United States Office of EPA 570/9-78-003
Environmental Protection Drinking Water June 1978 -
Agency Washington DC 20460 C. *—
Water
rxEPA A Manual for Evaluating
Contamination Potential of
Surface Impoundments
June 1978
-------
EPA 570/9-78-003
A MANUAL FOR
EVALUATING CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This manual was written
by
Lyle R. Silka and Ted L. Swearingen
Ground Water Protection Branch
Office of Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flow
Chicago. It 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
This manual has been reviewed by the Office of Drinking Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
official ground-water protection policy of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
PREFACE
The Manual for Evaluating Contamination Potential of Surface
Impoundments was prepared specifically for implementing a standardized
evaluation system for the EPA Office of Drinking Water Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) and serves as the training manual for that
assessment. The SIA evaluation system set forth in the manual is based
upon the previous work by Harry E. LeGrand who began over 15 years ago to
develop a standardized, consistent approach to the selection of proper
waste disposal sites. This system departs from the LeGrand syistem in
order to accommodate certain philosophical differences concerning
ground-water protection and specific technical aspects related to
surface impoundments. In no way does this detract from the importance
of the LeGrand system in serving as the basis for the SIA evaluation
system.
This manual also was prepared with the assistance of the SIA work
group who made many valuable suggestions. The work group members are:
Jack Keeley
Ground Water Research Branch
Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory/EPA
Ada, Oklahoma
Charles Kleeman
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region III
Richard Bartelt
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region V
James K. Channell
Hazardous Materials Branch
EPA/Region IX
-------
George Garland,
Toby Goodrich
Office of Solid Waste
EPA/Hea dquart er s
Jane Ephremides,
Larry Graham,
Ted Swearingen,
Lyle Silka
Office of Drinking Water
EPA/Headquarters
The Office of Drinking Water also extends its appreciation to the
following for their assistance in reviewing early drafts of this manual:
Bruce F. Latta
Oil Field and Environmental Geology Section
Kansas State Department of Health & Environment
John Dudley
Water Quality Division
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Robert M. Sterrett
Virginia Water Control Board
Donald G. Williams
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environment
Ronald G. Hansen
Water Pollution Control
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Paul Beam
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Robert Wall
Division of Water Pollution Control
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Leonard Wood
USGS/Water Resources Division
Reston, VA
iii
-------
Jay H. Lehr
Tyler E. Gass
National Water Well Association
John Osgood
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
James Geraghty, David Miller and Nat Perlmutter
Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
We also take this opportunity to thank the following for
assisting Messrs. Silka and Swearingen in collecting case studies
and field testing the evaluation system in the early phases of its
development.
John Scribner and Ronald G. Hansen
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Mead Sterling and Lyndon Hammond
Arizona Department of Health
Tom Bailey and Alvin L. Franks
California State Water Resources Control Board
Orville Stoddard
Colorado State Health Department
Dick Woodhall
Connecticut State Health Department
Paul Beam and Frank Andrews
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Rauf Piskitl
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Latta and Bill Bryson
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
Charles Bishop
Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
IV
-------
Chester Harvey and Fred Eyer
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Donald G. Williams
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Bob Wall, Clark Haberman, Jon Atkinson and Dennis Heitman
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Wendall McCurry
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Patrick A. Clancy and Jon 0. Nowlin
USGS/Water Resources Division
Nevada
Joe Pierce, Maxine Goad, Mike Snavely and John Dudley
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Dan Serrell
New York Department of Health
Norman Peterson
North Dakota State Health Department
Mark Coleman and Dick Jones
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Harold Sawyer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Jerry Mullican and Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
Charles Ratte
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
R.M. Sterrett, Eugene Siudyla and Virginia Newton
Virginia Water Control Board
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Step l--Guidance for Rating the Unsaturated Zone 8
Step 2—Guidance for Rating Ground-Water Availability 33
Step 3—Guidance for rating the Ground-Water Quality 36
Step 4—Guidance for Rating the Waste Hazard Potential .... 39
Step 5—Determination of the Site's Overall Ground-
Water Contamination Potential 50
Step 6—Determination of the Potential Endangerment
to Current Water Supplies 52
Step 7—Determining the Investigator's Degree of
Confidence 56
Step 8—Miscellaneous Identifiers 6l
Step 9—Record the Final Score 62
Appendices 64
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Flow Chart of the Surface Impoundment assessment 2
2 Generalized sequence of steps involved in the
SIA evaluation system 6
3 Guide of the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone 11
4 Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood,
Illinois 12
5 Well hydrograph of the Ainsworth, Nebraska
water supply well 1^
6 Common driller's terms 17
7 Earth material categories and their approximate
Unified Soil Classification System equivalents 18
8 Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping
from a surface impoundment through unsaturated
sands containing clay lenses 20
9 Poultry Processing Plant site plan 24
10 Portion of the 7-5 minute quadrangle topographic
map of the Poultry Processing Plant 25
11 Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant 26
12 Portion of the geologic map from the County
Geologic Report containing the location of the
Poultry Processing Plant 29
13 Portion of the geologic cross-section from the
County Geologic Report 30
14 Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant 31
15 Driller's logs of test boring beneath the waste
treatment lagoon at the Poultry Processing Plant 32
16 Initial ratings of hazard potential range for
common sources and types of ground-water
contaminants ^6
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
I Step 1. Rating of the Unsaturated Zone 9
II Step 2. Rating of the Ground-Water 34
Availability
III Step 3'. Rating the Ground-Water Quality 37
IV Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by Source 40-44
V Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by Type 45-46
VI Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment
to a Water Supply 54
VII Rating of the Ground Water Pollution
Potential 63
viii
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Typical Sources and Types of Data Useful
in Applying the Assessment System
Appendix B - Measuring Unit Conversion Table
Appendix C - Glossary
Appendix D - Selected References
-------
INTRODUCTION
An objective of the surface impoundment assessment (SIA)
\
program (see Figure 1) is to rate the contamination potential of ground
water from surface impoundments and to develop practices for the
evaluation of different surface impoundments (elsewhere referred
to as pits, ponds, and lagoons). One of the activities conducted
under the SIA program is the application of the evaluation system
described in the present manual. This evaluation system applies
a numerical rating scheme to different impoundments that yields
a first round approximation of the relative ground-water contamination
potential of these impoundments.
The basis of this system was developed by Harry E. LeGrand
in 1964. LeGrand and Henry S. Brown expanded and improved
the system in 1977 under contract to the Office of Drinking Water.
The present system described in this manual has been modified
by the Office of Drinking Water through consultation with LeGrand
and Brown to reflect its ground-water protection philosophy.
Before the selection of the present evaluation system, other
standardized systems were considered (Cherry, et. al., 1975; Finder,
et. al., 1977; Phillips, 1976) but were not deemed as suitable for the
purposes of the assessment. The system is designed to provide an
-------
-------
approximation of the ground-water contamination potential of
impoundments at a minimum cost. Precise, in-depth investi-
gations of actual ground-water contamination from surface impound-
ments (i. e., drilling, etc.) would be too costly and time-consuming
and are not involved in this first-round site evaluation. The specific
site investigations into actual contamination would begin after this
assessment is finished in order to optimize expenditures. Those
sites identified as high contamination potential would be addressed
first.
The philosophy guiding the development of this surface impound-
ment evaluation system is that underground drinking water sources
must be protected for both present and future users as intended
by Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974. Ground-water
pollution occurs when contaminants reach the water table (saturated
zone) beneath the site. This is contrary to the commonly held
view that ground-water contamination cannot legally be determined
until the contaminated ground water crosses the property boundaries
of the facilities. EPA believes that in order to protect the nation's
ground-water resources it is necessary to identify potential contamin-
ation at the source where preventive measures may be initiated.
The purpose of this evaluation system is to rank impoundments
-------
in terms of their relative ground-water contamination potential.
The evaluation system considers several hydrogeologic parameters
in the rating of the site. There are numerous parameters that.
may be used in evaluating a site. However, many of these para-
meters are related and their simultaneous consideration would be
redundant. Thus, only selected parameters representative of
different processes, have been included. The present evaluation
system provides a standardized methodology which will ensure more
consistent national results.
The parameters used in the present SIA system have been separated
into two distinct groups which correspond to the two phases of the
evaluation, i. e., 1) the rating of the ground water contamination
potential itself and 2) the rating of the relative magnitude of potential
endangerment to current users of underground drinking water sources.
The parameters considered unique in rating the ground-water contamin-
ation potential are 1) the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the
type of earth material of that zone, 2) the relative hazard of the
waste, and 3) the quantity and quality of the underground drinking
water source beneath the site. The parameters considered unique
in determining the rating for the potential for endangerment of
currently used water resources include: 1) the type of water source,
i. e. ground water or surface water, 2) whether that water source
is in the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground water
-------
(if such contamination occurred); and 3) the distance between the
potential contamination source and the water source. These para-
meters account for the basic processes and factors which determine
the contamination potential of the site and which indicated the relative
threat to underground drinking water sources.
The level of contamination of ground water is subject to varying
degrees of attenuation as the water flows through the unsaturated
zone and on through the aquifer; however, the evaluation focuses
on the potential for contamination of underground water sources.
Attenuation mechanisms are very complex, varying with the type of
waste, earth material, and physico-chemical environment. A general
site evaluation system concerned with an approximation of the contamin-
ation potential cannot consider the specific attenuative capabilities
of different earth materials for different wastes, particularly since
there exists a vast variety of complex wastes possible. This evaluation
system therefore treats attenuation in an indirect manner by considering
it in combination with permeability.
The evaluation is performed in a sequence (see Figure 2). The
first four steps involve the evaluation of the potential for ground water
to be contaminated by rating the site's hydrogeology and waste character.
The fifth step then determines the site's overall contamination potential
relative to other rated sites by combining the first four steps. It must be
stressed that this overall rating will express only a site's hydrogeologic
-------
Step 1
Rating the Unsaturated Zone
Step 2
Rating the Ground Water Availability
Step 3
Rating the Ground Water Quality
Step 4
Rating the Waste Hazard Potential
Step 5
Overall Ground Water Contamination Potential
Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
1
Step 6
Rating the Potential Endangerment to Water
Supplies
Figure 2. Generalized sequence of steps involved in the SIA.
evaluation system.
