards by spreading the
solid wastes in thin layers, compacting the solid wastes to
the smallest practical volume and applying and compacting
cover material at the end of each operating day. 1)
Secured Landfill; A land disposal site that allows no hy-
draulic connection with natural waters, segregates the waste,
has restricted access, and is continually monitored. Land-
fills and dumps are very common. True sanitary landfills
145
-------
are rare, and, to date, secured landfills are experimental
only.
Landfills or dumps invariably are located on land that is
considered to have little or no value for other uses, for ex-
ample: marshlands, abandoned sand and gravel pits, old
strip mines, or limestone sinkholes, all of which are suscep-
tible to ground-water contamination problems. In one east-
ern state, 85 percent of the existing landfills were origin-
ally designed as "reclamation" projects to fill marshlands
and abandoned sand and gravel pits. Control procedures for
minimizing contamination of ground water were not instituted.
Solid waste land disposal sites can be sources of ground-
water contamination because of the generation of leachate
caused by water percolating through the refuse. Precipita-
tion falling on a site either becomes runoff, returns to the
atmosphere via evaporation and transpiration (water use by
plants), or infiltrates the refuse. This infiltrating water
ultimately will form leachate (water that has percolated
through the wastes and picked up soluble and suspended con-
taminants) .
The process of leachate formation and subsequent ground-
water contamination is dependent upon the amount of water
which passes through the refuse. Water which infiltrates
the surface of the cover will first be subject to evapora-
tion and plant transpiration. Any water in excess of field
capacity will percolate into the layers of solid waste. Ad-
ditional surface runoff from the surrounding land, moisture
contained in the solid or liquid waste placed in the fill,
moisture from solid-waste decomposition, and water entering
through the bottom or sides of the site also contribute to
the generation of leachate.
Problems associated with existing or abandoned dumps and
landfills are not in the same category as potential problems
at new, properly designed sanitary or secured landfills
where modern methods are employed for minimizing environment-
al effects and managing leachate production. Proper design
and operation of a new site and the use of liners and diver-
sion trenches can essentially eliminate input water from sur-
rounding surface runoff and native ground water. Input wa-
ter from precipitation can be minimized by controlling such
surface conditions as (1) the steepness of slope, (2) the
permeability of the material used for cover, and (3) the
type and amount of vegetation.
146
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
The largest component of municipal waste is paper, but sub-
stantial food wastes, yard wastes, glass, metals, plastics,
rubber, and liquid wastes are also included. Many municipal
sites also receive industrial process residues and pollution
control system sludges in addition to septic tank pumpings,
sewage sludge, bulky wastes, street sweepings, and construc-
tion/demolition wastes.
The constituents in leachate from a municipal site result
from simple solution of compounds in the wastes and from the
decomposition of the refuse contained in the land disposal
site. The latter is a biological, chemical, and physical
process and is affected by the degree of microbial activity
that is proceeding within the fill. Microbial activity is
generally dependent on refuse composition, temperature, mois-
ture content, and the availability of free oxygen.
The types and concentrations of contaminants in leachate are
of great importance in determining potential effects on the
quality of ground and surface water. Table 15 shows ranges
in concentration of chemical constituents and physical param-
eters of typical leachate generated from municipal solid
wastes.
In addition to refuse generated by residences and commercial
establishments, a wide variety of industrial wastes are dis-
posed of on the land. Examples of some of those identified
by EPA studies, in approximate order of volume, are as fol-
lows :
Inorganic Chemicals - process sludges, cell tear-down rubble,
waste-water treatment sludges, dry residues and dusts. 3)
Organic Chemicals - liquid tars, still bottoms, filter resi-
due sludges, residual pitch solids, filter cakes, spent cat-
alysts, pesticides. 4)
Petroleum Refining - tank bottoms, cooling tower sludges,
air flotation float, slop oil, biological sludge, storm silt,
spent lime, filter clays, API separator bottoms, Fluidized
Catalytic Cracker (FCC) fines, coke and coke fines, hydro-
fluoric acid, alkylation sludges, cleaning sludges. 5)
Primary Metals Smelting and Refining - slags, dusts, pollu-
tion-control sludges.o)
Electroplating - waste-water treatment sludges, air pollu-
tion control sludges, organic solvents, concentrated plating
147
-------
Table 15. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON 20 SAMPLES
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES. 2)
Components
Alkalinity (CaCO3)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days)
Calcium (Ca)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Copper (Cu)
Chloride (Cl)
Hardness (CaCO3)
Iron, Total (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Nitrogen (NH4)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Sulfate (S04)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Suspended Sol ids (TSS)
Total Phosphate (PO4)
Zinc (Zn)
PH
Median value
(ppm) a)
3,050
5,700
438
8,100
0.5
700
2,750
94
0.75
230
0.22
218
371
767
47
8,955
220
10.1
3.5
5.8
Ranges of all values
(ppm) a)
0
81
60
40
0
4.7
0
0
<0.1
17
0.06
0
28
0
1
584
10
0
0
3.7
- 20, 850
- 33, 360
- 7,200
-89,520
9.9
- 2,500
-22,800
- 2,820
2.0
- 15,600
125
- 1,106
- 3,770
- 7,700
- 1,558
-44,900
-26,500
130
370
8.5
a) Where applicable
148
-------
baths, process wastes. 7)
Paints - raw materials packaging, spills and spoiled batches,
waste-water treatment sludges, air pollution control dusts,
organic cleaning solvents. 8)
Battery - process scrap, reject and scrap batteries, battery
processing slags. 9)
Pharmaceuticals - waste solvents, still bottoms, miscellane-
ous organics, heavy metals, filter cakes, chemical muds, re-
turned goods, reject materials. 10)
Low-Level Radioactive Waste - contaminated paper and plas-
tics (70 percent by volume), dead laboratory animals, broken
equipment and glassware, protective clothing, evaporator res-
idues, ion exchange resins, organic cleaning solvents, pest-
icides, and chemical processing residues.
A partial listing of the potentially hazardous constituents
of these industrial waste categories is given in Table 16.
Some of the contaminants detected in ground water pose an
acute threat to public health because of their toxicities,
(e.g., cyanide, arsenic, phenols, etc.). Others are hazard-
ous because of chronic effects, such as carcinogens or tera-
togens (e.g., some chlorinated hydrocarbons, vinyl chloride,
chromium, lead). Many contaminants have both characteris-
tics.
Public health and environmental effects are normally corre-
lated with the concentration of and duration of exposure to
the specific contaminant. This has been better documented
for acute effects resulting from high concentrations over a
short period of time than for chronic effects resulting from
exposure to low concentrations for a long period. 11)
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
According to the latest available estimates, 135 million
tons (122 million tonnes) of residential and post-consumer
commercial wastes are disposed of in the United States annu-
ally. 12) This amounts to 3.5 Ib (1.6 kg) per person/day.
Not included in this figure are sewage sludge, industrial
processing wastes, air pollution control wastes, demolition
and construction residue, street sweepings, discarded auto-
mobiles and automotive parts, and bulky tree and landscaping
wastes, all of which are found in varying quantities through-
out the nation at municipal land-disposal sites.
It is estimated that approximately 260 million tons (236 mil-
149
-------
Table 16. COMPONENTS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE.
Ammonium salts
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Beryllium
Biological waste
Cadmium
Chlor. hydrocarbons
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Ethanol waste, aqueous
Explosives (TNT)
Flammable solvents
Fluoride
Halogenared solvents
Lead solvents
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Oil
Organics, misc.
Pesticides (organo-
phosphates)
Phenol
Phosphorus
Radium
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
a>
1
~o
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V)
5
E
o
E
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(/I
o
u
3
V
u
E
Jj
a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q>
*C
V
t
£§
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 -5
1 i
-5 J
0 °
•E .°.
o c
O> O
1 6
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 1
.'y 8 £
•S "5. .S
VXD
n 1 1 1 o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
'jc
*?
I
.2
o
t
<£.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
o
a.
o
h.
u
UJ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
150
-------
lion tonnes) of industrial wastes of all types are generated
and disposed of annually (on a dry basis) , which is almost
twice as much each year as is produced by residential and
commercial sources. Many of these wastes are potentially
hazardous. Preliminary data from industrial waste surveys
conducted by EPA indicate that over 90 percent of all hazard-
ous industrial wastes are disposed of on the land, mainly be-
cause it is the cheapest waste management option. A similar
percentage of the .non-hazardous portion of industrial wastes
is most likely disposed of on land, as opposed to undergoing
treatment (chemical, thermal, etc.) and/or recovery. Thus,
about 240 million tons (218 million tonnes) of industrial
wastes end up in land disposal sites each year.
There are currently about 18,500 land disposal sites which
accept municipal wastes in the United States. 13) Only
about 20 percent of these are "authorized." About 20 sites
are lined, and about 60 sites have leachate treatment facil-
ities. Most of the 18,500 sites are open dumps, or poorly
located and operated landfills; very few are truly "sani-
tary landfills." Most receive some industrial wastes.
There is no national inventory of industrial land disposal
sites, which are generally located on private property. The
locations, or even the existence of these exclusively indus-
trial dumps and landfills are rarely recorded with public
agencies, and the few that are, are generally not inspected
on a routine basis. Therefore, ground-water contamination
problems resulting from such sites are not normally discov-
ered until water from nearby supply wells has been notice-
ably affected.
Some indication of the concentrations of industrial wastes
disposed of in different regions of the United States can be
developed from surveys conducted by EPA over the past few
years. One conclusion of these surveys is that industrial
land disposal contamination problems are widespread. Prelim-
inary data indicate that the highest percentage of industri-
al hazardous waste is generated in EPA Regions V (Midwest)
and VI (Gulf Coast), followed by Regions II and III (Mid-
Atlantic) and IV (Southeast). Each of these regions con-
tains heavy concentrations of industrial production. In the
study, the total industry wastes (and hazardous portion) are
presented by total amount generated per industry by state.*
* The data developed during these industrial surveys are not
provided by industrial waste disposal processes but rather
by industrial category. Thus, the critical areas can only
be illustrated by industry category or waste type, and not
by treatment or disposal method.
151
-------
The number of industrial establishments in a state generally
provides an indication of the relative magnitude of concern
for a particular waste category and disposal technique com-
bination. For instance, the inorganic chemicals industry
landfills approximately 55 percent of its concentrated, po-
tentially hazardous wastes. 3) States with 50 or more inor-
ganic chemicals manufacturing establishments are Texas, Cali-
fornia, New Jersey, Ohio, Louisiana, and Illinois. Thus,
land disposal of industrial wastes containing inorganic chem-
icals should be of greater concern in these states than in
any of the others.
Figure 53 indicates the geographical distribution of indus-
trial establishments on the basis of value of production
(value added). Although each specific industrial category
has its own geographical distribution pattern, Figure 53 is
indicative of the generally high industrial concentrations
along the northeast seaboard, in the Great Lakes region, and
in California and Texas.
As noted above, the amount of infiltration from precipita-
tion that falls on a disposal site is the major factor af-
fecting the quantity of leachate that can be generated.
Therefore, the extent of the potential problem of ground-
water contamination resulting from leachate entering aqui-
fers is greatest in areas where average annual precipitation
exceeds the potential water losses by evaporation and trans-
piration. As shown on Figure 54, such areas are found east
of the Mississippi River and in the coastal region of the
Pacific Northwest. About 71 percent of the municipal refuse
disposal sites found in the United States are located in
these water surplus areas.
It should be emphasized, however, that no matter where they
are located geographically, disposal sites which are placed
in wetlands, in flood plains, or in other areas where the wa-
ter table is close to land surface, can produce leachate and
can be the cause of ground-water contamination. In some
places, such as low lying coastal areas, the water table is
so high that all disposal sites constructed without suffi-
cient natural or artificial barriers will contaminate ground
water.
While the most common economic damage resulting from leach-
ate is the contamination of domestic, industrial, and public
supply wells, there are numerous cases where leachate has
directly contaminated surface waters. In confined, slow
moving, or relatively low-volume surface waters, leachate
has killed vegetation and fish, wiped out spawning areas,
and ruled out the use of existing and planned recreational
152
-------
(
V)
OL
<
-J 0
-J <7> O
o 2 o o
°S*2§.
°°- ' 0 °
Hi*
_1
v^
**— >»
12
o
"o
-D
14-
O
in
O
E
c
o
D
C
-o
0)
O
J
O
CO
IO
£
3
O)
153
-------
o
c
o
I
"5.
'u
0!
a
c
c
o
c
o
c
'E
o
c
a
o
Q.
0)
g
c
o
IX
D>
U-
-------
areas.
Table 17 lists possible types of damages that can result
from the introduction of leachate to surface- and ground-
water resources. The damages that have actually been re-
ported are underlined.
On a local level, in addition to the possibility of grave
health effects as a result of chronic exposure, leachate con-
tamination frequently causes severe economic hardships, dis-
tresses, inconveniences, and inequities to damaged land own-
ers. In no case recorded to date have the victims been
fully compensated for their losses. Due to the number of
years (50 to 100 is possible) that land disposal sites may
produce leachate, it is difficult to assess the impact of
possible damages to future generations.
Case Histories
EPA is currently compiling a national inventory of damage in-
cidents that have been caused by improper land disposal of
municipal and industrial wastes. Table 18, based on 391 in-
dustrial damage incidents documented as of February 1976,
indicates that ground-water contamination is the most common
type of damage reported, followed by surface-water contamina-
tion. Table 18 also shows that landfills, dumps, and "other
land disposal" (i.e., promiscuous dumping), account for the
large majority of reported damage incidents. It should be
noted that twice as many damage incidents have been associ-
ated with "other land disposal" than with true landfills and
dumps. The data summarized in the table are not nationally
representative since 63 out of the 391 cases studied were ob-
tained from an incomplete survey of one state that already
has a permit system for landfills and surface impoundments.
The most flagrant environmental offenses generally occur in
those states that do not have regulatory programs for indus-
trial waste disposal.
In the 1974 EPA study of ground-water contamination in the
northeast states, 60 case histories were tabulated, includ-
ing 18 pertaining to industrial landfills. 17) Examination
of Table 19, which has been reproduced from that study, will
convey some of the dimensions of the problem, at least for
the Northeast. The study uncovered about 100 cases in which
landfills were pinpointed as the contamination source. The
60 cases on Table 19 were selected from the 100 on the basis
of adequacy and reliability of information.
Although Table 19 indicates that municipal sites account for
more cases of ground-water contamination than do industrial,
155
-------
Table 17. TYPES OF POSSIBLE LEACHATE DAMAGE. 16)
DAMAGE TO LIFE a^
I. Humans
acute and chronic health effects (e.g. Illness, skin damage, partial
paralysis, brain damage, death)
II. Domestic Animals
III. Wild Animals
terrestrial (e.g. mammals, birds) , .
aquatic (e.g. fishkills, spawning areas, shellfish ', crabs)
IV. Farm Crops
V. Other Vegetation
grasses, shrubs, trees
PHYSICAL DAMAGE a)
I. Water Resources Contaminated
.springs, lakes, streams, rivers, ground water, marshlands
II. Drinking Water Supplies
surface water (reservoirs, springs, lakes, rivers)
ground water (domestic, industrial and public supply wells)
III. Land/Water Use
sport/recreation: fishing, shellfish, swimming, parks
decreased property value or facility utilization
loss of future use of water resource (surface and ground water)
IV. Material Destruction
damage to laundry, pipes, sinks, water heater, food, etc.
damage to industrial equipment or products
a) Underlined portions are leachate damages identified to date.
b) Shellfish concentrate accumulations of toxic metallic ions.
156
-------
LU
O
s
<
Q
a
z
<
Q'O'
0
EQ
Uj LU
5 Q
-•2
2"
012
a- ft
£<
Q U
•7 u_
SO
> t-
;> z
^™ 111
a!j
«^£
x °-
LO LO
z <
O Q
— LU
•T to
•rf CO
_J LU
II 1 Q£
Q£ 0.
1 1 i S^>
ZLU
1— ••
ESTIMATE OF
MECHANISE
>
of.
<
Z
S
_l
LU
QC
OL.
*
oo
v
.0
o
I «
_*
c
3
«• o>
O) C M
C •= O>
•^ £ c
^~ ». ™~ ^"
fll ^ ,—
E O> D
"•S*
(A
&{
^ «n
§ i «
O ^ 09
& *ft
w» O
^-t r)
T-
^~ JS ^(*-
t_ O J-
Q) O-
0^
'"' u.
- a.
i^ c c*>
•0 § CM
j"°
Surface
Impoundments
21
"8
T
£
M
Wt
Disposal Method
Percentage of case
•* — — ' ' —
v v v
•
co CM i i i "~
v
rvi 1 1 1 •— r~~
CM 1 1 v
10 m CM •— o —
CM •— V " V
in CM — CM — —
— — V
2 ' v v
^)
a>
1
«A
o °>
E S \
.— o X
c " S
-S1* -I
• ft s r
if * i 3 ji
II I-, ^ x §- c
Ji p JE ^S :-5 j« |S
O ifl < ^ O ^
CO
_
V
o
,_«
S5
r^
Wells affected c)
(34)
Si >-'
* «.
s|
JJ.E
§1
"~ 8
j!
e*
S £
E-D
£-8
o-l
= 6
-o -
-o c
O V
xJi
1 >
i ?
«c
« 0
* 8,
O)
~ 1
01
S> a
s * .
c o- o
8= «
*• <
8- . g
2 »'i
P 'E .2>
0)^ i
_c u
1__ fl) >v
-1 1
o a,8"
** 3 •
3 §1
€-§|
-D » §
II!
i sii
*iii
i,^ — ^^ O
o o »- 5
. > c e
•c c o fc
oj — o v
a -g 5 5?
tl|l
Q) "" O w»
**- tt) Q. O
a) All numbers re
several damag
b) Haphazard dis
c) Not included
v
•5
n
I
~o
'i
3
1
*5
—
8
s-
-Q
•?
o
JL
^
'?
"D
S.
a
'i
vt
O
i/t
.—
^
%
o
u
E
o
t_
14-
X
_0)
o
tf»
TO
.!
0)
•Q
c
0)
J!
0)
j
a>
-Q
S.
Ift
•£.
c
TJ
£
i
0)
fc.
£
-g
1
1
157
-------
Table 19. SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL AND 18 INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
CONTAMINATION CASES. 17)
Type of Landfill
Findings Municipal Industrial
Assessment of principal damage
Contamination of aquifer only 9 8
Water supply well(s) affected 16 9
Contamination of surface water 17 ]
Principal aquifer affected
(Jnconsolidated deposits 33 11
Sedimentary rocks 7 3
Crystalline rocks 2 4
Type of pollutant observed
General contamination 37 4
Toxic substances 5 14
Observed distance traveled by pollutant
Less than 100 feet 6 0
100 to 1,000 feet 8 4
More than 1,000 feet 11 2
Unknown or unreported 17 12
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant
Less than 30 feet 11 3
30 to 100 feet 11 3
More than 100 feet 5 2
Unknown or unreported 15 10
Action taken regarding source of contamination
Landfill abandoned 5 6
Landfill removed 1 2
Containment or treatment of leachate 10 2
No known action 26 8
Action taken regarding ground-water resource
Water supply well(s) abandoned 4 5
Ground-water monitoring program established 12 2
No known action 26 11
Litigation
Litigation involved 8 5
No known action taken 34 13
158
-------
this is somewhat deceptive. As previously noted, very lit-
tle information is on file with regulatory agencies regard-
ing the location and operation of industrial landfills.
Furthermore, ground-water contamination problems have been
studied to a greater extent at municipal than at industrial
sites.
Because of the large volumes of waste material involved, re-
moving the source of contamination when dealing with land-
fills obviously is almost impossible. Thus, most of the
cases included in Table 19 are listed under the category
"no action taken." In a few, involving small quantities of
toxic wastes, the material causing the problem was excavated,
In others, the site was closed, but this alternative is dif-
ficult to accomplish because an acceptable new location must
be found and approved, or new facilities must be designed
and constructed for handling the waste, such as recovery,
treatment, or incineration. In addition, simple abandonment
of the site does nothing to remedy the problem. In cases
where well supplies have been affected, abandonment of the
wells is sometimes a last resort because of the high costs
involved in developing and piping a new source of water sup-
ply.
A few contamination cases are known to have resulted in liti-
gation. This procedure normally takes the form of a local
or regional regulatory agency using existing laws to force
the contaminator to take action to modify the operation of
or to abandon the site.
As discussed in other sections of this report, the major
perils inherent in ground-water contamination are the elu-
sive nature and the long duration of the problem. Almost
all of the case studies reported to date were discovered af-
ter the damage to the ground water had already occurred. Al-
so, the subsurface migration of contaminants is a very slow
process, which means that most of the damages caused by the
disposal of huge quantities of hazardous wastes during the
past decades are still to be evidenced. This point is well
illustrated by the following case study. 18)
In May 1972, a local building contractor occupied a new of-
fice and warehouse structure at the outskirts of Perham, a
town of 1,900 residents in western Minnesota. At that time,
a well was drilled to supply drinking water for about 13
people who worked on the premises.
Early in May, five employees became ill with gastrointestin-
al symptoms. Following this, and continuing throughout the
next 10 weeks, other employees also became ill. Arsenic poi-
159
-------
soning was determined to be the cause, which affected a to-
tal of 11 out of 13 persons exposed to the water. Two re-
quired hospitalization and treatment. One of the victims
lost the use of his legs for about six months due to severe
neuropathy. The medical aspects of this ground-water contam-
ination incident have been well documented by Dr. E. J.
Feinglass. 19)
Chemical analysis of samples taken from the affected well
established arsenic concentrations of up to 21,000 ppb.
(The EPA drinking water standard for arsenic is 50 ppb.) As
Dr. Feinglass pointed out in his article, the particularly
serious consequences of chronic arsenic poisoning were prob-
ably avoided in this instance because of the extremely high
concentration of arsenic in the drinking water. The acute
course of the illness allowed early recognition of the prob-
lem.
The source of the well water contamination has been traced
back to the mid-1930's, at which time grasshoppers had con-
stituted a serious problem to farmers in the area. Some old-
timers recalled that excess grasshopper bait had been buried
at the former County Fairgrounds, in a corner which was used
as the village dump in those days. That area is now direct-
ly adjacent to the new facilities of the building contractor
whose well became contaminated.
The exact area of disposal was located approximately 20 ft
(6 m) from the well. The well is 31 ft (9 m) deep and the
arsenic trioxide was buried at a depth of about 7 ft (2m).
Analysis of soil samples established a maximum arsenic con-
centration of 40 percent at the spot where a white crystal-
line material was found. The Minnesota Department of Agri-
culture has estimated that less than 50 Ib (23 kg) of grass-
hopper bait was disposed of in the trench about 40 years ago.
The association of public health effects with the contamina-
tion of a drinking water supply through hazardous waste dis-
posal, as illustrated by the previous case study, is extreme-
ly difficult. Nevertheless, EPA is aware of numerous inci-
dents where waste disposal practices have impaired the use
of domestic and public drinking water supplies. The follow-
ing case study illustrates the wide-scale impairment of do-
mestic water supplies and the associated economic damages. 20)
In March 1971, a major chemical company hired an independent
waste hauler to remove drums containing chemical wastes from
one of its plants in New Jersey. The wastes consisted of or-
ganic wash solvents and still bottoms and residues from the
manufacturing of a variety of organic chemicals and plastics.
160
-------
The waste drums were to be taken to a landfill for disposal,
and some of the.drums which were removed initially from the
plant probably reached their intended destination. However,
in December 1971, about 4,000 of the drums were discovered
on a former chicken farm in a sparsely populated suburban
area of New Jersey. About 10 percent of the drums were emp-
ty. There were trenches on the property into which the con-
tents of some drums had been emptied. Chemical wastes and
some of the full drums were also buried in other sections of
the property. On the grounds that the storage of drums con-
taining flammable and explosive chemicals presented fire and
explosion hazards in the area, and that the storage of chem-
ical waste by the lessee did not have the approval of the
property owner, a court order was obtained to have the chem-
ical company remove all drums and chemical wastes from the
property and dispose of them in an approved manner.
Early in 1974, about two years after the discovery of chemi-
cal waste storage/disposal on the leased land, some of the
residents in the area discovered unusual taste and odor in
their well water. Subsequent chemical analysis of water sam-
ples from these and other wells in the area indicated the
presence of petrochemical contaminants. On the basis of
these analytical results, the very strong and persistent
taste and odor problem associated with the water from some
of the wells, and the documented case of earlier waste chem-
ical storage and burial on the nearby land, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection concluded that the
ground water in at least the immediate vicinity of the dis-
posal site was contaminated with hazardous organic chemicals.
To protect the health of the area's residents, the local
Board of Health passed an ordinance forbidding the use of
well water from 148 wells for any purpose. For a period of
about 6 months while steps were being taken to extend the
services of a public water supply company to the area on a
permanent basis, emergency water supply was provided to the
residents using water tanks which were stationed at strate-
gic locations in the area. Some residents and public facil-
ities used bottled water for drinking and cooking purposes.
In some sections of the area where construction of new wells
was still allowed, the wells had to be drilled deeper than
was formerly necessary in order to obtain uncontaminated wa-
ter.
Preliminary estimates indicate the immediate monetary damage
resulting from the incident was in excess of $400,000. The
major items of cost include: the extension of the public wa-
ter supply to the area ($249,000), 20 new wells drilled to a
deeper aquifer ($46,000), interim emergency water for area
161
-------
residents ($5,000, minimum), and sampling and analysis of wa-
ter ($35,500). Costs associated with litigation, removal of
wastes from the property, and salaries for many of the pro-
fessionals in the state and local agencies investigating the
incident are not included in the above estimates.
The stockpiling of hazardous waste materials without ade-
quate precautions can seriously impair ground-water quality.
This is illustrated by the following incident which affected
a public water supply system, 20) jn 1967, an Indus t.:' 1
operation recovering metals from waste materials moved near
the well field of a New Jersey municipality. The company
stockpiled n.aterials containing zinc, lead, and cadmium in
the open, and the metals leached into adjacent surface and
ground waters. Subsequently, some public water supply wells
had to be closed in 1971 and 1972 due to high concentrations
of zinc. Other wells in the same field are in jeopardy. In
addition, a surface stream flows into a pond near the well
field; zinc and lead concentrations in that pond have been
analyzed at 12,250 ppm and 600 ppm, respectively. (The U. S.
Public Health Service recommended drinking water limit for
zinc is 5,0 ppm; the EPA mandatory drinking water limit for
lead is 0.05 ppm.)
Prolonged disposal of hazardous wastes at landfills and
dumps can result in the accumulation of extremely large
amounts of material, the effects of which may not be ob-
served for many years. From 1953 to 1973, a laboratory com-
pany in Iowa utilized a dump site for solid-waste disposal.
Over 250,000 cu ft (7,000 cu m) of arsenic-bearing wastes
had been deposited there. Monitoring wells around the dump
have established over 175 ppm arsenic in the ground water.
(The U. S. Public Health Service drinking water limit for
arsenic is 0,05 ppm.) The dump site is located above a lime-
stone bedrock aquifer, from which 70 percent of the nearby
city's residents obtain their drinking and crop irrigation
water. Although there is no evidence that the drinking wa-
ter is being affectedf the potential for future contamina-
tion is significant. 20)
In 1975, EPA conducted an assessment of leachate damages at
five municipal disposal sites located in the northeast and
midwest (Table 20). All five sites contaminated the ground
water and polluted residential, industrial, or public supply
wells. Up to 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and 0.42 sq mi (1.1 sg km)
of ground water were contaminated.
In all but one case, ail the wells were abandoned and public
water piped in. In this case the residential wells were re-
placed by piped water, but the public supply and industrial
162
-------
TJ
~.
O
•
£
3
13
CO
>-
O
D
i^^
i~*
to
UJ
CO
<
U
•
O
CM
°lii
_ D Q-
o*g-
S ^0
-o g^
g -D -g
£ .E Q.
-* -* —
M
"5
>.
* „
U
1^
•« »
d) C
2: c
*- o
tv ^:
_w
— 1>
•s ?
5 •> ^
— ^
"5 2 9-
~ J 9-
Id
S -2 ID
^1
CO CO CO
V)
1
»rt
— 41
.2 §
•C P
C X
-§£
*v» 4)
k! ^
CO -C
VI
V
25 residential
Damages
I:? =
all wells abandom
public water supp
new public supply
cover soi 1 on landf
•u
4)
-s!
J3
£
si
.a J
0 0
M • —
J-%
J Q.
"D
gi
l"8-g
O w
-o — o
C O.-Q
O °- *. 0)
•Bag.*
>» « j» g
111 1
.00"
•u rr — c
£-§-§§
£ a. o. u
TJ
V
^lll
"S -8 "-2
J ^ « Q-
c o o £
o-S * •>
e ° o £
M=l
— w o x
tr 9 ate
T3
.2
"oi_
TJ O-
V 3
1 "
1^
0 0
-------
wells have been forced to cut back production. Counterpump-
ing wells are being used to retard the leachate migration.
Since counterpumping is so expensive, serious consideration
is being given to the removal of the landfill. This would
allow the aquifer to eventually cleanse itself and once
again permit full use of the public supply and industrial
wells.
In none of the five cases were the damaged well owners fully
compensated for their losses, including their inconvenience,
lost time, and water consumption charges. The domestic well
owners in one case assumed all the cost themselves. They
used temporary water for four years before donating their
private road to the city and connecting to a public supply.
In another case, the domestic well owners sued the landfill
operator. In winning the suit they recovered only the legal
fees, public supply costs, and some house fixture replace-
ments. Unrecovered were such costs as temporary water, in-
convenience, lost time, road repair, and water consumption
charges. They also were required to become annexed to the
town which supplied the water.
Litigations against contaminating land disposal sites take
two forms: (1) action by the state health or environmental
authority to force corrective actions to prevent continued
contamination, and (2) damage suits by the impacted well or
land owners. Both types of litigation have severe con-
straints. A major problem with both types is the expense
and effort of proving the contamination was indeed caused by
the disposal site and by no other source. Such proof typi-
cally requires drilling of monitoring wells and analyses of
water samples to determine the direction of ground-water
flow and the constituents and extent of contamination. This
means a major expense before litigation can start. At one
site, such an examination was estimated by the U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey to cost $130,000.
A second and greater constraint on state litigation is that,
in the absence of a disposal alternative, the state cannot
realistically shut down a disposal site regardless of the
contamination it causes. Coercion must be used with or with-
out litigation. Further, any effective corrective action is
generally prohibitively costly (a private owner could de-
clare bankruptcy first). The damaged party usually cannot
afford the professional expense to conclusively prove the
source of contamination. In addition, the owner of the con-
taminated well usually has no alternative water-supply
source other than bottled water, so time is of the essence
in obtaining relief.
164
-------
Radioactive Wastes
Radioactive wastes are disposed of by shallow-land burial at
a number of facilities across the United States. 21) six of
these sites are commercial, and are required to be situated
on Federally- or state-owned land, even though they are man-
aged by private industry. The commercial sites are located
in Washington, Nevada, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and
South Carolina, and in general, are regulated by the state's
Environmental Protection Agency.
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) has
five principal burial sites at their facilities in New Mex-
ico, Idaho, Tennessee, Washington, and South Carolina. All
are located on Federal land, and they are operated by ERDA
contractors.
The sources of waste, which are in a solid form, are derived
from the nuclear power industry (fuel fabrication, reactor
operation, and fuel reprocessing); the university and indus-
trial research centers, medical diagnostic and treatment cen-
ters; military laboratories and service facilities, includ-
ing the shipyard servicing of nuclear-propulsion naval ves-
sels; and certain ERDA operations which do not have on-site
waste burial capability. The low-level radioactive wastes
which are disposed of by shallow-land burial can be defined
as those which neither originate from the first extraction
process of the nuclear fuel reprocessing operation nor gen-
erate sufficient heat or radiation so as to require special
cooling or shielding.
Inventory data accumulated by EPA during the past few years
reveal that the volume and quantity of low-level waste is
growing rapidly. As of 1973, some 9.2 million cu ft
(260,000 cu m) of low-level radioactive wastes have been
buried, and it is estimated that by 1990 this volume will
have accumulated to some 175 million cu ft (5 million cu m).
It is estimated that the ERDA facilities will have accumu-
lated about 40 million cu ft (1.1 million cu m) by 1990.
Based on EPA data, estimates, and projections concerning the
existing commercial burial sites, if all sites are used to
capacity and no changes to the present practices or trends
occur, all six commercial sites could be filled by 1992.
Examples of problems that can occur if such wastes are not
handled properly are illustrated by the following case his-
tories. Between 1963 and 1974, approximately 3.7 million cu
ft (100,000 cu m) of solid "low-level" radioactive waste
were buried at the commercial radioactive waste disposal fa-
cility at the Maxey Flats, Kentucky site. 22) These wastes
165
-------
contained more than 175 Ib (80 kg) of plutonium-239, a large
undetermined quantity of other plutonium isotopes, and
1,600,000 Ci of by-product material. The burial media at
Maxey Flats is an unsaturated jointed shale with relatively
low permeability which is underlain by a series of jointed
shales, siltstones, and sandstones. The main water table is
approximately 150 ft (45 m) below land surface. In 1972, it
was noted that some trenches had filled or -were filling with
leachate and radioactivity was detected in monitoring wells
and in the environment around the burial facility.
Geotechnical, operational, and regulatory factors or prob-
lems observed at Maxey Flats which appear to have a direct
bearing on the land burial of hazardous wastes follow:
The intent of disposing of plutonium and other radio-
nuclides at Maxey Flats was absolute containment but con-
tamination has migrated hundreds of metres from the site
in less than 10 years. While EPA scientists are confi-
dent that, at the present time, this movement of plutoni-
um and other radioactive materials does not present a pub-
lic health hazard, the potential long-range impact of
these contaminants is not known.
- The primary source of the leachate is precipitation in-
filtrating through the trench caps. If the caps had been
impermeable (rather than of "very low permeability"),
there may not have been a problem.
The permeability of the burial media was sufficiently low
to cause the trenches to fill like bathtubs with leachate
and overflow; yet, the joints in the burial media allow-
ed subsurface migration of the leachates.
There is no information on the physical and chemical
character of the wastes.
There is insufficient information on the hydrogeology of
the site and the wastes buried there to predict where or
how the radioactivity will migrate or what the impact on
man or the environment will be. An estimated $1,300,000
will be required to evaluate the problem.
Plutonium is thought to be insoluble in water and unable
to move more than a few centimetres after coming in con-
tact with the ground. It is suspected that the reaction
of plutonium in the leachate-saturated environment of the
burial trenches may have mobilized it so that it has been
able to migrate hundreds of metres through the subsurface.
If true, this could have serious implications on the land
166
-------
disposal of other heavy metals.
The site is located over a series of jointed and frac-
tured rock and the burial media itself is jointed. This
jointing and fracturing: (1) prevents prediction of
where contaminants will move; (2) allows channeling and
unexpectedly rapid movement of contaminants through the
subsurface; and (3) allows the ion exchange mechanism, a
major secondary safety factor in land disposal, to be by-
passed.
Mitigating actions such as dewatering the trenches, evap-
orating the leachates, and improving the caps have been
taken. They do not, however, ensure that the spread of
contamination has been stopped. They are on-going, in-
terim actions which may well be required for hundreds of
years. Once dewatering stops, leachates probably will
again fill the trenches and migration of contaminants
will continue. No solution to the problem has yet been
developed; however, final corrective action may well
cost several millions of dollars.
The burial facility is regulated by the state. The regu-
lations are, in general, comparable to regulations for
other state- and Federally-regulated radioactive waste
disposal sites.
A similar situation has developed at a second commercial ra
dioactive waste burial facility in West Valley, New York.
Although the hydrogeology is different, precipitation has in
filtrated the trench caps, causing the formation of radioac-
tive leachates. These leachates have filled the trenches
and overflowed, allowing the release of radioactivity.
Again insufficient information was available on the geology,
hydrology, depth to water, and physical and chemical charac-
ter of the wastes.
At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, buried wastes from two of
four burial grounds annually contribute 1.8 to 2.8 curies of
strontium-90 to adjacent ground water and ultimately to the
Clinch River. From 1951 to 1973, approximately 35 million
gal. (130,000 cu m) of waste containing over one million
curies of mixed fission products were placed into four pits
and seven trenches excavated into the Conasaug Shale. About
half of the activity consisted of strontium-90 and cesium-
137 with most of the balance being ruthenium~106. Break-
through and transport (in ground water) was commonplace and,
in part, led to subsequent disposal efforts involving hydro-
fracturing of the shale and injection of slurries.
167
-------
Future Trends
Current or probable trends that will tend to reduce the prob-
lems of ground-water contamination from land disposal sites
are:
1. Many open dumps and other contaminating disposal sites
will be closed, and larger regional facilities, properly
located and designed to minimize contamination, will be
developed.
2. More sites will require permits from regulatory agencies
and, thus, will be constructed in compliance with state
controls and regulations.
3. More wastes will be processed (incinerated or shredded)
and/or recovered (materials and energy), resulting in
less waste volume.
It should be emphasized that the foregoing favorable trends
relate only to municipal and not industrial wastes.
Current or probable trends that will tend to increase the
problem of ground-water contamination from land disposal
sites are:
1. The volume of waste is continuing to increase, both abso-
lutely and on a per capita basis.
2. An increasing amount of industrial wastes will require
land disposal as a result of the implementation of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, and the Clean Air Act of 1970. This is illus-
trated in Figure 55, which shows that residues of pollu-
tion control efforts account for the greatest increase
in wastes destined for land disposal in the case of se-
lect industries that were examined by EPA.
3. Increasing numbers of municipal sites will refuse to ac-
cept industrial wastes, resulting in more on-site dis-
posal facilities, which are difficult to regulate, inven-
tory, and monitor.
4. Disposal sites now operating or currently closed may con-
tinue to produce leachate and cause severe damages for
the next 50 to 100 years.
5. The demand for ground and surface waters will continue
to increase, forcing utilization of water resources that
168
-------
1983
UJ
_i
<
o
cc
cc
K
m
(T
4
1971
1977
PROCESS RESIDUE
POLLUTION CONTROL RESIDUE
Figure 55. Projected growth of combined waste quantities for four representative industries
(inorganic chemicals, paper, steel, and non-ferrous smelting),.
169
-------
may have been affected by leachate.
The net effect of these favorable and unfavorable trends can
be summarized as follows:
1. The increase in the recovery of material and energy will
not offset the increases in waste generation (Table 21).
2. The greatest problems will be controlling the disposal
of hazardous industrial wastes, and developing effective
permitting and monitoring programs for all land disposal
sites.
3. In populous areas, it may become necessary to recycle wa-
ter, or treat brackish or highly mineralized water to re-
place water which has been contaminated.
4. Extensive, sophisticated land and ground-water use plan-
ning and surveillance programs will have to be developed
to avoid placing wells in contaminated aquifers, or lo-
cating disposal sites in areas where contamination could
occur.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Methods for preventing, reducing, or managing leachate are
(1) natural attenuation, (2) prevention of leachate forma-
tion, (3) collection and treatment, (4) pretreatment capable
of reducing the volume or solubility of the waste, and (5)
detoxification of hazardous wastes prior to disposal.
Descriptions of these processes are given below, including
the effectiveness of protecting ground-water resources. The
current status of the various leachate control methods is
given in Table 22.
Natural Attenuation
As leachate migrates through soil, it undergoes natural at-
tenuation by various chemical, physical, and biological
processes. The ability of a proposed sanitary landfill site
to attenuate the leachate generated should be estimated on a
site-by-site basis using available technology. If natural
attenuation appears inadequate, it may be desirable to line
the site and collect and treat the leachate.
Prevention
The second control method involves preventing leachate gen-
eration. If water is restricted from entering the site,
170
-------
Table 21. U.S. BASELINE POST-CONSUMER
SOLID WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS. a'
Estimated Projected
1971 1973 1980 1985 1990
Total Gross Discards
Million tons per year b) 133 144 175 201 225
Pounds per person per day c) 3.52 3.75 4.28 4.67 5.00
Less: Resource Recovery
Million tons per year 8 9 19 35 58
Pounds per person per day 0.21 0.23 0.46 0.81 1.29
Equals: Net Waste Disposal
Million tons per year 125 135 156 166 167
Pounds per person per day 3.31 3.52 3.81 3.86 3.71
a) Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S.
EPA, revised December 1974. Projections for 1980 to 1990 based in part on
contract work by Midwest Research Institute.
b) Tons x 0.9078 = tonnes
c) Pounds x 0.454 = kilograms
171
-------
Table 22. STATUS OF LEACHATE CONTROL METHODS.
Method
Effectiveness
Degree of use
Cost (examples)
NATURAL ATTENUATION
Cloy
Silt
Sand
PREVENTING LEACHATE
GENERATION
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Liners
Biological
treatment
Physical -Chemical
Recirculation
Spray irrigation
IMMOBILIZATION
Chemical
Stabilization
Encapsulation
Fixation and
encapsulation
promising research
unknown
unknown
ranges from
complete to
partial control
promising research
promising research
promising research
promising research
promising research
research progressing
looks promising
research progressing
looks promising
research progressing
looks promising
unknown
unknown
unknown
limited
limited
very limited
very limited
very limited
very limited
limited but
growing
very limited
not in use
natural
natural
nature 1
not available
$1.50 to
$4.00/sq yd
not available
not available
not available
not available
$10to$20/ton
$16/ton
$40/ton
VOLUME REDUCTION
Dewatering
Incineration
DETOXIFICATION
effective
effective for
organ! cs
varies widely by
process and waste
widely practiced $5 to $20/ton
in water pollution
moderate
$20 to $100/ton
limited to specific varies widely
wastes
172
-------
then the amount of leachate generated will be greatly re-
duced. Water cannot be completely prevented from entering
in some locations, but through proper design and operation,
the quantity can be minimized.
Control measures, such as diversion of upland drainage; use
of relatively impermeable soils for cover material; compact-
ing, grading, and sloping of the daily and final cover to
allow runoff; rapid attainment of final elevations; plant-
ing of high-transpiring vegetation; use of impermeable mem-
branes overlying the final lift of solid waste; maintenance
of final grades; and use of subsurface drains and ditches
to control ground water are available to the design engineer
and operator. Use of impermeable membranes and soil cover
requires vents to control gases and drains to manage the in-
tercepted leachate. However, there presently is a general
lack of quantitative information on the use of these con-
trols.
Collection and Treatment
The third control method is to collect and treat the leach-
ate. An impermeable liner may be employed to prevent the
movement of leachate into the ground. This is a relatively
new technique, and because impermeable liners have not been
used for long periods, their long-term durability has not
been established.
An impermeable liner can be made from different types of
materials, including: natural clay, soil additives, conven-
tional paving asphalt, hot sprayed asphalt, polyethylene
(PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), butyl rubber, hypalon, chlo-
rinated polyethylene (CPE), and ethylene propylene rubber
(EPDM).
EPA research currently underway provides for the evaluation
of common liner materials for resistance to various types of
municipal and industrial leachates. The evaluation will
take two years, and results will become available beginning
in May 1977. The costs of lining sanitary landfills will
also be evaluated. 24,25)
Where sanitary landfills use collection for control of leach-
ate, provisions must be made to treat it prior to discharge
to the surrounding environment. Several researchers have
studied the treatment of leachate, and promising results
were obtained with a number of methods. It was found that
biological treatment methods are effective when treating or-
ganics generated in a new site. 2) Physical-chemical treat-
ment methods showed better results than biological methods
173
-------
when treating leachate from an old fill. Industrial leach-
ate may require more specific treatment techniques, depend-
ing upon the wastes involved.
Three projects have been awarded by the EPA to demonstrate
leachate treatment processes. The first is an activated
sludge plant in Tulleytown, Pennsylvania. The treatment
plant will use lime pretreatment to remove heavy metals pri-
or to entering the activated sludge units. Because this is
the first full-scale activated sludge plant to treat land-
fill leachate, accurate cost data are presently not avail-
able. This plant was designed to treat leachate from a 50-
acre (20-ha) sanitary landfill in a moderately high-rainfall
area. The reported capital cost for the treatment plant is
$350,000.
The second demonstration project is an anaerobic filter at
Enfield, Connecticut. At the present time, EPA knows of no
cost data that are available on the capital and operating
cost of a full-scale anaerobic filter used to treat landfill
leachate; these will be provided by the Enfield project.
The third project tests the use of soils and vegetation for
reducing contaminants in leachate and measures the environ-
mental and ecological impact of leachate applied by spray
irrigation.
A laboratory study is currently underway at the University
of Illinois to test the different alternatives and combina-
tions of physical-chemical treatment methods to polish the
effluent of the extended aeration, activated sludge, and
anaerobic filter units used in treating leachate. Prelimi-
nary results indicate that a very good quality effluent can
be obtained (COD of less than 5 ppm and a total dissolved
solids content of less than 50 ppm). Similar treatment
schemes can be used to treat well-stabilized leachate from
an old landfill.
Leachate can be spray irrigated on certain land and is
treated through reactions in the soil mantle. Research work
already carried out by EPA has shown that spray irrigation
can remove contaminants from leachate. The test results
from the study showed COD removal rates of 85 to 99 percent;
iron, 88 to 99 percent; and similar results for zinc. Low-
er removal rates were observed for potassium, calcium, mag-
nesium, and sodium.
Managing Industrial Wastes
While much industrial waste has characteristics somewhat sim-
ilar to municipal refuse, process wastes tend to be composed
174
-------
of higher concentrations of more homogeneous materials. Of-
ten these are liquids, slurries, or sludges, and typically
they are toxic, flammable, or otherwise hazardous to health
and the environment. Properties of such wastes vary widely,
and the techniques used to manage them adequately vary ac-
cordingly. Many of the techniques discussed above are ap-
plicable to certain classes of hazardous wastes, or can be
made suitable if modifications are made, or proper precau-
tions are taken. .
Although the preferable alternative for many waste disposal
problems is the conventional' sanitary landfill, certain
wastes should probably never be land disposed because of the
extreme hazards posed by the escape of even small quantities
of a hazardous constituent. Due largely to the hazardous
nature of some industrial wastes, the potential for leachate
contamination of surface and ground waters is large even in
a well-run sanitary landfill. Also, waste-materials hand-
ling procedures at a landfill may be less than adequate to
ensure the landfill operators' safety.
EPA has awarded a five-year demonstration grant to the Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency. The overall project goal is
to conduct a complete demonstration of a chemical waste land
disposal site, which examines the technological, economic,
organizational, and social/institutional issues involved in
establishing and managing an environmentally acceptable site
designated for hazardous wastes.
Specific objectives include:
1. Demonstration of site selection methods.
2. Demonstration of appropriate site preparation techniques
to prevent ground-water infiltration.
3. Demonstration of waste preparation techniques.
4. Demonstration of monitoring and surveillance techniques.
5. Evaluation of waste handling and operational procedures.
6. Determination of costs.
7. Evaluation of social and institutional issues.
The facility will become operational in late 1977 and con-
tinue to serve industrial waste generators in the Minne-
apolis-St. Paul area after the demonstration period ends in
1980.
175
-------
The broad categories of hazardous waste handling are chemi-
cal stabilization and encapsulation. The purpose of these
techniques is to render the waste less soluble or less avail-
able for transport to the water related environment. In the
chemical fixation process, additives are mixed with waste
sludges, and the resulting mixture is deposited in a land
disposal site. Depending on the technique employed, some
wastes, such as heavy metals, may be complexed to produce in-
soluble compounds. Chemical fixation costs are typically in
the range of 5 to 10 cents/gal, (approximately $10 to $20/
ton or $11 to $22/tonne), not including the cost of land at
the final disposal site.
Although its application is somewhat limited, numerous incin-
eration techniques are currently available which are appro-
priate to a variety of disposal situations. The primary ad-
vantages of proper incineration are listed below:
1. Incineration technology is relatively well developed.
Facilities exist that are currently utilized in both mu-
nicipal and industrial waste disposal.
2. Incineration can destroy or detoxify a very wide variety
of hazardous organic materials. With the proper incin-
erator temperature, residence time, and effluent scrub-
bers , many dangerous compounds are oxidized to harmless
combustion products. In this case, some residual mate-
rials will still remain for land disposal, but these
will often be less toxic than the original material.
3. Incineration can greatly reduce the volume of waste. A
concentrated ash is more suitable for materials recovery
and requires less space for land disposal.
4. Incineration has the potential for energy recovery.
With the increasing cost of fuel, the heat value of
waste materials represents a potentially valuable energy
source.
Incineration does have disadvantages. The equipment is rela-
tively expensive and unless proper control devices are in-
stalled, air pollution problems can result.
Although many industrial wastes are currently being inciner-
ated in commercial incinerators, the combustion conditions
and the effluents are not always adequately controlled or
monitored. Also, information which is gathered is generally
kept in confidence. In order to provide the desired informa-
tion base to the government and the public, a demonstration
program has been initiated by EPA.
176
-------
This program will demonstrate the environmental, operational,
and economic feasibility of destructing industrial wastes
via incineration. The work will be accomplished through a
series of test burns conducted on various types of existing
commercial-scale incinerators, using actual samples of indus-
trial waste streams.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Levels of Regulatory Control
There is no Federal regulatory control of land disposal of
solid waste except as it may enter navigable waters. The
use of the Refuse Act of 1899, which prohibits discharging
solid waste to navigable waters, has been awkward and gen-
erally ineffective.
A recent district court ruling stated that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) specifically excluded
ground water from Federal regulatory control (U.S. vs. GAF
2-5-75). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES), established under this Act to control ground-
water discharges, has yet to be successfully employed. Fur-
ther obstacles to Federal control are inherent in the char-
acteristics of "sanitary landfills." "Sanitary landfills"
are not designed to discharge leachate. Therefore, the ap-
plication of an NPDES-style permit is infrequent.
Traditionally, regulation and control of solid-waste dis-
posal have been concerns of the states. While there are
dramatic differences in perceived responsibilities and objec-
tives among the 50 state regulatory agencies, there is agree-
ment among state laws that solid-waste disposal shall not
pose a threat to health. All 50 states have addressed the
problem of solid-waste disposal and have passed legislation
to control, to varying degrees, health and environmental im-
pacts associated with solid-waste disposal.
Permits
Forty-four states have statutes which prohibit the disposal
of solid waste without a permit. Typically, the permit is
issued by a state agency, but in a number of states, permits
are handled by local or regional agencies, with state over-
sight.
The range of requirements for state permit systems extends
from the minimal requirements of four states for notifica-
tion that a facility exists, to the requirements of states
like Pennsylvania, that applicants engage engineers to pre-
177
-------
pare thorough site descriptions, including soil borings, wa-
ter analyses, and general aquifer descriptions, for submis-
sion to the State Geological Survey for review. Under a
typical system, an applicant for a permit must supply de-
tailed information concerning his proposed site and disposal
plan. The agency determines whether the site is acceptable,
and if so, what conditions would be placed in the permit.
Special requirements must be met for hazardous wastes.
Many statutes also specifically address the prevention of
water contamination, including ground water. In some states,
these are strictly enforced, but regulation of the disposal
of solid waste is, in practice, frequently shaped by a bal-
ancing of competing interests, of which ground water is the
least apparent.
As conditions for issuance of a permit, regulations typi-
cally require:
1. Plans and specifications for the proposed site and facil-
ity; some states require that these be prepared by a
registered professional engineer.
2. A map or aerial photograph of the area showing land use
within the adjoining area. Locations of nearby water
bodies may be required. Delaware requires wells within
one mile of the site to be identified, 26) but the re-
quirement in other regulations is usually less than this
— down to as little as 500 ft (150 m).
3. A report on geologic formations and soil conditions, in-
cluding depth to ground water. The Wisconsin regulation
specifies 3 borings for a site up to 5 acres (2 ha) in
size, one boring for each additional 5 acres up to 50
acres (20 ha), and one boring for each additional 50
acres. 2<7) Many states, such as Florida, now require
that hydrogeologic factors be considered prior to per-
mitting new sites. A hydrogeologic survey of a site can
show type and permeability of soil, height of water
table, quality of ground water, and direction of ground-
water movement.
Illinois requires data describing soil classification,
grain size distribution, permeability, compactability,
and ion-exchange properties of the subsurface materials
for those strata essential to design of the land dispos-
al site; comprehensive analyses of water samples from
on-site and nearby wells; a description of ground-water
conditions including flow below and adjacent to the pro-
posed site; and an appraisal of the effect on ground
178
-------
and surface waters.
The importance given to hydrogeological analysis in the
site review process varies widely among the states. Con-
verted dumps and landfills, which make up the majority
of sites, usually are not required to undergo such anal-
yses.
4. A description of surface drainage patterns. The Cali-
fornia regulation, for example, requires calculations
for the flooding frequency of streams within or adjacent
to the site. 29)
5. A report of (a) population and area to be served by the
facility, (b) anticipated type, quantity, and source of
wastes, (c) source and characteristics of cover materi-
als, and (d) type and amount of equipment, and operating
plans.
6. Information concerning measures proposed for prevention
of water contamination and for control of drainage,
leachate, and gases.
In addition, some regulations require a statement or plan as
to ultimate use of the site after closing.
The statute or regulation may require that a representative
of the regulatory agency inspect the site prior to issuance
of a license. Most states either automatically require a
hearing prior to issuance of a permit, or require one only
if requested by a person who believes he may be adversely af-
fected by the disposal operation.
Every state has implemented some type of control over its
municipal sites, but control over industrial sites is much
less common. Where the state solid-waste authority does re-
quire permits, there may be a permit to construct, a permit
to operate, or some combination of the two.
Regulations Limiting Hazardous Waste Disposal at Landfill
Sites~
Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ok-
lahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have regula-
tions limiting hazardous waste disposal at solid-waste sites.
However, defining which wastes are hazardous presents a dif-
ficult problem.
Some states, such as Massachusetts, have published detailed
179
-------
regulations specifically addressing hazardous waste manage-
ment. However, a number of state personnel have argued that
one or two paragraphs contained in general solid-waste man-
agement (or other) regulations equally constitute "having
hazardous waste regulations." Their belief is that the
whole of their regulations, of which the hazardous waste sec-
tion (toxic waste, etc.) may be only a small part, is ade-
quate authority to accomplish the same goals as the more de-
tailed regulations in other states.
Many states have published regulations for land disposal of
hazardous wastes, even though only a few states have hazard-
ous waste legislation. State solid-waste management or wa-
ter contamination control laws sometimes give the state auth-
ority to control certain aspects of "hazardous," "toxic,"
"liquid," "industrial," or "special" waste management. Any
of these terms can be construed in such a way as to give the
state authority to regulate most of the wastes usually in-
cluded in the term "hazardous." In nearly every case, the
state has been given (or chosen to exercise) authority over
hazardous wastes only at the disposal site. Many of these
states choose to issue prescriptive regulations, such as,
"special wastes may not be placed in landfills without prior
approval."
As mentioned above, commercial burial facilities for radio-
active wastes are managed by private industry, are located
on public lands with limited access, and are generally con-
trolled by the state in which they are situated. Exceptions
are sites in Illinois, Nevada, and Washington, where NRC
(National Research Council) retains direct regulation and/or
licensing of the handling of special nuclear material.
The licenses for the burial of radioactive waste generally
contain provisions for site maintenance, inventory control,
health and safety, and environmental monitoring. The former
AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) and agreement states issued
29 other licenses to companies for the purpose of collecting,
packaging, storing, and transporting radioactive wastes from
the users of radioactive materials to the commercial dis-
posal facilities. These companies are not involved with the
actual disposal of the waste, but act only as intermediaries.
Published Criteria for Designating Hazardous Wastes
Three states have published criteria for determining which
wastes are "hazardous": California, Massachusetts, and
South Carolina. The California criteria are considerably
more detailed than those of the other two, and (also unlike
the other two) the California criteria are embodied in a
180
-------
"Hazardous Substances Act." Minnesota and Oregon are re-
portedly in the process of developing their criteria.
Publishing criteria has several advantages over publishing a
list of hazardous wastes. Most importantly, it allows the
state to describe what is being regulated without naming it.
The state may unintentionally omit a flammable compound from
its list of hazardous wastes, but if the state has published
its criterion for measuring flammability, the omitted sub-
stance would be covered. Additionally, wastes can be an al-
most infinite variety of compounds and mixtures. For exam-
ple, it would be nearly impossible for the state to antici-
pate every form and combination of waste which might be flam-
mable. By publishing criteria, however, the generator would
have a reliable method for determining whether or not he had
a hazardous waste regardless of the composition.
Program Limitations
Evaluation of state solid-waste programs is very difficult
without first hand experience of each particular state. Re-
liance on staff size, budget, legislation, or regulations as
measures of effectiveness can be deceptive. The enthusiasm
with which a particular state solid-waste agency fulfills
its responsibilities may be contingent on administrative
leadership, staff professionalism, the agency's perception
of problem potential, or historical precedent. As previous-
ly mentioned, the regulation of disposal sites may be sub-
ject to the forces of competing interests. Additionally, a
large percentage of each state's disposal sites was devel-
oped prior to the current regulations, and these old sites
generally are not subject to rigorous examination by the
state agency.
Current state solid-waste budgets range from $0.01 to $0.32/
capita/year. One of the possible reasons for the wide range
of these budgets is that those states which have delegated
some of the regulatory functions to sub-state governments
would not need as large a state budget or staff as those
states that maintain a greater degree of centralized control.
Also, Federal EPA grants have often been used to help supple-
ment state solid-waste programs. The size of a solid-waste
budget may reflect the efficiency of a program, but they
have not been a reliable measure of its effectiveness.
The number of employees in a state solid-waste program
ranges from one to 50. Many states are hampered by inade-
quate staff, resulting in fewer inspections and a backlog of
permit requests. A number of state programs have sufficient
staff to operate only under authority legislated in general
181
-------
environmental acts. For state solid-waste programs on the
average, 27 percent of staff is in administration, 27 per-
cent in enforcement, 26.5 percent in technical assistance,
and 19.5 percent in planning. The high priority of techni-
cal assistance reflects the positive incentive approach many
states are using to improve solid-waste facilities and regu-
latory programs.
Federal Guidelines
The Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency has prepared Solid Waste Management Guidelines for
the disposal of municipal waste under directive of the 1970
amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (PL 89-
272). The guidelines represent the judgment of the EPA re-
garding what is acceptable design and operation of land-
disposal facilities to insure protection of the environment.
They are recommended for adoption by state and local govern-
mental agencies, and are mandatory for Federal agencies and
for solid-waste disposal on any Federal lands.
182
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Rules
and regulations, title 40, chapter 1, part 241; guide-
lines for the land disposal of solid waste, section
241.101: definitions.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid and Hazard-
ous Waste Research Laboratory, National Environmental
Research Center. 1974. Summary report: gas and leach-
ate from land disposal of municipal solid waste. Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. 62 pp.
3. Shaver, R. G. 1975. Assessment of industrial hazard-
ous waste practices: inorganic chemicals industry.
Final report. Versar, Inc. Contract No. 68-01-2246.
Springfield, Virginia.
4. Gruber, G. I., and M. Ghasseni. 1975. Assessment of
industrial hazardous waste practices: organic chemical,
pesticides and explosives industries. Unpublished
draft. TRW Systems and Energy. Contract No. 68-01-
2919. Redondo Beach, California.
5. Weisberg, G. 1975. Assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices: petroleum refining. Unpublished
draft. Jacobs Engineering Co. Contract No. 68-01-2288.
Pasadena, California.
6. Leonard, R. P. 1975. Assessment of industrial hazard-
ous waste practices in the metal smelting and refining
industry. Unpublished draft. Calspan Corporation.
Contract No. 68-01-2604. Buffalo, New York.
7. Hallowell, J. B. 1975. Assessment of industrial haz-
ardous waste practices: electroplating and metal fin-
ishing industries. Unpublished draft. Battelle Colum-
bus Laboratories. Contract No. 68-01-2664. Columbus,
Ohio.
8. Levin, J. 1975. Assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices: paint and coatings manufacturer, sol-
vent reclaiming, and factory-applied coatings opera-
tions. Unpublished draft. Wapora, Inc. Contract No.
68-01-2656. Washington, D. C.
183
-------
9. Shaver, R. G. 1974. Assessment of industrial hazard-
ous waste practices: storage and primary batteries in-
dustries. Versar, Inc. National Technical Information
Service, Report PB 241-204. Springfield, Virginia.
10. McMahan, J. R. 1975. Hazardous waste generation,
treatment and disposal in the Pharmaceuticals industry.
Unpublished draft. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Contract No.
68-01-2684. Boston, Massachusetts.
11. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Report
to Congress: disposal of hazardous wastes. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-115.
12. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division.
1973. 1973 estimates. Report in preparation.
13. Anonymous. 1975. Exclusive Waste Age survey of the na-
tion's disposal sites. Waste Age. January 1975.
14. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1975. 1972 census of manufactures, water use in manu-
facturing. Washington, D. C. 194 pp.
15. Flach, K. W. 1973. Land resources. Pages 113-120 in
University of Illinois. Proceedings of joint confer-
ence on recycling municipal sludges and effluents on
land. Champaign, Illinois.
16. Shuster, K. A. 1975. Leachate damage assessment. In-
terim Report. Unpublished report. Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
17. Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. 1974.
Ground water contamination in the northeast states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report 660/2-
74-056.
18. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs. 1975. Hazardous waste dis-
posal damage report. Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-151.
19. Feinglass, E. J. 1973. Arsenic intoxication from well
water in the United States. New England Journal of
Medicine 288 (16):828-830.
184
-------
20. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs. Internal files.
21. O'Connell, M. F., and W. F. Holcomb. 1974. A summary
of low-level radioactive wastes buried at commercial
sites between 1962-1973, with projections to the year
2000. Radiation Data and Reports, Vol. 15, No. 12.
Pages 759-767.
22. Kaufman, R. F., G. G. Eadie, and C. R. Russell. 1975.
Summary of ground-water quality impacts of uranium min-
ing and milling in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico.
Technical Note ORP/LV-75-4. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas,
Nevada. 71 pp.
23. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Source
Analysis Branch. 1975. Personal communication.
24. Haxo, H. E., Jr., and G. M. White. 1974. Evaluation
of liner materials exposed to leachate: first interim
report. Matrecon, Inc. Oakland, California. 58 pp.
25. Geswein, A. J. 1975. Liners for land disposal sites.
Environmental Protection Publication (SW-137). U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 23 pp.
26. Delaware Water Pollution Control Regulations.
27. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1973. Regu-
lations, Chapter NR 151: solid waste management.
28. Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1973. Rules and reg-
ulations, Chapter 7, rule 316: application.
29. California State Water Resources Control Board. Waste
discharge requirements for waste disposal to land.
185
-------
SECTION VIII
SEPTIC TANKS AND CESSPOOLS
SUMMARY
Septic tanks and cesspools rank highest in total volume of
waste water discharged directly to ground water and are the
most frequently reported sources of contamination. However,
most problems are related to individual homesites or subdivi-
sions where recycling of septic fluids through aquifers has
affected private wells used for drinking water. Except in
situations where such recycling is so quick that pathogenic
organisms can survive, the overall health hazard from on-
site domestic waste disposal is only moderate, with relative-
ly high concentrations of nitrate representing the principal
concern.
Twenty-nine percent of the population, representing about
19.5 million single housing units, dispose of their domestic
waste through individual on-site disposal systems. Almost
17 million of these housing units use septic tanks or cess-
pools. Regional ground-water quality problems have been rec-
ognized only in those areas of the greatest density of such
systems, primarily in the northeast and southern California.
Across the United States, there are four counties (Nassau
and Suffolk, New York; Bade, Florida; and Los Angeles, Cal-
ifornia) with more than 100,000 housing units served by sep-
tic tanks and cesspools, and there are 23 counties with more
than 50,000. Data on discharge to industrial septic tanks
are not available.
Where the density of on-site disposal systems has created
problems, collection of domestic waste water by public sew-
ers and treatment at a central facility is the most common
alternative. Other alternatives, which are generally lim-
ited to special situations where natural conditions or re-
strictive codes rule out conventional septic tank systems,
include aerobic treatment tanks, sand filters, flow reduc-
tion devices, evapotranspiration systems, and artificial
soil (mounds) disposal systems.
Where sewer systems are not economically feasible, preven-
tion of ground-water quality problems has normally been at-
tempted by low density zoning at the local government level,
although increased regulation of septic tank siting, con-
struction and design is emerging at the state government
level. More than half the states now participate in septic
tank permitting or regulation of some type, and a large num-
186
-------
her are providing local agencies with data to aid in land-
use planning as applied to septic tank density.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
There are three methods of on-site domestic waste disposal
in wide use today. The most sophisticated and acceptable of
these is the septic tank and its associated subsurface dis-
posal system. Septic tanks are installed for most new hous-
ing when public sewer service is not available. The cess-
pool, common in many older installations with deep permeable
soils, is less satisfactory th'an the septic system and no
longer approved for new installations in many areas. And,
finally, the pit privy is common in many rural areas, where
pressurized water systems are not available.
Septic Tank System
The septic tank system is composed primarily of two compo-
nents: the septic tank which traps the settleable solids,
and floating grease and scum contained in the raw sewage,
and the subsurface disposal system (trench bed, leach field,
etc.) which receives the liquid effluent from the septic
tank. When acceptable soil conditions exist, the two units
will effectively treat the sewage generated by a household.
Maintenance of the system requires periodic pumping and re-
moval of solids collected in the tank. The material removed,
termed septage, is transported to a central treatment facil-
ity, dumped, lagooned, spread on land, or deposited at a
landfill. A typical septic system is shown in Figure 56. D
Because the liquid effluent from a septic system has not
been "purified" within the septic tank, the soil to which it
is discharged is relied upon to perform this function. This
is primarily achieved through aerobic decomposition at the
soil interface (decomposition by bacteria in the presence of
free oxygen) and by physical and chemical removal of sus-
pended and dissolved solids (filtering and sorption). The
ability of a soil to perform these latter functions is pri-
marily related to the sizes of the individual soil grains;
the larger the grains, the less filtering and sorption.
The Cesspool
Because the cesspool was once commonly used as an independ-
ent unit, performing the functions of both the septic tank
and the subsurface disposal system, this method of sewage
disposal is mentioned separately here. The cesspool is typ-
ically a 5- to 6-ft (1.5- to 2-m) diameter sump, buried sev-
eral feet below ground surface. The facility receives raw
187
-------
PRODUCTION
WELL
DISPOSAL
PRETREATMENT
EVAPOTRANS PI RATION
t
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
B^a4DBI0 CSMI Aa*r\anT-iLi
Figure 56. Diagram of a typical domestic septic tank system.
188
-------
sewage directly from the house drain. The larger solids
settle to the bottom of the sump or are otherwise trapped
inside while the liquid fraction seeps out through openings
in the sides and bottom. Separation of solids from the liq-
uid waste water is poor and cesspools will work only in very
coarse or highly fissured materials. Thus, essentially raw
sewage may move directly into ground water, and the contam-
ination potential of these systems is considered very high.
While new installations of cesspools are widely prohibited,
their popularity in the past has left hundreds of thousands
currently in operation.
The Privy (Outhouse)
This form of human waste disposal is common in rural areas
where lack of indoor pressurized water systems precludes the
use of other systems. The pit privy is typically a small,
shallow pit or trench which normally receives only human
waste and paper. Properly constructed pit privies allow ef-
fective decomposition and treatment of human wastes. The
volume of water introduced to such facilities is relatively
small; thus problems associated with odors and disease-
carrying insects are more closely associated with pit priv-
ies than is the problem of ground-water contamination.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
Sewage from individual homes consists of about 99.9 percent
water (by weight), 0.02 to 0.03 percent suspended solids,
and other soluble organic and inorganic substances. 2) Also
present in domestic sewage are bacteria, viruses, and other
microorganisms from the digestive tract, respiratory tract
and skin. Domestic sewage composition is not uniform, but
rather, it varies from day to day, even from hour to hour,
and from house to house.
The volume of waste water directed to the septic system from
a typical household ranges from 40 to 45 gpd/person (150 to
170 I/day/person). 3,4) The portions of this total from var-
ious sources within a particular house are related to such
factors as the use of automatic washing machines and person-
al habits of the occupants. Ranges reported in the litera-
ture are as follows:
189
-------
Percentage of Total
Source Domestic Waste Load
Toilet 22 - 45
Laundry 4-26
Bath 18 - 37
Kitchen 6-13
Other 0-14
A wide variety of household contaminants may enter the waste
water flow from the major sources within a house. The or-
ganic chemical content of these wastes comes primarily from
human wastes, soaps, detergents, and food wastes. 5)
Domestic sewage is a complex mixture, and some of its spe-
cific substances have yet to be fully identified. However,
certain collective characterizations can be made as illus-
trated in Table 23. The constituents which present the
greatest threat to ground-water quality and some of the prob-
lems which arise are as follows:
- Excessive concentrations of nitrate in drinking water
produce a bitter taste and may cause physiological dis-
tress. Water from wells containing more than 45 ppm
nitrate as N03 has been reported to cause methemoglo-
binemia in infants.
- Discharge of ground water with high phosphate concentra-
tions to surface-water bodies can cause eutrophication.
- Lead, tin, iron, copper, zinc, and manganese (from
household pipes and human waste) are toxic in excessive
concentrations.
- Sodium, chloride, sulfate, potassium, calcium and mag-
nesium, can create health hazards to some individuals,
ranging from laxative effects to aggravated cardio-
vascular or renal disease, if concentrations exceed
recommended limits.
- Aquifers being recharged by large volumes of septic
tank effluent can contain water which exceeds the U. S.
Public Health Service recommended limit of 0.5 ppm of
MBAS (a nonbiodegradable detergent constituent and an
indicator of contamination).
- Excessive BOD in septic fluid discharged to surface wa-
ter from clogged drain fields can deplete dissolved
oxygen supplies necessary to aquatic life.
190
-------
Table 23. TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE.
(All values except settleable solids are expressed in
ppm)
Concentration
6)
Constituent
Solids, total
Dissolved, total
Fixed
Volatile.
Suspended, total
Fixed
Volatile
Settleable solids, (ml/1)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
5 -day, 20°C (BOD 5 20°)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Nitrogen, (total as N)
Organic
Free ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphorus (total as P)
Organic
Inorganic
Chloride a)
Alkalinity (as CaCO^) a^
Grease
Strong
1,200
850
525
325
350
75
275
20
300
300
1,000
85
35
50
0
0
20
5
15
100
200
150
Medium
700
500
300
200
200
50
150
10
200
200
500
40
15
25
0
0
10
3
7
50
100
100
Weak
350
250
145
105
100
30
70
5
100
100
250
20
8
12
0
0
6
2
4
30
50
50
a) Values should be increased by amount in carriage water.
191
-------
- Fecal coliform, a non-pathogenic species of bacteria,
indicates the potential presence of pathogenic micro-
organisms .
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
Twenty-nine percent of the United States population, or
about 19,500,000 individual housing units, dispose of their
domestic waste through individual on-site disposal units. 7)
These are primarily (about 85 percent) septic tanks and cess-
pools, although in some southern states there are almost as
many privies as other types of on-site units.
Ground-water contamination problems created by on-site domes-
tic waste disposal systems can be classified as follows: in-
dividual, local, or regional. An individual problem is cre-
ated when one disposal system on a particular piece of prop-
erty contaminates one or more wells in the immediate vicin-
ity. This type of problem can occur almost anywhere. A
local problem exists when a high density of individual dis-
posal systems in a definable housing development contami-
nates an aquifer which is used to supply water for that area.
Such instances have been experienced throughout the country.
A regional problem is created when many individual disposal
units contaminate extensive aquifers which supply water over
a broad area such as one or more counties. Only regional
problems are considered in the following discussion.
The most important parameter influencing regional ground-
water contamination from on-site domestic waste disposal sys-
tems is the density of these facilities in an area. While
geology, depth to water and climate affect the nature and de-
gree of the contamination problem, density is the principal
factor. Regional problems are extremely difficult to cor-
rect because of the complexity and high cost of eliminating
the source and the persistence of some contaminants in the
ground-water system long after the septic tanks and cess-
pools are eliminated by replacement with community sewer
systems.
