United States Office of EPA
Environmental Protection Drinking Water 570/9-78-004
Agency
f * ^ C. • *
Water
vvEPA Surface Impoundments
And Their Effects On
Ground-Water Quality
In The United States
—A Preliminary Survey
June 1978
-------
EPA 570/9-78-004
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON GROUND-WATER
QUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES—A PRELIMINARY SURVEY
PREPARED FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
STATE PROGRAMS DIVISION
GROUND WATER PROTECTION BRANCH
EPA Project Officer
Ted L. Swearingen
June 1978
V--
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Summary 1
II Findings 3
I I I Introduction 6
Definition of Impoundment 7
Scope of the Investigation 8
IV Physical and Operational Features of Impoundments ... 10
Types, Uses, and Construction 10
Selected Impoundment Practices 12
Domestic Sewage Wastes 12
Industrial Wastes 13
Mining and Milling Wastes 16
Oil and Gas Extraction Wastes 20
Animal Feedlot and Other Agricultural Wastes ... 22
V Numbers of Impoundment Sites and Flow Data 28
The Data Base 28
Sources of Data 28
State Agencies ' . . 28
Federal Agencies 29
Preliminary Impoundment Count 32
VI Chemical Contents of Impounded Wastes 44
Types and Sources of Data 44
Character of the Wastes 44
Relation to Ground-Water Quality 46
VII Patterns of Ground Water Contamination and Case
Histories 51
General Nature of the Contamination Threat 51
Geologic and Hydrologic Controls 51
Patterns of Contamination 52
Evidence of Contamination from Case Histories .... 55
Summary of National Situation 55
Case Histories of Specific Wastes 63
Case Histories with Costs of Remedial Actions ... 71
VIM Technological Controls 117
Contamination-Prevention Techniques 117
Direct Methods 117
Indirect Methods 131
Cost Relationships 132
General Approach 132
Cost Implications 132
i
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
IX State Regulatory Controls 13**
Agency Organization and Authority 13**
Legislative Basis 13**
Institutional Framework 135
Permitting Systems 138
Personnel and Enforcement 1****
Technical Design Criteria 1 **6
Municipal and Industrial Impoundments 1 **6
Oil and Gas Impoundments 1**8
Feedlot Impoundments 152
Controls by Selected States 153
X Other Related Investigations 188
XI Acknowledgments 197
XII Appendices 198
A - Metric Conversions Used in This Report 198
B - Estimate of Numbers of Industrial Impoundment Sites
and Flow Data, by SIC Codes 200
C - Specific Industrial Waste Characterizations .... 207
D - Cost of Technological Controls 236
Cost Relations 236
Specific Cost Modules 236
Use of the Cost Curves 272
-------
FIGURES
Section IV
No. Page
1 Flow chart for a pulp mill in Montana showing the types
of impoundments used in the waste-treatment system .... 15
2 Generalized acid mine drainage flow chart, showing types
of impoundments used in the treatment system ....... 17
3 Flow charts showing two levels of technology in the use
of tailings ponds for disposal of copper concentration
wastes .......................... 19
k Anaerobic lagoon system used in southeastern region
dairy farms ....................... 23
5 Settling basin-holding pond system used in northern region
dairy farms ....................... 2k
Section V
6 Distribution and number of manufacturing and mining
establishments reporting use of more than 20 million
gallons of water per year ................ 31
Section VI I
7 Section through a plume of contaminated ground water
extending from a recharge area at a wastewater pond
to a discharge area at a lake or stream ......... 5^
8 Plan view of a plume of 1 ignin-tannin contaminated
ground water, near Turner, Oregon, January 1973 ..... 65
9 General location of the Las Vegas-Henderson area in
southeastern Nevada ................... 73
10 Hydrogeologic section across the Las Vegas Valley, showing
aquifers, confining beds, and ground-water flow pattern,
19^5-1950 conditions ................... 76
11 Surface impoundments, other sources of contamination,
and proposed remedial facilities for abating contamina-
tion of the Las Vegas Wash area, Nevada ......... 77
12 Plume of nitrate-contaminated shallow ground water
near Henderson, Nevada .................. 84
i i i
-------
No.
FIGURES (Continued)
Section VI I
13 Grants Mineral Belt in northwestern New Mexico showing
mill sites and sampling areas of previous investiga-
tions .......................... 91
14 Hydrogeologic section A-A1 through Ambrosia Lake
showing water-bearing units in the Grants Mineral
Belt area ........................ 92
15 Selenium concentration and general direction of ground-
water flow in the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of
a uranium mill near Grants, New Mexico ......... 95
16 Location of selected incidents of ground-water contamina-
tion from paper mill wastes in northeastern Wisconsin . . 99
17 Paper mill spent liquor disposal site, Brokaw,
Wisconsin ........................ 101
18 Map of Long Island showing area examined for surface-
impoundment problems .................. 106
19 South Farmingdale area in western Long Island, N.Y.,
showing plume of metal-plating wastes, location of
industrial surface impoundments, other industrial
point discharges, and storm-water basins ........ 107
20 Block diagram (A) showing the aquifer system and areal extent
of plume of plating wastes in South Farmingdale,
Nassau County, N.Y. and downgradient section (B) showing
vertical distribution of hexavalent chromium content
in 1962 ......................... Ill
Section XII - Appendix D
21 Capital investment costs for return of collected water
back to the impoundment; Alternative 4 .........
22 Total annual operating costs for return of collected
water back to the impoundment; Alternative k
23 Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
equalization basin module; Alternative 8A
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Section XII - Appendix D
No. Page
24 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
equalization basin module; Alternative 8A 250
25 Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
biological-treatment system module; Alternative 8B ... 252
26 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
biological-treatment system module; Alternative 8B ... 253
27 Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
activated carbon adsorption module; Alternative 8C ... 255
28 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
activated carbon adsorption module, low strength waste
(COD=50 mg/l); Alternative 8C
29 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
activated carbon adsorption module, high strength
waste (COD=250 mg/l); Alternative 8C 257
30 Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
heavy-metals removal module; Alternative 8D 259
31 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
heavy-metals removal module; Alternative 8D 260
32 Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
dissolved-solids removal module; Alternative 8E
33 Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
34
35
36
37
Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
treated wastewater discharge module; Alternative 8F . . .
Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment —
treated wastewater discharge module; Alternative 8F . . .
Estimated well-field replacement costs in relation to
raw water pumpage* Alternative 9
Capital investment costs for water treatment—new potable
water-treatment olant module: Alternative 10A
265
266
268
270
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Section XII - Appendix D
No. Page
38 Total annual operating costs for water treatment--
new potable water-treatment plant module;
Alternative 10A 271
39 Capital investment costs for water storage—raw water
storage impoundment module; Alternative 10B 273
VI
-------
TABLES
Section V
No. Page
1 Estimate of numbers of impoundment sites for all
categories, by States .................. 33
2 Estimate of numbers of municipal and industrial impound-
ment sites and flow data, by States ........... 3A
3 Estimate of numbers of municipal impoundment sites and
flow data, by population groups ............. 36
k Numbers of impoundments for which use categories were
determined ....................... 38
5 Numbers of institutional, private/commercial, and agricul-
tural impoundment sites, by States ........... 39
6 Estimate of numbers of impoundments associated with oil
and gas extraction ................... k]
Section VI
7 Constituents in industrial and municipal wastewater having
significant potential for ground-water contamination . . ^7
Section VI I
8 Summary of selected case histories of contamination from
impoundments ...................... 56
9 Characteristics of selected impoundments in the Las Vegas-
Henderson area, Nevada ................. 80
Section IX
10 Summary of State, institutional, and regulatory controls
for municipal, industrial, and agricultural impoundments 139
11 Summary of State, institutional, and regulatory framework
for impoundments associated with oil and gas extraction . 1^9
Section XII - Appendix B
12 Estimate of numbers of industrial impoundment sites and
flow data, by SIC codes ................. 200
Vli
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
10 - mi 11 ion
109 - billion
10" - millionth
acre-ft - acre-foot
bbl - barrel (42 gal)
bgd - billion gallons per day
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
Btu - British thermal units
Ca - calcium
CaCO - calcium carbonate
Ci - curie
Cl - chloride
cm - centimetre
C0_ - carbon dioxide
COD - chemical oxygen demand
cu cm - cubic centimetre
cu ft - cubic foot
cu m - cubic metre
F - fluoride
ft - foot
g - gram
gal - gal Ion
gpd - gallons per day
gpm - gallons per minute
ha - hectare
hp - horse power
hr - hour
in - inch
kg kilog ram
kg-cal - kilogram-calorie
km - kilometre
kwhr - kilowatt-hour
1 - litre
Vli i
-------
Ib - pound
1/s - litre per second
m - metre
mC i - mill icurie
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 - milligrams per litre
mi - mile
ml - mi 11i1i tre
mm - millimet re
N - nitrogen
Na - sodium
NH - ammonia
NO - nitrate
NO -N - nitrate nitrogen
0 - oxygen
OH - hydroxide
pCi - picocurie
PO, - phosphate
ppb - parts per billion
ppm - parts per million
psi - pounds per square inch
Ra - radium
s - second
sq cm - square centimetre
sq ft - square foot
sq m - square metre
sq km - square kilometre
sq mi - square mile
IDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
yd - yard
yr - year
°C - degrees Celsius
°F - degrees Fahrenheit
yg/1 - micrograms per litre
ix
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY
The investigation described in this report was designed to provide broad
background information on the use of municipal, industrial, and agri-
cultural surface impoundments in the United States, with particular
reference to the potential threats they may pose to the quality of
underground drinking water resources and to methods of controlling or
abating such threats. The investigation was undertaken by EPA (U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency) as part of that agency's responsibility
for controlling subsurface emplacement of wastes, as mandated by Section
]kk2 (a)(8)(c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93~523).
The principal subjects covered in the report are: (1) numbers, types,
and uses of impoundments, (2) chemical characteristics of the impounded
wastes, (3) mechanisms by which wastes that seep from impoundments may
contaminate ground water, (k) selected case-history data on ground-water
contamination, (5) technical controls and costs for preventing and
alleviating contamination, and (6) State regulatory controls over the
use of impoundments.
The work was accomplished largely through an analysis of published and
unpublished data obtained from public agencies and through discussions
and other contacts with specialists in the public and private sectors
having first-hand knowledge and experience relevant to impoundments.
Visits were made to some 16 States to gather such information.
Surface impoundments serve a variety of functions and contain wastes of
all kinds, ranging from relatively innocuous substances to highly toxic
materials. Few impoundments are lined and, because the soils beneath
and adjacent to many of them are permeable, slow seepage of contaminated
fluids from these impoundments represents a potential threat to ground-
water quality. However, relatively few detailed field studies have been
made of these threats, largely because few water wells are known to have
-------
been adversely affected by them and also because of the difficulties
and costs of making such studies.
Nearly every State has some information on the numbers and types of
impoundments within its borders. However, few States have actually
counted impoundments or compiled detailed records of their construction,
operation, and effect on ground-water quality. The preliminary inventory
made during this study indicates that there is an estimated total of at
least 132,709 impoundment sites in the nation. Most sites have more
than one impoundment. The total number of impoundment sites includes
13,670 municipal, institutional, and commercial sites; 27,8kk industrial
sites; 71,832 oil and gas extraction sites; and 19,363 agricultural
sites.
Despite the potential for attenuation of contamination in some soils, a
wide variety of inorganic and organic contaminants have seeped into
ground water as indicated by records of selected case histories of
contamination from industrial impoundments in 29 States. A number of
alternatives, some very costly, are available for preventing contamin-
ation at new impoundments or alleviating contamination at existing
impoundments. Some types of impoundments are regulated by State and
Federal permits but in many instances the requirements are not adequate
to prevent ground-water contamination.
-------
SECTION II
FINDINGS
1. There is a minimum total of about 132,700 sites in the United
States where municipal, industrial, or agricultural impound-
ments are used for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
wastes. A large percentage of the sites contain more than one
impoundment, and most likely, the actual number of impound-
ments is several times greater than the number of sites.
2. Industrial impoundments constitute about 75 percent of the
total number of impoundments and are most numerous in the oil
and gas extraction and mining industries. The mining, paper
and pulp, and electrical utility industries operate some of
the largest impoundments.
3. Municipal, commercial, and institutional impoundments comprise
about 10 percent of the total number of impoundments and are
used for processing and disposing of sanitary wastes. Agri-
cultural impoundments constitute about 15 percent of the total
number of impoundments and are used mainly in handling wastes
from animal feedlot operations.
k. Billions of gallons of wastes are placed daily in surface
impoundments. These wastes contain a wide variety of organic
and inorganic substances, some of which are highly toxic.
5. Most impoundments are unlined, and because a large percentage
of them are underlain by permeable soils, the potential for
downward seepage of contaminants into the ground water is
high. However, only incomplete data are available on the
comparative volumes of contaminated fluids that are lost by
seepage into the ground water, by evaporation, and by dis-
charge to surface-water bodies.
-------
6. Some contaminants that seep from impoundments may be attenuated
in the soil by ion exchange, adsorption, or other geochemical
reactions. Others can move readily through soil and into
shallow unconfined aquifers, especially where the sorptive
capacity of the soil is exhausted by continous seepage of con-
taminated fluids.
7. Incidents of ground-water contamination from impoundments have
been reported in nearly all States. Although only 85 case
histories of contamination involving industries are summarized
in this report, hundreds more are in the files of various
State agencies.
8. Case-history studies generally show that the water in shallow
unconfined aquifers is the first to be contaminated by seepage
of wastes from impoundments. The contaminated ground water is
generally in the form of a discrete plume that may be localized
or that may extend as much as one mile or more downgradient
from an impoundment.
9. Actions that can be taken to prevent or alleviate contami-
nation of ground water from impoundments include: installing
impermeable liners; constructing various collection and re-
cycling systems, such as underdrains, infiltration galleries,
and wells; pretreating wastes; and retarding or preventing the
movement of contaminated ground water by means of hydraulic or
physical barriers. Where none of the foregoing techniques is
feasible, it may be necessary to shut down the impoundment and
to substitute other waste-disposal methods. Applicability of
specific remedial actions at individual sites can be determined
only on a case-by-case basis. Some preventive measures can be
taken only during the construction of new impoundments.
-------
10. Costs of preventive or remedial actions at individual im-
poundment sites can range from tens of thousands of dollars to
several millions of dollars.
11. State pollution control or environmental control agencies
commonly issue some type of approval for the use of many types
of waste impoundments; these range from simple letters of
authorization to very restrictive permits. Many States provide
guidelines or have specific requirements for siting, con-
struction, operation, and monitoring of impoundments. Many of
these requirements, however, pertain to construction and
operational features and are not very effective in preventing
seepage of contaminated fluids into ground water.
12. There is a wide diversity in the degree of ground-water
protection afforded presently by State rules and regulations
relating to surface impoundments because of manpower and
budget deficiencies, inadequate knowledge of the scope and
nature of the problem, and the fact that many State regulatory
programs are not stringent enough to deal with the contami-
nation threat.
-------
SECTION I I I
INTRODUCTION
During the period from October 1976 to 1978, EPA completed an investi-
gation of the potential impact of a wide variety of surface impoundments
on underground drinking-water sources that supply, or that can reasonably
be expected to supply, public drinking-water systems in the United
States. The investigation, authorized by Section I442(a) (8)(c) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93"523), was concerned only with those
impoundments, commonly referred to as "ponds, pools, lagoons, and pits,"
that are used for the treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes. This
report describes the results of the investigation, whose principal tasks
were to estimate, describe, and/or evaluate, on a State-by-State basis,
the numbers of surface impoundments, composition of the impounded
wastes, mechanisms of ground-water contamination, selected case histories,
remedial actions and costs, and existing State regulations.
Surface impoundments are used throughout the nation to treat, store, or
dispose of municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewater and are
also used in processing operations by major industries. Most impound-
ments are unlined and, consequently, there is a potential for seepage of
part of their contents downward into the underlying soils and shallow
aquifers. Not all impoundments leak; some are lined or are constructed
in impermeable soils and others are thought to be self-sealing. How-
ever, no natural materials are completely impermeable, so that even very
low seepage rates over long periods of time can result in significant
contamination of ground water.
Contamination of ground water by seepage from impoundments is believed
to be occurring throughout the country. Although the known instances of
such contamination represent only a small percent of the total number of
impoundments, case histories of contamination can be documented in
nearly every State (Table 8). Many of the bodies of contaminated ground
-------
water, commonly referred to as plumes, are localized, are remote from
populated areas, and do not constitute an immediate threat to community
supplies. Others, however, are quite extensive and have degraded the
quality of water in parts of aquifers used as drinking-water sources.
Even after shutdown, abandonment, and backfilling, impoundments that
seep may leave a residual problem in the form of a plume of wastes that
remains in the ground water and continues to move downgradient toward
discharge areas for many years. Generally, the amount of information
available on the possible presence of a plume is too scanty to fully
define the contamination threat. In many places, the plume may never be
discovered unless the contaminated water reaches a nearby well or stream
and is detected either by the taste, color, odor, or by routine sampling
and chemical analysis of the water.
Costs of cleaning up existing ground-water contamination or of preventing
additional contamination from seepage of contaminated fluids from
impoundments are relatively high, and can range from thousands to
millions of dollars for individual sites. In some instances, the re-
medial costs may be so prohibitive or the available techniques may be so
impractical that communities would have little recourse but to seek
fresh-water supplies elsewhere, either from deeper aquifers or from more
remote surface-water or ground-water sources.
DEFINITION OF IMPOUNDMENT
In this study, a surface impoundment is defined as a natural topographic
depression, artificial excavation, or dike arrangement having the fol-
lowing characteristics: (l) it is used primarily for storage, treatment,
or disposal of wastes in the form of liquids, semi-solids, or solids;
(2) it is constructed on, below, or partly in the ground; and (3) it is
generally wider than it is deep. Concrete-1ined basins and prefabri-
cated above-ground tanks and steel vessels that are used in waste treat-
ment and industrial processes have not been included in the definition
of impoundment.
-------
Fresh-water impoundments such as natural lakes, reservoirs, and farm
ponds that are used for water supply, collection of storm-water runoff,
flood-control, and irrigation also have been omitted from this inven-
tory. Although such impoundments number in the millions, they mainly
contain fresh water, so that most States do not consider them to be
potential sources of contamination. However, infiltration from some
storm-water basins and other similar types of impoundments could be
sources of intermittent contamination locally.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The data compilations in the study were made largely on a State-by-State
basis and were developed from literature research and information
obtained from Federal and State agencies through field visits, corre-
spondence, and telephone contacts; no specific field studies or field
counts were made. A few plant managers were contacted for information
on costs of remedial actions. Background information on surface im-
poundments was obtained from a number of EPA regional reports on ground-
1-4)
water contamination, a report to Congress on waste-disposal
practices, and other references, which are listed at the end of each
section of this report. State regulations, which ranged widely in
coverage, were examined for applicability in preventing or controlling
ground-water contamination from impoundments. Other ongoing or recently
completed investigations of impoundments, sponsored by EPA, are dis-
cussed briefly in Section X.
The principal limitations in conducting the study were a scarcity of
readily available data and a lack of uniform methods among the States in
compiling information on numbers of impoundments and flow data. For
example, only 19 States had detailed computerized data on impoundments
that were available to the investigators. In some cases, the data
sought were regarded as confidential and could not be divulged. More-
over, most individual cases of known contamination had not been thoroughly
investigated. For example, only a small number of plumes of contaminated
water emanating from impoundments have been mapped in detail. Also,
reliable information on costs of remedial actions was very sparse.
8
-------
REFERENCES CITED
J. Miller, D. W., DeLuca, F. A., and Tessier, T. L. 197^. Ground-
water contamination in the northeast States. EPA-660/2-7*t-056.
325 pp.
2. van der Leeden, F., Cerrillo, L. A., and Miller, D. W. 1975-
Ground-water pollution problems in the northwestern United States.
EPA-660/3-75-018. 361 pp.
3. Miller, J. C., Hackenberry, P. S., and DeLuca, F. A. 1977.
Ground-water pollution problems in the southeastern United States.
EPA-600/2-7^-056. 361 pp.
k. Scalf, M. R., Keeley, J. W., and LaFevers, C. J. 1973- Ground-
water pollution in the south central States. EPA-R2-73-268. 181
pp.
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. The report to Congress
on waste disposal practices and their effects on ground water.
EPA-570/9-77-001. 512 pp.
-------
SECTION IV
PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEATURES OF IMPOUNDMENTS
TYPES, USES, AND CONSTRUCTION
Waste impoundments may be natural or man-made depressions; may be
lined or unlined; and may range in area from a few tenths of an acre to
hundreds of acres. Man-made impoundments range in depth from 2 to 3 ft
(0.6 to 0.9 m) to as much as 30 ft (9 m) or more below the land surface.
Generally, impoundments are above the water table, and some may be
built on the land surface by construction of dikes or revetments. Most
impoundments are rectangular or square; some are circular or irregular
in shape. They may be operated individually or may be interconnected,
so that flow takes place from one impoundment to another in series or in
parallel. Many impoundments discharge, either continuously or
periodically, to streams, lakes, bays, or the ocean; these are called
"discharging" impoundments. Others lose their fluid contents only by
evaporation or infiltration; these are called "non-discharging" impound-
ments .
Some impoundments are designed specifically to permit seepage of fluids
into underlying aquifers and are commonly referred to as percolation,
infiltration, or seepage ponds or lagoons. These impoundments are
unlined and are sited on permeable soils. Others are designed to
prevent seepage and to serve as temporary or permanent holding or evap-
oration impoundments; these are commonly lined with clay, concrete,
asphalt, metal, or synthetic membranes, or are sited on clayey soils
having a very low permeability. Some unlined impoundments are thought
to be "self-sealing" as a result of deposition or precipitation of fine-
grained materials. Impoundments whose principal function is to permit
separation of suspended solids from liquids are called settling ponds.
Oxidation ponds and aerated lagoons, are used for biologic treatment of
wastewater; these are generally from 3 to 8 ft (0.9 to 2.k m) deep and 8
to 15 ft (2.k to 4.6 m) deep, respectively. Anaerobic lagoon systems,
10
-------
which require little or no oxygen, may be 12 to 17 ft (3-6 to 5-2 m)
deep or more.
Disposal of wastewater in many non-discharging impoundments is accom-
plished by a combination of evaporation and seepage. Impoundments thus
utilized are commonly referred to as evaporation ponds even though
seepage of wastewater to the ground-water system may be the principal
method of disposal. Evaporation is most effective in arid parts of some
western States where climatic conditions favor losses by this mechanism
and where inflow plus precipitation is less than the evaporation rate.
Treatment accomplished in impoundments includes: reduction in temper-
ature of cooling water, pH adjustment, chemical coagulation and pre-
cipitation, and biological oxidation.
The term "pit" is usually applied to a small impoundment that serves a
special purpose. For example, they may be used on farms as storage and
curing facilities for animal wastes, such as barn or feedlot litter and
manure, prior to application on the land as fertilizer. In industry,
they may be used for recharge of highly treated wastewater in a manner
acceptable to regulatory agencies. Pits are used also for permanent
storage of toxic wastes, in which case the pit walls and floor may be
lined. Pits used for storage of sludge are commonly unlined.
Many abandoned sand and gravel pits or rock-quarry pits are used for a
variety of disposal purposes. Abandoned pits have been used to dispose
of septic-tank cleanout wastes, municipal and industrial sludges, and
their associated fluid wastes. Most commonly these pits have been used
as industrial, municipal, household, and even agricultural landfills and
dumps that receive both solid and liquid wastes.
Factors influencing the ground-water contamination potential of an
unlined surface impoundment include: soil permeability, depth to the
water table, rates of precipitation and evaporation, nature and volume
of wastes, and geochemical characteristics of the soils such as ion-
exchange and sorption. Also of importance is the chemical composition
11
-------
of the wastes, especially those containing potentially hazardous mate-
rials. To provide protection against direct or indirect opportunities
for contamination of surface water and ground water, artificial liners
can be used beneath impoundments, or the impoundments can be constructed
in or on naturally impermeable soils. As a general rule, except in arid
or semi-arid areas in parts of some western States, lined impoundments
without some form of cover or without a discharge outlet may overflow as
a result of excessive rainfall or flooding. Even in largely clry climates,
an occasional cloudburst, torrential rainfall, or flood may cause impound-
ments to overflow or cause a break in the dikes around an impoundment.
SELECTED IMPOUNDMENT PRACTICES
Domestic Sewage Wastes
Domestic sewage wastes, generally defined as wastes of predominantly
human origin, are collected, treated, and disposed of by systems oper-
ated by municipalities, towns, and subdivisions; institutions such as
schools, parks, hospitals, and jails; and commercial establishments such
as motels, restaurants, gas stations, and mobile home parks. Treatment
plants for domestic sewage range in size from small units handling a few
tens of thousands of gallons per day (about 76 cu m/day) to larger units
handling several hundred millions of gallons per day (about 757,000
cu m/day) or more. Treatment methods are generally classified as
primary, secondary, and tertiary. Although not used everywhere, lagoons
or ponds are used as minor or major components of many large treatment
and waste-disposal systems or they may be the sole components of such
systems. For example, impoundments are the principal waste-treatment
units in over 4,000 communities, 90 percent of which have less than
2)
5,000 residents.
Primary treatment of wastes mainly involves screening and settling of
solids. In primary systems impoundments may be used for temporary
storage, settling, or disposal by percolation and evaporation. The
impoundments may be lined or unlined. In secondary treatment, the
12
-------
effluent from the primary treatment step receives further processing in
tanks or basins containing chemicals to settle suspended solids and
activated sludge to help stabilize the wastes by bacterial action.
Secondary treatment results in reduction or removal of BOD (biological
oxygen demand), suspended solids, and bacteria. Impoundments may be
used only for storage and settling as part of a conventional secondary
treatment system or may be the principal components in secondary treat-
ment systems that consist mainly of anaerobic or aerobic waste-stabili-
zation ponds. Impoundments are also used for temporary holding or
storage of effluent or for disposal by evaporation and percolation after
secondary treatment. In some tertiary treatment systems, secondary
effluent may be passed through shallow "polishing" ponds for further
oxidation, aeration, and settling of organic particles. In many waste-
treatment systems, the final effluent from ponds is discharged to streams
rather than being disposed of by evaporation from lagoons or by seepage
to ground water.
Sludge from community waste-treatment systems is treated and disposed of
by several methods. Part may be digested and thickened in special
sludge-handling tanks, and part may be recirculated through the secon-
dary treatment system or placed on drying beds. Drying beds are gen-
erally shallow rectangular impoundments with permeable sand bottoms and
are constructed with or without underdrains for leachate control.
Following drying, the sludge may be scraped out, incinerated, hauled to
a landfill, or spread on agricultural land. In some systems, the partly
dehydrated sludge is disposed of in storage lagoons. After being
filled, these lagoons are covered and abandoned and new lagoons are dug
as needed. Sludge-disposal lagoons may be potential sources of con-
tamination where they are unlined and are underlain by permeable ma-
terials.
Industrial Wastes
Industry employs a wide variety of practices in treating and disposing
of waste fluids and sludge. Some industries discharge their wastewater
13
-------
to public sewer systems, with or without pretreatment; some treat their
wastes using conventional package plants, trickling filters, or acti-
vated sludge systems and then discharge the treated effluent to a
stream; and some treat and discharge wastes into ponds for storage,
evaporation, recycling, or infiltration.
Stabilization ponds are one of the major waste-treatment systems used by
industries because of the relatively low capital and operating costs
compared to other systems such as activated-sludge plants. The sta-
bilization ponds may be assisted by mechanical or diffused aerators.
Because industrial wastes may be highly variable in composition and in
rate of flow, the waste streams may require blending with other water,
and the flows may have to be stabilized by means of equalization or
storage ponds. In some plants, industrial wastes are handled by a
combination of conventional activated-sludge systems with or without
auxiliary ponds for polishing and temporary retention of the effluents
before discharge to streams. Similarly, industrial sludge with or
without pretreatment and digestion may be stored in impoundments per-
manently or temporarily before being removed to landfills or being
spread on agricultural lands. Figure 1 shows a flow chart for a pulp
mill that illustrates the use of several types of impoundments in an
industrial waste-treatment system that ultimately discharges to a
stream.
Large volumes of cooling water, mainly from power plants, may be dis-
charged through long networks of ditches to streams essentially without
treatment, or the heated water may be stored in very large cooling ponds
and then ultimately discharged to streams or recycled through the plants.
Air-scrubber wastes and cooling-tower blowdown are discharged to streams
with or without treatment or are discharged to lagoons for treatment and
retention. Settling ponds are commonly used to handle ash residues from
coal-burning utilities. Filter backwash and sludge from municipal water-
treatment plants are commonly classified as industrial wastes and
generally require treatment before disposal to streams or ponds. The
14
-------
FRESH WATER
RAPID
INFILTRATION
BASINS
SEEPAGE
AND
STORAGE PONDS
Figure 1. Flow chart for a pulp mill in Montana showing the types of
impoundments used in the waste-treatment system.
15
-------
nonferrous metal smelting and refining industry utilizes predominantly
unlined settling pits and basins for handling waste and scrubber water
and, in places, lagoons are used for permanent sludge disposal.
Mining and Milling Wastes
Mining
Many surface or open-pit mines are excavated to depths below the water
table, which generally requires that the water be collected in sumps and
be pumped out to settling ponds before discharge to a stream or lake.
Likewise, in conventional underground mining, such as anthracite coal
mining, acid mine water is commonly pumped to settling ponds for sedi-
ment control, precipitation of iron, and pH adjustment before discharge
to a stream (Figure 2). In in-situ solution mining of metals such as
copper and uranium, pumped fluids containing the solvents and the dis-
solved metals may be passed through storage and settling ponds for
further treatment and removal of metals before the water is recycled,
discharged to a stream, or recharged to a saline aquifer by deep-well
inject ion.
Another type of mining operation, referred to as dump or heap leaching,
can involve construction of impoundments in excavations, diked areas, or
behind a dam on a stream. The objective of dump leaching is to concen-
trate metals such as copper from mine dumps composed of waste rock and
low grade ore. In some locations, a solvent such as sulfuric acid or
even plain water is applied to the heap. The leaching solutions pass
down through the heap and commonly flow into an impoundment. From
there, the metal-bearing water is pumped to a treatment plant for pre-
cipitation and recovery of the metals. The residual wastewater is
usually stored in a holding pond for recycling or is treated to meet
quality standards before being discharged to ground water or a stream.
Sand and gravel mining and processing operations make extensive use of
impoundments, especially for washing and sorting. Ponds are generally
used to settle fine-grained material before discharge of the effluent to
16
-------
ACID MINE
DRAINAGE
AMD
HOLDING POND
FERROUS IRON
AMD
TREATED
WATER
>- ALTERNATIVE PATHS
UNDERGROUND
MINE
LANDFILL
Figure 2. Generalized acid mine drainage flow chart, showing types of
impoundments used in the treatment system.3)
17
-------
streams or lakes. In places, contaminated ground water or surface water
is used in washing operations.
Mi 11 ing
In conventional milling, the ore, consisting of the principal mineral,
waste rock, and associated minor minerals, is generally crushed to a
fine size, and the principal mineral is concentrated by gravity, flo-
tation, or chemical leaching. These procedures may involve use of
impoundments for storage or processing. The waste product of the
milling operation, referred to as tailings, is generally composed of
finely ground waste rock and various minerals, including clay-size
particles. The tailings are commonly pumped as a slurry to a series of
nearby ponds for settling of the solids and evaporation or decantation
of the fluids (Figure 3). Some copper tailings ponds fn Arizona are
more than 1 mi (1.6 km) long, 100 ft (30.6 m) high, and cover 800 acres
(32k ha). Tailings ponds may be formed by excavation, construction
above grade by diking, or by construction of an earth dam or piling up
of tailings across a stream. Seepage of impounded fluids into ground
water below the bottom of a tailings pond or through a diked area is a
potential cause of contamination of ground water and of surface water.
Sanitary sewage from mining and milling operations is commonly dis-
charged along with the mining or process water. Normally, such wastes
represent only a small percentage of the total volume of wastewater
discharged from a site.
Among the States where impoundments are used extensively in mining and
milling are: Alaska, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Indiana,
Kentucky, and Illinois (coal); Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado,
Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Michigan (copper, uranium, iron, and other
metals); Missouri and Tennessee (lead and zinc); Florida, Tennessee, and
North Carolina (phosphate); and numerous eastern, midwestern, and
southeastern States (sand and gravel and non-metallic minerals).
18
-------
B
MINE
ORE
10,000 MT
CONCENTRATION
(FLOTATION)
WATER
26.60OMT
PRODUCTS
I.8OO MT
PRODUCT
1,800 MT
TAILINGS
8,200 MT
TAILINGS POND
MINE
ORE
10,000 MT
CONCENTRATION
(FLOTATION)
WATER
TAILINGS
8,200 MT
SAND PLANT
WATER
12,300 MT
FINES
4,100 MT
CEMENT
COARSE
4,100 MT
TAILINGS POND
REVEGETATE
COMPACTS
Figure 3. Flow charts showing two levels of technology in the use of
tailings ponds for disposal of copper concentration wastes. Solid
wastes are given in metric tons. ^)
19
-------
Oil and Gas Extraction Wastes
The oil and gas extraction industry is believed to be one of the largest,
if not the largest, user of surface impoundments in the United States
(Table 6). Oil and gas is produced commercially in 31 States, with
Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, California, Wyoming, and Alaska among the
leading producers. Only in the New England States and in scattered
States in the southeastern, midwestern, and northwestern parts of the
country is oil and gas extraction nonexistent or not commercially fea-
sible at present. There are more than 500,000 producing oil wells and
126,000 producing gas wells in the United States, and some 30,000 new
wells are drilled each year. The number of impoundments differs from
State to State, not only in proportion to the production of oil and gas
but also in relation to methods of extraction such as water flooding for
secondary recovery, and other factors. Impoundments were formerly used
extensively in Oklahoma, Texas, and elsewhere for disposal of salt water
associated with oil extraction. Most of these impoundments were unlined,
so that large quantities of salty water seeped into the underlying
permeable shallow aquifers. Numerous cases of brine contamination of
wells and streams as a result of such disposal methods have been docu-
mented in Texas and elsewhere. These methods are now prohibited in
most States. However, earthen ponds excavated in clay or lined with
clay or other material of low permeability are permitted by a number of
States for evaporation of brine and emergency or other uses.
Impoundments for holding salt water are also used in connection with
water flooding or repressurizing operations that involve injection of
salt water into oil-bearing zones by means of deep wells. In places,
lined and unlined ponds are used for aerating and settling iron-rich
brine before injecting it into deep wells for disposal or for secondary
recovery operations as noted above. It is common practice in these
types of operations for one impoundment to serve a battery of as many as
100 injection wells. In the Rocky Mountain area, much of the produced
water from oil and gas operations has a relatively low TDS (total dissolved
20
-------
solids) content; consequently, after temporary storage in holding
ponds, the water can be used locally for irrigation and stock watering.
Impoundments, both lined and unlined, serve as oil-water and gas-fluid
separator ponds in some States although, in many places, the separators
are prefabricated steel and fiberglass leak-proof units such as API
(American Petroleum Institute) approved separators. Emergency ponds are
among the most common types of impoundments used in oil and gas extrac-
tion. They number from less than 100 in some States to as many as
11,000 in Ohio. Most of the time, emergency pits and ponds do not hold
fluids but are intended only for temporary disposal or storage of salt
water or oil in the event of failure of an oil skimmer or separator, a
brine injection well, or other collection, distribution, or storage
facility. Most emergency pits and ponds are unlined; but some States
require lining and the pumping out or removal of the contents shortly
after the emergency ceases. Brine-disposal or holding ponds, separator
ponds, and emergency ponds are generally under some type of permit or
approval system in many States and on Federal and Indian lands (see
Section IX).
Another type of oil and gas field impoundment, considered to be less of
a threat to ground water than the types noted above, is the temporary
pit or pond excavated at a test-well or production-well site to hold
drill cuttings and drilling mud. These temporary impoundments are
constructed by the tens of thousands each year and are not included in
the preliminary impoundment count (Table 6). Most of them are unlined,
but may be self-sealing where bentonite or other kinds of drilling muds
are used. Some States, for example, Florida, require use of steel tanks
for recirculating drilling fluids where a potential threat exists of
seepage of contaminants into major fresh-water aquifers. Burn pits are
small shallow impoundments used to store or confine materials commonly
referred to as tank bottoms, bottom sediments, or bottom settlings.
These may be lined or unlined. Although there are many thousands of
these pits, they are not considered to be a significant source of con-
tamination and were not included in the present count.
21
-------
Animal Feedlot and Other Agricultural Wastes
The principal potential mechanism for contamination of ground water from
feedlot operations is seepage of contaminated water from lagoons that
comprise parts of the waste-disposal systems. Virtually every State has
some concentrated animal-feeding facilities (feedlots) for cattle,
sheep, hogs, or poultry. Several hundred thousand known animal-feeding
operations of all sizes generate large amounts of wastes, on the order
of several billion tons (several billion tonnes) per year. Ground-
water contamination resulting from these operations has been described
in regional ground-water contamination reports published by EPA
and in a recent report to Congress on waste-disposal practices.
Because of the high content of IDS, BOD, COD, nitrogen compounds, phos-
phate, chloride, coliform bacteria, and other constituents in animal
wastes, direct discharge of feedlot wastes to streams is prohibited in
most States. Consequently, some form of land disposal is generally
used.
Several systems involving use of impoundments have been developed by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to detain wastes for short or long
periods and to dispose of wastes through storage or other land-spreading
techniques. Figure A illustrates an anaerobic feedlot waste-control
system and Figure 5 illustrates a basic holding-pond system.
Among the types of impoundments used in agricultural waste-disposal
systems are debris basins, disposal lagoons, aerated lagoons, holding
ponds, and storage lagoons. Design criteria for these facilities are
given in SCS's National Engineering Handbook. Debris basins are used
to collect solids in runoff from pens and lots and commonly precede a
holding pond. Holding ponds are used for storing the liquid part of
runoff and animal wastes and are generally designed to be leakproof
and to have sufficient capacity to prevent overflow except during severe
storms or other emergencies. They may be emptied through irrigation
22
-------
SOLID MANURE
REMOVAL WITH
TRACTOR,LOADER
AND SPREADER
EXPOSED
LOT
\
DIVERSION
TERRACE
ANAEROBIC
LAGOON
HOLDING
POND
FENCING
OVERFLOW SPILLWAY
•FLOOD OR SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
DISPERSAL FIELD
Figure k. Anaerobic lagoon system used in southeastern region dairy farms. ' '
23
-------
SOLID MANURE —
REMOVAL WITH
TRACTOR, LOADER
AND SPREADER
1 i f-
EXPOSED
LOT
I i I 1
HOLDING
POND
-DIVERSION
TERRACE
-FENCING
-SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
DISPERSAL FIELD
Figure 5- Settling basin-holding pond system used in northern region dairy farms.
12)
24
-------
ditches, pumping to nearby farmlands, or by evaporation. Disposal
lagoons are constructed to biologically decompose organic wastes and
may be aerobic, anaerobic, or a combination of the two. The effluent
may be disposed of by evaporation in lagoons or by land spreading.
Lagoons are also used to store manure temporarily or permanently. Both
liquid and solid wastes are commonly disposed of by direct distribution
or by spray irrigation on dispersal fields where crops are grown for
non-human consumption.
The extent of contamination of ground water from feedlot operations is
|M
not well documented. Some studies have shown a correlation between
high nitrate in ground water and proximity to feedlot operations. In
contrast, a study in California concludes that agricultural ponds
such as manure-holding ponds become essentially self-sealing over a
period of time, depending in part on local soil characteristics and
loading rates. More recently, Ciravalo and others reviewed the
results of several studies of anaerobic agricultural lagoons which
showed both positive and negative evidence of seepage of contaminants
into ground water. In a study of three anaerobic swine waste-lagoon
sites in the Virginia coastal plain, Ciravalo and others also found that
the ground-water quality within 10 ft (3 m) of a lagoon in a clay sub-
soil was least affected by leakage of contaminants, whereas traces of
contamination were found in ground water as much as 97 ft (30 m) down-
gradient from two above-ground diked lagoons constructed on sandy clay
and sandy soi1s.
Because most feedlot impoundments are unlined, they are subject to the
same mechanisms for ground-water contamination as other types of im-
poundments. A number of States are aware of these potential contamin-
ation problems and have special rules and permitting systems to cover
feedlots and other agricultural practices (see Section IX). Moreover,
feedlots may be regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 1972
Amendments.
25
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Upgrading lagoons.
EPA Technology Transfer Program Seminar publication. 43 pp.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Waste water treatment
ponds technical bulletin. EPA-430/9-74-011. 14 pp.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Environmental pro-
tection of surface mining of coal. EPA-670/2-74/093. p. 201.
4. Midwest Research Institute. 1976. A study of waste generation,
treatment, and disposal in the metals mining industry. Final
Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-01-
2665. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. 385 PP-
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Oil and gas extrac-
tion. Development document for interim final effluent limitations
guidelines and proposed new source performance standards for the
oil and gas extraction point sources category. EPA-440/l-76/055~a.
6. McMillion, L. G. 1965. Hydrologic aspects of disposal of oil-field
brines in Texas. Ground Water 3'• 36-42.
7. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1969. Control of agriculture
related pollution. A report to the President. Submitted by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Director, Office of Science and
Technology. 43 pp.
8. Miller, D. W., DeLuca, F. A., and Tessier, T. L. 1974. Ground-
water contamination in the northeast states. EPA-660/2-74-056.
325 PP.
9. van der Leeden, F., Cerrillo, L. A. and Miller, D. W. 1975-
Ground-water pollution problems in the northwestern United States.
EPA-660/3-75-018. 361 pp.
10. Scalf, M. R., Keeley, J. W., and La Fevers, C. J. 1973- Ground-
water pollution in the southcentral states. EPA-R2-73-268. 181 pp.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977- The report to Congress
on waste disposal practices and their effects on ground water. 512 pp,
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Economic impacts of con-
trolling surface water runoff from U.S. dairy farms. Economic
Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 260. 36 pp.
26
-------
13- U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Conservation Service
national engineering handbook. Section 2, Engineering practice
standards.
14. Stewart, B. A., and others. 196?. Distribution of nitrates and
other pollutants under fields and corrals in the middle South
Platte valley of Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ARS
41-13^. 206 pp.
15- University of California Agricultural Extension Service. 1973.
Manure waste ponding and field application rates. Part I: Study
findings and recommendations. 12 pp.
16. Ciravalo, T. G., and others. 1977. Pollutant movement to shallow
ground-water tables from swine waste lagoons. Bull. 100, Virginia
Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Inst., Blacks-
burg, Virginia. 61 pp.
27
-------
SECTION V
NUMBERS OF IMPOUNDMENT SITES AND FLOW DATA
THE DATA BASE
Prior to this study, no national inventory of surface impoundments had
ever been made, except for an inventory of municipal waste-treatment
facilities compiled by EPA, which, although somewhat outdated, provided
an approximation of the number of municipal waste impoundment sites on a
State-by-State basis. Some States had made partial or fairly complete
counts of certain types of impoundments, but such information was not
available from central sources. Consequently, as part of this study, it
was necessary to obtain readily available information by use of a
number of techniques, including personal visits to selected State and
Federal agencies, literature review, correspondence, and telephone in-
terviews. Much of the information collected did not contain actual
numbers of impoundments, but only provided estimates of numbers of sites
known to have one or more impoundments.
The term "impoundment site," as used in this report, denotes a location
where one or more impoundments are situated. The numbers in the data
tables in this section are a combination of documented information and
conservative or minimum estimates and, therefore, should be considered
as preliminary. Although the counts given in this report for many
individual States may represent reasonable approximations, the totals
for the nation as a whole most likely are several times greater than
indicated.
SOURCES OF DATA
State Agencies
The principal regulatory agencies in all States were contacted either by
mail or telephone for readily available data on municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and oil and gas impoundments. Only 19 States provided
computer printouts of industrial and other impoundments that gave
28
-------
information on the name of the facility, Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation (SIC) number, type of treatment, and flow. Some States provided
copies of Section 303E River Basin reports that contained data mainly
for impoundment facilities related to municipal and industrial point-
source discharges to streams. The level of detail in these Basin re-
ports differed from State to State and, although many such reports were
quite useful, others provided little or no information on the numerous
non-discharging impoundments that also exist in many States. Oklahoma
supplied a Section 208 report which contained an excellent State-wide
impoundment inventory. Visits were made to 16 States to consult with
State personnel on case histories and regulations, to identify impound-
ment users from NPDES permit lists, and to examine records of non-
discharging impoundments. Because of time and budget limitations, no
attempt was made to visit all States or to make a thorough review of the
files of the States visited.
Generally, permit lists for State Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems
(SPDES) showed only the name of the owner of a treatment facility, SIC
number, permit number, and in some instances, flow data; but no information
was shown for the type of treatment. Consequently, in some States, en-
gineers and field inspectors were asked to help identify from personal
knowledge those systems which were thought to have impoundments; and,
where feasible, this was checked against State permit records. A few
States supplied lists of names of dischargers with no information on the
methods of discharge. Several States had separate printouts of data on
animal feedlot impoundments, showing the name of the owner, holding
capacity, flow, use, and permit number. Estimates of numbers of oil and
gas impoundments ranged from poor to good and were obtained mainly by
mail and telephone contacts with State oil and gas regulatory agencies.
Federal Agencies
Most of the impoundment inventory data from Federal sources were ob-
tained from EPA, which supplied a printout of a national municipal
waste-facility inventory showing type of treatment, flow data, and
29
-------
population served. EPA also supplied lists of NPDES permitted facili-
ties by State, SIC code number, and- permit number. Although no indi-
cation of the use of impoundments or other treatment type was shown on
the NPDES printouts, they were useful as a basis for discussions with
State and Federal officials and in reviewing files in EPA Regional
Offices.
Inquiries were made by telephone and mail to all EPA Regional Offices
for impoundment inventory and case-history data, and visits were made to
EPA Regions I, II, III, and VIM to review NPDES lists and files. The
NPDES data files in Regional offices were mainly useful for counting
discharging impoundments, but were of little or no value for counting or
estimating the numbers of non-discharging impoundments.
Other Federal sources of impoundment data included the U.S. Bureau of
Census, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Army, and the
U.S. Geological Survey. The Bureau of Census reports on water use in
1) 2)
manufacturing and mining industries gave information on numbers of
establishments, volumes of water used and treated, and SIC categories,
by States. The statistical data in these reports provided a basis for
inferring the possible existence and distribution of impoundments by
States, but did not indicate actual numbers of impoundments. For example,
Figure 6, based on Bureau of Census data, shows the number and distri-
bution of those manufacturing and mining establishments that individually
reported the use of more than 20 million gal (76,000 cu m) of water in
1973- Although these represent only a small percentage of the total
number of all manufacturing and mining establishments, they do represent
the bulk of the largest water users. Many of these establishments may
use impoundments for processing or waste treatment, but the numbers
shown in Figure 6 should not be compared directly with the more specific
impoundment counts given in Tables 1 through 6.
The SCS provided estimates on a State-by-State basis of SCS-assisted
animal feedlot operations (Mr. Charles Fogg, personal communication,
1976) and reports on operation and design of these impoundments. A
30
-------
c
(0
Is
f
>l^
1 — __
/« ^
O
/I
I N-/
Ij 33
~-7
/~ -i
• YV
;
i
/*
< —
i
i
o «/°>
2
^ ;
3
Ij
«/o
CM
O
c
0) >4-
E O
Ul 3
— ro
— CQ
in
-------
report by the U.S. Department of Army ' listed physical characteristics
of selected dams and reservoirs in the United States, including a number
of tailings ponds and other industrial impoundments. The U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey provided information on oil and gas operations on Federal and
Indian lands.
In general, the lack of standardization in Federal and State computer
printouts made it difficult to retrieve comparable impoundment data and
to compile the information in a uniform format for this preliminary
survey. In some States, the only readily available information on
numbers of impoundments consisted of informal estimates by officials or
outdated or incomplete inventories which, nevertheless, were used as
guides where no other data were available. Although estimates were made
of the numbers of various types of impoundments, data on flow into or
out of many of these types of impoundments were generally unavailable or
incomplete.
PRELIMINARY IMPOUNDMENT COUNT
Table 1 shows the total number of waste-impoundment sites of all types,
by States, for which data were available or could be reasonably esti-
mated. The minimum estimated total impoundment site count was 132,709,
of which about 75 percent consisted of industrial waste sites, 15 percent
of agricultural waste sites, and 10 percent of municipal, institutional,
and private/commercial (domestic or sanitary) waste sites. New Mexico
led all the other States in the number of impoundment sites, with a
total of 16,176; Pennsylvania had the next highest count, 15,3^1; and
Rhode Island had the smallest count, 30. The distribution of impound-
ments by major use categories, population groups, types of wastes, and
SIC categories is shown in Tables 2 through 6.
Table 2 lists approximate numbers and flow data for municipal sites and
general industrial sites, exclusive of oil and gas extraction and agri-
cultural sites. The total number of municipal impoundment sites was
about 6,300 and the flow from these sites was about k.2 bgd (15-8 million
32
-------
Table 1. ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF IMPOUNDMENT SITES FOR ALL CATEGORIES,
BY STATES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No.
1,590
130
332
953
3,721
5,237
96
63
2,035
1,438
78
584
3,667
2,538
1,466
6,086
2,141
9,997
237
523
73
3,229
1,540
1,676
2,757
1,363
2,329
261
105
277
16,176
960
1,038
2,784
13,196
2,006
757
15,341
30
911
650
776
8,436
669
329
2,116
1,045
2,803
985
5,179
132,709
33
-------
Table 2. ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL IMPOUNDMENT
SITES AND FLOW DATA, BY STATES
(Flow in 1,000 cubic metres/day)
Municipal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No.
156
6
52
180
245
137
11
4
118
195
5
76
413
183
257
256
29
81
3
53
5
142
235
283
332
130
223
23
8
9
38
33
147
250
88
260
104
51
2
255
192
58
379
38
12
90
91
48
223
64
6,273
Flow
325.51
3.78
196.82
181.68
2,271.00
113.55
56.78
7.57
378.50
170.32
7.57
75.70
5,117.32
1,411.80
454.20
124.90
45.42
359.58
11.36
45.42
18.92
79.48
166.54
215.74
276.30
105.98
79.48
280.09
15.14
11.36
18.93
363.36
155.18
246.02
140.04
257.38
64.34
45.42
7.57
299.02
90.84
98.41
605.60
68.13
11.36
246.02
193.04
34.06
401.21
49.20
16,002.94
(4,228)a
Industrial
No.