-------
conditions relative to those conditions for all possible sites, and
does not relate to a site's absolute degree of ground-water contamin-
ation. Such determination of actual contamination involving ground-
water monitoring and sampling procedures must be made following
site specific investigations. This system allows the investigator to
assign priorities to sites on the basis of contamination potential so
that the investigator could then concentrate resources upon the further
investigation of these sites that rank highest in terms of their conta-
mination potential.
Precise data is not necessary for the application of the
SIA evaluation system. Performing precise measurements of the
the depth to the water table, the character of the earth materials
underlying the site, the hydrogeology at the site, etc., can be costly
and time consuming. It must be remembered that this evaluation
system is a first-round approximation and therefore estimates based
on the best available information will be used with the expectation that
they will provide satisfactory results for first-round evaluations.
-------
STEP1
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE UNSATURATED ZONE
The earth material characteristics of the unsaturated zone
underlying the surface impoundment are rated to determine the
potential for contaminants to reach the water table. This step
involves the combined rating of a) the thickness of the unsaturated
zone, and b) earth material (both consolidated and unconsolidated
rock) in the unsaturated zone (see Table I).
Step 1, Part A, Determination of the depth to the saturated zone for Step 1
Contaminants attenuate to varying degrees as they migrate down
through the unsaturated zone, depending upon the thickness and the
type of earth material. Therefore, more favorable conditions exist
where the water table is deeper. The depth to the saturated zone is
the depth from the base of the surface impoundment to the water table.
This depth may be measured to the water table in unconfined aquifers
(See Site 1 in Figure 3) or, in the case of a confined aquifer, to
the top of the confined aquifer (See Site 2 in Figure 3). Where a
perched water table is known to occur, the depth may be measured
-------
C
O
M
-a
a)
to
10
C
01
c
fD
oi
Q.
0)
—
^
>
^»
—
_—
_
_
^
^
^
to
0)
4-J
ID >-
0
_c en
4-> 0)
I- 4-1
to to
LU t •>
>^
to
o
c
4-J l/l
._
2 t5s?
0
>- LA
JO y
JZ 4-> fO
4-* 3 ^—
— .0 o
2
"O LA O
C i— LA
J° A VI
^
.c ro
4-J i —
.- o
2
0\°
T3 LA 4-J
C i— —
10 »y —
^
l_
D
> ~O
C
o to
0) 0)
c c
. — • —
LU LL.
TD
C
O to
4-J CO
•s
•—ED
0) 3 1/1
> .- u
10 "0 to
i_ a) O
C3 2: 0
"O
Q)
to
-a
•—
O
l/l
c
o -Y
o o
C 0
~) Cf.
-0 TJ O
0) C —
1- tO _C
3 a.
4-1 1/1 1-
0 - 3 O
(0 a) o
ID co — z: a:
c
o
4-1
l/l
4-1
~
a) ^~.
c -a
O 0)
4-1 4-J
l/l — C
-a — ai
c a) E
CO s— t_J
^"
0) 0) .— ^ T3
c 4J -a a)
O to 0) 1-
4-1 1- 4-1 3
in a) c 4-> a)
T5 T3 4) O •—
C O E to (0
to
-o o >
c — - 0)
3 3 O Q- 4-J — 4-J
4-1 o E a) i/i i- c
O d) to U "O O X c O E
L. 01 QJ LU 10 Q- 0)
LL. — 3: CO o
O " 10 l/l
- in > 0)
(/l ~& t\} (\\ tn r~
3
L- 4J in O • — 4-J
a) o a) a. to E to in 3
to L. — > fO OJ
C_) LJ_ _J UJ CQ U-
TJ
(L)
4-1
to
-a
»—
o
in -^
C 0
0 O
t -, n-
CM
O
f~*t f^^
• 1
O O
V V
CM
O vD
• |
0 0
V V
CM LA
• 1
O O
\l "~
y
^i-
i
CM O
1
1
CM LA
• 1
0 0
CSl
1
0 0
O «—
CM
i i
CM -3-
1
O
CM
O 1
0 0
CM •—
A A
(U
>
— >- i i
(0 — - CM
4J t— 4J O
C .- 14- 0)
0) -Q l/>
m to -o \
0) 0) Q- E
1- E CJ1 O
Q- 1-
o a) c c
o; o_ ._ ._
X
a:
I-
^£
^
O
z
—
1-
a:
u. c3 x: U- sx
o o o — en
LU LU UJ LU -3
o — CM PA en
o a a o —
CM OA -3- LA en
o o o o :r
-3~ LA vD i^~ en
CQ CO CQ LL. d
sD i^ co en en
O 1 U 1
" j n HJ.
3NINIWU3i3a
-------
to it rather than the underlying regional water table (See Site 3
in Figure 3). The investigator will decide whether to measure
the depth to the perched water table or ignore it and measure
to the regional water table. This decision should be based on
the extent and thickness of the perched water table and its usefulness
as a drinking water source. If the perched water table is currently
being utilized as a drinking water source, the depth should be
measured to it.
Water tables fluctuate on a diurnal, seasonal and annual basis
due to natural and artificial causes. For this assessment system
the depth to the water table should be determined on the basis
of the seasonal high water table elevation. As is shown in Table I,
the depth determination does not have to be exact since the
intervals are large. Illustrations of possible well hydrographs
are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a depicts a hydrograph
of a well in Illinois which is only affected by seasonal climatic
variation. The depth to water table would be taken as approximately
five feet (1.6 meters). In Figure 4b the well hydrograph illustrates
a water table which is affected by seasonal pumping variation.
Pumping is greatest and, as a result, the water table is lowest
during May through September, the hot season when consumption
10
-------
SITE 1
Unsaturated
Zone
Thickness
Water Table
Aquifer
SITE 2
lickness
rqr~
^Confining Bed T ~~p
Unsaturated
Zone
Aquifer
SITE 3
Unsaturated Perched
Zone Water Table
Regional
Water Table
Figure 3. Guide for the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone (water table in the unconfined case
or top of confined aquifer) for completion of Step 1
11
-------
1942 1943 i944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 I960 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 957 1958 1959 I960
Figure
JAN FE8 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure
Figure ^. Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood, Illinois,
showing, in Figure k/\, seasonal fluctuations in a well
remote from pumping well influences; and in Figure 4B,
fluctuations in a well close to a ground water pumping
area (from Walton, 1970, p. 106).
12
-------
is greatest. During the winter months of November through Ma,rch
the demand decreases and the ground-water table recovers. In this
case the depth to the water table would be computed at the highest
level, at 168 feet (51. 2 meters) of elevation rather than the summer
levels of 142 feet (43. 3 meters).
Figure 5 shows a long period of record for a well hydrograph
located in Ainsworth, Nebraska, in which annual and longer term
fluctuations exist. Although the maximum change in water level
amounts to only about 6 or 7 feet (2 meters), other areas of the
country do experience much greater variation and should be
considered. However, in this example, the water level used in
determining the depth to the water table should be the higher level
of 34 feet (10.4 meters) below the surface. Note that in all these
examples, the more conservative estimate is used for depth to
the water table.
In the situation where a confined (artesian) aquifer is encountered
below a disposal site and an unconfined (water table) aquifer does not
exist, the depth is measured to the top of that confined aquifer.
Due to the nature of the confined aquifer, the net hydrostatic head
of the system may decrease the possibility of contamination. However,
conditions are not steady-state and other phenomena may affect the
13
-------
131J HI '13*31 UK W3J 3«OOX 3001111)
J33J HI '13*31 VX HOK 3A09B XVUI11U
/£
3»JrflS Out K)13> 113J III '13*31 UlUB
• — c
— O
(D
>-
0. O
Q- O
> L-
(0 (!)
1/1 rtl
-a r-
C v£)
~ 1- D.
o
1-
01
E
O
3 a) en
in -M •—
M— "O ~ Ol UJ
^ •— E
— 30
'oj j: M-
3 i/i--^
0)
14
-------
net hydrostatic head of the confined aquifer. With the reductions
of head which can be experienced (as in many irrigated areas of
the country), confined aquifers may become vulnerable to contamination
from surface sources through over pumping.
Step 1, Part B, Determination of the earth material category for Step 1
The type of earth material must be identified in order to complete
Step 1. Table I contains an ordinal ranking of the general categories
of earth materials based upon permeability, secondarily upon sorption
character. The inclusion of sorption is based on the general
relationships between grain size/surface area and permeability/sorption.
Grain size (or pore size) is proportional to permeability and inversely
proportional to surface area which is an important factor in sorption
mechanisms. As grain size is inversely proportional to sorption
capacity, sorption capacity is inversely proportional to permeability.
Thus, going from left to right across the earth material categories
in Table I, permeability decreases while sorption generally tends
to increase. The categories take into account whether the permeability
of the material is primary (properties existing at the time of formation
such as the pore spaces) or secondary (properties of the material
imposed upon it sometime after formation such as joints, fractures,
-------
faults and solution channels). Secondary permeability is usually
much greater than primary permeability due to the larger pathways.
This distinction is very important in the categorization of earth
materials as the presence of secondary permeability increases
the flow of water and decreases attenuation. Fractures, joints,
and faults are caused by earth movement and generally become
closed and tighter with depth (generally within a hundred meters)
because of increased pressures and decreased weathering effects.
Faults often have an associated zone of crushed rock (fault breccia)
which may be highly permeable.
The classification of the earth material should follow the
guidelines of Table I and of Figures 6 and 7 which supply further
assistance in the classification. Figure 6 gives a fairly compre-
hensive list of driller's terms found in driller's logs and the
equivalent classification for Table I. Some groups of terms are
assigned to more than one category, in which case the investigator
must make a judgement. In Figure 7, the equivalent Unified Soil
Classification System codes are shown.
16
-------
I
Gravel, S»nd, Sand and Gravel, and Similar Materials
Soecific vieid 25 D«r cent
Bouideri Gravel fend uncl
Ccent grave* Gravel end Mndrock
CoBr« t.nd Medium tend
CobtMe:. Rock ana grave*
Ccsaio *::?"** Running tand
Ovfavei 1 11 above water Sand
uui* Sand, water
Fleet racks Send end boulder*
tree tend Sand and cobble*.