Figure 57 shows three density ranges of housing units using
on-site domestic waste disposal facilities: less than 10/sq
mi (3.8/sq km), between 10 and 40/sq mi (15 sq km), and more
than 40 sq mi. These ranges can be considered low, interme-
diate, and relatively high, respectively. Data for Figure
57 were obtained from the 1970 Census of Housing and mapped
on a county by county basis. Adjoining counties falling in-
to the same range form regions of varying ground-water con-
tamination potential. A few large counties with numerous on-
site disposal units, which may be concentrated in limited
192
-------
* co «•«•
.'',£
M
c
b
o
o
z
UJ
o
UJ
_l
v
V
(J
/ ~~
* ,
0 10
\ v
^^
p
z
3
i
oi 0
OT —
V. V
w
2
u
D
~^7
J^
Q
""
in in
i A
05
10
00
* t
1 A
O
II
E
&
£,
>"*,
ur*
"s
o
a.
at
'•m
£
t/t
D
?
^y
4—
•SI
0)
E
o
"D
£
a\
i
c
o
O)
c
O
o
>x
'w»
(1)
a
O)
•*u>
LL.
<3 «
<5
-------
areas of the county and thus create potential regional prob-
lems, do not appear in the relatively high range on Figure
57. To rectify this anomaly, Table 24 lists all counties
with more than 50,000, and those with more than 100,000
housing units using on-site domestic waste disposal systems.
The potential for ground-water contamination in a region is
suggested by the relative density of on-site domestic waste
disposal units shown on Figure 57. A calculation of the vol-
ume of waste water discharged to the ground from these units
in any particular location cannot be used to determine the
existence or magnitude of a ground-water contamination prob-
lem without consideration of the other parameters previously
mentioned (i.e., hydrology, geology, soils). However, the
actual volume of domestic waste water discharged to the un-
derground in high density areas can be very large and in
some instances represents a significant form of recharge or
replenishment to the local aquifers, even in humid areas.
For example, the combined discharge from septic tanks and
cesspools from the adjoining counties of Nassau and Suffolk,
New York, is approximately 60 mgd, or about 50,000 gpd/sq
mi (95 cu m/sq km).
The impact of this amount of waste discharge has become very
obvious in Nassau County. Effluent from cesspools and sep-
tic tanks has been a major contributing factor, along with
leachate from chemical fertilizers, to nitrate contamination
of major aquifers in a 180-sq mi (466-sq km) area. 8) Ci-
trate enriched water has penetrated hundreds of feet into
the principal artesian aquifer, and the water from 16 public
supply wells serving thousands of residents has been de-
graded beyond current health standards.
Figure 57 indicates that there is one major region of high
contamination potential along the northeast coast extending
from about Washington, D. C. to north of Boston, Massachu-
setts. There are 40 other isolated regions, principally
scattered over the eastern third of the country, in which
high densities of septic tanks and cesspools also are pres-
ent. The Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Riverside group of
counties are of special note, even though they are not shown
as high density areas on Figure 57, because of the great num-
ber of disposal units concentrated in urban areas of these
very large counties.
Again, it should be noted that a septic tank density of
greater than 40/sq mi designates a region of potential con-
tamination problems. Actual densities in documented problem
areas are considerably higher than 40/sq mi.
194
-------
Table 24. COUNTIES WITH MORE THAN 50,000 AND COUNTIES WITH MORE
THAN 100,000 HOUSING UNITS USING ON-SITE DOMESTIC
WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.
More than 50,000
Jefferson, Alabama Norfolk, Massachusetts
Riverside, California Plymouth, Massachusetts
San Bernadino, California Worcester, Massachusetts
Fairfield, Connecticut Genesee, Michigan
Hartford, Connecticut Oakland, Michigan
New Haven, Connecticut Monmouth, New Jersey
Broward, Florida Multnomah, Oregon
Duval, Florida Westmoreland, Pennsylvania
Hillsborough, Florida Davidson, Tennessee
Jefferson, Kentucky King, Washington
Bristol, Massachusetts Pierce, Washington
Middlesex, Massachusetts
More than 100,000
Los Angeles, California Nassau, New York
Dade, Florida Suffolk, New York
195
-------
The second range of on-site disposal unit density (10 to 40
units per square mile) is again more or less confined to the
eastern third of the country. In almost all of the western
two-thirds of the country, plus extensive areas in northern
New England and the rural portions of Georgia, Alabama and
Mississippi, the density of septic tanks and cesspools is so
low as to almost rule out the potential for significant re-
gional contamination problems.
The uncontrolled disposal of septage represents a signifi-
cant potential threat to ground-water quality. For example,
continuing studies of this problem by EPA Region I indicate
that about 400 million gal. (1.5 million cu m) of domestic
sewage waste is pumped from septic tanks and cesspools in
New England each year. Much of this volume is dumped in
abandoned sand and gravel pits, along roadways and streams,
or landfilled or lagooned at unapproved refuse disposal
sites.
Septic tanks and seepage systems at industrial facilities
operate on the same principal as those serving single and
multiple dwellings. Of course, the volume of effluent can
be greater, but what is more important is the possibility of
wastes from the manufacturing process being incorporated
with the domestic waste and ultimately migrating into an
aquifer used for drinking water supplies. The hazard in-
volved is magnified if the industrial wastes happen to be
toxic.
Industrial septic tank discharge is an individual problem
and not of a regional nature. Very little data exist on a
national basis regarding the density of industrial septic
tanks, and they probably number in the tens of thousands as
compared to the millions of septic tanks and cesspools
serving housing units across the country.
Case Histories
It has already been pointed out that the northeast repre-
sents the region of greatest density for on-site domestic
waste disposal. A number of studies of ground-water contam-
ination related to this type of waste disposal practice have
been carried out. The results of two such investigations
are described below to illustrate the typical nature of re-
gional problems.
Boston Suburban Area, Massachusetts -
In a study carried out by the U. S. Geological Survey in the
Ipswich and Shawsheen River basins of Massachusetts, north
196
-------
of Boston, 9) the investigators concluded that "development
of housing beyond the reach of the municipal sewer systems
of metropolitan areas has lowered the quality of the environ-
ment in many of the (housing) developments and has created
health hazards in others." Chloride and specific conduc-
tance were used as tracers. Correcting for highway deicing
salts, which are the only known contaminants other than sep-
tic tank discharge contributing significantly to this partic-
ular water-quality degradation situation, the investigators
were able to develop a correlation between the relationship
of housing density to residual conductance, and accretion of
dissolved solids in the baseflow of streams.
Seventeen small drainage basins, all but one less than one
square mile in area, were selected for study. All basins
are served by public water supplies, but none has municipal
sewer systems, and individual houses are served by on-site
disposal systems. Housing density ranges from 0 to 900
units/sq mi (0 to 347/sq km). The concentration of chloride
is about 50 ppm higher in the septic tank effluent than in
the tap water entering the home. Septic tank flow per house
is estimated to be 200 gpd (757 I/day). The results of the
investigation indicated that the reduction of chemical con-
taminants during travel of the septic tank effluent through
the soil and bedrock aquifer is slight.
State of Delaware -
In a 1972 report, John C. Miller of the Delaware Geological
Survey states, "inspection of water analyses on file at the
Delaware Geological Survey revealed that 25 percent of the
shallow wells (less than 50-ft or 15-m deep) in the state
yield water with nitrate (as NOs) levels above 20 ppm." 1Q)
Natural nitrate (NO3) levels in ground water are less than
10 ppm. This indication of the potential for widespread
ground-water contamination has led to an evaluation of some
of the principal sources of nitrate enrichment of ground
water in the state, including septic tank discharges.
Two suburban areas in the coastal plain were chosen for anal-
ysis of potential problems of ground-water quality degrada-
tion due to septic tanks. H) The first area was selected
on the basis that it is characterized by an extremely high
water table and poorly drained soils. In addition, there
had been numerous reports of overflowing septic-tank systems
during rainy periods. For comparison purposes, the second
area selected is underlain by deep, well-drained soils on up-
lands. In both areas, homes are situated on one-quarter to
one-half acre lots, each of which has its own septic tank
and shallow well-water system.
197
-------
The results of the study showed that in the first area of
poorly drained soils, nitrate (as N03) levels averaged 6.9
to 11 ppm during the period of sampling. A number of wells
were contaminated by coliform bacteria. In the second area
with well-drained soils, nitrate content ranged from 22 to
136 ppm, and concentrations in water from many wells were
above the recommended EPA interim drinking water standards
of 45 ppm nitrate (as NC>3) . No wells were found to be con-
taminated with coliform bacteria.
The state investigators concluded that "the standard perco-
lation test is not a suitable means for determination of the
acceptability of a site for septic-tank effluent." Percola-
tion tests in the first area were conducted during dry peri-
ods, and the favorable results led to installation of septic
tanks. After installation, the systems overflowed during
wet periods, and bacteriological contamination of domestic
wells took place because of the introduction of sewage efflu-
ent from the land surface around well casings. On the other
hand, the movement of the effluent through the fine soils
has minimized the buildup of nitrate concentrations in the
ground water. In the second area, the physical operation of
the septic tanks has been successful because of the perme-
able soil sediments, which also apparently filtered out path-
ogenic organisms. However, nitrate contamination of ground
water in that area is severe because of the favorable envi-
ronment for oxidation of nitrogen compounds, and the rapid
movement of septic-tank and tile-field effluent to the water
table.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The manual of septic tank practice 12) describes a soil as
being suitable for the absorption of septic tank effluent if
it has an acceptable percolation rate, without interference
from ground water or impervious strata below the level of
the absorption system. For a septic tank system to be ap-
proved by a local health agency, several criteria normally
must be met: a specified percolation rate, as determined by
a percolation test; and a minimum 4-ft (1.2-m) separation
between the bottom of the seepage system and the maximum sea-
sonal elevation of ground water. In addition, there must be
a reasonable thickness, again normally 4 ft, of relatively
permeable soil between the seepage system and the top of a
clay layer or impervious rock formation. For what they are
intended to insure, i.e., keeping the sewage below the
ground, these criteria have been adequately successful.
Keeping the sewage below ground may have been sufficient un-
der the low density, rural conditions for which the septic
198
-------
system was originally designed, but their widespread use
after World War II in subdivisions with small lot sizes is
largely responsible for the degradation of ground water that
has occurred in many of these areas.
Appraisal of the potential contamination of ground water by
septic tank systems in these high density areas requires an
understanding of the ground-water system into which the ef-
fluent is discharged. .First, ground-water recharge areas
and flow patterns should be delineated. Second, the quan-
tity of ground-water recharge must be estimated to establish
the degree of natural dilution of'the effluent. And third,
the capability of the soil system to renovate the effluent
should be known. 13) while these concepts go beyond the
widely established septic system siting criteria, their in-
stitution is essential if ground-water quality is to be pro-
tected in high density septic tank areas.
Collection of domestic waste water by public sewers and
treatment at a central facility is the most common alterna-
tive to septic tank disposal systems. Where standard grav-
ity sewers are not practical, an alternate method of domes-
tic waste disposal is a septic tank-pressure sewer combina-
tion.
Aerobic treatment devices are an available alternative to
septic (anaerobic) tanks. Aerobic treatment devices are gen-
erally scaled-down versions of activated sludge plants and
most employ the extended aeration mode. Some investigators
feel that aerobic tanks, under proper conditions of design,
installation and operation, can achieve a significantly
higher quality effluent than can septic tanks.
An approach for providing soil treatment where the native
soils are not suitable for the disposal of effluents from
septic tanks or other treatment devices — where, for exam-
ple, shallow soils are underlain by till, creviced or chan-
neled rock, or there is a high ground water table — is the
use of artificially constructed above-ground mounds.
Another alternative is the recirculating sand filter treat-
ment system which consists of a septic tank, a recirculation
tank and an open .sand filter. This system has proven to be
economical, and with disinfection, the effluent can meet
surface-water discharge standards of regulatory agencies.
Also available are several flow reduction and completely
self contained devices such as incinerating toilets, compost-
ing toilets, biological toilets, and vacuum system toilets.
While these devices may hold promise for the future, their
present use is generally restricted to special situations
199
-------
where normal on-site waste disposal methods are not feasible
due to natural conditions or highly restrictive codes.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Three essential phases of septic tank life are subject to
regulation: installation, operation-maintenance, and fail-
ure detection and correction. Regulation of the installa-
tion, both design and siting, exists in all but a few states.
Site inspection and issuance of a permit to make the instal-
lation is handled variously by state or local governments.
Operation-maintenance is largely not regulated and left to
the discretion of the homeowner. Failure detection and cor-
rection is difficult to regulate and is typically handled on
an individual complaint basis or when a health hazard arises.
Protection of ground-water quality is best accomplished by
regulation of installation of the system and only this phase
of the septic tank life is considered in this dicussion.
Cesspools, where regulations exist, are generally not ap-
proved for new installations. Privies probably do not con-
stitute a significant threat to ground water and their regu-
lation is not considered here.
Regulation of septic tank installation is, in most cases,
either by state, county, town, regional authority or a joint
effort by two or more of these entities. For example, a
state may regulate all septic tank installations; or it may
regulate only installations serving something other than a
single family residence; or it may regulate only installa-
tions in certain critical areas. The state may delegate reg-
ulation responsibilities to local governments or there may
be no regulations at all. Where regulations exist, inspec-
tion may be comprehensive or spotty.
Gome states are now restricting septic tank installation to
non-subdivision situations (scattered lots). Mississippi,
for example, will not approve individual residential sewage
disposal systems of any type in new subdivisions, additions
to existing subdivisions, or undeveloped portions of exist-
ing subdivisions unless the establishment of a community
sewage system is economically unfeasible. 14) Louisiana has
resolved that every effort should be made to prevent the use
of individual sewage disposal facilities in land development
involving urban sized lots, unless it can be clearly demon-
strated that the individual facilities are temporary and
will be replaced with proper community facilities within a
short period of time. ^4)
As states begin to discover ground-water contamination prob-
lems resulting from on-site domestic waste disposal systems,
200
-------
new regulations and controls are emerging. For example, the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is in the process
of updating its on-site disposal facility regulations based
on engineering studies of problems in that state. 15) The
new regulations will take into account, on a state-wide ba-
sis, such factors as regional soil conditions and climate.
The State of Maine included alternative systems such as com-
posting, incinerating, chemical, recirculating and vacuum
toilets and above-ground mounds in its regulations for use
under certain problem conditions. 16)
Some states, such as Minnesota, while not actually regulat-
ing on-site domestic waste disposal systems, establish stand-
ards which are recommended to local authorities. Enforce-
ment is then at the discretion of the local governments,
some of which adopt the state regulations, while others
either establish their own or have no regulation system. 1?)
The pattern of regulation of installation of septic tanks
and cesspools that has emerged in many states is for respon-
sibility to be exercised at the local or regional level,
principally through requirements of health departments. How-
ever, the laws of most states provide for enforcement inter-
vention at the state level in cases where the activity is
judged to be in conflict with existing state requirements.
Controls are moving towards clearer definition of responsi-
bility as states revise their statutes to provide for a
greater degree of water protection, usually through amend-
ments covering sewage disposal facilities. These mandate en-
forcement of procedures to protect potable water supplies.
Public officials contacted during the course of this investi-
gation were generally of the opinion that a more uniform en-
forcement policy is desirable and that present practice has
evolved more by default than by design.
Figure 58 illustrates the present division of activity be-
tween state and local agencies in permitting and inspecting
the installation of on-site domestic waste disposal systems
across the country. 14,15,16,17,18,19) The map is general-
ized since it is not always clear from available descrip-
tions, exactly which agency does the regulating or how
thoroughly it is carried out. For example, some states regu-
late only specific items of location, design, etc., and in
some instances the inspector responsible for enforcing the
regulations may be employed by two cooperating governmental
agencies. State regulation and inspection of septic tank in-
stallation is generally considered to be more effective than
local regulation.
201
-------
o
z
Ul
CD
U
_l
?
>-
O
z
Ul
e>
<
Ul
i
Fl
IN J
STATE MAY PARTICIPATE
_
>-
o
z
Ul
0
<
_l
<
o
o
n
ATIONS )
•=>
H
CO
i
0
Ul
Q.
V)
Z
. AGENCIES IN COOPERATION
<
o
o
0
z
<
Ul
£
(O
ni
H
in
NCY(ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS
Ul
(D
<
U
iPECIFI
C
» —
•D
C
O
O)
c
0)
Q.
^c
^
&
(U
l_
o
o
x
o
0)
O)
o
o
ct
•
00
\r>
t
,1
u.
202
-------
An effective approach for alleviating many domestic waste
related ground-water contamination problems by regulatory
agencies is the establishment of a broad physiographic data
base for use in a general land use planning effort. One
specific aspect of this would be regulating septic tank den-
sity. Some state and local agencies are currently applying
this approach. A data base can be developed to include such
variables as soils, geology, physiography, hydrology, vegeta-
tion and climate. Analysis of these data for a location re-
sults in an overall physical capability rating for that loca-
tion. These ratings can then be reduced to map form useful
to planners and regulating agencies. For example, a residen-
tial capability map might be constructed that would indicate
what specific site limitations exist for the construction of
housing units. The state does not use the data to establish
regulations on land use but rather makes the data available
to local governments which perform this function.
By applying this type of wide range planning data to poten-
tial problem areas, maximum densities could be established
for any regions throughout the country. Regulations could
then be established to restrict the installation of new sep-
tic tank disposal systems to areas which have not yet reach-
ed critical densities. As areas reached the critical septic
tank density, further residential development would be re-
quired to use alternate methods of sewage disposal. Areas
which have already exceeded the established critical septic
disposal system density could be individually evaluated to
determine what corrective measures might be taken.
203
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Bouma, J., et al. 1972. Soil absorption of septic
tank effluent. University of Wisconsin, Soil Survey
Division, Information Circular Number 20.
2. Pelczar, M. J., and R. D. Reid. 1965. Microbiology.
2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 512 pp.
3. Bennett, E. R., et al. 1974. Rural home waste water
characteristics. Home Sewage Disposal. Proceedings of
the national home sewage disposal symposium, Chicago,
Illinois. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 74-78.
4. Witt, M., et al. 1974. Rural household waste water
characteristics. Home Sewage Disposal. Proceedings of
the national home sewage disposal symposium, Chicago,
Illinois. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 79-88.
5. Goldstein, S. N., et al. 1972. A study of selected
economic and environmental aspects of individual home
waste water treatment systems. The Mitre Corporation.
Washington, D. C. 90 pp.
6. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Waste water engineering:
collection, treatment, disposal. Published by McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York. 782 pp.
7. Detailed housing characteristics. 1970 Census of
Housing. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.
53 Volumes.
8. Perlmutter, N. M., and Ellis Koch. 1972. Preliminary
hydrogeologic appraisal of nitrate in ground water and
streams, southern Nassau County, Long Island, New York.
U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-B, Geo-
logical Survey Research.
9. Morrill, G. B., III, and L. G. Toler. 1973. Effect of
septic-tank wastes on quality of water, Ipswich and
Shawsheen River basins, Massachusetts. U. S. Geologi-
cal Survey Journal of Research, Vol. 1, No. 1.
10. Miller, J. C. 1972. Nitrate contamination of the water-
table aquifer in Delaware. Delaware Geological Survey
Report of Investigation No. 20.
204
-------
11. Miller, J. C. 1975. Nitrate contamination of the
water-table aquifer by septic-tank systems in the coast-
al plain of Delaware. Pages 121-134 in W. J. Jewell
and R. Swan, editors. Water pollution control in low
density areas. University Press of New England, Han-
over, New Hampshire.
12. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Re-
vised 1967. -Manual of septic tank practice. Public
Health Service Publication No. 526. 92 pp.
13. Holzer, T. L. 1975. Limits to growth and septic tanks.
Pages 65-74 in W. J. Jewell and R. Swan, editors. Wa-
ter pollution control in low density areas. University
Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.
14. Patterson, J. W., et al. 1971. Septic tanks and the
environment. Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality, Chicago, Illinois.
15. Jackman, R. July 1975. Personal communication. Ore-
gon State Department of Environmental Quality.
16. State of Maine. 1974. Plumbing code, Part II, Private
sewerage disposal regulations. Department of Health
and Welfare, Bureau of Health, Division of Health En-
gineering.
17. Minnesota State Department of Health. July 1975.
Personal communication.
18. Commission on Rural Water. 1974. Guide to state and
Federal policies and practices in rural water-sewer de-
velopment. Information Clearinghouse, Commission on
Rural Water, Chicago, Illinois. 223 pp.
19. State Board of Health, State of Washington. July 1975.
Personal communication.
205
-------
SECTION IX
COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER
SUMMARY
Municipal waste water follows one of three direct routes to
reach ground water: leakage from collecting sewers, leakage
from the treatment plant during processing, and land dispos-
al of the treatment-plant effluent. In addition, there are
two indirect routes: effluent disposal to surface-water bod-
ies which recharge aquifers, and land disposal of sludge,
which is subject to leaching. Although the volume of waste
water entering the ground-water system from these various
sources may be substantial, there have been few documented
cases of hazardous levels of constituents of sewage or storm
water affecting well-water supplies. However, the impact on
ground-water quality resulting from the collection, treat-
ment, and disposal of municipal waste water has not been
studied in detail.
Untreated sewage is principally composed of domestic wastes.
In areas where manufacturing is also served by the community
system, the waste products of industry can add important po-
tential contaminants. Storm runoff from streets, parking
lots, and roofs contributes salts, inorganic chemicals, and
organic matter which have been deposited on exposed surfaces.
According to the 1970 U. S. Census of Housing, the domestic
waste from 71 percent of housing units is collected by pub-
lic sewer lines and piped to central treatment facilities.
About 160 million people are served by 500,000 mi (800,000
km) of sewer lines. The total volume of sewage is approxi-
mately 15 bgd (57 million cu m/day). More than 5,000 of the
almost 22,000 treatment plants in the nation have waste sta-
bilization ponds, which are seldom lined and almost never
monitored with wells. Of the more than 2 bgd (7.6 million
cu m/day) of sewage treatment plant effluent discharged to
the land, a large proportion does not meet secondary treat-
ment standards.
About the only control of potential ground-water contamina-
tion related to leaky sewers is the specification by many
states of minimum distances between a proposed public supply
well and a sewer line. Conformance with pressure test re-
quirements on new sewer line installations in many areas
aids in minimizing exfiltration problems. Municipal lagoons
206
-------
and ponds for the retention of waste water are parts of sew-
age treatment facilities, the construction and operation of
which are supervised by state health or environmental depart-
ments. In addition, where Federal grants are involved, the
design of the impoundment comes under the scrutiny of the
EPA. Thus, in the construction of new lagoons and ponds,
potential effects on ground-water quality are given consid-
eration. A number of states also require permits for munici-
pal sewage impoundments. Spraying of sewage effluent and
other forms of land disposal of sewage wastes are specifical-
ly regulated in only a few states. Most states review such
practices on a case-by-case basis.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
A major problem in urbanized areas is the collection, treat-
ment, and disposal of domestic waste water. Because a large
volume is generated in a small area, urban domestic waste
cannot be adequately disposed of by conventional septic
tanks and cesspools. Therefore, special facilities are used
to collect, treat, and dispose of such wastes in densely pop-
ulated locales.
Because the area of permeable land surface in urban areas is
considerably reduced by the presence of roofs, sidewalks,
parking areas, and streets, storm-water runoff also poses a
problem. Precipitation, street sweepings, litter, leaves,
and salts deposited on exposed surfaces all may be contained
in runoff. Storm water may be collected and treated along
with the previously mentioned domestic wastes or may be han-
dled in separate collection, treatment, and disposal facili-
ties .
Sanitary Sewer Systems
A municipality constructs a sanitary sewer system in order
to collect the community's waste water or sewage and to
transport it to a central point for treatment 'and/or dispos-
al. In the early 1960's more than 120 million persons in
the United States, or 65 percent of the then total popula-
tion, were served by public sewers. 1) Today's population
served by sewers stands at an estimated 158 million persons.
2)
The principal role of sewers is to provide a watertight pas-
sage through which waste water can be transported quickly,
with a minimum of odor production, stoppage, or overflow.
The most common causes of sewer problems are grease, grit,
and trash accumulation; infiltration; decomposition of or-
ganic matter; root penetration; inadequate sewer gradients;
207
-------
and potential danger from flammable liquids. 3)
The design of sanitary sewers varies with needs and local
conditions. Gravity sewers allow waste water to flow natu-
rally to the lowest point in the system. Because they con-
tain no moving parts, operation is largely a matter of clean-
ing and maintenance. However, sewer systems can rarely be
designed to operate solely by gravity because of topography.
It is rare that the topographic low in a small municipality
can serve as the discharge point for the community's sewers.
Force mains are often integrated into gravity systems, or in
some cases they may operate independently. Force mains are
most often used to transport sewage upgrade or to move it
faster in one section of the system than would naturally
occur.
It has been established that about 60 to 80 percent of the
per capita consumption of water will become sanitary sewage.
Actual sewage flow rates vary with location, water usage,
and the type and condition of the sewers. Sewage flows are
cyclic, and the ratio of peak flow to average flow, called
the peaking factor, will range from less than 1.3 to more
than 2.0. 4)
The major cause of ground-water contamination from sanitary
sewer systems (if above the water table) is through outflow
leakage (exfiltration) from gravity sewers. Common factors
causing leakage in gravity sewers are:
1. Poor workmanship, especially in the past when mortar was
applied by hand as a joining material.
2. Cracked or defective pipe sections.
3. Breakage by tree roots penetrating or heaving the sewer
lines.
4. Pipeline rupture by superimposed loads, heavy equipment,
or earthfill on pipe laid on a poor foundation.
5. Rupture by downhill creep of soil in hilly terrain.
6. Fracture and displacement of pipe by seismic activity;
e.g., a sewerage system in California still suffers from
fractures caused by an earthquake in 1909.
7. Loss of foundation support due to underground washout.
8. Poorly constructed manholes, or shearing of pipe at man-
208
-------
holes due to differential settlement.
Where a pressure sewer develops a leak, exfiltration can oc-
cur regardless of whether the sewer is above or below the
water table because the sewer operates at a greater hydro-
static pressure than the ground-water system.
Storm Sewer Systems
Storm sewers conduct surface runoff from locations where it
poses problems of safety, public health, or inconvenience to
the nearest discharge location. A typical storm-sewer sys-
tem consists of a network of underground piping, at a depth
sufficient to receive water from the ground surface by grav-
ity. Storm-water inlets, openings in the street curb, gut-
ter or pavement, allow the entry of storm runoff to the pipe
network. Frequently, a catch basin beneath the inlet serves
to retain the heavy grit, sand, and debris that passes
through the grating of the storm-water inlet.
Storm-sewer sizes vary depending upon the quantity of storm
water that must be conveyed through the pipe. In general,
storm sewers are not less than 12 in. (30.5 cm) in diameter,
and can range in size to 96 in. (244 cm) or greater. The
majority of present-day storm sewers are constructed of re-
inforced concrete and galvanized steel; however, in earlier
days, the use of brick and masonry was prevalent. Storm sew-
ers for residential areas are most commonly designed to con-
vey runoff from storms with a five-year recurrence interval.
5) (The sewer has sufficient hydraulic capacity to accommo-
date the quantity of runoff from a rainfall event that has a
statistical probability of occurring only once every five
years.)
As with sanitary sewer systems, the potential for ground-
water contamination from storm-sewer systems lies with phys-
ical failure in the pipe network, which allows exfiltration
of storm flows to the surrounding soil and ground water.
Lagoons and Ponds for Sanitary Waste-Water Treatment
Lagoons and ponds used for waste-water treatment are essen-
tially biological waste treatment units. They have a wide
variation in function depending on their basic design.
These units may operate under aerobic/ anaerobic, or faculta-
tive (capable of being either at any given time) conditions.
They use microorganisms to break down the wastes. Design
features vary with waste-water characteristics, location
(geology, soil conditions) and the requirements of the con-
trolling regulatory agency.
209
-------
Ponds are also classified according to their usage. If used
to treat raw sewage prior to other treatment, they are re-
ferred to as primary waste stabilization ponds. However,
since these ponds are generally capable of achieving the ef-
fluent limitations required for secondary treatment, they
may effectively provide both the primary and secondary treat-
ment functions. When ponds are used to treat effluents from
primary settling tanks or secondary biological treatment
units, they are called secondary waste stabilization lagoons
or polishing ponds, respectively.
That portion of municipal sewage which is being treated by
stabilization ponds in the United States is small as com-
pared with the total volume. Data collected during this
study indicate that of the 21,787 sewage treatment plants in
the United States, 5,132 plants had lagoons as a part of
their treatment facilities. 2) Leakage from unlined lagoons
may be a significant threat to ground water, if the pond bot-
tom and walls are not properly sealed.
Lagoons and Ponds for Storm-Water Storage and Treatment
Storm-water lagoons can function as storage sites to attenu-
ate storm-water flows and reduce the shock effects of dis-
charges. When lagoons are utilized in this manner, feed-
back of the stored waters to the sanitary sewer is practiced,
with treatment and ultimate discharge of the storm water oc-
curring at other locations.
A storm-water lagoon acts as a sedimentation chamber for
grit, sand, and other suspended solids in the storm runoff,
thereby providing a degree of treatment. In certain in-
stances, biological treatment is provided by a storm-water
lagoon similar to that provided by a sanitary waste-water la-
goon. Biological treatment in lagoons is limited by various
factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, toxicity of
waste, etc.
As is true for sanitary waste-water lagoons, the primary
threat to ground-water quality from storm-water lagoons is
leakage. The prevalent practice of constructing lagoon sys-
tems without adequate seals, either intentionally or unin-
tentionally, can contribute to ground-water contamination.
Land Spreading and Basin Recharge (Municipal Waste Water)
Land disposal dates back at least four centuries, and some
systems presently in use began operation before the twenti-
eth century. Historically, the purpose of land treatment of
sanitary waste water has emphasized disposal, whereas the
210
-------
current trend is toward the concepts of treatment and/or re-
use. 6) The increased use of land for sanitary waste-water
treatment and disposal in the United States is shown in Ta-
ble 25. There are three general methods of applying waste
water to land areas — namely, irrigation, overland flow,
and infiltration-percolation. 7)
Reclaimed sanitary waste water has been used to irrigate cer-
tain field crops su.ch as cotton, sugar beets, and vegetables
for seed production. It cannot be used for field crops that
are normally consumed in a raw state.
Land application of waste water by infiltration-percolation
is often referred to as ground-water recharge because the ma-
jor portion of the water applied percolates to the water ta-
ble. Depending upon its final quality, the recharged water
may be recovered and used for irrigation, recreation, or mu-
nicipal or industrial supply. 7) Although it has been em-
ployed to raise the level of the water table — e.g., to
maintain baseflow in nearby streams — the principal use of
recharge from lagoons has been to halt salt-water intrusion.
This practice has been used extensively in California and is
known as basin recharge.
The physical design of a land-treatment system is governed
by the type of application involved. Each system has spe-
cific characteristics which make it applicable to certain
situations (see Table 26) .
Plows to land spreading and basin-recharge systems will vary
depending primarily on the type of system employed. Typical
liquid loading rates for various systems are presented in Ta-
ble 26. The actual application rates employed are a func-
tion of the soil type, character of waste water and degree
of pretreatment, and the desired waste removal efficiency.
Land spreading of waste water can pose a significant threat
to ground-water quality. A summary of the effectiveness of
removal of the more common constituents appears in Table 27.
Since the overland-flow method functions more as a land-
treatment system than a land-disposal system because a sub-
stantial portion of the waste water applied is designed to
run off, it has not been included in the tabulation.
Land Spreading and Basin Recharge (Storm Water)
Besides those lagoon facilities specifically constructed for
storm-water storage and/or treatment, urban storm-water dis-
posal is often accomplished by land spreading in areas of
high infiltrative capacity, particularly in the southwestern
211
-------
Table 25. MUNICIPALITIES USING LAND APPLICATIONS AND THE POPU-
LATIONS SERVED. 6)
Year
1940
1945
1957
1962
1968
1972
Number of systems
304
422
461
401
512
571
Population served
(millions)
0.9
1.3
2.0
2.7
4.2
6.6
212
-------
z
g
5
o
u
C£
LU
Q_
1
Z
g
i—
3
f—
»
u_
z
Q
1 1
o 1
—1 <
U_ i4_
o~ °
Z« £
s . ^
a: oo
UJ •<
£J=
^ u-
°£
zfc
g
j-
<
g
OS
£
UJ
X
t—
U-
O
to
O
"^
o
o
u
£
1
_o
1
ur
c
j
lt~
-D
_O
4)
6
|
o
.?
c
V-
y
i—
to
Qi
LU
1—
U
3
<
X
U £
S £
_4)
_Q
£
T o ^
.* P *• P
(5 ._ e m
§9 t_ E.ST2
\s. >E s *-° S
J 00 it CN £ -0 £ ,_
•- o Q £ g § § •£
O*- O « n "-1-
§«0 ^£ CN g J J
o-' £-t o^^-s
^E 2* C^S-Sl
5"?
^ E E cr
» E a- "" S
4) in M -n z
^ ^ T £ T3 I 0
>o^ t o c 8 N
c co xT00 o o S i_
%~° ^' ?J-°I
• ^ ^ o *~ ^- ^
^w ^ *" o"10.-0
ox o -* *• ^ vo S
c^S «ci. $S$!
o
*" l/>
E 2.
^ %~
$ E 8-2 E
> >o . — - £- c _
\^' E S § * m
c*o ^ o o § g
S 0 >~ »*= S
fi £ co £ £ 2 E fe
m ,si* £ ^ 0 ^o «N ^
• — - r*> ^ in * 3
O ^- CN 2- — -J-CN -Q
4) C
o -1 S
u. *• ,y>
» 8 ^
.E ^: 4>
-D 0- .*=. ?
g 0- D 6
-2 ° §"=
T3 0 <- -0
•5 i -gf
o- c § i
J < -3 —
4)
U
£
w
D
in
_X
"5
in
X
S
a.
in
X
1
in
4)
U
.5
in
i_
O
X
2
a.
LO
4)
D
^CT
'c
f-
o
£
_o
^
^o
"a.
a.
<
_tn „,
'o x I
*" £ 0
J> 0 ~
•8-2-fr
S , c
E-8 S
4) £ -o
x8 §
X in
^0 ° «?
'5--€"i
£ 2 8
V
•» TJ
._ C
8 °
in
J> E
-8^
E cT
i- O
S.-3
^ «/>
^ 0
? -C X
^ y ^
tO M 0
V
l/>
'6
t/>
0) _X
-s '>
s «
'" f 1
E D
o -o -o
S. 2 «
X °- 0
£"8-=
o o .<=
S ^c
l^J
s ? ?
W)
'o
«/l
Certain
i
.?
175
Moderate
a>
^c
*o
4)
HI
£
i+-
O
£
15
o
1
o.
v.
£*
1
ground-water q
E
m
•
^
14-
m
0
_a
<
-o
4)
'|
4)
"5
~O
C
1*
m
•
^.
<-i-
m
*•
o
-Q
<.
£
4» t_
Q_ 0)
*i
4) T3
•D C
4) 3
„ 0
Z o)
-D
2
O)
O
c
Percolatioi
water
1 "0
c c
.- o
i§
-o .-
:e discharge
ver evaporal
lotion
5 ° o
i£ « o
D £ 4)
-------
•
Q£
LU
1—
^
^
>
LU
r-
(/>
1
y
i—
iy%
^i
LU
8
Q
LL.
O
_J
<
6
5^
0 E
Q 2
Z^
<-£
-1 0
3<~>
2-s
"- X
>--°
-J T3
LU ft)
^'s.
AMI NATION L
com
h-
O
U
Ll_
O
a:
<
S
ID
fcO
•
IN
CN
jj>
^)
u°
TJ
0
.c
"ft)
c
o
*••!
O
O
U
^
§
1
iZ
c
"8
£
ft)
o
•*:
0
.?
Lt
u.
1
ft)
1
£
o
£
T>
I*
g..*
CA
IA
.2 £
*•£ E
1 =
51
c o
8 *
£"g
C 3
.? 2
to a>
-o
a>
X
«:
o
J2 «
ll
_^"^
-Q D
-o 2
a «>
f £
0 j:
c 0
2> 8
o —
"o o
•£ °
(A •—
c a
» «
. _«
D -
Z.E
c
4)
I
Z
IA
D
0
U
4)
_Q
-D
fll
£ U
• «• Q)
E 1
ft)
o S
-Q 0
X **
g 8
— L.
n n
l|
1 1
Q£ 0>
1
U
U
O
fi-e
2 a
.«-g s
--2 2
gal
!M
J"H o-
a-i J
•» 5 *•
v> O .
ft> M-
o u o
X *c —
il-5
»°f
1 •• 1
" U 0
.si!
(A
1
_c
0.
u
0
L?
o
4)
—
"o
IA
ft)
o
ft)
"O
LU
down by microorganisms and
c
a>
1
_a
_x
"§
5
IA
^O
I
0
£
o
?
-a
D
2
a>
w>
ft)
_C
U
o
S2
matter
£ c
is
T3 _C
n
0) ^.
r- ">
£jt
o.S>
ft> -c
&.2
l!
^g
• .—
1 o
§.«
a. a.
X*
^J
si
0
_c
'i
*»
1
S
o>
o
-D
8*
:l
0 c
-5.2
2^
= 8
8 2L
i*
O JC.
4>
•o
-n —
^ ._
£ o
.± «
E •*•
.= 0
4) £
-° ^
X 0
o c
E L.
o
§-5
1 s
i ro
& 2.
TJ
4)
-o -5
till
£?£2
•o-S o S
&S-8 8
C 4) X-o
J c-° |
o o o |
-s 1 1 i
C M- ' ft)
o o S •£
u c g S
-« .2 -o .0-
Toxic compoun
chemical react
can be rendere
^
c
E
_4)
LU
4)
U
U
£ il
a. >
a)
0 ?
•ii
68
ft)
15
CL
JQ
'in
I
IA
Q.
2
-Q
•D
O
i_
U
0
Leaching can c
IA
•jo
~0
CO
-Q
ft)
>
.2
Q
£
£
L-
i
ft) *- c
S 1 §
.!: ? x
> °>15
~O ._ _y
iJ^
.2 3f
L. L. *r
£ 8.J
JSE
**- M* O
o t3 c
•si 8
ft) .£ »*;
u O
Q- X „,
co _a .-
V
IP
J*
Hi
D ^
1-2-
1-5
si
-o •
4) *-
if
il
£ § ?
o g _o
_X 0) *.
Ill
3 §.2
IA
.1
"c
o
L?
0
to
*IZ
£
c
LU
IA
J
'•B
g
u
'8
l_
8.
0
a
u.
ft)
T3
214
-------
and western states ^) and on Long Island, New York. In Cali-
fornia, seepage ponds are used to dispose of storm water
from beneath highway underpasses, where it would otherwise
collect. On Long Island, more than 2,000 recharge basins
dispose of storm runoff from urban and suburban areas.
Storm-water recharge facilities usually consist of simple ex-
cavations or pits in unconsolidated material. Deep exca-
vated basins are popular in the northeastern states. In the
vistern states, dry stream beds and shal!'>w, broad man-made
depressions in alluvium adjacent to perennial streams are of-
ten employed. Overland flow and spray irrigation methods
are not useful for spreading storm water because of the er-
ratic nature of precipitation.
The mechanism for ground-water contamination by basin re-
charge of storm water is the same as that of sanitary waste
water. While no specific reported instances of contamina-
tion have been reported, a potential for ground-water con-
tamination does exist. 9)
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
Untreated Municipal Sewage
Municipal waste-water treatment plants handle wastes which
vary in composition corresponding to certain patterns of
everyday life. Typical hourly variation in flow and domes-
tic sewage is shown in Figure 59.
Although waste water is primarily liquid (99.9 percent wa-
ter) , the composition can probably best be studied by first
considering the total solids content. The sources of domes-
tic solids in waste water include toilets, sinks, baths,
laundries, garbage grinders, and water softeners. In addi-
tion to domestic sewage, municipal waste water contains
storm water and commercial and industrial discharges. The
contributors of total solids in waste water expressed as
grams/capita/day (gpcd) are shown in Table 28.
Compositions of strong, medium, and weak domestic sewage are
presented in Table 29. The physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal constituents make up what is referred to as the sewage
composition. In addition to the chemical and physical con-
stituents, there are also pathogenic agents present in waste
water.
Waste Water After Treatment in Sewage Treatment Plants
Treated waste water can range from almost raw sewage to pota-
215
-------
400
300
o
CO
o
ui
Q.
CO
200
'00
o
o
m
FLOW
12 M. 4A.M.
8A.M. I2N. 4PM.
TIME OF DAY
8P.M.
10
•o
Ot
E
12 M.
Figure 59. Typical hourly variation in flow and strength
of domestic sewage.
4)
216
-------
Table 28. ESTIMATE OF THE COMPONENTS OF TOTAL SOLIDS IN WASTE
WATER. '
Dry weight
Component (gpcd)
Water supplies and ground water, assumed to have
little hardness 12.7
Feces (solids, 23 percent) 20.5
Urine (solids, 3.7 percent) 43.3
Toilet (including paper) 20.0
Sinks, baths, laundries, and other sources of domestic
wash waters 86.5
Ground garbage 30.0
Water softeners - a'
Total for domestic sewage from separate sewerage systems,
excluding contribution from water softeners: 213.0
Industrial wastes 200.0 b)
Total for industrial and domestic wastes from separate
sewerage system: 413.0
Storm water 25.0 c^
Total for industrial and domestic wastes from combined
sewerage system 438.0
a) Variable
b) Will vary with the type and size of industries
c) Will vary with the season
217
-------
Table 29. TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE.
4)
(All values except settleable solids are expressed in ppm)
Constituent
Solids, total
Dissolved, total
Fixed
Volatile
Suspended, total
Fixed
Volatile
Settleable solids, (ml/1)
Biochemical oxygen demand,
5-day, 20°C (BOD5 20°)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Nitrogen, (total as N)
Organic
Free ammonia
Nitrites
Nitrates
Phosphorus (total as P)
Organic
Inorganic
Chlorides a)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) a)
Grease
Strong
1,200
850
525
325
350
75
275
20
300
300
1,000
85
35
50
0
0
20
5
15
100
200
150
Concentration
Medium
700
500
300
200
200
50
150
10
200
200
500
40
15
25
0
0
10
3
7
50
100
100
Weak
350
250
145
105
100
30
70
5
100
100
250
20
8
12
0
0
6
2
4
30
50
50
a) Values should be increased by amount in carriage water
218
-------
ble water, depending on the type of treatment received. Al-
though there have long been laws specifying minimum treat-
ment efficiencies (usually secondary treatment or 85 percent
removal of suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand,
and most recently even more stringent levels as a result of
PL 92-500), many plants still treat inadequately. Many
areas only use screening, or at best primary treatment, to
remove the more obvious solids. Other plants designed for
secondary treatment do not meet their design requirements
due to plant overloadings or operational difficulties.
The total biochemical oxygen demand contributed by the sew-
ered population in the United States was 7.3 billion Ib (3.3
billion kg) in 1963. 10) Even if a 90 percent removal effi-
ciency is assumed for secondary treatment, about 730 million
Ib (331 million kg) of biochemical oxygen demand would have
been discharged. This points out the fact that although
treatment plants remove most contaminants from waste waters,
the remaining contaminants might still be significant at
some locations.
Bacterial reduction is also obtained by secondary treatment.
The usual indicator of fecal contamination of receiving wa-
ters is the presence of the fecal coliform group of bacteria,
Reductions for fecal coliform bacteria of 90 to 99 percent
are realized from biological treatment. However, these num-
bers are misleading. When one considers that raw waste wa-
ter may contain a fecal coliform count of up to 500,000/100
ml, then 99 percent removal would leave up to 5,000/100 ml,
a still sizeable number. Disinfection before discharge of
the treated waste water can remove close to 100 percent of
the bacteria.
Significant by-products of waste-water treatment plants af-
ter solids removal are grit, screenings, and sludge, of
which sludge constitutes the largest volume. These also
must be treated and disposed of in an environmentally accept-
able manner.
Waste Water Treated by Lagoons and Ponds
It is difficult to characterize waste water that has been
treated by lagoons and ponds. If the system serves as a
polishing pond (following other treatment), effluent will be
of considerably higher quality than if the system serves as
the sole treatment process. Multiple ponds, operating in
series, also provide more detention time, which reduces the
organic load by sedimentation and further oxidation by bac-
teria. The number of disease-causing bacteria can also be
reduced due to natural death.
219
-------
Lagoons and ponds do not always function effectively; thus
the threat of contamination is a variable. In a nationwide
survey on lagoon performance in 1973, all 50 states reported
problems with odor, 21 with algae in the effluent, 23 with
short-circuiting, 6 with organic overload, and 20 with poor
effluent. 11)
Waste Water Treated by Land Spreading and Basin Recharge
The resulting water quality after land spreading of waste
water will depend on the initial waste-water characteristics,
site topography, hydrologic and geologic conditions, type of
vegetation, and application method.
Of prime importance in land spreading and basin recharge is
the survival of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the soil,
in sprayed aerosol droplets, .and on vegetables. It has been
found that the survival of pathogenic organisms in the ;^oil
can vary from days to months depending on the soil moistxire,
soil temperature, and type of organism. The travel distance
of bacteria in air is limited to the distance of travel of
the mist from sprinklers. It was also found that as the rel-
ative humidity decreased and air temperature increased, the
death rate of bacteria increased. 7) Pathogens, in general,
will not enter healthy, unbroken vegetables but may be har-
bored in broken, bruised, or unhealthy plants and vegetables.
Chemical compounds found in waste water such as nitrate, min-
eral salts, and toxic trace organics may reach the ground
water as a result of land spreading. Nitrate is of concern
because it is reported to be a cause of methemoglobinemia in
infants. High salt content can be harmful to people with
cardiac, renal, or circulatory diseases.
Storm Water
In most studies of urban runoff, it has been observed that
higher concentrations of contaminants may be expected (a)
during the early stages of a storm; (b) in densely popu-
lated, highly paved or industrialized areas; (c) in re-
sponse to intense rainfall periods; (d) after prolonged dry
periods; and (e) in areas where construction activities are
underway. Contaminant concentrations tend to decrease as
storms progress, and as storm frequency increases.
The phenomenon of higher contaminant concentrations discov-
ered during the, earlier stages of a storm has been coined
the "first flush" effect. The contaminants occurring in
higher concentrations are those which have remained in the
sewer from a previous storm. Storm-water runoff is compared
220
-------
to sanitary sewage in Table 30.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
According to the 1970 U. S. Census of Housing, 1:3) tfte domes-
tic waste from 71 percent of the housing units in the United
States is collected by public sewer lines and piped to cen-
tral treatment facilities. The total volume of this sewage
is approximately 15 bgd (57 million cu m/day), a portion of
which alters the quality of ground water. Municipal waste
water may follow one of three direct routes to reach ground
water: leakage from the collecting sewers, leakage from the
treatment plant during processing, and land disposal of the
treatment-plant effluent containing constituents either not
present in or in greater concentrations than the natural
ground water at the site. In addition, there are two indi-
rect routes: effluent disposal to surface-water bodies
which recharge aquifers; and land disposal of the residual
sludge, which is subject to leaching.
Storm-water runoff may enter the ground-water system from
leaks in storm sewers, from sewer overflows, or by flowing
directly from city streets onto unpaved areas and perco-
lating to the water table.
Sanitary Sewer Systems
Infiltration of ground water into typical existing sanitary
sewers may range in volume from 1,000 to over 40,000 gpd/mi
(2,352 to 94,096 I/day/km) of sewer. 4) Table 31 presents
regional data for the total length of residential sewer pipe
in service from 1940 to 1980 (estimated), with the corre-
sponding estimates of sewage flow rates, not including in-
filtration. The principal variables that control the vol-
umes of infiltration are: the quality of the materials and
workmanship in the sewers, the type of joints used to con-
nect individual lengths of pipe, and the elevation of the
water table with respect to the sewer line.
Infiltration of ground water into sewers has been the sub-
ject of much investigation because the excess flow can over-
stress the sewage treatment plant. On the other hand, lit-
tle attention has been paid to sewage leakage into the
ground, or exfiltration, because the resulting loss of flow
is frequently ignored or is considered an asset by the treat-
ment plant operator. From a ground-water contamination
standpoint, however, exfiltration is known to be a serious
problem in some areas, and undoubtedly contributes to prob-
lems in many others. The dearth of data regarding this prob-
lem precludes, at present, estimations of the volume of ex-
221
-------
Table 30. GENERALIZED WATER QUALITY COMPARISON OF VARIOUS
WASTES. 12)
Type
BOD5/
ppm
SS,
ppm
Total
co li forms/
MPN/lOOml
Total
nitrogen,
as N
ppm
Total
phosphorus,
as P
ppm
Untreated municipal
Treated municipal
Primary effluent
Secondary effluent
Combined sewage
Surface runoff
200 200
5x 107
40
10
135
25
115
30
80
15
410
630
2x 107
1 x 103
5x 106
4x 105
35
30
11
3
8
5
4
1
222
-------
x^^
u
-5
"o
^
£
*"n
• _j__
CO jg
^ >
0 ^
_J
LL.
Q
LU
I
CO
^ .c
Q 3
z £
X
1—
O
Z
UJ
_J
LU
E 1
c
LU (J
^^ -^
LU *:
1/1 O
^
CO
Q)
_Q
O
O
4)
^^
•£
2
1S
§3t
rt
™ ^
UJ
^^
O
-C
4) **~
a. g>
Q. Q)
Js
| _o
• 1 1
o
4) *~
.- C?
0_ _J>
O £
§ J2
V)
LU
. %
O
-C
d) *•
.1- ?
CX. Q)
•03-
1 |
•z **•
UJ
^o"
4) "^
._ c5
d- 4)
| j
Lu
S. o>
SI a)
^3
O>
tf>
^
'
,_^
CO
^E
^
i/i
4)
-
^-,
CO
^,
4>
0)
s
E
T?
^
l/t"
D
0)
O
fv.
0
K"
00
o*«
s
"
o
CO
£
CO
8
CK
^~
o
|Ss
^
O
CM"
S
•*
o
CO
o
co
CN
IO
H
<2
o
8
lO
^
00
8
oT
^
C2
CN
^
CN
o
o
,_
^
s?
CO
CN
CN
oo
3
8
co
CN"
00
o
•—
^"
8
CN
5?
s?
o
o
o
r—
^
\f)
o
co
o
o\
,_^
CN
-^'
o
•o
c^
o
CO
o
«•>
(X
oo
s?
o
co"
52
lO
K
^o
s
o
co
m
CN
0^
oo
s
o
Q
25
^,
2;
^0
o
CN
^
o
^0
CN"
•o
CN
oo
CN
o
00
co
00
•*
10
co
o
0.
s
•o
tv
2
1
CO
CN
>£>"
in
•£-
p
»•
8
f^x
•^
f^
CN
o
•o"
o
^
g
If)
crT
j^
tv.
00
•o
CO
00
•*
co
CN
ON
CN
o
CN
1
^
1^
•O
r~
^2
1
•*
CO
g
1
s
£
_x
1
o
"cb
£
4)
*>
L.
s
c
4? 5 w>
5. . - «}
a-g-£
4) " °^
4) CL W
111
c c^ 5
V C5 o
1 81
«11
0 0 O
1— CO (J
O -Q O
g
4>
E
^u
-Q
• o
12 vi
4) 4)
•*.>
E o*
jo «o
7= oo
S co"
•— a)
CO c
c
^ I/I
* o
I1
*• o
-2i
^5
•g
z
223
-------
filtration or the severity of its impact on ground-water
quality, either locally or regionally.
The available data regarding the sewered population through-
out the United States make possible the definition of areas
with a potential sewer leakage problem. Figure 60 shows
three ranges of sewered population by county: less than
50,000; 50,000 to 500,000; and greater than 500,000.
While ground-water degradation from sewer leakage can occur
wherever a sewer line is present, the magnitude of such prob-
lems is probably proportional to the ranges in density of
population served as shown on Figure 60. The impact on
ground-water quality in these areas is dependent on local
geology and hydrology.
Sanitary Waste Stabilization Lagoons and Ponds
The waste-water stabilization pond is the most popular form
of municipal secondary treatment in the United States, espe-
cially among the smaller sewage plants. The EPA "Municipal
Waste Facilities Inventory" lists 5,132 treatment plants,
serving 7,800,191 people, currently using this method of
treatment. As previously noted, the total number of facili-
ties listed, including those which are currently providing
no treatment, is 21,787. 2)
The volume of waste water that seeps into the ground from un-
lined stabilization ponds is quite large. A rough estimate
of the volume of pond seepage in all areas of the United
States has been calculated, based on an approximate median
infiltration rate for sealed sewage stabilization ponds, of
0.008 ft/day (0.2 cm/day). 15,16,17,18) RUIS of thumb en-
gineering estimates for lagoon leakage are: new, unlined la-
goons, 0.05 to 6.2 ft/day (1.5 to 189 cm/day) and older,
self-sealed lagoons, 0 to 0.1 ft/day (0 to 3.0 cm/day). The
total estimated leakage for the United States equals 50 mil-
lion gpd (157,000 cu m/day). Figure 61 provides a county
breakdown of the number of people per square mile being
served by treatment facilities using stabilization ponds.
The impact of leakage from waste-water stabilization ponds
depends on several factors which cannot be generalized for
this type of survey. Among the more important of these are
the nature of the waste water contained in the pond; nature
of the soils through which the leakage must migrate; depth
to the water table; and quality of the natural ground water.
Land Spreading and Basin Recharge
Disposal practices that are covered in this section include:
224
-------
§
3-
IS
3 «
S-S
E
3
Z
/ •;.
o
•9
s
O)
0
225
-------
.*
4M
°u
£
*.
!~
*- X
0) ^
O) §
P O
> o
•E 5
§ °-
I!
TJ N
(U —
O 05
*•- C
c
a>
Q
•o
£
CD
226
-------
irrigation of agricultural land, rapid infiltration ponds,
overland runoff, and discharge to dry stream beds and
ditches. Also discussed in the following section is dis-
charge to intermittent or perennial streams where a portion
of the surface water enters the ground-water system as re-
charge .
The lack of available data makes it impossible to specifi-
cally define the impact on ground-water quality of municipal
waste disposal on land. Two important factors can be esti-
mated, however, providing a good indication of the regional
potential for ground-water degradation. The first is the
quality of municipal effluent as it is discharged to land
and the second is the degree to which this disposal practice
is used in a particular region.
Effluent which meets the standards for secondary treatment,
as established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, is not likely to seriously degrade
ground-water quality. Thus, facilities providing effective
secondary treatment can generally be disregarded as ground-
water quality threats except for nitrate, in some cases, and
also where the geology allows for rapid migration of contam-
inants. On the other hand, effluent receiving only primary
treatment is limited in acceptability for land application.
Table 32 shows the degree of treatment for existing plants.
While the bulk of effluent discharged has received secondary
treatment, about 19 percent has received only primary treat-
ment or less. In addition, there are numerous reported
cases where plants claim secondary treatment but are in fact
discharging effluent that does not meet the Federally estab-
lished standards. In October 1975, the EPA promulgated the
Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology Standards which
require that effluent discharged to land not degrade ground
water to a non-potable condition. This action plus the
establishment of monitoring programs called for in the regu-
lations should help minimize the threat of future ground-
water contamination from land disposal of sewage effluent.
The second factor is related to those regions in the United
States where municipal waste treatment plant effluent is dis-
posed of directly on land. In order to obtain a picture of
the importance of this practice on a national basis, a list
was compiled of the 2,665 facilities which discharge efflu-
ent to sources other than intermittent and perennial streams,
lakes, or the ocean. Based on these data, Figure 62 was pre-
pared to show by county, three ranges of population density
served by facilities discharging effluent to land.
227
-------
Table 32. DEGREE OF TREATMENT AT MUNICIPAL WASTE FACILITIES.
Treatment
degree
None
Minor
Primary
Intermediate
Secondary
Tertiary
Number
of plants
1,118
68
2,777
68
16,809
947
Population served Percent of total
(millions) population served
2.92
0.76
37.85
6.15
107.74
2.98
1.8
0.5
23.9
3.9
68.0
1.9
Total: 21,787 158.40 100.0
228
-------
w>
V
u
.0
c
I
o
"c
0) —
5 a)
85 o)
c c
.2 p
o o
1*
£=5
V
O
I
229
-------
It has been estimated that over 26 bgd (98.4 million cu m/
day) of sewage effluent from domestic, industrial, commer-
cial, storm water and all other sources, are discharged by
municipal treatment plants. 19) Taking the proportion of
land disposal to total disposal, approximately 2.3 bgd (8.7
million cu m/day) of effluent, some of which has received on-
ly primary treatment, are discharged onto the land.
Figure 62 indicates that the principal region for land dis-
posal of effluent is the arid southwest. Several reasons
for this are: (1) there is a lack of surface water in which
to discharge effluent; (2) ground water in such areas is
"mined" (taken from storage), and water recycling is prac-
ticed; and (3) arid conditions make the effluent valuable
for crop irrigation. There is, however, substantial land
disposal practiced in other regions of the United States,
for example, North and South Carolina.
Stream Discharge
About 90 percent of municipal waste treatment plant effluent
is discharged to surface-water bodies, particularly flowing
streams. Upon entering the stream, the effluent is diluted
to some degree. All of the water in the stream may dis-
charge to the ocean and have no effect on ground water. How-
ever, ground-water quality may be significantly degraded
where stream water recharges the ground-water system and the
effluent-flow to stream-flow ratio is large enough to signif-
icantly degrade the quality of the stream. Effluent dis-
charged to such streams may at times make up a substantial
part of the total stream flow which enters the ground. Be-
cause of the many variables involved, it is not possible to
estimate, on a broad basis, the impact on ground-water qual-
ity of effluent discharged to these streams from municipal
waste treatment facilities. The extent of this problem
should decrease significantly because of the general imple-
mentation of more stringent discharge requirements.
Storm Water
As previously mentioned, ground-water contamination from ur-
ban runoff may result from leaks in, and overflowing of,
storm sewers; intentional ground-water recharge of untreat-
ed runoff; and runoff flowing from streets directly into un-
paved areas and percolating to the water table. The volume
and quality of contaminated runoff entering ground water
from leaks in the storm sewers cannot be estimated, due to
the lack of published data on this problem.
Storm-sewer overflow is another potential ground-water qual-
230
-------
ity threat. During rainstorms, the capacity of the sewer
lines is easily exceeded; as a consequence, regulators or
overflow weirs are used to discharge excess volumes of mixed
street runoff and, in the case of combined sewers, sanitary
wastes. There may be hundreds of discharge points involved
in a single storm-sewer system. Combined sewer overflow
pollutant loads are normally higher than the sum of street
runoff loads and "steady-state" sanitary loads, due to the
between-rainfall accumulation of wastes on sewer floors and
in the various traps throughout a sewer system.
Although there now is virtually no construction of combined
sewer systems, many cities have extensive old combined sewer
systems. 4) ^ total of 1,010 separate facilities exist
which are using combined sewers, and an additional 600 use
both combined and separate sewer systems. Also, there are
3,459 facilities for which information regarding the type of
sewer system used is unknown. 2) Figure 63 shows the rela-
tive use of combined sewers compared to total sewered popula-
tion.
As noted previously, ground-water recharge by urban storm-
water runoff is practiced in many areas, including Los Ange-
les and Fresno, California; Long Island, New York; and Or-
lando, Florida. Recharge is accomplished by directing run-
off via storm sewers to infiltration basins or pits.
Case Histories
Sewer Exfiltration (Kings County, New York) -
A study conducted in 1972 in Kings County, the Brooklyn bor-
ough of New York City, found that leaky sewers are a signif-
icant source of artificial recharge in the county and a ma-
jor contributor to the high nitrogen content of the ground
water. 21) The report notes that while the nitrogen content
of typical sewage ranges from 16 to 73 ppm, the total nitro-
gen content of ground water from 17 widely scattered wells
in Kings County is 16 ppm or greater. This finding, to-
gether with the total absence of agricultural activities and
domestic waste disposal systems, and the observed existence
of old and damaged sewer lines, indicates that leaky sewers
are the principal source of the high nitrogen levels.
In addition, the investigation found that the rapid recovery
of the water table after a marked reduction in ground-water
pumpage in 1948 probably could not have been caused by re-
charge from precipitation alone, and attributed it largely
to a combination of leakage from sewer lines and water mains.
The report concludes that the value of sanitary sewer sys-
231
-------
£
0)
t/>
5
o
(1), — >
U (U
(U in
c
5
sl
t*- a.
o
(U
o
(U
a:
oo
*G
S
3
.ro
uZ
-------
terns in preventing contamination of ground water in any par-
ticular area may be partially offset if the sewers are not
carefully built and maintained.
Discharge to Lagoon (Tieton, Washington) -
Ground-water contamination from sewage lagoons has occurred
at Tieton, Washington. 22) Wastes of the community were dis-
charged to a lagoon located in a narrow valley underlain by
permeable sands and gravel. Average daily waste flow was
130,000 gal. (490 cu m), of which 50,000 gal. (190 cu m)
were domestic, with the balance constituting industrial
waste waters. Within a few months after discharge to the
pond began, a well located 250 ft (76 m) south of the lagoon
became contaminated. Investigation showed that coliform bac-
teria had traveled from the lagoon to the well.
Anionic synthetic detergent had also entered the aquifer. A
tracer study using chloride showed that sewage infiltrating
through the bottom of the lagoon formed a shallow, elongated
mound of fluid resting on top of the water table. Flow ve-
locities of ground water below the lagoon were in excess of
300 ft/day (90 m/day). About 1,000 ft (300 m) down the val-
ley, the velocity decreased to 200 ft/day (60 m/day). With-
in 6 days, water from the lagoon reached wells located as
far as 1,500 to 2,000 ft (450 to 600 m) down the valley.
Little consideration in the design of the system had been
given to potential contamination of ground water. Infiltra-
tion rates at the lagoon ranged from 3 to 15 in./day (7.6 to
38 cm/day) indicating highly permeable soil conditions with
little or no filtration or treatment capability.
Disposal to Dry Stream Bed and Oxidation Ponds (Barstow,
California) -
For the past 60 years, part of the alluvial aquifer along
the Mojave River near Barstow has been contaminated by the
percolation of wastes and sewage from industrial and munici-
pal sources. 23) The contamination has forced the abandon-
ment of several domestic wells due to taste, odor, and foanv-
ing, and threatens the well field serving a U. S. Marine
Corps supply center.
The City of Barstow has operated three sewage treatment
plants since 1938. Effluent from the 1938 plant was dis-
charged directly into the Mojave River bed (dry except dur-
ing periods of flooding). In 1953, a new sewage treatment
plant was constructed 0.5 mi (0.8 km) downstream from the
first plant, which was then abandoned. Disposal of effluent
233
-------
from the new facility was by direct percolation from oxida-
tion ponds. In 1968, a larger plant was built several miles
downstream from the 1953 plant, and just upstream of the sup-
ply center. Treatment in the new plant was performed by
seven oxidation ponds.
In addition to the municipal treatment facilities, a rail-
road yard has been disposing of emulsified oil, grease, and
synthetic detergents in the Mojave River bed since 1949.
Dissolved solids are also added to the ground water by irri-
gation return flow from farms in the area. The concentra-
tions of dissolved solids, detergents, and dissolved organic
carbon were used to identify the extent of the degraded
ground water in the area. Results of the study indicated
that several plumes of degraded ground water were moving
downgradient toward wells at the supply center. One plume
near the base of the aquifer is probably the result of per-
colation from the abandoned, upstream, waste-disposal sites.
This plume has moved about 4 mi (6 km) since 1910. A more
recent overlying plume occurs near the downstream edge of
the deeper plume, and has been produced by percolation from
the facilities installed in 1968.
A third plume in the vicinity of the U. S. Marine Corps golf
course is moving toward the U. S. Marine Corps well field
in response to pumpage from these wells. Higher concentra-
tions of dissolved constituents in this third plume are the
result of the use of reclaimed industrial and domestic ef-
fluent for irrigation on the golf course.
Stream Disposal (Denver, Colorado) -
In 1965, 23 plants discharged about 105 mgd (400,000 cu m/
day) to the South Platte River basin. By 1974, 140 mgd
(530,000 cu m/day) were being discharged. In studies made
in 1965 and 1967, significant quantities of ABS detergents
and nitrate were found in the valley-fill aquifer, prin-
cipally between Denver and Kersey. 24,25) This aquifer is
the principal source of water for the majority of public wa-
ter supply systems in the area.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Sewer Systems
Control of leaky pipe joints and pipe failures starts with
proper installation techniques, good quality construction
materials, and testing before the system becomes operative.
Of prime importance in sewer pipe connections is joint flex-
ibility since differential soil settlement often shears
234
-------
joints and connections, causing the pipe to leak. A number
of joining methods are available to allow flexibility be-
tween sewer-pipe sections, and between sewer pipes and man-
holes. Later, if it is determined that a sewer pipe is de-
fective, possible rehabilitation methods include digging up
and replacing defective pipe, inserting plastic liners, or
chemical grouting. The most universally used method is
grouting. 26)
Lagoons and Ponds
Of primary concern in the design and operation of waste-
stabilization ponds is the infiltration of contaminants to
the underlying ground water. To minimize leakage, the pond
bottom can be sealed by compaction, often with the addition
of clay, or by the use of artificial liners. The types of
liners used and some of their limitations are:
PVC - destroyed by aromatic solvents
soil-cement blanket - not completely impermeable
concrete - high cost
reinforced chlorinated polyethylene - high cost
asphalt - deteriorated by sunlight
hypalon or butyl - requires reinforcing to prevent rupture
and puncture
Land Spreading and Basin Recharge
Contamination of ground water can occur from design failures
or misuse of the system. The suitability of any particular
site for land spreading is of key importance and depends
upon climate, soil characteristics, soil depth, topography,
hydrology, and geology. 7) Two major factors in the design
of sprinklers for spray-irrigation systems are wind and soil
infiltration rates. Wind can create a health hazard by car-
rying spray containing bacteria and viruses into populated
areas. Odor and mosquito problems and water flooding may
occur when the infiltration rate of the soil is exceeded.
Criteria to be evaluated in the design of a basin system in-
clude degree of waste-water pretreatment, loading rates,
geologic conditions, and surface topography. For infiltra-
tion-percolation systems to function properly, soil infiltra-
tion rates of 4 to 12 in./day (10 to 30 cm/day) are needed.
The permeability of the lower soil layers is also .important.
The vertical percolation of these layers must equal or ex-
ceed infiltration rates. A minimum depth of 15 ft (4.5 m)
from the basin bottom to the water table is usually required
to prevent the recharge mound from intersecting the basin
bottom with a resultant reduction in infiltration rates.
235
-------
Storm Water
Certain efforts may be made to limit contamination from
storm water. Examples of controls that might be implemented
include the following:
1. Improvements in street cleaning practices and equipment.
Current evaluations indicate that the contamination im-
pact from this source is largely associated with the
fine solids fraction (less than 43 micrometers), which
existing broom-type street sweepers are inefficient in
collecting.
2. Enforcement of anti-litter laws to reduce the quantities
of wastes.
3. Restrictions on the indiscriminate use of chemicals such
as fertilizers and pesticides and deicing and anti-skid
agents used in northern climates.
4. Institution of more stringent regulations on erosion and
sediment control during construction activity. It has
been observed that sediment, generated when ground cov-
ers are stripped away to allow construction activity, is
a major contaminant in storm water. 27)
5. Establishing requirements that will reduce the quantity
of contaminants washed through the storm sewerage system.
These preventative measures can include the requirement
of storm runoff detention ponds for new developments,
which can be incorporated into development layouts in an
aesthetically pleasing manner.
6. Prohibiting the filling of lowlands, open channels, and
unprotected areas which are subject to accumulations of
storm water, and exercising controls over what sub-
stances can be stored openly outdoors without contamina-
tion controls.
To further reduce the contributions to ground-water contam-
ination made by storm sewer systems, the following types of
collection system controls are available:
1. A systematic program of cleaning sewers of deposited
solids and debris to help reduce the flushing effect of
contaminants in the early portions of a storm.
2. Improved catch basin designs to eliminate the flushing
of accumulated solids into the system during storms.
236
-------
End-of-pipe controls are the mttst sophisticated means of re-
moving contaminants in storm water, and include actual treat-
ment processes similar to those employed in the waste-water
treatment field. The treatment alternatives are separated
into those types that provide physical treatment (adsorption,
sedimentation, filtration, screening, concentration), those
that provide treatment by means of biological organisms (la-
goons of various types, modifications of the activated
sludge process, trickling filters, rotating biological con-
tractors) , those that enhance treatment by the addition of
chemicals which act as coagulants, flocculants, and condi-
tioners, and finally, those that employ a combination of
physical-chemical processes.
Specific preventative measures that can be employed to re-
duce ground-water contamination from storm-water storage ba-
sins include the following:
1. Lining of lagoons and basins with impervious barriers.
2. Use of barrier wells to intercept plumes of contaminated
ground water where leakage has occurred.
3. Banning the use of seepage lagoons per se, but allowing
construction of properly designed retention lagoons.
4. Determination of suitable detention pond locations by
means of subsurface soil and ground-water investigations.
5. Installation of observation wells around the perimeter
of storm-water storage lagoons for the purpose of de-
tecting the presence of contaminants and defects in the
basin seal.
In considering all of these control techniques, it must be
noted that cost estimates in the range of $300 billion have
been developed by EPA and the National Commission on Water
Quality for adequate treatment and disposal of 'excess dis-
charges from storm and combined sewers, on a national basis.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Sewers
The possibility of ground-water contamination caused by
leaky sewers has been given little attention in regulations.
Where a state agency has the authority to approve sewer con-
struction, it may, as a matter of policy, prohibit construc-
tion of a sewer line within a specified distance, such as
100 ft (30 m), of a well used for drinking-water purposes.
237
-------
One guideline used by a number of states, requires sewer
joints to be designed to minimize infiltration and to pre-
vent entrance of roots; test requirements are that leakage
outward or inward not exceed 500 gal./in. (745 I/cm) of pipe
diameter per mile per day. 28)
Delaware is unusual in its requirement that one obtain a
permit to construct any sewer or pipeline which conveys
liquid waste. 29)
Waste-Water Lagoons and Ponds
Municipal lagoons and ponds for the retention of waste water
are parts of sewage treatment facilities, the construction
and operation of which are supervised by state health depart-
ments or environmental protection agencies. Virtually all
municipal waste treatment facilities currently are built
with Federal grant contributions, subjecting them to require-
ments established by the EPA pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. That law requires
that contaminants not migrate to cause water or other envi-
ronmental contamination. 30)
An example of a recent adoption of design criteria for sew-
age stabilization ponds is that of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. A number of these criteria are directed at
prevention of ground-water contamination. 31) One requires
that permeability of a pond seal be as low as possible, and
in no case should seepage loss through the seal exceed 500
gal./acre/day (4.7 cu m/ha/day). A testing program is re-
quired; specifications for construction and placement are
to be based on test results. A minimum of 4 ft (1.2 m) be-
tween the top of the pond seal and the maximum high water
table is to be maintained. An approved system of ground-
water monitoring wells or lysimeters is required around the
perimeter of the pond site, well locations to be determined
on a case-by-case basis depending on proximity of private
water supply wells and maximum ground-water levels. Informa-
tion required to be filed prior to construction includes a
log of each well within one mi (1.6 km) of the proposed pond.
The Agency also requires submission of information as re-
quired in Recommended Standards for Sewage Works 28) an(^
Federal Guidelines, Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Waste Water Treatment Facilities.32)
A number of states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Dela-
ware, and California, require permits or approvals for mu-
nicipal sewage impoundments similar to those for industrial
waste impoundments.
238
-------
Land Spreading and Basin Recharge
Spraying of sewage effluent on land as a disposal method is
specifically regulated in only a few states. Most states
review such disposal on a case-by-case basis with due con-
sideration to effect on water quality, the same as any other
discharge. Maryland specifically requires a discharge per-
mit for waste-water effluents disposed of by means of spray
or other land irrigation systems; this permit program is
one of those used to enforce the water-quality standards
Maryland has established for its 3 classifications of aqui-
fers. 33) NSW York presents detailed requirements for a
design report for any facility employed for ground disposal
of waste waters.
Detailed requirements specifically directed at spray irriga-
tion for the purpose of protecting ground water are exempli-
fied by the Spray Irrigation Manual published by the Bureau
of Water Quality Management of the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources. 34) An introduction to the man-
ual states :
"Since roughly 50 percent of waste water discharged
to the land surface in Pennsylvania will infiltrate
and recharge ground water, all spray irrigation in-
stallations are considered discharges to the waters
of the Commonwealth. As such, each installation will
require a Department of Environmental Resources per-
mit under the Clean Streams Law."