583
100
44
66
782
103
48
33
217
205
29
24
445
357
210
164
944
552
44
321
40
279
52
266
213
64
1,180
110
41
230
63
308
282
76
1,460
354
88
12,300
12
81
34
215
1,042
68
244
1,409
255
1,631
103
73
27,844
Flow
1,534.59
-
-
6,058.27
2,635.61
2,337.40
87.66
6.33
2,305.07
1,923.92
-
579.25
-
5,591.32
690.99
112.11
111.27
-
287.38
-
33.80
98.77
352.74
4,439.69
3,132.03
372.32
192.88
-
312.16
55.65
1,447.29
546.97
1,319.56
581.57
-
52.10
-
393.86
17.03
213.97
22.08
71.16
59,748.00
380.02
27.97
46.37
1,269.19
4,127.72
151.25
25.88
103,693.20
(27,395)a
SFigures in parentheses represent flow, in million gallons daily.
34
-------
cu m/day). Illinois had the largest number of municipal sites, about
400. About 27,800 general industrial sites had a minimum total flow of
about 27.3 bgd (103-7 million cu m/day). The total industrial flow
figure, which is heavily weighted by a large amount of cooling-pond
water for power plants, is incomplete because of scanty data for many
impoundments.
Table 3 shows the number of municipal waste-treatment impoundment sites
by population groups served within individual States. The table shows
that the smallest population group (communities of less than 2,500
people) had the largest total site count, about 4,900, and the lowest
total flow, about 452 mgd (1.7 million cu m/day). For the largest
population group (communities of more than 50,000 people), the total
impoundment count was the smallest, about 90, but the total flow was the
highest, about 2,300 mgd (8.7 million cu m/day).
Table 4 lists some 54,000 impoundments of all types for which major use
categories could be identified or estimated from records. The largest
number of impoundments, about 1-8,000, was used for settling, mostly in
coal-mining operations. Storage and disposal impoundments each numbered
more than 10,000; many of these were part of agricultural feedlot or
municipal waste-treatment operations. The designation "disposal" was
applied to impoundments designed for either evaporation or percolation
or both. Most of the impoundments identified as oxidation and stabili-
zation ponds were used in the treatment of municipal wastes. Not listed
in Table 4 are more than 30,000 emergency pits and ponds used intermit-
tently in the oil and gas extraction industry.
Table 5 shows the number of waste-impoundment sites at institutional,
private/commercial, and agricultural facilities. Institutional facili-
ties include jails, hospitals, schools, and public buildings; private/
commercial facilities include camps, hotels, motels, restaurants, gas
stations, and mobile home sites. Institutional impoundment sites totalled
about 1,500 with the highest number, 150, in Florida. Private/commercial
impoundment sites totalled about 5,900 with the highest number, 1,200, in
35
-------
J
ft
t3
O
o
13
o
L*j
t~"
r=C
t-~\
QJ
0
ft
>H
m
EH
g
^^
lj >1
^ TJ
o \
13 V]
< 0)
W 0)
EH B
H
01 U
•rH
EH 43
W O
*r
Q O
g| o
5 O
O
ft 1— 1
H fi
§ S
r4 »>
G 3
H fa
D
S
O
a
m
§
| i
£5
O
w
(^
s
H
EH
W
.
ro
<1)
3
nj
EH
o
rH
a
o
o
z
o
o
o 3
- o
0 rH
m tH
A
Q
Z
O
0
o 3
O rH
m [TI
1
rH
O
O
0 0
o
o
o 3
- o
O rH
1
0
0 •
- o
m z
o
o 3
u-i p^
1
rH
0
in
- o
CXI Z
3
0 rH
O fn
in
CN
VI
o
P. Z
3
o
C5
a
o
•H
U
a!
rH
3
a.
0
PM
QJ
4_)
iJ
cn
SSSSoSSKSPilnSPlSSS^S^^S^SSSS
S^SOTSrH'S'^SS'^SrH'rHSSSSrH'^rHSrH'rH'lSS
^^cMO^r^rH^oo^^'^cot^r^^o>iHrocoi-ncs]u~icocNio
LO mco r-^i — icommcMoo i-n -
OO 'O -OIOI • O O • • • • O -OOOOOOOO
rH -Dr-^cococo
' Ocso>cMrHO^° ' O°cMr-.iH^>coinr^r-r^rHr^^Dooin '
CM-^CMrH-^ CO CM i— 1 O m i— If") i-H in'OO
m co . r~^ CM
i — 1 CO O^ CM i — \ i — 1 1 — - i — 1 i — 1 CM i — 1 i — 1 i — 1 -Lno> cr^ r-r-a>Or-
rorHino^ co r^ co r^
i — t CM co r~^ CM in CM ^ o^ ^ CM no i — t Ln -^ co o CM r*^ i — l
rH i— 1 rH rH CMtHCMCM rH CM CM CM i— I
CO
•U
4J j_l *H
n) 3 cu ex
•H CJ 0) Cfi CQ 0H
rt co c3 ]-> *"Q -LJ ^-i cd td *H cy ^ co c- rC n) o en i-i co
nJAiOC-'-Mi-4QJ3E'THc)0-HOC3f3 nJr^cnaJrHcO'HCU'HOn)
rHrHVJi-ifdOOCUi— ICUrfln^rHplOcdQJOcOccJcd-H'H-H'HO
-4SSSHSSrSSS
3 s 3 s a s s
r~^ oo i — i i — I i — i ^c in
co co oo o> oo co r^-
CM CM CO CO n
CO i — 4 i — !
CO rH r^ i— 1 i-H *<£> r-.
rH rH CO -— 1 iH
CM rH
03
u c
1-1 -H
•H rH
,s >, o o
CO T3 S3 r, S >H X
0) 01 'D a) 01 0) O
2; Z ?5 Z I2j ^ Z
36
-------
^
1
Q
s
CM
Q
2
|*r
co
w
EH
H
CO
EH
Z
w
s
Q
2
O >i
a ^3
H \
CO
J H -H
03
O S
n
w
H *-H
EH PH
S
H
EH
CO
W
*
0)
C
*fH
• >
r"*
O
(J
m
0)
, |
^Q
fd
H
o
rH
fts
-P
O
o
13
o
o
O 5
- o
O rH
LT) ti
.
o
Q
o
o S
* O
O rH
un En
|
O
o
0 O
rH 2
o
o
O £
- o
O rH
M-l
1
O
O •
* O
m J3
o
o S
o o
*• 1 — 1
LD fj-t
1
rH
O
LD
- O
CN &
3
O
O rH
0 [n
in
.,
i — 1
rH iH CN
rHooo- LO 10
CN CN rH rH r-^ CN
rH rH CN LT)
OOCNr^-m >d- GO p** -* ro
rorococN r^rocN CO QO -3" CN [-•*• L/~) N CO
rC ^ O CO QJ jC S-> CD CO
JH O til ClO C T3 W 4-J C CT] ,^
^ **H i — 1 CUtiO^^fH^ct]
3OOCpnpic/Nc/>He-<3
vO CM SI- M3 rH 0
ro O O O CN CN
i — 1 *-O f"l ^d" i — i 0s*
i — 1 <3" CJ\ ro O ~-3"
CN t-H
C3O -D
r^* rH LO r~^ --3~ co
rO LO ^ cO LO j — i
rH CN <± rH
rH rH
LO LO C C
O *H -H O *H
E bO J3 -M O [3
S-i J-i CO CO 0) O
> > 3r rS & &
^J.
0
CN OO
OCN
O CN
0 *
VO ~vf
!-H ^^
CO
CN
^^
. CN
r- co
CO CN
^D *•>
OO ^— '
r^
oo
r--,
r-- /— N
a> o
!S^
CN
rH
CN|
(-I-J
O ^s
oo LO
. rH
CO CN
oo
o>
CO
o oo
CN CN
CO
CO
0
^o
r^j3
O CN
I-H m
r^- sf
f, *—*
rH
CO
I — 1
CTN
«
~^-
rH
n)
0
H
.
rH
H
T3
U]
G
„ o
t~- rH
1 IT!
co Cn
o~i si;
rH O
rH
>< H
o 'e
-p
C C
Cl) -iH
G
•H S
o
CD rH-
-p 14H
to
rd -P
S C
0)
rH CO
a cu
-S1 a
O QJ
C
g to
e i>
10
< CD
W -P
C
C CJ)
O fc
fl
ST ft
rH
C fi
-H -H
E co
CD
CD ^J
to tr>
rd -H
pQ [-T|
m ,Q
37
-------
Table 4. NUMBERS OF IMPOUNDMENTS FOR WHICH USE CATEGORIES
WERE DETERMINED
Use Category No.
Aeration 924
Oxidation 6,047
Stabilization 1,573
Settling 18,073
Disposal 16,124
Storage 10,653
53,394
38
-------
Table 5. NUMBERS OF INSTITUTIONAL, PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL, AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPOUNDMENT SITES, BY STATES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Institutional
50
-
55
10
118
10
-
3
150
79
5
10
50
62
54
14
6
50
5
18
5
3
17
49
50
8
8
10
2
5
2
50
25
5
50
15
10
90
5
58
5
34
142
4
2
77
11
6
11
5
No . of Impoundments
Pr i vate/Comme r c ial
130
-
63
50
560
125
-
10
1,200
225
5
20
100
117
245
64
26
150
10
20
15
93
54\
129
1,092
20
15
50
10
20
28
100
81
10
100
50
28
41
10
191
10
30
358
8
9
51
16
83
50
15
Agricultural
669
15
112
107
1,106
245
37
13
350
734
34
454
659
1,067
700
1,063
136
323
175
111
8
692
1,185
586
1,064
316
703
53
44
13
45
204
503
543
498
338
527
359
1
326
379
339
515
234
62
389
672
35
598
22
1,513 5,887 19,363
39
-------
Florida and the second highest, 1,092, in Missouri. Agricultural im-
poundment sites, mostly for feedlot wastes, totalled about 19,400, with
the highest number, 1,185, in Minnesota and the second highest number,
1,106, in California. The agricultural impoundment estimate is based
mainly on those facilities whose construction was supported in part by
the SCS and, therefore, is a minimum number. Virtually no flow data
were available for agricultural impoundments. Most are believed to be
non-discharging types.
The estimated number of surface impoundments associated with the oil and
gas extraction industry totalled 71,832 (Table 6). The highest reported
total of oil and gas impoundments in an individual State was 16,000 in
New Mexico. The principal identified use of oil and gas impoundments is
for emergency purposes such as temporary storage of salt water or
petroleum. Ohio and Texas have the largest numbers of emergency impound-
ments, 11,000 and 6,000, respectively. The estimated number of oil and
gas impoundments is conservative. For example, burn pits and cuttings
or mud pits were not included in the count. If these and other unreported
impoundments had been included, most likely the total count would have
been increased by some tens of thousands (one eastern State reported
more than 19,000 cuttings pits). No flow data were available for oil
and gas impoundments; most are non-discharging types.
Table 12 in Section XII (Appendix B) lists the number of impoundment
sites by States for which SIC codes could be determined. The highest
numbers of industrial impoundments were as follows: SIC 13 (Oil and
Gas), 71,832; SIC 01 and 02 (Agriculture - Crops and Livestock), 19,363;
and SIC 12 (Coal Mining - Bituminous), 14,170. Because the flow data
were fragmentary, no total flows were shown by SIC category. However, a
M
report by EPA ' indicates that 91 percent of the total volume of wastes
placed in lagoons and ponds in 1968 was generated by industries as
follows: Paper and Allied Products (SIC 26), 29 percent; Petroleum and
Coal Products (SIC 29), 22 percent; Primary Metals (SIC 33), 22 percent;
40
-------
Table 6. ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF IMPOUNDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
(Based in part on estimates or data supplied by State agencies)
Number of Impoundments
Saltwater Undiffer-
State Disposal3 Separator Emergency entiated
Alabama 0
Alaska 0
Arizona 6
Arkansas
California 53
Colorado 2,747
Florida 0
Illinois
Indiana 600
Kansas 173
Kentucky
Louisiana 2,322
Michigan 20
Mississippi 19
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada 0
New Mexico
New York 150
North Dakota
Ohio 0
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania 0
South Dakota 30
Tennessee 0
Texas
Utah 5
Virginia
West Virginia -
Wyoming
6,125
a
Mostly by evaporation or
recovery operations.
b
0
0
-
-
726
-
0
-
20
652
-
165
-
-
-
-
12
5
-
100
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
12
-
-
-
1,692
by temporary
2
9
-
540
131
-
0
-
40
3,700
-
3,996
2,000
94
-
-
188
10
-
15
1,900
11,000
834
0
0
100
6,000
300
-
-
-
30,859
storage
_
-
-
-
-
1,870
-
2,000
92
-
1,000
2,358
-
250
6
825
-
-
16,000
-
-
-
155
2,500
-
-
-
-
100
1,000
5,000
33,156
for secondary
Total
2
9
6
540
910
4,617
0
2,000
752
4,525
1,000
8,841b
2,020
363
6
825
200
15
16,000C
265
1,900
11,000
989
2,500
30
100
6,000
317
100
1,000
5,000
71,832
Based on reports from five of six districts.
Q
Includes numerous small
gas wells.
dehydration pits associated with natural
41
-------
and Chemical and Allied Products (SIC 28), 18 percent. The discharge to
ponds from these four industrial groups totalled about 1,514 bgd (5,730
million cu m/day). The same report estimates total leakage to ground
water from all industrial waste impoundments at about 100 billion gal/yr
(378 million cu m/yr).
In summary, reasonably complete inventory data on a national basis were
available only for municipal impoundments. Other inventories, espe-
cially for industrial categories, ranged from fairly complete in Cali-
fornia, Washington, and Florida, for example, to sparse and fragmentary
in many States. The total number of waste-impoundment sites has been
very conservatively estimated at about 132,700 in this study. If it is
assumed that the national average is 2 to 3 impoundments per site, the
total number of impoundments would be at least 260,000 to 400,000.
The data on flow into or out of impoundments were particularly incom-
plete. Moreover, for most impoundments, no data were available on the
comparative fluid losses by evaporation or by seepage to ground water.
42
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Bureau of the Census. 1975- '972 census of manufactures, water
use in manufacturing. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C. 19* pp.
2. Bureau of the Census. 1975- 1972 census of mineral industries,
water use in mineral industries. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 58 pp.
3. U.S. Department of the Army - Office of Chief of Engineers. 1975.
National program of inspection of dams. Five volumes.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Report to Congress on
waste disposal practices and their effects on ground water.
EPA-570/9-77-001. 512 pp.
43
-------
SECTION VI
CHEMICAL CONTENTS OF IMPOUNDED WASTES
TYPES AND SOURCES OF DATA
The overall chemical characteristics of waste fluids in impoundments are
discussed briefly in this section, and further details for 26 major SIC
categories are given in Section XII, Appendix C. The 26 categories in-
clude all the major agricultural, manufacturing, processing, and utili-
ties industries. Certain categories (such as SIC 10-Metal Mining, SIC
28-Chemicals and Allied Products, SIC 33-Primary Metals, and SIC 49~
Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services) include a large number of widely
differing industrial activities and associated wastes. For many such
categories, it was necessary to introduce a degree of generalization on
an industry segment level in order to provide a broad characterization
of the impounded wastes.
Most of the descriptions of the nature of the wastes given in this
section were summarized from EPA effluent guidelines development docu-
ments and hazardous waste practices reports, which provided a good
review of the process technology and of the character of liquid and
solid wastes and sludges by individual industries. Textbooks on in-
dustrial waste management and on waste production and disposal in the
2)
mining and milling industries also provided background descriptions of
wastes and waste-treatment technologies.
CHARACTER OF THE WASTES
Impounded wastes may be liquid, semi-solid, or solid and may range from
harmless to highly toxic, depending on the nature and concentration of
the constituents. From a chemical classification viewpoint, the waste
streams entering impoundments may be composed of inorganic or organic
substances, or a combination of the two.
44
-------
Inorganic industrial waste streams are generally characterized in terms
of suspended solids, IDS, pH, acidity or alkalinity, and specific
elements and components that form part of the chemical process or
product. Treatment is generally physicochemical in nature with
separation of suspended solids by the use of settling ponds, clarifiers
and thickeners, filters, centrifuges, and coagulation tanks, if neces-
sary. Dissolved solids can be removed by precipitation, ion exchange,
and reverse osmosis or can be neutralized or oxidized.
The contaminant parameters that are commonly used to characterize
organic industrial waste streams are: BOD, COD, TOC, oil and grease,
and suspended solids. Other potential contaminants are in waste streams
originating from various manufacturing processes; these contaminants
include organic chemicals, such as phenols, cyanide, chlorinated hydro-
carbons, and other miscellaneous organics. Organics, which generally
are not included in routine analyses, have become recognized as sig-
nificant waterborne contaminants only in recent years. In principle,
all organic materials can be converted to more elemental forms such as
carbon dioxide and water. The most commonly used process is secondary
biological treatment by activated sludge and aerated lagoons. Some
organic compounds such as phenols, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and aro-
matic hydrocarbons are degraded only with difficulty or not at all and
may retard or prevent biological treatment of waste streams containing
these substances.
Domestic (municipal) sewage effluent has a high TDS content, various
nitrogen compounds, phosphate, sulfate, chloride, BOD, and coliform
bacteria, and other constituents. Most of these are natural constit-
uents of human wastes. Locally, detergents, phosphate, heavy metals,
and other compounds derived from man's activities are present in sewage.
Some municipal sewage consists of a mixture of domestic and industrial
wastes. Sludge from sewage-treatment plants commonly contains heavy
metals as well as pathogenic organisms. Leaching of organics, nitrate,
45
-------
and other constituents from sewage sludge in unlined drying beds or
lagoons can cause contamination of ground water.
Table 7 contains a summary of the principal constituents in wastewater
from selected industries and municipal sewage. These constituents
include all the common cations and anions, heavy metals, and organics.
Unusual constituents, which may be in wastewater from specific industri-
al sources, are not listed in Table ~J.
RELATION TO GROUND-WATER QUALITY
With the exception of a few constituents that may be derived from or
adsorbed on aquifer materials during movement of fluids into and through
an aquifer, contaminated ground water beneath and near many impound-
ments, as shown by the case histories discussed in Section VII, commonly
reflects the approximate character of the source fluids in impoundments.
Knowledge of the composition of the impounded waste fluids, therefore,
can provide a basis for predicting or explaining the composition of
ground water contaminated by seepage of waste fluids from impoundments.
Most of the dissolved inorganic and organic constituents in waste fluids
can move readily into ground water by direct seepage of the fluids
through the sides and bottoms of unlined impoundments. Similarly,
solids in impoundments may be leached by precipitation or by inflow of
other fluids and, following dissolution, the leachate may seep into
ground water. Although such factors as pH, sorptive capacity, and the
low permeability of some soils may slow down or impede the movement of
selected ions, many waterborne contaminants, given an adequate source of
supply, sufficient time, and a hydraulic gradient, have the potential
for eventually reaching the water table and moving downgradient in an
aqui fer.
46
-------
Table 7. CONSTITUENTS IN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER HAVING
SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION3'4^
MINING (SICJLO, 11, and 12)
Metal and Coal Mining Industry (SIC 10, 11, and 12)
PH
Sulfate
Nitrate
Chloride
Total dissolved
solids
Phosphate
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Tin
Vanadium
Radium
Phenol
Selenium
Iron
Chromium
Cadmium
Uranium
Magnesium
Silver
Manganese
Calcium
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Gold
Fluoride
Cyanide
PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (SIC 26)
Pulp and Paper Industry (SIC 261 and 262)
COD/BOD Phenols Nitrogen
TOC Sulfite Phosphorus
pH Color Total dissolved
Ammonia Heavy metals solids
Biocides
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (SIC 28)
Organic Chemicals Industry (SIC 286)
COD/BOD Alkalinity Phenols
pH TOC Cyanide
Total dissolved Total phosphorus Total nitrogen
solids Heavy metals
Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalies, and Chlorine Industry (SIC 281)
Acidity/alkalinity Chlorinated benzenoids Chromium
Total dissolved and polynuclear Lead
solids aromatics Titanium
Chloride Phenols Iron
Sulfate Fluoride Aluminum
COD/BOD Total phosphorus Boron
TOC Cyanide Arsenic
Mercury
47
-------
Table 7 (Continued). CONSTITUENTS IN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
HAVING SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (Continued)
Plastic Materials and Synthetics Industry (SIC 282)
COD/BOD Phosphorus Ammonia
pH Nitrate Cyanide
Phenols Organic nitrogen Zinc
Total dissolved Chlorinated benzenoids Mercaptans
solids and polynuclear
Sulfate aromatics
Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry (SIC 2873)
Ammonia Sulfate COD
Chloride Organic nitrogen Iron, total
Chromium compounds pH
Total dissolved Zinc Phosphate
solids Calcium Sodium
Nitrate
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry (SIC 2874)
Calcium Acidity Mercury
Dissolved solids Aluminum Nitrogen
Fluoride Arsenic Sulfate
pH Iron Uranium
Phosphorus Cadmium Vanadium
Radium
PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS (SIC 29)
Petroleum Refining Industry (SIC 291)
Ammonia Chloride Nitrogen
Chromium Color Odor
COD/BOD Copper Total phosphorus
pH Cyanide Sulfate
Phenols Iron TOC
Sulfide Lead Turbidity
Total dissolved Mercaptans Zinc
solids
48
-------
Table 7 (Continued). CONSTITUENTS IN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
HAVING SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
PRIMARY METALS (SIC 33)
Steel Industry (SIC 331)
pH Cyanide Tin
Chloride Phenols Chromium
Sulfate Iron Zinc
Ammonia Nickel
ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES (SIC 49)
Power Generation Industry (SIC 491)
COD/BOD Copper Phosphorus
pH Iron Free chlorine
Polychlorinated Zinc Organic biocides
biphenols Chromium Sulfur dioxide
Total dissolved Other corrosion Heat
solids inhibitors
Oil and grease
Municipal Sewage Treatment (SIC 495)
pH Nitrate Sulfate
COD/BOD Ammonia Copper
TOC Phosphate Lead
Alkalinity Chloride Tin
Detergents Sodium Zinc
Total dissolved Potassium Various Organics
solids
49
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Azad, H. S. (Editor-in-Chief). 1976. Industrial wastewater man-
agement handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
2. Williams, R. E. 1975. Waste production and disposal in mining,
milling, and metallurgical industries. Miller Freeman Pub., Inc.
San Francisco, California. 489 pp.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Handbook for moni-
toring industrial waste water. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
k. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977- The report to Con-
gress on waste disposal practices and their effects on ground
water. EPA-570/9-77-001. 512 pp.
50
-------
SECTION VI I
PATTERNS OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION AND CASE HISTORIES
GENERAL NATURE OF THE CONTAMINATION THREAT
A large majority of the surface impoundments in the nation are unlined
and, as a consequence, waste fluids that seep down from them can con-
stitute a potential threat to the natural quality of underground drinking-
water sources. Only a very small percentage of these impoundments are
monitored routinely or have been investigated in sufficient detail to
show the full nature and extent of the contamination threat, but enough
case histories have been compiled, as discussed later in this section,
to indicate that the potential threat could be widespread. Many impound-
ments are virtually watertight, either because of excavation in relatively
impermeable natural materials such as clay and silt or because of the
use of liners. Some impoundments are thought to be "self-sealing"
because of the settling of silt and clay-size particles or the deposi-
tion of chemical precipitates or organic slimes on the sides and bottoms
of the impoundments. These impoundments generally present no significant
threat to ground-water quality unless the watertight seal is ruptured or
the impoundment overflows.
Many impoundments that are referred to as "evaporation ponds," espe-
cially in humid parts of the country, actually lose little of their
fluid contents by evaporation and, instead, depend on subsurface in-
filtration to keep from overflowing. When the natural soils at the
bottoms and sides of these impoundments become clogged, it may be
necessary to scarify or scrape them to improve seepage.
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC CONTROLS
Shallow water-table aquifers are commonly the first to undergo con-
tamination by seepage from impoundments and, on a national basis, are
generally far more vulnerable than deeper artesian aquifers, which are
51
-------
usually protected against contamination by overlying beds of clay or
other geologic materials of low permeability. No two impoundment sites
are exactly alike, even in areas underlain by aquifers having similar
hydrogeologic characteristics. Aquifers may be composed of unconsoli-
dated sediments, such as sand, gravel, silt, and clay, or consolidated
rocks, such as sandstone, shale, and limestone. The mineralogy of these
materials controls their ion-exchange and adsorptive capacity. The
depth to the water table differs from place to place and ranges from a
few feet to possibly hundreds of feet below the land surface. The per-
meability of aquifer materials may range from low to high and generally
is much less vertically than it is horizontally, in some areas, aquifers
may be separated by thick extensive confining beds composed of silt,
clay, or rocks of low permeability that retard vertical movement of
water from one aquifer to another. In some locations, local "perched"
water-table bodies, underlain by lenses of silt and clay, exist above
the main water table, at least during periods of wet weather. These
perched zones can provide temporary storage for contaminated water
seeping down from impoundments.
PATTERNS OF CONTAMINATION
Patterns of contamination of ground water resulting from seepage of
wastes from surface impoundments have some common features. Contaminated
fluid first seeps out through the bottom or sides of the impoundment,
under the influence of gravity or head differences, and then moves
slowly downward until it reaches the water table. In beds of extremely
low permeability, the fluid may move only a fraction of an inch
over a long period of time, but in more permeable materials, the fluid
may move at rates of up to several feet (about 1 m) per day or more.
Upon reaching the water-table aquifer, the pattern of flow and the chem-
ical character of the contaminated fluid are influenced by various
mechanisms, such as head differences, vertical and horizontal perme-
abilities, attenuation processes, nature of the soil materials, precip-
itation, density differences, and other factors. Commonly, the concen-
52
-------
trations of constituents in the wastewater are altered by passage through
the unsaturated zone as various physical, chemical, and biological
reactions occur. Most dissolved constituents, however, ultimately enter
or have the potential for entering the saturated zone of the aquifer,
especially where the sorptive capacity of the soil is exhausted by
continuous seepage of contaminated fluids.
Usually, the contaminated water seeping into an aquifer from an im-
poundment assumes the form of a discrete body or plume of contamination.
The plume is elongated in the direction of ground-water movement and is
generally at least several times longer than it is wide (Figures 8 and
20). The boundaries of a plume, which are generally marked by a zone of
dispersion or zone of mixed waters, may be smooth or irregular, de-
pending on variations in lithology, permeability, head distribution,
degree of dispersion, density differences of the fluids, and effects of
nearby pumping wells.
Figure 7 is a hypothetical vertical section through a plume and its
associated zone of dispersion showing the pattern of flow of contami-
nants from a surface impoundment to the water table and, from there,
into a nearby lake or stream. The contaminated water first seeps downward
by gravity to form a recharge mound at the water table beneath the im-
poundment and then moves laterally downgradient in the water-table
aquifer. The shape and configuration of the plume will vary, other
things being equal, with the differences in density between the waste-
water and the ground water. A dense contaminated fluid such as brine
may form a nearly vertical column downward from the surface impoundment
until it encounters confining beds at the base of the aquifer, where it
then begins to form a low mound. On the other hand, a contaminated
fluid that has a density similar to that of the native ground water may
never reach the base of the aquifer but may be carried away in the
regional flow pattern in the upper part of the aquifer. As can be seen
from Figure 7, it is important to select proper locations and depths for
53
-------
TO
TO
0)
i_
to
O
X
0) 0)
v-
0)
(0
3 TO
O 0)
I- !_
Ol TO
-O Q)
-O
c
O TO
O
O
M- 4-1
O
T3
0) C
E O
3 Q.
TO
3
O
o
0)
01
54
-------
sampling wells in order to map the boundaries of a plume of wastes and
the internal concentration distribution of the contaminants.
Because ground water is always in motion, contaminated plumes tend to
become longer, wider, and thicker with time, especially where seepage
continues at the source impoundment. In places, however, the leading
edge of a plume may be stabilized at a hydraulic discharge boundary such
as a stream or a line of pumping wells. Under these conditions, con-
taminants from the plume most likely would be detected in samples from
the stream or pumping wells.
Contaminants in ground water can be partly removed or reduced in con-
centration by attenuation. Attenuation mechanisms include: sorption,
ion exchange, dispersion, and radioactive decay. The rate of attenuation
is a function of the type of contaminant and of the characteristics of
the local hydrogeologic framework. Predicting the degree to which
contaminants may become attenuated is extremely difficult, owing to the
wide differences in soil properties and hydrologic characteristics of
various locations. Despite the 'potential for attenuation, however, case
histories show that plumes emanating from impoundments can extend
downgradient thousands of feet in highly permeable aquifers composed of
materials such as sand, gravel, and limestone.
EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATION FROM CASE HISTORIES
Summary of National Situation
Table 8 provides summary data for 85 cases of ground-water and/or
surface-water contamination associated with leaky impoundments in 29
States. Most of the data have been derived from reports published by
EPA and from various scientific, technical, and trade journals; data on
a small number of cases were obtained directly from State agencies by
mail or as a result of visits. The cases were selected essentially at
random and are not intended to indicate either the actual or relative
magnitude of the contamination problem in any particular industry or
55
-------
co
2
Q
O
S
H
g
PM
g
H
2
H
(^
g
O
u
PM
0
W
H
g
EH
H
K
W
U
Q
SELECTE
Q
X
rtj
§
D
00
0)
H
X!
rd
EH
U]
^4
rd
g
rd W
•H C
•a o
OJ -H
g 4-1
0) O
« <
r-H
4-1
C
a) 4J
g u
3 to
o ft
n e
r4 M
G
to
QJ
CO
(d
u
C1J
4-)
o
0
I
\
\
w
i
4J
CU H
SH >
3 -H
4-1 4-J
n3 U
^ <
QJ
4J
ffl
4-;
CO
CJ
ro
rH
OJ
i— I
O
SH
.p
S
ifl
H
w
r-
^r
H
C
H
g
X
rl
O
P4
o
Q
1
1
1
1
g
c/]
Cn
g
O
•^F
<0
•H
C
0
§
s
I
1
^
o
SH
O
•H
rfl
r)
0
TJ
rd
O
rH
O
U
X T)
§ a
O -
•a
xi
•a e
CO
OH
CU 4J
A 4->
U -H
to E
(1) U
a) 3
m ^3
4J
I
T)
C C
XI H O
o 3 x:
in ^~'
O QJ
G
10
XI
§ §
H O
--» C
X. H
S1 -
o \
co e 4-1
- O QJ
OJ CN E
H ^ C
VH - 3
0 O O
&H N H
H
ID
U
-H
£
O
P1
4-1
U
id
MH
3
C
t!
S
rH
(d
U
•H
e
cu
,c
u
SH
3
4J
O
d
4H
3
C
oi
e
u
C
•H
N
T3
ffl
QJ
^
cu
4-1
(d
x:
ft
w
o
x;
ft
Cn
C
•H
to
CO
O
U
O
SH
ft
rH
nj
U
•H
e
OJ
x;
u
Cn
C
H
to
CO
OJ
o
o
^
ft
6
Q
56
-------
EH
a
s
Q
1
&
H
I
fa
55
O
H
55
H
jj
EH
§
U
fa
O
cn
w
H
o
EH
H
W
Q
W
EH
O
w
o
•
'O
01
C!
• r-j
4J
0
00
0)
rH
EH
CO
Q)
to
rd
U
S SH •
"T? _
i g i
s
-rH 1— 1
q
QJ
CO 4-1
4-J fO
q QJ
rH U
q 3
o to
u
i
i-H
CO
q o
10 Q) QJ
4-1 4-> T3 £
q co -H 3
rd S ^ H
q 0 co
•rH 13 rH (y
§ 3 U cn
4-10 CO
q n - g
•H g
T3 3
0 -H
CO O
rO fl
U Q) -H
H frt
co O
CJ
c
O > 3 H
4-> QJ 4-1
QJ H -H U
H > 0 3
3 -H VH T3
-P 4-J -P 0
nj u cj ij
2 < ft ft
ro
q
rO
QJ CO
4-* H
(0 3
4-) 0
cn ^
i
t
!
H
-P
&
rtf
O
P
CU
CO TJ
H r- o
2 CN co
in in
00 5
CM
r-t
QJ
N
H Q)
rH cn QJ
-H fd cn
4-* i-( <0
iH 0 S
01 4J QJ
fe W tO
O 0
Q Q
1
!H
0
H
£J
rd
XJ
O
•H
rH
rd
>i
X
P
3
U
1
t
rH
e
o
o
o
iH
QJ
H
O
iH
x;
u
co
CN
cn
q
•H
£
rH 4-1
fd U
U CO
rH 4H
§ g
X! rd
u e
q
cn
-H
X!
rj
-H
E
l
rd
q
0
0
cn
rH
rH
a>
TS
P OJ
q P
rO (0
rH q
ft H
q
H
0
p
H
o
s
p
u
I
rH
rH g rH
g ro S
•^ O CD
rH
*. CN
- e
QJ 3 -
•H g QJ
q o ft
> x: o
u o o
^
m
Cn
q
-H
XJ
rH CO
cO H
-P q
QJ -H
o
Q
rH
,-j
>t ft
H CO
XJ
0
IH T3
ft O
QJ rd 1
Cn > I
cd co
0) Cn
Q) tJi
CO ro
1 1
1 1
Q
Q co
3
o
a
3
5
1
1 OJ
H
O
rH
x:
u
0) CU
rH rH
o o
rH i— t
xi x:
o u
CO ro
(N rH
Cn
•H
3 SO
-H 4-1 § -H
cO U 0) 4J
O (0 rH U
•H 4H O 3
E =1 SH T)
Q) q P o
u e ft ft
-rH
ft
H
CO
CO
-H O
« Q
U)
-rH
S
1 1
1 1
0)
q J
U QJ
QJ
in w
U o .. in
H cn CD 3
-H
q to
0 U
XI H
rO cd
U Cn
QJ
rd
X3 CO
U
rH -H
3 q
UH rd
co 0
-
C U
QJ CO
3 -H
rH XI
QJ 0
XI
OJ rH
Q U
CN cn
CN ^r
rH
rH
"e
rH
QJ CO QJ
.H CO U
•H 0 H
X tO rH
Q) rH Q)
EH p M
O O
Q a
T3
QJ
rH
rd
QJ
to
q
o
0
tr
3
g
CO
Q)
Cn
rd
QJ
to
QJ
cn
rd
to
LA
cn
_p
q
QJ
QJ g
cn -P
CO fO
S Q)
Q) SH
to -U
•H
O
CO
tn
•H
S
1
Q
U
1
q
o
-rH
-P
rd
l-i
0
rH
0
U
to
-•H
U)
rH
0
q
QJ
x;
ft
\D
4-)
JH W
Q) 3
ft n
ctT q
ft -H
fd
q
cO
4J
C
o
1
1
1
p
o
1
1
CO
QJ
q
-rH
XI
rH
QJ
H
1
rH
-H
o
m
•H
q
S 0
3 -H
QJ 4->
rH U
0 3
rJ T3
-P 0
Q) rH
ft ft
1 1
1 1
CO
QJ
TJ
U
X) QJ
!H 3
QJ q
x: H
1 4-1
1 MH q
0 0
U
QJ 10
CO H
D Tf
[/)
4-1
q
cO
rH
- ft
Q Q
3 30
O U -P
Q)
Cn
§
Q
1 QJ
1 tJ
H
U
-H
XI
QJ
EC
q
o
VH
-H
QJ QJ
CO 73
QJ -H
q u
ffl -H
Cn XI
rtf
-------
EH
2
Q
D
O
H
S
O
H
H
i§
EH
2
O
O
O
U)
W
S
O
EH
W
H
K
~-j
Q
W
EH
O
C/3
0
5*
w
_ s
T3
2«
C
-P
O
U
co
1— 1
IH
X
S
S
0)
K
rd 01
H C
T3 O
QJ H
e -p
O U
ft
P
S 4J
g U
0 Q-i
H H
>
c
CXI
r-t M
CU
CO 4-1
4-> ffl
G 0)
§rfl
4-*
G 3
U
C
CO CU
G ffl
ffl 3
.S*
g G
(fl 3
-P O
U
ffl
u cu
H -g
U
4-1
0 >
0) -rH
4-1 -P
CU
rt
4->
cn
CO
-p
1 O ffl
'O -P G
G H
O Cn rB
r-l fl 4-)
Cn Cu C
g O
TJ 3 U
CJ di
to CD
O r-l >
£1| QJ 0
O -P g
rJ rfl 0)
Cu £ M
1
H
TJ
ffl
... QJ
13 4-)
0) M
G rfl -P
•H £ G
•H g
tn fd -P
Tl G ffl
G O CU
O -H V4
pi -P -P
Q
O
cn
Q
EH
G
H
CU
CO OJ
CU rfl
0 -P
C H
H G
cn
Q
EH
C
•H
O
to cu
oi fd
U -P
G -H
H C
m CO
ro CN
^
rd
1 O
« g c
0) 0) H
0 X! H
003
^-1 -p
Oi TJ 0
C fl
rH fd 4-1
td 3
0) C ffl
S -H g
(d
TJ
fl
CD
, ,
Q Q
3 3
O O
1 1
1 1
0)
4-> CU
ffl 4->
in1 ffl
4-> 4-1
H rH
C 3
to
8 s
H 0 rH
-P \
to rd S
'o 3 o
C T) O
CU H CO
x; u -
CL| |< ^
f] (N
CO O
CO C 01 Cn
to o n c
ffl H 0 'H
rH 4-J tO
Cn u i-i to
VJ 3 0) CU
CU nj CU U
rQ O CU O
H i-i 0 in
>, o
OJ fj
CO -H
0) 0)
h> £
CU D
"
X.
g
o
fc
§ t3
H G
CU d|
01 C
cn -H
in
o
1 -p
U QJ
CU U
0
-P G
G H
CU
6 -
O H
V-l rH
EH U
CO
rH
rH
01
O
-P
G
CU
O
ffl
<
S
H
C
O
rH
CU
tn
3 g"
H
G O
ffl rH
D ^0
^j.
0
1)
O G
-H
§01
to
-H 0)
G O
fl 0
VH "H
Q
O
•O
H
O
rH
x:
u
o
S
Q Q
3 S
O O
fO O
-p *
o o
5
a
T3 T3
01 0
ffl QJ
rf iw
- o
cn cj
o
., CU '
IS'
T) rH
O ^ '
w in '
rH
fl
U
• H
g
QJ
U
Cn
•H
4J
O
fl
G
(fl
g
O
-P
ffl
-P
CO
C
ffl
£
0)
cn
rd
cu
tn
.p
G
OJ
g
4J
ffl
QJ
4-)
to
Ul
fl
rH
O
c;
r-1
u
rri
4-1
G
rci
E,
>,
C
O
4-4
C
O
H
58
-------
w
3
^*
Q
D
o
H
I
a
o
H
EH
S3
H
Sj
O
U
£
Cfl
w
H
PH
o
EH
K)
Q
W
EH
U
w
t/3
fa
o
1
g
w
•
3
G
-P
G
0
U
""
oo
0)
r-l
EH
[
t
K
&
,-(
Remedia
Actions
rH
rO
c:
0) jj
B u
G rt
o a
ri £
-H H
C
H
CO
^ M
3 H
*J 4J
« 0
0
-3
tn
i
i
01
-P
H
.ng of p
immended
H QJ
0
i
,
rH 01
XI 0
4-1 C
O O
-H a.
.- aj
U H
•H S
10 E
n o
0 in
r-l
r-H
C
3 §
IH -S
H
O
o n
u-l CD
•a n
ui
3 k4
11 1
G fl 1
0 ja
0 3
nj o
J 01
1 O TJ
•C) H rH
4J r-H
O G
S S g
T3 C
-H rH 3
-HO g
0)
i— I
O
>i
rH
a
4-H
O
0}
01
3
l i
l l
01
0 1
C 3
id 01
-- 0) H
3 H 3
H H •- H
01 O ^ 01
(d rH CQ (d
-P 4-1 S 4-1
0 0
g rH H g
-H O O -H
O rC 1 O
in o ro w
m en
cr^ co
rH H
01 U
01 U) O
3 TJ O
o d
^
o
4-1
rd
-H
4-1
•o o
"J S
o .~
H <
0 S
rH
0 g
• - H
1
rH
ft
Ifl
4-H
0
01
to
O
l
l
O
•- C
01 0)
0 VH
•H >,
g - G -P
H ^ Cji
0 rH 0 O
wo c
i — 1 '- QJ
•- ,c in 3
TJ O rH rH
fd o o
i
rd
-p
H
U)
1
r— I
C
0)
a
S
"^
S
i i
§ S
O 01
fd
C
to **-t *O
0 ,
01
o
to
to
S
i
I
QJ
H
X!
T3
QJ
H
V
•H
O
ro
§O
H
rH U
i-l TJ
-P O
QJ rH
o
1
j
to
0)
S
to
QJ
S
o
to
to
0
l
J"
- 0
X. -H
^H
in \
r^ g
•> \D
H rH
fd QJ
4J 01
1 0 r-l
-H rd in
C Cn g
CP C
J g rH
4J
TJ
0
ft
o
0
c
0
o
o
1
1
1
§ ^
-P QJ
C U
0 H
0 4J
U
-P 03
0 (ft QJ
o m H
3 fd 0
§
1
4J
fd
3
w
Q
-H
QJ
01
O
H
O
q
ro
i 'H
G 01
H QJ
§0
o
d
59
-------
w
EH
3
a
3
O
H
1
tn
3
O
H
rij
S
H
*H!
ice
2J
o
o
rjj
O
tn
S
,x
fd
fd 01
H C
QJ H
S -P
fd
4-)
G
QJ 4-1
g O
G rd
Z &
H H
£
H
i
i
i
D
5
EH
tn
S
w
en
o
Q
W
EH
O
W
iJ
w
o
S
tn
.
-d
0)
c
•H
4-1
o
CJ
00
(U
A
(0
EH
|
r4 1-1
OJ
en p
-P rrj
§ S
G OJ
g rd
-P H
G 3
0 en
C_)
c
en S
-P -P
G rd
rd 3
g ^
C S
O O
u
rd
H T?
en o
U
l*-l
4.1
0) -H
-P "-P
rd U
& <
0)
4-i
-P
en
i
i
Q
EH
G
H
QJ
01
rd
O
G
H
\D
en
4-1
o
p
ft
01
&
ft
O
OJ
O
1
1
1
0)
!H
-^ tn
q a)
O -P
H tn
4-i
QJ O
S g
O
H
4J
3
a1
rrj
4-1
0
0
4J
O
3
4J QJ
en m
CLJ H
Q rH
0
H
X
0
4J
^
•H
fd
o
p
O
ej
QJ
^
^_i
QJ
Q(
o
•H
G
fd
>
rH
01
c:
G
0>
ft
1
1
G
0
c
rd
X3
rd
4-1
H
ft
U
H
-P
rd
a1
rd
y-i
0
0
H Q
-P S
U O
3
-P OJ
01 m
0 H
Q rH
0
S
o
c
-H
U
<
O
•H
fd
£r
o
T5
c
nj eo
T3 4J
H CO
0 nj
en
'fO
01
01 O
-p ft
en in
S T3
1
1
,
a
C- G
O 3 01
u 0 tn
H fd
o g
>i 3
fd
> UJ H
O 4-J QJ
g G -P
QJ rd id
PH G S
Q
en
Q
3
O
^
en
.,
en
o
o
•H
CO
S
rH
i"
O
0
'"i
f»
U
-H
0)
S
n
CO
04
tp
5
3
(13 U
u S
•H 14-1
§ C
U g
O
Q
Q
S
o
0
ft
-P
w
(0
IU O
•H 14-1
O
U
Q O
O rl
U 4-1
in
.* aj
8 I
m TJ
o
o
Oi
g
o
4-)
n!
1)
g
S
0)
en
01
O
0
^
ft
tn
c
-H
rH -P
fd u
u td
•H m
01 C
.£ t3
u g
dispos;
QJ
Cn
0)
en
rH
rO
U
-H
S
01
£
U
cturing
td
<4H
^
§
g
rH
fO
U
•H
£
0)
£
U
cturing
rd
m
3
G
nj
g
QJ
G
G
fd
EH
H
fd
U
H
4-1
rj
0)
<-H
W
rd
-P Cn
C C
QJ H
H JJ
& S
0) 'HH
reparat
ft
TJ
0)
OJ
en
60
-------
CO
Q
ID
0
H
t
O
Z
0
H
EH
g
13
EH
§
U
O
w
H
o
EH
co
H
O
Q
W
EH
CJ
3
W
O
__ ^
Q)
£3
G
C
O
U
00
,-i
1
lyJ
VH
CO
1
OH
,_(
tf in
H C
T( O
g -p
1— 1
u
JJ
c
e o
c co
o a
rH 6
•H H
>
c
r-^Q
-H S-|
0)
01 4J
-P aj
-H a
(0 H-i
c s
o to
D
tn a
4-> 4J
c; co
ffl 3
c;
•rH rrj
e c
4-> C
C rH
O U
U
O OJ
a -8
u
UH
O >i
4-)
0) H
3 r
z <
OJ
4-J
rc
u:
i
i
TJ
QJ
c
•H
cn
4-1
-H
CU
Q
3
O
1
13
H
QJ
4-1
O
CQ
rH
O
OJ
cn
C
•H
01
01
QJ
O
VH
4J
13
OJ
QJ
H
-0 rH
1 rH H QJ
in 0 (0 CJ 4-> O
in TJ H (Q QJ rH g
nj nj cn tn tJi H o
O - n cn Q n 4-i 4->
Q QJ ft cO >i tn
H O 14H4J LOXI-QQ;1^
QJ EH 0 tn H CJ ""i
£ . • cO • TJ QJ C -
4->TJ rHH rHSOl M H 01 >i
1 OQJ) cO\l rdQJTJc04-)4->
I ^J 1 CtJ1 1 tnOJj^ QJ (^ i— ( -H -H •
QJH Og 0>0 CHincnUVt
QJO -H ftHCHOJOO^
XlQJ QJI HQiH CHCQJQJ-P
E-lHH
cn cn QJ
H -H 1 T3 rH 3 C D1
-HTJHT3 r^j -HftQC
ftQJftQJQJCU M-iCJH
^3 r-J rj rj | || IK ^
yH£4-lCHC 1 1 I C0"0
QHOH4-1H 0^4-1
4J4JU4-1 rQdOJH
QJCOlCcOC i^Q-PC
OlOWlOrHO COrHfOO
^DUDUQjU U4-J^g
CO H
rH 1J
O
g4 in
Q QJ rH
3 4-1 rH
W Q OJ Q Q Q Q
3 .-SC3 33 3
O QOO OO U
Q 3 4H H
3 tn O 4-)
O ^
• - U) rH
Q tn rH
300
i
O
cn
OJ
i -P iii i
QJ 1 cn ill i
H £ cn
rH O
o T! H
rH H C
& U "3
U f£, £71
01 U
0 C 0
QJ -H H O
TI C N in TJ
-H cfl C
• -i-lOl tjt ••. i^Q QJ n]-
g 0 QJ in C -P -—
3rH£ OO - 13 rHOJ
H,CH. nU ^ X.4-)
TJOiH — H O -P Cn-rH
o xi cn B -H g c
V) -. QJ •- C 0
E TJ H-> QJ «~ H cncn cn •- *UrH
EHOJ cOoJgu s (N^-X.
•HQ)4-| ccJ-HC H ^g
UCI TJCngfOr-H 4J ••
rHtTlrH -HCTJ Cn\.rH rH E-lX^)1
cOfO-H UcflfO rHCnH M 2 Q •
OS O 01
QJrj CU^H n3 ,£^fd 4^in t—i-HcO
ftftAjftS Og Uft Cjcnu
O
id 4-1
H tT-
C • C
0 O O -H O H 0
Q Q Q tP Q Jl Q
>-i t/i
•H cfl
TJ C
TJ OJ
< g
•- C
QJ U
Ti CO
&3
3 O
O C
J5 o
nj 4J
nj
a) TJ
> 1J
4J W
u
;8
s U
H TJ
Sc
0)
TJ t7>
S! s?
•3 °
01 H
w n3
•H U
TJ -H
CTi
^-1 O
Itf H
•P O
O -H
& m
61
-------
State. For example, a number of States such as California, Texas, and
Pennsylvania have records of hundreds of case histories in their files,
and some States reported few or no contamination incidents from impound-
ments. In most instances, States with numerous case-history records
have had more time, personnel, and funds to investigate these problems;
whereas in some States reporting few or no case histories, data were
sparse or unavailable because: (a) litigation was in progress, (b) the
data were considered confidential by an industry, or (c) no special
studies had been made to document the cases. Acquisition and review of
the records of the hundreds of past and recent case histories, which are
believed to be in State and EPA files, would have required an expendi-
ture of time and funds beyond the scope of this study.
Table 8 indicates, where known, the kinds of contaminants in ground
water and surface water that have been attributed to leaky impoundments
and also contains brief references to environmental impacts and remedial
actions. The case histories have been categorized in the table by SIC
code number and by State. The data indicate a general prevalence of
contamination problems in the industrialized eastern and north-central
regions of the United States and also in other scattered areas, partic-
ularly in some western and southwestern States where mining and oil and
gas extraction are major industries.
Ground-water contamination by process wastes derived from the manu-
facture of chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, herbicides, and pesticides (SIC
28) is reported in many of the case histories. Contamination is also
noted in connection with other manufacturing industries, including wood
and paper products (SIC 2k and 26). Contamination by acid wastes and
heavy metals has been reported for the primary metal industries and in
the manufacture and plating of metal products (SIC 33 and 3^) • Seepage
from mine tailings ponds and treatment lagoons has contaminated ground
water and streams with metals, acids, radioactive substances, and other
toxic substances (SIC 10 and 14). Moreover, there is residual ground-
water degradation from two disposal practices that have been largely
62
-------
discontinued in recent years, namely the disposal of oil-field brines
and production wastes in unlined lagoons. These two practices, espe-
cially prior to 19&5, caused contamination by seepage in many oil and
gas producing areas (SIC 13)- The formerly widespread practice of
disposal of liquid industrial and other wastes in unlined leaky im-
poundments at landfills and elsewhere also has resulted in degradation
of ground water locally by a wide variety of contaminants, including
various organic compounds and other sewage constituents (SIC 49).