Orav*i Sand and line braval
Loctt gravel Sand end pravel
Loote MHO Sandy »'avel
Rock* ^rvater gravel
II or III
Fine Send. T^hlSartd, Tight Gravel. andSrmit»rMaterieh
Specific yield 10 percent
S«nnd torn* w*t*r
clay tend
Hard tand, aoft cfr*»k.i
Coert*. and Mndy Loamy f ma Mnd
Loote «nav ctey Medium muddy Mnd
Meamm sandy Mdk *and
Sanav More or l*t» Mnd
Sendy end sandy clay Muddy Mnd
Sendy clay, land, and Pack tand
ck*v Poor water sand
Sanoycuy -Avatar Powder Mnd
Bearing Pumtce Mnd
Sandy clay wrtrt rtraaki Qutckund
of »ano Sand, mucky or dirty
Sancy •formation Set tand
Sandy muck Si try land
Sandy wdrment Sloppy Mnd
Very tandy clay Sticky tand
STreak»*ineendcoar*e*end
Boulders, cemented Mnd Surface Mnd and clay
Cement, gravel. Mnd, end Tight aend
rockt
Clay and firavel, water
bearing Brittle clay »nd send
Ctey&rock some loot* rock Ctey end Mnd
Clay, send and pr.vei Clay, Mnd, end waw
Ciav, tilt, land, andgravel Clay with tand
Conpiomerat«,er»v*1.»nc' Cl«V with tend irr*alt«
bouioeri More or leu clay, nerd Mind
tano and gravel Mud end tend
Dirty prevei Mud. Mnd, and weter
Ftne c-avei, hard Sand and mud with chunks
Gravel cemented tend Silt and fine tend
Htrd crevel Soil. Mnd. and
H«rd sane and graved clay
P*tk«-d grcvel Top toil end light
Packed ifcnd end gravel tand
Quickvend and cooblet Water Mnd tprinkted wrth
Rock «nd and clay cley
S»no «nd gravel .cemented
streak* Float rock (ttone)
Senc »nd tilt, many gravel Laminated
Send.eley,st*e»ktolgreve! Pumice
Sancyci*v«ndpravei Seep water
Set grevel Soft Mndttone
SIITV und and gravel Strong teepeg*
(cobbles)
Tight gravel
IV or V
Clay and Gravel, Sandy Clay, and Similar Material*
Specific yield & percent
Ccmenttd prevel (cobble*) Clay end tandy clay
Omenieo o'avel nnd clay Clay and tilt
Cementec grevel, hard Clay, cemented sand
Cement anc rocks (cobolet) Cley, com pact loam end tend
diy end pravct (rock ) City to coarse tand
Cl»var>dt,OL.icert(cobbtei) Clay. streaks of hard pecked Mnd
Clay, pe-k send, and grav«| Cley, ttreaks of tandy ctev
Cc-bbte* >n clcy Clay, water
Conp'omeret* Clay with Mftdy pocket
DryCrevei(belov, wittr Clay with small itreakt of
table! Mnd
Gravel and clay Clay with tome Mnd
Gravel (cement) Ciay with ttreakt of fine tend
Grave! and tandy clay Clay with thin ttreakl of mend
Gravelly cicy Quicktandy clay
Rockt in clay Sand— h Hard pumice
Cabcna Porphyry
Chalk Seepeae toft clay
Hard lava formation Volcanic a*h
V or VI
Clay and Related Mater letl
Specific yield 3 percent
*\dob* Leva
ferrrtle clay LOOM that*
Caving ciay Muck
Cement ledge Pecked ciay
Clay Shala
C4ay. occ»* tonal rock SneJI
Crumbly clay Slush
Cuba clev Soapnone
DecompoMid granite Soapttona float
Dm Sdt cley
Good clay Squeeze clay
Gumbo ciay Sticky
Hard clay Sticky clay
Herdpan (H.P.) Tiper clay
Hardpen trtale Ttght clay
Hard thala Tula mud
Hard thell Variable clay
Joint clay Volcanic rock
VI
Crystalline Bedrock (frach)
Specific yield zero
Granite Herd rock
Hard boulbert Graphite end rockf
Herd gtantta Rock (if In area of known
crystalline rockt)
Figure 6. Common driller's terms used in estimating specific yield
(from Todd, 1970, p. 205) and the equivalent evaluation
system earth material categories.
17
-------
Step 1
Earth Material Category
(and Step 1 Designation)
Unified Soi1
Class i fi cation
System Designation
Permeabi1i ty
Range (cm/sec)
Gravel (l)
Medium to Coarse Sand (l)
Fine to Very Fine Sand (ll)
GW, GP
SW, SP
SW, SP
Permeable
> 10"^ cm/sec
Sand with £15% Clay, Silt (III) GM, SM, SC
Sand with >15% but £50% Clay (IV) GM, SM, ML
Semi-permeable
10~2 to TO"6 cm/sec
Clay with < 50% Sand (V)
Clay (VI)
OL, MH
CL, CH, OH
Relatively imperme-
able
< 10"° cm/sec
Figure 7- Earth material categories and their approximate Unified Soil
Classification System equivalents.
18
-------
The geologic conditions beneath the site can be a very complex
layering of clays, sands and gravels or consolidated sedimentary
rocks such as sandstone, limestone and shale. In these layered
situations the rating may be accomplished by considering the probable
hydrology of the system. Where the different layers have similar
hydrologic properties, the layers may be considered a single hydrologic
unit for rating purposes. Where contrasting layers are encountered,
best judgement must be exercised in rating the site. For example,
if an impermeable shale overlies permeable sandstone rate only
the thickness of shale. The investigator must be cautioned, however,
that in rating a case where hydrologically unlike layers alternate,
the waste is more likely to move through the more permeable zones
and avoid the impermeable layers. As an example, a sand containing
clay lenses should be rated as if only sand were present (See Figure 8).
Similarly, where secondary permeability is present (i. e. fractures,
joints and faults) the major path of waste movement is through
the large conduits of secondary permeability rather than the interstices
of primary permeability. This results in a short circuit of any
attenuation capability present in the material. In such cases, the
earth material would be rated as the more permeable categories.
19
-------
Impoundment
.Unsaturated*
* ' Bauds' •
• • • • v • • . M *
• • • • y '^^—^LJL-
* * *-/ * r _^ i-L—,—^i
O T*o IT T Q-n o £1 e» I * » *fi *saa^—.. . ' •
• • •/ ' 4 ' -
Clay Lenses^ I* ' "^^=s^— ~~=~
« r * 1* ) ' ' '
* i *i ' '^ ' L . • • '
• Water TabJLe
*• «
. '
* Saturated Sands
Figure 8. Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping from a
surface impoundment through unsaturated sands containing
clay lenses.
20
-------
Step 1, Part C, The Scoring of Step 1.
After the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the type of earth
material in the unsaturated zone have been determined, refer to the
Step 1 matrix (in Table 1) and record the appropriate score for the
particular values of thickness and material.
Sources of information for completing Step 1.
Many data sources exist for the depth to the water table and
the geologic material beneath a site. The site may have specific
data available from State files if the site is permitted. The owner/
operator may have data on shallow bedrock and soils available
from borings or trenches made for the impoundment or nearby
building foundations. Nearby water wells may provide data on
the geology and ground-water levels, and adjacent road cuts can
provide additional information on the subsurface.
General information is available from State agency reports
such as the State geological survey, State departments of transpor-
tation soil borings, water resources agencies or universities with
departments concerned with geology and ground-water resources.
The United States Geological Survey also publishes reports and
21
-------
maintains files on ground water occurrence in each State. The
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
publishes county soils reports and maps with information on local
soil profiles and bedrock, depth to the water table and depth to
unweathered bedrock or parent material of the soil.
Example for determining the score for Step 1.
To score a site for Step 1, information is needed on: 1) toe
depth to the saturated zone and 2) the earth material of the unsat-
urated zone. The following example illustrates the method of
scoring a site and will be utilized in all steps of the evaluation
system.
A poultry processing plant, located in the Appalachian Valley
and Ridge Province of a Mid-Atlantic State, operates a two acre waste
treatment lagoon (about 8000 m ) for disposal of poultry processing
waste water. The waste treatment lagoon is shown in the site plan of
Figure 9; Figure 10 gives the site location in relation to local
topography.
Example Step 1, Part A. Determine the depth to the water table to
establish the thickness of the unsaturated zone. In this example the
22
-------
depth to the water table may be obtained from the driller's log
of the plant water well. Figure 11 shows the driller's report which
indicates that the depth to the static water table is 33 feet (about
10 meters). This static water table level is not the seasonal high
water table at this site. The seasonal high water table would be
expected to occur around 25 feet (7. 5 meters).
The depth to the water table could also be estimated by studying
the topographic map in Figure 10 if no well data was available.
The elevation of the lagoon bottom is estimated to be about 1020
feet (311 meters) Mean Sea Level as the site is located between
two 1020 foot contours. The river is about 100 feet (30 meters)
to the west and, in the humid eastern climate, the water table
can be assumed to be the river level at the river. Since the lagoon
is close to the river, the water table is estimated to be about
the same elevation as the river, i. e., 990 feet (302 meters). This
is determined by noting that the 980 foot (299 meters) elevation
crosses the river about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) downstream and
the 1000 foot (305 meters) elevation crosses about 1 mile upstream.
Interpolation between 980 and 1000 gives a river elevation of 990
feet. By estimating the lagoon elevation (1020 feet) and adjacent
23
-------
SCALE
10
0 METERS 30
r\
Figure 9- Poultry Processing Plant site plan.
24
-------
SCALE 1 24000
o
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 KXX} 6000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
Figure 10. Portion of the 7-5 minute quadrangle topographic map of
the Poultry Processing Plant (Marked by arrow).
-------
IWATER
CONDITIONS!