The manual provides guidelines for locating and evaluating
sites, and in designing spray irrigation systems. Factors
include soils, geology, hydrology, weather, the agricultural
practice involved, and adjacent land use. The guidelines
set standards for treatment, storage, screening, controls,
piping, sprinklers, distribution diameter (not in excess of
140 ft or 43 m), spacing and application rate.
Florida's Department of Environmental Regulation specifies
type of treatment for low rate (between 2 to 3 in./week or 5
to 8 cm/week) and high rate (maximum 4 in./week or 10 cm/
week) of application for irrigation and crop harvesting, and
spraying for purposes of recharge (1/40 of initial percola-
tion rate). For each category the guidelines specify deten-
tion time for holding basin, depth to ground water, and buf-
fer zone for adjoining property. 35) The introduction
states:
"It is significant to note that provision has been
made in these guidelines for use of soils as treat-
239
-------
ment media as compared to their conventional use
as sinks for treated waste waters."
Idaho's regulation states that land disposal of liquid'waste
"shall not create a ground-water mound or result in a salt
build-up on another person's property." It requires that
the waste water used be biologically degradable, but allows
use of other waste water if it can be shown that it will
have no adverse effect on ground water. An applicant for a
permit must "provide reasonable assurance that the earth
material underlying the proposed disposal site will not al-
low direct rapid movement of pollutants into the underlying
ground water." 36)
Regulations typically require at least secondary treatment
of wastes that are to be sprayed, and contain requirements
for monitoring ground water. In Wisconsin, according to the
"Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR-214, land dispos-
al of liquid waste - discharge limitations and monitoring re-
quirements," spraying of untreated dairy, canning, and meat-
packing waste is allowed. Washington requires only primary
treatment of sprayed wastes, but allows land disposal only
for 5 years in one location. 37)
The Center for the Study of Federalism of Temple University
reported that in 1972, only 14 states regulated land treat-
ment (land disposal) of wastes. General patterns reported
from a survey of all states' regulations were "a disappoint-
ing lack of information about land treatment, a great deal
of misinformation, and an even greater lack of interest." 38)
California's Water Reclamation Law applies broadly to any
use of treated waste water, whether for land disposal, injec-
tion for recharge, or other use. It requires each regional
water quality board to prescribe water reclamation require-
ments for water used or proposed to be used as reclaimed wa-
ter. These must be in conformance with statewide reclama-
tion criteria established by the State Department of Health.
Anyone reclaiming or proposing to reclaim water, or using or
proposing to use it for any purpose for which reclamation
criteria have been established, must file with the regional
board a report containing such information as the board re-
quires. Reclaimed water may not be injected directly into
an aquifer that is suitable for domestic water supply until
a finding by the State Department of Health, after a public
hearing, that the proposed recharge will not impair the qual-
ity of water in the receiving aquifer. 39)
240
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Water Pollution Control Federation. 1966. Sewer main-
tenance, manual of practice No. 7. Washington, D. C.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Municipal
waste facilities inventory. Computer retrieval of
Storet system, June 6.
3. Symons, G. E. 1967. Water and wastes engineering, man-
ual of practice No. 3. Reuben H. Donnelly Corp., New
York.
4. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering:
collection, treatment, disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York. 782 pp.
5. Water Pollution Control Federation. 1970. Design and
construction of sanitary and storm sewers, manual of
practice No. 9. Washington, D. C.
6. Thomas, R. E. 1973. An overview of land treatment
methods. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
July:1476-1484.
7. Pound, E. E., and R. W. Crites. 1973. Waste water
treatment and reuse by land application, Vol. II. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
8. Godfrey, K. A. 1973. Land treatment of municipal sew-
age. Journal American Society of Civil Engineers 43(9).
9. Fuhriman-Barton and Associates. 1971. Ground-water
pollution—Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report 16060 ERU.
10. Sopper, W. E., and L. T. Kardos. 1973. Recycling
treated municipal waste water and sludge through forest
and cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press,
University Park, Pennsylvania.
11. Barsom, G. 1973. Lagoon performance and the state of
lagoon technology. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA-R2-73-144.
12. Lager, J. A., and W. G. Smith. 1974. Urban storm-
water management and technology: an assessment. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-670/2-74-040.
241
-------
13. U. S. Census of Housing. 1970. Detailed housing char-
acteristics. U. S. Department of Commerce HC (1)-B.
53 vols.
14. Kollar, K. L. 1966. Regional requirements for sewer
pipe in sewerage utilities. U. S. Department of Com-
merce. 20 pp.
15. Change, A. C., and others. 1974. The sealing mechan-
ism of wastewater ponds. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation 46(7):1715-1721.
16. Wilson, L. G., W. L. Clark, III, and G. G. Small. 1973.
Subsurface quality transformations during the initia-
tion of a new stabilization lagoon. Water Resources
Bulletin 9(2):243-257.
17. Fossom, G. 0. 1971. Water balance in sewage stabili-
zation lagoons. Civil Engineering Department, North
Dakota University, Grand Forks, North Dakota. 38 pp.
18. Preul, H. C. 1968. Contaminants in ground water near
waste stabilization ponds. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation 40(4):659-669.
19. Sopper, W. 1973. Review of symposium on recycling
treated municipal waste water and sludge. Irrigation
Journal 23(4) :16-19.
20. U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, American Public Works Associa-
tion. 1967. Report on problems of combined sewer
facilities and overflows. WP-20. Storm and Combined
Sewer Pollution Control Branch, Division of Engineering
Development, Research and Development, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D. C.
Page 21.
21. Kimmel, G. E. 1972. Nitrogen content of ground water
in Kings County, Long Island, New York, U. S. Geologi-
cal Survey Professional Paper 800-D. Pages D199-D203.
22. van der Leeden, F., L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller.
1975. Ground-water pollution problems in the northwest-
ern United States. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report 660/3-75-018.
242
-------
23. Hughes, V. L., and S. G. Robson. 1973. Effects of
waste percolation of ground water in alluvium near
Barstow, California. Underground Waste Management and
Artificial Recharge.
24. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Wa-
ter Supply and Pollution Control Division. 1965.
Ground-water pollution in the South Platte River valley
between Denver and Brighton, Colorado. Published re-
port 4.
25. U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration. 1967. Ground-water pol-
lution in the Middle and Lower South Platte River Basin
of Colorado. Published report 9.
26. Fairweather, Virginia. 1974. Sewer pipe: infiltra-
tion is the issue. Journal American Society of Civil
Engineers 44 (7).
27. Economic Systems Corporation. 1970. Storm-water pollu-
tion from urban land activity. U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Report 11034 FKL.
28. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State San-
itary Engineers. Recommended standards for sewage
works.
29. Delaware Water Pollution Control Regulation. Section 4.
30. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
(PL 92-500).
31. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water
Quality. 1975. Recommended design criteria for sewage
stabilization ponds.
32. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal guide-
lines, design, operation and maintenance of waste water
treatment facilities.
33. Maryland Water Pollution Control Regulation 08.05.04.04.
Ground water quality standards.
34. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Bureau of Water Quality Management. 1972. Spray irri-
gation manual. 49 pp.
243
-------
35. Florida Department of Pollution Control/ Division of
Operations. 1973. Guidelines for treatment and/or
disposal of wastewaters by irrigation on land. Memo
No. 149.
36. Idaho Board of Environmental and Community Services.
Rules and regulations for the establishment of standards
of water quality and for wastewater treatment require-
ments for waters of the State of Idaho.
37. Washington Department of Social and Health Services,
Health Services Division. General criteria for land
treatment sites.
38. Stevens, R. M. 1972. Green land - clean streams.
Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 330 pp.
39. Water Code of the State of California. Chapter 7.
Water Reclamation Law. Section 13500.
244
-------
SECTION X
LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE
SUMMARY
Municipal and industrial sludge is the residue remaining af-
ter treatment of waste water. The impact of diffuse land
spreading of municipal and industrial sludge on ground water
is not documented even though the potential for contamina-
tion exists. Less than one percent of the present municipal
sludge disposal facilities are monitored for effects on wa-
ter quality. Even fewer industrial sludge sites are moni-
tored because this potential source of ground-water contami-
nation has received less attention than municipal sources.
Sludge may be a product of physical, biological, or chemical
treatment or a combination thereof. Ground-water quality
degradation can be caused by land spreading of sludge be-
cause organisms (such as viruses) and chemical ions and com-
pounds can be leached by precipitation and carried in perco-
late to ground water.
Land and air (through incineration) remain the depositional
areas for an ever increasing volume of sludge from a growing
population and from higher degrees of waste-water treatment,
the latter brought on by more stringent environmental protec-
tion of rivers, lakes, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Most
municipal and industrial sludge now goes to landfills and im-
poundments. As controls over these two methods of disposal
become more restrictive with respect to type of waste accept-
ed, the amount of sludge diverted to land-spreading sites
will increase rapidly.
In the United States, municipal sludge production amounts to
about 5,000,000 dry tons/yr (4,540,000 dry tonnes/yr). Accu-
rate data on quantities of industrial sludge are not avail-
able. However, the total volume certainly exceeds municipal
sludge production by many times. The organic and inorganic
chemicals industries and coal-fired utilities are the larg-
est contributors of residues and account for over half of
the total production. Industrial expansion and growing pol-
lution control activities should increase the volume of in-
dustrial sludges dramatically over the next 10 years.
The key to correct management combines proper site selection
with sludge composition, application rates, and land use
(crops). Of major importance to ground water is the availa-
bility of soil, such as a loam or silt loam, that is the
245
-------
most efficient for attenuating contaminants.
In most states, the basic provision of law applicable to
land spreading of municipal and industrial sludges is the
all inclusive prohibition against polluting waters of the
state. Before action can be taken, the presence of a contam-
ination problem must be established. In a few instances,
control over sludge disposal can be asserted where states
have enacted "potential pollution" statutes which include
sludge spreading in the same provisions as those that apply
to waste lagoons and landfills. Other states have developed
special laws that apply to disposal of hazardous or general
industrial process wastes including sludges.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
Sludge is the residue remaining after treatment of either mu-
nicipal or industrial waste water. Sludge is a product of
physical, biological, or chemical treatment, or any combina-
tion thereof (Figure 64). As it leaves the treatment plant,
it is composed mostly of water, with biological matter and
small amounts of metals and other chemicals. The two most
common land disposal methods for this product are land
spreading and landfilling, the latter being described in the
SOLID WASTE section of this report. Disposal methods other
than land include incineration; high-temperature, wet-air
oxidation (Zimpro); and ocean dumping (soon to be prohib-
ited) .
Surface spreading of raw sewage on agricultural land is a
practice dating back to antiquity. However, raw sewage is a
vector for disease and parasites, both of which have been as-
sociated with the land disposal practice. The use of raw
sludge has produced a prejudice against land spreading of
any form of human waste, whether treated or untreated. As a
result, land spreading of sludge has not enjoyed great popu-
larity in the United States. In Europe and Great Britain,
where population densities are greater and agricultural util-
ization of land more intense, sludge farms have been in-
cluded as an integral part of many standard sewage-treatment
systems for over a century.
Unlike municipal sludge which has a relatively uniform sew-
age base, industrial sludges range widely in composition.
(As used here, industry refers to manufacturing, not mining,
forest products, or agricultural crop production. These in-
dustries are discussed elsewhere, or do not produce sludges.)
Extremes in industrial sludge composition are exemplified by
the food processing industry and the electroplating industry.
Food wastes, with treatment to decompose the organic matter,
246
-------
FERTILIZER
AND SOIL
CONDITIONER
t
i
o
>- LJ
g-
M
<
i
!
£
'
VACUUM
'
(
i
1
L
C
L
'
AEROBIC
/
9
•
L
I
3
I
FILTRATION
1
s
•
3
u
u
E
L
>
DIGESTION
V
<
'
<
<
«
'
1
CENTRI-
'
CHEMICAL
i
ANAEROBIC
t
GRAVITY
/
s
z
z
3
3
a
t
j
'
\
j
i
j
c
*
FUGATION
'
CONDITIONING
'
DIGESTION
'
THICKENING
'
1
'
i
1
J
i
1
'
1
^
'
1
LANDFILL
t
1
WET
OXIDATION
/ ^
PRESSURE
FILTRATION
A
EHEAT
REATMENT
t
1
SLUDGE
LAGOONS
t
DISSOLVED-
AIR
FLOATION
t
O> _i
Z -1 <
So 5 <"
S" 2g
I* °i
t
1
1
i n
1 *g
t t
i
II
i\
Ul o <
z z a
o < x
z o
<5
Z
O
o
2
Q
O
I
kl
U
O
u
0)
(U
-C
1/1
o
o
Q.
O
Ul
C
0)
o
o
1_
Q.
-------
are reduced to a source of plant nutrients. On the other
hand, electroplating sludge contains precipitated salts of
heavy metals, frequently including some of the more toxic
ones — cadmium, chromium, nickel, and cobalt. There is no
way to decompose these metals and land disposal methods run
the risk of recycling the metals back into the environment.
Between these extremes are a spectrum of organic, inorganic,
and mixed sludges varying from highly degradable to highly
refractory.
Before application to land, sludge must be properly stabi-
lized. It may be heat dried, composted, digested, inciner-
ated, or chemically stabilized; and then dewatered by fil-
tration, centrifugation, or sand beds; or it may be applied
as a liquid slurry. Dried and dewatered sludges are solid
products although the mechanically dewatered sludge usually
contains 20 to 30 percent moisture. Liquid sludge of about
5 percent solids content can be pumped and applied as a liq-
uid. Normally land spreading is accomplished by tank trucks
or wagons traversing the receiving area and releasing sludge
by gravity feed.
Ground-water contamination from land spreading of sludge is
most likely to be in the form of chemical contamination.
Some constituents are soluble and are likely to be leached
more readily than others. These include sodium, potassium,
sulfate, chloride, and nitrate ions. Other constituents are
held more strongly in the sludge matrix or are attenuated
more strongly in soil. These include calcium, magnesium,
and the suite of heavy metals. Constituents which are more
strongly held in sludge or move relatively slowly into or
through the soil profile pose less of a threat to ground wa-
ter, but may affect the quality of crops to a greater extent.
The rate and extent to which chemical constituents of sludge
are leached depend upon the amount of precipitation and the
relationship between precipitation and evapotranspiration.
Only where precipitation occurs in excess of evapotranspira-
tion to the degree necessary to effect recharge, can sludge
constituents be carried to ground water.
Soil type influences the potential for ground-water contami-
nation. Soils of light (sandy) texture have a low ion-
exchange capacity which results in little retention of the
sludge-applied ions. Sludge often contains a suite of heavy
metal ions which can be toxic at higher concentrations. The
ion-exchange capacity of a specific soil can make a portion
of the heavy metals contained in the sludge inaccessible to
percolation and to plant absorption. The more clay and or-
ganic colloids in the soil the greater its ion-exchange ca-
248
-------
pacity and the lower its permeability.
The type of crop grown on a sludge-treated soil can material-
ly affect the quantity and quality of percolate. Nutrients
and water absorbed in plant tissue are removed from the soil-
water system unless the plants are reincorporated into the
soil. Surface incorporation is an attractive method of
sludge disposal because the water and nutrients are benefi-
cial to plant growth. Heavy metals and phosphate are immo-
bilized (relative to landfilling) in soil and pose less of a
threat to ground water. In addition, soil harbors a large
population of microorganisms which have the ability to decom-
pose almost any kind of organic molecule.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
Municipal sludge is a mixture of substances whose sources
are metabolic wastes, industrial waste, street runoff, and
other household waste water. The residues comprising sludge
include partially decomposed organic compounds, inorganic
salts, and heavy metals (Table 33). Included in this mix-
ture is a large bacterial population originating from the
sewage. Viruses introduced in raw sewage may or may not be
viable depending upon the degree and type of treatment. Po-
tential contaminants from sludge may be categorized as nutri-
ents, heavy metals, and pathogenic organisms.
Information concerning the composition of industrial sludges
and residuals is far more limited than it is for municipal
sludges. Waste products from industry are predominantly han-
dled by the industry through the treatment process, and ulti-
mate disposal. Because chemical compounds or elements in
the sludges reflect proprietary products or processes, indus-
trial management is not amenable to outsiders analyzing the
waste. Thus, until recently, under pressure of more strin-
gent environmental restrictions, little information about in-
dustrial wastes was available.
Because industrial sludge characteristics may differ substan-
tially from municipal sludge, a section describing the
sludge characteristics of several major industries is in-
cluded following the general description below.
Chemical Components
Nutrients -
Many of the components of sludge could be categorized as
plant nutrients. However, in usual agricultural practice,
the primary plant nutrients are limited to nitrogen, phos-
249
-------
4)
O>
•o
"n
w
LU •£
0 g,
Q •-
D Q
i
CO
0
UJ
t—
CO
LU
O
Q
0
z
^
> 4)
S f
1 1 «^_
0 ;
Z 2
O =
bi T
(— Q.
CO $
2 1
5
o
U
5
LLJ
X
u
i
S
Q.
>-
CO
CO
0)
.0
8
"5.
X
1—
4)
CD
1
.8
*Q_
4)
C
£
E
£
0 0
0 0 1
o o
S3 8
1 1 1
0 0
*O O IO
0
"* !8 '
o o
^^ ^^ ^^
00 CO
1 1 1
o o
ty>"
c£ £
«!: f
8. •£ 4>
S o
^ O 4)
CO Jj Q.
^T" JU-2
^= J*2 J
X 4) ° •-
^ — 0)0)
^^ IA •£
llo^
o o try
it) — •—
10 «o
IO (N i—
CM
o oo
o •* cs
CO
1 1 1
IO CO
8-'°'
. — .
}—
u-
*~* o
y* •*-
^~ ^
>4- 0)
o u
2g £
lo 2 -
i *-§!
^IT 4) O
O) ^
III
o o o
— o^t
o o o
CO "O 00
1 1 1
000
o* 00 CO
•*!• O 10
O O CM
000
— 10 •*•
1 1 1
0 0
O CO CM
^^
co
«_ J-J.
o j- *4r
8.§S
X" 8 2
O n
CM""' o
^ 8 o
"5 D s*~'
p rr c
2«3 e
o S"
§*
^ V
co -^r
o >o
co" s?"
III It
o 10
2 -°" 8 88
10 — IX
CM" CM"
o 'Q
1 >o O O O
^o QJ ^jr\
rx"
o o
f^% QQ ^^ f*} f^
CM O O O
— •" CM" o"
iii it
0 0
CM.
_^^
^ 'co ^
^ o *-z
0 U dS
1 t n
*- o &• —
A i 3!
0^08
» c .2 -5
o — ^ E
• — \/ O) q)
CO QL< O *-
4— +-
D O
E E
4) 4)
^ Jo
>• >
c "c
O O
&8.
§ §
"D T)
5 O
CQ OQ
'D'JD"
250
-------
phorus, and potassium. Nitrogen usually is present in the
largest concentration.
The nitrogen content of digested sludge shown as "typical"
in Table 33 provides 676 Ib (307 kg) of nitrogen per acre-
inch liquid application (11.25 dry tons of solids per acre)
to the land. Generally, 40 percent of the total nitrogen in
digested sludge is ammonium and the other 60 percent is or-
ganic nitrogen. 2) Thus, about 270 Ib (123 kg) of ammonium-
nitrogen would be added in an acre-inch application. This
constitutes a nitrogen source immediately available to
plants.
Because of the cost of transportation and the relationships
between sludge production and available land, maximizing the
sludge application rate is a typical occurrence. The result
is that several inches of sludge or equivalent dry sludge
may be applied during a growing season. The addition of 270
Ib (123 kg) of "available" nitrogen in one inch of sludge is
slightly above the usual agricultural recommendation for
even the most nitrogen demanding crops. Multiplying that ap-
plication several times over provides more nitrogen than a
crop can remove. Consequently, the remaining nitrogen is
available for leaching to and contaminating of the ground-
water system. The normal nitrogen content of sludge places
it in an awkward position. It is too low to make sludge com-
petitive with commercial inorganic fertilizers, and too high
to allow heavy soil loadings without a nitrate contamination
hazard. Proper management of sludge irrigation can minimize
such hazards.
Phosphorus, another major plant nutrient, is found in rela-
tively large quantities in municipal sludges, primarily as
phosphate. Usually it is slightly lower than nitrogen in
concentration, equivalent to an average of 2,500 ppm wet
weight. An acre-inch sludge application would supply about
560 Ib (255 kg) of phosphate expressed as P2®5* However,
only a portion of that amount is available to plants.
Phosphorus reactions in soil generally lead to fixation of
the element. Under normal conditions of fertilization and
irrigation, phosphorus is not a threat to ground-water qual-
ity. Although phosphorus is attenuated by movement through
the soil when irrigation of waste-water effluents or sludge
farming is practiced, heavy loadings of phosphorus can occur
and, depending upon the specific soil type, phosphorus may
exceed the fixation capacity. For most medium to fine tex-
tured soils the fixation capacity is on the order of several
thousand pounds per acre. If the fixation capacity is ex-
ceeded, phosphate is then free to move through the soil pro-
251
-------
file and enter the ground-water system. Phosphate in ground
water may not be detrimental per se, but if the ground water
discharges to surface water, eutrophication may result.
Potassium in plant tissue typically ranges from one to 3 per-
cent on a dry weight basis. Therefore, a nitrogen-phospho-
rus-potassium balance is important in supplying plant nutri-
ents. Generally, sludge must be supplemented with a potash
fertilizer to provide that balance. Potassium is not consid-
ered a threat to soil or water quality.
Heavy Metals -
In chemical terms, the heavy metals group includes vanadium,
chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc,
lead, molybdenum, silver, cadmium, platinum, gold, and mer-
cury, and a few more not mentioned here because of their
rarity. Several elements, which differ chemically from the
heavy metals, are frequently listed with them. Because of
their common occurrence in sludge, they will be included
here. They are: boron, arsenic, selenium, tin, and anti-
mony.
The suite of heavy metals found in a given sample of sludge
is dependent upon the source of waste water. Heavy metals
present in sludge from domestic sewage include those re-
quired for human nutrition — chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,
manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc; metals contrib-
uted through dissolution of plumbing — lead, copper, tin,
and zinc; and, in systems of combined sewers, metals from
storm runoff — cadmium, lead, and zinc. Although humans ex-
crete iron in only small quantities, it is often found in
relatively high concentrations in sewage sludge because fer-
ric chloride is frequently used in the treatment process.
Industrial wastes may contribute any or all of the heavy
metals in concentrations which are sometimes high enough to
be toxic to the biota effecting treatment.
Data on heavy metal concentrations in sewage sludge from se-
lected locations are shown in Table 34. The ranges frequent-
ly extend over two orders of magnitude. These large fluctua-
tions reflect mixing in some sewerage systems of industrial
effluents in various ratios with domestic sewage.
Table 35 compares ranges of reported concentrations of heavy
metals from various locations to concentrations of the met-
als typical of sludge from treatment plants with no indus-
trial input. The contribution by industrial wastes can
amount to several thousand parts per million. The extent to
which ground water may become contaminated with heavy metals
252
-------
co
UJ
o
Q
ID
co
UJ
0
1
CO
Z
coco"
L_
UJ tu
15 •<
-J h-
uj co
UJ Q
U uj
/$
£_ Z
1 1 •-•' •• v
O "J 0
*r •»
co f± —
UJ —
OZ E
d 5
5 ^ «=•
» *j
Z co
LU D
Z —
o<
u >
a: ^
°0
z"Sf
o
1—
1
^^
Z
UJ
u
o
u
s"
_«
o
0
u
Z
8.
a.
o
U
E
3
'E
o
t:
j=
U
E
'E
T3
O
U
§
2
o
CO
Location
IX CO
CO CM
^ £ o 8 CM
CM >0 ^t
O 00 iO
CO CM CM
IT) IX CM
-"
1 1 1
IO CO CM O CO
CO CM O CM CO
yo"-^-"
1 1 1 1
3C
2-
o
1 1
>o
10 O Q JO
oo -^
GO ^0 t^
r— CM O
i T i i i
fx c>^ >O
CN
Athens, Georgia
Columbus, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Chicago, Illinois
SIS
. cs* «?'<*>'
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1
""
O IO O O O
cs CM o o o
^t O 00 O 1 —
-" oK^'
i i i i T
if) IO IO CD O *O IO CD O
CO ^ CO CO O yQ CO O O
V *»
§Q
s
v
2:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
j. i ijK
% 2
i i i i i i T i °P
•— CO
§Q
^5
CO ^O ^™"
oo r^ GO ^^ ^^ ^^ ^5 ^^
"~ -—CO
_c
go o
§ i ^ E
!i-2 8 1 5
k * z —
•• «? « "^ o
8i"^-o Jug
_^ .- * a) c *: c E
S|Is-2 8J-28
?^«J=^ c-£j2.2
~SoXo §R-^T>
SQItS^ Uc?0£
253
-------
-co"
i/->
£- LU
LU | —
ftl I™"1
i oo
1X1 0
LU LU
UL^
1
< 7
a: f-
K- -J
U_ LU
^ f-
LU Z
Z £>
a> O^
Z P.°
O < =
_ u~
*~~ o ^
5 •"* gj
i— oo 3-
LU O £
CJ — 3
"T Q"^ (^
<( £
^x ^^ *mm^
1)
at.
o2
oo u-
Z 00
r> ^
2 o
SI
b= oo
•^- LU
§<
U to
sj-
V
c
0
U
S
0)
_Q
O
fg
O
1
E
c
a>
T3
p
"o
«
V
Q
O)
j
Location
c? ^^
10 ^o
00 (X
CM •—
1 1
§iO O
>O CO
— — 00
00
00
1 1 1
CM
1 1 1
00 CM
*O CO
CM CM
1 1 1
CO OO
CM Tj-
.2 o
!§J
o^o
+ 2 c
c E o
S 3 t.
-£~5 $
< U Q
O
•^t
f^"
i
S&
0 0
O* CO
,
8
Lrt
"J f
^
>o
1 1
•o
*0
%
CM
1 1
CO
Cincinnati, Ohio
Chicago, Illinois
8
co"
1
c) co co co co
»O CO ON ^ «O
•— — CO
1 1 1 1 1
CO
r^
I
IT) O* f^ r— •—
CO >t -O "0 CM
1
1
o o *o o o
CO C^ ^0 NO ^5
"in -J^
g o
Milwaukee, Wisc<
Des Moines, Iowa
Houston, Texas
Rochester, New V
Maryland
§2
^r
CO CO fx 00
CM
1 1 1 1
§j5
oo
CM" co"
CO CO
CM O
i T i T
iO O
— 10
iO O
CM O
X
f**
1 1 1 1
CM i_
§ §
*»
i i i T
IO O
^5 C?
o
Connecticut
Southern Califonr
Oklahoma
Indiana
254
-------
Table 35. RANGE OF METAL CONTENTS IN DIGESTED SEWAGE SLUDGES. 4)
Analysis
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
Cd
B
Pb
Hg
Cr
(dry weight basis)
Observed range
500
250
25
5
0.1
15
100
< 1
50
- 50, 000 ppm
- 17,000 ppm
- 8, 000 ppm
- 2, 000 ppm
- 40% of Zn
- 1,000 ppm
- 10,000pprn
100 ppm
- 30, 000 ppm
"Domestic" sludge a>
< 2000 ppm
< 1000 ppm
< 200 ppm
< 15 ppm
< 1.0%ofZn
< 100 ppm
< 1000 ppm
< 10 ppm
< 1000 ppm
a) Typical sludge from communities without excessive industrial waste inputs, or
with adequate abatement.
255
-------
from sludge applied to soil is dependent upon: heavy metal
content of applied sludge, loading rate, physical and chemi-
cal soil properties, and distance to the water table. Shal-
low ground-water tables, coarse textured soils, and high
rates of recharge combine to present the highest risk to the
ground-water system. Conversely, fine textured soils with
organic matter, deep water tables, and moderate recharge
rates create the most favorable conditions for diffuse land
disposal of sludge.
Other Hazardous Chemical Constituents -
Various micro-organic constituents are also present in
sludge, some of which are ubiquitous and others of which are
typical only of industrial waste water. These waste waters
can contain materials such as dyes, inks, oils, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), detergents, polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAH), and organic solvents. These con-
stituents of waste water usually become constituents of
sludge because they are resistant to microbial decomposition.
PCB's and pesticides have been detected in sludge in small
quantities. 5)
The contamination potential posed by these materials toward
ground water is difficult to assess at present. These mate-
rials are exposed to adsorption, microbial degradation, and
plant, microbial, or protist absorption after they are ap-
plied to soil. Alternatively, no significant interactions
may occur between micro-organic constituents and soil com-
ponents.
Biological
A variety of organisms are associated with the biological
treatment process in waste-water treatment plants. These in-
clude bacteria, viruses, fungi, algae, protozoa, rotifers,
and macro-organisms including worms and flukes. Of these,
bacteria and viruses are of concern because of possible harm-
ful effects if pathogenic species should contaminate ground
water. Pathogenic organisms are generally associated with
sanitary waste. Thus, industrial waste water which does not
include sanitary waste would not be likely to include patho-
gens .
The public health aspect of spreading a material in the envi-
ronment which harbors pathogenic organisms is of great im-
portance. The questions of what and how many pathogens may
have survived the treatment process are immediately raised.
Further, assurances must be given that any residual poten-
tially harmful organisms will quickly die off for land
256
-------
spreading of sludge to be accepted.
Stabilization of sludge prior to land spreading is necessary
in order to reduce public health hazards and to prevent nui-
sance odor conditions. A common stabilization method is
anaerobic digestion which, however, does not result in a com-
plete elimination of coliform organisms. Standard practice
in monitoring for pathogenic organisms has been to measure
fecal coliform (Escherichia coli) and/or fecal streptococcus
(Streptococcus faecalis). These bacteria are not in them-
selves pathogenic, but their presence indicates the possible
presence of other enteric bacteria and viruses. Pathogenic
enteric bacteria include those causing typhoid, cholera, and
dysentery. The absence of fecal coliforms is indicative of
the disappearance of all enteric bacteria.
It has been generally agreed by investigators that bacterial
migration through soils under most circumstances seldom ex-
ceeds 10 ft (3m). In one report, bacteria were found to
have traveled through a porous medium under percolation beds
a distance of 400 ft (122 m). 6) Percolation beds consist
of coarse sands and gravels and are designed for maximum per-
colation rates. These materials allow relatively free flow
of water over a medium with little or no surface-active mate-
rials. Thus, the extensive movement of bacteria is not sur-
prising. In circumstances involving fractured or cavernous
rock, the distance traveled by live bacteria would be a func-
tion of their die-off rate as well as the rate of percola-
tion and ground-water flow.
Par more research has been done on bacteria in sludges and
their routes in the environment after disposal than has been
done on viruses. Facilities for virological testing are
more costly, complicated, and not nearly as common as those
for bacteriological testing. Until recently, responses of
bacterial populations to treatment were used as indicators
for virus.
Laboratory investigations of virus migration through soils
have concluded that adsorption on soil particles was not
rapid enough to prevent breakthrough. 7) T7 and polio-I
viruses were loaded on a 7.5-in. (19-cm) long soil column
and leached with water. Intermittent leaching resulted in
fewer T7 viruses passing through the soil, but had no effect
on the polio-I. In a field irrigation experiment, viruses
were detected in wells screened at 10 and 20 ft (3 and 6 m)
below a sandy soil surface. 8) Not only did the viruses mi-
grate that distance, but they also survived aeration and sun-
light prior to doing so. The authors concluded that reevalu-
ation of the ultimate danger of aquifer contamination from
257
-------
spray irrigation of waste water or land spreading of sludge
may be necessary.
Industrial Sludge/Residuals
The use of the term sludge/residuals is necessitated because
in most instances, no.distinction is made between sludge and
such wastes as fly ash, bottom ash, or slag. For example,
in the iron and steel industry, the sludge/non-sludge waste
ratio is lower than it is for the coal-fired electric power
industry. The latter produces little residue which is
classed as sludge, but a large quantity of fly and bottom
ash residue. Land spreading of residues other than sludge
(fly ash, pulp, whey) is practiced, thus reducing the differ-
ence between total waste production and that accommodated by
land spreading.
A list which includes substances commonly found in industri-
al wastes illustrates the wide range of chemical elements
and compounds possible (Table 36). No single sludge would
be likely to contain all of the components in the list. The
known organic compounds, for example, exceed 2 million, most
of which are synthetic. The organic synthesis industry pro-
duces sludges which include some of these.
The available information on specific components of indus-
trial residues varies from being nearly complete to being
only scanty. Moreover, only a few industries have well es-
tablished practices of land spreading sludges. A brief de-
scription of the volume and characteristics of the waste wa-
ter produced by these industries follows.
Industries Which Employ Land Spreading of Sludges
Canned Fruit and Vegetable Industry - 9,10)
Wastes generated by this industry are simple carbohydrate,
starch, and cellulosic substances. These are biodegradable,
and part of their environmental impact comes from the high
oxygen demand resulting from their easy biodegradability.
These wastes place a severe stress on receiving streams un-
less high dilution or extensive treatment is possible.
For these reasons, land spreading or irrigating are the pre-
ferred methods of disposal where land is available. In a re-
cent survey, 41 percent of the vegetable processing plants
and 37 percent of the fruit processing plants used land dis-
posal. J-0) An application rate of 10 to 20 tons/acre/yr (22
to 45 tonnes/ha/yr) for residuals was reported. These
wastes do not contain elements considered as contaminants to
258
-------
Table 36. EXAMPLE OF POLLUTANTS WHICH MAY BE PRESENT IN INDUS-
TRIAL WASTE STREAMS AND RESIDUES. 9)
Alkalinity
BOD
COD
TS
TDS
TSS
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphorus
Turbidity
Fecal Coliform
Acidify
Hardness, Total
Sulfate
Sulfite
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Aluminum
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Phenols
Pol/chlorinated biphenyls
Surfactants
Algicides
Chlorine
Organics specific to organic synthesis
259
-------
either soils or ground water. As long as loading rates do
not create aesthetic problems, they can be considered safe.
Textile Industry - 9*11)
Waste production in the textile industry includes organic
and inorganic wet chemicals and purely dry products. There
are four types of textile products — animal, vegetable, re-
generated, and synthetic.
Animal fibers create wastes of high biochemical oxygen de-
mand. These are amenable to biological treatment, and the
residues can be handled like municipal sludge. The most dif-
ficult problem with these wastes is the high grease content,
and in some cases, residual hair which resists microbial de-
composition.
Of the vegetable fibers, cotton is predominant. An example
of a composite waste from an integrated cotton textile plant
consists of: starches, dextrins, gums, glucose, waxes, pec-
tins, alcohols, fatty acids, acetic acid, soaps, detergents,
sodium hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide, sulfate, chloride,
dyes and pigments, carboxymethyl cellulose, gelatine, dye
carriers (phenols and benzoic acid), peroxide, and chlorine
bleach compounds.
Waste treatment usually terminates with lagoons. The
sludges have been used for soil conditioning, but costs of
transport and application exceed the benefits derived. When
land spreading is of economic advantage to the industry, it
will probably increase in popularity.
Petroleum Refining Industry - 9,12)
Materials typically found in refinery residuals and their
sources are listed in Table 37. As can be surmised by
noting materials on the list, the sludges pose a problem
from both physical and chemical points of view. There are
four general types of sludges: oily, oil-free, chemical,
and biotreatment.
Oily sludges as they are removed from oil-water separators,
tank bottoms, etc., consist of about 97 percent water, one
percent oil, and 2 percent solids. Thickening is required
before final disposal. Landfilling and incineration are pop-
ular disposal methods, and some refineries also use land
spreading. 13) The aerobic soil environment with a diverse
microbial population is capable of assimilating wastes with
these characteristics.
260
-------
Table 37. TYPICAL REFINERY SOLID WASTE INVENTORY ASSOCIATED WITH
WASTE-WATER TREATMENT. 12)
Type
Major Constituents
Source
Slop Oils, Oily
Solids, Emulsions
Water Treating
Sludges
Biological Sludges
Absorbents
Sulfur
Oils, Sand, Catalyst
Fines, Coke Fines
Lime, Alum, Clays,
Sand, Polyelectro-
lytes
Microorganisms,
Organics
Oil, Solids,
Excelsior
Gravity Separators Skimmings
and Sludges, Contaminated
Storm Water Skimmings, Dis-
solved Air Flotation Unit
Skimmings and Sludges
Water Treatment Plant
Activated Sludge Plant,
Aerated Lagoon Systems,
Tertiary Filter Backwash
Absorbed Materials from
Fibrous Media Coalescers
Sour Water Stripping,
Sulfur Plant
261
-------
Oil-free sludges result from water conditioning, and consist
of silt, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and traces
of organic matter. These residues must be segregated from
oily residuals because the water conditioning wastes encour-
age the formation of emulsions. These wastes may be benefi-
cial to land, especially if the soil has a low pH. Because
it is cheaper, landfilling is the usual disposal method.
Chemical sludges are produced by processes such as aluminum
chloride, sulfuric acid, or hydrofluoric acid alkylation.
The sludges are not suitable for land spreading, and are usu-
ally disposed of in pits with alkaline wastes.
Biotreatment sludges, consisting mainly of microorganisms,
are produced from trickling filters or the activated sludge
process. They may be anaerobically digested if low in oil.
Like municipal sludges, these may be used in sludge farming.
These sludges are more acceptable to regulatory authorities
for land spreading than oily sludges.
Heavy metals may be present in refinery sludges as a result
of catalyst contamination, metals being released from petro-
leum feedstock compounds, and refined product and water
treatment additives. The impact from land spreading of
these metals must be estimated on the same basis as that de-
scribed for municipal sludges.
Steam Electric Power Industry - 9,14)
The major contaminants produced by the coal-fired steam elec-
tric power industry are chemical wastes from fuel, fuel resi-
dues , and water treatment additives.
Fly ash is the solid residue usually associated with coal-
fired electric generators. The fly ash may be simply piled
near the generating facility, or it may be utilized as an
asphalt additive. Fly ash has been used as a soil condi-
tioner because of its calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
trace element components. A factor limiting soil applica-
tion rates is the boron content. Many crops have a low tol-
erance to boron.
Fly ash and bottom ash transport water contains contaminants
which are removed to a large extent before the water is dis-
charged as effluent. These substances, therefore, become
associated with sludge (Table 38). Many heavy metals are in-
cluded among the contaminants (Table 39). Land spreading of
the sludge must be managed accordingly.
262
-------
Table 38. TYPICAL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN ASH TRANSPORT WATER
(COAL PLANT). 14'
Constituent
Fly Ash
Transport water (ppm)
Bottom Ash
Transport water (ppm)
Silica (SiO2)
Aluminum Oxide
Iron Oxide
Calcium Oxide (CaO)
Sulfur Trioxide ($03)
Potassium Oxide (K2O)
Titanium Oxide (TiO?)
Magnesium Oxide (MgO)
Sodium Oxide (Na2O)
Phosphorus Pentoxide
Arsenic (As)
Boron (B)
4,824 -11,040
4,176 - 9,768
1,824 - 7,896
24 - 1,464
2.4 - 1,080
288 - 576
4,656 -11,736
4,536 - 8,688
2,808 - 9,600
2.4 - 1,008
2.4 - 240
408 - 672
312
96
72
2.4 -
< 0.25 -
< 2.4
480
288
192
120
1.44
312
120
48
2.4 -
<0.25
<2.4 -
432
216
192
96
7
263
-------
Table 39. TYPICAL HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH TRANSPORT
WATER (COAL PLANT). 14)
Fly Ash
Bottom Ash
Constituent
Magnesium
Titanium
Sodium
Cesium
Vanadium
Lead
Nickel
Manganese
Copper
Chromium
Arsenic
Cobalt
Selenium
Tin
Cadmium
Mercury
Transport
28.8
216
28.8
2.4
2.76
2.64
2.64
2.64
2.16
2.16
0.192
0.168
0.6
0.00024
0.00024
0.0168
water (ppm)
-1,200
- 480
- 288
- 192
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
2.88
2.88
2.16
1.8
0.36
0.192
0.036
Transport water (ppm)
240
120
48
0.36
2.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
0.00024
1.92
0.048
0.48
0.072
0.048
0.00024
0.024
-720
-360
- 192
- 19.2
- 7.2
- 6
- 6
- 4.8
- 7.2
- 3.6
- 6
- 1.92
- 0.24
- 0.36
- 0.36
- 0.048
264
-------
Pulp and Paper Industry - 9)
The most common types of paper produced are kraft/ sulfite,
neutral sulfite, semichemical, and groundwood. Some textile
fibers are grown for use in specialty papers. These include
flax, cotton, and jute.
Paper and pulp wastes exert a high biochemical oxygen demand
load because they ^contain organic compounds such as sugars,
resins, tannins, and lignins. Inorganic compounds which are
in a reduced state such as sulfite also utilize oxygen as
they oxidize after being discharged.
Underflow from clarifiers treating pulp and paper mill efflu-
ents carries 2 to 12 percent solids. Dewatering is accom-
plished by filtration, use of polyelectrolytes, or drying
beds. Land disposal of the sludge is almost universal. The
materials in the sludge are generally beneficial to soils
and crops, and the aerobic soil environment minimizes odors.
The volume of waste production and a brief description of
its characteristics will also be given for industries which
do not apparently employ land spreading as a disposal method.
This will allow the reader to assess the future possibility
of utilizing land spreading for the disposal of these wastes.
Industries Which Presently Do Not Employ Significant Land
Spreading of Sludges
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing - 9'15)
The most recent (1972) data for 27 manufactured chemicals re-
ported an annual production of 77 million tons (70 million
tonnes). Chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium, and other
heavy metals are frequently discharged. Because these have
a low threshold of toxicity, they must be removed from efflu-
ent and thus constitute or partially constitute the sludge
fraction. Diffuse land disposal is not practiced because
the sludges have little value, or may be quite harmful to
growing plants.
Plastics and' Synthetics Industry - 9/16)
A large amount, almost 17 million Ib/yr (7.7 million kg/yr),
of plastics and synthetic resins are produced. The water de-
mand is also quite large, amounting to 580 mgd (25 cu m/sec)
or 12.6 gal./lb (105 litre/kg) of product. Wastes present
in the waste-water stream may be harmful and pass relatively
unchanged through municipal treatment plants. (It was re-
ported that 27 percent of the manufacturing plants dis-
265
-------
charged to municipal treatment plants.)
Sludges from some plastics manufacture can be difficult to
stabilize biologically because of the presence of aromatic
hydrocarbons or their derivatives. In addition, heavy met-
als may be present from inorganic salts used in the process
or from process catalysts.
Depending upon sludge composition and physical characteris-
tics, these sludges may be disposed of by land spreading.
The aerobic soil environment with its variety of microorgan-
isms acts as a medium for biological decomposition of refrac-
tory compounds. One plant in Illinois is utilizing land
spreading for process sludge. There is no information on
the extent to which means of disposal is utilized nationwide.
Iron and Steel Industry - 9/17)
Industrial residues from iron and steel manufacture are sig-
nificant by their magnitude alone. In 1973, the industry
produced 150 million tons (136 million tonnes) of crude
steel with an average water use of 21,000 gal./ton (72,000
litre/tonne). It is estimated that the industry uses over 7
billion gpd (26.5 million cu m/day) of cooling water and 3.5
billion gpd (13 million cu m/day) of process water.
Residuals from the steel making processes are low in organic
matter and high in inorganic substances. In general, they
are not suitable for land spreading.
Organic Chemical Industry - 9)
Over 500,000 products are associated with the organic chemi-
cals industry. Many hundreds of these are produced on a
large scale for commercial use. Many thousands more are pro-
duced in smaller amounts for organic research, pharmaceuti-
cals, additives for a variety of products, and cosmetics.
There is no typical organic industrial sludge. Some sludges
are no doubt suitable for land spreading as a disposal
method. Others, because of physical or chemical hazards are
unsuited. No information is available concerning the extent
to which sludge farming with these wastes is practiced.
Metal Finishing Industry - 9,18,19)
The metal finishing industry has three major categories:
cleaning and conversion coating, organic coating, and plat-
ing and anodizing. The industry consists of thousands of
small shops, a lesser number of large independent plants,
and many facilities oriented toward specific end products
266
-------
such as the automobile.
Cleaning and conversion coating includes processes with solu-
tions ranging in pH from one to almost 14. Some solutions
contain biochemical-oxygen-demand producing compounds, prima-
rily organic solvents. Toxic substances are also included
such as chromate and metal cations (Table 40).
Organic finishing wastes are primarily organic solvents with
smaller amounts of oil and pigment (Table 40).
Plating and anodizing wastes contain heavy metal ions and
cyanide (Table 40). These wastes are difficult to handle be-
cause the usual treatment is to precipitate the metals with
hydroxide. The resulting sludge is slimy and does not fil-
ter or dewater easily. Because the metals are toxic at rela-
tively low concentration, these sludges are not amenable to
land spreading.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the United States, domestic sludge production amounts to
about 5,000,000 dry tons/yr (4,540,000 dry tonnes/yr) as
shown on Table 41. Table 42 lists the number of treatment
plants by type and the population served. Because sewering
is a function of population density, the greatest sludge pro-
duction comes from the most densely populated regions.
These are located along the East, Gulf, and West Coasts, and
along the Great Lakes' shores.
Faced with ever-increasing quantities of sludge, rising
treatment costs, and decreasing space for storage (lagoons),
cities with large populations have been forced to investi-
gate other options for ultimate disposal. One option common
to all is land disposal. Chicago and Milwaukee have the
largest land disposal programs, but they are dissimilar in
approach. Chicago has contracted for the removal of its di-
gested liquid and lagooned sludge for application to agri-
cultural fields and strip-mined areas. Milwaukee heat dries,
supplements with nitrogen, bags,, and distributes its sludge
as fertilizer and soil conditioner under the trade name of
Milorganite.
Total municipal sludge production represents 2.3 percent of
the total national production of fertilizer nitrogen and 3.1
percent of the production of fertilizer phosphorus. Were
all of the sludge spread on land, less than one percent of
the agricultural land in the United States would be utilized.
At present, about 0.3 percent of the agricultural land is
utilized for land spreading. 20)
267
-------
Table 40. CLASSIFICATION OF METAL FINISHING WASTES.
9)
Process
Impurities
Origin
Cleaning and con-
version coatings
Organic finishing
Plating and
anodizing
Oil and grease
Chlorinated solvents
Hydrocarbon solvents
Alkalies: caustics, carbonates,
silicates, and phosphates a/
Acids: HCI, H2SO4/ HNO3,
HF, H3PO4, and HOAc
Sludge
Chroma tes
Solvents
Oils
Sludge
Metal ions: Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd,
precious metals, etc.
Simple and complex cyanides
Chroma tes
Cleaning
Degreasing
Diphase and other
cleaning
Cleaning and
phosphating
Acid dips
Metal hydroxides,
metal particles,
and buffing com-
pound residues
Chromating solutions
Lacquering
Painting
Pigments
Plating and anodizing
Plating solutions
Plating and anodizing
a) Phosphates of iron, manganese, and zinc.
268
-------
Table 41. ANNUAL SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR DISPOSAL.
1974 Sludge 1985 Sludge
production production
Physical characteristics (tons) (tons)
All sludge generated on a 100% dry solids
basis after approximately 65% of the sludge
has been digested. D 5,000,000 9,000,000
Assuming 50% of the sludge is dewatered
(i.e. 20% solids) and 50% is in the liquid
state (i.e. 5% solids) and that 65% of both
the liquid and dewatered sludge is digested. 2> 62,500,000 112,500,000
1) Sewage sludge is seldom if ever produced as a totally dry solid. Such an ex-
pression is only a theoretical means of presenting sludge data for comparative
purposes.
2) Sludge is normally produced as a liquid or semi-solid and as such must be
disposed of along with its inherent water content. Based on average values
it is assumed that half of the current U.S. sludge is dewatered and half is
disposed of as a liquid. Dewatered sludge is more suitable for land disposal
in a sanitary landfill and is generally required before incineration. Liquid
sludge on the other hand is more conducive to land spreading by tank truck
or conventional irrigation equipment.
269
-------
*• M
0) *j S
o P «-
C gj 0
a! w -§
0)
— * * •*•* c
-v i li
LU
I ^
t— o
— in '-C §
en o3_o:=
MM Q_
u w
£ f.il
i i? § ?
5: <> °"3.
LU
i— 2-
LU _ ^
CO .2 §
<; ;? n "
^^ ^» O ^^
<• ,2^
Q.
u --
z .1^1
^ J 4* Q ^X.
2 1 •£ 8
g 2 \.
CM* O ^.
'^-
0)
-Q
O
1—
treatment
Is
1
i i
i i iii iii
i i iii iii
•O O U"> O O •— «N,
«O -O CN V) O CO o «o
«o •— CM o> n o co
^ tN 00
O^ 00 O^ ^* O^ *O ^O O^
cs, o ^^^ j-^a,
10 — o m ut 10
1 1 «N Op -O CM CM CS
•— S £J •— p- •—
o o o o o o
^
5
1 .§1,1
8 "> c V *•
5 -8 J I &
j> a> o ~
"o^-E^««,>|g g
£. c Z t.jejtp $« 5
W t w ^ C Q '? ^ ^M
*• P f "DO.- Jin «
« * ° X * * c «• i. ^ J,
2 Jj o ct^_S i5 i-
o J .£
Z ^ i:
• * •
8
T
ao ix o in ^
— «— O in n
K *0 CO •<} •*
oo ^o oo ^ oo i i
CM — •* -O CO
•*• •— CM in
i 1 J liitJfj
•ss f t fi e 2= ||
J
•
>
270
-------
- & s
£ «
4) M '
SB!
_. °- J"0
N
". *«
">. " * i
=> Six
uj £ f-i
X ~ ~
i —
Z
CO
UJ ""•»••
— y
5 S
u §J
2 ~ 2.
£ £
z
"r S.
1 1*1
1 «ii
H— o», v TC
UJ *"" ^
co
3
> 3"
< 5 '?
°- S '-s •-
— rs o —
a -li
7 o • —
•^ °~
^ L.I
"S p>
8 ifl
V- 0 t jj
1 ° '
U
5
0)
_o
n
>2
*-
1
"5
£
4~
*s
1
•o s o
? f S
SS^ftS — «o o «o
S5 S S S c^ R 2: S fe
8" fc$3 S" ' DTS"^ SJ
O-CMCOCMO S?COCM2
v «. ^ «. ».•.».
. «0 - CM •* CM -1 CM
10 •*
• I ^^
S °
§ III 1 SBSII S3 cS fcSllS
>o co CN co o m cool I o o>ro<;
u-
§ 8 1
0 00
^
"U -— •* ,— , Cw
\ S~~ g, cU^ "S g^.^
§ '-5"° * "i '•5'° » •= s-o » j>
- £## -i t £e«s? £ «<£<£ -s
^ •-»?» x * •?§« o .2>^S =
| « -o M -o £> J -oo —
J i,! 1 U I 1 it 1
f 1 r° i f ij° s 1 1" j
g5^ ^ftS ^o^' £
y 5 t
>* J J
> > ?
CM CM
-------
> «
£ O ~
o O o
«rt
§ • "O
._ a 4)
of"?
.N ± S
C *: Q.
JJ £ 3
y — «/>
It*
u§6-
_-^
IP
~S«
°'*1
sH
-S .> o
o c CP
* 0) \
-c "5
*
i °
J -0 0
III
o
o
I
8.
B
I
L.
JJ
1
-6
S
c -o
C -Q
O 3
?!•
o —
C
I
' o
*—
1 1 1
p w o> * o
l^^^g-
15 I "8 81
yi j O
fit E £• "D
O ^ 0) "D C
oo o *» c p
13£ S^-
* « '-ft 5 "i
2)^ Jj g
III
.Eg
£•"•<:
6 o <:
151
•"• « Q
"S"5 B
•»- *_ fc
E ° £
flt M 4/1
c c >•
(D O oo
O)
J
VI
«
.C
4_
1*.
O .
*. -o
IS
1 &
0 -o
81
4> —
9 2
a £
.1
o _
o «•
> £
C j-
— «,
JS
° J!
0 o
o> *•
c -o
1
o
Of.
1 .
> 52
0
&«
o U
EG
^ ^
1«
icip
ntra
-Oi. 3
i- vp ^
n
Co
•»|-
S g
If
uj I
«• s
w .i:
I =
*• LU
U li
Battelle Northwest La
Prepared for: Council
11
.- tft
^
V O
Jj!
.t
"
:= £^
o *-
5
-
•it &
J2 ^
^ I
I!
-o
»^=
e 8
C oj
J =
3? •§
^>
o —
Assuming
reduction
digested.
a>
272
-------
Many cities have undertaken land spreading research and dem-
onstration projects of varying size. None of these programs
are typical of nationwide sludge disposal practices. Sludge
handling and disposal accounts for nearly half of the budget
for a municipal sewage treatment plant. From that point of
view alone, it can be considered a national problem. The wa-
ter pollution potential of directly discharging sludge into
surface waters is enormous. Therefore, fresh waters are com-
pletely restricted for sludge disposal. Ocean disposal is
currently being debated, and may be prohibited within the
next few years.
Total solid industrial waste residuals produced annually in
the United States calculated from data covering the period
1970-74 amounted to 260 million tons/yr (236 million tonnes/
yr). A breakdown of industrial residuals production is
given in Table 43. Industrial organic chemicals, coal-fired
utilities, and industrial inorganic chemicals are the
largest contributors of residues and account for over half
of the total production. The environmental impact of these
residues has not received the attention which the volume of
production would warrant. Municipal sludges have attracted
far more attention from environmentalists and the public.
The major reason is probably that industrial residues are
primarily handled "in-house" rather than by municipalities
or other tax-supported institutions.
Industrial sludges/residuals production from total process-
ing contrasted with production from pollution control for
nine manufacturing categories is shown in Figure 65. The
nonferrous metal industry is the only single industry in
which pollution-control wastes constitute more than 50 per-
cent of the total production. It is also the industry which
is projected -to have the greatest increase in pollution-
control residuals by 1980 (Figure 66). 23)
Nonradioactive hazardous waste (pesticides, carcinogens, tox-
ic materials) produced by industry amounts to about 5 per-
cent of the total. The mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Gulf
Coast states comprise the area in which 70 percent of the
hazardous waste is generated. Table 44 shows some hazardous
waste components in selected waste-water streams. Many of
these components are heavy metals which are relatively valu-
able in the form of raw materials. Because metals such as
chromium must be imported, economics may soon dictate that
recoveries from waste streams be made. Some potential mate-
rials recovery from selected industries is shown in Table 45.
Removal of metals from waste water and sludge would lead not
only to resource conservation, but also would make the
treated waste more amenable to land spreading.
273
-------
Table 43. BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDUALS.
22)
Quantity of Sludge/Residual
Dry Weight q)
Industry
Meat and dairy products
Food processing
Grain mill products
Textile mill products
Paper and allied products
Industrial inorganic chemicals
Plastics and synthetics
Drugs
Soaps and detergents
Paints and allied products
Industrial organic chemicals
Agricultural chemicals
Miscellaneous chemical products
Petroleum refining
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics
Leather and leather products
Glass products
Cement/clay/pottery products
Blast furnaces and steel works
Iron and steel foundries
Primary smelting/refining nonferrous metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
Coal -fired utilities
Total:
10° tons/yr
1.6
9.5
0.2
1.2
16.8
41
0.4
10.2
?
0.4
55
27.5
0.1
13
1.5
0.4
?
11.6
9.2
0.7
7.7
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.8
43
260
10 tonnes/yr
1.4
8.6
0.2
1.1
15.2
37
0.4
9.3
-
0.4
50
24.9
0.1
12
1.4
0.4
-
10.5
8.3
0.6
7.0
3.6
3.6
1.8
1.6
39
a) Data values from references dated 1965-1974.
274
-------
eo
R
o*
00
>o
o
0)
O>
_D
~
^o
in
I
VV3A «3d 6M01 NOI11IN
275
-------
MV3A M3d SN01 NOI11IN
CO
s
TO
3
£
§>
Z76
-------
Table 44. HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS OF WASTE STREAMS.
22)
Industry category
Blast furnaces, steel
works & iron foundries
Primary smelting/refin-
ing of nonferrous metals
Industrial inorganic
chemicals
Petroleum refining
Fabricated metal
products
Component
Chromium
Cadmium
Fluorine
Zinc
Phenols
Cyanide
Beryl ium
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Cadmium
Fluorine
Selenium
Zinc
Chromium
Mercury
Fluorine
Lead
Zinc
Phenols
Lead
Vanadium
Copper
Cyanide
Chromium
Zinc
Percent of
waste
stream
1.28
0.24
0.95
2.62
0.007
0.004
Neg.
1.0
0.64
0.008
0.59
2.6
0.02
13.2
0.16
Neg.
0.41
0.005
0.002
0.33
0.17
0.03
1.17
5.22
2.7
1.97
Percent of
National
total
86
65
34
18
10
8.6
0.48
82
72
62
35
21
20
20
2.4
36
17
2.8
1.61
90
17
11
100
91
1.5
0.1
277
-------
rp
><
SJ
CO
LU
2
CO
D
Q
Z
o
LU
1—
U
LU
LU
CO
O
ca
1 1
Cti
LU
o
U
LU
°^
CO
3E
LU
_l
t^
Z
LU
0
O.
3
0)
_Q
•2
0)
_D
"^ O
0 ^
r— O
>
X 0
I g^
"t *JI
o c
-C 0)
-J2- o
QL
«— s
*o
_
X 42
c b
O Q.
*• E
^_ "^
o
V)
^cT
CO C
^D O
X "
c -n
O O
1-
o ^
"^~s "^^
«J
ID
o
y
c
S
CO
X
C
JU
c
>
•t
W
T
^
O »O O LO *Q LO
•— O^ LO LO 00 CO
LO O •—
*~* *-*. s-~*
_Q _Q ja
LO
>O CO
• •
f^ f^t If) (^ J*^ lf\
LO "*^ ^O ^™* ^^
•«t CO CO
^- L
^0
O CO* O CN _ O
O LO ^ O
LO LO «n
].! o
O _§ o -o u o
£ TJ c o S c
-CO.— aj «- «—
U U N -J < N
^
i, |,
v -2 'fi «
9 ! i
i-1 n
*; "S 2 u_
D ^ •«•
_« k_
CD a.
§•
O
-------
Land and air remain as the sinks for ultimate disposal.
Land spreading is a viable option only if it is used and man-
aged wisely. Sufficient land area must also be accessible
and readily available, which is not always the case as is
commonly found in many of the locations of greatest sludge
production. Air can be used if incineration facilities have
proper air pollution control devices. There are several ma-
jor disadvantages with incineration. Incineration requires
expensive air pollution monitoring and abatement equipment,
the necessity of adding energy for complete combustion, and
high capital and operating costs. With energy costs rising,
one promising alternative is to utilize a refuse-sludge in-
cineration/electrical generation scheme.
Sludge disposal throughout the country as previously indi-
cated, is a serious problem, and one for which there are no
simple, cheap, and easy solutions. Most cities of over
100,000 population have some difficulties with adequate dis-
posal. Land spreading can be an effective solution, but on-
ly if the proper ingredients of climate, land availability,
topography, and geology are present.
Although it is not a ground-water problem associated with
land spreading, the effect of this mode of sludge disposal
on crops should be noted here. Excess uptake of nitrogen
and phosphorus may occur, but of even more concern is the up-
take of heavy metals. Some (chromium, manganese, iron, cop-
per, zinc, molybdenum) are required for proper plant growth.
The others may be absorbed into plant tissue, but perform no
known metabolic functions. Animal nutrition requires a few
more heavy metals — tin, vanadium, cobalt, zinc, and sele-
nium. All of these metals become toxic to plants or animals
at some level specific to that metal. Often, as with sele-
nium, there is very little difference between levels in the
diet that cause deficiency and toxicity. Therefore, increas-
ing heavy metals concentrations in plants could have detri-
mental as well as useful (ameliorating trace element defi-
ciencies) effects.
Limits for heavy metal applications have been suggested.
One expresses heavy metal additions as zinc equivalents.
The total amount of sludge that may be applied is limited to
the addition of zinc equivalents up to 10 percent of the
soil's CEC. 24)
Total sludge _ 32,700 x CEC
(dry wt. tons/acre) ~ ppm Zn + 2 (ppm Cu) + 4 (ppm Ni)
This limit is formulated to protect against plant toxicity.
Additional controls based on cadmium/zinc ratio and mainte-
279
-------
nance of soil pH above 6.5 have been proposed to reduce
plant uptake of heavy metals.
These controls are only designed to reduce metals uptake.
More research is needed to determine the relationship be-
tween plant uptakes and the impact on animals by injestion.
It must be insured that not only are cropland resources pro-
tected, but that harmful contaminants are not accumulated in
the human food chain.
The effect of diffuse land disposal of sludge on ground wa-
ter is not documented. A few monitoring wells have been in-
stalled at sites for agricultural and strip-mine utilization
of sludge in Illinois. To date, no data have been published
from these sites.
Over the past few years, EPA has sponsored a survey of munic-
ipal waste treatment plants to obtain information concerning
liquid sludge land spreading operations. Of the 987 respon-
dents to the survey, 225 are currently land spreading liquid
sludge on a routine basis. Applying the survey results on a
region-by-region basis to the total population surveyed in
Regions II, III, IV, V, and IX, it would appear that about
400 plants are currently land spreading by this technique.
Over 68 percent of the plants responding indicated they have
been land spreading liquid sludge for less than 10 years.
It is estimated 25 percent of the total municipal sludge pro-
duction is utilized in land application. 20)
Industrial residuals create the greatest potential for
ground-water contamination in areas where net recharge to
ground water from precipitation is greatest. The soluble
substances in the waste solids are transported to ground wa-
ter percolating through soil. The Great Lakes and mid-
Atlantic industrial regions receive enough precipitation to
virtually assure that soluble waste components will be car-
ried to ground water barring geochemical attenuation or geo-
logical barriers. Along the Gulf Coast, evapotranspiration
rates are higher and reduce the net recharge rate. However,
the shallow ground-water table in the region increases the
vulnerability of the ground-water system to contamination.
In southern California and other southwestern states, re-
charge from precipitation is only associated with unusually
intense storms, or storms of long duration.
Ground-water contamination from land spreading of industrial
residuals, unlike municipal sludges, can be classified as a
regional problem. Because industries dispose of their resid-
uals primarily with their own methods and on their own land,
there are no reliable figures to indicate the extent to
280
-------
which land spreading of residuals is practiced. Land spread-
ing, in contrast to ocean dumping, presumably would be prac-
ticed near the site of production, hence the heavily indus-
trialized regions will have the greatest potential for
ground-water contamination.
A larger population, industrial growth, and higher degree of
waste-water treatment in the future will cause an increase
in sludge production. The EPA projects an increase of about
50 percent (Table 42) in annual dry weight production of mu-
nicipal sludge in the United States in 1985. Some projec-
tions for industrial residuals increases are listed in Table
46 for 1977 and 1983.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The choice of land disposal of the various alternatives for
ultimate disposal of sludge is made on the basis of several
types of criteria. These may be described as (1) efficacy
of the method, (2) environmental impacts, (3) availability
of agricultural land or land for reclamation, and (4) eco-
nomics. Land has the greatest assimilative capacity for
sludge. The limit on loading rates is not well established,
but the limit is higher than the limits on direct disposal
to water or air. Given careful management, the efficacy of
land spreading is probably best.
Land spreading of sludge is frequently the method of choice
in reducing environmental stresses associated with sludge
disposal. Where sludge production occurs in metropolitan
areas with little access to useful agricultural land or
strip-mined land, land disposal may not be the most viable
solution. Under such circumstances, alternative methods
such as incineration (with adequate air pollution controls)
or heat drying and shipping to more suitable sites may be
desirable.
Perhaps the factor which most controls decisions on the ulti-
mate fate of sludge is economics. From the point of view of
the municipal waste-water treatment plant operator, land
spreading is economically attractive. This is illustrated
in Table 47 in which disposal costs for various methods are
listed. Lagooning and ocean disposal are the least expen-
sive methods. A more recent site-specific study was re-
ported by Troemper. 26) Tne costs for land spreading of
sludge for corn and soybeean production from 1965 through
1971 were discussed. The net cost per dry weight ton of
sludge ranged from $0.97 to $17.05 ($1.07 to $18.78/dry
tonne), and averaged $2.46 ($2.71). Most of the fluctuation
was caused by the variation in crop yield which affected in-
281
-------
Table 46. PREDICTIONS OF FUTURE
BY INDUSTRY.
•DUALS PRODUCTION
Industry Category
Residuals Production,
Dry Weight
1977 1983
10° tons/yr 106 tonnes/yr IP6 tons/yr 10 tonnes/yr
Blast furnaces, steel works,
foundries
Hazardous fraction
Industrial inorganic chemicals
Hazardous fraction
Coal-fired utilities
Oil-fired
Hazardous fraction
Primary smelting and refining
of nonferrous metals
Hazardous fraction
Paper and allied products
Hazardous fraction
Petroleum refining
Hazardous fraction
Agricultural chemicals without
phosphoric fertilizers
Hazardous fraction
60
3.3
66-77
0.4
117
0.49
13.4
2.5
20.5
0
0.06
2.5
0.08
54
3.0
60-70
0.36
106
0.44
12.2
2.3
18.6
0.054
2.3
0.073
62
3.5
83-104
0.5
155
9.6
0.53
14.2
2.7
22.7
0
15
0.08
3.2
0.1
56
3.2
75-94
0.45
141
8.7
0.48
12.9
2.4
20.6
0.073
2.9
0.09
282
-------
Table 47. ULTIMATE DISPOSAL COSTS OF SLUDGE INCLUDING TREATMENT
COSTS (1968). 20'25)
Capital and operating costs
($/dry ton)
Method
Heat drying
Average
50
Range
40 -55
Incineration
Wet combustion 42
Multiple hearth and fluidized bed 30
Landfilling dewatered sludge 25
Dewatered, for use as soil conditioner, gross cost 25
Landspreading as liquid 15
Lagooning 12
Ocean disposal by barge 12
Ocean disposal by pipeline 11
10-50
10-50
10 -50
8-50
6-25
5-25
Land application
Landfill
Incineration
Ocean dumping
Total disposal costs/ including operating and
construction costs (1975 $/dry ton)
1 mgd
127 - 168
171 -208
250 - 320
376-417
10 mgd
53 - 71
77-116
111 - 174
93 - 134
100 mgd
57-84
63 - 98
72 - 120
56 - 93
Note; Dollars/ton divided by 0.9078 equals dollars/tonne.
283
-------
come from crop sales. Table 48 lists factors influencing
the cost of land disposal of sludge.
Land spreading of industrial sludges/residuals has been es-
sentially limited to biological sludges from the food, petro-
leum, and paper and pulp industries. More stringent stand-
ards for effluents, however, are making land spreading more
attractive. First, more sludge is produced as solids are re-
moved from effluent, and second, land application removes
the chemical elements from the water route.
Alternatives to land spreading of industrial sludge are land-
filling, lagooning, incineration, burial in pits, disposal
to marine waters, or deep well injection. There are also
contractors who accept industrial sludges for treatment,
material recovery, and ultimate disposal by the means listed
above. Landfilling and lagooning are the most popular meth-
ods in use because of their convenience and low cost. These
disposal methods and their potential for ground-water contam-
ination have been discussed in appropriate sections of this
report.
Land spreading of most sludges on agricultural land usually
requires a minimum of land preparation. For example, berms
may be required to contain runoff, but leveling is seldom re-
quired. Land spreading on strip-mine spoils frequently re-
quires leveling, terracing, or even bulldozing of large
amounts of overburden to fill gullies and trenches. Costs
for site preparations of this scale can amount to several
thousands of dollars per acre. If leveling is a requirement
regardless of revegetation method, sludge irrigation may be
economically advantageous. Transportation of sludge to
either type of site and equipment for irrigation incur equal
expenditures per unit distance and area.
From the point of view of the recipient, the nutrient con-
tent of sludge is not high enough to cover even the cost of
transportation and distribution. Sludge does have proper-
ties which make it an effective soil conditioner. It adds
stabilized organic matter which increases the bulk density
of soil, increases its moisture holding capacity, cation ex-
change capacity, and builds soil structure. Home gardeners
frequently utilize the entire sludge supply from small munic-
ipal treatment plants. Municipalities usually provide dis-
tribution services for large-scale commercial farmers.
Siting is a major technological consideration because the im-
pact of sludge on the environment can be maximized or mini-
mized by the choice of spreading site. The physical aspects
of siting include some political considerations as well as
284
-------
Table 48. FACTORS AFFECTING COST OF MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
DISPOSAL ON LAND.
Sludge type
Transportation method
Distribution method
Climate
Site
Liquid
Dewatered
Heat dried
Pipeline
Unit train
Truck
Ridge and furrow
Trench
Sprinkler irrigation
Tanker
Spreader
Year round access
Requires storage facility
Acquisition cost
Distance from source
Access to transport system
Agricultural, no land preparation
Agricultural, minor land preparation
Reclamation, minimum land prepar-
ation
Reclamation, major land preparation
285
-------
those more tangible. The proximity to the waste source to a
degree determines the transportation cost. Transportation
accounts for most of the cost associated with land spreading
of sludge. Tank trucks and wagons are the most common means
of transport. Only for long distance handling (more than 40
miles) does dewatering pay.
Zoning of the site and adjacent properties may enhance or
greatly complicate its utilization. Problems such as the
transmission of odors and disease are more imagined than
real with the utilization of properly stabilized sludge.
However, what people imagine can make real problems for the
administrators of the program. Locating a sludge farm in a
residential neighborhood can be done (Hanover Park, Illi-
nois) , but it requires a good public-relations program ahead
of time.
Related to the zoning considerations is the recognition that
expansion will likely take place, so land should either be
acquired or be available for future growth. Space for stor-
age, roads, and buildings should also be provided.
Siting should be done with concern for minimizing environ-
mental contamination. Thus, the distance to surface water
and depth to ground water should be reasonable. Runoff di-
rectly entering a stream or lake, and percolate entering
ground water without passing through an aerobic, unsaturated
zone can degrade the quality of the receiving waters.
Physical aspects of siting can be used to help protect the
ground-water supply. The deeper the water table, the
greater the chance for renovation of percolate before it en-
ters the ground-water system. A water table several tens of
feet below ground surface allows chemical and biological re-
actions to occur which remove some of the components in per-
colate.
An adequate area for the volume of waste should be acquired.
The greatest protection of ground water is achieved when the
application rate is commensurate with crop requirements and
soil capacities rather than being determined solely on the
amount of sludge requiring disposal.
Geology and ground-water hydraulics should be investigated
as part of the procedure for ground-water protection. Sub-
soil formations can react beneficially with percolate, or
they may be essentially inert. Sediments or rock forming
the aquifer also may interact beneficially with percolate-
enriched ground water. Knowing the direction and rate of
ground-water movement, one can predict the path substances
286
-------
entering ground water will take. Qualitative predictions
about attenuation may also be possible. A knowledge of ex-
isting ground-water quality will help in future interpreta-
tion of water-sampling results. Thus, a prior knowledge of
the geohydrology can reduce the hazard of ground-water con-
tamination.
Sludge application methods must be chosen with regard to
crops as well as the previously described physical character-
istics of the site. Spray application after a crop is grow-
ing may either damage it, restrict photosynthesis (by caking
of solids on leaf surfaces), or contaminate it directly with
undesirable constituents.
Use of liquid or dry sludge brings different application
techniques and moisture relationships. There are conditions
favoring each, and the compatible method should be used.
Application of sludge at a rate commensurate with the crop
and soil system, at times compatible with crop demands and
favorable climatic conditions, and with suitable means as
determined by the overall system, will result in a minimal
environmental insult and a maximum benefit.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Formal regulations governing land application of waste-water
treatment sludges exist in 21 of the 54 states and territo-
ries. In other states, the basic provision of state law
which may be applied to land spreading of sludges is the pro-
hibition against polluting waters of the state. A state
with only this provision generally has the burden of proof
that surface- or ground-water pollution results from sludge
disposal.