Case Histories of Specific Wastes
Because each incident of ground-water contamination stemming from leaky
impoundments has certain unique characteristics, it is informative to
review how some of these problems have been investigated in the past.
The following expanded case histories, listed according to the type of
waste and SIC code number, convey some idea of the types of data and
other information that are useful in making an assessment of ground-
water contamination at an impoundment site.
Arsenic Wastes (SIC 283)
Waste products containing arsenic from the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products have been discharged into sludge lagoons near Myerstown, Pa.,
2)
since 1957. Arsenic contamination of ground water in the area was
first noted in \36k, and in 19&5 arsenic concentrations were as high as
2,100 mg/1 in water from wells tapping a dolomitic limestone aquifer at
the plant site. According to EPA Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
arsenic concentrations in drinking water should not exceed 0.05 mg/1.
Three of the highly contaminated wells had been drilled to depths of 350
and kQQ ft (106 and 121 m). Ground water moves easterly from the lagoon
area toward Tulpehocken Creek, which contributes to Philadelphia's water
supply.
In order to minimize the migration of the arsenic, contaminated ground
water was pumped from wells at rates of 70 to 140 gpm (4 to 8 1/s) from
63
-------
1964 to 1971. During the first 4 yr of pumping, the water was treated
to form an insoluble precipitate of arsenic that was removed and stored
at the plant site; treated water was returned to the aquifer. Beginning
in December 1971, when concentrations of arsenic had been reduced to
about 100 mg/1 or less, the pumped water was discharged without treat-
ment into Tulpehocken Creek. Although concentrations of arsenic in the
aquifer have continued to decline with pumping, seepage of contaminated
ground water into Tulpehocken Creek has apparently taken place, based on
a water sample taken upstream from the plant in 1975 that contained
0.01 mg/1 of arsenic.
Timber and Wood Products Wastes (SIC 2k)
Disposal of wood wastes, including bark, in a water-table pond and sand
pit near Turner, Or., caused contamination of ground water and loss of
domestic supply wells. Alluvial sand and gravel constitute a shallow
aquifer, in which the depth to ground water ranges from near land sur-
face to about 10 ft (3 m) below. In August 1972, only a few weeks after
disposal operations began, water samples collected from wells downstream
from the disposal site showed concentrations of 7-5 mg/1 of lignin-
tannin (as tannic acid), 106 mg/1 of manganese, and 13 mg/1 of total
iron. These concentrations were markedly higher than in natural water;
moreover, the ground water contaminated by the leachate from the wood
waste was commonly discolored and had an unpleasant odor. At least 11
domestic wells had to be abandoned and a new supply of water had to be
obtained from a nearby public water-supply system.
The plume of contaminated ground water, defined by 1ignin-tannin con-
centrations of 0.4 mg/1 or more, extended about 1,000 ft (305 m) down-
gradient and covered an area of about k acres (1.6 ha) in August 1972.
By late January 1973, the area had increased to about 15 acres (6 ha);
the leading edge of the plume had advanced to a point about 1,500 ft
(457 m) from the disposal pit (Figure 8); and the concentrations of
contaminants in the plume had diminished somewhat.
64
-------
"^TURNER
_- — —' t
~ — \\
''
AREA OF CONTAMINATION
(TANNIC ACID 0.4 MG/L
OR MORE)
DISPOSAL SITE
Figure 8. Plan view of a plume of 1ignin-tannin contaminated
ground water, near Turner, Oregon, January 1973- 3)
65
-------
Pick!ing Liquors (SIC 33)
The disposal of acid wastes from steel mills in an abandoned strip mine
pit in eastern Ohio has caused widespread degradation of ponds, streams,
M
and ground water since 1966. The disposal pit, about 1,700 ft (518 m)
long and as much as 200 ft (60 m) wide, is located on mine spoil and is
confined by an earthen dam and spoil embankments. Prior to waste dis-
posal, drainage waters from the abandoned strip-mining area, presumably
acid in part, were capable of sustaining healthy aquatic life in streams
and ponds.
Beginning in 196^, a disposal firm placed spent pickling liquors from
mills in Pennsylvania and Ohio in the pit; it is reported that the firm
disposed of about 725,000 gpd (2,750 cu m/day) of waste liquids in 1972.
The wastes, largely neutralized prior to disposal, consisted of sulfuric
and hydrochloric acid, with minor amounts of nitric and hydrofluoric
acid. Acidic, highly mineralized fluids seeping through the soils
eventually reached streams and ponds, causing environmental damage and
two major fish kills in 1970 and 1971. TDS contents as high as 14,500
mg/1 have been reported. Moreover, the seepage water is characterized
by a low pH and high concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, iron, manga-
nese, nickel, zinc, chromium, aluminum, fluoride, and chloride.
Although conclusive evidence is lacking, it is likely that ground water
adjacent to the disposal pit is also highly mineralized. Three domestic
wells, 0.5 to 0.75 mi (0.8 to 1.2 km) downgradient from the pit, tap a
shallow aquifer that appears to be threatened by contamination, although
the wells still were not contaminated in 1973- To alleviate surface-
water and ground-water degradation, it was proposed to expand waste-
treatment and pumping facilities at the disposal site.
Phenolic Wastes (SIC 2k)
A plant near Hollywood, Md., engaged in treating wood by the high-
pressure injection of creosote, accumulated process wastes in clay-lined
66
-------
lagoons beginning in 1965. Ten years later, it was discovered that
seepage from the pits (phenols, tannin, and lignin) had contaminated a
fresh-water holding pond and a stream downgradient from the disposal
site. A geophysical survey and test drilling revealed that ground water
in the vicinity of the pits was contaminated, largely by phenolic wastes,
and that seepage of ground water had contaminated the pond and stream.
Phenolic wastes are manifest along the stream channel over a distance of
about 2 mi (3.2 km). Concentrations of phenolics were \k.k mg/1 in
ground water and 2.1 mg/1 in the stream and are sufficiently high to
have a deleterious effect on the aquatic life in the stream. It has
been estimated that the small stream will remain contaminated for at
least 100 yr after the source of contamination is eliminated.
Tailings Pond (SIC 109)
A plant processing uranium near Canon City, Colo., has discharged mill
wastes to tailing ponds since 1953. Seepage from the ponds has con-
taminated ground water downstream with excessive amounts of molybdenum;
concentrations as high as 5 mg/1 have been reported. Molybdenum con-
centrations of 856 mg/1 have been determined in the ponded waste water.
In a farming area located downgradient, stock water and irrigation
supplies are obtained from shallow wells about ^0 ft (12 m) deep.
Deteriorating health of cattle, first noted in 1965, has been attributed
to the high alkalinity and excessive molybdenum content of the ground
water and to the concentration of molybdenum in forage crops irrigated
with water from the contaminated wells. Farming operations had to be
curtailed in the affected area.
Lining of the tailings pond nearest to the farming area has resulted in
a gradual reduction of contaminants in the shallow aquifer. Moreover,
there are plans to modify the processing plant so as to permit the
recovery of molybdenum from the wastes.
67
-------
Mine Wastes (SIC 109)
Acid wastes from the milling of uranium and vanadium ores are neutra-
lized with ammonium hydroxide and are then routed to a series of ponds
near Uravan, Colo. Water from the ponds, containing high concen-
trations of ammonia (up to 88 mg/1 in 197*0, enters the San Miguel River
by seepage or through Atkinson Creek, an intermittent tributary. Al-
though some ammonia enters the San Miguel River from other effluent
waste sources in the area, seepage from the ponds appears to be a major
source of contamination. Concentrations of ammonia in samples of river
water obtained upstream from the plant ranged from the detectable limit
to 0.18 mg/1 in April 197^, whereas samples taken about 5 mi (8 km)
downstream contained 3-2 to 3-8 mg/1. Ammonia contents of individual
grab samples at the downstream site have been as high as 41 mg/1.
Although such high concentrations have been determined intermittently,
a study by Union Carbide in 197^~75 (R- L. Miller, written communication,
1977) reportedly shows that the river supports an abundant and diverse
aquatic community even below the seepage area from the ponds. Alter-
native methods of pH control or lining of the ponds would help reduce
the contamination of the river water.
Chemical Wastes (SIC 28)
In the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and adjacent areas in Colorado, the
disposal of chemical wastes in unlined ponds from 19^*3 to 1957 has
o\
caused severe contamination of shallow ground water. Liquid wastes
from the manufacture and the destruction of chemical warfare agents, and
also from the production of pesticides and herbicides, have affected
ground-water quality over an area of about 30 sq mi (70 sq km). Ini-
tially, wastes were conveyed to storage lagoons by ditches or sewers.
Since 1957, disposal has been by pipeline or tank truck to an asphalt-
lined reservoir with a capacity of 240 million gal (912,000 cu m). The
injection of wastes into a deep disposal well drilled to basement rock
was discontinued when it was found to be a cause of minor earthquakes in
the Denver region.
68
-------
Several agencies have been engaged in a study of the contaminants and
their sources since 195^. Excessive concentrations of sodium, fluoride,
arsenic, chlorate, and chloride (up to 4,000 mg/1, Cl) have been noted
in the shallow aquifer and have caused extensive damage to crops and
livestock. Other contaminants include herbicides and the insecticides
aldrin, endrin, and dieldrin, some of which may have infiltrated to the
aquifer from the periphery of the asphalt-lined reservoir or from leak-
ing sewers. Moreover, a deeper bedrock aquifer may have been degraded
locally by the downward migration of contaminated water through de-
fective well casings.
The concentration of contaminants in the shallow aquifer has been re-
duced in recent years by dilution from irrigation return water and canal
seepage; many of the abandoned wells have been returned to service.
Evidence of contamination still persists, however, and plans have been
made to study the feasibility of rehabilitating the entire area.
Wastewater and Meat Processing Wastes (SIC 201)
A rendering plant located near San Angelo, Texas, uses eight unlined
lagoons to dispose of saline process water, and to a lesser extent, of
9)
domestic sewage and boiler blowdown. Seepage from the lagoons has
contaminated shallow ground water with ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and
organic nitrogen. Ammonia concentrations in water from nearby wells
have been as high as 104 mg/1; nitrite concentrations reached 27 mg/1 in
1975- Seepage from the ponds infiltrates the Leona formation, a fairly
permeable water-table aquifer that crops out in the area. Background
concentrations of ammonia and nitrite in the aquifer are generally low.
Excessive nitrate concentrations, however, are common and appear to be
related to the return of irrigation waters or to contamination from
feedlots or other sources. The company has been requested to line the
wastewater lagoons, which will help alleviate or eliminate the problem
of ground-water contamination.
69
-------
Radioactive, Chemical, and Sanitary Wastes (SIC 28)
At the Test Reactor Area of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
near Idaho Falls, ponds are used to dispose of low-level radioactive
wastes, chemical wastes, and sanitary wastes. Since 1952, seepage
from three radioactive waste ponds and from a chemical waste pond has
created separate relatively small bodies of shallow perched ground water
in the surface alluvium, at depths of about 50 ft (15 m). Downward
migration also has created a second perched-water zone, at about 150 ft
(46 m), in fine-grained water-bearing sediments interbedded with the
basalt bedrock. This deeper perched ground-water body is centered under
the area of the disposal ponds and was about 6,000 ft (1,830 m) long and
2,500 ft (760 m) wide in 1972. Some of the perched water percolates
downward through openings in the basalt and interbedded sedimentary
layers to the Snake River Plain aquifer, at depths of about 450 ft
(137 m).
Average discharge to the radioactive waste ponds was about 200 million
gal/yr (757,000 cu m/yr) from 1952 to 1973. The total content of radio-
nuclides averaged 1,700 Ci per year from 1971 to 1973; the majority of
these have a short half-life and are of little consequence. Chromium-
51, however, was determined in a water sample from the main perched-
water zone in 1972, indicating relatively rapid seepage from the ponds.
Other radionuclides were present in the following concentrations:
Tritium 353 pCi/ml
Cobalt-60 6.4 pCi/ml
Strontium-90 0.817 pCi/ml
The concentrations of these radioactive constituents in the perched
water change relatively rapidly, according to the nature of the wastes
that are being discharged to the ponds. With the exception of strontium-
90, concentrations generally meet established standards for drinking
water. Cesium-137 has never been detected in water samples from the
perched-water zone, although it is being discharged to the waste ponds
70
-------
in quantities exceeding those of strontium-90; apparently cesium is
strongly adsorbed by clays and other minerals during seepage from the
ponds. Similarly, strontium apparently is being adsorbed during its
downward passage to the Snake River Plain aquifer, because water samples
from wells tapping the aquifer in the Test Reactor Area have not con-
tained detectable amounts of strontium. Evidence of contamination of
the Snake River Plain aquifer by seepage from the radioactive waste
ponds is indicated, however, by the relatively high concentrations of
tritium in water from deep wells in the area. A plume of high tritium
content, slightly in excess of 150 pCi/ml, extends southward from the
disposal ponds.
A disposal pond for the chemical (non-radioactive) wastes has been in
use in the Test Reactor Area since 1962. The discharged waters, about
50 million gal/yr (190,000 cu m/yr), contain high concentrations of
sulfate and sodium, with minor amounts of sulfite, phosphate, and
chloride. High specific conductance determinations in water samples
from the main perched-water zone, in excess of 3,000 micromhos/cm, are
indicative of increased TDS, largely due to seepage from the chemical
waste pond. Relatively high specific conductance determinations in
water samples from the Snake River Plain aquifer may be due to seepage
from the disposal pond. It is more likely, however, that they reflect
the injection of non-radioactive wastes directly into the aquifer
through a deep well in the Test Reactor Area. The degree of contam-
ination and the movement of contaminants in the perched and regional
ground-water bodies are being closely monitored.
Case Histories With Costs of Remedial Actions
To fully evaluate the economic implications of instituting controls or
remedial actions for the large number of impoundments that are believed
to be causing ground-water contamination in the nation would be a for-
midable task. First, most impoundment sites have never been studied in
sufficient detail to determine whether or not they actually seep.
Second, the fact that seepage may be detected in some cases does not
71
-------
necessarily establish the severity of that ground-water contamination
threat. Third, the need for and the type of remedial action cannot be
ascertained without a detailed evaluation of the rate and quantity of
the seepage, the composition of the escaping fluids, rates and directions
of ground-water flow, and the use or potential use of the receiving
aquifer as a source of water supply. Finally, operators of many im-
poundments simply may not have access to any other waste-disposal alter-
natives that are either technologically or economically feasible.
For the reasons noted above and because only scanty cost data were
available for case histories involving remedial actions, the present
study has addressed mainly the basic technologies and costs of con-
trolling contamination from impoundments (see Section VI I I and Section
XII, Appendix D). As a general indication, however, four case histories
of contamination from leaky impoundments in different hydrogeologic
environments have been evaluated in some detail to provide specific
field examples of economic and technological implications.
Las Vegas-Henderson Area, Nevada
General Background. Case-history data in the Las Vegas-Henderson,
Nevada, area provide a fairly comprehensive picture of a long-term
multi-source contamination problem for which a multi-phased solution has
been proposed. The general location of the area is shown on Figure 9-
The contaminated water, much of which is derived by seepage from industrial
waste impoundments and to some extent from municipal waste impoundments,
has moved through the upper part of the ground-water system into Las
Vegas Wash, a tributary of Lake Mead. Lake Mead is a major reservoir on
the Colorado River which supplies about 52 percent of the total water
used in the Las Vegas Valley. Of the total water use, about 42 percent
is from ground-water resources, and about 6 percent is from recycled
treated sewage effluent, which is used for agricultural and golf-course
irrigation and for cooling water. The main center of ground-water
withdrawal for public supply is more than 10 mi (16 km) northwest of the
area of heavily contaminated ground water.
72
-------
Las Vegas
HENDERSON ,'|
Figure 9. General location of the Las Vegas-Henderson area
in southeastern Nevada.
73
-------
The Desert Research Institute has made a number of detailed studies
of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Las Vegas Wash area, including
establishment of an extensive network of ground-water and surface-water
monitoring stations. Most of these studies were sponsored by EPA, who
also made several independent studies. The U.S. Geological
Survey has described the general ground-water conditions and currently
18)
maintains water-level, stream-gaging, and chemical-sampling stations
in the Las Vegas Valley. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has developed
plans to control the salinity of the Colorado River. Planning reports
have been prepared by engineering consultants for a number of industrial
and municipal waste-disposal systems in the Las Vegas-Henderson area.
A major industrial complex, housing several companies engaged chiefly in
metal refining and manufacture of chemical products, adjoins the Hender-
son area. Other waste-generating facilities in the area include four
sewage-treatment plants, several sand and gravel pits, and two power
plants.
Topography, Drainage, and Climate. Las Vegas Valley is typical of
many valleys in the Basin and Range Province of the southwestern United
States. The valley is wide and flat and slopes southeasterly from an
altitude of about 2,000 ft (610 m) above msl (mean sea level) at Las
Vegas to about 1,200 ft (370 m) at Lake Mead. Mountains composed of
igneous and sedimentary rocks rise steeply along the borders of the
valley and coalescing alluvial fans slope gently from the mountains
toward the valley floor.
Las Vegas Wash, a shallow, narrow stream that trends southeasterly
across the study area and drains into Lake Mead, is the principal sur-
face drainage feature. Originally, Las Vegas Wash was an intermittent
stream, but it presently contajns water in the middle and lower reaches
throughout the year, mainly due to surface and subsurface inflow of
industrial and municipal waste effluents. Precipitation averages about
k in (10 cm) per yr and occurs mainly in the summer and early fall.
Evaporation is about 72 to 80 in (180 to 200 cm) per yr.
74
-------
Hydrogeologic Framework. The hydrogeologic framework of the Las
Vegas-Henderson area consists of a bedrock-walled valley partly filled
with unconsolidated deposits (Figure 10). The valley-fill materials
consist of beds and lenses of sand, gravel, silt, and clay having a
maximum total thickness of several thousand feet (about 800 m) or more.
The valley walls are composed of relatively impermeable igneous and
sedimentary rocks.
The valley fill is divided into three major hydrogeologic units. The
uppermost unit is a largely unconfined aquifer (also referred to as the
neai—surface aquifer), which is composed of sand and gravel and contains
the water table. The water table is at depths ranging from about land
surface near Las Vegas Wash to as much as 50 ft (15 m) below the land
surface elsewhere in the valley. Beneath the near-surface aquifer is
the Muddy Creek Formation, a confining unit, which is composed of silt,
clay, and fine sand. Several artesian aquifers are interfingered with
confining beds in parts of the valley, especially north and west of the
Henderson area. One of these, known as the middle artesian aquifer, is
tapped for public supply at depths of about 200 to 500 ft (60 to 150 m)
by wells of the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), about 13 mi
upgradient from the Las Vegas Wash. The LVVWD supplies ground water to
the city of Las Vegas and water from Lake Mead to the cities of Las
Vegas and North Las Vegas.
The artesian aquifers are recharged by infiltration of precipitation at
and near outcrop areas on the sides of the valleys and by slow leakage
of ground water from the overlying near-surface aquifer in places where
the hydraulic gradient is downward. The near-surface aquifer is re-
charged throughout the study area by infiltration of water from precipi-
tation, lawn sprinkling, agricultural irrigation systems, leaky sewers
and mains, and seepage from unlined surface impoundments.
The regional flow pattern in the horizontal dimension is from high
altitudes on the water table along the flanks of the upland areas to low
altitudes in the vicinity of Las Vegas Wash (Figures 10 and 11). The
75
-------
01
c
c
o
o
OT-
TO—
CT) •
C Ifl
3. O
O —
i/) —
-a
• c
>- o
0) O
~ o
TO LA
> CTl
in i
TO LA
cn-a-
0)
OJ C
_l u
0)
U) -M
(/) +J
O fD
1- Q.
U
OJ 5
O
O ^
4-1 1-
O 0)
(1) 4J
1/1 (0
3
o i
— -a
01 C
.2 3
O 1-
76
-------
CD
C.
(0
-Q -—-
(D •
C
i- O
o —
U- 4-1
ro
i/l E
0) (0
4-> O
.- a)
o 4-
ro o
(D ---
C
o
o •
TJ in
c OJ
3 _l
O
a. a)
E -c
o o
u-
u
CO 4->
0)
i-
3
(D
4->
C
O
O
77
-------
general flow pattern in the vertical dimension is downward from recharge
areas along the bordering highlands to discharge areas in the lowlands,
where water from the shallow and underlying deep aquifers seeps into the
Las Vegas Wash (Figure 10 shows hydrologic conditions in the period 19^5"
1950). The flow pattern has been altered over the years in that the
potentiometric surface is no longer above the land surface except in a
few local areas, and the water table now is at or near the land surface
in the Las Vegas Wash.
Water Quali ty. The natural water quality in the study area ranges
from moderately to highly mineralized, depending on geographic location
and depth of the aquifers. The water-table aquifer in most of the area
is generally too mineralized or contaminated for use as a public-supply
source. In the parts of the underlying artesian aquifers that are
tapped for public supply, the average content of TDS is about 300 mg/1 ,
hardness about 240 mg/1, and chloride about 5 mg/1.
Lake Mead water is more mineralized than the average ground water de-
veloped by public-supply systems. In 1973, Lake Mead water had the
following concentrations: TDS, 7^5 mg/1; hardness, 330 mg/1; and
chloride, 92 mg/1. The salinity of the Colorado River at Hoover Dam
reportedly is increasing and, as one remedial measure, plans have been
4
developed to control the salinity by eliminating or reducing seepage and
discharge of contaminated water from impoundments and other nutrient-
rich sources in the Las Vegas Valley.
Although the present study is mainly concerned with contamination from
surface impoundments, it is important to note that in the Las Vegas Wash
situation, other potential and known sources of contamination affect the
quality of both the surface water and the ground water. These sources
include the following:
1. Leaky sewers.
2. Leaky water mains.
3. Lawn spr inkling.
78
-------
k. Spreading of sewage sludge to fertilize parks and golf courses.
5. Spray irrigation of sewage effluent for golf-course irrigation,
6. Disposal of storm runoff from streets and industrial areas
into basins.
7. Leaky storage tanks.
8. Spills of contaminated fluids in commercial and industrial
areas.
9. Particulate emissions from smoke stacks.
10. Septic tanks and cesspools.
Surface Impoundments. A major source of contamination of the
shallow ground water and of Las Vegas Wash in past years, and to a
lesser extent presently, has been seepage of contaminated water from
scattered surface impoundments. Table 9 gives a summary of the signifi-
cant features of selected existing and proposed impoundments in the
study area. These impoundments extend roughly along a line from Las
Vegas southeasterly to Henderson (Figure 11); all are south and west of
the Las Vegas Wash. The impoundments are used for holding, percolation,
evaporation, biological treatment, and retention of waste fluids at four
sewage treatment plants, two power plants, and at and near a major
industrial park.
Some seepage of contaminated fluids also probably occurs from unlined
impoundments at municipal waste-treatment plants owned by Clark County
and the city of Las Vegas, but the volume is thought to be negligible.
Most of the effluent discharged from these plants moves directly through
streams or unlined ditches into Las Vegas Wash,but some may also seep
down into the shallow aquifer. Some cooling water and boiler blowdown
water at the Clark and Sunrise stations of the Nevada Power Company also
may seep into the underlying shallow aquifer locally from unlined im-
poundments; some is lost by evaporation; some is discharged directly to
Las Vegas Wash by means of small streams; and some is recycled. Part of
the cooling water used at the Nevada Power Company plants consists of
recycled treated sewage effluent obtained from municipal waste-treatment
plants.
79
-------
rtj
§
2
CU
ft
»
g
S
o d
0)
QJ 3
ft rH
w
"i"
4J
ft
Q) ,—• ,
Q -P
fO fO
Q) XI
<
0 —
EH O
ffl
QJ d
3 d
4-) 'H
ffl iJ
4-1
0
v-t tn
O 73
C
• o
O ft
2
QJ
E
2
a".
S 2
(/) C
TJ ft
^ ft
H O
55
QJ QJ
-P CP
4-> X!
CO U
d fd CN
Q) QJ
33 JH •
EH 0
O QJ
Cn -P
4-1 S ffl
•H Q) r-H
U CO ft
^
ifl
EH
VD 1 -H O
i> rrj QJ
1 rH 4J tO
fN O SH -H
^ U ffl rrj
01 }-, a
H QJ QJ
fi rH CP
>i 1 f-H fd
QJ O £ QJ
> -r| CO CO
-H 4J
01 rd >i VH
d VH H O
OJ O C UH
•P ft O
X (fl O
Q) • -rt
T3 d > •
QJ H O H H
tn o -H QJ ffl
D 4H 4-1 M W
1
U O
•H
C U
rrj rl
j-i ffl tn
o en rH
G SH fO
H O U
SJ
o
x~'
m
—
CO
n
o
m
(71
T)
QJ
d
•H
rH
D
QJ
r-H
ft CO
P rH
rH QJ
CO
TJ
d
0
QJ
ft
D
CN
QJ 1
• u d
-H -H O
r- > T! -H
1 S-i C -P
^* tn JH
0. rH O
H d ffl ft
H CO fd
rH 4J ft QJ
QJ SH co
> fO -H H
-H ft TJ QJ •
CO 4-> d
C rH QJ (fl O
QJ H Cn |S -H
4-> fd ffl 4-1
X S £ CP fl
QJ CO 0) C i-t
tn -H o
T3 >i H U
QJ rH M O M
tn d o o QJ
D O MH u ft
1 1
CO - 0 QJ
3 co T3 Cn
'tj QJ (fl
d -P >• a
•r» CO -P c E
3;
O
*
p-J
^
r-
-
0
n
•a
cu
H
rH
C
D
i fti C
4-> S ?3
•H a) rH
u to ft
SH d tn
0 H rd
ft H J
ffl O
> o o
W U -P
tn
tn co
0) OJ
U 4-1
0 W
in ffl
CU £
CO
H
^
vD
rH
rH
r>
(N
QJ
d
•H
rH
1
O
rH
rH
fO
•H
tn
d 4->
0 -H
d ^ Tf
O QJ
•H O d
4-) 4-1 H
ffl H
H QJ d
O Cn 3
ft S-l
rfl rO ffl
> x: -H
W 0 >
QJ
rfl H
S Q)
H
d "H
rH
o »a
o d
U ffl
£
rH
~
ID
1
1
1
T3
QJ
d
H
rH
d
p
rH
X
VH
rrj
Q) D
PH
>• d
ffl d o
T3 rfl H
fd ft 4J
> e
(fl
QJ
d Cn
O H
O ffl
Cn XI •
fd o x:
•H en tn
0) T3 S
Cn
fd X w
rl OJ rfl
O QJ Cn
4J ^ QJ
CO U >
U
•H
4-1 QJ
tn CP
QJ fd
G 3
° Si
i
i
i
i
,
i
i
i
T3
dJ
d
•H
,H
d
P
H
OJ
Cn 4-i
g S
CU rH
• P
0 C
U CU
SH nj
lfl CD
rH in
0 E-i
r-
0
•H
4J
rH
o
o
tu
CO CU
0 0
ft H
en (0
C M
•H 0 •
T3 Oj T)
^H rO C
0 > 0
S W ft
E; 1
C) CO
4J M QJ
C3 *w Cn
3-H
4-| T3
jj QJ d Q.' QJ
in cn M "' CP
QJ rd 0 i-l TJ to
g S ft ^ 3 H
O QJ 3 ^ H O
Q in ui a> tn 4-J
s
^
^£) 1
rH 1
1 rH
1 * —
1 CO
-d
T3 QJ
QJ d
CJ -H
•rH rH
IN m
T3
QJ CO
c! 4J T3 Cn 4-i
rd d QJ QJ d
f.- QJ CO [> QJ
r$ g O £
fd o ffl rd
• QJ JH JO)
O in ft H
U EH -^ MH EH
O
X QJ 4-1 QJ P
^ 4-1 d >i 4J d
tri ui ifl 4J tn rd
rH rfl rH -rl rd H
O S ft U 2 ft
CO Ot
^
d
o
ft
P
u
rfl
4J
d
o
u
(y
G
rl
0
rH
u
u
-H
4J QJ
co cn
OJ rfl
S S
O QJ
Q tn
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
rH
O
Q
O
r-1
rH
rH
QJ
tP
P4
O
0)
to
80
-------
The city of Henderson operates two secondary waste-treatment plants.
One plant contains two unlined holding ponds with ultimate discharge of
effluent to a nearby series of percolation-evaporation ponds (Lower
Ponds. The effluent from the other plant discharges directly to the
Upper Ponds. Originally, the pond system for the Henderson industrial
park consisted of some 1,380 acres (559 ha) of unlined percolation-
evaporation ponds referred to as the Upper and Lower Ponds (Figure 11).
The original area of the ponds was designed for evaporation with no in-
filtration. In actual practice, only about 20 percent of the area of
the Upper Ponds has ever received wastewater, as most of the water is
lost by seepage.
The ponds were first used by the U.S. Army during the early 19^0's for
disposal of wastes from the manufacture of magnesium products. About
19^*6, the site was converted into an industrial park, and several chem-
ical companies and a titanium milling plant have been in operation at
the site since that time. These companies produce a variety of in-
organic and organic chemicals and use substantial amounts of water for
cooling and processing.
Most of the wastes from the industrial park were discharged formerly to
the Upper and Lower Ponds. In recent years, however, as a result of a
series of studies by the Desert Research Institute and by EPA which
indicated that contaminants were entering the near-surface aquifer from
the ponds and were seeping into Las Vegas Wash, a series of actions have
been taken to control contamination from these sources. In 1971, discharge
of wastes to the Lower Ponds was essentially stopped except for treated
sewage effluent from the city of Henderson Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1
(Figure 11) and coojing water from the industrial park. In addition, in
compliance with NPDES permit requirements by EPA, virtually all dis-
charge of wastes to the Upper Ponds has ceased, except for inflow of
cooling water and municipal wastes from the city of Henderson Sewage
Treatment Plant No. 2. Small lined ponds and other treatment facilities
have been constructed in the industrial park in recent years to replace
the old pond system.
81
-------
Contaminants in Impoundments. The composition of the impounded
fluids provides a clue to the potential contaminants in the ground water
in the study area. For descriptive purposes the impounded fluids are
classified as follows: (l) domestic secondary effluent, (2) cooling
and boiler-blowdown water, and (3) process wastes.
Domestic secondary effluent is mainly from trickling-fi1ter types of
sewage-treatment plants, except for one of the two plants at Henderson
(Table 9)- The effluent generally has a high TDS content and nutrients
such as phosphate and nitrate that contribute to algal growth. Mean
concentrations of selected constituents in the effluent from two sewage-
treatment plants (STP's) in the study area in 1971 are given below:
Clark County STP Henderson STP
Const i tuent Eff1uent Effluent
(mg/l) (mg/l)
Chloride 302 622
Sulfate 447 603
Nitrate as N 5.7
Phosphate as P 22 20
Dissolved solids 1,494 2,409
Cooling and boiler-blowdown water is discharged from two power plants
and from the industrial park. Water from the power plants has relatively
high TDS contents (about 3,000 to 4,000 mg/l) and is similar in overall
composition to secondary effluent from the Las Vegas and Clark County
STP's from which it is derived. Formerly, cooling water from the chem-
ical plants in the industrial park was mixed with industrial wastewater
before discharge. However, the cooling water is now discharged sepa-
rately to the Upper and Lower Ponds and is believed to be largely free
of harmful constituents, although the TDS content is high.
Owing to numerous operational changes, it Is difficult to characterize
the past and present composition of the industrial waste and process
waters from the Henderson industrial park. A few analyses indicate that
82
-------
at times the chemical contents have ranged as follows: pH about 1.5 to
12; nitrate, 2 to 256 mg/1; and IDS, about 3,000 to 25,000 mg/1.
Other substances presently or formerly used in manufacturing processes
or reported in the waste streams from the industrial park include:
sodium chlorate, benzene, sulfuric acid, chlorine, ammonia, caustic
soda, magnesium, chloride, copper, zinc, lead, chromium, phosphorus,
iron, calcium, sulfate, phosphoric acid, boron, boron trichloride, boron
tribromide, thiophenol, DDT, Imidan (an insecticide), and other organics.
Movement of Contaminants in Ground Water and Surface Water. Above-
normal concentrations of IDS have been reported both in ground water
from observation wells and in water at various sampling points in Las
Vegas Wash and its tributaries. ' The dissolved solids consist of
high concentrations of chloride and nitrate and low to moderate concen-
trations of chromium, iron, lithium, lead, strontium, and zinc. Most of
the contaminants are attributed to waste streams from municipal and
industrial sources. Figure 12 shows a plume of nitrate-rich ground
water in the near-surface aquifer in 1971, extending downgradient a
distance of 3 to k mi (5 to 6 km) from the Henderson industrial park to
Las Vegas Wash. The plume is attributed mainly to seepage of industrial
effluent containing high concentrations of nitric acid used in leaching
titanium ore and, to a lesser extent, nitrate in sewage-treatment plant
effluent. The high loads of nitrate of as much as 1,700 Ibs/day (770
kg/day) and of TDS of as much as 300,000 Ibs/day (136,000 kg/day) in Las
Vegas Wash in past years are attributed largely to seepage of contam-
inated water from the industrial ponds. '
The unlined surface impoundments in the area have permitted substantial
seepage of contaminated water into the near-surface aquifer, which acts
as a conduit for the movement of contaminated water laterally into Las
Vegas Wash. Continued downgradient movement of the contaminated water
poses a potential threat to the water quality of Lake Mead. In parts of
the study area, contamination of the near-surface aquifer has probably
resulted also from seepage of contaminated water through the bottoms and
83
-------
EAST
LAS VEGAS
**• m HENDERSON SEWACIE
"7 PI TREATMENT PLANT, NO.2
EXPLANATION
Figure 12. Plume of nitrate-contaminated shallow ground water
near Henderson, Nevada.11)
84
-------
sides of unlined ditches and canals that convey municipal and industrial
effluents to discharge points.
Remedial Actions and Costs. Under consideration at present are
several plans to abate contamination in the Las Vegas Wash area. These
include: (1) upgrading of the existing municipal sewage-treatment
system in the city of Henderson to an approved secondary treatment
status; (2) improvement of the city of Las Vegas and Clark County mu-
nicipal sewage-treatment facilities; (3) improvement of waste-disposal
facilities at the Henderson industrial park; and (k) implementation of
a regional salinity control plan.
The key elements of the alternative waste-treatment plans for the city
19)
of Henderson are summarized below:
Plan 1 - Construction of an activated-sludge treatment
plant of about 8-mgd (30,000 cu m/day) capacity,
irrigation reuse of 53 percent of the treated
effluent for golf courses and other public green-
belts, and discharge of excess treated secondary
effluent to the Clark County Advanced Waste-
Treatment Plant.
Plan 2 - Similar to above, except that the excess effluent
would be discharged to 85 acres (3** ha) of unlined
seepage ponds near the Lower Ponds area (Figure
11).
Plan 3 ~ Construction of two activated-sludge treatment
plants, irrigation reuse of 79 percent of the
treated effluent, and discharge of excess effluent
to 65 acres (26 ha) of unlined seepage ponds near
the Lower Ponds (Figure 11).
For economic reasons, the disposal ponds in Plans 2 and 3 above are
designed for seepage rather than evaporation. The evaporation concept
85
-------
was ruled out because it would have required about 850 acres (3^0 ha) of
lined ponds at an approximate cost of $27,000 per acre ($67,000 per ha)
of pond. This would have added an additional 17 million dollars to each
of the estimated capital costs for Plans 2 and 3 shown in the table
below (adapted from URS Co., 1977) :
Est imated
Estimated Operating Costs
Capital Costs in Year 2000
(Mi 11 ions of dollars) (Mill ions of dollars)
Plan
Plan
Plan
1
2
3
13-7
12.5
14.9
1.3
0.41
0.54
Plans for regional treatment of municipal wastes in the study area also
include improvement and expansion of existing secondary waste-treatment
plants owned by the city of Las Vegas and the Clark County Sanitation
District and construction of an AWT (advanced wastewater-treatment
plant). The proposed AWT plant would receive and treat secondary effluent
from existing city of Las Vegas and Clark County waste-treatment plants.
This effluent would be renovated by removal of phosphate and reduction
in colloidal and suspended solids, TDS, and some organic substances.
The AWT treatment process includes lime and alum coagulation, floccu-
lation, clarification, filtration, and chlorination. The initial ca-
pacity of the AWT plant would be 90 mgd (3^0,000 cu m/day), with a
potential capacity for an additional k$ mgd (170,000 cu m/day) by
1990.
A number of alternatives have been considered for disposal of the
tertiary effluent from the AWT plant. Part may be discharged to Las
Vegas Wash to maintain the flow; part may be discharged through a bypass
pipe downgradient from a proposed Bureau of Reclamation facility de-
signed for the collection and treatment of underflow from the Las Vegas
86
-------
Wash (Figure 11); and part may be used for irrigation and cooling. The
estimated cost of construction of the AWT plant is 50 to 60 million
dollars, part of which would be financed by EPA and part by local gov-
ernments .
The two principal sources of industrial wastes in the Henderson-Las
Vegas area are power-plant cooling water and process wastes from the
industrial park. As indicated previously, the power plants presently
receive secondary treated effluent from nearby municipal plants for use
as cooling water. Conceivably, the power plants could construct small
on-site facilities to treat the secondary effluent for removal of
phosphate and suspended solids. The treated water would then be re-
cycled through cooling towers in order to reduce the volume of discharge
to Las Vegas Wash.
At the industrial park, where most of the industrial wastes are gener-
ated, EPA has required that a number of actions be taken by several
companies, under NPDES compliance procedures, to prevent discharge of
contaminants into ground water and Las Vegas Wash. The most recent
actions include essentially stopping further discharge of industrial
wastewater to the unlined Upper and Lower Ponds (except for cooling
water), additional treatment and recycling of water and wastes, use of
cooling towers, and construction of a number of additional lined evapo-
ration ponds for disposal of waste fluids within the industrial park
complex. Detailed cost estimates for these remedial actions were not
available, but combined estimates for two of three major companies in
the industrial park are summarized as follows:
Est imated
Capital Costs
Remedial Action (Mill ions of dol lars)
Construction of lined ponds (10 to 15) 1.80
Construction of cooling towers (2) 0.40
Process changes and recycling of wastes .Sk
Total: 3. I1*
87
-------
No information was obtained on remedial actions by other companies, but
the total expenditure for pollution control at the industrial park is
estimated to be 3.5 to k million dollars. Operating costs are unknown
but may be as much as $100,000 per yr or more.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which has the responsibility for pro-
tecting and improving the quality of the Colorado River, has devised a
regional plan to help achieve these objectives. The plan, one of sev-
eral that the Bureau (1976) is working on, is designed to control the
salinity of the Colorado River by reducing the load of dissolved solids
contributed to the river from irrigation return flows, from diffuse
natural sources such as saline geologic formations, and from point
sources such as flowing wells, springs, and municipal and industrial
effluent discharges.
The plan for the Las Vegas Wash area involves the collection of nearly
all of the ground-water underflow at a selected downstream point in Las
Vegas Wash before it reaches Lake Mead (Figure 11), and to dispose of it
by evaporation or desalting. Theoretically, this would permit the
eventual removal from the near-surface aquifer of older contaminated
water and water from the remaining sources of waste discharge such as
municipal effluents and cooling water.
The Bureau of Reclamation plan includes the following features:
1. A subsurface interception facility composed of a cement
grout cutoff wall to be installed across the Las Vegas
Wash at a narrow point in the channel northeast of the
city of Henderson to seal off most of the underflow.
2. A collection system consisting of perforated pipes
installed in the alluvium just upstream from the cutoff
wall. The underflow would move through the pipes to
a sump where the water would be pumped either to a
series of solar evaporation ponds or to a desalting
plant. The initial underflow is estimated to be about
88
-------
5 cfs (0.1^ cu m/s), which would be increased to about
20 cfs (0.57 cu m/s) by the year 2,000.
A solar evaporation unit consisting of 5 ponds of 25 acres
(10 ha) each, located in the vicinity of the former in-
dustrial ponds. The evaporation ponds most likely would
be lined to prevent seepage.
A desalting plant, probably of the reverse-osmosis type,
would be located near the interception facility. The
plant would be built as part of a second-stage construction
operation and would have a capacity of about 20 cfs (0.57
cu m/s). Most of the fresh water produced by the desalting
plant would be discharged into Las Vegas Wash downgradient
from the plant and would ultimately reach Lake Mead. Brine
and sludge from the desalting operation would be disposed
of in the evaporation ponds.
The final feature of the Bureau of Reclamation plan is a
72-in bypass pipeline to carry water from the municipal
waste-treatment plants or AWT plant in the northern part
of the area to a discharge point downgradient from the
proposed interception facility. Some discharge from the
AWT plant would be diverted into Las Vegas Wash near the
municipal plants to maintain the ecologic balance in the
Wash.
89
-------
The estimated capital costs for the Las Vegas Salinity Control Unit
(Bureau of Reclamation, oral communication, 1977) are as follows:
Estimated
Capital Costs
Stage FacM i ty (Mill ions of dol lars)
I Interceptor facility 7.2
Lined evaporation ponds (land,
lining, and construction) 20.6
Bypass pipeline 4.2
Subtotal: 32.0
I I Desalting Plant 24.5
Total: 56.5
Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico
General Background. The Grants Mineral Belt was among the earliest
uranium discoveries and developments in the United States. Formerly,
the principal occupations in the Grants Mineral Belt were ranching and
farming; forestry industries and tourism were secondary. In Valencia
and McKinley Counties of northwestern New Mexico (Figure 13), there are
now five uranium mills in operation or under construction, which have
helped to make New Mexico foremost in the mining and milling of uranium
20)
and associated minerals in the United States. Mining-related businesses
supplying equipment, materials, and services have expanded in the Grants
Mineral Belt, as has the building industry, which requires construction
materials of all kinds. An excellent account of the early impact upon
21)
the populace and its water supplies is given by Gordon.
Hydrogeologic Conditions. The bedrock and alluvium of the Grants
21 2?)
Mineral Belt range in age from Pennsylvanian to Holocene. ' " The
dominant structural feature is the Chaco Slope, developed on the north
flank of the Zuni Uplift. The relationship of the stratigraphic units
is shown in Figure 14.
90
-------
(ft
3
o
>
0)
!_
Q.
t/i
(0
O)
i_
(D
cn
c
0.
OJ
-o
c
(ft
0)
O)
c
-CCSl
I/I
O (/)
1- C
0) .-
4-J
1/1
I
o
c
TO
0)
C
C
ro
0)
u
3
91
-------
<0
.c
c
3
cr>
C
1-
ro
I
l_
0)
+->
fO
o>
c
o
(N
ns
a)
(D
— +J
(/) i —
O 0)
U CQ
J3
E —
< <0
1_
-C (D
Di C
3 —
o z:
C
OJ
< s-
c
o
o
0)
in
o>
O
8
Ol
o
-3"
(U
i_
cn
|tA*| DM UDIUI t*OqO tJtt*Ul'
-------
The principal aquifers, from land surface down, are: (l) valley-fill
alluvium and related Holocene basalt flows; (2) the Westwater Canyon
Member of the Morrison Formation; and (3) the San Andres Limestone.
Minor aquifers are the sandstones of the Dakota Group and sandy beds
23)
within the Chinle Formation. Salt water occurs in the limestones and
sandstones of the Yeso and Abo Formations of Permian age at depths of
about 940 ft (290 m) to 1,420 ft (460 m). These formations have been
used by one mining company to dispose of wastewater by deep-well in-
24)
jection. Plans are under consideration to abandon the injection-well
scheme and to enlarge a nearby tailings pond complex as a substitute
method of handling wastes.
Prior to the development of the uranium mines, there were no perennial
21)
streams in the Grants Mineral Belt. Presently, because of the large
quantities of ground water being pumped from the mines for dewatering
purposes and discharged to the nearest drainage courses, most of the
principal streams flow continuously. Nevertheless, ground water remains
the main source of supply for communities, private domestic supplies,
and irrigation and stock watering. As a general rule, the valley-fill
alluvium and related basalts are dependable sources of ground water
along the broad valleys of the Rio San Jose and the Rio Puerco (Figure
23)
13). According to Kaufmann and others, "numerous shallow domestic
wells south and southwest of a uranium processing mill north of Milan
also tap the shallow unconfined aquifer. The principal bedrock aquifers
are the San Andres Limestone and the Westwater Canyon Member of the
Morrison Formation." These bedrock aquifers supply most of the water
used by the mills.
Ground-Water Contamination. Ground-water contamination resulting
from the mining and milling of uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt is
documented in reports of investigations by EPA's Office of Radiation
oo 2^ 26)
Programs and National Enforcement Investigations Center ' ' and by
27)
the State of New Mexico. Of particular interest is the situation
near a mill in the Grants area in the southern part of the Ambrosia Lake
District. This mill uses a carbonate leach to extract uranium from the
93
-------
ore, whereas other mills in the Grants Mineral Belt utilize an acid
leach. The carbonate leach is thought to be highly effective in dis-
solving selenium as well as uranium, and it is the selenium that has
26)
caused some community health concerns to develop.'' It is important to
emphasize that radium (Ra-226) is not the only or even the main ground-
water contaminant associated with uranium mining and milling. Selenium
can be toxic and must also be kept out of underground drinking-water
sources where its infiltration would raise concentrations above accept-
able levels (EPA's standard is 0.01 mg/1 for community supplies).
The mill site is about 4 mi (6.4 km) north of Grants (Figure 13). The
mill itself and its tailings ponds are upgradient from two subdivisions
(Figure 15) as well as from irrigated farm lands. Nearly all wells in
the area are developed in the water-table aquifer which receives some
seepage from tailings ponds near the mill. The depth to the water table
is about 50 ft (15m).
27)
Chavez, '' who investigated the potential for ground-water contamination
at the mill site, found that in less than 2 yr, after the mill began
operations, the Ra-226 concentration in the water-table aquifer rose
from its normal range of about 0.1 to 0.4 pCi/1 to as much as 9-5 pCi/1
in some wells (EPA's standard for Ra-226 in drinking water is 5 pCi/1).
At test well "D" (Figure 15), the Ra-226 content, which was 17.4 pCi/1
in 1964, has not been above 5 pCi/1 in the last 10 yr. Moreover, a
company official reports that background concentrations of Ra-226 in
sampling wells upgradient from the mill currently range from 0.8 to 3.1
pCi/1. Sampling of wells in the area and interpretation of water-level
contours indicate a downgradient movement of contaminants from the
tailings ponds and particularly from the abandoned pond southwest of the
mill. The plume of contamination is believed to be irregular in shape
and is not advancing along a broad front but is preferentially following
2g\
zones of high permeability in the water-table aquifer. The NMEIA
(New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency) reports that the Ra-226
content of recent samples from the water-table aquifer has apparently
94
-------
EXPLANATION
• 3 5 SHALLOW WELL SYMBOL
AND SELENIUM CONCENTRATION,
IN MG/L
* DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER
FLOW
**.
/
0.13
\S S S S I M| I_IM\J*J r \j\~\ \.
\/'/'// (ACTIVE)
j""4
xX TAILINGS ;>j
SUBDIVISION
I KM.
0.9 Ml.
Figure 15- Selenium concentration and general direction of ground-water
flow in the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of a uranium mill near
Grants, New Mexico. 23)
95
-------
stabilized at less than 1 pCi/1 throughout the subdivision areas
(written communication, 1978).
Kaufmann and others state that "total uranium in well "D" at the
south margin of the larger tailings ponds (Figure 15) is about 500
pCi/1, compared with 10 to 20 pCi/1 in wells of comparable depth but
located about twice the distance downgradient from the mill. For com-
parison, seepage from the mill tailings pile contains 52 pCi/1 of Ra-226
and 101,000 pCi/1 (150 mg/l) of U-natural." The authors conclude that,
although high concentrations of radium and uranium seep into the alluvium
(water-table aquifer) near the ponds, the radium and uranium ions are
adsorbed by clays at a relatively short distance from the mill and
apparently are no threat either to the deep aquifers or to the water-
table aquifer in the nearby subdivisions.
This is not the case with selenium. As shown in Figure 15, selenium
concentrations ranging from 0.0** to 3-9 mg/l have been determined at
individual domestic shallow wells in the subdivisions. Well "D", close
to the tailings pond, shows as much as 3-5 mg/l selenium, or 350 times
the recommended maximum permissible level of 0.01 mg/l in public
29)
drinking-water supplies. The concentrations shown are not the latest
available but are reportedly representative of recent analyses.
28)
Kaufmann and others note that "although the background level for
selenium is not fully defined, the deeper aquifers (Chinle, San Andres)
contain 0.01 mg/1 , whereas the seepage collection ditches and the shal-
low monitor well "D" contain 0.92 and 3.5 tng/1, respectively. Data
collected in the course of the study showed that selenium concentrations
in ground water throughout the Grants Mineral Belt were generally 0.01
mg/l or less. Prominent exceptions include the forego'mg wells and
A
seepage adjacent to the mill. Elsewhere, mine and ion-exchange plant
effluents averaged 0.027 and 0.15 mg/l of selenium, respectively, at the
il-
Company reports that selenium concentrations in samples from background
wells upgradient from the mill range from 0.08 to 0.12 mg/l.
96
-------
time of sampling. As a result of widespread selenium contamination, a
cooperative State-industry program is underway to provide alternate
potable water supplies for the local populace."
Cost of Control 1 ing Ground-Water Contamination. Remedial operations,
particularly in regard to the selenium contamination of the alluvial
water-table aquifer, are currently underway, but no specific information
relating to the ultimate costs of the joint investigation by the company
and the NMEIA are readily available. A company official has estimated
that costs may be on the order of $250,000 to $300,000. The entire
cleanup operation will take some years to complete. Details of the
operation are given in the "Ground-Water Protection Plan," an agreement
between the company and NMEIA dated August 18, 1976.
According to the Plan, aquifer pumping tests will be run to determine
the hydraulic properties of the alluvium and water samples will be taken
from private and company wells in the area. A line of 20 collection
wells paralleling the south and west sides of the tailings pond has
already been installed and is operating, with the contaminated water
pumped out of the aquifer being recycled through the mill's processing
system. Water pumped from the San Andres Limestone is injected through
6 injection wells into the alluvial aquifer downgradient from the 20
withdrawal wells, for the purpose of flushing out the selenium-
contaminated water and diluting it in order to restore the water quality
of the alluvial aquifer to normal. During the period of remedial action,
the company is furnishing free bottled drinking and cooking water to
residents whose wells may be contaminated.