DEPTH
STATIC WATER LEVEI
WATER ZONES (fissures cr formations supplying water)
(from) (to) (from) (to)
ft. . : ft :
ft. '• . ft. —
QUANTITY OF WATER
WELL PUMPED (or bailed) at__/51— Gol. per Mia with
^T0P feet DRAWDOWN cfter £ , HOURS PUMPING.
FLOW (natural).-, G PM. HEAD ft. (above ground)
COLOR
QUALITY OF. WATER
TASTE i-^.
OTHER
ANALYSIS.'AVAILABLE-Yt« a NOD: ATTACHED
TEMPERATURE '•
(ion, brackuh, iron, tulf ur.oc'd, other)
USE OF WATER:
(iromi (to)
WATFR " ' ft -- ft
pjnfvt^jjjrrorm O Public a
CONSTRUCTION*}^
nfli Afl
*»M
, drtvin,
RlG TYPE (or method). _
(rotory, coble, bored, drivln, etc..)
DATE: Started J&L-j^dkl!L-.\ Completed.
TOTAL nFPTM<" T^LI^ ff
BEDROCK tit.^~7f ^.'
GROUTING INFORMATION
METHOD USEn
GROUTING MATERIAl
nEPTH OF GROUTING.
, HOLE SIZE
(diom) (from) (to)
:n ft «
'[-'/< fa tf?a
7 *• i J
CASING SIZE
(diam) (from) (to)
U fl
tt
^ •-" >
SCREEN (or perforations)
(diomj (from) (to) •' (opening sut)
Figure 11. Portion of the driller's report on the water supply well
drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant showing the static
ground-water level.
26
-------
river elevations (990 feet), the water table depth is estimated at
30 feet (about 9 meters). This estimate is fairly close to the
measured static water level in the well. This method of estimating
ground-water levels is useful only for perennial streams and is
not reliable in the arid western United States where streams are
intermittent. In such cases the ground-water level is often deeper
than the stream bed and may have no relationship to the stream
level or topography.
Example Step 1, Part B. The second part of completing Step 1
is to estimate the composition of the earth material of the unsaturated
zone. For the Poultry Processing Plant, there is a substantial
amount of data available from a county geologic report, the driller's
report for the water well at the site and, several test borings
conducted at the lagoon site. Figure 12 and 13 show the surface
bedrock configuration and the structural cross-section of the
area. The bedrock at the site is the Edinburg Formation composed
of shale and limestone layers tilted at about 70 degrees to the
west. The Driller's report containing the well log (Figure 14)
indicates that about 16 feet (about 5 meters) of unconsolidated
clay and gravel overlie a considerable thickness of variable lime-
stone down to 424 feet (129 meters).
27
-------
The logs of the test borings shown in Figures 15 indicate
a quite variable thickness of sand and gravel (from 12 to 60 feet,
or 3 to 18 meters) above limestone. It would be expected in this
area of steeply tilted limestone and shale layers to have a rough,
variable bedrock surface as a result of differential weathering.
Example, Step 1, Part C. After determining the thickness of
the unsaturated zone (7. 5 meters) and the type of earth material
in the unsaturated zone, the Step 1 score can be determined from
the Step 1 matrix in Table I for the following parameters:
Thickness of the unsaturated zone = 7. 5 meters
Material of the unsaturated zone = 3 meters of sand and gravel
4. 5 meters of limestone
As the sand, gravel and limestone are of similar hydrologic
character and in the same earth material category of Step 1,
their thickness can be combined so that the Step 1 score would
be determined for 7. 5 meters of category "I" material rated at
9C. (The presence of a liner would be noted by recording the
appropriate code in the reporting form.)
28
-------
MartinsbuTK shale
Chiefly shale and silty shale; greenish
sandstone commonly at top.
Edmburg formation
Dark graptolite bearing shale, dense
black limestone, and nodular weather-
ing limestone.
New Market and Lincolnshire limestone
Dense light gray limestone and dark,
medium-coarse, cherty limestone.
Beekmantown formation
Thick-bedded, gray, medium-grained
dolomite and some blue limestone: much
Chepultepec limestone
Gray and blue dense limestone, some
dolomite.
Fugure 12. Portion of the geologic map from the County Geologic Report
containing the location of the Poultry Processing Plant
(marked by an X and an arrow).
29
-------
I
ooob-i ooo
8O O O m OOO
o o o S o o o
"3- m CM -H en — cvjro
3-iiin
UD
LLJ
a) TD
_c 0)
01 nj
c E
u 4-j
— c
•w 01
u c
o —
Q. (/)
0) t/1
a: 0)
o
0 O
.— 1-
01 a.
O
— >•
O i-
0) 4-J
CJ •—
>~ o
4-J O-
c
3 Q)
O .C
O '4->
(U -O
-C C
4-> 3
O
E >-
O (0
C 3
O 4-J
— O
4-> 3
U u
<1) 4J
!/> 1/1
I
in U
in •—
O 01
i- O
O —
O
U 0)
— 01
01
o - j:
i-i a) 4->
u C
o .
Q- 01 jQ
3
oi
30
-------
o
0.
-a
0)
-a
3
>-
a.
a.
3
-------
c
0
-H
4-1
O.
•H
j_j
O
(0
01
o
rH
CO
•H
Vi
01
4-1
CO
s
Si
4-14-1
O.OJ
CD O)
QPu
rH
0)
Cfl
O
X)
c
cfl
rrj
C
Cfl
C/j
, 1 1 ( . 1
•
jr
•H 01
5 >
a
4-J ) i
rH CJ
•H
CO i — 1
CO
C 0
cfl -H
CO
"^ cfl
C 0
CO O
c/j O
0)
C
0
4-1
10
0)
e
•H
iJ
13
cfl
S3
^ \\ ^ cj
m X\ o sr
rH VA VD \0
1 \.\ 1 , 1
6
cfl
o>
to
0
3
S
0
*
in
VJO
4-1
CO
*o
0) 0)
C *J
O cfl
4J C
W -H
CD 6 4J
6 H 0)
•H CO 0)
rJ H fe
•O CO
fri fll
0)
c
o
4-J
cfl
/*-x *O
14-1 CO CO
^j r\ rrt
4-1
ro
c
o
o
01
ro
4-J
C
co
E
4-J
ro
-------
STEP 2
GUIDANCE FOR RATING GROUND WATER
AVAILABILITY
Determining the ground-water availability ranking.
The ability of the aquifer to transmit ground water depends
upon the permeability and saturated thickness of the aquifer.
Step 2 provides the guidance to determine the ground-water
availability rating of the aquifer. Since this evaluation system is
a first-round approximation, the ground-water availability rating
is not exact, but an approximation. The categories of earth material
which make up the saturated zone are the same categories as used
in Step 1 but have been combined into good, fair and poor aquifer
material categories (Table II).
Estimate the aquifer's saturated thickness (in meters) and the
type of earth material in the saturated zone as done for Step 1.
Choose the appropriate ranking in the matrix of Step 2 (Table
II) from the respective saturated thickness and earth material
category. The letter accompanying the ranking is for the purpose
of identifying what the ranking's derivation is if, at sometime in
the future, there is reason to verify the number.
Sources of information for completing Step 2 .
Sources of information in determining the parameters of Step 2
are similar to those of Step 1.
33
-------
TABLE I I
Step 2. Rating of the Ground Water Availability
>-
en
o
C3
LU
I—
<
O
C3
Z
Z
o:
LU
i—
LU
O
c£
O
ll-
CO
LU
-z.
_l
LU
O
ID
CD
Earth
Mater i al
Category
Unconsol i dated
Rock
Consol i dated
Rock
Representat i ve
Permeab i 1 i ty
2
in gpd/ft
in cm/sec
1
Gravel or sand
Cavernous or
Fractured Rock,
Poorly Cemented
Sandstone,
Fault Zones
>2
-k
> 10
1 1
Sand with <50%
clay
Moderately to
We 1 1 Cemented
Sandstone,
Fractured Shale
0.02 - 2
-6 -k
10 -10
1 1 1
Clay with <50%
sand
Si 1 ts tone ,
Unf ractured
Shale and other
Impervious Rock
<. 0.02
-6
< 10
RATING MATRIX
Thickness £30
of Saturated
Zone 3-30
(Meters N
<3
6A
5A
3A
kc
3C
1C
2E
1E
OE
-------
Example, Step 2.
The type of earth material of the saturated zone can be
determined from the county geologic map and cross-section
(Figures 11 and 12) and the driller's log of Figure 13. Generally,
the material down to greater than 400 feet (122 meters) below
the surface is limestone with shale interbeds. From the drillers'
report of the pump test (shown in Figure 10) the water supply well
near the surface impoundment had 400 feet of drawdown at 15 gpm
(57 liters per minute) after 2 hours pumping. From this data the
limestone is very tight with little permeability and very little
development of open fractures. The category in Step 2 for rating
this material would be category II as the saturated zone is capable
of producing water but only at moderate to low quantites. From
the above sources of information the thickness of the saturated
zone is estimated to be several hundred feet. The score for the
ground-water availability ranking would be determined for earth
material category II and greater than 30 meters thickness, i. e.,
the Step 2 ranking is "4C. "
35
-------
STEP 3
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE GROUND-
WATER QUALITY
Ground-water quality is a determinant of the ultimate usefulness
of the ground water. Waste disposal sites situated in an area of
poor quality ground water unsuitable as a drinking water supply would
not present the same degree of pollution potential to ground water as
the same site situated in an area having very good quality ground
water. Step 3 (Table III) is used to determine the ranking of
the aquifer's ground-water quality. The ranking is based upon
the criteria that has been set forth in the proposed Underground
Injection Control Regulations (40 CFR Part 146) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-523). The descriptions are to be
used as basic guidelines to assist the investigator in arriving
at the appropriate rating of ground-water quality. Consideration
of only the background water quality of the aquifer is intended.
Determine the Aquifer Quality Ranking
Determine the total dissolved solids content of the ground water
and apply it to the appropriate rating in Step 3, Table III. If the ground
water is presently a drinking water supply, the ranking would be a
"5" regardless of its total dissolved solids content.