Pennsylvania has changed this burden with its "potential pol-
lution" statute, which allows the state, where storage, dis-
posal, etc., of materials creates a danger of water pollu-
tion, or where regulation of the activity is necessary to
avoid such pollution, to require by rule that the activity
be conducted only pursuant to a permit issued by the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, or it may make an order reg-
ulating the activity. 27) The Department has by rule re-
quired that a person or municipality engaged in an activity
which includes the impoundment, production, processing,
transportation, storage, use, application or disposal of pol-
luting substances take all necessary measures to prevent
such substances from reaching waters of the Commonwealth, di-
rectly or indirectly. 28) The Department may require a re-
port or plan setting forth the nature of the activity and
287
-------
the nature of the preventative measures taken to comply with
the requirement that pollution be prevented. A permit is re-
quired for land spreading of sludges. The Department is cur-
rently preparing guidelines and regulations on industrial
sludges and sewage sludge.
Michigan also uses a general provision, which requires the
same procedures in the case of spreading of sludge as for la-
goon storage of wastes. A person who wants to dispose of
wastes on the ground must file a "new use statement/" drill
three initial observation wells, and file an application for
a ground-water discharge permit, which is reviewed by the
Water Resources Commission. The permit allows disposal of
specified wastes under a specified monitoring program. The
permittee must sample and report each month, and the agency
also checks monthly. The Commission establishes require-
ments industry by industry. 29)
Various types of special laws may apply to spreading of in-
dustrial sludges, such as Massachusetts' Hazardous Waste Reg-
ulations, requiring approval of the site by the Division of
Water Pollution Control; 30) New York's "Industrial Waste
Scavenger" Law which requires a license for anyone engaged
in the business (among other things) of scavenging or dis-
posing of industrial process waste products including
sludges, by which the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion may control place and manner of disposal; 31) and Vir-
ginia's law regulating industrial establishments, which re-
quires anyone constructing or operating an establishment
from which there is a potential or actual discharge of
wastes to state waters, to provide approved facilities for
treatment or control. 32)
In some state regulations, only the provisions relating spe-
cifically to municipal sludges anticipate that the sludge
will be spread on land. For example, Minnesota's regulation
prohibiting various sources of pollution states that it is
not to be construed as prohibiting land disposal of accept-
able organic wastes. 33) Oregon is another state with a
specific regulation for spreading of sewage sludge. It re-
quires either that sewage sludge disposal be adequately cov-
ered by specific conditions of a Waste Discharge Permit, or
that a special permit be obtained based upon detailed plans
and specifications. Spreading of septic-tank pumpings and
raw sewage sludge is prohibited unless it is specifically de-
termined by the Department of Environmental Quality or state
or local health agency that such disposal can be conducted
with assured, adequate protection of public health and safe-
ty and the environment. If non-digested sludge is spread on
land within 1/4 mi (0.4 km) of a residence, community, or
288
-------
public use area, it must be plowed into the ground, buried,
or otherwise incorporated into the soil within 5 days after
application. Where disposed of in a lagoon and there is a
potential for ground-water contamination, monitoring wells
are required. 34)
Provisions of state specifications for the operation of mu-
nicipal waste treatment plants may contain specific provi-
sions affecting land spreading of sludge. The criteria for
review of waste-water treatment facilities of the Colorado
Department of Health, for instance, allows land spreading of
stabilized sludge only. Plans must be submitted containing
a detailed description of the process and design data. 35)
Illinois' Design Criteria for Waste Treatment Plants re-
quires that ultimate disposal of sludge wastes not cause air,
land, or water pollution, including ground and surface wa-
ters. A permit must be obtained from the Division of Land
Pollution to dispose of non-liquid sludges, or from the Di-
vision of Water Pollution Control to dispose of liquid
sludges. Basic feasibility study information is required to
be submitted for review prior to submitting the detailed
project design. 36) The Illinois regulation by reference in-
corporated requirements of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi
River Board of State Sanitary Engineers recommended stand-
ards for feasibility studies and design proposals for ground
disposal of waste waters. 37)
289
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
2. Kardos, L. T. 1965. Soil fixation of plant nutrients.
Pages 369-394 iri F. E. Bear, editor. Chemistry of the
soil. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York.
3. Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and effects of trace elements
in sewage sludge when applied to agricultural lands.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-
670/2-74-005. 97 pp.
4. National Program Staff, Soil, Water, and Air Sciences.
1974. Factors involved in land application of agricul-
tural and municipal wastes. U. S. Department of Agri-
culture, Beltsville, Maryland.
5. Chawla, V. K., J. P. Stephenson, and D. Liu. 1974.
Biochemical characteristics of digested chemical sewage
sludges. Pages 63-94 in Proceedings sludge handling
and disposal seminar. Conference proceedings No. 2,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Wastewa-
ter treatment and reuse by land application - Vol. II.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-
660/2-73-006b. 249 pp.
7. Duboise, S. M., and others. 1974. Virus migration
through soils. Pages 233-240 in J. F. Malina, Jr. and
B. P. Sagik, editors. Virus survival in water and
wastewater systems. Water resources symposium No. 7,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
8. Wellings, F. M., A. L. Lewis, and C. W. Mountain. 1974.
Virus survival following wastewater spray irrigation of
sandy soils. Pages 253-260 in J. F. Malina, Jr., and
B. P. Sagik, editors. Virus survival in water and
wastewater systems. Water resources symposium No. 7,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
9. Gurnham, C. F., editor. 1965. Industrial wastewater
control. Academic Press, New York. 476 pp.
290
-------
10. Environmental Associates, Inc. 1975. Capabilities and
costs of technology (study area III) canned and pre-
served fruits and vegetables industry. Unpublished
draft. Corvallis, Oregon.
11. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. 1975. Textile indus-
try technology and costs of wastewater control. Unpub-
lished draft. Spartanburg, South Carolina.
12. Engineering-Science, Inc. 1975. Petroleum refining in-
dustry technology and costs of wastewater control. Un-
published draft. Houston, Texas.
13. Weisberg, G. 1975. Assessment of industrial hazardous
waste practices; petroleum refining. Unpublished
draft. Jacobs Engineering Co., Pasadena, California.
14. Teknekron, Inc. 1975. Capabilities and costs of tech-
nology for water pollution control for the steam elec-
tric power industry. Unpublished draft. Berkeley,
California.
15. Catalytic, Inc. 1975. Capabilities and costs of tech-
nology for the inorganic chemicals industry to achieve
the requirements and goals of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972. Unpublished draft.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
16. Procon, Inc. 1975. Technological assessment for the
plastics and synthetics industry. Unpublished draft.
17. Arthur G. McKee & Company. 1975. Analysis of effluent
control technology and associated costs for the iron
and steel industry. Unpublished draft. Cleveland,
Ohio.
18. Roulier, M. H. 1975. Personal communication. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
19. Lancy Laboratories. 1975. The capabilities and costs
of technology associated with the achievement of the re-
quirements and goals of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act as amended, for the metal finishing industry.
Unpublished draft. Zelienople, Pennsylvania.
20. Bastran, R. K. and W. A. Whittington. 1976. Municipal
sludge management: EPA construction grants program.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington, D. C.
291
-------
21. Prior, L. A. 1975. Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D. C.
22. Lehman, J. P. 1975. Industrial waste disposal over-
view. Preprint of presentation given at National Con-
ference on Management and Disposal of Residues from the
Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters. U. S. Environment-
al Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
23. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management. 1975. Unpublished data.
24. Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of
toxic elements in sludges and effluents. Proc. Joint
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents
on Land. Champaign, Illinois. EPA, USDA, NASULGC,
Washington, D. C.
25. Burd, R. S. 1968. A study of sludge handling and dis-
posal. U. S. Department of Interior, Water Pollution
Control Research Series Publication WP-20-4. 326 pp.
26. Troemper, A. P. 1974. The economics of sludge irriga-
tion. Pages 115-122 in Information Transfer, Inc. Mu-
nicipal sludge management, proceedings of the national
conference on municipal sludge management. Washington,
D. C.
27. Pennsylvania Regulations. 1937. Clean streams law.
Section 402.
28. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Rules and regulations. Chapter 101.
29. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Re-
sources Commission. General rules. Part 21.
30. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control.
Hazardous waste regulations.
31. New York Environmental Conservation Law. Section
27-0301, Subpart 75-5.
32. Virginia, Code of. Chapter 3.1. Virginia state water
control law.
33. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Rules and regula-
tions. WPC 22. Classification of underground waters
of the state and standards for waste disposal.
292
-------
34. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Regula-
tions pertaining to solid waste management. K. Special
rules pertaining to sludge disposal sites.
35. Colorado Department of Health. 1973. Criteria used in
the review of waste water treatment facilities.
36. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 revi-
sion. Design criteria for waste treatment plants and
treatment of sewer overflow. Technical policy 20-24,
revised July.
37. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State San-
itary Engineers. 1970. Recommended standards for sew-
age works. Addendum No. 2, ground disposal of waste
waters.
293
-------
SECTION XI
BRINE DISPOSAL FROM PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY
Disposal of brine from oil and gas production activities has
been a major cause of ground-water contamination in areas of
intense petroleum exploration and development. The princi-
pal problem has been related to the long-term practice of
discharging to unlined pits, which is now almost universally
prohibited. The large number of instances "of ground-water
corvEamination from brine disposal stem mainly from days when
there was very little regulation of oil exploration and de-
velopment. Today, the major problem is discharge of saline
water from abandoned oil and gas wells rather than disposal
of waste brine through injection or secondary recovery wells
at active petroleum recovery fields.
The first method of brine disposal was uncontrolled dis-
charge to streams and ditches, and later to evaporation pits.
These pits were unlined shallow excavations which could leak
salts and minerals into shallow fresh-water zones. Evapora-
tion pits range in area from tens of square feet to a few
acres. It is impossible to even roughly estimate the total
number, areal extent, and brine input to such sources of con-
tamination, especially since so many have been abandoned
over the past decade.
Most oil-field brines today are returned to oil-producing
zones or deep saline aquifers through old production wells
or brine injection wells for the purpose of water flooding,
or just as a disposal method. However, many of these wells
are poorly designed for injection, and they offer the oppor-
tunity for the salt water to enter fresh-water formations
through ruptured or corroded casings.
A tremendous volume of oil-field brine is produced every day.
Some states keep detailed records, others none at all. In
1963, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission made a study to
determine the production and ultimate fate of brine. Of the
24 states for which data were obtained, almost 24 million
bbl (3.84 million cu m) were produced daily that year.
About 8 million bbl/day (1.28 million cu m/day) were rein-
jected for water flood and 9 million bbl/day (1.44 million
cu m/day) were reinjected for disposal only. Unlined pits
received about 3 million bbl/day (480,000 cu m/day). Brin^
294
-------
production in some states has increased significantly since
1963. For example/ brine production in California had in-
creased by about 2 million bbl/day (320,000 cu m/day) by
1974.
Enactment of state oil and gas laws has been primarily moti-
vated by recognition of the need for orderly development of
oil fields in order to prevent waste of this resource and to
stop losses that r.esult from unregulated competition. Al-
though such laws reveal an awareness of the close relation-
ship of petroleum activities to ground-water resources, they
are principally concerned with economics of petroleum produc
tion and not environmental considerations. In almost every
state , disposal of brines to streams, rivers, ditchesT, and
~' Many states allow use of Ti he'd
evaporation pits and" most allow the use of brine injection
wells.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
In 1859, the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Penn-
sylvania. Since then, oil and gas exploration and produc-
tion activities have caused countless numbers of ground- and
surface-water contamination incidents. Surprisingly to some,
the principal contaminant is natural brine rather than oil
or gas. jTMTg^-t-^rm j^rine , as Jjtsgd__in this^ section^ refers. _io_
saline water which is usually associated with, oil Jaelow_
cfrpund and is pumped out with the oil...
Thus far, all oil samples analyzed from petroleum reservoirs
•have been found to contain some -water, presumably of indige-
nous origin. 1) The amount of water in such reservoirs can
be considerable, occupying up to more than 50 percent of the
pore space. It is this water or brine and, if the reservoir
is not developed correctly, basal salt water beneath the' oil
that create disposal problems after being brought to the sur-
face with the oil.
The amount of brine produced from a given well depends upon
the geologic formation tapped and the well's location, con-
struction, and age. Many wells yield very little brine when
first pumped 'but produce more with time; others yield large
quantities of brine initially. ,_In_cJj|ej^_wjyJ1_J^eJLds , as
many _ as__10p__bb.l -_(lJa_ciLJal__pf brine_may be pumped" for Jeach
barrel of oil.
The first method of brine disposal was uncontrolled dis-
charge to streams and ditches; later "evaporation" pits
came into use. These pits were shallow excavations into
which brine was pumped so that it would evaporate. Such rea-
295
-------
soning was faulty as only fresh-water vapor is lost to the
atmosphere and the salts and minerals remain. Where the
soil was permeable, brine seepage from the pits contaminated
ground water. If the soil was impermeable, too much brine
would often be added to the pit causing overflow, or in ef-
fect, uncontrolled discharge.
With few exceptions, evaporation exceeds precipitation in
areas west of, roughly, the eastern borders of the Dakotas,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. In such areas, the
liquids in brine pits are concentrated because more water
evaporates than is replenished by precipitation. Such high-
ly mineralized fluids have an even greater contamination po-
tential than ordinary brines. In more humid areas, brines
might be somewhat diluted by precipitation, but the degree
of dilution is not significant.
Evaporation pits range in area from tens of square feet to a
few acres. Their design is simple, with no more than a bull-
dozer needed in most cases, to excavate and build up a berm
around the pit. Brine from the pit percolates downward un-
til it reaches the water table, where it moves under the in-
fluence of hydraulic gradient to a point of discharge. The
volume of brine reaching the water table can be considerable,
depending upon conditions. The point of discharge — a well,
spring, or surface-water body — might be situated miles
from the pit.
With a typical ground-water movement rate of one to two ft/
day (0.30 to 0.61 m/day), brine seeping from an abandoned
pit may eventually contaminate a fresh-water well miles away.
The brine moves as ^_^ody_,_undergoinq jlittle dilution. In
addition, ground water in the area will remaTn"conFaminated
for years to come. In such a situation, the property owner
has little or no recourse.
Because of the lack of data on the use of evaporation pits,
it is impossible to estimate in any detail their economic
and environmental impact. The High Plains region, a broad
alluvial terrace east of the Rocky Mountains extending north-
ward from Texas to South Dakota, may be one of the most vul-
nerable areas in the country to ground-water contamination.
In the southern part of the Plains, ground-water pumpage for
irrigation alone amounts to more than 10 percent of the to-
tal national pumpage for all uses. 2) Withdrawals have
greatly exceeded replenishment, lowering the water table to
a level from which it may never recover. With a decline of
water in storage, in an area where evaporation exceeds pre-
cipitation and brine disposed of in pits becomes more con-
centrated, the brine contamination potential increases dras-
296
-------
tically.
Kansas was one of the first states to recognize the problems
associated with evaporation pits, and in 1934, its legisla-
ture passed several acts. 2) one allowed disposal of brine
to subsurface formations containing highly mineralized water.
Another act encouraged the oil-field operator to J.nject
brin£ into the oil-producing 7ion° t" inf-f^agta T-g.g
-------
specifically for this purpose. 5)
The character of brine presents problems in that it is high-
ly corrosive, and the well casing often has to be lined with
plastic or an inert material to prevent rapid deterioration,
which could result in brines contaminating fresh water. The
chemistry of the brine must be compatible with that of the
water in the injection zone, for if it is not, chemical pre-
cipitates might be formed which could plug the receiving for-
mation, thereby greatly reducing its permeability. In cer-
tain instances, enough plugging can take place to render the
disposal well useless. Exposure to air often alters the
chemistry of a brine to the extent that it can no longer be
injected back into the zone from which it was produced with-
out the occurrence of precipitation and concomitant plugging.
Unless the brine is properly treated, difficulties with both
secondary recovery and disposal are common.
The mechanics by which brine disposal or secondary recovery
wells, (using brine) can contaminate a fresh-water aquifer
are more complex than those for evaporation pits. Improper
disposal well construction may be intentional to save money.
For example, an operator might drill to only a shallow depth
and inject brine directly into a fresh-water formation, even
though most states discourage disposal into fresh-water aqui-
fers. A common occurrence is improper sealing or cementing
of casing, allowing brine to travel upward in the annular
space between the casing and bore hole to contaminate shal-
low zones. Use of casing that easily corrodes and leaks may
similarly contaminate.
Where injection to the shallowest saline water-bearing forma-
tion is permitted, care must be taken to insure that there
is no hydraulic connection between that formation and over-
lying ones that contain fresh water. If injection pressures
are high and large quantities of brine are disposed of, the
poor quality water can be forced upward into fresh-water
zones. Detection of such contamination is particularly dif-
ficult if there are no regularly monitored wells in the vi-
cinity penetrating the deepest aquifer containing fresh wa-
ter. The lack of such monitoring may result in the loss of
large portions of usable aquifers without anyone's knowledge.
Improperly plugged, abandoned wells and test holes are ex-
cellent conduits for the migration of brine. Where either
hydrostatic pressure or pressure caused by secondary recov-
ery operations is sufficient, brines are pushed upward in
these holes to escape to fresh-water zones or the land sur-
face. Even if the well is plugged at land surface, consider-
able leakage of brine into fresh-water zones below the plug
298
-------
can occur. Resealing poorly plugged wells after leakage oc-
curs is difficult from a physical as well as monetary stand-
point because in many cases the party responsible is not
known or cannot be found.
In California, abandoned gas wells which discharge large vol-
umes of salt water into the Tuolumne River are targets of a
study to determine if the wells can be capped, sealing off a
major source of contamination. 6) The wells, which were
drilled in the 1930's without the approval or knowledge of
the Division of Oil and Gas, contribute an estimated 110,000
tons/yr (99,792 tonnes/yr) to the dissolved solids loading
of the river. The tops of the wells were destroyed when the
river gravels were dredged for gold recovery. Proper aban-
procedures were not taken before the wells were de-
, and it is thought that the wells continue to dis-
charge beneath the gravel tailings.
Dry holes probably seem like an insignificant source of con-
tamination until one examines data on drilling. In 1973,
more than 24,000 mi (38,616 km) of hole were drilled onshore,
of which nearly 10,000 mi (16,090 km) did not produce oil
and were, therefore, abandoned for the most part (some may
have been used for brine disposal). 4) Over the years, the
total number of miles of dry holes undoubtedly is in the
hundred thousands, and although at present dry holes are gen-
erally properly plugged, those drilled in the past were com-
monly left open.
As to abandoned wells, there were over 90,000 fewer pro-
ducing oil wells in 1973 than in 1965. 4) since drilling
has been going on for more than 100 years, the magnitude of
the situation can be understood. Until recently, few states
had regulations for proper plugging of abandoned wells. One
must conclude that thousands and thousands of miles of ver-
tical conduits for brines exist.
Related Problems
Although brines present the major threat to water quality,
other potential contaminants are an inherent part of oil and
gas exploration and development activities. These include
drilling fluids, chemicals used in treating wells, corrosion
inhibitors and other additives, and of course both oil and
gas.
Most oil and gas wells are drilled by the rotary method in
which drilling fluid is circulated for removal of drilled
cuttings from the bottom of the hole and to keep the bottom
of the hole and drill bit clean. The fluids are pumped from
299
-------
ground surface down through the drill pipe and out the bit,
then returned to the surface through the annulus outside the
drill pipe. Various chemicals are added to drilling fluids
to cope with different situations, and they are capable of
contaminating water and land if the fluids are spilled dur-
ing drilling or escape into a fresh-water aquifer.
A well is often treated with acid to increase the permeabil-
ity of the reservoir rocks in order to increase oil recovery
or improve fluid injection in disposal or repressuring wells.
The acids used include hydrochloric, nitric, sulfuric, hydro-
fluoric, formic, and acetic acids. The volume of acid used
to treat a single well can be as much as several hundred
thousand gallons. Soluble compounds such as calcium chlo-
ride, sodium sulfate, sodium fluoride, and others are pro-
duced as a result of these treatments and, in addition, par-
tially neutralized acids may be left in solution. Contami-
nation can occur when the salt-enriched solutions and any un-
neutralized acid are withdrawn from the well and are not
properly disposed of. Also, the acids are corrosive and can
cause pipe failure with possible resultant contamination.
The best corrosion inhibitors used in acid treatment contain
arsenic compounds. Other additives are employed to reduce
friction, reduce loss, maintain permeability, prevent emul-
sion formation and avoid precipitation. The corrosion in-
hibitors and most of the other additives are potential con-
taminants .
Finally, oil and gas have the potential to contaminate
ground water, either through leaky casing or, in the case of
oil, through spills. Some crude oils contain mercury in con-
centrations in excess of 20 ppm. The U. S. Public Health
Service limit for mercury in drinking water is 0.002 ppm.
Probably of more significance is the fact that the taste and
smell of oil can be detected in water with oil concentra-
tions of only one part in 10 million. 7) Casing leaks which
develop opposite fresh-water zones in natural gas wells can
also cause contamination of ground water. Hydrogen sulfide,
often present in natural gas, gives water the odor of rotten
eggs, and it is possible for a person to detect amounts of
only two parts in one billion.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
The quality of waters found in oil and gas reservoirs varies
widely, often reflecting characteristics of the geologic
stratum in which they are found. The_jgater_may be fresh,
^brackish__or saline, b"t • -* t i° Mana 1 Iy_. saline_. In general,
the water chemistry depends upon the chemistry of the an-
300
-------
cient sea within which sediments were deposited. The salin-
ity may have been reduced through dilution with fresh water,
concentrated by evaporation, or altered by bacterial action.
Table 49 shows the composition of some different brines as
compared to sea water. Their salinity may reach about 25
percent by weight of solids, the greatest part of them com-
monly sodium chloride. Lesser amounts of other constituents
are also present, but a few instances have been reported
where sodium chloride makes up more than 99 percent of the
total dissolved solids present. D
The average chloride content for brines is around 50,000 ppm,
more than twice that of sea water. The U. S. Public Health
Service considers water containing more than 250 ppm of chlo-
ride to be unsatisfactory for human consumption if more suit-
able supplies are available. It is primarily for this rea-
son that brines pose a significant threat to fresh surface
and ground waters. One volume of brine (50,000 ppm chloride)
can raise the chloride content of almost 200 volumes of
fresh water above the acceptable limit, assuming that the
fresh water contains no chloride initially, an extremely
rare situation. The contamination potential of brine in-
creases with the chloride content of fresh water, which is
naturally high in some sections of the Country.
Certain brines may contain toxic elements. One, from a well
in southwestern Arkansas, was found to have 5.8 ppm of lead
and 87 ppm of barium. 8) The U. S. Public Health Service
limits for these two constituents in drinking water are 0.05
ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively. The fact that most brines
contain high concentrations of chloride, which gives water a
salty taste when present in concentrations of about 400 to
500 ppm, means that these brines would have to be highly di-
luted before one would drink them. The large amount of dilu-
tion would probably reduce levels of toxic elements to below
the acceptable limits. However, this would not be the case
for low-chloride brines which are found in a few areas and
are used for irrigation. These brines should be analyzed
for a wide range of constituents rather than just a few, to
determine whether they contain toxic contaminants.
Brines may contain certain elements in sufficient concentra-
tion to make extraction economically attractive. In the
Michigan Basin and southern Arkansas, companies recover se-
lected minerals from brines. The W. R. Grace Company has de-
veloped a process for manufacturing fertilizer from sea wa-
ter; certain brines might be substituted for sea water in
the process. 9)
Table 50 shows the approximate concentrations of recoverable
301
-------
^
Q.
0.
C
i/T
UJ
Z
E
Q
_i
UJ
t
•^
O
,,
0
CO
Uj
£
^x
z
^
c^
^*
0)
JO
0
*""
—
*—
, |
o>.2
1 I
£
.^
u
o
U
E
3?
1 4)
11
CO _fl
4)
1 0
0 g
U Jj
1
3
l/>
4)
-o
*^
O
_c
Formation
-o
4)
ul
in cs C51 Os
o ^ CN rx.
•— o «o « J J
£ z-Q-g .-o_- a
OoX~C~4>C
JS'EO ** o v M
O 4) TT 1=
^ i/> O Z
in in oo CN «n CN •—
^^* ^^* OO ^M ^O ^O O^
•^- — co o m o o
t*N CO CO "^ CM *O
•— CN
00 *O *O O CM *— CM
00 "O >O ^f ^^
CM CO CM CM
ts. W) CO O *O hx O
00 ^^ ^^* *O ^^ CM
in in •— rx. rx.
•«t «n CN •— ix o fx
CN co CN m SJ e> <2
-o rx co o CN ^
- co -" ^ co
fx CM ^O ""O OO
^- ^- •—
^— C3 ^^ O^
1 1 f^ ^^ CM •
CM
,_
in co Os co ^D ^^ 0*
2 2 t8 8 ^
^ ^
CN CN
oo o Os rx SQ os CN
•— co rx, CN in rx. •—
in so •— CN CM
CN* "O* ^-" •*"
«,«,««> ^ £
T? o §„ ^ $
"^ E 3 w c « «• •- Q «
<-§-§L?.?E-2'2^"?t"SQ£"?i
§-8J = |=!8S8|88B:§
(/!'— '^1— Ll_^JQ-l/1
O .. 3
"4) C
'x E j^ o 4) o
if! I*!?! I<1>:
*8Etxc-5loitOiS>£a
S
rx.
CN"
^^
SO
J5
CO
^
8
CO
"O
^^
CN
CN
OO
8
^™"
1
o
rx
CM
^
co
^
o
o
i
o
8v
in"
co
o
f^
CO
-"
0
'•^
o
o"
1
o
rx.
1
^
CN
O
•^
t.
Os
1
E
o ^
o
302
-------
Table 50. AMOUNT OF ELEMENT PER 1 MILLION LB. BRINE NECESSARY
TO PRODUCE CORRESPONDING CHEMICAL PRODUCT WORTH
$250. 9)
Element-
Sodium
Lithium
Magnesium
Calcium
Strontium
Boron
Bromine
Iodine
Sulfur
Concentration, ppm.
50,000
170
8,000
11,000
4,000
1,400
1,700
250
5,300
Product
sodium chloride
lithium chloride
magnesium chloride
calcium chloride
strontium chloride
sodium borate
bromine
iodine
sodium sulfate
303
-------
minerals in one million pounds of brine which would have a
market value of $250. 9) The data in this table are not ab-
solute because factors such as product demand, ease of recov-
ery, and proximity to markets affect price.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
A tremendous volume of brine is produced every day. Some
states keep detailed records; others none at all. The In-
terstate Oil Compact Commission made a study to determine
how much brine was produced in 1963 and what happened to it
after production (see Table 51). Attempts made to secure
more recent data were not entirely successful as several
states still keep no records. However, it was found that
brine production in certain states had increased signifi-
cantly from 1963 to 1974. For example, California now pro-
duces about 2 million bbl/day (320,000 cu m/day) more. Up-
dating and extrapolating of the 1963 data indicate that the
present production of brine is.._about__30 million^ bbl/day (4.8
million cuT in/day) '. fhTs~ estimate is made by assuming that
brine production is equal to four times the amount of oil
production (80 percent of the fluid pumped is brine). Aver-
age onshore United States oil production was 7,284,000 bbl/
day (1.2 million cu m/day) in 1974. 4)
Accepting a daily brine production of 30 million bbl (4.8
million cu m) as reasonable, brine production on an annual
basis totals almost 11 billion bbl (1.8 billion cu m) or
460 billion gal. (1.8 billion cu m). If the brine has a
contamination potential of only 200 times, one year's brine
production could theoretically contaminate 92 trillion gal.
(0.35 trillion cu m) of fresh water. Obviously, such exten-
sive contamination is not happening, but the preceding fig-
ures do show that brine disposal is a potentially signifi-
cant threat to fresh ground-water resources in petroleum
areas.
Disposal of oil-field brines is not a nationwide problem;
only 30 states had producing oil wells in 1973, and oil pro-
duction averaged more than 5,000 bbl/day (800 cu m/day) in
only 24 states in 1974. 4) These 24 states are shown on Fig-
ure 67.
No more than a general correlation can be made between the
volume of brine produced and ground-water contamination.
Too many factors are involved to make a direct correlation.
These include well location, geology, occurrence and quality
of native ground water, and regulations and their enforce-
ment .
304
-------
Table 51. DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED SALT WATER, 1963 (barrels per day).
1)
State
Alabama
A laska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida (7)
Georgia (7)
Idaho (7)
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland (7)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri (7)
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada (7)
New Mexico
New York (7)
North Dakota
Ohio (7)
Oklahoma
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee (7)
Texas
Utah
Virginia (7)
Washington (7)
West Virginia
Wyoming (7)
Current
volumes
produced
2,493
1,128
100
539,132
2,740,850
202, 194
600
876,712
81,797
5,011,400
123,287
2,785,000
149,587
340,079
50,000
121,907
356,624
31,000
3,751,911
191,780
68
6,127,671
81,634
115,068
23,682,022
INJECTION
For water flood
89,082
445, 768
131,500
50,960
800,000
73,973
184,000
40,000
10,000
17,329
55, 176
23,500
3,160,577
2,736,755
2,981
7,821,601
For disposal only
1,397
1,128
340,734
208,665
5,000
600
14,724
4,200,000
35,616
1,762,000
147,849
203,836
31,400
7,567
165,423
583,280
1,472,954
9, 182, 173
305
-------
Table 51 (continued). DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED SALTWATER, 1963
(barrels per day). ''
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida (7)
Georgia (7)
Idaho (7)
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland (7)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri (7)
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada (7)
New Mexico
New York (7)
North Dakota
Ohio (7)
Oklahoma
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee (7)
Texas
Utah
Virginia (7)
Washington (7)
West Virginia
Wyoming (7)
Impervious Unlined
pits pits
493
100
7,444
3,127 399,933
•
70 65,624
15,132
1,800 9,600
2,740 5,480
698,000
982
8,219 74,329
8,600
97,011
136,025
7,500
5,370 2,685
68
1,262,719
4,862
Streams
and Other
rivers methods
603
101,871
501 (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
5,480
(1)
(6)
(5)
191,780
615,566 (5)
(3)
115,068
825,410
99,168
758,277
876,712
982
141,000
756
13,699
39,677
73,790
21,326
2,796,587 1,030,869
2,829,471
(1) To nonpotable water body
(2) Disposal at sites approved by regulatory agency
(3) Fresh water used for irrigation and livestock
(4) Unknown disposition
(5) Unaccounted
(6) Lease operations and dust control on county roads
(7) Either/or no report, no production, no information
available
Note: bbl/day equals .16 co m/day.
306
-------
» , ' ' '
, , V ' ' / f' ' ;,'.-, /; ^ ' ,,*-**•>'**•
f''''-"''-/ \ '•'- -'-"' '', r -
o
c
X
o
Q.
in
0)
O
o
o
c
o
o
E
O)
'o
3
"8
Q_
'5
U-
o
o
4)
•J07
-------
Brine-producing wells can be located in uninhabited areas,
generating large volumes of brine that contaminate fresh wa-
ter but affect no one. They can be located in populated
areas, produce relatively small amounts of brine, and contam-
inate an aquifer serving an entire town — an event which
has taken place and is discussed later. Finally, they can
be situated where no usable ground water exists. Much brine
can be produced in a state that has strictly enforced regula-
tions for proper brine disposal, and no contamination will
occur. Conversely, another state could have a small brine
output but suffer widespread contamination because disposal
is unregulated.
The preceding examples may be more or less the exception
rather than the rule. Logic dictates that if more brine is
produced, more problems will result. Ground-water contami-
nation by oil-field brines has been documented in at least
the following states:
Alabama Kansas Ohio-
Arkansas Kentucky Oklahoma
California Michigan i Pennsylvania
Colorado Mississippi Texas
Georgia New Mexico West Virginia
Illinois ^ New York
It is most unlikely that contamination has not taken place
at one time or another in most or all of the states that
have produced or are producing oil.
Case Histories
Case histories of ground-water and surface-water contamina-
tion by oil-field brines abound. Four typical ground-water
contamination cases are briefly described below.
Arkansas - 8)
In 1967, in southwestern Arkansas, a farmer noted that his
irrigation well was producing salty water, and he brought
this fact to the attention of state agencies. The well,
which tapped an alluvial aquifer, was capable of producing
1,000 gpm (63 litre/sec). It had to be shut down after the
chloride concentration reached 1,100 ppm.
Various state agencies jointly conducted an investigation to
determine the source of contamination. The investigation
consisted of augering holes through the alluvium and sam-
pling the sand and water mixture that was brought to the sur-
face. Results suggested that an unlined brine disposal pit
308
-------
was the source of contamination. It was later found that a
leaky disposal well, subsequently repaired, also contributed.
At the same time, the U. S. Geological Survey was making a
reconnaissance study, obtaining samples from domestic and ir-
rigation wells and other test holes over a 20-sq mi (52-sq
km) area. This study found two other contaminated areas
where chloride exceeded 500 ppm (the normal range is from 7
to about 50 ppm). All three areas are in or just downgradi-
ent of producing oil fields. A later study, authorized by
EPA, found that at least four more contaminated areas exist-
ed in the county but focused on the contaminated aquifer
tapped by the farmer's well and also on whether the aquifer
could be rehabilitated.
The extent of the aquifer found to be contaminated by brine
was about one sq mi (2.6 sq km). It was calculated that the
salty water was moving toward the Red River, 4.5 mi (7.2 km)
away and the discharge point for all ground water in the
area, and would reach the river in approximately 250 years. •
Thus, ground water occupying at least one sq mi (2.6 sq km)
over the path of travel will remain contaminated for at
least 250 years. The opinion was expressed that the entire
4.5 by one mile area will remain contaminated for a much
longer period due to dispersion, adsorption, and nonhomo-
geneous characteristics of the aquifer.
Monetary losses already incurred include the loss of an ir-
rigation well valued at $4,000 and the partial loss of one
year's rice crop, worth $36,000 on 120 acres (48 ha) for
which irrigation water was a necessity. Assuming that only
one sq mi (2.6 sq km) of irrigable land is removed from pro-
duction, future annual losses would amount to $96,000 for
rice, $22,400 for cotton and $12,800 for soybeans. Had a
municipal ground-water supply of one mgd (3.8 million I/day)
become contaminated and the town been forced to construct a
surface supply, the added yearly cost would have been an
estimated $73,000.
Obviously, it would be desirable to remedy the situation.
Initially four rehabilitation methods appeared feasible:
containment, accelerated discharge, use, and deep-well dis-
posal .
Instead of allowing the salty water to spread and move down-
stream, contaminating more than four times the area already
affected, it might be contained by constructing an imperme-
able underground wall across three sides of the area. The
wall would be made by injecting bentonite (a clay) into the
ground. The cost of this containment was estimated at about
$7,000,000, and there is no documentation on how effective
309
-------
such a system would be.
Two suggested methods of accelerating discharge to the Red
River are water drive and direct pumping. Water drive would
entail injection of fresh water into the aquifer upgradient
of the salty water, causing the salty water to move at a
faster rate. This type of system would require the expendi-
ture of nearly $1,300,000. Direct discharge, utilizing four
strategically located wells and a pipeline to the river,
would be relatively inexpensive (about $180,000) but pollute
the river in violation of existing regulations.
Of course, rehabilitation of the aquifer by pumping the wa-
ter out and putting it to beneficial use would be the ideal
solution. Three possible uses for the water were mentioned.
Injecting the water for secondary recovery of oil would have
been most preferable; unfortunately no operators in the
area expressed a need for additional water. This approach
has been successful in other areas with threefold benefits
in that the aquifer is reclaimed, the contaminated water is
used beneficially, and fresh water that might have been used
for water flooding becomes available for other uses. Blend-
ing the contaminated water with fresh water for irrigation
purposes was ruled out, as was desalination, which carried a
price tag of $2,000,000.
Deep-well disposal, pumping the shallow salty water out and
injecting it into a deeper zone containing saline water, is
technically feasible and several different systems were eval-
uated. Cost estimates for them ranged from $290,000 to
$450,000.
In summary, rehabilitation of the contaminated aquifer is
technically possible. The most economic and practical meth-
ods are pumping into the Red River and deep-well disposal.
The report concludes, however, that none of the methods are
economically justified at this time.
Oklahoma - 10)
During a recently completed investigation, two areas of wide-
spread salt-water contamination were delineated in the Cimar-
ron Terrace region in northwestern Oklahoma. The terrace ex-
tends some 110 mi (177 km) along the north side of the Cimar-
ron River, ranging in width from one to 15 mi (1.6 to 24 km),
and is up to 80 ft (24 m) thick. Many towns, an increasing
number of irrigated farms, and thousands of households de-
pend upon the terrace aquifers for their water supply.
Two major sources of sodium chloride are found in the study
310
-------
area. One is natural salt (halite) deposited as lenses in a
shale formation which outcrops in part of the area. Al-
though most of the lenses within 600 ft (183 m) of the sur-
face have been dissolved by percolating ground water, salt
deposits still exist, e.g., the Little and Big Salt Plains
at the northwestern end of the terrace. The Cimarron River
acquires most of its salt load while flowing through this
area. High sulfate, also common to the river water, is de-
rived from gypsum which overlies the shale.
The second source of sodium chloride is oil and gas explora-
tion and production activities. Many%complaints (about 370
by residents of 26 townships) have been filed with the Okla-
homa Corporation Commission, the state's oil and gas regula-
tory agency. The bulk of the complaints originates where
oil and gas production takes place and where ground water is
more intensively developed.
In the past, the salt water from oil and gas production in
the area was disposed of in pits. Some were properly con-
structed in impervious material or were lined. Others were
dug into permeable terrace sands, which permitted ready per-
colation of discarded brines to the aquifer.
A great number of pits were in use in the study area between
1930 and 1950 when oil production was at its peak and brine
disposal was generally uncontrolled. These pits are be-
lieved to be the source of most of the salt-water contamina-
tion in the terrace. In an area of more than 9 sq mi (23 sq
km) southeast of the town of Crescent, ground water, which
was once fresh, is now no longer fit for human consumption.
Other occurrences are much less extensive. Newer oil and
gas fields have caused fewer complaints because more precau-
tions are being taken to prevent contamination. However, it
is worth noting that although unlined oil-field brine pits
are now prohibited in Oklahoma, several were observed during
the course of the investigation.
Salt-water contamination in the terrace deposits was deline-
ated by data review, test drilling, water sampling and anal-
ysis, and surface resistivity methods. Sodium/chloride ra-
tios of water samples were used to identify the source of
contamination. It was found that residual chloride was be-
ing flushed out of the terrace into the Cimarron River by
natural ground-water flow. The study concluded that, assum-
ing future ground-water withdrawals do not significantly
change the ground-water gradient, approximately 100 years
will be required before the salt water is completely flushed
out of the aquifer.
311
-------
Ohio - 11)
In Morrow and Delaware Counties, projects were conducted in
two areas to study the effects of ground-water contamination
caused by brine disposal in evaporation pits. The investiga-
tion focused on determining the source, concentration, areal
extent, and probable future movement of the contaminants.
Emphasis was placed on detection methods, and electric re-
sistivity was found to be a quite effective monitoring tool
in both areas.
In 1961, an oil well was successfully completed in Morrow
County, and within the next three years over 2,000 were
drilled, more than 600 of which became producers. The
amount of crude oil extracted was greater than 25 million
bbl (4 million cu m), and it has been estimated that nearly
as much brine was also produced and disposed of, for the
most part through evaporation pits. In Morrow County there
were numerous pits; in Delaware County there were only a
few.
Ground-water contamination was first noted in Morrow County
in 1964 when the village of Cardington was forced to abandon
its municipal well because of an influx of contaminants that
most likely originated from an evaporation pit less than 150
ft (46 m) from the well. The total number of wells in the
county affected by brines was not precisely determined. Six
wells used for potable water supplies were found to have an
average chloride concentration of greater than 250 ppm over
a 2-year period.
The areal extent of contamination in Morrow County was large,
totaling about 13 sq mi (34 sq km), although only four areas
were located where contamination levels exceeded U. S. Pub-
lic Health Service drinking water standards.
In Delaware County, ground water at one site near several
disposal pits became extremely contaminated. At times chlo-
ride concentrations in the ground water exceeded those of
the brines. Because of the geologic and hydrologic condi-
tions of the site, contamination was confined to some 20
acres (8.1 ha) along the Olentangy River. Stream pollution
was significant, and it was established that several tons of
chloride daily entered the Olentangy River from ground-water
discharge. The chloride became appreciably diluted down-
stream, and no public health problem had occurred or was ex-
pected to occur.
The potential for contamination of ground and surface waters
by oil-field brines was finally recognized by authorities.
312
-------
At present, under new laws and regulations enforced by the
Ohio Division of Oil and Gas, the only legal method of dis-
posal is through injection wells. Unfortunately, .it will be
tens of years before brine-polluted aquifers in the two
areas are flushed out.
Texas - 12)
Complaints of ground-water contamination have been reported
in northwestern Garza County since 1956. In 1962, the Texas
Water Commission (now the Texas Water Development Board) in-
vestigated the situation.
About 140 sq mi (363 sq km) in the western part of Garza
County are within the southern High Plains of Texas. In the
county, oil production and agriculture provide the principal
sources of income. Most of the cultivated land is found in
the Plains' area where about 37,000 acres (15,000 ha) pro-
duce principally cotton and grain sorghums. Some 20,000 of
those acres are irrigated with ground water.
The Ogallala Formation is the principal aquifer in western
Garza County and furnishes practically all of the water used
for irrigation. However, it contains only a moderate quan-
tity of water and withdrawals of ground water exceed replen-
ishment. It was estimated in 1963 that only 200,000 to
250,000 acre-ft (0.24 to 0.30 cu km) of water remain in stor-
age in the aquifer in the county, of which only a portion is
economically recoverable for irrigation. The water table
has been lowered as much as 35 ft (11 m) locally, and virtu-
ally all natural discharge has ceased.
During the Texas Water Commission's investigation, water sam-
ples from 41 wells were collected and analyzed. It was
found that 18 wells (12 irrigation and 6 domestic) were con-
taminated. Brine disposal in open pits was primarily respon-
sible. Because of the almost total lack of natural dis-
charge in the area, the contaminant cannot be removed from
the aquifer except by pumpage, and additional supply wells
will probably be affected.
Precise calculation of the environmental impact of brine dis-
posal on this area is not possible. More than 400 volumes
of fresh water are required to dilute one volume of brine so
that the resultant chloride concentration is 250 ppm. Dur-
ing a one-year period, 100,000 bbl (16,000 cu m) of brine
may have entered the aquifer; more than 5,000 acre-ft (0.01
cu km) of fresh water would be required to dilute that
amount. A large portion of the available fresh water left
in storage in the aquifer might be required for dilution of
313
-------
the total volume of brine which has entered the aquifer over
the years.
The preceding case histories, only four out of the multitude
that exist, provide some insight into how much damage im-
proper brine disposal practices have done to aquifers.
(Areas are measured in square miles, time required for natu-
ral rehabilitation ranges from tens to hundreds of years,
and economic losses can amount to millions of dollars.)
In 1966, some 100 specialists^of the Texas Railroad Commis-
sion investigated over 23,000'cases of surface-water and
ground-water contamination caused by oil-field brines.
Other states that produce large amounts of oil (and brine)
might similarly be expected to have a large number of prob-
lems. On a nationwide basis, only in those areas where
ground water has been developed would ground-water contamina-
tion likely be noted. There are many other areas where sur-
face-pit disposal of brine has taken place and aquifers have
been contaminated, but lack of ground-water development pre-
cludes knowledge of the situation.
Looking into the future, one can expect a continuing de-
crease in the total amount of brine that reaches aquifers
from unlined disposal pits as widespread regulations pro-
hibit them. However, lined pits, secondary recovery and dis-
posal wells, and abandoned wells and test holes not properly
plugged, all of which can leak, will continue to contaminate
fresh water. The existence of already contaminated aquifers
will appear as a more and more critical problem as the de-
mand for water supplies increases and wells are drilled in
previously undeveloped areas.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Two very effective methods that exist for brine disposal, ex-
cluding use for chemical recovery which would presuppose
that no residual wastes remain, are lined evaporation pits
and injection wells. With proper siting, design, construc-
tion, and monitoring, these methods virtually assure that no
ground-water contamination will take place.
Imperviously lined pits must be situated in areas where evap-
oration rates exceed precipitation rates, otherwise the pit
will eventually fill up and overflow. In some areas, the
pits must be deep enough to avoid overflow in 'the event of
abnormally heavy rainfall. For efficient operation of the
system, the brine or water surface must be free of oil,
which retards evaporation. Under some conditions, one gal.
314
-------
(3.8 litres) of oil can cover a 25-acre (10-ha) water body.
14) Spraying can be employed to increase evaporation rates.
The residue in evaporation pits is a salt bed which, as long
as the liner remains intact, has no potential to contaminate.
If the bottom of the pit is always above the water table and
the salt has dried out and been sealed over, the condition
of the liner is of little concern. Water cannot reach the
salt, dissolve it, and percolate downward to contaminate an
aquifer.
A more universally applicable method is disposal into deep
formations by means of injection wells. The receiving zone
may be at a greater or lesser depth than the producing forma-
tion. If brines are reinjected into the producing zone,
secondary recovery of oil may be possible, putting the brine
to beneficial use.
The desirable characteristics for a waste injection forma-
tion are: an injection zone with adequate permeability and
thickness; an areal extent sufficient to provide storage at
safe injection pressures; and sufficiently impermeable over-
lying layers separating it from fresh-water zones. 14) Thus,
geological factors impose a considerable influence on brine
disposal wells. In some areas, formations are found that
are perfectly suited as injection horizons.
In Kansas, the Arbuckle Formation, a siliceous limestone,
takes immense volumes of water by gravity feed, and no injec-
tion pressure is needed. 15) on the other hand, some forma-
tions take little water even under extremely high injection
pressures.
A major problem associated with this method of disposal is
natural plugging of the well and formation commonly caused
by solids, oil, muds, salt precipitates, sulfur and bacteria
in the brine. 15) Corrosive products from the injection sys-
tem may also contribute. In order to minimize plugging, the
brines must usually be treated to make them compatible with
the receiving formation, even where fluids are reinjected in-
to the same formation, because chemical changes can occur be-
tween production and injection. Both open and closed dispos-
al systems are in general use. In the open system, oxygen
contact is prevented, but pressure and temperature varia-
tions which take place when the fluid is brought to the sur-
face can alter its chemistry. However, with the closed sys-
tem, the only treatment often needed is removal of oil and
suspended solids and on occasion, the addition of biocides
to prevent bacterial clogging of the formation. For the
open system, treatment generally entails the removal of dis-
solved gases, suspended solids, some dissolved substances,
315
-------
and the addition of biocides.
The capacity of an injection well will likely still decrease
with time despite treatment, and certain remedial measures
can be taken to increase capacity. These measures include
acidizing, hydraulic fracturing, backwashing, and the use of
chlorine and other chemicals. 14)
Proper siting, design, and construction of injection wells
are necessary for protection of aquifers. In addition, mon-
itoring is needed to detect accidental discharge of brine to
fresh-water zones through leaky casing. Injection pressure
at the well head is a good indicator because sudden declines
may indicate ruptured casing. When a significant pressure
decrease is noted, the well can be examined and tested to de-
termine the reason for change. Repairs, if needed, are made
as soon as possible if the operator is conscientiousf keep-
ing the amount of brine escaping to a minimum.
The use of brine injection wells is widespread and will in-
crease as regulations prohibiting other methods of disposal
are promulgated and enforced. Currently, most of the wells
inject brine for secondary recovery purposes rather than for
disposal only. For example, in Texas, 27,749 wells were
used for secondary recovery and 3,759 for disposal in 1974.
16) For California, the figures were 11,700 and 390, re-
spectively. 3) There are probably 50,000 to 60,000 or more
wells in the nation presently injecting brine.
The cost factors involved in conversion from other disposal
methods to the use of injection wells are extremely variable.
Abandoned oil and gas wells or exploratory holes that tap
permeable formations and are located near the site of brine
production can often be used. In this instance, expenses
are very low, assuming that only minor treatment is needed,
few well modifications are made, and only low injection pres-
sures are required. At the other extreme, the capital expen-
ditures and operating costs, related to newly drilled wells
at great distances from the production wells with construc-
tion of lengthy pipelines and including extensive treatment
and high pressure injection, can be prohibitive. Under mod-
erate conditions, with some pre-injection treatment and
amortization of the initial capital investment, disposal
costs run from one to 2 cents per barrel. 15)
Because of the many inconsistencies associated with deep-
well disposal, computer programs have been developed to pre-
dict relationships between physical conditions and injection
costs, knowing input variables. One of the programs was
formulated by Haynes and Grubbs, 17) and although keyed to
316
-------
costs dictated by the geology of Alabama, it is applicable
to any area by modification of tables pertaining to drilling
costs.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
In those states that have oil and gas production, measures
to prevent ground- and surface-water contamination are an in-
tegral part of the law administered by the state oil and gas
regulatory agency. Enactment of oil and gas laws has been
primarily motivated by recognition of oil and gas producers
of the need for orderly development pf oil fields in order
to prevent waste of the resource and to stop economic losses
that result from unregulated competition. However, such
laws reveal an awareness of the close relationship of petro-
leum activities to ground-water resources. They contain
general and specific provisions prohibiting contamination of
water, some of which are discussed herein. A summary of
pertinent regulations can be found in a bulletin put out by
the American Petroleum Institute. 18)
To generalize ,^_in_almost ._e_very state^._disposal_tg_ streams,
Drivers, ditches^ajid—unlined pits is prohibited. Many states
allovT use of lined evaporation pits and most permit the use
of brine injection wells. As mentioned previously, Arkansas
encourages disposal wells through tax incentives.
It appears that Pennsylvania is the only state allowing dis-
charge of brines to streams and rivers as an approved method
of disposal. (It does require that all oils and residues
are removed from the brine prior to discharge.) The logic
behind condoning discharge in this manner is that many
streams have sufficient dilutive capacity so that serious
water-quality degradation does not occur.
One might argue that deep-well disposal would still be pre-
ferable to stream discharge in Pennsylvania. However, the
situation here is somewhat unusual. In the northwestern
part of the state, where oil and gas have been extensively
developed, there are thousands of abandoned wells and test
holes, few of which have been properly plugged. It is felt
that injection would force brine up these conduits, to flow
out on the land surface or to contaminate shallow aquifers.
19) The brine would be at full strength and possibly con-
tain residual oil. Furthermore, its control might take
years, during which damage would occur.
A survey made by the Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC)
found that all but a few states require installation of sur-
face casing to protect all known fresh-water aquifers pene-
317
-------
trated by oil- and gas-drilling operations, and this casing
must be cemented to the surface. J-) (Cement is placed in
the space between the outside of the casing and the sides of
the bore hole to prevent fluids or gases from moving up or
down outside the casing.) This type of regulation applies
to wells used for exploration, production, disposal of waste,
and secondary recovery.
According to the IOCC survey, most states require that tests
be conducted to determine the adequacy of the cement job; a
minority require that such tests be witnessed by state in-
spectors. 1)
Nearly all states insist that when the well is abandoned, a
cement plug be emplaced, starting at the bottom of the sur-
face pipe. The typical length of such a plug is 50 ft (15 m)
but Florida requires a 200 ft (60 m) plug. 1) Almost all
states also stipulate that a cement plug is to be set at the
top of the surface pipe. Regulations usually require noti-
fication of intent to abandon a well, so that the administer-
ing agency may give instructions for plugging.
States generally allow use of earthen pits or lagoons for
storage or disposal of brine produced in connection with oil
or gas; however, some of these states severely restrict
.their use. Those that allow pits may require that they be
impermeable, or that they be used only in limited situations,
i or that they not be used at all where they might cause con-
!tamination.
For typical examples of the various types of restrictions
and controls, the following state regulation summaries are
presented. Colorado has a detailed regulation on retention
pits for the storage of produced water: 18)
"Pits shall be kept free of surface accumulations
of oil;
Each operator shall file an Affidavit of Condition
of Operator's Retaining Pits on the 10th day of
each month;
If the waters to be contained in any retaining pit
are of such salt, brackish or other quality as to
cause pollution if they were to reach other waters
of the state, the pit shall be constructed, main-
tained and operated so as to prevent any surface
discharge that directly or indirectly may reach
the waters of the state and also lined so as to
prevent seepage where the underlying soil condi-
318
-------
tions are such as to permit such seepage reaching
subsurface fresh waters."
The regulation then states that no statewide rule governing
construction and lining of pits is adopted due to the vary-
ing conditions that may be encountered, but that early plan-
ning for non-contaminating disposal must be inaugurated.
Almost all states have a system of inspection or monitoring
of injection wells or other disposal systems. D These reg-
ulations usually require only periodic reports by the oper-
ator, and only annual inspections by the administering
agency.
On a nationwide basis , it appears that most states now have
adequate regulations to protect ground water from contamina-
tion as a result of oil and gas exploration and production
activities; some states do need better regulations.
__ is not dearth of regulations
'but ~iac:ic oF~enf nfcQigent . An example is Oklahoma where un-
lined pits are prohibited, but several were noted during a
recently completed investigation described earlier. H) Con-
versely, with the exception of a few special cases, there
has been no reported contamination of ground water from oil
wells, gas wells and dry holes drilled in Michigan since
1925. 20) The degree of enforcement from state to state is
difficult to assess.
In most instances , less than strict enforcement is a result
of limited funds and manpower available to the regulatory
agency. Also, because the oil and gas industry is usually
treated as a separate entity which has its own regulatory
group, more than one agency is faced with the related ground-
water problems. This overlap makes coordination difficult,
and every effort should be exercised at the state level to
eliminate the ambiguity of authority among state agencies.
319
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Interstate Oil Compact Commission. No date. Water
problems associated with oil production in the United
States. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 88 pp.
2. United States Water Resources Council. 1968. The na-
tion's water -resources. Washington, D. C. Page 3-2-8.
3. Division of Oil and Gas., 1975. Personal communication.
Sacramento, California.
4. American Petroleum Institute. 1975. Annual statisti-
cal review. American Petroleum Institute. Washington,
D. C. 79 pp.
5. Latta, B. F. 1963. Fresh water pollution hazards re-
lated to the petroleum industry in Kansas. Transac-
tions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 6., No. 1,
Pages 25-33.
6. State Water Resources Control Board. 1975. News and
Views. VI(2):6. Sacramento, California.
7. Grain, L. J. 1969. Ground-water pollution from natu-
ral gas and oil production in New York. State of New
York Conservation Department, Water Resources Division,
Report of Investigation RI-5. Albany, New York. p. 10.
8. Fryberger, J. S. 1972. Rehabilitation of a brine-
polluted aquifer. EPA-R2-72-014, Office of Research
and Monitoring, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. 61 pp.
9. Collins, A. G. 1970. Finding profits in oil-well
waste waters. Chemical Engineering, September 21, 1970,
Pages 165-168.
10. Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1975. Salt water de-
tection in the Cimarron Terrace, Oklahoma. EPA-660/3-
74-033, National Environmental Research Center, Office
of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 166 pp.
11. Lehr, J. H. 1969. A study of ground water contamina-
tion due to saline water disposal in the Morrow County
oil fields. Research Project Completion Report, Water
Resources Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
81 pp.
320
-------
12. Burnett, S. C., and R. L. Crouch. 1964. Investigation
of ground-water contamination, P.H.D., Hackberry, and
Storie oil fields, Garza County, Texas. Texas Water
Commission, Austin, Texas. 77 pp.
13. Anon. 1967. Crack down on oil field pollution.
Petroleum Engineer. July 1967. Pages 33-36.
14. Reid, G. W., and others. 1974. Brine disposal treat-
ment practices relating to the oil production industry.
EPA-660/2-74-037, Office of Research and Development,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
175 pp.
15. Reid, G. W., and L. E. Streebin. 1972. Evaluation of
wastes from petroleum and coal processing. EPA-R2-72-
001, Office of Research and Monitoring, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 205 pp.
16. Texas Railroad Commission. 1975. Personal communica-
tion. Austin, Texas.
17. Haynes, C. D., and D. M. Grubbs. 1969. Design and
cost of liquid-waste disposal systems. Report 692,
Natural Resources Center, University of Alabama, Uni-
versity, Alabama. 90 pp.
18. American Petroleum Institute. 1975. Environmental
protection laws and regulations related to exploration,
drilling, production, and gas processing plant opera-
tions. API Bulletin D18, first edition. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D. C. 319 pp.
19. Water Quality Management Board. 1975. Personal com-
munication. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
20. Eddy, G. E. 1965. The effectiveness of Michigan's oil
and gas conservation law in preventing pollution of the
state's ground water. Ground Water, Vol. 3, No. 2.
Pages 35-36.
321
-------
SECTION XII
DISPOSAL OF MINE WASTES
SUMMARY
All forms of mining can result in products and conditions
that may contribute to ground-water contamination. The pat-
terns of ground-water rech- ?o and movement responsib"1,-• for
the distribution of contaminants are highly variable and al-
most entirely dependent upon the mining practice itself and
such local conditions as geology, drainage, and hydrology.
Although every mine is a potential contamination hazard, few
studies of the effects on ground-water quality have been car-
ried out.
With both surface and underground mining, refuse piles and
slurry lagoons are probably the major potential sources of
ground-water contamination. Where aquifers underlie these
sources, water with a low pH (except in arid regions) and an
elevated level of total dissolved solids can percolate to
ground water.
Coal mining is a major industry in the United States. In
1973, 592 million tons (537 million tonnes) of bituminous
coal product were produced. Another 108 million tons (98
million tonnes) were rejected from the preparation plants.
Between 1930 and 1971, almost 200,000 acres (81,000 ha) were
used for disposal of coal mining wastes, less than 27,000
acres (11,000 ha) of which have been reclaimed. Past sur-
face mining has affected 1.3 million acres (0.5 million ha)
of land, and.about 4,900 active mines were disturbing 75,000
acres (30,000 ha) annually.
According to the U. S. Census Bureau figures, five states --
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky
— each have coal mining operations which discharged more
than 5 billion gal. (19 million cu m) of waste water in 1972,
Other states discharging high volumes of waste water are
Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia.
Metal mining in the United States has also been substantial,
and in 1972 the number of active mines producing crude metal
ore was about 800. The quantity of tailings disposed of in
ponds by the metal mining industry alone is estimated at 250
million tons (230 million tonnes) per year. Phosphate rock
mines dominate the non-metal category and produced over 137
million tons (124 million tonnes) of crude ore and 426 mil-
lion tons (387 million tonnes) of total material handled.
322
-------
Procedures for the abatement of ground-water contamination
from mining waste disposal practices can be divided into two
broad categories. The first consists of methods for control
of seepage and infiltration of surface water and ground wa-
ter into the mine. The second is treatment to reduce levels
of contaminants in the waste. All are very costly processes
and have not been practiced to any significant degree.
Most states must rely on all-encompassing water pollution
control statutes in order to regulate disposal of mine
wastes. There are Federal regulations,which pertain solely
to the disposal of coal mine wastes. However, these focus
primarily on worker safety and have little mention of water
pollution, especially as related to ground water.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE
Two subcategories are discussed in this section: the coal
mining industry and other mineral mining industries. A dis-
tinction is also made between surface and underground mining
waste disposal practices.
Coal has recently received renewed interest as a major en-
ergy source; a development that promises to continue. Al-
though most of the world's major coal fields have been dis-
covered, the total reserve has not been fully determined.
It is estimated to be approximately 6 trillion tons (5.5
trillion tonnes), approximately one-third to one-half of
which is located in the United States. In 1973, over 592
million tons (537 million tonnes) of bituminous coal were
mined in this country, about half by surface mining methods.
1,2,3)
Domestic mining for metallic and nonmetallic minerals (ex-
cluding organic fuels) was a $10 billion industry in 1974.
All 50 states have such operations. In 1972, over 15,000
mines were producing crude ore. Of this total, clay mines
numbered 1,398; sand and gravel operations, 7,110; crushed
and broken stone operations, 4,716; dimension stone opera-
tions, 478; other nonmetal mines, 507; and metal mines,
792. 4)
While the problems generated by surface and underground min-
ing techniques are somewhat different, waste disposal from
both methods poses a potential threat to ground-water qual-
ity. Although there is no single waste-disposal practice
common to all forms of mining, the various elements of the
mining process produce products and conditions which may con-
tribute to ground-water contamination. The patterns of
ground-water recharge and movement which are responsible for
323
-------
the distribution of contaminants in the ground-water system
are highly variable and almost entirely dependent upon the
mining practice and such local conditions as geology, drain-
age, and hydrology.
Certain general waste disposal techniques are widely used by
the mining industry. Liquid and slurry wastes are disposed
of in a variety of ways, including tailing ponds, sumps and
lagoons, injection wells, land application, and discharge to
surface water. Solid wastes are commonly left in piles near
the mine.
Tailing Ponds, Lagoons, and Sumps
Liquid waste disposal to surface depressions is very common
in the mining industry. These surface depressions are
called tailing ponds, sumps, or lagoons, depending upon
whether they serve as collection points for process waste
water, mine drainage, or waste water from support facilities.
Nevertheless, the basic functions of these structures (here-
after collectively termed pond) are very similar. Waste flu-
ids are pumped or drained to the pond via pipeline or drain-
age ditch. The suspended solids then settle to the floor of
the pond, and the remaining portion (effluent) is either
used industrially, discharged into local surface water, or
spread on the land surface. As the solids settle out, the
pond fills with sediment and is either abandoned or dredged
out to create new storage space.
The ponds are located in natural depressions or excavated
from native soil; perimeter dikes are constructed of mine
waste rock, alluvial sand and gravel, clay, or other fill
material. Seepage is the most prevalent source of ground-
water contamination from ponded waste. Disposal ponds often
contain fluid with a high concentration of contaminants such
as nitrate, chloride, heavy metals, and radioactive sub-
stances. The ponds are constructed in the unsaturated zone
and if unlined, as is common practice, seepage of the ponded
fluid will occur. Some, but not all, of the contaminants
are retained in the unsaturated zone; the remaining contam-
inants migrate into the ground-water system.
Other problems are pond overflow and dike leakage, both of
which can recharge a local aquifer with contaminated water.
Also, many of the procedures for completing a fully sedi-
mented pond, prior to abandonment, do not decrease the poten-
tial for continuing contamination. These facilities are of-
ten insufficiently covered by waste rock or soil, or not
covered at all, and rainfall passing through the highly con-
centrated contaminants in the pond, and then percolating to
324
-------
the water table, can contaminate ground water.
Injection Wells
The disposal of liquid wastes through injection wells is oc-
casionally practiced by the mining industry. Injection-well
disposal is employed when waste fluids are too toxic to meet
quality standards for discharge into surface water and treat-
ment is not selected as a viable alternative. Means through
which such wells can contaminate are discussed in another
section of this report.
Direct Application to Ground Surface
At many surface and underground mines, a large portion of
the waste water and drainage is allowed to flow over the
land surface and infiltrate into the ground-water system.
The severity of contamination by this process is largely de-
termined by geologic and hydrologic conditions and the na-
ture of the waste.
Discharge into Surface Water
Direct discharge of liquid waste to surface water is a very
common practice of the mining industry. Although the waste
is disposed of directly into a surface-water body, signifi-
cant ground-water contamination can result when the surface
water is a source of recharge to an aquifer.
Spoil and Tailing Piles
Spoil and tailing piles result from disposal of solid wastes
generated by mining activities. Spoil piles are composed of
overburden from surface mining and waste rock from under-
ground mining. Tailing piles are solid wastes from the on-
site processing operations of cleaning and concentrating ore.
With certain surface-mining techniques, spoil is used to re-
claim the mine immediately following complete extraction of
the ore. However, for the most part, spoil and tailing
piles become permanent features of the landscape.
The source of ground-water contamination from these waste
piles is the leachate produced when rainfall or runoff, per-
colating downward through the uncovered pile, dissolves vari-
ous contaminants present in the waste. The contaminated wa-
ter then percolates through the unsaturated layer beneath
the pile and reaches the water table.
325
-------
Dewatering Activities
Mine-dewatering activities, including both pumping and drain-
age, may cause artificial lowering of ground-water levels.
Upon completion of mining, dewatering would be discontinued,
allowing the mines to refill with water, and portions of the
aquifer which were depleted might be replenished with water
of poor quality.
*
In addition to these waste disposal practices, various min-
ing techniques contribute to^the ground-water contamination
problem. These techniques are peculiar to either surface or
underground mining methods.
Surface Mining
The practice in some regions of stripping ore in the vicin-
ity of the outcrop and continuing the operation underground
as the seam becomes progressively deeper, provides a path
for contaminated water to reach aquifers. Although some
restoration of surface mine districts can be accomplished by
backfilling and grading, these actions do not insure protec-
tion of ground-water quality. Drainage can move selectively
through the backfill material where it is more permeable
than the mother rock.
Underground Mining
Contamination mechanisms characteristic of underground min-
ing are as follows:
1. Mine tunnels and shafts can affect the rates and quanti-
ties of ground-water movement. Also, the fracture of
rock by explosives increases its permeability. These
changes can create pathways for the movement of contami-
nants into the ground-water system.
2. Unplugged wells and test borings which pass through the
underground mine workings can interconnect high water-
quality aquifers with those containing poor quality wa-
ter. The same holds true when well casings fail due to
corrosion by acid mine water.
3. Bodies of highly mineralized ground water occur natural-
ly at depth beneath large portions of the Appalachian
coal belt and the mid-continent region. T'he removal of
substantial quantities of water during dewatering can
lower the hydrostatic head in the shallow zones to an
extent that upwelling of the deeper mineralized water
takes place, contaminating shallow potable water aqui-
326
-------
f ers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
The principal ground-water contaminants from mine waste are
acidity, dissolved solids, metals, radioactive materials,
color, and turbidity. While many of the contaminants are
not toxic, they can be present at levels in excess of U. S.
Public Health Service and EPA drinking water standards. 5)
The most prevalent contamination problem associated with
coal mining is the formation and discharge of large volumes
of acid. Acid formation will occur when precipitation
brings water into contact with pyrites (metallic sulfide).
The exposure of pyritic minerals to air and water results in
their oxidation to form sulfuric acid. Beyond the basic
chemical relationship between pyrites, oxygen, and water, it
is suspected that the acid formation may be influenced by
complex biochemical reactions involving one or more types of
bacteria. 6) Although not completely dependent upon acidity,
the solubility of metals varies with pH, and acidic runoff
and seepage may contain high metal ion concentrations.
The oxidation of pyrite in the presence of water results in
generation of both sulfuric acid and ferrous sulfate. The
sulfate levels in coal mine drainage and in the receiving
aquifers may be as high as several thousand ppm and are
quite commonly in excess of the recommended limit of 250 ppm.
This limit has been set for reasons of taste; water contain-
ing higher concentrations can be safely consumed although
certain sulfate salts function as laxatives. 5)
Following the initial oxidation of pyrite and the production
of ferrous sulfate, subsequent oxidation will normally pro-
duce a ferric sulfate. The end result is the release, in as-
sociated aquifers, of substantial quantities of iron at con-
centrations in excess of the recommended limit of 0.3 ppm. 5)
Iron at this level is not harmful to health, but it tends to
impair taste and discolor water under certain conditions.
Precipitates of iron and related iron bacterial colonies can
clog plumbing, water transmission lines and water-supply
wells. High levels of dissolved iron are commonly noted in
ground water that has been contaminated from coal mining ac-
tivities.
Acid dissolves many minerals, producing soluble salt solu-
tions. In this way, the dissolved solids concentration can
become quite high. Metals frequently associated with metal-
lic ore deposits such as copper, zinc, cadmium, and manga-
nese also are dissolved by acid mine drainage. The combina-
327
-------
tion of acidity, high dissolved solids concentration, and
metals makes the presence of the acid mine water very unde-
sirable in either surface or ground water.
In regions where mining proceeds in alkaline rocks, such as
limestone, dissolution of the rock may produce water with a
high pH. Basic mine water has a relatively low complement
of heavy metals because most form insoluble salts under con-
ditions of high pH. However, the water can still be highly
mineralized. Calcium and magnesium ions are frequently
found in significant concentrations, making the water hard.
Although carbon is the most important element found in coal,
as many as 72 other elements have been associated with some
deposits. The ash formed by bituminous coals of West Vir-
ginia consists of about one percent each of sodium, potas-
sium, calcium, aluminum, silica, iron, and titanium. In
addition, 26 metals were present in trace amounts, including
lithium, rubidium, chromium, cobalt, copper, gallium, germa-
nium, lanthanum, nickel, tungsten, and zirconium. 1)
In a recent coal survey, water-quality sampling was carried
out at sites in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and
Indiana. The samples were collected from seeps and points
of direct runoff from coal refuse piles and lagoons. Re-
sults show that the chemistry of the water is quite variable,
but has generally low pH values and relatively high concen-
trations of both sulfate and certain metals. For several
areas, the range of values for selected constituents are sum-
marized below: 3)
pH 2.7 to 7.5
Conductivity 200 to 16,500 umhos/cm
Total Acidity 0 to 34,300 ppm
Sulfate 75 to 40,500 ppm
Sodium 6 to 780 ppm
Magnesium 3.4 to 664 -ppm
Aluminum 1 to 1,014 ppm
Potassium 0.5 to 22 ppm
Calcium 13 to 450 ppm
Manganese 0.01 to 545 ppm
Iron 0.1 to 6,168 ppm
Nickel 0.3 to 1.7 ppm
Copper 0.04 to 0.14 ppm
Zinc 0.2 to 2.8 ppm
Methane and hydrogen sulfide are quite commonly found in the
geologic formations associated with coal as well as in the
various disposal areas; waters in the vicinity of coal
mines may be highly charged with dissolved gases. 7)
328
-------
In many metal mining operations, the ore contains a large
amount of worthless rock that must be separated from the min-
eral before the ore can be smelted or refined. This process
of concentrating the ore, known as beneficiation, is usually
performed at the nearest possible site to the mine to elimi-
nate costly transportation of unwanted rock. The most com-
mon concentrating techniques are flotation and acid separa-
tion.
The waste from concentrating operations, referred to as tail-
ings, can be in solid or liquid form. The solid is composed
of minerals associated with the metallic compound being bene-
ficiated. As an example, the waste from a typical copper
beneficiating operation contains quantities of lead, zinc,
gold, and silver; smaller amounts of arsenic, antimony, bis-
muth, selenium, tellurium, nickel, cobalt, and cadmium; and
trace quantities of germanium, indium, tin, and thallium. 8)
Solid waste from the beneficiation of other metallic ores
contains many of the same substances. Liquid waste from ben-
eficiating operations contains water and acids (usually ni-
tric or sulfuric), in addition to the minerals associated
with the solid tailings. Thus, waste from the concentrating
phase of ore processing contains large quantities of toxic
substances and can be a serious source of ground-water con-
tamination.
Underground and surface uranium mining practices have been
found to greatly increase the concentration of dissolved
radium-226 in ground water. This is believed to be the re-
sult of: (1) exposure and oxidation of the ore body, and
(2) contact of mine drainage water with spilled ore and
wastes within the mine. 9)
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
With the widespread and serious nature of contamination of
rivers and streams caused by all types of mining operations,
especially coal in the Appalachian region, little attention
has been paid to potential and real problems of ground-water
contamination. Also, in the worst areas, where mining has
been active for 100 years or more, degradation of ground-
water quality has become an accepted fact, and aquifers in
the region have been written off as sources of water supply.
Although there has been no single effort to relate the im-
pact of waste disposal practices of the mining industry on
ground-water quality, the potential for ground-water contam-
ination by mining wastes may be estimated indirectly, based
on the quantity of these wastes generated. The total waste
volumes may also be related to the size of the area devoted
329
-------
to waste disposal and the methods used.
Coal
In 1973, 592 million tons (537 million tonnes) of bituminous
coal product were produced in the United States. Another
108 million tons (98 million tonnes) were rejected from the
preparation plants. By 1985, an estimated 1.1 billion tons
(1.0 billion tonnes) of bituminous coal will be produced,
and 200 million tons (182 million tonnes) may be rejected as
waste. Between 1930 and 1971, almost 200,000 acres (81,000
ha) were used for the disposal of coal mining wastes; less
than 27,000 acres (11,000 ha) have been reclaimed. 2)
With regard to the rate of acid production in these coal min-
ing waste piles, it is reported that the average rate of
acid formation at one site in southern Illinois is 198 lb/
acre/day (222 kg/ha/day) of acidity (as CaC03)• 1Q) Acid
production for the reclaimed acreage in the same area was
measured at only 16 Ib/acre/day (18 kg/ha/day). H) These
rates are probably widely representative because climatic
conditions are similar over a majority of the major coal min-
ing regions. Thus, total acid production from coal mine
waste piles could be more than 6 million tons (5.5 million
tonnes) per year. It should be emphasized that this figure
is an estimate only, because other factors such as sulfur
content and form in the coal can control acid production.