Brokaw and Peshtigo Area, Northeastern Wisconsin
General Background. Wisconsin is one of several States where
problems of ground-water contamination stemming from discharge of
sulfite liquors from pulp mills have been studied in some detail. In
past years, most liquid and pulp sulfite wastes were simply discharged
into nearby streams or lakes. If the dilution and assimilative ca-
pacities of the receiving water were great enough, the wastes were
97
-------
carried away. As mills became larger and more numerous, the amounts of
sulfite waste liquors exceeded the capacity of the receiving waters to
handle the wastes. Consequently, laws were passed in Wisconsin and in
other States to prevent discharge of the wastes to surface water. This
led many companies to begin disposal of their sulfite liquors into un-
lined surface impoundments designed to permit seepage of the wastes
underground, as long as existing laws did not forbid such disposal.
In the manufacture of sulfite pulp, chips of coniferous woods (usually
those of low resin content) are cooked under pressure and at high tem-
perature in a watery solution of calcium, magnesium, or ammonium bi-
sulfite, containing an excess of sulfuric acid. Byproducts of the
sulfite pulping process are cymene, which includes any of three liquid
hydrocarbons and spent sulfite process liquor, most of which is dis-
charged to the environment because it has little or no known economical
use. The spent liquor itself, which contains appreciable amounts of
lignin, acidity, and TDS, also has a high BOD, which ranges from about
15,000 to ^0,000 mg/1. The liquor has a dark color and pungent odor,
and foams when dispersed in open bodies of water.
Of 579 municipalities in Wisconsin, 5^9 obtained (I960) their water
supplies from aquifers; also, about 93 percent of the rural homes in
Wisconsin have their own domestic supply wells and most use ground water
as their source for irrigation and farm-animal supply. Known sites
in Wisconsin experiencing ground-water contamination from surface im-
poundments containing spent sulfite liquor include (Figure 16) Brokaw,
Rothschild, Peshtigo, Niagara and Neenah ' (Smith, Thomas;, and
Brant, Gary; personal communication, 1977). The situations at Brokaw
and Peshtigo described below are among the best documented case histories,
Ground-Water Contamination at Brokaw. Brokaw is a mill town on
the Wisconsin River approximately 8 mi (13 km) north of Wausau, the
county seat of Marathon County. The population is about *tOO. From 1953
to 1957, the paper mill at Brokaw continuously discharged sulfite
waste liquors into a 6-acre (2.^ ha) percolation pond on a large island
98
-------
0 20 4O «OMI
I • I •
O 20 40 00 90 KM.
Figure 16. Location of selected incidents of ground-water contamination
from paper mill wastes in northeastern Wisconsin.
99
-------
in the Wisconsin River (Figure 17), during which time nearby water-
supply wells became polluted. It was believed, at the time when the
waste disposal began, that the spent liquor would be biologically
destroyed by soil bacteria as it percolated through the earth materials
beneath the pond floor and would be further clarified and made non-
objectionable by filtration during seepage down to the water table.
However, according to Ruedisili, "a few years of continuous checking
showed that the spent liquor -- of high specific gravity and moving to
lower strata -- was not changed in composition. It appeared to be
concentrating in the deeper sections of the aquifer and moving toward
and along the main channel of the Wisconsin River. Company officials
became concerned that this polluted ground water would be objectionable
for potable and industrial uses even with very dilute concentrations of
sulfite liquor. Observations showed that the liquor was slightly acid,
high in BOD (16,000 mg/1) and dissolved organic material, had a char-
acteristic pungent odor, and foamed when dispersed in surface waters.
Therefore, in October 1964, the Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution
and the State Board of Health requested that the company prevent further
contamination of the ground water and determine the feasibility of
removing the spent sulfite liquor from the ground."
"A company study determined that a barrier well system would be the best
means of prohibiting the further migration of the liquor within the
aquifer (migration of 3,300 ft (1,000 m) downstream in 11 years). This
could be accomplished by placement of either a pumping barrier or a
barrier caused by continually recharging fresh water to the aquifer.
Because of the expense and difficulty of obtaining uncontaminated water,
the possibility of permanently maintaining a fresh-water barrier was
ruled out."
"The company then utilized a high-capacity "withdrawal" (dewatering)
well and a barrier (interceptor well) for removal and control of the
underground pool of spent sulfite liquor. Initially, the barrier well
was used for test purposes to determine increases or decreases in
liquor concentrations in the ground water. The withdrawal well pumped
100
-------
in
c
o
o
(f)
3.
CO
_^
o
u
CQ
o
Q.
O
a
cr
c
0)
Q.
0)
Q.
(D
Q-
r~-»
m
i_
O)
101
-------
contaminated water from the ground and discharged it into the Wisconsin
River. Because the effects of adding contaminated ground water to the
Wisconsin River could not be predicted without continuous monitoring, a
comprehensive program of systematic water-level and water-quality ob-
servations was established in 1964." In subsequent years, four more
pumping wells were installed as barrier wells to prevent further move-
ment of the liquor, and two more withdrawal wells were installed to
remove the highly concentrated spent liquors closer to the original
ponding operations (Figure 17).
"Results of the barrier well system have shown that the wells can be
pumped only from November to April every year, because of the inability
of the river to assimilate this contaminated water. Since the oper-
ations began, production of water and waste liquid from these wells has
been much lower than expected. They were constructed to pump 1,500 gpm,
(95 1/s) but have been operated at only 500 gpm (32 1/s). At this
present (1972) pumping rate, computations by company chemists have shown
that the barrier wells are removing less than 2.2 ponding-days equiv-
alent of liquor per month. As there were a total of 1,488 days of
ponding spent liquor, the magnitude of the problem of removing the
liquor from the aquifer only by the barrier wells can be seen. Simi-
larly, water-quality analyses have shown that the spent liquor in the
water pumped, measured in lignin, was reduced from an initial concen-
tration of 17,200 mg/1 to 3,000 mg/1 in 3 days and after 10 days dropped
to 2,120 mg/1, stabilizing at approximately this level. Results of the
withdrawal program have further revealed that a water-table gradient has
been established toward the barrier well system and is beginning to
control the further migration of the waste liquor; it will continue to
do so if the average yield of the barrier wells is maintained at
approximately 500 gpm (32 1/s)."
According to a paper mill official at Brokaw (oral communication, April
1977), capital costs amount to about $453,000. These include the con-
struction of the 6-acre (2.4 ha) ponds; installation of five observation
and monitoring wells (which subsequently became barrier pumping wells,
102
-------
complete with 1,500-gpm (8,175 cu m/day) pumps powered by 50-hp (51 hp)
natural-gas engines); two centrally located withdrawal wells with the
same size, construction, and pumps as the barrier wells; and upgrading
of the monitor system. No real-estate costs are included in the capital
costs.
In 1976, the company abandoned the percolation ponds and began to use an
in-house treatment plant that evaporates 89 to 95 percent of the spent
sulfite liquor and burns the residual. Some wastewater, including di-
gester blowdown stack waste, is stored temporarily in new 1.5 million
gal (5,700 cu m) tanks for later secondary treatment and eventual re-
lease of the treated effluent directly into the Wisconsin River.
Ground-Water Contamination at Peshtigo. According to Hackbarth
and Ruedisili, a problem similar to that at Brokaw has developed at
Peshtigo, involving paper mill spent liquor wastes. Beginning in 1955,
spent-liquor wastes were disposed of into percolation ponds and ditches.
The spent liquors seeped from these facilities into the water-table
aquifer, a valley-fill deposit composed of Pleistocene sand and gravel,
including lenticular layers of silt and clay overlying a bedrock covered
by a blanket of dense, impermeable, clayey till. Unlike the valley
walls and bedrock of granite at Brokaw, made permeable by joints and
cracks, the dolomitic bedrock at Peshtigo is essentially impermeable;
therefore, at Peshtigo the spent sulfite liquor remains within the
valley fill and does not move at depth into and through the bedrock as
it does at Brokaw.
In the 18 years of disposal into ponds at Peshtigo (1955-1973), the
spent liquor has passed downward into the water-table aquifer, with no
intervening zone of aeration between the bottom of the percolation ponds
and the water table. Thus aerobic treatment is impossible. Wisniewski
reports that the clean, fine quartz sand in which the ponds are dug has
very little adsorptive capacity. Little, if any, of the lignin is
adsorbed as the dense waste liquor of high specific gravity percolates
downward to the base of the water-table aquifer.
103
-------
Hackbarth also reports that the spent sulfite liquor seeps downward
to the bottom of the water-table aquifer and concentrates near the
disposal sites. He says "in many instances the Folin-Denis values
approach those of the applied spent sulfite liquor (about 75,000 mg/l)."
He goes on to say "...the spent sulfite liquor is not affecting a much
larger area than that on which it was applied. There does not appear to
be cause for worry about lateral movement to water wells ...the exis-
tence and position of the till layer is very critical to this operation.
If the till were buried deeper, it is conceivable that the spent sulfite
liquor would not discharge into the river but would move under it (par-
allel to the river trend) and influence the whole flood plain farther
downstream (as it has as Brokaw)."
Hackbarth concludes that an area covering about 0.75 sq mi (1.9 sq km) has
been contaminated to a depth of 75 ft (23 m) below land surface by the
spent sulfite liquor, but that the plume of contamination is essentially
stabilized in its present position. He estimates that, of the 292
million gal (1.1 million cu m) disposed of in the infiltration ditches
and ponds, some 187 million gal (708,000 cu m) has seeped laterally or
run overland at times into the Peshtigo River, thus leaving some 105
million gal (400,000 cu m) as a residual mound at depth in the water-
table aquifer. As discharged from the ponds, the spent liquor has
received secondary treatment including neutralization, filtration of
solids, and some dilution.
From 1971 to 1973, experimentation was undertaken using spraying from
tank trucks over a vegetated area of about 43.5 acres (17.6 ha). Such
disposal is environmentally acceptable but is a cumbersome and time-
consuming means of handling the spent sulfite liquor; furthermore, it
does not function well, if at all, during freezing weather. Installing,
operating, and maintaining a rainbird-type sprinkling system was judged
to be too expensive, and, in 1973, a new treatment plant was built to
evaporate about 57 percent of the spent liquor, leaving a burnable pulp
as a residual. Other plant fluid wastes are piped to the City of
Peshtigo's waste-treatment plant before discharge to the Peshtigo River.
104
-------
The cost for construction of the evaporator and separating plant was
$2.5 million. Operation and maintenance costs for the plant run about
$1 million/yr. Final treatment of k.2 mgd (16,000 cu m/day) of mill
wastewater at the Peshtigo treatment plant costs another $0.5 million/yr,
according to a company official.
South Farmingdale Area, Long Island, N.Y.
General Background. The South Farmingdale area in western Long
Island, N.Y., is largely residential, has a population of about 5^0,000,
and has a water-supply demand of about 108 mgd (410,000 cu m/day). It
contains more than 1,000 light industries and commercial establishments.
No surface-water supplies are available; consequently, the area is
totally dependent upon ground water for public supplies. Some ground-
water contamination has already occurred locally by infiltration of
synthetic organic chemical compounds, metal-plating waste, sewage, and
other substances. The general location of the area is shown on Figure
18 and a detailed map is shown on Figure 19- The area straddles the
Nassau-Suffolk County boundary and extends from about the middle of the
Island to Great South Bay on the south.
Because of known or potential threats of contamination of parts of the
Upper Glacial (Water-Table) and underlying Magothy Aquifers, numerous
studies of water-quality problems have been made by the Nassau County
Health Department, Nassau County Department of Public Works, Suffolk
County Department of Environmental Control, Suffolk County Water Au-
thority, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation. Each of these agencies has also supported cooperative studies
with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Water-Quality Problems. The study area, which is largely unsew-
ered, includes about 50 industrial point-source discharges, such as
pits, ponds, lagoons, and septic systems, and numerous storm-water
basins (Figure 19). Many of these point sources discharge a wide va-
riety of liquid wastes into the ground; others discharge to streams or
the wastes are removed by commercial haulers.
105
-------
Ui
o
-Q
o
I
TJ
c
3
O
a.
E
O
o
(LI
c:
x
CD
(TJ
0)
O
in
"O
c
O1
C
O
a.
(D
oo
3
a>
106
-------
BEJHPAGE a
INDUSTRIAL
AREA
PLUME OF.
METAL- !
PLATING I
EXPLANATION
INDO*TMIAL SUMPACC IMPOUNDMENT
OTHIM INDUSTRIAL POINT DISCHANM
STMM-WATER »A«INS
PUtLIC- SUPPLY WELL
DIRECTION OF 0ROUND-WATER PLOW
i Grtvt Saul* Jwr
Figure 19- South Farmingdale area in western Long Island, N. Y., showing
plume of metal-plating wastes, location of industrial surface impound-
ments, other industrial point discharges, storm-water basins, and public-
supply welIs.
107
-------
The wastes include ammonia, incinerator blowdown and quench-water
wastes, metal-plating waste fluids, and organics such as methylene
chloride, vinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride, chloroethylene, benzene,
toluene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, phenols, and other organic
chemicals. Additionally, because the area is largely unsewered,
millions of gallons (thousands of cu m) of domestic wastes containing
detergents and other sewage contaminants are discharged directly into
ground water through tens of thousands of cesspools and septic tanks.
Central sewer systems, now under construction in both southeastern
Nassau County and southwestern Suffolk County, will eventually eliminate
the need for most domestic septic systems.
•0-7 o Q \
The area also has hundreds of unlined storm-water basins ' (Figure 19),
which receive highly polluted street runoff that seeps into the
underlying Water-Table Aquifer through the bottoms and sides of the
basins. The runoff has an average pH of 5-6 and contains oil, grease,
other organics, and inorganics, including nitrate and phosphate. In
addition, during the winter months, runoff containing high concentrations
of chloride from road deicing salts also seeps into the aquifer through
the basins. Trace amounts of heavy metals, including arsenic., cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc, which have been detected in
runoff to the storm-water basins, also are of concern.
Urbanization of the study area, beginning in the early IS'tO's, resulted
in increasing contamination of the upper part of the Water-Table Aquifer,
chiefly by effluents seeping from cesspools and septic tanks and by
industrial and municipal wastes discharged into pits, ponds, lagoons, or
on the land surface. As a result of the ground-water contamination,
some shallow-public-supply wells that tapped the Water-Table Aquifer
were abandoned and deep public-supply wells were drilled into the un-
derlying Magothy aquifer, the principal source of water supply. Re-
cently, however, 9 public-supply wells and 8 industrial-supply wells,
all withdrawing water from the Magothy aquifer in the Bethpage industrial
park area (Figure 19), also have been taken out of service because of
ground-water contamination.
108
-------
Ground-Water Contamination from Plating Wastes. The first indi-
cation of contamination of the Water-Table Aquifer by plating wastes was
39)
noted in 19^2 by the Nassau County Health Department at an aircraft
kO)
plant in South Farmingdale. It was determined that chromic acid
wastes from metal-plat ing operations had been discharged into unlined
disposal basins at the plant site and had contaminated a nearby supply
well. The owners were advised to shut down the well and to make no
further use of the water. The approximate location of the disposal
basins and of the associated plume of contaminated ground water is shown
on Figure 19-
No further investigation of the chromium contamination was made until
June. 19^5, when a series of shallow test wells were installed south of
the aircraft plant. The chromium content of the water from the test
wells ranged from zero to a trace. In 19^8, the New York State Depart-
ment of Health analyzed another set of samples from these test wells,
along with samples from a shallow domestic well about 1,500 ft (^60 m)
south of the disposal basins. The results showed some copper, aluminum,
and cadmium, as well as chromium in the water. Recognizing that the
full extent of the contamination could not be assessed by resampling the
few existing wells and aware of the potential danger to public-water
supplies, the Nassau County Department of Health and Public Works made
a joint investigation of the contaminated area in 19^9 and 1950, which
included the drilling and sampling of about 40 test wells.
Despite the completion of a waste-treatment unit for chromium removal in
19**9, discharge of effluent containing cadmium and other metals was
continued at the disposal basins. After 1.2 mg/I of cadmium was de-
termined in a sample of treated effluent from one of the basins in 1953,
a new test-drilling program was begun in that year to determine the
extent of cadmium contamination in the ground water downgradient from
the disposal basins.
109
-------
In 1962, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Nassau
County Departments of Health and Public Works, made a detailed investi-
gation of the extent, chemical composition, and pattern of movement of
*tO)
the contaminated water. This investigation included the drilling and
sampling of about 100 test wells and also extensive sampling of a nearby
stream, Massapequa Creek, for cadmium and hexavalent chromium.
Figure 19 shows the general location of the plume of contaminated
ground water with respect to public-supply wells, the Bethpage industri-
al area (a recently discovered source of organic contaminants from
impoundments), and other impoundments. Figure 20(A) is a block diagram
showing the shape and extent of the plume in relation to the local
hydrogeologic system. The plume was about ^,200 ft (1,280 m) long and
averaged about 750 ft (230 m) wide in 1962. Figure 20(B) is a hydro-
geochemical section across the south end of the plume in 1962, showing
the distribution of lines of equal concentration of hexavalent chromium.
The volume of contaminated water in the plume is estimated to be 195
million gal (7^1,000 cu m). Part of the contaminated ground water is
discharged naturally into Massapequa Creek and the remainder is moving
slowly downgradient in the Water-Table Aquifer. Intermittent sampling
suggests that little expansion of the plume has taken place since 1962.
As long as the plume remains in the Watei—Table Aquifer, under present
pumping conditions only a minor threat exists to the quality of water in
the underlying Magothy Aquifer. However, a number of steps could be
taken to alleviate the potential threat of significant downward movement
of the contaminated water as a result of increased pumping from the
Magothy Aquifer. One alternative would be to remove the plume by pump-
ing out the contaminated water, provided that further discharge of
metal-plating wastes to the impoundments were stopped. However, the
costs would be very high if the waste fluids had to be treated before
recharge to the ground-water system or had to be stored in lined holding
ponds before removal by scavengers.
no
-------
(A)
DISPOSAL
BASIN.
SOUTH FARMINGDALE
INDUSTRIAL AREA
PLATIN8-WASTE
EFFLUENT
DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER
FLOW
A1 LINE OF SECTION SHOWN
ON FIGURE 20 B
(B)
UPPER QLACIAL AQUIFER
SCE LINE OF SECTION ON FIOUMC 2OA
EXPLANATION
— 8— CHROMIUM CONTENTJN MG/L
.00
too
3OO
400
500 FT.
100 METRES
Figure 20. Block diagram (A) showing the aquifer system and areal extent of
plume of plating wastes in South Farmingdale, Nassau County, N. Y., and
downgradient section (B) showing vertical distribution of hexavalent chromium
content in 1962.^°)
Ill
-------
Status of Remedial Actions. Only the plume of contamination caused
by the plating wastes at South Farmingdale has been investigated inten-
sively thus far, at a cost believed to be considerably in excess of
$100,000. Most likely, there are individual plumes of contaminated
ground water associated with many of the other impoundments in the area,
as well as with other sources of contamination such as cesspools, leaky
sewers, spills, and dumps. Nothing has been done yet to define their
dimensions or chemical composition, owing to the large expenditures that
would be required.
Except for removal of heavy metals, mostly chromium, in small treatment
plants at the site of the plume at South Farmingdale and in the Bethpage
industrial area, little or no treatment is given to wastes in other
surface impoundments and no treatment is given to street runoff in the
numerous storm-water basins. At some industrial establishments, scav-
engers are used to haul away wastes for disposal elsewhere. However,
the basic problem of how to safely dispose of other industrial wastes,
which cannot be discharged into municipal san i tary-se.wer systems in the
area, still exists.
112
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Deutsch, M. 1963- Ground-water contamination and legal controls in
Michigan. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1691. 79 pp.
2. Wood, Charles R. 1973- Evaluation of arsenic concentrations in
the Tulpehocken Creek basin, Pennsylvania. U.S. Geol. Survey,
Open-file Report. 16 pp.
3. Sweet, H. R., and Fetrow, R. H. 1975- Ground-water pollution by
wood waste disposal. Ground Water, 13:227-231.
k. Pettyjohn, Wayne A. 1975- Pickling liquors, strip mines, and
ground-water pollution. Ground Water, 13:^-10.
5. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Admini-
stration. 1975. Disposal of hazardous and industrial wastes in
Maryland, p. 13-14.
6. Runnels, Donald D., and others. 1973- Geochemistry of molybdenum,
_MT_ Transport and the biological effects of molybdenum in the en-
vironment. Colorado State Univ., Progress Report, January 1, 1973-
P. 33-37-
7. Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division.
April 197**. Water quality and benthic investigation of the San
Miguel River Basin. Report, April 197^. ^7 pp.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975- Hazardous waste-
disposal damage report. EPA-530/SW-151.2, Document No. 2, p. 5-8.
9. Texas Water Quality Board. 1975. Hydrogeologic investigation in
the vicinity of San Angelo By-Products Company, Tom Green County,
Texas. Report No. GS-75-89 Field. 8 pp.
10. Barraclough, J. T., and Jensen, R. G. 1976. Hydrologic data for
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site, Idaho. U.S. Geol.
Survey, Open-file Report 75-318. 52 pp.
11. Kaufmann, R. F. 1971- Effects of Basic Management, Inc. effluent
disposal on the hydrogeology and water quality of the lower Las
Vegas Wash area, Las Vegas, Nevada. Interim progress report to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Desert Research Inst.,
Univ. of Nevada, under Grant No. 13030B. 176 pp.
12. Kaufmann, R. F. 1978. Land and water-use effects on ground-water
quality in Las Vegas Valley. Final report to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from Desert Research Inst., Univ. of Nevada,
under Grant No. R8009it6.
113
-------
13. Westphal, J. A., and Nork, W. E. 1972. Reconnaissance analysis of
effects of waste-water discharge on the shallow ground-water flow
system, lower Las Vegas Valley, Nevada; Desert Research Inst.,
Univ. of Nevada. 36 pp.
]k, Bateman, R. L. 1976. Analysis of effects of modified waste water
disposal practices on lower Las Vegas Wash. Desert Research Inst.,
Univ. of Nevada. 60 pp.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Report on pollution
affecting Las Vegas Wash, Lake Mead, and the lower Colorado River,
Nevada - Arizona - California. Office of Enforcement, Division of
Field Investigation, Denver Center, Colorado and Region IX, San
Francisco, California. 52 pp.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Remote sensing
study, Las Vegas Wash Basin, Las Vegas, Nevada. National Field
Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado and Region IX, San Francisco,
California. 29 pp.
17. Malmberg, G. T. 1965- Available water supply of the Las Vegas
ground-water basin, Nevada. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1780. 116 pp.
18. Harrill, J. R. 1976. Water level changes associated with ground-
water development in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 1971~75. U.S. Geol.
Survey Water Resources-Informal ion Series Report 22. ^6 pp.
19. URS Co. 1977. Draft 201 wastewater facilities plan, city of Hender-
son, Nevada.
20. Guccione, E. 197**- Fuel shortage triggers a new uranium rush in
New Mexico. Min. Engineering, SME-AIME. 26:23-25.
21. Gordon, E. E. 1961. Geology and ground-water resources of the
Grants-Bluewater area, Valencia County, New Mexico. New Mexico
State Engineer Tech. Report. 109 PP-
22. Hilpert, L. S. 1963. Regional and local stratigraphy of uranium-
bearing rocks. New Mexico State Bur. Mines and Min. Resour. Memoir
No. 15, 219-221 pp.
23. Kaufmann, R. F., Eadie, G. G., and Russell, C. R. 1975- Summary of
ground-water quality impacts of uranium mining and milling in the
Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico, Office of Radiation Programs, Las
Vegas, Nevada. Environmental Protection Agency Tech. Note ORP/LV
75-*. 70 pp.
114
-------
2k. Clark, D. A. 1974. State of the art -- uranium mining, milling,
and refining industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Devel., Corvallis, Oreg. EPA-660/2-74-038.
113 PP-
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975- Impacts of uranium
mining and milling on surface and potable waters in the Grants
Mineral Belt, New Mexico. EPA National Enforcement Investigations
Center, Denver, Colorado and Region VI, Dallas, Texas. 85 pp.
26. Rouse, J. V., and Dudley, J. G. 1976. Radiochemical and toxic pol-
lution of water resources, Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Society
of Mining Engineers, AI ME preprint. 15 pp.
27. Chavez, E. A. 1961. Progress report on contamination of potable
ground water in the Grants-Bluewater area, Valencia County, New
Mexico. New Mexico State Engineer, Roswel1, New Mexico.
28. Kaufmann, R. F., Eadie, G. G., and Russell, C .R. 1976. Effects of
uranium mining and milling on ground water in the Grants Mineral
Belt, New Mexico. Ground Water, 14:296-308.
29- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. National interim
primary drinking water regulations. EPA-570/9~76-003- 159 pp.
30. Ruedisili, L. C. 1972. Groundwater in Wisconsin - Quantity and
quality control; legal controls and management. Water Resources
Center, Madison, Wisconsin. 108 pp.
31. Hackbarth, D. A. 1971. Hydrogeologic aspects of spent sulfite
liquor disposal at Peshtigo, Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.
Ph.D. dissertation.
32. E. A. Hickock and Associates. 1971. Report on ground-water con-
tamination at Wausau Paper Mills, Brokaw, Wisconsin. E. A. Hickock
and Assoc., Wayzata, Minnesota.
33- Wisniewski, T. F., Wiley, A. J., and Lueck, B. F. 1956. Spent
sulfite liquor studies, V, ponding and soil filtration of spent
sulfite liquor in Wisconsin. TAAPI. 39:
34. Flynn, J. M. 1961. Impact of suburban growth on ground water
quality in Suffolk County, New York in Proc., 1961. Symposium on
ground-water contamination. U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, USPHS Tech. Report No. WG1-5. p. 71-82.
35. Perlmutter, N. M., and Guerrera, A. A. 1970. Detergents and associ-
ted contaminants in ground water at three public-supply well fields
in southwestern Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geol.
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2001-B. 22 pp.
115
-------
36. Perlmutter, N. M., Lieber, M., and Frauenthal, H. L. 1964. Contamin-
ation of ground water by detergents in a suburban environment--
South Farmingdale Area, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 501-C. p. 170-175-
37- Aronson, D. A., and Seaburn, G. E. 197**- Appraisal of operating
efficiency of recharge basins on Long Island, New York in 1969.
U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2001-D. 22 pp.
38. Seaburn, G. E. , and Aronson, D. A. 197^- Influence of recharge
basins on the hydrology of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island,
New York. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2031. 66 pp.
39- Davids, H. W., and Lieber, M. 195'• Underground contamination by
chromium wastes. Water and Sewage Works, 98:528-53^-
40. Perlmutter, N. M., and Lieber, M. 1970. Dispersal of plating
wastes and sewage contaminants in ground water and surface water,
South Farmingdale-Massapequa area, Nassau County, New York. U.S.
Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1879-G. 67 pp.
M. U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water standards. U.S.
Public Health Serv. , Publ. No. 956. 16 pp.
116
-------
SECTION VI I I
TECHNOLOGICAL CONTROLS
CONTAMI NAT ION-PREVENTI ON TECHNIQUES
Direct Methods
A number of direct methods are available that will prevent contaminated
fluids in an impoundment from coming in contact with uncontaminated
ground water. Some of these methods are feasible only during the
construction of new impoundments; others may be applied to new or
existing impoundments. Although many variations and combinations of
these techniques are potentially applicable, it is believed that the
eight techniques summarized below cover the range of currently available
technology for preventing or controlling ground-water contamination.
Alternative 1 - Installation of an Impermeable Membrane
One of the commonly used methods for preventing ground-water contamin-
ation from impoundments is the installation of an impermeable membrane
that seals off the bottom and sides of the impoundment. The membranes
most typically used are made from synthetic materials such as butyl
rubber, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polypropylene, and nylon.
Usually, an impermeable membrane must be installed during the construction
of an impoundment, particularly if the function of the impoundment is to
hold sludge or solid materials. The only way to install an impermeable
membrane in an existing impoundment is to remove the impounded material,
install the membrane, and then replace the material on top of the
membrane—an exceedingly difficult, costly, and environmentally risky
operation. If the function of the impoundment is the treatment of
wastewater, it is sometimes possible to drain the impoundment during a
period when no wastewater is generated (such as during a plant maintenance
117
-------
shutdown) and to install the membrane. If, however, the installation
delays production or if it requires a plant shutdown that would not be
otherwise scheduled, the resulting costs could make the use of this
alternative economically prohibitive for many plants.
Alternative 2 - Installation of a Layer of Impermeable Material
Bentonite clay is most commonly used to form a layer of impermeable
material on the bottom and sides of an impoundment. It is usually
pumped in as a thick slurry and allowed to compact either by subsidence
or by mechanical means. Although clay is not totally impermeable, it
does have one advantage over membrane liners in that it will not de-
teriorate with age. Also, being plastic in nature, it tends to be self-
sealing should the layer be punctured.
As in the case of impermeable membranes, bentonite layers are usually
installed during the initial construction of an impoundment. If an
impoundment is already filled with a solid or sludge, those materials
would have to be removed first in order to install the bentonite layer.
This procedure is just as difficult as the installation of an imperme-
able membrane.
In theory, it should be possible to install a bentonite layer in a
wastewater impoundment without first emptying it of fluids. However,
bentonite slurrie's usually do not settle very rapidly, and if the waste-
water impoundments are aerated lagoons, it is doubtful that a sufficiently
dense layer could be established on the bottom, because of the turbulence
caused by aeration. The wastewater-treatment system would, in all
likelihood, have to be shut down in order to produce the quiescent
conditions necessary for the bentonite to compact. For these reasons,
in-situ installation of bentonite or other slurry-like layers in most
operating wastewater-treatment impoundments is not likely to be
feasible because of costs and physical problems.
118
-------
Alternative 3 ~ Collection of Contaminated Water Seeping from Impoundment
A number of collection systems can be used to intercept contaminated
ground water at points near the actual boundary of an impoundment when
it is not feasible to install an impermeable membrane or a layer of
impermeable material in an existing impoundment that is already filled
with wastes. The contaminated water is either returned to the impound-
ment or treated to remove the objectionable contaminants prior to reuse
or discharge. The three most commonly used collection systems are
infiltration galleries, wellpoint systems, and conventional wells.
Infiltration Galleries. An infiltration gallery consists of a
gravel-packed trench with a horizontal perforated pipe along the trench
bottom which connects to a vertical casing and pumping system. In-
filtration galleries may be useful in places where geologic conditions
make it difficult for standard wells to intercept all the contaminated
ground water. For example, in areas where the soil consists primarily
of hard dense material, such as glacial till, and the ground water is
transmitted largely through lenses of sand, dewatering by conventional
screened wells is difficult, and an infiltration gallery may be used.
The trench for an infiltration gallery is excavated with various types
of equipment, depending on the depth required to collect contaminated
ground water. Where the aquifer is shallow or the ground water to be
pumped is only in the upper part of the aquifer, the trench may be
excavated using a scraper and/or backhoe. The scraper removes the top 1
or 2 yds (about 1 or 2 m) of soil above the water table. The backhoe
excavates to depths of about 12 yds (11 m) below the ground surface.
For deeper trenches a clamshell or dragline may be used.
During excavation below the water table, the side slopes of the trench
tend to slough into the excavation unless special precautions are taken.
One solution would be to place a biodegradable drilling mud in the
trench to keep the slopes intact. The gravel pack and the horizontal
collecting pipe can be placed in the trench while it is filled with
119
-------
drilling mud. After several days, the mud largely degrades or breaks
down and flushes out.
Wei 1 point Systems. A standard wellpoint system is useful in
dewatering part of an aquifer where depths to be dewatered are less than
25 ft (8 m) below land surface. The system consists of a line of
screened wellpoints connected to riser pipes, a common header pipe, and
a centrifugal pump. Under corrosive conditions, such as in the pumping
of acid ground water or water containing high concentrations of dissolved
salts, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wellpoints and headers are used. The
wellpoint spacing, header size, and pump size are all determined by the
soil transmissivity and resulting ground-water flow rates.
In most soils, wellpoints are jetted into place, using a high pressure
jet pump to hydraulically loosen the soil and flush the displaced soil
to the land surface. In cases where the soils consist of fine sand or
silt, a large-diameter hole may be jetted into the ground 2 ft (0.6 m)
deeper than the wellpoint, to permit placement of a 12-in (30.5 cm)
diameter sand wick around the wellpoint for increased pumping effi-
ciency. Where the soil is very stiff or cemented, or where the well-
point is placed in rock, predrilled holes may be required.
Normally, labor for installing wellpoint systems involves a k or 5 man
trained crew. Major dewatering firms will provide the trained crew on a
contract basis. Once the wellpoint system is installed for permanent
dewatering of contaminated ground water, labor mainly involves checking
the pump once a day for lubrication, clogging, and repair. Standby
pumps are always included in the design of the system.
We 11s. A series of individual conventional wells can be used to
dewater the ground-water reservoir to any depth, provided submersible
pumps are installed. Each well is drilled at spacings dependent on the
soil conditions and the corresponding ground-water flow rates. As water
from each well is pumped, a water-level cone of depression forms; the
series of wells is designed to have overlapping cones of depression to
provide a uniform lowering of the water table.
120
-------
For permanent dewatering, the individual wells should have a diameter of
at least k in (10.16 cm) to accommodate a submersible pump. Each well
is drilled and cased, and the screen is packed in a gravel envelope.
Usually, the gravel packing extends 10 to 15 ft (3 to 5 m) above and
below the well screen.
The use of a conventional well is more costly than installation of well-
points, in that it requires a large diameter hole, larger casing,
gravel, and a pump. Typically, mud-rotary drilling is employed for well
graded soils, where a drilling fluid such as bentonite slurry is re-
quired to keep the drill hole open during installation. In areas with
stiff soils and boulders, cable-tool drilling is commonly used. Cable-
tool drilling requires more time for each hole drilled.
In each of the above techniques, the water drained from the assembly of
collection points is combined into a single contaminated waste stream
which, depending upon the specific conditions, can either be returned to
the impoundment or treated prior to discharge.
Alternative k - Return of the Collected Water Back to the Impoundment
Subsequent to the collection of contaminated water emanating from an
impoundment, as described in Alternative 3 above, the treated water may
be discharged to a surface stream, recharged into the aquifer, or simply
returned to the impoundment. Although costly and difficult, returning
collected water to an impoundment is an attractive alternative, in
selected locations, because it may not require extensive wastewater
treatment.
Return of collected water back to an impoundment is feasible only where
it does not cause the level of fluids to rise and eventually overflow
the banks of the impoundment. The likelihood of such overflow depends
on the relative volumes of material entering and leaving the impoundment.
The relationship must be considered both in terms of intermittent buildup
(such as during severe rainstorms) and long-term average accumulation.
121
-------
Wastewater-treatment impoundments present a somewhat special case,
because many such impoundments operate in a flow-through condition with
the water level in the impoundment being maintained by mechanical means,
such as overflow weirs or control valves. Evaporation and rainfall,
therefore, have very little effect on the water level in many wastewater-
treatment impoundments. Even in areas of net positive rainfall, pumping
collected water back into a wastewater-treatment impoundment will not
cause it to overflow its banks, but will merely increase the wastewater
flow rate from the impoundment. If the water that is collected and
returned to the impoundment is not a significant percentage (say less
than 10 percent) of the normal wastewater flow through the impoundment,
then pumping the collected water back into the impoundment will usually
be feasible.
Alternative 5 - Physicochemical Immobilization of Waste Material
A number of proprietary techniques are currently available that are
intended to convert waste slurries, sludges, and other semi-liquid
materials into a solid and more chemically stable mass that is less
pronex to leaching. All of these techniques involve some method of
mixing the waste material with an immobilizing agent that can be
composed of either an inorganic cementitious or an organic polymeric
substance.
Inherent in the process is the movement or transfer of material. If the
immobilization is performed directly as the waste is generated, the task
is merely one of mixing the waste stream with the immobilizing agent and
depositing it in an appropriate impoundment. If, on the other hand, the
intent is to immobilize the entire body of waste already deposited in a
large impoundment, the overall task is far more difficult and costly.
The waste material must either be agitated while the immobilizing agent
is added; or it must be pumped from the waste impoundment, mixed with
the agent, and then redeposited either in the original impoundment or
into a new impoundment especially designed to store the immobilized
waste. If the waste to be immobilized is nonpumpable or otherwise
difficult to agitate, this technique can be difficult to apply. The
122
-------
larger and deeper the waste impoundment, the more difficult it is to
uniformly mix the waste and the immobilizing agent. In spite of these
limitations, physicochemical immobilization can be a feasible technique
for preventing or alleviating ground-water contamination from selected
impoundments.
The waste and the immobilizing agent must be chemically compatible if an
immobilized material of long-term stability is to be formed. Therefore,
it is usually necessary to perform tests on the specific wastes prior to
employing this technique.
Alternative 6 - Ground-Water Cutoff Wall
The feasibility of employing a ground-water cutoff wall is heavily
dependent on local hydrogeologic conditions, and it is unlikely that
this alternative can be used at many existing impoundment sites.
Nevertheless, it is described here to show what might be done in special
si tuat ions.
The cutoff wall can be a partial barrier, blocking off the upstream
portion of an impoundment that is built in a narrow channel bounded by
essentially impermeable materials, or it can encircle the entire impound-
ment, essentially forming a complete impermeable barrier. The extent of
encirclement required depends entirely on the physical features of each
impoundment and the hydrogeologic conditions at and near the impoundment.
It is important to note that although a partial cutoff wall (one that
forms an upgradient barrier) can prevent surface water from contacting
waste material in the impoundment, it does not necessarily prevent
contaminated water from leaving an impoundment and eventually causing
ground-water contamination. That is, liquid seeping through the bottom
and sides of the impoundment will eventually reach the water table and
move in the direction of the hydraulic gradient; this could cause the
aquifer downstream from the impoundment to become contaminated. Two
general types of cutoff walls, the slurry trench cutoff and the grout
cutoff, are discussed below.
123
-------
Slurry Trench Cutoff. Slurry trench cutoffs have been used in dam
construction for about AO years. More recently, they have been used in
construction of underground walls. Wall depths of as much as 150 ft
(46 m) have been reported (Saylorville Dam in Iowa). Slurry wall
thicknesses have ranged from 2k in (0.6 m) to 96 in (2.k m). The trench
construction usually involves excavation, filling with bentonite clay
slurry, and backfilling with indigenous soils.
Excavation involves removing soil to bedrock level or to the depth of
the uppermost impermeable soil layer. The top portion of the trench is
excavated with scrapers while the lower portion requires a dragline
bucket or clamshell. The width of the trench is dependent on the size
of the excavation equipment. Typically, a 5"ft-wide (1.5 m) trench is
cut, although special clamshells are capable of excavating a 2-ft-wide
(0.6 m) trench. Narrower widths are desirable for underground structures
where the trench is backfilled with concrete. However, where soil is
used for backfilling, wider trenches are more typically excavated.
During excavation, the vertical walls of the trench are supported by the
bentonite slurry. The slurry is added to the trench at a rate compatible
with the excavation rate, so that the trench always remains filled to
above water-table elevations. The excess fluid pressure of the slurry
supports the vertical walls of the trench and forces fine slurry particles
into the voids of the indigenous soil material to form an impermeable
seal .
Only "Wyoming" bentonite is used in slurry trench construction. This is
a high swelling sodium base bentonite. The slurry is normally placed to
attain a- final level of at least 2 ft (0.6 m) above the water table, so
that no overflow occurs. Also, at least 3 ft (0.9 m) of soil above the
final trench is required to allow the movement of overland equipment and
to prevent the loss of bentonite slurry moisture to evaporation. The
trench is backfilled with materials extracted from the trench and graded
by bulldozers. In some cases, selected borrow material is required to
124
-------
obtain a well-graded backfill that will be secure from piping effects
and will minimize settling.
Grout Cutoff. Grout cutoffs are less commonly used as impermeable
barriers than slurry trench cutoffs because it is difficult to insure
that a continuous grout curtain is formed. Grouting is used to seal
fractures that may exist in underlying bedrock, but it generally is not
recommended for cutoffs in soil.
The technique involves drilling holes at selected intervals and injecting
the grout solution so that it flows laterally to form a continuous
curtain wall. Silicate grouts are normally used in sandy soils having
grain sizes above 0.1 mm. In coarser soils, both bentonite and cement
grouts can be used. Chemical grouts are used mostly in fine-grained
soi1, such as silt.
Due to serious construction difficulties, high costs, and uncertain
degree of protection, slurry trenches and grout cutoff walls are more
applicable to existing impoundments filled with waste materials than to
proposed new impoundments. Finally, as noted previously, the feasi-
bility of using ground-water cutoff walls is highly dependent on local
hydrogeologic conditions. For this reason, a cutoff wall must be viewed
as a specialized rather than a generally applicable technique.
Alternative 7 ~ Capping of the Impoundment Surface
Capping an impoundment surface prevents rainwater from percolating down
through the waste material and eventually reaching the ground water.
Capping involves placing an impermeable barrier on top of the waste
material. Depending! on the physical features of the impoundment, the
barrier can either be an impermeable membrane or a layer of impermeable
material such as bentonite clay. In some cases it may be feasible to
apply physicochemical immobilization to the upper surface of the wastes
in the impoundment. The choice of the specific method depends a great
deal on the mechanical properties of the wastes. Capping is usually
125
-------
only applicable to existing inactive impoundments (filled and no longer
receiving waste material), which contain either solid material or highly
dewatered sludge.
Capping is not applicable to impoundments containing fluids because
where a waste is already in a fluid form, it is capable of seeping
through the bottom and sides of an impoundment regardless of whether or
not there is a cap over it. Also, capping is ineffective in preventing
ground water from coming in contact with and dissolving impounded waste
material during a rise in the water table.
Alternative 8 - Treatment of Contaminated Water
If it is not possible to prevent the generation of a contaminated waste
stream, and if the stream cannot be returned to the impoundment from
where it originated, then it normally must be subjected to wastewater-
treatment processes for removal of objectionable contaminants before it
can be disposed of into the physical environment. The type of treatment
depends on the overall chemical composition of the waste, the specific
contaminants to be removed, and the required composition of the treated
effluent. In actual applications, treatability studies and engineering
evaluations are usually performed first in order to select the wastewater-
treatment process configuration that will consistently produce the
required effluent.
In this study, it was not the intent to custom design a treatment system
for each of the specific types of wastewater emanating from individual
impoundments. However, an effort has been made to match the general
characteristics of the impoundment wastewater with correspondingly
general types of wastewater-treatment processes. Although literally
hundreds of configurations could be generated from the various types of
standard wastewater-treatment and associated sludge-handling equipment
available, six basic process modules have been defined in this study for
use in preparing cost estimates. The modules, used in various com-
binations depending on the nature of the wastewater to be treated,
126
-------
represent by function the most commonly used types of wastewater-treatment
systems. The modules are described below as follows:
Equalization. Equalization is the use of a holding basin to damp
out variations in wastewater flow and composition. An equalization
basin is typically installed between the point of collection of the
wastewater and the treatment system proper. Many equalization basins
are mildly agitated to insure proper mixing of the incoming and stored
wastewater.
For those impoundments that produce contaminated water largely as the
result of precipitation percolating down through a mass of solid waste,
wastewater flow rates and compositions can vary considerably, making
equalization a necessity. Equalization is also especially desirable
when biological treatment is to be used, because biological treatment
systems cannot tolerate major variations in wastewater composition. It
is reasonable to assume that many systems that require collection and
treatment of contaminated water from impoundments would employ some form
of equalization.
Biological Treatment. Biological treatment is a general term
referring to a whole family of treatment processes designed to remove
organic material from wastewater by means of biochemical oxidation,
using naturally occurring microorganisms. In biological treatment, the
organic content of the waste serves as the food source for the micro-
organisms, which then convert the waste into carbon dioxide, water, and
cell mass. The cell mass forms a solid material which can be readily
separated from the wastewater as a wet sludge. The effectiveness of
biological treatment depends on the biodegradabi1ity of the waste, that
is, the degree to which microorganisms are able to use the waste as a
food source. Many organic wastes, particularly those containing synthetic
organic compounds in high concentrations, are only marginally biode-
gradable. Some are even toxic to biological treatment systems. Due to
the nature of microorganisms and the kinetics of biochemical reactions,
the efficiency of removal of organic matter, usually expressed as BOD,
127
-------
is seldom greater than 95 to 97 percent for most biological treatment
systems.
The general biological treatment system used for cost estimates in this
report is a long-detention time activated-sludge system that is equipped
with the normally used sludge-handling and dewatering equipment con-
sisting of thickening and vacuum filtration units. Such a system is
capable of handling a wide variety of wastewater containing biodegradable
materials.
Activated Carbon Adsorption. Adsorption is a very complex physico-
chemical surface phenomenon in which chemical species in solution or
colloidal form preferentially migrate and become attached to the surface
of the adsorptive material. Granular activated carbon is the. most
commonly used adsorbent for wastewater treatment, primarily due to its
pore structure which contains a very large adsorptive surface. In
applying carbon adsorption to wastewater treatment, the wastewater is
pumped through a bed of carbon contained within a vessel. When the
adsorptive capacity of the carbon has been exhausted, the carbon is
removed and then subjected to a thermal regeneration process which
volatilizes and oxidizes the adsorbed material and reactivates the
adsorptive surfaces in the carbon. The regenerated carbon is then
returned to the vessel and put back into service. A certain percentage
of carbon (k to 12 percent) is lost during each regeneration, so re-
placement carbon must be regularly supplied.
Activated carbon adsorption is often used for the removal of organic
matter that is partly or totally refractory to biological treatment and
to effect further removal of organic matter. The activated carbon
system in the cost module consists of a complete adsorption system plus
provisions for carbon regeneration.
Heavy-Metals Removal. Heavy metals present in wastewater can
either be in solution or in the form of solid particles. Due to the
filtering action of soil, the heavy metals of principal concern with
128
-------
respect to ground-water contamination from impoundments are those that
are in the soluble phase.
A variety of processes are available for removing heavy metals from
wastewater. The most widely used processes are precipitation and
settling. Most heavy metals exhibit very low solubility under alkaline
conditions, and the addition of lime, soda ash, or other alkaline sub-
stances to a wastewater containing heavy metals will cause a large
fraction of the metals to precipitate from solution as complex metal
hydroxides and carbonates. Metallic sulfides are also quite insoluble,
and hydrogen sulfide or sodium sulfide are sometimes used in metal-
removal processes. The precipitated metallic compounds initially form
very fine colloids which must be agglomerated into larger particles
before they can be settled out and removed as a sludge. For this reason,
coagulants such as alum and synthetic organic polyelectrolytes are often
added to the wastewater along with the alkaline substances.
Conventional solids recirculation clarifiers are generally used for the
settling of the metallic precipitates. The precipitated material is
removed from the clarifier as a wet sludge and usually is subjected to
dewatering by means of centrifugation, vacuum filtration, or filter
pressing prior to ultimate disposal. Depending on the metals to be
removed, the efficiency of the specific process configuration, and the
presence of certain interfering organic substances (which can form
metal-organic complexes that are difficult to precipitate), it is pos-
sible to produce an effluent with metallic ion concentrations of as low
as 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1. In addition to removing heavy metals, alkaline
precipitation can also be used for the removal of phosphate and fluoride
ions.
The ultimate disposal of metallic hydroxide and metallic carbonate
sludges deserves careful consideration. When these substances are
exposed to even mildly acidic conditions (pH *» to 5) , a significant
amount of metals can be resolubi1ized and potentially cause renewed
contamination problems.
129
-------
Pissolved-Solids Removal. Wastewater contains a wide range in type
and concentration of IDS. Depending on the chemical composition of the
wastewater, some of the dissolved-solids constituents may consist of
man-made contaminants, and others may consist mainly of naturally
occurring dissolved inorganic salts. To some extent, the previously
described biological treatment, carbon adsorption, and heavy metals-
removal processes do remove a certain amount of IDS, but the removal is
intended for specific chemical constituents.
The removal of dissolved solids is usually directed toward wastewater
containing high concentrations (over 5,000 mg/l) of inorganic dissolved
solids, such as the ions of sodium, potassium, calcium, chloride,
sulfate, and bicarbonate. Removal of such highly soluble species is
exceedingly difficult and relatively expensive. Technology similar to
desalination technology must be employed, and the disposal of the salts
removed from the wastewater can be a significant problem.
For the purpose of calculating costs for the removal of high concen-
trations of dissolved solids, evaporation techniques have been selected
in this study. Vapor recompression evaporators are to be considered for
the smaller systems, while multi-stage flash evaporators are more appli-
cable to larger systems. Both types of evaporators can effect a 30:1
concentration ratio. The concentrated brine from either system is then
sent to a wiped film evaporator where the final portion of water is
evaporated, leaving a salt residue. The salt residue, which is still
highly soluble, must be disposed of in a protected disposal site such as
another lined impoundment.
Treated Water Discharge System. After being treated, the water may
be discharged into either a surface-water body or back into the aquifer.
The choice usually depends on the proximity of the nearest stream.
Water can be returned to aquifer systems through an injection well, by
seepage from a lagoon, or by landspreading. For the purpose of providing
cost estimates, it is assumed that a surface-water discharge system
consisting of a pumping station plus a generous length of sewer pipe is
to be employed.
130
-------
Indirect Methods
The following two techniques can be used in places where a ground-water
supply is already extensively contaminated. These techniques would not
be acceptable generally as a control strategy for the installation of a
new impoundment.
Alternative 9 ~ Development of a New Source of Water Supply in an
Uncontaminated Area
Even after the source of contamination is removed, it may take many
years for contaminated ground water to be flushed out naturally from an
aquifer so that it no longer affects nearby water-supply wells. During
that period, the users of the contaminated ground water may have no
other choice than to obtain a supply of water elsewhere. Often, this
requires construction of an entirely new water-supply system consisting
of a well field, a water-treatment plant (if needed), a water-storage
reservoir, and water-transmission lines.