36
-------
Table III
Step 3. Rating the Ground-Water Quality
Rati ng
Q.ual ity
k
3
2
1
0
< 500 mg/1 IDS or a current drinking water
source
> 500 - £1000 mg/1 IDS
>1000 - <3000 mg/1 IDS
>3000 - £10,000 mg/1 IDS
>10,000 mg/1 IDS
No ground water present
37
-------
Sources of information for completing Step 3 .
Ground-water quality data for the determination of the Step
3 rating may be obtained from several sources. If the aquifer
is presently used by individuals or communities, no further docu-
mentation is required. If industries or agriculture use the ground
water, but not currently for human consumption, further quality
data may be required for the rating. Many State agencies (i. e.,
geological surveys, health departments, water boards or commissions
and State engineers) and the U. S. Geological Survey have consider-
able water quality data on file, in published reports and as maps
outlining the ground-water quality in the States by aquifer.
Example, Step 3.
The quality of the ground water beneath the Poultry Processing
Plant site would be rated "5" since the aquifer does supply drinking
water, and in addition based upon driller's report, general State
files and published reports, the aquifer has an overall good quality
with very low total dissolved solids.
38
-------
STEP 4
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
Contaminants that may enter ground water have been evaluated
by their potential for causing harm to human health (Hazard
Potential). The hazard potential rankings for contaminants range
from 1 to 9 with 1 being least hazardous and 9 being most hazardous.
Contaminants and their hazard potential rankings are classified
in two ways: (1) by contaminant source (Table IV), and (2) by
contaminant type (Table V). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
numbers are used to classify sources. Common sources and types
of contaminants and their hazard potential ranges are illustrated in
Figure 16.
There are many variables that influence a substance as it enters
the ground-water environment such that its true hazard potential as
a ground-water contaminant is not likely to be the same as its
apparent hazard potential. Most such variables tend to reduce
hazard potentials. The hazard potential rankings considered the
following factors and their interactions.
TOXICITY - The ability of a substance to produce harm in or on the
body of living organisms is extremely important in ranking the
hazard potential of that substance. While some substances are highly
toxic they may possess low mobility and thus be assigned a lower
hazard potential ranking than a less toxic but highly mobile substance.
39
-------
TABLE IV
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF'WASTE, CLASSIFIED
BY SOURCE FOR STEP k.
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
01 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION * CROPS
02 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK
021 Livestock, except Dairy, Poultry and
Animal Specialties
024 Dairy Farms
025 Poultry and Eggs
027 Animal Specialties
029 General Farms, Primarily Livestock
10 METAL MINING
101 Iron Ores
102 Copper Ores
103 Lead and Zinc Ores
104 Gold and Silver Ores
105 Bauxite and other Aluminum Ores
106 Ferroalloy Ores Except Vanadium
103 Metal Mining Services
1092 Mercury Ore
1094 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
1099 Metal Ores not elsewhere classified
11 ANTHRACITE MINING
12 BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE MINING
13 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
131 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
132 Natural Gas Liquids
1381 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services
1389 Oil and Gas Field Services not elsewhere
classified
14 MINING AND QUARRYING OF NON-METALLIC MINERALS,
EXCEPT FUELS
141 Dimension Store
142 Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Riprap
144 Sand and Gravel
145 Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Minerals
147 Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining
148 Nonmetallic Minerals Services
149 Miscellaneous Non-metallic Minerals,
except Fuels
1-2
(5 for Feedlots)
4
4
2-4
2
4
6
5
6
5
5
4
6
7
5
7
7
7
7
6
1
Variable depending on
Activity
2
2
2
2-5
4-7
1-7
2-5
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Number Description of Waste Source Initial Rati ng
16 CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
1629 Heavy Construction, not elsewhere classified
(Dredging, especially in salt water) 4
20 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
201 Meat Products 3
202 Dairy Products 2
203 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables 4
204 Grain Mill Products 2
205 Bakery Products 2
206 Sugar and Confectionery Products 2
207 Fats and Oils 3
208 Beverages 2-5
209 Misc. Food Preparation and Kindred Products 2
22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS, ALL EXCEPT LISTINGS
BELOW
223 Broad Woven Fabric Mills, Wool (including 6
dyeing and finishing)
226 Dying and Finishing Textiles, except 6
Wool Fabrics and Knit Goods
2295 Coated Fabrics, Not Rubberized 6
24 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FURNITURE
241 Logging Camps and Logging Contractors 2
242 Sawmills and Planing Mills 2
2435 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2436 Softwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2439 Structural Wood Members, not elsewhere 3
classified (laminated wood-glue)
2491 Wood Preserving 5
2492 Particle Board 4
2499 Wood Products, not elsewhere classified 2-5
26 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
261 Pulp Mills 6
262 Paper Mills Except Building Paper Mills 6
263 Paperboard Mills 6
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
28 CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
2812 Alkalies and Chlorine 7-9
2813 Industrial Gases
2816 Inorganic Pigments 3-8
2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
not elsewhere classified 3-9
2821 Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and
Nonvulcanizable Elastomers 6-8
2822 Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable Elastomers) 6-8
2823 Cellulose Man-Made Fibers 6-8
2824 Synthetic Organic Fibers, except Cellulosic 6-8
2831 Biological Products 6-9
2833 Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products 3-8
2834 Pharmaceutical Preparations 6-9
2841 Soap and Other Detergents, except
specialty cleaners 4-6
2842 Specialty Cleaning, Polishing and
Sanitation Preparation 3-8
2843 Surface Active Agents, Finishing Agents,
Sulfonated Oils and Assistants 6-8
2844 Perfumes,. Cosmetics, and other Toilet
Preparations 3-6
2851 Paints, Varnisher, Lacquers, Enamels, and
Allied Products 5-8
2861 Gum and Wood Chemicals 5-8
2865 Cyclic (coal tar) Crudes, and Cyclic
Intermediates, Dyes and Organic Pigments
(Lakes and Toners) 6-9
2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals, not elsewhere
listed 3-9
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Number Description of Waste Source Initial Rating
2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers 7-8
2874 Phosphatic Fertilizers 7-8
2875 Fertilizer Mixing Only 5
2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals,
Not Elsewhere Listed 5-9
2891 Adhesives and Sealants 5-8
2892 Explosives 6-9
2893 Printing Ink 2-5
2895 Carbon Black 1-3
2899 Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, not
Elsewhere Listed 3-9
29 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
291 Petroleum Refining 8
295 Paving and Roofing Materials 7
299 Misc. Products of Petroleum and Coal 7
30 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS
301 Tires and Inner Tubes 6
302 Rubber and Plastic Footwear 6
303 Reclaimed Rubber 6
304 Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting 4
306 Fabricated Rubber Products, not Elsewhere
Classified 4
31 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
311 Leather Tanning and Finishing 8
(Remaining Three-Digit Codes) 1-3
32 STONE, CIAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS
321 Flat Glass 4
322 Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown 4
324 Cement, Hydraulic 3
3274 Lime 3
3291 Abrasive Products 3
3292 Asbestos 3
3293 Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices 3
33 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW) 3
3312 Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and
Rolling and Finishing Mills 6
333 Primary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals 7
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Number Description of Waste Source Initial Rating
34 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS, EXCEPT MCHINERY
AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED 5
BELOW)
347 Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services 8
3482 Small Anns Ammunition 7
3483 Ammunition, Except for Small Arms
not Elsewhere Classified 7
3489 Ordnance and Accessories, not Elsewhere
Classified 7
349 Misc. Fabricated Metal Products 3-6
35 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 5-7
36 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW) 5-7
3691 Storage Batteries 8
3692 Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet 8
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 5-8
38 MEASURING, ANALYZING, AND CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS;
PHOTOGRAPHIC, MEDICAL, AND OPTICAL GOODS; WATCHES 4-6
AND CLOCKS (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW)
386 Photographic Equipment and Supplies 7
39 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 3-7
49 ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES
491 Electric Services 3-5
492 Gas Production and Distribution 3
494 Water Supply 2
4952 Sewerage Systems 2-5
4953 Refuse Systems (except Municipal Landfills) 2-9
496 Steam Supply 2-4
-------
TABLE V
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF WASTES, CLASSIFIED
BY TYPE1 FOR STEP 4
Hazard Potential ID
Description Initial Rating Number*
A. SOLIDS
Ferrous Metals
Non-Ferrous Metals
Resins, Plastics and Rubbers
Wood and Paper Materials (except as noted below)
- Bark
Textiles and Related Fibers
Inert Materials (except as noted below)
- Sulfide Mineral-Bearing Mine Tailings
- Slag and other Combustion Residues
- Rubble, Construction & Demolition Mixed
Waste
Animal Processing Wastes (Except as noted below)
- Processed Skins, Hides and Leathers
- Dai ry Wastes
- Live Animal Wastes-Raw Manures (Feedlots)
- Composts of Animal Waste
- Dead Animals
Edible Fruit and Vegetable Remains -
Putrescab les
B. LIQUIDS
Organic Chemicals (Must be chemically Classified)
- Aliphatic (Fatty) Acids
- Aromatic (Benzene) Acids
- Resin Acids
- Alcohols
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Petroleum
Deri vat i ves
- Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Benzene Derivatives
- Sulfonated Hydrocarbons
- Halogenated Hydrocarbons
- Alkaloids
- Aliphatic Amines and Their Salts
- Ani 1 i nes
- Pyridines
- Phenols
- Aldehydes
- Ketones
- Organic Sulfur Compounds (Sulfides,
Mercaptans)
- Organometal 1 i c Compounds
- Cyanides
- Thiocyanides
- Sterols
- Sugars and Cellulose
- Esters
I-42
1-72
2
2
4
2
2
6
5
3
2-1*
6
k
5
2-4
5
2-3
2
3-5
7-8
5-7
it- 6
)6-8
7-8
7-9
7-9
1-4
6-8
2-6
7-9
6-8
6-8
7-9
7-9
7-9
2-6
1-4
6-8
1100
1200
1300
1400
1401
1500
1600
1601
1602
1603
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1800
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
-------
Descri ption
Hazard Potential
Initial Rati ng
Inorganic Chemicals (Must be Chemically Classified)2
- Mineral and Metal Acids 5-8
- Mineral and Metal Bases 5-8
- Metal Salts, Including Heavy Metals 6-9
- Oxides 5-8
- Sulfides 5-8
- Carbon or Graphite 1-3
Other Chemical Process Wastes Not Previously Listed
(Must be Chemically Classified)2
- Inks 2-5
- Dyes 3-8
- Paints 5-8
- Adhesives 5-8
- Pharmaceutical Wastes 6-9
- Petrochemical Wastes 7-9
- Metal Treatment Wastes 7-9
- Solvents 6-9
- Agricultural Chemicals (Pesticides,
Herbicides, Fungicides, etc.) 7-9
- Waxes and Tars 4-7
- Fermentation and Culture Wastes 2-5
- Oils, including Gasoline, Fuel Oil, etc. 5-8
- Soaps and Detergents 4-6
- Other Organic or Inorganic Chemicals,
includes Radioactive Wastes 2-9
Conventional Treatment Process Municipal Sludges 4-8
- From Biological Sewage Treatment 4-8
- From Water Treatment and Conditioning
Plants (Must be Chemically Classified)2 2-5
ID
Number*
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2300
2301
2302
ID Number is for identification of waste type in the Reporting Form.