There is a lack of published data regarding the impact of
leakage from coal mining waste slurry lagoons on ground-
water quality. From a theoretical analysis of other types
of waste lagoons, presented in other sections of this report,
it can be assumed that the slurry lagoons contribute signifi-
cantly, if not substantially, to the total coal related
ground-water contamination problem.
According to U. S. Census Bureau figures, five states —
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky
— have coal mining and processing operations which dis-
charged more than 5 billion gal. (19 million cu m) of waste
water in 1972. 12) in three additional states — Ohio, In-
diana, and Virginia — data regarding water disposal volumes
were withheld. However, based on other U. S. Census Bureau
figures that are available, the volumes of waste water dis-
charged in these states is assumed to be large. Table 52
shows the states which reported water use by coal mining
establishments, along with the volumes used, volumes dis-
charged, and total number of establishments included in the
U. S. Census Bureau survey. Figure 68 shows the states re-
porting significant water use by coal mining establishments.
330
-------
-Table 52. STATES IN WHICH SIGNIFICANT VOLUMES OF WASTE WATER ARE
DISCHARGED FROM COAL MINING AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS
1972.
State
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Missouri
Kansas
Virginia
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Texas
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Washington
Total (of above)
Actual total
Total water
used including
recirciijation
(billion gal.)
14.4 +D*
D*
D*
24.8
D
D
D*
47.0
9.4
D
6.3
D
D
D
D
1.1
D
93.6
149.3
Total water
discharged
(billion gal.)
28.2
__ *
__*
7.1
0.05
—
__*
20.5
5.3
—
7.4
—
—
—
—
D
— -
68.5
76.9
Total number of
establishments
reporting
water use
69
10
8
30
1
1
18
89
24
1
16
1
2
1
1
4
1
D = Data compiled but not disclosed
— * Data not available
* Substantial volume is probable
331
-------
c
'i
8
o
o
I
.I. Ox
-
* 8.
0) O
"S o>
-o
o c
> o
§
c
O)
£
£
i/i
•
00
o
I
332
-------
In 1974-75, the U. S. Department of the Interior and EPA es-
timated that past surface coal mining activities had affect-
ed 1.3 million acres (0.5 million ha) of land, and that
about 4,900 active mines were disturbing 75,000 acres
(30,000 ha) annually. 13,14,15) jn order to evaluate the im-
pact of these mining activities on the quality of ground wa-
ter on a nationwide basis, and to identify those areas which
are most affected, the United States is subdivided into four
distinct regions where similar geologic and topographic con-
ditions govern the type of mining practice. These regions
are shown on Figure 69.
Estimates of total coal reserves in the United States vary.
However, according to the survey represented on Figure 69,
there are over 1,770 billion tons (1,600 billion tonnes) of
total coal and lignite reserves in the United States with
over 145 billion tons (132 billion tonnes) reported to be
strippable, distributed as follows: 14)
Regions I and II -
Region III
Region IV
5.6 billion tons
(5.1 billion tonnes)
29.2 billion tons
(26.5 billion tonnes)
110.9 billion tons
(100.7 billion tonnes)
Region I -
Region I includes West Virginia, Tennessee, and eastern Ken-
tucky. Total coal production in Region I in 1973 was
230,017,000 tons (208,809,433 tonnes) of which 52,674,113
tons (47,817,560 tonnes) were produced by surface mines.
Mines in the region numbered 965 of which 323 were surface
mines. The bulk of the coal mining in Region I is done in
West Virginia with slightly more than half the 1973 produc-
tion coming from that state. ^''
For the most part, the density of on-site supply wells
throughout this region is light (0 to 10 wells per sq mi) to
moderate (11 to 20 wells per sq mi). This density reflects
the generally rural character of this region. The individ-
ual domestic water-supply well is most likely to be affected
by mine-related contamination sources. Centralized public
supply and industrial wells are more carefully located with
respect to such contamination sources, and are therefore
less likely to be affected.
333
-------
£
oo
•o
.-§
'E
z>
IA
§
|
O
o
£ „•
*• s
^ I
Irt *-
0) *>
Si
£
1
u
£
o
E
cr
«
CO
a.
«
-3
. §
I
z
334
-------
Region II -
Region II includes Pennsylvania, Maryland, Alabama, and
southeastern Ohio, and represents the northern and southern
extremes of the Appalachian coal field. Total coal produc-
tion in Region II in 1973 was reported to be 103,643,000
tons (94,087,115 tonnes) of which 39,735,251 tons
(36,071,661 tonnes) were produced by surface mines. Of 406
mines, 281 were surface mines. Pennsylvania is by far the
most productive state in this region. 14)
The region is mainly rural, with the .exception of some major
urban centers. Most households are served by individual
wells. The density of such development is light (0 to 10
wells per sq mi) although a few areas of moderate (11 to 20
wells per sq mi) to heavy development (21 to 60 wells per sq
mi) are noted in the plateau regions of western Pennsylvania
and eastern Ohio. The portions of this region where ground-
water contamination from coal mining sources would appear to
be most likely are in southwestern Pennsylvania and to a
lesser extent in eastern Ohio.
Region III -
This region includes Illinois, Oklahoma, Indiana, Missouri,
Kansas, Iowa, and western Kentucky. Illinois has the
largest known high volatile bituminous reserves of the na-
tion. Total coal production in Region III in 1973 was re-
ported to be 188,956,164 tons (171,534,406 tonnes), with
118,659,307 tons (107,718,919 tonnes) coming from surface
mines. Of 354 coal mines, 268 were surface facilities. 14)
This region is almost exclusively rural, with the exception
of a few urban centers, and is dependent upon local shallow
aquifers and individual domestic-supply wells for water.
The density of wells is light over all of Region III. There
appear to be several areas in southern Illinois and western
Kentucky where the level of activity is sufficiently high,
in terms of coal production, to be a source of ground-water
contamination. However, for the most part, these areas are
associated with aquifers of low productivity.
Region IV -
Region IV, which includes Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming, contains the potentially
largest coal reserves in the nation, if not. the world. 14)
The reserves that make Region IV so important range from lig-
nite fields in North Dakota and Montana to high volatile bi-
335
-------
tuminous coals in other fields. Mining in this region has
only recently been initiated on a large scale to meet the
growing demand for energy.
Total coal production was reported to be 50,805,378 tons
(46,121,122 tonnes) in 1973, most of which was recovered
from surface mines. The total number of mines in the region
was 52, of which 34 were surface mines. Montana and Wyoming
lead in production with approximately 11 and 15 million tons
(10 and 14 million tonnes), respectively. 14)
Population densities in this region are among the lowest in
the nation. Overall water requirements for domestic uses
are therefore light, although other related demands exist
for such uses as livestock watering and irrigation. The den-
sity of domestic supply wells per square mile is reported to
be less than 10 over the entire region.
Precipitation is low, averaging less than 15 in. (38 cm) in
Region IV, which limits the potential for generation and dis-
tribution of the various soluble contaminants. Although the
water table varies in depth in accordance with local condi-
tions, it probably occurs below the mineable coal formations
in many of the strip-mining districts. In addition, the
coal beds occur at a considerable interval above the major
aquifers, which, for the most part, are overlain by rela-
tively impermeable strata, further retarding significant
vertical movement of water.
Because water is not readily available in this region, it is
likely that measures will be taken to conserve whatever
amounts are available in the vicinity of the mining opera-
tion for use in the processing and cleaning operations.
At this point, it would appear that the significant environ-
mental problem associated with western coal mining which
might influence the quality of ground water is the alkaline
conditions associated with the mine wastes. The high soil
alkalinity values which are normally associated with mine wa-
ter and runoff are reported to inhibit the development of
plant cover on the spoil banks. In the absence of vegeta-
tion, the weathering process is virtually uncontrolled and
alkaline wastes continue to be generated and discharged into
the surrounding environment.
Other Minerals
Excluding clay, sand and gravel, and stone operations, which
are not considered significant ground-water contamination
threats, there were 1,299 active mines in the United States
336
-------
in 1971, 61 percent of which were metal mines. ^) Table 53
shows the number of domestic ore-producing mines by commod-
ity and volume of crude ore production. Table 54 shows the
principal producing states for these commodities. Crude ore
production ranged from a rate of less than one ton (0.9
tonne) per year to over 35 million tons (32 million tonnes)
per year at a Utah copper mine. Seventeen mines produced
over 10 million tons (9.1 million tonnes) of ore each: 7
were copper; 5, iron; 4, phosphate rock; and one molybde-
num. 4)
The 25 leading nonmetal mines, with phosphate rock domi-
nating the list, produced over 137 million tons (124 million
tonnes) of crude ore and 426 million tons (387 million
tonnes) of total material handled. This represented 17 per-
cent of the total material handled at nonmetal mines. 15)
Mining Techniques
Surface mining accounted for 94 percent of crude ore produc-
tion and 96 percent of total material handled in 1972. Un-
derground mining accounted for substantial percentages of
crude ore production in only six states in 1972: Colorado,
36; New Mexico, 33; Missouri, 26; Wyoming, 21; Louisiana,
17; and Tennessee, 16. Eighteen states reported no 1972
underground activity at all. 17)
Various factors contribute to the obvious predominance of
surface mining. The two major advantages of surface mining
that favor its use are the higher percentage of ore recovery
(up to 100 percent in some cases), and the lower unit cost
per ton of recovered ore (due primarily to the smaller
amount of manpower required for extraction processes).
Materials Handled
Producers of metal and nonmetal minerals handled over 4 bil-
lion tons (3.6 billion tonnes) of ore and mine-waste rock in
1972; of this total, just under 1.5 billion tons (1.4 bil-
lion tonnes) were waste rock. Waste rock is by no means the
total waste that must be disposed of by the mining industry.
Mine operations must also dispose of mine waste water, mine
drainage, and waste from support facilities. 4)
The handling of more than 100 million tons (91 million ton-
nes) of mined material was reported by ten states: Arizona,
California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mex-
ico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Arizona and Florida led the
nation in total quantity of material handled and in waste
rock generated. 4)
337
-------
§ 8
1- 0
Z
O
O S?
Z^j
,.
< o
£ £
8 8
U o
i 'o --
5 VI
o §
H-, - 8
>-Tf "O. O
» 55 """*
hfn ' £
^K ^* r^ C5
"~ *~ i=
i/> O _
go 8
S p^ ^«»
— a. ^
fa o
II 2
O u 2.
~o "
Q
Z
_l
m
sw $
y fl
to o
LU ,_
O E
Q =
u. Z
0
g £
Table 53. NU\
Commcdity Me
1 N. 1 t IT) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 •— CO
"
1 CM "^ CM II III «O
^^CO 1 CO ••" ICM'~^'OOCO'^'vO
— CM — — CM O
•— o — o-— corxio •— oo ^ •* 05
•— •— r- •— i ir> •— m
ooiocoor>rxcoo i incMio^-rx
"~ ~~ 2 JM
lOCMO C*»^lO OfxOO^"
ICMCMCM 1 — CO CM 1 «O CO — — -O
CM
C^O ^^ ^3 1^ IO *O ^D ^^ ^3 ^0 ^O ^S lO ^^
c^ oo co co ^^ "xf ^o *^i" ^o ^r ^o 01 &*
CM rx
1
^ fll
il =
-ID. -2" -2
«^ E b 1 g | S 1
IN I'siJiiiJii
5uO iJl^^tS^^NO^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1
— IO CM I—^J-CMOCMCM
CO-00-rxCMlOOOlOlO
hs i-^- i •— CM o «o v> «o
CM —
COCO— CMCM-^CMOOCM
•^•O^IOCM1— O-— lOO-^-
•— co •— -M- CM *o CM —
\n
E
«
,c a> .
J|cS|g_g.| £
338
-------
z °,
< o
5^
Q
o s
5 8^
^ o"
O -
u £
CO £5
-* S-
•— ^" Q-
z^- £8
Z o o
i/> O *~ -
11 1 ^-^ »—
LXJ ^__ *^^
Z^ ^ o
:= U o *•
5 z) 30
_i Q 50
<0 £ "~
H- «:
yj Q-
^5 ^™^
•^ UJ o
~7 Q£ ^^
0°
ZQ o
Q U •"
ZU
< ,, 0
<0 -o
t~ LU •*"
^ Q —
~*J
U t
P Z
H30
0^ s
Q c
NUMBER OF
Number of Mi
TJ »
I 2
1 i
8 ^
5 |
J> E
-0 O
D U
T}- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ft
*O f*> 1 O 1 1 1 1 CM
r- CO
hx^coo* •"• •— CM rx ^t
oo i 10 CM i 10 i m o
"•T CM M3
»— •
O>- 1 *O CO 1 CM "•" CO "I5>'
CO CM CO
— ^ -o i i rx i o co
r- •— >O
lOOOtxO CO lOCOlOfX
IO O CM IO CM O
— to
n di* w
4) c ( J 3 5 "S '~ S
sfi'lil^^r^ii £
-CO3OO o -*r\o
Q- Q_ Q_ CO CO |— >• U J—
IX. "^ ^
"~ £ •— a>
a> E c
E , 2 •
0_ P « JJ
8.- C -Q
£ J^-5
p) c Q *ir
1 D) u. ^
En <*> >
a «u fi
» 1 I "Si
*. wi O c
•5. § "8 £
® -co
^ i- 1A
^j *p 2 c
^ U 0
,o E v, re
C ^ *""• P
IE rx £
o p- *• ^ S.
CM ^ — v °
^ c "" 0)
-§ £ .0 IS
1 1 It
o £• 8 o
E -* o
£
£a> ~°
«0 ° 3 0 o
O "» h te» •—
CM 3 ° O)M-
b r ^ '^
•*? S ° w»
§ o) ^ R
5 ? 'a- ^ ^
E -o m c
'x ^x «2
E" ° « -g
^ 11 ..Nil
c c c «J" *- — i
iili8"1^
•Q. c t p- > c- °
_ £ °* 1^ J s
£ g8l«-.*-2
O C^m(UT3Tr
i- •» ^ « •- S "S 2
1 UIJIJJ
O '5'3' T> ^
339
-------
Table 54. MINERALS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES BY PRINCIPAL
PRODUCING STATES. 4>
Mineral
Principal Producing States in Order of Quan ti ty
Antimony
Aplite
Asbestos
Asphalt (native)
Barite
Bauxite
Beryllium cone.
Boron Minerals
Bromine
Brusite
Calcium-Magnesium
Chloride
Cement
Clays
Cobalt
Copper
Diatomite
Emery
Feldspar
Fluorspar
Garnet (abrasive)
Gold (mine)
Graphite
Gypsum
Iron Ore
Kyanite
Lead
Lime
Lithium Minerals
Magnesite
Magnesium Chloride
Magnesium Compounds
Manganese Ore
Marl greensand
Mercury
Mica, scrap
Mica, sheet
Idaho, Montana, Nevada
Virginia
California, Vermont, Arizona, North Carolina
Texas, Utah, Alabama, Missouri
Missouri, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia
Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia
Utah, South Dakota, Colorado
California
Arkansas, Michigan, California
Nevada
Michigan, California
California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan
Georgia, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada
California, Nevada, Washington, Arizona
New York, Oregon
North Carolina, California, Connecticut, South
Carolina
Illinois, Colorado, Kentucky, Montana
New York, Idaho
South Dakota, Nevada, Utah, Arioona
Texas
Michigan, California, Texas, Iowa
Minnesota, Michigan, California, Missouri
Virginia, Georgia, Florida
Missouri, Idaho, Utah, Colorado
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas
North Carolina, Nevada, California
Nevada
Texas
Michigan, California, Texas, New Jersey
Montana
New Jersey, Maryland
California, Nevada, Texas, Idaho
North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina
North Carolina, Colorado
340
-------
Table 54 (continued). MINERALS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES BY
PRINCIPAL PRODUCING STATES. 4>
Mineral
Principal Producing States in Order of Quantity
Molybdenum
Nickel
Olivine
Perlite
Phosphate Rock
Platinum-Group Metals
Potassium Salts
Pumice
Pyrites Ore and Concen-
trate
Rare Earth Metal Concen-
trates
Salt
Sand and Gravel
Silver
Sodium Carbonate (natural)
Sodium Sulfate (natural)
Staurolite
Stone
Sulfur (Frasch Process)
Talc, Scapstone, Pyrophyl-
lite
Tin
Titanium Concentrate
Tripoly
Tungsten Concentrate
Uranium
Vanadium
Vermiculite
Wollastonite
Zinc(mine)
Zircon Concentrate
Colorado, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico
Oregon
Washington, North Carolina
New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada
Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, North Carolina
Alaska
New Mexico, California, Utah
Arizona, Oregon, California, Hawaii
Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada
California, Georgia
Louisiana, Texas, Ohio, New York
California, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota
Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Colorado
Wyoming, California
California, Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, California
Louisiana, Texas
New York, Texas, Vermont, California
Colorado, Alaska
New York, Florida, New Jersey, Georgia
Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Pennsylvania
California, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada
New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas
Colorado, Arkansas, Idaho, Utah
Montana, South Carolina
New York
Tennessee, New York, Colorado, Maine
Florida, Georgia
341
-------
The mining industry is widespread throughout the United
States. Virtually every mine contaminates ground water
through its waste disposal practices, although the nature
and extent of the contamination differs as a result of the
type of mineral mined, the characteristics of the environ-
ment from which it is extracted, and the methods of waste
disposal.
The most potentially serious ground-water contamination prob-
lems are those related to waste disposal practices at metal
mines. Uranium and some copper mines have unique waste prod-
ucts, due to the nature of the ore or the mining procedure.
An extremely serious problem in all aspects of waste dis-
posal from uranium mining is the presence of high concentra-
tions of dissolved toxic materials such as selenium, molyb-
denum and arsenic, and toxic particulate matter, as well as
radioactive materials.
Several copper deposits are being mined by in-place leaching.
Using this technique, the deposits are first cut by a system
of tunnels, then fractured by explosive or hydraulic methods,
and leached of copper by sulfuric acid introduced through
pipes at the upper part of the deposit. The copper-rich
fluids are withdrawn from the lowest levels of the mine and
pumped to the surface for processing. This method produces
large quantities of highly toxic sulfuric acid, rich in
heavy metals and other contaminants.
Solution mining of uranium ore is becoming increasingly im-
portant in New Mexico and Texas. As with the copper leach-
ing procedures, this technique presents a serious threat to
ground-water quality. Stringent controls to protect ground-
water quality are now in effect in Texas; however, the ef-
ficacy of such controls is presently unknown.
In the mining industry there are numerous processes which
generate wastes disposed of in ponds. In the metals mining
industry, the concentrator tailings are generated by flota-
tion, vat leaching, and cyclone processes; the slurries by
flotation processes; mine water and waste rock by ore exca-
vation; sludges by waste-water treatment; and dusts by
crushing and grinding operations. All of these wastes go to
tailing ponds.
The quantity of concentrator tailings deposited in ponds by
the metals mining industry alone is estimated at 250 million
tons (230 million tonnes) per year. 18) While information
regarding the volume of waste water discharged to ponds by
the mining industry is not available, the U. S. Census Bu-
reau has surveyed the total volume of waste water discharged.
342
-------
Table 55 lists the total volumes of water used and dis-
charged by mining establishments (excluding coal and petro-
leum) . 12) states with significant waste-water discharges
are shown on Figure 70. For some, the volume of discharge
was withheld to protect the rights of individual companies.
However, from other data included in the U. S. Census Bureau
survey, it is possible to determine which of these states
probably has substantial waste-water discharge from mining
operations. These are also shown on Figure 70.
Case Histories
Midwest Region -
Studies began at the New Kathleen Coal Mine in southern Illi-
nois in 1968 to determine the rates of acid production from
a mine refuse pile. 10) The investigation was limited to a
site which occupies an area of approximately 40 acres (16
ha), together with a neighboring slurry lagoon of approxi-
mately 50 acres (20 ha). The site forms part of an aban-
doned coal mining operation, active from 1945 to 1955, which
included the strip mining of a coal seam approximately 110
ft (34 m) below land surface, together with a coal cleaning
and processing operation.
This type of coal mining is common throughout the midwest
and produces two distinct types of solid-waste products.
The first is the coarse refuse, composed of overburden and
soil, which is generally redeposited in the strip pit at the
completion of mining by backfilling. The second and major
waste product, termed "gob," is generated by the coal-
cleaning operations that are performed to remove impurities
from the coal. The fine reject material from the mining
operation is transported in slurry form by pipeline to a la-
goon. The remaining portion, which is composed largely of
coal, intermixed with pyrites, sandstone, clays, and shales,
is normally stored in refuse piles. These studies indicated
that the refuse piles are the major source of contaminated
water.
At the New Kathleen Mine, the refuse pile occupied an area
of 40 acres (16 ha), with a maximum height of 65 ft (20 m)
and a volume of approximately 2 million cu yd (1.5 million
cu m). The investigators examined the weathering profile
of the refuse pile and found that the process of waste-water
formation is largely a near-surface process. Three distinct
zones were noted. The outermost zone, approximately 4 to 10
in. (10 to 50 cm) thick, contained virtually no fine-grained
materials and was relatively permeable and open to the free
circulation of both air and water. The second zone is a
343
-------
Table 55. STATES IN WHICH SIGNIFICANT VOLUMES OF WASTE WATER ARE
DISCHARGED FROM MINING AND ORE PROCESSING OPERATIONS
(EXCLUDING COAL AND PETROLEUM) 1972. after 12)
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
Texas
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
Washington
California
Total
Actual total
Total water
used including
recirculation
(billion gal.)
. D
16.2 + D
12.3
3.3
13.1
161.4 + D
681.0
16.3
18.6+ D
4.9
9.8 + D
D*
D
30.1
394.7 + D
D*
3.6 + D
12.6
8.9
23.2
35.2 + D
5.6
24.5
12.6 + D
35.3 + D
240.8 + D
81.5
38.8
2.9+ D
37.0
1924.2
2307.9
Total water
discharged
(billion gal.)
24
6
5
4
3
15
76
0
7
12
26
D
D*
.4
.5
.7
D*
D*
D*
D*
D
.2
D*
.1
.1
.3 + D
D*
.8
.1
D
.6
.6-
5.0 + D
14
6
8
25
242
861
.2
.9 + D
.4 + D
.3+ D
D*
D*
D
D*
.2
.5
Total number of
establishments
reporting water use
44
43
76
22
22
24
31
29
15
7
21
14
34
15
28
21
8
10
14
10
41
9
9
18
14
25
8
10
9
60
D = Not Disclosed
* = Substantial volume is probable
Note: Billion gallons multiplied by 3.785 equals million cubic meters.
344
-------
litlfilf
£
o
-o
o
D)
C
*c
o
it-
IS
8.
0 0
" CD
0) C
-6 *
o „,
SI
= 1
0
"
.« O)
c: c
^n O
j: 2
_c
c
£
£
i/>
•
R
£
3
O)
345
-------
clean layer of clay, approximately one in. (2.5 cm) thick,
thought to have been compacted by rain action. This may be
a zone of accumulation for portions of the clay fraction, as
well as certain precipitates. It appears to serve as a par-
tial barrier to both the circulation of air and water, al-
though a detailed examination revealed numerous discontinu-
ities which would permit the entry of water into the main
body of the refuse pile. The third zone is essentially un-
weathered material extending into the interior of the pile.
It was concluded that the bulk of the acid production from
this refuse pile occurs in the outermost layer, which is sub-
ject to rapid erosion. As a result, fresh pyrite continues
to be exposed, providing a source for ongoing production of
sulfuric acid. The near-surface deposits create relatively
inhospitable soil conditions which hamper the establishment
of vegetation, without which weathering and erosion proc-
esses are virtually uncontrolled.
Between rains, pyrite oxidation proceeds at a relatively
modest but constant rate, with the acid products accumu-
lating in the outer reactive mantle. When precipitation oc-
curs, approximately 54 percent of the rainfall appears immed-
iately as acidic runoff, while the remainder either infil-
trates into the interior of the pile, later reappearing as
seepage, or eventually returns to the atmosphere by evapora-
tion. The average rate of acid formation was found to be
198 Ib/acre/day (222 kg/ha/day) of acidity (as CaC03).
In the Phase II report on the control of mine drainage for
the New Kathleen Mine in southern Illinois, the authors dis-
cuss the results of various field experiments in connection
with the control of mine drainage. 11) Studies were con-
ducted where various abatement techniques were employed un-
der different field conditions. The results were carefully
evaluated. The study provides excellent background data on
the various aspects of mine drainage contamination, includ-
ing the results and costs of abatement techniques. These ex-
periences could probably be applied to other mining dis-
tricts in the midwest.
The major finding of the study was that the acid runoff from
the refuse piles could be controlled by covering the wastes
with soil, establishing a vegetative cover/ and providing
adequate drainage to minimize erosion. No significant dif-
ferences were noted in the rates of acid formation from in-
dividual test plots covered with 1, 2, or 3 ft (0.3, 0.6, or
0.9 m) of top soil. The average rate of acid formation for
the entire restored refuse pile was estimated at 16 lb/acre/
day (18 kg/ha/day) of acid (as CaCO^). This compares with
346
-------
the 198 Ib/acre/day (222 kg/ha/day) of acid which was the re-
ported discharge rate from the unrestored refuse pile. The
cost per acre for refuse pile restoration necessary to
achieve these results would be approximately $6,000/acre
($14,800/ha). It is reasonable to conclude that the restora-
tion of the refuse piles, and associated reduction in acid
production, would substantially reduce the possibility of
ground-water contamination by direct percolation.
Appalachian Region -
In the Redbank Creek watershed of northwestern Pennsylvania,
the strip mining of bituminous coal has contaminated both
surface and ground water. During a study, analyses of water
were made from 6 springs, 15 wells (including 13 flowing
abandoned oil and gas wells), and 31 surface-water sampling
stations. Iron and manganese, levels exceeded drinking water
standards in all samples. The highest trace metal levels
were observed in the ground-water samples, with zinc, chro-
mium, and cadmium present in several. The principal points
of contaminated ground-water discharge included springs and
improperly plugged, abandoned, flowing oil and gas wells. 19)
Another study in this region discussed the effects of coal
mining on ground water in the Toms River drainage basin, al-
so in northwestern Pennsylvania. 20) The area is supplied
with ground water from a deep multi-aquifer system. Numer-
ous abandoned oil and gas wells penetrate the aquifers and
serve as the major conduits for the introduction of contami-
nated mine water into the producing aquifers. The report
provides data on water quality for the principal aquifers
and other sources. These results are summarized in Table 56.
The report concludes that drainage in the vicinity of strip
mines moves down to the deeper aquifer through natural rock
openings and improperly plugged, abandoned oil and gas wells.
The contaminated water moves laterally through the aquifer
system and is discharged back to the surface through other
abandoned oil and gas wells and natural seeps and springs.
The mine drainage affects ground-water quality largely by
increasing the iron and sulfate content.
There are many well documented cases of ground-water contam-
ination from the waste-disposal practices of mines other
than coal mines. Three of these cases are briefly described
below, with special emphasis placed on the quality of the
affected ground .water.
347
-------
^_^
CM
Z*
<
ffi
UJ
o
^
—
o
a:
yj
*
5
O
UJ
X
^™
Z
£
_l
<
a
O£
UJ
^
^
O
Z
I
O
0)
_c
CL
4_
V
u
X
ID
N
1
^C
' —
y.
0)
fe
5
~?
u
'w
u.
i
^>
o
0)
1
3
«/)
X
a.
0)
u-
J-
O
0
'—•
1
-t
O
^*
.
0
o
o
r—
,
-
CO
MD
1
CM
»O
Burgoon Sandstone and
Lower Sandstone Unit of
the Connoquenessing
Formation
rs
i
—
£
(
CO
CO
,
^
00
•o
1
CO
S3
Upper Sandstone Unit of
the Connoquenessing
Nonmining areas
r^
i
—
o
!
CM
O
0!
*o
1
o
CO
^
«0
1
Ox
CM
O>
C
"c
*E
i
1
Home wood Formation
CM
i
o
JO
,
o
»o
,
o
N:
•o
i
•o
»o
Nonmining areas
CM
i
o
o
1
o
CM
O
CO
,
CO
•o
»o
1
o
CO
jf
*c
*i
8
1
CM
1
0
8
!
8
CM
O
O
1
O
x^
^
CM
CO
CO
1
M3
CM
8
Discharges from coal min
00
i
»o
o
,
0
oo
rx
o
i
CM
CO
*o
1
ON
CM
"8
Discharges from abandoni
in
"3
1
"0
O
*o
348
-------
Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico -
In 1975, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Radiation Programs conducted a study of the Grants Min-
eral Belt, a major uranium producing area. 9) one of the
objectives of the study was to assess the impacts of waste
discharges from uranium mining and milling on surface waters
and ground waters.
Ground water is the principal source of water supply in the
study area. Both the shallow alluvial and the underlying
limestone aquifers have been developed to supply the needs
of agriculture, the uranium mills, and public water supply
systems. The nearby city of Gallup receives its water sup-
ply primarily from deep wells in the Gallup sandstone.
The study found that shallow ground-water contamination in
the area is the result of the infiltration of waste-water
effluents, mine drainage, and discharge of tailings from the
mines and mills. In addition, deep well injection of wastes
into the potable limestone aquifer is practiced.
Company data show that seepage from one tailing pond in the
area averaged 48.3 million gal./yr (183 million 1/yr) for
1973 and 1974. It is estimated that, over the period 1960
to 1974, 0.41 curies of radium have entered the shallow,
potable aquifer from seepage alone. The average volume in-
jected for the same period was 91.9 million gal./yr (348
million 1/yr).
At another mill in the same area, seepage from the tailing
ponds occurs at the rate of 130 million gal./yr (149 million
1/yr). At this second site, 0.7 curies have entered the
ground-water system over the same 14-year period.
While the sorptive capacity of the soils in the area is ef-
fective in removing most of the radium, abnormally high con-
centrations were found in many wells. Background radium-226
levels in the area average 0.16 pCi/1, and levels as high as
6.6 pCi/1 were found in shallow ground water near contamina-
tion sources. By way of comparison, the EPA proposed drink-
ing water regulations would limit the radium in finished
drinking water to 5 pCi/1. Mine and mill effluents contain
as much as 178 pCi/1, and mine drainage contains as much as
75 pCi/1. Elevated levels 'of total dissolved solids, ammo-
nia, nitrate, and chloride in the ground water have also re-
sulted from mining in the area.
Although widespread ground-water contamination from the min-
ing and milling operations was not observed during this
349
-------
study, the scarcity of adequate monitoring wells and the
lack of historical data precludes positive conclusions with
regard to ultimate spread of the contaminants. In addition,
trends of increasing water quality degradation in some wells
indicate that present contamination levels are not represen-
tative of the ultimate severity of the problem.
Galena, Illinois - 21)
•
A serious ground-water contamination case occurred in the
lead-zinc mining area of northwestern Illinois. The opera-
tion consisted of extensive u'nderground workings that re-
quired dewatering by pumping large quantities of water from
the aquifer below the ore vein. During the dewatering oper-
ation, it was necessary to deepen a number of farm wells lo-
cated within approximately a one-mile (1.6-km) radius, some
to a depth of 300 ft (90 m), in order to insure a continuing
supply of water for farm and home use.
In January 1966, the Illinois Department of Public Health
prohibited discharge of this waste to the Galena River; sub-
sequently, the liquid waste was disposed of through direct
application to land surface. Almost the entire volume of
discharge water from the mill-sedimentation ponds flowed
across the land surface and entered old mine workings. This
toxic waste then infiltrated the aquifer tapped by wells of
the nearby farms. The discharge continued for almost two
years until the affected farmers began to voice complaints
of water-quality deterioration.
•Unfortunately, no chemical analyses were performed during
the interim period on either the processing waste or the con-
taminated ground water. A series of samples of the mill
waste water was taken in mid-1968 and revealed the following
ranges in the concentration of chemical constituents:
total dissolved solids - 2,940 to 4,120 ppm
hardness - 2,680 to 2,960 ppm
iron - 2.2 to 20 ppm
copper - 0.01 to 0.09 ppm
lead - 0.0 to 2.4 ppm
zinc • - 0.9 to 19 ppm
cyanide - 0.07 to 0.2 ppm
sulfate - 308 to 850 ppm
pH 7.2 to 7.5
Table 57 shows the composition of the water in each of the
affected wells.
The farmers filed suit against the company that operated the
350
-------
Table 57. CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN WELLS IN-
SIDE (FARMS 1-4) AND OUTSIDE (FARM 5) THE AFFECTED AREA IN
PPM. 22)
Farm Hardness Iron Copper Lead Zinc Cyanide Sulfate
No. TDS (CaC03) (Fe)(Cu) (Pb) (Zn) (CN) (SO4)
1
2
3
4
5
6,020
4,340
2,940
1,960
480
2,460
2,850
2,400
1,640
380
33
30
33
16
0.6
0.02
0.06
0
0.08
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
5.6
5.0
6.8
2.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1,250
1,050
925
400
23
Note: The pH of these water samples ranged from 6.5 to 7.5
351
-------
mill and were awarded a total of $69,250 in damages.
Coeur d'Alene District, Idaho -
More studies of contamination from mining activities have
been conducted in the silver, lead, zinc, and antimony min-
ing region of the Coeur d'Alene district of northern Idaho
than in any other area of the United States. The data dis-
cussed below concern the effect on ground-water quality of
acid mine drainage from a large silver, lead, and zinc mine.
21) The case history in the following paragraph illustrates
only one of many contamination problems associated with
waste disposal in this heavily worked mining area.
Since the opening of the first tunnels of this mine in 1885,
ore has been extracted from a rich vein by various tech-
niques. Drainage from workings has been collected in sumps
or allowed to flow freely from the mine. The quality of
this water is extremely poor, with high concentrations of
heavy metals, and an average pH of 2.3. The drainage con-
tains iron, zinc, manganese, and magnesium, in average con-
centrations of 10,000, 8,000, 2,000, and 1,500 ppm, respec-
tively, as well as significant concentrations of cadmium,
copper, lead, and aluminum. This drainage infiltrates di-
rectly to the local aquifer, and an analysis of a ground-
water sample taken near the mine showed only slightly di-
luted concentrations of the materials found in the mine
drainage.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Today's level of mining and environmental technology appears
to be capable of dealing with most sources of ground-water
contamination caused by coal mining activities. Procedures
for the abatement of ground-water contamination from mining
waste disposal practices can be divided into two basic cate-
gories. The first consists of methods that control seepage,
infiltration, and other hydrologic sources of contamination.
The second includes treatment to reduce levels of contami-
nants in the waste. In addition, careful consideration
should be given to the method of mining relative to the ac-
tual site conditions such as topography, drainage, and
ground-water hydrology. Many specialists in this field
recommend detailed pre-mining studies which would include an
assessment of the potential for ground-water contamination
by the mining operation and collection of detailed informa-
tion on the hydrogeology of the site.
352
-------
Control of Liquid Waste
Reducing the volume of water entering the mine is the key to
controlling mine drainage. To reduce seepage of ground wa-
ter into surface mines, impermeable barriers are sometimes
constructed along the walls and floor. These barriers may
be composed of clay, concrete, or concrete block. Barrier
construction is not common; it is costly and therefore lim-
ited to specific problems. 23)
Diversion of surface water ard storm runoff away from mine
sites by ditches can also reduce the amount of mine-drainage
water that has to be handled. Although most effective
around surface mines, the diversion of surface water from
the vicinity of underground mines can reduce flow into the
mine through cracks, fissures, and sinkholes. It can lo-
cally lower the water table, which in turn, will cause a re-
duction of inflow. Diversion ditches are very common, both
around the mine itself and around waste piles. Underdrains
are most effective when installed prior to the creation of a
waste pile, although they may be constructed under existing
piles at additional cost.
An effective contamination control is lining lagoons, sumps,
and tailing ponds with impermeable barriers. The materials
most commonly used include concrete, asphalt, and clay. In
addition, rubber and plastic liners have been used.
Depressions, caused by subsidence or other means, often col-
lect large quantities of surface water and allow it to per-
colate slowly into underground mine workings. One control
method designed to reduce the volume of water entering under-
ground mines involves eliminating depressions and grading
the surface, in order to increase runoff from the site. The
effectiveness depends on individual site conditions, as do
the costs, which are extremely variable. In most cases,
this method has been found to significantly reduce infiltra-
tion.
The sealing of exploratory bore holes from earlier mineral
exploration and fracture zones encountered during the mining
operation helps prevent infiltration into underground mine
workings, reducing the quantity of mine drainage. Bore
holes and fracture zones act as water conduits where they
penetrate underground mines. Bore holes can be located and
plugged to prevent passage of water. This procedure is more
effective if performed from within the underground mine it-
self. The permeability of fracture zones can be reduced by
drilling holes into the zone and pressure grouting. Various
types of grout are available (concrete is most commonly
353
-------
used). The effectiveness of this technique has not been
documented.
Control of ground water in the vicinity of a mine may be ac-
complished by dewatering wells and drainage of mine water
into sumps. During the course of mining, attention should
be given to the prevention of subsidence and rock fracturing
under streams and rivers. Sufficient material can be left
in place to prevent caving in those sections of the mine.
The rapid removal of accumulated water from a mine is impor-
tant in preventing the formation of acid water, and may be
accomplished by underground pumping plants, wells, or drain-
age tunnels.
Various methods have been suggested for sealing underground
mines to exclude air and thus limit formation of contami-
nants. Steps commonly taken are controlled flushing or
sluicing of mine refuse into selected portions of the mine
through a network of specially designed pipes and waterways,
including the pumped-slurry method where wastes are pumped
into the workings through bore holes in a manner similar to
grouting. Concrete plugs, bulkheads, and packers have been
used for this purpose. Underground mines may also be sealed
by removing the ceiling supports at the completion of mining,
allowing the ceiling to collapse.
Inert gases such as nitrogen, injected into underground
mines to displace oxygen, limit the generation of acid. It
has been demonstrated experimentally that by reducing oxygen
levels to 0.4 percent or lower, the amount of acidity gener-
ated could be reduced by as much as 97 percent. 24)
Common methods of treating liquid waste generated by mining
activities are neutralization and removal of solids, both
suspended and dissolved. Several alkaline materials are
available for neutralizing acid mine drainage and waste wa-
ter. These include, among others, lime, hydrated lime, lime-
stone, caustic soda, soda ash, and ammonium hydroxide. 23)
The treatment agent employed depends on the quantity of wa-
ter treated, and the quality of effluent desired, as well as
on local cost factors.
Neutralization processes can also be used to reduce concen-
trations of heavy metals. As pH increases, precipitation of
the metal ions from solution in the form of insoluble hydrox-
ides occurs, generally reducing concentrations to one ppm or
less, depending on the metal.
Removal of the principal radiochemical contaminant, radium,
from waste waters associated with uranium mining and milling
354
-------
is through the use of double-liming or barium chloride to
cause precipitation. Industry is also experimenting with
-bio-uptake methods of contaminant removal, using algae
growths in tailing ponds. 9)
There are various techniques used by the mining industry to
remove solids from the liquid waste. These include flash
evaporation, freezing (ice crystals are formed with a lower
mineral content than the original water), and settling ponds
(by far the most common method). With ponds, the suspended
solids are allowed to settle and "clean" water is skimmed
off the surface of the pond. These processes do result in a
solid-waste residual with a contamination potential.
Control of Solid Waste
The most prevalent method for the handling of solid waste
generated by mining activities is by reclamation. The rec-
lamation of strip-mined land involves a variety of tasks,
with an overall objective to restore the landscape to either
the original configuration or something useful or attractive.
The average cost of reclaiming land disturbed by active coal
strip mining in 1964 averaged $230/acre ($568/ha) for com-
plete reclamation and $149/acre ($368/ha) for partial recla-
mation. The cost for restoring abandoned strip-mined land
(orphaned land) is considerably higher, with costs for com-
plete reclamation, including grading, water control, and re-
vegetation, ranging from $1,800 to $4,000/acre ($4,448 to
$9,884/ha). 23)
Both soil preparation and revegetation are part of the over-
all reclamation process. Prior to soil preparation and
planting, the land surface must be properly graded and com-
pacted as soon after the completion of mining operations as
possible so that the .surface is not subject to rapid erosion.
Addition of top soil 'is widely recommended to supply a vi-
able medium for final covering of the restored surface.
Limestone is commonly added to spoil materials to neutralize
acid conditions.
In arid regions, where the spoil materials are commonly al-
kaline, soil scraping, mulching and water are used to im-
prove the spoil in preparation for seeding. Successful res-
toration includes the selection of the correct plant type(s)
for the particular site, and proper timing for planting.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
A few states have specific provisions regulating handling of
mine wastes, but even in states with substantial mining ac-
355
-------
tivity, all-encompassing, water-pollution control statutes
are frequently relied upon for this type of regulation.
State regulations vary widely, but provisions for protection
of water resources are generally directed only at control-
ling surface-water quality. Rarely is the ground-water con-
tamination potential of mining operations recognized. Where
ground-water provisions exist, they cover the handling of
ore, soil, and wastes to prevent acid production.
•
Illinois has detailed regulations applied by the state Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency., The applicant must show that
the activity for which the permit is sought will not cause,
threaten, or allow pollution of the air or waters of the
state during or after active mineral production. One of the
requirements for obtaining a permit is that the applicant de-
scribe the proposed method of mining and mine refuse dispos-
al. The procedures that will be integrated into such meth-
ods and the procedures that will be taken upon abandonment
to prevent air and water pollution must also be described.
An operator under such a permit is specifically required to
notify the state of any emergency situation at the mine
which causes or threatens to cause a sudden discharge of con-
taminants into waters, and to undertake necessary corrective
measures. The regulations contain sections on mine opera-
tions, including requirements for plugging all holes; mine
refuse disposal, including requirements for subsoil so that
leachate will not pollute water; abandoned areas; and mon-
itoring and reporting. 25)
The Pennsylvania statute prohibits operation of a mine or
allowing a discharge from a mine into waters of the Common-
wealth unless authorized or under permit. It authorizes the
state to require the operator to post a bond insuring compli-
ance with the law and regulations and conditions of the per-
mit, including provisions insuring that there will be no pol-
luting discharge after mining operations have ceased. 26)
Although "waters of the Commonwealth" include ground water,
most effort is directed toward protecting rivers and streams.
Surface-mining reclamation laws commonly contain provisions
directed at preventing water pollution as one of several ob-
jectives of carrying on strip-mining operations with minimal
damage to the environment. Provisions include the require-
ment that the operator obtain a license for the area to be
mined, and that he first obtain approval of a .plan for re-
claiming the area. For the administering agency to approve
the plan, it must find (among other things) that the plan
does not pose a threat of water pollution. The statute will
also require the operator to prevent pollution while mining
and reclaiming, and condition approval of reclamation and re-
356
-------
lease of his bond upon proper reclamation including preven-
tion of water pollution.
In 1974, Ohio enacted a law applicable to surface mining of
minerals such as sand and gravel, clay, and limestone. That
statute requires that the plan filed by the operator include
a statement of the measures the operator will perform during
mining and reclamation to insure that contamination of un-
derground water supplies is prevented. 27)
A proposed Wisconsin regulation governing metallic mineral
mining and reclamation would require that the mining and
reclamation plan be approved by the Department of Natural
Resources. In addition to details of tailings production
and handling and ground- and surface-water management tech-
niques, the plan must contain procedures for long-term main-
tenance of the project sites, including monitoring of wastes
and water quality. 28)
A rule of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
specifies requirements for constructing, operating, and in-
specting earthen dams used in phosphate mining and process-
ing. This rule is directed at the problem of dam failure
which releases large volumes of pollutants. 29)
Colorado's guidelines for mill tailing ponds have a similar
objective. Although the guidelines by their terms apply al-
so to prevention of ground-water contamination, the details
are directed at construction and maintenance to prevent wash-
out into surface waters. 30)
Michigan is one of the states that relies upon its water-
pollution control law without specific regulations applic-
able to mining. Mine-waste disposal activities are monitor-
ed, and a permit is required if it appears that pollution
may occur. 31)
Minnesota's regulation prohibits deposit of industrial waste
in such a place, manner, or quantity that effluent or resi-
due may actually or potentially limit the use of underground
waters as a potable water supply, or contaminate underground
waters. Persons responsible for industrial waste or depos-
its or operations from which residues may reach underground
waters are required to submit monthly reports on operation
of the system, waste flow, and characteristics of the influ-
ent, effluent, and underground waters of the vicinity. 32)
A Wyoming statute requires to be submitted with the applica-
tion for a license to mine: a plan for insuring that all
acid forming, or toxic materials, or materials constituting
357
-------
a fire, health or safety hazard uncovered during or created
by the mining process are promptly treated or disposed of
during the mining process in a manner designed to prevent
pollution of surface or subsurface water or threats to human
or animal health and safety. Such methods may include, but
not be limited to covering, burying, impounding or otherwise
containing or disposing of the acid, toxic, radioactive or
otherwise dangerous material. 33)
At the present time, Pennsylvania has the most stringent reg-
ulations to control the surface disposal of coal waste.
Among other things, the regulations adopted in May of 1973
require: 34)
1. Operators of existing coal waste piles to apply for a
permit within 6 months after adoption of the regulations.
2. Operators to obtain permits before creating new refuse
piles.
3. The applicant to provide proof of his financial responsi-
bility with such responsibility continuing for up to 10
years following the completion of the disposal operation
to insure proper closure of sites.
4. The application to include maps and other technical in-
formation pertaining to soils, geologic and ground-water
characteristics of the area and the possibility of sub-
sidence from past and future mining beneath the disposal
area. The plan must provide for the prevention of water
pollution, the stability of the disposal area and the
prevention of air pollution. Drainage from the coal
waste areas must meet the water quality standards estab-
lished for the particular receiving streams.
5. Approval for the construction of impoundments or silt
lagoons on coal waste areas under a disparate permit sub-
ject to the state's existing regulations for design and
construction of impoundments.
6. The side slopes of a waste pile not to exceed 33 percent
(18°). A vegetation plan for the entire area is manda-
tory. All earth moving and revegetation activities must
comply with the state's existing regulations for erosion
and sediment control.
7. Concurrent compaction of the coal refuse pile to mini-
mize permeability and air entraining capabilities.
358
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Longwell, C. R., R. F. Flint, and J. E. Sanders. 1969.
Physical geology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Martin, J. F. 1974. Quality of effluents from coal
refuse piles. Pages 26-37 in National Coal Association.
First symposium on mine and preparation plant refuse
disposal. Washington, D. C.
3. Falkie, T. V., J. E. Gilley, and A. S. Allen. 1974.
Overview of underground refuse disposal. Pages 128-144
ill National Coal Association. First symposium on mine
and preparation plant refuse disposal. Washington,
D. C.
4. U. S. Bureau of Mines. 1973. Minerals yearbook 1972.
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Pages 50-65.
5. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
1962. Public Health Service drinking water standards.
Revised 1962. 61 pp.
6. Barnes, I., and F. E. Clark. 1964. Geochemistry of
ground water in mine drainage problems. U. S. Geologi-
cal Survey, Professional Paper 473-A. 6 pp.
7. Collier, C. R., and others. 1964. Influences of strip
mining on the hydrologic environment of parts of Beaver
Creek, Kentucky, 1955-59. U. S. Geological Survey, Pro-
fessional Paper 427-B. 85 pp.
8. Katari, U., G. Isaacs, and T. W. Devitt. 1974. Trace
pollutant emissions from the processing of metallic
ores. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA 650/2-74-115. Pages 4-11.
9. Kaufmann, R. F., G. G. Eadie, and C. R. Russell. 1975.
Summary of ground-water quality impacts of uranium min-
ing and milling in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Note
ORP/LV-75-4.
10. Consolidated Coal Company, Truax-Traer Coal Company Di-
vision. 1971. Control of mine drainage mineral wastes,
phase I, hydrology related experiments. U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Project 14010 DDK. 361 pp.
359
-------
11. Kosowski, Z. V. 1973. Control of mine drainage from
coal mine mineral wastes, phase II, pollution abatement
and monitoring. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Project 14010 DDK. 81 pp.
12. Bureau of the Census. 1975. 1972 census of mineral in-
dustries. U. S. Department of Commerce. MIC72(l)-2.
58 pp.
13. Grimm, E. C., and R. D. Hill. 1974. Environmental pro-
tection in surface mining of coal. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Project 670/2-74-093. 273 pp.
14. Skelly and Loy, Engineers/Consultants. 1975. Economi-
cal engineering analysis of the U. S. surface coal
mines and effective land reclamation. U. S. Bureau of
Mines Contract, Report S0241049. 559 pp.
15. Averitt, P. 1975. Coal resources of the United States,
January 1974. Geological Survey Bulletin 1412. U. S.
Geological Survey. 131 pp.
16. U. S. Department of the Interior, Water Resources Re-
search Office. 1975. Acid mine water, a bibliography.
564 pp.
17. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods
for identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of
nonpoint sources of pollutants. Report 430/4-73-014.
Page 182.
18. Bendersky, D. 1975. A study of waste generation,
treatment and disposal in the metals mining industry.
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Un-
published draft. Contract No. 68-01-2665.
19. Gang, M. G., and D. Langmuir. 1974. Controls on heavy
metals in surface and ground waters affected by coal
mine drainage; Clarion River-Redbank Creek watershed,
Pennsylvania. Pages 39-69 in National Coal Association.
Fifth symposium on coal mine drainage research. Wash-
ington, D. C.
20. Emrich, G. H., and G. L. Merrit. 1969. Effects of
mine drainage on ground water. Ground Water (3):27-32.
21. Walker, W. H. 1973. Where have all the toxic chemi-
cals gone? Ground Water 11(2) :51-62.
360
-------
22. Ralston, D. R., and others. 1973. Solutions to prob-
lems of pollution associated with mining in northern
Idaho. U. S. Bureau of Mines, U. S. Government Print-
ing Office. Pages 16-71.
23. Skelly and Loy, Engineers/Consultants. 1973. Proc-
esses, procedures, and methods to control pollution
from mining activities. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA 430/9-73-011. Pages 61-268.
24. West Virginia University, Coal Research Bureau. 1970.
Underground coal mining methods to abate water pollu-
tion, a state of the art literature review. U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency Project 14010FKK. 50 pp.
25. Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, Chapter 4.
Mine related pollution.
26. Pennsylvania Act of June 22, 1937, PL 1987, as amended.
Section 315.
27. Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 1514.
28. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 13,
1975. Proposed Code Chapter NR 131. Metallic mineral
mining and reclamation.
29. Florida Department of Pollution Control. Rules, Chap-
ter 17-9. Minimum requirements for earthen dams, phos-
phate mining and processing operations.
30. Colorado Department of Health, Water Pollution Control
Commission. 1968. Guidelines for the design, opera-
tion and maintenance of mill tailing ponds to prevent
water pollution.
31. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Bureau of Water
Management. 1975. Telephone communication.
32. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Rules and Regula-
tions, Chapter WPC 22. Classification of underground
waters of the state and standards for waste disposal.
33. Wyoming, 1973 Cumulative Supplement, Section 35-502.24
(b) (ix).
34. Pennsylvania Regulations. 1973. Chapter 125: coal
refuse disposal areas. Pennsylvania Bulletin 3(23):
1045.
361
-------
SECTION XIII
WASTE DISPOSAL THROUGH WELLS
SUMMARY
Industrial waste, sewage effluent, spent cooling water, and
storm water are discharged through wells into fresh- and
saline-water aquifers in many parts of the United States.
The greatest attention in existing literature has been given
to deep disposal of industrial and municipal wastes through
wells normally drilled a thousand feet or more into saline
aquifers. A total of 322 such wells have been constructed
in 25 states, and 209 are operating. They pose a compara-
tively small potential for contamination when compared to
the tens of thousands of shallow wells injecting contami-
nants directly into fresh-water aquifers.
Irrigation and storm-water drainage wells and septic tank ef-
fluent disposal wells total about 15,000 in Florida, Oregon,
and Idaho alone. On Long Island, New York, approximately
1,000 diffusion wells inject about 80 million gpd (300,000
cu m/day) from air conditioning or cooling systems into two
of the principal aquifers tapped for public water supply.
Thousands more are used for disposal of storm-water runoff.
In a few areas, principally in limestone and basalt regions
where openings in the rock are large enough to transmit high
volumes of liquid, the practice of discharging raw sewage
.and sometimes industrial waste in shallow fresh-water aqui-
fers has not been uncommon.
Of wells used for disposal of industrial and municipal
wastes in saline aquifers, few failures have been reported.
This is due to the strict regulation and permit system gener-
ally enforced by public agencies in those states which allow
construction of this type of well. On the other hand, shal-
low wells completed in potable-water aquifers and used for
waste disposal have received little attention. This has re-
sulted in a number of documented cases of severe ground-
water contamination, frequently from the illegal use of
wells for the disposal of various types of hazardous wastes.
Under general water pollution control laws, most states auto-
matically rule out the use of wells for injection of either
sewage or industrial wastes into fresh-water aquifers. In a
few states, where drainage wells have been a popular means
for disposal of domestic waste water, storm runoff and irri-
gation runoff, programs are underway to eventually eliminate
this practice. Federal regulations only cover industrial in-
362
-------
jection wells, municipal sewage disposal wells, irrigation
drainage wells, and storm-water disposal wells.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE
A waste disposal practice which has been in use for many
years and has become increasingly popular is the injection
of waste (liquid or gaseous) through wells. In some in-
stances, subsurface disposal can be the most economic waste
disposal alternative and from the view of the regulatory
agency in charge, can be the most environmentally acceptable,
Any more or less vertical shaft (where depth is significant-
ly greater than diameter) used for the introduction of waste
fluids into the subsurface may be termed an injection well.
The hole may or may not penetrate to the zone of saturation.
Where it does not, it is called a "dry well." Injection
wells can only accept fluids, meaning materials that flow.
Two general types of fluids are being handled by injection
wells — low volume, high toxicity fluids which are hazard-
ous even in small quantities; and high volume, low toxicity
fluids.
Considerable controversy has been generated over the use of
injection wells. For example, in a 1969 report, it was sug-
gested that underground disposal should be reserved for par-
ticularly toxic wastes that can not otherwise be treated and
readily disposed of. D Conversely, in a 1974 study, it was
stated that "underground migrations of injected waste can
not be determined accurately; therefore highly toxic com-
pounds, such as cyanide, should not be injected." 2)
Some potential consequences associated with subsurface injec-
tion through wells are: 3)
1. ground-water contamination
2. surface-water pollution
3. alteration of formation permeability
4. land subsidence and/or earthquakes
5. contamination of mineral resources
Herein, the major concern is the potential contamination of
usable ground water. Of all the purposes to which injection
wells have been put, the one which has been most frequently
inventoried is that of industrial and municipal waste dispos-
al. As of July 1975, at least 322 industrial and municipal
waste-water injection wells had been constructed in 25
states as shown in Table 58. Of the 322 wells constructed,
209 were operating, and of these, nearly 60 percent were
363
-------
Table 58. DISTRIBUTION OF 322 INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL WASTE-
WATER INJECTION WELLS AMONG 25 STATES HAVING SUCH
WELLS IN 1973. 4)
State
Number of weils
State
Number of wells
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
5
2
7
3
6
13
1
30
3
65
28
Mississippi 1
Nevada 1
New Mexico 1
New York 4
North Carolina 4
Ohio 9
Oklahoma 14
Pennsylvania 9
Texas 98
Tennessee 3
West Virginia 7
Wyoming 1
364
-------
used by the chemical, petrochemical and pharmaceutical indus-
tries. 4) These firms commonly produce toxic wastes that
are difficult to treat.
Injection rates are relatively low. Eighty-six percent of
all such wells inject less than 400 gpm (25 litre/sec) and
59 percent inject less than 100 gpm (6 litre/sec). 5/6) The
receiving reservoirs are nearly equally distributed between
sand, sandstone, and carbonate rocks, which are also the
three most common aquifer types.
When compared with the total number of disposal wells nation-
ally (tens of thousands), and the volumes of fluids involved
(billions of gallons), one might conclude that the potential
danger of contamination from industrial waste injection is
relatively insignificant. It is, however, the extremely
hazardous nature of the injectants which emphasizes the need
for closer scrutiny.
Because of the toxic chemical concentrations often present
in industrial wastes, injection zones are usually deep sal-
aquifers. Of 262 wells for which a depth of an injection
zone is reported in 1973, only 6 percent were at less than
1,000 ft (305 m). Seventy-eight percent were between 2,000
and 6,000 ft (600 and 1,800 m) . 6) Salaquifers are general-
ly found in the thick sediments of coastal plains and in
deep geologic basins. These aquifers are zones of slow cir-
culation; this feature makes them attractive for disposal
because injected wastes tend to migrate slowly toward dis-
charge points.
The disposal of oil-field brines and the related practice of
repressuring of petroleum reservoirs through wells, detailed
in another section, are injection well uses. Another source
of brine which requires disposal is the presently small vol-
ume of hot brine produced from geothermal energy production.
Volumes of hot brine are expected to increase with the devel-
opment of the geothermal resource. A rapidly developing
source of brine for disposal is from the impending construc-
tion of desalination plants in water-short areas. However,
in terms of volumes injected and the number of wells in-
volved, oil-field brine injection is far and away the most
common use for injection wells.
Injection wells are also used to dispose of radioactive
wastes, domestic and municipal sewage effluent, storm-water
runoff, excess surface water, and irrigation return flows.
They may be used for artificial recharge to increase the vol-
ume of water in storage in depleted fresh-water aquifers or
to provide barriers against intrusion of sea water. The in-
365
-------
tent of artificial recharge is to provide beneficial use but
can be coupled with the disposal of excess fluids. Storage,
in saline or brackish water aquifers, of excess volumes of
treated sewage effluent, surface water or runoff which can
not be effectively stored in surface reservoirs, is also in-
cluded here as a use of artificial recharge. Although an at-
tempt to recover the injectant may never be made, potential
recovery is often used to justify operation of the facility.
Injection wells can cause ground-water contamination through
the following mechanisms:
1. Direct emplacement into potable water zones
2. Escape into potable aquifer by well-bore failure
3. Upward migration from receiving zone along outside of
casing
4. Leakage through inadequate confining beds
5. Leakage through confining beds due to unplanned hydrau-
lic fracturing
6. Leakage through deep abandoned wells
7. Displacement of saline water into potable aquifer
8. Injection into salaquifer eventually classified as a
potable water source
9. Migration to potable water zone of same aquifer
The first seven of these contamination problems have been
known to occur; the eighth is expected to occur with the re-
classification of potential water sources, and the ninth is
a likely occurrence in the future.
However, properly constructed and monitored industrial waste
injection wells can be operated with reasonably little dan-
ger of ground-water contamination. Pre-construction feasi-
bility studies, test drilling, and water-quality testing can
eliminate the problem of direct emplacement into potable wa-
ter zones, as well as determine whether a production well
will initially operate efficiently and economically. Non-
reactive casing, properly joined, with an acceptable thick
and complete cement grout between the casing and bore hole
will prevent leakage of injectant into potable aquifers by
well failure or upward migration through the bore hole. Ex-
ploratory drilling will help determine whether confining
366
-------
beds are capable of resisting upward leakage. After the com
mencement of injection operations, water-level and water-
quality data from monitoring wells assist in early detection
of system failure.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
Fluids injected into wells can range from nearly pure rain
water, through treated sewage effluent, to highly toxic chem
ical wastes and radioactive substances. Depending upon the
source of the injectants, they can chemically, physically,
or biologically degrade ground water. A partial list of in-
jected wastes is shown in Table 59.
Chemical degradation is a major concern. Little is known
about the chemical reactions of injectants underground, both
with the formation and the formation fluids. Many reactions
occur under the heat and pressure in the subsurface which do
not at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Similarly, liquid radioactive wastes are disposed of by
means of wells. Also radioactive solids have been incorpo-
rated into cement or asphalt slurries and injected into frac
tured shale. These practices have been carried out at sev-
eral Federal sites.
Physical contamination of the subsurface also can occur.
The most common physical degradation results from tempera-
ture change. For example, air-conditioning systems circu-
late ground water through the system, transferring heat from
the air to the water. This water, at an elevated tempera-
ture but not significantly changed chemically, is often re-
turned to the ground through wells. The degradation of
ground water by increasing its temperature may decrease its
value, either for cooling and air conditioning, for drinking>
or for industrial use. Raised temperatures of ground water
discharging to surface-water bodies could promote algal
growth.
Injected water has been reported to degrade the physical
properties of wells and aquifers. Occasionally, productive
water wells have been used to artificially recharge aquifers.
Lake and river water, and often storm-water runoff, in sur-
plus at certain times of the year, are recharged through wa-
ter wells and extracted during water-deficient periods. The
recharge water, if unfiltered, is usually high in suspended
solids, and these solids clog the pore spaces in the vicin-
ity of the well bore. When the well is later pumped, a sig-
nificant loss in efficiency may have occurred, which may
only be partially recoverable.
367
-------
Table 59. INJECTED WASTES.
5,6)
acetaldehyde
acetate ammonia
acroline
activated sludge
alcohols
aldehydes
aluminum hydroxide
ammonia liquor
ammonium chloride
ammonium sulphate
acids
acetic
adipic
chromic
formic
hydrochloric
sulphuric
benzene
bi carbonates
boiler water
BOD waste
butadiene waste
butanol
brines
• bromides
calcium chloride
calcium carbonate
particles
calcium sulphate
chloromycetin
chlorinated hydrocarbons
chlorinated organics
chroma tes
chromium
clay particles
COD waste
coke quench water
colloidal compounds
contaminated storm
drainage
cooling tower water
cresols
cyanides
caustic
detergents
diatomaceous earth
drilling muds
ethynol
ferric chloride
ferrous chloride
ferrous sulphate
hexamethylediamine
chlorates
heavy metal salts
hydrocarbons
ketones
lime sludge
laundromat waste
magnesium sulphate
mineral acids
methyl cellulose
mercaptans
magnesium chloride
methyldichlorophosphine
nitriles
naphthalene
natural plasticizer
wastes
nitroles
oils
oil refinery waste
organic phosphorus
organic solvents
organic nitrogen
photo process waste
phosphorus trichloride
pharmaceutical process
waste
phenol
polyethylene waste
pulping liquor
paint removers
propylene oxide
silica
steam drain
steroids
sodium hydroxide
sodium sulphate
sodium chloride
uranium mill and radioactive
laboratory wastes
368
-------
Even fresh water, low in suspended solids, has been known to
degrade aquifer properties. For example, in Norfolk, Vir-
ginia, treated potable water was injected into a shallow
brackish-water aquifer (total dissolved solids of 3,000 ppm) .
As a result of the change in the electrolytic concentration,
clay dispersion (plugging) in the sediments resulted, which
caused a loss in hydraulic conductivity that was not com-
pletely recoverable. 7)
Injectants often contain biological contaminants which are
health hazards, sometimes greater than those of the chemical
constituents in the fluid. Industrial waste water is often
high in biological oxygen demand which is a direct cause of
noxious tastes and odors in the effluent. Raw, primary
treated, and secondary treated sewage effluent, all of which
may be put into injection wells, are very active biological-
ly. Storm-water runoff picks up biological and chemical con-
taminants from streets and roofs. Surface-water bodies are
biologically active too. Bacteria and viruses from human
and animal wastes are assumed to be removed naturally after
injection into a porous medium with an anaerobic environment.
However, bacteria in the subsurface have been known to trav-
el hundreds of feet, and little is known about the movement
of viruses.
Such a wide variety of fluids are injected that it would be
impossible to give a complete characterization of each one.
However, a number of them are described in some detail in
other sections of this report.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
No comprehensive data are available on the number of in-
stances of ground-water contamination from injection wells,
the degree to which aquifers are being affected, or the num-
ber of water wells lost or threatened. Interestingly enough,
in House of Representatives committee hearings on the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1973, documented instances of contami-
nation were read into the record for 22 states. 8) The
cases were collected in a very short time span. To this
list can be added known instances in nearly every state,
totaling into the hundreds, plus probably thousands of un-
known cases where an injection system has caused contamina-
tion as yet undetected.
Some estimate of the number of contaminating injection wells
might be made if the assumption that all wells conducting un-
treated fluids to the zone of aeration or shallow fresh-
water aquifers contaminate. These include all drainage and
septic tank effluent disposal wells. The total number in
369
-------
Florida, Oregon, and Idaho alone is about 14,500. 9/10) Un-
doubtedly, many thousands more could be added to this amount.
In fact, thousands of wells injecting into the zone of aera-
tion have been estimated to be in use in the northeastern
states. 11) Thus, nationally, there are probably many tens
of thousands.
Disposal through wells into fresh-water zones is most preva-
lent in those regions where the receiving aquifer consists
of limestone or basalt or any other highly porous rock which
will take relatively large volumes of waste water without
the need for injection under artificial pressure. As indi-
cated on Figures 27 and 28, many states in addition to Flori-
da, Oregon, and Idaho are underlain by such highly porous
formations. As described above, deep injection wells for mu-
nicipal and industrial wastes also have the potential to con-
taminate shallow fresh-water aquifers. However, how many
are doing so has not been surveyed in detail.
Case Histories
A great number of well-documented case histories of contam-
ination have not been developed, as the disposal practice
has only recently become generally popular. However, a few
cases have been outlined here to illustrate the range and
nature of the contamination. Because the rate of ground-
water movement is usually very slow in the deeper subsurface
and monitoring facilities are limited, contamination may be
occurring undetected. Disposal in shallow zones is often so
prevalent that no effort is made to explore individual cases.
Long Island, New York -
Fear of the threat of sea-water intrusion and a concern for
conservation of ground-water resources led New York State in
1933 to require the return to the ground of water pumped for
industrial air conditioning purposes. All new industrial
wells with capacities of 100,000 gpd (378 cu m/day) or more
used to supply air conditioners were to return water "in an
uncontaminated condition through diffusion wells or other
approved structures." Over 1,000 recharge wells on Long Is-
land inject about 80 mgd (302,800 cu m/day) of heated air
conditioning return water. As far back as 1937, reports of
thermal pollution in western Long Island (Kings County, also
known as Brooklyn) were noted. The natural ground-water
temperature is 52° to 56°F, but water in the glacial aquifer
near one diffusion well showed a 14°F rise. The temperature
of the recharge water was 83°F. Water in a few wells in
other parts of the county has a temperature over 80°F.
370
-------
Wilmington, North Carolina -
In the spring of 1968, a chemical company received permis-
sion to inject acid waste waters derived from the manufac-
ture of dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) into a zone of inter-
bedded sand, silt, clay and limestone. The only fresh-water
aquifer in the area is the surficial sand to a depth of
about 75 ft (23 m). The several aquifers below, the "300-
ft," "500-ft," "700-ft," and "900-ft" sands are progressive-
ly more saline.
In the injection zone from 850 to I,p25 ft (259 to 312 m),
the chloride content ranges from 8,500 ppm to 12,500 ppm.
The artesian pressure is very high in the injection zone
(about 90 ft or 27 m above sea level). Heads in the upper
zones are progressively lower as land surface is approached.
Aquifers are confined by units in which clay predominates.
Injection of the effluent, containing acetic acid, formic
acid, and methanol, began in May 1968 at a rate of 200 gpm
(757 litre/min).
With the initiation of injection, pressure in the receiving
zone rose rapidly. By September 1968, head pressure in the
injection well had reached the equivalent of 300 ft (91 m)
above sea level, and in the observation wells, about 165 ft
(50 m). Pressure continued to build until it exceeded 450
ft (137 m) in the injection well (Well 6) in June 1969. Be-
cause it was no longer possible to continue waste injection
at the 200-gpm rate, at the permissible injection pressure
limit of 150 psi (10 kg/sq cm), and as the observation wells
were no longer of use because the waste front had passed
them, permission was granted by the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources to operate Wells 4 and 5 as emer-
gency injection wells. The pressure surface established
during this period is shown in Figure 71, indicating upward
leakage at Well 6 into shallower aquifers. This condition
was known for a long time, as indications of the waste had
been first noted at Observation Well 3 in February 1969.
Leakage also was occurring upward at Well 1. Although a new
injection well was constructed and placed in operation in
January 1971, it was concluded that the system was not feas-
ible. A conventional waste treatment facility was designed,
and the injection of waste ceased in November 1972. 12)
Orange County, Florida -
Drainage wells are extensively used to convey storm-water
runoff and excess surface water to the Floridan aquifer, the
principal aquifer for peninsular Florida. There are an esti-
371
-------
LEGEND
£ INJECTION WELL (OUT OF SERVICE)
4 WELL NUMBER
A OBSERVATION WELL- INJECTION ZONE
312 HEAD IN FEET
A OBSERVATION WELL - 700 FOOT ZONE
SO
78
100 FEET
Figure 71. Map of pressure surface in feet above sea level, September 1, 1970,
with Well 6 out of service and Well 5 in use as injection well. '2)
372
-------
mated 6,500 of these wells in Florida. 9) jn Orange County
alone, 400 such wells have been drilled since 1904, most of
them in the Orlando-Winter Park area. 13)
The potential capacity of these wells in the Orlando area
ranges from 100 to 9,500 gpm (380 to 36,000 litre/min). Al-
though the total volume of water recharged through drainage
wells is unknown, it is undoubtedly high and the reason that
no appreciable cone of depression has developed in the Or-
lando-Winter Park area despite combined pumpage exceeding 50
mgd (190,000 cu m/day) at times. 14)
Widespread contamination, primarily bacterial, has been re-
ported in the upper part of the aquifer. In the lower zone,
from which most public supplies draw their water, only local,
isolated problems have been reported. However, the potentio-
metric head of the lower zone is always below that in the
upper zone in the area. Therefore, it may only be a matter
of time until downward movement of contaminated water is de-
tected.
The danger of contamination to the aquifer could be consider-
ably reduced by the elimination of the present drainage
wells. However, expensive drainage canals and pumping sta-
tions would have to be built to replace the drainage wells
and conduct runoff to the ocean. The resulting decrease in
recharge could encourage the upward movement of salty water
from deeper sections of the aquifer at centers of heavy pump-
ing. The upper limit of this salty water is now reportedly
only 500 to 1,000 ft (150 to 300 m) below the bottoms of
municipal supply wells in the area. 14)
Two alternatives to maintain recharge without restricting de-
velopment are transporting excess water to natural recharge
areas, allowing surficial sediments to treat the water, and
treating runoff and then injecting it into recharge wells.
The latter would require considerable study to determine op-
timum treatment methods, plant design, and geochemical ef-
fects.
Pacific Northwest -
An activity which is widely known to occur but is only re-
gionally recognized as a waste disposal practice is the use
of wells to dispose of domestic and sanitary waste effluent.
This procedure is used in isolated instances nationally and
is a recognized waste disposal practice in the northwestern
states, where extensive areas of nearly flat-lying beds of
lava and sedimentary rock are found.
373
-------
There are an estimated 3,000 disposal wells in Oregon alone,
the majority of which are used for domestic waste disposal.
1") In 1968, a comprehensive investigation was made of dis-
posal wells in the lava terrane of central Oregon, the dis-
posal wells in this area are tied into septic tank systems
and are generally drilled to the underlying lava, to a depth
where cracks and crevices can receive and disperse the ef-
fluents. Most disposal wells in the area are 100 to 300 ft
(30 to 90 m) deep and water levels are 400 to 600 ft (122 to
183 m) deep. 15) A schematic diagram of a typical sewage
disposal well in lava terrane is shown on Figure 72. No ma-
jor ground-water quality deterioration was noted during the
survey, but little or no filtration is provided by the lava
rock and the threat of contamination exists. Deep, uncased
water wells were found to be particularly vulnerable. Fig-
ure 73 illustrates the mechanism of potential contamination
of an uncased water well by septic effluent discharged into
a disposal well. Recent laws passed in Oregon require per-
mits for waste disposal wells as of January 1, 1975, and pro-
hibit construction or use of such wells after January 1,
1930. 16)
In Idaho, there are some 5,000 disposal or drain wells in
the Snake River Plain disposing of sewage effluent, street
runoff, irrigation excess, and industrial wastes into lava
and interbedded sediments. Approximately 3,000 drain wells
are concentrated in Lincoln, Jerome, and Gooding Counties.