Alternative 10 - Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water Prior to Use
In places where the level of ground-water contamination is not prohibi-
tively high, it may be possible to install additional treatment steps at
a water-treatment plant to reduce the concentration of contaminants to
an acceptable level. The type of treatment will, of course, depend on
the specific contaminants that must be removed. If the levels of con-
tamination exceed the ability of the treatment steps to reduce them to
an acceptable degree, this technique cannot be used. It is usually not
feasible to treat highly contaminated water supplies, partly due to
economics and partly due to the inability of assuring a continuous
supply of water that meets drinking-water standards.
131
-------
COST RELATIONSHIPS
Genera 1 Approach
Capital and operating cost relationships are explained in detail in
Section XII, Appendix D for each of the contamination-prevention tech-
niques previously described. The cost relationships are in modular
form, so that if combinations of two or more techniques are required,
the capital and operating costs for the combination are merely the sum
of the capital and operating costs of the individual components. The
costs are given as a function of the characteristic size. Depending on
the specific prevention technique, these are given in terms of impound-
ment horizontal surface area, area of an impoundment's underground
perimeter, or (for wastewater treatment alternatives) in terms of the
volumetric flow rate of contaminated water to be treated.
Because the costs given in Appendix D are general rather than site-
specific, certain bases and assumptions have been used to reflect the
physical factors most likely to be encountered in typical situations.
The costs for the construction-intensive alternatives, such as liners
and cutoff walls, are not heavily influenced by economy-of-scale effects
(above a certain minimum size). For example, once equipment is mobilized,
the cost of installing a layer of bentonite clay becomes a rather linear
function of the area that must be covered. However, the cost of a
sophisticated wastewater-treatment system such as a complete carbon
adsorption and regeneration unit is quite equipment-intensive. That Is,
both its capital and operating costs are strongly influenced by economy-
of-scale effects in that a large system can treat a unit of water much
less expensively than a small system. For this reason, some of the
costs have been expressed simply in terms of cost per unit of size,
and others are presented in the form of non-linear cost curves.
Cost Implications
It was not feasible in this study to attempt to develop overall cost
estimates for coping with leaky impoundments on a national basis because
132
-------
of the wide variability in hydrogeologic settings, dimensions of im-
poundments, the nature of the impounded wastes, and the lack of specific
information on the number of impoundments that require remedial actions.
However, an example of how costs could be determined for a single
hypothetical leaky impoundment, using the cost modules, is given at the
end of Appendix D. It was assumed that the impoundment contained a
heavy metals-bearing sludge and that both a ground-water collection
system and a treatment unit would be needed to alleviate the ground-
water contamination problem. The estimated total capital investment for
the control system is $638,000.
Obviously, the cost of remedial actions for each leaky impoundment would
have to be estimated on a site-specific basis. Nevertheless, it seems
clear that the cost of implementing remedial actions for large numbers
of leaky impoundments on a national basis would be very high. It should
also be kept in mind that impoundments that permit seepage to ground
water are only one of many potential sources of ground-water contami-
nation. Consequently, a national effort to completely protect the
quality of ground water against all forms of contamination undoubtedly
would be many times greater than that for impoundments alone.
133
-------
SECTION IX
STATE REGULATORY CONTROLS
AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY
Legislative Basis
Most of the numerous State agencies (Tables 10 and 11) responsible for
the protection of ground-water quality have promulgated regulations
relating to surface impoundments, largely on the basis of liberal inter-
pretations of the intent of State law rather than on specific statutory
directives. In general, the emphasis to date has been mainly on control
of impoundments associated with point-source discharges to surface
waters, through issuance of State or Federally administered NPDES
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permits. In addition,
some type of permit or certificate, generally with only minimum require-
ments for ground-water quality protection, if any, is issued in many
States for various types of non-discharging impoundments, such as
evaporation or seepage ponds. Moreover, virtually no control or sur-
veiHance is exerted over abandoned impoundments. Passage of Federal
laws such as SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93~523) and its amend-
ments and RCRA (Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, P.L. 9^-580) is
beginning to stimulate new regulatory responses from State legislatures
and agencies.
State laws in a number of States give the principal regulatory agency
the authority to deal directly with any activity potentially endangering
ground-water quality. For example, the Maryland statute directs the
Maryland Water Resources Commission to regulate activities likely to
2)
pollute, and Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law mentions the need to
control potentially polluting activities. In each case, the responsi-
ble agency has proceeded to develop fully operational wastewater
discharge control programs designed to protect both surface-water and
ground-water quality.
134
-------
Similarly, the Michigan Water Resources Commission has issued regulations
to protect ground-water quality from contamination by seepage from
surface impoundments, despite the fact that the Michigan Water Resources
Commission Act does not specifically mention ground water except by
definition of the waters of the State. However, the law explicitly
directs the Commission to act through the requirement that the Commission
M
"have control over any waters of the State and the Great Lakes." A
summary prepared by the Commission, describing its responsibilities
under the act, interprets this to mean "control of pollution of any
surface or underground waters of the State and the Great Lakes."
In Montana, by contrast, existing controls over discharges to pits,
ponds, and lagoons stem directly from State law. The Montana Revised
Code (Sec. 69~^80A) specifies that the law, including permit require-
ments, applies to "drainage or seepage from all sources including that
from artificial privately owned ponds or lagoons, if such drainage or
seepage may reach other State waters in a condition which may pollute
the other State waters."
Institutional Framework
Institutional responsibility for control of surface impoundments by
States is distributed among a wide range of agencies, depending on the
types of wastes and methods of discharge. For example, in many States,
the Health Department has primary responsibility for the regulation of
municipal waste discharges impacting public-water supplies, and a broader
based environmental agency administers regulations to control industrial
and other waste discharges. The mechanism for interagency coordination
is usually through a policymaking resources commission or board composed
of representatives of various State agencies, including Oil and Gas
Boards, Mining Departments, Water Resources Agencies, Parks Departments,
and Agriculture Departments.
135
-------
In Indiana, the State Board of Health has reorganized the procedures and
responsibilities of its Water Pollution Control Division to provide a
specific method of coordinating projects that require the input of
several Sections. The Permits and Approval Section has been desig-
nated as the unit responsible for issuing NPDES permits, confined feed-
lot approvals, land-application approvals, and construction and oper-
ation permits. A total of 11 staff positions are assigned to this
category. The technical aspects of facilities approval are handled by
a staff of six sanitary engineers in a Construction Plan Review Section.
The Facilities Inspection Section is responsible for investigating
water-pollution complaints and making other inspections required by
water-pollution control laws and regulations; this section is designed
to operate with 15 staff members. Legal support is provided to the
Water Pollution Control Division by four staff attorneys.
Passage of the Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act in 1976
created the Controlled Industrial Waste Management Section within the
State Board of Health. Responsibilities of this Division include de-
velopment of rules and regulations for the management of wastewater
processing facilities and disposal sites. Applicable regulations pro-
posed after passage of the law provide increased control over types of
wastes that may be discharged and the design of land-disposal sites,
including impoundments.
The Waste Management Section is required to prepare "for adoption by the
State Board of Health a list of materials designated as controlled
industrial wastes," together with rules, regulations, and minimum stan-
dards for the processing and disposal of these materials. Generally,
if the wastes to be controlled are toxic and/or hazardous, a permit is
required for the construction of processing facilities for disposal of
these wastes.
The Waste Management Section will also issue operating permits for the
facilities, with the permittee responsible for provision of liability
insurance of not less than $100,000 and not more than $500,000. The
136
-------
actual amount of the insurance for each facility must be equal to twice
the value of real property situated within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the facility
or site. The Waste Management Section is also instructed by the law to
require monitoring systems and liners for any ponds associated with
disposal of controlled wastes.
Montana is representative of those States that have recently passed
legislation or are developing rules and regulations, governing disposal
of hazardous wastes and control of facilities receiving these materials.
Generally speaking, laws of this type are applicable to many kinds of
industrial wastewater discharges to impoundments because the materials
are defined as "solid or hazardous wastes" without reference to con-
sistency. As of July I, 1977, the Montana Solid Waste Management Act
will govern the disposal of solid or hazardous waste and will require
permits for all phases of operational facilities. The new law requires
the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences to: (1) obtain the
approval of local health offices before issuance of disposal permits;
(2) establish and operate hazardous waste-management facilities for
treatment and storage of wastes and spills; (3) establish monitoring
procedures; and (k) protect public health. This law and the pre-
viously discussed Oklahoma statute illustrate the manner in which some
States are responding to Federal waste-management requirements.
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare published regulations ap-
ON
plicable to surface impoundments in January 1977, which, following
hearings, were withdrawn by the State Legislature. At present, the
Department is seeking to reinstate the less stringent 1973 regulations
and is proceeding with a permit system for impoundments based on the
Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act.
In Montana, the Board of Health and Environmental Services writes regu-
lations to be administered by the Water Quality Bureau, but the Department
of National Resources is primarily responsible for allocation and ad-
ministration of water rights. Historically, some of the activities
controlled by this Department may affect the regulations of the Water
137
-------
Quality Bureau, requiring close liaison between the two units. The
Mining Department in the Montana State Lands Office writes regulations
pertinent to mining operations and confers with the Waste Quality Bureau
prior to issuance of a discharge permit or in the event of water-quality
problems.
Permitting Systems
Waste impoundments may be permitted under Federal or State controls or
a combination of both. However, a review of State permit systems shows
a wide range in requirements from very generalized to very detailed.
Twenty-eight States (Table 10) have been authorized by EPA to administer
NPDES permit programs for controlling waste discharges mainly to
navigable waters. States on the non-approved list also have developed
some form of State discharge permit system applicable to control of
wastewater impoundments. Although they lack EPA authorization to
administer and enforce the program, a number of these States including
Texas, Utah, and Maine are active participants in the program. States
without NPDES authorization commonly operate a State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) similar to the Federal system.
One of the principal results of the NPDES approach to water-pollution
control has been the provision of structural uniformity to those State
statutes and regulations which have been amended to incorporate the
requirements of the Federal program. The Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act applies to "navigable waters." State laws, however, typically
apply to all waters of the State, including ground water. The lack of
clear direction as to the applicability of the NPDES program to ground
water resulted initially in many States confining discharge requirements
to those facilities having a direct impact on surface-water quality.
9)
In a "Water Quality Strategy Paper" issued in \3Jk, the EPA addressed
the lack of provision for ground-water protection in the existing NPDES
procedure. The strategy identified specific controls on activities
affecting ground water and advised that EPA would establish ground-water
138
-------
••
H
0!
EH
W
D
Q
2
H
i-q
Qj
I t
U
H
g
g
(X
O
fV|
a
o w
Pi EH
EH 13
O S
O Q
^H ID
erf o
O Oj
<; H
i_3
D t-n
O rf
W PH
2 D
t"!
Q 1-1
2 £3
>< U
H
* rt
H-I O
rij rfj
Z
O Q
r ^f
E-I rf«
£3
EH
H
a
H
^
j. -i
r i
S
EH
W
S
>H
S^
g
D
CO
CD
rH
0)
rQ
EH
ro
Cn
CO -rH
rH Cn
O M
4-1 rC
C O
O m
U -H
Q
^ 1
c; c
id o
in
4-1
c
(U
g
c
o
o
g
CN
4-1 W
01 Q
3 S
0 )
CO
CO Cn
a c
E-i CJ1
td
o
CO
Q
•c.
<:
^
Q
t>
CU
M
4-1
ra
•H
C
g
T3
H
0
CU
tT1
Q CU
> rH -rH ^ . O
•rH O D -P rH O • C
Cn 4J'td>r-l4-l Id-Hg
OHCOCU-rH4-l O -3O O
C rHOOCUKOC-MM EOic/j U
OOMU-U O>CMO) g
•rH O-PCiSO'd'Oc; 4-J O-rM rH
So
- . - . ..... . M
MM CM OWid-- rH4J>H 3 0) O 01O C
CU3 njid-CU rH>o - O-rH-rH id 4-> M-SM O
Mcq OH-MT33dcu cu pjrHQ'd cu id >i4->>C4-i o
.(3 rHrHcqrHOCCnW4-i M id a M S OC-HOC
gO^OO OMidcu O id>iiH3-id 3 COQMO
SOWMMtnpjCM OS^M MHCJCUCX* CQ »• • CUU •HUWrH
o 014-i-t-icu tn wpj rna-P >ra- en g en in> cur-n
OrHoecoMr-HCUrHcu cucuidrHCcug^ a) gco«;-cuc!rHoo
id-rHOOMCUcdUldU • I5Cn31idWCJS » U -OCO rHDWidMPj
•P4J>OCJ34-14JM-PM> rt 4J MOOrHMeUOrHrHM 4-13
CDC -rH-rHPS'CCUCCU'-rH -rHrHd CUOMCCUrtlUCOaMW CPS
OM4Jld3M4-lM M 4-1 4-1OCUW4-1 -P O C03PSO-M 4JMdrH
M-rHrH3rHCDi-H-rH.-rH.^inrH id Oi r-H4-J(fl£>4J£>4JtdCUld4-l I>(d4-lOK;*I>i4-lCJC04-tCitS4-ll3J>gPi
rHWKnSsKW2WaK-rHM°'oiaX3UW-H33Sa°T3SSwiKCO
Scu M^-a ni'idSsjIsiS u
iC T33R4->-rH-HldOl
id id idMt)4JrHidid -riid Xcd c rCidOcoMidr^i g
Eidd woidord'O'H-H OC COO-H id ocninco3dcoidro
idXo CWMCuS-rHCn-rH Odid id3coco r-H td-HCU-'HOidid'Oa;
rQcON id-HOCidMMid ^3 -H -H (d in -P -H B >, coj^dinmjJMid
rHrHM MldOOCUtHCUld 'drHdOidCUOid id id-H-iH-rH-rHOCUCUCU
«;<;< -alOUOQhOK HHHHr>Sr
-------
•*
1 *]
<
H
O
H
2
•£<
p^
O
C/i
j_^
Q
tj
£,
0
U
rt
o
EH CO
M 2
D fd
O ^
H Q
H
^
^ §
1 ^
EH S
EH O
H H
EH Cd
CO O
2
ro
Cn
d
•H
en
SH
id
O
in
•H
Q
i
d
0
co
w
Q
2
1
d
•H
Cn
id
o
in
Q
rH
id
SH
3
4-1
rH
3
O
•rH
SH
S
•^
r-l
Iti
•H
S-t
4J
in
rrj
£j
H
*3*
rH
id
a
•H
CJ
•rH
1
CU
4-1
rQ 4-1
^W
i-|
cu
4J
CO
•H
d
•H
e <
TQ p^
< W
ating Agency
rH
Cn
(S
rH
id
ft
•H
d
•H
SH
ft
5
fd
jj
CO
DH
rij P^C^f^P^C^CXiD^C^SPjCUP-iCM
Pn
<3 PnfljCL4flj(ajCliC^fli2fl4fl|CW(^
OJ
(^ P^P^(l(fl|fl)fLjP^P^Pj(l(fl| pj pj
X X X X X X
XX XXXXXX
in
SH • rH
CU > rH O
4-> M id rH in
id cu 3 O -u
3 co Of SH C
rH 4-1 O
SH Cn CU H O
3d 4-1 4-i CJ
ft W >1 Id d r-H
d in o 3OiHdid
o .ai-dd tjido3
•rH >OdCU 3 4J-rHOI
O- Q3 ft: 4JCUrHCUOlH
cu- Ord -Hi-irHScuq)
4-)g » CO 4J fl rH3OC4J4-l
OE dcuHo idfflftooid
SHO OPiid-H 3 Snsn3
O4J.KOSH co"d> 'cu
idOcu>o-4-ioido Kiid4-irH
4-lrHCnSHO>OIX14-lSH>1 4->rH3
d4-lrf!CUWdSH d3rHrOdldO
0d co Wftcocuoftdcucuin
GO * CH T3 Q) S U) Pi fQ 6 ffi QJ
do>Od~rHodcu3 5 Pi
SH-SH 4J4J3V) 4-> n -H H
O 3
4-lCUG4-l4-14-lTH(D4-14-l '4-14-14-14^
curd cucucudidcucu-Hcucucucu
Q3 QQQH3QQQQPQQ
id id
C d
•H id id t3 'H id
rH 4-1 -rl C rH 4-1
>iO oo didoo
CO-H x rd id id >coididcu
SHX SHUQ E rHuoQin
cu cu o o d >i cn
rjg >nj3^i ,dococu^j3cucn
cucu cuoo-drSiiSHCiirdooiucu
22 22:2OOOftP;c/lcOEHE-i
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
X
X
.5
. , Div. Health, Bureau
servation, Env. Eng. D
> >, a
01 -H V
id •
• 3 >
CU >i
4-> id d
ft S O
o cn
Q »=C
4->
4-> CU
D >
A
si
ft ft 2 3
Pi
ft <
Pi
ft <
ft *C
x x
o
cu
4->
o
•H
>Q
c •
W rH
id
> o>
•rH
Q rH
0)
- 4J
cn id
cu 3
0
P •
O rH
in id
« o<
4-1 [>
id d
S W
4-1 4J
ft ft
CU CU
Q Q
a
in cn
§|
CO O
•H K^I
3 3
t
in
cu
4-1
id
4-1
r^
£J
id
d
•rH
in
cu
o
S
CO
CU
4-1
id
IS
4-1
rH
id
cu
MH
o
co
4-1
CU
B
rH
id
ft
Q
4-1
•H
CO
CU
4-1
id
•H
•a
8
0
o
rH
£
0
•rH .
4-1 CO
3 -M
H 0
,__) , |
O T)
ft cu
cu
rH M-t
id
c; -a
O C
•H id
4-1
id cn
2 cu
ft
CU 4-1
d rH
3 id
• H
CO 4-1
E in
id 3
cu -a
SH d
4-1 -H
in
o d
4-) rd
CP rH
C f^J
•rH ft
o1 -H
SH o
id -H
rd d
0 3
m E
-H
•a w
2 CU
ro
CU
4J
id
0
MH
.^
4-1
M
cu
,M
, other; P, permit or c
o
cu
o
2
sview;
L)
>1
d
cu
Cn
«
«n
•st1
140
-------
criteria for water-treatment works it funded. In addition, EPA set
forth a policy which explained its determination to:
1. Provide States with the maximum incentive to establish ground-
water regulatory programs on their own, including monitoring
procedures.
2. Structure NPDES permit inputs to require dischargers changing
to a land-disposal procedure to submit to conditions designed
to minimize damage to underground water.
3. Adhere closely to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
requirement that any area-wide planning process to control
disposition of residual waste generated in the area, including
surface and subsurface disposal, provides for protection
of ground-water quality.
The impact of the EPA strategy on State permitting requirements for non-
discharging impoundments is unclear. However, review of State regulations
shows that the States generally are moving toward increased control of
these facilities as they become more aware of their potential for ground-
water contamination. A useful approach is through promulgation of rules
and regulations requiring the issuance of discharge permits that in-
corporate ground-water quality parameters based on the requirements of
The Safe Drinking Water Act. For instance, in New Mexico a discharge
plan requires: "A description of methods and conditions, including any
monitoring and sampling requirements, for the discharge of effluent or
leachate which may move directly or indirectly into ground water."
The requirement for a ground-water discharge plan is applicable to both
industrial and municipal discharges, and the permit application is
specific with regard to technical data to be submitted.
Delaware, which administers the NPDES program, has developed its regu-
lations to include prohibition against discharge of any pollutant from a
point source, either directly or indirectly, into "surface or ground
141
-------
12)
water" without a permit from the Department of Natural Resources.
All waste-treatment impoundments are included as activities requiring
construction and operation permits. The State regulations also include
the NPDES provision prohibiting any discharge of liquid wastes which is
in conflict with areawide waste-treatment management plans approved
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board requires a special permit for
the operation of "ground adsorption systems," defined as "any lagoon or
subsurface adsorption field where underground percolation occurs and
from which there is no discharge of runoff." The program, administered
by the Board's Division of Water Pollution Control, was established to
"effectively control water-pollution control facilities and their dis-
charges that are not controlled under the Federal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Program created under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972." ^'
Owners and operators of any ground adsorption system that does not
discharge to a waterway must obtain a ground adsorption permit. How-
ever, if the system discharges to a waterway, the applicant is instructed
to apply for an NPDES permit.
Michigan's Discharge Permit Application requires the applicant to stipu-
late the distance between existing private and municipal wells and the
proposed waste-treatment facility. The State water-pollution control
law requires every industrial or commercial entity which discharges
liquid wastes into surface water or ground water to have these facil-
ities supervised by a certified operator. The applicant is advised that
he will be required to submit an application for certification of the
]M
operator prior to start of the proposed facility.
The Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) establishes
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other protective
measures as a condition of issuance of a permit to construct a surface
142
-------
impoundment. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources can also
impose a number of additional limitations, on a case-by-case basis, as
part of the requirements for issuance of a permit. These include options
to: (a) require monitoring of parameters other than those stipulated by
the permit application, (b) increase frequency of ground-water sampling,
and (c) impose more stringent limitations on the quantity or concentration
of substances discharged through impoundments. Wisconsin is also
authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program.
Permit systems developed by many States generally give some recognition
to the importance of the following items:
1. Protecting ground water from contamination. The permit
requirements, however, differ from State to State with regard
to the type and amount of detailed information to be supplied
in an application and the degree of surveillance and control
to be exercised by regulatory agencies.
2. Evaluating the location pf ponds with respect to water
supplies and other facilities subject to contamination based
on consideration of soil porosity and rock formations.
Specific design requirements may include infiltration tests
and soil borings to determine surface and subsurface soil
characteristics in the immediate area of a pond. Soils must
be relatively impermeable or linings may be required to
prevent excessive liquid loss due to percolation or seepage.
3. Permitting use of shallow sludge-drying lagoons only where the
soil is reasonably porous and the bottom of the lagoon is
located at least 18 in (^6 cm) above the maximum level of the
water table. Grading of surrounding areas to prevent surface
water from entering the lagoon is also recommended.
Pennsylvania requires that geologic evaluation of the site
satisfy a set of State "geocriteria." Impoundments are not
143
-------
permitted unless it can be shown that they are "...structurally
sound, impermeable, protected from unauthorized acts of third
18)
parties, and maintain a 2-ft (0.6 m) freeboard." '
*K Constructing embankments and dikes with impervious materials
compacted sufficiently to form a stable structure, accompanied
by removal of vegetation from the area. State regulations
generally apply to both municipal and industrial impoundments,
with specific physical construction details added. Discharge
of industrial wastewater usually involves listing of constituents
of the wastes as part of the permit application.
Personnel and Enforcement
Although the rules and regulations appear to provide for some measure of
ground-water quality protection in many States, the pollution-control
agencies are commonly confronted with workloads far beyond the capacities
of their present staffs. Insufficient financial resources is a common
complaint. In most agencies, geology and engineering are the principal
professional disciplines of pollution-control employees, with support
provided by technicians skilled in a variety of field, laboratory, and
office tasks. Pennsylvania's Bureau of Water Quality Management is an
example of a well organized staff that includes 16 geologists involved
in ground-water protection and pollution investigation. Eleven of these
staff members work out of regional offices.
Few State pollution-control agencies are able to assign staff personnel
to work exclusively on surface impoundments and thereby maintain adequate
surveillance over these facilities. For instance, North Dakota reported
60 informal actions involving discharges to impoundments since July
1975- The organizational chart for the State shows 1 person responsible
for discharge permits and 12 staff members assigned to water-pollution
control. An additional seven professional employees are assigned to
waste treatment. The work assignment in this State also typifies the
144
-------
situation in many other agencies where staff members assigned to a
specific division or bureau are required to work on more than one State
program element. A review of selected State organizational charts
during 1976-1977 shows the following ranges in sizes and types of
staffs:
Arizona. Three persons in enforcement and two more assigned to
implementation of "The Safe Drinking Water Act."
Colorado. Four professional staff members assigned to the Division
of Monitoring and field studies. There are l^t engineers in the engineering
section, and 3 engineers whose responsibilities involve water-quality
management planning.
Connecticut. Twenty persons assigned to enforcement out of a total
staff of 70.
Kansas. Three professional staff members assigned to enforcement.
Twelve district engineers and technicians located throughout the State.
Maryland. Six persons assigned to enforcement and a permit staff
of 7 persons, whose duties are directly related to a specific element in
the State's waste-management and water-supply program.
Minnesota. Twenty persons assigned to various phases of water-
quality enforcement.
New Jersey. Forty-three staff members, mostly engineers, assigned
to the compliance monitoring and enforcement division.
Oregon. Six professional staff members assigned to duties in the
Office of Waste Water. The organizational chart indicates assignment of
one person to the Water-Quality Division and one person responsible for
ground-water supplies.
145
-------
Typically, State regulations provide a number of opportunities for
public hearings, including the decision to promulgate or amend regu-
lations; provision for protests against permitting restrictions or
denial of permits; and hearings called at the discretion of the agency
to respond to public protest concerning the siting or operation of a
particular facility. The range in procedures is discussed in more
detail in the section "Controls by Selected States."
The legal procedures for dealing with violations of regulations differs
slightly from State to State. A letter of warning or request to "show
cause" usually follows informal contact with the alleged violator. If
this approach fails, the agency is authorized to invoke regulatory
requirements for remedial actions, usually in staged fashion, with a
deadline set for final compliance. Actions of this type may involve the
office of the State Attorney General and may result in fines ranging
from $1,000 to $25,000 per day for each day the violations persist, or
the courts may order imprisonment and/or a fine. Some States revoke
operating permits for repeated violations or failure to comply with
corrective orders.
TECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA
Municipal and Industrial Impoundments
Examples of specific impoundment design guidelines or requirements by
selected States are summarized below. In many States these requirements
relate mainly to construction or operational standards that have little
or no bearing on prevention of ground-water contamination.
Mi ssouri. The "Guide for the Design of Municipal Waste Stabili-
zation Lagoons in Missouri" stipulates that:
"The ability to maintain a satisfactory water level in
the lagoons is one of the most important aspects of
design. Removal of coarse top soil and proper compaction
of subsoil improves the water-holding characteristics of
146
-------
the bottom. Removal of porous areas, such as gravel or sand
pockets, and replacement with we 11-compacted clay or other
suitable material may be indicated. Where excessive percola-
tion is anticipated, sealing of the bottom with a clay
blanket, bentonite, asphalt, or other sealing material should
be given consideration. A maximum percolation rate of 0.25
in/day (0.6 cm/day) for the finished lagoon floor is included
19)
in the specifications for construction."
Tennessee. The "Outline of Engineering Requirements" calls for:
(a) location of wastewater oxidation ponds and lagoons 1,000 ft (305 m)
or more from homes, main roads, and business establishments; (b) prohi-
bition of entry of surface water into impoundments; (c) a minimum top
width of 8 ft (2.^ m) for embankments; (d) preference for circular or
square design; (e) 2 ft (0.6 m) of freeboard for ponds of 3 acres (1.2 ha)
or less, and at least 3 ft (0.9 m) of freeboard for ponds over 3 acres
(1.2 ha); and (f) prefilling of the lagoon prior to operation and in-
20)
stallation of a water-level gage.
New Hampshi re. (a) Minimum normal liquid depth in impoundments to
be maintained at 3 ft (0.9 m), maximum depth at 5 ft (1.5 m), and
lowering of depth during winter operation before formation of ice; (b)
aerated lagoons must be designed to remove 85 percent of BOD under
winter conditions; (c) ponds must be rectangular in shape, and (d) a
buffer zone of uninhabited land must be maintained for 600 ft (183 m) in
21)
all directions from the pond edge.
Washington. Guidelines for settling ponds stipulate: (a) each
impoundment must provide 1 1/2 hrs of detention time at maximum backwash
rate, plus storage space for solids, and (b) sludge entering dewatering
22)
ponds should not consist of more than 8 to 10 percent solids.
Minnesota. "Criteria for Sewage Stabilization Ponds" specifies
that: (a) the permeability of the pond seal must be as low as possible
147
-------
and seepage loss should not exceed 500 gal/acre/day (k.J cu m/ha/day);
(b) specifications for siting and construction are based upon a testing
program; (c) ground-water monitoring wells or lysimeters are required
around the perimeter of pond site; and (d) monitoring is determined on a
case-by-case basis depending on proximity of private water supplies and
23)
on maximum ground-water levels.
Oil and Gas Impoundments
Regulation and surveillance of discharges to impoundments of wastewater
associated with the extraction of oil and gas on private or State lands
are usually part of the responsibility of a State Oil and Gas Board or
Commission (see Table 11). Generally, the degree to which these boards
are required to cooperate with State water-pollution control agencies is
dictated by the operational rules of the State Water Resources Commission
or other water-pollution control policymaking unit. Commonly, the Oil
and Gas Commission or Board is represented in the membership of the
policymaking unit, which provides a means of coordination with other
agencies in matters relating to control of water pollution. Typical
coordinating agencies are the Geological Survey, the Health Department,
and the Department of Water Resources.
Nearly all oil- or gas-producing States (Table 6) allow storage pits and
ponds for handling produced water; requirements range from temporary or
emergency use only to evaporation use only. Most States stipulate that
the impoundments must be constructed in a clayey soil or have a lining
of some type. Generally, however, the regulations are not specific with
regard to the type of lining required. Permit provisions relating to
lining are decided on a case-by-case basts and generally are dictated
by the results of soil borings. Louisiana is one of the few States that
does not have a general requirement for lining.
The following summary, by selected States, illustrates the range of
regulatory requirements for impoundments associated with oil and gas
extraction:
148
-------
Q
H
i
OJ O
OJ
rH tjl
•H
U
•H
CM
0)
H->
rrj
4J
tn
CO
3
o
H
QJ
H
4J
H
5
o
i-H
rH
tn
4J
•H •
rH
0 O
H
OJ G
&G
H
W
CM
f£
ff
*
0
u
4J
C
!
0)
o
E
M
rH
QJ
4J
s
13
fC
0
CQ
TJ
C
03
rH
•H
O
H
CM
i
1
,;
c
w
4-1
QJ
Q
jr;
-P
rH
0*
CM
0)
rH
H
o
W
ffl
rH 0)
03 JE;
cn
G •
u a
01
p
>
-H
p
C
o
-H
4->
OJ •
S 1
OJ 0
W CJ
G
o w
U ffl
o
tn
0 C
G rS
0
rrj
C
O
N
*C
-P
H
g
C 01
C -
H CO
rH rrj
co VH
3 rrj
o
H G
> H
13 O -P
QJ ft VH
G S OJ
•H HO
x: G
QJ 4J H
VH -H
0) S cn
rG -P
S CO -H
H-J a
0 CM G
0
rH 0 -P
G rH rd
0 -P rH
i VH
•H O O CO
4-1 rH W H
3 O QJ fa
rH O C<
0 M 4-1
G 4J O>
^ 03 OJ p
O 3
rH
. O O) •
CM 4-1 Oj CQ
O 4-1
P CO
G
O r-t
H -H
•4-1 O
03
rH C
QJ O
CO H
G 4-1
0 oj
U > •
rH >
W 0) -H
03 CO P
O G
O CO
TJ U rrj
G • O
OJ E •
rH O ft C
•H U Q) OJ
0 P
OJ
•H
01 C
fO M
01 O
G 4H
flj -H
X H
M m
< u
T)
0)
G
H
-H
4-1
CO
E
CO
-P
H
a
CD
cn
OJ
O
-P
cn
04
ff
ft
1
rH •
O §
O
QJ
03 O
- C
i u
0) O G
g 0
H
Q
G
O
-H
4-1
CO >
0 ft 0>
13 tn
0 -P G H
H rrj 3
(D E
Cn M rH CO
o a
-P rH MH
T3 O
2 co 8 S
O -P 0) O
§ ft >
E-f S W
«<
rJ >. VH rH
OJ
VH rH PJ T3
0) fd VH
4-1 U • fd
O g!
' iH Cn
> O • G
OJ rH
P S
CO
rH
rd
OJ G
rl S
4-> 13
rtJ • G
^ ^ ^
0) 0)
C^ - C
CO -H
13 S
> c
W hJ 0
n . .
5 a a a
tj 0) OJ QJ
Q P P
CO
OJ -rl
"O 0
O OJ rH
rH 13 rH
>1
rH
0
4-J Cn
H C
rH G
rH CO
QJ 3
3 >
CO QJ
G E
G H->
M
O cn
-P 4-1
cn H
a
G G
-H O
0 -P
O OJ
V a
rH OJ
OJ >
•P CU
s
ft
ft
i ••
O rH
ft. fd
E CQ
OJ rH
rd cn 4-1
0 G
CQ - O
rH 4-»
0 X 3
CJ • rH
W
rd
H
T3 O
G
rH 0)
H U
O in G
M-) O -H
0) H
> rH
•H • P
P -P
rrj CO
CO O
rH
rH a c
0 0) (TJ
Q
(0
G
T)
G
l)H
O
G
O
-P
CO
rH
CU
4-1
fd
m
0
0)
CO
o
a
TJ 4-1
G
0) CU
-Q g
13
O C
-P 3
0
o a
G g
-H -H
CQ
CtJ
< "Z.
ft 2
1 1
tn G H
3 O Cn li
G 4-1 rH rH rH
H O O -H rH
QJ 0) SO
0) 0) •- C VH
rH cn 4-1 CU 4-1
S s 13 £ "S s
• rH S S fa
rH n3 OJ
OH • rH • MH
OJ QJ
P P
-H 0}
. p rH
i *
0 > OJ
U rH C
0) -H
C CO S •
0 G >
-P U C Q
rH CO CO
O rrj CO rrj
0 13 -H 13
CJ C S G
of oJ
4-J O 0) O
cn P
>i
cn o
01 4->
G G
X M
rH
H
cn • o
3 co
O rH M
• H o] o
TJ rH >1
G CU rH
o a o o
H 4-1 fd
G H
4-1 0) H
VH 4J > G
c a E li-S
O -H CO fd
H 4J QJ CO
DO a
• 3 S 4-1 CO
Q) 0 rH fd O
M iH H CO TJ rrj
Cf* CO QJ CO OJ CO
QJ 03 Cn H G H
rH HO
+J TJ O rH -H
O G 4-i o tn o
W rH rH £ g
iH H H 1 H QJ
0> O 0 -P CU 4-1
J ^ 2 tn cn
p^
<; i ft ft s
Cd
<: 2 < ft 2
G
0
Cn rH 4H
0) 4J O
O >. 3 rH >
U CU O O -H
> CO ft - P
4-1 H -P O OJ
O nj -P 3 rH VH
H 3 TJ ^ cn
G tP G -P
O O • fd G •
Q) CD H QJ
OP < 0
CO C
CU O rH
G U H -H
O >. M 4-1 TJ CJ
-p > O OJ 03 3
flj S-t CO CO 0 0
QJ td o) tn
CO rH . O fd OJ
CJ -H 2 G TJ TJ
Cn 03 G G
. 0 • fd rrj
ft 0 ft -H H rH
OJ OJ (U O -H -H
POP O O
• H
a
C TJ C -H -H
rfl G ftJ tn VH
•H rrj Oi CO 3
j0 ,H --} S S S 2
01
rH
cu
-P TS
•H OJ
E w
VH 3
cu
a to
•H
0) VH
TJ QJ
G G
3 -H
rH
TJ
QJ VH
S O
O
rH CO
rH 3
fd o
H
cn >
TJ 4-) VH
VH -HO)
rrj a ft
0 E
CQ G H
O
CO -H CO
fd -P rH
O fd
VH rH
T5 OH
c a o
fd rd tn
w
i
i
ft
1 QJ 1
cn u 3
3 -H rH . VH
TS > -H > 01
C V4 O H 4-1 TJ
M QJ CM G fd VH
cn D 3d
TJ VH O
G U QJ - - CQ
rH d VH 4-1 cn
(U ,Q S fd -H rH 0>
O3 O VH 03 U
VH ft - CQ 3 01 VH
QJ . O K 3
g •- E G co O
g >i g 0 cn TJ to
O 4-i O 4-) S 03 C4
o
CQ
G
fd
to O
QJ
CJ TJ
VH G
3 oj
0
W rH
QJ -H
C4 O
4-1 •
. to .
ft 0 -H
0> O Q
Q
C
rfl
4J
c
s
149
-------
iH
W
2
Q
D
O
H
PH
O
O
K O
fa H
EH
X O
tf 1
rH U T5
0 C C "1
M O nj TJ
4J CTi C
C H 01 O
O <1J 4J 04
U B *
W fit
TJ
G
fd
SH
in o TJ
4-J 4-J G en
G rd rd T)
0) rH C
6 rrj en O
TJ ft 4-1 ft
G 0) rH
0
ft «
E TJ
M C
rH O
MH rd ft
0 CD in
G O TJ
CD -H ft G
ft rH tn rrj
>i ffl -H
EH Q tn
4J
ft
tn
C
H tn
4-1 QJ
rrj rl
in U
ft
H
O
tn
in
H O
H -H
O ••*
w S
CD ft
OJ H
rC
H
rH TJ
G
0
T) ^
4-1
QJ QJ SH
G ft 0
H g ft
rH -H rrj
D W
ft <
ft <
rH
U
rH
o
0
OJ
rH
rd
OJ
(D
ct P
OJ CO
Q
C G
O O
H H
4-1 P
OJ CD
tn tn
G G
O 0
CJ U
to tn
fj O
G • C
nJ & fd
rH I rH
•HUH
0 0
W rrj
fd TJ
JH fd
0) 0)
i-l
0
UH
0)
XI rH
rd
rd O
g ft
en
en H
H
ft >i
u
CD QJ TS
G Cn OJ
-H in N
rH QJ H
cn QJ o
0 >< 4-1
-H SH P
> rrj rrj
CD O i
rl '
rH OJ >1
£>i tn o T)
rH O rH
G ft rH O
0 tn rd n
Q
Pi
ft
<4H
1 0 •
OJ 4-1
> • ft
O 4J 0)
rH ft Q
H OJ
- g
rH >, ffl
rrj U O
P C
G 0) TS
G
O -P rC
SH C tn
> 6 &-i
C
W
o
u
c
o
4->
QJ
tn
. §
1 ^
O rH
°s
o
u
H
0)
s
OJ
Q)
4-1
rd
4-)
LO
CO
g
ft
CO
QJ
0
ft
ft
rd
CD
X!
tn •
g §
en tn
TJ O
O ft
QJ H
tn g
rH OJ
O ft
CO
ft
ft
ft
QJ
1 SH
CD ft
CO
OJ MH
SH >i O
4-1 -H •
•H rH >
p id -H
3&Q
SH
Cn MH tn
< O Q)
U
0 > >
H
Q
rd rH
> rd
01 QJ
en c
C H
0 S
U
• SH
> 3
G CQ
• C
-P O
ft -H
QJ 4->
Q
rH
O
0)
Z
rH
rH
QJ
&
H
QJ
4-1
cn
g
tn
TJ
C
O
' ft
H Q)
e cn
rH rd
QJ SH
ft 0
4->
J}
I
rl
QJ
U
M
0
QJ
OS
J
rd
4->
&
Q
O
H
0
rH
rrj r-i
tn o
O
ft en
en cn
TJ H
C
in H
0 rH
OJ tn
rd O
M r|
o >
4-1 rH
en cu
ft
^H g
O H
MH
TJ 4->
O) H
3 ^
o
rH OJ
U
W P
H 4J
ft cn
G •
G 0 en
OJ 0 rH
4-1 4H QJ
SH rH W
rd
W
05
<
ft
ft
1
G
O
U
C
o
•H
rH
O
ft
rH
• O
ft 4-1
CD
Q
G
rd •
>
> rH H
H -H Q
Q O
Ul -. t>
CJ E CD
E tn
TJ O G
G U O
rd U
rH ft tn
O O O
O
rd
rH
0
g
TJ • rH
> rH O
O C SH
SH O ft
• ft
en ft tn rd tn
P fd G T)
O H QJ C
C -H HH C r-l O
O > rH. -rl O CM
H SH rH J^
-P QJ - S G
U ft TJ tn QJ
P g OJ 3 -P &
TJ -H S 0 CM 4-1
O O H QJ rH
rH 4H rH > O It)
04 H rH rH >: QJ
rd QJ Q>
tn - ft G
rd TJ ef) g TJ -H
tn 0) 4J rl QJ
S H G TJ
TS O ft £ -r» QJ
G rH 4J ,— I ^
rrj -H o -H G O
rcj 4-1 £ p rH
H G rH
H cn -H tn en rrj
0 4-1 4-14-1
H rH H -rl QJ
rH ft rd • ft p-i tn
rrj en rH . 03
-H GOHG>i4-> M
U OftOOUW O
rH -H tn H G H 4-1
QJ 4-1HC1J4-1QJX tn
g SH O rH SH rH
O OOJgOQ)^ H
0 ftGQJftgrd 0
rd -H pi rrj W g
O > rH > O
"Z. W ffl W Z
ft ft 1 1 ft 1 1
ft ft i< 1 ft ft 1
CM ft ft < ft Pn 1
1 .G
tfl rH M .
0) H rd g
O 3 CU g >i TJ
SH X O QJ rH
P TJ O > 4-1 i— I 0
4J 4->4J SnUftprd SH
•—I rHrH QJrdOJrHfJ 4-1
rd rrjrrj 4-)ftQrH-H C
33 ffitd s-'-ojO u
4-1 QJ -H
• « • ft <+H SH O SH
ft ftft ftQfH^JCj 4J
CD 01 QJ 0-Hfdfd -H OOQ
tneoaoo -Q en ^
>ipoj CQCQ g CUTJCO
CriidKWl Etf] fj5coXl
OG rrjeotn Ofd id -H rrj
rHH-rjfrjrrj UO * 4-iiJ
O > C) tj 4J rH fd
OJrHGTJ TJTJ fd-H.>UH
rH (8 G G O 18 QJ
. oi . rd td M . . tn .
4JC-P-H rHrH 4\J>C4-1
OJS fd QJ rd
rH Q Ul -H
G >i W C
o tn rG CD w H
O> G P C X rd rH
rH 01 0 0) QJ 4J -H
O ft CO H H D >
C
H
4-1
U
P
"8
VH
ft
rd
Cn
TJ
G
rd
•H
O
4H
0
TJ
IH
o
O
Q)
-H
0
1
1
ft
tn
0
rH
O
U
ft
W
Q
-fl 1
1J rd
H rH
tn
c
;> o
•H tO U
•H cn
>i M U
in fd
In ex c
P rd
O
C
0
4-1
Cn
C
•H
tn
rd
rH
rd
tn
o
ft
en >,
-H H
TJ G
O
CD
4-> T)
rd QJ
g 3
-H 0
4-1 rH
rH rH
P fd
VH tn
O P
4H -H
ft
T3
QJ G
3 0)
0 X!
rH 4-1 •
rH S-i >,
rd rcj o
• QJ C
tn SH cu
4-) QJ G tn
H 4-1 H ^
3 rH
-P fd > >i
rd 3 C -P
Z W - • fd
ft Q ft CH
Ol 0)
Q Q
t
TJ rrj
C >
rd In
OJ
rH CO
•H C
O 0
u
.en w •
g oj fd g
U S -H TJ U
C . 18 C
O 4-> eo 0
4-1 QJ rj -H 4J
Q O
fd
•H
c
H
rH
-H Cn
> c
•H
4-> £
W O
OJ >i
•S 3
-P
g
OJ
ft
CO
Q
ft
i-1
QJ
TJ
C
4-1
ft
CD
U
X
QJ
TS
G
4-1
H
XJ
H
O
ft
>i
rH
rH
rd
SH
01
G
QJ
tn
4-1
G
QJ •
g QJ
TJ 4J
G rd
P U
O -H
ft 'HH
E -H
•H 4-1
SH
Cn QJ
G U
cn in
SH 0
rrj
rG 4~>
u H
H VH-
O 0)
ft
cn ft
QJ
ft
4J TJ"
QJ 15
CP 0
ft rH
QJ fd
QJ
tn 4-1
o
TJ C
G
0
H •-
4-) cn
rrj 0)
SH rH
0 P
ft rH
> O
0) G
QJ Z
tn
rrj
SH «.
O <-H
4-1 fd
en >
O
C ft
•rH fd
Tl
0 U
0)
rH <
C
•rl ».
rd 05
S <
rH CN
150
-------
A1abama. Alabama Oil and Gas Board Rule 8-36 requires disposal of
salt water and other fluids in an approved underground formation "as
soon as practical or economically feasible after production is estab-
lished in any field." Temporary storage is allowed in impervious pits.
Colorado. Storage pits must be lined. Permits are required for
all pits except those used for temporary storage and disposal of sub-
stances produced in the initial completion and testing of wells. Pro-
vision exists for the establishment of special field or area rules; in
this situation, all existing pits within the field or area have 180 days
to comply with the standards set by the Oil and Gas Conservation Com-
. . 2k)
mission.
111inois. Geological and engineering data are required in appli-
cations for permits for new impoundments. Sites must be underlain by
25)
clay hardpan. Old pits must have continuous walls to prevent flooding.
Indiana. Salt water or other wastes may be collected in pits
underlain by impervious materials for one year. The Division of Oil and
Gas in the Department of Natural Resources has the authority to allow
storage beyond one year if it can be shown that pollution of surface
water and ground water will not occur. Waste liquids must be kept at
least 12 in (30 cm) below the top of the pit. The Department may order
that production be discontinued, after a hearing, if the discharge is
26)
not properly impounded.
Michigan. General rules governing oil and gas operations, admini-
stered by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, require the State
Geologist, acting as Supervisor of Wells, to approve all disposal fa-
cilities. Rule 602 calls for underground disposal of brines and use of
earthen pits or ponds only with approval of the Supervisor.
Nebraska. Facilities requiring a "Retaining Pit Permit" stipulate
that the pit should not be located within a natural surface drainage
channel, should have an impervious foundation and sides, and should have
a storage volume of at least three times the average daily inflow of
—-27)
-------
Feed lot Impoundments
State regulations governing animal feedlot operations typically are more
28)
stringent than the NPDES requirements for a point-source discharge.
State permitting usually applies to both large and small operations and,
in some States, is based upon considerations of the ratio of animals to
land area. Retention impoundments are the principal form of waste
treatment. Most States can require additional treatment as a condition
of permit issuance or renewal.
Iowa's feedlot regulations exemplify those of States with detailed
regulatory provisions. This State, for example, makes a regulatory
differentiation between permit requirements for open feedlots and for
fully or partially enclosed confined operations, and requires that an
open feedlot have a permit if beef cattle population exceeds 100 and lot
area per animal is less than 600 sq ft (5^ sq m). Confined feeding fa-
cilities are classified by the number of different species whose waste
is discharged to a lagoon or holding basin, and a permit is necessary
for beef cattle populations exceeding 20. The Iowa regulations also
provide that, regardless of size, land-carrying capacity, or other
specific provisions, all feedlots are subject to inspection if it is
determined that a water-pollution problem may exist. Permits are re-
quired for new operations and expansion of existing facilities. A
separate permit must be granted prior to construction, installation, or
modification of a waste-storage and disposal system for a permitted
facility. Information called for on the permit application includes an
aerial photograph of the facility or construction site, which must show
building and lot area, lagoons or waste-holding pits, direction of
surface drainage from the site, location of wells and dwellings within
1,000 ft (300 m) of the site, adjacent land owned, and land area set
29)
aside for waste disposal.
The Minnesota feedlot permit application requires similar site location
details and also data concerning geologic conditions, soil types,
ground-water elevations, and particulars about the effluent to be dis-
152
-------
charged. Minnesota prohibits location of a new livestock feedlot and
its waste facilities within a floodway, within 1,000 ft (300 m) of a
public park, in areas subject to the formation of sinkholes, in areas
draining into sinkholes, or within half a mile of a concentration of 10
or more private residences.
Nebraska prohibits the location of a livestock waste pond within 100 ft
(30 m) of any well used for domestic purposes, or within 1,000 ft (300 m)
of a municipal water-supply well unless the operator can demonstrate
that the pond will not result in contamination of ground water.
Kansas regulates confined operations with 300 or more cattle, swine,
sheep, or horses, housed at any one time, or any animal-feeding oper-
ation of less than 300 head using a lagoon for waste disposal. Re-
tention ponds receiving animal wastes must "be capable of containing
3 in (7.5 cm) of surface runoff from the feedlot area, waste-storage
32)
areas, and all other waste-contributing areas.1
The guidelines of the California State Water Resources Control Board for
protection of ground water from disposal of animal wastes stipulate that
a regional board may set requirements for discharges exceeding a 10-yr
2^-hr storm. Retention ponds must be protected against overflow from
stream channels during 20-yr peak stream flows for existing facilities
and 100-yr peak stream flows for new facilities. Special sealants for
retention ponds usually are not required where the ponds are constructed
on sandy loams and finer textured soil materials such as silt and clay.
CONTROLS BY SELECTED STATES
This section contains descriptions of the regulations of several repre-
sentative States applicable to the control of impoundments. Selection
of States has been guided in part by an attempt to include those whose
programs combine elements which, when taken together, provide a broad
picture of the wide range in State regulatory controls and institutions.
153
-------
Cali fornia
Strong orientation toward local autonomy is the principal feature of
California's water-management laws and regulations. Although the State
Water Resources Board is the primary agency responsible for protection
of water resources, nine regional water-quality control boards have
broad discretionary powers, enabling them to develop locally specialized
regulations. These regional boards have the authority to impose more
stringent conditions, but must adhere to the requirements of the State
Water Resources Board for disposal-site and waste classification.
The State Water Quality Control Act, the NPDES regulations, and the
system of site and waste classification for disposal of wastes on
land provide a legal basis for control of impoundments. The classi-
fication system, developed in response to a legislative instruction
requiring regional water-quality control boards to approve sites suit-
able for the disposal of wastes on land, is based upon the geologic and
hydrologic features of the disposal area and the capability of the site
to protect surface-water and ground-water quality. Wastes are catego-
rized according to the threat that they pose to water quality. The
NPDES program developed in California incorporates this classification
system, with the term "disposal site" defined as any place used for the
disposal of solid or liquid wastes. The definition does not include any
part of a sewage-treatment plant or point-of-discharge of sewage effluent
or land drainage from pipes or ditches into waters of the State.
Neither the State Water Quality Control Act nor the NPDES regulations
contains a specific definition of an impoundment. However, the defini-
tion of "waste" and "water-quality control," reinforced by the site and
3*0
waste classification system, is construed to include impoundments.
"Waste" includes sewage and all other waste substances, liquid, solid,
gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human
or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing
operation of whatever nature prior to, and for the purposes of disposal.
"Water-quality control" means the regulation of any activity or factor
which may affect the quality of the waters of the State and includes the
prevention and correction of water pollution and nuisance.