Classification based on material in Environmental Protection Agency
Publication, 670-2-75-024, pages 79~85, Prepared by Arthur D. Little. Inc.
and published in 1975-
2For individual material ranking refer to solubi1ity-toxicity tables
prepared by Versar, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency.
46
-------
MOBILITY - The material must be able to enter the ground-water
environment and travel with the ground water. Certain substances
are essentially immobile (eg., asbestos fibers) while others are
highly mobile with most substances falling between these extremes.
PERSISTENCE - Some substances such as halogenated hydrocarbons
decay or degrade very slowly and receive a higher hazard potential
ranking than other equally toxic materials that decay more rapidly.
VOLUME - Some substances, such as tailings or slimes from
mining operations, are only moderately toxic but because they
are produced in enormous quantities are given a somewhat
higher hazard potential ranking.
CONGENTRATION - Substances entering the ground-water
environment in concentrations which could potentially endanger human
health are ranked. Concentration may decrease with dilution and
attenuation but the amount of decrease at a given place depends, in
part, on waste mobility, waste interaction with soils and aquifer
material, etc.
Determining the Waste Hazard Potential for Step 4 .
Wastes may be simple in composition, but most are complex
and the hazard potential rankings given in Tables IV and V are
maximum values based on the most hazardous substance present in
the contaminant. Such rankings are, of necessity, generalizations
because of the unknown interactions that occur between substances
and the variables of the ground-water environment.
-------
For those substances or sources that show a hazard potential
ranking range (e. g., 5-8) additional information concerning the specific
nature of the source or contaminant is required for assigning a
specific ranking. Specific rankings in such cases must be personal
judgements by the assessor. Additional information for determining a
specific ranking may be available from the source of the contaminant,
i. e., the industry may be able to supply specific information about
the contaminant. In the event specific information is not available
from the source, additional information may be obtained from an
examination of descriptions of average contaminant characteristics
listed in several publications cited below. For cases when there is
considerable pretreatment of the waste, the ranking may be lowered
to the bottom of its range. If no additional information is available,
the first round approximation ranking must assume the worst case
and a low confidence rating be given the ranking.
If sufficient information exists about the material (i. e., exact
composition, concentration, volume, treatment prior to coming in
contact with the ground, etc.) the rating may be lowered. In considering
whether to lower the rating, some compounds degrade aerobically or
anaerobically and the products of degradation are more hazardous
than the parent chemical. Initial rankings may be modified downward
provided:
-------
1. The hazardous material in question has been effectively
treated to lover its hazard potential as a ground-water pollutant.
Several references describe best available methods for treating
contaminants to reduce their toxic ity, for example see:
- Sax, 1965, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials.
- Identification of Potential contaminants of underground
water sources from land spills, by Versar, Inc. (Task
H of EPA contract No. 68-01-4620.
- EPA, 1973, Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste
Disposal
- Powers, 1976, How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and
Industrial Wastes.
2. It can be shown that the hazardous material in question has
low mobility in the specific site it is contaminating. Most solid
and inert substances have low mobility. Substances with high
solubilities tend to be most mobile. Mobility depends on a
complex interplay of many factors and only a few substances
have been studied sufficiently to predict with any degree of
confidence their specific mobilities at a specific site.
3. The volume and/or concentration of the hazardous material
is so small that there is a good probability that it will be diluted
to safe (drinking water standard) levels at the point of concern.
Example for Determining the Score for Step 4 .
The waste in the Poultry Processing Plant lagoon is a meat
product waste, SIC number 201 and would receive a "3" rating.
49
-------
STEP 5
DETERMINATION OF THE SITE'S OVERALL GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
After the site has been rated on Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4, the overall
ground-water contamination potential of the site can be determined by
totalling these scores. This overall score allows a comparison of one
site with other rated sites by indicating the general, overall contamin-
ation potential. Sites may be rated identically, yet be very different
in one or several of the parameters included in the overall score; thus
the overall score of Step 5 should be used with caution in assessing
a particular site's potential to allow ground-water contamination. In
addition, this overall score cannot be used to assess the actual, amount
of ground-water contamination at the site. The score is only for relative
comparison with other sites. An actual determination of ground-water
contamination requires an intensive on-site investigation.
EPA has not formulated an interpretation of the overall ground water
contamination score other than as a relative means to prioritize sites.
Step 5. Determination of the Site's Ground-Water Contamination
Potential Rating.
The site's ground-water contamination potential rating is the addition
of the rating scores for the first four steps:
Contamination Potential = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4.
-------
The highest ground-water contamination potential rating a site
can receive is "29" while the lowest is "1. "
Example for determining the score for Step 5.
The overall ground-water contamination potential score for the
Poultry Processing Plant lagoon is determined in Step 5 by adding
the scores from Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4:
Step 5 Rating = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
= 9 + 4 + 5 + 3 = 21
51
-------
STEP 6
DETERMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL
ENDANGERMENT TO CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES
The distance from the impoundment to a ground or surface water
source of drinking water and the determination of anticipated flow
direction of the waste plume are used to ascertain the potential endanger-
ment to current water supplies presented by the surface impoundment.
For many assessments this step can be accomplished by measuring the
horizontal distance on a 7. 5 topographic map, or similar scale. In order
to use this step, the anticipated direction of ground water flow within
1600 meters (1 mile) of the impoundment must be determined. Ground-
water movement depends upon natural ground-water flow direction,
variations due to pumping wells, mounding of the grounc water beneath
the site and other factors influencing flow direction, such as faults,
fractures and other geologic features.
In the case of artesian wells, the anticipated flow direction of the
waste plume generally would not be in the direction of the artesian well
intake. Artesian wells are located in confined aquifers separated
hydraulic ally from the surface sources of contamination by relatively
impermeable confining layers, and wells tapping the confined zone
generally will not be drawing ground water from upper zones.
-------
Artesian wells should not be considered in this step unless there is an
indication that the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground
water would be in the direction of that well. To score Step 5, prioritized
cases (cases A-D) have been established for rating the site according to
the potential magnitude of endangerment to current sources. These
priorities are detailed in Step 6 (Table VI). To score a site when a
water table is nearly flat and the flow direction is indeterminable, a circle
with a 1600 meter radius should be drawn around the site for designating
the area of concern. In this situation the evaluator would use the same
criteria, in sequential order, begining with Case A, Case B, and then
Case D, eliminating Case C.
After the distance has been determined, use the Step 6 rating matrix
to determine the rating under the column of the appropriate case.
-------
TABLE VI
Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment to a Water Supply
Case A
Case B
Highest Priority: Rate the closest water well within
1600 meters of the site that is in the anticipated
direction of waste plume movement.
Second Priority: If there is no well satisfying Case A,
rate the closest surface water within 1600 meters of the
site that is in the anticipated direction of the waste
plume movement.
Case C
Thi rd Priori ty: If no
satisfying Case A or B
surface water or water well
exists, rate the closest water
Case D
supply well or surface water supply within 1600 meters
of the site that is not in the anticipated direction of
waste plume movement.
Lowest Priority: If there are no surface waters or water
wells within 1600 meters of the site in any direction,
rate the site as "OD."
Select the appropriate rating for the given distance and case:
Di stance
(Meters)
<200
>200, 5^00
>400, £800
>800, ^1600
>1600
Case A
9A
7A
5A
3A
Case B
SB
6B
4B
2B
Case C Case D
7C
5C
3C
1C
OD
-------
Example for determining the score for Step 6.
The potential health hazard to existing water supply sources which the
Poultry Processing Plant presents is found by determining what
types of water supplies are present and their distances from the
lagoon. The drilled well described in Figure 11 is for industrial
water supply. Surface water (a river) is within about 30 meters of the
lagoon as shown in Figure 9. Step 6 requires an estimation of the
anticipated flow direction. In this example, the anticipated flow of the
waste plume is to the river. The rating of Step 6 would be based on
Case B, and would be scored "8B".
55
-------
STEP?
DETERMINING THE INVESTIGATOR'S DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE
The evaluation of a surface impoundment's ground-water contamination
potential involves three steps and about twice as? many separate variables.
In many situations the investigator will not have comprehensive information
concerning the variables and will have to evaluate the site on the basis
of estimation or approximation. For this reason a rating of the investigator's
confidence in scoring each step will be made. The following outline
is intended to assist the investigator in rating the confidence of the
data for each step, with "A" the highest confidence, "C" the lowest.
Step 1 confidence rating for determining the earth material of the
unsaturated zone.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Driller's logs containing reliable geologic
descriptions and water level data;
U. S. Department of Agriculture soil survey
used in conjunction with large scale, modern
geologic maps.
Published ground-water reports on the site.
B Soil surveys or geologic maps used alone.
56
-------
General ground-water reports.
Drillers' logs with generalized descriptions.
Drillers logs or exposures such as deep road cuts near
the site of contamination allowing interpolation
within the same general geologic unit.
C On site examination with no subsurface data and no
exposures of subsurface conditions nearby.
Estimation of water levels or geology based on
topography and climate.