Results of an investigation by the Idaho Bureau of Mines in-
dicate that drain wells are used where geologic conditions
at or near the ground surface render conventional disposal
systems impractical. In many areas soil cover is thin and
often impermeable, and septic tanks cannot function properly.
In addition, it was found that many people believe that
wastes will be rendered harmless by natural purification in
the subsurface. 16)
The numerous openings, fractures, channels, and lava tubes
in the basalt make it possible to discharge large volumes of
waste fluid without any apparent effects. For this reason,
disposal wells are seldom cased beyond the first basalt
layer and are almost never grouted. Most are used to dis-
pose of septic effluent. Others are used to remove excess
irrigation water or to dispose of street runoff where storm
sewers are absent.
Contamination of a public water-supply well by a drain well
was detected in 1960 in the city of Idaho Falls. Fluores-
cein dye was injected to trace the contaminant and appeared
in the supply well located 190 ft (57 m) from the drain well
in 90 minutes. 16) Bacterial contamination of domestic
374
-------
Ul
<
CD
I
a
o
0)
"i
o
Q.
O5
a
91
~o
o
E
g
O)
a
-------
SHORT LENGTH OF
WELL CASING^ ,
WATER WELL*
•SEPTIC TANK
.DISPOSAL WELL
CASCADING
WATER
t t ll t *PERCHED
WATER
Figure 73. Potential contamination of ground water from perched water entering
uncased water well.
376
-------
wells by waste water discharged into irrigation drain wells
has been documented south of Idaho Falls.
In spite of the large volume of waste being discharged to
the Snake River Plain aquifer, reported incidents of serious
contamination are few. This is attributed to the excellent
permeability of the aquifer which allows rapid movement of
ground water to carry away the fluid wastes.
Also in the Snake River Plain, disposal well operations at
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory have resulted in
the discharge to the subsurface of 1.6 x 10^0 gal. (6.1 x
10? cu m) of liquid waste containing 7 x 10^ curies of radio-
activity and 1 x 108 Ib (4.5 million kg) of chemicals. This
has contributed to plumes of chloride and tritium covering
an area of 15 square miles.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Technology is presently available to construct an injection
well which will not contaminate usable ground water because
of a flaw in well construction. Historically, construction
has been far from adequate, primarily due to lack of regula-
tion. As regulation to protect ground water increases, the
number of poorly constructed injection facilities will de-
crease. The threat of contamination from high volumes of
low toxicity wastes will decline as these wastes are treated
before injection or are disposed of in other ways. At the
same time, with technological advances, the number of moni-
tored waste facilities will increase as technicians become
more confident in their abilities to control wastes under-
ground .
The two areas of major concern in siting, design and con-
struction of injection wells are acceptable operation and
adequate ground-water protection. Although primary interest
in this report is the protection of ground water, the suc-
cessful physical operation of any waste disposal practice de-
creases the urgency, at least from the waste producer's view-
point, of searching for alternatives.
The ideal injection formation is sufficiently porous and per-
meable to receive the volume and rate of flow involved, is
itself chemically compatible, and contains fluid which is
chemically compatible with the injectant so as to avoid prob-
lems of precipitation and other reactions. In addition, for-
mations which receive undesirable fluids should be overlain
by sufficiently impermeable units to prevent the upward mi-
gration of fluids into shallow potable water zones and zones
with recoverable mineral resources.
377
-------
In some cases/ environmentally acceptable disposal can be
attained with a minimum of treatment. Therefore, wastes are
often injected with little pretreatment. Commonly, pretreat-
ment has been employed solely to maintain the operation of
the well. Plugging of the bore hole and formation wall is a
major cause of early operational failures. To maintain flow
rates without excessive injection pressures, some of the pre-
treatment practices are as follows:
1. Filtration to remove fine suspended particles.
2. Aeration to prevent the formation of ferrous hydroxide
precipitate and the growth of iron bacteria on and in
the vicinity of the well bore.
3. Removal of oils to prevent permeability reduction.
4. For wastes containing high' concentrations of biochemical
oxygen demand, treatment, filtration and sterilization
with a suitable bactericide to avoid the growth of bac-
teria.
Two other treatment methods are occasionally employed to in-
sure continued operation. Where waste waters are incompati-
ble with fluid or rock in the injection zone and reactions
might cause reduced permeability, a non-reactive buffer solu-
tion may be injected ahead of the waste. In some locations,
where highly acidic waste is injected into limestone, the
waste is neutralized to make it compatible with the forma-
tion, which is alkaline. However, this practice is no long-
er followed where it has been noted that permeability and,
therefore, operational efficiency can be increased by intro-
ducing acids directly to cause dissolution of the limestone.
Ground water can become contaminated by injection well opera-
tions in many ways. The greatest potential for contamina-
tion occurs in the immediate vicinity of the well bore.
Here the natural geologic structure which is relied upon to
contain the waste water has been breached by the well con-
struction.
To reinforce the geologic structure, cement grout is forced
around the casing. In the case of the most noxious and cor-
rosive fluids, multiple well casings are telescoped and ce-
mented down to the receiving formation. Still, this cement
seal is not always as impenetrable as the original natural
structure. Thus, the well bore becomes the weak point of
the system. Acidic wastes can corrode the casing. Exces-
sively high injection pressures can rupture the casing
joints and crack the cement envelope. These events can
378
-------
cause the waste to move out into shallower and possibly pota-
ble water-bearing zones. Excessive injection pressure can
cause leaks at the well head itself, allowing effluent to
flow across the land surface, perhaps contaminating ground
water and surface water on the way.
Even beyond the well bore itself, the subsurface structure
may be influenced by injection. For example, dynamite used
to speed up drilling in one section of the hole might pro-
duce a fracture zone which could conduct fluids upwards to-
ward potable water. Fluids can migrate along natural faults
and fractures under the influence of injection pressures.
The lubrication of faults and fractures by fluid pressure at
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal produced an increased frequency
of earthquakes near Denver, Colorado.
Other wells in the vicinity of an injection well drilled to
or through the receiving formation, like unplugged abandoned
oil and gas wells, can provide a conduit for the migration
of fluids. Injection can reverse the hydraulic relationship
such that wells with corroded casings, which may have been
transferring shallow fresh water downward into the deeper
saline formations, will now transfer saline water upward in-
to potable zones. For example, the development and improper
abandonment of the Lima-Indiana petroleum field has elimi-
nated the Trenton limestone for injection. In the late
1800's and early 1900's, nearly 75,000 wells were drilled in
that field. Many of the locations are still unknown. 17)
The best security is to not install injection wells in areas
of extensive petroleum exploration. Nonetheless, these
areas have been most popular for injection wells because of
the availability of subsurface information. As can be seen
in Table 58, industrial injection wells proliferate in major
petroleum producing states such as Kansas, Louisiana, Michi-
gan, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Monitoring of injection operations has been grossly inade-
quate. For many types of injection, like drainage wells and
sewage effluent wells, no monitoring has occurred. Even for
industrial waste and radioactive waste injection, monitoring
is meager. Operations are monitored to make sure that the
proper amount of effluent is going into the well safely, but
that is usually the limit of monitoring. Only infrequently
is monitoring of the injection zone or shallower zones under-
taken. Such information is critical, as can be seen in the
case history for Wilmington, North Carolina. Obviously, mon-
itoring facilities cost money but they are a necessity to
maintain surveillance over the disposal operation and to pro-
vide data on potential or occurring contamination.
379
-------
As has been noted, technology exists to overcome problems in-
herent with the construction and operation of injection
wells, assuming that they are located in geologically suited
areas. Thus, injection wells can be an effective and envi-
ronmentally sound disposal method that presents no more than
a minimal threat to usable ground water.
Cost Factors
As was stated previously, one factor which makes injection
wells so attractive as a waste disposal method is the rela-
tively low cost. Generally, construction and operation of
injection wells is less than for other waste disposal facil-
ities. The acceptability of a lesser degree of treatment
for the effluent will also lower overall costs.
Obviously the cost of construction and operation is highly
variable, depending upon the type of injection well. For
the domestic or small industrial waste producer with an aban-
doned well available, the cost may be practically nil. For
the individual homeowner in Oregon trying to dispose of do-
mestic sewage effluent in an area where conventional dispos-
al systems can not easily be constructed, drilling an efflu-
ent drainage well may be the cheaper alternative.
A breakdown for industrial waste injection wells is provided
in Tables 60, 61, and 62. Table 60 compares costs of con-
structing facilities to pump equal volumes of filtered, non-
corrosive waste into a 5,000-ft (1,524-m) deep well. Rock
is hardest in the Great Lakes area, hence the higher drill-
ing cost. Table 61 indicates average installation costs for
existing facilities in the three areas, and Table 62 indi-
cates average operating costs. Table 63 compares capital
and annual operating costs for four actual plants operating
both well and surface treatment facilities. Capital invest-
ments are usually less for wells, and operational costs of
well facilities represent a clear saving. 18)
For comparison with the above figures, Reichhold Chemicals,
Inc., allocated $675,000 for drilling and testing of a 5,500-
ft (1,676-m) test well in Alabama. Supervised by the Ala-
bama Geological Survey, this well was used to develop data
on porosity, confinement potential, fluid and formation com-
patibility and other conditions relative to waste injection
with complete environmental safety. 18) standard Oil of
Ohio had been incinerating an industrial waste stream at a
cost of $600,000/year. The estimated operating cost of a
3,000-ft (914-m) injection well was $100,000/year. 19)
In a feasibility study for the deep-well injection of waste
380
-------
Table 60. COMPARATIVE COSTS. 18)
Great Lakes Mid-Continent Gulf Coast
Drilling $122,000 $ 94,000 $ 62,000
Equipment 45,000 45,000 63,000
Surface facilities 142,000 98,000 98,jOO
Total $309,000 $237,000 $223,000
Table 61. AVERAGE INSTALLATION COST. 18)
Area
Great Lakes
Mid-Continent
Gulf Coast
Number of
wells
12
6
17
Depth,
ft.
3,290
3,580
3,200
Cost per
well
$294,400
175,300
362,400
Cost per
ft.
$ 90.00
50.00
110.00
381
-------
Table 62. AVERAGE OPERATING COST. 18)
Area
Great Lakes
Mid-Continent
Gulf Coast
Number of
wells
10
5
14
Injection per
well per year
million gal.
62.3
68.2
69.0
Annual
cost,
million gal.
0.42
0.16
1.17
Table 63. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF WELL VS. SURFACE SYSTEM. 18)
Annual
Capital Operating Cost
Plant
A
B
C
D
Well
$225,000
300,000
468,000
270,000
Surface
$ 500,000
140,000
1,250,000
*
Well
$ 20,000
52,000
62,000
100,000
Surface
$100,000
178,000
195,000
600,000
Plant A - Mid-Continent
Plant B -Gulf Coast
Plant C - Great Lakes
Plant D - Great Lakes
* Not available
382
-------
brine from inland desalting plants, it was stated that oil-
field brine injection cost was $0.25 to $0.70/1,000 gal.
(3,785 liters). By comparison, industrial waste injection
cost was $1.00 to $2.00/1,000 gal. with satisfactory pre-
treatment. 20)
The cost for construction and operation of other injection
facilities lies between that of industrial waste and brine
injection wells. Jn West Palm Beach, Florida, a 3,500-ft
(1,667-m) test well for municipal sewage effluent injection
cost nearly $500,000. A cost,breakdown per acre-foot of
water in fiscal year 1966-67 for the successfully operated
West Coast Basin Barrier Project, Los Angeles County, Cali-
fornia, was as follows: 21)
operation and maintenance $13.00/acre-ft
($10.50/1,000 cu m)
cost of filtered Colorado River water $24.00/acre-ft
($19.00/1,000 cu m)
capital outlay for facilities $10.00/acre-ft
( 8.00/1,000 cu m)
Other, less obvious costs sometimes need to be considered.
In areas where petroleum exploratory and abandoned produc-
tion wells penetrate the injection zone, an expensive plug-
ging program may be necessary. In the Hubbard Creek Water-
shed in Appalachia, 60 abandoned oil and gas wells were
plugged for $1,500 each in 1963-65. In a 1972 study, four
abandoned wells in the Appalachian area were plugged at
costs of $8,600 to $14,000 each. 22>
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Cost may no longer be a consideration in alternative waste
disposal practices. According to EPA guidelines, injection
shall be considered only if no more environmentally accept-
able solution is available. Presently, in the short term,
injection wells are often the least costly method of dispos-
al. However, it is expected that more stringent pretreat-
ment and monitoring requirements may equalize costs with
other practices.
In keeping with the continuing doubts expressed about the
practice of waste-water injection, not only about the accept-
able types of wastes which may be injected, but whether
wastes should be injected at all, no approach has been taken
to protect ground-water quality on a national scale. Indi-
vidual states have completely different views on the subject
383
-------
of injection well regulation and control. The views may dif-
fer in the administrative organization of the regulatory
agencies, the form of controls, and the substance of con-
trols. 23)
Four major concerns have been expressed over injection facil-
ities which affect their regulation. The first concern is
social, that injection may proceed more rapidly than the as-
sessment of public policy and the adequacy of regulatory pro-
cedures. Secondly, the technical concern is for the limited
extent of knowledge about subsurface conditions and high-
pressure hydraulics. The managerial consideration of mar-
shaling sufficiently experienced personnel is another prob-
lem. The fourth concern is a legal one — the question of
the definition of underground trespass and of subsurface
"public" waters. 19)
Injection wells have traditionally been regulated by stat-
utes and administrative organizations. Only about one-half
of the states have regulations controlling the construction
and operation of injection well systems. Few distinguish
between reinjection of natural brines and the injection of
wastes. 24) in fact, only three of the 50 states have regu-
lated the use of injection for industrial waste. No state
prohibits such injection, although nine states reject appli-
cations for industrial waste injection wells and otherwise
discourage them. 19)
Even among those states with defined procedures, programs
have been generally weak. Some of the deficiencies are: ^-9)
1. Inadequate legislative guidelines and technological cri-
teria
2. Poorly defined jurisdictional linkage between various
agencies
3. Staff unfamiliarity with many aspects of injection well
practice
The confusion over the general acceptability of waste injec-
tion method and the permissible types of wastes has led to
striking incongruities. For example, disposal of wastes in-
to salaquifers more than 1,000 ft (305 m) deep has occurred
in only 2 of the 11 states in the northeast region, New York
and Pennsylvania. The attitudes of representatives of envi-
ronmental agencies in all 11 northeastern states toward in-
jection wells were very negative; the principal reason giv-
en was that geologic conditions are unfavorable. In most of
these states, injection wells are not even considered. In
384
-------
others, rigid constraints would nearly rule out considera-
tion of this alternative for waste disposal. H)
On the other hand, shallow wells, less than 1,000 ft (305 m)
deep and completed in fresh-water aquifers, are used to dis-
pose of a variety of liquid wastes including storm water,
sewage, cooling water, and industrial effluent in the same
11 states. Shallow wells recharging inadequately treated
sewage effluent or industrial waste water are known to exist
but are considered to be illegal. In some areas, public
agencies have encouraged experimentation or the use of shal-
low wells for the disposal or recharge of storm-water runoff,
cooling water from air conditioners and tertiary treated
sewage effluent. In the mid-states, injection of industrial
effluent to the deepest aquifers is strictly controlled yet
disposal of brines to the shallowest salaquifers continues.
A basic public policy issue underlies the whole discussion
of injection wells: Under what circumstances should society
find it reasonable to trade off the potential environmental
risk for the benefits of injection? 19)
The first mention in national legislation of disposal
through wells occurred in the Water Pollution Control Bill
S.2770 (1970) where brief references were made to "disposal
in wells and subsurface excavations." 25) The first state-
ment of national policy on deep well disposal was made by
the Federal Water Quality Administration in 1970 before it
became part of EPA. It was stated that the Federal govern-
ment was opposed to deep well disposal "without a clear dem-
onstration that such disposal will not harm present or poten-
tial subsurface water supplies....or otherwise damage the en-
vironment." The conclusion of the policy statement recog-
nized subsurface injection as a technique limited in space
and time to be used carefully and only until better methods
of disposal are developed. 25)
A restatement of EPA policy is that "subsurface injection
will be used only after all alternative measures have been
explored and found to be less satisfactory in terms of envi-
ronmental protection." 26) To meet its responsibilities to
provide environmental protection, EPA is developing a pro-
gram under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
(PL 93-523), which is a Federal/state cooperative effort
based on Federally set minimum standards and regulations ad-
ministered by the states.
385
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Haynes, C. D., and D. M. Grubb. 1969. Design and cost
of liquid-waste disposal systems. Natural Resources
Center, University of Alabama, Report 692, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
2. Donaldson, E. C., R. D. Thomas, and K. H. Johnston.
1974. Subsurface waste injection in the United States:
15 case histories. U. S. Bureau of Mines, Information
Circular 8636.
3. Stallman, R. W. 1972. Subsurface waste storage - the
earth scientist's dilemma. Pages 6-10 in American Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Geologists. Memoir 18 - under-
ground waste management and environmental implications.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
4. Reeder, L. R., and others. 1975. Review and assess-
ment of deep well injection of hazardous waste. Solid
and Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory, National Envi-
ronmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Open file.
5. Paul, J. R., and T. S. Talbot. 1969. Subsurface dis-
posal of solids. Presented at 98th Annual Meeting of
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petro-
leum Engineers, New York.
6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, Oil and Special Materials Control
Division, Special Sources Control Branch. 1974. Com-
pilation of industrial and municipal injection wells in
the United States. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA-520/9-74-020.
7. Brown, D. L. , and W. D. Silvey. 1973. Underground
storage and retrieval of fresh water from a brackish-
water aquifer. Pages 379-419 in Jules Braunstein, ed.
Underground waste management and" artificial recharge,
Vol. 1. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
8. 1973. Known incidents of ground-water pollution from
subsurface injection. Presented at Hearings before the
Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of
Representatives, Ninety-third Congress, first session
on HR 5368, H.R. 1059, H.R. 5348 and H.R. 5995, March 8
and 9, 1973.
386
-------
9. Vernon, R. 0. 1970. The beneficial uses of zones of
high transmissivities in the Florida subsurface for wa-
ter storage and waste disposal. Bureau of Geology,
Division of Interior Resources, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Information Circular 70.
10. van der Leeden, F., L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller.
1975. Ground-water pollution problems in the north-
western United States. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA-660/3-75-018.
11. Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. 1974.
Ground water contamination in the northeast states. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report 660/2-74-056.
12. Peek, H. M., and R. C. Heath. 1973. Feasibility study
of liquid-waste injection into aquifers containing salt
water, Wilmington, North Carolina. Pages 851-875 in
Jules Braunstein, ed. Underground waste management and
artificial recharge, Vol. 2. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
13. Lichtler, W. F., W. Anderson, and B. F. Joyner. 1968.
Water resources of Orange County, Florida. Division of
Geology, State Board of Conservation, State of Florida,
Report of Investigations 50.
14. Lichtler, W. F. 1972. Appraisal of water resources in
the east central Florida region. Bureau of Geology,
Division of Interior Resources, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Report of Investigations 61.
15. Sceva, J. E. 1968. Liquid waste disposal in the lava
terrane of central Oregon. Technical Projects Branch,
Northwest Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, Report FR-4.
16. Abegglen, D. E. 1970. The effect of drain wells on
the ground-water quality of the Snake River Plain. Id-
aho Bureau of Mines and Geology Pamphlet 148.
17. ORSANCO Advisory Committee on Underground Injection of
Wastewaters. 1973. Recommendations for underground
injection of wastewaters in the Ohio Valley Region.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO),
Cincinnati, Ohio.
18. Wright, J. L. 1969. Underground waste disposal. In-
dustrial Waste Engineering, May 1969.
387
-------
19. Cleary, E. J., and D. L. Warner. 1969. Perspective on
the regulation of underground injection of wastewaters.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO),
Cincinnati, Ohio.
20. Beogly, W. J. , and others. 1969. The feasibility of
deep-well injection of waste brine from inland desalt-
ing plants. Division of Technical Information, U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission. Report TID-25081.
21. Bruington, A. E. 1969. Control of sea-water intrusion
in a ground-water aquifer. Ground Water 7(3):9-14.
22. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Water Programs. 1973. Ground-water pollution from
subsurface excavations. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA-430/9-73-012.
23. Walker, W. R., and W. E. Cox. 1973. Legal and insti-
tutional considerations of deep well disposal. Pages
3-19 in Jules Braunstein, ed. Underground waste manage-
ment and artificial recharge, Vol. 1. American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
24. Ballantine, R. K., S. R. Reznek, and C. W. Hall. 1972.
Subsurface pollution problems in the United States. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report TS-00-72-02.
25. Greenfield, S. M. 1972. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - the environmental watchman. Pages 14-18
in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir
18 - underground waste management and environmental im-
plications. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
26. Keeley, J. W. 1971. Need for ground-water protection
in subsurface disposal and surface impoundments of
petrochemical wastes. Presented as testimony before
the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
April 5, 1971.
388
-------
SECTION XIV
DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL FEEDLOT WASTE
SUMMARY
The generation and disposal of large quantities of animal
waste at locations of concentrated feeding operations is a
relatively new environmental problem. Case histories of ac-
tual contamination of ground water caused by animal feeding
operations are almost non-existent. However, because such
practices are relatively new, assessment of potential prob-
lems is still underway.
There are three primary mechanisms of ground-water contamina-
tion from animal feedlots and their associated treatment and
disposal facilities: (1) runoff and infiltration from the
feedlots themselves, (2) runoff and infiltration from waste
products collected from the feedlots and disposed of on land,
and (3) seepage or infiltration through the bottom of a
waste lagoon. The principal contaminants are phosphate,
chloride, nitrate, and in some cases, heavy metals.
Cattle are the most serious potential problem in terms of
the volume of waste produced but sheep, poultry, and hog
feeding operations also represent potential sources of
ground-water contamination. During its 120- to 150-day stay
in the feedlot, each beef animal will produce over one-half
ton (0.45 tonne) of manure on a dry weight basis. In Janu-
ary 1975, there were almost 10 million cattle in feedlots of
more than 1,000-head capacity.
The two leading cattle feedlot regions, the Corn Belt and
the Northern Plains, form a grain-farming and livestock-
growing belt that extends easterly from the south-central
part of the Northern Plains, traverses the Missouri and Mis-
sissippi Rivers and terminates in western Ohio. Other sig-
nificant feedlot areas are found in California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, and Washington. Principal states for poultry
raising are located in the south, for hogs in the midwest,
and for sheep in the southwest and in the far west.
Application of manure to land for its fertilizer and soil
conditioner value is the classic system through which manure
has been utilized. Several methods have been proposed for
converting manure to energy products, the principal one in-
volving thermochemical processes for conversion to methane,
oil, and/or synthesis gas.
389
-------
"Concentration animal feeding operations" are regulated un-
der the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, and thus may be required to have a permit as a "point
source" under the NPDES. State animal-feedlot regulations
typically apply to the situation where the ratio of the num-
ber of animals to land area is high.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE
The generation and disposal of large quantities of animal
waste is a relatively new environmental problem. With the
increasing demand for more and better quality meat, live-
stock producers have responded with thousands of large con-
centrated feeding operations. 1) Cattle feedlots are the
most serious problem in terms of volume of waste produced,
and are given major emphasis in this report. However, sheep,
poultry and hog feeding operations also represent potential
sources of ground-water contamination.
Until 10 or 15 years ago, most beef animals were raised on
pasture land where wastes were easily assimilated into the
soil without significant surface-water or ground-water con-
tamination. In recent years centralized feeding operations
have increased sharply and by January 1975, there were al-
most 10 million cattle in feedlots of 1,000- to 50,000-head
capacity. 2)
During its 120- to 150-day stay in the feedlot, each beef
animal will produce over one-half ton (0.45 tonne) of manure
on a dry weight basis. The heavy concentrations of animal
wastes can overtax the natural assimilative capacity of the
soil, and runoff and infiltrating rainfall can carry high
concentrations of contaminants to both ground- and surface-
water bodies. Special collection, treatment and other con-
trol facilities are normally employed in an attempt to re-
duce the environmental impact of the wastes.
The ground-water contamination problems associated with ani-
mal feeding operations are diverse. Considerable research
and numerous demonstrations of waste management techniques
have been conducted in recent years. Some of the procedures
which were, developed for the collection and handling of ani-
mal wastes from feeding areas are shown in Figure 74. Essen-
tially, solids and liquids are separated by a mechanical de-
vice or settling pond, or removed from the site as a slurry.
If separated, the solid and liquid portions are removed to
their respective treatment, disposal, or reuse facilities.
Generally, only the larger installations (more than 1,000-
head capacity) have waste treatment facilities. The various
390
-------
z
.co
0
X
O to
Q IE
d y
K t
o )_ c! x
Sis*
Q Q HO
-1 -1 < Q
0 0 -1 p
to to to c
a
— ^
1-
z
Ul
(-
CD
z
— a—
z
x
^
or
Ul
h-
to
oi
z x
O H
°- i
Z Ul
p! z
ui x
(0 0
~J
— o—
_l
z
S o
m p
<
Z 19
o S
1- "=
z —
Ul
H O
u z
Q <
co
a
— * i
O
CO
or
or
^
_J
CO
(E
IE Ul
u a
IE 5 Ul
Ul O (E
< Q:"?;
3.ES Sg,,
|g2§^
?30lSf
feiif 6^
Sxi^Si
it to £ ui H Q
z
o
1°
* (-
X
Igg
r- — J O
Q S
| >
z § <
Q. t!>
o
Ij
1-
z
Ul
UJ
a:
u.
—
z
o
fe z K
IBS ?.
*£ B ^£
OT« 5 u,g§
§0 " §83
llsls|
iiSih
to
— 1
~j
tr.
o
x
_i
<
o
<
x
o
UJ
"• Z
Iz
(E UJ
(i) JE
CP Q^ ^
Z O UJ
— cc
|lo
u, °- *~
CO
IE
Sg
Iz
o z
(0 Ul
z
o i- u
r1 < ID
b ui <
< IE S
oHg
^g«
<
o
"a
'E
a
D)
c
O
O
O
u
0)
en
U
o
§
0)
,91
-------
alternatives for treatment are shown in Figure 75, and alter-
natives for the utilization or disposal of solid wastes and
treated effluent, are shown in Figure 76.
There are three primary mechanisms of ground-water contamina-
tion from animal feedlots and their associated treatment and
disposal facilities:
1. Runoff and infiltration from the feedlots themselves.
2. Runoff and infiltration from waste products disposed on
land.
3. Seepage or infiltration under a feedlot or through the
bottom of a waste lagoon.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTAMINANTS
The characteristics of the contaminants generated by animal
feeding operations are quite variable. A comparison of
these contaminants is shown in Table 64. Data from a number
of sources have been compared and certain constituents list-
ed. The concentrations of contaminants in the runoff from a
feedlot vary by a factor of as much as two in relation to
the surface slope of the lot, and whether it is paved or un-
paved. They are also influenced by the feeding method.
Table 65 shows analyses of runoff from unpaved (dirt) and
paved surface lots, where different rations are fed to the
cattle. The concentrations of contaminants in all cases
shown on both Tables 64 and 65 are significant and pose a po-
tential ground-water contamination problem. Major contami-
nants that have been indentified and are monitored quite
closely are: the nitrogen compounds, which influence the
concentration of nitrate in ground water; phosphate which
leads to eutrophication in surface water; fecal coliform
bacteria, which are not permissible in drinking water; chlo-
ride; and in some cases, heavy metals.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
The exact extent of the ground-water contamination problem
or potential problem from animal feeding operations is a
much discussed issue in recent literature. To date, general
inventories directed toward evaluating the effects of feed-
lots have not been conducted. Furthermore, the practice of
mass feeding of livestock is a relatively new phenomenon and
if problems are developing, they have not yet been recog-
nized on any significant scale. Case histories of actual
contamination instances are almost non-existent.
392
-------
UJ
a:
<
•s.
PHYSICAL
1
_i
<
— °_
iii
X
o
_1
<
0
CD
3~
o
CO
z
s
~Q.~
S
0
(-
<
a.
_T3_
c
_l
8
0
m
o
— cr-
UJ
<
<
o
AEROBI
ml!
22SVS
MM*
£ y ui o
oSa"
g°
pi- <2
£
a
D
E
"c
a
u-
O
4-
C
E
.4—
_c
b
u-
m
QJ
• —
O
L-
£
<
•
Ifl
S
£
D)
LL.
H
UJ
r>
U-
u.
UJ
a:
0
UJ
X
3
2>
<
_i
<
CO
Q_
a
oc
UJ
>
o
UJ
a:
0
0
o:
a.
•r
NCINERATIOI
1
BURIAL
^
a
I
t-
_ UJ
Qs
— B^-
u.g
CO
sP
ZQ
Q^_
_JQ
=2
m£
iii
Z)
u.
o
i<
— Zo-
_I_J
a.
a.
<
j
RS
z
s3
O
Id
a. u.
a. g
u z
u <
a -J
UJ
3
S
5
-------
CO
tx~
^o"
10"
s.
B
CO
o
h-
LU
o_
O
o
z
Q
1 1 1
LU
1 ^
^
O
D£
u_
sl
ULJ •*"•
K- O
Q£ C
0 s
Q_ j.
0£ C
f ) *.
H1 1.
oo CL
ry r-
LU •—
U c
< .2
< g
X *:
U %
*"~ f
Z o
-^
^ -2-
<
i —
Z
O
u
u_
0
z
o
to
Oi
Q.
0
u
3
0)
JD
j°
'o* 'c?
^"
0)
c
til
c
3
(1)
O
3
Ul—
O
c
3
(U
O)
E
0)
<^
tt 0
O D
3 1;
*~ V)
0)"°
2 >
> 1
•^f *r
^-
• i ^™^^
JJ. ^ IO ~^'
'o' ^
CN O
— CO
u"> CO O O O O
txllll II 1 OOlOOII
vQ IO Tj- i —
•— 10 -«J- rx
'"ij* r^?
o o
• •
CD *"" " ^" tx '^J' ^O SO ^O
OOllll II 1 lOCO'OOCN
CM rx o •— co
CN rx co -5j- oo
O CD CO O O "O O^
8-^vOO^O <>•• — III Illll
CD O"* **3" O *O
«. •> ^ •» V
_ _ ^J. _ _
lO U-) CO O •* O O
co 10 — *o r- LOCNIII 11111
CM -Tj- •— CN O CM tX
CN •— -^t ^ CN
v
T3
"o
t/1
T> _
4) C
« -a n '» .2 <" -^
O 2 ™"~ t5 S O 2 C *" *U S» O
^^.•^•S— 3"5"-Eo "oo>0.Eo
wi U Z j— > w)>Z
-a
"^
£
^
'o
c
-------
Table 65. COMPARISON OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF WATER QUALITY.
9)
BOD COD NO3 NH3-N ORG-N Alkalinity
Date pH (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Concentrations of contaminants in runoff from concrete -surfaced lot
on which cattle were fed roughage -concentrate ration
8-24-69 6.70 10,067 28,450 875 519 300
8-26-69 6.15 8,500 32,800 320 515 384
9-9-69 6.62 12,750 32,172 97 774 301
9-22-69 6.75 5,270 11,514 22 100 132
10-21-69 6.67 10,250 20,868 140 406 114
10-26-69 6.85 3,300 8,400 70 33 35
11- 1-69 7.00 5,566 16,252 0 115 115
Concentrations of contaminants in runoff from concrete -surfaced lot
on which cattle were fed all -concentrate ration
8-24-69 6.30 7,355 28,929 1,270 340 610
8-26-69 5.90 8,900 38,400 280 395 302
9- 9-69 5.60 10,400 30,230 228 518 797
9-22-69 6.90 4,424 10,080 36 460 650
10-21-69 6.35 8,300 20,742 386 304 293
10-26-69 6.70 12,000 23,000 350 140 235
11- 1-69 7.30 2,395 4,971 0 120 250
Average concentrations of contaminants in runoff from dirt lot
on which cattle were fed roughage -concentrate ration
8-24-69 7.68 1,758 8,280 103 79 200
8-26-69 7.40 1,010 2,964 24 77 25
9- 9-69 7.70 1,340 6,316 3 75 50
9-22-69 7.63 1,400 28,000 3 71 40
10-21-69 7.50 1,620 4,400 28 85 67
10-26-69 7.45 1,100 8,000 026
11- 1-69 7.70 2,200 8,795 0 3 117
Average concentrations of contaminants in runoff from dirt lot
on which cattle were fed all-concentrate ration
8-24-69 7.95 1,400 5,160 163 48 118
8-26-69 7.15 1,350 7,212 96 48 33
9-9-69 7.62 1,145 6,220 6 83 25
9-22-69 7.30 1,580 4,817 62 75 20
10-24-69 7.35 1,390 4,042 24 50 22
11- 1-69 7.10 3,210 9,942 0 30 17
2,104
2,056
2,402
1,632
170
86
336
1,030
1,584
1,174
1,380
116
236
116
1,238
928
856
1,400
99
183
436
955
1,602
864
746
70
360
395
-------
Some idea of the potential extent of the problem can be ob-
tained from the number, capacity, and distribution of cattle
feedlots. Table 66 lists the number and capacity (under or
over 1,000 head) of feedlots in 23 states for 1974. The dis-
tribution of feeding operations by county and number of cat-
tle is shown in Figure 77.
The two leading feedlot regions, the Corn Belt arid the North-
ern Plains, form a grain farming and livestock growing belt
that extends easterly from the south-central part of the
Northern Plains, traverses the Missouri and Mississippi Riv-
ers , and terminates in western Ohio. The rainfall in the
two regions ranges from moderate in the west to abundant in
the east. It is estimated that from 1962 to 1983, more than
0.8 billion tons (0.7 billion tonnes) of cattle feedlot
wastes will have been generated in these two regions. (The
Federal government has developed a variety of estimates on
the volume of manure generated by feedlot cattle; these
range from 4.5 to 11.7 tons/yr/1,000 Ib, or 0.009 to 0.02
tonnes/yr/kg, live steer weight.) This represents about
half of the United States total cattle feedlot waste during
the projected period in regions that represent less than 15
percent of rhe nation's total area; i.e., a concentration
of about six times that of the rest of the country. Table
67 shows the cattle production, feedlot acreages, and waste
deposits in the three leading regions with projections, from
1962 through 1983,
The U. S. Department of Agriculture estimated in 1969 that
1.7 billion tons (1.5 billion tonnes) of cattle wastes are
generated annually. 10) 'This total probably exceeds waste
production from any other segment of the national agricul-
tural, commercial, and domestic complex. Of this total,
only about 5 percent is deposited in feedlots, but the envi-
ronmental threat of waste concentrated on feedlots is dis-
proportionately large relative to the total cattle wastes.
The potential for ground-water contamination from all types
of animal waste-;s is substantial even when compared to poten-
tial problems from human wastes. Table 68 shows the 1975
animal population in the United States and its corresponding
man-equivalents of waste, Table 69 lists the principal
states producing poultry, sheep and hogs. The volume of ani-
mal wastes is equal to about ten times that generated by the
human population.
There are several potential contaminants in manure, but only
one is frequently encountered in ground water — nitrate.
Nitrate is the oxidation product of organically bound nitro-
gen, ammonium, and nitrite. Ground water is vulnerable to
396
-------
s~*^
CN
•
g
T
i/)
1 1 ^
I —
<
i/i
'o
«> _c
^ -Jf o
(J 0 O
E ^-v
|j
~7 *~
••— w
W> CM CN
0s- C5 ON
co o oo
CM* — "
rx rx co
"t NQ —
— NO
^& ^^
^T U">
CO OO
S8
IO IO
co o
co"
88
IO O
CM CM
CN"
o o
§£
••*• o CN,U-> •—
' —
•— co
^O {^ 00 '•O i-O OO
oo -«t •— co co
co"
O O NO O OO O
CM O tx IX -Nt O
O O CN O\ ON
•— CO -vl-
i — i — i —
S3 SD S3 CO ^O
OO S3 CM CN 00
o o — o o
O O CO O O
CM Tj- CO O CN
oo NO o*
ON —
O* ^5
OO CO
CO*
§N0
oo
CM •—
,_^
s
8
rx"
CO
CO
««.
CO
CM
CM
CO
rx
rx"
CO
^
•*.
t—
U~™
i
U
Q
Z
en
O
1
Q
•*-
^O
d?
t£
S^
,^-
O 0
8 §-
~ o
>
o
"o Q)
j: ** o
Q -J^ O
U E °
•
U.
S •»
_Q 4-
E o
Zu-
0
-«t o •— co
O> CD NO CO
00 Ov IX CO
^ ^
1— 1 —
— 0 00 CN
"^ CO OO IX
lOioixoioo-cNr- ID •* •— coo^NtOsooTi-oO'—
ONCMOO^tNONOiONOCNiOCOiOCOO IX •— NO CO
COOO — O CO IO-— •— CO CM
V ^ ^
>— CM CO
locoiogcoo-—
M-
"O
o
4)
_c
CJ
t.
d>
•o
c
^
'o
8.
o
o
o
a) Q) ^S?
t J §
I) Q O
E ^."
Ef\
u
3 —
•4 «*•
Z o
•— CO — •— IOS3OO
r— CO • — IO CO ' — O
^
CM
•OCOIOCNIOIXIOO
•^- o — o o •—
co o
co -t
10 -5
^o oo
•— o
|N^"
p^
CN
co"
o
r—
00
>o"
co
JU
_Q
O
rizona
aliforn
do
o
^o
o '*
o
_y
.52 %
0_£ g| o
0*55=11
c
-CO
c "
*J
e^ s
C 3 X.
fl> o a>
a- to f-
£.E
O) vi
C C
i.i
^$:
£
o
397
-------
c
o
u
o
0)
Q.
O
D)
C
0)
0)
o
o
o
_Q
£
D
398
-------
Table 67. GRAIN-FED BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION, FEEDLOT ACREAGE,
AND WASTE DEPOSITS OF THE THREE LEADING FEEDLOT RE-
GIONS, 1962-1983. 6)
Region
1962
1968
1971
1975
1979
1983
Corn Belt
Millions of cattle marketed and frac-
tion of national total (percent)
Millions of tons of waste deposits
Thousands of feedlot acres
Northern Plains
Millions of cattle marketed and frac-
tion of national total (percent)
Millions of tons of waste deposits
Thousands of feedlot acres
High Plains
Millions of cattle marketed and frac-
tion of national total (percent)
Millions of tons of waste deposits
Thousands of feedlot acres
United States
Millions of cattle marketed
Millions of tons of waste deposits
Thousands of feedlot acres
5.23
(35)
15.05
9.99
3.18
(21)
9.17
6.08
1.07
(7)
3.08
2.05
14.96
43.08
27.39
7.28
(32)
20.96
11.54
5.56
(24)
16.02
10.63
2.71
(12)
7.79
5.17
23.04
66.36
42.35
6.64
(26)
19.13
12.69
6.39
(25)
18.39
12.20
4.58
(18)
13.19
8.75
25.70
74.01
47.36
7.42
(26)
21.38
14.20
7.14
(25)
20.55
13.63
5.12
(18)
14.74
9.78
28.72
82.70
52.94
8.23
(26)
23.69
15.79
7.91
(25)
22.77
15.11
5.67
(18)
16.33
10.84
31.82
91.64
58.68
9.04
(26)
26.02
17.27
8.69
(25)
25.01
16.60
6.23
(18)
17.94
11.90
34.96
100.68
64.44
399
-------
Table68. UNITED STATES LIVESTOCK NUMBERS AND MAN WASTE EQUIVA-
LENTS, 1975. n/12)
Man equivalent Thousands
Livestock
Cattle
Sheep
Hogs
Chickens
Thousands
131,826
14,538
55,062
382,793
per head
16.4
2.45
1.90
0.14
Total man equivalents
2,161,946
35,618
104,618
53,591
Total man equivalents: 2,355,693
400
-------
Table 69. PRINCIPAL STATES PRODUCING POULTRY,
SHEEP AND HOGS IN 1973-1974. 13)
Poultry Hogs Sheep
(more than one billion (more than one million (more than one million
broilers produced in on farms in on farms in
1973) 1973) 1974)
Alabama Georgia California
Arkansas Illinois Colorado
Delaware Indiana Texas
Georgia Iowa Wyoming
Maryland Kansas
Mississippi Kentucky
North Carolina Minnesota
Texas Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Texas
Wisconsin
401
-------
nitrate contamination because nitrate is soluble in water,
and its concentration is essentially unchanged by contact
with the soil matrix. Bacteria and phosphate, other manure-
borne contaminants, are generally highly attenuated by
soils and thus do not constitute a serious threat to ground
water.
Factors which influence the susceptibility of ground water
to contamination from all types of feedlots are stocking
rate, manure removal management, depth to the water table,
soil texture and structure, and volume of water going to
ground-water recharge. 14) Low stocking rates and frequent
manure removal allow better aeration of deposited wastes re-
sulting in a high proportion of nitrate production. This is
accompanied by greater water infiltration which can leach
nitrate to ground water. 15) Such feedlots located where
ground water is relatively close to the surface tend to con-
tribute more nitrate to ground water than those located over
a deep water table. 14)
Soil texture is actually less important as a factor in ni-
trate transport to ground water than is feedlot management
which controls conditions at the soil surface. Heavy manure
accumulations tend to produce a somewhat impermeable mat.
The mat of manure creates its own physical characteristics
which overcome those of the underlying soil. Anaerobic con-
ditions, which allow denitrification, are likely within and
below the mat. Nitrate may thus be volatilized, and little
infiltration of precipitation will occur, thus limiting ni-
trate leaching. The potential for surface-water contamina-
tion from runoff is enhanced, however. Should runoff con-
taminate farm ponds, ground water could be contaminated by
pond infiltration. 16)
Case Histories
An example of the principles described above is discussed in
a report from a dairy in the Spokane Valley in Washington.
17) Soils were cored beneath a corral area and analyzed for
chemical and bacterial contamination. Total coliform, fecal
streptococci, and fecal coliform bacteria disappeared a few
feet from the soil surface. Nitrate was evident throughout
the length of the soil cores. However, the soils were well
below field capacity in moisture content. These observa-
tions led to the conclusion that nitrate migration was a
phenomenon which occurred early in the farm operation and
was arrested as organic mass formed at the soil surface.
A survey of Holt County, Nebraska, reported a wide range of
nitrate concentrations collected from 71 wells. 18) The con-
402
-------
centrations ranged from 0.1 to 409 ppm (as N03). Ground wa-
ter pumped close to feedlots was generally more enriched in
nitrate than it was when pumped from more distant wells.
A study of several feedlots in the High Plains of west Texas
showed that storage of wastes in unlined ponds can be a haz-
ard to local ground-water quality. 16) Contamination of
shallow aquifers was indicated in areas where direct runoff
from feedlots was.introduced onto agricultural lands and in-
to unlined surface storage areas.
Poultry waste can cause dispersal difficulties which are in
some ways more acute than those from cattle feedlots. The
wastes are generally more concentrated because of animal
physiology. Poultry can be housed in areas of relatively
dense human population which restricts disposal options
while simultaneously increasing pressure for odor abatement.
An example of a location stressed by poultry waste produc-
tion is the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware. There, 140 mil-
lion broilers produce more solid waste annually than all of
the citizens of New York City. 19) Most of the waste is re-
cycled into the soil, but the available area is inadequate
for proper utilization by crops. These conditions may lead
to excessive soil salinity, poor crop yields, and leaching
of nitrate.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Land Application
Application of manure to land for its fertilizer and soil
conditioner value is the classic system through which manure
has been utilized. A 1975 survey by EPA of ten major cattle
feeding states has revealed that high costs and shortages of
other types of fertilizers have increased the use of manure
and even depleted some stockpiles. 20) Table 70 summarizes
the results of the survey.
Thermochemical Conversion
Several schemes which have been proposed for converting ma-
nure to useful products by thermochemical processes are con-
version to methane, conversion to oil, and conversion to syn-
thesis gas. 21,22,23) while these experimental processes
are not currently economically feasible for large-scale use,
on-going research and increasing volumes of animal wastes
concentrated at feedlots may change the situation in the
future.
403
-------
Table 70. SUMMARY OF SURVEY INFORMATION ON MANURE UTILIZATION.
State
Assessment of Amount of
Manure Presently Being
Utilized
How Utilized
Texas
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
California
Colorado
Arizona
Illinois
Minnesota
South Dakota
Demand is greater than production. As a fertilizer on
Stockpiles from previous years have grain sorghum, corn
been depleted. silage and wheat.
100%
Disposal of feedlot wastes is no
longer a problem.
Utilized at rate of generation.
Majority of wastes are being ap-
plied on cropland. This trend is
increasing.
Utilization has increased two-fold
in recent months.
Stockpiles of manure from previous
years are gone.
As a fertilizer on corn
and soybeans.
As a fertilizer on corn.
As an organic ferti-
lizer on corn for its
nutrient and organic
content.
As a fertilizer on
truck crops, vine-
yards and orchards.
As an organic ferti-
lizer on corn for its
organic as well as
nutrient content.
As a fertilizer on
truck farms and
citrus groves.
A significant amount is presently As a fertilizer on
utilized and its demand is increas- cropland.
ing.
The bulk of the wastes are utilized. As a fertilizer on
corn, sorghum and
soybeans.
The majority of manure is being
utilized. This rate has increased
in recent months.
As a fertilizer on
cropland.
404
-------
Refeeding
Refeeding of manure to cattle is not sanctioned by the Food
and Drug Administration in the United States, although it is
permitted in Canada and the United Kingdom. Cattle defecate
directly in feed troughs, and they more or less routinely
"graze" on the manure contained in the feedlot.
Refeeding is considered by some investigators as a viable
waste management technique. 24) Organic waste from rumi-
nants has a chemical constitution similar to the feed in-
gested, and in addition, is enriched by the presence of an
abundance of rumen microbial matter. Organic waste as it is
voided by ruminants is a fermentation product which is bio-
logically safe for animals, and it has none of the character-
istics of organic waste products generally classified under
the heading "filth."
Some attempts are being made to utilize manure for the pro-
duction of flies, fly pupae, or fly larvae, which are all
very rich in protein, and can provide a valuable protein sup-
plement for animal feeds. 25) in the larval stage, flies
will remove up to 80 percent of the organic matter of manure;
converting what remains to a dry, reasonably stable, practi-
cally odorless product which retains value as a fertilizer
or soil conditioner. 26) other workers are utilizing micro-
organisms , rather than insects, as a means of converting ma-
nure into a usable protein. The advantage of microorganisms
is that they reproduce much more rapidly than do insects.
Thus, the degradation that can be accomplished in several
days by insects can generally be accomplished in several
hours by bacteria.
Costs -
Considerable amounts of research have been performed on
costs required to provide acceptable waste management sys-
tems for disposal of animal wastes. Based on hearings be-
fore a subcommittee of the Committee of Government Opera-
tions, on the control of pollution from feedlots, 27) esti-
mates of the total investment required, the investment per
head, annual cost per head, and cost per hundredweight of
beef marketed by size class have been tabulated in Table 71.
The runoff control costs for fed-beef operations showing the
range in cost increase per head marketed are given in Table
72. Figure 78 shows the cost per animal per day and invest-
ment cost for evaporation lagoons, which may be an accept-
able method of waste management in the high evaporation cli-
mates of the southwest.
405
-------
Table 71. TOTAL INVESTMENT, INVESTMENT/HEAD, ANNUAL COST/HEAD
AND PER CWT OF BEEF MARKETED BY SIZE CLASS REQUIRED TO
CONTAIN SURFACE-WATER RUNOFF FOR A 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR
STORM EVENT ON FARMS JUDGED TO HAVE SURFACE-WATER
POLLUTION PROBLEMS. 2B>
Size class Total investment
(head) (million dollars)
Total
investment/
head
(dollars)
Annual
cost/
head
(dollars)
Annual cost/
cwt of
beef a)
(dollars)
Eastern States b)
100
100- 199
200- 499
500- 999
1,000
Western States
1,000
1,000- 7,999
5,999-15,000
16,000+
91.8
12.4
10.1
3.7
5.2
c)
7.4
0.8
0.4
0.9
145.20
21.00
11.65
8.20
3.15
21.70
2.90
1.60
1.40
21.20
3.20
1.85
1.30
0.70
5.80
0.55
0.40
0.35
4.24
0.64
0.37
0.26
0.14
1.16
0.11
0.08
0.07
a) Assuming 500 pounds of gain/animal marketed
b) Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas
c) Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and California
406
-------
Table 72. RUNOFF CONTROL COSTS FOR F
IN DOLLARS. 28>
Capacity
(head)
< 100
100-199
200-499
500-999
1,000 and over
Capital
outlay
per head
(weighted
average)
145.20
21.00
11.60
8.18
3.13
Range in
capital outlay
per head a)
-
13.42 -46.84
8.66 -37.61
4.44 - 20.73
2.62 - 30.71
:ED-BEEF OPERATIONS
Cost
increase
per head
marketed
(weighted
average)
21.17
3.19
1.84
1.28
0.69
Range in cost
increase
per head
marketed a)
-
2.57 -6.55
0.64 -5.04
0.68 -2.49
0.40 -4.03
a) The range in these per head costs reflects differences in housing type, location,
and per-unit charges for excavation and construction. In addition, as feedlot
size was determined by marketings, the actual sizes of feedlots within a
particular capacity category may vary among states, especially for smaller
size classes; therefore, the per head cost increase range has been omitted for
operations of less than 100 head.
407
-------
smmoa do saNvsnoHi 'isoo
o
o
4—
C
-------
Many waste management techniques have been and are being
evaluated. Present price trends of fuel and feed are making
these techniques more appealing than a few years ago. As
more wastes are reused and recycled, the contamination poten-
tial will tend to decrease.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
"Concentration animal feeding operations" are regulated un-
der Sec. 502(14) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, and thus may be required to have a per-
mit as a "point source" under the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System. 29) According to current EPA es-
timates , as affected by a recent court decision invalidating
previous exclusion of small feedlots from permit require-
ments, as many as 95,000 livestock feeding operations may be
covered by the Act.
State animal feedlot regulations typically apply only to sit-
uations where the ratio of the number of animals to land
area is so high that concentrations of waste threaten to
cause water pollution, in which case a permit is required.
Basically, the regulations call for surface runoff to be di-
verted away from the lot. A settling pond and lagoon must
be provided, with additional treatment of the effluent, if
necessary. Some also specify the manner in which waste from
the lot may be stored or disposed of on land. The regula-
tions vary in detail. For example, Montana's regulation is
brief, and general in statement, 30) whereas the Iowa and
Oregon regulations are relatively detailed. 31,32)
Operations Subject to Regulation
The Iowa confined feeding regulation includes an open feed-
lot only where the animal population exceeds a specified num-
ber and the square feet of lot area per animal is less than
a specified number. For instance, the regulation applies to
beef cattle where animal population exceeds 100 and lot area
per animal is less than 600 sq ft (56 sq m). The Iowa regu-
lation separately treats a "confinement feeding operation" —
one having a roofed or partially-roofed enclosure where
wastes are removed as liquid or semi-liquid. In such a case,
area is not involved and the regulation applies by number of
animals, e.g., for beef cattle, 50; for sheep, 600.
Registration of an open feedlot is required if one or more
of the following conditions exist:
1. The number of animals exceeds 1,000 (beef cattle).
409
-------
2. The feedlot contributes to a watercourse draining more
than 3,200 acres (1,295 ha) of land above the lot and
the distance from the feedlot to the nearest point on
the watercourse is less than 200 ft (61 m) per 100 ani-
mals (beef cattle).
3. The runoff water from the feedlot (or collection facil-
ity) flows directly into a tile line or other buried
conduit, well, hole, pit, lake, or pond.
*
Registration of a "confinement feeding operation" is re-
quired if:
1. The number of animals exceeds 100 (beef cattle).
2. Overflow contributes to a watercourse.
3. The runoff water from the feedlot (or collection facil-
ity) flows directly into a tile line or other buried
conduit, well, hole, pit, lake, or pond. 31)
Examples of where regulations apply in other states are as
follows: Kansas - 300 or more head of cattle, swine, sheep,
or horses, any operation using a lagoon, or any operation
having a water-pollution potential; 33) Minnesota, 34) Mon-
tana, 30) and Nebraska 35) - feeding any livestock in a con-
fined area not normally used for raising crops or as pasture;
Oregon - feeding or holding areas in buildings, pens, or
lots where the surface has been prepared with concrete, rock,
or fibrous material to support animals in wet weather or
where the concentration of animals has destroyed the vegeta-
tive cover and the natural infiltrative capacity of the
soil. 32)
The Iowa regulation contains factors to be considered in de-
termining whether a facility will constitute a pollution
problem, such as location relative to water sources; type
of surface, soil and slope; hydrological and geological con-
ditions; permeability of retention structure to control ex-
cessive seepage; control of discharge in proportion to
stream flow; animal density; anticipated waste load; dis-
tance to structures occupied by humans; direction of pre-
vailing winds; applicable water-quality standards; and pro-
posed methods for waste disposal. Despite other criteria in
the law or regulations, the law will be applied or waived in
a particular situation depending upon these factors. 31)
Information Required for a Permit
Iowa requires the location to be sketched on an aerial photo-
410
-------
graph. Information must include details on: 31)
1. Building and lot areas.
2. Lagoons or waste-holding pits.
3. Direction of surface drainage from site.
4. Location of wells and dwellings within 1,000 ft (305 m)
of site
5. Adjacent properties.
6. Land area set aside for waste disposal.
Minnesota and Oregon have similar requirements, but Minneso-
ta also requires a description of geologic conditions, soil
types, and ground-water elevations, a plan of operational
procedures, location of treatment works, and quantity and
type of effluent to be discharged. 34) Oregon requires cli-
matological data and details of feed preparation and han-
dling; a location map showing ownership, zoning, and use of
adjacent lands; and location of the proposed operation in
relation to residences and domestic water-supply sources. 32)
Prohibited Locations
The Nebraska regulation prohibits location of a livestock
waste-control facility (e.g., a detention pond) within 100
ft (30 m) of any well used for domestic purposes, or within
1,000 ft (305 m) of a municipal water supply well unless the
operator can show that it will not result in ground-water
contamination. 35)
Minnesota prohibits location of new livestock feedlots with-
in shoreland or a floodway (protected under other statutes),
within 1,000 ft (305 m) of a public park, in sinkholes or
areas draining into sinkholes, or within one-half mi (0.8
km) of the nearest point to a concentration of ten or more
private residences. 34)
Facility Requirements
Subject to waiver when not necessary, or additional require-
ments when necessary, the Iowa regulation specifies that the
minimum water-pollution control facilities for an open feed-
lot shall be terraces or retention basins capable of contain-
ing 4 in. (10 cm) of runoff. Diversion of surface drainage
above the feedlot is required and a settling basin is to be
provided where necessary. For a "confinement feeding opera-
411
-------
tion," the minimum facility is a tank or basin capable of
holding 120 days' waste. 31)
The Kansas regulation works in a similar manner, requiring
facilities if a potential water-pollution problem exists.
For cattle, the retention pond must hold 3 in. (8 cm) of run-
off. 33)
The Nebraska regulation requires a detention structure capa-
ble of holding runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm. For
"housed" operations, the requirement, as in Iowa, is the
capacity to hold 120 days' accumulation. 35)
The Oregon regulation is considerably more detailed, consist-
ing not only of capacity requirements, but method of diking,
requirement of overflow relief structures, prevention of ero-
sion, and other regulations including solids handling sys-
tems and conveyance and disposal facilities. 32)
Operation of Facilities
The regulations also contain certain operating requirements,
which in essence require that contamination be prevented.
Montana requires the operator to provide personnel who have
adequate skill and time to maintain and operate the facility
consistent with the approved application. 30) The Nebraska
regulation states: "Caution should be exercised to insure
that a thin layer of manure remains on the lots during scrap-
ing and that the soil-manure interface not be disturbed."
That regulation also instructs the operator in keeping the
feedlot surface aerobic so that production of odors is cur-
tailed. 35) The California Water Resources Board has issued
guidelines specifically addressed to the protection of
ground water; among these is the recommendation that salt
in animal rations be limited to that required to maintain
animal health and optimum production. 36)
Storage, Transportation, and Disposal
Individual state regulations also may apply to storage,
transportation, and disposal of collected wastes. In es-
sence, the regulations state that these activities shall be
conducted so that contamination does not occur, and pollu-
tion-control laws are complied with.
The Oregon regulation contains requirements for liquid-
manure spreading, including: a plan of uniform coverage,
plan of rotation for liquid-manure irrigation systems, selec-
tion of equipment, provision of adequate land for year-round
disposal, type of land to use, harvesting of vegetative cov-
412
-------
er, livestock grazing, and prohibition of seepage basins ex-
cept where the operator can demonstrate that ground-water
contamination will not result. 32)
The Iowa Water Quality Commission has adopted a policy on
land disposal of animal wastes concerning a maximum average
nitrogen application rate of 250 Ib/acre (280 kg/ha). The
policy also addresses such items as phosphorus limits, waste
disposal on snow-covered land, land subject to flooding,
land near watercourses, and odor control. 31)
413
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Scalf, M. R., J. W. Keeley, and C. J. LaFevers. 1973.
Ground water pollution in the south central states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-R2-
73-268. 181 pp.
2. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting
Service, Crop Reporting Board. 1975. Cattle on feed.
Mt An 2-1 (1-75). 13 pp.
3. Smith, R. J., and J. R. Miner. 1975. Livestock waste
management with pollution control. Pages 4, 5, and 8,
Table 3 in North Central Regional Research Publication
222.
4. Coleman, E. A., and others. 1971. Cattle feedlot pol-
lution study. Page 6 in Texas Water Quality Board Re-
port 2.
5. Manges, H. L., L. S. Murphy, and E. H. Goering. 1972.
Disposal of beef feedlot wastes onto cropland. Pages 2
and 3 in American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Paper No. 72-961.
6. Karubian, J. E. 1974. Polluted groundwater: esti-
mating the effects of man's activities. Pages 84, 85,
and 95 iri U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
680/4-74-002.
7. Clark, R. N., C. B. Gilbertson, and H. R. Duke. 1975.
Quantity and quality of beef feedyard runoff on the
Great Plains. U. S. Department of Agriculture.
8. State Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Division. 1973.
Storm water quality as affected by cattle feedlot run-
off. Page 5, Table 2 in Iowa Department of Environ-
mental Quality Preliminary Report.
9. Wells, D. M., and others. 1972. Characteristics of
wastes from southwest beef cattle feedlots. Pages 13,
15, 16, 22, and 24 in Cornell Agricultural Waste Man-
agement Conference.
10. Secretary of Agriculture. 1969. Animal wastes. Pages
25-34 in U. S. Department of Agriculture, Control of
agriculture - related pollution.
414
-------
11. U. S. Department of Agriculture. April 1975. Live-
stock and meat situation.
12. Wadleigh, C. H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agricul-
ture and forestry. Agricultural Research Service, U. S,
Department of Agriculture. Miscellaneous publication
No. 1065.
13. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1974. Statistical abstracts of the United States.
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
1,028 pp.
14. McCalla, T. M., and F. G. Viets, Jr. 1969. Chemical
and microbial studies of wastes from beef cattle feed-
lots. Agricultural Research Service, Nebraska Soil and
Water Conservation Research Division. Page 24.
15. Walter, M. E., G. D. Bubenzen, and J. C. Cenvase. 1974.
Movement of manurial nitrogen in cool, humid climates.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper
74-2018.
16. Wells, D. M., and others. Control of water pollution
from southwestern cattle feedlots. Texas Water Quality
Board. Page 21.
17. Crosby, J. W., III, D. L. Johnstone, and R. L. Fenton.
1971. Migration of pollutants in a glacial outwash en-
vironment. Water Resources Research 7(1):204-208.
18. Engberg, R. A. 1967. The nitrate hazard in well wa-
ter with special reference to Holt County, Nebraska.
Page 18 in University of Nebraska Conservation and Sur-
vey Division. Nebraska Water Survey Paper 21.
19. Gillies, N. P., editor. 1975. Ground. Water Newsletter.
Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
4:17.
20. Anderson, R. K. 1975. Feedlot wastes. Systems Manage-
ment Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unpub-
lished report.
21. Wells, D. M., G. A. Whetstone, and R. M. Sweazy. 1973.
Manure, how it works. Page 18 in American National
Cattlemens Association. Conference proceedings.
415
-------
22. Feldman, H. F. 1971. Pipeline gas from solid wastes.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers 69th National
Meeting. New York.
23. Halligan, J. E., and R. M. Sweazy. 1972. Thermochemi-
cal evaluation of animal waste conversion processes.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers 72nd National
Meeting. New York.
24. Anthony, W. *B. 1969. Cattle manure: the re-use
through wastelage feeding in Cornell University Animal
waste management conference proceedings. New York.
25. Culvert, C. C., R. D. Martin, and N. O. Morgan. 1969.
Dual roles for house flies in poultry manure disposal.
Poultry Science 48(5).
26. Anon. Feed recycling showing promise. California News.
27. House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, 1st Session.
Control of pollution from animal feedlots. Hearings
before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Government
Operations.
28. Butchbaker, A. F., and others. 1971. Evaluation of
beef cattle feedlot waste management alternatives.
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma
State University for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
29. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
PL 92-500.
30. Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences.
1972. Regulation for the control of water and air pol-
lution from confined livestock feeding.
31. Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. Water qual-
ity commission regulation 1.3(4553).
32. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Regula-
tions relating to water quality control in Oregon.
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 5.
33. Kansas Board of Health Regulations 28-18-1 et seq.
34. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1971. Regulations
for the control of wastes from livestock feedlots,
poultry lots and other animal lots.
416
-------
35. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1972.
Rules and regulations pertaining to livestock waste
control.
36. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1973.
Minimum guidelines for protection of water quality from
animal wastes. Sacramento, California.
417
-------
SECTION XV
PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
NOT RELATED TO WASTE-DISPOSAL PRACTICES
SUMMARY
Aside from the possibility of contamination of ground water
from present-day, waste-disposal practices, there are numer-
ous other sources that can cause degradation of water qual-
ity. Few regional and national assessments of ground-water
contamination problems have been undertaken. However, with-
out exception, the number of documented cases reported is
evenly divided between incidents related to waste-disposal
practices and those related to non-waste disposal problems.
Spills rank highest in reported incidents, with abandoned
oil and gas wells, water wells, and highway deicing salts
also of prime importance. Only salt-water encroachment in
coastal regions has received major attention from regulatory
agencies and because of this is adequately controlled in
most critical areas.
INTRODUCTION
Aside from the possibility of contamination of ground water
from present day waste disposal practices there are numerous
other sources of contaminants that can cause degradation of
ground-water quality. The principal ones are: (1) spills
and leaks, (2) mine drainage, (3) salt-water intrusion, (4)
water wells, (5) oil and gas wells, (6) surface water infil-
tration, (7) agricultural activities, (8) highway deicing
salts, and (9) atmospheric contaminants.
The severity of ground-water contamination and the actual
volume of ground water degraded by these sources is diffi-
cult to assess. Nevertheless, their total impact on ground-
water quality might be as great as that caused by the waste
disposal practices discussed previously.
Few inventories of ground-water contamination cases have
been conducted to date. However, in 1972 and 1973, person-
nel from the U. S. Geological Survey made a general recon-
naissance of ground-water contamination problems in the
United States. 1,2,3,4,5) The investigation relied princi-
pally on published information, backed up by a limited num-
ber of personal interviews with representatives of Federal,
state, and local agencies. Cases of ground-water contamina-
tion were compiled on a state by state basis for all 50
418
-------
states. Of a total of more than 800 cases inventoried,
about half were not related to waste-disposal practices.
A breakdown of these cases by source of contamination is
shown on Table 73 (Column 1). Most problems reported were
from salt-water intrusion, followed by leaks from pipelines
and storage tanks. It is interesting to note that salt-
water intrusion was the earliest form of ground-water contam-
ination recognized by workers in the field and therefore,
presently dominates the literature.
Results of an intensive investigation of ground-water contam-
ination carried out in the central and lower Susquehanna
River basin in Pennsylvania are an interesting comparison to
the U. S. Geological Survey inventory (Table 73, Column 2).
A total of 236 cases of ground-water contamination were in-
ventoried in this relatively small region, 111 of which were
not related to waste disposal practices. Spills and leaks
were found to be by far the most prevalent sources of contam-
ination, followed by highway deicing salts and agricultural
practices. The region is not coastal, and salt-water intru-
sion is not a factor.
In 1975, an informal survey of 20 states was conducted by
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. to determine the status of abandoned
water wells and the principal reasons for abandonment. 7)
It was found that, in the states contacted, detailed records
of this nature are not maintained. However, based on the in-
formation obtained, most domestic, public supply, industrial,
and irrigation wells are abandoned because of decline in
yield. Many others are abandoned because of a rise in con-
centration in the well water of such constituents as iron
and chloride, with the reasons for the change in water qual-
ity rarely fully investigated. The principal contaminant re-
ported to public agencies appeared to be gasoline, which had
leaked from buried storage tanks.
Other inventories of ground-water contamination problems are
represented by a series of regional studies being sponsored
by the EPA. To date, four investigations covering 26 states
have been completed. 8,9,10,11) of the principal sources of
ground-water contamination not related to waste disposal
practices evaluated in these studies, the most important
from the standpoint of degrading ground-water quality in at
least three of the four regions, were abandoned oil and gas
wells, irrigation return flows, spills, and leaks from bur-
ied tanks and pipelines. The principal contaminants report-
ed were chloride, nitrate, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.
To provide a better understanding of these instances of
419
-------
Table 73. PREVALENCE OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION NOT
RELATED TO WASTE DISPOSAL
Source of contamination
U.S.G.S.
National
Inventory If2,3,4,5)
Central and lower
Susquehanna River
basin, PA. °)
Total number of cases
Related to waste disposal
(non differentiated)
Not related to waste disposal
Spills
Leaks (pipelines and storage
tanks)
Mine drainage
Salt-water intrusion
Water wells
Oil and gas wells
Surface-water infiltration
Agricultural activities
General
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Irrigation return flows
Highway deicing salts
Storage
Application
Atmospheric contamination
Total
Percent of total cases
809
373
34
65
12
114
40
38
39
11
17
5
16
26
19
0
436
54
236
125
31
45
5
1
4
14
3
0
111
47
420
-------
ground-water contamination, they are briefly discussed in
the following sections. Non-referenced case histories that
are quoted appeared in the four EPA regional studies re-
ferred to above.
SPILLS AND LEAKS
Accidental spills of liquid wastes, toxic fluids, gasoline,
and oil occur in every region, accompanied by the risk that
the contaminant can migrate down to the saturated sediments,
and degrade ground-water quality. By far the most prevalent
contaminants reported as affecting ground-water quality from
this source are hydrocarbons. Spills can occur at industri-
al sites; along city streets, highway and railroad rights
of way; and at airports. Spills and leaks of radioactive
substances have taken place at facilities of the Energy Re-
search and Development Administration.
A typical instance of a serious case of ground-water contam-
ination from a spill occurred in the Northeast in 1957 when
30,000 gal. (114 cu m) of jet fuel were spilled on the
ground at an Air Force base. The crystalline rock aquifer
was so badly contaminated that the original wells supplying
the base could not be used for 15 years after the spill took
place. In the Northwest, the Department of Ecology of the
State of Washington recorded, during the first six months of
1973, nearly 500 complaints of spills, many of which af-
fected ground-water quality.
The accidental spill -is an unavoidable hazard inherent in
the storing and transportation of fluids. It is in the han-
dling of spills after they have taken place that better pro-
tection of ground-water resources can be achieved. In the
past, for example, liquids spilled on highways have been sim-
ply flushed from the road to adjacent soils at the expense
of contamination of a shallow aquifer in order to have a min-
imal effect on traffic flow. Because time appears to be the
most important factor in minimizing ground-water contamina-
tion from spills, some state and Federal agencies have devel-
oped procedures for reporting spills and leaks to the proper
authorities so that effective action can be taken quickly.
Contaminants escaping from leaky and ruptured buried pipes
and from storage tanks are another common problem that can
affect ground-water quality. Again, the principal contam-
inants reported are hydrocarbons, which have leaked from gas-
oline service station and home fuel-oil storage tanks, in-
dustrial production facilities, and petroleum product trans-
mission lines.
421
-------
Details on the number of cases of ground-water contamination
due to leakage from buried tanks and pipelines that occur
each year are generally not available. However, some statis-
tics are revealing. A review of 203 legal proceedings, in-
volving ground-water contamination in the United States and
England, indicated that leaks from refineries, oil storage
depots, pipelines, gas mains and gasoline service stations
were the source of contamination in 40 cases. 12) Leaks
from gasoline and.home fuel-oil storage tanks were also re-
sponsible for the vast majority of cases of ground-water con-
tamination in the central and lower Susquehanna Basin of
Pennsylvania as shown in Table 73. The Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources estimates that 2,600 new or
replacement storage tanks are buried each year within that
state. Failure of the tank is normally the reason for re-
placement, and the product originally contained has been
lost to the ground. In Colorado, the State Oil and Gas In-
spection Office records gasoline leaks on a monthly basis.
As much as 37,000 gal. (140 cu m) from various sources leak-
ed into the subsurface during one 30-day period. 11)
A well-documented case occurred in southern California in
1968. Thousands of gallons of gasoline were found to have
contaminated a broad area underlying the City of Glendale.
About 30 wells for observation, containment, and removal
were drilled in the problem area, and the clean-up operation
involved installation of special facilities for separating
gasoline from the contaminated water pumped from the wells.
Transportation pipelines are used for a wide number of
materials such as oil, gas, ammonia, coal, and sulfur.
Their heaviest use is for the transportation of petroleum
products, and natural gas. In 1972, 99 companies operated
174,000 mi (280,000 km) of petroleum pipelines, of which
43,000 mi (69,000 km) were gathering lines and 131,000 mi
(211,000 km) were trunk lines. In the same year a total of
5.1 billion bbl (811 million cu m) of crude oil and 3.4 bil-
lion bbl (540 million cu m) of oil products moved through
trunk lines. 13)
Because interstate pipelines are a major means of transporta-
tion, they are regulated by Federal agencies. As leaks of
petroleum products can produce a fire or explosion hazard,
these regulated pipelines are required to report leaks and
spills of more than 50 bbl (8 cu m).
A summary of accidents and volume of liquids lost in inter-
state pipelines during 1971 is given in Table 74. More than
300 pipeline accidents took place that year, and the total
volume of hydrocarbons lost was approximately 250,000 bbl
422
-------
Table74. SUMMARY OF INTERSTATE PIPELINE ACCIDENTS FOR 1971.
Commodity
Crude Oil
Gasoline
L.P.G.
Fuel Oil
Diesel Fuel
Condensate
Jet Fuel
Natural Gasoline
Anhydrous Ammonia
Kerosene
Alkylate
No. of
Accidents
172
51
39
21
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
Percent of
Total
55.9
16.6
12.7
6.8
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
Loss
(Barrels)
115,760
42,001
39,887
13,724
6,953
3,658
2,236
8,743
9,810
700
1,585
Percent of
Total
47.2
17.1
16.3
5.6
2.8
1.5
0.9
3.6
4.0
0.3
0.7
Total:
308
100.0
245,057
100.0
Note: Barrels multiplied by 0.16 equals cubic meters.
423
-------
(40,000 cu m). The most frequent cause of pipeline failure
was external corrosion (102 cases), followed by damage from
excavating machines (67 cases). 14)
Hydrocarbon spills and leaks pose very difficult environ-
mental problems. Small spills may be absorbed or adsorbed
in the unsaturated zone, but in large spills a substantial
quantity of fluid will percolate down to the water table.
Depending on the density and miscibility of the fluid it
will tend to float or mix with the ground water. Removal by
pumping is difficult as the fluids frequently react differ-
ently (two-fluid systems) and thus, interfere with recovery.
Low-density, low-miscibility fluids, such as refined petro-
leum products, have been removed by skimming from the top of
the water table in a few places.
One of the most serious consequences of pipeline and tank
leakage into the soil is that oils and petroleum products in
even trace quantities will render potable water objection-
able because of taste and odor. In sufficiently high con-
centrations, the vapors of lighter fractions of petroleum
products, liquified petroleum gas, and natural gas can seep
into basements, excavations, tunnels, and other underground
structures. These vapors mix with the air in the cavity and
constitute a severe explosion or fire hazard in the presence
of open flame or sparks.