154
-------
The disposal-site classification system includes three basic classes of
sites:35)
1. Class 1 Disposal Sites - These are sites where ground-water
and surface-water quality must be protected for all time
against any hazard to public health and wildlife resources
resulting from the disposal of wastes. The geologic framework
of sites in this category must be capable of preventing in-
filtrating liquids from contaminating ground water or surface
water. These sites must not be located over zones of active
faulting or where other forms of geological change would impair
the ability of natural features or artificial barriers to
withhold contaminants from water. Leachate and subsurface
flow into the disposal area must be contained within the site
unless "other disposition is in accordance with requirements
of the regional board." Manmade physical barriers such as
liners must be installed and maintained in such a manner as
to guarantee that waste, leachate, or gases will not contact
usable water. These sites are subject to limits on the
type and quantity of material entering the site, the con-
centration of material in the waste disposed of, and the
volume present or remaining on the site after evaporation
of fluids. A subdivision of this classification places a
limit on the amount and type of Group 1 (see beyond) wastes
that may be disposed of at such sites if the threat of
inundation is greater than a 100-yr flood.
2. Class II Disposal Sites - These sites are divided into two
subclasses, principally depending upon the depth to the
water table. Class 11-1 sites are those where geologic
conditions prevent lateral and vertical infiltration of
potentially contaminating fluids. At Class 11-2 sites,
such conditions may not exist, but a regional board may
rule that use of artificial barriers, the depth to ground
155
-------
water, or some other factor assures adequate protection for
ground water beneath and adjacent to the site. At these
places, the disposal area must be protected from washout and
flooding and other potentially contaminating events such as
infiltration of wastewater during site preparation
and construction activities. Liquid wastes may not be dis-
charged at separate ponding areas at these sites unless
specific approval is granted by the regional board.
3. Class III Disposal Sites - These sites are judged suitable for
the disposal of essentially insoluble, nondecomposable, inert
solids such as demolition materials containing less than 10
percent of wood and metal, plasterboard, tires, and industrial
wastes such as clay products, glass, inert slags and tailings,
and scrap rubber. As these materials are thought to be least
harmful to ground water, the siting requirements are the least
stringent, and even marshy areas or pits and quarries may be
found to be acceptable.
According to the State regulations, wastes may be solid, semi-solid, or
liquid and may have characteristics requiring special handling, such as
those relating to oils, acids, caustics, or toxic substances. These
substances are divided into three major groups which in turn are further
subdivided on the basis of municipal, industrial, or agricultural origin.
The characteristics of these groups are described as follows:
1. Group 1 Wastes - These consist of, or contain, toxic sub-
stances which could significantly impair the quality of usable
waters. The amount of the substance to be disposed of, its
critical concentration in the receiving water, and its physical
and chemical behavior must be considered. Toilet wastes,
paint sludges, pumpings from grease traps, drilling muds, and
chemical fertilizers are cited as examples of waste where
quantity may be the factor determining categorization as
either Group 1 or Group 2.
156
-------
Saline fluids from water or waste-treatment and reclamation
processes, community incinerator ashes, and toxic chemical
toilet wastes are specified as examples of Group 1 wastes of
municipal origin. Industrial wastes in this group include:
brines, toxic or hazardous fluids such as spent cleaning
fluids, petroleum fractions, chemicals, acids, alkalines,
phenols, spent washing fluids, substances from which toxic
materials can leach such as process ashes, chemical mixtures,
and mine tailings and rotary drilling mud containing toxic
materials. Group 1 agricultural wastes include pesticides
and chemical fertilizers.
Group 2 Wastes - These consist of or contain chemical or
biologically decomposable material that does not include
toxic substances. Municipal and industrial wastes in this
category include food-preparation or processing wastes, rubbish
such as paper, cardboard, tin cans, cloth and glass, and inert
construction and demolition materials. Sewage-treatment
residues such as solids from screens and grit chambers, de-
watered sludge, and septic tank pumpings are also included in
this group. Provision exists for regional boards to place
limitations on sludges if the water content is higher than 30
percent, or in the event that these sludges are judged to
present a threat to water quality. Moist sludges require that
the disposal site include barriers against leachate infiltration
or be situated in an extremely dry region. Group 2 agricultural
wastes include plant residues, manures, dead animals, and
adequately cleansed pesticide containers.
Group 3 Wastes - These consist of materials which are entirely
non-water soluble and nondecomposable inert solids including
demolition wastes such as clay products, glass, inert slags,
asbestos, and inert tailings and plastics. A discharger
proposing to dispose of industrial wastes such as slag, tailings,
or other process residues as Group 3 wastes may be required
to prove that the wastes are substantially inert.
157
-------
Prior to the disposal of wastes at a site that is new, has been enlarged,
or for which a change in waste discharge is planned, the operator is
required to file a report of waste discharge with the regional board.
This report, leading to site and waste classification, is judged incom-
plete unless it has been approved and certified by all local agencies
with jurisdiction in the proposed area.
The discharger must provide details of disposal-site construction and
operation relevant to the protection of water quality, a description of
the waste materials involved, a map showing the boundaries of the site
and waste-disposal areas, a general description of operations, detailed
hydrological and geological data for the area, a description of plans
for control of drainage, leachate, and gasses, and a plan for anticipated
land use after termination of disposal operations. Although specific
data requirements vary slightly, depending on the sensitivity of the
site to ground-water contamination and the contaminating potential of
the wastes, the general philosophy is that "the larger the disposal
operation or the greater the possibility that water-quality problems may
be created, the greater the detail required."
The regional boards require a description of land use within 1,000 ft
(300 m) of the proposed waste-disposal site and notification 90 days
prior to discontinuing the use of the site. This notification must
describe methods and controls to be used to assure protection of the
quality of surface water and ground water during final operations and
describe any proposed subsequent use of the land. A report must be
prepared by or under the supervision of a registered engineer or a
certified geologist. The property owner has a "continuing responsi-
bility for correcting problems which may arise in the future as a result
of this waste discharge or water applied to this property during sub-
sequent use of the land for other purposes."
Monitoring programs are established on an individual site basis and may
35)
require inclusion of any or all of the following measures:
158
-------
1. Monitoring of local ground water and surface water considered
to be within the area of influence of a disposal site. This
measure requires collection of baseline data to indicate
original conditions or effects caused by sources unrelated to
the disposal site. The regulations observe that "these data
may be important to the discharger because it may offer a
basis to discount claims of degradation of water quality which
may be filed later by other parties."
2. Routine surveillance to include a review of the adequacy of
on-site drainage systems and other conditions, including
settlement problems which may cause ponding of water, the
amount of water applied to the disposal area, and the depth of
cover material.
3. Maintenance of records of the depth to ground water beneath the
disposal areas, with installation of piezometers or small-
diameter wells in the disposal site at critical locations.
k. Monitoring of the integrity of liners used for water-quality
protection. Seepage collection drains and sumps within
hydraulic barrier installations should have continuous fluid-
level measuring facilities to provide data on the effectiveness
of the barrier.
5. Monitoring point locations selected on the basis of the charac-
teristics of local ground-water and surface-water hydrology
and site design. Generally, the disposer is required to
collect samples upgradient and downgradient.
6. Analysis of selected constituents of the waste, usually
including pH, electrical conductivity or TDS, chloride,
hardness, and total alkalinity. Specialized monitoring is
required at more sensitive sites for materials containing
hazardous substances or metals.
159
-------
7. Establishment of an identification system for individual
disposal areas within sites receiving hazardous or toxic
wastes.
Colorado
Water-pollution control in Colorado is administered by the Water Pol-
lution Control Commission within the Colorado State Department of
Health. The agency is required to coordinate its activities and regu-
lations with other State agencies such as the Department of Natural
Resources, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the Geological
Survey, depending on the issues involved. The Colorado Water Quality
Control Act requires that the Commission "...develop and maintain a
comprehensive and effective program for the prevention, control, and
abatement of water pollution and for water-quality protection throughout
the entire State." '
The 11-member Commission consists of one member each from the State
Board of Health, the Wildlife Commission, and the Water Conservation
Board, and seven citizens appointed by the governor to include one
member from each Congressional district.
The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in the Department of Natural
Resources is responsible for the disposal of wastewater produced during
all phases of oil and gas extraction and storage. The agency has ruled
that surface discharge is permissible only in areas where produced water
has low salinity and that all storage pits must be lined. These
conditions are basic requirements for permit consideration.
In 1976, the Water Quality Control Commission revised the Rules for
Subsurface Disposal to incorporate an expanded definition of such
systems to include: "...unlined lagoons or systems disposing of pol-
lutants not more than 100 ft (30 m) below adjacent original ground
surface."38)
160
-------
Hi ghlights
The Colorado Water Quality Control Act specifies that "State Waters"
include ground water for discharge permit requirements. Therefore,
regulations require permits for all solid- and liquid-disposal
sites throughout the State, including exfiltration ponds or sewage
systems disposing of pollutants directly or indirectly under the
surface of the ground when the system serves more than 20 people or
39)
has a design capacity exceeding 2,000 gpd (7.6 cu m/day).
The design report submitted as part of a permit application for
impoundment systems must include ground-water monitoring plans.
Monitor wells must be situated in "a pattern sufficient to monitor
each dominant direction of ground-water movement away from the
site, and determine ground-water movement." The report also calls
for water sampling and analysis with quarterly reporting of nitrate
and ammonia nitrogen, specific conductance, fecal coliform, BOD,
and chloride, at each monitoring point. Each application is ac~
Ao)
companied by specific details of the requirements.
Decisions concerning requirements for each monitoring program for
impoundments are made on a case-by-case basis. The permittee must
keep records for three years.
All monitoring wells must be pumped for 10 minutes prior to sampling.
Granting of a permit to "construct or operate" a subsurface dis-
posal system is contingent upon a determination beyond reasonable
doubt that "...there is no risk of significant migration (of pollu-
tants) and the proposed activity is justified by the public need."
Permit applications require data describing the area within a 2 mi
(3-2 km) radius of the proposed impoundment system; sociological
elements and wildlife of the area; the probable effects of the system on
mineral resources; and surface water and ground water in the probable
zone of influence of the system, including maps indicating vertical
and lateral limits of surface and subsurface water supplies.
161
-------
Applicants for a permit must fully describe the "chemical, phy-
sical, radiological, and biological properties of wastes to be
disposed of."
No impoundment may be abandoned without approval from the Water
Quality Control Commission, which is authorized to impose closure
requi rements.
The State "Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment
Facilities" stipulate that:
"All runoff containment structures that will hold liquid must
be sealed. Removal of porous top soil and proper compaction
of suitable sub-soil improves the water-holding character-
istics of the bottom. Removal of porous areas such as gravel
or sandy pockets and replacement with suitable material may be
required. Suitable materials for sealing may include a clay
blanket, asphalt coating, or manure."
Violations are handled in a variety of ways, with the first step
involving the issuance of a notice of alleged violation of an
order, permit, or control regulation. This notice is usually
accompanied by a cease-and-desist order and may include a de-
scription of required corrective measures. A public hearing may
also be ordered, at which time the decision will be made on what
further action is necessary. The permit may be revoked, suspended,
or modified, and a clean-up order issued. Failure to comply leads
to the intervention of the Attorney General. Civil penalties of
not more than $10,000 per day for each violation may be leveled
against those who violate a permit, while criminal proceedings for
abuses of water quality "committed knowingly or intentionally,"
such as operating without a permit or deliberately dumping pol-
lutants into State waters, carry a maximum fine of $25,000.
162
-------
Delaware
The two principal laws enabling regulation of the disposal of waste-
waters to impoundments in the State of Delaware are the Environmental
Protection Act and the Delaware Solid Waste Authority Act (1975). Regu-
lations developed by the Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control (DNREC), the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (created by
the 1975 Act), and the State Board of Health provide for the control of
all waste discharges within the State.
Hi ghli ghts
The State law has no specific legal definition for "impoundment"
broad enough to include structures other than reservoirs. Ponds
for the purpose of regulation are "...all natural and/or man-made
lakes or other bodies of water fed directly by springs, ground
water, tidal, or non-tidal streams."
Discharge of any pollutant from a point source into surface water
or ground water is prohibited without a permit. Facilities covered
by the permit requirement include "any liquid waste-treatment
,,41)
system."
Sec. 13 of Delaware Regulations Governing the Control of Water
Pollution (197^) provides exemption from permitting for 20 activi-
ties including:
1. Existing ditches used for the express purpose of draining
water from the surface of the land.
2. Uncontaminated stormwater discharge.
3. Operation of any quarry, gravel pit, or borrow operation
unless there may be a discharge directly or indirectly to
surface water and/or ground water.
163
-------
There is a general provision for hearings either before permitting
or in the case of suspected violation. Fact sheets prepared as
part of the permit application procedure are available for public
inspection. The permit commits the applicant to performance stan-
dards, applicable pretreatment requirements, and notification to
the public of intent to initiate the discharge.
All ditches and ponds associated with landfills must be lined with
an impermeable liner, unless the applicant can prove to the De-
1(2)
partment's satisfaction that a natural soil liner is impermeable.
Record keeping is required for all disposal sites and there is
provision for DNREC inspection of these records and access to
permitted sites. For municipal wastewater impoundments, the State
uses the 10-State Recommended Standards for Sewage Works as a basic
guide but reserves the right to enforce stricter standards on a
case-by-case basis.
Imposition of civil penalties is provided for in situations where
the Department considers that pollution is taking place in violation
of State regulations.
Idaho
The Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act, the Dredge and Placer
Mining Protection Act, the Surface Mining Act, and the Oil and Gas
Conservation Act all contain provisions for the control of discharges of
wastewater to surface impoundments. Overall regulation of discharges
from municipalities, industries, and agriculture \s subject to the
water-quality protection requirements of the Department of Health and
Welfare. The Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has regulations
dealing with the permitting and surveillance of disposal sites to avoid
ground-water contamination. The State does not presently produce pe-
troleum, so that the principal concern is with controls on processes
associated with exploratory drilling.
164
-------
For purposes of administration, Idaho is divided into three regions:
Region I - Coeur d'Alene, Region II - Boise, and Region III - Pocatello.
Each region is staffed with seven technical experts whose activities are
primarily concerned with watei—quality control, and one professional
staff member working with Section 208 programs in the regions.
Hi ghlights
The Department of Health and Welfare, the primary State environ-
mental regulatory agency, promulgated "Waste Treatment and Dis-
charge Permit Regulations (Jan. 1977)" following the required
public hearings on the proposals. These regulations were subse-
quently withdrawn by the Legislature. While the State agency is
seeking to reinstate the 1973 regulations, it is proceeding with a
permitting system based upon the language of the Idaho Environ-
mental Protection and Health Act, in lieu of updated standards or
other regulatory guidelines.
The rejected regulations offered a specific definition of "Infil-
tration-Percolation Basin" as being "any impoundment or depression
in the land surface designed or utilized for the disposal of waste-
water and sewage by infiltration and percolation into the soil."
Similarly, a "Non-Overflow Lagoon" was "a sealed or unsealed im-
poundment designed or utilized for storage, stabilization, or dis-
posal of wastewater and sewage without overflow." Neither defin-
ition is present in the 1973 Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment
Requirements or the Environmental Protection & Health Act.
The Act authorizes the Department of Health and Welfare and the
Water Resources Division to issue permits for municipal, industri-
al, and agricultural impoundments, with most authorizations granted
kk]
after case-by-case consideration. The permitting procedure for
tailings ponds and settling ponds governed by the Idaho Surface
Mining Act requires design of these facilities and their operation
in accord with water-pollution protection requirements of the
Department of Water Resources. Similarly, the Idaho Dredge and
165
-------
Placer Mining Protection Act relates to the permitting and recla-
mation of this type of mining development, with impoundments con-
sidered as industrial facilities.
The Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is charged with the
permitting of drilling sites, technical review to avoid ground-
water contamination, monitoring, and regulation of production to
maximize recovery. "General Rules and Regulations" developed by
the Commission preclude the production, storage, or retention of
oil in open receptacles. Conditions for the disposal of brine or
salt by evaporation require the use of impervious sites. Where the
soil under the pit is porous and closely underlain by gravel or
sand, impounding of brine or salt water is prohibited. Surface mud
impoundments must be lined with an impervious membrane or other
flooring and must be removed after drilling. The Commission has
the auihority to condemn improperly constructed impoundments or
those where operations permit overflow of the wastes. All earthen
pits must have a continuous embankment surrounding them, suffi-
ciently above the level of the surface to prevent water from running
into the pit.
The applicant for a permit for all other surface impoundments
controlled by the Department of Water Resources must guarantee that
the waste materials will be restricted to the disposal site, pro-
vide for chemical sampling of the effluents, and determine the
characteristics of the soil mantle at the site. The 1973 regu-
lations specifically prohibit the use of any land treatment or
disposal method which would create a ground-water mound, result in
a salt buildup on another person's property, or create a health
hazard.
The Department of Health and Welfare requires that wastewater
impoundments be installed in such a fashion as to avoid contamin-
ation of nearby wells. A provision exists for hearings to be held
prior to permitting in the event that sufficient citizen interest
166
-------
Is evidenced upon publication of the intent to issue a permit for a
faci1i ty.
Monitoring of discharges and record-keeping are required by the
permit application, with specific approaches decided on a case-by-
case basis. The enabling laws authorize Department personnel to
inspect sites in the event that there is any reasonable doubt con-
cerning the environmental acceptability of the impoundment. There
is also provision for the issuance of pollution-abatement orders
and the setting of civil penalties by the courts in cases of per-
sistent violation.
Maryland
The Water Resources Administration in Maryland's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) has developed comprehensive ground-water protection
regulations based upon State law, a system of aquifer classification,
and Federal requirements. The agency coordinates its activities with
the State Department of Health and Hygiene, which exercises primary
supervision over the treatment and disposal of solid wastes and the
health-related aspects of water supply. Legislation to consolidate
virtually all State environmental programs, including those governing
solid waste, under the DNR is presently being considered. The measure
would transfer the Environmental Health Administration of the Health
Department to DNR. Also under consideration is a revision of sections
/,£-)
of regulations covering discharge permits and approvals.
The explanation of terms used both in State environmental law and in
rules and regulations promulgated by DNR clearly demonstrates the intent
to protect ground water from all forms of waste disposal, including
transmission of wastewater to impoundments. For instance, discharge is
defined by the law and subsequent regulations as the addition, intro-
duction, leaking, spilling, or emitting of any pollutant to waters of
the State or the "placing" of any pollutant in a location where it is
"likely" to pollute. The term "disposal system" not only includes
treatment works and disposal wells, but is extended to include "other
167
-------
systems." Ponds are cited as points of discharge of effluents and are
included in the definition of "waters of the State" without any reference
k6)
to the quality of influent.
The agency has a two-tiered approach to control of discharge, with some
activities requiring permits and others requiring administrative ap-
proval of design and/or operation. The proposed revision of discharge
regulations will give the agency increased authority to control activities,
facilities, or systems which are not designed to discharge water, wastes,
or wastewaters, but which may "cause" such discharge "directly or in-
directly" into waters of the State. Further, a discharge permit may be
required from any facility for which there is a "potential" discharge to
waters of the State. Holding and treatment ponds or lagoons for wastes
or wastewaters, mining activities, and animal feedlots are categorized
i,7)
in this fashion.
For purposes of administration, the State is divided into five regions
with a specialist in charge of each. Permitting activity is under the
supervision of a senior staff member individually responsible for wet-
lands, hazardous and industrial wastes, municipal discharges, water
supply, and watersheds. Similarly, the technical services division is
divided according to activity groupings for water quality, flood con-
trol, planning, and laboratory services. Each of the three subdivisions
in the Water Resources Administration is headed by a chief administrator
^8)
directly responsible to the Water Resources Administration director.
Highlights
State ground-water quality standards recognize three classes of
native ground-water quality: (a) high quality water, meeting or
exceeding Federal drinking water standards; (b) intermediate
quality water suitable for industrial and agricultural use or for
possible use as a potable water supply after desalination; and (c)
low quality (saline) water. Effluent limits, or allowable con-
taminant loads, are matched to aquifer types. For instance, nitro-
gen loading for land application of municipal wastes and a require-
168
-------
merit for zero pollutant discharge for surface impoundments are
features of the discharge requirements for potable ground waters or
Type I Aquifers. Ground-water quality standards stipulate that:
"The characteristics or constituents of water or wastewaters dis-
charged into Type I Aquifers may not exceed, or cause the natural
ground-water quality to exceed, mandatory recommended standards for
drinking waters as established by the Federal government." For
Type II Aquifers, the discharger must provide evidence that the
49)
discharge will not result in pollution of Type I Aquifers.
The Maryland Ground Water Pollution Control and Prevention System
supplements the State and NPDES requirements for surface-water
discharge by requiring a permit "to discharge to underground waters
and for approval of plans and specifications for a facility which
may discharge." Infiltration-percolation basins, land application
of wastewater, and industrial subsurface soil adsorption systems
(drain fields, seepage pits, etc.) are categorized as facilities
requiring a discharge permit. Holding ponds and lagoons for
chemicals, wastes, or other materials are classified as "facilities
which may discharge" and for which approval of plans and speci-
fications is required by the Water Resources Administration.
In the event that an existing discharge does not comply with re-
quirements, the permittee must attest that facilities will meet
requirements set forth in a compliance schedule developed by the
Water Resources Administration and expressed in compliance periods.
The discharger must submit a compliance report within \k days
following each compliance deadline.
Satisfaction of State requirements leads to issuance of an NPDES
surface-water discharge permit or a ground-water discharge permit
in the event that a discharge may affect ground-water quality.
A public hearing is required prior to permit issuance, with a
hearing notice to be published at least once in a daily or weekly
newspaper in the geographical area of the discharge, at least 30
days prior to the hearing.
169
-------
Discharge facilities (both municipal and industrial) must be oper-
ated by a Certified Superintendent whose qualifications meet the
State's legal requirements (Article 43 Sec. 406-A of the Annotated
Code of Maryland).
Any discharge authorized by permit is subject to monitoring re-
quirements imposed by the Administration at time of permit issu-
ance, including the installation, use, and maintenance of monitoring
equipment or methods. Each permit specifies the sampling and
analysis requirements, including frequency and type of sampling and
analysis. The permittee is required to retain monitoring records
for three years and submit a monitoring report at periods stipu-
lated by the Administration, but no less frequently than once a
year. Permits are valid for 5 years.
Regulations covering permit review, modification, suspension, or
revocation entitle the Administration to modify permit provisions
after notice and the opportunity for a public hearing. Revisions
or modifications of a compliance schedule may be made for a variety
of reasons, including events over which the permittee has no con-
trol, such as material shortages.
In the event that a violation takes place, the Administration may
issue a corrective order, require the alleged violator to appear
before the Department to answer charges, or require a written
report. Failure to comply may result in modification or revocation
of a permit and/or civil or criminal penalties.
The Geological Survey regulates disposal of brine wastes from the
gas industry but must coordinate its activities with the Water
Resources Administration. Surface discharge of brines is covered
by NPDES, and although there are no specific rules regarding dis-
posal of this wastewater, the State's aquifer classification and
ground-water quality standards must be adhered to.
170
-------
The prevention of oil pollution, both above and below ground, is
also covered by agency regulations, which prohibit the discharge,
depositing, or draining of oil or other matter containing oil into
the waters of the State, or in a manner contrary to promotion of
State water-quality standards.
Massachusetts
At present, authority to control surface impoundments in Massachusetts
is somewhat ambiguous due to the abolition in 1976 of the Department of
Natural Resources in favor of consolidation of environmental management
within a cabinet-level Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The
reorganization included transferring the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering and the Division of Water Pollution Control to the
new department as separate but complementary agencies. Previously, the
Division of Water Pollution Control had been the administering agency of
the Water Resources Commission, a regulatory body created by the Massa-
chusetts Clean Water Act. The Act authorizes the Division of Water
Pollution Control to issue permits and establish monitoring, sampling,
record keeping, and reporting procedures to control water pollution
affecting the waters of the State, defined by the law to include lakes,
ponds, impoundments, and ground water. The Division has authority to
promulgate permitting regulations controlling discharges to ground water
and to establish a formal permit system, but to date (1977) has not done
so.52'
The State's system for controlling discharges to surface-water bodies
(MPDES), taken in conjunction with regulations governing the disposal of
hazardous wastes and regulations promulgated in 197& by the Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering to set minimum requirements for the
subsurface disposal of sanitary sewage, incorporates limited controls
over certain types of impoundments.
171
-------
Hi ghli ghts
The State discourages the use of lagoons for treatment or disposal
52)
of municipal wastewater.
In 1973, regulations requiring the licensing of hazardous-waste
collection, storage, and disposal were promulgated by the Division
of Water Pollution Control. Nearly 100 licenses, which inventory
the type of hazardous wastes going to disposal sites, have been
issued. The regulations stipulate methods for disposal of various
types of hazardous materials, require licensing of sites, and ban
53)
discharge to land or to waters of the State.
The requirements for subsurface disposal of sanitary sewage es-
tablish a permitting system to be administered by the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering. Construction of seepage pits in
areas where the maximum ground-water elevation is less than k ft
(1.2 m) below the bottom of the pit is prohibited. In situations
where the soil consists of porous sand or gravel with a percolation
rate of 0.5 in/min (1.3 cm/min) or less, the maximum ground-water
level must not be less than 2 ft (0.6 m) below the bottom of the
pit. The restrictions are based on measurements to be made during
the period of the year when the water table is at its highest
elevation. Percolation tests are required as a condition of pei—
mi tti ng.
Nebraska
The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act stipulates pollution-control
requirements for protection of the State's oil, land, and water re-
sources and is the principal instrument under which the Department of
Environmental Control (DEC) functions as the administering agency.
Municipal and industrial surface impoundments are regulated by waste-
disposal rules established by the Department and administered by its
Water Pollution Division. The Agricultural Division is responsible for
5*0
implementation of livestock waste regulations. At present, DEC
172
-------
activities relative to permitting and supervision of impoundments are
the responsibility of 12 technical staff members and 2 attorneys.
However, additional legal assistance is available from county legal
staff and the Attorney General's office.
In 1975, the DEC promulgated rules and regulations governing the issu-
ance of NPDES permits. These requirements, taken together with those
developed pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act and restrictions
on disposal of liquids and hazardous materials in landfills, provide an
effective range of control.
Highlights
Nebraska regulations require permits to cover wastewater surface
impoundments, with the exception of uncontrolled discharges com-
posed entirely of storm runoff. However, the NPDES rule granting
this exemption provides for reversal in situations judged by the
regulatory authority as being significant contributors to pol-
lution. NPDES and State rules and regulations provide for public
participation through hearing procedures and publication of no-
tices. Significant features of the permitting procedure include:
1. Provision for consultation between the divisions of the
DEC concerning a permit application.
2. NPDES provision for denial of a permit if the application
is in conflict with discharge requirements of any approved
Section 208 areawide waste-treatment plan under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 or of NPDES
constituent discharge requirements.
3. Hearings to be held in conjunction with regulatory rule
making or in the event that there is a contest over the
granting of the permit.
173
-------
The design of all wastewater works in Nebraska is based upon the
recommendation that they incorporate the features of the "Recom-
mended Standards for Sewage Works" (1971 Revised Edition), prepared
under the direction of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River
Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
Nebraska regulations prohibit the siting of livestock feedlot
facilities within 100 ft (30 m) from a domestic well, 1,000 ft
(300 m) from a municipal well, or in situations where they will
contaminate ground water.
Regulations provide for "right of entry" for inspection by author-
ized departmental personnel, reporting of pollution incidents by
the facility operator, and reporting of the results of wastewater
sampling for specific constituents.
If a violation is judged to be an emergency, the violator is taken
to court where the DEC will seek a mandatory injunction. In cases
of less urgency, the procedure follows the administrative route of
a warning to the violator, followed by a hearing. The person
charged with the violations may file briefs and has a right to
appeal. The law provides for the payment of fines of up to $5,000
per day for each violation.
New Mexico
The New Mexico Water duality Control Act recognizes eight "constituent"
agencies with responsibilities that are either directly related to the
development, management, and protection of water supply and water qual-
ity or are affected by the availability of water for industrial, agri-
cultural, recreational, or aesthetic purposes. The Act established a
system by which each "constituent" agency participates in the formulation
of rules and regulations through representation on the Water Quality
Control Commission, which it established as the principal entity re-
sponsible for development of regulations. The members of the Commission
174
-------
represent the Environmental Improvement Agency (EIA), the Bureau of
Mines and Mineral Resources, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Game and Fish, Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Oil Conser-
vation Commission, State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, and the
State Parks Recreation Commission.
Passage of the Environmental Improvement Act (1971) transferred the
responsibilities of the former Environmental Services Division of the
Health and Social Service Department to EIA. This agency is responsible
for the environmental management and enforcement of water-supply and
water-pollution control rules and regulations. The Water Quality Di-
vision in EIA and the Engineering Office are the principal sections
concerned with discharges to surface impoundments from all sources other
than oil and gas extraction and storage. The Oil Conservation Commis-
sion is responsible for implementing State regulations and for issuing
permits for discharges related to the oil and gas extraction. Permits
covering coal surface mining are issued by the New Mexico Coal Surface
Mining Commission.
In January 1977, the Commission promulgated amendments to existing
water-quality control regulations designed to control discharges "onto
or below the surface of the ground" and established standards limiting
27 constituents in ground water. Generally speaking, the amended
regulations reflect the requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act by seeking to protect all ground water with an existing concen-
tration of 10,000 mg/1 or less of TDS, for present and future use as
domestic and agricultural water supply. The need to protect ground-
water quality from contamination due to the inflow of polluted surface
water, and to differentiate between undesirable naturally occurring
constituents and those reaching ground water from a variety of waste-
rO\
disposal practices, is also acknowledged by the regulations.
The maximum ranges and concentrations in the ground-water standards do
not preclude the use of water containing higher ranges and concentrations,
In formulating the regulations, the Commission sought to confront issues
175
-------
surrounding the application of NPDES to semi-arid regions, principally
the contention that the Federal system is designed primarily to protect
water quality in streams where ground water is discharging to surface
59)
water. EIA observed that "it would be ineffective and inappropriate
to rely primarily upon this system (NPDES) to protect water quality in
semi-arid regions where such surface-water bodies as there are in fact
discharge to ground water." In effect, the regulations provide the
State with a discharge system for ground-water quality protection parallel
to but separate from NPDES. From a procedural viewpoint, the mechanics
for hearings, issuance of permits, and enforcement do not differ sub-
stantially from those established by other States, but the technical
requirements are more specific in their intent to prevent contamination
of ground water from infiltration of undesirable constituents from
surface impoundments.
Highlights
A discharge plan describing methods of discharge, existing con-
ditions, monitoring and sampling programs, and a contingency plan
designed to cope with failure of the discharge system is to be
established prior to permitting of discharge of effluent or leach-
ate which may move directly or indirectly into ground water. The
plan also calls for identification of any bodies of water, water
courses, and ground-water discharge sites within a 1-mi radius
of the outer limits of the proposed discharge site. A lithological
description of rock at the base of alluvium below the site, if
available, as well as the depth to and IDS concentration of the
ground water likely to be affected by the discharge, is also re-
qui red.
Exemptions from discharge plan requirements include sewerage
systems used only for the disposal of household and other domestic
wastes amounting to 2,000 gpd (7.6 cu m/day) or less of liquid
wastes, leachate from solids disposed of in accordance with the
State's solid waste-management regulations, effluent or leachate
176
-------
discharges from activities regulated by a coal surface mining plan
approved and permitted by the New Mexico Coal Surface Mining Com-
mission, and discharges regulated by the Oil Conservation Commission.
The regulating agency may impose a full range of monitoring options,
including monitoring of the vadose zone and continuation of moni-
toring after cessation of operation. The discharge plan must
identify the types of data and stipulate periodicity of reporting.
The discharger is required to retain monitoring records for 5 yr.
Conformity of sampling and analytical techniques is required
through either adherence to standardized methods established by the
American Public Health Association, EPA, or the U.S. Geological
c 61)
Survey.
According to an official of the New Mexico EIA, "A discharge plan
is approvable if it demonstrates that neither a hazard to public
health nor undue risk to property will result, and that ground-
water quality standards will be met at any place of withdrawal for
present or reasonably forseeable future use.
Shortcut methods of showing that these requirements are met, which
are acceptable under most circumstances, include criteria for
seepage rates from impoundments and/or land application rates.
These criteria include a limit for municipal, domestic, and animal
waste discharges of 200 Ib/acre/yr (220 kg/ha/yr) of nitrogen
entering the subsurface from a leach field or surface impoundment,
and a limit for industrial, mining and manufacturing operations of
0.5 acre-ft/acre/yr (1,5^0 cu m/ha/yr) of effluent entering the
62}
subsurface from a surface impoundment. It must be emphasized
that dischargers are required to show that ground-water standards
will be met at any place of withdrawal for present or forseeable
future use. These shortcut criteria, which can be used at the
discharger's option, are possible ways of showing this."
The agency has the authority to modify a discharge plan, set a time
limit for implementation of modification, or terminate the discharge
177
-------
if the modifications are not made. No plan may be approved
for more than a 5~yr period.
The discharger is entitled to request a variance from regulatory
requirements under certain conditions, including demonstration that
there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social
costs and benefits (including attainment of the ground-water quality
standards), and that the proposed discharge would not create a
public health hazard.
Texa s
The Texas Water Quality Act of 196? created the Texas Water Quality
Board (TWQB) as the principal authority regulating State waters. In
late 1977, the TWQB was merged into a new agency, called the Texas
Department of Water Resources (TDWR). The Texas Water Quality Act
seeks to encourage the development and use of regional and areawide
waste-collection, treatment, and disposal systems. A waste-treatment
facility is described as: "Any plant, disposal field, lagoon, incinerator,
area devoted to sanitary landfills, or other facility installed for the
purpose of treating, neutralizing, or stabilizing waste." The defin-
ition is further expanded by TDWR's "Rules of Practice and Procedure"
to mean all wastes including sewage, industrial waste, municipal waste,
recreational waste, agricultural waste, or other waste, except for salt
water associated with the extraction of oil and gas, which is controlled
by the Texas Railroad Commission. However, the Railroad Commission
generally defers to the TDWR in matters of protection of potable water
supplies, including ground water.
Administration of the State Solid Waste Disposal Act is also the respon-
sibility of TDWR, which maintains direct regulatory control over industrial
liquid and solid wastes. The Department of Health regulates disposal of
municipal and agricultural solid wastes. Agency interaction with the
Health Department and the Railroad Commission is facilitated by TDWR
, 64)
rules.
178
-------
Rules and regulations developed by TDWR are reinforced with guidelines
presented as "suggested requirements" covering significant aspects of
pond and lagoon construction and operation. The principal re-
quirements are outlined below.
Highlights
Wastes should be classified according to standards developed by
TDWR, including testing of the effect of the wastes on the soils
and lining materials used in pond construction to determine if the
waste will breach the integrity of the seepage barrier.
Impoundments should be designed with sufficient freeboard to mini-
mize the risk of accidental spills or overtopping of liquid wastes
due to wave action.
The guidelines advise that each pond site location will be subject
to individual evaluation. Ponds should be in thick relatively
impermeable formations, with a thickness dictated by the classi-
fication of impounded waste's.
TDWR provides a description of the construction techniques used for
the two most common types of ponds: the "above-ground" pond and
the "below-ground" pond. Operators must impound only those wastes
designated by the waste-control order, and for which the impound-
ment was designed.
Provisions for monitoring facilities are based on sampling ground
water and surface water in the vicinity of the disposal site to
provide background "yardsticks" against which subsequent operation-
al measurements will be compared. Permit requirements may include
monitor wells, stream sampling, and drain systems for leachate
collection, with selection of chemical parameters based on site
characteristics, types of waste, and method of disposal. Typi-
cally, every impoundment receiving hazardous (Class 1A) wastes
should include a leachate collection and monitoring system,
179
-------
usually consisting of a gravity drainfield installed under the
waste-disposal facility liner. Another option consists of a gra-
vity flow drainfield installed immediately under the waste-disposal
facility liner and above a secondary lower liner. Installation of
"suction manometers," connected by hoses to a vacuum pump, may be
required. The manometers are installed along the sides and under
the bottom of the impoundment liner, in order to detect leaks.
TDWR requires periodic reports from waste-disposal operators, with
frequency specified in the waste-control order. Record-keeping
includes a description of wastes, their classification and form
(liquid, solid, sludge) and, if ponds are used as interim treat-
ment, data concerning ultimate disposal of the wastes. All moni-
toring data must be available for inspection and TDWR must be
notified within 48 hr of any significant increase from background
67)
concentrations.
Public hearings may be required in any of 14 different situations,
including a decision involving a change of regulations, application
for impoundment construction permit, and protests by affected
parties. Specific regulations exist to cover violations involving
accidental spills as well as breaches of waste-control orders.
Failure to comply with a cleanup order leads to court proceedings
and a possible fine of up to $1,000 for each day the violation
persists. For industrial impoundments covered by the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, the State Health Department and TDWR may be partners
in court action instituted by local jurisdictions. The money
collected through civil penalties is divided equally between the
State and local governments. Similar provisions exist to cover
situations involving violations of a State-Federal NPDES permit.
The TDWR retains the right to revoke a permit.
Wi scons in
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a fully opera-
tional ground-water discharge permit system to complement State
180
-------
administration of the NPDES program for protection of surface-water
quality. There is a clear-cut division of responsibility within DNR for
the development of regulations, implementation, and surveillance.
Policy making is the function of the Natural Resources Board, a seven-
member unit appointed by the Governor plus a Secretary who is appointed
by the Board to manage DNR and its various bureaus.
The Bureau of Water Supply and Pollution Control within DNR's Division
of Environmental Protection is responsible for the review of planning,
design, construction, and operation of municipal water-supply, sewage-
treatment, and industrial waste-treatment systems including surface
impoundments. The agency has 16 staff members engaged in regulation of
industrial wastewater disposal and 21 staff members whose duties include
responsibility for regulation of municipal wastewater activities, with
five persons involved in surveillance requirements. The Wisconsin
68)
Administrative Code defines land-disposal systems to include but not
be limited to "septic tank soil adsorption systems, ridge and furrow
systems, seepage ponds, spray irrigation systems, and other systems
where effluent is disposed of by percolation into the ground." Another
part of the Code supplements the definition with discharge limitations,
monitoring provisions, and a case-by-case permitting system relative to
protection of ground-water quality.
Highlights
For the purposes of design, construction, and operation, land-
disposal systems are divided into four categories based on the
source of the wastewater discharge. Class I covers municipal and
domestic wastes; Class II, canned, preserved, and frozen fruits and
vegetable discharges; Class III, dairy product processing; and
Class IV, meat products. In addition, controls exist for dis-
charges from construction, sand and gravel, and stone and concrete
70)
products operations.
181
-------
Detailed ground-water data are required prior to the granting of a
discharge permit. This information includes direction of ground-
water flow, baseline quality data, proposed monitoring facilities
during operation of the system, and location of all drinking-water
wells within half a mile (0.8 km) of the proposed land-disposal
system.
DNR has prepared explanatory documents to guide permit applicants
through the permitting process. The actual permit may stipulate
both surface-water and ground-water protection requirements and
makes provision for departmental decisions on determination of
monitoring needs.
Monitoring wells are required in order to provide data such as
ground-water levels and concentrations of organic nitrogen, ammo-
nia, nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, chloride, sulfate,
TDS, alkalinity, hardness, and pH.
Discharge limitations for land disposal allow discharge of wastes
only after secondary treatment. However, provision exists for
imposition of additional treatment in situations where the waste-
water is the result of mixed industrial and municipal wastes.
BOD in discharges to the land-disposal system must not exceed 50
mg/1 in more than 20 percent of the monitoring samples required
during a calendar quarter.
Lagoons used to settle backwash municipal wastewater from iron and
manganese removal filters must be designed to hold 10 times the
total quantity of wash water discharged during any 24-hr period, be
A times as long as they are wide, and be 3 times as wide as they
are deep. Inlet and outlet controls must minimize velocity cur-
rents.
Public notice regulations include development of "fact sheets" for
every discharge over 500,000 gal (1,900 cu m) on any day of the
182
-------
year. The "fact sheets" require physical and geological descriptions
of the facility, description of proposed discharges, and a state-
ment of the tentative determination to issue or deny the permit.
Discharge limitations, imposition of special conditions, and a
proposed schedule of compliance, including interim dates and re-
quirements for meeting the proposed effluent limitations, also must
be disclosed.
183
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law
92-500 (Sec. A02).
2. Maryland Water Pollution Control Regulations. Definition of
terms, Regulation 08.05-04.01 (14).
3- The Clean Streams Law of Pennsylvania (Sec. 402).
4. Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (Sec. 2).
5. State Board of Health, office memorandum, Jan. 6, 1977-
6. Title 63 Oklahoma Statutes (Sec. 2753).
7. Montana Senate Bill No. 175 (Sec. 2).
8. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare. Waste treatment and discharge
permit regulations.
9- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Water quality
strategy paper, Second edition. 82 pp.
10. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Jan. 1977. Amended
regulations, Part 1.
11. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Jan. 1977- Amended
regulations, Part 3-
12. Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Regulation governing control of water pollution (Sec. 3).
13- Instructions for filing an Indiana regulation (SPC 15, operational
permit application).
14. Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (Sec. 6A).
15. Wisconsin Statutes Chapter NR 214.
16. Recommended standards for sewage works. 1971. Chapter 90.
17. Recommended standards for sewage works. Chapter 60.
18. Geraghty S Miller, Inc. 1974. Ground-water protection in
Pennsylvania. 15 P-
19. A guide for the design of municipal waste stabilization lagoons in
Missouri (Sec. 104.4, p. 4).
184
-------
20. Tennessee Dept. of Public Health. Outline of engineering require-
ments for preparation of reports, plans and specifications for
waste disposal facilities serving public, private and industrial
installations. Chapter k.
21. New Hampshire standards of design for sewerage and waste treatment
systems.
22. Considerations and design guidelines for water treatment plant
sol ids disposal.
23. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality.
1975. Recommended criteria for sewage stabilization ponds.
2k. Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources, Oil & Gas Conservation Com-
mission. Rules 315 and 328.
25- .Illinois Dept. of Mines and Minerals, Div. of Oil & Gas. Rule
9, Avoidance of fresh water pollution and disposal of salt water
and other liquids to prevent waste as defined in act in relation
to oil, gas, coal, and other surface underground resources.
26. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Oil 6 Gas. Rule 38,
Disposal of salt water and other waste liquids.
27. Nebraska Oil & Gas Commission. Rule 322, Pollution and surface
dra inage.
28. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. (Sec. 402
and 502(14)).
29. Iowa Dept. of Environmental Quality. Regulations, Chapter 20,
Animal feeding operations.
30. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Div. of Solid Waste. Regu-
lations for the control of wastes from livestock feedlots, poultry
lots and other animal lots.
31. Nebraska rules & regulations pertaining to livestock waste control.
32. Kansas State Board of Health. Regulations, Chapter 28, Article 18.
33- California Administrative Code. Subchapter 15, Chapter 3, Title
23-
34. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Div. 7, Chapter 2.
35- California State Water Resources Control Board. 1976- Waste
discharge requirements for nonsewerable waste disposal to
land; disposal site design and operation information.
185
-------
36. California Administrative Code. Subchapter 9, Article 1 in
Title 23, Regulations concerning waste discharge requirements,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
37- Colorado Water Quality Control Act. Title 25, Article 8 (Sec. 25-
8-202).
38. Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. Rule 7.2.2 (13),
Rules for subsurface disposal system.
39- Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 1976. Rule 7.2.2
(16), Rules for subsurface disposal systems.
40. Part I I I of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission application
for construction of a subsurface disposal system.
41. Delaware solid waste disposal regulations. (Sees. 3 and 4) .
k2. Delaware solid waste disposal regulations. (Sec. 6-03 (G)).
A3. Communication, Feb. 1977, with Arthur D. Zierold, Chief, Bureau of
Minerals, Idaho Department of Lands, Boise, Idaho.
44. Idaho Environmental Protection Act of 1972 (Sec. 39-105).
45- Maryland Water Resources Administration. 1976. Proposed dis-
charge permit regulation (08.05-04.08).
46. Maryland Water Resources Administration. Water Pollution Control
Regulations. Definition of terms (Sec. G).
47- Maryland Water Resources Administration Water Pollution Control.
48. Maryland Water Resources Administration. Organizational Chart.
49. Maryland Water Resources Administration. Regulation 08.05-04.04.
50. Maryland Water Resources Administration. Regulation 08.04.04.12.
51- Maryland Water Resources Administration. Regulation 08.05-04.07.
52. Telephone Communication, Feb. 1976, Div. of Water Pollution Con-
trol, Mass. Water Resources Commission.
53. Massachusetts regulations pursuant to Sec. 27 (8), 52, 57 and 58 of
Chapter 21 of the general laws, as amended by Chapter 692 of the
Acts of 1970.
54. Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control. 1975- Rules and regu-
lations for design and operation of wastewater treatment works.
186
-------
55- Telephone communication, Nov. 1976, Nebraska Dept. of Environmental
Control.
56. Nebraska rules and regulations pertaining to livestock waste con-
trol.
57. New Mexico Water Quality Act, Chapter 190. (Sec. 75-39~2(J).
58. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Jan. 1977- Amended
regulations, (Sec. 3-10! through 3~I05).
59. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1975-76. Water
Quality in New Mexico. Report to the U.S. Congress.
60. Statement at regulation hearing. June 1976. Richard Holland,
Chief, Water Quality Division, New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Agency.
61. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Jan. 1977- Amended
regulations, Part 3 (Sec. 3-107).
62. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. Jan. 1977- Amended
regulations, Part 3 (Sec. 3109).
63. Texas Water Quality Board. Jan. 1976.
64. Texas Water Quality Board. A ready-reference on major Texas water
pollution control legislation. Pub. No. 71-01.
65. Texas Water Quality Board. Technical guide No. k.
66. Texas Water Quality Board. Technical guide No. 6.
67. Texas Water Quality Board. Technical guide No. 8.
68. Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter NR 101.
69. Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter NR 214. Disposal of liquid
wastes.
70. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Environmental
Protection. 1975- Guideline Document for the design, construction
and operation of land disposal systems for liquid wastes.
71. Public notice of receipt of a Wisconsin pollutant discharge elimin-
ation systems (WPDES) permit application. Part 3.
187
-------
SECTION X
OTHER RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Aside from the investigation described in this report, EPA is conducting
or has completed in recent years about 25 investigations dealing to some
extent with the effects of surface impoundments on ground-water quality
or with techniques and data from other studies of ground-water contamina-
tion that may be adapted to surface-impoundment studies. The results of
most of these investigations have been described in reports published by
EPA or have been summarized in journal articles (see selected references
arranged alphabetically by author at the end of this section).
The present study of impoundments, as well as many of the related
investigations, stem from authority given in relatively recently enacted
legislation, namely: the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500); the SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act, P.I.. 93~523);
the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580); and
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P-L. 95-217).
Among the significant reports issued by EPA are several that describe
methods for designing and constructing monitoring well networks and that
give examples of case histories of ground-water contamination. One such
report describes the results of the collection and analysis of water
samples from test wells drilled at some 50 landfills and lagoons to
determine the possibility of subsurface migration of hazardous wastes.
A comprehensive report on the effects of waste-disposal practices on
ground water identifies impoundments along with a number of other land-
disposal methods as potential sources of ground-water contamination.
Information on sampling techniques, costs of monitoring programs, and
how and where to drill monitoring wells, is given in a manual on monitor-
32) 9
ing solid-waste disposal facilities. A series of regional studies '
' ' ' gives information on representative case histories of
ground-water contamination from various sources including waste impound-
ments; and still another series of reports emphasizes monitoring techniques,
., . 7, 11, 13, 28, 29, 31*)
data management, and economic considerations.
188
-------
All of these studies, along with the results of the present study,
contribute to overall knowledge and understanding of ground-water con-
tamination and methods of protection. However, a number of data gaps
and unanswered questions remain that require further investigation with
respect to potential problems resulting from surface impoundments.
These include the need for more detailed information on the numbers,
locations, and the overall pollution potential of waste impoundments and
the economic impact of reclaiming or restoring ground-water resources
that have been contaminated by leaky impoundments.
In furthering these objectives, EPA is currently pursuing three courses
of action which address surface impoundments. Two of these are under
RCRA and the third one is under SDWA. First, under Subtitle C of RCRA,
EPA will regulate facilities receiving hazardous wastes, including
surface impoundments and landfills. Second, under Subtitle D of RCRA,
EPA is required to promulgate criteria for determining which waste-
disposal facilities should be classified as sanitary landfills and which
should be classified as open dumps. The definitions of "solid waste"
and "disposal" in RCRA clearly indicate that surface impoundments will
be covered by these criteria. Within one year after publication of the
criteria, EPA must publish an inventory of open dumps. This requirement
is virtually impossible to meet owing to the large number of disposal
sites and the magnitude of the technical, economic, legal, and adminis-
trative tasks involved; consequently, the RCRA inventory would be phased
in over the next few years. During the first year of the inventory, the
emphasis would be on municipal solid-waste landfills and sludge sites.
In the second year, the inventory would include those industrial impound-
ments that have a high potential for ground-water contamination; the
inventory would also cover industrial landfills. In later years, the
inventory would cover agricultural and mining sites with priority on
those impoundments identified as potential problems.
189
-------
The third action involving surface impoundments is based on authority
given in Section H42(b)(3)(C) of SDWA and is referred to as the SIA
(Surface Impoundment Assessment). In connection with that study, EPA's
Office of Drinking Water will provide a total of up to $5,000,000 in
grants to the States to make individual State-wide studies of surface
impoundments.
The objectives of the SIA program are to obtain firm national data on
the number of impoundments in existence, to review current construction
practices, and to evaluate the ground-water pollution potential of a
representative sample of those impoundments. It is hoped that the
funding made available will allow the States to: (a) collect, update,
and improve data relating to ground-water contamination from impound-
ments; (b) identify existing State institutional problems should they
exist; and (c) provide information to be used in developing or refining
legislative programs. The assessment will contribute to the formation
of a valuable data base for making future decisions in the fields of
ground-water resource management and land-use planning. EPA will compile
the data generated by the States and use the recommendations of the
States in the formulation of a national approach to dealing with the
problem of ground-water contamination resulting from the use of waste
impoundments.