Extrapolations of well logs, road cuts, etc.
where local geology is not well known.
Estimation based on generalized geologic maps.
Estimations based on topographic analysis.
Step 2 confidence rating for determining the ground-water availability
ranking.
This step involves the earth material categorization and thickness of the
aquifer's saturated zone. The confidence rating for Step 2, Part A follows
the same basis as Step 1, Part B above.
Step 3 confidence rating for determining background ground-water quality.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Water quality analyses indicative of background
ground-water quality from wells at the site or
nearby wells or springs or known drinking water
supply wells in vicinity.
57
-------
B Local, county, regional and other general hydro-
geology reports published by State or Federal
agencies on background water quality.
Interpolation of background ground-water quality
from base flow water quality analyses of nearby
surface streams.
C Estimates of background ground-water quality from
mineral composition of aquifer earth material.
Step 4 confidence rating for waste character.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Waste character rating based on specific
waste type.
B Waste character rating based on SIC category.
Step 6 confidence rating for determination of the anticipated direction
of waste plume movement.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Accurate measurements of elevations of
static water levels in wells, springs, swamps,
and permanent streams in the area immediately
surrounding the site in question.
Ground-water table maps from published State
and Federal reports.
58
-------
B Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in non cavernous area having
permanent streams and humid climate.
Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in arid regions of low relief containing some
permanent streams.
C Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in cavernous, predominantly limestone
areas (karst terrain).
Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in arid regions of highly irregular
topography having no permanent surface
streams.
Example for determining the confidence rating for each step.
Based upon the guidance just presented, the confidence ratings for the
Poultry Processing Plant are:
Confidence Rating
Step 1 A—Based upon measurement in on site
well.
Step 2 A-~Based upon well logs of on site well.
Step 3 A--Based upon water well analyses.
59
-------
Step 4 B—Based upon SIC category.
Step 6 B—Estimate of flow direction from
topographic map in humid region.
60
-------
STEP 8
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTIFIERS
This step allows the evaluator to identify any additional
significant variable not noted in the rating system. Such para-
meters are:
Identifier
R - The site is located in a ground-water recharge area,
D - The site is located in a ground-water discharge area,
F - The site is located in a flood plain and is susceptable to
flood hazard,
E - The site is located in an earthquake prone area,
W - The site is located in the area of influence of a pumping water
supply well,
K - The site is located in karst topography or fractured,
cavernous limestone region.
C - The ground water under the site has been contaminated
by man-made causes (i. e., road salt, feed lot, industrial
waste).
M - Known ground-water mound exists beneath the site.
I - Interceptor wells or other method employed to inhibit
contaminated ground-water migration (endangerment to
water supply wells may be reduced).
61
-------
STEP 9
RECORD THE FINAL SCORE
In order to present the rating scores from the previous nine steps
of the evalution system in a logical manner, Step 9 provides
a systematic format in which the evaluation of the site can be
recorded. The nine steps are not recorded in numerical order as
the focus of the evaluation is on the ground-water pollution potential
score of Step 5. Thus, Step 5 is listed first, followed by Steps 1, 2, 3, 4,
6 and 8. The example of the Poultry Processing Plant waste treatment
lagoon has been listed on page 6 3 on the following sample reporting
form. The confidence scores of Step 7 have been distributed
among the appropriate steps.
62
-------
TABLE VI I
RATING OF THE GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL:
9 C
0)
c
O
M
•
4->
TO
1/1
C
^3
A
Q)
O
C
0)
-O
•—
14-
c
o
o
STEP
1
k
C
.
• _
0)
^
•
^
•
o
A
Q)
O
C
0)
•—
u-
c
O
o
STEP
2
5
*—
0)
3
0"
•
^g
•
C_3
A
Q)
O
C
Q)
-D
•_
M-
C
O
0
STEP
3
3
(U
4->
1/1
OJ
^
B
0)
o
C
Q)
•Q
•_
M-
C
0
0
STEP
4
2 1
r—
^— ,^
O (D
Q- —
4-1
• C
3 0)
• O
C3 Q-
STEP
5
8
B
jr -a
4-1
k_
— TO
(D
Nl
(U TO
3: :
C
B
(D
O
C
0)
-o
.„
4-
C
O
0
STEP
6
R F
1/1
O ui
c
o c
l^ 0)
— "O
63
-------
APPENDIX A
TYPICAL SOURCES AND TYPES OF DATA USEFUL IN
APPLYING THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Type of Data
Typical Sources
Useful in determining
Steps
2&3
6
Property survey
Well drillers logs
Water level measure
ments
Topographic Maps
Air Photos
County Road Maps
Ground Water Reports
Soil Surveys of Counties
Geologic Maps
Waste Character
County Records, property
owner
Well Driller, property
owner, state records
Well owners' observations,
well drillers' logs, topo-
graphic maps, ground water
maps (reports)
U. S. Geological Survey and
designated state sales offices
U. S. Dept of Agriculture,
U.S. Forest Service, etc.
State agencies
U.S. Geological Survey,
State agencies
U. S. Department of
Agriculture
U. S. Geological and State
Surveys
Owner/operator, State or
Federal permits, SIC Code
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
* - Source of data may be especially useful
X - Source of data may be of slight use or may be used indirectly
-------
APPENDIX B
MEASURING UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
inch (in)
centimeter
feet (ft)
meter
mile (mi)
kilometer
U.S. gallon (gal)
cubic meter
cubic feet (ft 3)
cubic meter
acre -foot (ac-ft)
cubic meter
hectare
square meter
hectare
acre
Hydraulic Conductivity
gpd/ft2
cm/sec
Darcy
Darcy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.54
0.3937
0. 3048
3.2808
1.609
0 621
0. 0038
264.17
0, 0283
35.314
123.53
0. 0008
10, 000. 0
0. 0001
2.471
0. 4047
-5
4. 72 x 10
3
21.2 x 10
18.2
-4
8.58x 10
= centimeter (cm)
= inch
= meter (m)
= feet
= kilometer (km)
= mile
= cubic meter (m )
= U.S. gallon
= cubic meter
= cubic feet
= cubic meter
= acre -feet
= square meter (m )
= hectare
= acre
= hectare
= cm/sec
= gpd/ft2
= gpd/ft2
= cm/sec
65
-------
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
Aquifer - a formation, group of formations or part of a formation that
contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant
quantities of water to wells and springs.
Artesian ground water - synonymous with confined ground water which
is a body of ground water overlain by material sufficiently impervious
to sever free hydraulic connection with overlying ground v/ater.
Confined ground water is under pressure great enough to cause water
in a well tapping that aquifer to rise above the top of the confined
aquifer.
Discharge area - geographic region in which ground water discharges
into surface water such as at springs and seeps and subsurface seepage
into streams, lakes and oceans (referred to as base flow in streams).
Karst topography - geologic region typified by the effects of solution of
rocks by water. Rock types most likely effected are limestone
dolostone, gypsum and salt beds. Features produced are caverns,
collapse features on the surface (sink holes), underground rivers
and zones of lost circulation for well drillers.
Perched water table - unconfined ground water separated from an underlying
body of ground water by an unsaturated zone. Its water table is a
"perched water table" and is sustained by a "perching bed" whose
permeability is so low that water percolating downward through it is
not able to bring water in the underlying unsaturated zone above
atmospheric pressure.
Plume of contaminated ground water - as contaminants seep or leach into
the subsurface and enter the ground water, the flow of the ground
water past the site of contamination causes the contaminated ground
water to move down gradient. This action results in the creation of
a "plume" shaped body of ground water containing varying concentrations
of the contaminant, extending down gradient from place of entry. The
shape of the plume of contaminated ground water is affected by
attenuation of the specific contaminants and, to a lesser extent, by
dispersion.
Primary permeability - permeability due to openings or voids existing
when the rock was formed, i. e. , intergranular interstices.
66
-------
Recharge area - geographic region in which surface waters infiltrate
into the ground, percolate to the water table and replenish the ground
water. Recharge areas may be well defined regions such as lime-
stone outcrops or poorly defined broad regions.
Saturated Zone - the zone in the subsurface in which all the interstices
are filled with water.
Secondary permeability - permeability due to openings in rocks formed
after the formation of the rock, i. e. , joints, fractures, faults,
solution channels and caverns.
Unsaturated zone - formerly the "zone of aeration" or "vadose zone".
It is the zone between the land surface and the water table, including
the "capillary fringe".
Water table - that surface in an unconfined ground-water body at which
the pressure is atmospheric. Below the water table is the
saturated zone and above is the unsaturated zone.
67
-------
APPENDIX D
SELECTED REFERENCES
Alexander, Martin, "The Breakdown of Pesticides in Soils, in Brody,
N. C. ," Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment, Plimpton
Press, Norwood, Massachusetts, pp 331-342, 1967.
Belter, W. G. , "Ground Disposal: Its Role in the U. S. Radioactive
Waste Management Operations,: in Comptes Rendus, Collogue
International sur la Retention et la Migration de Jons Radioactifs
dans les Sols, Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires, Saclay, France, pp
3-10, 1963.
Bredehoeft, J.D. , and G. F. Pinder, "Mass Transport in Flowing
Groundwater," Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No. 1, pp 194-
210, 1973.
Born, S. M., and D. A. Stephenson, "Hydrogeologic Considerations in
Liquid Waste Disposal," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Vol 24, No. 2, pp 52-55, 1969.
Brown, R. E. , Hydrologic Factors Pertinent to Ground-Water Contami-
nation, Public Health Service Technical Report W61-5, pp 7-20, 1961.
Brown, R.H. , andJ.R. Raymond, "The Measurements of Hanford's
Geohydrologic Features Affecting Waste Disposal," in Proceedings
of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working Meeting - Ground
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Chalk River, Canada, U.S. Department
of Commerce TID 7628, pp 77-98, 1962.
Carlston, C.W. , "Tritium - Hydrologic Research: Some Results of the
U. S. Geological Survey Research Program," Science 143 (3608),
pp 804-806, 1964.
Cartwright, K. , and F. B. Sherman, "Evaluating Sanitary Landfill Sites
in Illinois," Illinois State Geological Survey Environmental Geology
Note No. 27, 15 pp, August 1969.