Chemicals such as ammonia and other agricultural or indus-
trial chemicals can have toxic properties. For example,
ammonia will add to the nitrification of ground water, while
acids lower the pH of ground water which, in turn, will ac-
celerate the solution of soil solids and heavy metals.
MINE DRAINAGE
Ground-water contamination associated with extensive mining
operations is prevalent in the northeast, northwest, and to
some extent, in the southwest regions. Most mining opera-
tions encounter ground water, and drainage of highly mineral-
ized water from mine workings can cause ground-water contam-
ination.
Dewatering of mines to allow work to proceed below the water
table causes water levels to fall and may result in air con-
tact and oxidation of exposed sulfide-bearing minerals. The
most common ore—sulfide mineral association is that of coal
and pyrite (iron disulfide), but other associations exist,
and such ores as galena (lead ore) and sphalerite (zinc ore)
are themselves sulfides. Sulfide minerals in the ground-
water environment are normally stable. However, when ex-
424
-------
posed to air, they oxidize to a form that is easily leached
by water to form sulfuric acid and a soluble sulfate com-
pound of the principal metal ion.
The oxidation of sulfide minerals does not by itself cause
ground-water contamination. However, percolating surface wa-
ter from streams or from rainfall entering the mine, leaches
the minerals and may transport them downward to the water
table. After a mine is abandoned, and dewatering operations
are suspended, the local water table rises up through the ox-
idized minerals, accelerating the leaching. For this reason,
abandoned mines, including strip mines, are a greater source
of ground-water contamination than are operating mines.
In a study of ground-water quality in Appalachia, high iron
and sulfate concentrations and low pH in ground water were
traced to coal mining operations. 15) Even with cessation
of mining it was estimated that decades would be required be-
fore the ground water would become usable again. In north-
western Pennsylvania, acid mine drainage moved downward from
strip mines into underlying aquifers through abandoned oil
and gas wells and rock fractures, increasing the iron and
sulfate content of the ground water.
Thousands of active and abandoned metal mines in the western
United States contribute to the acid drainage problem. In
Montana, over 100 lead, silver, and copper mines discharge
acid water. In Washington, drainage from abandoned gold
mines is believed to be the source of high manganese in in-
dividual well-water supplies, and in Idaho, cases of cattle
poisoning were reported to have been caused by arsenic leach-
ates from abandoned mines. Radium concentration in uranium
mine drainage can be raised from 50 to 200 times above back-
ground as a result of oxidation and ore leaching. High con-
centrations of Ra-226 have been found in ground waters of
the uranium mining district in Shirley Basin, Wyoming.
There is considerable concern about the impact on ground-
water quality from large-scale coal strip mining planned in
Montana and Wyoming. Although western coal is lower in sul-
fur content (as pyrite) than eastern coal beds, acid water
could be produced. This acid drainage could contaminate im-
portant water-bearing sandstones associated with these coal
beds.
Measures to correct drainage of poor quality water from aban-
doned mines typically are prohibitive in cost. These may in-
clude sealing of mine openings to prevent drainage or to re-
duce entrance of precipitation, flooding with water to elim-
inate air contact with acid forming minerals, and chemical
425
-------
treatment of drainage water.
SALT-WATER INTRUSION
Intrusion of salty water into fresh-water aquifers in coast-
al areas is one form of ground-water contamination that has
been widely recognized for many years. Salt water occurs
naturally in water-table and artesian aquifers in coastal
areas and pumping from wells can induce the mineralized wa-
ter to intrude into fresh-water zones.
The large number of individual and widely publicized cases
of salt-water intrusion (see Table 73) has led to the devel-
opment of strict controls over diversion of ground water in
the coastal plain states of the northeast. These controls
on pumpage have been most effective in eliminating salt-
water intrusion as a critical problem in this region.
Contamination of wells with sea water does not appear to be
a major problem in the northwest. However, in the Gulf
Coast area, salt-water encroachment has affected a number of
important and heavily pumped ground-water areas including
Baton Rouge and Lake Charles in Louisiana and Houston, Gal-
veston-Texas City, and Matagorda-Lavoca Bay in Texas.
California has had serious problems of salt-water encroach-
ment in many of its coastal basins. Various agencies in the
state have established programs to reverse the movement of
intruding saline water, the most well known of which in-
volves the placement of a series of "barriers." The barri-
ers, such as those in the Los Angeles area, are established
by injecting non-saline water at a line of wells whose axis
roughly parallels the ocean shore. Some of these barriers
have been successful in reversing the hydraulic gradient in
the affected aquifer so that flow is toward the sea instead
of toward fresh-water supply wells.
An even more critical problem than salt-water intrusion in
coastal areas, is that which can occur inland. More than
two-thirds of the conterminous United States is underlain by
water containing more than 1,000 ppm of dissolved solids and
many inland fresh-water aquifers are hydraulically connected
with saline ground water. 16) in most cases, the heavier
mineralized water underlies the fresh water. Where wells
are too deep or where excessive pumping modifies the hydrau-
lic gradient, saline water may be drawn into zones formerly
containing fresh water.
Unlike coastal intrusion, potential problems associated with
inland saline ground-water bodies have not been studied in
426
-------
detail. Regulatory controls over diversion of ground water
and well construction have not been developed to the degree
that they have in coastal areas.
WATER WELLS
Water wells under certain conditions can be sources of
ground-water contamination. Typical examples are where a
casing has been corroded or ruptured, where a well screen or
an open bore hole interconnects two separate aquifers, or
where the surface casing has not been adequately sealed in
soil or rock. Water wells can serve as a means for trans-
mission of contaminants from one aquifer to another or from
the land surface to an aquifer.
In some of the south-central states, improperly constructed
and abandoned water wells are considered by many public
agency officials to be the most significant cause of ground-
water contamination. Problems are especially prevalent in
cavernous limestones, such as those in the Edwards Plateau
of Texas and the Ozark Plateau of Arkansas. Unplugged aban-
doned water wells tapping artesian brine aquifers have re-
sulted in reported cases of contamination of shallow ground-
water supplies in a number of counties in Texas. In Florida,
abandoned wells that flow salty water are considered a major
ground-water contamination problem.
In the northeast, salt-water intrusion in coastal areas has
been aggravated at numerous locations by the presence of cor-
roded well casings, which allow salt water to enter fresh-
water aquifers either-from an underlying or an overlying
saline-water aquifer or from an adjacent salty surface-water
body. A classic example occurred in Baltimore, Maryland,
where highly acidic industrial wastes in the water-table
aquifer corroded the casings of more than 1,000 abandoned
wells. Saline-water intrusion caused by pumping in the same
shallow aquifer affected the deeper fresh-water artesian
aquifer because the leaky abandoned wells acted as conduits,
allowing poor quality water to migrate into the deeper arte-
sian aquifer.
A few states have adopted regulations and codes governing
well construction and the plugging of abandoned wells. How-
ever, it is difficult to enforce these regulations because
records showing where operating water wells have been
drilled over the past 50 years are incomplete. Licensing of
well-drilling contractors in many states has been moderately
effective in improving well construction practices. However,
enforcement of construction standards is difficult consider-
ing the more than 500,000 new water wells drilled each year.
427
-------
OIL AND GAS WELLS
Contamination of ground water can occur from poorly con-
structed, old, and/or damaged oil and gas wells. Unsealed
or uncapped abandoned test and production wells also can pro-
vide convenient pathways and allow upward movement of contam-
inants in a similar fashion as described in the previous sec-
tion for water wells. Cases of contamination of ground
water from these sources are reported in practically all oil
and gas producing' states. For example, highly mineralized
water under artesian pressure has moved upward through un-
capped and leaking abandoned- oil and gas wells in New York
and Kentucky, contaminating fresh ground water. 17,18) in
Kentucky, potable ground water was changed to a sodium chlo-
ride type with chloride content as high as 51,000 ppm (as
compared to less than 60 ppm before oil production). 19)
An unplugged oil test well in Glynn County, Georgia, which
penetrated shallow fresh-water aquifers, has allowed upward
migration of salt water, resulting in a chloride content of
up to 7,780 ppm in previously potable ground water. The
high chloride water extended 1.5 mi (2.4 km) along the hy-
draulic gradient, and additional pumping in the area may
hasten contamination of nearby water wells. 20)
Leaking oil and gas wells often compound ground-water contam-
ination problems from waste disposal practices. In Lime-
stone County, Texas, 600 abandoned oil and gas wells that
were improperly plugged added to ground-water degradation,
which had already occurred due to brine disposal in surface
pits. 21) similar conditions are reported from other oil-
field areas in Texas. 22,23)
One of the most serious cases of ground-water contamination
both in terms of area and thickness of aquifer affected has
occurred in West Virginia. More than 50,000 deep oil and
gas wells have been drilled, almost all of which penetrate
artesian salt water. Many of these wells have never been
plugged, and it was common practice in the past to salvage
the casing before abandoning the well. An estimated 25,000
of these uncased and unplugged deep wells have altered the
hydrologic system and allowed salt water to flow up to and
into fresh-water aquifers. Throughout perhaps two-thirds of
the state, at least a 200-ft (60-m) thickness of fresh-water
aquifer has been contaminated. Locally, where salt water
has been injected to increase oil and gas recovery, the rise
in pressure has driven the salt water even further upward,
contaminating a 400-ft (122-m) thickness of fresh-water
aquifer. 24)
428
-------
Oil and gas producing states, aware of the potential problem
of ground-water contamination, now have regulations regard-
ing minimum casing length, and cementing and abandonment pro-
cedures. However, strict enforcement of these regulations
is necessary to insure better well construction and plugging
of abandoned wells.
SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION
Much of the ground water pumped in the nation is derived
from sand and gravel aquifers in river valleys. Where such
aquifers are in hydraulic connection with surface water, re-
plenishment of water withdrawn by wells is partly from river
infiltration. If the river water is of poor quality, con-
taminants enter the aquifer and degrade ground-water quality.
Most of the cases of ground-water contamination from surface-
water infiltration are a direct consequence of discharge of
waste fluids or irrigation return flow to surface-water
bodies. In coastal areas, some wells tapping fresh-water
aquifers have become saline as a result of infiltration of
sea water during tidal inundations.
Contamination of ground water by infiltrating surface water
also may occur when chemical reactions take place between
the induced water and native water and/or the aquifer mate-
rial. Mineralization of ground water by this mechanism is
quite common in the glaciated regions of the United States
where wells in alluvium and glacial outwash commonly derive
recharge from adjacent streams. High concentrations of iron
and manganese, leached from the sediments, cause discolora-
tion and bad taste, and may encourage bacterial growth in
well water, which leads to clogging of well screens and
other water system operational problems.
When the surface water is contaminated, this process is ac-
centuated because of the reducing environment created by in-
filtrated river water moving through iron-rich unconsoli-
dated sediments. In one case, infiltrated water from a pol-
luted tributary of the Hudson River in New York dissolved
iron and manganese in the sand and gravel sediments tapped
by a high-capacity caisson well. Manganese concentrations
in the water from the caisson well rose from less than one
ppm when first pumped to more than 14 ppm after several
months of operation. Treatment for the high concentration
of manganese was considered to be uneconomic. The well,
used for municipal supply, was abandoned.
In another case in New York State, a public supply well has
occasionally yielded water with a concentration of lead that
is three times the maximum limit allowed for potable sup-
429
-------
plies. The source of the contaminant is concluded to be a
river several hundred feet away, which provides a major por-
tion of the recharge to the well. The amount of the contam-
inant reaching the well depends on the character of indus-
trial discharges to the stream and the river stage.
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
Agricultural practices responsible for contamination of
ground water are, in order of importance: irrigation return
flow, application of chemical fertilizers or animal wastes,
man-caused changes in vegetation, and use of pesticides.
Irrigation return flow is water diverted for irrigation pur-
poses that finds its way back into an existing or potential
water supply. This process concentrates salts by evapotrans-
piration and can introduce chloride and other substances
from irrigated lands into a ground-water reservoir by means
of infiltration. Contaminants in irrigation return flows
may originate from many sources including the applied water,
soils, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Irrigation return flow is considered a major problem which
has led to a large number of areally extensive ground-water
contamination cases. In the southwestern and south central
states, for example, ground-water quality has deteriorated
from irrigation return flows in the Rio Grande basin of New
Mexico and Texas. Other problem areas include the Pecos
River valley in New Mexico and Texas and the Arkansas River
valley in Oklahoma and Arkansas. In California, degradation
of ground-water quality on a broad scale has been reported
in the San Joaquin basin.
In the northwestern states, it is estimated that there are
over 2 million acres (809,000 ha) of saline land within the
region. A few of the larger areas currently experiencing
irrigation return flow problems are: the valleys of the
Grand, Platte, and Arkansas Rivers in Colorado; the Yakima
Valley in Washington; Larimer County in Wyoming; Rosebud
County in Montana; the Snake River valley in Idaho; and
the lower Columbia River basin in Washington. One of the
most severe and best studied instances of a problem related
to irrigation return flow is in the Grand Valley of Colorado,
where a high percentage of the irrigated acreage has become
marginal because of a high water table and concentrated
salts. It has been estimated that approximately 37 percent
of the total salt load from the Upper Colorado Basin is asso-
ciated with irrigation return flows in this area.
Irrigation return flows from agricultural practices are and
430
-------
will continue to be a major source of ground-water contamina-
tion within the foreseeable future. In some areas, the prob-
lem could decrease in severity as new techniques are devel-
oped for application and management of irrigation waters and
more efficient use is made of crop types.
The use of chemical fertilizers has doubled during the past
20 years from 20 million tons (18 million tonnes) in 1950 to
40 million tons (36 million tonnes) in 1970. The use of ni-
trogen in fertilizer has increased even more rapidly than
phosphorus or potassium because it generally stimulates crop
yields to a greater degree. In 1950, nitrogen constituted
6.1 percent of all fertilizer used; in 1970 it had risen to
20.4 percent. 13) &s a result, nitrogen applications in ex-
cess of the amounts removed by the crop are common. Nitrate
can migrate with percolating water and enter the ground-
water system. High nitrate content is reported in ground
water in many agricultural areas, and fertilizers are cer-
tainly an important factor in this type of degradation of
water quality.
Dryland farming, especially prevalent in the northern Great
Plains, appears to be a significant source of contamination
on a regional level. In dryland farming, no irrigation
takes place, and plants depend entirely on precipitation to
obtain their necessary moisture. Prior to settlement of the
Great Plains, the natural vegetation consisted of buffalo
grass, which consumed relatively large quantities of water
and left no surplus for deep percolation. Present crop-
fallow farming practices have reduced evapotranspiration
losses, and more water moves down below the root system.
Poorly permeable shale and sandstone overlain by glacial
till extend over large areas of the Great Plains. Because
the shale is relatively impermeable, percolating water
mounds up in the overlying till and begins to move downslope.
The large supply of natural soluble salts in the subsoil,
till, and shale is leached by the moving ground water.
Eventually the ground water discharges at the surface as a
seep and evaporates, leaving the salt residue behind. The
discharge water commonly has a dissolved solids concentra-
tion in excess of 25,000 ppm.
Saline seeps are becoming a regional problem in Montana,
where 80,000 acres (32,000 ha) of crop land have already
been affected with a loss of farm income of $5 million per
year. 11)
The term "pesticides" encompasses algicides, herbicides,
fungicides, and insecticides and is a general term for that
431
-------
group of chemicals used to control organisms which limit
crop growth or proliferation. Large quantities of pesticide
chemicals are used in the United States. Pesticide contam-
ination of ground water is less common than nitrate contam-
ination as many pesticides degrade naturally through micro-
bial metabolism, hydrolysis, volatilization or exposure to
sunlight. In contrast, such organics as chlorinated hydro-
carbons are particularly resistant to decay, and are very
stable in soil. DDT (now outlawed), for example, decomposes
at a rate of only 5 percent per year. In 1971, production
and sales of organic pesticides amounted to 1.1 billion Ib
(0.5 billion kg). 25)
The most frequently mentioned cases of ground-water contami-
nation from pesticides are those related to spills in the
vicinity of a well or an irrigation canal that is infil-
trating water to an aquifer. However, a few documented in-
stances of contamination from the application of pesticides
have been noted in the northeast. For example, arsenate
compounds used for insect control in the blueberry barrens
of Maine have been found in shallow ground waters. In
another case, water from a sand and gravel well in Massa-
chusetts was contaminated by pesticides containing chlo-
rinated hydrocarbons sprayed on cranberry bogs.
In summary, contamination of ground water from agricultural
activities is difficult to control because so many of the
problems are in isolated rural areas. Changes in water man-
agement and farming practices may be effective in reducing
degradation of ground-water quality. Severe problems de-
velop when former farm areas become urbanized, and ground-
water use for drinking-water purposes increases. Ground-
water quality degradation also can be aggravated by heavy
application of fertilizers and pesticides by individual home
owners on relatively small lots in the urbanized area.
HIGHWAY DEICING SALTS
The use of large amounts of soluble salts for road main-
tenance during winter months has led to a significant number
of cases of ground-water contamination in the northern lati-
tudes .
There are two principal ways in which road salt can contam-
inate ground water. Salt-laden runoff from roads can perco-
late into soils adjacent to highways and eventually reach
the water table. Rain falling on uncovered storage piles at
highway maintenance garages can dissolve the salt and infil-
trate into shallow aquifers. The latter generally is con-
sidered to be the more serious problem because of the very
432
-------
high concentrations of chloride entering the ground-water
system as a slug of contaminant.
The quantities of deicing salts used in the conterminous
United States in the winter of 1966-67 are listed in Table
75. Also shown are quantities of deicing salts applied per
single-lane mile in the winter of 1965-66. Pennsylvania
used 637,000 tons (578,000 tonnes) of salt for its highways
in the winter of 1966-67, and the states of Michigan, Minne-
sota, and New York each applied over 400,000 tons (360,000
tonnes). Over 20 tons of salt per single-lane mile (11
tonnes per single-lane kilometer) were applied during the
1965-66 winter in Washington, D. C., Massachusetts, Pennsyl-
vania, and Illinois.
Because of the large amounts of salt spread and stored in
the northeast, water from many aquifers, especially sand and
gravel deposits in the glaciated region, has shown a disturb-
ing rise in chloride and sodium concentration. Complaints
of salt contamination of water from individual wells are so
common in New England that several states have established
annual budgets to allow for replacement of affected wells.
In Maine, 100 randomly selected wells adjacent to major high-
ways were sampled over a three-year period. Natural chlo-
ride concentrations in various aquifers in Maine are normal-
ly less than 20 ppm; yet the average April concentration
for chloride from the selected wells was 171 ppm. Similarly,
for a municipal well field in Burlington, Massachusetts,
which had been contaminated by saline water, the U. S. Geo-
logical Survey calculated a "salt budget" to estimate the
contributions of various chloride sources in the basin to
the aquifer at the site. Eighty-five percent of the contam-
ination was related to sources of highway deicing salts in-
cluding a nearby salt pile, and only 15 percent was attrib-
uted to other sources such as septic tanks. 10)
There appears to be no adequate substitute for highway de-
icing salts. However, general recognition of the potential
for contaminating water supplies has resulted in many states
embarking on programs to reduce the quantities of salt
spread per winter storm. Equipment modification and driver
education has been quite successful. In addition, although
the practice is restricted by availability of funds, highway
departments are enclosing many salt storage piles to protect
them against contact with precipitation.
ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS
Very few studies have been made of the possible effects of
433
-------
Table 75. USE OF DEICING SALTS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES
IN 1965-66 AND 1966-67.
Tons of deicing salts applied
per single-lane mile per year
by the State Highway Depart-
ments ana1 Toll Authorities for
the period 1965-66 26)
Reported total tons of
sodium chloride and
calcium chloride used
in the winter of
State
Region 1
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Virginia
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Region II
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
User
State Highway Dept.
do
do
do
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
do
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
All
State Highway Dept.
do
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
Toll Authorities
All
State Highway Dept.
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
do
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
State Highway Dept.
Toll Authorities
State Highway Dept.
do
do
Toll Authorities
Tons 1 966-67 by all users ir>
8.98
4.48
37.51
9.30
9.45
6.82
20.70
23.51
5.91
-
11.95
3.33
8.83
7.50
17.04
-
32.08
-
3.57
3.60
18.22
2.80
3.84
4.60
3.42
24.21
7.69
2.73
0.62
1.65
104,000
8,000
36,000
100,000
133,000
i OA non
1 / \J f \J\J\S
416,000
412,000
118,000
57 000
•J / 1 \J\J\J
477,000
637,000
48,000
99,000
90,000
Mooo
f \J\J\J
228,000
059 000
£-+J 7 f \J\J\J
243,000
56,000
07 nnn
£./ r UUU
434
-------
Table 75 (continued). USE OF DEICING SALTS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED
STATES IN 1965-66 AND 1966-67.
State
Tons of deicing salts applied
per single-lane mile per year
by the State Highway Depart-
ments and Toll Authorities for
the period 1965-66
User Tons
Reported total tons of
sodium chloride and
calcium chloride used
in the winter of
1966-67 by all users
Region II (Cont'd)
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Region III
Region IV
State Highway Dept.
do
All
State Highway Dept.
All
do
0.39
0.08
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
State Highway Dept.
All
do
State Highway Dept.
All
State Highway Dept.
do
All
do
do
Toll Authorities
5.00
-
-
0.06
-
0.30
2.40
-
-
-
1.33
61,000
37,000
10,000
3,000
523,000
3,000
1,000
19,000
7,000
3,000
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
All
State Highway Dept.
do
do
do
All
State Highway Dept.
do
do
do
do
-
3.33
1.93
0.18
0.52
-
1.50
0.04
2.46
0.15
0.06
-
11,000
7,000
1,000
4,000
4,000
7,000
1,000
28,000
2,000
1,000
Note: Tons/mile multiplied by 0.56 equals tonnes/km.
435
-------
airborne contaminants on ground water, and only a few cases
of ground-water contamination have been reported from this
source.
One of the more obvious sources of airborne contaminants is
that of pesticides sprayed by crop-dusting airplanes. How-
ever, such contamination can not readily be distinguished
from direct application to crops at the surface and will not
be considered here. Annual emissions of air pollution con-
stituents in the United States are given in Table 76. By
far the largest volume is from operation of motor vehicles.
Typical concentrations of particulate contaminants in the
atmosphere in urban and nonurban environments are shown in
Table 77. Such contaminants are washed down to the land sur-
face by precipitation and can travel downward to the water
table. Concentration of heavy metals and acid-forming gases
in the atmosphere have generated concern. In a study con-
ducted in several Delaware watersheds, it was discovered
that the cadmium concentration in rainfall frequently ex-
ceeded the EPA maximum drinking water concentration of 10
ppb. 28)
Analyses of precipitation in the montane regions of New Eng-
land have revealed the presence of lead, cadmium, and mercu-
ry. Lead concentrations ranged from approximately 4 ppb to
67.7 ppb. With the EPA maximum allowable lead concentration
in drinking water set at 50 ppb, at least one sample from
the research area exceeded the EPA limit. Cadmium concentra-
tions ranged from about 0.1 to 2.3 ppb, and mercury, from
about 0.025 to 0.3 ppb. These values for cadmium and mercu-
ry are below the EPA limits for these heavy metals. 29)
In arid or semiarid regions, very little precipitation perco-
lates to ground water and any atmospheric pollution that may
occur above these areas may not affect ground-water quality.
Alternatively, in humid regions having permeable soils, the
effect of air pollution on ground-water quality may be more
in evidence.
One case of airborne contamination has been suspected as the
source of ground-water contamination in Michigan. Chromium-
laden dust discharged through ventilators on an industrial
plant roof settled to the ground, where it accumulated.
Rainfall washed the chromium down to the water table where
it migrated through the aquifer to a well field in response
to pumping. 30)
436
-------
Table76. ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION CONSTITUENTS IN THE
UNITED STATES. (In millions of tons). 14)
Carbon Sulfur Nitrogen Hydro- Particulate
Monoxide Oxides Oxides carbons Matter
Motor Vehicles
Industry
Power Plants
Space Heating
Refuse Disposal
Note: Tons multiplied by 0.9078 equals tonnes.
66
2
1
2
1
1
9
12
3
1
6
2
3
1
1
12
4
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
437
-------
Table77. CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED PARTICULATE CONTAMINANTS IN
THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 1957 TO 1961.
(Micrograms per cubic meter.)
Urban
Mean Maximum
Suspended parHculates
Benzene-soluble organics
Nitrates
Su I fates
Antimony
Bismuth
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Radioactivity
(a) Less than minimum detectable quantity
(b) Picocuries per cubic meter
104
7.6
1.7
9.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.020
(a)
0.04
1.5
0.6
0.04
(a)
0.028
0.03
0.03
(a)
0.01
(b)4.6
1,706 27
123.9 1.5
24.8
94.0
0.230
0.032
0.170
0.998
0.003
2.50
45.0
6.3
2.60
0.34
0.830
1.00
1.14
1.200
8.40
(b) 5, 435.0
Nonurban
Mean Maximum
461
23.55
438
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Rima, D. R., and R. C. Vorhis. 1972. Ground-water con-
tamination in the northeastern states: a preliminary
inventory. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division.
2. Vorhis, R. C., D. R. Rima, and L. F. Emmett. 1973.
Ground-water contamination-southeastern states: a pre-
liminary inventory. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Re-
sources Division.
3. Kume, J., and others. 1973. Ground-water contamina-
tion-central states: a preliminary inventory. U. S.
X Geological Survey, Water Resources Division.
4. Bader, J. S. 1973. Ground-water contamination-western
states: a preliminary inventory. U. S. Geological Sur-
vey, Water Resources Division.
5. Emmett, L. F. 1973. Ground-water contamination-west-
ern Great Lakes states: a preliminary inventory. U. S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division.
6. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1975. Comprehensive water
quality management plan - central and lower Susquehanna
River Basin - draft report on ground-water conditions.
Prepared for Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
7. Geraghty & Miller,' Inc. 1975. Unpublished information
in company files.
8. Fuhriman, D. K., and J. R. Barton. 1971. Ground water
pollution in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Research Series 16060ERW, December.
9. Scalf, M. R., J. W. Keeley, and C. J. LaFevers. 1973.
Ground water pollution in the south central states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-73-268.
10. Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. 1974.
Ground-water contamination in the northeast states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-74-056.
439
-------
11. van der Leeden, F., L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller.
1975. Ground-water pollution problems in the northwest-
ern United States. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ecological Research Series, EPA-660/3-75-018.
12. Davis, P. N. 1974. Ground water pollution: case law
theories for relief. Missouri Law Review, Vol. 39,
No. 2. pp. 117-163.
13. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1974. Statistical ab-
stract of the United States 1974. Social and Economic
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
14. Meyer, C. F., ed. 1973. Polluting groundwater: some
causes, effects, controls and monitoring. U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
Series, EPA-600/4-73-001b.
15. Emrich, G. H., and G. L. Merritt. 1969. Effects of
mine drainage on ground water. Ground Water, Vol. 7,
No. 3. pp. 27-32.
16. Geraghty, J. J., and others. 1973. Water atlas of the
United States. Water Information Center, Port Washing-
ton , New York.
17. Grain, J. 1969. Ground-water pollution from natural
gas and oil production in New York. New York State Wa-
ter Resources Commission Report of Investigation
No. RI-5. 15 pp.
18. Krieger, R. A., and G. E. Hendrickson. 1960. Effects
of Greensburg oil field brines on the streams, wells,
and springs of the Upper Green River basin, Kentucky.
Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Investigations 2,
Series X. 36 pp.
19. Hopkins, H. T. 1963. The effect of oil field brines
on the potable ground water in the Upper Big Pitman
Creek basin, Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey Re-
port of Investigations 4, Series X. 36 pp.
20. Wait, R. L., and M. J. McCollum. 1963. Contamination
of fresh water aquifers through an unplugged oil test
well in Glynn County, Georgia. Georgia Geological Sur-
vey Mineral Newsletter, Vol. 16, No. 3-4. pp. 74-80.
440
-------
21. Burnitt, S. C., and others. 1962. Reconnaissance sur-
vey of salt water disposal in the Mexia, Negro Creek,
and Cedar Creek oil fields, Limestone County, Texas.
Texas Water Commission Memo Report 62-02. 27 pp.
22. Burnitt, S. C. 1963. Reconnaissance of soil damage
and ground-water quality, Fisher County, Texas. Texas
Water Commission Memo Report 63-02. 49 pp.
23. Fink, B. E. 1965. Investigation of ground- and sur-
face-water contamination near Harrold, Willbarger
County, Texas. Texas Water Commission Report LD-0365.
23 pp.
24. Vorhis, R. C. 1975. Personal communication.
25. Hansberry, R. 1966. Industry's concern with pesticide
residues. Pesticides and their effects on soils and
water. Soil Science Society of America.
26. Hanes, R. E., L. W. Zelazny, and R. E. Blaser. 1970.
Effects of deicing salts on water quality and biota
literature review and recommended research. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 91, Highway
Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
27. Edison Water Quality Laboratory. 1970. Environmental
impact of highway deicing: interim report. U. S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
11040 QCG.
28. Biggs, R. B., and others. 1973. Trace metals in
several Delaware watersheds. Water Resources Center,
University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 47 pp.
29. Schlesinger, W. H., W. A. Reiners, and D. S. Knopman.
1974. Heavy metal concentrations and deposition in
bulk precipitation in montane ecosystems of New Hamp-
shire. U. S. A. Environmental Pollution 6:39-47.
30. Deutsch, Morris. 1963. Ground-water contamination and
legal controls in Michigan. U. S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1691. 79 pp.
441
-------
SECTION XVI
EXISTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION
SUMMARY
Conscious effort and legislation toward comprehensive water
pollution control began with the Water Pollution Control Act
of 1948. This Act was primarily concerned with abatement of
stream pollution, and it directed the Surgeon General to
"prepare or adopt comprehensive programs for eliminating or
reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries
thereof and improving the sanitary conditions of surface and
underground waters."
Several other pieces of Federal legislation since 1948 pro-
vide further legal methods to protect ground water from con-
tamination.
1. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) establishes a planning
function which provides for areawide and statewide waste
treatment management. This planning must specifically
include a process to identify and control pollution from
surface and underground mine runoff, the disposal of re-
sidual waste, and the disposal of pollutants on land or
in subsurface excavations. EPA's role, as set forth by
Section 304(e) is to provide guidance and information,
but EPA has no implementation authority.
Section 402 of PL 92-500 establishes the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which is a
program for issuing permits for point source discharges
of pollutants. Section 402 also requires states to con-
trol the discharge of pollutants into wells. However,
Section 502 excludes from the definition of pollutants
"water, gas, or other material which is injected into a
well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water de-
rived in association with oil or gas production and dis-
posed of in a well, if the well used either to facili-
tate production or for disposal purposes is approved by
authority of the state in which the well is located, and
if such state determines that such injection or disposal
will not result in the degradation of ground or surface
water resources." This exclusion therefore removes wells
used in association with oil and gas production from regu-
lations under Section 402.
2. The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended in 1970,
442
-------
contains no specific reference to ground water. However,
guidelines developed under the Act provide for ground-
water protection resulting from polluting activities and
surface drainage and also for site development to mini-
mize the impact on ground water. These guidelines are
only mandatory for Federal agencies, but they serve as
recommended practices for non-Federal agencies.
3. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(PL 91-190) requires that all Federal agencies prepare
environmental impact statements on major Federal or Fed-
erally regulated actions significantly affecting the
quality of the environment. EPA has promulgated regula-
tion for implementation of NEPA which lists ground-water
protection as a significant parameter in determining the
need for an EIS.
4. The discharge of radioactive wastes have been regulated
from the beginning. However, there have been many sig-
nificant problems, and an Interagency Working Group con-
sisting of representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission (NRC), the Energy Research and Development Agen-
cy (ERDA) and EPA has been formed to evaluate radioac-
tive waste management and disposal.
5. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523) requires
the regulation of underground injection which may endan-
ger underground drinking water sources. The provisions
of the Act will produce a Federal/State cooperative ef-
fort which is based on Federally set minimum standards
and regulations administered by the states. The prac-
tices to be covered under the Act include "deep" and
"shallow" waste disposal wells, oil-field brine disposal
wells and secondary recovery wells, and engineering
wells.
Section 1424(e) of the Act (the Gonzalez Amendment) pro-
vides that if EPA determines an area has an aquifer
which is the sole or principal drinking water source and
which, if contaminated, will cause a significant hazard
to health, EPA may delay or stop commitment of any Fed-
eral financial assistance to projects which may result
in contamination of the aquifer.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of
the land (Art. VI, Cl. 2). Under it, the Federal government
is limited to those powers expressly delegated or reasonably
implied; all other powers "not prohibited by it to the
443
-------
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people" (Amendment 10). The Federal authority over water is
found in the following clauses of the Constitution: General
Welfare Power, Commerce Clause, War Power, and the General
Power to Enact Laws. Other relevant clauses include the
clauses on Interstate Compacts, International Treaties and
the Proprietary Power. In addition, the due process and
"taking" clauses play a significant role.
The Commerce power has been interpreted to extend over the
means of interstate transportation. The River and Harbor
Act of 1826 is based on the concept that under the Commerce
Clause the power of Congress comprehends navigation within
the limits of every state of the Union. All navigable wa-
ters have been treated as public property, as have non-
navigable reaches of navigable waters and their non-naviga-
ble tributaries. The Property Clause gives Congress un-
limited power over the use of the public domain, including
the power to dispose of land and water thereon together or
separately. The Reclamation Act of 1902 was based on this
power which has generally been concerned with Federal lands
and the establishment of their water rights as appurtenant
to land ownership.
The General Welfare Clause and the Taxing Power have been
limited only by the requirement that they be exercised for
the common benefit as distinguished from mere local purpose.
The power of the Federal government to establish large scale
projects affecting and using water is clear. Some water re-
source development projects have been based on the War Power
(e.g., Wilson Dam, TVA). However, the War Power is an emer-
gency power more suited to crises in development than crises
in contamination. The Treaty Power has been used both with
the Indians and with Mexico and Canada to protect interna-
tional waterways such as the St. Lawrence, Columbia, Colo-
rado, and Rio Grande Rivers.
In 1911, Congress gave blanket consent for interstate com-
pacts for conserving the forests and water supply of the
United States. The most comprehensive interstate compact is
the Delaware River Basin Compact (1961) which is concerned
with conservation, utilization, development, management, and
control of water resources "in, on, under, or above ground,
including related uses of land, which are subject to benefi-
cial use, ownership or control," throughout the basin. This
is the only interstate compact wherein ground water is men-
tioned specifically.
444
-------
DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO GROUND-WATER PRO-
TECTION
The Federal laws discussed below are limited to those for
which EPA has whole or partial responsibility. Federal laws
administered by other agencies may contain provisions to pro-
tect ground water.
Refuse Act
Early Federal legislation concerning water contamination in-
cluded the Refuse Act comprising Sections 9 through 20 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1899, which is still in effect
today. The statute was originally intended merely to pre-
vent obstructions to navigation based on the Commerce Power
of Congress: it prohibits the discharge of refuse of any
kind into navigable waters or their tributaries from any ves-
sel, from the shore, from a wharf, manufacturing establish-
ment or mill of any kind, but does not apply to fluid wastes
from streets and sanitary sewers. Permits could be issued
for deposit of material where anchorage and navigation would
not be injured.
In recent years the statute has been used increasingly
against pollution of navigable waters. Case law has extend-
ed the concept of "refuse" beyond waste products to include
valuable products such as oil and gasoline. Since 1971, the
Act has become the basis for a permit system administered by
the Department of the Army in coordination with EPA and in
at least one case in the northeast, has been used successful-
ly to litigate in an action involving ground-water contamina-
tion. In this instance, action was brought by the Federal
government against the operator of a landfill because of a
non-permitted discharge of leachate to a navigable river.
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948
Conscious effort and legislation toward comprehensive water
pollution control began with the Water Pollution Control Act
of 1948 (62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 466). Cau-
tious in the face of constitutional limitations on Federal
power, this Act declared: "The policy of Congress to recog-
nize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the states in controlling water pollution.... and
to provide Federal technical services to state and inter-
state agencies and to industries and financial aid to state
and interstate agencies and to municipalities, in the formu-
lation and execution of their stream pollution abatement pro-
grams. " The Act was concerned primarily with abatement of
stream pollution and it directed the Surgeon General to "pre-
445
-------
pare or adopt comprehensive programs for eliminating or re-
ducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries
thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface and
underground waters."
Public Law 92-500
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, 1972 (Public Law 92-500) is to restore and maintain
the chemical, physdcal, and biological integrity of the na-
tion's waters, evidently depending upon the Commerce Power
for its prime authority: (Tijble I, Section 101) "It is the
national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navi-
gable waters be eliminated by 1985;" and the national policy
is to "develop technology necessary to eliminate the dis-
charge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of
the contiguous zone, and the oceans." The general provi-
sions of Title V include (in Section 502) definitions of pol-
lutants, navigable waters, territorial seas, contiguous zone,
and oceans. All these have been recognized as public waters.
Section 208 of PL 92-500 -
The most effective potential means for controlling ground-
water contamination in PL 92-500 is found in Section 208,
which provides for statewide and areawide planning for pollu-
tion control. The plans developed pursuant to Section 208
are the basis for the establishment of a continuing planning
process and are the key vehicles for the control of nonpoint
sources of water pollution. In addition to providing for
identification of needed waste treatment works, their regu-
lation, and nonpoint source control, Section 208 (b)(2)(G)
requires a plan prepared under that Section to include "a
process to (i) identify, if appropriate, mine related
sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned
surface and underground mine runoff" and to set forth con-
trol procedures. Under sub-section (J) the plan must in-
clude "a process to control the disposition of all residual
waste generated in such area which could affect water qual-
ity." The most powerful means to control ground-water con-
tamination in Section 208 is in sub-section (K) which re-
quires the plan to include "a process to control the dis-
posal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations
within such area to protect ground- and surface-water qual-
ity. "
While Section 208 is part of a Federal regulatory scheme,
the primary responsibility for preparing plans and implement-
ing programs is in the hands of the state and local agencies.
EPA has no effective power to force action to protect ground
446
-------
water. EPA can withhold approval of a plan that does not
provide adequately for ground-water protection. However, it
does not have authority to act if the ground-water provi-
sions of the plan are not implemented.
Section 304 (e) of PL 92-500 -
EPA's basic function in relation to Section 208 is set forth
in Section 304 (e) of PL 92-500. There are three sub-sec-
tions under sub-section (e) which refer to guidelines which
EPA must issue on nonpoint sources of pollutants. EPA must
develop and issue guidelines for identifying and evaluating
the nature and extent of nonpoint sources and processes, pro-
cedures and methods to control pollution resulting from:
(D) the disposal of pollutants in wells or in subsurface ex-
cavations; (E) salt-water intrusion resulting from reduc-
tions of fresh-water flow from any cause, including extrac-
tion of ground water; (F) changes in the movement, flow,
and circulation of any navigable waters or ground waters.
These three sub-sections cover a very broad range of ground-
water contamination sources including wells, impoundments,
landfills, pipelines, septic systems, sea-water intrusion,
and overpumping. This section of PL 92-500 is not enforce-
able as law, however. The guidelines developed can serve
only as information which can be used or not used at the dis-
cretion of the Federal, state or local governments. The in-
formation is not regulatory in nature but educational. As
noted above, Section 208 is the basic vehicle in PL 92-500
for controlling nonpoint-source pollution and ground-water
contamination. The basic approach taken by EPA to solve
these pollution problems is the use of Best Management Prac-
tices (BMP's) to prevent or minimize the pollution rather
than treatment after the pollution has occurred. Informa-
tion has been developed by EPA pursuant to Section 304(e) to
indicate the BMP's currently recognized as effective for con-
trol of different types of pollution.
Section 402 of PL 92-500 -
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
is developed under Section 402 of PL 92-500 to issue permits
for the discharge of any point source pollutant or combina-
tion of pollutants to navigable waters. The section goes on
to state that individual states may issue NPDES permits if
the program is authorized by EPA. Currently, 27 states have
received such approval. One requirement for state approval
is that the states must issue permits which control disposal
of pollutants into wells.
447
-------
Wells under this section of law have been interpreted by EPA
to mean only "deep" waste injection wells, of which there
are less than 400 in the United States. EPA has further in-
terpreted that permits will only be given to cover these
wells if there is an associated surface-water discharge of
pollutants. Many state programs are not placing these same
restrictions on the definition of wells; however, most
states are covering only a very small number of wells.
One reason for this narrow coverage is the definition of pol-
lutant which is included in Section 502 of PL 92-500. It
states that pollutant does not mean water, gas or other mate-
rial which is injected into a well to facilitate production
of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or
gas production and disposed in a well if the well is ap-
proved by authority of the state in which it is located.
Solid Waste Disposal Act
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, passed in 1965, was the first
Federal legislation establishing a Solid Waste Program. It
was amended in 1970 to add resource recovery provisions, and
was extended without major revision since then. It has cur-
rently expired, and the program is now functioning under a
general appropriation to EPA.
The Act contained no direct reference to ground water. The
findings and purposes show an awareness that improper manage-
ment of wastes creates hazards to public health including
pollution of water resources. Section 212 of the act con-
tained provisions for submittal of a report to Congress on
hazardous waste disposal. However, no legislation was forth-
coming as a result of that report. Section 207 provided
planning grants (no longer funded), which included such fac-
tors as water pollution control among funded activities, and
Section 209 provided that EPA would recommend guidelines and
model codes consistent with water quality standards. In
practice, none of the 207 planning grants fully addressed
ground-water protection.
The EPA guidelines (42CFR:460-464, 1971) state that provi-
sions are to be made to insure that no pollution of surface
or ground water is created and surface drainage is to be di-
verted to control infiltration at the site. Additionally,
the guidelines suggest that the hydrology of the site be
evaluated in order to design site development as to minimize
the impact on ground-water resources (Section 241-202-(C)).
These guidelines are mandatory for Federal agencies which
operate or contract for the operation of disposal services,
and they serve as recommended practices for non-Federal agen-
448
-------
cies (state and sub-state). The Act did not contain regula-
tory provisions, and its demonstration grant program did not
address water protection.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969 (PL 91-
190), implemented by Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970
and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines of
August 1, 1973 requires that all agencies of the Federal
government prepare detailed environmental impact statements
(EIS) on proposals for legislation and other major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human en-
vironment. Although NEPA does not create a regulatory proc-
ess, it does provide for the development of a decision-
making document which is central to requiring Federal agen-
cies to consider the environmental impact of their actions.
It is, therefore, one way in which the ground-water impact
of a Federal action may be raised.
EPA has promulgated regulations for implementing NEPA for
non-regulatory projects which the agency has funded, as well
as for New Source NPDES permits. In both these regulations
ground water is listed as a significant parameter in deter-
mining the need for an EIS. In the regulations for non-
regulatory EPA funded projects (April 14, 1975) Section
6.200, the criteria for determining when to prepare an EIS,
states, "....particular attention should be given to....sig-
nificant changes in surface- or ground-water quality or
quantity...."
The regulation for EIS preparation for New Source NPDES per-
mits (October 9, 1975) lists as one of the criteria to be
used in determining the need for an EIS, "....the new source
may directly or through induced development have a signifi-
cant adverse effect upon....surface- or ground-water quality
or quantity."
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523)
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523) is to assure
the provision of safe drinking water to all Americans served
by public water supply systems. Two mechanisms have been de-
veloped to meet this goal. It is required that all public
water systems meet minimum water quality standards. These
standards include bacteria as measured by Escherichia coli
fecal indicator; organic pesticides; inorganics including
iron, manganese, arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium, and cad-
mium; and radioactive materials including radium and stron-
tium. Secondly, Part C of the Act develops a program to pro-
449
-------
tect underground drinking water sources. The Safe Drinking
Water Act is to be a Federal/state cooperative effort which
is based on Federally set minimum standards and regulations
administered by the states.
Part C sets the basic guidance under which EPA must develop
minimum state requirements. These requirements are that pro-
grams shall (Section 1421(b)(l):
1. prohibit any underground injection which is not auth-
orized by permit or rule issued by the state.
2. require that the applicant for a permit must satisfy the
state that underground drinking water sources are not en-
dangered.
3. include inspection, monitoring, record keeping and re-
porting requirements.
4. apply to underground injection by Federal agencies and
by other persons on Federal land.
5. not interfere with or impede (A) underground injection
of brine or other fluids brought to the surface in con-
nection with oil and gas production, or (B) underground
injection for secondary or tertiary recovery of oil un-
less such requirements are essential to assure that un-
derground sources of drinking water are not endangered.
Three other important provisions are made which affect
ground-water protection. First, underground injection is de-
fined as "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injec-
tion" (Section 1421(d)). Second, endangerment means the
presence of a contaminant which may prevent a public system
from complying with any national primary drinking water
standard or otherwise adversely affect the public health
(Section 1421(d)). And thirdly, the Administrator shall de-
termine each state which needs an underground injection pro-
gram to protect drinking water sources. If the state, so
listed, does not obtain primary enforcement authority, then
EPA will administer the programs (Section 1422(a)).
The Act and the supporting Committee Report (report no. 93-
1185) produce a dilemma on the intent of the Act when defin-
ing underground injection. As stated in Section 1421, the
Act appears to cover only "wells" whose specific function is
to dispose of waste fluid underground. Under this narrow in-
terpretation, less than 400 industrial and municipal "deep"
injection wells and about 10,000 brine disposal wells are in-
cluded. As can be seen from Sections XI and XIII of this re-
450
-------
port, these two sources of ground-water contamination are
not of prime importance.
The House Report (page 31) states "underground injection" is
intended to be broad enough to cover any contaminant which
may be put below ground level and which flows or moves,
whether the contaminant is in semi-solid, liquid, sludge or
any other form or state. This definition is not limited to
the injection of waste or to injection for disposal purposes;
it is intended also to cover the injection of brines and the
injection of contaminants for extraction or other purposes.
The only exemptions are septic tanks or other individual
residential waste disposal systems. This language appears
to indicate that the intent of the Act is to regulate all
ground-water contamination sources including landfills, mu-
nicipal surface impoundments and industrial surface impound-
ments , as well as other activities such as sea-water intru-
sion control, geothermal development, LP gas and natural gas
storage (covered in Section XV as non-waste disposal sources
of contamination).
Currently, EPA is taking the position that the regulation de-
veloped under Part C will cover only "deep" and "shallow"
waste disposal wells, oil-field brine disposal wells and sec-
ondary recovery wells, and engineering wells (including bar-
rier wells, subsidence control wells, geothermal wells, solu-
tion mining wells and gas storage wells), and is deferring
the inclusion of other practices such as industrial surface
impoundments pending further study. This coverage has been
chosen after a legal evaluation of the legislative history,
the Act and the House Report.
The handling of the endangerment issue in the Act and sup-
portive report produces a problem. Strictly interpreted the
Act takes a total non-degradation position. In essence
nothing can be put underground (by whatever activities are
eventually covered) because there is no possible way to in-
sure that a drinking water source (which the report defines
as 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids) will never be endan-
gered. This is a result of the long residence times of con-
taminants in ground water and the unknown future development
of ground water as a drinking water source.
Finally, the requirements for listing states which need a
program to protect underground sources may produce difficul-
ties for ground-water protection. Under the interpretation
of "underground injection" chosen by EPA there are several
states which have only a small number of underground injec-
tion facilities. EPA might decide that these states do not
451
-------
require an underground injection control program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, thereby possibly eliminating them
from future coverage required by changed circumstances.
The Safe Drinking Water Act gives EPA a tool to regulate ac-
tivities which may contaminate ground water, but at this
time it is difficult to determine which activities will be
regulated and what the impact will be on ground-water qual-
ity.
Section 1424(e) of the Act, known as the Gonzalez Amendment,
provides another method for protection of ground-water qual-
ity. If EPA determines upon its own initiative or by peti-
tion that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or prin-
cipal drinking water source for the area and which, if con-
taminated, will cause a significant health hazard, EPA may
delay or stop commitment of any Federal funds for projects
which may result in contamination of the sole-source aquifer.
The Federal projects which are covered are not limited to un-
derground injection but can include ground-water development
or other activities in recharge zones or any other activity
which may contaminate ground water. Unlike the rest of Part
C, which gives the states primary enforcement authority,
this section is to be administered by EPA only.
Areas of potential difficulty with this section are: (1)
Federal/state relationship, (2) only Federal projects are
covered and major ground-water contamination sources are not
Federal projects, and (3) the definition of "Federal finan-
cial assistance," i.e., does it include VA or FHA loans to
individual homeowners?
Radioactive Materials
Regulatory control of radioactive materials is exercised by
several Federal agencies under general radiation protection
guidance and standards provided by EPA for such agencies.
In some cases, these agencies exercise regulatory control di-
rectly; in others, they delegate some control to states un-
der Federally authorized agreements.
EPA, under the authority transferred to it by Reorganization
Plan No. 3 (from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended),
currently is preparing generally applicable environmental
radiation protection standards. Excluding mining and radio-
active waste disposal facilities, these standards will limit
the radioactive exposures from all Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission (NRC) licensees and Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA) operated facilities (via all pathways
including ground water) to the public outside the boundaries
452
-------
of such facilities.
Authority for licensing and regulation of the use of (a)
nuclear "source material," (b) "special nuclear material,"
and (c) radioactive "by-product material" is provided for in
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and in the En-
ergy Reorganization Act of 1974. Under these authorities,
NRC has been exercising Federal jurisdiction for licensing
and regulation of all commercial nuclear energy facilities,
and also has been assigned jurisdiction for licensing and
regulation of certain Federal facilities, including facili-
ties used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-
level radioactive wastes resulting from activities licensed
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. In imple-
menting these authorities, NRC's objective is to protect the
health and safety of the public. In carrying out this objec-
tive, NRC strives to limit the planned releases of radioac-
tivity, in air emissions and in water effluents from individ-
ual activities, to levels that cumulatively will not exceed
radiation exposures to the public, published by EPA in its
proposed generally applicable environmental radiation protec-
tion standards. These standards will apply to areas outside
the boundaries of the individual activities. Federal respon-
sibility for unplanned releases from these activities be-
longs directly to NRC.
Except for a few cases licensed by NRC, ERDA regulates the
radioactivity levels of planned releases in air emissions
and in water effluents from ERDA owned and operated and from
ERDA contractor operated facilities using "source, special
and by-product materials." Here again, the objective is to
protect the health and safety of the public, and to control
planned releases so as to meet the EPA environmental radia-
tion protection standards outside the boundaries of such
facilities. Federal responsibility for unplanned releases
from such facilities belongs directly to ERDA.
In general, close coordination and cooperation is developing
between NRC, ERDA, and EPA in Federal control of radioactive
releases and in protection of the public from radioactive
contamination.
Thus, Federal authorities appear adequate for protection of
public health from radioactive pollution released from
"source, special and by-product materials" and reaching the
public via any pathway including ground water. On the other
hand, as illustrated by specific examples discussed in other
sections of this report, hindsight indicates that implementa-
tion of these authorities has not been fully effective, par-
ticularly in areas of potential water contamination from man-
453
-------
agement of radioactive wastes.
For limitation of releases of radioactive contaminants to
ground water, other than those emanating from "source, spe-
cial and by-product materials," the scope of Federally estab-
lished authority may turn out to be inadequate. Except for
related regulation provided in certain provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) and for regulation of
some surface-water releases under the NPDES, no known Fed-
eral authority exists for explicit limitation of radioactiv-
ity specifically for ground water. Radioactive contaminants
in ground water can be present in releases from the mining,
milling, processing, and utilization of ores, coal, and min-
erals containing naturally radioactive impurities.
Thus, potential control deficiency arises because the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for regulation of
nuclear "source materials" (defined by the Commission to be
containing over 1/20 of one percent of either uranium or
thorium or any combination thereof). Hence, this authority
does not provide control of uranium and thorium which often
are found in nature as impurities (less than 1/20 of one per-
cent) in ores, coal, and minerals; and it does not provide
for control of naturally occurring radium and radon, nor of
radioactive materials produced by accelerators.
While in the ground, the doses of radioactivity from natural-
ly radioactive materials are shielded by earth cover and do
not cause a threat to the public. When mined and brought to
the earth's surface, however, unless properly processed and
managed, such radioactivity may prove dangerous to public
health. Examples of such naturally radioactive materials in-
clude fluorspar, bauxite, coal, phosphates, and copper and
titanium ores. Currently, the tremendous increase in the
use of phosphates for fertilizers, and the expected increase
in the use of coal for energy, is causing EPA to investigate
the potential radiological impacts from such accelerated use.
In addition, EPA is investigating the potential impacts of
medical radionuclides given to patients and then excreted in
local sewage systems. A study of the radioactivity found at
one sewage plant indicated it consisted principally of Io-
dine 131, and the amount (while not enough to constitute a
hazard to health) was greater than the amount of Iodine 131
normally released in liquid effluents from a large nuclear
power plant. As far as known, no Federal limits have been
placed on the amounts of such radioactivity which can be dis-
charged into sewage systems.
454
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The following observations may be drawn regarding the ade-
quacy of existing Federal legislative programs within the
ambit of EPA's authority for protection of ground-water con-
tamination.
1. PL 92-500 primarily focuses on navigable waters rather
than ground water or "public waters," meaning both navi-
gable and ground waters.
2. Section 208 of PL 92-500, at least on paper, provides
strong language for ground-water protection. However,
no mechanism exists for EPA to insure the implementation
of ground-water protection plans developed pursuant to
the 208 process.
3. The coverage under NPDES (Section 402 of PL 92-500) is
extremely limited as regards ground-water protection
both because of the language in Section 402 and the nar-
row definition of "pollutant" in Section 502.
4. Under PL 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act, several
definitional problems have led to interpretations which
limit the coverage of the Act. Some of the major pol-
luting activities may not be subject to the requirements
of PL 93-523.
5. The Solid Waste Disposal Act has not proved an effective
vehicle to protect ground water. It has currently ex-
pired.
6. NEPA, through the EIS process, is a significant vehicle
for reviewing and evaluating the ground-water impact of
Federal actions.
7. Radioactive wastes present a significant potential con-
tamination threat to ground water. Federal authorities
appear adequate for protection of public health; how-
ever, implementation has not always been adequate. Lim-
itation by Federal legislation of releases of radioac-
tive contaminants to ground water from other than those
emanating from "source, special and by-product materials"
may be inadequate. No known limits exist on medical
radionuclides given to patients and then excreted into
local sewage systems.
8. The Federal power over sub-surface waters is less clear
than over surface waters and its exercise may raise Fed-
eral-state constitutional questions.
455
-------
SECTION XVII
STATE AND LOCAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
SUMMARY
There are a number of requirements that are basic to all
state and local ground-water protection programs. Similar
to Federal activities, control over ground-water quality has
been given a low priority when compared to surface water.
This has been due to deficiencies in existing legislation,
the lack of funds available for proper staffing, and the di-
verse interests and priorities of existing agencies.
For maximum effectiveness, rules and regulations for protect-
ing ground water should be designed to: (1) prevent and con-
trol unwanted contamination and degradation of both ground-
and surface-water quality; (2) provide data necessary to
evaluate the nature and areal extent of ground-water contam-
ination and the number of sources of contamination; (3) pro-
vide a basis for correcting or mitigating existing cases of
ground-water contamination; and (4) provide a regulatory
framework within which aquifers can be used for waste treat-
ment and storage.
There are two approaches to the problem of protecting ground-
water resources. One is to look at the underground water it-
self as the resource to be managed and to concentrate on
limiting waste discharges and preventing causes of contamina-
tion. This first method is the one used to control air and
surface-water pollution. It is also the most popular basis
for ground-water control regulations.
A second approach is to take into account the ability of
aquifers to treat and store wastes and to consider these
characteristics as the prime resource to be managed or con-
trolled. The second method is not in common usage, but may
become more popular as ground-water technology becomes more
sophisticated. An example of this approach could be based
upon the possibility of states and local governments ac-
quiring ownership of aquifer pore space (storage capacity)
through eminent domain proceedings or other methods.
INTRODUCTION
There are a number of alternatives that are available for im-
plementing state and local ground-water protection programs.
456
-------
In the preceding sections on waste disposal practices, typi-
cal examples of existing state legislation have been out-
lined. However, these examples and the alternatives de-
scribed below, no matter how well conceived, are ineffective
if implementation is inadequate. As in the Federal situa-
tion, control over ground-water quality has been given a low
priority when compared to surface water. This has been due
to a lack of appreciation of potential and real ground-water
problems, which has resulted in deficiencies in existing leg-
islation together with insufficient funding for proper staff-
ing of environmental protection agencies. Implementation of
existing legislation also has been hampered by the relative-
ly low level of prevention and abatement technology and the
diverse interests and priorities of government, industry,
and the public.
The alternatives discussed in this section are not presented
as a recommended model law. They are included only to illus-
trate the availability and variety of controls that can be
exerted by state and local agencies to protect ground-water
quality.
OUTLINE OP STATE WATER RIGHTS LAW
Water is one of man's "inalienable rights;" a water right
is also real property and is protected by the Federal and
state constitutions that prohibit the deprivation of prop-
erty without due process of law or its taking for public use
without just compensation. But water rights vary from state
to state. In the humid regions (primarily the states east
of the Mississippi), ground water has been considered appur-
tenant to land ownership. The English common law rule of
riparian rights is that the water belongs to the people who
own the land, and not the state; the landowner owns the
ground water as an ingredient of his soil. Several states
follow the old English doctrine (no longer accepted in Eng-
land) that the landowner's water right is absolute and inde-
pendent of the rights of all others. Other states in humid
regions have placed some restriction on the rights of land-
owners, as exemplified by the "American" rule of reasonable
use. In New Hampshire a landowner does not have the right
to waste water unnecessarily or to export it from the area.
Under the "California" doctrine of correlative rights, the
owners of land overlying a ground-water reservoir have corre-
lative rights in a common supply, and each is limited to rea-
sonable and beneficial use of the water. A surplus may be
appropriated and exported. Where a surplus has been appro-
priated to the point where it has become a deficit, the land-
owners who have continued to pump to meet their needs have
rights by mutual prescription; the infringers, after five
457
-------
years, have prescriptive rights; the landowners who have
not pumped lose their rights.
In arid regions (primarily west of the Mississippi), rights
to water are generally gained by appropriation. Such rights
are entitled to protection, except as against the true owner.
In states where appropriation is an accepted means of obtain-
ing water rights, beneficial use is the basis, the measure,
and the limit of a water right. The appropriative right, in
contrast to the landowner right, is to a specific quantity
or rate of flow and is lost by non-use. Nevertheless, it is
a property right demanding constitutional protection.
In the southwest, some water rights have originated with
grants of land and the rights appurtenant thereto by foreign
sovereigns. In states which follow the appropriation theory,
the historic role of the state has been to prescribe condi-
tions under which rights may be acquired to use water, to
record the rights, to adjudicate claims, and to allocate wa-
ter in accordance with the established rights. Non-consump-
tive use and contamination are usually kept separate in the
public mind and in public agencies. Thus, a water right for
non-consumptive use can be granted without specifying any re-
sponsibility for the resulting contamination. Each state
has adopted its own system of water laws, subject to certain
paramount Federal powers. The general rule is that large
bodies of water are common property and that water flowing
in a natural stream is not the subject of private ownership.
BASIC POLICY ISSUES
The promulgation of reasonable rules and regulations for pro-
tection and management of potable ground-water supplies
first requires identification of the activities to be regu-
lated, and a basic understanding of how ground water occurs.
Uses of aquifers for purposes other than drinking water also
must be defined and considered in order to promulgate suffi-
cient rather than overprotective measures. The goal of reg-
ulatory controls should be to deflect contaminants away from
water-supply aquifers to either resource recovery operations
or to other more suitable aquifers.
SCOPE OF REQUIRED REGULATORY AUTHORITY
The major physical interrelationships between surface water
and ground water strongly suggest that regulation of ground-
water quality be under the same administrative and organiza-
tional system as surface-water quality. The following kinds
of authority in basic legislation are listed here as exam-
ples of rules and regulations:
458
-------
1. Authority to require permits and licenses for specific
activities: (a) permits to discharge wastes to or into
underground waters, (b) permits for appropriating and
using ground water (diversions, allocations), (c) per-
mits to construct or abandon wells, (d) permits or li-
censes to construct waste disposal facilities which dis-
charge to the land and underground waters, (e) licensing
of well drillers, (f) licensing of operators of waste
disposal facilities, and (g) licensing of waste haulers.
2. Authority to promulgate and change rules and regulations
such as: (a) construction standards (wells and disposal
facilities), (b) ground-water quality standards and cri-
teria, (c) uses for ground water and uses for aquifers
based on the geology and hydrology of an area, and (d)
exemptions from the requirements of regulation.
3. Authority to establish charges for use of ground water,
and utilization of the waste attenuation and storage
capacity of aquifers.
4. Authority to establish permit and license fees.
5. Authority to require monitoring of potential sources of
contamination.
6. Authority to enforce laws and regulations and enforce
penalties for violations.
7. Authority to set requirements for public hearings for
permits.
8. Authority to form an entity capable of owning and/or
operating waste disposal systems designed to discharge
to the land and ground waters.
EFFECTIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS
For maximum effectiveness, rules and regulations for control-
ling ground-water contamination should be designed to: (1)
prevent and control unwanted contamination and degradation
of ground- and surface-water quality, (2) provide data neces-
sary to evaluate the nature and areal extent of ground-water
contamination and the causes of contamination, (3) provide a
basis for correcting or mitigating existing cases of ground-
water contamination, and (4) provide a regulatory framework
within which aquifers can be used for waste treatment and
storage.
There are two approaches to the problem of controlling
459
-------
ground-water contamination. One is to look at the under-
ground water itself as the resource to be managed and to con-
centrate on limiting waste discharges and preventing causes
of contamination. This first method is the one used to con-
trol air and surface-water pollution. It is also the most
popular basis for ground-water control regulations.
A second approach is to take into account the ability of
aquifers to treat and store wastes and to consider these
characteristics as the prime resource to be managed or con-
trolled. The second method is not in common usage, but may
become more popular as ground-water technology becomes more
sophisticated. An example of this approach could be based
upon the possibility of states and local governments acquir-
ing ownership of aquifer pore space (storage capacity)
through eminent domain proceedings or other methods. In the
Annotated Code of Maryland there is a section called the
"Prince Georges County Underground Storage Act" which illus-
trates this concept as applied to storage of natural gas. 1)
The act states, in part:
"For the privilege of using geological strata
beneath the surface of the earth in Prince
Georges County for underground storage of gas
...a gas storage company shall pay the county
an underground storage fee."
PRIMARY REGULATORY CONTROL MECHANISMS
When faced with the multiplicity of ground-water contamina-
tion causes and sources, the question becomes "to permit or
not to permit." To deal with this problem, these sources
and causes have been divided into four categories (Table 78).
The first two•categories concern discharges of contaminants
that are wastes or waste waters, the third category concerns
discharges of contaminants that are not wastes, and the
fourth category consists of those causes of ground-water
quality degradation not related to discharges. Some of the
sources or causes of ground-water contamination could fall
under more than one category, for example, some lagoons may
be designed to discharge to land and ground waters.
As a general rule, all Category I (Table 78) causes will re-
quire a discharge or injection control permit for each proj-
ect. Exceptions can be made, for example, on the basis of
existing permit systems. A regulatory agency can also de-
cide for political or economic reasons, to simply exempt the
discharge activity from permit requirements if the impact on
aquifers and underground waters is not considered signifi-
cant. Category II causes will require approval of construc-
460
-------
z
o
LU
CO
•~\
m^
Z
o
^™
1— •
ID _i 00
HO S
o£ 3
°-z I
Hi
92
5s
2§
O ^
^"^ uc.
"r LL.
OQ
I2o
. +-
£ i
> i »
*^
>-
*v
0
O
UJ
H-*
<
u
-o °
C -C
3 y
2IE
O) %
•sU
8 = s
S 3 -£
a — y
o o .-
U Q.^
FEGORY II
<
U
> 5 i ° B
•j; fl) *- a>
y 0) C 0) •£
°J 8 si
rt ,\ U- *
0 a ^ ? -a
w> •— *- C
<0 TJ (U O 3
± x S> c 2
|- O O jj) 0)
'y E -5 o-o
•S -S •- "S o
-s'^-S
«-= o - If
5 " *" C
*rt
££ 8 II
Si
)N OF SOURCES AND CA
ERMINING LEVEL AND K
S
\J t— OJ
_ 1 1 1 l_
^•™ LU l™~
1— Q oo
< <
U ^
^s ^
u_
OO
oo
5
U
R
JJ>
_Q
•2
CATEGORY II
1 V
> £
S ^ȣ
o 5 „ e
i C "r V
0 8 £ o
s^ i ?
I o^^l
.— £ wi D
y t O O
.s-c*!,
«-^ o 1?
£ * S o
£ «> •S -o
<» « a c
«^± iJ
i
•— £. "o
y S> g
° ? °
CATEGORY 1
. "Tt «A u
s.« « g
JS •» o -
5 £ > J
= -o -8 « c
y * a £ u
*SI^|
i|ol-o
« V -D C
•S 8 « '« g
*l ill
Z
o
oo
D
Qi
1—
Z
Cti
LU
|
T
i—
_j
<
oo
*_-
c
j=
y
8
t.
y
a>
3;
o
?
o
Q)
w>
iTORAGE
RODUCT S
Q.
Q
LU
S
ID
CO
OO
LU
Z
_l
LU
0-
oT
Q
Z
<
00
^
z
<
1 .
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
VI
§
o
O)
^
V
M
TJ
§.
P
T3
O
£
IA
D
i
~
u_
o
\_X
LAND APPLICATION
t_
^
WASTE WATER - spra
4)
C
"s
u-
o
0)
C i-
.- 4)
C •*-
O 0
0 ?
•S-0
0 =
Us
3 O)
-S
X
o
j:
0)
Ic
1
oo
LU
_l
51
^
U
O
i—
oo
I/I
^.
'a.
TJ
o
o
0 ?
y o
(U «-
gation, infiltration-p
tion basins, overland
£
o
v
vt
J2
"5.
j*
y
£
t/1
^
S
0)
'u
LANDFILLS AND OTHER
Z
O
f—
<
Qi
b
u.
Z
QX
LLJ
>
C£
-5
.—
o_
.*
y
5
t/1
EXCAVATIONS - landfills
for industrial wastes, sanitarv
1
t/>
SUB-SURFACE SOIL
ABSORPTION SYSTE/
i
. -7
i
Z
O
u
i
0£
LU
a.
O
Di
CL.
5
^.
^_
<
CO
<
a;
O
Q
LU
k_
U
ID
C£
l —
oo
OO
_J
_1
LU
^
Q
LU
Z
o
Q
1
X
O
i
LL.
O
z
o
J_
<
u
_l
a.
a.
<
oo
1—
«J
<
00
0
z
y
LU
Q
1
landfills for municipal solid
wastes, landfills for munici-
pal water and waste water
3
— 1
1 1 l
(septic systems)
WASTE DISPOSAL Wl
1
00
LU
y
i—
u
^f
<>
O£
a.
O
z
•^
s
ai
<(
U-
E PONDS
fSTORAG
U
3
Q
O
C£
CL.
'ro
'i
j>
-a
_o
b
-D
K
•
D)
•
4)
i *"
•u
1 0> <-i-
> °- c
F"? 3 00.
treatment plant sludges,
other excavations (e.g.,
Z
O
AND BRINE INJECTI
13
_J
LU
£
^ D « J
2 " c =
•^ « n 00
3 .a ™ -j
Z> • ~ 0 <
•~; "S - -
— 1 V
^ "- .
U '
§S,
< t '
mass burial of livestock)
A Ml kit A 1 CCCrM /"">TC
O
z
DRAINAGE WELLS A
Cl IMDC
t It
o
*1 • — '
£ u
2 u
j <
/-UNIIVI/"* L rLLL/U^yiJ
LEAKY SANITARY SEWER
LINES
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
MINE SPOIL PILES AND
TAILINGS
S113M 39ilVHD3il
r* IIAI/-\ r*
461
-------
tion standards (again, exceptions can be made). A permit
for Category II could be required for activities which posed
an exceptional threat of ground-water contamination such as
lagoons and landfills. Category III causes will require fa-
cility construction standards and/or guidelines and manuals
(e.g., tons/mile limits on highway deicing salts, corrosion-
proof buried storage tanks, covered stockpiles). For Cate-
gory IV causes, other types of regulatory controls will be
needed in addition to facility construction standards, guide-
lines and manuals (e.g., controls on ground-water withdraw-
als, limits on discharges of contaminants to streams, and
constraints on land use).
SECONDARY REGULATORY CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Although issuance or denial of permits and approval for ac-
tivities which may contaminate ground water can be handled
on a case-by-case basis, consistency alone will require that
standards be established upon which to base these decisions.
In addition, manpower constraints will necessitate concen-
trating control efforts on specific causes of contamination
in specific areas. No state, for example, has sufficient
trained personnel to deal with the thousands of sources of
ground-water contamination categorized in Table 78. However,
there must be sufficient qualified people to make the hard
choices of what to do first and where to do it.
The purpose of ground-water quality standards is to provide
a yardstick for determining the amount of change to permit
in native ground-water quality. It does not mean that na-
tive ground-water quality must be made to meet these stand-
ards and, unlike surface waters, it does not necessarily
mean that ground waters already contaminated will be or can
be improved in quality to meet these standards.
Ground-water quality standards are basically applicable to
water supply uses for aquifers. These, in turn, are gov-
erned by native ground-water quality, aquifer storage capac-
ity and the ability of the aquifer to yield water to wells.
Existing state standards recognize at least three classes of
native ground-water quality: (1) high quality, meeting or
exceeding (with minor undesirable, naturally occurring ele-
ments) Federal drinking water standards; (2) intermediate
quality suitable for industrial and agricultural use and for
possible use as a potable water supply after treatment; and
(3) low quality (saline water). 1,2,3) These standards
should also explicitly or implicitly recognize differences
between the saturated and unsaturated portions of aquifers,
ground water as a source of recharge to surface waters, dif-
ferences in aquifer transmissive characteristics, and the
462
-------
designation of aquifers or sections thereof for waste treat-
ment and storage.
Water-quality standards are by no means an answer to all of
the multiple problems of ground-water contamination. In
fact, promulgating such standards may raise more questions
than are answered. For example, there are many aquifers
where the native ground-water quality is superior to Federal
drinking water standards or criteria, and many aquifers
where the native quality is inferior to these standards but
which are the only water supplies reasonably available.
Thus, there is the problem of degrading ground waters to
drinking water standards and protecting usable ground water
inferior to those standards.
Suggested Guidelines for Ground-Water Quality Standards
1. All reasonable supply uses for ground water should be
included in the standards (water for agriculture and in-
dustrial process water). To protect these uses, a gen-
eral limiting level of ground-water quality needs to be
established. A total dissolved solids concentration of
5,000 ppm would be a satisfactory limit.
2. An upper limit for protection of drinking water supplies
also needs to be established. A total dissolved solids
concentration of 2,500 ppm is a conservative value. The
1962 prinking Water Standards 4) included a limit for to-
tal dissolved solids of 500 ppm, if other less mineral-
ized sources were available. The 1972 EPA report on
water-quality criteria 5) "recognized that a consider-
able number of supplies with dissolved solids in excess
of 500 ppm are used without any obvious ill effects,"
and therefore, did not recommend a dissolved solids lim-
it. Because of the variability in native ground-water
quality, a limit of 500 ppm for potable ground-water sup-
plies is suggested for areas where present concentra-
tions are below this value.
3. Parameters for which maximum contaminant levels have
been established by either Federal criteria or regula-
tions should represent upper limits for potable ground-
water quality standards.
4. Aquifer productivity characteristics, in addition to na-
tive ground-water quality, should be considered in de-
termining uses for ground water. In general, aquifers
containing ground water with a relatively low total dis-
solved solids concentration should be protected over a
wider range of transmissivities than aquifers containing
463
-------
ground water with a higher dissolved solids concentra-
tion (Figure 79). Use of aquifer transmissive character-
istics to delineate classifications is not simple, espe-
cially in light of the differences between fractured
rock, carbonate rock, and unconsolidated aquifers. Fur-
thermore, one could conceivably allow degradation of a
Class I aquifer to Federal drinking water standards
while placing more severe restrictions on a Class II
aquifer on the grounds that any change in the quality of
water from the latter could make it completely unusable
as a drinking-water source.