The programs under RCRA and SDWA will be integrated and coordinated so
that they will be mutually supportive and will minimize duplication of
effort. For example, the results of the surface impoundment assessment
planned under SDWA will be used as a screening device to establish
priorities for the RCRA inventory of landfills and surface impoundments.
While the three actions described above will begin to bring impoundment
sites under State control under RCRA, EPA will continue to explore and
re-evaluate its authority under RCRA, SDWA, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and the Toxic Substances Act, as well as the responsibilities
190
-------
and authorities of other agencies, in order to determine the best regulatory
approach under any one or a combination of these authorities. If these
authorities are not sufficient to assure adequate control of surface
impoundments, EPA will seek additional legislation to help solve the
problem.
191
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Braids, 0. C. 1978. Development of a data base for determining
the prevalence of migration of hazardous chemical substances into
ground water at industrial land disposal sites. EPA/SW-63^.
2. Dunlap, W. J., and others. 1977- Sampling for organic chemicals
and microorganisms in the subsurface. EPA-600/2-77-176.
3. Dunlap, W. J., and others. December 1975- Isolation and
identification of organic contaminants in ground water. Presented
to First Chemical Congress of the North American Continent; Mexico
City, Mexico.
k. Dunlap, W. J., and others. March 1975. Organic pollutants
contributed to ground water by a landfill. Proceedings of Research
Symposium on Gas and Leachate from Landfills. Presented to EPA's
Region II Research Symposium, Rutgers University-Cooks College.
5. Dunlap, W. J., and McNabb, J. F. 1973- Subsurface biological
activity in relation to ground water pollution. EPA-660/2-73~OlA.
6. Dunlap, W. J., and others. 1971. Investigations concerning the
probable impact of nitrilotriacetic acid on ground waters. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 16060 GHR.
7. Everett, L. G., and others. 1976. Monitoring groundwater quality:
methods and cost. EPA-600/^-76-023.
8. Fryberger, J. S. 1972. Rehabilitation of a brine-polluted aquifer.
EPA-R2-72-OH.
9. Fuhriman, D. K., and Barton, J. R. 1971. Ground water pollution
in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 16060 ERU.
192
-------
10. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (In preparation). Site location and water
quality protective requirements for hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and facilities. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste Management. Contract No. 68-01-4636.
11. Hampton, N. F. 1976. Monitoring groundwater quality: data
management. EPA-600/4-76-019.
12. Illinois Geological Survey. (in preparation). Field verification
of toxic waste retention by soils at disposal site. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
13- Karubian, J. F. 197^. Polluted groundwater: estimating the
effects of man's activities. EPA-600/4~7it-002.
14. Keeley, J. W. April 5, 1971- Need for ground-water protection in
subsurface disposal and surface impoundment of petrochemical
wastes. Presented to Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
15. Keeley, J. W. September 1976. Ground-water pollution problems in
the United States. Presented at Water Research Center Conference
entitled "Ground-water Quality--Measurement, Prediction, and
Protection." Reading, England.
16. Keeley, J. W. April 13, 1973- Magnitude of the ground-water
contamination problem. Presented at "Workshop on Public Policy for
Ground Water Protection." Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
17. McNabb, J. F. , and Dunlap, W. J. September 197**. Subsurface
biological activity in relation to ground water pollution. Pro-
ceedings of the Second National Ground Water Quality Symposium.
Paper presented to Symposium in Denver, Colorado.
193
-------
18. McNabb, J. F., Dunlap, W. J., and Keeley, J. W. 1977. Nutrient,
bacterial, and virus control as related to ground-water contamination.
EPA-600/8-77-010.
19- Miller, D. W., DeLuca, F. A., and Tessier, T. L. 1974. Ground
water contamination in the northeast States. EPA-660/ 2-74-056.
20. Miller, D. W., and Scalf, M. R. September 1974. New priorities
for ground-water quality protection. Proceedings of the Second
National Ground Water Quality Symposium. Presented to Symposium in
Denver, Colorado.
21. Miller, J. C., Hackenberry, P. S., and DeLuca, F. A. 1977. Ground-
water pollution problems in the southeastern United States. EPA-
600/3-77-012.
22. Purdue University. 1970- Dispersion in heterogeneous nonuniform
anisotropic porous media. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
16060 DLL.
23. Robertson, J. M. , Toussaint, C. R. , and Jerque, M. A. 1974.
Organic compounds entering ground water from a landfill. EPA-
660/2-74-077.
2k. Rowe, M. L., and Stinnett, Susan. 1975. Nitrogen in the sub-
surface environment. EPA-660/3-75-030.
25. Scalf, M. R., and Dunlap, W. J. 1977- Environmental effects of
septic tank systems. EPA-600/2-77-176.
26. Scalf, M. R., Keeley, J. W., and LaFevers, C. J. 1973. Ground
water pollution in the south central States. EPA-R2-73-268.
27. Texas Tech University. 1970. Potential pollution of the Ogallala
by recharging playa lake water. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 16060 DCO.
194
-------
28. Tinlin, R. M. (Editor) 1976. Monitoring groundwater quality:
illustrative examples. EPA-600A-76-036.
29. Todd, D. K., and others. 1976. Monitoring groundwater quality:
monitoring methodology. EPA-600A-76-026.
30. Todd, D. K. , and McNulty, D. E. 1972*. Polluted groundwater: a
review of the significant literature. EPA-600A-74-001.
31. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977- The report to
Congress—waste disposal practices and their effects on ground
water. EPA-570/9-77-001.
32. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977- Procedures manual
for ground-water monitoring at solid waste disposal facilities.
EPA/530/SW-611.
33- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Monitoring disposal-
well systems. EPA-680A-75-008.
34. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Monitoring ground-
water quality: Economic framework and principles. EPA-600/4-76-
045.
35- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973- Polluted groundwater:
some causes, effects, controls, and monitoring. EPA-600/4-73~001b.
36. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Leachate damage
assessment—case study of the Fox Valley solid waste disposal site
in Aurora, Illinois. EPA/530/SW-514.
37- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Leachate damage
assessment—case study of the Sayville solid waste disposal site in
Islip (Long Island), New York. EPA/530/SW-509-
195
-------
38. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Leachate damage
assessment—case study of the Peoples Avenue solid waste disposal
site in Rockford, Illinois. EPA/530/SW-517.
39. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Groundwater pollu-
tion from subsurface excavations. EPA-430/9-73-012.
40. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. The control of
pollution from hydrographic modifications. EPA-430/9-73-017.
41. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973- Identification and
control of pollution from salt-water intrusion. EPA-430/ 9-73-013-
42. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers.
(in preparation). Chemical and physical effects of municipal
landfills on underlying soils and ground water. Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. IAG D40569.
43. van der Leeden, Frits, Cerillo, L. A., and Miller, D. W. 1975-
Ground-water pollution problems in the northwestern United States.
EPA-660/3-75-018.
44. Warner, D. L. 1974. Rationale and methodology for monitoring
groundwater polluted by mining activities. EPA-600/4-74-003.
196
-------
SECTION XI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with the cooperation of many people who gave
freely of their time and effort to supply the requested information.
Personnel from Federal, State, county, municipal, and other local and
regional agencies, private consulting firms, water-well contractors,
water-quality laboratories, industrial trade associations, and colleges
and universities contributed valuable information on case histories of
ground-water contamination, impoundment inventory data and practices,
and regulatory requirements.
Mr. Victor J. Kimm, Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of
Drinking Water, and Messrs. Thomas E. Belk and Ted Swearingen of the
Ground-Water Protection Branch, former and present Project Coordinators,
respectively, and Jane Ephremides provided guidance and administrative
support in the completion of this study. James V. Rouse, formerly of
the EPA Office of Enforcement, Denver Center, and R. F. Kaufmann, EPA
Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada, were especially helpful
in providing information on a number of significant case histories of
ground-water contamination. Appreciation is expressed also to the U. S.
Geological Survey, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, the I). S. Bureau
of the Census, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for providing
various data and reports.
Mr. Nathaniel M. Perlmutter of Geraghty & Miller, Inc., served as the
project manager, and was assisted by Messrs. James J. Geraghty, Garald
G. Parker, Sr., William M. Warren, Wolfgang V. Swarzenski, F. Harvey
Dove, Richard L. Perlmutter, and other Geraghty & Miller, Inc., personnel.
Mr. Edward Dohnert, Ms. Sandra Johnson, and Mr. James Stevens, of Arthur
D. Little, Inc., Consultants, prepared most of the material dealing with
the chemical contents of impounded wastes and remedial actions and
costs. Ms. Dianne Y. Sutton, Lois R. Baun, and Diane M. Aromola assisted
in the preparation of the manuscript for printing and William J. Baldwin
and Margaret S. Ordey drafted the illustrations.
197
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDIX A - METRIC CONVERSIONS USED IN REPORT
To convert
acre
acre-feet
acre-feet
barrels (oil)
barrels (oil)
btu
cent imetres
cubic feet
cubic yards
feet
feet
gal Ions
gal Ions
hundredweights (short)
hundredweights (short)
inches
horse power
mi crograms
miles (statute)
mi 11igrams/1i tre
mi 11 ion gal Ions
million gallons/day
million gallons/day
million gallons/day
mils
mils
parts per mi 11 ion
pounds
pounds/acre
I n to
hectare
cubic feet
cubic metres
cubic metres
gal Ions (oil)
kilogram-calories
metres
cubic metres
cubic metres
centimetres
metres
cubic metres
1 i tres
pounds
tonnes
cent imetres
horse power (metric)
grams
ki lometres
parts per mi 11 ion
acre-feet
cubic metres/day
cubic feet/second
cubic metres/second
centimetres
inches
milligrams/1i tre
kilograms
kilograms/hectare
Hultiply by
0.404?
43,560
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
1.014
1.0 x 10
1 .609
1.0
3.06
3,785
1.5472
0.0438
0.0025
0.001
1.0
0.4536
1.121
-6
198
-------
METRIC CONVERSIONS - (Continued)
To convert Into Multiply by
square feet square metres 0.0929
square inches square centimetres 6.^52
square miles square kilometres 2.590
tonnes kilograms 1,000
tons (short) tonnes 0.9078
199
-------
m
X
H
§
w
§
i
H
H
X
§
H
EH
U
W
W
W
Q
U —
,
o
Pn O
EH -P
W
p~i »*
Q >t
23 cd
H -d
ti W
O 0)
W -P
W 1
m
S 0
2 X)
3
Pti O
o
o
W 0
EH 0
55 ""
Sd rH
H £
W -H
W
• O
f? J
oj O
o z
Q) 3
P -H
•P •"• ti
U O
^ H
<
•H 0
o "z
6
o
Ul
(D
•H
ra
W
{JlCTiCOrHr- iHinrHul iH cJlOSLT) O CNCDOit^-
I I I ir-oȣ)|Oinl l icnujirHioi i i i i<^i i i i o i co m i i I i I icoi i-^rioioioii
r^> r> rH in rn o
rH rH rn rH CN
rH rHm-Hf^ tNCO OrH^OOiHrH O O iHO O-^LAO vOr-lO f*> 'JCO OOCO r-
rH iH rH iH rH tS
II III 1 1 1 1 1 1 II III II
t 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
tNo^^ooor- 001 inOrH o tnvDinom om oocn o ooor- o o o
TrHrH OLA OJO-^T CM i^ 04O-H O\D OOCO O MOOrH O O O
"31 tN^P^HCO OJ tDrHiHCN VD rHin
rH rH
CO m kD H (N O (N
i i i i i co* i i i i i i i r-' i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i d t l i •* i i i i i 01 i i r- i i 0] OJlD (NrH (T)
rH rH
rHOlNlinoilll | 1(111 III Ir- ^v£.or-OrHrorHrH rHinofot- rHiAin^minM mrof-iunoj nic in
•H iH iH rH iH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IIICNIIII II 1 1 1 < lllllllllllltCM II 1^11111111 III
id rd
in 0) c c fl*
-P 4-J-H HrH4->rlCr-t-U C
iC 'ODG-PH-H nj QjtfliH^rdnl u> rd t0 d) frt-jJinH
nj fd'dM'd-PM'diTJ HIT) J^,
<<<4UUUGfrUX***HXX3XXZXXXXXZ&ZXXXXZ;OOOto£v>Ui&t*Z>>>X&&X.
rH rH CO
200
-------
co
w
Q
O
U
U
H
CO
>H
m
^
1
r^>
s
CM
g
co
EH
H
CO
EH
m
Q
O
P-l
2J
<
n
EH
co
D
Q
H
>y
Q
co
«
w
D
a
o
w
EH
rfj
2>l
H
EH
W
,— .
0)
fi
•rH
-P
C
0
CJ
W 3
73 <1J O
C rH rH
p -p
En >
0 O
CN 12
,*
O
>1 3
3 0
fO r-l
i
p >
en n3
C OJ
O ffi
u —
•X> 0
^ H;
§ g
H rH
P J-- [14
U rH
P (0
CO C
C Q)
O O
u ~
ui O
i-H .3
3
T3 O *3-
•H o r~- o
iiidiJiiJQiiiiii
rH O
•~*
CO 'd; CN
If 1 I 1 1 f f
•p
»s o L
d nJd^TJ-PMdnj H
asslsslSfallMS
OICOrHI I I IOIOI I^D
r- c^
I I I I I I O rH O
I I I O O I I O I
*3- CN CD CO
O O I I O I O
CM (N Ifl -H CN
rH O VJD
CN CTI ^r
i i ^r i i o
I CO I | I
COOM3-H C-rHvD inrfor^COl
ICNI I IOI linvDOCOO
I I I
O O rH rH I O I I
CO CTl
I I I I I
I I I I CN I
I I I I I I t
CN O ^P
t-~ co r- o -H <&
CTi O (DCNtJOCNr^
i in o o r~ o i
I rji ^T CN O
Tj CN
>i C 13 3 C P H ,
fo J^ffl Cl^dOtQ!
C Mt)H (CUtPUiw;
nJ dSuiairHiflHtDHi
Hdtnj-i -nc:>,(flj^Ctn(
TJSGCdHr-iWUCLiii
COdQjQtjnJrrJHriHi
nl 0 0
W X
rd nj
i M U Q
p --1 y -^ 9.
j^owai^^aiui
jj H Oi rl 01 &>
a c c > c: c
H
i ? > 3 3 3 2:
201
-------
CO
w
8
o
co
co
<
EH
Q
O
Cn
Q
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O M I I I I I I I I I I
co
w
H
W
EH
!
D
O
CM
IOllll III
1 1 1 1 1
Qt 1041 1)1 1 ft | t lit 1 O
OJII 1
r-~ ex)
p o *3-
1 III
EH
CO
D
Q
3
H
CO
PJ
W
ro O CTi
O rH «*
in ) I I I I I O i r-
OiitQii
LHi-HOJ
O I I I I I t I O O
.HI 1 IfMI
1 1 1 1
LO rH fN
w
H
H
en
w
CTl O OJ
i in ^ i i o i
II 1 1
I I rH I I I I I I
I I U3 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
C
•H
-P
C
O
•a
EH
WCOHOJ
roflM'O-'-'^
dtnonJU'D'
n3 W rt)
i U) H J4 n)
H OC WU
CXnJOWi-itA: EhXSnui
- .. _ ...._-.. ^ ^ ^ g _ ^
tj a: >-j E :
>tnioraai
0 Cr> C
4J H tP -H W Cn
202
-------
CO
w
8
CJ
o
H
CO
CQ
3
fa
Q
co
H
CO
EH
2
8
H
a
EH
CO
D
H
c3
O!
W
S
W
co
ta
c
•H
-P
o
o
-H W O
O U En
§5
i I | I ir>Jr-i I
ro O I CO I I .-I I VO l/l I IfNI I I in I O ro fN I O M CN
1 1 1 M 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 CO & 1 1 1
I I 1 1
I I I
in I | ro I
CN r~- r-
1 CO O M CTl
O ( r-t I r- i <& o>
o i i i
CO CN
M I O I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
r- ^r CN M CM
l£J I I O I CN O T I
O M CN in
O I I I O I I <£> I I I
VD CO O ro M (Ji ^0
CN M M
f ( I t 1 I II I II 1)1
,£ >i O OO CrtOO
tficuu n^; rdMj-i^^,
. ., „ _ _„._«_.,..„„ _, U Q 6 M M cj Q to 4J . , „.
OC (OUH rOUtj-uiuiPqwirfldtDiUO OC>-. tn CCG
ffS
OJCDCDiDOO^ri;^
CD C 0 P P C X
D1 .d -P a 6
i > > S S 3 3
203
-------
cn
w
Q
0
cj
CJ
H
cn
X
m
f^
EH
Q
s
3
CM
Q
5
«<
cn
EH
H
cn
E-i
S
Q
2
O
S
H
co
EirJCJcoofdUfdTJrirH OC
nJ^OC'wMcuSricT'HOCrt)
(Offl-H^rHrH CJH DOS ra-HT33
rHr-(SHMn3OO; fO
Ul U H
(il 3 cn
c q P
rd a o
M W J
r- CN CN CTi
^f n ^f CO
1 1 1 1 I^OlrHfNI | rH
1 II 1 II
<^ m C7i CTI
cn vo -* H
CT\ rH
t 0 I r-1
1 1
cn
r--
co i i lot
204
-------
w
Q
O
U
O
H
W
CQ
-
EH
Q
O
| "1
CM
Q
<3
y.
I-J
p|
H
W
EH
§
Q
23
1— i
B
s
H
^
H
ff!
EH
D
|Z
H
c5
CO
C^I
w
PQ
a
g
CM
O
W
EH
S
H
EH
W
W
^7
(1)
C
•H
-p
C
O
CJ
CN
H
0)
td
H
cJ>
HIIIOOOIiAl 11 Illll 1 1 1 IOIOOI01I III! I 111 1 1 1 —I 1 1 iO 1 I 1 II 1 1
||IH 1 111 1 11 1 1 1 < II II IrHI IHIIIIIII
ul O "d1 1 lrOIOiX>IHI 1 1 IOI IQrHI 1 1 1 | I^J-lrOOJOl 1 ICTiiHI
M 01 m LO
Ol
,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1
tn *a- cotn M)oicocn-* ro cn^ oiocirrocn ^-ro
CM cn con oinror-co o> H \& oio^Ho^1 iDcn
UDI i iroi i i i i 101^1 I i I i irHinioHini irHi imoi iroiHioinoir-i 10101 i
•^ rj-H roro COCOO^J
CN
cn ^ co M oj oiroco inroHinLn^r^' ro min cnro-H-Hr-^D r- in ^
li i i i i I I i i i I i i i t I i i i ii i
PS £ 0 Q! ££ rH P S S S TO ^S ° 0 £ P^SS tS M
I | iH.Dir-.OlHf f , ^ *f 1 1 1 1 1 ,00JVDH^J 1 .ro.r-LO, IrH.MDIrH.^CnHOI^.HI
M" ^* H H HOlrHO rHrOOJ Hin invDOJ
II 1 1 11 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
H r- cn H
IIIIII1 Illllllllllr-lrOIIIIII IfNlllllllllllllllrHIII II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illll
ro H Ln
. . ,
IIIIIIIIIHIIIII11II1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1011OII
IIIIIIIIIHIIIrHlllllllllllllllllrHlllllrHfltllll^/IOJIt
ID ' in co oj(r> ^UD oi^rco
OliX> ^ ^J"CO i£iCO QroH
01 iioiiti 101 i i icoicoiliiojiroi ii iiiii i i IHI i itniimi i i 11 i i
%
*r
III 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 rH 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S 3 S 5 S S SSP SS SSS3 5 S §S SS 3
H, » | ro , ,010) , | ro j 0 j 1 I 1 ' -• 3 £ ' £ £ ' ' I^^°'HI ' '^'^' 'Sn' |r001^
r- ^ H TT
•H rH
m cr, Hoim ryoiniDoiLn oirHrHro^Doj^DH mcnoiror-t rj- oj rH co^om V^IH 'j
i i i i r i i ) ii i < i i H i i i
Q n}
« o) c q id
4J 4JH -HrHJJHC4H4-l G
rd:3 aju< X.>iOOO CcflOO CH
HU i) wdcii cn(i)ui-<>; njHrH^o OCPC
UlCOrHQj (n >iC fO3C4-iHrH ro QitfiH^rjJrcJ nJ > tfl tl (4 (U rrj4-iMH
rd^ocJy-ii-iajSrHcpHOCfd nj'3tnQjHr'jHiUHO(OfdTii!'~3£>'x;x; j^OwoxirCtiJU) OHH OH
ror3HJ^HHCHOO>^HT3SCC3-HV4[/)uCc/)tnCJ2>3S??l-ti-iHHaJCO3PCXrdl-(i-iWWUlO
rHrH^^FBOOCJrHOft^rHCOfl^QnJdn3HHHHOQJ01CJ(UQJQ)DOXIXMQJXJOOQ)aj4J!l)HfOQJ'H>,
r>SSSS
CO
CO
ro
fN
O
CO
01
VO
01
*°
H
r--
co
^
^
205
-------
§
u
u
H
m
co in
CTi I I O O T I O
| | | I CN CTi I
co
g
H
CO
• r- M co ffi
1 vD rH kD rH in \£> iO O <7\ O
r^ r- o (N vo
o o o ^
o o o
.H CN CN
—
i o o r^ in i in < in
m 1/1 m
.H i v o o
TfrHCN ^T'TOcricTiii)(»coipcNrn rHCTicoinrHr- cno-
o i o n i i ii
01 ico
l t o i i i
Q
Z
s
H
EH
CO
Q
a
H
CO O
ro ^
ilililililliiiiiiliriir-i^DUJiitiii^H
1 1 1 1 1
I i i I i
w
CQ
i *i M1 rH i i i i i i t i i m
w
EH
H
EH
CO
W
Ifl >1 s
O l-i O
1 1 lOl
1 IOI irN
OITOI \ IrHOIOCN
OO| tCOtvOI I I 1 1
OJ
3
•H
-P
O
u
WCO-HOJ
'
at
-C >i O
H CO
rH 4J
o o
-
w QJ u
W H
-^XMU
C rH 4-1
C (fl O O
ft) rH Vj ^ CD
> W ffl CO c
I >tC T3PC-PHH
iC (flUH rc)UCT'tnrj)pc't/id'3cDCDb~^ OC>i
iT3SCC3'H^it/luCW(ncJ3>!SS3?l-ii-iHr—(cUcoSPCXflHl-iUJcnwO
206
-------
SECTION XI I
APPENDIX C - SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATIONS
SIC 01 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROPS
This group includes establishments (farms, orchards, greenhouses, nur-
series, etc.) primarily engaged in the production of crops or plants,
vines, and trees (excluding forestry operations). There are relatively
few waste impoundments associated with the crop farming segment of the
food industry. Many farms, particularly in western States, maintain
irrigation reservoirs but these generally contain fresh water rather
than wastewater. The only significant volume of waste material produced
by crop farms are the unusable parts of plants such as leaves, hulls,
chaff, etc., which are usually recycled back into the soil. Fertilizers
and pesticides may cause contamination where these substances seep into
ground water.
SIC 02 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK
The contaminants of primary concern in wastes from feedlot operations
are high BOD, high COD, nitrogen, phosphate, and certain trace con-
stituents such as inorganic salts. In addition, Pharmaceuticals and
pesticides occasionally may be found in runoff water. Traces of copper
are reported in waste from swine-raising operations, but are usually
minimal. Color and turbidity from manure runoff are also contaminants
of concern. Occasionally, pathogenic organisms exist in manure, al-
though there are no data to indicate that this is a chronic problem.
Impoundments for holding runoff are less of a threat than those for raw
waste, owing to the difference in concentrations of contaminants.
SIC 10 - METAL MINING
In addition to the extraction of ore from the ground, many metal-mining
facilities also include ore beneficiation and dressing operations, which
are designed to separate the metal-bearing minerals from unwanted material
207
-------
and to prepare the ore for shipment or further processing. The unwanted
material is often disposed of in large impoundments referred to as
tai1 ings ponds.
A variety of wastewater is generated by mining operations, and the mines
make extensive use of large impoundments, both for wastewater treatment
and for waste disposal. In general, the sizes of the impoundments
employed by the larger mining facilities can be many times greater than
those used in many other major industries.
Although mines differ greatly in size, configuration, type of minerals
mined, and type of beneficiation process, the major wastewater streams
from mines are generally from the following sources:
1. Mine water refers to ground water that drains through under-
ground ore seams, contacts the exposed material in open pit mining, or
seeps or overflows from tailings ponds and other impoundments. Its
volume and composition depend on the type of mining operation and the
local ground-water environment.
2. Process water is that water used in the hydraulic transport of
ore slurries, in the various washing and beneficiation processes, and in
the operation of air-pollution control equipment. It may be contaminated
with the naturally occurring minerals contained within the ore and with
chemical agents used in the various extraction and beneficiation pro-
cesses .
The following sections describe the types of impounded wastes for the
major categories of metal-mining operations.
SIC 101 - Mining of Iron Ores
There are three main sources of wastewater in the mining and processing
of i ron ore:
1 . Mine drainage.
208
-------
2. Process water from thickeners and flotation units.
3. Water used in the hydraulic transport of ore
slurries and tailings; this is usually the largest
source of wastewater.
Mine drainage can contain dissolved salts such as chloride, sulfate,
calcium, magnesium, etc. It is relatively neutral and may contain
traces of nitrate and ammonia owing to the use of blasting agents.
Processing wastewater from ore beneficiation operations can contain
organic flotation agents, acid, clay, oil and grease, and a variety of
minerals dissolved from the ore itself. Concentrations of dissolved
metals are generally less than 10 mg/1.
The material in tailings ponds is a dense wet sludge having a solids
concentration of 10 to 50 percent by weight. The water fraction of the
tailings, which can leak out of the sides or the bottom of the pond,
contains dissolved minerals from the ore itself. The water is relatively
neutral and contains low concentrations of dissolved salts and heavy
metals.
SIC 102 - Mining of Copper Ores
Many of the same general types of wastes generated by the mining of iron
ore are generated in copper mining. However, many copper mines, in
addition to extracting high grade ore from the ground, employ hydro-
metallurgical leaching techniques using sulfuric acid to dissolve copper
from low grade ores.
Most copper mine drainage water is relatively neutral. However, where
copper and iron sulfide minerals are present, some mines may produce
acidic wastewater not unlike the acid mine drainage from coal mines (see
SIC 12, Coal Mining). Many mines utilize mine water for ore processing,
thus reducing the amount of water discharged.
209
-------
In the hydrometallurgical extraction of copper from dumps of low grade
ores and waste materials, generally from open-pit mining operations,
leaching solutions, composed of tailings, pond water, makeup water, and,
in some cases, sulfuric acid, are distributed over the dumps and are
allowed to percolate through them. The copper-bearing fluid is collected
and subjected to further processing. Very large tailings ponds are used
in processing copper ore, and a large fraction of the tailings pond
overflow is recycled to the leaching dumps and other uses. The water
fraction of the solids deposited in the tailings ponds is slightly
alkaline, containing moderate amounts of solids (primarily magnesium,
calcium, sulfate, and chloride) along with trace amounts of heavy metals.
SIC 103 ~ Mining of Lead and Zinc Ores
Lead and zinc-bearing ores are commonly mined and processed together.
The mine water can range from slightly acidic to slightly alkaline and
can contain traces of heavy metals. Generally, the more acidic the
water, the greater will be the metals concentration. As in most other
kinds of mining operations, tailings ponds are employed, both to dispose
of waste material and to settle out suspended particles in process water
prior to recycling. The water fraction of the material deposited in
tailings ponds can contain dissolved salts, trace concentrations of
heavy metals, and small concentrations of surfactants used as flotation
reagents. The water also contains a rather high COD, which may be
caused by organic reagents used in the process or by reduced metallic
species.
SIC \Qk - Mining of Gold and Silver Ores
Water from primary gold and silver mining can contain dissolved salts
and trace quantities of heavy metals. The primary source of wastewater
is in the beneficiation process, which in addition to the common pro-
cesses of classification, flotation, and thickening, also includes
cyanidation, amalgamation, and carbon adsorption. Tailings ponds are
used in both types of mining, and the composition of the water fraction
of the tailings is not unlike that of lead and zinc mining.
210
-------
SIC 105 - Mining of Bauxite and Other Aluminum Ores
Depending on the nature of associated minerals and the local ground-
water situation, mine water from bauxite mining can be either moderately
acidic or moderately alkaline. Acidic mine water can have a pH in the
range of 2.8 to 3.5, dissolved solids (primarily sulfates) in the range
of 500 to 1200 mg/1, and a variety of dissolved heavy metals in the 1 to
10 mg/1 range. Trace amounts of fluoride also are present.
SIC 106 - Mining of Ferroalloy Ores
Ferroalloy ores include cobalt, chromium, columbium, tantalum, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, and tungsten. Mining and beneficiation processes
are largely similar to those employed in iron and copper ores. Tailings
ponds are used, and the water fraction of the tailings can contain
dissolved salts and trace quantities of heavy metals.
SIC 109 - Mining of Miscellaneous Metal Ores
This group includes the mining of the ores of mercury, uranium, radium,
vanadium, antimony, beryllium, platinum, titanium, and rare-earth ores.
With the exception of the mining of uranium and radium, where low
levels of radiation present unique safety and environmental problems,
wastewater from tailings ponds and other operations are generally
similar to those of other mining operations. Many of the beneficiation
processes include ammonia leaching and solvent extraction, which provide
opportunity for ammonia and organic solvents to enter wastewater streams.
SIC 11 - ANTHRACITE COAL MINING AND SIC 12 - BITUMINOUS COAL MINING
The mining and preparation of anthracite and bituminous coal are very
similar with respect to the use of waste impoundments and the compo-
sition of waste materials generated; therefore, these two groups are
considered together.
211
-------
Water is not an inherent part of coal-mining operations. However, large
quantities of wastewater are generated by water entering the coal seams
and coming in contact with the coal and other minerals. Water passing
through coal mines may become somewhat acidic due to complex chemical
reactions involving sulfur and iron compounds (pyrite); this water is
referred to as "acid mine drainage." The drainage from underground and
surface mines tends to be similar in composition where the geology is
similar. The most troublesome characteristics of acid mine drainage are
its low pH and relatively high acidity and concentrations of dissolved
iron. In places, manganese may also be present in high concentrations.
The treatment of acid mine drainage is mainly designed to neutralize the
acidity and to precipitate the dissolved iron and other metallic ions.
Large earthen holding ponds are used at some installations to collect
the mine drainage and to equalize the flow of wastewater prior to treat-
ment. After equalization, lime is added and the acid mine drainage is
sent to aeration ponds where the iron is first oxidized to the ferric
state and then precipitated as ferric hydroxide. The precipitated
ferric hydroxide and other metallic hydroxides, carbonates, and sulfates
are then settled out and sent to a sludge-holding pond. Although the
metallic hydroxides in the sludge are mostly in the solid phase, small
amounts still remain in the liquid phase, and should the sludge be
exposed to acidic conditions, further dissolution of the hydroxides can
occur.
Because of geologic conditions, many mines produce water that is slightly
alkaline and contains low concentrations of metals. This drainage water
is usually only subjected to suspended solids removal in large earthen
ponds.
Coal preparation, in which coal is sized and graded and where unde-
sirable minerals are removed from the coal, can produce large volumes of
slurry-like waste material which is disposed of in impoundments. Leachate
from these impoundments can be similar in composition to acid mine
dra inage.
212
-------
It should be noted that waste impoundments associated with coal mining
and preparation operations often occupy hundreds of acres (hundreds of
hectares). Therefore, they have a potential for causing extensive
ground-water contamination where significant amounts of water seep into
ground water from the impoundments.
SIC 13 - OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
The oil and gas extraction industry generates both intermittent wastes
and continuous wastewater streams. Intermittent wastes are produced
during drilling operations and include drilling muds and drill cuttings.
Drilling mud consists of either clay/water mixtures or clay/oil mixtures,
Once the well has been drilled and oil or gas is pumped from the ground,
a continuous wastewater stream commonly referred to as "produced water"
is generated. Produced water consists of water residing with the oil in
the underground geological formations. It is usually quite saline, and
by the time it leaves the well, it contains a significant amount of the
crude oi1.
The total dissolved solids concentration of product water can often
exceed 100,000 mg/1. Produced water is usually treated for the removal
of oil and suspended solids. In many places, treatment takes place in
steel tanks and concrete basins. Elsewhere, earthen lagoons are used.
In parts of the western United States, produced water is disposed of by
discharge into large earthen evaporation ponds.
SIC 14 - MINING OF NONMETALLIC MINERALS
Most of the operations included in this category produce wastewater
streams of widely varying contamination potential. Impoundments are
commonly utilized by this industry as settling ponds for wastewater
treatment, as waste-disposal or "tailings ponds," and as material
storage areas. The characteristics of selected wastes from this cate-
gory are described in the following paragraphs.
213
-------
Kaolin clay, in terms of production, is the major clay produced in the
U.S. Most kaolin mining and processing operations produce a wastewater
contaminated with zinc (from the addition of zinc hydrosulfite) and
dissolved solids, mostly in the form of sulfates and sulfites. Many
facilities use lime precipitation for removing zinc from wastewater
streams prior to discharge. The waste treatment is generally carried
out in earthen ponds, so the potential for ground-water contamination
does exist. Tailings generated from the production of kaolin clay leave
the process prior to the introduction of zinc hydrosulfite and, there-
fore, are not contaminated with zinc.
The mining and processing of feldspar can produce wastewater contamin-
ated with fluorides, sulfates, amines, oils, and organic frothing agents.
Fluoride concentrations can be in the 10 to 100 mg/1 range. The mining
and processing of other minerals used for refractories can also produce
wastewater streams contaminated with low concentrations of organic flo-
tation agents.
The mining and processing of talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite produce
wastewater streams that are largely contaminated with suspended solids.
Tailings ponds are employed for the disposal of the waste fractions of
the ore. Where flotation is used, small quantities of organic flotation
agents may be present.
Barite mining uses water in various processing operations, and the water
is extensively recycled prior to discharge. Large earthen settling
basins are used for wastewater treatment. Tailings ponds are also used
for disposal of unwanted mineral fractions. The wastewater can contain
moderate amounts of dissolved solids (500 to 1,000 mg/l) as well as
traces of heavy metals (less than I mg/l). Acidic mine water is also
produced by certain facilities.
Fluorspar mining produces a wastewater contaminated with fluoride, lead,
and zinc, as well as organic flotation agents. The fluoride concen-
trations are generally less than 1.0 mg/l. Large tailing ponds are
214
-------
used for the disposal of waste materials. Some mines produce a rela-
tively neutral mine-water discharge stream containing low concentrations
of heavy metals.
Potash, soda, and borate minerals are commonly recovered by solution
mining by either evaporative concentration and separation of naturally
occurring brines, by dissolving soluble deposits, or by in-situ leaching
wells. Typical of this segment of the industry are very large earthen
evaporation ponds filled with water containing very high concentrations
of dissolved inorganic salts. The salts in evaporation ponds used in
the potash industry commonly consist of potassium, sodium, magnesium,
chloride, and sulfate. A large percentage of soda ash is produced from
trona ore deposits in Wyoming, and the water in the tailings and evapor-
ation ponds contains sodium, chloride, carbonate, and other dissolved
salts.
Borate mining is carried out in the desert areas of California. The
borate ore is dissolved in water and then subjected to several evapo-
ration, crystallization, and separation steps. Large evaporation ponds
are used. The water is very high in alkalinity (10,000 mg/1 as CaCO,).
Most phosphate ore is processed through flotation. The major wastes are
slimes and flotation tailings which consist primarily of clay and sand.
Large tailings ponds are used. The water fraction of the tailings
contains low concentrations of phosphate and fluoride (less than 20
mg/1). The tailings also exhibit low levels of radioactivity due to the
presence of trace amounts of radium-226 and uranium.
Rock salt is mined from underground salt domes or horizontal beds of
salt. The salt is relatively pure. Some wastewater is produced from
equipment washing and surface runoff. The primary contaminant is the
salt itself, which is usually present in the 5,000 to 20,000 mg/1 con-
centration range.
Most sulfur in the U.S. is hydraulically mined by forcing superheated
water under pressure into underground sulfur-bearing formations which
215
-------
also contain salt deposits. The melted liquified sulfur is brought to
the surface through the main sulfur mining well. The cooled down in-
jected water which contains a small percentage of salt, small amounts
of sulfides, and other inorganic sulfur compounds is then brought to the
surface by means of "bleed" wells. Treatment of bleedwater usually
consists of oxidizing the sulfides to sulfates in large earthen ponds.
Most sulfur mining facilities are located on the Gulf Coast in Texas and
Louisiana and discharge their treated effluent into brackish water or
seawater.
SIC 16 - HEAVY CONSTRUCTION
This group encompasses nearly all large public and industrial construc-
tion activities, most of which involve extensive earth moving and ex-
cavation. Soil erosion and runoff water heavily laden with suspended
solids are common sources of contamination problems associated with
construction sites. The pumping of drainage water from foundations and
open trenches also produces large quantities of muddy water. Water
around construction sites is often contaminated with oil and gasoline
from equipment, cement truck washout water, and general trash.
Efforts to control these sources of contamination have resulted in the
use of temporary impoundments to collect construction site drainage and
to settle out suspended solids. Water in these impoundments either
slowly seeps back into the ground, or if the flow to the impoundment is
sufficiently continuous, overflows from the impoundment.
Dredging of swamps, rivers, or other bodies of water, in one way or
another, removes solid material accumulated on the floor of a body of
water and deposits it elsewhere, usually on land near the dredging
location. The material thus transferred is referred to as "dredging
spoils," and is rather fluid, containing solid material mixed with large
volumes of water. Dredging spoils are often deposited in large diked
areas. Because these impoundments are seldom, if ever, lined, it is
possible for the liquid fraction of the dredging spoils to seep into
around water.
216
-------
The composition of dredging spoils is as varied as the composition of
the material deposited in bodies of water. If the dredging spoils are
taken from a swampy area, the material will generally contain large
amounts of organic matter from decaying vegetation, as well as phos-
phates and nitrogenous compounds. Although much of this is present in
the solid phase, it is quite possible for a large amount to be leached
into a liquid fraction. Dredging spoils taken from highly polluted
rivers can contain oily substances, heavy metals, pesticides, and
synthetic organic compounds. Again, while most of these are usually in
the solid phase, they do have finite solubilities and, therefore, can be
a source of ground-water contamination. If dredging spoils, taken from
an estuary containing saline water, are deposited in an area having low
salinity ground water, contamination of ground water due to salinity
could become a problem.
Although there is no typical composition of dredging spoils, the extent
to which this material can be contaminated can be seen in the following
partial analysis of sediment from Baltimore Harbor:
Heavy
Metals Concentration (ppm)
(Dry-weight basis)
Zinc 2,600
Lead 1,503
Cadmium 193
Copper 320
Chromium 3,035
SIC 20 - FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
Impoundments are significant parts of waste-treatment systems in the
food and kindred products industry. The parameters of concern are
primarily BOD and suspended solids but may also include COD, oil, grease,
salts, and others, depending on the specific segment of the industry.
The major wastewater in the industry comes from washing and peeling
fruits and vegetables, preparing other incoming materials, cleaning and
217
-------
washing down equipment, and cooking. Most of these operations produce
high BOD and suspended solids.
Wastewater handling in the industry ranges from raw discharge to re-
ceiving waters or sewers to use of in-plant treatment systems. Bio-
logical treatment is the preferred method and usually includes either
aerated or non-aerated oxidation ponds. Some plants utilize impound-
ments to hold water or slurries from washing or other operations; where
these ponds are unlined, a potential for contamination of ground water
may exist.
SIC 22 - TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
Less than one-third of all textile mills have substantial wet operations
that result in wastewater discharge. This wastewater is associated with
processing and rinsing steps in the dyeing and finishing operations.
The wastewater can contain animal residues (wool-scouring operations),
acids, alkalies, and soap and detergents used in yarn and fabric cleaning.
A large variety of organic dyes are used, in combination with various
dyeing assistants such as inorganic salts, halogenated hydrocarbons, and
phenols. Specialized finishes, which impart permanent press, water
repellency, and fire retardant characteristics also utilize a complex
mixture of organic chemicals. Gross parameters such as BOD, COD, and
suspended solids are typically used to characterize textile wastewater
rather than the identification of specific compounds. In addition, the
presence of dye material causes wastewater from many textile mills to be
highly colored, but dyes are only of moderate concern in terms of con-
tamination potential.
Biological treatment is extensively used to treat wastewater in the
textile industry. Plants located in urban areas generally discharge to
municipal sewage-treatment systems, however, about 500 plants, mostly in
the Southeast, have their own secondary wastewater-treatment facilities
that consist chiefly of large aerated lagoons.
218
-------
Dye carriers such as halogenated hydrocarbons and phenols are known to
be resistant to biological degradation and may contaminate ground water.
Certain heavy metals such as chromium, zinc, and copper may also be
present.
SIC 2k - LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS
In logging operations and in sawmill operations, manmade impoundments
are used to store logs on their way to further processing (log ponds)
and to store, sort, and feed logs into a sawmill (mill ponds). Pond
water contains suspended solids from wood fibres and organic matter
leached out of the bark and wood.
Although not a concentrated waste, log pond water can have a measurable
BOD, in addition to being somewhat colored and containing small amounts
of phosphate and nitrogenous compounds. Log ponds and mill ponds typi-
cally overflow into a receiving stream. There is presently little
treatment of the wastewater, but one of the suggested methods is bio-
logical treatment using either aerated or non-aerated oxidation ponds.
A more concentrated wastewater is produced in the processing of logs
into either board, plywood, particleboard, or other wood products.
Wastewater is generated by log washing, log steaming, veneer processing,
glue washing, cooling, and other operations. The wastewater contains
organic matter from the wood itself and substances present in the glues
that are organic in nature and commonly contain phenolic compounds. The
wastewater is largely biodegradable. However, in wood-preserving
operations, traces of heavy metals and fluorides can be present in the
wastewater, as well as higher concentrations of phenolic and tar-like
materials.
SIC 26 - PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
Pulp and paper mills produce large quantities of process wastewater
resulting from wood preparation, pulping, papermaking, bleaching, and
other water-using operations. The combined wastewater contains suspended
219
-------
solids resulting largely from the presence of wood fibres and also
contains dissolved and colloidal organic material composed largely of
chemicals extracted from the wood itself. The organic fraction of the
wastewater is typically characterized only in terms of gross parameters
such as BOD and COD. Certain segments of the industry produce waste-
water containing considerable amounts of color.
Because pulp and paper mill wastewater exhibits a high degree of biode-
gradability, large, mostly unlined, aerated lagoons are commonly used
throughout the industry. Sludge from the wastewater-treatment process
is largely biodegradable, although wood fibres generally degrade at a
relatively slow rate.
SIC 28 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
Chemicals and allied products form a very complex category that includes
literally thousands of products and thousands of different waste streams.
A primary waste classification can be made in terms of the inorganic or
organic character of the waste. Inorganic components can be changed in
form but cannot be destroyed. However, the toxic properties and potential
environmental impacts vary sharply with the form of the inorganic
components. In theory, waste streams containing organic materials can
be treated to destroy the organic material. However, this may not be
practical or economic. In addition, many organic waste streams contain
inorganic components introduced as a result of the chemical processing.
SIC 287 - Agricultural Chemicals
The two principal categories of agricultural chemicals are fertilizers
and pesticides. Fertilizers can be classified as phosphatic and nitro-
genous types.
Potential contaminants in the effluents from phosphate fertilizer opera-
tions are fluorine, phosphorus, and nitrogen, where ammonia is used as a
basic raw material. Potential contaminants from nitrogen fertilizer
operations include ammonia, nitrate, nitric acid, and possibly nitrogen
220
-------
dioxide. Most fertilizer complexes combine the effluents from the
various process units into a large recycle water system. This contamin-
ated recycle water system is self-contained for a large portion of the
year. It is only when local precipitation exceeds the evaporation in a
given period that effluent treatment is necessary.
Also associated with the manufacturing of phosphate fertilizers are
trace elements such as cadmium, arsenic, vanadium, uranium, and radium,
which are present in the phosphate ores in Florida and in western phos-
phate rocks in small concentrations. In general, these elements are
dissolved by the phosphate rock acidulation process and tend to be
retained in the acid rather than be discarded with the gypsum waste.
Only cadmium is likely to be found in measurable quantities in the
gypsum waste which is usually stored in large ponds.
Pesticides include a large group of diverse compounds and mixtures;
however, they can be broadly grouped in the following subcategories:
I. Halogenated organic pesticides
2. Organo-phosphorus pesticides
3. Organo-nitrogen pesticides
A. Metallo-organic pesticides
5. Formulators and packages of mixtures of the above
materials .
Contaminants from the manufacture of pesticides include BOD, COD, su-
spended solids, phenol, and various pesticides. Chloride concentrations
may be very high. Specific contaminant parameters for organo-nitrogen
pesticides are ammonia, ammonia nitrogen, and pesticides. Metallo-
organic pesticide operations have little or no wastewater effluent.
Toxic metals used in these processes, which may accidentally find their
way into ground water, include arsenic, mercury, copper, zinc, tin, and
manganese. Wastewater associated with formulation and packaging plants
comes from clean up of spills and leaks and from stormwater runoff.
Other pollutant parameters considered of secondary importance are
221
-------
settleable solids, dissolved solids, acidity, alkalinity, oil and grease,
chloride, and sulfide.
Because of the highly toxic nature of many of these products, a con-
siderable amount of concentrated waste is treated by in-plant control
technology; for example, halogenated organic compounds are destroyed by
incineration or by adsorption on carbon. Organo-phosphorus and organo-
nitrogen compounds can be detoxified by acid or alkaline hydrolysis.
Phenols can be removed by adsorption on carbon or resins. Cyanide can
be destroyed by oxidation with chlorine.
After removal of the more toxic components, the effluent is generally
further treated by secondary biological treatment using trickling fil-
ters, activated sludge, or aerated lagoons. Because of the presence of
high salt concentrations and toxic residues in the waste, biological
treatment is only successful after an acclimatization of the organisms
to the particular waste stream.
SIC 29 - PETROLEUM REFINING
U.S. refineries vary in complexity from very small refineries with
simple atmospheric fractionation or topping to large integrated re-
fineries manufacturing a multitude of petroleum and petrochemical pro-
ducts from a variety of feedstocks. The raw wastewater load is de-
pendent upon the type of processes employed by the refinery, and treat-
ment technology is a combination of in-plant and end-of-pipe treatment
alternatives. The significant wastewater constituents are: BOD, COD,
TOC, total suspended solids, oil and grease, phenolic compounds, ammonia,
sulfide, and chromium.
The most commonly used wastewater-treatment systems consist of equali-
zation, followed by initial oil and solids removal (API separators,
etc.). Further oil and solids are removed by dissolved air flotation or
filtration and clarification. The next step is biological treatment
mainly by the activated sludge process and aerated lagoons. Final
treatment may include a trickling filter, activated carbon, or multi-
media filtration.
222
-------
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic materials such as
sand, silt, and clay. The organic fraction includes grease, oil, tar,
and animal and vegetable matter. Ammonia is commonly combined as am-
monium sulfide, but can also exist in several other chemical combi-
nations including ammonium chloride. Phenolic compounds are produced by
the decomposition of multicyclic aromatics such as anthracene and
phenanthrene. Phenol losses also occur from solvent refining operations
which use phenol as a solvent. Organic and inorganic sulfur compounds
present in wastewaters have their origin in the variety of organic
sulfur compounds present in the crude oil. Various types of processing
convert these organic sulfur compounds to hydrogen sulfide and hence, to
alkali sulfides. Chromium salts occur mainly from the use of chromium
compounds added to cooling water for corrosion control. Zinc compounds
may be introduced similarly into wastewater.
Most refinery wastewater is alkaline due to the presence of ammonia and
the use of caustic soda for sulfur removal. Cracking and crude dis-
tillation are the principal sources of alkaline discharges. Alkylation
and polymerization utilize acids as catalysts and produce severe acidity
problems.
A variety of other metallic ions are found in wastewater discharges.
The major sources are the crude oil itself and associated corrosion
products. In addition to chromium and zinc, the metal ions most com-
monly found are aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel, and vanadium.
Chloride is one of the major anions in refinery effluents and is present
because large amounts of sodium chloride are often associated with the
crude oil in its natural surroundings. Additional chloride may be
introduced in the processing, for example, copper chloride, which is
used in sweetening processes, and aluminum chloride, which is used in a
catalytic isomerization.
223
-------
SIC 30 - RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS
This category includes only the manufacture of rubber products after the
rubber itself has been produced. Process wastewater in the manufacture
of tires and inner tubes includes the discharge of solutions used in the
manufacturing process, washdown of process areas, runoff from raw ma-
terial storage areas, and spills and leaks of solvents and lubricating
oils. Wet air-pollution control systems also contribute to the waste
load. The primary pollutants in the wastewater are oil and grease,
suspended solids, acidity or alkalinity (depending on the process), and
organic solvents. Most wastewater treatment in the tire industry con-
sists of removal of suspended solids and oil and grease. A number of
plants employ settling lagoons.
The wastes from the manufacture of other rubber products are similar to
that of tire manufacture in that they contain oil and grease, suspended
solids, acidity, or alkalinity. One notable difference is the fabri-
cation of certain types of hose in which small amounts of lead are pre-
sent in the effluent. Also, certain latex product manufacturing oper-
ations produce wastewater containing zinc and chromium.
SIC 31 - LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
Leather tanning and finishing generate significant quantities of con-
taminated wastewater. The combined wastewater streams from these oper-
ations contain relatively high concentrations of biodegradable organic
matter and moderate amounts of oil and grease, suspended solids, nitro-
genous material (ammonia and nitrate), chromium, sulfide, and fecal
coliforms.
Sludge from the treatment systems contains large amounts of biodegrad-
able organic matter and much of the same material found in the waste-
water. It is usually disposed of in landfills. The most objectionable
constituents are chromium, sulfide, and nitrogenous compounds.
224
-------
SIC 32 - STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS
Common constituents in wastewater for the glass, cement, and asbestos
industries, include BOD, phosphate, fluoride, copper, lead, and common
cations and anions. The glass and asbestos manufacturing industries
discharge treated water to receiving bodies. Sludge from the treatment
plant goes to a landfill. In the flat glass industry, lagoons are used
to reduce suspended solids. Settling ponds serve a similar function for
the asbestos industry.