Cherry, J.A., G.E. Grisak, and R. E. Jackson, "Hydrogeological
Factors in Shallow Subsurface Radioactive-Waste Management in
Canada," Proceedings International Conference on Land For Waste
Management, Ottawa, Canada, October 1-3, 1973.
-------
Clark, D.A. andJ.E. Moyer, 1974, An Evaluation of Tailings Ponds
Sealants, EPA-660/2-74-065.
Cole, J.A. (ed.), Ground-water Pollution in Europe, Water Information
Center, Port Washington, New York, 347 pp, 1975.
DaCosta, J. A. , and R. R. Bennett, 'The Pattern of flow in the Vicinity of
a Recharging and A Discharging Pair of Wells in an Aquifer Having
Area! Parallel Flow," International Union Geodesy and Geophysic,
International Association Committee Subterranean Waters, 196IT
Davis, S.N. andR.J.M. DeWiest, 1966, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. , New York.
DeBuchannanne, G.D. , and P. E. LaMoreaux, Geologic Control Related
to Ground Water Contamination, Public Health Service Technical
Report W61-5, pp 3-7, 1961.
Deutsch, M. , Groundwater Contamination and Legal Controls in Michigan,
Public Health service Technical Report W61-5, pp 98-110. , 1961.
Ellis, M.J. andD.T. Pederson, 1977, Groundwater Levels in Nebraska,
1976, Conservation and Survey Division, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln.
Engineering-Science, Inc. , "Effects of Refuse Dumps on Groundwater
Quality," Resources Agency California State Water Pollution Control
Board, Pub. 211, 1961.
Geswein, A. J. and 1975, Liners for Land Disposal Sites—An Assessment,
EPA/530/SW-137.
Giddings, M.T. , 'The Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Sanitary Landfill:
State-of-the-Art in Ground-Water Protection," Ground Water, Vol 2,
Special Issue, pp 5-14, 1977.
Haxo, H. E. , Jr. , andR.M. White, 1976, Evaluation of Liner Materials
Exposed to Leachate, Second Interim Report, EPA-600/2-76-255.
Haxo, R. S. andR.M. White, 1977, Liner Materials Exposed to Hazardous
and Toxic Sludges, First interim Report, EPA-600/2-77-081.
Hughes, J. L. , Evaluation of Ground-Water Degradation Resulting From
Waste Disposal to Alluvium Near Bar stow, California, U.S. Geological
Survey Prof. Paper 878, 33 pp, 1975.
69
-------
Hughes, G. M. , and K. Cartwright, "Scientific and Administrative
Criteria for Shallow Waste Disposal," Civil Engineering-ASCE,
Vol 42, No. 3, pp 70-73, 1972.
Hughes, G.M, , R. A. Landon, andR.N. Farvolden, Hydrogeology of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Northeastern Illinois, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report SW-122, 154 pp, 1971.
LeGrand, H. E. , "System for Evaluating the Contamination Potential
of Some Waste Sites," American Water Works Association Journal,
Vol 56, No. 8, pp 959-974, 1964a.
LeGrand, H.E. , "Management Aspects of Ground-Water Contamination,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 36, No. 9, pp
1133-1145, 1964b.
LeGrand, H.E. , "Patterns of Contaminated Zones of Water in the Ground,"
Water Resources Research, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 83-95, 1965.
LeGrand, H.E. , "Monitoring the Changes in Duality of Ground Water,"
Ground Water, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 14-18, 1968.
Lieber, Maxim, N.M. Perlmutter, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Cadmium and
Chromium in Nassau County Groundwater," Journal American Water
Works Association, Vol 56, No. 6, p 742, 19~64~;
Meyer, C.F. (ed.), Polluted Groundwater: Some Causes, Effects, Controls
and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rfjport No.
EPA-600/4-73-001b, Washington, D.C., 325 pp, June 1974..
Miller, D.W. , F. A. Deluca, andT.L. Tessier, Ground Water Contamination
in the Northeast States, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-660/2-74-056, Washington, D. C. , 325 p, June 1974.
Miller, D.W. (editor), Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on
Ground Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.
EPA-570/9-77-001, Final Report to Congress, 1977.
Morrison, W.R. , R. A. Dodge, J. Merriman, C,M. Ellsperman,
Chungming Wong, W. F. Savage, W.W. Rinne and C. L. Granses, 1970,
Pond Linings for Desalting Plant Effluents, U. S. Dept. of the
Interior, Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress
Report No. 602.
70
-------
Palmquist, R. , andL.V.A. Sendlein, "The Configuration of Contami-
nation Enclaves from Refuse Disposal Sites on Floodplains,
Ground Water, Vol 13, No. 2, pp 167-181, 1975.
Panel on Land Burial, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, The
Shallow Land Burial of Low-Lev el Radioactively Contaminated Solid
Waste, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D. C. , 150 pp 1976.
Papadopolos, S. S. , and I. J. Winograd, Storage of Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes in the Ground Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Factors with
an Appendix on the Maxey Flats, Kentucky, Radioactive Waste Storage
Site: Current Knowledge and Data Needs for a Quantitative Hydrogeologic
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-
520/3-74-009, Reston, Virginia, 40 pp, 1974.
Parsons, P. J. , "Underground Movement of Radioactive Wastes at Chalk
River," in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission
Working Meeting - Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River,
Canada, U.S. Department of Commerce, TIP 7628, pp 17-64, 1962.
Perlmutter, N M. , M. Lieber, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Waterborne
Cadmium and Hexavalent Chromium Wastes in South Farmingdale, Nassau
County, Long Island, New York," U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper
475-C, pp 179-184, 1963.
Peters, J. A. , 1968, Ground Water Course, State of California, The
Resources Agency, Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif. ,
pp. 5-7.
Pettyjohn, W. A., "Water Pollution in Oil Field Brines and Related
Industrial Wastes in Ohio," in Water Quality in a Stressed Environment,
Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 166-180, 1972.
Phillips, C.R. , Development of a Soil-Waste Interaction Matrix, Canada,
Environmental Protection Service, Solid Waste Management Report
EPS-EX-76-10, 89 pp, 1976.
Pinder, F. F. , "A Galekin -Finite Element Simulation of Groundwater
Contamination on Long Island, New York," Water Resources Research,
Vol. 9, No. 6, pp 1657-1669, 1973.
Pinder, G. G., W. P. Saukin and M. Th. Van Genuchten, 1976, Use of
Simulation for Characterizing Transport in Soils Adjacent to Land
Disposal Sites, Research Report 76-WR-6, Water Resources Program,
Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University.
71
-------
Robson, S. G. , and J. D. Bredehoeft, "Use of a Water Quality Model for
the Analysis of Ground Water Contamination at Barstow, California,"
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Annual
Meetings, Vol 4, No. 7, pp 640-641, 1972.
Romero, J. C., "The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses through Porous
Media," Ground Water, Vol 8, No. 2, pp 37-48, 1970.
Sendlein, L. V. A. , and R. C. Palmquist, "Strategic Placement of Waste
Disposal Sites in Karst Regions,: in Karst Hydrology, Memoirs of
the 12th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists,
published by University of Alabama at Huntsville Press, pp 328-335,
1977.
Simpson, E.S. , Transverse Dispersion in Liquid Flow through Porous
Media, U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 411-C, 30 pp, 1962.
Theis, C. V. , "Notes on Dispersion in Fluid Flow by Geological Factors,"
in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working
Meeting, Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River, Canada,
U.S. Department of Commerce TID 7628, pp 166-178, 1962.
Thomas, Henry, "Some Fundamental Problems in the Fixations of
Radioisotopes in Solids," Proceedings U.N. International Conference:
Peaceful Uses Atomic Energy, 18, pp 37-42, 1958.
Todd, D. K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ,
New York, p. 53.
, 1970, The Water Encyclopedia, The Water Information
Center Inc. , 559 pp.
Todd, D. K. , andE.E. McNulty, Polluted Groundwater: A Review of the
Significant Literature, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-680/4-74-001, Washington, D. C. , 215 pp, March 1974.
Todd, D.K. , R.M. Tinlin, K. D. Schmidt, and L. G. Everett, Monitoring
Groundwater Quality: Monitoring Methodology, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-600/4-76-026, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 154 pp, June 1976.
Vogt, J.E. , "Infectious Hepatitis Outbreak in Posen, Michigan," in
Ground Water Contamination, Proceedings of 1961 Symposium, pp
87-91, 1961.
72
-------
Walton, W.C., 1970, Ground Water Resource Evaluation, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. , New York, p. 36.
Waltz, J. P. , "Methods of Geologic Evaluation of Pollution Potential at
Mountain Homesites," Ground Water, Vol 10, No. 1, pp 42-47,
1972.
Walz, D. H. , and K.T. Chestnut, "Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes:
An Example from Hopewell, Virginia," Ground Water, Vol 15, No. 1,
pp 75-79, 1977.
Wenzel, L.K. , Methods for Determining Permeability of Water-Bearing
Materials, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 887, 1942.
73
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-570/9-78-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Manual For Evaluating Contamination Potential of
Surface Impoundments
5. REPORT DATE
June, 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Lyle R. Silka and Ted L. Swearingen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ground Water Protection Branch
Office of Drinking Water
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1*01 M Street S.W.
Washington B.C. 2oU6o
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Manual
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/700/03
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This manual was specifically prepared for implementing a
standardized evaluation system for the EPA Office of Drinking Water
Surface Impoundment Assessment. The manual describes a first round
evaluation system for rating the ground vater conta.mination potential
of surface impoundments. The evaluation system contains eight steps:
1. Rating the unsaturated zone
2. Rating the ground water availability
3. Rating the ground water quality
4. Rating the waste hazard potential
5- Computing the overall ground water contamination potential
6. Rating the potential endangerment to current users of
the ground water
7- Rating the investigator's confidence in the data
8. Miscellaneous identifiers
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COS AT I Field/Group
waste disposal site selection, lagoons,
water quality control, ground water
quality protection, sites, evaluation
5/G
5/E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS {This page}
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
US GOVERNMFNI PRINTING OFFICE 1979-281-147/14
------- |