5. The interrelationships between ground water and surface
water should be recognized in the standards. For exam-
ple, augmenting streamflow with ground water is consid-
ered a "use" in North Carolina. 2)
6. The ability of geologic formations (saturated and unsat-
urated) to treat wastes should be recognized.
7. Other, indirect, water-supply uses of aquifers and
ground water, such as fresh-water storage in saline aqui-
fers and low-flow augmentation of streams, should be
recognized and protected.
8. Standards should be designed to meet individual state
needs.
GROUND-WATER EFFLUENT LIMITS AND WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
Effluent limits are a mechanism for placing specific numeri-
cal limits (quantity and quality, or loading) on multiple
sources of wastes entering the saturated or unsaturated por-
tion of an aquifer. For surface-water contamination control,
effluent limits are placed on point-source discharges. For
ground-water contamination control, effluent limits will ap-
ply to a much broader range of activities. Examples include
limits on nitrogen loading for land application of municipal
waste waters; limits on types of materials disposed of in
sanitary landfills; limits on specific contaminants inject-
ed into an aquifer by means of a disposal well; effluent
limits on waste treatment facilities which discharge to a
stream that recharges an aquifer; and a pollutant discharge
limitation requirement for surface impoundments.
Waste-load allocations for streams are a way of achieving
surface-water quality standards. Their purpose is to estab-
lish the actions necessary to maintain or improve existing
surface-water quality and provide a basis for effluent limi-
tations. Allowable contaminant loads are allocated to indi-
464
-------
OJ M
•S ^ > X
g .2 .2 •= -5.
i. •= n u Q.
5 o
0 »
3 >
g- i3
i .-
1_
s
o
S.
D)
.2-
la
o
0)
E
0)
0-
o
^
8
u~>
CM
-o
O
O
5?
stween
u;
_Q
£
0
_c
o
IE
?
V)
v)
O
U
c
o
•^
1
O)
"v>
4)
"O
X
o
X
o
c
0)
O)
0
X
£
_o
3
0)
m
m
>
tzr
o
E
41
"o
_4>
-Q
0
reason
o
•
x
j-
15
0
4)
4)
Q_
b
£-
missivi
VI
C
_x
O Q. X
c V
'5 •
_2 o
.a 9-
0
-0
o
en
i- 0
Q-
o
Z*
0 . 4.
£ §=§
1'fS
-Si °
^!^
t3 « "
cu i £
v, i; t;
g o a.
2 o S
D) u.
0 _0
f u
i- ~5 o i e
4) 2 C _ 4)
~ 3 .S>? o
2- D « r *
o 5
vi .
C u-
• - O
D
£•£:
&?•
D)
0)
"O
4)
Q.
D
o-
o
£ c
J! |
'Is
o S:
o —
8 D
_o 4,
U g5
5 £
a- -2 S:
o U g.
= c o
^E'o
0 4)
U> (/>
V) ,v
i o
11
a:
o
<
<
-J
o
.v?;";.<':'
D
(J
o 2
o *
I u.
O O
O
•g
D
cr
00
4§2
§0
»-*
>- IL
7 o
j >.
•« J
O
cb
0)
;o
'5
O
o
N.
CO
O
O
«l
c
uaivM ownone IAIIVN
JO (!/»») NOIJ.VM1N33N03
sonos aiAioceia ivioi
465
-------
vidual waste treatment facilities that contribute contami-
nants to a given segment of a stream. In general, the appli-
cation of the waste-load allocation concept to underground
waters will be for the purpose of maintaining or limiting
degradation of existing ground-water quality. A waste-load
allocation will generally apply to an entire aquifer or ba-
sin while an effluent limit is site specific. The waste-
load allocation concept means that there is a finite alloca-
ble waste handling capacity, assignable by government, to an
aquifer. It is one method of dealing with the difficult
technical problem of determining the "waste assimilative
capacity" of the land and aquifers.
Although soils and sediments have a capacity to attenuate
wastes, there are many cases of ground-water contamination
(e.g., landfills) where the assimilative capacity of the
aquifer system has been overwhelmed. Even though it is not
yet possible to precisely determine aquifer assimilative
capacity, estimates and ranges can be established (e.g., cat-
ion exchange capacity of soil). In addition, the percentage
removal of contaminants can be estimated for treatment tech-
niques such as land application of waste water and conven-
tional waste treatment processes; therefore, waste-disposal
techniques can be adjusted to compensate for uncertainties
in determining allocable waste capacities for aquifers.
Determination of Waste-Load Allocations
Simple examples of a determination of a waste-load alloca-
tion for an aquifer, using nitrogen as the contaminant to be
allocated, is shown in Figures 80 and 81. The first case
(Figure 80) shows a method for obtaining a crude estimate of
the maximum number of septic systems permissible per square
mile without causing an increase in nitrate concentration of
ground water exceeding drinking water standards (10 ppm as
N). This example could be for a hypothetical water-table
aquifer for which only a bare minimum of basic data is avail-
able. It is assumed that the nitrate concentration in the
native ground water is zero, that dilution by precipitation
is the only mechanism acting to alter the concentration of
nitrogen, and that all nitrogen in the septic system efflu-
ent is converted to nitrate.
The second example (Figure 81) shows the use of a more so-
phisticated analysis for Massachusetts 6) based on stream
low-flow characteristics. An increase in the total dis-
solved solids concentration of stream base flow, which is
actually dependent upon the quality of ground-water dis-
charge in the basin, is shown as a function of the number of
septic systems per square mile. By knowing the percentage
466
-------
PRODUCTION
/\ PRECIPITATION
/\ \^\
' PRETREATMENT N \ A \ N
\ N \ EVAPOTRAt
WELL \ \ \
.JJL- «
-------
in SH
g
3
g 13
•rH C
X (d
rd
Q) C
C -P QJ
•H in u
>i C
in in o
13 U
•H CJ
rH -H tn
0 4-1 13
in CVH
QJ rH
13 in 0
0) tn
> rH
O 3 QJ
in 13 >
tn -H rH
•H > o
T3 -H in
13 in
4H C -H
O -H 13
C g rH
0 O rd
•H SH -P
4-> 4H O
OJ 4-1
S-l IS
U O QJ
U rH X!
rd 4H 4-1
-p g
0)
^ -p
O td
a)
T3
tn
C C
•H -H 0)
4-) rH
tn tn X)
13 -H rd
•H W S
rH M O
O QJ rH
in
tn Q) 4-i
15 in rd
O rrj 45
X! X! -P
tn
g
a QJ 3
re SH tn
SH 4-> tn
O to <
o
I 1 (l
CH tT1
0)
in c
QJ -H
SH
ft C
QJ O
SH -H
4->
in rd
•H SH
4J
•S C
O QJ
rH U
O
QJ U
tn
rd tn
ft 13
•H
g rH
rd O
QJ tn
SH
4-1 13
in QJ
o
QJ -H g
rH rd g
0 SH -H
tn x
in tn rd
•H -H g
13 £
4-1 QJ
4H ,£
0^4-1
4-)
o\o . r-j *.
m |s QJ
rH SH
- O
a 4-1 4n
3 C QJ
Q) SH
W 3 Q)
QJ rH ,C
-X 4H En
rd 4H
g QJ
Cgg
Q) QJ rd
tn 4-1 QJ
O tn SH
S-i >i 4-1
4-) w in
Q)
£)
IS O
4-> 4H
g O
rd -P
QJ O SH
SH C QJ
4-) £)
in QJ g
3 3
QJ rH C
-P > g
3
C QJ g
•H 4-1 -H
rd X
in SH ro
13 4-J g
•rH -rH
rH C QJ
O £!
in QJ 4-i
QJ
4-1 -
tn
SH 3
rH o x:
O 4H EH
tn
in SH
•H QJ
i3 13 *
SH g
4H O ft
O ft
C
C -H O
Q) 0
> -H
O
in
w
G -H
•H no
C O QJ
•H .C
-P 4-1 4-1
,C Q) O
4-> in 4-1
13
< Q)
' QJ
U O
O r- X
rd in
tn
in a)
u
•H tn
-P g
ft Q)
QJ 4-1
tn tn
tn
QJ
rH U
•H -H
g -P
CD QJ
SH in
rd
CTCS
tn xr
SH Q) .
Q) £) —
ft QJ
rH SH
W rH U
4J -H rd
•H ^ \
C r-
3 13 >-D
Q) •
tn 4-1 o
C 4-> ^
•H -H
W g QJ
3 M rH
O Q) -H
X! ft g
Q)
O)
O
_c
o
(U
D
I
C
O
1_
O)
o
0)
J
o
o
u
_0
D
TD
MOTd 3SV9 WV3M1S Nl ' Wdd Nl 'NOIJ.3MOOV S 0 1TOS - Q3ATOSSI Q
SOHHOdOIH Nl ' 30NVJ.OnQNOO
D
D-
D
X
LU
468
-------
of nitrogen making up the total dissolved solids, one can
estimate the maximum number of septic systems allowable per
square mile without causing the ground water to exceed the
nitrogen limits for drinking water.
These examples indicate that, for these or similar areas,
the waste-load allocation in terms of the number of septic
systems per square mile should be roughly 640 systems or one
system/acre (2.5 systems/ha). Waste-load allocation calcula-
tions for most aquifer systems will be crude, at best. More
sophisticated analyses by computer modeling may be possible.
Hazardous Wastes
In general, hazardous wastes are largely industrial, about
10 million tons/yr (9 million tonnes/yr). About 90 percent
by weight are generated in the form of liquid streams, of
which approximately 40 percent are inorganic and 60 percent
organic materials. 7) Furthermore, disposal of hazardous
wastes on the land will increase as a result of air and
surface-water pollution controls. Therefore, whether or not
a waste that is to be disposed of to an aquifer is hazardous
could determine the type of regulatory control applied (per-
mit or rule, such as construction standards).
Caution must be used in applying regulatory control philoso-
phies to hazardous waste disposal practices that may affect
ground water. Even after treatment processes are applied to
wastes, there will remain a residue that will require dis-
posal on either land or in the ocean. As ocean dumping be-
comes less desirable,, land and eventually ground waters will
become the ultimate sinks.
When regulatory constraints for protecting underground wa-
ters increase disposal costs, it is likely that reuse of in-
dustrial waste residuals will take place in-plant. Thus,
systems such as a waste exchange similar to those operating
in several European nations, may become economically feas-
ible. 8) By contrast, recovery of residuals from municipal
wastes will likely be on the disposal end through waste ap-
plication on marginal or prime agricultural land. The main
ground-water contamination issue in land application of mu-
nicipal wastes will be nitrate. EPA National Interim Pri-
mary Drinking Water Standards establish a mandatory maximum
level for nitrate of 10 ppm as N. 9) Under these circum-
stances, nitrate discharged to underground waters may have
to be classified as a hazardous waste.
469
-------
GROUND-WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS
Focusing limited resources on specific problem areas rather
than trying to control all causes of ground-water contamina-
tion for all areas of a state, county, or water management
district, for example, requires the use of available data on
geology, hydrology, use of ground water, and causes of
ground-water contamination. Based on such information, a
region can be divided into ground-water quality management
areas. This classification can be used to provide a sound
technical basis for determining.where underground injection
control or discharge permits are or are not required (e.g.,
recharge areas, and limestone aquifers) or for prohibiting
disposal of hazardous wastes in certain areas. The follow-
ing are some of the criteria that may be used to establish
management areas to facilitate decision-making:
1. Unconfined (water-table) vs. confined (artesian) aquifers
Water-table aquifers are generally subject to greater
water-quality degradation from all of the sources of
ground-water contamination than confined aquifer systems.
2. Aquifer recharge areas vs. discharge areas
Recharge areas are obvious places where contaminants may
enter ground waters. For water-table aquifers, the re-
charge area may be the total land surface area of the
aquifer. Therefore, a large portion of a state could be
classified as a potential recharge area. However, the
concept may be applicable as a criterion for ground-
water quality management when applied to inclined con-
fined aquifer systems of coastal plains or discrete ba-
sins with water-table aquifers, because the boundaries
of the recharge area can be more easily defined.
It should also be noted that many aquifers are brim-full
of water and are discharging to surface streams. Under
these conditions, the region involved can not be classi-
fied as a recharge area. However, subsequent develop-
ment of the aquifer can lower ground-water levels cre-
ating a new recharge area, which would require protec-
tion. Such a change in conditions can be determined by
a continuing program of monitoring pumpage and water
levels.
3. Surface-water drainage basins and structural basins
Drainage basins could be used for unconfined aquifer sys-
tems but would not be readily applicable to confined
470
-------
aquifers. In many cases, structural basins may form
suitable management boundaries for an aquifer system.
Boundaries could be based on the degree of restriction
to ground-water flow in and out of the basin.
4. Consolidated vs. unconsolidated aquifers
Movement of ground water through consolidated rock aqui-
fers is generally controlled by rock fracture patterns
while movement through unconsolidated aquifers is con-
trolled by horizontal and vertical permeability differ-
ences of gravels, sands, silts and clays. Consequently,
the mechanics of ground-water contamination will normal-
ly be considerably different.
5. Carbonate vs. non-carbonate consolidated aquifers
Carbonate rock aquifers often have high transmissivities
because of solution openings. This characteristic re-
sults in their being more susceptible to contamination
and allowing contaminants to move relatively long dis-
tances in short periods of time. Certain other aquifers,
such as basalt aquifers, may be considered in the same
way as carbonate rock.
6. Unsaturated zones of aquifers
The suitability of the unsaturated zone for treatment of
wastes varies considerably. The thickness and type of
material in the unsaturated zone could be used as a ba-
sis for delineating management areas.
7. Pollution causing activities
Management areas can be established on the basis of coal
and other mining activities, or concentrations of partic-
ular sources of contamination, such as large population
centers using individual septic systems.
8. Use of aquifers for public water supplies
Ground-water quality management areas can be designated
on the basis of present use of underground water for pub-
lic water supply and/or future use. For example, areas
planned for high densities of domestic wells or aquifers
which have been traditionally used to supply community
water systems would receive special attention.
An example of the use of management areas is shown in Figure
82 where six areas are designated. Areas 1 through 4 are
471
-------
»w <
O U. [jj
£5 te.
DO <
« <
?Q UJ
D S _J
i?
CO Z
DC KO
UJ O °
« |2 i < i=|
- *< I < o -1
< ~i z Si ° ^ =
N §' S p
1-2 ^ < x uj Q:
=>o - o (- KO
O OO -1 O O
-------
deemed critical for the protection of underground waters
from contamination, and controls on sources of ground-water
contamination are more restrictive than elsewhere.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACTS
Many states have environmental policy acts which may be use-
ful as a regulatory tool for controlling ground-water contam-
ination. These usually call for an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for actions taken by state agencies. In
some states, the requirements extend to local government
agencies and possibly to private activities which require
state permits. Rules and regulations for evaluating these
impact statements are generally broad enough to include re-
view for impact on ground water.
CONTROLS ON WATER APPROPRIATIONS (WITHDRAWALS) AND WELL CON-
STRUCTION
Regulatory controls on water appropriations (water rights)
and well construction (permits) can be applied to problems
involving ground-water quality for some causes of contamina-
tion which are not discharges (Table 78, Category IV) or for
existing cases of contamination.
The problem of what to do ^.n a case of existing ground-water
contamination has always been difficult. The contamination
usually remains after the source has been eliminated, and
removal is not often feasible. Thus, there has been a ten-
dency to say that "little or nothing can be done about
ground-water contamination after it has occurred." There is,
however, one rather obvious action: restrict or prohibit
the use of water from an aquifer that has been contaminated.
Within the legal framework under which each state must oper-
ate, withdrawal of ground water could be limited in aquifers
affected by contamination. It would be the task of the prop-
er public agency to determine "critical zones" around each
known significant case of ground-water contamination. In
each zone, ground-water diversion would be restricted from
the standpoint of either the quantity that can be pumped or
the purpose for which it can be used. Wells and other moni-
toring techniques would aid in determining when and how to
modify the areal extent of such a zone over a period of time.
Figure 83 and Table 79 illustrate how this system might be
utilized.
In the theoretical case illustrated by the diagram, it is
assumed that no ground-water pumpage presently exists within
the three zones and that the mechanism causing ground-water
473
-------
Note: See Table 79 for explanation.
Figure 83. Map of theoretical critical zones.
10)
474
-------
Table 79. RESTRICTIONS ON GROUND-WATER USE IN THE CRITICAL ZONES
SHOWN ON FIGURE 83. 10)
Zone Description
Restrictions on use of
water-table aquifer
Restrictions on use of
shallowest artesian aquifer
Area in which water-table
aquifer already contains
contaminant or ground-water
quality is threatened because
of proximity to contaminated
Area in which natural
process such as adsorption,
dispersion, and ion ex-
change will have reduced
the concentration of the
contaminant significantly
but not to a level acceptable
for potable water supplies.
1.
2.
1.
No ground-water pumpage
permitted except where poor
quality water can be used
safely for special purposes
or the contaminant can be
successfully removed by
treatment.
Ground-water quality
monitored.
Ground-water pumpage
limited to prevent signifi-
cant increase in rate of
travel of contaminated
water.
Ground-water use for pot-
able water supplies not per-
mitted unless contaminant can
be successfully removed by
treatment.
1. Pumpage regulated so
that head is maintained
above water table;
otherwise pumpage not
permitted.
2. Well construction strictly
regulated to guard
against inter-aquifer ex-
change of contaminated
water.
3. Well-water quality
periodically monitored.
1. Pumpage regulated so
that head is maintained
above the water table in
Zone A but can be lower
than water table within
this zone.
2. Well construction regu-
lated.
Area in which natural
processes will have reduced
the concentration of the
contaminant to a level accept-
able for potable water supplies.
3. Ground-water quality strictly
monitored.
1. Ground-water pumpage
limited to prevent significant
increase in rate of travel of
contaminated water.
Ground-water quality
monitored.
Proposed ground-water
users warned that pumpage
may be restricted in the
future if significant ground-
water contamination spreads
to Zone B.
475
-------
contamination has been eliminated. Also, it is assumed that
the water-table and underlying artesian aquifers are sepa-
rated by a uniform layer of low permeability, which is quite
effective in retarding the vertical movement of ground water
and also in removing a substantial portion of the contami-
nant through such natural processes as adsorption and ion
exchange. Taking these assumptions into account, regula-
tions could be 'established for controlling ground-water use,
as outlined, in order to minimize the effects of the problem.
Of course, consideration of each new ground-water diversion
proposed in any of the zones would require an evaluation of
the effects of prior approvals for ground-water pumpage.
Permits for drilling water wells, and water-well construc-
tion and* abandonment standards, can be effective control
techniques for certain ground-water contamination problems.
There are many instances reported of individual water supply
wells which produce contaminated ground water as shown by
the presence of coliform bacteria. Many of these instances
are not really cases of contaminated ground water but im-
proper or ineffective sealing (grouting) of the well casing
from surface contaminants and/or inadequate disinfection
procedures. In addition, enforcement of standards for con-
struction and abandonment of oil and gas wells and holes
drilled for soil sampling, geophysical surveys, etc., can
help minimize ground-water contamination problems.
LICENSING OF WELL DRILLING CONTRACTORS, WASTE HAULERS AND
OPERATORS OF WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Licensing or certifying persons responsible for certain ac-
tivities can be a valuable method for controlling ground-
water contamination. Enforcement of well-construction stand-
ards is a significant problem because of the difficulty of
inspecting what amounts to a hole in the ground. After-the-
fact inspection, common in other trades (e.g., electrical,
plumbing), is seldom completely satisfactory for water wells.
However, licensed professional drilling contractors can help
minimize this problem through self-regulation.
The concept of licensing or certifying operators of waste
treatment and disposal facilities was developed when it was
recognized that a sewage treatment plant is no better than
the people who operate and maintain it. The same concept is
applicable to facilities which discharge wastes to aquifers.
Proper operation of these facilities is critical for the pre-
vention of ground-water contamination. An example of this
problem is the growing acceptance of land application of mu-
nicipal waste waters and the need for proper operation of a
rather complex process related to soil, vegetation, and cli-
476
-------
matic conditions.
Licensing of haulers of hazardous industrial wastes appears
to be an important technique for controlling the disposal of
these substances, and providing an inventory of their nature
and quantity. In general, there are far fewer waste haulers
than waste generators. This can help make the administra-
tion of a hazardous waste management program simpler than
would otherwise be possible. The key factor for ground-
water contamination control is to make certain that hazard-
ous wastes are only disposed of and treated at approved
facilities.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT
Public participation and awareness is an essential part of a
ground-water protection program. There normally will be re-
quirements for public hearings on applications for permits
to discharge or inject wastes to aquifers. Conventional no-
tification techniques such as newspaper advertisements and
mailing lists are likely to be ineffective in the case of
ground water. Generally, the people most likely to be af-
fected by discharge of wastes to ground waters will be prop-
erty owners near the proposed facility. Therefore, a simple
requirement (in addition to advertisement, etc.) is for per-
mit applicants to notify, by certified mail, adjacent prop-
erty owners. This will insure attendance by the public at
hearings on applications to discharge or inject wastes to
underground waters.
Another illustration of the need for public notification is
a state regulatory agency's restricting ground-water with-
drawals in the area around a source of contamination. Noti-
fication by the state agency to the property owners of re-
strictions (and possible decline in property value) on the
use of their land will foster increased public awareness
about ground-water contamination.
CHARGES
The "polluter pays" principle is a common concept for con-
trol of surface-water contamination. Its application to un-
derground waters presents some interesting challenges and
applications.
Effluent Charges
As applied to ground water, effluent charges could be used
to: (1) require minimum waste treatment levels before dis-
charge to aquifers, (2) allocate the waste treatment capac-
477
-------
ity of aquifers among competing applicants for such use, (3)
help fund efforts to mitigate existing ground-water contami-
nation, and (4) encourage compliance with any effluent lim-
its or water-quality standards established for ground waters.
Resource Utilization Charges
A resource utilization charge is similar, in some respects,
to an effluent charge except that it has a much broader ap-
plication and can be much more useful. 12) y^ie effluent
charge concept focuses on the contaminant before it is dis-
charged to an aquifer while the resource utilization charge
concept is concerned with how the aquifer handles the contam-
inant.
This concept is applicable to aquifers and would be based on
(1) costs of administering the aquifers (planning, monitor-
ing, allocating, inspecting, and enforcing); (2) "rent" on
the scarcity value of the natural capacity of aquifers to
treat and store wastes; and (3) controlling, where it ex-
ists, overuse of aquifers for waste storage and treatment by
establishing a price for such use.
Licensing and Permit Fees
These charges generally are used to cover only the adminis-
trative costs of the control program. In some cases they
may be based on the potential that the activity regulated
may become a problem. Considerable moneys could be gener-
ated by these charges because of the potentially large num-
ber of activities encompassed by a ground-water contamina-
tion control program (permits to drill wells, discharge or
injection control permits).
Bonds
Bonds can be used as incentives to comply with the law or to
help alleviate concern about uncertainties which are inher-
ent in the control of ground-water contamination.
Disincentives
"A disincentive is a monetary charge levied by government on
conduct which is not illegal but which does impose social
costs, for the principal purpose of discouraging the con-
duct." 13) A disincentive in the form of a pollution tax
may be as effective for controlling ground-water contamina-
tion as ground-water quality standards and effluent limits.
478
-------
Problems Associated with Levying Charges
A basic problem in assessing effluent charges for ground-
water contamination is the selection of the parameters to be
used. In the case of surface water, biochemical oxygen de-
mand, chemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids are para-
meters usually chosen as the basis for such charges. These
have little meaning for control of disposal facilities de-
signed to discharge wastes and waste waters to aquifers (Ta-
ble 78, Category I) because they are largely removed during
passage through both the unsaturated and saturated zones.
For this reason, effluent charges, and to a lesser degree re-
source utilization charges and disincentives, must be based
on persistent dissolved substances in the waste. Examples
are total dissolved solids, nitrate, chloride, and heavy
metals.
EXEMPTIONS
From a practicable standpoint, it will not be possible to
completely control all the sources and causes of ground-
water contamination listed in Table 78. It would be foolish
to even attempt to issue underground injection control or
discharge permits for the hundreds of thousands of septic
systems installed annually. Yet, these systems are a major
cause of ground-water contamination. The answer to this
problem is a qualified exemption, whereby permit require-
ments are waived for a specific kind or class of waste dis-
charges to ground waters (e.g., septic systems for individ-
ual homes, selected agricultural practices) while still re-
quiring that these systems comply with minimum construction
and operational guidelines.
Another example would be to waive permit requirements for
that class of discharges involving artificial recharge of
water-supply aquifers with renovated waste water. Ground-
water quality standards could be the only regulatory tool
applied, based on the reasonable assumption that the persons
discharging to the aquifer would be the same ones using it
for water supply.
Exemptions may be applied where there are existing categori-
cal permit programs such as those for solid-waste disposal.
In some cases, stiffening the ground-water protection as-
pects of an existing program could obviate the need for a
separate ground-water discharge permit.
479
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF A GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION CONTROL PRO-
GRAM
Establishment of methods to ensure compliance with a program
designed to control ground-water contamination will be facil-
itated by the use of the following techniques to assure max-
imum application of laws, regulations and permit require-
ments , etc.
1. Control of surface-water contamination has resulted in
an increased generation of industrial and municipal
waste sludges. Conditions placed on National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits require reports on
pollutants removed from point-source waste streams (quan-
tity, quality, disposal area, etc.). In this way, an in-
ventory can be obtained of waste sludges (residuals)
which could end up on the land and, eventually, in
ground waters.
2. Where law allows, a regulatory agency can impose condi-
tions requiring proper disposal of waste waters (dis-
charge permits as a prerequisite to issuance of ground-
water appropriation permits).
3. If lending institutions are notified of rules and regula-
tions requiring control of discharges to ground waters,
it will then be difficult for certain projects to obtain
financing without first having obtained the required per-
mits or approval.
4. Federal OMB Circulars A-95 and A-98 or State Clearing-
house Review contain procedures for approval of projects
which receive state and/or Federal funds. There is a
provision for environmental control agencies to comment
on such projects.
5. Many waste-disposal facilities are designed to discharge
to ground water (e.g., spray irrigation) as a result of
requirements necessary to meet stream standards. "Need
and Adequacy Statements" (Section 8 of PL 92-500) are
required before Small Business Administration loans for
environmental control applications can be processed. A
state ground-water contamination control agency can be
designated as the party responsible for determining the
need and adequacy of projects which discharge to ground
waters.
6. Local agencies are often the first to be contacted by
potential applicants for waste-disposal facilities.
Agreement can be reached with local agencies not to is-
480
-------
sue local permits (e.g., building permits) until neces-
sary ground-water contamination control permits have
been obtained.
7. Septic tank cleaners, product storage tank cleaners, and
waste haulers may be a source of waste discharges to
aquifers. They should be checked on a periodic basis in
order to ensure that licensing and reporting require-
ments are being fulfilled.
MONITORING GROUND-WATER QUALITY
The problem of monitoring ground-water quality deserves its
own special place in any discussion about controlling contam-
ination. This problem, which is manageable for control of
surface-water pollution, becomes highly complex for ground
water.
There are four basic reasons for monitoring ground-water
quality. In order of increasing technical complexity, they
are:
1. To control quality of drinking water supplies (monitor-
ing requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act).
2. To establish existing values for various ground-water
quality parameters in order to evaluate changes in qual-
ity and long-term trends.
3. To investigate and evaluate potential ground-water con-
tamination causes and sources.
4. To regulate and evaluate known (permitted) discharges to
ground water (compliance monitoring).
Sampling public water supply wells (raw water) for compli-
ance with the Safe Drinking Water Act should be straightfor-
ward, provided that it is coordinated with baseline monitor-
ing networks. The main problem is to make sure that all the
parameters necessary to interpret changes in ground-water
quality are measured in addition to those of public health
significance (e.g., all major anions and cations and field
pH) .
Establishing baseline values for ground-water quality will
likely necessitate the drilling of wells designed specifi-
cally for this purpose. Because such a program can be very
expensive, any network of monitoring wens should be sup-
ported with data from the routine sampling of existing wells.
Regulation of drinking water supplies already calls for peri-
481
-------
odic sampling to determine the safety of water supply sys-
tems. These data can be reviewed to help determine long-
term trends in ground-water quality. The best approach for
investigating and evaluating existing or potential ground-
water contamination sources is to inventory and examine the
actual facilities that may be causing problems and then de-
cide which ones would require the installation of monitoring
wells, so that water samples can be collected and analyzed.
The function of observation wells for a new facility which
has received a permit or approval, is for compliance monitor-
ing only. Because this is not a case of existing contamina-
tion, the purpose of the observation well should not be for
detecting ground-water contamination. A monitoring well can-
not be a substitute for good facility design. Failure to
recognize this distinction will result in monitoring wells
becoming a pacifier for ground-water regulatory officials
(Figure 84).
In other words, monitoring wells can serve as a safety de-
vice to detect failure of properly designed waste holding
lagoons; to determine the performance of waste disposal fa-
cilities properly designed to use the land and aquifers for
waste treatment; and to guard against not recognizing fail-
ure of a waste disposal facility properly designed to use
aquifer storage space for wastes.
When this concept is used, selection of the location for and
type of monitoring wells to comply with permits becomes
straightforward. However, detailed location, depth, etc.,
will often require a sophisticated geohydrologic analysis.
For a surface impoundment holding industrial wastes, the per-
mit or approval may contain a specific limitation on dis-
charge of contaminants to the aquifer. A monitoring well
would be installed as close as possible to the impoundment.
A suction lysimeter (device for obtaining a water sample
from the unsaturated zone) would be installed directly be-
neath the impoundment. Other devices, such as underdrains
and alarm-triggering liquid-level sensors for the impound-
ment, could also be used.
For a spray irrigation system for municipal wastes, the per-
mit would specify an effluent limit (e.g., secondary treat-
ment), a waste load allocation (e.g., nitrogen limit), and
perhaps a maximum permitted rise in the elevation of the wa-
ter table. In addition, a ground-water quality standard of
drinking water could be specified. Monitoring wells for
measuring compliance with quality standards would be located
near the outer boundary of the spray area to measure system
performance and changes in water levels. Furthermore, the
482
-------
UNLINED INDUSTRIAL
WASTE LAGOON
PACIFIER
WELL
LEAKAGE
AQUIFER
DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER FLOW
INCORRECT USE OF MONITORING WELL
LINED INDUSTRIAL
WASTE LAGOON
SUCTION
LYSIMETER MONITORING
WELL
ORIGINAL
LAGOON BOTTOM
IMPERVIOUS LINER
PROTECTIVE BACKFILL
WATER TABLE
AQUIFER
DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER FLOW
CORRECT USE OF MONITORING WELL
Figure 840 Correct and incorrect use of compliance monitoring wells.
483
-------
effluent would be monitored before application to the land,
and other operational features would be regulated (e.g., har-
vesting practices).
It should be noted that a major operational problem with mon-
itoring wells is evaluating the data that will come pouring
into the regulatory agency. Personnel must be available to
analyze these data to determine if any changes are taking
place.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUND-WATER AND SURFACE-WATER CONTAM-
INATION CONTROL
Ground-water regulatory controls should not be limited to
protecting underground waters but also should be used to pro-
tect surface waters and encourage environmentally sound
waste disposal practices. One example would be the placing
of constraints on a discharge to an aquifer from land appli-
cation of municipal waste waters. The problems of runoff
and nitrogen-rich ground-water underflow into a stream may
be more important than changes in the ground water itself.
Ground water, surface water, generation of waste residuals,
and waste disposal and reuse are all interrelated. A case
in point would be a municipal sewage treatment plant in an
industrial city that has separate sewers and storm drains.
Limits on the municipal discharges are established to im-
prove surface-water quality. This then results in an in-
crease in sludge production, which now has to be disposed of.
However, there are high levels of heavy metals (from indus-
trial waste waters) which make the sludge unacceptable for
application on agricultural land used for crops. Thus,
since the sludge has to be disposed of somewhere on the land,
ground waters (and possibly surface waters) will likely be
contaminated by nitrate and heavy metals.
The answer to this problem is to require pretreatment of the
industrial waste waters before they are discharged to the
sewage treatment plant. The sludge, now relatively free of
heavy metals, can be applied on agricultural land for grow-
ing crops. Harvesting the crops will remove nitrogen (re-
cover the resource) and protect ground waters. The indus-
trial sludges will now be concentrated and many will be
suitable for recycling. The remainder, of course, must be
treated and disposed of in a secure land disposal area.
TYPICAL PROBLEMS AND RISKS IN IMPLEMENTING A GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Decisions made and policies established for controlling
484
-------
ground-water contamination can sometimes have undesirable
side effects. The following are some typical examples:
1. A policy decision could be made to protect only those
aquifers which supply or could be expected to supply a
public water system. On the surface, this sounds reason-
able and might reduce the size of the protection program
to within manageable limits. However, there is then the
problem of how to define a "public water supply aquifer.'
If this definition is based on aquifer productivity as
determined by the definition of a public water system in
the Safe Drinking Water Act (15 service connections or
regularly serving 25 individuals), then one would pro-
tect all aquifers capable of producing about 2 gpm (11
cu m/day) — or nearly every square mile in the United
States.
2. A decision is made not to protect non-carbonate consoli-
dated aquifers, on the reasonable basis of assumed "low"
productivity, in order to limit the size of the control
program. Subsequently a sophisticated well location
technique, such as fracture-trace analysis, is developed
which changes a "low" productivity aquifer into a moder-
ately productive one.
3. A decision is made to control only industrial or hazard-
ous waste disposal. Major ground-water contamination
problems are then caused by uncontrolled or improper
land application of municipal waste waters and sludges.
4. In order to protect ground-water quality, a limit is
established on the number of individual septic systems
permitted per square mile in the recharge area of a par-
ticular aquifer. Problems develop (low yield domestic
wells, contamination, etc.) and it turns out that the
building density is too low to economically justify pub-
lic water and/or sewer service.
Obviously, a ground-water contamination control program will
involve risks that are inherent in all decisions made with
inadequate data. There are, however, some actions that can
be taken to help mitigate these risks. These include: (1)
time limits on permits that are short enough to correct mis-
takes but not so short as to create an administrative night-
mare of renewals (minimum 2 years, maximum 5 years); (2)
technically competent geohydrologic project evaluations as a
condition precedent to issuing any permit or approval; (3)
requirements for projects to be staged in order to fully
evaluate whether or not a disposal system will work; and
(4) public ownership and/or operation of certain waste dis-
485
-------
posal facilities (e.g., perpetual care of hazardous waste
disposal sites).
SITING OF WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
One problem and risk in implementing a ground-water protec-
tion program is the selection and approval of sites for car-
rying out such waste disposal activities as landfilling, im-
pounding industrial effluent, and spreading sludge. Through-
out this report, proper siting of waste facilities has been
emphasized as essential to minimizing ground-water contamina-
tion. Unfortunately, there is no way to scientifically guar-
antee that ground-water contamination will not occur at a
specific site. One principal reason for this is the large
number of variables that must be considered when predicting
long-term effects. Twenty such variables are listed in Ta-
ble 80. In most cases, determining the favorability of such
variables is not possible because the technology is non-
existent or the cost of obtaining the required data is pro-
hibitive.
Nevertheless, proper geologic and hydrologic investigation
can go far to minimize the risk of poor decisions on site
permitting. Of equal importance is adequate source control,
including such factors as timing the discharge, regulating
the quantity and quality of discharge, pretreating the waste,
and containing the discharge.
In addition to technical considerations, site selection is
also subject to social, economic and political pressures.
For example, the best natural location for a sanitary land-
fill in a particular region may be unacceptable to the local
citizenry because of potential odor or traffic problems.
The public would also be concerned over a decline in prop-
erty values adjacent to the landfill. Finally, accepting
wastes from another community, if the landfill is part of a
regional plan, can have adverse political repercussions for
those in local government.
With such technical and socioeconomic difficulties to over-
come and with more and more liquid and solid wastes going to
the land, the availability of favorable sites for disposal,
spreading, or treatment of wastes may be the prime factor de-
termining how successful environmental controls will be in
the future. Regional land-use planning is one promising
method for helping to assure this availability, and Section
208 of PL 92-500 appears to be a suitable vehicle for begin-
ning to address this high-priority item.
486
-------
Table80. THE PRINCIPAL VARIABLES IN LAND DISPOSAL. 15)
Element
Variables
Waste
Application
Soil
Climate
Vegetation
Ground Water
1. Composition
2. Type of treatment
1. Method
2. Loading rate
1. Texture a)
2. pH
3. Organic matter content
4. Cation exchange capacity
5. Percent base saturation
6. Depth
7. Slope
1. Temperature regime
2. Precipitation regime
1. Uptake
2. Management
1. Depth to zone of saturation
2. Nature of zone of aeration
3. Natural quality of ground water
4. Physical nature of aquifer
5. Chemical nature of aquifer
a) This includes infiltration rate, permeability, and available moisture capacity,
each of which could well be considered as a separate variable.
487
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Although it is not possible to determine the full cost of
the application of rules and regulations for controlling
ground-water contamination, some rough estimates can be made.
Impact on State Government
The cost to states of implementing a control program will
basically be in the areas of permits, monitoring, and en-
forcement. Estimates of the magnitude of this cost can be
made by a comparison with surface-water contamination con-
trol programs.
1. Compliance monitoring and follow-through on permits.
This activity for surface waters involves setting efflu-
ent limits on specific parameters by means of permits.
Enforcement personnel oversee the collection of water
samples and the measurement of waste flows. The results
are analyzed and evaluated. Presumably, corrective ac-
tion is initiated if permit limits are exceeded. For
control of ground-water contamination, the procedure
could be similar but only when applied to the waste flow
before it is discharged to either the saturated or un-
saturated zones of an aquifer.
Major additional costs will be incurred for ground-water
compliance monitoring where the land and aquifers are
used for waste treatment and storage as well as for wa-
ter supply. Decisions to take action are based on the
trend, with time, of specific quality parameters and not
on whether or not a specific numerical value is exceeded.
Naturally, this will require trained personnel. For ex-
ample, a yearly trend of increases in chloride and hard-
ness from landfill observation wells would serve as the
basis for corrective action even though ground-water
quality standards had not been exceeded. In the case of
salt-water intrusion, increasing chloride concentrations
with time would serve as a warning, requiring action by
a public agency, even though drinking-water standards
for chloride had not been exceeded in water from the mon-
itoring well.
2. In the early days of surface-water contamination control,
it was always possible to "walk streams" and find point-
source discharges. Samples could be taken and it was
relatively simple to prove that there was an actual dis-
charge of pollutants. The problem of delineating exist-
ing sources of ground-water contamination will be diffi-
cult and expensive to solve. Evaluation of a simple
488
-------
leaky lagoon can take several weeks and cost thousands
of dollars. Then, there is the problem of making the
leap from the demonstration by a ground-water hydrolo-
gist that there is contamination to assembly of suffi-
cient legal proof that the contaminant which enters the
ground at point "A" is the same, or basically the same,
as the contaminant which appears at a well some distance
away from the source.
3. Monitoring costs (sampling stations, chemical analyses)
for ground-water contamination control may be consider-
ably greater than for surface-water monitoring. Most
monitoring wells will probably be shallow, less than 50
ft (15 m) deep, reflecting the vulnerability of water-
table aquifers to contamination. An order-of-magnitude
estimate for drilling costs (4-in. or 10-cm well) would
be $10.00/ft ($33/m); however, set-up charges could
substantially distort this figure. In addition, there
will be the cost of a geohydrologic study to determine
where and how deep to drill.
4. The sampling frequency for ground-water quality monitor-
ing will be much less than for surface water (quarterly
samples would be more than adequate for most cases).
This may be offset by the need for a more complete anal-
ysis of the samples. Chemical quality data can be a use-
ful tool for evaluating the dynamics of ground-water
movement, and the concentrations of major cations and
anions need to be determined in addition to specific
parameters applicable to quality standards.
Ultimate program costs can be estimated by assigning man-
day requirements for permitting, monitoring, and enforce-
ment activities for each source or cause of ground-water
contamination. For example, it has been estimated that
for holding ponds and lagoons, these activities will re-
quire 1.6 man-years for each 25 systems, and that 4.8
man-years per million people in a state will be needed
for landfills and other excavations. 16) Obviously, it
will be necessary to determine how many lagoons, waste-
piles, etc., there are in each state.
The first efforts of a program will involve setting of pri-
orities , determining the number and significance of causes
of ground-water contamination, and assessing the environment-
al damage of existing pollution. It is assumed that the
funds required for this effort will be in addition to exist-
ing state moneys for environmental control. Another alterna-
tive would be to reallocate some of the resources presently
being used to eliminate contaminants from the air and sur-
489
-------
face waters to the control of the ultimate disposal and re-
use of these same contaminants. Funds should follow the
contaminant path.
Impact on Industry
The economic impacts on industry of controlling ground-water
contamination will be the cost of obtaining and maintaining
permits and approvals, and increased costs for proper stor-
age and disposal of wastes and other materials which may
contaminate ground water.
Permit costs will be largely for supplying data sufficient
to show that the proposed project will not pose an unneces-
sary risk of ground-water contamination. (An excellent ex-
ample of these data requirements can be found in "data mod-
ules" required by, and available from the Pennsylvania De-
partment of Environmental Resources.) 17) other permit re-
lated costs will be installation of observation wells and
periodic submission of data (water levels, chemical anal-
yses) .
Improved facility design and construction will be a major
cost to industry for control of ground-water contamination.
For example, the Maryland Department of Transportation inves-
tigated the cost and feasibility of environmentally sound
coverings for highway deicing chemicals. 18) it was con-
cluded that a Domar building, originally designed for the
storage of wheat, had the flexibility in its basic dome
shape to adapt easily to the size and natural angle of re-
pose of any bulk, stockpiled material. Complete costs of
properly covering 85 salt storage sites with Domar buildings
was about $5.3 million (1973 installed prices for basic 82-
ft (25-m) diameter buildings with a storage capacity of
1,500 tons (1,360 tonnes) each).
Waste disposal and storage facilities, such as landfills and
lagoons, will have to be lined in many cases. For example,
actual 1973 costs for securing fluoride wastes in subsurface
solid-waste disposal cells for an east coast aluminum com-
pany were estimated at $7.00/cu yd ($9.15/cu m). This in-
cluded a 30-mil thick neoprene liner at $0.50/sq ft ($5.40/
sq m) and site preparation. A neoprene cover would increase
the price by nearly $2.00/cu yd ($2.60/cu m). These high
costs forced the industry to actively pursue the concept of
recycling the fluoride wastes. At a western mining opera-
tion, construction and material costs for trenching to inter-
cept flow of potentially contaminated ground water and the
lining of lagoons for holding mine-waste effluent exceeded
$3 million.
490
-------
It should be noted that liner costs for a facility such as a
landfill represent only part of the cost of controlling con-
tamination. The problem of what to do with the landfill
leachate still remains as there usually will be a definable
surface discharge. This contaminant discharge will then
have to be treated before release to a stream or back to the
aquifer system (e.g., spray irrigation).
Impact on the Public
Direct cost to the public of protecting ground-water quality
will be reflected in such items as improved well construc-
tion (grouting of annular space), increase in individual
home lot size where septic systems are used, and increase in
costs of solid-waste and sewage disposal services. Some of
these costs may be more apparent than others. For example,
the cost of cement grouting the annular space of a typical
domestic well might have a significant impact on the individ-
ual consumer. However, the one-time capital cost of proper
design and construction for a sanitary landfill will be rel-
atively small at the consumer end because the major costs
for solid-waste disposal are in transportation. Of course,
increased costs incurred by industry to correct problems and
by public agencies to oversee protection programs will be
passed on to the public in the form of higher priced prod-
ucts and higher taxes. There also will be the environmental
benefits of protecting ground-water and surface-water qual-
ity and encouraging resource recovery of waste residuals.
491
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Maryland Water Resources Administration. 1973. Rules
and regulations .08.05.04.04, groundwater quality
standards.
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Re-
sources. 1975. Groundwater quality management and
monitoring program for North Carolina. Circular No. 16,
van der Leeden, Frits. 1973. Ground-water pollution
features of Federal and state statutes and regulations.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/4-
73-OOla.
U. S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water
standards. Public Health Service, Publication No. 956.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
quality criteria.
1973. Water
Morrill, G. B., III, and L. G. Toler. 1973. Effect of
septic-tank wastes on quality of water, Ipswich and
Shawsheen River basins, Massachusetts. U. S. Geologi-
cal Survey, Journal of Research 1(1):117.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Report
to Congress, disposal of hazardous wastes.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Indus-
trial waste management. Report No. SW-156. Pages 69-
77.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National
interim primary drinking water regulations. Federal
Register 40 (248) :Part IV. December 24.
Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. 1974.
Ground-water contamination in the northeast states.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-6602-74-056.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Develop-
ment of a state effluent charge system.
Bower, B. T., and R. H. Forste. 1974. A proposal for
resource utilization charges in the State of Maryland.
Maryland Environmental Service, Annapolis, Maryland.
492
-------
13. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Economic
disincentives for pollution control: legal, political
and administrative dimensions.
14. Wenders, J. T. 1975. Methods of pollution control and
the rate of change in pollution abatement technology.
Water Resources Research 11(3) :393-396.
15. Wilson, G. R. 1975. Impact of land disposal of
sludges on ground water. Pages 193-199 in Information
Transfer, Inc. Proceedings of the 1975 national confer-
ence on municipal sludge management and disposal. Rock-
ville, Maryland.
16. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In press. A
manual of laws, regulations, and institutions for con-
trol of ground-water pollution.
17. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
1972. Spray irrigation manual. Publication No. 31.
18. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration. 1973. Stockpiling deicing chemicals
with environmental safeguards.
493
-------
SECTION XVIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Manager and Editor: Mr. David W. Miller
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Project Officers; Mr. Stephen C. James
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
EPA
Mr. William E. Thompson
Office of Water Supply, EPA
Chairman, Working Group: Mr. George A. Garland
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, EPA
The following have contributed to one or more chapters of
this report.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Port Washington, New York
Mr. David W. Miller
Mr. George R. Wilson
Mr. Frits van der Leeden
Mr. William J. Seevers
Dr. Olin C. Braids
Mr. Douglas R. MacCallum
Mr. Thomas L. Tessier
Mr. Paul H. Roux
Mr. James D. Miller
Dr. David K. Todd, Consulting Engineer, Berkeley, California
Dr. Edward Clark, Consulting Engineer, South Miami, Florida
Mr. Harry E. LeGrand, Consulting Hydrogeologist, Raleigh,
North Carolina
Dr. Robert D. Varrin, Consulting Hydrologist, Newark, Dela-
ware
Mr. Arnold Schiffman, Chief of Ground-Water Services, Mary-
land Water Resources Administration, Annapolis, Mary-
land
Eugene A. Hickok & Associates, Wayzata, Minnesota
Mr. Eugene A. Hickok
Mr. Norman C. Wenck
Mr. Michael A. Zagar
494
-------
Resources Development Associates, Los Altos, California
Mr. Robert W. Campbell
Dr. Raymond E. Borton
Mr. Bruce W. McCall
Dr. Harold E. Thomas
National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio
Dr. Jay H. Lehr
Mr. Laurence E. Sturtz
Mr. James R. Hanson
Dr. Wayne A. Pettyjohn
Mr. Truman Bennett
U. S.-Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Mr. Alan Corson
Mr. Tim Fields
Mr. George A. Garland
Mr. Toby Goodrich
Mr. Phil Hawk
Mr. Stephen C. James
Mr. Emery Lazar
Mr. Alfred Lindsey
Mr. Murray Newton
Mr. Les Otte
Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Mr. Burnell Vincent
Office of Water Supply
Mr. William Thompson
Special appreciation is accorded to reviewers Mr. Truett De
Geare, Mr. Bernard Stoll, Ms. Joyce Corry, Mr. Bruce Weddle,
Mr. Dale Mosher, and Mr. Edwin L. Hockman of the U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, and to other Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. staff members, particularly Mr. Boris J. Bermes, Ms.
Nola P. Gillies, Mr. Robert L. Stellar, Mr. Vincent P. Amy,
Mr. Lawrence A. Cerrillo, Mr. Michael F. Wolfert, Mr. Ronald
Rioux, Mrs. Elaine LaBella, Mr. David K. Shaw, and Ms.
Sandra Michalowski. Especial thanks are extended to Ms.
Marie Edmonds for preparation of the manuscript and Mr.
Joseph J. Lewandowski, Jr., for supervision of all graphics.
495
-------
SECTION XIX
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY
Acidization - The process of forcing acid through a well
screen or into the limestone, dolomite, or sandstone making
up the wall of a bore hole. The general objective of acidi-
zation is to clean incrustations from the well screen or to
increase permeability of the aquifer materials surrounding
a well by dissolving and removing a part of the rock constit-
uents .
Anion - An atom or radical carrying a negative charge.
Annular Space (Annulus) - The space between casing or well
screen and the wall of the drilled hole or between drill
pipe and casing.
Aquielude - A saturated, but poorly permeable bed, formation,
or group of formations that impedes ground-water movement
and does not yield water freely to a well or spring. How-
ever, an aquiclude may transmit appreciable water to or from
adjacent aquifers, and where sufficiently thick, may consti-
tute an important ground-water storage unit.
Aquifer - A geologic formation, group of formations, or part
of a formation that is capable of yielding a significant
amount of water to a well or spring.
Aquitard - Used synonymously with aquiclude.
Artesian - The occurrence of ground water under greater than
atmospheric pressure.
Artesian (Confined) Aquifer - An aquifer bounded by aqui-
cludes and containing water under artesian conditions.
Artificial Recharge - The addition of water to the ground-
water reservoir by activities of man.
Backwashing - The surging effect or reversal of water flow
in a well. Backwashing removes fine-grained material from
the formation surrounding the bore hole and, thus, can en-
hance well yield.
Barrier Well - A pumping well used to intercept a plume of
contaminated ground water. Also a recharge well that de-
livers water to or in the vicinity of a zone of contamina-
tion under sufficient head to prevent the further spreading
496
-------
of the contaminant.
Base Flow - The flow of streams composed solely of ground-
water discharge.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - A measure of the dissolved
oxygen consumed by microbial life while assimilating and ox-
idizing the organic matter present in water.
Bore Hole - An uncased drilled hole.
Brine - A concentrated solution, especially of chloride
salts.
Casing - Steel or plastic pipe or tubing that is welded or
screwed together and lowered into a bore hole to prevent en-
try of loose rock, gas, or liquid or to prevent loss of
drilling fluid into porous, cavernous, or fractured strata.
Cation - An atom or radical carrying a positive charge.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - The amount of oxygen, ex-
pressed in parts per million, consumed under specified con-
ditions in the oxidation of organic and oxidizable inorganic
matter in waste water, corrected for the influence of chlo-
rides .
Coliform Group - Group of several types of bacteria which
are found in the alimentary tract of warm-blooded animals.
The bacteria are often used as an indicator of animal and
human fecal contamination of water.
Cone of Depression - The depression, approximately conical
in shape, that is formed in a water-table or potentiometric
surface when water is removed from an aquifer.
Connate Water - Water that was deposited simultaneously with
thegeologicformation in which it is contained.
Consumptive Use - That part of the water withdrawn that is
no longer available because it has been either evaporated,
transpired, incorporated into products and crops, or other-
wise removed from the immediate water environment.
Contamination - The degradation of natural water quality as
a result of man's activities, to the extent that its useful-
ness is impaired. There is no implication of any specific
limits, since the degree of permissible contamination de-
pends upon the intended end use, or uses, of the water.
497
-------
Curie - The quantity of any radioactive material giving
3.7 x IQlO disintegrations per second. A picocurie is one
trillionth of a curie, or a quantity of radioactive material
giving 22.2 disintegrations per minute.
Drainage Well - A well that is installed for the purpose of
draining swampy land or disposing of storm water, sewage, or
other waste water at or near the land surface.
Dry Well - A bore hole or well that does not extend into the
zone of saturation.
Effluent - A waste liquid discharge from a manufacturing or
treatment process, in its natural state, or partially or com-
pletely treated that discharges into the environment.
Eutrophication - The reduction of dissolved oxygen in natu-
ral and man-made lakes and estuaries, leading to deteriora-
tion of the esthetic and life-supporting qualities.
Evapotranspiration - The combined processes of evaporation
and transpiration.
Exfiltration - The leakage of effluent from sewage pipes in-
to the surrounding soils.
Field Capacity - The moisture content of the soil after wa-
ter has been removed by deep seepage through the force of
gravity. It is the moisture retained largely by capillary
forces.
Flow Path - The direction of movement of ground water and
any contaminants that may be contained therein, as governed
principally by the hydraulic gradient.
Fracture - A break in a rock formation due to structural
stresses. Fractures may occur as faults, shears, joints,
and planes of fracture cleavage.
Ground Water - Water beneath the land surface in the satu-
rated zone that is under atmospheric or artesian pressure.
The water that enters wells and issues from springs.
Ground-Water Reservoir - The earth materials and the inter-
vening open spaces that contain ground water.
Hazardous Waste - Any waste or combination of wastes which
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or living organisms.
498
-------
Head - The height above a standard datum of the surface of a
column of water that can be supported by the static pressure
at a given point.
Heavy Metals - Metallic elements, including the transition
series, which include many elements required for plant and
animal nutrition in trace concentrations, but which become
toxic at higher concentrations. Examples are: mercury,
chromium, cadmium, and lead.
Hydraulic Conductivity - The quantity of water that will
flow through a unit cross-sectional area of a porous materi-
al per unit of time under a hydraulic gradient of 1.00 at a
specified temperature.
Hydraulic Fracturing - The fracturing of a rock by pumping
fluid under high pressure into a well for the purpose of in-
creasing permeability.
Hydraulic Gradient - The change in static head per unit of
distance along a flow path.
Infiltration - The flow of a liquid through pores or small
openings.
Injection Well - A well used for injecting fluids into an un-
derground stratum.
Intermittent Stream - A stream which flows only part of the
time.
Ion Exchange - Reversible exchange of ions adsorbed on a min-
eral or synthetic polymer surface with ions in solution in
contact with the surface. In the case of clay minerals,
polyvalent ions tend to exchange for nonvalent ions.
Iron Bacteria - Bacteria which can oxidize or reduce iron as
part of their metabolic process.
Irrigation Return Flow - Irrigation water which is not con-
sumed in evaporation or plant growth, and which returns to a
surface stream or ground-water reservoir.
Leachate - The liquid that has percolated through solid
waste or other man-emplaced medium from which soluble com-
ponents have been removed.
Loading Rate - The rate of application of a material to the
land surface.
499
-------
Mined Ground Water - Water removed from storage when pumpage
exceeds ground-water recharge.
Mineralization - Increases in concentration of one or more
constituents as the natural result of contact of ground wa-
ter with geologic formations.
Monitoring (Observation) Well - A well used to measure
ground-water levels, and in some cases, to obtain water sam-
ples for water-quality analysis.
Nonpoint Source - The contaminant enters the receiving water
in an intermittent and/or diffuse manner.
Organic - Being, containing, or relating to carbon compounds,
especially in which hydrogen is attached to carbon, whether
derived from living organisms or not; usually distinguished
from inorganic or mineral.
Overburden - All material (loose soil, sand, gravel, etc.)
that lies above bedrock. In mining, any material, consoli-
dated or unconsolidated, that overlies an ore body, especial-
ly deposits mined from the surface by open cuts.
Oxidation - A chemical reaction in which there is an in-
crease in valence resulting from a loss of electrons; in
contrast to reduction.
Percolate - The water moving by gravity or hydrostatic pre-
sure through interstices of unsaturated rock or soil.
Percolation - Movement of percolate under gravity or hydro-
static pressure.
Perennial Stream - One which flow continuously. Perennial
streams are generally fed in part by ground water.
Permeability - A measure of the capacity of a porous medium
to transmit fluid.
Piezometric Surface - The surface defined by the levels to
which ground water will rise in tightly cased wells that tap
an artesian aquifer.
Plume - A body of contaminated ground water originating from
a specific source and influenced by such factors as the lo-
cal ground-water flow pattern, density of contaminant, and
character of the aquifer.
Point Source - Any discernible, confined and discrete convey-
500
-------
ance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, or concentrated animal feeding operation from which
contaminants are or may be discharged.
Potentiometric Surface - Used synonymously with piezometric
surface.
Public Water Supply - A system in which there is a purveyor
and customers;the purveyor may be a private company, a mu-
nicipality, or other governmental agency.
Recharge - The addition of water to the ground-water system
by natural or artificial processes.
*
Reduction - A chemical reaction in which there is a decrease
in valence as a result of gaining of electrons.
Runoff - Direct or overland runoff is that portion of rain-
fall which is not absorbed by soil, evaporated or transpired
by plants, but finds its way into streams as surface flow.
That portion which is absorbed by soil and later discharged
to surface streams is ground-water runoff.
Salaquifer - An aquifer which contains saline water.
Saline - Containing relatively high concentration of salts.
Salt-Water Intrusion - Movement of salty ground water so
that it replaces fresh ground water.
Saturated Zone - The zone in which interconnected inter-
stices are saturated with water under pressure equal to or
greater than atmospheric.
Self-Supplied Industrial and Commercial Water Supply - A sys-
tem from which water is served to consumers free of charge,
or from which water is supplied by the operator of the sys-
tem for his own use.
Sludge - The solid residue resulting from a process or waste-
water treatment which also produces a liquid stream (efflu-
ent) .
Specific Conductance - The ability of a cubic centimetre of
water to conduct electricity; varies directly with the
amount of ionized minerals in the water.
Storage (Aquifer) - The volume of water held in the inter-
stices of the rock.
501
-------
Strata - Beds, layers, or zones of rock.
Subsidence - Surface caving or distortion brought about by
collapse of deep mine workings or cavernous carbonate forma-
tions, or from overpumping of certain types of aquifers.
Surface Resistivity (Electric Resistivity Surveying) - A geo-
physical prospecting operation in which the relative values
of the earth's electrical resistivity are interpreted to de-
fine subsurface geologic and hydrologic conditions.
Surface Water - That portion of water that appears on the
land surface, i.e., oceans, lakes, rivers.
Toxicity - The ability of a material to produce injury or
disease upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation
by a living organism.
Transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted
through a unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic
gradient.
Unsaturated Zone (Zone of Aeration) - Consists of inter-
stices occupied partially by water and partially by air, and
is limited above by the land surface and below by the water
table.
Upconing - The upward migration of ground water from underly-
ing strata into an aquifer caused by reduced hydrostatic
pressure in the aquifer as a result of pumping.
Water Table - That surface in an unconfined ground-water
body at which the pressure is atmospheric. It defines the
top of the saturated zone.
Water-Table Aquifer - An aquifer containing water under at-
mospheric conditions.
Well - An artificial excavation that derives fluid from the
interstices of the rocks or soils which it penetrates, ex-
cept that the term is not applied to ditches or tunnels that
lead ground water to the surface by gravity. With respect
to the method of construction, wells may be divided into dug
wells, bored wells, drilled wells, and driven wells.
Well Capacity - The rate at which a well will yield water.
Withdrawal - The volume of water pumped from a well or wells,
502
-------
SECTION XIX
APPENDIX B - ABBREVIATIONS
10^ - thousand
106 - million
10~6 - millionth
acre-ft - acre-foot
bbl - barrels (oil, 42 gal.)
bgd - billion gallons per day
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
Btu - British thermal unit
Ca - calcium
CaC03 - calcium carbonate
CaO - lime
cap - capita
Cd - cadmium
CEC - cation exchange capacity
Ci - curie
Cl - chloride
cm - centimetre
CN - cyanide
COD - chemical oxygen demand
Cu - copper
cu ft - cubic foot
cu m - cubic metre
cu yd - cubic yard
CWT - hundredweight
Fe - iron
ft - foot
g - gram
gal. - gallon
gpcd - grams per capita per day
gpd - gallons per day
gpm - gallons per minute
H2S04 - sulfuric acid
H3PO4 - phosphoric acid
ha - hectare
HCl - hydrochloric acid
HN03 - nitric acid
HOAc - acetic acid
in. - inch
K - potassium
K20 - potash
kg - kilogram
km - kilometre
1 - litre
lb - pound
1/s - litre per second
503
-------
m
MBAS
Mg
mgd
mg/1
Mg(OH)2
mi
min
ml
Mn
MPN
N
Na
NH3
NH4
Ni
ORG-N
P
Pb
PCB
pCi
PC>4
ppb
ppm
psi
pvc
s
SiC>2
804
sq cm
sq ft
sq km
sq mi
sq yd
SS
TDS
TOC
TS
TSS
yd
yr
Zn
metre
methylene blue active substances
magnesium
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
magnesium hydroxide
mi le
minute
millilitre
manganese
most probable number
nitrogen
sodium
soda ash
ammonia
ammonium
nickel
nitrate
organic nitrogen
phosphorus
formula on which phosphorus content in fertilizer
is based
lead
polychlorinated biphenyls
picocurie
phosphate
parts per billion
parts per million
pounds per square inch
polyvinyl chloride
second
silica
sulfate
square centimetre
square foot
square kilometre
square mile
square yard
suspended solids
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total solids
total suspended solids
yard
year
zinc
504
-------
SECTION XIX
APPENDIX C - CONVERSIONS
To convert
acre
acre-feet
acre-feet
barrels (oil)
barrels (oil)
btu
centimetres
cubic feet
cubic yards
feet
feet
gallons
gallons
hundredweights (short)
hundredweights (short)
inches
micrograms
miles (statute)
milligrams/litre
million gallons
million gallons/day
million gallons/day
mils
mils
parts per million
pounds
pounds/acre
square feet
square inches
square miles
tonnes
tons (short)
Into
hectare
cubic feet
cubic metres
cubic metres
gallons (oil)
kilogram-calories
metres
cubic metres
cubic metres
centimetres
metres
cubic metres
litres
pounds
tonnes
centimetres
grams
kilometres
parts/million
acre-feet
cubic feet/second
cubic metres/second
centimetres
inches
milligrams/litre
kilograms
kilograms/hectare
square metres
square centimetres
square kilometres
kilograms
tonnes
Multiply by
0.4047
43,560.0
1,234
0.159
42.0
0.2520
0.01
0.0283
0.7646
30.48
0.3048
0.0038
3.785
100
0.0454
2.540
1.0 x 10-6
1.609
1.0
3.06
1.5472
0.0438
0.0025
0.001
1.0
0.4536
1.121
0.0929
6.452
2.590
1,000.0
0.9078
505
-------
SECTION XIX
APPENDIX D - WATER-QUALITY STANDARDS
The levels of mineralization or contamination which can be
tolerated in ground water are dependent upon the intended
use for the supply. Recommended water-quality standards are
available for agricultural, industrial, and public-supply
needs. Certain chemical constituents can be tolerated
through a wide range of concentrations without adverse ef-
fects even in stringent cases requiring excellent water qual-
ity, while other constituents can be acceptable only at min-
ute levels or not at all. The water-quality standards for
any particular use are varied and in most cases well docu-
mented. It is evident that to list each and every guideline
is beyond the scope of this report.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has National In-
terim Primary Drinking Water Standards for certain constitu-
ents and is currently in the process of updating the 1962
Public Health Service recommended limits for others. The
new standards and the 1962 recommended limits are shown in
the two tables following.
506
-------
U.S PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE CHEMICAL STANDARDS OF DRINKING WATER,
1962.
Recommended maximum allowable concentrations where other
more suitable supplies are, or can be made available:
Substance Concentration in ppm
Alkyl Benzene Sulfonate (ABS) 0.5
Arsenic (As) 0.01
Chloride (Cl) 250
Copper (Cu) 1
Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE) 0.2
Cyanicje (CN) 0.01
Iron (Fe) 0.3
Manganese (Mn) 0.05
Phenols 0.001
Sulfate (SO4) 250
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500
Zinc (Zn) 5
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL INTERIM
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS,
DECEMBER, 1975.
Maximum contaminant level which shall constitute grounds
for outright rejection of the supply:
Substance Concentration in ppm
Arsenic (As) 0.05
Barium (Ba) 1
Cadmium (Cd) 0.010
Total Chromium (Cr) 0.05
Fluoride (F) 1.4 to 2.4°)
Lead(Pb) 0.05
Mercury (Hg) 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10
Selenium (Se) 0.01
Silver(Ag) 0.05
a) Varies with annual average of maximum daily air temperature.
507
-------
SECTION XIX
APPENDIX E -ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
Waste disposal practice
Industrial impoundments
Treatment lagoons
All impoundments
Land disposal of solid wastes
Municipal
Industrial
Septic tanks and cesspools
Domestic
Industrial
Municipal waste water
Sewer systems
Treatment lagoons
Land spreading of sludge
Municipal
Manufacturing
Petroleum exploration and
development
Wells
Pits
Mine waste
Coal
Waste water
Solid waste
Other
Estimated
total
number
NA
50,000
18,500
NA
16,600,000
25, 000
12,000
10,000
NA
NA
60,000
NA
277
NA
691
Estimated
total
size
NA
-NA
500, 000 acres
NA
:
470, 000 mi
20, 000 acres
NA
NA
NA
173, 000 acres
Estimated
amount
of waste
l,700bgy
NA
135 mty
NA
800 bay
NA
5, 000 bgy
300 bay
NA
NA
260 bgy
43 bgy
77 bgy
100 mty
860 bgy
Estimated
leakage
to ground
100 bgy
NA
90 bgy
NA
800 bgy
NA
250 bgy
18 bgy
NA
NA
260 bgy*
43 bgy
8 bgy
600 m Ibs/y acid
100 bgy
Disposal and injection wells
Agricultural, urban run-
off, cooling water and
sewage disposal wells
Industrial and municipal
injection wells
Animal feeding operations
Cattle
Other
NA
40,000
< 400
40,000
-
-
50, 000 acres
NA
NA
NA
83 mty
7 mty
NA
NA
NA
NA
bgy - billion gallons per year
mty - million tons per year
m Ibs/y - million pounds per year
- not applicable
* - almost all returned to salt-water aquifers
NA - insufficient data for estimate
508
-------
APPENDIX E (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
EXPLANATION
INDUSTRIAL IMPOUNDMENTS
Within this category, available data make necessary the separation of secondary treatment lagoons
from other impoundments such as settling ponds, pits and basins. The total number of all impound-
ments in the United States is estimated at 50,000. The flow to these impoundments is not known.
The total flow to treatment lagoons alone is calculated at 1,700 billion gallons per year. Average
leakage to ground from treatment lagoons is estimated at 6 percent. Thus, the total leakage of in-
dustrial waste water from secondary lagoons is estimated at 100 billion gallons per year.
LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
Municipal
An estimated 18,500 municipal solid waste land disposal sites in the U.S. cover a total area of ap-
proximately 500,000 acres (estimate based on 25 acres per site). Approximately 135 million tons of
refuse per year is landfilled. The volume of leachate generated can be estimated based on average
infiltration of precipitation in water surplus areas and on site size. It is estimated that 70 percent
of the land disposal sites in the U.S. are in water surplus areas and that the average infiltration is
10 inches per year. Thus, municipal sites would generate a total of 90 billion gallons of leachate
per year, most of which goes into the ground.
Industrial
The number of and typical size of industrial solid waste land disposal sites are unknown. A large
portion of industrial solid waste, including that which is considered hazardous, presently goes to
municipal solid waste land disposal sites.
SEPTIC TANKS AND CESSPOOLS
Domestic
There were an estimated 16,600,000 septic tanks and cesspools in the U.S. in 1970. Annual flow to
a septic tank or cesspool from an average house is 49,275 gallons (45 gpd/person x 3 persons/house x
365 days/year). Thus, the total flow to septic tanks and cesspools in the U.S. is about 800 billion
gallons per year, virtually all of which enters the ground.
Industrial
It is estimated that about 25,000 industrial septic tanks are currently in use, based on the number of
industrial establishments in the U.S. using water. However, little information is available regarding
flow rates to these systems and no estimate can be made as to total leakage to ground.
509
-------
APPENDIX E (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER
Sewer Systems
There are currently about 12,000 sewer systems in the United States using approximately 470,000
miles of pipe. Approximately 144 million persons were served by sewer facilities in 1970. Based
on an estimated 100 gpd/person sewerage flow (including infiltration-inflow, combined sewer flow,
illegal drain hook-ups and industrial waste flow to sanitary sewer lines), the total sewerage flow in
sanitary sewers is estimated at 5,000 billion gallons per year. Based on available information, sewer
leakage on the average is probably around 5 percent of the total, with wide variations from system to
system. Thus, the total leakage for all sewer lines in the U.S. is estimated at 250 billion gallons per
year.
Treatment Lagoons
There are approximately 5,000 municipal treatment plants in the U.S. which use lagoons as a treat-
ment procedure. Assuming each plant has an average of two lagoons, there would be about 10,000
municipal treatment lagoons. Assuming each lagoon is roughly two acres in size, there would be
about 20,000 acres of municipal lagoons in the country.
Municipal treatment plants using treatment lagoons receive an inflow of approximately 300 billion
gallons per year. Leakage from these lagoons is estimated at 6 percent. Thus, it is estimated that
municipal lagoons leak 18 billion gallons per year into the ground.
LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE
Municipal
The number and average size of sludge spreading operations for municipalities is not known. It has
been calculated that about 4 million dry tons of municipal sludge is generated each year. How much
of this quantity is land spread and how much goes to solid waste land disposal sites and lagoons are
unknown.
Industrial
The manufacturing sludge category includes effluent treatment sludge, stack scrubber residue, fly
and bottom ash, slag and numerous other manufacturing residues. The total number of industrial
sludge spreading sites and typical sizes are unknown. Most industrial sludge presently goes to
solid waste land disposal sites and lagoons.
510
-------
APPENDIX E (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Disposal Wells
An estimated 60,000 brine injection wells are in use in the U.S. The total estimated brine disposal
is 260 billion gallons per year. Almost all goes into salt water aquifers. The volume which finds its
way into fresh aquifers is unknown.
Pits and Basins
An estimated 43 billion gallons per year of oil field brine is disposed of into pits and basins, most of
which enters the ground, usually a fresh water aquifer.
MINE WASTE
Coal
Waste Water -
The volume of waste water discharged by the 277 coal mining establishments reporting water consump-
tion in 1972, including processing water and collected mine drainage, totalled 77 billion gallons.
The volume of this waste water which entered the ground is not known, but based on the typical geol-
ogy of the major coal mining regions and what is known about disposal practices, it is estimated at
roughly 10 percent, or 8 billion gallons.
Solid Waste -
Between 1930 and 1971, almost 200,000 acres have been used for the disposal of coal mining wastes.
Of this area, only 27,000 have been reclaimed. A study in Illinois found that each acre of unreclaimed
coal waste could generate 198 Ib of acidity (as CaCOg) per day. Assuming half the total acreage of
refuse was still producing acid, about 3.6 million tons of acid would be generated each year. On com-
parison of the location of coal waste dumps with ground-water aquifer types, it is estimated that approx-
imately 10 percent of this total, 600 million Ibs of acid/year, might enter the ground-water system.
Other
There were about 1,300 active mines (excluding coal, clay, sand, and stone mines) in the U.S. in
1972. The total solid waste from these mines include some 1.5 billion tons of waste rock plus a large
volume of other waste materials from various processing procedures. Of the total number of mines,
691 reported substantial water use in 1972. Total waste water discharged was about 860 billion gal-
lons for that year. A rough estimate of the portion of this volume which would have entered aquifer
systems is 10 percent or about 100 billion gallons.
511
-------
APPENDIX E (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
DISPOSAL AND INJECTION WELLS
An estimated 40,000 agricultural, urban runoff and sewage disposal wells are in current use in the
U.S. The volume of waste water injected into the ground cannot be estimated. In addition, there
are less than 300 industrial injection wells currently in use. The volume of waste injected through
these wells is not known.
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Cattle
There are currently about 140,000 cattle feeding operations covering some 50,000 acres in the
United States. The total waste deposited in these feeding operations was estimated at 83 million
tons in 1975. There are insufficient data in the literature to allow a reasonable estimate of the
volume of contaminated runoff from these feedlots which enters the ground.
Other
Very little data are available on the effects of other types of feeding operations, such as sheep,
hogs and chickens, on ground-water quality. It is estimated that the total volume of waste from
these three sources is 7 million tons per year.
512
------- |