The cement industry utilizes ponds for disposal of waste kiln dust.
Some of the water from the ponds may be reused or, if possible, discharged
to receiving waters.
SIC 33 - PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
The primary metal industries produce large volumes of wastewater, much
of which is treated in earthen impoundments. The industry also produces
very large volumes of sludges, slags, dusts, and other solid or semi-
solid wastes that are disposed of either in impoundments or in large
dumps. Because the primary metal industries incorporate literally
hundreds of different operations, many of which generate their own waste
streams, only the characteristics of the major waste streams from the
more significant operations are examined in the following sections.
SIC 331 ~ Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and Rolling and Finishing Mills
This group encompasses most of those facilities constituting the iron
and steel industry. Steel mills produce a variety of wastewater streams
that are largely the result of the use of wet air-pollution control
devices. In terms of volume and pollution potential, some of the more
significant wastewater streams are those generated by blast furnaces and
rolling operations. Practically all iron and steelmaking operations
produce wastewater containing high suspended solids.
225
-------
Contaminants of concern in blast furnace scrubber water are suspended
solids, fluoride, phenol, cyanide, ammonia, and sulfide. Small amounts
of heavy metals can also be present. Coke oven wastewater, although
relatively small in volume, has very high contents of ammonia and phenols,
It is usually treated separately from the other wastewater streams.
Steel mills generate very large volumes of slag, wastewater-treatment
sludge, and dusts from air-pollution control systems. A portion of
these materials is recycled within the plant to reclaim iron values; but
a large volume is destined for land disposal. Large unlined settling
ponds are often a part of steel mill wastewater-treatment operations.
Slag can be contaminated with heavy metals such as chromium, copper,
manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc, as well as fluoride. Most of these
constituents are in the solid phase, but a certain amount of leaching
can take place under even slightly acidic conditions.
Wastewater-treatment sludge contains high concentrations of iron oxide,
silica, and other inorganics. The water fraction of the sludge can
contain fluoride, cyanide, sulfide, phenol, oil and grease, and a
variety of trace heavy metals.
SIC 332 - Iron and Steel Foundries
As in the case of steel mills, the major source of wastewater from iron
and steel foundries is from the operation of wet air-pollution control
systems. The wastewater also contains large amounts of suspended solids.
In addition, it can contain fluoride, oil and grease, phenol, sulfide,
and trace heavy metals. The organic binders used in molding operations
also can result in the wastewater having low to moderate BOD. Many
foundry wastewater-treatment facilities employ earthen settling ponds
for the removal of suspended solids.
Foundries produce slag, which has a composition not unlike that from
steel mill blast furnaces. A large portion of the slag is sold to slag
processors who incorporate it into construction materials; but a large
fraction is disposed of on land.
226
-------
Although an increasing number of foundries are practicing sand recla-
mation, spent molding sand is still a major source of solid waste within
the industry. Spent sand is often impounded on or near the foundry
site. The sand can contain organic binding materials as well as metallic
species that adhere to the particles.
SIC 333 " Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals
Most copper produced in this country is from sulfide ores. In the
process, large quantities of sulfur dioxide are generated, which are
removed and converted into sulfuric acid. Most of the sulfuric acid is
sold commercially, but a portion is utilized internally in various plant
operations, such as in the leaching of low-grade ores and in the re-
covery of byproduct metals. The overall smelting and refining of copper
produces a variety of wastewater streams, as well as large quantities of
slag and other solid wastes; much of the wastewater is recycled.
Slag, sludge, and other solid wastes are partly recycled to recover
metal values, and some are granulated and deposited in tailings ponds,
which, in places, also serve as reservoirs for recycle water. The waste
material may contain various heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium,
copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, selenium, and zinc. Most
of the metals are in the solid phase, although low concentrations of
some metals are dissolved in the water.
Primary lead in the U.S. is recovered entirely from sulfide ores. As in
the case of the copper industry, large amounts of sulfur dioxide are
produced which are typically collected and converted into sulfuric acid
for in-plant use and byproduct metal recovery.
Sources of wastewater include air-pollution control systems, slag granu-
lation, and plant blowdown and cooling water. Impoundments are used as
settling ponds and for solid waste disposal. The sludge and slag contain
heavy metals principally in the solid phase, while the wastewater
contains low concentrations of soluble heavy metals, chiefly cadmium,
227
-------
lead, copper, nickel, and zinc. Total dissolved solids usually range
from 100 to 1,000 mg/1.
Zinc ore is first roasted and the collected sulfur dioxide converted
into sulfuric acid, which is then used to leach the zinc oxide into zinc
sulfate in preparation for conversion into zinc metal. The water and
solid waste streams are not unlike those generated by primary lead
smelti ng.
Water from wet scrubbers used for air-pollution control is the major
source of wastewater from the primary aluminum industry. The volume and
nature of the wastewater can vary greatly with the type of process
employed. Scrubber water can contain suspended solids, fluoride, oil
and grease, chloride, sulfate, COD, and trace metals. Trace amounts of
cyanide have also been detected at some plants. Fluoride is usually the
contaminant of primary concern, and lime treatment \s frequently used to
precipitate fluoride as calcium fluoride. Mechanical water pollution-
control equipment such as clarifiers and thickeners are mostly used,
rather than earthen impoundments. The sludge is landfilled, and
leaching of fluoride and trace heavy metals is a potential problem.
Other nonferrous metals produced in the nation include antimony, beryl-
lium, bismuth, chromium, cobalt, magnesium, nickel, platinum, and
others. Many of the related process operations produce wastes not
unlike those discussed above, such as scrubber water from air-pollution
control devices, slag and dust from the actual processing, and waste-
water treatment sludges.
SIC 3^ - FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS, EXCEPT MACHINERY AND TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT
The products of this category are highly diverse, and production fa-
cilities range in size from relatively small shops to large manufacturing
complexes; therefore, wastewater from the production facilities differ
considerably in both volume and composition.
228
-------
Metal-machining operations often produce wastewater contaminated with
suspended solids, oils, and solvents. Metal-finishing operations can
contribute chromium, zinc, and other heavy metals, as well as cyanide.
Forging and heat-treating operations can contribute suspended solids and
oil and grease to the wastewater streams. Painting and coating oper-
ations can contribute quantities of both solid and liquid organic ma-
terial. In addition, the type of air-pollution control system plays a
major role in determining the size and composition of certain wastewater
streams.
Most wastewater treatment in this group is designed to remove suspended
solids and oil and grease, as well as specific heavy metals if plating
operations are involved in the manufacturing process. Although most
wastewater treatment is performed in steel or concrete basins, some of
the older and larger facilities employ earthen settling ponds.
Sludge from wastewater treatment is usually disposed of on land or near
the plant site. The water fraction of the sludge contains much of the
same material found in the wastewater itself. The sludge also contains
considerable quantities of oil and grease. Waste cutting oils (composed
of an oil-water emulsion) are often a disposal problem. They are either
partially reclaimed, sent to a contract disposer, or landfilled on site.
SIC 35 - MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
The products of this group are highly diverse. Most production facil-
ities are large and can be described as heavy manufacturing. Wastewater
streams come from many different sources and are ususally combined and
treated in a central facility. As in many other manufacturing oper-
ations, the wastewater varies considerably in composition yet tends to
contain the same types of constituents.
Foundry operations, which are included in many of the manufacturing
complexes, produce wastewater containing suspended solids, biodegradable
organic matter, and small amounts of fluoride, sulfide, cyanide, phenol,
as well as trace heavy metals.
229
-------
Metal-machining and forming operations produce wastewater contaminated
with suspended solids, oil, and solvents. Metal finishing and painting
operations contribute chromium, other heavy metals, cyanide, paint, and
solvents to the wastewater stream.
Concrete or steel basins are commonly used for the treatment of waste-
water, although a number of facilities still employ settling ponds for
the removal of suspended solids. Wastewater-treatment sludge is usually
disposed of on land on or near the plant site, as is spent sand from
foundry operations. Both materials can be contaminated with many of the
constituents found in the wastewater.
SIC 36 - ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES
This industry group contains diversified manufacturing operations.
Some facilities do not produce wastewater; others have wastewater
streams resulting from plating, painting, and general manufacturing
operations. Both the aqueous and nonaqueous wastes produced by this
industry are quite diverse. For example, the manufacture of large
transformers can produce small amounts of wastes contaminated with
polychlorinated bipheny], and the manufacture of batteries can produce
wastewater and sludge containing heavy metals.
Except in the case of battery manufacturing, there is little published
information that characterizes the wastes specific to this group. By
the nature of the manufacturing operations, however, the wastewater can
contain heavy metals and cyanide if plating is performed, organic sol-
vents if cleaning and painting are done, and oil and grease if metal
machinery is part of the operation. Wastewater flow rates are typically
small and, therefore, earthen lagoons are probably seldom used. Most
likely the greatest potential for ground-water contamination within this
industry would be associated with the disposal of heavy-metal sludge
from wastewater-treatment facilities and solvent-contaminated solid
waste.
230
-------
SIC 37 - TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
A large number of different and highly complex wastewater-generating
operations are involved in the manufacture of transportation equipment.
Manufacturing plants have a relatively large number of individual waste
streams, which usually are combined and treated in a central wastewater
treatment facility. Although there is a great deal of complexity and
variability within this industry, many of the combined wastewater streams
have, at least qualitatively, a similarity in composition.
Foundry operations, which are employed by many of the plants, produce
wastewater streams that have high contents of suspended solids, contain
moderate amounts of biodegradable organic matter (from binder and
molding compounds), and small amounts of fluoride, sulfide, cyanide, and
phenol, as well as trace heavy metals. Metal-machining and forming
operations produce wastewater contaminated with suspended solids, oils,
and solvents.
Metal-finishing operations can contribute chromium, other heavy metals,
and cyanide to the wastewater. Although the wastewater from specific
plants can vary considerably in composition, most of the constituents
will be present in at least detectable quantities.
Most facilities use concrete basins for the treatment of wastewater.
However, there is a significant number of facilities, particularly those
having foundry operations, that employ large unlined settling ponds for
wastewater treatment.
Because wastewater from these operations contains very high concen-
trations of suspended solids, large quantities of sludge are generated.
This sludge is usually disposed of on land on or near the plant site.
The water fraction of the sludge contains the same material as the
wastewater.
231
-------
Spent sand from foundry operations is contaminated with many of the
constituents in the wastewater. When not washed and reprocessed for
reuse, it too is disposed of on land, often in very large quantities.
SIC 49 - ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES
This group is divided into several major subdivisions, each of which
produces substantially different types of wastes.
SIC k3\ - Electric Services
Included under electrical services are power generation plants and power
transmission systems. Power generation plants produce large quantities
of wastes, which are commonly conveyed to large impoundments on or near
the plant site. A variety of wastes both liquid and solid are generated
by fossil fuel (coal, oil, and gas) power plants. Depending upon the
local availability of water, condenser cooling water can either be once-
through or recirculated. Increased concern over thermal pollution
effects on streams has required a number of power plants in certain lo-
cations to reduce the temperature of their cooling water prior to dis-
charge. Large cooling ponds, with or without mechanical aeraticn, are
sometimes used to provide the required temperature reduction. If the
cooling water is once-through, the only likely contaminant is small
amounts of free chlorine which is periodically used to control biologi-
cal growth in the cooling system. If the cooling water discharged is
the blowdown from a recirculation cooling water system, it will contain
the same dissolved minerals present in the intake water but at a higher
concentration (concentration increases greater than 10-fold are common).
In certain cases, particularly where the chloride concentration of the
intake water is high, small amounts of chromate are added to inhibit
corrosion.
Boiler feedwater requires very high standards of purity and, therefore,
minerals and suspended solids must be removed. The water-treatment
wastes include calcium carbonate, lime-softening sludges, and ion-
exchange brines. These waste streams are relatively small and contain
232
-------
mostly the minerals that were present in the intake water, plus water-
treatment chemicals such as alum, polyelectrolytes, and powdered dis-
posable ion-exchange resin. Brine is usually discharged to ponds or
streams, and sludge is placed in landfills or is ponded.
Coal-fired fossil fuel plants produce large quantities of ash; the ash
content of coal ranges from 6 to 20 percent. The ash, removed from the
plant via the ash-handling system and the air-pollution control system,
is generally mixed with water and sluiced to very large ash-handling
ponds where it settles as a wet sludge. The composition of the water
fraction, which may seep through the bottom and sides of the ash ponds,
depends greatly on the composition of the ash. The water can be either
moderately acidic or moderately alkaline (500 to 5,000 mg/I as CaCO_).
Inorganic salts are present, as well as relatively low concentrations of
heavy metals, ammonia, phosphate, and nitrate.
Many power plants that burn high sulfur content coal are installing
sulfur dioxide removal systems, which commonly use an alkaline substance
to react with the stack gas to form a complex calcium sulfate/sulfite
solid that is eventually disposed of as wet sludge. The sludge also
contains a certain fraction of fly ash that contains small quantities of
heavy metals. The primary constituents of the leachate are calcium,
sodium, sulfate, sulfite, and trace quantities of heavy metals.
SIC k32 - Gas Production and Distribution
This group includes the transmission and distribution of natural gas,
the production and distribution of manufactured or liquified petroleum
gas, and production of coke oven gas. Gas transmission itself does not
make use of impoundments. However, before gas can be transferred from a
gas field to a pipeline system it must be processed to remove sulfur and
some of the heavier hydrocarbon fractions. Gas-processing plants process
a variety of wastewater streams, such as cooling tower blowdown, hydro-
carbon-contaminated streams, and others. The waste streams are gen-
erally small and are usually not treated in impoundments.
233
-------
SIC kSk - Water Supply
This group primarily includes municipal water-treatment plants and
water-distribution systems. The required treatment for a municipal
water supply depends on the quality of the raw water. It can consist of
removal of suspended solids by coagulation, sedimentation, and filtra-
tion; removal of hardness by lime softening; and removal of dissolved
solids by means of ion exchange.
If coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration are employed, a waste
sludge is generated that contains both the suspended solids originally
present in the raw water and the water-treatment chemicals such as alum,
lime, and organic coagulants. If lime softening is employed, a sludge
principally composed of calcium and magnesium carbonate is generated.
Formerly, these materials were discharged back into the receiving stream
constituting the water supply, but pollution-control regulations forbid
this practice in many areas. Consequently, these sludges are now mostly
disposed of in impoundments or on land. Although lime-treatment sludge
is somewhat alkaline in general, water-treatment plant sludges are
relatively innocuous, although the presence of sludge containing de-
caying organic matter can produce a leachate having a biochemical oxygen
demand.
SIC 495 - Sanitary Services
In terms of liquid waste generation, the principal category included
under sanitary services pertains to sewerage systems. Sewerage systems
include municipal sewage-treatment plants and the sewer lines connecting
the sources of domestic wastewater to the sewage-treatment plant. In
many places, sewage-treatment plants employ physical and biological
treatment processes that take place in above-ground concrete or steel
basins that are not classified as impoundments in this study. However,
ponds and lagoons are also commonly used. Constituents in sewage effluent
include, ammonia, nitrate, detergents, dissolved solids, BOD, COD, phos-
phate, chloride, miscellaneous organics, and others.
234
-------
In the process of treating sewage, a liquid/solid residue commonly
referred to as sewage sludge is produced. Sewage sludge contains much
of the biodegradable organic matter removed from the sewage itself, as
well as a variety of inorganic components including heavy metals. There
are a variety of processes currently in use for reducing the volume and
further degrading sewage sludge prior to its ultimate disposal. In
addition to being dewatered by mechanical means, it can be degraded by
anaerobic digestion, by wet air oxidation, by incineration, or can be
applied to land where it can become part of the soil.
The composition of sewage sludge differs considerably, depending in part
on the amount and type of industrial discharges into sanitary sewage-
treatment plants. High concentrations of chloride, heavy metals,
nitrogen compounds, and phosphate are characteristic of digested sludge.
Digested sludge prior to dewatering has a moisture content of 90 to 95
percent. The bulk of the metals are in the solid phase, but they can be
leached to varying degrees depending on local conditions.
Urban stormwater runoff is either discharged directly to a receiving
stream, combined with domestic sewage and treated in a sewage-treatment
plant, or impounded prior to eventual discharge or seepage into ground
water. The composition of urban runoff has a wide range. At any given
location, the concentration of contaminants in urban runoff will be high
during the initial phase of a storm and will then attenuate as the
runoff period proceeds. The composition is also highly site-dependent.
Runoff from industrialized areas contains a much more varied content of
contaminants than that from strictly residential areas. BOD, oil and
grease, suspended solids, chloride (from road salting), pathogenic
organisms, pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy metals are common in urban
and suburban stormwater.
235
-------
SECTION XI1
APPENDIX D - COSTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CONTROLS
COST RELATIONSHIPS
The capital investment is given in terms of February 1977 dollars,
corresponding to an engineering New Record Construction Cost Index
of 2504.
The total annual operating cost includes capital recovery (re-
payment of the principal and interest of a loan) at 10 percent for
10 yr, which corresponds to an average annual rate of 16.3 percent
of the initial capital investment.
The total annual operating cost includes taxes plus insurance at 2
percent of the initial capital investment.
Annual maintenance expenses are estimated to be 2 to 4 percent of
the initial capital investment, depending on the specific con-
struction and equipment comprising the various systems.
Operating labor rates, including all associated overhead, are $16
per hr.
Electrical energy is @ $0.02/kwhr.
Fuel energy is @ $2/million Btu ($0.50/mi11 ion kg-cal).
SPECIFIC COST MODULES
The cost modules described in the following paragraphs may be used
individually or in combinations to prevent, retard, or ameliorate contamr
nation of ground water that is used as a drinking water source.
236
-------
Alternative 1 - Installation of an Impermeable Membrane
The total cost of installing an impermeable membrane during the con-
struction phase of an impoundment is dependent on the type of material
used for the membrane, its thickness, and the type of preparation and
finishing operations required by the specific physical features of the
site. The following are generalized total installed costs for several
of the more common types of liners:
a) Butyl Rubber
Thickness $/sq ft ($/sq m)
b)
30 mil
60 mi 1
Hypalon
Thickness
20 mil
30 mil
45 mil
(0.75 mm)
(1.5 mm)
(0.5 mm)
(0.75 mm)
(1.12 mm)
0.55
5.85
$/sq ft
0.46
0.54
0.72
( 5-92)
(62.97)
($/sq m)
( 4.95)
( 5.81)
( 7.75)
c) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) - PVC is one of the cheapest materials
for liners; however, the cost of installation is increased
because PVC must be covered owing to its poor weathering
qualities. Cover should be a minimum of 6 in (15-24 cm) of
earth or earth and gravel.
Th ickness
10 mil
20 mil
30 mil
(0.25 mm)
(0.50 mm)
(0.75 mm)
$/sq ft
0.34
0.44
0.50
($/sq m)
( 3-66)
( 4.74)
( 5-38)
Numerous other types of lining materials are available. Taking into
account the variability of material, installation procedures, and site-
specific cost factors, a very general range of total installed costs for
237
-------
impermeable membranes would be $0.35 to $1.00/sq ft ($3.77 to $10.76/sq m) ,
and a reasonable average would be $0.60/sq ft ($6.46/sq m).
Alternative 2 - Installation of a Layer of Impermeable Material
The most common substance used for creating a layer of impermeable
material is bentonite clay. Typical application rates are 2 to 5
Ibs/sq ft (10 to 24 kg/sq m). With a typical delivered price of ben-
tonite @ $150/ton ($l68/tonne), and an estimated cost of application @
$0.10/sq ft ($1.08/sq m), the total installed cost for bentonite layers
is as follows:
Application Rate
Ibs/sq ft
2
3-5
5
(kg/sq m)
( 9.76)
(17.09)
(24.41)
$/sq ft
$0.25
$0.36
$0.48
$/sq m
( 2.69)
( 3.88)
( 5-17)
The installation component of the total cost can vary considerably from
s i te to s ite.
Alternative 3 ~ Collection of Contaminated Water Seeping From Impoundment
Infi1trat ion Gallery
The unit cost for an infiltration gallery is given in terms of dollars
per square foot of vertical cross section, that is, the cross-sectional
area perpendicular to the ground-water flow. In estimating unit costs
for an infiltration gallery, the following assumptions have been made:
Trench width - 4 ft ( 1.2 m)
f
Trench depth - 40 ft (12.2 m)
Trench length - 500 ft (152 m)
The estimated unit cost for an installed infiltration gallery includes
materials, equipment, labor, and general contractor overhead and profit.
The itemized capital cost breakdown is as follows:
238
-------
$/sq ft ($/sq m)
Capital Cost I tern Vertical Cross Section
Mobilization and Demobilization
(includes heavy equipment for earth
movement) 0.60 ( 6.46)
Excavation
10 cu yd (7.6 cu m) scraper, 50
cu yd/hr (38 cu m/hr) @ $1.15/cu yd
($1.50/cu m)2) 0.35 ( 3.77)
1 1/2 cu yd (1 cu m) hydraulic back-
hoe, 105 linear ft/day (32 linear
m/day) @ $1.00/cu yd ($1.31/cu m)
2)
dry, @ $2.00/cu yd ($2.62/cu m) wet
Gravel Backfill
3A in (1.9 cm) crushed stone gravel,
2 mi (3.2 km) haul in 180 hp dozer @
$6.Wcu yd ($8.36/cu m) 0.95 (10.23)
Dri11 ing Fluid
1 bag additive per 500 gal (1.9 cu m)
water @ $52/25 Ib ($52/11.3 kg) bag 3-70 (39-83)
Perforated Pipe
6 in (15 cm) stainless steel well
screen @ $55/linear ft ($l80/linear m) 1.40 (15-07)
Pumps and Casing
5 operating pumps, 5 standby 100 gpm
(6.3 1/s) submersible pumps with casing,
@ $1,200 each 0.60 ( 6.46)
Total Capital Unit Cost: $7-60 ($81.82)
(InfiItration Gallery)
239
-------
Direct operating costs for an infiltration gallery are mainly pumping
and discharge costs, which are usually a small percentage of the yearly
capital related costs such as capital recovery @ 16.3 percent of initial
investment and taxes and insurance @ 2 percent.
Wei Ipoint System
Unit cost estimates for a standard wel Ipoint system have been calculated
on the basis of the assumed specifications summarized below. Actual
costs are highly site specific:
Wellpoints equally spaced on 5 ft (1.5 m) centers.
Dewatering to a depth of 15 ft (4.6 m) with 25~ft (7-6 rn) long
we 1 1 po i n t s .
Installation equipment.
Mobilization and demobilization of 40-ton (36 tonne) crane @
Crane rental @ $1 ,500/wk and oil, fuel, and grease @ $260/wk.
Hole puncher-sanding casing rental @ $560/wk.
High pressure jet pump rental @ $350/wk.
Jetting hose @ $l/linear ft ($3.28/1 inear m) .
Shipping for rental equipment @ $400 round trip.
Permanent wel Ipoint system.
100 25-ft (7.6 m) long, 2 1/2-in (6.4 cm) diameter PVC wellpoints
and risers @ $80 each.
500 ft (152 m) of 8-in (20 cm) diameter PVC header pipe, including
rubber gaskets every 20 ft (6.1 m) , @ $12/1 inear ft ($39. 37/1 inear m)
240
-------
Two 8-in (20 cm) diameter wellpoint centrifugal pumps, powered by
60 hp electric motors, @ $1,300 each.
Sand for wellpoint casing, assuming 1 cu yd (0.76 cu m) per well-
2\
point @ $5.Wcu yd ($7.06/cu m) .
Labor for 5-man crew, installing 6 wellpoints per 6-hr shift, @
2)
$17/man-hour
2)
300 man-hours to install and remove equipment .
Total Capital Unit Cost: $2.85/sq ft ($30.68/sq m)
(Wellpoint System)
Eductor System
The standard wellpoint system discussed above uses vacuum pumping from
the ground surface. For that reason, it is limited by its potential
suction lift to shallow dewatering situations. For deeper dewatering
situations, eductor systems are able to lower the water table as much as
100 ft (30 m). An eductor system uses a vacuum at the base of the well.
Water is pressure pumped into the ground and a return line is provided.
Twice as much equipment is needed; and as a result, the system is at
least twice as costly as a standard wellpoint system. Costs are pre-
sented for a 500-ft (152 m) line of wells, 40 ft (12 m) deep, and equally
spaced on 20-ft (6 m) centers.
$/sq ft ($/sq m)
Capital Cost I tern Vertical Cross Section
Wells
12-in (30 cm) diameter hole with
6-in (15 cm) diameter well, drilled
and cased, 5 ft (1.5 m) of well
screen § $90/linear ft ($295/1inear m) 2.50 (26.91)
241
-------
Pumps
6-in (15 cm) diameter submersible
pumps, 100 gpm (6 1/s) @ $1,200 each 1.50 (16.14)
Total Capital Unit Cost: $4.00 ($43.06)
(Eductor System)
This cost is largely influenced by the well spacing. For example, if
the wells are spaced on 40 ft (12 m) centers, the costs would be reduced
50 percent. Spacing is determined by field testing of soil transmissivity,
where one well is installed for pumping and 3 to 4 wells are installed
for observing the rate and depth of watei—level decline.
Alternative 4 - Return of the Collected Water Back to Impoundment
The cost module for returning collected water back to an impoundment is
based on a complete pumping station plus a piping system connecting the
pumping station with the impoundment. The capital cost curve for returning
collected water back to an impoundment is shown in Figure 21; the total
annual operating cost curve is shown in Figure 22.
Alternative 5 -. Physicochemical Immobilization of Waste Material
Of all the techniques potentially available for the prevention of
ground-water contamination, physicochemical immobilization probably
exhibits the highest degree of variation in cost. The cost is dependent
on the ratio of immobilizing agent required per unit of waste, the ease
of handling the material, the physical features of the specific impound-
ment, and on whether the waste is being immobilized directly as it is
generated or whether the situation involves a large reservoir of existing
waste. Reported unit costs for physico-chemical immobilization range
from $20 to $50 per actual ton ($22 to $55 per tonne) of waste material.
242
-------
I.OOOr
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10.000
100-
ui
z
10
NOTE: CAPITAL INVESTMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE COST OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 21. Capital investment costs for return of collected
water back to the impoundment; Alternative A.
243
-------
1,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000 10,000
;ioo
-------
Alternative 6 - Ground-water Cutoff Wall
Slurry Trench Cutoff Wall
To obtain unit capital costs for a slurry trench cutoff wall, the
following assumptions have been made:
Trench width - k ft (1.2 m)
Trench depth - ^0 ft (12.2 m)
Trench length - 50 ft (15.2 m)
1 ton of bentonite per 37 cu yd (1 tonne/31.2 cu m)
The estimated unit cost for a slurry trench cutoff wall includes materials,
labor, material, overhead, and profit. Overhead is about 19 percent,
profit is about 6 percent. The itemized capital unit cost is estimated
as follows:
$/sq ft ($/sq m)
Capital Cost I tern Vertical Crosj Section
Mobilization and Demobilization
(includes heavy earthmoving equip-
ment and slurry mixing plant) 1.80 (19.38)
Excavation
10 cu yd (7.6 cu m) scraper, 50
cu yd/hr (38.2 cu m/hr) @ $2.15/cu
yd ($2.8l/cu m) 0.30 ( 3.23)
1 1/2 cu yd (1.1 cu m) dragline,
65 cu yd/hr (49-7 cu m/hr) @ $2.10/
2)
cu yd ($2.75/cu m) wet soil ;
SIurry
Bentonite @ $90/ton ($99/tonne)
delivered (60 percent solid) 1.30 (13.99)
245
-------
Water and slurry centrifugal
pumps @ $6/hr '
man-hours labor per day @ $13/hr
Backfill
0.30
$3-70
( 3.23)
($39-83)
Two 65 hp (65.9 hp) dozers mixing
and blending @ $2/cu yd ($2.62 cu m)'
Total Capital Unit Cost:
(Slurry Trench)
Grout Cutoff Wai 1
Most of the cost of installation of a grout cutoff wall is attributed to
the drilling or driving of grout injection pipes. The pipes are installed
on 1 to 5 ft (0.3 to 1.5 m) centers in 3 parallel rows. As the grout is
injected (2 to 10 gpm (0.1-0.6 1/s) pumping rates are reported), the
pipe is continuously withdrawn. Costs for a grout cutoff are based on
the following assumptions:
Cutoff width - 4 ft ( 1.2 m)
Cutoff depth - kO ft (12.2 m)
Cutoff length - 500 ft (152 m)
Three rows of drill holes, on 1 ft (0.3 m) centers in soils
with 25 percent voids.
Capital Cost I tern
Dri11 ing
Drilling, and driving pipe @
?
$5/linear ft ($17/linear m)
$/sq ft ($/sq m)
Vertical Cross Section
5.00
(53.82)
246
-------
Pumping
Pumping (8-gpm (0.5 1/s) pump @
$0.50/hr) chemical grout @ $1.25/gal
($0.33/0 of solution (including
catalyst) 8.00 (86.11)
Labor
Pumping and chemical mix labor,
8-man crew at an average rate of
$15 each accomplishing 10 sq ft/hr
(0.9 sq m/hr) k.50 (kQ.kk)
Total Capital Unit Cost: $17-50 (188.37)
(Grout Cutoff Wai 1)
The above costs are lower where there are fewer voids in the soil being
grouted. Also, the costs are lower where silicate grouts are used.
Silicate grouting costs, from reported field experience, are $50 to
$100/cu yd ($65 to $131/cu m) compared to $100 to $200/cu yd ($131 to
$262/cu m) for chemical grouts.
Alternative 7 ~ Capping of the Impoundment Surface
If an inactive impoundment contains solid or semi-solid material exhibiting
sufficient mechanical strength, capping can be performed using much the
same techniques as in installing an impermeable membrane or layer of
impermeable material. The costs in such cases would be in the same
range as those described for Alternatives 1 and 2. If the waste material
in the impoundment cannot support the weight of men and light construction
equipment, the technique is not feasible.
Alternative 8 - Treatment of Contaminated Water
The cost relationships for the treatment of contaminated water cover a
range of flow rates of from 0.01 to 10 mgd (38 to 37, 850 cu m/d).
Capital costs are given in thousands of dollars per year, and also
247
-------
translated into unit treatment costs in terms of dollars per thousand
gallons treated. It is assumed that all alternatives involving the
treatment of contaminated water will have to include an equalization
basin at the inlet of the treatment system and a treated water discharge
system at the outlet of the treatment system.
Equalization Basin (8A)
Equalization basins are constructed of concrete and are designed to
provide a 12-hr detention time. The basins are equipped with agitators.
The amount of agitation power is 15 hp per million gal (3,785 cu m)
capacity. The capital cost curve for equalization is shown in Figure
23; the total annual operating cost curve is shown in Figure 2k.
Biological Treatment (8B)
The biological treatment system is based on a high detention time
activated sludge system with associated sedimentation, sludge thicken-
ing, and vacuum filter dewatering. The specific design basis for the
biological treatment system is summarized below:
Influent BOD
Percent BOD
Aeration basin detention time
Aeration power requirement
Sludge conversion rate
500 mg/1
80 percent
12 hr
2 Ibs/hr, 0- per hp
(0.9 kg/hr, 02 per hp)
0.5 Ibs/lb (0.5 kg/mg) BOD
removed
Sedimentation basin overflow rate AOO gpd/sq ft (16.3 cu m/
day/sq m)
Sludge thickener rate
k Ibs/day/sq ft
(19.5 kg/day/sq m)
248
-------
1,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
100 -
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS KM DAY
10
Figure 23- Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
equalization basin module; Alternative 8A.
249
-------
1.000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
100
I
i
g
_i
I
\
NOTE: OPERATING COST ALSO INCLUDES:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY O 16.3% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES ft INSURANCE • 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
1/1000 GALLONS X 0.264 - I/CUBIC METRE
I
10
1.0
§
i
K
0.1 t
0.01
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATEft FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 2k. Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
equalization basin module; Alternative 8A.
250
-------
Vacuum filtration rate 3 Ibs/hr/sq ft
(14.6 kg/hr/sq m)
Solids concentration of dewatered
sludge 25 percent
Sludge disposal - sludge generated
by the biological treatment system
is disposed of at a typical cost
of $5.00 per actual ton ($5-50 per
tonne) of sludge (wet basis)
The capital cost curve for biological treatment is shown in Figure 25;
the total annual operating cost is shown in Figure 26.
Activated Carbon Adsorption (8C)
The activated carbon adsorption system includes both the adsorbers and
thermal regeneration system for wastewater treatment capacities that
exhaust more than 2,000 Ibs/day (907 kg/day) of carbon. For systems
exhausting less than 2,000 Ibs/day (907 kg/day) of carbon, it is assumed
that a contract for an adsorption/ regeneration service would be provided
in which an outside firm supplies all of the equipment, periodically
removes the exhausted carbon for off-site regeneration, and returns
regenerated carbon, all for a yearly fee. There is no initial capital
investment required for the contract service (exclusive, of course, of
wastewater collection and discharge systems).
Because the capital and operating costs for carbon adsorption are more
sensitive to the actual concentrations of contaminants than many other
wastewater treatment processes (such as biological treatment), cost
curves were developed for both a low strength waste (COD = 50 mg/1) and
a high strength waste (COD = 250 mg/l). The specific design basis for
the carbon adsorption system is summarized as follows:
251
-------
10,000
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1.000
10,000
1,000 -
100 -
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 25. Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
biological-treatment system module; Alternative 8B.
252
-------
10,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
1,000
ec
z
_j
100
10
I
I
.100
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
S/1000 GALLONS X 0.264 • S/CUSIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST ALSO INCLUDES:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY • 16.3% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES ft INSURANCE • 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
10 -
i
1.0 i
0.1
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 26. Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
biological-treatment system module; Alternative 8B.
253
-------
Percent COD removal
Carbon adsorption capacity
Number of adsorption trains
Bed depth
Configurat ion
Carbon attrition rate
90 percent
0.10 Ibs (O.OA5 kg) COD
removed per Ib (0.^5 kg)
of carbon
15 ft (k.$ m) for low COD,
20 ft (6.1 m) for high COD
Upflow, packed beds
5 percent per regeneration
Cost of replacement activated carbon $0.55/lb ($1.21/kg)
Regeneration furnace hearth loading kQ Ibs/day/sq ft:
(195 kg/day/sq m)
Regeneration energy
6,000 Btu per Ib (13,200
Btu per kg) of carbon
The capital cost curve for activated carbon adsorption is shown in
Figure 27; the total annual operating cost curves for the low and the
high strength wastes are shown in Figures 28 and 29, respectively.
Heavy-Metals Removal (8D)
The heavy-metals removal system is based on chemical precipitation using
lime and alum. The equipment consists of a chemical feed system, a
solid-recirculation clarifier (where the actual precipitation will take
place), a sludge thickener, and a vacuum filter for final sludge de-
watering. The specific design basis is summarized as follows:
254
-------
10,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10.000
I
HIGH CONCENTRATION WASTE (COD a 250 mg/D
LOW CONCENTRATION WASTE (COD a 50 mg/l)
1,000
ui
IU
I
100
NOTE: USE OF CONTRACT ADSORPTION ft REGENERATION SERVICES
IS ASSUMED FOR SYSTEMS SMALLER THAN 0.1 MGD FOR HIGH
CONCENTRATION WASTE AND SMALLER THAN 0.6 MGD FOR LOW
CONCENTRATION WASTE. CONTRACT SERVICES REQUIRE NO
INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
10
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 27- Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment—
activated carbon adsorption module; Alternative 8C.
255
-------
10,000
100
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
I
I
CONTRACT
REGENERATION
SERVICE
_». WITH ON-SITE CARBON
REGENERATION
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
1/1000 GALLONS X 0.284 - I/CUBIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST FOR SYSTEMS WITH ON-SITE CARBON
REGENERATION INCLUDE:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY • 16.3* OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES & INSURANCE • 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
100
10 _
ui
1.0 £
0.1
041
0.1 1.0
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 28. Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
activated carbon adsorption module, low strength waste (COD = 50 mg/1);
Alternative 8C.
256
-------
10.000
100
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1.000
10,000
1,000
I 100
1O
CONTRACT -«
REGENERATION SERVICE
I
WITH ON-SITE CARBON
REGENERATION
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
1/1000 GALLONS X 0.284 - I/CUBIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST FOR SYSTEMS WITH ON-SITE CARBON REGENERATION
INCLUDE:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY • 16.3% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES ft INSURANCE 9 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
I
100
10
1
JE
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 29. Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
activated carbon adsorption module, high strength waste (COD =
250 mg/1); Alternative 8C.
257
-------
Wastewater concentration of soluble
heavy metals
Effluent concentration of heavy
metals
Lime dosage
Cost of hydrated 1ime
Alum dosage
Cost of alum
Clarifier overflow rate
Sludge thickener rate
Vacuum filter rate
Solids concentration of dewatered
siudge
Sludge disposal - sludge generated by
the heavy metals removal system is dis-
posed of @ $5.00 per actual ton ($6.00
per tonne) of sludge (wet basis)
The capital cost curve for heavy metals removal is shown in Figure 30;
the total annual operating cost curve is shown in Figure 31.
20 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
100 mg/1
$50/ton ($55/tonne)
50 mg/1
$100/ton ($110/tonne)
500 gpd/sq ft
(20.k cu m/day/sq m)
4 Ibs/day/sq ft
(19.5 kg/day/sq m)
3 lbs/hr/sq ft
(14.6 kg/hr/sq m)
25 percent
258
-------
10,000
100
WASTEWATER J3WRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1.000
10.000
1.000 -
z
_J
<
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 30. Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment--
heavy-metals removal module; Alternative 8D.
259
-------
10,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOW HATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
11.000
IU
s
_l
3
Z
I
100
I
NOTE: OPERATING COST ALSO INCLUDES: ^* ,
• CAPITAL RECOVERY • 16.3» OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
• TAXES A INSURANCE • 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
1/1000 GALLONS X 0.284 - S/CUBIC METRE
10
0.01
100
10
iu
oc
t
1.0 §
0.1
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLIONGALLONSPER DAY
10
Figure 31. Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
heavy-metals removal module; Alternative 8D.
260
-------
Dissolved-Solids Removal (8E)
This cost module is intended to be used where it is deemed absolutely
necessary to remove high concentrations of soluble inorganic salts. It
is based on first concentrating the whole stream into a much smaller
volume and then finally evaporating the highly concentrated stream to
dryness, leaving a residue of salt particles. The evaporator conden-
sate, now free of dissolved solids, is discharged as a treated
wastewater stream. The salt particles are then disposed of into a
lined storage basin. The specific design basis is as follows:
For wastewater flow rates below
0.17 mgd (6^3 cu m/day), the costs
are based on using a vapor recompres-
sion evaporator; above 0.17 mgd
(643 cu m/day), the costs are based
on a multi-stage flash evaporator.
Wastewater dissolved solids concentration. 5,000 mg/1
Evaporator concentration effect. 30:1
Power required for vapor recompression
evaporator is based on 3-3 hp per 100-
gpd (380 I/day) capacity.
Thermal energy for the multi-stage flash
evaporator is based on 150 Btu/lb (380
Btu/kg) water evaporated.
The final evaporation to dryness takes
place in a wiped-film evaporator which
requires 1,000 Btu/lb (2,200 Btu/kg)
of water evaporated.
The salt residue disposal basin has a 10-
yr storage capacity.
261
-------
The capital cost curve is shown in Figure 32; the total annual operating
cost curve is shown in Figure 33.
Treated Wastewater Discharge System (8F)
The treated wastewater discharge system is based on pumping the treated
water to a nearby receiving stream. In the cost module, the discharge
system consists of a pump station plus 2,000 ft (610 m) of sewer pipe.
The capital cost curve is shown in Figure 3^J the total annual operating
cost is shown in Figure 35.
Alternative 9 " Development of a New Source of Water Supply in an
Uncontam mated Area
The costs for developing raw ground water are dependent upon factors
related not only to the local hydrogeology but also to the costs of land
and transmission systems. For example, the aquifer to be tapped can be
at depths of from 5 ft (1.5 m) to possibly 1,500 ft (*»58 m) below the
land surface and yield water to wells at rates of from a few gallons per
minute (l/s) to as much as several thousand gallons per minute (about
10,900 cu m/day). The finished wells may be free flowing or may require
pumping with as much as several hundred feet (about 80 m) of lift.
The range of variation in yield and the difficulties encountered in
developing that yield directly influence the costs of raw water. In
addition, the transmission of the water over long distances and the
procurement of sizeable tracts of land for the preferred location of
municipal well fields can also overshadow local development costs.
Thus, without an extensive amount of data gathering, the cost of a
"typical" municipal well field is difficult to define, and a more general
approach to estimating the replacement cost for a contaminated well
field has to be followed.
262
-------
100,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
10,000
CL
3
1,000
100
USING MULTI-STAGE FLASH
EVAPORATOR
USING VAPOR COMPRESSION
EVAPORATOR
0,01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
to
Figure 32. Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment—
dissolved-solids removal module; Alternative 8E.
263
-------
100,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
10,000
(9
K
UJ
< 1,000
100
T
\
WITH VAPOR
RECOMPRESSION
EVAPORATOR PLUS
CRYSTALLIZATION
WITH MULTI-STAGE
FLASH EVAPORATION
PLUS <*•
CRYSTALLIZATION " '
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
S/1000 GALLONS X 0.264 - S/CUBIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST ALSO INCLUDES:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY* 16.3%OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
• TAXES & INSURANCE 9 2% OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
100
10
oc
t
z
1.0
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 33- Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
dissolved-solids removal module; Alternative 8E.
264
-------
10,000
100
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
1,000
z
_l
<
100
10
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 3k. Capital investment costs for wastewater treatment —
treated wastewater discharge module; Alternative 8F.
265
-------
1,000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
100
I
_i
z
10
I
aoi
ENGLISH - METRIC CONVERSION
S/1000 GALLONS X 0.264 - $/CUBIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST INCLUDES:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY O 16.3% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES & INSURANCE 0 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
10
1.0
0.01
0.1 1.0
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 35- Total annual operating costs for wastewater treatment--
treated wastewater discharge module; Alternative 8F.
266
-------
A curve that relates estimated capital expenditure to well-field pumpage
for selected raw water costs is shown in Figure 36. An assumed capital
recovery of 6 yr has been used except for pump costs, which are spread
out over 10 yr, and for well costs, which are spread out over 20 yr.
Because the higher costs of raw water usually reflect expenditures for
the additional land and transmission systems, the percentage of raw
water costs attributed to pumps and wells are seen to decrease at the
higher rates. Energy was considered to be 30 percent of the raw water
cost on a yearly basis, and the miscellaneous category includes funds
for land, transmission systems, and other construction features.
Alternative 10 - Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water Prior to Use
If widespread contamination of ground water requires that a new ground-
water supply be located, it is likely that a new potable water-treatment
plant will be necessary for the treatment of that water prior to the
public use. Ground water in many areas has high hardness generally
due to excess calcium and magnesium contents. Therefore, the treat-
ment of ground water prior to use" as a potable water supply commonly
involves the lime/soda method for reducing hardness.
New Potable Water Treatment Plant (10A)
The cost module for the new potable water-treatment plant includes the
following i terns:
1. A lime-softening system consisting of a lime, soda ash, and
alum feed system and two solids recirculation clarifiers.
2. A dual media sand filtration system.
3. A chlorination system.
The following design basis was used in generating the capital and operat-
ing costs:
267
-------
10"
I03
SJ
.0*
Q.
<
O
o
UJ
UJ
10
EXPLANATION
ASSUMED CAPITAL RECOVERY= 6 yrs,
EXCEPT FOR PUMP LIFE = 10 yrs , AND
WELL LIFE = 20 yrs
g I 0.40
2 o 0.20
0.05
Wells
7
12
15
17
PERCENT OF COSTS
Pumps Energy Miscelloneous
12 30 51
20 30 38
25 30 30
28 30 25
I03
I04 10s
WELL-FIELD PUMPAGE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
to6
Figure $6. Estimated well-field replacement costs in relation to
raw water pumpage; Alternative 9-
268
-------
Hardness reduction
Ratio of total hardness to non-
carbonate hardness
Lime dosage
Price of hydrated lime
Soda ash dosage
Price of soda ash
Alum dosage
Price of alum
Chlorine dosage
Price of chlorine
500 mg/1 (as CaCO )
4.2 lbs/1,000 gal (0.5 kg/cu m)
$50/ton ($55/tonne)
2.15 lbs/1,000 gal (0.26 kg/cu m)
$65/ton ($72/tonne) (as
50 mg/1
$100/ton ($I10/tonne)
5 mg/1
$200/ton ($220/tonne)
Lime treatment sludge is disposed Onsite cost is negligible;
of onsite. offsite cost is about $0.05/
1,000 gal; most plants do not
use lime treatment.
The cost of the treatment plants
does not include pumping stations
or any other elements of the water
transmission systems, either into
or out of the plant.
The capital cost curve for a new potable water treatment system is shown
in Figure 37; the total annual operating cost curve is shown in Figure 38.
269
-------
10.000
100
WASTEWATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10,000
1000
2
£
100
10
I
T
NOTE: TREATMENT PLANT INCLUDES:
1. LIME/SODA SOFTENING
2. SAND FILTRATION
3. CHLOR (NATION
WATER STORAGE AND TRANSMISSION ARE NOT INCLUDED
0.01
0.1 1.0
TREATED WATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
10
Figure 37- Capital investment costs for water treatment--new
potable water-treatment plant module; Alternative 10A
270
-------
10,000
100
WASTE WATER FLOWRATE IN CUBIC METRES PER DAY
1,000
10.000
1,000
K
Ul
&
_l
Z
J5
100
10
I
i.o
0.1
ENGLISH - METRIC CON VERSION
S/1000 GALLONS X 0.264 - $/CUBIC METRE
NOTE: OPERATING COST INCLUDES:
• CAPITAL RECOVERY 9 16.3% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
• TAXES AND INSURANCE • 2% OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
K
Z
0.01
0.1 1.0
TREATED WATER FLOWRATE IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
0.01
10
Figure 38. Total annual operating costs for water treatment-
new potable water-treatment plant module; Alternative IDA.
271
-------
Raw Water Storage Impoundment (JOB)
The costs for a raw water storage impoundment are based on a facility
consisting of an open basin, in two sections, lined to reduce leakage,
emergency pumping facilities for transferring raw water from the storage
basin into the normally operating system, piping, grading, fencing, and
other appurtenances essential to a completed installation. The cost
curve for the capital investment as a function of storage capacity is
shown in Figure 39- The direct operating cost consists mainly of
general maintenance, which is usually a very small percentage of the
initial capital investment (probably less than 1 percent for the larger
impoundments). The major components of the total annual operating costs
are the capital recovery and taxes and insurance, which are set at 16.3
percent and 2 percent of the initial capital investment, respectively.
USE OF THE COST CURVES
To demonstrate the use of the cost curves, an example is given below for
the hypothetical situation of an impoundment filled with a waste sludge
containing soluble heavy metals in sufficiently high concentration to
warrant the implementation of ground-water contamination prevention
measures. The impoundment has the following physical features:
Dimensions - 1,000 ft x 1,000 ft (305 m x 305 m)
Distance from ground level to underlying
impervious strata - 20 ft (6.1 m)
Flow of contaminated water leaking through
the sides and bottom of the impoundment -
200,000 gpd (757 cu m/day).
The prevention techniques include collection of the contaminated water
(Alternative 3 in Section VIM) plus treatment of the water prior to
discharge into a receiving stream (Alternative 8). The capital invest-
ment for the total ground-water contamination prevention system is
calculated as follows:
272
-------
100
10,000
WATER-STORAGE CAPACITY IN CUBIC METRES
100,000
1,000,000
5>
oc
8
§
II)
10
0.1
1.0
10 100
WATER-STORAGE CAPACITY IN MILLION GALLONS
1,000
Figure 39. Capital investment costs for water storage—raw
water storage impoundment module; Alternative 10B.
273
-------
(a) Ground-water Collection System
In selecting a wellpoint system as the means of completion,
the total area normal to the flow of contaminated water is the
perimeter of the impoundment times the depth from the surface
to the underlying impervious strata (4 x 1,000 x 20), or
80,000 sq ft (7,432 sq m) . At a unit cost of $2.8fi/sq ft
($30.68/sq m), the total capital investment for the wellpoint
system is $228,000.
(b) Treatment of Contaminated Waste
As stated previously, it is assumed that all wastewater-
treatment systems will have an equalization basin, a heavy-
metals removal system, and a treated water discharge system.
The capital investment for the components of the total wastewater-
treatment system based on a 200,000 gpd flow rate (7&0 cu
m/day), is as follows:
Equalization
(from Figure 23) $ 45,000
Heavy-metals removal
(from Figure 30) $270,000
Treated water discharge
system (from Figure 3*0 $ 95,000
TOTAL: $410,000
Total capital investment for the ground-water contamination prevention
system is:
Collection system $228,000
Wastewater-treatment system $410,000
TOTAL: $638,000
The total annual operating costs are calculated in a similar manner.
274
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Gesweik, A. J. 1975- Liners for land disposal sites. EPA-530/
SW-137-
2. Godfrey, R. S. Building construction cost data 1977, Robert Snow
Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, Massachusettes.
3. Harza Engineering Company. 1965- Engineering investigation and
design studies for underseepage control for Saylorville Dam,
Des Moines, Iowa.
275
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-570/9-78-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on Ground-Water
Quality in the United States - A Preliminary Survey
5 REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ground Water Protection Branch
Office of Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract 68-01-4342
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Preliminary Survey
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 700/03
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The investigation was designed to provide broad background information on the use
of municipal, industrial, and agricultural surface impoundments in the United States,
with particular reference to the potential threats they may pose to the quality of
underground drinking water resources and to methods of controlling or abating such
threats. The study was made by EPA as part of that agency's responsibility for
controlling subsurface emplacement of wastes, as mandated by Section 1442(a)(8)(c)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523). The principal subjects covered in
the report are: (1) numbers, types and uses of impoundments, (2) chemical charac-
teristics of the impounded wastes, (3) mechanisms by which wastes that seep from
impoundments may contaminate ground water, (4) selected case-history data on ground-
water contamination, (5) technical controls and costs for preventing and alleviating
contamination, and (6) State regulatory controls over the use of impoundments.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Surface Impoundments, ground water quality
protection, pits, ponds and lagoons,
seepage
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
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)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19780— 720-335'6180 REGION 3-1
------- |